Obama Takes The Fight to McCain
Some were worried that Obama couldn't take on the fight in the General Election. I think he's shown that he's learned from the battles of the past that you can't just go and say "I'm as tough as you Mr. Republican," you have to show the weakness in the Republican argument and mindset. We need a strong leader who can take on the world, not just hide in our corner and hope people come around to us.
Change is ending a war that we never should’ve started and finishing a war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that we never should’ve ignored. Change is facing the threats of the twenty-first century not with bluster, or fear-mongering, or tough talk, but with tough diplomacy, and strong alliances, and confidence in the ideals that have made this nation the last, best hope of Earth. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy.
Update:
Chuck Hagel gets it:
"If you engage a world power or a rival, it doesn't mean you agree with them or subscribe with what they believe or you support them in any way," he said. "What it does tell you is that you've got a problem you need to resolve. And you've got to understand the other side and the other side has got to understand you."
Hagel could be the Democratic Lieberman, and a much more principled defection than Lieberman's pity-party over people not supporting him after his primary defeat in Connecticut. Obama/Hagel?
3 comments:
obama and mccain no different on the war:
In a recent major speech, Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain outlined his vision for the future and described what he desires to have achieved by end of a first term in office. The defining portion of the speech was his description of what he hoped the situation in Iraq would be, under his leadership, by 2013.
“By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. ... The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.”
Senator McCain and other leading Republicans would have American voters believe that this is a drastic change from the “cut and run” policies offered by Democratic candidates like Barack Obama. Likewise, Democratic leaders promote the notion that their candidate offers a plan for immediate withdrawal. They must be hoping that voters do not listen to what their candidate actually says.
Barack Obama, the alleged peace candidate of the 2008 elections, was asked if he would pledge to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013. His response was: “I think it’s hard to project four years from now and I think it would be irresponsible. We do not know what contingency will be out there. … I don’t want to make promises, not knowing what the situation‘s going to be three or four years out.”
The alleged peace candidate who has made his opposition to the Iraq war a centerpiece of his campaign cannot even promise that the U.S. will be out of Iraq by 2013! Senator Obama also has stated: “This withdrawal would be gradual, and would keep some US troops in the region to prevent a wider war and go after Al Qaeda and other terrorists.” Even Obama’s own website proclaims, “he will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.” One has to wonder if Obama plagiarized those plans from McCain himself due to the extreme similarities.
Perhaps the similarity in approach to foreign policy can be explained by the fact that they both shared the same foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski is a committed globalist, one of the most instrumental members of the Council on Foreign Relations and a founding member of the Trilateral Commission. Volumes more can be written about Brzezinski’s hawkish stands on foreign policy and his disdain for non-interventionism as well as his desire for global governance. What is important to note is that Republican John McCain had Brzezinski as his foreign policy advisor for his 1999-2000 Presidential campaign. Now Barack Obama has Brzezinski as one of his principal advisors. It should be a red flag to the American public when their two choices for Presidential office are so casually sharing advisors.
Another matter, which should be a concern to those who might actually believe Senator Obama is the peace candidate, are his stated desires to expand the U.S. military as well as intervene in Africa, another policy initiative that he shares with Senator McCain. Combine this with the fact that the U.S. has more troops in Iraq now than it did before Democrats took control of Congress and it becomes much harder to perceive the Democrats as the self-proclaimed party of peace.
Both Senators McCain and Obama share the same disregard for the U.S. Constitution and embrace the globalism and interventionism that has bankrupted our great nation. These similarities do not end with foreign policy. From illegal immigration to global warming, both John McCain and Barack Obama seem to be walking in lockstep. It appears that another Presidential election is upon us where the two candidates are virtually indistinguishable from one another when it comes to the most pressing issues of the day.
Hagel represents more than that. Hagel and Webb represent the same faction, one I happen to identify with. Webb is truly a new Democrat. Bill Clinton was a new Democrat on the surface only. Hagel is speaking for a faction of the Republicans that has been pushed aside. Whoever captures this faction will emerge as the majority party.
Hagel voted against CHIP, against hate crimes legislation, and for the shitty bankruptcy bill. How could he be a contender for Obama's VP?
Post a Comment