Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News Why Obama Is Wrong

From riding the faux peace pony through the primaries in order to win the Party's nomination, to now adorning himself with the raiment of America's next Warrior-in-Chief, Obama, like his predecessors, is nothing if not ethically flexible.:-)

SOURCE:

Yours,
Issodhos

Oh please warn me your link is to Rockwell.

Is that all you have to offer regarding the quotes Mr. Lind provides from Sen. Obama regarding his policy towards Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran, Phil? You dismiss them entirely because the essay is on the wrong website?

Mr. Lind brings up the pertinent statements, IMO, that need to be considered in reference to the foreign policy we can expect from an Obama Administration. It's worthwhile to examine whether the candidate has made other statements that mitigate, or perhaps contradict, the ones presented. And it's worthwhile to consider whether he is being honest about one or the other, or just pandering to his audience du jour.

Unless, of course, we have expended all our deliberative energies on Sarah Palin's private emails.

Steve, rather than focus on what I said, which btw did not dismiss what was said out of hand, I would invite you to discuss what you want. I am not particularly fond of being questioned as to whether what I say is appropriate or not.

I think I have made it clear recently that I do not endorse the positions of Sen. Obama about ME policy. But I did not find that particular piece to be helpful in the dialog.

Obama is who he is. Unless you can point to a viable alternative, I am just going to have to swallow his unfortunate positions or not vote. In my state there are two on the ballot. I cannot conceive of voting for an aging hothead who views the military as the height of American service.

Thanks to your postings on another thread about Afghanistan and having read Three Cups of Tea, I have returned to my original position of advocating non-lethal initiatives in that area, as well as any other.

Continue as you desire.

Okay Folks-

I know I've been gone for a great while, but when I came back to the Rant this morning, what do I find???

A big mess...

First, a couple of questions...

Issodhos-

Do you really believe that jumbled rambling from this William Lind guy? Apparently you have some sort of anti-Obama bias, since you state:

What gives with this? Do you really think that Obama is secretly planning to gird himself in American military might to go out & whip ass in the Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan area, thereby creating the next apocalyptic World War singlehandedly??

OR

Have you mistaken Obama with someone who DOES have the imperial hubris and foreign policy cluelessness to actually accomplish what you so glaringly accuse Obama of doing:


George Bush and John McCain.


Seems like you might need to go back & reconsider what you're saying, because in this whole long, arduous electoral process of the last eighteen months or so, the ONLY people who have come out and categorically stated that they would militarily target Iran without question are:

George Bush and John McCain.

See what I mean? I mean, if you're going to imply (from that quote of Lind's) that Obama is ethically flexible, then maybe it would suit to imply someone out there is historically challenged...

Whether that's you or Mr. Lind, I'm not sure......


And Steve:

Good to see you out there! I remember you as a pretty thoughtful guy, but I just have to ask you, considering your quote:

That sounds reasonable to me as well, but you don't honestly think that Mr. Lind actually has a real clue when it comes to divining Obama's potential foreign policy initiatives, do you???

And look, if we're going to cherry-pick Obama's comments from his AIPAC speech as potential indicators of his foreign policy, we might as well have:

Obama's AIPAC speech transcript

I don't know about you, but I like having the item in question there to peruse, rather than let some wingnut like Lind attempt to extrapolate it for me....

As a quick aside, let me just state that after having re-read Obama's speech to AIPAC, I don't see what Lind is raving about. Attacking Iran? No, just the opposite- a long and determined series of diplomatic and economic alternatives are laid out first, and then the threat of military force if all else fails. Funny how wingnuts like Lind garble those options to reflect those of their own:
George Bush and John McCain.

Oh, and one more thing:

Issodhos, please remember that if you're going to quote people who spout such crass lies about Obama such as:


then I would be prepared to listen to truths told about McCain's bankrupt foreign policy cowboyism, which is just an extension of not only Bush's but the Republican Party's bellicose and maladjusted foreign policy stylings of the last seven years and change.

And be careful out there... other people are watching...

Welcome (back) Lord Subudei! Though I can't say as I remember you, at least not by that name. You ask some good questions.

Let me ask you in return about this one:

Sources please?

As for your question to me:

That's the point of the discussion, I believe - to see whether Mr. Lind's claims have any merit. My earlier post was intended to help the discussion get going after the initial dismissive remark by Moderator Hoskins. Your post seems largely dismissive as well, but at least you are willing to go in the right direction - to look again at what Sen. Obama said at the AIPAC Convention.

So we return to the source. BTW your link doesn't work. Here's another go at it:

transcript of Sen. Obama's AIPAC speech

Hope that works better!


While it is true, as you say, that Mr. Obama promises to undertake a long series of diplomatic maneuvers prior to using military force against Iran, he does nevertheless promise to use military force against Iran, just as Mr. Lind states. In what event does he promise to use military force? In the event that Iran attacks the US or US interests? No. In the event that Iran attacks an ally of the US? No. In the event that Iran poses an imminent threat to the US or its allies?

Ah, there's the rub. In his speech, Mr. Obama states that he will attack Iran if it is the only means remaining to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. This seems far from "the opposite" of attacking Iran, to my mind.

Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but that seems to very closely resemble the reasoning employed to justify using military force against Iraq in 2003 - in other words, the Bush Doctrine. Please describe to me how that constitutes "just the opposite" of attacking Iran.

And one more thing. Please remember, this discussion is about Mr. Obama's foreign policy, not about that of Sen. McCain, or the current White House occupant.

I fell asleep while reading this thread and dreamed about a country where politicians were judged on the basis of their honesty, the logical consistency of their positions from one end of the interminable campaign cycle to the other, and the suitability of their positions to resolving the problems with which they must deal once elected to the office they seek.

It was wonderful. Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington were the only actual presidents who were in fact elected in this fanciful dream; the others who have served in the White House, including 43, all lost.

But, sadly, I woke up. So long as elections are media events instead of actual debates on the issues, the only people who can succeed are those who can manipulate that process to victory.

I have no delusions about anyone who reaches the nomination, much less wins the election.

The most telling statement in this entire cycle, for me, was the statement Senator Obama made early in the primary voting: that he and Michelle had talked at some length and agreed that if he didn't run now, he never would because another couple of terms in the Senate and he would be as corrupted by Washington as all those he ran against. Says mountains about his motivation. I vote for the "kick the bastards out" ticket and he's the only one in this entire cycle who has any credentials for actually wanting to accomplish that. The rest of them are embedded in the system, lock, stock, and barrel. I'll happily take my chances with the new guy. Remember term limits? I think it's a wonderful premise from which to elect our national leader!

Oh my, Lord Subudei, I am not basing it on Lind's comments. I am basing it on Senator Obama's words. Since you are new or newly returned, and I do not have the necessary time to fully bring you up to speed on what I have written in the past that I think substantiates his ethical flexibility I will refer you to a previous thread and also repeat myself here.

Now where was I. Oh! Yes -- Mr. "Change" seems more and more like the same ol’ same ol’ when the rhetorical fluff is brushed aside, even militarily. The following is from Senator Obama’s website. I have highlighted the pertinent parts, which indicate that Senator Obama will be following in the footsteps of his predecessors when it comes to the use of the military.

His claim that we have an "incontrovertible commitment" to the security of Israel will require the continued presence of the Sixth Fleet and its support facilities in the Med. He will continue the conversion of the National Guard from a home guard to a rapid overseas combat deployment force, the only purpose for which is the continued projection of military power into far-flung regions of the world. He will increase the size of ground forces – again indicating no reduction in our overseas military footprint. He will emphasis language training for the military, again indicating his ‘vision’ of American troops being used in brushfire conflicts where it is beneficial to “win the hearts” of the local populous. He will maintain a NATO mission, which has been converted from a defense pact to an aggressor force, etcetera, etcetera, and etcetera. No wonder the Establishment crowd let him get into the ring.:-)


The source originally used was Senator Obama's official website, but it's has been altered since then.

Now, what would real change be? What would a non-militarist peace candidate do? Severely reduce our overseas military footprint throughout the world. Disband NATO. Pull ground forces out of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. Do this within a 24-month time frame. Instruct the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a defense strategy with priority on defending America from attack and de-emphasizing force projection as a political tool, and to do it with the expectation that the military budget is going to be reduced 10 percent per year until it is at an inflation-adjusted minimum of 60 percent of what it was in 2000. The National Guard would of course return to its mandated mission to be performed within the borders of the US.

In short, we would begin to mind our own business and we would begin to restrict the federal government to the authority and powers it was given permission to exercise in the Constitution. Radical stuff, wot?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos
p.s. Did I forget to mention that he says he is going to keep troops in Iraq and nearby – just in case.;-)

Okay, then... let me give this a shot Steve. But in order to do this I'll need to take this one step at a time.

Issue #1:


Okay, since you were kind enough to ask:

Bush defends World War III comments on Iran

McCain's now famous 'Bomb Iran' quote

Although I would have to say, for Bush you could just reference his speech in front of the Israeli Knesset this year when he said:

“Permitting the world’s leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

Now I don't know about you, but when Bush lays out the problem in this fashion, it is too reminiscent of the whole pre-Iraq war argument, which was essentially specious and lacking any internal logic. For in Bush's worldview, what I have quoted above would result in continuing military strikes without question. Would you disagree???

And for McCain, since most of the Administration's operatives are desperately trying to get McCain elected no matter what, I would submit that McCain would do it just to make himself look strong to the American public. Not that it would work, but hey, since it worked for George Bush in Iraq....

Issue #2:
Looking further, we come to this:


Not that I meant to be dismissive; it's just that Lind's claims (for me at least) don't hold any merit at all... Not only is he wrong about Obama's stance, he seems more than just a bit delusional. I mean, how do we go from Obama's speech at AIPAC where he says:

"We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

AND

"Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."

all the way to Lind's histrionics when he claims:


Sorry, but that doesn't compute. So, either Lind didn't carefully read Obama's speech or he's lying...

For my money, probably both...


Issue #3:

Good sir, I would implore you to read the text of Obama's speech more carefully...

How did you figure that Obama will attack Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons? He surely didn't say that in his speech. Rather, when he said:

"We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

he follows that up with at least five more paragraphs detailing the various political and economic options available to us short of military force. How is that a sure sign that he's going to attack Iran?? Frankly, it isn't. So I would strongly recommend that you delineate how the text of Obama's AIPAC speech absolutely proves what you claim about Obama attacking Iran.

If you can't prove it or would suggest that it is somehow implicit or implied, then you need to enlighten the rest of us as to how you made that leap of faith...


And finally, Issue #4:


Now for this one, I would submit that you go back and look at what you yourself wrote. If I remember correctly, you said:



I don't think the text of the speech bears out your conclusion. As a matter of fact, I think that the speech supports more the first two options that you dismissed rather than just attacking Iran to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon. Heck, if that were the case the Administration would probably have bombed them several years ago (sorry, couldn't resist... ).

Obama also explicitly states that:
"Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security."

Let's remember, this is not the current Administration we're talking about here. He's already laid out a laundry list before relations with the Iranians come to blows, so let's at least see if he'll stick to his guns, unlike some other leaders and candidates out there..

Besides, anyone worth his salt in the realm of foreign affairs would probably tell you that we don't need to lift a finger to attack Iran's nuclear facilities- the Israelis will do that themselves. I'm sure at this point the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) have already planned another attack down to the minutiae, and are simply waiting for the right time. It isn't always up to us to make all the big decisions- sometimes we just have to stand by an ally in a moment of crisis...

And one more thing...


Yeah, I kinda figured that's what this topic was about, yet I don't believe that you can merely say that without examining the other relevant views out there, whether they're Obama's or his opponents. Life doesn't exist in a vacuum, and neither should our discussions of relevant topics be limited to mindlessly bashing a candidate's stance without careful perusal of the candidate's own words.

Besides, from what I've seen here so far, that's what the order of the day is on this topic (until someone proves me wrong, of course)...

And one more one more thing:

In all those quotes, he never actually said he would use military force... rather, he said he would use the threat of military force.

In practical terms, not a big difference; in political terms it is huge. It allows him to appear just as strong on defense as McCain to those who consider that to be of primary import; but it allows wiggle room when push actually comes to shove.

I'm not crazy about the use of such language which, while not an outright lie, is deceitful; unfortunately it seems to be the lingua fraca of both those who want to feel like they're getting what they want when they know it likely isn't exactly the case, and those who want to make that impression.

Having said all that, I am quite certain that there is a point where even Obama would make the 'military option' more than just a threat; but taking all his statements as a whole it is also quite clear that he is far far more likely to truly exhaust all diplomatic means than McCain would, and would save military option as only a truly last resort, where McCain's statements have certainly indicated the opposite.