Captain's Quarters -

The Democratic candidates seem to have this 'kitchen sink' mentality. They cannot talk about a subject on its own, they have to throw in anti-Bush buzz words. That is why in response to a question about the war, Obama found a way to toss in hurricane Katrina. It doesn't matter if it doesn't fit and doesn't make sense, the word Katrina riles people up.

Currently, so does the mention of China. Ask Obama about the war, and China makes it into the answer.

Global warming, Karl Rove and the Supreme Court will be in his next replies when questioned what he would do about the war.

He's not just an empty suit... he appears to be a not too bright panderer.

The Democratic candidates seem to have this 'kitchen sink' mentality. They cannot talk about a subject on its own, they have to throw in anti-Bush buzz words. That is why in response to a question about the war, Obama found a way to toss in hurricane Katrina. It doesn't matter if it doesn't fit and doesn't make sense, the word Katrina riles people up.

Currently, so does the mention of China. Ask Obama about the war, and China makes it into the answer.

Global warming, Karl Rove and the Supreme Court will be in his next replies when questioned what he would do about the war.

He's not just an empty suit... he appears to be a not too bright panderer.

I'm sure China would love to be in Iraq -- send a few hundred thousand troops (they've got plenty to spare) and suddenly Iraq has an exclusive deal to ship oil to China.

The Democratic candidates seem to have this 'kitchen sink' mentality. They cannot talk about a subject on its own, they have to throw in anti-Bush buzz words. That is why in response to a question about the war, Obama found a way to toss in hurricane Katrina. It doesn't matter if it doesn't fit and doesn't make sense, the word Katrina riles people up.

Currently, so does the mention of China. Ask Obama about the war, and China makes it into the answer.

Global warming, Karl Rove and the Supreme Court will be in his next replies when questioned what he would do about the war.

He's not just an empty suit... he appears to be a not too bright panderer.

Obama is saying things so stupid that he's losing his chance to be the Vice Presidential nominee, let alone losing the top job.

The audacity of a dope.

Actually, I think that Obama has done an invaluable service to this country, for which he deserves great credit. He has become a vital benchmark for the seriousness and qualifications of individuals with whom one might engage in geopolitical discussions.

To wit: anyone who supports an Obama presidency with a straight face can be promptly dismissed, at a very substantial savings in time that you don't get back, and stomach acid better employed in the service of digestion.

Now, if I could only have the pleasure of watching him be publicly vivisected in a debate with Rudy, my gratitude for Barack Hussein would be complete...

Barack Obama: Living proof that common sense, intelligence, and discretion are no longer prerequisites for success in the American public sphere.

Is this a great country or what?

"Obama started this primary campaign looking like a man with a future in the Democratic Party."

As well as a present for the Republican Party!

Its hard to walk on water when you have lead feet.

The Obama camp is already trotting out the 'race card'. Now it's the oft repeated 'black enough' canard, which only really affects the minds of liberals who feel guilty they may have reservations about Obama.

Obama will not be the VP candidate. He would give nothing to Clinton. His supporters would vote for her anyway. She is a strategic politician. She will choose someone who wil hellp her win a shaky big state like Ohio or Florida. Or some western states.

My take on this post is that conservatives really want to run against Hillary. As a very moderate Democrat I thought Obama's idea totally correct in substance and also politically astute.

I am amused that you are so fearful of his realpolitic.

I think the bigger point is being missed here. I would submit that hussein didn't get where he is by being as stupid as he appears here. It is mere appearance. Obviously hillary has enough dirt on him, due to his local business dealings in Illinois, to insist he torpedo himself. If hillary suddenly decided to tell the MSM to (finally) start highlighting this dirt, they would be only too happy to oblige, and he would be sunk anyway. This way, he might still have a chance at a cabinet post. Remember, everything with a leftist is an illusion, reality means nothing to these people.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/14/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

This has turned so bizarre that it almost makes one wonder if the Clintons succeeded in planting a mole in the Obama campaign in one of their top advisory positions. Clearly, Obama is trying to portray both Iraq and Afghanistan -- in fact, the entire GWOT -- as Vietnam redux. The increasingly nonsensical pronouncements that come from the Obama campaign as they try to support that position simply demonstrate that the Vietnam analogy was a fallacy from the start.

It's good for the Clinton campaign in that all she has to do right now is watch and wait. Hillary has a pretty good talent for inserting foot in mouth herself, but right now she doesn't have to say anything. She just has to let Obama self-destruct, in the same manner that Edwards pretty much already has. She then gets to claim the moderate high ground by default. However, in the long run, it may not be good for her campaign -- they come out of the primaries fat and unprepared, to face a Republican candidate who will have emerged from a tough primary fight with all of their ideological weapons honed and sharpened.

Barry Obama -- working overtime to insure Hillary's nomination.

And all this time people thought Karl Rove was the penultimate Machiavellian...

I am Republican, Bush supporter. BUT, I think you have missed the point. DMS has not because he is a Dem. The Dem's agree with him. Rep's don't get it, just disagree with him. We did the same thing before 2006 elections. Blinders don't help at all.
I think Obama is wrong and dangerous.

I'm waiting to see how our resident libs defend this idiocy. After all, some of them thought that invading Pakistan was a GRRRREAT idea when he broached it.

Stupid is as stupid does, I suppose...

Yeah .... it IS frightening when you come to the sad conclusion that Hillary would be preferable to the other dangerous nitwits vying for the Dem nomination.

the kid's an airhead,
simple as that

As I keep saying, Obama's in over his head, Edwards is a non-factor, and Hillary's running out of time. Not that it matters much who Hillary will select as her running mate, for there's no way she can win in 2008 in a general election.

At this point, the Dems do not have anyone who can win the White House. Edwards is a has-been who already blew his shot, Obama is in the process of blowing his, and Hillary of course has way too much baggage. That leaves who, exactly? Biden and Dodd have their own baggage, and Dennis "Department of Peace" Kucinich is the Ron Paul of the Dems...or is that Ron Gravel?

Anyway, Obama should be trying to kiss Hillary's ring if he wants his shot. And by all means he should...a Clinton-Obama ticket would be Mondale-Ferraro all over again for the Dems.

Everyone seems to ignore the fact that Obama was reared in Islam and is still in Islam or he would be dead. He was simply groomed by the Islamist radicals to try for POTUS and to use racism everytime he stumbles. One thing about Islamist, they understand there are people on earth more stupid than them, we call them democrats, they call them pardners in terrorism and a great asset in the destruction of the U.S. I'm over 65 and will laugh as this generation sell themselves into slavery or worse.

I told my Mass Communication Law professor, much to her chagrin, that the media is actually vested in politics and are therefore just as untrustworthy as a politician. That irked her because she was a reporter before she became a lawyer.

What you are witnessing wth Barack is the result of the media deciding you are the "It" candidate and setting you up to be president. Obama has no experience to be president, and yet a large portion of the media put on the full court press to prop him up like he is the second coming of JFK. He should first try being a Senator for a full term. He put out the fluffy books, had the softball interviews, is a great orator, and did not vote for the Iraq war (not yet elected). And he is Black. Unfortunately, he is deconstructing himself by trying to appear hawkish, while disowning the Iraq War. He has not been to Iraq, has not authored any legislation, and has been campaigning since he took his oath of office.

He has been propped up by NBC and CNN, with Hillary getting the support from ABC and CBS. The media has a vested interest to ensure a Democrat gets in the White House, This is how a man who could not even get elected as a Congressman, and was only elected as a Senator when his Republican candidate had a sex scandal, can be presented as the new whiz kid.

10 years ago, Lieberman, Richardson, and Randall would have been the key names to be on a Dem ticket. Now you got someone who won't even release documenation from her touted record (Clinton), a freshamn senator (Obama), a smurf (Kucinich), a plagerizer (Biden), a douchebag (Dodd), and a hair model (Silky). No wonder 5 out of 6 jhiadists prefer Democrats

Obama is simply a prettier version of Al Sharpton without Al's street savy and possibly not as much useable brain power. He is a con artist of the first degree. A cynical race baiter that claims to be a uniter but uses divisive class and race themes to garner support from minorities and guilt ridden white liberals.
Power is what he wants ... pure and simple ... would he use it for good or evil ? Who knows ... my vote would have to be for the evil of unintended consequences which liberal social programs are famous for bringing on us ...

I come to praise Obama not to bury him.

Back when he first entered the race we were all amazed how a political neophyte like Barak Obama could quickly gain traction on Hillary. What we are seeing now is exactly how inexperience he is. He isn’t being manipulated by a Hillary mole or a stealth candidate pushed by radical Islam. He is just a floundering like a rookie.

Big salute to Nate for his "The Audacity of a Dope" line!

Best statement on this page .... best summary of Barack Hussein Obama I've read yet.

Conventional wisdom says the Dope will be Clinton's veep .. I say not. She will probably pick somebody who dares not compete with her, and somebody who is guaranteed to not outshine her in any respect whatsoever. Dopey he may be, but Obama's got way more charisma than Her Thighness, and would outshine her on any stage. We've no idea yet who will be Hillary Clinton's bootlick running mate, but it almost certainly won't be the Dope with Audacity.

I also applaud that great summary line:

THE AUDACITY OF A DOPE.

How much more perfect can a summary get?

I've been saying for a while that the Dems best hope is Bill Richardson, but he's not getting anywhere. If Clinton picks him as a VP, he would at least secure New Mexico for a few electoral votes. Obama and Edwards would add nothing, and both would be destroyed in a debate with Rudy or Fred (remember Cheney spanking Edwards?).

It's all about the electoral votes. The best strategy for Clinton is to pick someone to flip Ohio or Florida (and I bet she goes for Florida). Otherwise, she will lose to Rudy (who knows how a Fred-Hillary match would play in Ohio).

Is there a good link to Obama's call for the Saudis and Chinese to occupy Iraq? I haven't seen anything nearly that strong in what he has said.

"Her Thighness" LOL! Ranks right up there with "audacity of a dope," athingortwo.

Mrs. Bill Clinton is going to be tougher to beat than we think. She may be shrill and unpleasant and full of Rose Law Firm baggage, but the women will line up behind her. They fawned over Bill, and that loyalty is transferrable.

Is Bill eligible to be Vice-President?

/Mr Lynn

Ed, stop being an idiot

It's pretty apparent to me that what he's talking about is accidental civilian casualties caused by air bombings. How you can take this comment, which out context can mean several different things, and from it extrapolate an interpretation that you feel is so conclusive that you can go on your blog and accuse Obama of saying we're intentionally targettng civilians, leads me to believe that you've ceased a long time ago to have the ability to look at Obama in a rationally objective manner.

I'm sorry Ed, I've been following you for a while and I agree with Joe Gandelman that you're one of the better and fair right-wing bloggers out there. But lately your responses to some of Obama's comments have been way off the mark.

You're better than this. I think this election process is causing many usually rational individuals to start acting a bit goofy.

Jeff, his campaign spokesperson confirmed he was talking about a supposedly deliberate policy of bombing villages and civilians. It's in the quote I put on the post. Who's being a shill?

Obama and Kerry should start a club for The Irrelevant and Clueless.

"Campaign spokesman Reid Cherlin said Obama was not endorsing the current Bush policy, which consists solely of air raids and bombing of civilians."

My son is a tactical air controller whose job it is to place bombs on target. Obama and his hack Cherlin are full of crap; Bush (i.e. U.S. military) policy is to never bomb the enemy if there are known civilians at the target. To say otherwise is slandering the military. Plus, the USAF does CAS (close air support), not "air raids."

"Is Bill [Clinton] eligible to be Vice-President?"

No, he is not.

The 12th Amendment to the Constitution states: "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Bill Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to be President. Therefore, he cannot be Vice-President either.

Anyone old enough to remember Dan Quayle will remember how he was savaged for his "inexperience" and "stupidity."

Compared to Obama - and Edwards, for that matter - Quayle comes across looking positively Churchillian, both in political experience and intelligence.

Bottom line, the only reason Obama got into the race was because he actually believed the people who suggested that, because he was an "articulate" and "clean" black man, that's all he'd need to lead the Dems back into the Oval Office as The New Messiah.

If he were intellectually consistent, he'd have Jackson Browne's "Running on Empty" blasting from a sound system at all of his campaign stops.

I used to think that the Dem ticket would be Clinton-Obama, but no more. Not only is there an increasing amount of bad blood between them, but every time Obama opens his mouth and shows (yet again) what an albatross he'd be around Hillary's neck, the more pathetic and irrelevant he becomes.

We keep hearing how intelligent Obama is. When are we going to be treated to some example of that? The guy is an idiot.

From the article:

Campaign spokesman Reid Cherlin said Obama was not endorsing the current Bush policy, which consists solely of air raids and bombing of civilians.

Ed, you know that the phrase "bombing of civilians" can mean either accidental or intentional. There is nothing in that sentence to conclusively indicate it one way or another. Also, that's not a direct quote from the spokesman, but rather a reporter saying what the spokesman said. Without getting the quote from thespokesman himself, we can't even be sure the reporter is reporting on it accurately.

My point is you should know from the Bush presidency how often phrases can imply different things when taken out of context, how the media will often report it so it sounds the most sensational, and would therefore not be quick to make a quick judgement and such a harsh accusation wiithout getting more facts. I've seen people do this with far too many politicians, Bush and Obama are just two of many.

I am amused that you are so fearful of his realpolitic.

Posted by: DMS at August 14, 2007 9:58 AM

Calling Obama a joke is a sign of fear? On which planet?

When it comes to foreign policy President Bush is inarticulately coherent. On the other hand, candidate Obama is articulately incoherent. There is little doubt which is the more dangerous.

Funny but to me his critique seems to be more directed at the Clintons who did not use ground forces but an air campaign in Kosovo and Serbia pounding 'villages and causing civilian casualties' as well as their air strikes without ground support in Sudan and Iraq which caused destruction to 'villages and civilian casualties'. But I'd like to have a libnut explain when there has ever been a serious war or when there will ever be such a war with NO civilian casualties? And does the fact there are civilian casualties mean that the war is immoral or illegal?

Does Obama think before making these statements?

Setting the bar kind of high, aren't you?

Hey Jeff ... the Cap'n isn't arguing litigation before a Federal judge and jury ... he's talking about the politics of what Obama said. In that context, what matters is the political interpretation of what Obama said, and it is pretty clear that most people reading this will come away with the same meaning the Cap'n ascribes to Obama's dopey remarks.

Obama is a guy just two years removed from being a young state legislator from Chicago. It's not surprising that he knows next to nothing of military or foreign policy affairs, diplomacy, and such.

What Obama is guilty of is not ignorance ... he's guilty of not settling for the benefit of the doubt ... he's opening his mouth and removing all doubt about how much of a dope he is

Again you spout lies !

typical neocons !

Obama said nothing about China occupying Iraq!

"This sounds perilously close to the same kind of accusations that Vietnam War veterans faced when they came back from their service -- that they indiscriminately wiped out villages, killing women, children, and babies."

This is a pretty good strategy. After all a predecessor did this and then got a permanent job as senator, married $1 B, and nearly got to be president. Of course it requires one to be corrupt.

Athingortwo

Read through his latest speech on the war on terror, and come back and tell me why this speech indicates that "he knows next to nothing of military or foreign policy affairs, diplomacy, and such."

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

This is yet another instance of a leading democrat slandering the military and America for political gain. Obama and all polititions need to understand that thier words do not stop at the waters edge and that they are translated and broadcast around the world. What Obama is doing (unknowingly) is spreading Talban propaganda plain and simple. To say that we are intentionally killing civilians and that it is U.S. policy is exactly what the Taliban say. While maybe he meant that we accidently kill civilians while going after Taliban targets, Al Jazera will spin this to say: Obama condems U.S. policy of targeting Afgan civilians. If a leading presidential candidate will say such dishonest and reprehensible things about the military and America, is it any wonder why the Islamic world hates us?

I wonder how many will die in the riots that will surely follow and how many more will join the Taliban because of remarks like these?.

A senator in his FIRST term in national office (or for that matter a single term senator who doesn't run for reelection for a second term, like Edwards) has no business running for president of the United States. Either party - dem or repub. I mean, gosh - I kind of like my local state representative - but I sure as heck don't see him as president of the United States material.

Just my opinion.

His complete lack of experience in national politics is his undoing. (either that, or he is simply a dimwit). Obama should spend a term or two as a senator. Get some Gravitas. Introduce and champion some legislation. Chair some committees. Show some Leadership on the national stage. And then get back to us in 2014 or 2015, for the 2016 elections, Obama, and show us what you've got. Right now, you're coming across as a local politician who is maybe qualified to discuss developer permits and garbage collection issues, but is just not ready for prime time.

I guess my only exception to my "rule" would be if he or she has some sort of exceptional corporate background requiring both leadership AND managerial skills (which rules out trial lawyers, who mostly operate as lone wolfs, and are the world's WORST managers/chief executives. I know - I am one). I'll call it the "Ross Perot" exception. I did not like Perot, but I can't say he was not "qualified" in my book to run for Pres.

Nick - calm down a little there! The Cap'n did't "lie", but he did slightly mischaracterize the language in the Nashua (NH) Telegraph article on Obama's speech, without really changing its meaning and implications. The actual Obama statement in the Telegraph reads:

"Obama pledged to engage China and Saudi Arabia in supporting a permanent, peaceful political solution in post-war Iraq and communicate with sectarian factions in that country."

So Obama didn't specify a Chinese/Saudi occupation per se.

But outside of an occupation, just how are China and Saudi Arabia supposed to "support" in any meaningful way a permanant political solution in post-war Iraq?

Neither nation is a player on the ground in Iraq today.

A few more follow-up questions for the Dope are in order:

1) So how does ceding Americen power and influence to our military rival China make America, or the Middle East, a safer place?

2) How would China or Saudi Arabia exert their influence in Iraq unless they have boots on the ground?

3) And how does injecting the terror-supporting Saudi Wahhabist Sunnis into a country that is 90% non-Sunni Arab, and which has had all too much of Al Qaeda's influence of late, contribute to a peaceful political solution?

Anybody but a Dope would answer all of these questions with the following rhetorical question:

"What ... Are you NUTS?!!!"

Jeff - it doesn't matter what remarks are contained in a prepared speech written by a paid hack for a candidate, as far as "proving" one's bona fides in any area of policy or life experience.

"The Audacity of a Dope" Obama has had a grand total of a little over 2 years in the Senate with service as a backbencher on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Prior to his Senatorial service, Obama never held positions in anything remotely considered either military or foreign-policy related occupations ... he doesn't even have the benefit of, you know, just hanging around the White House and sucking it up via osmosis, as Hillary Clinton claims under her "mantle of experience".

And it shows.

The operative phrase is "Stupid is as Stupid Does".

If Obama had any sense at all, he would cloak himself with a cadre of foreign policy and military experts who would do most of his talking for him on the campaign trail whenever those subjects come up. He would simply nod and smile and say, "I'm with Him!", and his experts would spout their stuff and wear buttons saying "I'm with the Dope!" And his faithful supporters would all clap and agree that at least the Dope has some smart handlers! That's enough to be Commander in Chief!

You asked questions. I've got answers.

1) So how does ceding Americen power and influence to our military rival China make America, or the Middle East, a safer place?

Lib Answer: We are too arrogant and power hungry to begin with. We need to be less greedy and share the world's resources with our friends the Chinese. And Mr. Chavez. And stop being such imperialist warmongers.

2) How would China or Saudi Arabia exert their influence in Iraq unless they have boots on the ground?

Lib Answer: China already exerts all sort of influence in places like Iran, right? If China becomes the main oil consumer with whatever tyrant or group of tyrants rise to power following our "redeployment" China won't need "boots on the ground." But that is okay, because China is our friend, and we need to just stop with all the Cowboy macho threatening phrases like "our military rival." That's just MEAN. Give peace a chance. Engage. Talk. Diplomacy is the key here, my friend. There are simply no problems we can't either simply ignore altogether (with the help of our friends in the press) which is the same as them not existing at all - or which are not easily solved by having a Camp David Summit. Handshakes. Smiles. Photo opportunities. Ah for the good old days of Arafat being a regular guest of the Clinton's and Carters...

3) And how does injecting the terror-supporting Saudi Wahhabist Sunnis into a country that is 90% non-Sunni Arab, and which has had all too much of Al Qaeda's influence of late, contribute to a peaceful political solution?

Lib Answers: Terrorist? What terrorist. That's just a bumper sticker. Plus, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, my friend. We really must stop trying to impose OUR imperialist definitions of this sort, on the indigenous persons of color around the world. Plus, or perhaps in the alternative, they've been fighting among themselves for hundreds of years; what business is it of ours to intervene, invade, and be oppressive occupiers where we are not welcome? (Unless it is Darfur of course). And all this talk of "genocide." What piffle. Some claim there was "genocide" after we finally vacated our illegal occupation of the independant state of Viet Nam, thereby allowing the proper and just re-unification to occur. If some former (and quite foolish) supporters of our acts of imperialist aggression are dealt with harshly (only by our own Western and therefore biased standards which we have no business imposing on other cultures) we can ignore it altogether; and/or just deny the existence of it, as John Kerry has done when discussing SE Asia.

No thanks necessary; glad to be of help.

Has Obama been eating Brittish beef lately?

Obama is a dimwit. I just read his piece in the July/Aug issue of Foreign Affairs. Seriously - it's garbage, full of inconsistencies and just plain stupid comments. Anyone who supports this guy is a fool. He's poving he shouldn't be a senator.
And the fact that such a lightweight became a serious Democratic presidential contender speaks volumes...

You know, Jeff, when I wondered how the libs would defend The Dope's statement, I expected a bit more than the tired old standby, "That's not what he meant and you know it!"

I read through the speech that you cited. It strikes me as nothing but a tired repetition of democrat talking points: Bush lied, wrong war, can't win, quagmire, shoulda stayed in A-stan, etc. The Dope, in his infinite wisdom, criticizes the president for getting us into Iraq and "creating more enemies" but then turns right round and promises to "take the fight to the enemy"... in Pakistan. Brilliant... until one asks why it creates more enemies when we invade Iraq but WON'T create more enemies when we invade or attack Pakistan. He promises to get all the combat brigades out of Iraq as "leverage" to make the Iraqis win the war all by themselves... but then promises to leave troops in Iraq to fight al Qaeda... which he denigrates as not the "real enemy" and not the real source of trouble in Iraq. Oh, he also criticizes Bush for not protecting the homeland (a criticism that has considerable merit, I may add), but I'd wager that Obama voted against the Patriot Act and hasn't lifted a finger to propose any significant legislation to change the situation. The entire tone of the speech makes it clear that he's floundering, spouting the talking points while trying desperately to find SOME rational policy that will please both the antiwar lunatics of his base and the American people who neither want to surrender in Iraq and recognize that terrorism is a real threat.

One final remark: let's assume that you're right and Obama DIDN'T mean what he said. Don't you think that it's still pretty damning for a man who would be president to be so careless with his words and so thoughtless of their reprecussion?

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Nate for at last providing a good nickname for Obama. "The Dope" isn't perhaps as creative as "Silky Pony" or "The Hilldabeast", but it is certainly fitting for an idiot who wants to surrender in Iraq so we can invade Pakistan, presumably without ordering our men to conduct air raids and kill civilians.

Good news: Obama seems to be cratering.

Bad news: Hilly the Hun now has a clear shot at the Democrat nomination.

athingortwo,

Your argument is inconsistent. You're saying you can't use his speeches to prove any bona fides in regards to foreign policy. Yet you're using the very same speeches to criticize his lack of understanding of foreign policy. After all, the Pakistan remarks came from the very speech I posted. This latest comment Ed is commenting on also came from a speech.

As for a lack of experience. I would say things like his work with Dick Lugar on combating nuclear proliferation has given him more of an understanding of foreign policy than is typical for a 2 year junior Senator.

As for surrounding himself with smart foreign policy analysts, I'd say Samantha Power is a pretty damn smart analyst. (Read her book "A Problem From Hell" which won a pulitizer for it's coverage of America's response to Genocide). The fact that she has put her faith in Obama personally says a lot to me. (She's also said that the first time she met Obama that he already knew much of what she was advising him on, but then she's not an impartial observer so we can't take her word for fact).

And then of course there's the fact that he has already written extensively on foreign policy in The Audacity of Hope. If you want to make a really effective criticism of Obama's lack of understanding, it would probably be best to read that book, and explain why you believe after reading it that his understanding is so abysmal. To Ed's credit, hes' done so, although as far as I know he never went into a detailed critique of it, just that he felt Obama's grasp on foreign policy issues was inadequate.

On of the striking differences between Obama and Bush is that on foregin policy Bush is inarticulately coherent whereas Obama is articulately incoherent.

Actually he voted for the latest revision of the Patriot Act because he believes it made the necessary changes to help curtail some of the breaches of civil liberties. Which he was criticized by his base for doing so.

http://www.issues2002.org/International/Barack_Obama_Homeland_Security.htm

As for going after Bin Laden or other terrorists in Pakistan, I think one crucial difference will be that if we send in troops to go after Al-Qaeda targets, the world won't be as upset because we'll be going after people that were directly involved in 9/11. Plus we're just going after those targets, and not trying to overthrow the Pakistan regime.

Of course most Democrats already agree with this position, and as Biden says it's currently U.S. policy. Hillary just thinks we shouldn't be talking about it publically.

Devastating Article and right on the mark. Needs to Run in the LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune. They Built him and forced us to endure this Obama Farce.

Seriously, how dumb and shallow are wingnut bloggers? Obama did not say that we were DELIBERATELY TARGETING civilians (which would be a war crime); he said that the shortage of ground troops requires us to rely on air raids, which HAVE THE EFFECT OF killing civilians. The AP backs up Obama's analysis: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/14/316864.aspx.

Conservative political correctness--which can be summed up by the idea that any criticism of American policy is synonomous with criticism of American troops--is far more pernicious than any liberal political correctness. It's the idiocy embodied in this blog post that prevents our leaders from actually analyzing which policies will advance American interests.

Jeff,

I looked at the link you provided re: The Dope and the Patriot Act. Thank you. It seems to me, however, to be a bit contradictory:

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.

This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is:

A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.

But...

Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. Vote to invoke cloture on a conference report that extends the authority of the FBI to conduct "roving wiretaps" and access business records. Voting YES would recommend, in effect, that the PATRIOT Act be extended through December 31, 2009, and would makes the provisions of the PATRIOT Act permanent. Voting NO would extend debate further, which would have the effect of NOT extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.

So it would appear that The Dope doesn't mind parts of the Patriot Act but does mind others. Well, it's a start; at least I haven't heard of him crowing "We killed it!" a la Dingy Harry.

Um, actually what Obama said is basically true. Our current policy in Afghanistan relies heavily on air raiding villages regardless of civilian causalities:

"British and Nato defence officials have consistently expressed concern about US tactics, notably air strikes, which kill civilians, sabotaging the battle for 'hearts and minds'." - The Guardian

"British commanders have asked for American special forces to be removed from their area of operations because of the number of civilian casualties being caused, it was reported yesterday." - The Telegraph

Just because what Obama says doesn't agree with Faux News doesn't mean it isn't true.

Is anyone really surprised by Obama's gaffes? He's never been in a tough election. His election to the legislature occurred in a safe Democratic district where his lawyers removed all other Democratic Primary candidates (including the incumbent) by challenging the signatures on their ballot petitions. So he ran unopposed in the primary. His election to the Senate occurred in a heavily Democratic state where GOP infighting led to the removal of the primary winner and the importation of Keyes, an out-of-stater, who ran an idiotic campaign totally unlike his Presidential efforts. Obama has never been tested in a campaign. Heck, he's never really ever had to campaign at all.

Ho, boy, someone who denigrates Fox News is using the Guardian as support for a weak argument?

How about we just wait until The Dope comes out and says whether he means deliberate or accidental bombing of civilians. *SURELY* if he meant accidental he could say that now, couldn't he?

I'll give even money he won't offer to clarify by choosing one word or the other.

"Um, actually what Obama said is basically true. Our current policy in Afghanistan relies heavily on air raiding villages regardless of civilian causalities:"

Um, actually what Obama said is patently false. The military does not do "air raiding" of villages; it does targeted air strikes and close air support -- and it does not rely "heavily" on them -- in which the elimination of the target is secondary to the safety of civilians. Just like Obama, your use of the phrase "air raiding" demonstrates that you have no clue.

"'British and Nato defence officials have consistently expressed concern about US tactics, notably air strikes, which kill civilians, sabotaging the battle for 'hearts and minds'." - The Guardian"

LOL! Quoting a far-left newspaper with an agenda is supposed to prove what? FYI, the Brits, the French and some others use air strikes also and most air strikes do not kill civilians.

I agree that Clinton will not pick Obama as her VP. I think she will pick Mark Warner, former gov of VA. He was a popular governor, and should be able to carry VA's 13 electoral votes, especially after the state's GOP is in such discredit after this year's traffic violator fee debacle. It won't take much to flip the statehouse dem this year, and the voters will certainly remember in 2008, when they vote in federal elections.

First I was right about lies by original POST
meant to MISLEAD about occupying
and dengrating Obama,
I know that kind of Racist having grown up around them!

1 China is on security council and USA seeks its votes on IRAQ matters

2 SA is leading Sunni country in region

DUH DUH!