On Friday, Barack Obama stated “we should take no option, including military action, off the table” when talking about how to deal with Iran (Fox News). This is bizarre. Obama is one of many Democrats who has undermined the President’s authority and betrayed the troops by speaking out and voting against supporting the military in Iraq.
Suddenly, Obama sees Iran as a threat and suggests he would be willing to support the use of force if Iran failed to back down in its desire to achieve nuclear weapons. Welcome to the weird and not so wonderful world of the Democratic Party. On the one hand, they curry favour with the anti-war brigade by calling for a retreat and surrender in Iraq. On the other hand, and at the same time, they try to give the impression that America’s (and the world’s) security is a top priority that they will defend with military might, if necessary.
Who exactly will buy this hollow rhetoric? Any enemy of America would know that a Democratic President might use force but would then quickly lose the will to carry on to victory. Al-Qaeda or North Korea, for example, would only have to be patient – after a few months (at most), the Democrats would hoist the white flag.
Surely, the voters will see that contradictory statements and views on the use of the military sends a message of weakness to America’s enemies. This could be the beginning of the end for Obama.
Libertas01 
March 3, 2007 at 11:05 pm |
This is not surprising at all. The Democratic position has been trying to veil itself in flexibility posturing for any eventuality in Iran or Iraq. Regardless of outcomes, these positions have been carefully crafted to put Democrats in a position where they can applaud their own efforts, or attack failures as policy issues.
Part of the evidence of this being a carefully staged position is the lack of substantive debate over defunding of the Iraq efforts, and careful, almost uniform statements being issued with regard to Iran.
This seems to be very orchestrated.
March 4, 2007 at 4:47 pm |
This is another case of a Democrat trying to sound tough on national defence, while at the same time undermining our troops in battle. They are trying to have it both ways.
March 4, 2007 at 11:48 pm |
True, but the seeming change I think lies not in the fact that he would support a war- Obama’s said in the past that war is at times justified, but that he felt the Iraq one wasn’t- but in that he sees Iran as more dangerous than Iraq. Any thoughts on that?
March 31, 2007 at 11:27 am |
I deploy to Iraq soon with great pride in knowing that I will be participating in not just keeping the fight out of the United States but helping a country secure their freedom. For Democrats to say that Iraq is an unjust war is completely wrong. Saddam was evil and he needed to go. With Mr. Obama wanting to become the next president he needs to quickly realize that the threat of radical Islam is a severe global threat and that Iraq and Iran are center stage. He and the Democrats must take a firm stance against terror, (which I have not seen from any Democrat yet), and realize if we abandon Iraq it will lead to the terrorists refocusing there efforts to attack here.
April 3, 2007 at 5:15 am |
Excellent points, Robert. Hopefully, the Democrats begin to put American (and global) security ahead of their desire to appease. Short-term political gain for them could result in long-term literal pain for the US and its allies if their short-sighted approach to the terrorist threat continues.
You are in our prayers and have our eternal gratitude as you embark on your mission to Iraq. God Bless.
March 18, 2008 at 1:31 pm |
That’s not flip flopping. Iran and Iraq are two different scenarios. Secondly, Obama has not betrayed the troops, and most of the troops don’t feel that way(why else would they give him more money than McCain?) He hasn’t voted against supporting the military, he’s voted against supporting the war. I believe he’s given into the requests to support what the military needs to operate, but advocating an anti-war policy is in no way going against the troops, because that would mean a majority of the troops are against their own purpose.
Now, I remember when McCain spoke on behalf of the troops at a debate, and the response from the guys in Iraq was, “**** you!” I don’t know who McCain spoke to, but apparently he felt it appropriate to only speak on behalf of a few individuals, but chances are if a soldier has a complaint, McCain wouldn’t be the one to hear it, and he didn’t help himself by spouting that the troops want to stay. If that were true, he’d be getting the most donations. He was 3rd, behind Obama and Paul, Paul being the biggest advocate of pulling out.
I think when it comes to talking for the troops, you all should probably let them speak for themselves, but I suppose that this country is no longer about listening to the troops as much making sure they have support. And, I understand Robert here is deploying, and I respect his opinion, but among troops I’ve personally spoken with, it’s a minority opinion.
Oh, and when a guy goes to Iraq under a contractor to replace failing computer cables, and comes back with enough money to buy a house, full furnishings, build a pond, buy a 360, ps3, computer, two 52″ HDTVs, and an f-150, and using all cash with spare change…I say I have a problem with the war as well. How would i know about this guy? I set up his home theater. He moved in just 2 blocks down. But when my bud back from Iraq is fighting 4 officers because he’s screaming and throwing shit and talking incoherently, I think I’m ashamed that Americans chose ignorance. It’s not ignorance itself, it’s choosing ignorance. Choosing to ignore a problem, using “rhetoric” to back up that CHOICE.
Yes, support the troops. Hussein should have been overthrown, but he’s dead now… And the claim that fighting radical islam over there doesn’t work, because if they wanted to attack us over here, they’d do it. They don’t want us there, they attack us there. They attacked here, because we were already over there. We attacked over there. They attacked over there. We’re not stopping them, we’re keeping them from having any reason to attack America. Why kill Americans in America when you can do it in Iraq? If they want to do it again, you’re only making it easier for them by being over there. You think you’re stopping them cold in their tracks? You’re not a blockade, your a distraction. That’s not national security, it’s political games, and you had better hope they don’t catch on, because if they do, we’re more screwed now than before the war. They didn’t have to target Iraq, but they do. They choose to go to Iraq, they could have chosen America again.