Thursday, August 02, 2007

Reasons not to vote for... Barack Obama*

Barack Obama, the media’s current heir to President Kennedy**, is proving he has the balls to fight terrorism in the manner of a rabid cowboy. According to the Telegraph he said

“…said he would dispatch forces to Pakistan's tribal areas even without the permission of Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf.”
Sorry, do what now, flower? Put troops in Pakistan without asking the permission of the government? Invade Pakistan? Are you fucking kidding me or what? And this from the man who calls Hillary Clinton “Bush-Cheney lite”.

The government of Pakistan is, understandably, not impressed. From The Times:

“These are serious matters and should not be used for point-scoring,” Tasnim Aslam, a spokeswoman for the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, said. “Political candidates and commentators should show responsibility.”
No kidding. But I think Aslam doesn’t stress her point strongly enough. Because I don’t think Senator Obama has realised this yet, but Pakistan is becoming an increasingly unstable state. And what do we think would happen if America sends troops into Pakistan with the permission of the President? That the militant fundamentalists will embrace the US troops? That they will welcome them with open arms? And that they will think that Musharraf, who has not fought the infidel American pig dogs, is sound as a pound? No. Musharraf will be gone in an instant. Unless, of course, he fights the USA.

And whilst Musharraf’s regime is by no means perfect, it is a lot better than some of the alternatives. Like a fundamentalist Islamic regime in charge of Pakistan Or a regime that is even more keen on war with India. Or a civil war in Pakistan.

Obama shows all the geo-political savvy of a drunk on absinthe playing Risk. Which makes him about as credible as US President as, well, the incumbent.


*This concept has been shamelessly stolen from Mr Eugenides. For pithier examples of the same idea see here and here.
**Following in the *ahem* illustrious footsteps as Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.


Bag said...

sadly with the tone of someof the postings from US bloggers He will gain a lotof brownie points from this.

They don'tknow anything about Pakistan and believe they have the right to goanywherein the world they want.

Anyway, istn'tit time for regime change in Pakistan. Isn't Musharraf somesortof dictator and a muslim to boot.

Careless said...

The rabid right in the country (I'm an American) really doesn't like Obama and is using this as a reason to mock him. This isn't garnering him any US blogger support I've seen. The guy says a lot of stupid things, and it's amazing they haven't hurt him him more.

He's gotten an insane amount of support and interest from people who know nothing about his politics. You'd figure he'd be exposed in the next year, but we elected Bush.

Alexa Claire said...

Your first error is in the second sentence. "According to the Telegraph he said...." So, instead of actually making an effort to learn what was actually said, you base your opinion on what it was one article on a website reports that he said.

I easily found the entire transcript of the speech with just a bit of Googling. I strongly suggest you read it in its entirety before making rash and baseless comments.

Put troops in Pakistan without asking the permission of the government? Invade Pakistan? Are you fucking kidding me or what? And this from the man who calls Hillary Clinton “Bush-Cheney lite”.

Uh, no. More like strongly encourage Pakistan to strenghten their efforts against terrorism and if they refuse, take action. Or, for a direct quote:

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

He then goes on to say:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

Why don't you reread that last sentence? Read it again. Let it sink in. Now, what exactly are you against? Defending the country against the terrorists that attacked us?

This isn't Bush's imaginary WMD search turned into "Operation: Iraqi Freedom." That was an illegal war based on lies and false information, with no specific plan laid out at all. Find the WMDs! What WMDs? Oh shit. Um, let's pretend we're freeing the people and actually stir up a civil war. Good idea! Then we can keep the American people in fear so we can basically do whatever the hell we want!

About the "Bush-Cheney lite" comment that Barack is supposed to have said about Hillary Clinton: it's the same situation. Here is an actual video of the event where he makes the comment, and he does not mention or even hint that it is Hillary that is "Bush-Cheney lite.

In summation, the speech is obviously far from an attack on Pakistan. It is a well thought out and researched plan of action against terrorism, with military action as a last resort. If you actually read it, most of what he says isn't really debatable. What's really great is that he is saying this before he gets elected. He didn't just keep this to himself (as Hillary suggested) to surprise us with after we were duped into voting for him. He is telling us everything is about up-front. Isn't that something you'd want from a president?

placebo said...

Why dont you do a search on Obamas main campaign contributors. You'll see that the credit card companies and the nuclear industry are his primary financial support. Some people out there are trying to pass the idea off that nuclear is a quick, affordable and safe solution to global warming. When one examines the entire nuclear cycle (mining, milling, enrichment, transport, building of facilities, storage and transport of waste) one finds that nuclear energy is anything but a solution to climate change. In the past nuclear reactors have exceeded budgets by 200% ($100,000 dollars) and taken way longer than expected to build. Spending to increase coal plant efficiency is a far more effective way to effect climate change and provide energy. Weapons proliferation from nuclear reactors (largely from china) is one of the main reasons that these area of the world are such a danger. The same American companies that have been exporting reactors to china are connected to Obama.

Oh yeah? So what has happened for the last ten years, exactly?

Over at the ASI, they are posting some of the winning entries of the Young Writers on Liberty. One does not want to put such keen minds off,...