Thursday, June 5, 2008


Why Obama Must Go to Iraq
By Pete Hegseth
Mr. Obama frequently decries the danger of "dogmatists" and "ideologues" in public policy, yet he himself has proven consistently uninterested in putting himself in situations where he might be confronted with the hard complexities of this war. It suggests a dangerous degree of detachment and overconfidence in his own judgment.

After all, Mr. Obama was among those in January 2007 who stridently opposed the surge and confidently predicted its failure – even going so far as to vote against funding our soldiers in the field unless the Bush administration abandoned this new approach. It is now clear that Mr. Obama's judgment on the surge was spectacularly wrong.

Yet rather than admit his mistake, Mr. Obama has instead tried to downplay or disparage the gains our troops have achieved in the past 12 months, clinging to a set of talking points that increasingly seem as divorced from reality as some in the Bush administration were at the darkest moments of the war.

It boggles the mind how a man who styles himself as the more diplomatic candidate and the one with more savvy when dealing with other countries and willing to deal with even unpleasant countries... won't deal with one that might be an ally.

It's also frightening the amount of disconnect Obama has with Iraq. One worries that he actually believes that hopey-dopey claptrap.

The Permanent Campaign
By Jame Taranto
Some will say Mrs. Clinton is being disloyal to her party if she undermines Obama's chances of winning in November. But maybe she just practices a different kind of party loyalty. After all, if you can be a patriot while hoping your country loses a war, why can't you be a loyal Democrat while hoping your party loses an election?

James also lays out Hillary's options and what it will take for her to get what she wants. If Obama needing her as VP for the election, that's pretty risky for him. What if office even more skeletons come out of the closet and he has to resign in scandal...

Of course, if Hillary had something that damning, she's likely have used it by now or at least before the convention. Still it's not wise to be between a Clinton and what they want.

A city occupied by the US forces wracked by violence that won't ever abate, even if draconian security measures are introduced that do nothing more than hurt the poor. After all if asking for people's ID's to vote is wrong, then asking them to show ID's before passing a checkpoint just to enter a neighborhood is unthinkable.

It shows how much this once beautiful capital city has fallen.

The city? Washington DC

Don't worry, once Obama takes over he'll clean it up, just like he cleaned up Chicago...

Oh... At leas I'm sure it's just a coincidence that DC has banned guns and sky-high violence too.

Rand Simberg shows another example of Obama's judgment.
On the man's conviction on numerous counts related to corrupt political fixing and other deals, Obama responds:
"That's Not The Tony Rezko I Knew"

It's nice to know that we're close to electing a man who is so easily fooled by conmen, racists, hatemongers, and slimeball criminals. At least Obama has plenty of experience and accomplishments to make up for his terrible judgment in friends and associates...

LGF has a similar post

Barry's either a clueless nitwit that can't tell his associates are dirty who will slowly realize who he's been associating with only after it gets out into the media.

Or, he's a opportunistic politician (how tautological) that will work with anyone as long as it gets him ahead and then sheds them when they become inconvenient.

So his "New Politics" are either the babble of a gullible nitwit or the calculated chicanery of a confidence artist. Great choice, eh?

No comments: