Odd and bad argument from Obama

ARTICLE: Obama: Don't Stay in Iraq Over Genocide, By PHILIP ELLIOTT, AP, Jul 20, 2007

Odd and bad argument for Obama to make, one that paints him in a corner. Citing the slippery slope argument that says, "If I don't do it everywhere, then I must not do it anywhere" is foolish and self-restricting. I can't believe Samantha Powers let's him spew that.

Comments

[Lexington Green]

He has to appeal to the Donk base. They want "no war" -- ever. All US wars are really genocide and imperialism. I have leftist relatives who truly believe this. They protested us going into Bosnia and Afghanistan. If Obama loses these people, he loses the nomination.

[stuart abrams]

It's his inexperience showing. If you read everything he says, he's making some good points but he's trying to juggle making sense against alienating constituencies. We have such disdain in this country for viewing politicians as professionals, but having really good professional politicians is what makes democracy feasible.

[frankwolftown]

With words like these Mr. Lexington Green it would appear he has lost the nomination. Unless he turns it around very fast he will the McCain of the Democrats.

[Richard Spencer]

Blaming his handlers for his stupidness gives him a pass. He is responsible for his utterances, not others.

[CitSAR]

Its a play for the "War is bad - period" crowd. Now if we could just sell "The Big Bang is good".

I dont care if its a Democrat or a Republican, I wish for an honest candidate with vision and I dont see one yet. For the Dems; Baigh was interesting (I am sure I spelled it wrong...) seemed smart enough, but it wasnt his time too many other people that steal the air out of the room. I dont think either Clinton or Obama can actually be agents of change. We'll, maybe Obama would be ready in 8 years or so - once he has matured enough to see good from bad and develop a bit of honor in country .

[dsac]

CitSAR: Pretty bold of you to proclaim that Obama can't "see good from bad" and that he has no sense of national honor (whatever you mean by that). Disagree with his vision, sure, argue against his interpretation here, fine, but calling his character and patriotism into question seems to be a bit much. Unless you know the man very well.

Irrespective of personal acquaintances one might know, most Democrats don't believe that all U.S. wars are genocide. Maybe that's because so many of them actually served in U.S. wars or have family members who did. A bit foolish to believe that the strength of the Democratic party opposed Bosnia and Afghanistan, when the former was championed by a Democratic President, and the latter was (and still is) supported by a majority of Congressional Democrats.

Oh, and it's Bayh.

[Aaron B. Brown]

It was obviously a political misstep on Obama's part, but I wonder if his naïveté is perhaps something of a good thing in that it exposes some of the hypocrisy and shortsightedness displayed by the US as it pertains to these issues. Perhaps it's time we had a president who started thinking about using our military might and standing as the last remaining superpower to intervene in regions where our assistance is needed and would be welcome. If you're going to project power, then do it in a way that shows immediate positive results and leads to demonstrable cooperation among the indigenous population that helps lay the groundwork for economic growth and expansion. Pretty much the direct opposite of what's happened in Iraq.

If Obama were to become president, I'd like to see him use the troops in the Middle East to start restoring the US military's reputation as a force for promoting peace and stability in areas which desperately need such assistance. At some point in the not so distant future, Africa is going to start to take off economically much the way Asia has, it would be visionary for a US President to recognize this, and began making plans to help support such an expansion. The Chinese government sees the region as little more than a resource base which, if they pour enough money into it, will start paying off at some point. We need to look beyond the resources of Africa and begin seeing its people and governments as partners in the coming fully integrated globalized economy. If we help them to create genuine political stability and lasting economic growth as opposed to exploiting them, I suspect they will prove themselves to be powerful allies in the world we wish to create.

[Tony Litwinko]

With the exception of Mr. Abrams, none of you seems to have read the article, but responded to the headline only, which clearly did not do anything but distort the content of Obama's remarks. If anything, Obama is merely adopting some pretty common thinking on both sides of the argument about how we must be able to deal with the violence that is anticipated to continue after a retreat, redeployment, or abandonment. Even that fear depends on some questionable assumptions about the Iraqi people not being so relieved by our departure that they may finally get around to throwing those roses in sheer joy as we depart.

And besides, what ever happened to the President's notion when he first ran for the office that we were not in the business of nation-building?

Once again, headlines and sound bites cannot be used to evaluate candidates on either side.

[CitSAR]

dsac,

Thank you for the spelling. I re-read my post. To clarify, I did not call his character or patriotism into question. Its would be despicable and simplistic political ploy to do so and its simplistic to suggest I did. No blind political followers here.

Obama may have the capability of being a decent leader but maturity is maturity and that comes from time and experience, not people telling you what to do (as so many others do as well) - even if he has guts. In his case, inexperience shows. He gets nothing for myopic bandwagon, play to the base politics. Nor would any other candidate.

Tell you what, have him "support the troops" (a phrase that has become so political it is a negative to the troops currently in theatre) by listing off all the good things going on in Iraq and then give an informed and balanced up to date assesment of the of the Surge with facts, not opinions - then I will see him balanced. He could of course, take a position I agree or disagree with. If he then changes his opinion after the nomination to "play to the middle" (as so many do) I will know I cant trust him. Liars dont go over big here and real presidents make decisions based on best possible (not guaranteed) outcome.

Although I sometimes disagree with some of the politics discussed on this blog - I read this because it offers evidence and analysis to back up opinion. Evidence for/against is required to create real understanding. Pure emotionalism is worthless. So, if a candidate offers me very little other than emotionalism he's gonna get dismissed quickly.

Who ever wants another president that only sees one side of the issue? We have had so many of them. Surely not Democrats.

I come from a Scottish/English/American military family going back a very, very long way and at age 48 with three kids, I still actively serve in the best way I can. I and my family, reserve the right to ask people to earn our respect. It will never be given easily, nor should it be.

[antonymous]

Tom - I think you are taking Obama's quotes out of context. You can tell early on, from the second paragraph - whoever asked him a question was likely making a point about other atrocities around the globe, and Barack responded within that context. He even prefaces with "if that's the criteria by which we deploy US forces..." - it's not really clear why else he would say that.

Iraq is just a completely different situation because we are actually on the ground, and we seem to be in a preventative holding pattern, deterring insurgent forces from civil war. At least that's the line that sells newspapers and builds drama - it's hard to tell right now if insurgent groups are capable of building infrastructure and popular support (ala Hezbollah or Hamas) after they've chased us out for being unable to do the same.

And several paragraphs down the article, he even speaks to the point that the United States cannot create a stable Iraq via solely military means, which I think many of us would agree on. And judging from the last 2/3 of this article, it looks like it's only purpose is to stir the pot anyway.