Media Firestorm:posted by: Political Pyro
July 19, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Barack Obama’s campaign says the Senator’s current overseas photo-op is an attempt to strengthen his relationship with foreign leaders. The mainstream media (including FoxNews, no less) is asking the question: "Will Barack Obama’s overseas trip strengthen his foreign policy credentials?"
Apparently, the American voter is supposed to believe communication satellites connecting the United States with the rest of the world have been down for quite some time. Or that Barack Obama does not have sufficient information regarding the war despite General Petraeus’ testimony before Congress and Obama’s ability to grill him using the most updated information available to Senators.
When John McCain observed that Barack Obama had never been to Afghanistan, and had not been to Iraq in over two years, he was pointing out the fact that Obama lacked both a serious ongoing interest in learning first-hand about the progress of both countries (without predisposition) and lacked the desire to show support or boost the morale of our troops living thousands of miles away from home.
For decades, Bob Hope entertained our troops with comedy not as an attempt to personally understand the deeper meaning of conflict in our world, or to better understand foreign policy, but to simply alleviate some of the stress and homesickness (if only for a few hours) that most of our young men and women were feeling at such a profoundly disturbing period in their lives.
To his credit, George W. Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq a few years ago to celebrate Thanksgiving with the troops. His presence was all that was necessary. No great speeches were required, the troops were thrilled. This type of support is the duty of any decent politician who understands that our troops are not responsible for the wars created in the backrooms of Washington, they are simply performing their duty.
Unfortunately, many radical liberals in the Democratic Party have chosen to demonize our troops. Barack Obama has publicly praised the efforts of our military but his lack of interest in showing up speaks volumes. This was McCain’s observation.
John McCain has never suggested that a single trip to Iraq and Afghanistan would enlighten Obama’s foreign policy judgment the way a dose of acid gave Timothy Leary the keys to the universe. But true to his naivety, Barack Obama either believes he will gain this kind of celestial insight, or that we are stupid enough to think he will.
With any luck, the American voter will see Obama’s "rock star" tour as nothing more than what it is — too little, too late.
Bob Hope did it for the troops, who is Barack Obama doing it for? No doubt, his favorite person in the world: Himself.
Hussein’s magic carpet trip - an American presidential candidate rallying left-wing foreign politicians and crowds to bolster his electoral chances in America!
The job of a US president is to protect and advance America’s legitime interest, not to serve internationalist coteries or to pander to the Europeans’ - unredeemable appeasers, enablers, whores, pimps and profiteers - laziness and cowardice.
What a shame! a shameless stunt, coming from an deeply unpatriotic Democrat Party which is propping a singularly unAmerican candidate for the job.
Comment by misanthropicus — July 19, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
The truth will out, but in the case of the Bush administration, like today, it only happens by mistake.
Obama took the lead in setting U.S. foreign policy last year when he said he would take action (not bomb, not invade) along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border in order to capture/kill Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda terrorists. Obama was criticized for his position. This year, the U.S. used drones to bomb and kill Al Qaeda in that region.
Obama took the lead in setting U.S. foreign policy when he said he would talk to (no, that’s NOT appeasement) our enemies. Obama was criticized for his position. The U.S. is now in talks with North Korea and Iran.
Obama took the lead in setting U.S. foreign policy when he said we need to establish a timeline in order to get U.S. troops out of Iraq. Obama was criticized for his position. New the Bush administration is advocating a “time horizon” (give me a break) in order to remove our troops from Iraq. AND, THE IRAQI PM ENDORSES OBAMA’S 16-MONTH (GIVE OR TAKE) WITHDRAWAL VISION!!!
Obama took the lead in setting U.S. foreign policy when he said that Afghanistan should be our focus on the war against terrorists and that we should move enough troops there for a surge against the reconstituted Al Qaeda. Obama was criticized for his position. Now, his opponents are saying the same thing!
Obama knows more about intelligent and effective foreign policy than any of his opponents. THEY FOLLOW HIS LEAD!
Whose foreign policy credentials need enhancement? Obviously, not Obama’s!
[*** True, even Obama has been right a couple of times this year. A stopped clock shows the correct time twice a day. But drones were conducting missions long before His Highness thought of the idea, the Bush administration (not George) was talking to North Korea, the new talks with Iran (again, not with George) are already stalled, and the arbitrary timetable has been part of the Democratic Party’s platform for years. Nothing new here. –PoliticalPyro]
Comment by Reality Check — July 19, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
Gaining foreign policy experience by traveling overseas for a week is like becoming a surgeon by getting to know many doctors and watching them perform surgeries for a week. As a nation of talkers, it’s a real shame how we so often confuse talking with actually doing and understanding.
Comment by Mary Lou — July 20, 2008 @ 7:45 am
“When John McCain observed that Barack Obama had never been to Afghanistan, and had not been to Iraq in over two years, he was pointing out the fact that Obama lacked both a serious ongoing interest in learning first-hand about the progress of both countries (without predisposition) and lacked the desire to show support or boost the morale of our troops living thousands of miles away from home.”
You nailed it.
Comment by sarainitaly — July 20, 2008 @ 9:15 am
Judas Richardson made sure to tell us we the taxpayers were paying for Obama to go electioneering not fact finding. And why are we paying for this. And as a veteran I am disgusted he is using the troops like this!
Comment by navyvet48 — July 20, 2008 @ 9:19 am
On July 11, 2008, Barack Obama, once again proved that he has very poor foreign policy judgment, as he did in his disastrous 2006 trip to Africa when he openly criticised the democratically elected presidents of South Africa and Kenya, which were then the two most stable and economically advanced societies in Africa. Obama did so in 2006 for the sake of cheap publicity, from a horde of news media who accompanied Obama to Africa, to promote his own presidential ambitions at the expense of American taxpayers. However, what was and remains overlooked by an American press corps intoxicated by Obamamania was the fact that Obama used federal government funds to openly campaign for his then undisclosed first cousin Raila Odinga by appearing in Odinga political rallies to promote the Kenyan presidential candidacy of Odinga and chide the democratically elected government of Kenya, while openly extolling a bunch of Kenyan political operatives seeking to defeat the government. Last week Obama was at it again, displaying the very same character flaws that undermine President Bushes leadership abilities — arrogance, dismissive of counter views and criticism, stubbornness, and a false sense of his own historical importance.
Prior to ever stepping foot in Afghanistan and before leaving on a purported “fact finding” trip to that country Obama in an internationally televised interview with CNN (which was televised on July 13,2008) had the temerity to publicly criticise Afghanistan’s president, by proclaiming: “I think the Karzai government has not gotten out of the bunker and helped to organize Afghanistan and (the) government, the judiciary, police forces, in ways that would give people confidence,” Obama said. So there are a lot of problems there,” he added, ahead of an expected visit to Afghanistan and Iraq. “A big chunk of the issue is that we allowed the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to regenerate itself when we had them on the ropes,” Obama went on to say. “That was a big mistake and it’s one I’m going to correct when I’m president.”
Was this good foreign policy judgment in front of Obama’s first trip to that country to openly criticise the democratically elected government of Karazi, as a freshman Senator with no foreign policy experience, save insulting the presidents of South Africa and Kenya in 2006? They are two important American allies in Africa fighting the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and jihad, as is Karazi.
Obama, whose only life experience was a stint as a civil rights worker in South Chicago before joining the Chicago machine and winning office by disqualifying all other candidates in the Democratic primary for state senator, made some off-the-cuff gaffs that the political press corps has all but ignored. Afganistan, like South Africa and Kenya is a multi-ethnic and tribalistic society. What would any person with a modicum of true foreign policy experience say publicly before meeting President Karzai? Little, if anything. For the conduct of foreign policy is given to the executive branch of the U.S. government by the Constitution. Obama, despite all his public arrogance, has not yet been elected to executive office. Moreover, Obama’s rhetoric confuses glib and cheap campaign tactics of Chicago machine politics with the refined nuances of conducting foreign policy with democratically elected governments of sovereign nations. Obama needs to be reminded that Afganistan was not stabalised by the Soviet Red Army from its December 1979 invasion through its 1988 pull-out. Progress in Afganistan, like Africa, in political and economic development, as well as legal systems has been and remains slow and painful.
Furthermore, Afganistan is not an American possession and public criticism of its democratically elected government serves no purpose other than a selfish agenda to promote Obama’s presidential bid by world-wide publicity at the expense of undermining the allied government of President Karzai. Perhaps Obama’s criticism would be better directed to Pakistan’s creation of jihadi madrassas established under the military rule of madman General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who overthrew the democratically elected government of President Ali Bhutto, hung Bhutto, established Shariah law in Pakistan. The creation of the nationwide web of jihidi incubators throughout Pakistan, through government sponsored and funded madrassas, is the root cause of present day radical Islamic fundamentalism and jihidi terrorism. Just look where the first World Trade Center bomber in 1993, Ramzi Mohammed Yousef, was indoctrinated - - a Pakistani madrassa, although he was a Kuwaiti by birth. Yousef lived in Karachi while he planned several terrorist attacks. Barack Obama, unwittingly revealed that he visited Pakistan in 1981, during the military rule of Zia, as did Islamic fundamentalist radicals, during the infamous “Bittergate” fundraising speech in San Francisco. Query: What was Barack Obama up to in Karachi, Pakistan in 1981?
How can the American press not take a grand standing presidential candidate to task for once again putting his own greedy, selfish and megalomaniac interests for free publicly ahead of America’s vital interests.
What the American press has failed to expose is that public reproach of democratically elected presidents of other countries appears to be a cheap campaign tactic of Obama. Indeed, Barack Obama, while on a U.S. government funded trip, used the opportunity to deliver a nationally televised speech in Nairobi to not only openly chastise the Kenyan government of President Kabiki, but also to interfere in domestic Kenyan presidential politics to extol the virtues of Kabiki’s political rivals, particularly Obama’s then undisclosed first cousin Raila Odinga. Moreover, Obama appeared at an Odinga political rally in the Kibera sector of Nairobi to campaign for his cousin Odinga, as well as rallies in Kisumu, Kenya.
The Kenyan government lodged an official protest against Obama’s interference in Kenyan domestic politics by campaigning for insurgent Raila Odinga. It was only in January this year that Odinga revealed to the BBC that Obama is Odinga’s first cousin ( see:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7176683.stm ). Obama used U.S.Government funds to campaign for his then undisclosed first cousin and interfere in domestic Kenyan politics. That smacks of corrupt Chicago machine politics. In March Obama’s campaign openly bragged about it (see: http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/822489,CST-NWS-sweet03.article ) claiming: “Obama raised concerns about Kenya’s lack of government transparency. Obama also appeared with opposition leader Raila Odinga — a Luo — who was running for president.
Violence erupted in Kenya in January after Kibaki and Odinga contested the election findings.” As for the public insults of the South African president, the Obama campaign boasted: “Soon after arriving, Obama publicly criticized the South African government as being in “denial” for advocating nutritional treatments over medical alternatives to treat HIV/AIDS. Obama slapped South African President Thabo Mbeki a day before he hoped to meet with him — and the meeting never took place.”
CBS2 of Chicago covered Obama’s visit, noting the Kenyan government’s displeasure with Obama’s campaigning for Odinga: “‘Sen. Obama has to look at critically about where he’s receiving his advice from,’ said government spokesman Dr. Alfred Mutua. ‘Just because somebody, somewhere wants to run for president and is using Sen. Obama as his stooge, as his puppet to be able to get to where he wants to get to.’” The Standard newspaper of Nairobi reported on September 2, 2006 the Kenyan government’s protest to Obama’s interference in domestic Kenyan politics: “I hereby wish to communicate to you the displeasure and disappointment of the Government of Kenya, (Kenyan) Embassy in Washington DC, and majority of Kenyans, with regards to your recent utterances while in Kenya. . . . Your unprovoked and uncalled for statements were in bad taste, particularly given that your visit was well arranged in advance, with full briefings given to your office in Washington DC by the Kenya Embassy. . . . You deliberately, without real cause or reason, other than what appears (to be) to seek cheap publicity and inconsequential populism, chose to publicly attack the democratically elected Government of Kenya, in total disregard for the requisite protocol and acceptable methods to address the issues you raised, what with programmed appointments to meet Cabinet Ministers and even the Head of State, since your visit was official.”
What makes matters worse is not only did Obama not disclose he was a cousin of Odinga, but also that Odinga’s political activities have been bankrolled by Muammar Gaddafi (see: http://www.eastandard.net/archives/?mnu=details&id=1143972118&catid=4 ). As noted mass violence, instigated by Odinga, broke out last December following the election. This raises some important questions about Obama’s foreign policy judgment, if not his Chicago machine (corrupt) stye of politics of misusing feredal government funds to interfere in domestic Kenyan politics by campaigning for Obama’s first cousin Raila Odinga. REMEMBER, RAILA ODINGA, IS ALIGNRD WITH FUNDAMENTALIST MUSLIMS IN KENYA AND HAS HAD HIS POLITICAL OPERATIONS BANKROLLED BY MUAMMAR GADDAFI, THE LIBYAN DICTATOR WHO HAS SPONSORED ISLAMIC JIHAD THROUGHOUT AFRICA AND THE WORLD.
Comment by ImpostorWatcher — July 20, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
Obama’s Experience is not sufficient to be President
Would you let a first grade teacher teach a class in a graduate school?
The answer is absolutely not.
Our political system is complex and full of pitfalls. You must have experience in order to maneuver in Washington politics.
In order to accomplish any policy changes, implement campaign promises – one must know the political ropes it takes to pass any legislation.
PS.
The big issue with Obama’s policy changes; the central question is, “Who is the real Barack Obama?” I see the recent focus on “flip-flops” as misplaced, both because the term isn’t very helpful and because voters aren’t surprised by politicians who change their positions. More importantly, it doesn’t highlight the more damaging question: “When will Obama change his position again?” That question forces voters to consider the possibility that Obama is an unknown, is dishonest, or lacks the experience to know where he stands on issues. Like a used-car salesmen who tells you a price in the parking lot, only to change it when you sit down at his desk, Obama is similarly trying to find the right sales pitch to get you to commit to him, even if he’s a lemon. Obama’s critics need to put the possibility of more Obama policy changes front and center, driving voters to choose the more reliable and consistent McCain over the trendy, untested Obama.
Many notes that “the Republican National Committee, in a statement cataloguing some half-dozen recent Obama ‘flip-flops,’ threw up its hands without offering answers,” that challenge should quickly be overcome by a campaign that catalogues Obama’s frequent and conflicting policy positions and does so while raising questions such as: “When will Obama change his position again? On Election Day? In the Oval Office? Or perhaps during unconditional meetings with our enemies? Can Obama, who touts change, be trusted to not change his positions again?” Perhaps most critically, Obama’s critics need to make clear that a political campaign is not the place where America wants its leaders developing their expertise and their positions, and the presidency is not the place for on-the-job training. McCain is experienced, tested, and consistent; Obama is inexperienced, untested and inconsistent. No amount of hope can change those facts.
Second, the campaign must drive home the details of Obama’s inexperience. This should be tied to the policy changes highlighted above. Many states that Obama has 4 years of experience in the U.S. Senate. That’s common rounding, but it’s inaccurate, and Obama’s critics should stop doing it, because it distracts from his dearth of experience (and the significance of his policy changes during his short tenure). On Election Day Obama will have just 3 years and 10 months of experience as a U.S. Senator. It was after just 1 year and 10 months working as a senator that he started eyeing the presidency (as alluded to on Meet the Press). Then, just 2 years and 12 days into his job as a senator, he formed his presidential exploratory committee.
Obviously, I’m splitting hairs by breaking his experience down into days and months — which is precisely the point. If Obama needs the benefit of a few months or days of rounding to seem ready to be commander-in-Chief, he’s got a serious experience problem. Moreover, if he can’t stay consistent during those short 3 years and 10 months, he has a serious experience problem coupled with a serious judgment problem. I did a little informal poll amongst friends, and most of them did not know that Obama had just 2 years of experience as a senator before deciding to run for president. They probably didn’t know that because it has not been consistently repeated. Saying Obama is inexperienced when he’s up against someone like McCain, with decades of experience, is one thing, but Obama’s inexperience is more than just comparative, it’s inexperience — period. No matter which way you frame it, 2 years and 12 days or 3 years and 10 months, both are facts which should be repeated until every voter knows them by heart.
So, given this lack of experience, one would expect some serious accomplishments from Obama during his 3 year and 10 month tenure, accomplishments that would merit nominating him to be president. However, no such record of accomplishments exists. He racked up the Senate’s most liberal voting-record rating and a one-page résumé lacking in leadership experience, not exactly presidency-worthy accomplishments. Of course, in fairness, that’s not what Obama is running on. He’s running on his ability to inspire us, to bring about “change.” Given his vaunted ability to inspire, one would think he would have a legislative record to speak of. But he doesn’t. In his time in the Senate, his ability to inspire his colleagues ensured that just two bills he sponsored were signed into law. One can hope for change, but based on Obama’s record, it doesn’t seem that much is forthcoming.
Now, granted, Obama also has state legislative experience. But how many of us can even name our state senator, let alone confidently say that he or she should be the next President? Local government is great (in fact, I prefer it), but it’s not a proxy for the ability to lead a nation. The 13th legislative district of Illinois, where Obama was a state senator until the end of 2004, has a population of 112,599 (per State Senator Raoul’s office). That’s on par with a city like Peoria, Illinois. Now I’m sure that Mayor Ardis of Peoria is a great public servant, but I’m not about to nominate him for President without some significant leadership experience on national issues — even if Peoria is a community, a region and hometown as unique as its name. Similarly, Obama’s work as a state senator and his 3 years and 10 months as a U.S. senator are not sufficient substitutes for true national experience.
Which highlights the final point. In view of his non-existent record, Obama’s words must merit greater scrutiny because they are the only remaining measure voters have for what Obama believes. Those words have been woefully inconsistent over the totality of Obama’s short career, and are full of generalities like “hope” and “change.” In fact, the only consistent theme in his campaign is one policy change after another. All politicians modify their positions (including McCain), but usually those changes take place over a few years and as circumstances dictate. Obama’s changes on dozens of issues came about in just three and a half years and not for policy reasons, but for political gain.
Obama’s game of musical chairs is filled with the hope that he’ll be sitting in the right place when the Election Day music stops. His critics need to make clear that sitting in the President’s chair is not a game. Consistency and credibility both matter when dealing with enemies and allies. Obama’s 3 years and 10 months of inexperience — filled with generalities, uncertainty, and frequent policy changes — should be a unified theme of his critics. If Obama can’t maintain consistent policies over just a few short years, how can he possibly command the respect of our troops, win the support of our allies, and deter our enemies?
Comment by Jay Draiman — July 27, 2008 @ 1:26 am