Obama, It's Over (Daily kos diary)

[quinnox]

I thought this was a typical response I have seen while perusing some blogs. Evidently some people on the left are very upset about Obama's hawkish remarks.

This guy evidently was an Obama supporter but this seemed to have turned him away from Obama.

I don't agree with most of the diary but I found it interesting to read.

The Diary - titled - Obama, It's Over




You blew it. You took a perfect opportunity to reverse Hillary's lead with your excellent thrashing of her Cheney/Bush diplomacy model, and you tossed it out the window. You had just pulled ahead of her in the polls in South Carolina, and now it's all gonna go down the drain.

Why?

This is what you have done: you've pledged to unilaterally invade/attack a foreign country if you believe their government isn't acting to your satisfaction in the GWOT. You had just won (though of course, not by DC pundit/neocon standards) your debate with Hillary, and then just a short time later you've said something genuinely naive and irresponsible.

Why?



You had me fooled. I thought we were witnessing a genuine change in the way the US would deal with the rest of the world in the future. But your Bush-litelike threat to unilaterally attack a foreign country is not only a huge problem, it is by far worse than the mindless diplo-speak Hillary uttered in the You-Tube debate. At least Hillary's pledge is one of not doing something, which has far fewer deleterious consequences than a pledge to do something horrific.

I don't see how you can extricate yourself from this. If you back-track now, that will only play into the meme that you are too inexperienced to lead on foreign policy.

When are American politicians going to understand a simple concept? The world is not ours to bomb or threaten with military action any more than we believe ourselves to be any other country's bombing target (for whatever reason). If Musharraf thought you (as president in 2009, should that happen) were not acting fast enough to arrest or extradite someone wanted for terrorism in Pakistan, would you be OK with a Pakistani airstrike somewhere on US territory? I seriously doubt it.

If Pakistan is acting in a certain way that is so clearly a threat to the US, and nobody could deny that threat, then go ahead and declare war on Pakistan. If in fact the US would be so justified in doing so, then the world won't hold it against you, and you likely could create a genuine international partnership for the task. But that is not the situation you have described. For the situation you have described, there are plenty of diplomatic alternatives available before you resort to attacking/invading a sovereign country.

So what now?

Hillary is Out. You are out. Edwards supported you in his latest statement, and Biden supported Hillary for the You-Tube debate. Of the two alternatives, though, Biden is the only one with a workable plan for Iraq, which is a huge problem that will only get far far worse with time. I suggest you do the right thing, Barack. Drop out of the race now, and throw your support to Biden (after you apologize for your latest remark). Try to get Hillary and Edwards to do the same. And from here on out, it's time to start educating everyone about the basic principle that we cannot bomb and kill innocent people in foreign countries whenever we deem appropriate. That is the basic, fundamental principle that must be hammered home in this election, so that whoever is elected is sure to follow it completely.

[NV Whino]

1. Kucinich!

Yes!

[mikelgb]

29. !

[miceelf]

32. gesundheit

:-)

[NV Whino]

53. !

:rofl:

[NYCGirl]

2. If this guy got "declare war on Pakistan" from Obama's speech, then he is

certainly a moran.

[dionysus]

5. you got that right!

[Pirate Smile]

12. He isn't the first one I've seen today - that's for sure.

:)

[JI7]

15. yup

[Dawgs]

22. And probably was never an Obama supporter.

I've seen this tactic used many times on DU - pretend that you support a candidate that you've been attacking all along. It's really quite pathetic.

[autorank]

35. Then what's this?

I'm neutral to a large degree on this, coming into it.

The only source that matters is Obama. Here he is, in print and on video:

----------------------
Chicago Tribune (video at link)
http://tinyurl.com/2f8v86

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "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. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets
and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

I'm an ex New Yorker (as in the city) and I've had a huge complaint about lack of justice for the
attack, the dead, injured, traumatized, dislocated, etc etc etc But, how does he know these are the
murderers? How does he know that Musharraf isn't willing to hit these guys and...

HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT THE REASON THEY'RE NOT GOTTEN IS HESITATION ON THE PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE?

...and if he finds out it's the White House holding back getting the "bad guys," where does his
logic take him:evilgrin:

[KoKo]

37. Good point...and staying out of the Obama/Hillary thing...

it makes me wonder about him, too. I chalked it up to "inexperience" and trying to be overly aggressive so he doesn't come off Anti-War. But, then...does it mean he really supports the "unitary President" position Bush has taken.

[autorank]

38. Hey there!

...so I won't tell a soul you inspired this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3421219&mesg_id=3422385

JUST KIDDING, I wrote it myself.

You know, Obama had the advantage of opposing the war, now he's blown that so he's really left himself open to the charge of HRC lite...

Gore has to do it now, there's no other way. If not, I'm booking my ticket to Mars.

[KoKo]

40. you said it....Mars will be the only safe place.. n/t

[earthlover]

44. NO. It is NOT a matter of inexperience. After all, Hillary and Edwards agreed with Obama

Well, then again, neither Hillary nor Edwards have that much experience either....

I bet the Obama attackers who spread the meme of experience haven't thought of the idea that the Republicans are watching. With smiles. We are laying the groundwork for experience being a super big issue.

Then, when either Obama...or HIllary...or Edwards get nominated, they will pounce on their lack of experience. And who helped them do it? The experience meme artists among us!

[earthlover]

42. Gotta agree....

So Hillary, Edwards, Obama all agreed on something.

ANd I guess doing a surgical strike on bin ladin is bad, bad, bad. Geez...dontcha think this is a bit of an extreeeeeeemely odd view?

And, it is an INVASION! OMG. Does it also kill the Easter Rabbit?

Oh, friggin please. Nobody said anything about invading Pakistan. They all agreed that if they could take out bin Ladin and Pakistan wouldn't, they would do so. Which prooves they are smarter than a ham sandwich. Which is more than I can say for someone who objects to the idea and thinks this is a friggin invasion.

The Reps would be overjoyed if our candidates said they would not go after bin Laden. This is one thing they have in common with the extreeme left, I guess.

[Clintonista2]

45. Umm, I think you didn't comprehend what he was saying

He said if PAKISTAN does something that would justify a war, bombing Pakistan would be appropriate. If terrorists IN Pakistan do something bad to America, bombing Pakistan is not appropriate.

[NYCGirl]

55. Wow, just listen to this warmongering:

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.

And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.

Beyond Pakistan, there is a core of terrorists -- probably in the tens of thousands -- who have made their choice to attack America. So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world's most dangerous weapons.

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps's new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.

To succeed, we must improve our civilian capacity. The finest military in the world is adapting to the challenges of the 21st century. But it cannot counter insurgent and terrorist threats without civilian counterparts who can carry out economic and political reconstruction missions -- sometimes in dangerous places. As President, I will strengthen these civilian capacities, recruiting our best and brightest to take on this challenge. I will increase both the numbers and capabilities of our diplomats, development experts, and other civilians who can work alongside our military. We can't just say there is no military solution to these problems. We need to integrate all aspects of American might.

One component of this integrated approach will be new Mobile Development Teams that bring together personnel from the State Department, the Pentagon, and USAID. These teams will work with civil society and local governments to make an immediate impact in peoples' lives, and to turn the tide against extremism. Where people are most vulnerable, where the light of hope has grown dark, and where we are in a position to make a real difference in advancing security and opportunity -- that is where these teams will go.

I will also strengthen our intelligence. This is about more than an organizational chart. We need leadership that forces our agencies to share information, and leadership that never -- ever -- twists the facts to support bad policies. But we must also build our capacity to better collect and analyze information, and to carry out operations to disrupt terrorist plots and break up terrorist networks.

[tularetom]

3. I think Obama has out-triangulated Hillary

She now has to say something warmongerish totally over the top (and look like a crazy neo-con) or criticize Obama for making a rash statement (and look like a peacenik).

Her staff is lettin her get caught flat footed a lot these days.

[dionysus]

4. some guy with a blog response.. hmmmm..

whoop dee do...

[TwilightGardener]

6. "Drop out of the race"???? This person's an idiot. I had no idea,

until today, just how much Obama's candidacy is perceived as a threat to Hillary, Edwards, and the others--it's like a bunch of bloodthirsty howling Democratic screech monkeys can't wait to take him down. I've never seen such vengeance on the part of supporters, especially since there's barely a dime's worth of policy difference between them all.

[alteredstate]

7. So....... you don't agree with most of what was written

but you just had to post it anyway.

Where's that "roll eyes" smilie?

[zulchzulu]

8. Good riddance...

If this guy can't figure out basic foreign policy and do some homework on what's going on in Pakistan, he can go to the Gravel or other camp and trade fortune cookie messages with each other while they play with their toe jam.

File under "who gives a rat's..."

[earthlover]

46. The guy has figured out foreign policy...read the link to the entire speech...fabulous!

But as to the meme of the day, Obama comes out a lot better than his attackers do.

1) Both Hillary and Edwards were forced to agree with Obama

2) Since when is it questionable for a candidate to say we should go after Bin Laden? Seems to me absolutely DAFFY to attack Obama for doing same.

[illinoisprogressive]

9. I suggest people listen to the speech before making declarations.

I finished watching it on real player from cspan and it is a marvelous speech.
It mostly touches on diplomacy. very very little is hawkish. Only one part.
If people listened to it they would not howl

[maximusveritas]

10. The same person wrote a "Hillary, it's over." diary 5 days ago

At this rate, the diarist will be out of politics for good in a couple months, which is probably where they're better off.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. This is an example of my "blank slate" theory regarding Obama (and F. Thompson)

People forget that Obama was at 18-19% in the polls--in November of 2006. He shot up to the mid-20's immediately after entering the race. Clearly, this was not because of his stands on the issues. Few people outside of Illinois knew anything about where he stood on the issues. Yet, he was at 25% in the polls? Why? He was a blank slate at the time, like Thompson is now for the Republicans. Some people--especially those unhappy with the current candidates--projected their own views onto the blank screen that was Obama. Barack Obama was not at 25% in the polls after he entered the race; Barack Obama, the idealized version in people's head was. As Obama begins to fill in the blanks inevitably some people will see that Obama was not the candidate of their dreams that they once hoped he would be. Obama, too, has feet of clay. A similar thing will happen to Thompson.

Note 1: Obama once was at 32% in the Rass poll (late April). Now he is at 21%.
Note 2: This does not mean Obama will face an inexorable decline in the polls. Obama will also win over new voters during the campaign.

[quinnox]

13. there may be something to your theory

I remember thinking something similar back when Obama was first taking off, that he was a figure for people to put their hopes in, and his speeches were vague but inspirational. Now as he begins to form concrete proposals and make speeches outlining them it might disappointment people who find he is different than the ideal image they had in their heads.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Exactly. He was a political Rorschach test

He still is to a large extent, since most people who are not political junkies know little about his stands on the issues at this point, aside from his Iraq position. I agree. As he adds more "beef" he will inevitably disappoint some people.

P.S. Did you watch the speech he gave when he entered the race? There was a lot of soaring rhetoric but nothing in it that any Democrat could disagree with. It was very vague and generic. Of course, he could not continue that forever. Eventually he had to come out with some details.

[nevergiveup]

14. There was no way Obama

could realistically maintain all the hype and enthusiasm surrounding his initial announcement back in Feb. It was way too early. He has plenty of time to now define himself as a serious candidate rather than a political rock star. He has money, charisma, brains and a good grass roots organization in place. I don't think it is likely he can overtake the establishment candidate but I do think Hillary will be nervously peeking over her shoulder for several more months.

[jillan]

16. Thanks for posting this, the OP over there is a Biden supporter

and I enjoyed the thread.

[Major Hogwash]

18. Has he explained why Joe said it would take more than 6 months to get out of Iraq?

Because since Joe said that on the YouTube debate, I can't seem to find a reason to support him.

[Kolesar]

31. That debate/speech by Joe Biden gave me the chills

It sounded very convincing. Then when I thought about it the next day, I started thinking about a negotiated withdrawl.

[jackbourassa]

19. This guy WAS NEVER AN OBAMA SUPPORTER...

You Obama haters have to get a grip. He never said that he wanted to "attack" Pakistan.

Jeez...the Edwards and Clinton people sure act pretty hysterically whenever Obama says/does anything.

Maybe they're afraid of him.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. Obama doesn't support invading Pakistan

Sending the special ops to put a bullet in Bin Laden's brain isn't an invasion. Carpet bombing the country and overthrowing their government would be an invasion.

[robcon]

21. Promising to send troops with or without permission is an act of war.

Fortunately, I don't think he'll get a chance to enact his foolishness - his polls will be sinking fast after his announcement.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Assassinating a terrorist isn't sending troops

[earthlover]

50. So....did Bin Ladin ask permission to send the 9/11 hijackers?

Come on....you can't be serious. Of course we will take them to justice if we can. About the only folks who would NOT are George Bush and a handful of extreeeeeeeemist leftists. And what Obama is saying is that we would only do that if the Pakistanis wouldn't.

[Ethelk2044]

23. I am glad I do not put stock in Daily kos. I put more substance in

Richard Clark and Lee Hamilton.

[democratsin08]

24. biden is great

obama is an inexperienced loose cannon. how many wars will he start?

[watercolors]

25. Obama is off my list, thats 4 down!

nt

[Bullet1987]

26. I'm wondering how many people who have said Obama would attack

Pakistan have actually read or seen the damn speech?

[Ethelk2044]

28. None

[earthlover]

51. I agree...if they had read it, they would see that there is a lot of really good stuff in it.

Read....a mind is too precious to let go to waste

[Scriptor Ignotus]

27. I think the Diarist is naive

he didn't understand Obama's position.

[Deep13]

30. "...then go ahead and declare war on Pakistan."

Congress declares war, not the president.

[AtomicKitten]

33. First belly laugh I've had today.

thanks

[autorank]

34. *Gore* - that's the solution. *Obama's statement + video link*

Why does this surprise anybody - we're a war economy. Look at where the only new job growth is
to speak of in the private sector - war. Look at the budget - war. Look at where our tech
and research dollars are spent - war. We're war 24/7.

Can't get contributions to carry you forward unless you're for war.

I actually think Obama was creative in proposing a new country...kind of gives us a new nation
to invade that many can't locate on a map...goes back to the "green house" for 911, that sort
of thing. "Hey, if you really want to get even for 911, it's Pakistan!!!" they say in the
ads.

I find this tedious.

Now you know why Mike Gravel looked at him and Hillary and said:

"You frighten me!!!"

me too...

----------------------
Chicago Tribune (video at link)
http://tinyurl.com/2f8v86

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "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. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

"Musharraf has his own challenges..." No shit, like a very well organized set of Islamic extremists who'd love to take over the country - AND HAVE CONTROL OF THE ATOMIC BOMBS.
Outstanding logic, impeccable.

[Ethelk2044]

49. and you are full of Shit. Obama did not say anything of the sort.

[TheWraith]

39. Can we get a waaahmbulance over here?

Sheesh. Maybe if this guy actually addressed what was being discussed, rather than what his fevered imagination and the ABC News spin said was being talked about, he might come off as rational.

[WhiteTara]

41. Draft Gore! n/t

[LordJFT]

43. wow i didn't know obama had "pledged to unilaterally attack/invade a country"

this guys ability to twist someone's words around rivals the right-wing media

[Ethelk2044]

48. He didn't, but people are trying to make it seem like he did.

[LordJFT]

54. i know, i was being sarcastic

[antiimperialist]

47. Obama said he's invade "if necessary"

idiots. Liberals are supposed to read or listen to speech audios. The far right takes words out of context. Which are you?

[earthlover]

52. The big bad Obama!

Seems like during the past week or so Obama has created quite a stir!

First he said he would be willing to negotiate with our enemies. Then the echo chamber got in play, Obama was labeled naive and irresponsible, Hillary about had a heart attack she was so angered at the thought. Then, one by one, Obama's rivals admitted that they would negotiate with our enemies too.

Now...GASP....Obama says he would take out Bin Ladin. Geez. Such a controversial goal! Again, the echo chamber goes into play, and Obama is labeled naive and irresponsible. Not for wanting to talk. But for allowing the possibility of taking out Been Forgotten. Then, one by one, Obama's rivals admit that they would take out Been Forgotten too.

Notice the pattern? Obama takes the initiative. The kool-aid drinkers of his opponents go into palpitations and show their fangs. Edwards and Hillary basically back up Obama after the fact.

Seems to me that this shows what the anti-Obama crowd are willing to do. They will attack Obama because on the one hand he talks to enemies and on the other hand he invades countries willy-nilly.

It also shows that Obama is taking the lead on the issue he is supposed to be "naive" about. It was Hillary and Edwards who were forced to say they supported what Obama brought up first. And it was hardly controversial: going after bin Ladin. But the fanged kook aid drinkers have acted as if going after Bin Ladin was a bad thing. Well, it is, I guess if the big bad Obama does it!!!!