Barack Obama -- D-E-A-D in the water
I'm not going to spend a whole helluva lot of time on this, but with this pronouncement he just shot his campaign in the foot:
Democrat Barack Obama called for ridding the world of nuclear weapons Tuesday and offered his early opposition to the Iraq war as evidence of sound judgment that trumps his lack of Washington experience.
Obama argued that U.S. policy is still focused on the defunct Soviet Union instead of combatting the nuclear threat from rogue nations and terrorists. The United States shouldn't unilaterally disarm, he said, but it must work with other nations to phase out weapons and control atomic material.
"Here's what I'll say as president: 'America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons,'" Obama said.
"The best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons — it's to keep nuclear weapons and nuclear materials away from terrorists," the Illinois senator said. Aides said the process Obama envisions would take many years, not just a a single presidency.
This shows all the inexperience this man has to offer the nation. And while he says that he wouldn't directly call for America to disarm, we all know that he will eventually do just that. Whether it is to "show the world we mean what we say," or after he feels the world has complied, he'll call for the disassembling of our nuclear arsenal.
He says we still have a "cold war" mindset. Maybe so (I don't think we do), but the fact that we have these weapons are the number one reason why we're still here, and the reason why our enemy hasn't tried to hit us with a WMD yet. They don't want to see the retaliation, which I can assure readers will be complete and unprecedented.
No I'm sorry senator, but the world will never turn away from these weapons (and I'd love to see this boob convince Mahmoud Amadinejad to give up his nuclear ambitions). These weapons serve as a deterrent. That's something that Senator Obama seems to miss when it comes to learning and understanding history.
Publius II
Democrat Barack Obama called for ridding the world of nuclear weapons Tuesday and offered his early opposition to the Iraq war as evidence of sound judgment that trumps his lack of Washington experience.
Obama argued that U.S. policy is still focused on the defunct Soviet Union instead of combatting the nuclear threat from rogue nations and terrorists. The United States shouldn't unilaterally disarm, he said, but it must work with other nations to phase out weapons and control atomic material.
"Here's what I'll say as president: 'America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons,'" Obama said.
"The best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons — it's to keep nuclear weapons and nuclear materials away from terrorists," the Illinois senator said. Aides said the process Obama envisions would take many years, not just a a single presidency.
This shows all the inexperience this man has to offer the nation. And while he says that he wouldn't directly call for America to disarm, we all know that he will eventually do just that. Whether it is to "show the world we mean what we say," or after he feels the world has complied, he'll call for the disassembling of our nuclear arsenal.
He says we still have a "cold war" mindset. Maybe so (I don't think we do), but the fact that we have these weapons are the number one reason why we're still here, and the reason why our enemy hasn't tried to hit us with a WMD yet. They don't want to see the retaliation, which I can assure readers will be complete and unprecedented.
No I'm sorry senator, but the world will never turn away from these weapons (and I'd love to see this boob convince Mahmoud Amadinejad to give up his nuclear ambitions). These weapons serve as a deterrent. That's something that Senator Obama seems to miss when it comes to learning and understanding history.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:51 PM
3 Comments:
I am not sure if he actually shot his PRIMIARY caimpain in the foot entirely. Granted, if he wins the nomination, he has yet another ridiculus statement to deal with. However, if he wants to give himeself a chance of winning the dems. nomination he must seperate himself from Hillary. The only way to do that is to make statements such as this one, which make the moveon.org / daily kos people happy.
Bottom line, the more he does this the better it is for the republicans, we get a canidate who has one the Dem's ticket by alienating the moderate vote.
Anonymous,
Given his predilection for attacking or invading Pakistan to root out AQ, the KosK8iddies/MoveOn.numbnuts people aren't go8ing to give this guy a second look.
He has separated himself from Hillary due to his positions, and her consistently changing positions. He has charisma and he has dollars. What he lacks is enough support from the Democrat base. They like him, but just as the GOP base has written off the also-rans on their side running (Tancredo, Hunter, Huckabee, Paul, and McCain) the Dems have already written off Barack.
Why?
Because they know -- deep down inside they absolutely know -- that Hillary has the inside track. She has the means to raise more, generate solid "leftist" support, and despite what the Dem Netroots say now, they will fall in, lock-step, behind her when she gets the nomination.
The only thing preventing that right now is a dark horse riding in from the shadows, and Obama isn't the guy. At least, save a severe change for his campaign, he isn't right now.
Publius II
I think that you might give the dems a little bit more credit for logical thought than they deserve.
You and I know that Ron Paul people are so fanatical about their beliefs that they are blind to logic... I think that there are a large number of Ron Paul like supporters that call themselves democrats, I wouldn't underestimate their hatred for bush and republicans, which will blind them as the choose their next nominee.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home