A fashionable politician in 2007 must have an iPod and a harshly anti-war stance, complete with utter disdain for President Bush and his policies. Barack has all that although he tries to be soothing about it. No matter how many times he likes to say he's against the partisanship of Washington, his 95 percent Democratic voting record is proof that it's more shtick than balm.
Take a step out of the conventional wisdom cauldron, which is wrong more often than a monkey stock picker. Do we really believe that 10 years from now Islamic extremism will have faded peacefully into the background, making Bush's incursion into Iraq look like an overreaction to 9/11? No, more likely there will be more horrific terrorist attacks on our soil and a long, drawn out war to eradicate the terrorists. Along the way, more wake-up calls for a forgetful population that will put in perspective tactical blunders in Iraq.
If the latter scenario occurs, Bush is going to look a lot smarter than the 2007 fashionable politician, including Barack. Obama's performance the other evening on Nightline and other outlets was an exercise in reciting talking points. "Redeployment." "Diplomacy." "Political, not military solution." I thought this guy was different!
And the tone in Washington: Obama only needs to look at the Senate floor transcripts of his seatmate from Illinois, Dick Durbin, to follow the history of the Democratic Party's unrelenting criticism of President Bush from the start of the war. It was a political tactic, the kind that Obama professes to oppose. Right for the country and right on history? Check back in 10 years. What will look like the better strategy—The Bush push forward or the Barack backpedal?
Technorati Tags: al-Qaeda, Barack Obama, Illinois, Iraq, liberals, terror
No comments:
Post a Comment