Sunday, August 05, 2007

Barack Obama, A 'Chickenhawk' Now?

August 5, 2007

Ever since before the 2004 elections, we hear the constant drone from the left that Republican supporters of the War on Terror Iraq Theater are ”Chickenhawks” if they didn’t serve in the Military and in a previous war. Viet Nam seems to be the preferred war, depending on the age of the supporter. But, not having Military and Wartime experience seems to elicit the “chickenhawk’ ad hominem nearly instantly.

Democrat first term Senator from Illinois and presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, has long been an advocate of defeat and surrender in the Iraq Theater of the War on Terror. Earlier last month, he stated the opinion that Preventing Genocide Isn’t Reason to Keep US Troops in Iraq. In may he joined fellow front-runner from the Democrat party, Hillary Clinton in voting 'no' on funding the Troops in Iraq bill. In January he submitted a bill advocating withdrawing Troops from Iraq as early as March 2007. It failed.

Said Obama in submitting that bill, "The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close. It is time for us to fundamentally change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis their country back."

Suffice it to say Obama has been an outspoken critic of this war and staunch supporter of the anti-war left. That is why I was particularly struck upon reading that he might send troops to Pakistan, should Pakistani President Musharraf not act as he deems appropriate. This, after he announced he advocates diplomacy and negotiating with other real despotic regimes as Iran, North Korea, Syria and Cuba.

His call for Military action against Pakistan drew immediate fire from the Pakistanis. Said Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri, "It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say. As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

Pakistan’s Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim added, “No foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan. I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution in the fight on terrorism.”

Which is it, Senator Obama, Diplomacy with enemies? Or attack an ally? It is little wonder Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden labels Obama as “Naïve and Irresponsible.”

Thinking back to all the years of catcalls of conservatives who never served, but support the war as being “chickenhawks,” I wonder if this means that Senator Barack Obama now joins the rank of “chickenhawks” as he too has never served in the Military, much less any war?

Knowing that the calls of “chickenhawk” coming from the left towards conservatives is pure ad hominem attacks, meant to demean and ridicule those who oppose the stance of the anti-war left, and knowing that Obama is one of the left’s darlings, I doubt we will hear Democratic Underground, DailyKOS or any other far left site label him as such.

Perhaps the Junior Senator would do well to pay heed to the words of Bruce Chapman, former American ambassador to the U.N. organizations in Vienna and president of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, as was printed in today’s Seattle Times newspaper, No Surrender.

Once again, we are exposed to the total hypocrisy of the left today in Senator Barack Obama’s Naïve and Irresponsible call for these countries.


UPDATE: Before Senator Obama becomes President (in his dreams) and has his precipitous withdrawal of Troops from the Central Front in the War on Teror, so they may attack an ally, perhaps he needs to read a little:

The Turn, Defeatists in retreat

Perceptions of Iraq War Are Starting to Shift

Major Headway in Iraq as Sheiks Swear to kill Terrorists

It appears that the left's new "chickenhawk" desires defeat in Iraq before anything else.


Unknown said...

The young lady who posed a question to Rep Hunter, As President, What would be your strategy for ending the war in Iraq? [That's easy. My answer is to"WIN"]. Duh.


LewWaters said...

But you have to remember, words like Win, Victory, subdue an enemy and the like have been struck from the left's lexicon.

They have no concept of those words any longer.

s.ahmadi said...

I must ask...aside from your disapproval of you believe that if we have intelligence that directs us to the whereabouts to bin laden or other highly valued terrorists...AND Pakistan does nothing in terms of aiding us or eliminating them...we then can act. Do you disagree?

Obama's speech was right on. Focus on those who attacked us.

LewWaters said...

As I have repeatedly heard from the left in their opposition to Iraq, those that attacked us died in their suicide flights.

Now, that being said, who says that only Obama would take action if we knew defintely where Bin Laden was? Pakistan IS seeking him as well as our people.

Musharraf is in a sensitive position allying with us with so many radical Muslims in his country. We need to support him and those assisting us, not pander to crowds in hopes of gaining a few votes and pretending to be a 'tough guy.'

In case you have missed it, Zawahiri and Bin Laden both have expressed the desire for a radical Muslim world with Baghdad as the capital. Instead of focusing on 'who' attacked us, I prefer the way it is now, focusing on 'WHO WILL' attack us next.

As for Obama, he first must make up his mind where he stands. If we lose Iraq, Afghanistan and more will follow, handing the terrorists not only massive oil fields to hold the world hostage, but granting them access to the nuclear weapons they want.

His call was indeed "naive and irresponsible."

Taylor1 said...

Just ran across your interesting and unusual blog. This is the first blog I have encountered where the blogger makes a statement, asks for comments, and then about half of the comments are from the blogger.

LewWaters said...

Another assumed name? Do you think posting under various names adds something to your point of view?

How are things in Beaverton today? Any big Obama rally's?

Don't you just love sitemeter?

Better luck next time, son.