Let me praise David Tucker for his boldly unfashionable pro-Obama for commander-in-chief post below. Basically, he says that Barack and Mac aren’t so different, really, except that the Senator from Illinois has exercised better judgment and is more open to multilateralism as a problem-solving method. I don’t really think David is anywhere near right, but I do think that’s the approach Obama should take to his campaign. Most Americans at this point regard the invasion of Iraq as a mistake (and so are readily seduced by Obama’s bragging about his prescience) and are a little concerned, at least, that McCain’s posture toward Iraq might be unrealistically bellicose.
But Pete Wehner, writing in COMMENTARY, explains that Barack’s view of the war has vacillated widely if not quite wildly over the years. It, for a good while, differed very little, as Obama himself admitted, from that of President Bush. And Pete has considerable evidence to back up his claim that Obama’s CHANGING view can be best explained not by his statesmanlike judgment but his calculations
concerning how the political wind was blowing at any particular moment.
There is really no basis for Mr. Tucker's comparison. He is applying a set of reasoning criteria that Obama simply does not possess. His reference points for the world are much more like Rev. Wright's sermons than he will let on. And that, makes him a terrifyingly unqualified commander in chief. Iran has closed it's public meetings every day since 1979 with the change "Death the America". They mean it and no amount of happy talk and understanding will change that situation. At least President McCain will make it positively clear that any nuclear weapons, interference in American interests or terrorists attacks against the US will be met with JDAM's, cruise missles and special forces assaults. That is a commander in chief who understands reality and acts boldly and decisively to protect the United States. Anyone reading this blog think Obama has that kind of stuff? Seriously?
We forget that opposing the war in Iraq was a no-lose proposition. If the war turns out messy, you are a genius. If the war is a victory, you say you're glad it worked out and in the general happiness that all went well your minor error is forgotten. No lose.
Peter -- I am not sure what you were praising me for except for being unfashionable but it seems to me that it is probably better on an issue like Iraq to be inconsistently right, like Obama, than consistently wrong, like McCain. Tiger’s remark above about responding with JDAMs is precisely the problem with both McCain and Clinton. None of that actually accomplishes anything. Perhaps, though, if he were in an executive position, McCain would manifest more of the temperament of Colin Powell than he has shown up to now. Do you not think Obama most likely to be the most multilateral of the remaining candidates when it comes to defense and security issues?
David, It''s multi-lateralism that is ineffective, not force. Snap out of it-it's Iran you fool!