"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Moral equivalency did not stop the Soviet Union

Shouldn't we be worried when a presidential candidate's first instinct, when Russia is bombing civilian targets of a western ally, is to resort to moral equivalency? Barack Obama has shown this to be his first reaction to the Russian attack on Georgia.

“I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. [...] (Source, Thanks to Ace of Spades)

As noted, here at Ace of Spades, Barack Obama was slick enough to offer an additional statement after John McCain spoke much more clearly and forcefully.

Now that he's had time to crib from McCain's paper, Obama has released a new statement that sounds a little more like someone who knows what the hell they are talking about and not some inexperienced 'citizen of the world'.

Perhaps those "300" advisors finally had a chat with the junior Senator? This however, does not give much reason for confidence should Barack Obama gain the presidency. Do we really want on the job training in such dangerous times? Such a first reaction from a U.S. President, certainly would to no good in restraining another country, it took quite a bit more to stop the Soviet Union as Victor Davis Hanson noted when he pointed out Obama's lack of historical knowledge.

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because “the world stood as one.” The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator’s own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik — “eastern politics,” a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance — continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative. (source)

This insight into Barack Obama's core, contrasts rather sharply with how he reacts to American troops. As I covered in a previous post, Barack offered no moral equivalency when speaking of American and coalition forces in Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban.

Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." (source - with video)

That's quite a combination in one individual. On the one hand, falsely describe the tactics American and Western forces are using in the war against terrorists, who intentionally target innocent civilians, and on the other, initially declare that Russia and Georgia, who has supplied troops in Iraq, are morally equivalent.

Let's add one more data point to this collection. In Barack Obama's own words:

Let's take a tally of all this.

  • Reflexively criticizes American and Western forces fighting terrorists - check
  • First instinct is to equalize Russian bombing of civilians to the western ally they're bombing - check
  • States clearly that he will reduce the armed readiness of the United States - check

On that last point, one could argue that such is not Barack Obama's intent. Well, hell, paved and road are words that come to mind when such an argument is raised. To think we would be militarily stronger is wishful thinking on a grand scale, despite attempting to label that dreamy state with the word intentions.

Is it any surprise that Barack Obama has been photographed not saluting the flag and that he's also made an issue of wearing/not wearing a flag lapel pin? In comparison, that photo and lapel pin are rather minor issues. After all, if Barack Obama did salute the flag and wear a pin, without complaint, it would do nothing to override the serious matter of his criticizing an ally while that ally is still being bombed, castigating American forces while we are still fighting terrorists, and his promise to reduce our military strength.

Is someone like this, with Russia, once again, attempting to ascend and expand by force, displaying the judgement necessary to be President of the United States?


Related posts:
Words do matter
Finally! Democrats are being listened to regarding Iraq
He means his ears are bigger - right?
A tale of a speech and a mustache
Sincerity vs political calculation
Barack Obama finds he has a third foot


Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: