Saturday, November 1, 2008

How Is War Less Likely If Obama Wins?

I keep seeing Obama supporters claiming that WWIII is less likely under Obama. Where have they been since July? Obama has practically reversed every key position that won the nomination from Clinton. He's talking about increasing the US military by 92,000. Does that sounds like he's planning on them sitting in the barracks playing cards? Alexander Cockburn of provides excerpts from another article he wrote:
“Obama wants to enlarge the armed services by 92,000. He pledges to escalate the US war in Afghanistan; to attack Pakistan’s sovereign territory if it obstructs any unilateral US mission to kill Osama bin Laden; and to wage a war against terror in a hundred countries, creating for this purpose a new international intelligence and law enforcement “infrastructure” to take down terrorist networks. A fresh start? Where does this differ from Bush’s commitment to Congress on September 20, 2001, to an ongoing “war on terror” against “every terrorist group of global reach” and “any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism”?
Regarding Obama's backpedaling from pre-nomination positions, Cockburn writes:

“In February, seeking a liberal profile in the primaries, Obama stood against warrantless wiretapping. His support for liberty did not survive its second trimester; he aborted it with a vote for warrantless wiretapping. The man who voted to reaffirm the awful Patriot Act declared that ‘the ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counterterrorism tool.’

“As a political organizer of his own advancement, Obama is a wonder. But I have yet to identify a single uplifting intention to which he has remained constant if it has presented the slightest risk to his advancement. Summoning all the optimism at my disposal, I suppose we could say he has not yet had occasion to offend two important constituencies and adjust his relatively decent stances on immigration and labor-law reform. Public funding of his campaign? A commitment made becomes a commitment betrayed, just as on warrantless eavesdropping. His campaign treasury is now a vast hogswallow that, if it had been amassed by a Republican, would be the topic of thunderous liberal complaint.

I didn't see where Cockburn mentioned Obama's praise of Bush's "surge" results in Iraq. When the reversals are that frequent, it's difficult to keep track of them all. This isn't supposition or political rhetoric. Obama has flatly reversed himself on every key position he had in the primaries, something his supporters have ignored. Those who say they want Obama's "change" are probably too busy focusing on Palin's hair and clothes or her legs to notice or care that Obama's not the same candidate who won the democratic primaries.

No comments: