So, because there's a financial crisis, Senator McCain cannot take 90 minutes to address how he will face challenges around the world, including how and when he will send American troops to fight, and possibly die.
Wow. Troops would sure love that luxury.
Unfortunately, though, insurgents in Iraq don't stop shooting at us, or setting IEDs, because our Commander in Chief needs a breather to figure out Wall Street.
Al Qaeda in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region don't send our troops notes that read, "Hey, I hear you guys are tied up with Wall Street. Your President needs to concentrate on other things, so we'll give you a break. So, to make things easier on you, here's our coordinates."
Nor do our troops get a few days to figure out how to hold onto an area we've secured, if there's an unexpected attack. Sometimes we need to deal with multiple flare-ups at once in any warzone. We'd sure love a time-out, but sadly, the world isn't such a nice place that it gives us that kind of pity.
When you're Commander in Chief, I don't think there'd be a worse signal to send to our troops in harm's way than to say, "Hey, hold on guys. I know you're getting killed over there, but I have to get a time-out here to deal with Wall Street."
If troops need to multi-task without a break, is it so wrong that we demand that a potential President-in-waiting prove that he can manage a financial crisis, and still address crises around the world for 90 minutes? And, if a potential President-to-be can't manage that, is it wrong to think that maybe he ought not just suspend a debate and the campaign, but move aside and get out of the race?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/our-troops-dont-get-a-tim_b_129055.html
There was an area of disagreement between Senators Obama and McCain on the surge, with McCain using the occasion to say that Senator Obama "didn't understand." In fact, it was McCain who didn't understand.
Senator Obama was correct in saying that the surge - in the form it took - was a tactical move. What everyone expected the surge to be was a complete strategy; an intense build-up of the three legs of our efforts in Iraq - political, diplomatic, and military. The surge of troops was supposed to give the breathing space for intense diplomatic and political work to bring Iraq together, and working as a unified nation.
What ended up happening is that we employed only one of those tactics, the surge of troops. And, while that's had the tactical success it was supposed to have, there's been no real strategic success, because we failed to take part in intense shuttle diplomacy in the region, or do the tough political work to help Iraqis resolve their internal problems.
John McCain continued to rip into Barack Obama for his stance that he would move on actionable intelligence to strike at top al Qaeda targets in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region, if the Pakistanis wouldn't. McCain disingenuously painted this as Obama saying he would attack Pakistan.
That's just a gross distortion. The lawless region in the upper west portion of Pakistan is a haven for terrorists, and an area that Pakistan never has controlled. The only time this area is really Pakistan is on a map. Otherwise, it's a land without a nation, or rule of law, which terrorists have successfully squatted. Even then, Senator Obama wasn't talking about carpet bombing the area, but OKing surgical strikes to take out al Qaeda leadership in that lawless area. It's very different than saber-rattling against Iran - when McCain and Senator Joe Lieberman directly threaten to attack a nation. Or, when Governor Palin hinted at a hypothetical war with the nation of Russia.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/vps-should-be-pressed-on_b_131348.html
Loading...
10:57Rachel Maddow smacks down racist Pat Buchananby AntiConformist911111,312 views
Link to this comment:
All Comments (0)