....comments..

Seriously.

This is what Obama basically said to Musharraf:

"Do you part in the fight against al Qaeda, or we will do it for you."

to Conservatives:

What is your problem with that statement? It would seem to fit the bill EXACTLY with what you've been preaching all along. If Bush made that statement, you'd be hailing him.

to Liberals:

We've spent the past 4+ years screaming that Iraq is the wrong war... that they aren't the ones responsible for 9/11. Well... the ones actually responsible for 9/11 are holed up in the mountains of western Pakistan. Are we not going to put our money where our mouth is?

Seriously... pro-Hillary types... right-wingers... libertarians... anyone.

Logically explain your objections to what Obama said.

There's a fascinating article over on Wired.com about al Qaeda and their photoshopping skills:

Article here

...bouncing around along its 200 day moving average, at right around 1450.   If it breaks thru that level, that would certainly make the correction of the past several days much more technically significant than other corrections in recent months. 

The credit meltdown is clearly spreading, and big names such as Bear Stearns and Wells Fargo are getting caught up in the mix.

My money is in cash and bonds, so pass the popcorn... 

Story here

The 9/11 Commission issued their recommendations in 2004.

Why did the GOP-led congress of '04, 05, and '06 fail to act on this?

Why did it take a Democratic-led congress to get this done?

Bush hails this as a major step. GOP congressmen overwhelmingly supported the bill in both houses, as did the Democrats.

Why did the GOP leadership, and Bush, wait three years to do this?

Some crowing on my part, yes... but seriously...

Some random thoughts:

1) so much for the "do-nothing" Democratic congress

2) Latest Pew Research poll shows President's approval at 29%, congress's at 33%. So much for the constant drumbeat on talk radio about Congress being less popular than Bush.

3) Both Bush and the Congress should see an uptick in approval after this, moreso for the Congress.

4) Even while touting the bill, Bush still added a "signing statement" saying that he wouldn't fund the part concerning cargo screening. Again, Bush using signing statements as a de facto line-item veto. Signing statements need to be rendered unconstitutional. Period. Paging Senator Specter!

Full text:

August 3, 2007
To: Interested Parties
From: Samantha Power -- Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Re: Conventional Washington versus the Change We Need

It was Washington’s conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.

Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States “finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda.” He warned that a “dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq would result in an “occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”

Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is “persistent and evolving.” Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war.

Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington’s conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want.

On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things. On each point, he has brought fresh strategic thinking and common sense that break with the very conventional wisdom that has led us into Iraq.

Diplomacy: For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them. Here is the result:

--The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.
--The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.
-- The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.

By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you’re not willing to do it directly to your adversary. Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator – he’s ready to tell them what they don’t want to hear because that’s how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that’s how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history.

Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era of tough, principled and engaged American diplomacy to deal with 21st century challenges.

Terrorist Sanctuaries: For years, we have given President Musharraf hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, while deferring to his cautious judgment on how to take out high-level al Qaeda targets – including, most likely, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Here is the result:

-- Bin Laden and Zawahiri – two men with direct responsibility for 9/11– remain at large.
-- Al Qaeda has trained and deployed hundreds of fighters worldwide from its sanctuary in northwest Pakistan.
-- Afghanistan is far less secure because the Taliban can strike across the border, and then return to safety in Pakistan.

By any measure, this strategy has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us defer to Musharraf in perpetuity. Barack Obama wants to turn the page. If Musharraf is willing to go after the terrorists and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base of operations, Obama would give him all of the support he needs. But Obama made clear that as President, if he had actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan – and the Pakistanis continued to refuse to act against terrorists known to be behind attacks on American civilians – then he will use highly targeted force to do so.

Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era that moves beyond the conventional wisdom that has brought us over-reliance on an unreliable dictator in Pakistan and an occupation of Iraq.

Nuclear Attacks on Terrorist Targets: For years, Washington’s conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway. When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use – inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.

Barack Obama’s judgment is right. Conventional wisdom is wrong. It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America’s prestige in the world to a level that not even George Bush could take it. We should judge presidential candidates on their judgment and their plans, not on their ability to recite platitudes.

Vision: American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence. Yet conventional wisdom holds that people whose experience includes taking these positions are held up as examples of what America needs in times of trouble.

Barack Obama says we have to turn the page. We cannot afford any more of this kind of bankrupt conventional wisdom. He has laid out a foreign policy that is bold, clear, principled, and tailored for the 21st century. End a war we should never have fought, concentrate our resources against terrorists who threaten America. End the counter-productive policy of lumping together our adversaries and avoiding talking to our foes. End the era of politics that is all sound-bites and no substance, and offer the American people the change that they need.

Barack Obama’s judgment is right. It is conventional wisdom that has to change.

Comments?

To me... this shows that Obama has the chops for the job.

...it also shows that he's not willing to let criticisms run too many news cycles without a response, following the Bubba model that worked so well in 1992.

But that's just me... YMMV.

If the primaries were today, he'd have my vote. He may say or do something over the next year that changes my mind... but nothing in the past two weeks has done so.

to GoRight:

Thanks for sticking around! We (I, at least) appreciate your consistent contributions and participation here even when so outnumbered.