Conservatives Equate Occupation of Iraq with American Military Presence In The South

As I’ve noted before, Republicans are to some degree right in defending John McCain over the 100 years in Iraq line. On the one hand McCain was not talking about another one hundred years of war in its current form. On the other hand, McCain, and his defenders, are wrong in thinking that we can remain in Iraq the same way we’ve remained in countries such as South Korea, Germany, and Japan. Our very presence in Iraq is a source of increased conflict in with the Muslim world and our national security interests would be best served by leaving Iraq as soon as possible.

The conservative disconnect with reality appears to be even worse than I imagined. Not only do they lack any real understanding of the middle east, they don’t even understand American history very well. Red State sent out an email which was posted by Stix Blog. Check out the last paragraph:

Of course, it could just be that the Democrats are clueless about the military.  Someone should ask the Democrats if they think we’re still at war with the confederacy, the Germans, and the Japanese given all the standing American armies in the South, Germany, and Japan.

It is bad enough that they fail to understand the differences between Iraq and countries such as Germany and Japan. It reaches the point of absurdity that they see “American armies in the South” as being in any way analogous to armies occupying a foreign country. It is remarkable that they would really compare American military basis which happen to be in southern states to American troops occupying a foreign country such as Iraq.

We’ve known for quite a while that conservatives cannot be trusted to handle matters related to foreign policy or defense. This just emphasizes how  little they understand the issues.

Camille Paglia On Obama’s Experience

Camille Paglia of Salon answers a question about Obama’s experience and whether Rezko casts doubt on his judgment. She does write some bizarre things, but she gets it right here:

Obama’s Rezko embroglio is certainly troublesome. But the splotches on Obama’s record are few and relatively minor compared to the staggeringly copious chronicle of Clinton scandals, a mud mountain that the media have shown amazingly little interest in exploring during this campaign cycle. For all their grousing about media bias, the Clintons have gotten off scot-free over the past year from any kind of serious, systematic examination of their sleaze-a-thon history from Little Rock to Foggy Bottom.

Obama has actually served longer in public office than Hillary has. It’s very true that he lacks executive experience, but so does she. Her bungling of healthcare reform, along with her inability to control the financial expenditures and internal wrangling of her campaign, does not bode well for a prospective chief executive. Beyond that, I’m not sure that your analogy to professionals like doctors, accountants and teachers entirely applies to presidents. There is no fixed system of credentialing for our highest office. On the contrary, the Founders envisioned the president as a person of unpretentious common sense and good character. Hillary may spout a populist line, but with her arrogant sense of dynastic entitlement, she’s a royalist who, like Napoleon, wants to crown herself.

I too wish that Obama had more practical experience in government. But Washington is at a stalemate and needs fresh eyes and a new start. Furthermore, at this point in American history, with an ill-conceived, wasteful war dragging on in Iraq and with the nation’s world reputation in tatters, I believe that, because of his international heritage and upbringing, Obama is the right person at the right time. We need a thoughtful leader who can combine realism with conciliation in domestic as well as foreign affairs.

Posted in Barack Obama. Tags: . No Comments »