I’ve never ever signed on to the philosophy of ‘the end justifies the means’ and though I wouldn’t say that I never ever would cross that line, it would take exceptional circumstances for me to do so.
Right now Barack Obama is doing so with the increased regularity of aah, increased regularity. This at the very least disappoints me and might even end up frightening me. While I understand the necessity of remaking himself into ‘president EveryMan’ to get elected, it is also an indicator of low moral values.
Granted he is not alone as the Palin-what’s-his-name ticket is far worse. But a moral leader ought to draw a line somewhere. And we the people, might ask ourselves if we aren’t becoming accomplices to the moral failures of both tickets, and if somewhere in the future we aren’t going to be held morally responsible when our children questions us.
As admitted before, at the very outset of the race, I backed (not supported) Hillary Clinton because I saw her as being the best chance of a democratic white House. I threw my full support behind Obama when he enunciated a worldview foreign policy… something never before seen in American political circles at that level. Well, far outsiders like Kucinich have done so before, but never top-rankings.
Obama has from time to time, made more than subtle changes to his policy views, but his latest shift puts him not only square in the same circle as McCain, it actually makes Palin his running mate. Both agree that they would support sending American troops into Pakistan against the wishes and permission of Pakistan. That’s called ‘an invasion’ by the way, bud.
With that statement, Barack Obama still gets my vote, but not my wholehearted support. He gets my vote not because he is better than Palin-what’s-his-name, but because the latter is worse. But a man who is willing to sell his soul to the devil is also willing to sell mine as well, for a far cheaper price.
The policy itself is outmoded, stupid, a failure and dangerous. MR OBAMA, YOU CAN IN NO WAY SANCTION THE BREACHING OF ANOTHER COUNTRY’S SOVEREIGNTY AND THINK YOU ARE ANY BETTER THAN GEORGE BUSH!!
Obama is very popular abroad because other countries recognized the departure from stupidity, and felt that under his presidency, other countries would not merely be pawns or collateral damage in US foreign policy. Now many must be thinking, ‘Oh-ho’.
America’s values cannot be placed higher than any other country, and since no American would accept a breach of its sovereign territory, then you have to make that your own moral standard. Pakistanis, Jamaicans, Cubans, Chinese, Australians, Georgians, Italians, St Lucian’s, all have a right to expect respect for territorial borders from all other countries. Until it is ok for some other country to launch a military raid into your country to ‘take out’ high-value targets, then it cannot be right for you to do so.
The problem with the phrase ‘high-value targets’, is that America has very often gotten their ‘intelligence’ (American intelligence… what an oxymoron) wrong. So even when they violate the territory of Pakistan and actually murder (yes MURDER) a high-value target, they are morally on the wrong side. And as to the times when they murder (yes MURDER) innocent men, women, and children… what a kaka.
The more America retains this policy, the more they are hated. In Pakistan there is rising, deep anger to incursions into their territory, and any government that cannot continuously shoot down American helicopters will fall. Eventually, Pakistan will shoot down an American helicopter. What next? Is America willing to start another conflict?
The more America is hated in Pakistan, the longer the queue at al qaeda’s recruiting offices. The more recruits, the greater the likelihood that we in the US, becomes some kind of target.
That is something easy enough for Obama to articulate publicly. It’s just commonsense.
Stooping as low as the PaCains makes it difficult to get back up. I suspect that you will next be more hawkish towards Cuba to appease the minority Cubans in South Florida and take an aggressive stance towards Chavez to mollify the minority Venezuelans. Then you will endorse the racist wet-foot-dry-foot policy. Don’t tell me you are willing to kiss everybody’s ass. Dammit bredrin, get back some integrity. If you can’t stand for something, then you are nothing. Draw the line somewhere, I have drawn mine.
Sarah Palin, though lighting up the republican base, turns out for the democrats, to be the gift that can’t stop giving. Every day, new allegations of ethical issues, corruption and other moral turpitude comes public. And no antibiotic has been able to cure her of that virulent strain of ‘putting-my-foot-in-my-mouth-itis’.
McCain can’t let her out on her own because she is needed to give him crowds (like an exotic pet), but also because she is apt to stray from his script and embarrass him (if that is in anyway possible).
During the debate, McCain criticized Obama for publicly stating that he would endorse the current Bush policy of ‘invading Pakistan’ (see above). According to McCain, “You don’t say that aloud”. Just do it, nike-stylee.
Well, Sarah opened her mouth, first mistake, and publicly approved the policy, causing McCain to rush to defense, again (what a chivalrous though idiotic man. But then again, where was his chivalry when he divorced his first wife?).
“I don’t think that most Americans think that’s a definitive policy statement made by governor Palin”, McCain said. Oh, but isn’t she your foreign policy expert living so close to Russia… or is it that her policy-making expertise stops at putting lipstick on a moose, or is that moose-hunting? In this topsy-turvy election of blabbing mouths and ever shifting moral sands, I’m apt to get confused.