President Obama....err Senator Obama

An interesting story from the New York Post. It argues that the Senator improperly overstepped his bounds in trying to delay troop withdrawals and any agreement that the Iraqi government may sign with the US. It seems to me that this story is more about political expediency than anything else.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

It is clear that his agenda/promise was to get America out of Iraq in 18 months. All during the primaries President Obama was claiming the US presence was illegal when it is politically expedient he changes his mind and accepts a fact when it is convenient to him.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Once again you have to ask yourself about President Obama's capability to set foreign policy with good judgment without flip flopping back and forth on our position to whatever he deems politically expedient to him at the time. Obama answers to nobody but himself, he does what is politically expedient for his career and nothing more.

This is why the McCain/Palin ticket has been picking up speed under the mantra "Some candidates use change to promote their career while others user their career to promote change". The message is resonating with the American public. While the mindlessly shallow in America are easily fooled with a 30 second sound bite here and a softball interview on PMSNBC or CNN, the media's agenda has become more and more clear to a majority of the American people.

Obama's Foriegn Expertise

I just finished reading yet another fantastic editorial by Mark Alexander from The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US), one of my favorite internet publications. In it he talks about Obama's preparedness for the most important constitutional duty of the President of the United States that is being the commander in chief.

Read the Article

Here are some of my favorite excerpts:

"Obama responded to Iran’s missile tests this week, saying, “Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions. It’s time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course.”

“Incentives”? Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad has vowed to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust. How about this incentive—a paraphrase from JFK during the Cuban missile debacle: “It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any missile launched from Iran against any ally of the United States as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.”

Further, Obama insists, “I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.”

Come again? A quick fact check and one finds that Franklin Roosevelt did not hold direct talks with Adolf Hitler or Hideki Tojo. Harry Truman’s “pre-conditions” for peace negotiations with Japan were two atomic bombs, and Truman didn’t talk with North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung after his invasion of South Korea in 1950. Instead, he sent troops, and we are still there, as we are in Japan and Germany. As for John Kennedy, he did meet with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1961. But Khrushchev knew, after Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs fiasco, that he could outflank Kennedy. "

Have a great weekend everybody!