In view of his non-existent record, Obama’s words must merit greater scrutiny because they are the only remaining measure voters have for what Obama believes. Those words have been woefully inconsistent over the totality of Obama’s short career, and are full of generalities like “hope” and “change.” In fact, the only consistent theme in his campaign is one policy change after another. All politicians modify their positions (including McCain), but usually those changes take place over a few years and as circumstances dictate. Obama’s changes on dozens of issues came about in just three and a half years and not for policy reasons, but for political gain.
But let’s be fair. At the core of Slick Barry’s shifting words about Iraq is an unchanging principle. A year ago, USA Today interviewed him and reported,
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday [July 19, 2007] the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
The danger of “a potential genocide in Iraq” has receded, but the candidate’s attitude toward America’s most important Arab ally remains unaltered. The Washington Post – sounding almost like a cog in the VRWC – summarizes:
The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome — that Iraq “distracts us from every threat we face” and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That’s an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world’s largest oil reserves.
It is, nonetheless, a natural view for an isolationist left-winger, who knows little about the world outside Hyde Park and cares less. “Can someone explain why it is, exactly, that Barack Obama is not a laughingstock?”
Comments