Parsing Parsnips

I have no doubt that the punditocracy is bending over backwards trying to say that the Freshman Man Cub from Illinois won the debate.  Newsflash: he didn't win it.  Then again, McCain didn't exactly do it either, though he landed more punches, most significantly on the issue of renewed Russian imperialism.

I have been a passing observer of Russian politics for many years.  My grandmother who emigrated from Ukraine in 1914 always had astute insight on the issue.  Over the years we had a number of conversations about the state of Russian politics.  I correctly predicted that Mikail Gorbachev would assume control of the Politburo back in the 80's, and would most likely oversee the shift to the dismantling of the USSR.  She correctly predicted that the dissolution of the Soviet Union would bring about decades of unrest, violence, and the reconstituting of the Russian empire by the surviving power brokers of the communist regime.  Alas, my grandmother is no longer living in this dimension so she is not here to lend her advice to our nation's power brokers.

The most valid point in the Russia discussion was made by Senator McCain; that Georgia was a prelude for Ukraine.  I believe it is Putin's intention to seize the Crimea.  Russia's naval interests are at stake.  Ukraine will pay with its autonomy.  Is Senator Man Cub prepared to face down Putin?  Are you kidding me?

Obama failed again by arguing the Iraq/Afghanistan issue based on whether it was smart to invade in the first place.  As Senator McCain pointed out, that is an argument for another time.  The fact is that we are there.  You cannot base a policy on arguing the past.  We must operate in the now.  Clearly Man Cub is not prepared to do this.  

The surge strategy works because it is not simply about putting troops on the ground.  It is about garnering the loyalty of the population in the regions involved.  Whether it is Iraq, Afghanistan or Waziristan, the Petraeus strategy is the only one that I have seen that has shown any rate of success.  To think that we will secure our interests by arguing that we should never invaded Iraq is ridiculous and irrelevant.  We are there.  At this point failure is not an option. 

Man Cub gave no evidence that he has a strategy to achieve success in the Middle East.  This is because he does not.  Should we have kept our eyes on the prize in Afghanistan?  Yes.  But it is ignorant to think that had we not invaded Iraq that we would not be involved with Waziristan and Pakistan as this is the launchpad from which the Taliban assumed control of Afghanistan in the first place.  Obama's obvious one dimensional view of the Middle East demonstrates that he cannot comprehend how to create and manage a regional policy, and/or he has no problem ceding our interests to those who have sworn to destroy us.  Either way, he is too big a fool to be in the White House.

I found one of the most telling moments when Obama attempted to parse the word "preconditions."  He thought he had learned the lesson of the trap Senator Clinton laid for him in the primary debates when she said you do not meet with hostile leaders without first laying the groundwork with lower level envoys.  Naturally, being completely obtuse, Obama thought this is what McCain was referring to, but it was not.  He also failed to remember that she also made it clear that those lower level meetings required gaining concessions from the hostile nation. 

Senator McCain said again and again that you don't meet face to face with a leader who has declared that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth.  I think he thought the audience and Obama could read between the lines.  I typically operate under the Keseyan principle that, "In any given situation there are always going to be more dumb people than smart people."  

For you people this is what McCain was saying:

If the leader of a country advocates wiping Israel, a sovereign nation, off the face of the earth, the President of the United States does not have face to face talks with that leader until they recognize Israel's right to exist, period (it is this principle that makes it ludicrous for Israel to enter into talks with Hamas...you don't negotiate with a body that has sworn to destroy you). For Obama to advocate otherwise is an admission that he himself does not support Israel's right to exist. 

  

Something to keep in mind that whenever Obama says he warned, or he spoke out about any issue, he is in fact lying.  I challenge all Obots to present evidence from a credible journalistic source (that means no quotes from his website, Daily Krap, or Huffington Piss), that verifies any Obama statement from the debate that he issued any of the warnings he claimed to last night.

I think it was also hilarious and pathetic that his argument for not convening the Subcommittee on European Affairs is that his VP candidate told him it was okay for him not to do so. So what’s the thrust here Barry? You’re subcommittee is irrelevant and you got the chairmanship in a false attempt to bolster your non-existent foreign policy experience? That might not be a line of reasoning you want to take up with the electorate. Just sayin’.

And the final insult?  As I predicted Pampers lifted Senator Clinton's economic policy, which means he will not carry it out, and had no real economic policy before doing so.  Thanks DNC for kicking Clinton to curb and nominating the Asshat.  High five!