Saturday, March 1, 2008

Fighting for Votes

As the primary in Texas looms near, both Democratic candidates are campaigning hard to get the votes they need to win the nomination. Hillary has decided that her best strategy is to emphasize her position on national security. Obama too, says that he will be strong. Let me ask this: has either one of these two candidates ever been tested? Aside from fighting with each other over who voted against what war, have either Hillary or Obama ever displayed any plan to strengthen this country's security?

If you go to Hillary's website you will see no mention of any plan to protect this country. To the extent that she even mentions national security in an obscure speech, she dances around the issues placing blame and criticism at the feet of the Bush administration. After finding Clinton's site to be sorely lacking, I clicked my way over to Obama's. He at least has a link with the actual title "Homeland Security." Here he talks about -not security - but disaster relief. OK, so maybe he got his terms slightly mixed up. Looking for a different link that might have something to do with security, safety, protection, anything, I click on "Foreign Policy." Ah, here we go: "When I am this party's nominee...I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda."

I assume Senator Obama means when he is President, but minor details aside, how can he reasonably expect to simply end the fight against a terrorist organizations whose stated objective (one of them anyway) is to destroy America? Isn't it irresponsible to publicly declare that as President one will cease the attack on this country's most dangerous enemy? Obama wants to fight poverty climate change, and disease; all lofty goals to be sure, but in the place of protecting this country?? (Oh, and by the way, this section too does not actually mention national security - he just talks about the War in Iraq and making empty economic threats on Iran.)


facebook friend said...

Let me just remind you hillary was the first lady. She knows more than anyone else what it takes to be president and to deal with national security issues than anyone else running in the campaign. Furthermore, does mccain have what it really take to deal with these issues? On the other hand Mccain was a pow and a "big" general, but lets remember how he got to that position. ummmmm say his dad? yeah, no republicans ever seems to mention this...

Stryd3r said...

She was the first lady... so what? being first lady does not give one executive experience... If a woman's husband is a doctor does that make her qualified to perform surgery? Also, no one can argue that any candidate has more national security and military operation experience than John McCain who served in the Navy from 1958-1981, ending his career as a CAPTAIN (not general - by the way, the Navy doesn't have generals, but hey, can't expect people to know anything about our military even though they love to criticize it, right?). Finally, McCain worked hard to get to where he is and to reach the level he did in the Navy... I just love it how people always attribute success to everyone but the guy who worked for it. McCain is a man who fought hard to get to where he is, enduring trials that most of us could not pass... let's remember, this is the guy who was offered numerous "outs" from the Navy and from the POW detention camp he was in, yet he never took them. This guy is a smart, talented, strong person - if you want to debate ISSUES I will, but McCain is a self-made man and that speaks for itself.

Post a Comment