Below is the relevant paragraph from the New York Times, in an article titled "Obama Links Effects of War Costs to Fragility in the Economy":
“Senator Obama would rather rehash the past than look forward with resolve to address fundamental challenges and opportunities we have today to secure our future,” a spokeswoman for the campaign, Jill Hazelbaker, said. “He has embraced an irresponsible policy of withdrawing our troops from Iraq without regard for the conditions on the ground, the advice of our military commanders or the consequences of failure.”
Now contrast that to what Senator Clinton claimed earlier this month as reported in Ben Smith's Blog at Politico.com:
"This is the latest example of promising the American people one thing on the campaign trail and telling people in other countries another,” she said. “You saw this with NAFTA, as well. “He’s attacked me continuously for having no hard exit date, and now we learn he doesn’t have one. In fact, he doesn’t have a plan at all, according to his top foreign policy adviser. He keeps telling people one thing, while his campaign tells people abroad something else. I’m not sure what the American people should believe," she said.
Below is an excerpt from an article on Raw Story that quotes what Dr. Power said which I fully support:
"He will rely upon a plan, an operational plan that he pulls together, in consultation with people who are on the ground, to whom he doesn’t have daily access now as a result of not being the president," Powers told the BBC's Stephen Sackur Monday.
Michael Gerson, who was chief speechwriter for President George H. W. Bush from 2001 until 2006, offered this supportive response in his article on Real Clear Politics:
"The proper response to such a statement is: One would hope so. Power's 'gaffe' happens to be an obvious truth. Would Americans expect a president to keep campaign pledges that he later determines would undermine the national interest?"
Unfortunately for Senator Obama, Mr. Gerson goes with a strong (and somewhat justified) summary criticism of Senator Obama's position on the war over time. It would be interesting to take a more detailed analysis of the source of that criticism which comes from Peter Wehner's article on Commentary.com.
However, its not about being an idealogue who holds on to an idea regardless of the consequences but having a leader who goes in with stated goals and objectives but the strength and wisdom to do what is best for the country when the situation or knowledge changes. Contrast this to our current "leader" and his administration.
Senator Obama is getting squeeze from both sides because both sides want to see Senator Clinton as the nominee. Wonder why?
Comments are closed for this post.
