Skip to main content

If Barack's going to win, he's got to get it right....

... and beating Hillary is NOT the same as beating McCain.

Especially on foreign policy and defense issues.

Last night's debate was a win for Obama, but only because he didn't lose.

Even so, his performance on defense issues was execrable, especially his mangled anecdote about the Captain in Afghanistan:

Here's the take from Gateway Pundit via Fausta's Blog:

"They were actually capturing tally-ban weapons because it was easier getting Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current Commander in Chief."

Okay, Gateway, hubby e-mailed me pretty upset over the Obama transcript. He said this:

1. CPT's command companies, not platoons.
2. Platoons are not divided up to go to 2 different theaters, EVER.
3. There is no ammo shortage in OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan). Many platoons are deployed to remote sites in the mountains and require aerial resupply. Those resupply missions are dependent on favorable weather conditions.
4. Taliban weapons are usually not very good and we would not use them without a very high level of command approval.
5. The CDR in Chief is so high above the platoon level that comment doesn't even deserve a response.


Barack is in fact fortunate that Hillary is just as big an idiot on real defense/military issues as he is. Being right about the "strategic blunder" of invading Iraq is not the same thing as being able to talk the real talk about military policy.

If you think that John McCain's "100 years" comment is going to hurt him, think again. If this is the best Barack can do about being commander-in-chief, he's toast.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...
22 comments
Read more

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...
31 comments
Read more