Post by jeffolie on Aug 1, 2007 13:32:15 GMT -6
Fighting Terrorism is a Progressive Value
I’m a little worried about some of the initial response I’m seeing to Obama’s terrorism speech today. I have tremendous respect for the handful of bloggers I’m seeing respond negatively to this move on Obama’s part, so I wanted to just reassert something I thought we all already knew.
We cannot forget that most of us get on George Bush’s case because he’s taken the fight AWAY from terrorism.
It really should be the rule, not the exception, that candidates tell us how, rather than if, they’re going to do that. (Can someone respond to a point of inquiry here…have other Democratic candidates presented such a comprehensive view of how they’d do that? If so, please link. If not, why not?)
If you want to debate Obama’s approach on the merits, that’s a worthy enterprise, but wanting to finish the war that Bush abandoned for his reckless policies is responsible not "hawkish."
Personally, I think the speech is great. It’s refreshing to see a grasp of the various fronts we have to address rather than lumping everything into one giant scare tactic. Obama is assuming that the voters who are watching this want more than just lip service, and I think he deserves kudos for that.
The speech is comprehensive, going from core al Qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan to homeland security (tugs at my heart strings a little). I say this because make sure you read it and not simply the MSM highlights.
In this case, Obama tells us that with actionable intelligence and if Pakistan won't do it, he'll take action.
www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/08/fighting-terror.html
I’m a little worried about some of the initial response I’m seeing to Obama’s terrorism speech today. I have tremendous respect for the handful of bloggers I’m seeing respond negatively to this move on Obama’s part, so I wanted to just reassert something I thought we all already knew.
We cannot forget that most of us get on George Bush’s case because he’s taken the fight AWAY from terrorism.
It really should be the rule, not the exception, that candidates tell us how, rather than if, they’re going to do that. (Can someone respond to a point of inquiry here…have other Democratic candidates presented such a comprehensive view of how they’d do that? If so, please link. If not, why not?)
If you want to debate Obama’s approach on the merits, that’s a worthy enterprise, but wanting to finish the war that Bush abandoned for his reckless policies is responsible not "hawkish."
Personally, I think the speech is great. It’s refreshing to see a grasp of the various fronts we have to address rather than lumping everything into one giant scare tactic. Obama is assuming that the voters who are watching this want more than just lip service, and I think he deserves kudos for that.
The speech is comprehensive, going from core al Qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan to homeland security (tugs at my heart strings a little). I say this because make sure you read it and not simply the MSM highlights.
In this case, Obama tells us that with actionable intelligence and if Pakistan won't do it, he'll take action.
www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/08/fighting-terror.html