Talking Fairness

Barack Obama answers Larry King’s questions, sporting the Larry King Live 2008 red tie; round two. 

Talking about Iraq, Obama:

<blockquote>John McCain, who supported the war from the start, said we’d be greeted as liberators, has really focused on the tactical issues in Iraq. And the surge has no doubt reduced violence. And I think all Americans are thrilled by that.

But what George Bush and John McCain have missed consistently from the start of this process is the broader strategy.

You know, was it a wise thing to go in there and what are the costs and benefits of staying there indefinitely?

We’re spending $10 billion a month there. We’ve spent $200 billion since the surge began. Meanwhile, the situation where — you know, where the central front against terrorism should be taking place, in Afghanistan, the situation has deteriorated. And we had this brazen attack on a U.S. base where nine servicemen were killed.

And we’ve got to recognize that perpetuating the strategy that we have in Iraq is costing us elsewhere, not only in Afghanistan, but also investments that we could be making here at home. </blockquote>

A) We were greeted as liberators.
B) Be consistent and ask, what are the costs and benefits of the Afghanistan War?
C) If you’re going to ask a question and then answer it, please humbly answer it fully. You gave a detailed response to the costs of Iraq, where are the benefits?

<blockquote>Imagine what we could have done with $200 billion invested in clean energy technology and figuring out how we’re going to raise.</blockquote>

I do not have to imagine, actually.  and it was as wasted as you think it has been wasted in Iraq. The world invested just over that amount; 200 billion dollars. It’s expected to grow greatly over the next decades. But did new wind technology, more efficient or anything, come out of 2007, half way through 2008? Not that the American public knows about. And if it’s simply about building wind plants, that’s uterly stupid.

<blockquote>Where Senator McCain I think is confused is the difference between tactics and strategy. I am absolutely convinced that, strategically, it is time for us to bring this war to an end.</blockquote>

The second sentence compares to Obama’s January 10, 2007 statement, “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going solve the secartarian violence and in fact I think it’ll do the reverse.”  
When he’s not persuaded, he couldn’t have been more wrong, but now he’s absolutely convinced… Of course, what would be strategically best, will actually never come into light, as whether or not the world is better off without Saddam ruling Iraq.

   In conclusion, Obama continues to politicize the Iraq War by over playing the negatives of any war while downplaying the success of the specific war, simultaneously treating the Afghanistan War with reality based outlooks, expressing what he thinks is best regardless of financial costs or strain on the military. And on energy, the economy, he continues the long used Democratic strategy of saying to do what’s already being done by President Bush or by the country without government aid. That is, we’re investing huge amounts of money into solar, wind, and even bio fuels; basically Obama says to through more money at it and this is not really a policy. He says about the part of the broken economy he actually has a solution for,
<blockquote>And so much of this could have been prevented if we had had stronger oversight on the subprime lending market, if we had implemented some simple reforms around Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, if we had had some serious efforts to curb predatory lending, a lot of these problems that we’ve seen could have been prevented.</blockquote> 
I’d have to research it, but how many times over the last four years has Democratic Congressional official attempt to pass laws to prevent the current crisis? I know how many they passed since taking control of Congress in 2007; 0. A new kind of politician, change the way Washington works, thousands of words, zero action.