Obama editorial skidded way off mark

  • Follow Letters

Your editorial on presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama ("Obama bombs," Aug. 10) was off-key on two important points.

First, you stated he suggested "invading the country of a U.S. ally." This is false. He only said he would act on actionable intelligence to strike a high-value terrorist. Not invade. No troops. No army; simply a military strike - not unlike our strike in Yemen in 2002.

Are you suggesting that, if Osama bin Laden was sitting on the Pakistan side of the border, and popped up and waved, we should sit back and do nothing? Rather an odd position for your paper. Usually you are upset that liberals are imposing restrictions on the president to keep us safe from the likes of bin Laden.

Secondly, compare Obama's statement with that of President Bush: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. ... From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

I don't recall any uproar about how nave President Bush was for threatening every country in the region. Nor do I see how Obama's remarks even contradict Bush's statements on the issue. In fact, they fall in line with it. If we know where bin Laden is, and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf does not act, we will. At least Obama didn't say that he would declare Pakistan "hostile," as did Bush. How you contort that into being nave is beyond the pale.

Another aspect to this distorted story is how media critic Howard Kurtz was puzzled that anyone even thought Obama meant "invade" in his remarks. And when Obama blamed the media for falsely implying he said he would invade, Kurtz defended the media, since no one could be that dumb as to think what Obama said implied an invasion. I guess Kurtz doesn't read papers like yours.

Mick Travis, Evans

Comments (12) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
patriciathomas
42
Points
patriciathomas 08/14/07 - 05:16 am
0
0
Mick Travis, a well stated

Mick Travis, a well stated position and response to the drive by media. Guess who they're backing.

Mrs Genevive Bait
0
Points
Mrs Genevive Bait 08/14/07 - 06:15 am
0
0
Well, of course Obama

Well, of course Obama wouldn't invade Pakistan. He'd just shoot a bunch of missiles into the country and no one would care. Of course no one would care. Would you care if Augusta got hit by 75 missiles? Of course not. You'd be happy to have them landing in your neighborhood. The issue with Obama is that he campaigned as a peaceful and responsible candidate and now he's talking about violating the sovereignty of a country by bombarding that country with a zillion exploding rockets. The issue is that he seems hypocritical. Personally, I'm all for him launching all these missiles, I just say, arm them with hydrogen warheads and have done with it!

mgroothand
5
Points
mgroothand 08/14/07 - 07:36 am
0
0
Mrs Bait, what is it with you

Mrs Bait, what is it with you and your fascination for hydrogen bombs? The US has had nuclear weapons since 1945 and would likely only use them if attacked by the same, thank God.

Mrs Genevive Bait
0
Points
Mrs Genevive Bait 08/14/07 - 08:28 am
0
0
Hydrogen bombs are far more

Hydrogen bombs are far more powerful than atomic bombs and would do far more damage. I'm not in favor of using them, i just think it's the only course open to us that will work. Sending armies into the middle east will not work and will only make people angry. The only way to win that war is to have an army the size of the one we had in WWII and totally invade the place and take it over. That would take millions of men and we would lose hundreds of thousands of brave men and women. Is that what you want? We either must do that or disengage from the middle east totally and befriend the Islamic world in the way we have previously befriended Israel. I say that obliterating the middle east is the easier solution.

cdb
0
Points
cdb 08/14/07 - 08:33 am
0
0
You are wright Obama is a Dem

You are wright Obama is a Dem so he would not infade anyone.He would cut and run like they all do.

mgroothand
5
Points
mgroothand 08/14/07 - 08:42 am
0
0
Sure Mrs Bait, nuke 'em all

Sure Mrs Bait, nuke 'em all and let God sort them out. What about the six million Jews in Israel would they just become casualties of your war? I can only hope that people like you with morbid minds will never come to any position of power to carry out such a holocaust.

johnsmith
9
Points
johnsmith 08/14/07 - 09:10 am
0
0
Hey, now, we can't burn

Hey, now, we can't burn radioactive oil in our cars...careful what you wish for! I read the Obama transcripts, and he didn't say anything beyond the pale that I could find. The only problem is that he is currently criticizing, rather vehemently, the use of military force, so it's a little tough to take him at face value. Also, he had recently stated that he would "sit down with" Kim Jong Il, Ahmedinajed, Chavez, etc., but when asked about a potential issue in Pakistan, his first response was "I would use military force." Getting on the phone to Musharraf didn't seem to be as attractive an option as lunch with the loonies. I _think_ that that's the point that even the left-biased media were attempting, rather inarticulately (can I say that?) to make...

Mrs Genevive Bait
0
Points
Mrs Genevive Bait 08/14/07 - 10:30 am
0
0
Goodness Mr. Groothand, we

Goodness Mr. Groothand, we would obviously warn the Israelis and help them to evacuate. Then once the bombs fall and the fires die out then we could put up huge fans and blow the radiation over into Siberia and the Israelis could move back in. It's really pretty simple. I didn't come up with it. Leo Strauss first hit on the idea of doing this in "Natural Right and History" back in the 1950s. Strauss addressed the problem of radioactive oil, and crude oil is a very poor transmitter of radioactivity, plus, if you just run the oil through a Grynomational (sp?) filter you can get out all (99.7%) the radioactivity.

mgroothand
5
Points
mgroothand 08/14/07 - 12:33 pm
0
0
Just figured it out and I'm

Just figured it out and I'm blushing. You are not a MRS, Genevive is spelled Genevieve but the way you spelled it it could mean Je ne vive, French for "I don't live" except you didn't add "pas". Bait is what you've done, you've baited me and I fell for your stupid rhetoric. Well, no more, but congrats!

jack
10
Points
jack 08/14/07 - 02:03 pm
0
0
Evidently, Mr Travis was not

Evidently, Mr Travis was not watching Obama on TV when he made the statement about taking action against al Qeda whether Mushariff approved or not. I got the strong impression he meant committing troops or whatever it took to destroy al Queda. Frankly, I personally agree on that count before allowing al Queda to launch attacks against us here. However, it is not too smart to announce such intentions against an "Ally". Also, if OBL was to "pop up" in Pakistan, we should take action to kill him. Seems BJ Cliton was given that opportunity more than once when the CIA had OBL in their sites but could not get White House permission to kill him. As for Bush's statement about those harboring terrorists, Musharif isn't "harboring" al Queda or the Taliban, ut is hesitant to invade the tribal regions as his government is not on the steadiest foundation.

Mrs Genevive Bait
0
Points
Mrs Genevive Bait 08/14/07 - 03:39 pm
0
0
Thank you Mr. Groothand, but

Thank you Mr. Groothand, but actually, i did misspell my own name. It was just a typo and I haven't gone back and changed it, yet. I haven't tried to bait anyone. That's just my husband's name. Now, I will admit it's a funny name and I've been teased about it a lot. It was worse for him when people called him Mister Bate. That sounds almost like something else. And yes, people called him that, too.

mable8
2
Points
mable8 08/14/07 - 04:01 pm
0
0
Face it folks, Bush would war

Face it folks, Bush would war with the entire Mid-East countries if he had his way. He wants the oil, period. Glad he can't run for re-election.

Queen4842
3
Points
Queen4842 08/14/07 - 06:28 pm
0
0
I find it amazing how the

I find it amazing how the editorial staff gets so scared this early in the election process. Obama must be a contender if they are so quick to point out in their opinion all that is wrong with him in their opinion which matters not much in the real world.

jack
10
Points
jack 08/14/07 - 08:50 pm
0
0
Nah Queen, The only one the

Nah Queen, The only one the DIMs are afraid of hasn't even put his hat in the ring-Fred Thompson.

Back to Top
loading...
Search Augusta jobs