Barak Obama is showing his ignorance more and more every day. Here’s how he describes what we must, and must not, do in Afghanistan:
Now you have narco drug lords who are helping to finance the Taliban, so we’ve got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there..
So that’s what we’re doing, huh? We’re “just” bombing villages and killing civilians?
Unbelievable.
Barak Obama either has no idea what he’s talking about or he’s intentionally slandering our soldiers (something that seems par for the course among Democratic Senators). Either way, he’s unfit to serve as Commander-in-Chief. No one who believes that the mission of the US military is only to destroy village and kill civilians should ever be giving orders to our men and women in uniform. Not ever.
Apparently, his campaign spokesman fully endorses Obama’s statement and takes it one step further, not to mention two steps stupider.
Campaign spokesman Reid Cherlin said Obama was not endorsing the current Bush policy, which consists solely of air raids and bombing of civilians.
The National Intelligence Estimate concludes the Taliban has become more insurgent since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Cherlin said.
It is unacceptable to me that the Democrats would seriously entertain any candidate who would say anything close to this. It’s doubly baffling to me that Obama’s spokesman would say something as dumb as his second statement.
Has the Taliban become more insurgent since 9/11? Well, duh! That’s like saying that Saddam Hussein became less genodical after 2002. Of cours the Taliban became more insurgent. They were in charge before 9/11. They’re weren’t insurgent at all!
Is the Obama official policy that we should never make any group “more insurgent”? If so, it’s a ridiculous assertion and a supremely dangerous foreign policy.
Barak Obama needs to step aside right now, go back to the Senate and learn a few things about our military and the world (not to mention the definition of the word “insurgent”), and let the adults campaign for President.
UPDATE: Says Ed Morrissey:
Obama started this primary campaign looking like a man with a future in the Democratic Party. His asinine pronouncements on military affairs and foreign policy now make him look like someone drowning in two feet of water. Besides having a nice voice and a pleasant disposition, the man has nothing to offer. He’s an empty suit, a man who doesn’t engage his brain before activating his jaw.
I think Ed’s going too easy on him.
Sister Toldjah calls him “unfit”.
UPDATE 2: Allah thinks we’re being too hard on Obama.
I’m loath to defend his holiness but I think this is less a case of Obama meaning to cast unfair aspersions on the troops in Afghanistan than being too flip in describing a serious recurring problem.
…
Obama’s point, as I take it, is that the more troops we have on the ground, the less we need to rely on air power, and the more precise our attacks on the enemy will be. The jerky part was adding the word “just,” which I’m guessing is his nod at how Afghans may perceive U.S. operations sometimes.
I can’t buy that explanation. I would have been inclined to cut Obama a break had his spokesman not specifically said what he did. Now, it’s possible that Obama was trying to say that air-raides all by themselves are not the answer, but that’s an assertion that he just can’t honestly make. As Morrissey and Geraghty demonstrated when responding to the AP’s silly defense, we’re not “just” or “solely” relying on air-raids. We’re sure as hell not “just” or “solely” bombing civilians. Obama didn’t screw up by going for the snark and missing it. He, backed by his campaign spokesman, made a specific accusation for which he needs to apologize immediately.
