Obama Becoming More Audacious
While glancing over news that the Associated Press (AP) had to offer today (7/15/08) I came across a headline that read "Obama, McCain Sharpen their dispute over Iraq war" and sparked my interest. I wanted to see how the AP and, in general corporate media, could make it seem that these two differed so greatly over the occupation in Iraq.
To no surprise, it revealed remarks by both Obama and McCain that are totally militaristic and follow basic U.S. ideological constructs. The article, written by David Espo, an AP Special Correspondent, began by quoting Obama and saying " ‘Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don’t have unlimited resources to try and make it one," Obama said in a speech in which he also said the United States must shift its focus to defeating the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan." That sounds like a fantastic idea. That rationale doesn’t even follow smart empire-building – invading another country to solve your problem of unlimited resources. I say "your" problem because that is hardly the problem of the millions of people in Iraq who have to deal with the illegal occupation, military rule, improsonment, violence, and a sesspool of terrorists that have come from U.S. invasion. Obama is going to Iraq to "discuss with Petraeus and others . . . the resources they will seek to carry out a post-combat mission of protecting U.S. personnel and bases, training Iraqi forces and conducting counterinsurgency attacks against al-Qaida," Espo points out. Obama doesn’t stop there, though, he continues by saying " ‘If Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like Bin Laden if we have them in our sights.’ " By "take out" he means militarily – which is in huge violation of international law. Obama’s words are follow Bush’s almost verbatim. Regarding McCain’s remarks that the surge of troops was a success, Obama says, " ‘This argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face.’ " Obama, what does succeeding in Iraq mean to you? Is the only complaint you have against the occupation is that it was not planned well enough and, therefore need to adjust the "strategy" of the illegal occupation? Espo points out "In Afghanistan, ‘June was our highest casualty month of the war. The Taliban has been on the offensive, even launching a brazen attack on one of our bases. Al-Qaida has a growing sanctuary in Pakistan,’ Obama added." Brazen attack on one of your bases? It isn’t that brazen since you are occupying the country. Could this be a foundation Obama could use as president to insight fear in the United States to carry out his brazen plan for unilateral military action? McCain says Obama is just trying to act tough. Of course, McCain doesn’t differ greatly other than he believes the surge was "successful" and wants to stay on the stated course in Iraq.
Dissappointing. I wanted to see the staunch difference.
What I do know is that Obama is in no way a speaker of people, of this country, or of people throughout the world, unless you hold criminal principles dear to your heart. He is a speaker for corporations and an outlaw nation that will make him a renowned killer in the world. I know this because nobody would wish these remarks upon others. Only under the constructs of an empire driven world would someone want this. Obama is just another resultant of that framework.
Espo, David. 2008. Associated Press (AP). http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_iraq