In the spirit of Kyle's great dot connecting post he just made. I thought I should post an op-ed written by Theodore C. Sorensen in Monday's Des Moines Register."Those Democratic contenders who, as U.S. senators, voted to authorize the most disastrous blunder in U.S. foreign-policy history - the mindless, needless invasion and endless occupation of Iraq - are trying now to regain ground not by stopping the continuing tragic loss of American blood, billions and moral authority in Iraq, but by questioning the foreign-policy credentials of the one serious candidate who opposed the war even before its launch - Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois....
...Obama is not the first young senator running for president to discomfort the Washington foreign-policy establishment by
speaking frankly on a subject displeasing to an American ally. Fifty years ago this summer, a 40-year-old first-term senator, John F. Kennedy, called on the Senate floor for the U.S. government to pressure its French ally into halting its war against Algerian independence."
12 comments:
That has absolutely nothing to do with the post below. Once again an Obama supporter strays from the issues at hand and diverts back to the 'OMGZZ HE'S JFK' meme.
Ted Sorenson also recently wrote the speech he wished the '08 Democratic Nominee would give in the July/August '07 issue of Washington Monthly. It is entitled "The New Vision." I can't find a link for it right now, but if you find it (or have the magazine laying around somewhere) you should definitely read it. The ideas presented in this 'speech' are some that would work for any democratic nominee, even if Obama doesn't win it as Sorenson wants.
I didn't resort to the JFK argument, Kyle. Perhaps you should read my comment about your post.
lolz. I wasn't talking about you (you didn't write this post). I was just like 'eeerrrrrrrrr' when it was a response to mine that didn't really respond.
I was talking about my comment. In other words, I support Obama, and I don't need to rely on the JFK argument.
*hug*
Kyle,
I think you missed the point of my post.
As far as your post regarding Cuba goes, you seem to have read the op-ed by Obama and for some reason assumed that it has to with "vacationing drunk Floridian college students". The policy proposal that was made by the Senator has to do with the policy restrictions placed on by the Bush administration on Cuban Americans, restricting them with sending money to their relatives, and being able to visit them.
Obama says in the op-ed that:
"The primary means we have of encouraging positive change in Cuba today is to help the Cuban people become less dependent on the Castro regime in fundamental ways"
------
My post has to do with Washington's conventional wisdom on foreign policy issues like this one.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-08-22-cuba-stance_N.htm
"Andy Gomez, a senior fellow at the University of Miami's conservative Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, said Obama's position is in line with what many academics have long tried to tell Washington.
"We have to lift the travel ban, not only to allow families to reunite but to allow us to provide information to the Cuban people that will help them form their decisions as to what kind of government they would like for the future," he said.
--------
In the op-ed I posted, Sorenson was saying the same thing about critics of JFK, when he would step out of line with the Washington foreign policy establishment.
I know you have your mind maid up in this election, but don't just take the headline of article and say things like "Obama racking up communist endorsements" or "omgzz he JFK argument".. its more than that.
Dude - tl;dr
as long as kyle does, i'll be happy ;)
Two points to us for being big enough internet geeks to know what tl;dr actually means. I hang my head in E-shame.
im not gonna lie i urban dictionaried it... i can never compete on your level of l33t
Well what can I say? Except: I PWNZOR n00bz.
Post a Comment