What really caught my interest is the write up about some specifics in Obama's anti-terrorism plans, which I've heard NOTHING of from him or any of the speeches I've heard of his, so I suppose we could say the media is failing to represent the democratic candidate (which is the opposite of the argument you usually hear), or Obama really hasn't said much about it. I'm not sure which is the case. I really like a lot of what was said, maybe even all of it, about Obama's plans to combat terrorism. I'm not sure where I stand on the debate between legal action against terrorists or military action against them, but if we legally pursue terrorists and it actually gets somewhere (which it seems to, vs. other types of cases that just don't go anywhere) then I can't argue too much with that. I don't buy the republican argument that arresting and imprisoning terrorists vs. just killing them outright is such a bad thing.
The other thing that really caught my attention was this paragraph:
But Obama has shown himself far more eager than Kerry and other Democrats to challenge the Republicans on the issue. He argues that the Bush administration's approach to fighting terrorism has been a failure, and he proposes an approach that mixes law enforcement, intelligence and military tools, including the possibility of invading Pakistan to pursue al-Qaeda if the Pakistani government does not cooperate.How many people argue that the Iraq war is wrong simply because all war is wrong and any invasion of another country is bad and we're terrible human beings because we even thought about doing it? I hear way too many of those arguments, and see far too many bumperstickers about it, when it is such a completely naive and idiotic mind-set. Idealistic and happy, yes, but idiotic to think that such an ideal can ever be reached. But here you have Obama, the people's hero for saying he'll pull the US out of Iraq (would that be considered a defeat? what happens to nations that lose wars? how do other countries who want their resources view those countries?) saying that if Pakistan doesn't cooperate we'll invade them too! I wonder how that makes some people feel.
This should also make us wonder what the term "does not cooperate" really means, and if this is just a fake statement, ie - Pakistan could send us videos of terrorists partying in their capital and we would still give them more chances to cooperate, and what the quantitative factors are for cooperation. Did Iraq cooperate? Was Saddam within the realm of what Obama would consider "not cooperative"? Does this whole thing make Obama sounds like just another pushy, big-time American hypocrite?
Oh and also, Bush has called for a lift of the ban on drilling for oil around the US. What do people think of this move? I don't fully buy into his argument that the high gas prices are all the democrats' fault, but certainly if the war in Iraq was just for oil we really F-ed that part up by not taking much from there.