Worst Overreaction to Foot In Mouth Rhetoric, Ever
By: Mark W Adams

Citing Obama, Pakistan Says It May Impose State Of Emergency: "

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- The government of embattled Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said Thursday it may impose a state of emergency due to 'external and internal threats' and deteriorating law and order in the volatile northwest near the Afghan border.

Tariq Azim, minister of state for information, said some sentiment coming from the United States, including from Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama, over the possibility of U.S. military action against al-Qaida in Pakistan 'has started alarm bells ringing and has upset the Pakistani public.'

Notwithstanding the fact that K-Lo thinks Barack makes Hillary sound "reasonable" for taking a position exactly the same as Senator Clinton's, methinks there's more than a little opportunism going on here -- both here and in Pakistan.

Musharraf has been looking for an excuse to at least look like he's cracking down and can now blame Obama for a little "surge" of his own, damn those Americans. Here in the States, everybody (and by that I mean anybody who is not already firmly in Obama's camp) has been waiting for the "Rock Star" to falter -- jumping on a badly delivered policy statement, uncharacteristically inarticulate for one of the most notable orators of a generation is a no-brainer.

If we've learned one thing from the Rovellians, it's that attacking your opponent's strength is a winning strategy. The great orator stutters. The guy who loves to remind us that he was right about our military strategy in the Middle East from the beginning sends mixed if not naive signals about his stance on an issue he should own. Of course he gets beat up.

But why not? Unless you're a policy wonk (or a political blogger), Oh, Bomb 'em's message was fouled up to the point where he's sounding stupid even though he advocates something that is already U.S. Policy -- POTUS is already authorized to act against terrorists in Pakistan upon "actionable intelligence" via the AUMF that got us into Afghanistan -- and as tempting as it might be to turn everything south of the Hindu Kush into molten glass for what Bin Laden's gang did to us, Obama's right. Nuking Waziristan might be considered a bit excessive.

In a political climate where there is more theater than substance, confusing rhetoric and losing the ability to keep "on message" is far more dangerous to political aspirations than any grooming questions, family problems or a sterling record of accomplishments everyone ignores.

The media is unforgiving in these things, parsing nuances to death, catering to the 8 second sound-bytes, ad nauseam, to feed the mindlessness of our two-word culture. Besides, as The Editors Note:

It is generally considered poor form to discuss bombing countries who are not actively hostile to you. Please do not do this. It just makes shit harder.

Unfortunately for Obama, as I noted here in a comment a couple of weeks ago to this post at Taylor Marsh's blog about Obama's announcement of his superior judgment concerning foreign policy -- compared to all the other candidates (including the current Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a Governor who has a record as an international trouble-shooter), it's time to sit back on the couch and see if "Barry" can stay dry as he leaps these shark infested waters.

Seriously, if you arrogantly proclaim your superiority to people who were dealing with dictators and fighting the good fight in Washington D.C. while you were looking for a date for Homecoming, I'm gonna get some popcorn. If you ask me, Obama was asking to be ganged up upon.

But to all our brothers and sisters in Pakistan, and especially you General Musharraf: Chill out folks, take a pill, drink a beer, light up a hooka, sacrifice a virgin, whatever it is you do to relax -- it's only primary season. And more importantly, it's our primary season, not yours. Get your own lame-brain politicians to get upset about.


Anonymous said...

This article is worth reading on the Obama/Pakistan thing. It is heady-handed against liberals, but I like the two points about WHY Pakistan should remain a friend. I'm guessing you may not like it.

Mark W Adams said...

I appreciate the link, but have to tell you that the Scragged article you link is just plain wrong on so many levels -- misleading premises and illogical reasoning throughout.

A thorough fisking doesn't interest me at the moment. Suffice to say that the article completely mischaracterizes the Democrats' position generally, and specifically twists Hillary and Obama's positions to fit within a shallow narrative the author seeks at all cost to perpetuate.

But then again, who could take someone who mentions Bill Clinton, George Wallace and Zell Miller, Lester Maddox, Joe Lieberman and JFK in the same paragraph as members of the same wing of the Democratic Party. Feh!

Just one thing I just can't let go here. To equate Obama's position that he would invade Pakistan in pursuit of actual, "actionable" intelligence that he could score a hit on bin Laden or his gang is NOT the same as making war on Pakistan itself except in the most technical sense -- nor is it remotely comparable (except for the stark contrasts) to Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, period.

And as Joe Biden stated (which is the actual Democratic position despite what the author implies to further the "soft on security" meme the GOP will always push) it is ALREADY the official policy of the U.S. to pursue terrorists threats to us anywhere, by any means, as I stated in my post above.

It's not that I don't like the article you link. It's that I find it simplistic and hardly worth the time I've already wasted addressing it.