Saturday, April 26, 2008

The Democrats and National Security.

[W]hy it is that we go after Obama hammer and tongs on natsec issues but largely give Clinton a pass. It's actually very simple: we don't believe a word she says on the issue, which makes her more reliable.

No, really.

Read on.

It's like this, you see: Senator Clinton is trying to get elected, and she's been trimming on this issue from Day One. She's stuck in a Party that dislikes national security policy questions, is not very good at formulating those questions, and is even worse at answering them - so she's been stuck with pandering to them. She's not even trying to get more votes from them; her realistic objective was always to minimize the damage. In other words, we don't believe that she actually has a principled stance on the subject, which means (paradoxically) that she's not going to either ignore objective reality if she gets in the Oval Office, or let her past utterances adversely affect her in any way, shape, or form. And Clinton certainly won't take any risks on this. At all. We can work with that.

As for Senator Obama... well, the only thing that he has been clear and unambiguous about is his opposition to the war - which, by the way, is going fairly well at the moment (see also Bill Roggio) - and we cannot give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. When he says he'd have us bug out of Iraq, the only thing that any reasonably objective observer can conclude is that he means it. He probably wouldn't mean to let happen next what will happen next if we bug out, but that's not exactly a comfort, particularly if you happen to live anywhere near an instantly-recognizable American landmark.

Put another way: God help us all, he's just not playing to the antiwar crowd. Senator Obama really does have the national security awareness of a walnut.

No comments: