In Sunday's Republican debate on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", former Governor Mitt Romney got in a good quip against Senator Barack Obama about his odd reversal in the past week ("He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in a week"). In the YouTube debate, Obama said that he would meet with leaders like Chavez in Venezuela, Castro in Cuba, Kim Jong Il in North Korea, and Abinejad (sp?) in Iran...that our policy of refusing talks with these leaders have got us nowhere. He did have a point, since Reagan and Thatcher saw nothing wrong with dialogue with Gorbachev. However, there was a difference, in that the Soviet Union was considered a superpower, thus guaranteeing that its leaders are of the same stature to meet with the other major players on the globe: the American President, the British Prime Minister, the President of France, and the Chancellor of Germany. Not so with these third rate dictators (though I'm still uncertain if Chavez is as bad as conservatives try to make him. Being "anti"-American doesn't automatically make him a threat). Hillary had an excellent point to make in that these leaders would use such a meeting for propaganda purposes. That is a possibility. Her rebuff showed what a fast-thinking political pro is and reminded us how inexperienced Barack Obama is in foreign policy.
Thus, I was completely shocked when Obama said last week that he might order a military strike against Pakistan if they don't turn over al Qaeda. I was alarmed by his sudden turn towards neo-conservative ideas. What the hell happened? Did the mean ole white lady scare him that much? She showed him up and now he's going to step up his game and prove to her and all of us that he's every bit as tough as her? Forget it, Barack. She's a fem-bot who sold her soul to Rupert Murdoch to be guaranteed a place in history as America's first female president. You're not going to out-gun her on anything. Or are you selling your soul to the neo-conservatives as well?
I'm honestly reconsidering my support of Barack Obama. His switcheroo only tells me that there is something inherently toxic about our government. I often wonder if politicians are taken aside and told "the truth" about how our government really operates, and if they tow the line, they can be president...but for a chance at that opportunity, they have to keep the truth from the American people and speak in canned sound bites from talking points memos and follow the set script that American militarism will continue to be the policy in our country. Forget our crumbling infrastructure, or drowning cities, our children left behind, or our veterans sharing food with rats in run-down VA hospitals. No, we got a war on. Only war-mongers need apply for the job of president. It's the only logical explanation for Obama's dramatic turn-around from willing to talk with our enemies (like Nelson Mandela did) to bombing our "allies" (I put allies in parenthesis because I consider Pakistan to be a military dictatorship that is not accountable to the Pakistani people; the only reason why we're allied with them is because we're afraid of the pro-Bin Laden sentiments that run through Pakistan and if they ever got hold of the government, they'd have access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons). Obama's remarks are reckless, dangerous, and completely ignorant.
In Bill Clinton's autobiography, "My Life", I remember reading that when he ordered missile attacks on al-Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan in 1998 in retaliation for the Embassy bombings in East Africa, he had to clear it with the government of Pakistan first, because of the likelihood that they might consider those missiles from India, thus starting a nuclear war between those two nations. His notification of our government's actions most likely had Bin Laden sympathizers giving him a tip-off to escape. See what kind of "allies" we are dealing with? In the conservative mind, France is the enemy, but Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our allies. It doesn't make sense.
I'm growing more and more disappointed with the candidates running for president. In a way, I almost think a Republican should be forced to clean up Bush's mess. Judging from the debates, Giuliani and the others are already painting Democrats as "defeatist" and if we do have a Democratic president who ends the war in Iraq and the situation gets worse over there, it will be the Democrat they blame, not Bush (because Bush has never been held accountable for anything in his entire life, thanks to his aloof parents). The only way to prevent that is to force a Republican to clean up the mess. At this point, I wouldn't mind a President Romney. I'm not saying that I'm going over to the dark side (I will vote for the Democratic nominee for president), but I'm not going to be disappointed as I was in 2000 and 2004 if the Democrats fail to win again. Until the Democrats stop playing the Republican game of politics and hit them back with every bit of cunning brutality as they deserve, the Democrats deserve to lose.