Submitted by Linda Tinjum, Dec 26, 2006 17:09

Bomb Iran? Now that's sure to make all those giddy "he was against the war in Iraq" Obama supporters happy, don't you think? And, according to Ms. Rice, Obama presaged the Iraq Study Group's comments (in a speech he gave in November 2006, just after he announced he was considering running for President and, obviously, felt he had to say somthing about "his" Iraq policy). Well, my candidate in 2004, and in 2008 if he runs again, Wes Clark, has been suggesting a regional conference and direct talks with both Syria and Iran for over 3 years, while never advocating any publicly declared timelines for withdrawal of troops, and he "got it right", too, on Iraq. And, according to Mr. Solow, Obama has "long-standing" position papers on Israel going back to his Senate campaign - let's see, that was what, 3 years ago? I guess 3 years is long-standing to Mr. Solow. And Obama's becoming the heir apparent to Sam Nunn on loose nukes because he took a trip with Senator Lugar? Who would have guessed? And what can I say about Mr. Lake's contention that Obama has a ". . . talent for being formidably intelligent and being able to place complicated concepts in such eloquent terms"? I guess I could say that Wes Clark is the most intelligent, knowledgable, experienced, and credible Democrat on national security, foreign policy, and matters related to defense and the military, and I bet Obama would agree. After all, Clark has been the go-to man for Democrats on these issues for the past 2 years, including the "Get Out Of Iraq Now" caucus. Just a few weeks ago I read where Samantha Powers and Mark Lippert were advisors to Obama and were helping him formulate his positions on international affairs. And here I thought that when you announced that you were considering running for President and Commander in Chief that you had already formulated your positions on international affairs. Silly me. Now I don't know if Obama has formulated his positions on international affairs yet or not, but he certainly has formulated a PR machine to convince us that if he's not there yet, he's getting there. I'll go with someone who doesn't have to get there, who already has the military and defense know-how, international diplomatic experience, and world respect that the next President will need to repair the damage that's been done by the Bush administration, who can hold his own on any domestic policy issue, and who will always put country above both party and politics.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.