But does he have a plan?

Two personal anecdotes and then I’ll get to my point.

1. When my first Little Bookworm was born, I went into a fairly deep funk. She was a lousy sleeper, and I’m generally not very good at handling change in my life. Between fatigue and my own personal inflexibility, all I could do — very vocally –was mourn the passing of my easy, well-ordered life before a baby came along. Mr. Bookworm put up with my whining quite patiently for a long time, but he finally had it. On night, he turned to me and said words that completely rejiggered my thinking about motherhood: “This is your life now. Get used to it.” In other words, you can mourn the past as much as you want, but you live in the present. I operate with that philosophy on a regular basis now.

2. I can walk into a room and instantly tell you what’s wrong with it: the colors are ugly, the furniture doesn’t fit the room, the paintings are poor quality. Whatever. Just don’t ask me to fix it. My decorating talents are purely destructive, not constructive. I don’t have the slightest ability to make a room look good (which is why I turn to my mother, who is very talented in that direction).

Those are the anecdotes. This is my point: The press is making much of the fact that Barack Obama is one of the candidates who can boast to the base that he voted against never supported the war. That’s all well and good, but it ignores the fact that, while he may have opposed it, we’re now in the midst of one. Anti-war people can mourn the 2003 votes as much as possible, wishing that they had gone otherwise, but the present is war.

Which gets me to my second point. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Obama was right and the war is wrong, he hasn’t given any indication whatsoever that he has the ability to deal with the present reality. Like me with a room, it’s easy to point out errors, and much, much harder to provide solutions. Until Obama gives a sign that he’s functioning in the present and not trying to rewrite 2003, and until he shows that he can do more than complain about the situation, I continue to be unimpressed with him as a viable wartime candidate.

del.icio.us | digg it

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. rockdalian says

    Barack Obama, also known as the Annointed One, was elected to the senate in 2004. When did he vote against the war? He has been quoted as saying he would have voted against the war at the time but, alas , he could not.

  2. BigAL says

    yeah, right

    if your interior decorator ruined your house and made it look like complete crap (and charged you for it,and gave no refund)….would you ever let that interior decorator have control over fixing all the problems they created for you and your house?

    I don’t think so. you might hire a new interior decorator, and do everything possible to make sure the new interior decorator did not make the same mistakes, but you would never let the original interior decorator (who ruined your house and never gave you a refund) touch your house ever again.

    If the you were FORCED to keep the original interior decorator (and forced to continue to pay) , you would complain and complain and complain, and you would not trust anything the old interior decorator said.

    That’s how anti-Iraq-war people feel. It’s also how many people feel about the war on terror.

    And they still do have solutions despite their deep frustrations—like removing all our troops from Iraq, reducing dependency on foreign oil(which they have been saying for decades–while being ignored by the GOP), treat terrorism as a law-enforcement issue(meaning we can’t just invade a country–we have to go after INDIVIDUALS responsible for terrorism), and many many other ideas which people like yourself will not even consider as viable options.

  3. BigAL says

    When the Left gets tired of making things up and see that just like the Sunnis, that they need to play ball or be destroyed, then maybe they will do what you recommended, Book.

    Comment by ymarsakar | February 27, 2007

    yeah Y,

    it’s interesting that we have now emboldened Iraq and Shiites in the middle-east by removing Sunni controlled Iraq from the equation.

    it’s even more interesting that we’re now trying to fight Iran by allying ourselves with Sunni’s. Hopefully, we’re not accidentally allying ourselves with Sunni TERRORISTS– (like the ones who executed 9-11) in order to win the war of the day.

    oh, wait. We already ally ourselves with a country that knowingly harbors terrorists–Saudi Arabia….this is not new stuff, sorry.

    it begs the question….

    “do we want to win the war on terrorism?”

    or “do we just want to fight wars?”

    and also “are we supporting terrorism a lot more than we know?”

    and “are we allowing this to happen because of the profits being gained by oil companies AND military contracting companies (often the same companies)???????”

    “why are we allies with Saudi Arabia?”

    “is the war on terror big business?”

  4. says

    it’s interesting that we have now emboldened Iraq and Shiites in the middle-east by removing Sunni controlled Iraq from the equation.

    Keep talking big, you know it doesn’t do anything for classical liberals by talking about the maintaining the status quo. I’ve noticed that the status quo helps nobody except the corrupt and evil.

    Hopefully, we’re not accidentally allying ourselves with Sunni TERRORISTS– (like the ones who executed 9-11) in order to win the war of the day.

    Which means in biga’s doubletalking world, let’s have the Sunnis in Iraq as a bulwark against Al Qaeda… that even sounds more ridiculous than saying sunnis won’t work with the shia terrorists. (Syria with Iran)

Leave a Reply