Worst…Smears…Ever… September 4, 2008
Posted by bensix in Uncategorized.trackback
Well, Palin’s speech was about as cynical as Hugh Hewitt gets. She warmly spouted the “hockey mom” cliches, wittered on about McCain’s military experience, paraded the family that she wants to protect and made a pathetic attempt at smearing Obama.
“This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word “victory” except when he’s talking about his own campaign.”
A President that doesn’t embrace jingoistic triumphalism is one that I’d be proud of. It’s certainly preferable to a President whose rhetoric wants to protect a nation that doesn’t exist and threatens war through the medium of song.
“The answer is to make government bigger … take more of your money … give you more orders from Washington … and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world.”
What exactly does she mean by “reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world”? If she means, “stay away from wars” then at the very least Obama will save “your money”.
And what about “orders from Washington”. What else was the Patriot Act, a voluntary community scheme?
“America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it.”
Sarah, you contrary devil, a month ago you were “pleased” with Obama’s energy plan.
“Victory in Iraq is finally in sight … he wants to forfeit.”
Ah, so here we see the wretchedness of jingoistic triumphalism. What exactly is “victory” and why is it “in sight”? If she means “violence has been reduced, but now we’re caught between the Iraqi government and the tribal leaders that we supported“, then she’s half right, but with a candidate whose national security experience runs to living near Russia and hoping that America has a withdrawl plan I don’t want to make that generous assumption.
Nor do I want to make that assumption of her electoral partner: a man who supported the war, announced victory in 2003 and now thinks that Iraq is a “peaceful, stable country“.
“Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions.”
Sarah, tell me, what do you prefer? And why, indeed, are you so sure that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons “without delay“? Are we, instead, to trust triumphalism and an array of advisers that led us into Iraq?
“Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights?”
This minimising of American crimes in Guantanamo Bay is pretty disgusting, and especially from a candidate whose electoral candidate has notoriously flip-flopped in his opposition to torture.
What does it say about a party that promises reform without specifying what reforms it’s seeking? Are we supposed to just trust them? What, again?
“Are we supposed to just trust them”
last time i checked it didnt matter anything much what we non-americans did
Editorial we, Edgar
Ben
[...] well, a veteran did turn out, with a message that jingoists and armchair waffle dispensers, myself included, should take note [...]
[...] also scary is that despite her ignorance she’s incredibly jingoistic. At her first speech she blasted Obama, pathetically, for insufficient use of the word “victory“, and in the interview she [...]
[...] restate the blindingly obvious, Sarah Palin lies more than she offers coherent sentences, shows a staggering ignorance of foreign policy and the economy and was selected largely for her symbolic value, which aids the [...]