Politics and Culture

I know these arguments work on Americans of a certain level of political understanding, but they're both simi-dishonest crowd-pleasers and I wish McCain and Obama would give their audiences a little context when they use it to attack their opponent (like I'm about to do):

First, Obama said:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said, referring to reports that Al-Qaeda had regrouped in Pakistani tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges, but let me make this clear: there are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again."

Let's see what Obama meant by the statement: Obama didn't say that he wanted to overthrow the Pakistani government- he wanted to pursue known terrorists. If McCain knew the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and Musharraf didn't act, do think he'd go after him? I don't know. The situation would be similar to that in the movie Clear and Present Danger where the president orders a strike on a drug dealer. I can see both sides.

Clear and Present Danger (Special Collector's Edition)

Another thing: Would Musharraf be an ally if he didn't allow us to get bin Laden?

My point is that it's a little dishonest to say that Obama would "invade Pakistan."

Now, if criticising Obama's statement is not entirely fair, the McCain 100 years thing is downright demagogic. The unthinking left repeats it because...well... they don't think about it. We will, however:

...at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.

"Maybe 100," McCain replied. We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me...As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

First, it's a good thing that we're there for a hundred years. A base in Iraq could come in handy sometime. It'd be nice as a buffer against Iran. A base implies that the government in Iraq would be friendly to the United States. Obama likes to call our presence there an "occupation." If the majority of the people, as they express through their elected government, wants us there, that's good, no?

Second, McCain defends his statement by saying that it's not the time, but the casualties. By this he means that it's no big deal for Americans to have bases around the world as long as our enemies aren't constantly killing them. Most Americans including, I presume, Obama don't mind that we're in Saudi Arabia (The best analogy since terrorists threaten us over our presence there as well.), Kuwait, and Turkey- all of which are on the Iraqi border -not to mention the dozens of bases we have in other countries, like Japan and Germany, where we also vanquished evil dictators.

Third, McCain isn't going to be president for a hundred years. I assume that he can't straitjacket the next 20 presidents into an Iraq commitment.

Fourth, McCain has more determination to win than Obama.

Conclusion:

Don't bring up arguments just to score points, especially if you know that the audience doesn't understand the context.