Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Little Alex won't go

Have you seen the new MoveOn.Org ad for Barack Obama? The with the young mother and her child where she says,

“Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he’s my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can’t have him.”
This is probably going to be a very effective ad but when you analyze it, as William Kristol does in his New York Times article, the ad turns out to be almost as dispicable as MoveOn's general Betray-us ad.

Kristol makes the following points:

First, “John McCain isn’t counting on Alex to serve in Iraq, because little Alex will only be 9 years old when President McCain leaves office after two terms.”

Second, When McCain said U.S. troops might be in Iraq for a hundred years he qualified that explaining, “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed...”

Frankly, I disagree with McCain’s position here. I don’t want U.S. bases in Iraq like we have bases in Germany or Japan, not even if they want us there! But the point is that it is extremely dishonest for the Left in general, and this ad in particular, to imply that McCain wants to be fighting insurgents in Iraq for a hundred years.

Third, we do not have a draft and McCain doesn't want to start one so little Alex wouldn’t have to join the military if his mommy didn’t want him to. This is good for little Alex's mommy because as Kristol pointed out in a TV interview this morning, even Barack Obama has suggested increasing the size of our military!

Finally, Kristol quotes a soldier’s response to this ad:
“Does that mean that she wants other people’s sons to keep the wolves at bay so that her son can live a life of complete narcissism? What is it she thinks happens in the world? ... Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. Someone’s son, somewhere.”
Kristol then comments,
“The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past. And the sole responsibility of others.”
I think Kristol nails it! The ad is essentially a pack of lies, packaged in sentimental emotionalism. Unfortunately, the mindset Kristol describes is characteristic of so many on the Left. Kristol says it much better than my summary. Please read his entire article here.

8 comments:

L'oiseau said...

That's funny, I thought this was the whole point of the ad: (the soldier's comment)

“Does that mean that she wants other people’s sons to keep the wolves at bay so that her son can live a life of complete narcissism? What is it she thinks happens in the world? ... Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. Someone’s son, somewhere.”

The ad was just pointing out that each one of the soldiers that have died so far were someone's baby, someone's child at one time. And if we keep going the way we are going, which McCain seems to be insinuating, then, it doesn't matter if its after his term or not, more people's babies will continue to die for this ridiculous war.

professor ed said...

As a certain policeman was shocked, shocked that gambling was going on at "Rick's Place" in the film Casablanca, so I too am amazed, utterly amazed that moveon.org would offer such a left-wing jab at our military. This recalls to my mind the provocative political ad run by President L.B. Johnson in his reelection campaign against Senator B. Goldwater, in which he shows a little girl picking flowers as a mushroom cloud looms in the distance. Ah, the joy of another political year is truly upon us!

Dennis said...

l'oiseau,

Just wondering: Is it just "this rediculous war" you oppose, or are you against sending little Alex to fight in any war?

In other words, would you be opposed to some day letting little Alex enlist to fight in a war to save our allies like Israel or England from violent foreign overthrow?

L'oiseau said...

It's any ridiculous war, but yes, this one in particular. If the war is not ridiculous, I'm realistically not against it, although, ideally...i hate it.

For me, the only thing worse than a war, is a war that should never have been waged.

Dennis said...

l'oiseau,

OK, so let me make sure I understand you. If you were president of the United States, and

1) your own CIA told you that country X had weapons of mass destruction,

2) the intelligence agencies of Israel, France, Germany, Russia, England and even Egypt all confirmed that this was true

3) It was an undeniable fact that country X had used weapons of mass destruction on their own people before

4) Country X was a state sponsor of terrrorism against the West and had made threats against the West,

5) 10 years of negotiations and sanctions against country X had not worked but only had the effect of depriving the citizens of country X of food and medical supplies.

Are you telling me that as President of the United States you would ignore all of the above but just sit back and do nothing other than continuing the negotiations and sanctions?

I'm convinced that this is what Barack Obama would do which is just one reason I'm scarred to death to have him as president.

I have three kids, three kids-in-law and the most adorable grandaughter you've ever seen...and I want a president who will protect them and not just sit back and negotiate until we've lost one or more of our major cities.

George Bush was apparently wrong about Iraq's WMD's but I don't think there is any way on earth he could have known that. Its all very easy for the Democrats to sit back and second guess his decisions after the fact with the information we have now, but before the war, even most the Democrates voted for war!

L'oiseau said...

I believe that he did know about it, that's the problem. Or, the difference between you and I. I think it has been proven that many documents were ignored saying that there were no WMD's and so we essentially attacked a country that had nothing to do with 911, although we blamed it on 911 at the time, and the war itself has been handled really badly. Five years ago, it was "mission accomplished" and yet we are still there, and now possibly thinking of an Iran war?? It's a huge mess in my opinion.

I believe that Barack Obama will look at all the information given, and make the best decision possible, but I do not believe he will ignore or change information in order to fight a war for who knows what reason.

Dennis said...

l'oiseau,

You wrote, "I think it has been proven that many documents were ignored saying that there were no WMD's"

Then why did even the Democrats in congress vote to go to war?

These are the facts:

1) Iraq did have WMD's during the first Iraq war

2) Our own CIA and the world's intelligence agencies told George Bush that Iraq still had WMD's.

3) Even Bill Clinton believed that Iraq still had WMD's.

4) For years Saddam Hussein thwarted the efforts of inspectors to find his WMD's (by refusing to allow inspectors access to some facilities and by blocking their access to others long while trucks streamed out of the rear entrances.

5) Members of the intelligence committees of Congress had access to classified intelligence regarding Iraq and they thought Iraq had WMD.

6) While in jail, Saddam Hussein admitted to one of his FBI handlers who built up a relation with Saddam, that he (Saddam) had deliberately misled the west about having WMD's because he was afraid of Iranian attack and wanted Iran also to think he had WMD.

I think the documents you are referring to were written by Valarie Plame's ambassador husband, Joseph Wilson.

In 2002 Wilson was sent on a fact finding trip to Niger to investigate a rumor that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium to build a nuclear bomb. Wilson found no evidence that Saddam was seeking uranium in Niger, but his is a LONG way from proving that Saddam did not have WMD or wasn't seeking uranium elsewhere.

l'ouseau, you wrote, "and so we essentially attacked a country that had nothing to do with 911, although we blamed it on 911 at the time,

As they say, hindsight is 20/20. It is very easy for us to sit here now that Saddam Hussein is gone and second guess our president who--whether he was right or wrong--was just doing what he thought was best to keep you safe.

You wrote, "and the war itself has been handled really badly. Five years ago, it was "mission accomplished"

The fact that we are still there is not entirely our fault. President's don't have a crystal ball to tell them exactly which method will bring a war to its quickest conclusion.

If not for Muslim insurgents we would have been out of Iraq and would have had it rebuilt long ago.

I guess George Bush could have shortened the war by bombing Iraq's major cities into rubble like we bombed Germany in WWII, but the Left would have condemned him for that too.

The fact is that it really wouldn't have mattered what George Bush had done--the Left would hate him anyway.

You wrote, "and yet we are still there, and now possibly thinking of an Iran war?? It's a huge mess in my opinion."

Yes, it is a huge mess, but so was World War II. Do you honestly think that if we just stayed home and left the world alone that we would be safe?

And if we don't stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons it will be the greatest threat this world has ever seen. I say that because when we were at cold war with the Soviets, the U.S. and the Soviet Union had an understanding known as "mutual assurred destruction" which meant that if you shoot your nukes, we will shoot ours. End of the world. That kept both sides from using their nukes.

That method won't work with Iran because in the words of some Muslim radicals, they "love death more than you love life." Muslim extremists have proven throughout history that the mass slaughter of thousands, even millions of people means nothing to them. But we won't learn from history.

The religious leaders who rule Iran believe it is their God-given duty to bring the world into submission to Allah by any and all means necessary. They would not hesitate for a minute to nuke entire cities if they think it will accomplish that end.

You wrote, "I believe that Barack Obama will look at all the information given, and make the best decision possible,"

Why would you think that given the fact that Obama seems to change his position on a regular basis depending on which way the political winds blow?

In addition to all the Obama reversals I posted recently there was another one just today. Obama said he supported the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Washington DC's ban on guns....but I saw a clip on the news today of Obama saying he supported Washington DC's ban on guns!

The guy will say anything to anyone in order to get elected. If he had to make the tough decisions, I'm convinced he would do what was best for Barack Obama, not what was best for the country.

And even if he tried to do what was best for the country, he just doesn't have the experience to know what that is when it comes to foreign affairs. And his consistent choice of associates shows that we can't trust his judgment either.

L'oiseau said...

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

I'd encourage you to read this report, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. I don't admit to be a super-political person, but I think this report extremely interesting and saddening.

Here's a glimpse:

"this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?"

I've noticed your "Obama flip-flop" blogs. Yeah, I think he does a little. So does McCain. Shocking.