The Redhunter

" just air raiding villages and killing civilians", eh?

Either he mispoke, in which he shouldn't get the nomination, or he means it, in which case he's a dope.

No I'm not going to spend this post "debunking" his claim, because it's self-evident nonsense on its face.

But Wait, There's More

Senator Obama made his remarks before a crowd of 600 at a Nashua, New Hampshire, park yesterday, according to the Nashua Telegraph. The Telegraph also reports this

Obama pledged to engage China and Saudi Arabia in supporting a permanent, peaceful political solution in post-war Iraq and communicate with sectarian factions in that country.

Oh heavens.

I can't imagine why in the world China would help us anywhere in the Middle East, and Saudi Arabia is "the mother ship of the jihad", as Walid Phares puts it.

Why is it that the left wants to talk to our enemies and snub or attack our friends? Speaker Pelosi just about sat in Bashir Assad's lap during her trip to Damascus. Liberals opine about how we must, must, talk to Iran. But we must give ultimatums to Pakistan, and attack it's territory if they can't or won't take action themselves. This last apparently without the UN authorizations so necessary everywhere else.

President Carter's human rights campaign, laudable though it was in theory, always seemed more aimed at our friends than at our enemies. It resulted in Iran going from the Shah to Khumeini, and Nicaragua from Somoza to the Sandinistas. Surely the former in each case were bad, but so is Musharraf if you get down to it. But as with Iran and Nicragua, were Pakistan to fall into the hands of Islamists we'd all be much worse off.

Note that I'm no fan of our policies towards Saudi Arabia. And note also that Clinton was no better in this regard than Bush 41, 43, or any other American president, for that matter.

Moving along, Victor Davis Hanson slaps Obama down, and asks the pertinent question

Sen. Obama's remarks on foreign policy sound like, well, someone who just a few months ago was a local official of some sort....

Why do Democratic presidential candidates (cf. Kerry's 2005 remarks about U.S. troops: "And there is no reason, ... that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the — of — the historical customs, religious customs.") seem to assume that our soldiers are serially killing or terrorizing civilians, rather than protecting them from terrorists while killing the latter?

Because they've got Vietnam on the brain, that's why.