More on the Saddleback Civil Forum
I just took the time to read the transcript as provided at Clips and Comment from last night's Saddleback Civil Forum. Some more observations:
-- Obama on a use of military force that he finds palatable: ". . .but I think you take an example like Bosnia, when we went in and undoubtedly saved lives. We did not have U.N. approval, but there was a strong international case that had been made that ethnic cleansing was taking place, and under those circumstances, when we have it within our power, we should, you know, we should take action."
Ahem. . .HOW is that different from an underlying cause for going into Iraq? From the AUMF: "Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region".
Granted, it's not WMD or Al Qaeda--but those weren't present in Bosnia, either. And in Iraq, just like in Bosnia, it was clearly the belief of the international community that Saddam had killed and was killing members of the population. Ethnic cleansing, maybe not. . .but is Obama arguing that we should only act to prevent genocide? And if so, where is he on Darfur and what would he do about it on January 21st? In other words, WHAT IS HIS ANSWER???
-- More on his answer to abortion, which I've written about more earlier today: "I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members." What is his argument here? That he believes that serious thought on a subject makes the end action acceptable (or at least Constitutionally defendable)? 'Cuz it sounds to me like that's what he's saying. . .
Also, the arrogance: so you, Senator, KNOW that ALL women take the same pains when making that decision? What about some women who don't--if you met one of them, would you strip them of the right to abortion? Would you have your view on the subject changed because you actually got out into the real world and met some of the people who get abortions just because they don't want to live with an unwanted pregnancy? (sorry--in your terms, that would be a "mistake"). How, sir, do you account for the women who DON'T wrestle with "these things" in profound ways? That is the job of government--and it is definitely both in your current paygrade AND a key part of the job which you seek.
-- on his opposition to a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage: "Because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition". Again, I don't know everything, but aren't a couple of our current amendments redrafts of state laws that made sense to federalize as they became "the law of the land"? (the 13th and 19th spring to mind) And the state's laws, by the way, are being passed over by the state's judiciaries, which is one of the pushes FOR a Federal Amendment. And this guy is a Con-Law professor?
-- on stem cells, when confronted with a question highlighting the success of the pluripotent cells garnered from ADULTS: "Now, if, in fact, adult stem cell lines are working just as well, then of course we should try to avoid any kind of moral arguments that may be in place." So then, Sen Obama, you're against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, right?
Not exactly.
There is a treasure trove of material here for McCain's team--hopefully they are in the process of surveying their best options.
Obama off a teleprompter--a gift that keeps on giving.
-- Obama on a use of military force that he finds palatable: ". . .but I think you take an example like Bosnia, when we went in and undoubtedly saved lives. We did not have U.N. approval, but there was a strong international case that had been made that ethnic cleansing was taking place, and under those circumstances, when we have it within our power, we should, you know, we should take action."
Ahem. . .HOW is that different from an underlying cause for going into Iraq? From the AUMF: "Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region".
Granted, it's not WMD or Al Qaeda--but those weren't present in Bosnia, either. And in Iraq, just like in Bosnia, it was clearly the belief of the international community that Saddam had killed and was killing members of the population. Ethnic cleansing, maybe not. . .but is Obama arguing that we should only act to prevent genocide? And if so, where is he on Darfur and what would he do about it on January 21st? In other words, WHAT IS HIS ANSWER???
-- More on his answer to abortion, which I've written about more earlier today: "I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members." What is his argument here? That he believes that serious thought on a subject makes the end action acceptable (or at least Constitutionally defendable)? 'Cuz it sounds to me like that's what he's saying. . .
Also, the arrogance: so you, Senator, KNOW that ALL women take the same pains when making that decision? What about some women who don't--if you met one of them, would you strip them of the right to abortion? Would you have your view on the subject changed because you actually got out into the real world and met some of the people who get abortions just because they don't want to live with an unwanted pregnancy? (sorry--in your terms, that would be a "mistake"). How, sir, do you account for the women who DON'T wrestle with "these things" in profound ways? That is the job of government--and it is definitely both in your current paygrade AND a key part of the job which you seek.
-- on his opposition to a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage: "Because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition". Again, I don't know everything, but aren't a couple of our current amendments redrafts of state laws that made sense to federalize as they became "the law of the land"? (the 13th and 19th spring to mind) And the state's laws, by the way, are being passed over by the state's judiciaries, which is one of the pushes FOR a Federal Amendment. And this guy is a Con-Law professor?
-- on stem cells, when confronted with a question highlighting the success of the pluripotent cells garnered from ADULTS: "Now, if, in fact, adult stem cell lines are working just as well, then of course we should try to avoid any kind of moral arguments that may be in place." So then, Sen Obama, you're against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, right?
Not exactly.
There is a treasure trove of material here for McCain's team--hopefully they are in the process of surveying their best options.
Obama off a teleprompter--a gift that keeps on giving.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home