Rotating Header Image


Based upon the issues, my favor in this second Presidential candidates’ debate was with McCain.

Obama made many irregular and contradictory statements, the most glaring and problematic of which — also why I say he is “erratic” and “unreliable” — was when Obama lapsed into his visibly emotional, angry verbal harangue as to Pakistan and Afghanistan. I’m never sure when Obama gets into this issue (as he did in the first of the Presidential debates, in which he displayed just about identical display of emotion and obtuse statements), I’m never sure when he gets into this issue, vague and negative as he is, just what his intentions are: is he going to incite a region and then betray the U.S.A., is he going to harass the U.S. military by betrayal if not worse, is he going to use the Pakistan/Afghanistan region for what, exactly, what’s riling him so here, especially when Obama has been decidedly opposed to a strong U.S. military. His display and statements and implications, and his unreliability on all things national-defense and military-deployment, don’t add-up.

And, following that, when McCain remarked about Obama’s reckless speech in that regard, Obama declared McCain to not be truthful, while McCain was, indeed, being truthful, as he also was being accurate and accurately observant about Obama’s problematic, disturbed speech.

300wde_Obama_10-07-09_debate As in the first Presidential debate:

— When asked about the Middle East, Obama declares, “when (he’s) President,” (another offensive and repeat declaration by Obama — he’s not President, he’s applying for the job and his assumptions that he’s President are creepy as they are also unsettling about his psychology);

— When asked about the Middle East, Obama alludes to a weakened Middle East — “justified” as Obama then qualifies his justifications by degrees — but blares out aggressive possessiveness and use of Pakistan and Afghanistan, as if it’s his realm to use at will;

— When asked about Pakistan and Afghanistan, he declared — as he did in the first debate, his face and body language angry, stiff, embittered (obviously Obama is emotionally involved in “Pakistan” and “Afghanistan” in a severe degree that remains publicly not explained, based upon how his body language and voice changes to agitated whenever this issue is posed of him) — Obama declared

…we haven’t finished hunting down Bin Laden and crushing Al Queda…(conditions) now destabilising North Pakistan and…Afghanistan…we have to reverse course…the terrorism began in that region and that’s where it will end…eliminate some of the drug manufacturing that’s funding terrorism…reverse course in Pakistan…encourage democacy in Pakistan and expand our non-military aid in Pakistan…insist that they go ater these terrorists…and if the Pakistan miitary is unable to take them out, we will have to go in…we will kill Bin Laden, we willl crush Al Queda.

And in that, Obama sounds particularly like Putin, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Napolean, Stalin, Mao Tse Tsung and Hitler all at the same time. He speaks like an immature man — irrational even, an insecure mind acting out at being “macho” or “big.” In other words, not someone I’d feel comfortable with in the White House, not a responsible individual.

300wde_McCain_10-07-09_debate_Following that, McCain confronted — in expert, mature and gentlemanly fashion — Obama’s statement (my transcription, so there are likely a few dropped phrases) — McCain said:

My hero, Teddy Roosevelt, used to say, ‘walk softly and carry a big stick.’

Senator Obama says we are going to attack Pakistan.

Senator Obama likes to talk loudly. He’s said that he’s going to invade Pakistan. You know, if you announce you’re going to attack another country…it turns public opinon against us.

Let me use another example: Russian, Pakistan (dropped phrase here)…the border regions are being used by Al Queada and terrorists…now, General Patreaus has a strategy and the same strategy that existed in iraq (dropped phrase here), we have to get the support of the people, to work with the people, to get them to work with us…

But where necessary, use force but to walk softly and carry a big stick.

Obama’s retort was:

Nobody said we’re going to invade Pakistan. Senator McCain keeps repeating this…

…and Obama turned his back to McCain when he declared that.

So what did Obama say if he didn’t declare his (emotionally heated) intent to invade Pakistan? What Obama DID declare is his ongoing intent — if not outright plans given how he’s repeated this now — to invade Pakistan.

I understand, as a citizen, that the Asian region requires a great deal of security “improvement” — I’m not so naive as to assume that there’s not a need and a serious one for U.S. military and security presence in that region, as also the Middle East (for everyone’s security, not just theirs nor ours). But, situations such as these are the expertise of individuals such as General Patreaus and others of his skill and training, and not the stuff for political blustery for anyone other than irrational, erratic and irresponsible individuals.

There’s so much more as to what was covered in this Debate, but, this point being made now in more than this evening’s Debate by Obama and handled accurately by McCain is a very big reason as to why I deem Obama untrustworthy. I find his demonstrative, negative emotion associated with this issue to be particulary unsettling and problematic and his motivations remain, suspiciously, unexplained.

I also note that in a general reference to Afghanistan and Pakistan and undue force or invasion of either or both as declared by Obama, is Obama’s ongoing allusion to “aid to” “allies” and “other regions” that pops up each time Obama is questioned about domestic economic conditiions.

Also, that Obama continues to declare himself “President” (“when I’m President…” he continues to say), is just more of why he sounds all too awfully like the Hugo Chavez’s of our world. In other words, he walks loudly and carries a crazy stick.

I’ll take the old hero guy any day — John McCain — and leave the crazy-stick man to flounder with his anti-American “associates.”

C O M M E N T S : now closed