Obama's "magic"

Debra Saunders:

...

The Obama I saw at Google headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., on Wednesday, unlike the Las Vegas debate Obama, seemed direct and appealing. He hit a chord with the audience when he argued: "Democrats lose when they are not clear about what they stand for. Democrats lose when they are attacked, and -- because they don't know where they stand -- they end up getting defensive instead of going on the offensive." (If you believe that Clinton and Edwards voted for the Iraq war resolution out of ambition, not out of principle, then you understand why some Democrats get defensive.)

I walked out of the Google campaign thinking that, unlike Clinton and the smarmy Edwards, Obama is the only top-tier Democrat who says what he means.

Now I'm not so sure that's a good thing. At Google, Obama claimed that, if he is elected, the world instantly will look at America differently. I realize that the American left wants to believe that everything that goes bad in this world is due to the fact that the whole world hates George W. Bush as much as they do, but it so happens that Osama bin Laden planned the Sept. 11 attacks when Bill Clinton was president. No, I am not blaming Clinton -- but I am reminding readers that America was a terrorist target before the Iraq war.

When CNN's John Roberts asked Obama in whose backyard he would store nuclear waste, Obama answered, "We've got to develop the storage capacity based on sound science." When Wolf Blitzer pressed Obama on what he would do until that day, Obama responded, "I'm running for president because I think we can do it." As if his election will create new science. Elect Obama -- wave a magic wand.

When Blitzer asked Obama if human rights are more important than U.S. national security, Obama answered, "The concepts are not contradictory, Wolf." That is a child's answer. It suggests the next president could alienate an ally in the war against terror because it has poor civil rights -- when countries in that territory have less than stellar records in that department. If Obama believes what he said, woe be to the nation.

...

He is like many Democrats who blame our problems in the world on George Bush rather than the enemy. There is an assumption of omnipotence in the US that absolves our enemies of responsibilities for their wickedness. Thus when al Qaeda targets non combatants in Iraq for mass murder, it is not because they are evil war criminals, but because George Bush made them do it. That is the sickness at the core of the Democrats' anti Iraq war argument. To the Democrats the enemy is engaging in barbaric war crimes because George Bush did not have a plan for post war Iraq. That sort of thinking demonstrates an ignorance of warfare that is profound.

Wars are a series of thrust and counter thrusts. sometimes it takes a while for a side to formulate a response that is successful. In World War I it took years to develop tactics and weapons to overcome trench warfare and machine guns. But with the development of tanks, airplanes and infiltration tactics the stalemate was overcome.

It took a while for the US to develop its counterinsurgency warfare tactics in Iraq, but they are there now and are working beyond expectations. Presidents are not responsible for war tactics. that is the military's job and it has responded in Iraq. The Democrats' unfair criticism of President Bush is really an unfair criticism of our military. It also is a demonstration of their unsuitability for command.

Obama's belief that magical things will happen if he is elected is a demonstration of his naivety. I am remind of Harry Truman's words after the election of Eisenhower. "I can't wait for that General to get in here and give an order, and have nothing happen."