I love all the hushed cautions emerging from the TV reporters about the killer gaffes that Obama might commit during his upcoming world tour. They seem to be anticipating some Gotcha! moment in which they can swoop down and pundit-wank away for hours, thus restoring their own role as the true arbiters of the nation’s fate.
What about the series of whoppers and cringe-making flubs one John McCain already served up? McCain can confuse Shi’ites and Sunnis twice and get off with a chuckle from chief prompter Joe Lieberman, but Obama had better keep them straight? Why is that?
McCain can parade through Baghdad with half an armored division protecting him and then say things are hunky-dory there without being ridiculed into hiding. Obama better not make that goof.
Bush can go to Afghanistan and say it’s really cool and ‘exciting for you, in some ways romantic, you know, confronting danger’ [see Mar 15 post], but no veterans groups stand up to denounce him for his adolescent beating off at their expense. Obama has to be an adult.
McCain’s uniform seems to count for a lot in all this although it didn’t for John Kerry as we well recall. So if I understand correctly, if you’re been in the armed services, that means you automatically know how and when they should be deployed? And anyone not already part of the military insider complex has to pass a series of oral exams, stand exactly the right way for the photo-ops and be vetted by egghead reporters and their paid hacks from the Pentagon thought-control apparatus.
I think the question should be posed exactly the other way around: given the total hash you guys have made of our geopolitics, can you offer any reason why someone with zero responsibility for these historic crimes should NOT take over?