Obama and Terrorism

Andrew Sullivan has a very intelligent post regarding Sen. Obama's strategy for fighting terrorism. As Sullivan notes, the current strategy for defeating terrorism worldwide has not been working. Although there have been no major terror attacks against the United States since 9 / 11, al-Qaeda is on the rise again, and Afghanistan is slowly drifting back into chaos.

Some, such as Alexander Cockburn and Richard Kim, will no doubt count Sullivan's support as a point against Obama. However, there is nothing wrong with gaining the support of moderate, intelligent conservatives like Sullivan. As Sullivan himself points out in his post, he came to some of the wrong conclusions about how to react to 9 / 11. What is important is that he has had the sense to recognize that, and adjust his position accordingly.

All about Alexander

Alexander Cockburn has published a condemnation of Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy in The Nation. As usual, his essay is characterized by a total misunderstanding of American politics.

Cockburn's main beefs with Obama: That the Senator is willing to go after Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and attack terrorists in other countries. I'm sorry to break it to you, Alex, but most Americans are perfectly fine with that. Most liberals do not oppose defense so much as they oppose war on countries that do not threaten us.

Second, he notes, correctly, that Obama has not taken as strong as stance on civil liberties as might be hoped. This is a valid point, Mr. Cockburn, but it should be noted that this is no worse than what McCain is proposing. Indeed, a President Obama might be willing to revise the Patriot Act. We will have no such chance with McCain.

What is particularly galling about Cockburn's article is what it omits. It does not discuss what the two candidates with a chance of winning would do with their Supreme Court nominations, an issue with the potential to affect a variety of what Cockburn calls "decent progressive principles" ranging from abortion to health care and the death penalty.

Second, he does not discuss the prospect of an outright religious fanatic-Sarah Palin-being within a heartbeat of the presidency. Cockburn notes that Iraq War supporter Christopher Hitchens has endorsed Obama. What he fails to mention is that Hitchens largely based his endorsement on McCain's inclusion of such a fanatic on his ticket.

When it comes to issues like that, Mr. Cockburn, I would rather be on Hitchens's side any day.

He's At It Again!

Nation columnist, Counterpunch editor, and professional nutjob Alexander Cockburn has just launched a negative attack on Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Biden. In doing so, he only exposes his own radicalism, his lack of understanding of mainstream American politics, and his willingness to engage in smear tactics.

Cockburn begins his attack by ranting that Sen. Biden is not doing enough to attack "corporate capital." The reasoning: Sen. Biden apparently voted against a law that would have prevented bankrupt corporations from relocating to his home state of Delaware. Gee, Mr. Cockburn, I wonder why Sen. Biden would have voted against a law that adversely affects his own state's interests?

Cockburn follows up with an unsourced attack on Sen. Biden's character, citing an unnamed Counterpunch staffer who claims that Sen. Biden flirted with her only a week after his first wife's death. This is beneath contempt, but hardly surprising for Cockburn. After all, in a recent issue of The Nation, he humiliated himself by claiming that the national media was not publicizing reports of John Edwards's affair enough, only to have the article come out just as the media was flooded with stories about the same topic.

Tell me, Mr. Cockburn, why doesn't your staffer come forward with her allegations on 60 Minutes or some similar program? Why doesn't she let us see her face so we'll know who's making these claims and can evaluate her credibility?

Finally, he lambasts Sen. Biden for not being a critic of Israel. Umm, Mr. Cockburn, most American political opinion now favors Israel, for better or worst. I don't like it, but that's just life. If we followed Cockburn's advice, we'd never get a candidate in office.

Here's a little suggestion, Alex. Since you dislike the Democratic candidates so much, why not resign your column at The Nation, which is whole-heartedly backing them. Then you'll be putting your money where your mouth is, just like your erstwhile colleague, Christopher Hitchens (who, by the way, is a much more provocative, and persuasive, writer than you.)

Beat the Cockburn

Although The Nation Alexander Cockburn is known for his extreme opinions, his “Year of the Prisoner” column was beyond the pale. (Note: You must have a Nation subscription to read the full article.) First, his suggestion that Democrats should accuse John McCain of collaborating with the North Vietnamese is politically suicidal. Doing so would open the Democratic Party to a deluge of condemnation for being unpatriotic. It is bad enough when the Republicans swift boat us; we do not need to do it to ourselves.

Second, his claims that nuclear weapons may be on the USS Jimmy Carter, despite international agreements to the contrary, are unsubstantiated. Aren’t journalistic accusations supposed to be supported by evidence, or has The Nation adopted the standards of Fox News?

Mr. Cockburn should look to the example of his brother Patrick and base his assertions on the facts on the ground. Until he does so, his column should be entitled “Out to Lunch.”