Obama: Iran, Syria Should 'Take Ownership for Stability' of Iraq
I DVD'ed Olbermann overnight to check just how fawning a performance he would put in with his guest Barack Obama - whom FCC regulations require me to describe as "the rising star of the Democratic party." When it came to Olbermann's sycophancy, I wasn't disappointed. After accusing Republicans of "terrorizing" Americans, the MSNBC host continued:
"proposing an alternative course for American politics, one that replaces fear with - of all things - hope, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and his new book, The Audacity of Hope."
The toughest question Olbermann posed to his guest, touted as a possible 2008 presidential nominee, was why Obama would want to be president given the awful legacy he would be inheriting from George Bush. An indulgent Obama gave Keith a verbal pat on the head, congratulating him on his "good question."
But all the fluff aside, I was stunned by something Obama said. Describing his proposal for a phased withdrawal from Iraq, Obama added that it would:
"send a message to the Iraqis as well as to the regional powers including Iran and Syria that they have to take some ownership for creating some stability there."
What? Obama's plan is to turn Iraq over to the tender mercies of Iran and Syria? And just what kind of "stability" does he imagine that would produce?
Barack might be the the latest MSM heartthrob, but with that one statement, he demonstrated that he is not ready for prime time, letting alone for becoming Commander-in-Chief.
Aside: what does it say of Barack's ambition and ego that the photo displayed here comes from his official senatorial web site?
Aside, Part Deux: Beyond the objectionable substance of Obama's proposal, are you, like me, put off by the New Age-speak phrasing of "taking ownership" for Iraq's stability? Isn't good old "assuming responsibility" good enough?