Enough Already, Barack! We Get It!

Ed Lasky
Is Barack Obama ever going to tire of defending all criticism regarding his foreign policy views by pointing out that he did not support the Iraq War (immeasurably helped by the fact that he was not serving in the Senate when the vote authorizing that war occurred)? Are we going to tire of hearing this mantra? Here he goes again...

In this weeks debate among Democrats seeking the Presidency he rebutted any criticism about his ridiculous foreign policy statements and ideas by harkening back to...yes..you guessed it..to his opposition to the Iraq War.

I fail to see how this one position related to the other positions he has taken and for which he has been widely criticized: unilaterally invading Pakistan (an ally), forbidding the US of nuclear weapons, meeting with despots and murderous thugs who tyrannize their own nations and their neighbors? How does his opposition to the Iraq War possible relate to these other issues?

Is that the best he can do in a debate? Bring up extraneous issues that do not deal with the issue of the debate? This is a weak reed to rely upon and certainly soemone seeking the Presidency should be able to directly deal with criticism of his various stances bya ctually addressing the points made by commentators, no?

Is that what they teach about debate at Harvard Law School?
Is Barack Obama ever going to tire of defending all criticism regarding his foreign policy views by pointing out that he did not support the Iraq War (immeasurably helped by the fact that he was not serving in the Senate when the vote authorizing that war occurred)? Are we going to tire of hearing this mantra? Here he goes again...

In this weeks debate among Democrats seeking the Presidency he rebutted any criticism about his ridiculous foreign policy statements and ideas by harkening back to...yes..you guessed it..to his opposition to the Iraq War.

I fail to see how this one position related to the other positions he has taken and for which he has been widely criticized: unilaterally invading Pakistan (an ally), forbidding the US of nuclear weapons, meeting with despots and murderous thugs who tyrannize their own nations and their neighbors? How does his opposition to the Iraq War possible relate to these other issues?

Is that the best he can do in a debate? Bring up extraneous issues that do not deal with the issue of the debate? This is a weak reed to rely upon and certainly soemone seeking the Presidency should be able to directly deal with criticism of his various stances bya ctually addressing the points made by commentators, no?

Is that what they teach about debate at Harvard Law School?