Comments on: Barack Obama: George W Bush Mark 2? http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2007/08/barack-obama-george-w-bush-mark-2.htm Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey and Wood Green Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:02:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Deepak http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2007/08/barack-obama-george-w-bush-mark-2.htm/comment-page-1#comment-632 Deepak Mon, 06 Aug 2007 07:34:00 +0000 http://localhost/wp28/?p=1305#comment-632 Dear Lynne,<br/><br/>I think like most of the other Members of the Parliament, I think it is time for you a take a mini break.<br/><br/>http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2838653.ece<br/><br/>Soon it will be September, the time for the AMG and best of luck. Dear Lynne,

I think like most of the other Members of the Parliament, I think it is time for you a take a mini break.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2838653.ece

Soon it will be September, the time for the AMG and best of luck.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2007/08/barack-obama-george-w-bush-mark-2.htm/comment-page-1#comment-631 Anonymous Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:24:00 +0000 http://localhost/wp28/?p=1305#comment-631 Lynne, your spot on, as always. Im for Hillary all the way! Hillary Clinton and Gordon Brown, now that would be one hell of a special relationship.<br/><br/>Lynne- who are you backing? Lynne, your spot on, as always. Im for Hillary all the way! Hillary Clinton and Gordon Brown, now that would be one hell of a special relationship.

Lynne- who are you backing?

]]> By: neocon http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2007/08/barack-obama-george-w-bush-mark-2.htm/comment-page-1#comment-630 neocon Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:50:00 +0000 http://localhost/wp28/?p=1305#comment-630 Not that I like or support Obama, but I don't think he said what you seem to be implying, and you appear to be making a bit of a leap with regard to what you seem to think GWB's policy is. All politicians have to speak to their base - they have to say what people want them to hear, in simple terms. The nuance can be added once in office.<br/><br/>The first bit you complain about is a simple recounting of "The American Dream". It's like talking about "the stiff upper lip" or "the bulldog spirit" of the British or even the "ppirit of the blitz", which I think I heard recently with regard to some floods you've been having. It's one of those glowing myths of rhetoric that you use to inspire people. As if there were no other peoples with similar tales of bravery and determination in the face of incredible hardship.<br/>That's no indication that he is an insular xenophobe, just that he is a politician.<br/><br/>Regarding Pakistan, he is absolutely <i>not</i> saying he would bomb Pakistan without <i>discussing</i> it. But if Pakistan continues to obstruct action, shielding and appeasing the Taliban/al Qaeda terrorists, it might be necessary to do it without their permission. It's not entirely clear that Pakistan wouldn't secretly welcome it, either. They're caught between a rock and a hard place - they want to get rid of the Islamists (and not just to placate the Americans), but depend heavily on the religious vote. After selling the "Great Satan" line for decades, they can't be seen to be too eager to support the US against Muslims, and there's a lot of popular support for Jihad-type fundamentalism there.<br/><br/>Arguably, if the Pakistani leadership can claim they're only cracking down on the Taliban to avoid being bombed by the "nutcase in the White House" (which Islamists and their supporters are always ready to believe) then they might be able to get away with it. A certain amount of posturing and aggressive rhetoric might be the best way to avoid actual bloodshed.<br/><br/>Something needs to be done about the Islamist ideology. The best thing would be for Western politicians to understand and challenge the ideology itself, and for Muslims themselves to lead serious movements for reform. Since that isn't happening, and doesn't look like it's going to happen, other means both more and less direct are needed. Al Qaeda are sitting in the mountains of Pakistan and are untouchable - because Pakistan doesn't have the ability or will, and won't (or can't) let us do it for them. What do <i>you</i> suggest we do about it? Not that I like or support Obama, but I don’t think he said what you seem to be implying, and you appear to be making a bit of a leap with regard to what you seem to think GWB’s policy is. All politicians have to speak to their base – they have to say what people want them to hear, in simple terms. The nuance can be added once in office.

The first bit you complain about is a simple recounting of “The American Dream”. It’s like talking about “the stiff upper lip” or “the bulldog spirit” of the British or even the “ppirit of the blitz”, which I think I heard recently with regard to some floods you’ve been having. It’s one of those glowing myths of rhetoric that you use to inspire people. As if there were no other peoples with similar tales of bravery and determination in the face of incredible hardship.
That’s no indication that he is an insular xenophobe, just that he is a politician.

Regarding Pakistan, he is absolutely not saying he would bomb Pakistan without discussing it. But if Pakistan continues to obstruct action, shielding and appeasing the Taliban/al Qaeda terrorists, it might be necessary to do it without their permission. It’s not entirely clear that Pakistan wouldn’t secretly welcome it, either. They’re caught between a rock and a hard place – they want to get rid of the Islamists (and not just to placate the Americans), but depend heavily on the religious vote. After selling the “Great Satan” line for decades, they can’t be seen to be too eager to support the US against Muslims, and there’s a lot of popular support for Jihad-type fundamentalism there.

Arguably, if the Pakistani leadership can claim they’re only cracking down on the Taliban to avoid being bombed by the “nutcase in the White House” (which Islamists and their supporters are always ready to believe) then they might be able to get away with it. A certain amount of posturing and aggressive rhetoric might be the best way to avoid actual bloodshed.

Something needs to be done about the Islamist ideology. The best thing would be for Western politicians to understand and challenge the ideology itself, and for Muslims themselves to lead serious movements for reform. Since that isn’t happening, and doesn’t look like it’s going to happen, other means both more and less direct are needed. Al Qaeda are sitting in the mountains of Pakistan and are untouchable – because Pakistan doesn’t have the ability or will, and won’t (or can’t) let us do it for them. What do you suggest we do about it?

]]>