August 01, 2007

And one assumes, give them a stern, but compassionate talking-to.

And ask them what America can do to regain their love and respect.

Obama vows to hunt down terrorists

Interesting. He didn't want us to go into Iraq, but is more than willing to invade Pakistan. Seems rather, oh, I don't know, inconsistent. Not that I'm against it. I think it's something that needs doing, although the US and Iraq are going to have to do something to keep Turkey from pursuing the exact same course with incursions into Kurdish northern Iraq. But, still, coming from someone who seems much too willing to elevate and validate various tinpot dictators (then wasn't, then was again) that this is probably nothing more than some sort of focus-grouped bit of pandering to attempt to show he's strong and tough on defense.

Color me unconvinced.

UPDATE: Also, I just now noticed that despite the past-tense language in the article to the contrary, this speech will be delivered later on today. Read far enough down, and you see this--and most other media reports of it--are based on excerpts of the speech released by Obama's campaign organization. Yet, the media still seem incapable of writing the story in future tense; "In a speech to be delivered later today, dreamy cute Senator Obama will say, etc...." Why is that? Why deliberately give the sense that the event and words have already been spoken? And this isn't an aberration; I've noticed it many times over the years (and when reporting on Democrats and Republicans), and I still haven't seen a plausible explanation for why it is allowed to continue. This is especially troublesome given how much scrutiny the media has garnered for itself through transparently slipshod reportage. Apparently, such things as chronology just don't matter.

But it does kind of make you wonder what else they think doesn't matter.

Posted by Terry Oglesby at August 1, 2007 07:56 AM