I've started keeping an eye on Barrack Obama now that I've actually done some research and realize that I strongly disagree with him on a number of issues.

Yesterday, John McCain poked at Obama a bit, referencing Obama's insistence that we should be fighting al Queda instead of fighting a war in Iraq. McCain said

"I have news for Senator Obama. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. And that's why we're fighting in Iraq, and that's why we're succeeding in Iraq."

Obama responded ... but I don't think his response was particularly strong:

"I have some news for John McCain. And that is that there was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq..."

Of course a line like that is going to draw huge applause from a Democratic audience, and it did. But the argument is debatable at best. In fact, from what I've read, what Obama implies with his argument is simply untrue. I'll concede that the specific entity known as al Queda in Iraq didn't exist prior to the war ... but there is ample evidence that Saddam and al Queda shared goals and worked together. Click here and hereto read a more thorough examination of Saddam's regime and it's connections to al Queda.

Iraq's first post-Saddam Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, certainly disagrees with Obama:

"I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al-Qaida. And these relations started in Sudan. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September — atrocities or not, I can’t — vouch for this. But definitely I know he has connections with extremism and terrorists."

Obama continued:

"I've got news for John McCain. He took us into a war along with George Bush that should never have been authorized and never should have been waged."

I just have to sigh when Obama says this kind of thing. As I've posted before, Obama admits that he held the same beliefs about Iraq as practically everyone else in the world prior to the invasion. Obama wrote:

"Like most analysts, I assumed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear arms... I believed that he had repeatedly flouted UN resolutions and weapons inspectors and that such behavior had to have consequences."

To believe that Saddam posed that kind of threat and still oppose the war is simply irresponsible.

Obama has been generating a lot of fawning applause with his liberal base as he stumps for the Democratic nomination. But his positions are often reckless and sometimes simply indefensible. He hasn't had to defend those positions in debate yet because Hillary Clinton holds essentially the same positions. He won't have it that easy when he debates John McCain. If McCain comes to those debates prepared, he should win them easily.

Labels: News, Obama Watch, Politics