Obama Votes Present Again

Barack Obama fails to even take a position on a recent event:

Noah Pollak notes the apparent contradiction between Obama's support for fighting al Qaeda in Pakistan and his silence on the U.S. cross-border attack into Syria on al Qaeda:

Obama says that the United States should strike at al Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistani government. So, he favors attacking al Qaeda in Pakistan, but presumably not in Syria, even though al Qaeda thrives in Syria not because of lawlessness (as in Pakistan) but because the group enjoys the hospitality of the Syrian government. Maybe if the Pakistani government began openly collaborating with al Qaeda, Obama would withdraw his support for military strikes.

If Obama was consistent, he would applaud the Syrian operation. His silence on the matter indicates otherwise. You'd think there were a few curious journalists out there who might wish to get him on the record about all of this…

I emailed the Obama campaign yesterday asking if they would issue a statement on the attack, and I received no response. Perhaps the mainstream press would prefer that Obama not have to take a position on a controversial foreign policy matter just days before voters have the opportunity to make him our commander in chief.

This is typical Obama - he has accomplished nothing of note, he has never exhibited decisive leadership, he is hopelessly incompetent when it comes to foreign policy.  Remember when Russia invaded Georgia this past summer?  McCain immediately came out and called on Russia to halt its aggression.  Obama, on the other hand, first said nothing.  Then he said that both sides needed to moderate their actions.  Then -- after he took a beating in the polls -- he ended up agreeing with McCain.

The other thing that is a major indictment of Obama is that this is a real-world scenario that is almost identical to something he forcefully asserted in a national campaign debate.  The only differences should actually make it easier to take the action he says he'd take.  If he is unwilling to follow through with his own proposal on this, what can we count on him to do in a completely new scenario?

Is that the kind of leadership you want?  Is that the kind of leadership that will protect America?  On the contrary, it's the kind of leadership that will lead America to ruin.

There's my two cents.