Does Obama think that Afghans are Arabs? Or that they speak Arabic?
Was he speaking off the cuff, or was this a prepared speech that others reviewed? If the latter, it makes one wonder about the quality of his foreign policy advisors.
I guess you just can't get good help these days.
Ed Morrisey points out another problem:
The Afghans need to establish the proper infrastructure first before massively committing to acceptable crops, and they need to start with reliable roads. However, they cannot even do that until the security situation improves, as the constant attacks by the Taliban and al-Qaeda make it impossible to build the necessary roads, electrical distribution, and refrigeration systems the Afghans require. What would agricultural experts do in Afghanistan while those issues remain unresolved?
Obama's rhetoric calls into question whether he has any real knowledge of the issues in either Iraq or Afghanistan in any depth beyond that of the latest MoveOn talking points.
Not much question in my mind.
Was he speaking off the cuff, or was this a prepared speech that others reviewed? If the latter, it makes one wonder about the quality of his foreign policy advisors.
Uh huh, another one that "slipped through the cracks." no doubt we'll hear that from Obama and staff soon.
Rand, watch the video on the first link you gave. It is about 15 seconds long. Obama does indeed make the mistake you're citing, and then immediately corrects himself and speaks knowledgeably about the languages spoken in Afghanistan. The people talking about this mistake should be reassured by Obama's immediate knowledgeable self-correction.
Robert, if he's so knowledgeable, how did he make the mistake in the first place? Why did he have to correct himself? Why didn't he just say it correctly the first time? Think about it.
I think that the mistake came about because Obama was using muddled logic to support the undeniable case that the fight in Iraq is taking resources away from the fight in Afghanistan. I do think he should work on tightening up his argument, and given that Obama was speaking off the cuff, I think he realized before anyone else - mid-sentence, in fact - that his argument needed improvement. If there is a translator shortage, he should make the case for that. If there are resources in Iraq that are needed in Afghanistan, he should identify them.
But you haven't presented evidence here that Obama's knowledge of the world is shallow, and you haven't presented evidence that his knowledge of the fights in Iraq and Afganistan is less than what it should be.
"and then immediately corrects himself and speaks knowledgeably about the languages spoken in Afghanistan. The people talking about this mistake should be reassured by Obama's immediate knowledgeable self-correction."
Except one of the languages he gave was incorrect for Afghanistan. I would not call that 'knowledgable'.
Mike,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdu says that 8% of Afghanis speak Urdu, and that nearly all of the 5 million Afghani refugees who lived in Pakistan learned Urdu (and presumably many of these refugees have moved back to Afghanistan. The same article points out that Urdu is the official language (and lingua franca) for Pakistan.
If Urdu was a bad choice (perhaps because it wasn't a good representative language), perhaps Obama picked it because he understood the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan. After all, there is a difference between an ignorant mistake, and a knowledgeable one. At the very least, Obama's choice of Urdu indicates that Obama knows that Afghanis are not Arabs, as Rand originally wondered.
(Oh, and also: good catch! I missed it. You didn't. I think you win on points.)
Rand, you wrote
Robert, if he's so knowledgeable, how did he make the mistake in the first place? Why did he have to correct himself? Why didn't he just say it correctly the first time? Think about it.
I'm not Robert, but I thought about it. And I have to say that unless he's getting clued via a hidden earphone (the time delay makes that a possibility), then there's no story here. A smooth recovery on the fly like that is actually pretty impressive even if he did alienate some people.
And I have to say that unless he's getting clued via a hidden earphone (the time delay makes that a possibility), then there's no story here.
Well, I actually hadn't even considered that possibility, but it is intriguing. Of course, it does at least speak better of his staff support.
No, I was just thinking that he's willing to use any weapon that comes to hand to attack McCain (via attacking Bush, since McCain has no control over how many translators are going where), and it's just more of the "new politics."
But now you have me wanting to go look at video to see what's in his ears, for which there is plenty of room... ;-)
Simberg, you are just so ridiculous. Would you even care to compare this to your great leader who led us into war in Iraq, and his grasp of world affairs?
You guys are pathetic. You know what happened to the three House seats that flipped, don't you? As I've said before, the GOP is irrelevant. And fake non-GOPers like you continue to look doubly stupid, no matter the size of Obama's ears, or your pathetic attempt at humor.
So, to save face, why not promote the libertarian Barr? At least it might give you some self respect.
There are few things that I find more amusing than to be called "ridiculous" by an anonymous drive-by idiot.
You guys are pathetic.
This coming from someone who either can't figure out how to enter a name, or won't.
" You know what happened to the three House seats that flipped, don't you?"
You mean the ones where the Democtrats ran actual conservatives and won there TLE?
Too bad they are too stupid to try that on the national level, they might actually win. Instead, they keep trying even more of what didn't work the last two times.
He's right in one way. The problem in Afghanistan is caused by the fact that at least some Afghans speak and read Arabic. After all, doesn't one need Arabic to read the Koran?
As I read this latest piece by Republican David Brooks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html?hp
I kept wishing that the people here who have doubts about Obama's understanding of foreign policy would read it too.