Thursday, May 22, 2008

Obama, The Appeaser

I think Barack Obama favors appeasing our enemies, so I understand why he cried foul when President Bush spoke last week to the Israeli Knesset about the general folly of appeasement. After all, with Obama raring to sit down and chat up the globe's worst thugs without any preconditions, you can be assured that it means he will give in to their demands. Talking isn't always appeasment, however when you are negotiating from weakness(fear) it boils down to appeasement. With Obama’s plan to cut the military and disarm us what else would our enemies see his “talks” as but talking out of fear and weakness.

We can certainly be assured that Obama is an appeaser if and when he gets a chance to parley with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Cuba and North Korea and they have their way with him. Hopefully that day will not come. We do know that Obama's parley-at-any-price policy has created "issues" for him. He's taken a position that other top Democrats think unwise, and he himself seems to realize is, at least, politically untenable. His "no preconditions" stand has also forced him to make statements that won't withstand scrutiny, or John McCain's attacks. John Edwards, an Obama backer has even agreed with Clinton who took exception to Obama’s remarks of no pre-conditions. In recent days, Democratic graybeards such as Sen. Joe Biden have parted company with Obama on this. Now, Obama says that preparations would, of course, be necessary, and his campaign talks about these nations' leaders having to meet benchmarks before sitting down with him. He likely has a nuanced exegesis of the difference between preconditions and preparation and benchmarks, but the latter two sure seem like preconditions, and this sure seems like a case of being for preconditions before you were against them. If McCain and group do not jump on this and use it in a Kerryest manner of” being against it before I was for it but now I am against it until I have to be for it, blah , blah blah”, then they fail to do their job. But then Obama will claim it was “only words.”

In trying to talk his way out of his position, Obama's only made matters worse for himself. It began last week when he cited John F. Kennedy's sit-down with Nikita Khrushchev as a precedent: "When Kennedy met with Khrushchev," he said, "we were on the brink of nuclear war." Here again Obama, the Harvard educated candidate shows that he evidently didn’t pay attention in history class in high school, undergrad or in graduate school. Of course we know that his high school days were spent getting high and not studying history for sure. Had Obama been paying attention in history class he would have known that Khrushchev thought that Kennedy was a weak leader stemming from the meeting in Vienna. Khrushchev did not doubt the strength of the US Military but he doubted the strength of the Commander in Chief, he was wrong of course. When Kennedy was faced with the missile crisis he did not back down and instead of talking further with Khrushchev he allowed the US Military might do the talking through a show of force. Khrushchev soon realized that he had guess wrong and was not willing to face the might of the US Military and he backed down. Yes, there were some concessions made concerning the removal of missiles from Turkey but that did little to deter our might in that part of the world. Giving Obama’s lack of military experience and his disdain for use of military force it would indicate that his path would be to appease the enemy and back down thus further weakening the position of the US within the world community.

In Portland, this past weekend, Obama said Iran, Cuba and Venezuela "don't pose a serious threat to us" since they spend but one-one-hundredth of what we spend on our military. They're not like the Soviets. "If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us," he said, "they wouldn't stand a chance." Again Obama has no clue as to the history of these terror-sponsoring nations like Iran nor the roots of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood founded in the 1920’s, which Iran’s leadership has sprung. If he had any knowledge of such he would know that it is not the intent of any of the terrorist groups operating in the world today to take on the US Military face to face but to use the terrorist tactics currently being used to wear down the willingness of countries to stand against such and to surrender to their demands, which is a total World wide Islamic government. Of course Obama may have some idea of this type of warfare tactics but only speaks of such when addressing groups which would not stand for weakness , nor appeasement. From Portland to Montana, his message changed from “:Iran, Cuba and Venezuela don’t post a serious threat” to Iran poses “a grave threat”. But then Obama would say, “it’s only words”.

Obama’s team isn't even clear what its own candidate favors. Obama’s adviser Susan Rice( his Africa expert) told CNN that Obama never said he'd meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, of Israel-is-a-stinking-corpse-and-must-be-wiped-off-the-map fame. He only said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. An odd response in and of itself, but no sooner had she spoken then around came the YouTube video of Obama telling reporters last fall that he would meet with . . . Ahmadinejad. But then again for Obama, “it’s only words.”

None of this seems to matter to the Obamazombies, but it better well matter to the rest us. Last week Obama chided McCain for misrepresenting his Cuba policy. "His charges aren't serious," Obama said. "That's the problem. I have never said that I was prepared to immediately normalize relations with Cuba." How strange since he said in 2003 he supported normalization and said: "Our longstanding policies toward Cuba have been a miserable failure." But then again, to Obama, “it’s only words”.

Obama’s willingness to sit down to tea and crumpets with the enemy without preconditions and his lack of knowledge of history appears to be only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Obama’s mounting problems. It’s time to call Obama’s hand. The press won’t do it so McCain must if he is to expose the weakness of Obama’s seemingly non-existent foreign and national security agenda.

1 comment:

Faultline USA said...

Excellent article! may I cross-post it?