Melanie Phillips, author of Londonstan, an analysis of the Islamization of England, has a column on the coming American election.
The impact of the financial crisis on the American presidential election has somewhat obscured the most important reason why the prospect of an Obama presidency is giving so many people nightmares. This is the fear that, if he wins, US defences will be emasculated at a time of unprecedented international peril and the enemies of America and the free world will seize their opportunity to destroy the west.
I share her fears.
McCain ?
I do not trust McCain; I think his judgment is erratic and impetuous, and sometimes wrong. But on the big picture, he gets it. He will defend America and the free world whereas Obama will undermine them and aid their enemies.
Here’s why. McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is.
I have not been an admirer of McCain on certain issues, like immigration and campaign finance reform where he has been suckered by Obama’s flood of illegal funds. On the other hand…
Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America’s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor.
Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west’s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That’s why he believes in ‘soft power’ — diplomacy, aid, rectifying ‘grievances’ (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America’s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ‘cut investments in unproven missile defense systems’; he will ‘not weaponize space’; he will ‘slow our development of future combat systems’; and he will also ‘not develop nuclear weapons,’ pledging to seek ‘deep cuts’ in America’s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.
On militant Islam ?
Obama assumes that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, inflammatory US policy and the American presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. Thus he adopts the agenda of the Islamists themselves. This is not surprising since many of his connections suggest that that the man who may be elected President of a country upon which the Islamists have declared war is himself firmly in the Islamists’ camp.
On Israel ?
Most revolting of all is Samantha Power, a very close adviser whom Obama fired for calling Hillary a ‘monster’ but who says she still expects to be in Obama’s administration. Not only has Power has advocated the ending of all aid to Israel and redirecting it to the Palestinians, but she has spoken about the need to land a ‘mammoth force’ of US troops in Israel to protect the Palestinians from Israeli attempts at genocide (sic) — and has complained that criticism of Barack Obama all too often came down to what was ‘good for the Jews’.
Yet older Jews are voting for Obama in Florida and elsewhere.
The future is very troubling and this woman, who has been unsparing in her criticism of British weakness, is very worried. So am I.
Michael Yon is the most reliable source of information on the war in Iraq and now the war in Afghanistan. What does he say ?
The outcome of the upcoming U.S. elections will have a profound impact on the war. Meanwhile, the day to day fighting continues. If Senator Obama is elected, I expect to spend a great deal of time covering the fighting. Judging by his words, Senator Obama must be watched closely or we might see some terrible decisions. I expect 2009 to be the worst year so far in the Af-Pak war, which has serious potential to eventually become far worse than Iraq ever was. If Senator McCain is elected, I’ll breathe easier in regard to the war.
Michael Totten is another reliable source of the Middle East…
Senator Barack Obama hopes to be the first American president to engage in diplomatic negotiations with the Islamic Republic regime in Iran. He even says he’s willing to meet with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Surely he must understand that what he’s proposing is a radical departure from foreign policy as practiced by both parties. Franklin Roosevelt didn’t meet with Adolf Hitler or Emperor Hirohito, Harry Truman didn’t meet with Kim Il Sung, Ronald Reagan didn’t meet with any Soviet leader until after glasnost and perestroika were in place, Bill Clinton didn’t meet with Saddam Hussein or Iran’s Mohammad Khatami and Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and no American president met with Fidel Castro.
In any case, whether Obama’s wish to engage Ahmadinejad is mainstream or radical, and whether it’s foolish or wise, may not even matter. It isn’t likely to happen. Obama may not care about preconditions, but the Iranian governmentcertainly does. Mehdi Kalhor, Iran’s Vice President for Media Affairs, told the Islamic Republic News Agency that “as long as U.S. forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and U.S. is off the agenda.”
Samantha Powers may have the solution for that objection.
UPDATE: The Economist endorses Obama but, typically, misrepresents his positions on Iraq and Iran in order to make him seem wiser than he is. The press is desperate to elect Obama for their own reasons and they are not good ones.
Tags: Islam, national security, Obama
Red flags all the way down the line. When I read the opinions of very credible journalists re Obama, it always strikes me that surely they are collectively describing a college kid who will be making these utterly massive decisions. It doesn’t seem like we’re talking about a savvy, experienced and keen sighted pol…. I don’t get it. Talk about buckling up for a bumpy ride.
On a sidenote: Powers did lose her spot on the campaign team for calling Hillary a monster, then later explained to media that “she didn’t really mean Hillary was a monster”. My question is, does anyone on the left ever really say what they mean?
I should have added, ‘and mean what they say?’…
Dear Dana:
Short answer: no.
Consider what Joe Biden said about Barack Obama, on tape. Quite a different story, today.
“Oh, but that was just politics” we hear.
Except when it isn’t. Or rather, it is nothing but politics, always.
Dana,
“My question is, does anyone on the left ever really say what they mean?”
I think it was Big Daddy in “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” who argued that mendacity is part of the human condition. Now I know what’s going to happen. Folk here will give examples where liberal or center left folk lied. I’ll offer the same for center to right people. I’ll be told it’s not the same. This exercise will get us nowhere except to stew in our righteous indignation.
Politicians lie. That is a given. What concerns some of us is whether the lies are important issues or just the usual stuff of saying they are “concerned” about us when they are only concerned about getting elected. McCain is unusual because he has been incorruptible on many issues, some of which I disagree with him about. Sarah Palin has been incorruptible on the major issues in Alaska. That is what makes them a good team. That is also why I worry about Obama. It’s not so much that he lies as it is that so little is known about him and the press is not interested in finding out. He is a symbol but the reality of the office is far beyond his capabilities. There have been weak presidents before, John Kennedy was one, Carter was another. I just don’t know what Obama thinks. He has been a very capable confidence man.
Most of the Republicans who have announced support are assuming he is lying about his plans. I cannot imagine why a Jew interested in Israel would vote for him, for example. Everything I know about him indicates he is hostile to Israel and probably anti-Semetic.
“Everything I know about him indicates he is hostile to Israel and probably anti-Semetic.”
🙂 Mmmm. Okay. Sure. If you insist.
I’m moving on folks. Be well. Good talking to all of you.
And the funny part is that *I* have been labeled as someone who tries to play “Equivalence Gnome.”
But the fact is, dear old Barack Obama does have some explaining to do over this regarding Israel:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/confirmed-msm-holds-video-of-barack.html
The MSM won’t discuss it. I wonder why?
Oh, that’s right: Khalidi is no different than some gay bashing preacher here in the States. I forgot.
And Obama isn’t lying about it. It’s nuanced politics.
And the funny part is that *I* have been labeled as someone who tries to play “Equivalence Gnome.”
Eric,
I have no idea what you are trying to imply here.
Oh, please, James. We went though all this before. But it is ironic how you wish to dismiss people for doing what you appear to have done in the past, and are doing now.
But as you have written, twice, what is the point of debating it further? You should go argue with LYT about Vietnam.
I continue to wish you well.
Eric,
“But it is ironic how you wish to dismiss people for doing what you appear to have done in the past, and are doing now.”
This charge is really uncalled for. I’ve never been dismissive and throwing that accusation out says more about you than anything I have said or done.
No need to reply. I’ll stop.
Best to you and yours. And that applies to everyone else here.
James, I’m happy to see you stop by and hope you will come back after tempers cool after the election. I hope I am wrong about Obama and, if I am, I will be willing to admit it. Unfortunately, I remember Carter very well. I remember hoping for the best and telling myself he couldn’t be THAT bad because he had run a peanut business. He was worse.
The military was falling apart. When Iran seized the hostages, the US military wanted to take out Kharg Island, which would have paralyzed Iran. It is their big oil terminal. Carter wouldn’t hear of it. Then he obsessed about the hostages as the rest of his administration ground to a halt.
He told us that we should get over our “irrational fear of communism” and the Soviets then invaded Afghanistan and killed our ambassador.
He put price controls on oil so I used to park my car in the line at the gas station the night before so I could get gas in the morning before they ran out. He wore a sweater in a TV address and told people that they would have to get used to shortages and we had a “national malaise.”
The kids that are voting for Obama don’t remember that and many have never held a job. Academics have little incentive to care about business and many are hostile. I watch my kids assignments and see the change. The writing assignments are very different from those I had 50 years and even from those my older kids had in the 1980s.
Sometimes society has to relearn simple lessons about economics and security. You would think that New York City learned about crime in the 70s but Obama seems to share Ayres’ hostility to law enforcement. Socialist countries like Sweden (mentioned in the Biden interview) are adopting more conservative positions. The welfare states of Europe are going broke but here we go to emulate them. Expect to see the birthrate fall even more under Obama.