1. Obama used the phrase "the tragedy of 9/11." But 9/11 wasn't a "tragedy." It was an unprovoked act of mass murder of 3000 innocent civilians carried out by Islamic terrorists.
2. When asked directly if he would commit US troops to support Israel in the event of an Iranian attack, Obama refused to answer, but said the key point was to start changing Iran's "cost-benefit analysis" so that Iran could "rejoin the community of nations." Not only was Obama's non-answer an unmistakable signal to Israel that it'll be on its own, but it also betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what motivates Iran and its radical Islamic leaders. Ahmadinejad is not a rational actor who engages in cost-benefit analysis, but a Holocaust-denying madman whose main goal is to nuke Israel and do whatever it takes to bring about the return of the Mahdi.
3. Finally, in referring to Pakistan/Afghanistan, Obama said that "the war against terrorism began in that region and that's where it will end." Obama doesn't appear to grasp that we are not up against a small band of fighters confined to a single country or region, but rather a global enemy tied together by a single unifying ideology. Despite what Obama would have you believe, none of the 9/11 hijackers came from Pakistan or Afghanistan; they instead came from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. And the essential planning for those attacks occurred not in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but Hamburg, Germany. Similarly, the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were not Pakistani or Afghani, but instead hailed from Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt and the Palestinian territories. And to go back further still, the main terrorist threat we've faced since 1979 originates in Iran, whose proxy force -- Hezbollah -- has struck all over the world, even in Argentina.
Beyond the unbelievable arrogance in suggesting that he will "end" the war on terror, what strikes me most about Obama is his stunning ignorance of the enemy we face. But hey, he pronounces Pakistan "Pok-ee-stan" so he must know what he's talking about, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
nice take
An Amen on what nuke said.
First, hats off to John McCain for keeping the debate about the issues.
On the word "tragedy," it is commonly used to describe 9/11. I bet you could find McCain using the same word, and President Bush used the word to describe among other things the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians. So I don't think you can read so much into one utterance.
On the issue of U.S. troops to defend Israel, neither McCain nor Obama really answered the question. Read the transcript. The closest McCain came to answering is "Let me say that we obviously would not wait for the United Nations Security Council." Obama said "And we will never take military options off the table."
On the issue of the war on terrorism, Obama was quoting defense secretary Gates.
1peter,
1. Bush said it too, therefore it must be ok? That's the argument? You can't be serious.
2. I did read the transcript. McCain was unequivocal. "No second Holocaust." "We don't need to wait for the UN." Obama, as I said, talked about cost-benefit analysis, Iran rejoining the international community, negotiating with Ahmadinejad and wait for it ... he won't take the military option "off the table." Ooooooh.... that is scary. Iran must be quaking in its boots.
3. I highly doubt Obama was accurately quoting Gates, but here again, so what? Even if it were accurate, it is no defense to a stupid comment to point out that someone else also made the same stupid comment.
My point on "tragedy" is that is widely used to describe 9/11. If there was an easy way to search all of McCain's debate and town hall utterances, I suspect you would find that he used the same term to describe 9/11. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to make broad conclusions about Obama based on his use of the word unless you are willing to make the same conclusion about other people who use the same word to describe 9/11.
If McCain has said it -- and you've produced no evidence of that -- then it would be equally wrong. But even so, it does not fit together with a larger pattern in the case of McCain.
Really I have better things to be doing, but I was correct about McCain.
Newsday, November 27, 2007
Headline: "McCain slams Rudy on Iraq"
Second two paragraphs of the story read as follows:
McCain (R-Ariz.), trailing in the presidential polls and seeking a surge of his own in the Jan. 8 New Hampshire primary, lobbed the attack on Giuliani on Fox News.
"I don't know what experience he has besides a great job after the terrible tragedy of 9/11," McCain said. "He has no national security experience that I know of. He has never been to Iraq." He added, "He was a member of the Iraq Study Group and was either fired or quit."
What Gates actually said about the war on terror in his most recent speech:
What is dubbed the war on terror is, in grim reality, a prolonged, world-wide irregular campaign – a struggle between the forces of violent extremism and moderation.
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1279
In other words, Gates correctly noted that the war on terror is worldwide and has no end in sight. This is directly contrary to what Obama said. What a surprise. But go ahead, vote for The One -- he will "end" the war on terror.
Post a Comment