And there you have it. It's one thing for Americans to mix up historical references; it's quite another for someone who has a 50/50 chance of becoming our next President to do it. Not that a President has to be infallible, but shouldn't the knowledge of someone whose daily decisions actually dictate history be a notch or two above the rest of us?The Washington Post “Fact Checker” has been going very easy on Barack Obama, but today they’re actually asking the pertinent question about Obama’s “Auschwitz” tale: Where in the world is Auschwitz? - Fact Checker.
Granted, it is getting late in the campaign. The candidates are tired, and prone to making silly mistakes. Many Americans might have problems distinguishing Buchenwald and Ohrdruf from Auschwitz. But should we not expect more from a Harvard-educated presidential candidate? Is it too much to ask that an aspiring commander-in-chief knows (1) that Auschwitz (like many of the other Nazi death camps) is in Poland, and (2) that the eastern advance of the U.S. Army in World War II stopped on the river Elbe? Let me know what you think.
Yes, we should expect more from any presidential candidate, not just one educated at Harvard. I’ve written several times that I suspect Barack Obama of being almost completely ignorant of world history. All it would take to reveal the depths of this ignorance would be a few serious historical questions from a reporter who isn’t blinded by the messiah’s halo—but nobody seems to care.
In my opinion, this is yet another indicator that Barack Obama is supremely unqualified for the White House, and the sentiments expressed by my commenter are a great example of how Obama is viewed by a scary-big section of the population as a savior. They believe in him, so they have stopped thinking about what he says and does, refusing to consider or acknowledge anything that might lead one to think he isn't a genius messiah who will save mankind by next February.
There's my two cents.
2 comments:
WHOA. WHOA. WHOA. WHOA. I NEVER, repeat NEVER said Obama was a "savior" nor do I believe that he is a "savior" a "genius messiah" or anything like that. Thus, I don't know how my "sentiments" are a "great example" of the savior rhetoric you attribute to anyone who might support Obama.
All I suggested was that:
1. Family stories passed down from one generation to the next are not necessarily history dissertations and may have mixups like Auschwitz/Buchenwald.
2. Alot of people may have made that mistake.
3. It wasn't a disqualifier for Obama to be president.
I never suggested Obama could do no wrong or make no mistakes.
Rather than just responding to my suggestions, however, you decided to also implicitly accuse me of uncritical, blind, nonthinking messianic worship of Obama (who I haven't even decided to vote for) with no basis, evidence, or facts to back you up.
Anonymous,
No, you didn't specifically say those things, so I sincerely apologize if I inaccurately generalized on your behalf. Allow me to explain a bit more fully.
As you requested, here are my responses to your specific suggestions.
1. True. That's not the point. The point is that any candidate for President of the United States should be held to a much higher standard than John Doe on the street.
Is it a big deal if you or I flub some details of a story from an elder relative? No, of course not. But, for someone seeking to be leader of the free world, Barack Obama had better make damn sure he has his facts straight. It would only take one slip-up like that across the table from any number of world leaders, and he would inadvertently do some major foreign policy damage. Do you think some offended third world dictator will simply accept the excuse that President Obama was tired? Let's be real, please.
2. True, but not all of them are running for President. That one little fact dramatically changes the context of the conversation, does it not? Also, see my response to point number 1 about what the real point is.
3. Not by itself, no. When considered in the broader context of Obama's general competence (or lack of), however, it becomes yet another reason for legitimate concern.
My point with this entire conversation is to address the bigger principle: that Barack Obama is totally unprepared for the White House, and that way too many people in this country refuse to acknowledge that reality. I generalized your comment because you seem to be getting caught up in the details of a precise story; I'm referring to the larger principle.
Anyone with an objective look at the election landscape simply cannot deny (examples in parentheses) that there are many people who completely ignore every suspect association that Obama has (Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, George Soros, etc.), who completely ignore every shred of Obama's considerable ignorance on matters of critical historical and political importance (what languages our allies and enemies speak, which sworn enemies he would meet with freely, which allies he would attack, etc.), and who completely ignore every questionable statement or action Obama makes (there are 57 states, not knowing which city he is in, not wearing the American flag, etc.).
And yet, despite all of these things (and the many, many more I've not mentioned), his followers still faint in his presence...!
The only rational conclusion for this total pass given to Obama by so many of his followers is that they view him as somehow above any sort of fact-checking or verification - a religious authority figure. Thus, my conclusion that they view him as some sort of savior who can do no wrong.
It seems that you are still missing the intended point of this whole conversation. As the one who has taken it upon myself to communicate with my readers, I accept the responsibility of that failure to convey my point adequately up until this time. Now that I have included some basis, evidence, and facts, I hope my position is a bit more clear. If you are not an Obama worshiper -- and you clearly aren't, since you appear to have a brain and are capable of making your own decisions -- I apologize for characterizing you as one! It was a mistake to make an assumption about you, and I will do my best to check such assumptions in the future. I guess it's a good thing I'm not running for President, huh? :)
Post a Comment