Some of us have been warning that it was not healthy for the U.S. media to have deified rather than questioned Obama, especially given that they tore apart Bush, ridiculed Palin, and caricatured Hillary. And now we can see the results of their two years of advocacy rather than scrutiny.
We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosion—and with no Dick Morris to bail him out—brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking.
First, there were the sermons on ethics, belied by the appointments of tax dodgers, crass lobbyists, and wheeler-dealers like Richardson—with the relish of the Blago tapes still to come. (And why does Richardson/Daschle go, but not Geithner?).
Second, was the "stimulus" (the euphemism for "borrow/print money") that was simply a way to go into debt for a generation to shower Democratic constituencies with cash.
Then third, there were the inflated lectures on historic foreign policy to be made by the clumsy political novice who trashed his own country and his predecessor in the most ungracious manner overseas to a censored Saudi-run press organ (e.g., Bush is dictatorial, the Saudi king is courageous; Obama can mend bridges that America broke to aggrieved Muslims—apparently Tehran hostages, Rushdie, serial attacks in the 1990s, 9/11, Madrid, London never apparently occurred; and neither did feeding Somalis, saving Kuwait, protesting Chechnya, Bosnia/Kosovo, billions to Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, help in two Afghan wars, and on and on).
Fourth, there was the campaign rhetoric of Bush shredding the Constitution—FISA, Guantánamo, the Patriot Act, Iraq, renditions, etc.—followed by "all that for now stays the same" inasmuch as we haven't ben hit in over seven years and can't risk another attack.
Fifth, Gibbs as press secretary is a Scott McClellan nightmare that won't go away, given his long McClellan-like relationship with Obama (McClellan should have been fired on day hour one on the job). Blaming Fox News for Obama's calamities is McClellan to the core and doesn't work. He already reminds me of Reverend Wright's undoing at the National Press Club—and he will get worse.
Six, Biden is being Biden. Already, he's ridiculed the chief justice, trashed the former VP, bragged on himself ad nauseam in Bidenesque weird ways, and it's only been two weeks.
And the result of all this?
At home, Obama is becoming laughable and laying the groundwork for the greatest conservative populist reaction since the Reagan Revolution.
Abroad, some really creepy people are lining up to test Obama's world view of "Bush did it/but I am the world": The North Koreans are readying their missiles; the Iranians are calling us passive, bragging on nukes and satellites; Russia is declaring missile defense is over and the Euros in real need of iffy Russian gas; Pakistanis say no more drone attacks (and then our friends the Indians say "shut up" about Kashmir and the Euros order no more "buy American").
This is quite serious. I can't recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton's initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and the Secretary of Defense. If he doesn't quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.
I think the real problem here is what Hanson lays out so artfully: that Obama's first two weeks have filled with nothing but incompetence, indecisiveness, and weakness. There are plenty of countries around the world who are already preparing to test the resolve of our fledgling President, and I have a feeling it's not going to be pretty. When you're in a state legislature, you can vote present and get away with it. When you're one of a hundred Senators, you can usually side with the consensus and escape. When you're in the Oval Office, it's awfully lonely, and you don't get a second chance on most of these decisions.
Contrary to liberals' beliefs, the world is filled with countries and leaders who would love to kick America in the teeth, whether economically or militarily. Peace through strength is not an empty platitude, and it has kept most Americans safe through decades of struggle and world events. An evaporation of the perceived strength of America -- especially in America's leadership -- would inevitably lead to some of those other nations taking the risk of toppling the giant. So, I believe that an Obama meltdown will mean American tragedy, and I don't want to see that happen.
That's why, when I see stories like this, I get extremely concerned for our future as a safe and secure nation:
President Obama will convene the most ambitious arms reduction talks with Russia for a generation, aiming to slash each country's stockpile of nuclear weapons by 80 per cent.
The radical treaty would cut the number of nuclear warheads to 1,000 each, The Times has learnt. Key to the initiative is a review of the Bush Administration's plan for a US missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, a project fiercely opposed by Moscow.
Mr Obama is to establish a non-proliferation office at the White House to oversee the talks, expected to be headed by Gary Samore, a non-proliferation negotiator in the Clinton Administration. The talks will be driven by Hillary Clinton's State Department.
Why is this so dangerous?Think of it this way. Let's say a typical cop and a typical mobster are on the phone planning a meeting to discuss terms of a sustained 'peace' between them to preserve their city. The two sides have a fundamentally different view of who should run the city and how, but they both agree that whatever is determined at the meeting will be binding for future relations between them, and they agree to come to the meeting unarmed. What do you suppose the chances are of the cop honoring his word and coming to the meeting unarmed? Probably pretty good, right? Now, what about the mobster? Not so confident on that one, are you?
That's exactly the situation Obama is creating for America. He is pledging to disarm us, but there are no assurances that Russia will actually do the same. In fact, there's a high probability that they will do everything they can to avoid it.
Now, what happens when the unarmed cop and the armed mobster show up at the meeting? The mobster gets his way, obviously, because he has all the weaponry on his side. That's how it'll work with Obama, too. By gutting this country's nuclear arsenal by 80%, he's surrendering 80% of America's ability to influence the outcome of any real or potential confrontation. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if a dictator like Putin would find 20% losses acceptable if it meant the total annihilation of America, so it could be even worse.
Anyway, you get the point. Peace through strength is what won the Cold War and took down the Soviet Union without a shot ever being fired. To voluntarily disarm America as Obama has promised is not just laying down our own weapons, but laying down our own weapons and begging Russia to rape and pillage us before killing us. It's absolute lunacy.
In other words, it's typical liberalism.
This is an extremely dangerous time, and there are many viable dangers in the world around us, as former VP Dick Cheney would know. Here's what he said recently:
Obama's pledge to disarm America is precisely what Cheney means. Don't laugh it off, either - current VP Joe Biden said the same thing on the campaign trail, remember? And, both of the past two presidents were tested in a major terrorist attack within 18 months of taking office. There's a high probability that something will happen.
For Obama to show this kind of incompetence and weakness so quickly is an invitation to disaster. I have every confidence that the American people will respond correctly and forcefully when that first attack happens; I have no such faith in our leader. It will be up to us to demand the correct course of action when it does; we will not be able to count on our President.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment