Inexperience has a new name
Last night the Democrats had their YouTube debate, hosted by CNN. In this debate, the contenders were asked a number of questions from people via the Internet; much like the first GOP debate hosted by Chris Matthews. A good amount of these questions were idiotic. Not as bad as Bill Clintons's infamous "boxers or briefs" moment at the MTV "town hall" stop, but pretty close.
However, Barack Obama was asked a question regarding what he would do as president when it came to regimes like Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Now these nations are our enemies. They're hostile towards us. (For those that doubt Iran's hostility, please read the post I did yesterday where I cite Mark Steyn's latest which discusses US hostages in Iranian hands right now). What was Obama's answer?
He would meet with those regimes, without any preconditions beforehand.
If that isn't the most asinine statement you have heard, then please cite me a better one. (For the moonbats out there, no you may not use the "Bush lied" meme to top Obama because he didn't lie.)
This shows that the newbie senator from Illinois has absolutely no clue at all about our enemies, and the regimes they wield dictatorial control over. These are tyrants of the first order. Only four people in history could be proud of these people -- Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Chairman Mao. These aren't people you cansit down and have tea and crimpets with. These people are dedicated to destroying the US by any means necessary. This is why North Korea pursued nukes (and despite the "new leaf" they've turned over, we're not buying the new Kim Jong-Il). This is why Ahmadinejad is running headlong towards the goal of creating the first Iranian nuclear weapon. These people don't want these weapons to serve as a deterrent. They want them to continue the subjugation of their people, and to threaten their neighbors.
About a year ago we had a discussion on a Sunday regarding Iran. The one thing we --Marcie, Sabrina, and myself -- all agreed on is that a nuke in ahmadinejad's hands would equal nuclear blackmail int he region. And it wouldn't be with only one. No one plays a game of chicken with just one nuke. He'll do the blackmail when he has a few of them built. And don't expect him to make a big announcement when the first one is created. No, expect the declaration when a dozen or so are made.
A President Obama would sit down and talk to these people, like some sort of nutter version of "conflict resolution." It's utterly ridiculous, and shows how truly inexperienced, how in-over-his-head he really is.
Does everyone remember the John Kerry "global test" snafu during the first debate in 2004? Remember how the reaction across the country was one of revulsion? That the president would allow other nations to dictate to us when we could and couldn't protect our selves, or react to attacks? The "global test" comment was the beginning of the end for John Kerry. He never quite recovered, and it only added fuel to the fire in an already clumsy campaign.
This is that moment for Obama. Any serious political commentator will agree that this was Barack's "global test" moment. Victor Davis Hanson was interviewed by Hugh earlier last night, and he was asked about the Obama moment. Mr. Hanson shares the same opinion about Obama that we do. The answer was wrong based solely on the repercussions that will occur. Here is the exchange:
HH: One last question, Victor Davis Hanson. In the debate tonight, a question from YouTube said will you meet, to the candidates, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, with no preconditions, in the first year of your presidency, and Barack Obama said yes. I interpret that as being a reflexive…and an admission that he is completely unprepared to be president. How do you respond to that answer?
VDH: I agree. What he’s really saying to the people who have been slaughtered by the Assad government in Syria and the dissidents, we don’t care about you. He’s telling the people of Lebanon who suffer serial assassination when they try to stand up for democracy, we don’t care about real politick at all. He’s telling the people of Israel…I mean, go talk with somebody who promised that you’re a one-bomb state and we’re going to wipe you off the map? He’s telling the Democratic dissidents in Venezuela…this is a man of the left, and what he’s basically doing is willing to talk with dictators and autocrats who are being opposed by people on the left, on the Democratic liberal side, supposedly, in these countries. It’s very strange that George Bush is talking about freedom and individual rights, and people in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party are sounding like old-fashioned, real politick, cynical people who say just accept the world the way it is, and most convenient for us is what we want, and don’t try to ask for something better.
And Mr. Hanson's spot on. This should be the end of his campaign, but Hugh's right. The MSM is going to run interference for him. But int he realm of the alternative media, we're going to hang him with his own words.
Publius II
However, Barack Obama was asked a question regarding what he would do as president when it came to regimes like Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Now these nations are our enemies. They're hostile towards us. (For those that doubt Iran's hostility, please read the post I did yesterday where I cite Mark Steyn's latest which discusses US hostages in Iranian hands right now). What was Obama's answer?
He would meet with those regimes, without any preconditions beforehand.
If that isn't the most asinine statement you have heard, then please cite me a better one. (For the moonbats out there, no you may not use the "Bush lied" meme to top Obama because he didn't lie.)
This shows that the newbie senator from Illinois has absolutely no clue at all about our enemies, and the regimes they wield dictatorial control over. These are tyrants of the first order. Only four people in history could be proud of these people -- Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Chairman Mao. These aren't people you cansit down and have tea and crimpets with. These people are dedicated to destroying the US by any means necessary. This is why North Korea pursued nukes (and despite the "new leaf" they've turned over, we're not buying the new Kim Jong-Il). This is why Ahmadinejad is running headlong towards the goal of creating the first Iranian nuclear weapon. These people don't want these weapons to serve as a deterrent. They want them to continue the subjugation of their people, and to threaten their neighbors.
About a year ago we had a discussion on a Sunday regarding Iran. The one thing we --Marcie, Sabrina, and myself -- all agreed on is that a nuke in ahmadinejad's hands would equal nuclear blackmail int he region. And it wouldn't be with only one. No one plays a game of chicken with just one nuke. He'll do the blackmail when he has a few of them built. And don't expect him to make a big announcement when the first one is created. No, expect the declaration when a dozen or so are made.
A President Obama would sit down and talk to these people, like some sort of nutter version of "conflict resolution." It's utterly ridiculous, and shows how truly inexperienced, how in-over-his-head he really is.
Does everyone remember the John Kerry "global test" snafu during the first debate in 2004? Remember how the reaction across the country was one of revulsion? That the president would allow other nations to dictate to us when we could and couldn't protect our selves, or react to attacks? The "global test" comment was the beginning of the end for John Kerry. He never quite recovered, and it only added fuel to the fire in an already clumsy campaign.
This is that moment for Obama. Any serious political commentator will agree that this was Barack's "global test" moment. Victor Davis Hanson was interviewed by Hugh earlier last night, and he was asked about the Obama moment. Mr. Hanson shares the same opinion about Obama that we do. The answer was wrong based solely on the repercussions that will occur. Here is the exchange:
HH: One last question, Victor Davis Hanson. In the debate tonight, a question from YouTube said will you meet, to the candidates, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, with no preconditions, in the first year of your presidency, and Barack Obama said yes. I interpret that as being a reflexive…and an admission that he is completely unprepared to be president. How do you respond to that answer?
VDH: I agree. What he’s really saying to the people who have been slaughtered by the Assad government in Syria and the dissidents, we don’t care about you. He’s telling the people of Lebanon who suffer serial assassination when they try to stand up for democracy, we don’t care about real politick at all. He’s telling the people of Israel…I mean, go talk with somebody who promised that you’re a one-bomb state and we’re going to wipe you off the map? He’s telling the Democratic dissidents in Venezuela…this is a man of the left, and what he’s basically doing is willing to talk with dictators and autocrats who are being opposed by people on the left, on the Democratic liberal side, supposedly, in these countries. It’s very strange that George Bush is talking about freedom and individual rights, and people in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party are sounding like old-fashioned, real politick, cynical people who say just accept the world the way it is, and most convenient for us is what we want, and don’t try to ask for something better.
And Mr. Hanson's spot on. This should be the end of his campaign, but Hugh's right. The MSM is going to run interference for him. But int he realm of the alternative media, we're going to hang him with his own words.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 4:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home