… [I]n the terror war, individual engagements directly affect only a relative few. For the rest, the threat to their survival as a whole is an abstraction. With the right kind of leadership, it can become a moral and emotional reality. But that requires an intelligent, capable and sustained articulation of the strategic vision that clarifies for the "inner eye" both the physical and moral reality of the threat.
With respect to the terror war Islamic forces have been waging against the United States, G. W. Bush proved incompetent at articulating this strategic vision, but at least he tried. Because his agenda and worldview are so consistent with those of the forces brought against us, Obama has never made any attempt to do so. On the contrary, he has consistently slandered the United States with a pose of self-flagellating (as regards the nation) and self-righteous (in regard to himself) apology for supposed American acts of domineering injustice that, he implies, naturally result in hateful acts of carefully planned violence against the American people.
– Alan Keyes, "Who's to blame for terrorism's moral victory"
5 comments:
Keyes: "(Obama) has consistently slandered the United States with a pose of self-flagellating (as regards the nation) and self-righteous (in regard to himself) apology for supposed American acts of domineering injustice that, he implies, naturally result in hateful acts of carefully planned violence against the American people."
Pure demagoguery in the form of politically self-serving lies and distortions. Of course, if it was anything else, it wouldn't appear as part of a promo at Worldnet Daily.
This absurd, groundless caricature of Obama is nothing but radical right propaganda. Just ask the next of kin of Taliban and al Qaeda types taken out by drones.
Oh wait, I know. Obama just goes along with that for the sake of appearances. When the time is right, he'll welcome OBL to the White House for a capitulation ceremony, offering his daughters up as tokens of good will, right?
Come on, Paine, get your head out of the vacuum. You don't have to agree with Obama policy wise to at least have the decency to recognize and acknowledge he takes the terrorism threat more seriously than George W. Bush did until it suited Bush's personal and political purpose. Well, his, Dick Cheney and Big Oil's purposes, anyway.
Credit Obama with the love of country and good political sense to not want to have another 9-11 on his watch, to not have his family or yours in that kind of danger. Disagree with him all you want, but have the decency to not join whackjobs like Keyes in demonizing him.
I also love my country. Too much to hold it above questioning and criticism. People who can't hack that mistake fanaticism for patriotism.
Anderson, indeed I do applaud Obama for the drone attacks taking out al Qaida and Taliban leaders. I will give him credit on that score.
That being said, he and his administration has gone out of its way to apologize for, if not outright denigrate our country.
Obama had a golden opportunity to stand in solidarity with the Iranian people as they protested the bogus reelection of Ahmadinejad. He chose to remain silent as many of those people were killed or arrested so that he would not prove the mullahs correct that the U.S. was interferring in their elections.
I would rather he be broadcasting Radio Free Iraq into the Iranian state and take a strong public stance in support of the Iranian people.
I would have liked to have seen Obama meet immediately with General McChrystal to address his strategy and troop requests instead of delaying the meeting for months while determining what the "right course of action" was, thus second guessing his commanders on the ground.
I would like to have seen Obama take the replenishment of our military after the degradation of two pro-longed wars seriously instead of deciding to allow the left to use their social engineering PC crap to allow the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
I would like to have seen Obama to have been courteous and respectful to Netanyahu when he came to the White House, instead of snubbing him and not even having a state dinner, as has always been protocol for a foreign leader and ally.
I would like to have seen Obama stand firm in support of our ally Israel when the flotilla attempted to run the blockade to Gaza, instead of standing with their and our enemies in the U.N. denouncing this action.
For the first time in my life, I truly wonder if Israel were under severe attack, if a president of the United States would come to help our friend and ally.
Sorry, Anderson, but I don't see this as demagoguery, but rather as a recitation of the facts that Dr. Keyes lays out in the rest of the article. I am going to stand behind Dr. Keyes, America, and Israel on this one, sir.
"he and his administration has gone out of its way to apologize for, if not outright denigrate our country."
That's not true. I notice that, like Keyes, you don't give a single example.
Re: the Iranian protests. The administration chose not to get involved in an internal Iranian matter for three reasons. First, the president didn't want to get a bunch of people we couldn't materially assist or protect imprisoned, tortured and killed. Second, there was sound intel that doing so would strengthen the hand of hard liners in Tehran who wanted a bloodbath, to make examples of the protesters as being gullible pawns of foreign provocateurs. Third, other countries in the region already have the U.S. down as a dangerous aggressor and meddler. They would've seen our inciting the protesters as further reason to not trust us, especially if a bunch of those protesters were killed without our actually doing anything to help them.
Maybe you want a war with Iran. The overwhelming majority of Americans think we've got two more wars than we need or can afford right now.
As for the Obama administration coming to Israel's aid, any decision should depend on the circumstances. Unqualified, unquestioning backing will do for Israel what a sappy parent will do for his kid by giving the kid everything he wants and thinks he can't live without.
So, Mr. Anderson, instead of the United States standing up for freedom and human rights in Iran and the rest of the world, far better that we not be seen as interferring and antagonize other enemies in the region;is that your take, sir?
The typical man in the Middle East does not respect weakness or passivity. They may not like us, but they by and large will have greater respect and indeed fear that we will support liberty and human rights and back it up if that is proven to be the case through our leadership.
It was precisely the feckless and cowardly hands-off approach to the Middle East and terrorism in general during the Clinton administration that percipitated the attacks on 9/11.
Osama bin Laden himself said this and called us a "paper tiger". He assumed Bush would continue the Clinton doctrine of lobbing a few missiles and treating that act of war as a police matter. He miscalculated. Badly.
Strength and fear of reprisal are our best defenses, and no I certainly do not want war with Iran, but I fear that is what will eventually happen.
If President Obama doesn't keep Iran from achieving nuclear weapons status, I can't help but think that Israel must as a matter of their on survival. Regardless, if Israel, or the United States attacks Iran's nuclear facilities there will likely be war there.
The alternative though would be too great a risk for Israel, and indeed, for us too.
Obama has very close ties to the PLO from his Chicago days. He cannot as president take a hard line against any country but I am certain as to where he stands.
Post a Comment