Contact 
July 27, 2008 
“Hindsight is 20/20, but I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is, at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush Administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with, and one that I continue to disagree with.” - Barack Obama on his Iraq tapdance
Hindsight may be 20/20, but then why is Barack Obama blindly placing so much emphasis on his supposed hindsight to oppose the war in Iraq? That argument may have sold like hotcakes when we were losing, but all you can get for it these days is a handful of loose change.
Obama’s debutante ball overseas was designed to both show the candidate looking presidential and to further bolster his admittedly non-existent foreign policy experience. And while a compliant, salivating media would have you believe that Obamapalooza ‘08 was a smashing success, conducting these symbolic photo-ops and hob-nobbing with European and Middle Eastern leaders opens Obama up to heaps of criticism. His primary goal was to go abroad and get photographed sucking up to a few foreign heads of state while trying to avoid mistakes or foolish statements. But despite a virtual army of advisers and handlers, he still managed to make two big mistakes; one that was simply dishonest and disrespectful to our military which I have grown accustomed to with him; the other, a major foreign policy and national security boner that could have dire, long-term consequences for The United States, Israel, the Middle East and perhaps the world.
Obama’s first mistake was cancelling a visit to wounded U.S. military personnel in Landstuhl, Germany that had allegedly been in the works for weeks. The Pentagon indicated that as a sitting senator, Obama was warmly welcomed to visit U.S. soldiers there, but without his entourage of advisers and media. Obama decided to drop the visit and tried first to blame the Pentagon, then the McCain campaign for crying foul. Obama says he simply wanted to visit wounded U.S. soldiers but didn’t want the visit to be perceived as overtly political, which is patently ridiculous. His entire trip was a shameful political stunt. If Obama really wanted to pay them a visit he could have, but if he was unable to use wounded U.S. soldiers as a photo backdrop to his globe-trotting media circus, it wouldn’t serve his campaign any purpose. So, Obama simply made the calculations and decided to skip the visit. What’s interesting here is his excuse. If Obama had visited privately there would have been no media present to exploit the visit and turn it into the political event that both his campaign –and apparently the military feared. The one which never happened yet still somehow prevented him from visiting. For obvious reasons, I don’t buy Obama’s excuse. He simply avoids military audiences like the French avoid deodorant. What is he hiding?
Obama’s second and most disastrous mistake –as I pointed out last week– was when he stood at the French podium with Nikolas Sarkozy - and before Iran and the world took military action off the table. He urged Iran’s president to accept and adhere to U.N. proposals: “…And my expectation is, is that we’re going to present a clear choice to Iran: Change your behavior and you will be fully integrated into the international community, with all of the benefits that go with that. Continue your illicit nuclear program, and the international community as a whole will ratchet up pressure with stronger and increased sanctions.”
Ahmedinejad responded warmly and expectedly, announcing that his country now had nearly 6,000 centrifuges with which he can continue to enrich his uranium - double the number previously thought. Regardless of whether Iran has 6,000 centrifuges or six, Obama has just raised the bar; upped the ante in the U.S. fight to stymie the terrorist hunt for nuclear weapons. Either out of ignorance or purposefully; one way or another he has sent a signal to Iran’s president and the entire world that the military option is indeed off the table, should he assume the White House.
The number one rule of poker is to never show your cards or even let on what you’re holding. And the number one rule of diplomacy when discussing matters of such grave importance is that you are supposed to use generalizations; words like “increased resolve”, a “strong response” or grave consequences” that leave all options on the table. Threatening more useless sanctions was either explicitly designed to send a message he wouldn’t use force or was the result of weakness and inexperience, the likes of which I have never seen. Can you imagine his future negotiations with terrorists? You think Jimmy Carter was bad? If elected president, I predict that Mahmoud Ahmedinejad will be the sharpest thorn in Barack Obama’s sore little behind for his entire administration.
Most Americans I’ve talked to couldn’t give a damn what elitist European snobs think about our country or Presidential campaign. In fact the continued focus on what Europeans think offends many people. They feel the focus should be on their economic, social and physical well-being, not the obsession of European opinion. They simply don’t count in our electoral system because they can’t vote, so I couldn’t care less who they would like to see as the next President. Could you? I take the recommendation of European liberals with the same measure of skepticism as the recommendation of terrorists. After all, they’re in unanimous agreement that Obama should be the next president. Generally speaking, if what’s good for European liberals is also good for terrorists, any sane person would at least have to pause to consider whether or not that was bad for the United States.
The media coverage of this freak show that has no bearing on our election is completely over-the-top. It also confirms what I’ve been saying all along, not just about Obama, but those who blindly support him based on nothing more substantial than a scripted, symbolic speech. The world knows admittedly so very little about Obama, yet news coverage in Germany quoted a local man as saying after he heard his very first Obama speech: “For me, he is the new Messiah”. And we all know what happened the last time Germans reacted that way to a speech. I’m not suggesting any connection between Obama and Hitler, but I’d submit to you that a slick orator who can captivate millions with mere words is a far more dangerous proposition than someone who has a less than stellar command of verbal expression.
It was obvious to anyone paying attention that Obama had already made up his mind on Iraq. The fact that he went through that much jet fuel, time and expense to travel there so he could give the appearance that he was being open-minded shows that he’ll literally go to the ends of the Earth to pander and engage in intellectual dishonesty over something as serious as war. What I am waiting for Obama to explain is how we’ll manage to “get a handle” on Iraq if we withdraw before the job is complete? It is entirely self-evident to all but anti-war liberals and those with designs on retreat that we’ll be back within five years and even more Americans will get killed if we leave prematurely. This reality puts Mr. Obama squarely between Iraq and a very hard place. Therefore, he has essentially written off Iraq. His comments this week betray that his administration’s foreign policy simply has no room for it, nor are they forming any contingencies for anything other than immediate withdrawal. But we’ll be back if Obama has his way… Guaranteed.
Subscribe
