More on Obama’s naive Berlin speech 37
Dennis Prager examines what Obama actually said in Berlin and finds ignorance, distortion and naivete.
For instance:
Obama: "Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin."
In his attempt to exaggerate the role of Berlin before his large Berlin audience, Obama made a claim that simply makes no sense. "Berlin stood in the way" of another World War beginning? How? If anything, Berlin was the flash point of East-West tension and therefore could have triggered a war.
Read the whole excellent comment here.
Obama’s absurd performance 114
The visits of Barack Obama and two other senators to Afghanistan and Iraq, brief as they were, may have had some point to them. But It’s hard to discern the purpose of letting this posturizing, gum-chewing, know-nothing-done-nothing egotist cavort round three European capitals, declaiming his empty rhetoric and acting as if he were President of the United States. One wonders why President Sarkozy was willing to play a ceremonious part in the charade. Has the little trip given Obama valuable experience of the world so that he can formulate wise foreign policy? These crazy theatrics should be an embarrassment to the Democrats, and would be if the Party as a whole weren’t so far gone in craziness as even to think of putting up such a fellow for the office of president. He has done nothing for his country. His associates have been criminals, terrorists, slum-developers, Communists, hate-preachers. When one remembers the great men of extraordinary achievement and ability, and high probity, like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Reagan to whom they now propose that this fellow could be a successor, one can scarcely believe such a degeneration of values can have come about. Will voters wake up in time from the strange mad dream into which the sonorous speechifying of this lightweight politician has lulled many of them, and save their country and the world from the irreversible disaster that his election would bring?
Obama’s naive Berlin speech 564
Obama, self-vaunting, under-informed, in love with his own rhetorical flourishes as always, and mixing his metaphors, gave a typically posturing and empty speech in Berlin.
Read John Bolton’s comments on it here.
A macedoine of religions 52
A fine and depressing example of what a pesky nuisance religion is in human affairs, this passage from a report (read the whole thing here) on the Macedonia region of erstwhile Yugoslavia:
“Oh yes,” he said. “Because the Serbian church is supporting the Greek church against recognizing the Macedonian church as independent. The Greek church can recognize the Macedonian church as independent, but not under this name. They are not recognizing the name of the state and they are not recognizing the language, plus they are not recognizing the church. The Muslim community is supporting the Orthodox church against this Pope, and saying You should be independent, and this Pope should have his own church in Macedonia. The Muslim community is supporting the Orthodox church, so the Orthodox church is supporting the Muslim community against us. And the Macedonian government is under the influence of the Orthodox church. Plus, this political party – the national political party – they are investing a lot of money in the church building process, mosques also, etc. So you see, this government is sacrificing Bektashism because of the problem of the Orthodox Church with the Pope.”
Slogans for McCain 229
Three obvious battle-cries for the McCain campaign:
LOWER TAXES
DRILL FOR OIL
VICTORY IN IRAQ
They’re short and sweet. They need to be called out loud and clear and often.
And they are winners.
They Kuntar Done Worse 494
The moment Samir Kuntar walked into Lebanon as a free man spelt the end of a hard earned 60 years cultivating the image of Israel as a capable, tough and proud state. Samir Kuntar is one of the most despised villains of Israeli society: a vicious murderer, his crimes included the inhuman beating to death of a three year old Israeli girl in front of horrified witnesses. In the eyes of the Arab countries and even among Western Arab communities, Samir Kuntar is the darling of the defenders of Islam – a brave resistance fighter.
My horror at the release of this epitome of evil is not the support for his crimes that is propagated among the Arabs; it is not even shock at the (frankly expected) Western indifference for this monster – instead I am appalled by the virus that goes by the name of appeasement that has risen again to infect the integrity or lack thereof, manifested by the weak politicians and the morally bankrupt Left of the “liberal” West.
One particular historical parallel that can now be applied to the Arab-Israeli conflict by supporters of Israel is the disastrous policy of appeasement practised noticeably by one of its true founders: Neville Chamberlain. Once the understanding of the West and even the byline of slightly cringe-worthy Hollywood films was ‘Never negotiate with terrorism’. Now appeasement and negotiation appears to govern international politics: from the hundreds of incentives made to the Iran by the EU, hoping to curb Iran’s nuclear weapons research, each new offer giving more and more away to the Iranians; to the ‘quiet diplomacy’ pursued by Thabo Mbeki with Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.
The release of Samir Kuntar, four other terrorists and the hundreds of remains of dead Lebanese murderers marks the beginning of the end. Israel, more than any country, should realise that appeasement is a policy that will never work to their advantage. It betrays the teachings of Machiavelli: “…one should never permit a disorder to persist in order to avoid a war, for war is not avoided thereby but merely deferred to one’s own disadvantage.” And it sends chilling reminders of Chamberlain’s efforts to secure peace; or the IRA murderers given their ill-gotten freedom by Blair’s government; the US government’s protection of Arafat in 1982; the attempted appeasement of Saddam Hussein before the 1990 Gulf War; the encouraged promotion of Islamic culture above all others in Western countries by Western governments; the suggestions of British judges for allowing some form of sharia law in Britain – the last hundred years have shown a frightening propensity for the West to fail to learn from its mistakes and to allow the forces of evil a chance to exist and prosper.
So why is Olmert’s government meeting Hezbollah’s demands? Why is it appeasing its enemies? Israel has owed 60 years of remarkable existence to ‘disproportionate’ response and a tough and no-nonsense attitude towards its enemies. Many would argue this is a key reason for her survival. The release of the five terrorists by Israel met one of Hezbollah’s few demands, another being the return of the Sheba farms to Lebanon. Is it that these unforgettable years of terrorism, torture, murder, cruelty unimaginable to civilized society have all just been for the return of a few hundred yards of farm and a child murderer? – the truth of course, is that Hezbollah, like the rest of the Arab world, seeks the destruction of Israel and its people. Olmert seems to have forgotten this. They have reversed the direction of sixty years of policies based on reality and common sense, and are taking an ill-fated chance with the future of their country.
For the despairing results of this cruel act of appeasement we have not even had to wait a few days. Immediately Hamas decided it was no longer going to agree to Israeli terms for the return of Gilad Shalit and was to demand greater returns for the terrorist group. Furthermore, a group of British MPs called for a dialogue with Palestinian terror groups, Hamas included; breaking the policy of no recognition that most Western countries have pursued.
But this author is not completely a pessimist and his writings shall not just be a harbinger of Israel’s complete failure – there is still a chance: Olmert and his coalition must be removed, a strong leader (preferably Netanyahu) must be elected, Kuntar must be assassinated, Hamas must be destroyed, Hezbollah must be removed, Iran’s nuke and missile sites must be obliterated and the supply of armaments to the Gaza Strip and West Bank must be stopped. Tough orders? These are problems all created by appeasement; it is war deferred to Israel’s disadvantage, and now Israel is forced to deal with it.
Obama would wreck US-UK special relationship 277
Nile Gardiner, Director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation, writes in the Telegraph:
Britain’s chattering classes should be careful what they wish for. Senator Obama promises change and a bold new course for the United States. The end result may be an America that looks away from Britain and erects higher barriers to trade and investment.
The special relationship has lasted over 60 years as the most powerful and successful partnership of modern times. Unfortunately it might not survive the next presidential election.
Read the whole article here.
Obama is all hot air 514
David Frum, writing about Obama’s badly worded, sloppily thought-out Berlin speech, concludes – rightly in our opinion:
Obama’s vague language is the product of an unrealistic mind. He denies the reality of conflict — and flinches from the obligations of self-defense. Obama has risen to power by using a soothing cloud of meaningless words to conceal displeasing truths and avoid difficult choices.
Read all that he wrote in yesterday’s National Post. (Unfortunately we cannot link to it.) It’s good stuff.
But America should drill, drill, drill 331
Adam Brodsky writes in the New York Post today about the growing unwillingness of Americans to continue pouring dollars into the coffers of states which use them to destroy the West. He says:
Surely things are headed in the right direction: i.e., toward less US dependence on foreign oil.
Just fantasize the possibilities: Terror, bankrupt. Iran, shriveled. Chavez, history. Gore shuts up.
And SUVs rule.
All without firing a single bullet.
Oil’s well that ends well? Here’s hoping.
Obama’s priorities show his shallow values 45
From Power Line:
Politics is largely about priorities; so is life, for that matter. Barack Obama’s priorities were put into sharp relief today when he canceled visits to two American military bases in Germany. He still has time, of course, to play the "rock star" in front of cheering multitudes of Germans. Ed Morrisseybroke the story:
Der Spiegel’s blog reports on Obama’s priorities:
1:42 p.m.: SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that Obama has cancelled a planned short visit to the Rammstein and Landstuhl US military bases in the southwest German state of Rhineland-Palatinate. The visits were planned for Friday. “Barack Obama will not be coming to us,” a spokesperson for the US military hospital in Landstuhl announced. “I don’t know why.” Shortly before the same spokeswoman had announced a planned visit by Obama.
The message here is that thousands of screaming German fans at the Tiergarten take precedence over visiting Americans serving their country at Rammstein and Landstuhl. Maybe one of the networks following Obama could interview a few of the soldiers about how they perceive that set of priorities from Obama.
Landstuhl, of course, is where soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan are sent for treatment. Obama’s visit there no doubt would have included meeting some of them.
It turns out that Obama didn’t stiff the servicemen because of a schedule conflict. Rather, as Jake Tapper pointed out, apparently without knowing that Obama had canceled planned visits to the two military installations, Obama is going sightseeing in Berlin tonight. I can’t say it any better than Ed did:
Obama canceled a previously-planned stop to visit thousands of American service personnel, including troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan being treated at Landstuhl, so he could hold a political rally for Germans and go shopping in Berlin. Now that’s a nice set of priorities for a man who wants to become Commander in Chief.