. . . completely unqualified for the job? Or following an agenda known to him and those who put him place?
Take your pick. Or is it all of the above?
You don't have to believe what you read here and at other places that stress this theme.
Watch what is happening, what the man says, and how he steers the ship of state onto dangerous shoals.
Is the intent to destroy the United States?
Is this the agenda of this muladí?*
The point Wretchard, is that Obama and his forces WANT to surrender to Iran.
Obama hates America, it’s traditions, it’s military, and wants to make America weak and humiliated. Even at the cost of himself looking weak and humiliated. He cannot help it, a lifetime of racial-based radicalism and hatred of “White Man’s Greed” makes him grovel and bend to Iran out of force of habit.
Of course, this enrages a good part of America, and satisfies others. Largely along gender and class lines. Women of course approve mostly of groveling, since they reflexively oppose military action even in (or especially) Israel. Livni’s backing is disproportionately female and suburban. The “Gentry” classes too believe in this, that “wars are caused by men acting aggressively” (call it the Rich Guilty White Guy syndrome, ala Phil Donahue) and so support the groveling.
I’m sure either Israel will nuke Iran first, or Iran will nuke Israel out of existence. Either way, it touches America only tangentially, at least in the immediate impact. [For the record, I agree with Murdoch that Israel's fight is our fight, in the West, generally.]
However, the dynamics go much deeper. Iran’s factions are at each other’s throats. It has not escaped notice that defeat and humiliation of the US during Khomeni’s reign allowed the Ayatollah to stand up a lot of “moderate” enemies against a wall for a firing squad.
Iran thus is egged on by Obama’s weakness to actually attack the US with a nuke. Through Hezbollah or other deniable proxies.
What’s the downside? Obama sending a sharply worded video? No one fears him, in fact he’s less feared NOW than Carter was THEN.
THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE FOR A IRANIAN NUKE ATTACK ON THE US. Period.
As long as it is not launched from Iranian ICBMs, no downside. Obama will warn America that it’s our due, it’s our “chickens coming home to roost,” and that we need to beg Muslim forgiveness.
This is deeply appealing to Iranian factions since they can use this to execute opponents.
Weakness of this sort leading to say NYC being nuked and 6-7 million dead will naturally create some sort of removal of Obama, probably a rush to impeach/convict by shocked Congresscritters desperate to hold on to their seats and wanting a weak, pliable Biden as their guy. It’s likely long term to lead not to a Dem or Rep but a third-party populist like Jessie Ventura or Arnold or Ross Perot, but without the wisdom, stability, temperament, and political experience of those guys. [Yes I'm being sarcastic.]
But the weakness of Obama is not just the man, but the political and more importantly social forces that put him there. He represents a female and Guilty Rich White Guy view of the world, where original sin rests with “evil White guys” and every problem is solved by holding hands getting rid of those “evil White Guys” who ruin everything. See every Hollywood movie or TV show.
Obama is weak because his backers embrace and well, DEMAND weakness. Since their real enemy is the average working person.
Mar 21, 2009 - 8:35 pm
The white flag of surrender is flying over the White House tonight. [after he gave that "conciliatory" (sucking-up) teleprompter speech to the Iranian-mullah-Ahmadinejad government of Iran]
Iran, NK, Syria, Venezuela, China and Russia have watched the big 0 reach out to Iran video and have concluded that there’s a politically correct community organizer in charge…it wont be long before one of these miscreants starts to probe our lines to see how the telepromter will react.
Biden’s prophecy will indeed come true as the One will be challenged by an unknown event …remember Pearl Harbor and 9/11 !
Mar 21, 2009 - 7:48 pm
OBAMA ON THE U.S. ROLE IN AFGHANISTAN
Obama is shifting the U.S. focus from the unpopular war in Iraq to the conflict in Afghanistan, where violence has increased to its highest level since U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban in 2001.
He blamed his predecessor for the situation there now. An AP article quotes him as saying,
"You are often confronted with bad choices that flow from less than optimal decisions made a year ago, two years ago, five years ago, when you weren’t here," Obama said. "A lot of times, when things land at my desk, it’s a choice between bad and worse."
The article also says that Obama’s strategy will be anchored on the following elements: building economic capacity in Afghanistan; improving diplomatic efforts in Pakistan; bringing a more regional diplomatic approach to bear; and coordinating more effectively with allies. Obama described how difficult it was for him to decide to send reinforcements to the theater. "When I make a decision to send 17,000 young Americans to Afghanistan, you can understand that intellectually, but understanding what that means for those families, for those young people when you end up sitting at your desk, signing a condolence letter to one of the family members of a fallen hero, you’re reminded each and every day at every moment that the decisions you make count."
Absent from the President’s message was what the US strategic goals in Afghanistan were, apart from the exit strategy. What does President Obama define as ‘winning’? What does victory look like? Without some kind of goal to shoot for, then in crass business terms the return on investment for the 17,000 additional men he sending in is undefined. They are being asked to risk their lives. But in exchange for what? Perhaps more details will emerge after BHO consults with the NATO allies. But for the moment, the enemy has been told that the US is looking for a way out. Before or after their ‘defeat’ — however that may be defined — that is what we wait to learn.
*The Spanish and Portuguese word muladí is derived from Arabic muwallad. The basic meaning of muwallad is a person of mixed ancestry, especially a descendant of an Arab and a non-Arab parent, who grew up among Arabs and was educated within the Arab-Islamic culture.
[Barack Hussein Obama is the issue of an Arab (Kenyan+Arab) and a non-Arab parent, who was educated within the Arab-Islamic culture (in Indonesia)]
"Muladi" has been offered as one of the possible etimological origins of the still-current Spanish and Portuguese term "Mulatto", denoting a person of mixed European and non-European ancestry.
Muwallad is derived from the root word WaLaD (ولد direct Arabic transliteration: waw, lam, dal). Walad means, "descendant, offspring, scion; child; son; boy; young animal, young one." Muwallad referred to the offspring of Arab men and foreign, non-Arab women. The term muwalladin is used in Arabic up to this day to describe the children between Arab fathers and foreign mothers.
Anti-Free Speech Quackery From UCLA - Hat tip The College Fix "One way in which “marginalized communities” have their “power of expression” “impoverished,” Park claims, is because “the power o...