Sunday, May 18, 2008

Bush Hits A Nerve

President Bush spoke before the Knesset, the Israel parliament this week for the 60th anniversary of Israel’s founding. During his speech, he ignited a fire storm among the Democratic party when he said: “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history,” Read the rest of the story here:

Though the White House denied that it was an attack against Obama, the Democrats took it as one. So, to show their distaste at what they viewed as a political attack by Bush, they attacked him. One has to wonder if there was genuine outrage or if the reaction was a mix of self-identification and, possibly, fear.

My suspicion is that the remark hit a little too close to home. Obama has said he would meet with Iran, among other terrorist nations, without precondition. During a Democratic debate watched almost entirely by Democrats, this probably seemed like a good idea and was meant to be a criticism of Bush and his foreign policy. With the nomination likely in hand and facing a decided national security disadvantage against McCain in the general election, it is likely that Obama would like to take the policy statement back now. It worked well to score points among liberal Democrats against a President they hate. To the electorate as a whole though, it comes off as naïve and even dangerous.

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a nutcase who denies the existence of the Holocaust, has repeatedly called for the destruction of US ally Israel, and is funding the murder of US troops in Iraq. Obama’s policy stance not only will play poorly with the general population but will greatly harm him with a fairly loyal group of Democratic voters, the Jewish.

Ever the word-smith though, Obama has made clear this week that he has always said he would not meet with terrorist groups (too bad he can’t convince Jimmy Carter to follow his lead). Pay attention though because he didn’t say he would not meet with state leaders who support terrorism.

This is where the fear part comes in. The Democrats are going to get pummeled by McCain this year on national security. Their argument against McCain is that he represents more of Bush’s policies. Are these the same policies that have spared us another terrorist attack in almost seven years? Or the one that has greatly reduced the number of countries that sponsor terrorism from the long list that existed during the Clinton administration? Or, maybe the policy that has essentially neutralized al-qaeda, a group that attacked us three separate times with impunity during the Clinton years and was free to plan and lay the ground work for the 9/11 attacks? The same group that was handed to Clinton on a silver platter and he wouldn’t arrest, causing the deaths of 3,00 Americans.

The Democrats have nothing but a failed history of national security (Clinton, Carter) and several ridiculous foreign visits over the last couple of years to show for themselves. One of the first things Nancy Pelosi did upon taking the House speakership was to fly to Syria to meet with Bashar al-Assad the President of Syria and a sponsor of the terrorist group Hamas. Jimmy Carter skipped the sponsor and went right to the terrorist group, meeting with Hamas themselves. Governor Bill Richardson has gone to Venezuela to meet with dictator and all around lunatic Hugo Chavez.
This is why the Democrats keep hammering away at the economy and gas prices (which, if anybody is paying attention, both went to Hell after the Democrats took control of Congress). They are hoping that no one is paying attention to Obama’s national seurity shortcomings. Bush’s statement wasn’t an attack so much as simply reminding us that Emperor Obama has no clothes.

No comments: