obama is the worst choice for president… and will probably win
by Michelle Curtiss
Published: March 14, 2008
I think Obama is probably a good guy. He smiles easily and doesn’t have to look over his shoulder. He seems confident and there are no signs to date that he is a robot built by the same company that created “The McCain.”
So if I think he is so great, why shouldn’t you vote for him?
For the same reason Ron Paul is out of the running; he doesn’t understand foreign diplomacy. In Ron Paul’s case, he slept through December 7, 1941 and can’t understand why America doesn’t just mind its own business. In Obama’s case, he thinks that a little chat with the wayward teens (aka: Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.) will straighten them out and set them on the path to being productive members of society.
Here’s how his term starts:
Month One: Have President of the United States of America visit all the countries to which we don’t currently allow presidential visits; because, to quote his website, “Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe.”
Month Two: Wait by the phone. Wonder why all our allies have stopped calling. Wait by the phone some more. Doodle “I ‘heart’ Hugo” on the presidential notepad.
Still Month Two: (Unknown to the President of the former-world-power USA) Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Cuba, China, various terrorist organizations, etc. have a secret fundraising meeting where they show their new commercial “You should give us money to fund terror and war because the current President of the United States has agreed not to stand in our way.” Roll “commercial” wherein Obama assures all our enemies that no matter how bad they are, we love them. In fact, we will let them abuse us however they feel necessary in order to get their anger out and begin the healing process.
Month Three: Terrorists and the various above named countries/organizations blackmail the world into joining their side “or else.”
Month Four: Bombs are dropped and various US cities cease to exist.
Okay, I admit this may be a little extreme, but hey, the sun does set on the British Empire and it might set on ours in the near future as well if appeasement is our main foreign-policy tool. Still not convinced? Google the Munich Agreement (aka: Munich Betrayal.) That was a close one.
So why will the naïve guy win? He is running against John McCain. The biggest difference I can see between the two candidates is their approach to foreign policy. Obama wants to make nice with the terrorist and McCain wants to kill them. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans no longer feel the effects of the war on terror and have decided that Bush made the whole thing up to seize profits and power. Interestingly enough, short-term memory loss in not only an American phenomenon. According to a poll commissioned by UKTV Gold, 23% of the British public thinks Winston Churchill is a myth. Crazy stuff. Crazier still, many Americans seem to believe the same thing about Al-Qaeda.
Now, I’m not here preaching all doom and gloom. Maybe a Barack presidency won’t be so bad. When his policies implode on us (or explode, for that matter), and they will, better to blame Barack and win the next election than to blame a Republican and watch the Democrats rule the following 12 years unchallenged. Just my humble opinion.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
(6)
April 27th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I found your comment, “Unfortunately, the majority of Americans no longer feel the effects of the war on terror and have decided that Bush made the whole thing up to seize profits and power” a generalization that I would like to understand your exact thinking on a little bit more.
From my perspective, you’re right on Point 1: I certainly have become inured to Homeland Security threat levels because they were confusing to me and I don’t think I ever saw anything happen regardless of the threat level. Kudos to those who made a difference, if they really did.
On Point 2, that “…[Americans have] decided that Bush made the whole thing up to seize profits and power” I find myself less believing that about the war on terror — which is an extremely problematic concept to get my head around to begin with — but certainly more skeptical about our incursion into Iraq for some of the same reasons.
Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, and I think there are few who doubt that he was the mastermind of the terrorist attacks, and Iraq’s link to “global terrorism”, if there is such a homogenous movement, is less certain.
Compared to Pakistan’s uncontrolled refugee camps, which are fairly clearly linked to harboring al Queda, Iraq, while rogue, was a sworn enemy of al Queda and bin Laden. The Saudis, too, seemed to be funneling money and training to terrorism right under the noses of the U.S. Government (11 of the 12 terrorists had Saudi passports) but we’re not attacking them or watching reports about how they’re rooting out terrorist cells and funding.
I want to read “Winning the Right War” by Phillip Gordon (http://www.amazon.com/Winning-Right-War-Security-America/dp/0805086579). He’s an analyst at the Brookings Institute and I heard him speak at the University of Utah last fall. He had some interesting thoughts about the war on terror that I thought had some merit. You might be interested in his perspective.
But overall, I found your thoughts very astute and interesting!