Wednesday, January 28, 2009

The day America lost the terror war

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=87320

The day America lost the terror war
Ben Shapiro hammers Obama for expressing
'shame for his country' in Arab TV interview


By Benjamin Shapiro


On Nov. 4, 2008, America lost the war on terror. President Barack Obama's feckless, pathetically apologetic perspective on foreign policy spells the end of the quest for liberty in the Middle East. It spells the end of America's moral leadership in the global war for freedom. And it spells the end of a hard-fought campaign to protect America. Our enemies must be happily celebrating their great good fortune in America's election of this platitudinous, morally relativistic, Jimmy Carter carbon copy in the midst of battle.

On Jan. 26, 2009, Obama granted his first television interview as president of the United States to Al Arabiya, the Dubai-based television network part-owned by the Saudi government. In the interview, he demonstrated with the utmost clarity that his understanding is inversely proportional to his arrogance.

He started by humbling America before the world. "(A)ll too often the United States starts by dictating," Obama said, shame for his country dripping from his lips. "So let's listen." There was no call for the Muslim world, which has sponsored genocide after genocide, terrorist group upon terrorist group, to listen.

Obama apologized for President Bush's "Islamic fascism" terminology, equating Muslim terrorism with nonexistent terrorism by Jews and Christians: "The language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations – whether Muslim or any other faith in the past – that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name." There was no call for the Muslim world to actively fight terrorism – honesty is not the Obama administration's policy.

Obama repeated the Clintonian line that the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict could be solved by pressing Israel into negotiations with terrorists – a foolish conceit that has cost Israeli and Palestinian lives. He talked about getting rid of "preconceptions" regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict – code for embracing negotiations with Hamas. He pledged to talk with Iran – on the same day that Iran's government spokesman branded the Holocaust "a big lie." He bought into the Muslim-sponsored notion that the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict lies at the heart of all trouble in the Middle East. He praised the one-sided Saudi peace plan as an act of "great courage."

Most sickeningly, Obama openly jettisoned his constitutional role as the caretaker for America's national interest. Instead, Obama posed himself as an honest broker between America and the Muslim world. "(T)he United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect," he said. "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries." Obama didn't stop there. He stated that his job is to speak for the Muslim world, defending them from Americans' negative perceptions: "And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives."

No, Mr. President. Your job is not to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world harbors us no ill will. That is their job. The Muslim world must demonstrate with its words and actions that they do not wish America replaced with an Islamic state. They must demonstrate that they do not support terrorism against America and our allies.

Your job is to protect and defend the United States of America. That is your sworn duty.

And you abrogate your sworn duty every time you go on Arab television stations and apologize for America's foreign policy. You abrogate your sworn duty every time you force American allies to negotiate with terrorists. You abrogate your sworn duty every time you pledge to protect the interests "not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity" – the same ordinary people who elect Hamas, prop up the ayatollahs, supported the Taliban, recruit for al-Qaida, and live off of the beneficence of Hezbollah. Not all Muslims are "extraordinary people," and the interests of suffering Muslims do not always align with American interests.

On Nov. 4, 2008, Americans elected their first international president. They elected a man who does not seek to preserve American values. Leftists perceived George W. Bush as an imperialist for American interests; by the same token, Obama is an imperialist for "global interests." In a war to save America from implacable foes, Obama's Global Interest Imperialism dooms American exceptionalism to the ash heap of history. With it may go the last, best hope of earth.


Ben Shapiro is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School. In "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth," Ben shows how students are duped into becoming socialists, atheists, race-baiters and narcissists. His latest book is "Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House."

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ben shows how students are duped into becoming socialists, atheists, race-baiters and narcissists

Damn I didnt know universitys could dupe personality disorders. I think that in and of itself should be investigated.

The Bush doctrine that the Muslim world should be dealt with by brute force as 1st resort didnt work. No one is buying that idea except the 23% that still think Bush did a good job.

Kael

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sam Sewell said...

Smart bombs are not brute force. We should have used brute force but we didn't because Bush was a little too limp-wristed.

This is brute force:

http://home.comcast.net/~ssewell29/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-3079757.html

Anonymous said...

So thats what you would use in civilian areas then?

K

Sam Sewell said...

Swift and deadly saves more lives than cautious and diplomatic.

Had the Gating gun been available and used at Bull Run could we have saved 620,000 lives in the civil war?

Had the atomic bomb been available and used after Pearl Harbor or the invasion of Poland could we have saved 62 million lives during WWII.

If we randomly pumped a few 9mm rounds into the trunks of cars crossing the Mexican border could we have saved thousands of Mexican lives lost in the desert?

Is the time to use nukes now rather than later and would we save lives by doing so?

You get the idea. I am beginning to think that being “civilized” and “diplomatic” is a very costly way to deal with things. Being civilized and diplomatic kills people.

We usually apply a solution that works only after we have tried everything else. Maybe the most humane strategy is to be swift and deadly at the first sign of violence or in the case illegality be swift and just.

Because we are civilized we are easy targets for the uncivilized.

Is there a major flaw in my reasoning that I don’t see? Or as O"Rielly says, "Tell me where I'm wrong."

Anonymous said...

What if Iran used your rationale would you accept that as justified?

Sam Sewell said...

As I understand that is Iran's direct intention. And Iran is not blessed with an enlightened population like you and other American leftists who will block or sabotage their warlike tendencies.

You and your comrades will hobble your own country while making excuses for the religious nuts who run Iran.

see: http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/13/10945

Anonymous said...

Haha nice generalization.

You didnt answer the question though is it ok for them to use the rationale you just laid out?

If not why is it ok for us to do so but not for them?

btw I make no excuses for anyone I just hold my country to the same standards I expect from other countries. I dont value one countries civilians higher than anothers. All men are created equally are they not? What right do we have to kill 100s of thousands of innocent civilians to feel safer?

Going directly after AQ encampments is one thing bombing or nuking metropolitan cities of countries that we dont trust is another.

Sam Sewell said...

It is never OK! It comes down to how do we survive with the fewest casualties to us and them.

By the time we are dealing with those kinds of dynamics there isn't any "OK" left in the equation.

What is the strategy that creates the overall good for the most people with inflicting the least amount of pain?

I think my strategy is superior to yours.

Wanna fight about it? :-)

Anonymous said...

Ok lets look at how your strategy has worked in Iraq. Tell me how the deaths of the civillians there saved more civilian lives? How were we in the right to make that decision for them?

No your heart doesnt need a fight dude I think we should stick to snarky debate ;-)

Sam Sewell said...

What seems so obvious to me is shrouded in darkness to you.

If you can not see, that the overall good was served by our intervention in Iraq with you own analysis, how could I make it clear?

I really don't knwo how we could have been more dedicated to reducing loss of life for all concerned, even the enemy.

Certainly the intervention has resutled in an improvement in the quality of life for the Iraqi people.

Do you honestly beleive that the overall good would be better served by letting Saddam stay in power?

Perhaps an improvement in the overall good could have been acheived by the application of "swift and deadly saves lives" early on in the conflict rather than the half hearted efforts that were the result of misquided liberal's pressure.

sandylaine said...

Sam, please don't pay any attention to Anonymous's mindless dronings - has obviously drank too much koo-laid.

I thought your article hit the nail on the head; the shamefulness of what Obama has done is unbelievable. I think his arrogance will do him in - we the people will only take so much...

Anonymous said...

I love the koolaid references its so Hannityesque to conclude that opnions contrary to your own are just the misguided musings of a silly liberal that drinks the koolaid.

I know its scarey for you guys that others can think for themselves and dont need a daily download of talk radio to tell them how to think. But Im far from anonymous me and Sam are old buddies from way back ;)


Anyway Im familiar with that argument and while thats debatable I think the greater question is how is it that we made that decision for those people. I mean the polling overthere doesnt really show that they support your argument " hey we killed 200K of your people but atleast Saddam is dead your welcome.

Honestly its such a load of BS that we went over there for them we didnt do it for them. You know that and I know that.

The majority of American people know it too. Thats why they support Obama and his approach.

Sam Sewell said...

"Thats why they support Obama and his approach."

Until they discover they bought a sow's ear thinking it was a silk purse.

Obama will fall with a loud thump, hopefully by legal means.