I am fully aware that some readers are so hateful of the "Bush" administration that you are unwilling to even consider another Republican Administration. However, to be forewarned is to be forearmed and this article is a warning of significant magnitude. Barack Obama is the Jedi Knight of persuasion but does he have the mettle of a Jedi Knight?
No, according to his running mate Senator Biden who is quoted below. You really ought to read this article.
Ralph Jordan
Testing Obama's mettle
By Caroline B. Glick
In a week and a half, American voters will elect the next US President. Their decision will impact the entire world.
Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama now enjoys a significant lead in the polls against Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain. For McCain to win, a lot of Obama supporters will need to reassess their choice for president. This week, Obama's running-mate Senator Joseph Biden gave Obama supporters a good reason to change their minds.
In much-reported remarks to campaign donors in Seattle on Sunday, Biden warned that if Obama is elected to the White House, it will take America's adversaries no time at all to test him. In his words, "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama ... The world is looking ... Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate." Biden then continued, "And he's gonna need help ...We're gonna need you to use your influence ...within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right." Many commentators have minimized the importance of Biden's remarks by claiming that all new leaders are tested.
But this is not exactly correct. World leaders test their adversaries when they perceive them as weak. When Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected US president in 1952, the Soviet Union did not move quickly to test the man who had led Allied Forces in World War II. When Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, the Iranian regime released the US hostages it had held for a year and a half. In speaking as he did, Biden essentially acknowledged three things. First, he recognized that Obama projects an image of weakness and naivete internationally that invite America's adversaries to challenge him.
Second, by stating that if Obama is tested a crisis will ensue, Biden made clear that Obama will fail the tests he is handed as a newly inaugurated president. After all, when an able leader is tested, he acts wisely and secures his nation's interests while averting a crisis. Finally, Biden made clear that Obama's failure will be widely noted, and hence, "it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
In light of Biden's dire warning about his running-mate, the central question that Americans ought to be asking themselves is whether or not Biden is correct. Is it true that Obama projects a posture of weakness and incompetence internationally and is it likely that this posture reflects reality? Unfortunately, it appears that Biden knows exactly what he is talking about. Take Iran for example. Obama has stated outright, that if he is elected US president, he will offer to conduct direct negotiations with his Iranian counterpart President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions.
Yet two weeks ago, the Iranians made clear that their dispute with America is not about who occupies the White House, but about the nature the US. Speaking to the official Iranian news service IRNA two weeks ago, Iranian Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor stipulated that Iran will only agree to meet with a US leader after America has bowed to Teheran's will. In his words, Iran will refuse to hold such high-level talks "for as long as US forces have not left the Middle East region, and [the US] continues its support for the Zionist regime." Kalhor explained, "It is stupidity to hold talks without any change in US attitudes."
After naming its price, Iran has since done its best to make its preconditions palatable for an Obama administration. This it has done by claiming that it will not attack the US, it will only attack Israel. Just after Kalhor's interview, Seyed Safavi, a senior advisor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told a diplomatic audience in London that Iranian leadership circles are now debating the option of attacking Israel without attacking US forces in the region. Safavi added that chances for direct negotiations between the US and Iran will increase if Obama is elected. Alluding to Kalhor's remarks, Safavi claimed that sanctions against Iran have failed and that if the US expects Iran to stop enriching uranium, it will have to take "firm and significant" steps in Iran's direction.
Then on Wednesday, in a visit to US-ally Bahrain, the speaker of the Iranian parliament Ali Larijani gave Obama the regime's official endorsement. Larijani said, "We are leaning more in favor of Barack Obama because he is more flexible and rational."
Iran's pre-US election behavior indicates that Iran will waste no time testing Obama's mettle. Iran is behaving as if it fully expects Obama to do what his supporter Rev. Jesse Jackson expects him to do. That is, like Jackson, Iran expects Obama to end "Zionist control" of US foreign policy. And to aid the process, the Iranians are willing to leave US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan alone as they attack Israel with their nascent nuclear arsenal shortly after Obama is inaugurated.
In his remarks on Sunday Biden made clear that he does not believe that Obama will agree to use the US military to confront Iran or any other enemy. His rejection of the use of force is not due to a sense that force is not necessary. Rather it is due to his dim assessment of America's military capabilities. In his words, "We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes. ... It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it."
Given the Democratic ticket's belief that the US military is too weak to protect American interests, it could be expected that Obama and Biden would support strengthening the US military. But the opposite is the case. Obama has called for slashing the US military budget, cutting back the US's anti-missile programs and scaling back drastically the US nuclear arsenal. That is, although Obama has claimed that he will never take the option of the use of force off the table, by refusing to strengthen the US military which he perceives as weak, he is making certain that the US military option is ineffectual.
In certain respects, if Americans elect Obama to lead them on November 4, they will be repeating the decision of Israeli voters who elected Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to lead them in March 2006. Like Obama, Olmert ran on a platform of appeasing Israel's enemies.
In addition to his plan to curtail US military options by decreasing US military budgets, Obama's appeasement platform includes his pledge to abandon the Bush administration's sole foreign policy success in its second term by pulling US forces out of Iraq. He has also promised to exacerbate Bush's second term policy failures by expanding the outgoing administration's penchant for courting US adversaries.
Iran will likely be the first US adversary to test a president Obama. And Obama will have no idea what to do. While Obama has stated repeatedly that a nuclear-armed Iran is a "game-changer" Obama's own rulebook for international relations has no relevance for dealing with Iran's game.
Obama views international relations as a creature of American will. If America is nice to others, they will be nice to America. But the fact of the matter is that regimes like Iran hate the US regardless of how it behaves. The only question with strategic relevance for Washington is whether the Iranians also fear the US. And Obama has given them no reason to fear him. To the contrary, he has given them reason to believe that under his leadership, the mullahs can defeat America.
America stands to elect its new president in times of nearly unprecedented dangers. Iran is on the threshold of nuclear weapons. Thanks to the Bush administration, North Korea now feels free to vastly expand its nuclear proliferation activities. Oil rich states like Venezuela, Russia and Iran recognize that with global oil prices decreasing, now is the time to strike before they are impoverished. And the international economic turmoil will cause Western nations to recoil from international confrontations and so embolden rogue states to attack their interests.
The prospect of an Obama policy failure is enough to keep men and women of good faith up at night. Certainly it should suffice to convince some Obama supporters to reconsider their options.
Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama now enjoys a significant lead in the polls against Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain. For McCain to win, a lot of Obama supporters will need to reassess their choice for president. This week, Obama's running-mate Senator Joseph Biden gave Obama supporters a good reason to change their minds.
In much-reported remarks to campaign donors in Seattle on Sunday, Biden warned that if Obama is elected to the White House, it will take America's adversaries no time at all to test him. In his words, "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama ... The world is looking ... Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate." Biden then continued, "And he's gonna need help ...We're gonna need you to use your influence ...within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right." Many commentators have minimized the importance of Biden's remarks by claiming that all new leaders are tested.
But this is not exactly correct. World leaders test their adversaries when they perceive them as weak. When Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected US president in 1952, the Soviet Union did not move quickly to test the man who had led Allied Forces in World War II. When Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, the Iranian regime released the US hostages it had held for a year and a half. In speaking as he did, Biden essentially acknowledged three things. First, he recognized that Obama projects an image of weakness and naivete internationally that invite America's adversaries to challenge him.
Second, by stating that if Obama is tested a crisis will ensue, Biden made clear that Obama will fail the tests he is handed as a newly inaugurated president. After all, when an able leader is tested, he acts wisely and secures his nation's interests while averting a crisis. Finally, Biden made clear that Obama's failure will be widely noted, and hence, "it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
In light of Biden's dire warning about his running-mate, the central question that Americans ought to be asking themselves is whether or not Biden is correct. Is it true that Obama projects a posture of weakness and incompetence internationally and is it likely that this posture reflects reality? Unfortunately, it appears that Biden knows exactly what he is talking about. Take Iran for example. Obama has stated outright, that if he is elected US president, he will offer to conduct direct negotiations with his Iranian counterpart President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions.
Yet two weeks ago, the Iranians made clear that their dispute with America is not about who occupies the White House, but about the nature the US. Speaking to the official Iranian news service IRNA two weeks ago, Iranian Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor stipulated that Iran will only agree to meet with a US leader after America has bowed to Teheran's will. In his words, Iran will refuse to hold such high-level talks "for as long as US forces have not left the Middle East region, and [the US] continues its support for the Zionist regime." Kalhor explained, "It is stupidity to hold talks without any change in US attitudes."
After naming its price, Iran has since done its best to make its preconditions palatable for an Obama administration. This it has done by claiming that it will not attack the US, it will only attack Israel. Just after Kalhor's interview, Seyed Safavi, a senior advisor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told a diplomatic audience in London that Iranian leadership circles are now debating the option of attacking Israel without attacking US forces in the region. Safavi added that chances for direct negotiations between the US and Iran will increase if Obama is elected. Alluding to Kalhor's remarks, Safavi claimed that sanctions against Iran have failed and that if the US expects Iran to stop enriching uranium, it will have to take "firm and significant" steps in Iran's direction.
Then on Wednesday, in a visit to US-ally Bahrain, the speaker of the Iranian parliament Ali Larijani gave Obama the regime's official endorsement. Larijani said, "We are leaning more in favor of Barack Obama because he is more flexible and rational."
Iran's pre-US election behavior indicates that Iran will waste no time testing Obama's mettle. Iran is behaving as if it fully expects Obama to do what his supporter Rev. Jesse Jackson expects him to do. That is, like Jackson, Iran expects Obama to end "Zionist control" of US foreign policy. And to aid the process, the Iranians are willing to leave US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan alone as they attack Israel with their nascent nuclear arsenal shortly after Obama is inaugurated.
In his remarks on Sunday Biden made clear that he does not believe that Obama will agree to use the US military to confront Iran or any other enemy. His rejection of the use of force is not due to a sense that force is not necessary. Rather it is due to his dim assessment of America's military capabilities. In his words, "We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes. ... It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it."
Given the Democratic ticket's belief that the US military is too weak to protect American interests, it could be expected that Obama and Biden would support strengthening the US military. But the opposite is the case. Obama has called for slashing the US military budget, cutting back the US's anti-missile programs and scaling back drastically the US nuclear arsenal. That is, although Obama has claimed that he will never take the option of the use of force off the table, by refusing to strengthen the US military which he perceives as weak, he is making certain that the US military option is ineffectual.
In certain respects, if Americans elect Obama to lead them on November 4, they will be repeating the decision of Israeli voters who elected Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to lead them in March 2006. Like Obama, Olmert ran on a platform of appeasing Israel's enemies.
In addition to his plan to curtail US military options by decreasing US military budgets, Obama's appeasement platform includes his pledge to abandon the Bush administration's sole foreign policy success in its second term by pulling US forces out of Iraq. He has also promised to exacerbate Bush's second term policy failures by expanding the outgoing administration's penchant for courting US adversaries.
Iran will likely be the first US adversary to test a president Obama. And Obama will have no idea what to do. While Obama has stated repeatedly that a nuclear-armed Iran is a "game-changer" Obama's own rulebook for international relations has no relevance for dealing with Iran's game.
Obama views international relations as a creature of American will. If America is nice to others, they will be nice to America. But the fact of the matter is that regimes like Iran hate the US regardless of how it behaves. The only question with strategic relevance for Washington is whether the Iranians also fear the US. And Obama has given them no reason to fear him. To the contrary, he has given them reason to believe that under his leadership, the mullahs can defeat America.
America stands to elect its new president in times of nearly unprecedented dangers. Iran is on the threshold of nuclear weapons. Thanks to the Bush administration, North Korea now feels free to vastly expand its nuclear proliferation activities. Oil rich states like Venezuela, Russia and Iran recognize that with global oil prices decreasing, now is the time to strike before they are impoverished. And the international economic turmoil will cause Western nations to recoil from international confrontations and so embolden rogue states to attack their interests.
The prospect of an Obama policy failure is enough to keep men and women of good faith up at night. Certainly it should suffice to convince some Obama supporters to reconsider their options.
6 comments:
Ralph, thanks for the information. This perfusionist will never be convinced that a salesman is qualified to run this great nation of ours effectively. I am voting for McCain and, as far as I am concerned, that is the only sound choice one can make for the future of this country.
I am voting for McCain. I am tired of people thinking that as soon as a demo is elected, that the price of gas will decrease.
I am more concerned about my freedom and what this great country of our stands for. McCain will protect us. Nobama will sell us out. He is not experienced enough to handle the job. Does anyone else thinks that he wears more makeup than a lot of women do?
when is the job web page going to be updated? are the jobs posted there still available?
Nickelodeon Kids vote is for Obama. That is really who I want running this country. Someone kids vote for because he is "hip" and a great actor and because they are hearing their parents complain about how expensive things are. I attended the Heart Failure Summit last weekend and an audience poll was performed on the Pres. election and surprisingly, Obama came out on top. Now, I don't know who all voted, maybe only one or three people, but I hope that all healthcare providers would not vote for Obama. He has a socialist mentality and that really scares me. I agree that his leadership is the last thing this country needs and that if elected, the foreign powers will test our country and if he would pass the test, it would only be because of what the administration before him has accomplished. The US needs to project itself as the great world power it is and I don't see that image with Obama at the helm.
Thanks to all for your comments.
I value my freedom. Freedom is something that the majority of American's take for granted. Many are more concerned with prices at the pumps. This election is more that just voting your "party". Intelligent decisions need to be made and, in my opinion, McCain will do a better job at protecting the American people.
Post a Comment