The Mistake That Would Ruin Barack Obama’s Presidency–UPDATED
January 27, 2009 / 10:03 am • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierBailouts won’t break Obama–even horrible, pork-laden, bloated, tax-payer beating bailouts. A bleak, miserable, suffering depression wouldn’t sink Obama. Paying women for their embryos, creating human-monkey hybrids and sending them to Mars to start a new society wouldn’t sink Obama. No, people expect a little crazy, a lot of fat, and government salvation during economic difficulty from Democrats.
There is one weak spot, though. If America were to be hit with another terrorist attack, especially after Obama appears weak or makes decisions that weaken America’s defense, President Barack Obama’s star will sink faster than the Titanic.
Right now, the president is making bold declarations like crafting a law that will ban space weapons. This is laughable. First, everyone knows that countries like China and Russia will not abide by any space ban. Second, Obama looks weak. There are a couple ways, besides nuclear and conventional warfare and now, terrorism, to destroy societies. Space, microbial, and technological warfare are the new, exciting ways to kill. Ignoring that people will use these ways whether America does or not, is folly. Does Obama want to disarm an America at war?
While few people want to think about it, the fact is that the Twin Towers going down is seared into the American consciousness. It is the fear that not be named these days, but it’s still there, nonetheless. Americans might have disliked President Bush for a variety of reasons, but few would argue that he wasn’t doing everything in his power to protect American. And most would acknowledge that defense is the first, most important job of the President.
If Obama goofs around with Guantanamo, talks of Space weapons bans, cuts military funding while Iranian ships are being found to have huge weapons caches going to…terrorists, revises wire-tapping standards of foreigners to gather intelligence, sanctimoniously decries rather benign forms of coercion that would save lives, makes his first interview to Arab TV and then America is hit by a terrorist attack, his Presidency will be over. He will ride out his years in office in shame.
The Left would defend Obama’s “humane” policies and be proud of a President who respected civil liberties, but Americans generally would heap the man in scorn. President Bush managed to keep Americans safe for years after 9/11. It wasn’t because we weren’t attacked again or because terrorist weren’t trying to do harm, because they were. It’s because President Bush woke up every day single-minded of purpose: to protect and defend.
If Americans perceive that Obama isn’t infused with the same passion and clarity of vision, if they believe that Obama is weak, and then America is attacked and lives are lost, Obama’s presidency will go down in flames literal and figurative. As Obama knows, perception is everything. It’s what got him elected. It could also undo him.
UPDATE:
Ed Morrissey calls Obama “naive” and this is why:
Unlike some others, I didn’t mind Obama’s decision to grant al-Arabiya this honor. Obama has a great deal of popularity in the Muslim world, and that can be a great asset to the US if used properly. Obama could have taken the opportunity to explain some hard truths while extending the hand of friendship. Instead, he took the opportunity to pander.
I agree. People won’t mind Obama reaching out, if he comes from strength. Appeasing language and a mushy stance, though, will all come back to haunt him should it become clear that the terrorists didn’t take him seriously enough.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
8 Responses to “The Mistake That Would Ruin Barack Obama’s Presidency–UPDATED”
January 27 2009 / 12:34 pm
Reply
GW Bush will be vindicated by historians. I was not kept awake at night under Bush. Our military loved him and he loved them back. Obama will never garner the same affection. Hillary used to refer to her security detail as “trained monkeys” and had decorated officers waiting tables at state dinners. Biden made it real clear that “this guy will be tested, trust me” Obama has crew of proven failures running the show. We will be hit again due to his utter weakness and ineptitude and America will rise up and defend herself, again, but mercifully the Obama presidency “experiment” will end.
January 27 2009 / 12:47 pm
Reply
Instead of saying, “They’re going to do it, so we should too,” how about saying, “Let’s negotiate with them so that nobody has these awful weapons.” We’ve done it before with the Soviets; together, we’ve greatly reduced the number of nukes in our and their hands. This is a net positive for humankind. The goal should be to reduce the WMDs in existence down to next to nothing.
January 27 2009 / 3:17 pm
Reply
Ok Frank,
First of all, you’re assuming that the Muslims are as pragmatic as the Soviets. The Soviet Union might have been our ideological enemy in the Cold War, but they weren’t suicidal. The biggest thing the Russians feared was a repeat of the devastation that they suffered in two world wars (unlike most Americans who forget just about everything within five minutes, the Russians have very, very long memories). Their nuclear threat was just as much of a deterrant as ours was. Even during the closest point of nuclear war, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Russians backed off after we secretly pulled our missiles out of Turkey.
And lets face it, the Soviets lost because they couldn’t compete militarily, not because we reduced our weapons (if anything, we increased our quality of weapons in the Reagan era).
The problem with the situation today is that you don’t have one major opposing superpowers, but a slew of regional powers (China is probably the closest to a rival superpower), all well aware of American conventional military superiority. In their mind a great equalizer is to have NBC weapons.
In Iran, you have people who are really big on bringing their Mahdi back, and the only way to do that is to bring about Armageddon. I also don’t believe that the Pakistani arsenal is as secure as many believe and if radicals ever took over (which isn’t as stupid as it sounds), all bets are off.
Simply unilaterally giving up weapons doesn’t guarantee peace. Giving the enemy any clear military advantage is patently stupid and should be avoided at all costs.
January 29 2009 / 1:33 am
Reply
Frank–
Ooh, let’s negotiate so that nobody has these awful weapons.
That’s a wonderful idea, except for this one inconvenient fact: you can’t uninvent the wheel.
So long as humanity has the capacity to invent such weapons, humanity has the capacity to use such weapons. If the capacity exists for reasonable people to create these weapons, the capacity exists for unreasonable people to create these weapons. And whether or not reasonable people will agree to eschew these weapons, unreasonable people will not.
And don’t try to claim that there will ever be a time when there will be no unreasonable people. Even the most utopian among us is not that divorced from reality.
January 31 2009 / 5:20 pm
Reply
The Soviets could not compete with us militarily because they could not compete with us economically due to their failed socialist/central planning mentality. The Islamo-fascists have little reservation about taking suicidal actions that will injure their perceived enemies. A rogue Pakistani or state sponsored Iranian nuke delivered to the right atmosphere height off the coast of the USA could generate an EMP that could cripple major sectors of our economy. There is little that is mandated in our industrial infrastructure design that will protect us from such a calamity. The military – to its credit – appears to be addressing its EMP related vulnerabilities
January 31 2009 / 5:24 pm
Reply
Hundreds of billions of dollars have earmarked for “homeland security”, yet little has been done or communicated to the average citizen regarding a response to the effects of an EMP weapon or the detonation of a dirty nuke. The Congress and their minions – no doubt- have an exit strategy.
February 1 2009 / 11:50 pm
Reply
Obama. Chicago. Dem Machine
Graduate. Ayers. Rezco. Wright.
Corruption. Zero experience.
Now President. Pro-Abortion.
Success guaranteed. 4yrs
minimum. News Media.