Barack Obama recently had the audacity to demand that American parents make sure their children learn to speak Spanish, despite the fact that Obama, in fact, does not speak Spanish himself. Judging by recent comments, while my classmates and I were learning to speak Spanish in high school and college, Obama was studiously learning how to speak gobbledygook.
Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?
Obama: No, because, keep in mind that…
Q: You wouldn’t?
Obama: Keep in mind… These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that, what I’m absolutely convinced of, is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.
As someone untrained in the language of gobbledygook, my translation skills may be slightly off. But I believe his answer means something along the lines of, "Even though the surge worked, it was more important at the time that I oppose anything President Bush advised, because I had to maintain my appeal to the moonbats that are supporting my campaign, and the leftist nuts that demand America lose this war. That course of action won the Democrat nomination for me, so of course, i would not support the surge in hindsight."
Of course, foresight about the surge was 20/20 to anyone who doesn't (as a knee-jerk reaction) expect the American military to fail, and who possesses an ounce of common sense. Obama appears to be oh-for-two there. How Obama is going to get his anti-war followers to accept his new plan to evacuate Iraq in order to increase the war effort in Afghanistan is beyond me, but I have no doubt that he will. His lust for power is simply too great for him to let himself be denied this opportunity, and he will adopt any opinion necessary (for the next three months) to win election in November.
As Allahpundit of Hot Air notes:
That exchange comes at the end of the segment. The beginning is devoted to his meeting of the minds with (U.S. General) Petraeus, in which he spins their disagreement about a timetable very cleverly by insisting that the brass in Baghdad is focused laser-like on Iraq whereas he, the would-be C-in-C, has to consider both theaters of the war on terror. Or rather, it would be very clever if not for the fact that Petraeus happens to be the newly appointed commander of Centcom and thus is thinking about the same regional strategic picture Obama is. He knows the stakes in Afghanistan, Barry.
In Obama's thirst for power, he continually sees a higher calling in himself than any other person has. Even though General Petraeus is responsible for the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Obama is responsible for absolutely nothing, Obama's ego invents a scenario in which he must have a higher consciousness than the man in charge of winning the war does. It is this ego, this Nixonian lust for power that allows him to promise that his presidency will be remembered as the "moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
Has Obama actually deluded himself into thinking he is God on Earth, or is he, like Nixon, simply so insecure in his own abilities that he uses rhetoric to appear to be the man he would prefer to be? It is difficult to say, but the danger to our country is palpable either way.
Today, in statements that will no doubt be criticized as unfair by the partisan-hack media, McCain finally called Obama on the carpet.
“This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.”
Whether or not it was 'nice' of McCain to speak the truth, there can be no doubt that to a reasonable person that this is, in fact, 100 percent true. McCain was deemed irrelevant in the primary precisely because he refused to budge from his belief that the surge was the best course of action. As we know, he has been proven wise on that point.
Meanwhile, Obama deemed it more important for him politically to oppose a good strategy than to support the strategy and lose his chance at the presidency.
“You might recall that Senator Obama, my opponent said the surge would not succeed. That he wanted us out. If he had his way we would have been out last March. We would have never done the surge. We would never have succeeded and we would have had defeat and my friends that would have been catastrophe for he United States of America,” McCain then went after Obama’s comments yesterday that he would still be against the troop surge, “He was wrong then. He was wrong now and he still fails to acknowledge–he still fails to acknowledge that the surge succeeded.”
Obama will never acknowledge anything that would hurt his candidacy. To hear him tell it, Obama has never been wrong about anything. He wasn't wrong about his Reverend, his Reverend had simply changed from the man he knew. He was not wrong about the surge, it was simply more important to oppose President Bush. The list goes on.
It was Lord Acton who said that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It becomes clearer with each passing day that giving an already corrupted Barack Obama anything approaching absolute power would result in Acton's principle being proven like never before.
The people of the United States cannot allow Barack Obama to realize the power he so lusts after. There is simply too much at stake.
UPDATE: Bill Dupray at the Patriot Room has a video that adds to this discussion, along with a good discussion in the comments about the clear danger Obama represents.
Recent Comments