Joe Biden let slip some very important information last Sunday when he spoke about how Obama would be tested in his first six months of his presidency and that his decisions would be unpopular with the American people.
Well, what would those situations be? And what decisions would be made?
Herb Denenberg of The Bulletin looks at that in his most recent column:
|Why would they test his mettle? This was unsaid, but you test someone’s mettle when you don’t know what he’s made of or when you suspect he’s weak and you want to start testing for weakness. But here’s why Sen. Biden is wrong on the world testing Sen. Obama’s mettle. No one has to test his mettle. They know he is weak on foreign policy, and has a heavy tinge of appeasement, retreat, defeat, and surrender – as does the Democratic Party, which nominated him. Our enemies already knows Sen. Obama is weak and soft, as is his party, so our enemies will just proceed with their plans for terrorism and aggression.
Why would the Russians want to test his mettle? They saw what he is made of by his reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia. First, Sen. Obama called for restraint on both sides. So the Russians know, that in the face of aggression, instead of taking a firm stand with an ally and innocent victim, Sen. Obama calls for restraint on the part of the victim being invaded. Why test someone who has so clearly flunked his exam?
Then the Russians heard Sen. Obama suggest the matter be sent to the Security Council. The Russians now know he is so wet behind the ears on foreign policy that he doesn’t even know the Russians have a veto in the Security Council and could make sure nothing happened there.
Then the Russians heard Sen. Obama observe that we’d be in a better position to complain about this aggression if we set a good example ourselves. So the Russians know he equates their illegal, unprovoked aggression against Georgia with America’s legal, U.N.-sanctioned liberation of Iraq from the murderous Saddam Hussein, the butcher of Baghdad. This tells the Russians he doesn’t approve of America using armed force to defend its national interests and he doesn’t have the sense to refrain from criticizing his own country in a time of international crisis.
And on Iran, Obama is known for this:
|The Iranians would lose no time in attacking one of their neighbors, most likely Israel. Perhaps by then armed with nuclear weapons, they would use them on a neighbor, or threaten to blackmail a neighbor or perhaps even a continent such as Europe, if certain concessions were not forthcoming. Obama would call for restraint, and assure the American people again, as he has already done, that Iran is a tiny country and not a real threat to the U.S. The Iranians know he said this while they were killing American troops in Iraq, sending terrorists and weapons into Iraq and serving as the headquarters of international terrorism.
The Iranians know what others have already said – Sen. Obama is a Jimmy-Carter type, only worse. They know how President Carter locked himself in the White House and did not face down international lawlessness after the Iranian took American hostages at our embassy in Teheran.
Why test his mettle, when his record suggests an enemy of America can invade, attack, and terrorize with impunity. Remember his reaction to 9/11 – the typical liberal, leftist response. We’ve got to understand why they did such a terrible thing. Anyone with good judgment would say we’ve got to kill and defeat all those responsible for this mass murder. When Pastor Rick Warren asked him what he would do about evil, he danced around like a confused college professor. When Sen. McCain was asked the same question, he said, without hesitation, you defeat it.
Terrorists would be aware of Sen. Obama’s reaction to the first bombing of the World Trade Center. He said you handle it with the legal system and prosecute wrongdoers. I’m sure al-Qaeda is trembling waiting for a grand jury and indictments from Obama? Will that really deter terrorists or just give them a fat laugh? Like Obama, President Clinton believed in the law enforcement approach to terrorism, and that mistake led directly to 9/11.
And Biden should know what it means to be wrong on foreign policy issues. He has made more than his share of mistakes along the way:
|Our enemies know how naïve Sen. Obama is on foreign policy, as they know he announced to the world that if he knew where Osama bin Laden was and if he were in Pakistan, he would strike him without permission of that country. Sen. Kit Bond, an intelligence expert whose comments will be discussed in more detail later, says Sen. Obama “doesn’t understand how dangerous it would be to destabilize Pakistan and allow their radical fringes to take over.” His outburst on this subject betrays a lack of understanding on how to deal with a present ally in a most precarious position.
And all the axis of evil would be emboldened knowing that Sen. Obama’s key adviser on foreign policy would likely be Sen. Biden, who has a record of being wrong and often weak on almost all questions of foreign policy. Consider a few of his hare-brained judgments:
* After Iraq invaded Kuwait, Sen. Biden opposed the first war against Iraq. He apparently was willing to cede the entire Middle East and all of its oil to Saddam Hussein.
* Before Sen. McCain succeeded in turning the tide toward American victory in Iraq, Sen. Biden wanted to break Iraq into a group of separate nations that would include a Sunni state, a Shia state and a Kurdish state.
And finally this:
|Sen. Bond summarized the whole Obama approach: “He [Obama] dismisses the threat, rewards enemies with summit meetings, abandons allies and then refuses to support trade agreements with vital allies like Colombia, who are fighting off the narco-terrorists.”
It will not look good for the United States if Barack Obama gets into the White House. He will invite attacks against innocent Americans and then refuse to effectively respond to those attacks which will, in turn, invite more attacks.
You can access the complete column on-line here:
Obama Would Weaken, Destroy American Defenses And Bring Challenges
October 22, 2008
And here is a news story you will never see in the MSM unless the politcal affiliations were reversed. from Pajames Media:
|While the Democrat-leaning media continues to scare undecided voters with bedtime stories about some mythical angry McCain supporter whom nobody has seen, here is a real district attorney’s complaint documenting an unprovoked assault by an enraged Democrat against a McCain volunteer in midtown Manhattan: “Defendant grabbed the sign [informant] was holding, broke the wood stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in informant’s face thereby causing informant to sustain redness, swelling, and bruising to informant’s face and further causing informant to sustain substantial pain.”
|The overly formal document doesn’t mention this important detail: the victim was a small, quiet, middle-aged woman wearing glasses, and the attacker was a loud, angry man who went into orbit at the mere sight of McCain campaign signs.
On a Monday afternoon, September 15, 2008, three McCain volunteers were holding campaign signs and distributing leaflets on a busy corner of 51st Street and Lexington Avenue. As they were peacefully talking to each other, they were approached by a man who, in the words of the victim, provided the impression of “a rather benign, doughy-looking guy — not a person I would have expected to assault me.”
Here is a picture of the attacker:
You can access the complete blog entry on-line here:
Obama Supporter Assaults Female McCain Volunteer in New York
October 17, 2008
Filed under: Politics | Tagged: al-Qaeda, assault, Barack Obama, Colombia, Decmocrat, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Joe Biden, New York City, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Russia, Security Council, Senator Bond | 1 Comment »