Monday, October 20, 2008

Obama's Invitation to Osama and His Friends

Joe Biden made some revealing remarks yesterday, In fact, they are true, and highly significant.

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. 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 said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, 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."

This is a key and crucial reason I have never supported Obama (even apart from Obama's transcendently evil pro-abortion mindset). He will invite more terrorist attacks. Further, he will not know what to do with them, just as Bill Clinton did not know what to do with them. You may not like George Bush, but the United States has not been attacked on our soil since September 11, 2001. Obama, however, would weaken homeland security (as nearly all liberals do--except Joe Leiberman); he will defund the military; he will "work with the international community" more than he will put our national interests first. But the international community, by and large, does not share out moral, cultural, and political principles (to put it mildly).

I am not saying "My country right or wrong" (which is idolatry); I am saying that American ideals are the greatest in the world, and we have great potential to do good in the world. Yet many hate us, our form of government, our primary religion, and our power. When they perceive weakness, they will strike.

Obama invites this. Obama would fail the test. John McCain does not invite this; and if tested, he would chose far better than a first-term Senator who has spent the lion's share of that term absent from the Senate and on the road hawking his own postmodern, hyperreal brand: himself. The terrorists are not impressed. Count on it. Vote on it.

John McCain, on the contrary, will not be viewed by the international community as an inexperienced, left-wing, anti-military, blame-America-first, neophyte. He will be viewed (rightly so) as a man of military experience and of strength. Count on it. Vote on it.


BJS said...


you have little to no factual basis for most of your claims here. Let's review them.

You write that Obama will:

"will invite more terrorist attacks."

-- What evidence do you have for that? This seems like a rather brash thing to say. It seems entirely based on your opinion of how this man will be perceived by others and how that perception will then drive them to action. That's several layers of epistemic doubt... not a very solid basis to make such a strong claim about someone.

"he will not know what to do with them [terrorist attacks]"

-- What evidence do you have for that? Is this just your opinion of his ability to handle a crisis? Do you have any factual basis for this?

"Obama would weaken homeland security..."

-- what evidence do you have for that? He said he thinks we need to strengthen homeland security. What evidence do you have that he would weaken it?

"he will defund the military"

-- What evidence do you have for that? He has said he would do just the opposite. He said we need more funding for the troops and particularly the underfunded Afghanistan campaign. Do you have basis for this claim whatsoever?

"he will 'work with the international community' more than he will put our national interests first."

-- What evidence do you have for that? He has said repeatedly that he puts the interests of the United States above that of all other nations (the international community). Your claim also ignores the possibility that "working with the international community" IS IN our national interest.

And, finally, you write:

"You may not like George Bush, but the United States has not been attacked on our soil since September 11, 2001."

-- And this, of course, strongly implies that George Bush or his actions are in some way RESPONSIBLE for the fact that we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since Sep 11th, 2001. But you have presented no evidence for that claim. Thus, this is a textbook example of the fallacy of "Post hoc ergo propter hoc". You assume causation where you have made no case for it.

And I actually believe just the opposite conclusions about the Bush administration: I think our country is LESS safe from terrorism because of his foreign policy decisions.

In short for all of the above:
For all of your rather strong and certain claims about what WILL happen under an Obama presidency, you do not offer facts or evidence. They all seem to be based merely off of your opinion of others perception. Not the kind of thing that calls for utter certainty.

Is it responsible to tell people that terrorist attacks *will* happen to our country if one candidate is elected instead of another when the only basis you have for this claim is your dubious opinion on how that candidate will be perceived by others?

It sounds a lot like playing on the politics of fear.

It is disappointing.

etoc said...

A quick note on one point you raised...

Let's not get too excited about no terrorist attacks since 2001. It was eight years between the first ('93) and second WTC bombings-in a time when we were doing little to frustrate terrorists' efforts. It's now seven years in which we've ostensibly taken all kinds of measure to do just that. At this point, we don't know if our actions have made a difference or not.

Jenn said...

As I heard on talk radio today (Dan and Craig on KHOW), when "someone says something to their detriment, it is usually the truth". I don't think Biden meant this to be negative towards Obama and certainly not detrimental, but it has the potential to be very damaging against their ticket. If your own running mate thinks you will be a catalyst for more international crises (i.e. terrorist attacks), why would we vote for him? I want my nation to be secure. If international powers, such as Iran, see a man who is willing to meet without preconditions, I feel they will push the limits and be more threatening. McCain will not put up with any bullying by dictators. He will stand firm and remind them that the USA does not tolerate those who violate the basic rights of others and make open threats against us and our allies. He won't try to appease these people and I feel unsure whether Obama has the strength and confidence to stand up and not cave in. That doesn’t mean he doesn't love this country and doesn't want to protect it, but his philosophies would limit his ability to be confrontational with hostile forces.

Jeremy said...

The Biden speech seems a bit like an advance CYA job--when it gets really bad, Biden can just say, "See, I told you so!"

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. said...

It is simple:

Obama is a leftist.

Read Horowtiz, "Unholy Alliance." Leftists can not take the terrorist threat seriously because they think America is the problem in the world--as do the terrorists.

Obama opposed the surge; it worked; he hasn't admitted it. He wanted to pull out of Iraq and lose the war. This is leftism--ever since Viet Nam. That war was won, but the South Vietnamese were not adequately supported to keep the victory. Remember history!

Obama will be rightly perceived as inexperienced and soft on national defense. Osama likes that very much.

Obama wants illegals to get driver's licences. This wast he case with several of the 9/11 highjackers. He would not secure out borders or make it tough for illegals of any kind. That is poor homeland policy.

He refered to himself as a "citizen of the world" in Germany. This is the leftwing view, putting the UN first, not America. This is Leftist 101, Tornado. Please get up to speed. If you know basic political history and ideology, you can read the signs of the times better. Obama is the most liberal senator in the senate.

I have no idea why you are defending this man, BJ. He does not have what it takes politically. McCain does. The comparison is painfully obvious with respect to national security.

Further, Obama suffers from terrible hubris. He is overstuffed and underequipped--not presidential at all.

Moreover, Biden agrees with me (indirectly).