Sunday, May 11, 2008

NYT Trying To Shore Up Obama On National Security

The New York Times’s Larry Rother rewrites history and muddles the arguments in a NYT article aimed at shoring up the fatally weak foreign policy proposals of Barack Obama. Rother rewrites Obama’s position on Iran and wholly mischaracterizing McCain’s criticism of the "Hamas endorsement" of Obama. Bottom line, with the Messiah schtick gone, if Rother's article is the best defense the Obamakins can come up with, Obama's problems are huge and unsolvable.


Obama’s foreign policy is suicidally naïve. His plans to hold unconditional talks with Iran portend to be every bit as disastrous as was Neville Chamberlain’s decision to hold similar talks with Hitler in the 1930’s. His plan to pull us out of Iraq even as we have all but destroyed al Qaeda and beaten back Iran’s proxies is equally as suicidal. There is a good reason a literal rouge’s gallery of nations and organizations – Hamas, Iran, FARC, Ghadaffi, Castro, Ortega – have given their "endorsement" to Obama.

Obama proposes a weak foreign policy with the first resort to unconditional talks, and rouges' gallery that have voiced support for Obama clearly believe they will be able to prosper under an Obama presidency. Given that each of these "endorsements" come from nations and organizations with goals wholly antithetical to the U.S., democracy, capitalism and the cause of freedom, that should give one great pause. And indeed, it is on precisely that ground that McCain has criticized Obama. This from John McCain a few days ago:

I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare. . . . If senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.

McCain also is critical of Obama for his promise to meet unconditionally with Iran. Enter today NYT agenda journalist Larry Rother. In his article, Rother writes:

. . . [I]mportant nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side. An examination of Mr. Obama’s numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a "terrorist organization," has not sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.

As to Hamas, Rother goes on to show where Obama has repeated condemned that organization. Yes, but McCain has never claimed anything to the contrary. What Rother studiously ignores is the "nuance" that Obama is picking up the enemies of America endorsements because those organizations see a chance to expand without American interference under Obama. Rother is being highly disingenuous in his argument. But then he goes into outright falsehood.

The claim that Obama does "not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president" – and indeed, every other enemy of America – is more than a bit of rewriting of history. With a big hat tip to LGF, here is the transcript and the video. See if you can find the nuance.

Democratic Debate Transcript, CNN/YouTube - Council on Foreign Relations.
QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

Rother ought to hit Google for a quick fact check before he tries to write a canard such as this. It only makes Obama appear weaker than hs already is. And, in all honesty, I did not think that possible before reading this article.

1 comment:

MK said...

Without the media and the left, B. Hussein Obama would just be another nice-sounding, but ultimately mad, American-hating leftist slimeball.