The weakness strategy

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, September 24. 2009

We have linked to a couple of pieces lately - Rich Lowry on A Masterstroke of Weakness, and Hinderaker on What They Really Think.

I fear that we have an administration that thinks the US should be social workers to the world, instead of good cops. But if we aren't the cop, who will be? Surely not the UN: they have yet to stop a war or a genocide - and it is packed wiith lunatics.

The NY Post today opines on The Naif in Chief, but I do not think it is naive: I think it is a plan. A very bad plan which does not serve our interests.

Lewis at Am Thinker begins:

Yesterday at the United Nations, Barack Obama renounced Pax Americana, signaling an end to the United States' role as global cop.

Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 11:24 | Comments (7) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Well the isolationist paleocons should like this. Didn't some of them make the argument that Obama was a better choice than McCain?

#1 phil g on 2009-09-24 14:29 (Reply)

There's an impressive film clip from yesterday's UN reporting [I believe Breitbart had it originally but drudge has a link on it] of Netanyahu responding to the Holocaust denial by Ahmadinijad in his speech. Netanyahu is an impressive speaker, to my mind more impressive than Obama by far, and he recalls Joseph Welch. Welch was the Boston lawyer who resisted Joe McCarthy in the famous hearings, stood over him and said "Have you no shame, sir? Have you no shame?"

Righteous indignation is a powerful force when it is sincere. And Netanyahu is a truly impressive speaker, and an impressive person.

Marianne

#2 Marianne Matthews on 2009-09-24 16:50 (Reply)

Right, Marianne. Unlike our president, Netanyahu knows what he's talking about, is articulate in explaining what he knows, cares about his country and people, and is a man who does not ice the cake of action with a sugary sheen.
`

#3 Meta on 2009-09-24 18:22 (Reply)

MM and Meta,

It's been very busy and I have had but moments to check in at MF.

There are at least two big differences between Netanyahu and Obama.

The first is knowledge. Netanyahu does know what he is talking about. He knows the facts and many of various iterations of potential outcomes.

Who knows what Obama really knows. He only speaks well with a teleprompter and we do not know who is writing his speeches. Obama is also an ideologue and such dogmatism is often associated with an anti-intellectual approach to the world. He tries to fit everything into his socialist view and discards what does not fit.

That leads to the second difference - and it is a dangerous difference. Netanyahu understands human nature. He can discern right from wrong and goof from evil.

Obama is so colored by his ideology that all men are inherently good and that if we all lived in one world community and shared all we had then there would equality in all things for the common people. He doesn't seem to see right and wrong, good and evil. Obama has a very weak moral compass. That is why Obama thinks everything will be okay if he could just sit down and talk with the likes of Putin and Ahmadinejad. This where Obama is a naif. Let's hope he doesn't get a bunch of us killed.

(Of course, there would be the ruling elite of the faux intelligentsia comprised of Obama and those who think like him - smart liberals who are in demand to tell the little people what they should think and do. But that is just a little side show! Shhhh!!! Don't tell anyone.)

#3.1 Barrett on 2009-09-24 21:40 (Reply)

Marianne,

Something for you:

Candy
Is dandy
But liquor
Is quicker

Ogden Nash. :)
`

#4 Meta on 2009-09-24 18:42 (Reply)

Yes, Meta dear ... and if you can't drink martinis any more, then candy works excellently well.

Marianne

#5 Marianne Matthews on 2009-09-24 23:12 (Reply)

I, too, have wondered what conflict has the UN successfully resolved? Israel? Where the UN established the state and then let Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc. attack? The Korean Peninsula, where they partitioned it and then let the North attack? Vietnam, which they partitioned, and (guess what). How successful was the UN in keeping peace/ending conflict in North Africa or Africa south of the Sahara in the 60s? (or even now?) Haiti in the 80s (or now)? Somalia? The Balkans? And how about the places/situations they seem to keep hands off? Their inability to see obvious violations and crimes reminds me of the TV wrestling I'd watch as a kid on the late 50s --- the bad guy is strangling the good guy, but for some reason the ref doesn't notice because the ref is admonishing one of the audience rather than keeping his eye on the wrestlers.

#6 unsupervised on 2009-09-27 11:40 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, September 24. 2009

The weakness strategy