Posted on 12/01/2008 10:49:45 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Obama continues to say nothing about nothing.
I hear people in South Asia and the Middle East laughing.
Lots of laughter...
The man has no clue, none at all.
I don’t think he’s growing up. He’s arrogant. And now that he is going to be president, he suddently feels US leadership is important. Kind of like Michelle being proud for the first time.
I can picture him issuing something like “Universal Edicts”...He’s just not “USA” enough for me and it’s scarey.
I see the Palestinians dancing in the streets
or embracing it...either strategy would quell the terrorists.
That sounds like a good idea.
Most would have said the order in the opposite way. Not just diplomatic and political, but military....
Which to me, means that he is trying to suggest that prior to his administration it was military power which was considered first.
What a total jerk. Still trying to spin, even when people are dying. Americans would do well to remember his words today.
Yes, one has to parse that phrase carefully.
It’s no accident that he uses a bet-hedging
ambiguity like that: not eliminating terrorism by
an all-out attack on it, its sources of funding, its
allies, its enablers——no, just eliminating “the threat”
of terrorism. This can and could mean any number of
things: what it most likely WILL mean is a conscious policy of accommodating terrorism so there IS no “threat” of terrorism/ In other words, give in to terrorism and the ineradicable designs Islamic Jihadists have on infidels:
this will be done through the good cop/bad cop paradigm, and terrorism will no longer wear the face it wore on 9-11, and in Mumbai, this past week: it will be accomodated by American culture, to the degree that we no longer see REAL terrorism as a “threat”. CAIR will open more offices, more Keith Ellisons will run for Congress. We will be sold out at the UN by Susan Rice, and in ways we probably even now can’t imagine, our sovereignty will be weakened, splintered, threatened, challenged.
Maybe his new UN Ambassador can get the clowns at the UN to define terrorism. As of today there is no definition and it’s unlikely the general assembly will ever define it.
It’s probably more likely that the current consensus will prevail. Terrorism is the United States’ Foreign Policy.
We need to destroy ourselves. Then everyone will be happy and there will be peace on earth. /s
See my #71
I apreciate your optimism Hair o'de Dog, i really do,....but reality is contrary to Obamas concept that "We have to bring the full force of our power, not only military but diplomatic and political, to deal with the threats,",
as you probably know
This is nothing more than playing the terrorists game and letting the terrorists deal the cards from a stacked deck.
To a terrorist, getting the victim to negotiate is essentially victory. History proves that the only effective way to "deal with the threats" is to kill those who make the terrorist threats.
bringing diplomacy to a terrorist would be like bringing a steak dinner to an angry Grizzly bear.
“See my #71”
Good post! You fleshed out the idea much more thoroughly than I did. Just redefine terrorism. It’s simple. No more terrorism.
Gawd, I hate the bastardization of the English language. At one time, you knew that words had meaning and those meanings were concrete. Now, any word can mean anything.
Yes, I know harsh language will work.
Terrorism has been a problem for us since the 70’s...if Obama seriously thinks he can eliminate terrorism during the course of 4 or even 8 years as President, he’s really being delusional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.