Friday, April 10, 2009

Nauseating Naivity

Is anyone else not just disturbed but physically sickened by the latest "apologies" from Barry Obama?

Mere hours after North Korea once again violates UN sanctions by launching a missile, our president states that he wants to not only reduce nuclear arms around the world, but that he wants to cut missile defense, the very defense that would protect us from a North Korean, or Iranian missile, for that matter.

What sort of message does this sound to those who wish to do Americans harm? It hearkens back to the Bill Clinton administration, where our country, people, and interests were assault constantly by those who knew that we lacked the stones to mount a formidable response.

It's in Obama's mind that our best response to rogue regimes and terrorism is dialogue, conciliation, and compromise. Unbelievable naivety.

One thing that always makes me chuckle about liberals is their collective lack of long-term memory. In their minds, George W. Bush CAUSED terrorism, but yet they fail to remember that his predecessor, the aforementioned Clinton, left a national security disaster at the feet of W., including, but not limited to, 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, first World Trade Center bombing, feeble attempts to apprehend Osama bin Laden, Khober Towers attack, the U.S. Cole, etc.

And to add insult to injury, Obama has the unmitigated gall to state that not only does he want to return to the golden age of American-Muslim relations (of a time, 20-30 years ago) but that under Bush, our nation has been at war with Islam.

My god, the naivety of this man.

Does Barry Obama forget that we liberated two Islamic nations from two repressive regimes that did not allow basic human rights? Has he forgotten the billions in AIDS relief to African nations, many of which are predominantly Muslim? Has he forgotten the billions that went to Indonesia (a Muslim country) after the 2004 tsunami?

Yet in this man's mind, we should apologize for defending ourselves against militant Islam.


Andrew McCarthy of the National Review sums this naive thinking best:
"There is nothing less civilized than rewarding evil and thus guaranteeing more of it. High-minded as it is commonly made to sound, it is not civilized to appease evil, to treat it with “dignity and respect,” to rationalize its root causes, to equivocate about whether evil really is evil, and, when all else fails, to ignore it — to purge the very mention of its name — in the vain hope that it will just go away. Evil doesn’t do nuance. It finds you, it tests you, and you either fight it or you’re part of the problem."

If this man continues this dangerous course, we'll be back to square one, then ultimately looking again for a "unilateralist cowboy."

No comments: