August 1, 2007
Obama's erratic international stance
Nothing is more dangerous than a naïve appeaser, other than a naïve appeaser who erratically takes rash steps in order to look tougher than he really is. Terrible, tragic events are set in motion by such threats of bluster. Tyrants are not deterred, and when the bluff is called, the erratic faux tough-guy gets into situations he is unprepared to resolve.
Barack Obama is now veering into dangerous territory with his foreign policy pronouncements. Clearly, two years in the United States Senate have not turned this former state legislator into a statesman.
His campaign, perhaps smarting from the appalling off-the-cuff commitment he made in the YouTube debate to speak personally with the leaders of North Korea, Iran and Cuba in his first year in office, has now released remarks he is scheduled to deliver this morning, apparently aimed at making him look tough. Nedra Pickler of AP reports:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid."Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.
Pakistan's Musharraf hangs onto power by a thread. Publicly threatening to invade his country is he displeases us hands ammunition to his opponents. How, exactly, do you suppose leading members of Pakistan's military will react to this threat? Does it make them more or less likely to be vigilant in stopping the assassins who continuously seek his death?
Remember that Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal that could fall into Islamist hands following Musharraf's assasination.
Obama is dangerous. Make no mistake. He is not ready for the serious business of being commander in chief.
To comment on this or any other American Thinker article or blog, you must be a subscriber to our ad-free service. Login to your subscription to access the comments section. You can subscribe on a monthly basis for $6.79 a month or for a year at $69.99
Login
Subscribe / Change PwdAd Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- A Taste of the Swamp
- Do We Have 677 Unelected Presidents?
- Global Relations beyond the Prime Directive
- The Democrat Party: The Enemy Within?
- Tariffs and the Moral High Ground
- ‘Mahmoud Khalil, Who Are You?’
- The Slush Fund Nobody Voted For
- Hacktivism and the Possibility of WW III
- Illegals Working for Congress?
- Should FBI Agents Learn Martial Arts?
Blog Posts
- Carville tells Democrats to quit making asses of themselves
- About that Texas congressman who called the transgender member of Congress 'Mister' ...
- A federal district court judge erases Trump’s ability to rid the country of enemy aliens
- In the UK, rape gangs are OK, pictures of women sans hijabs not so much
- Bacha Bazi still being practiced in Afghanistan; young boys sexually abused
- UN judge convicted of forcing a woman into indentured servitude
- What are capital gains, really?
- Trump begins restoring law and order
- Purge the poison: End Middle East Studies
- The Godfather: 53 and getting better all the time
- Why aren't Johnny and Suzie reading?
- ActBlue smurfs its way to oblivion
- Hunter Biden hotfoots it to a luxury vacation in South Africa, seemingly to avoid a deposition on his claimed poverty
- The Obamas' podcast bombs
- Did Stacey Abrams’s NGO really get $2 billion for appliances to hand out to Americans?