Obama's Response: My Grandfather Wasn't an Appeaser
WESTERN STANDARD BLOG
By Michael Goldfarb
Obama responds to Bush and McCain:
"That was frustrating enough," he said of Bush's words. "Then John McCain gives a speech. He gave a speech in the morning where he talked about the need for civility in our politics. He talked about elevating the tone in our country.... Not an hour later, he turned around and embraced George Bush's attacks on Democrats. He jumped on a call with a bunch of bloggers and said that I wasn't fit to protect this nation that I love."
McCain "accused me of not being fit to protect this nation – a nation my grandfather served in World War II– a nation that's given me everything that I have," Obama said, then pivoted to attack Bush and McCain on a series of issues: Iraq; the survival of Osama bin Laden's and the Al Qaeda's leadership; Iran's strength; and Hamas's and Hezbollah's ascendancy.
My great uncle killed a lot of Germans, and I have the war trophies to prove it. I'm not sure that makes me uniquely qualified to protect this country. It's odd that Obama continually defends himself using the politics of association, while at the same time condemning those who would attack him based on his associations with people like Rev. Wright. Obama's father was communist, but he didn't get to choose his father, or his grandfather. And their politics have little bearing on his own. But he did choose to associate with people like Robert Malley who would attempt to appease Hamas. And he hung around with Bill Ayers, who clearly does not love this nation. Those associations would seem far more relevant than his grandfather's service in the Second World War.
And for the record, Hamas and Hezbollah are both ascendant because Israel implemented the kind of policies that Obama advocates for this country: unilateral withdrawal in the face of terrorism. If Israel had stayed in Gaza and Southern Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah would not be in control of those respective territories. Why does Obama expect a different result when he unilaterally withdraws U.S. forces from Iraq?
************************************************************
White House Wasn't "Targeting" Jimmy Carter, Either
By Stephen F. Hayes
Mark Ambinder is reporting that the White House sought to "get" Jimmy Carter, not Barack Obama, in George W. Bush's speech yesterday. He's wrong. What Ed Gillespie actually said was that the White House anticipated that the passage in question might be interpreted as an attack on Carter, not that the White House intended it as such.
And later, when Gillespie was asked this question directly, he said that the White House went so far as to change the language so as to avoid targeting Carter.
Q So when the question of a possible rebuke to Carter came up, was the language changed, what was the discussion, what was the analysis of what might be --
MR. GILLESPIE: The -- it was put in the context of a broader discussion of approach and policy, so that it would not be seen as a reference to any individual.
This is typical -- both of the White House and the reporters who cover it. The White House needn't have changed a thing in the president's remarks. Jimmy Carter met with Hamas. Barack Obama has advocated direct meetings, without preconditions, with individuals who head terrorist states. As far as I'm concerned, the president could have named them both and would have been well within his rights to do so. The setting, an address to the Knesset on the 60th Anniversary of Israel's founding, would have made such a comment inappropriate. But he would have be right on the substance.
Despite the plain language of Bush's speech and Gillespie's statement, reporters cannot wrench themselves away from the narrative -- largely false in my view -- that this White House routinely trashes its opponents unfairly.
UPDATE: Ambinder provides more context in this post, in which he cites two White House reporters who say White House officials have named Obama and Carter in background interviews. That's not what Gillespie said but it's interesting nonetheless. I guess my takeaway is that Bush should have done this on the record in a different setting. It's a fight he wins just by having it -- but the White House isn't up for much fighting these days.
***********************************************************
We're All Realists Now?
By Dean Barnett
Obviously at the heart of yesterday's little tussle over the president's speech in Israel was the question of whether or not Barack Obama is tough enough to be president. This meme has been bubbling for a while. Even the New York Times' Bob Herbert suggested that Obama was a wimp (in so many words) a few weeks ago. It thus comes as little surprise that Obama is now hurriedly assuring the electorate that he's plenty tough enough to be president.
In a speech this morning, Obama used the phrase "Bush and John McCain" a dozen times. Marc Ambinder reports that Obama really got into the ritualistic Bush-bashing: "Obama came off as tough, pissed off, and in a fighting mood; the Goths are at the gate, and Obama's beating them back. That type of thing."
On a more substantive level, Obama engaged in an apparently extended conversation with David Brooks earlier in the week to flesh out his foreign policy philosophy. Acting in full post-partisan mode and attempting to prove his seriousness, Obama professed great admiration for the foreign policy stylings of the first Bush administration:
"I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush. I don't have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm."
This little Obama observation illustrates two key facets of his personality. Whenever he discusses recent history, Obama seems to rely on the Cliff's Notes version. In this instance, Gulf War = Good; Obama doesn't go any deeper. He certainly doesn't come across as a guy who has habitually thought about history's relevance to today's events for any length of time.
It doesn't take a particularly nuanced or sophisticated understanding of Desert Storm to conclude that the administration handled the war's endgame very sloppily. Earlier in the article, Brooks remarked on how Obama seemed quite well-informed on Lebanon. I don't doubt it. He's a serious and intelligent guy. But his views of historical events, whether they involve FDR's purported negotiations with Hitler or Desert Storm, are surprisingly simplistic for such a thoughtful candidate.
His admiration for the Bush 41 is also pregnant with implications. The big debate regarding Obama is whether he'll be a transformational president or just another incrementalist. Obviously, the former prospect frightens conservatives and delights liberals. Having seen Obama's campaign, I don't find any evidence of a fellow prone to bold actions.
Given his liberal instincts, that's good. The biggest foreign policy fear on the right is that a Democratic president will run around doing imprudent things like meeting with Ahmadenijad and precipitously pulling out of Iraq, heedless of the consequences. Obama gave himself wiggle room to revisit his Iraq policy upon his inauguration weeks ago, and days ago he abandoned his misguided summit plans.
All these changes beg one very serious question: What exactly will an Obama foreign policy look like? Really, no one knows. Its composition changed dramatically just this past weekend, and it will likely "evolve" still more in the future as he offers carefully thought through policies rather than visceral reactions at YouTube debates.
Yes, the fact that Obama hadn't settled on a foreign policy vision before he ran for president and still hasn't 18 months later is disconcerting. Given the direction in which he's moving, it's surprising the left remains so sanguine over its candidate's progress. |
