OBAMA FLUBS HAMAS, HIZBULLAH MULLIGAN
In golf, if you step up to the tee and proceed to hit the ball out of bounds, there is a fine tradition on public link courses that you are allowed a do-over, or “Mulligan” so that you can try to hit the ball a little straighter and not be penalized for your wayward swing.
There’s no such thing in politics, of course…that is, unless you happen to be an inexperienced liberal Democrat campaigning for president who is vouchsafed such luxuries as getting to “clarify” a monumentally stupid statement that demonstrated a dangerous cluelessness about a vital part of the world.
Barack Obama’s statement on the crisis in Lebanon fell as flat as 3 week old champagne in Israel and Lebanon, and probably other places where reformers are seeking to overturn the established order in the Middle East and bring more freedom to the people there. It’s bald faced ignorance about Hizbullah, about the Lebanese people, and what has been going on for more than 2 years in the streets in that tragic country underscores a dangerous naivete on the part of the candidate as well as a shocking lack of perspective on the true nature of groups like Hizbullah and Hamas.
In an eye-brow raising interview with the New York Times David Brooks, Obama was offered a chance to amend his mealy mouthed, pusillanimous statement on Lebanon made over the weekend and substitute instead thoughts that might connect to some semblance of reality regarding Hizbullah and their threat to whatever is left of democracy in Lebanon:
First, Obama’s initial swing that duck hooked clean out of bounds for a 2 stroke penalty:
He called on “all those who have influence with Hezbollah” to “press them to stand down.” Then he declared, “It’s time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.”
I took the candidate to task for his naive belief that “those who have influence with Hizbullah” care one whit what happens to Lebanese society and in fact, were encouraging Hizbullah in their violent efforts to undermine the legitimacy and authority of the elected government.
As for a “diplomatic consensus” on electoral reform I would say to Obama where the hell have you been for 3 fricking years? The Lebanese along with the Saudis, the Syrians, and the Arab League have all been engaged in efforts to reform Lebanon’s archaic electoral laws.
As for the patronage system, have him clean up his homestate’s corruption before he goes over the Lebanon and starts telling them about “corrupt patronage.” Mayor Daley and Governor Blagovetich make the Lebanese look like pikers in that regard.
And what’s with this “New Deal” economic program for Lebanon? He can’t be that dense, can he? When George Bush took office, aid to Lebanon amounted to around $35 million. This year, in keeping with our pledges made at the Paris Roundtable on aid to Lebanon, the President is asking Congress for $770 million which would make Lebanon the third largest recipient of US aid per capita. This is an amount that Iran can’t come close to matching. Clearly, Lebanon has become one of the most important Middle Eastern countries to American interests.
The Roundtable countries pledged upwards of $7 billion to rebuild Lebanese infrastructure pulverized by Israel during the war with Hizbullah. But that aid can’t start flowing until Lebanon has a new government. And Lebanon won’t have a new government until they elect a president. And they won’t elect a president until a new electoral law is passed. And they won’t have a new electoral law until Hizbullah folds up its tents in downtown Beirut and stops threatening to topple the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, joining their fellow countrymen in a national dialogue. And that won’t happen until there is a new government…
And around and around we go with Obama’s laughable ignorance exposed for all to see. He wants to treat Lebanon the same way he would go about reforming a corrupt ward in Chicago. For obvious reasons, this did not sit well with any Lebanese blogger or pundit I have read since he released that statement.
Oh the time we wasted by fighting Hizbullah all those years with rockets, invasions of their homes and shutting down their media outlets. If only we had engaged them and their masters in diplomacy, instead of just sitting with them around discussion tables, welcoming them into our parliament, and letting them veto cabinet decisions. If only Obama had shared his wisdom with us before, back when he was rallying with some of our former friends at pro-Palestinian rallies in Chicago. How stupid we were when, instead of developing national consensus with them, we organized media campaigns against Israel on behalf of the impoverished people who voted for them.
Given this reaction, one would think that given the opportunity to play a Mulligan, the candidate would try and make things right.
Guess again:
Right off the bat he reaffirmed that Hezbollah is “not a legitimate political party.” Instead, “It’s a destabilizing organization by any common-sense standard. This wouldn’t happen without the support of Iran and Syria.”
I asked him what he meant with all this emphasis on electoral and patronage reform. He said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites “to peel support away from Hezbollah” and encourage the local populace to “view them as an oppressive force.” The U.S. should “find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services.”
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”
Obama didn’t only hit his Mulligan out of bounds - the ball made a beeline for the clubhouse and hit the President of the Country Club right in the middle of the forehead.
And while the President of the Golf Club can ban Obama for life, we voters aren’t so lucky. We must deal with this head in the clouds, pie in the sky, completely unrealistic and dangerously naive candidate for the rest of the campaign. All we can do is point out his shocking idiocies and hope that the American people see the danger too.
To take his statement apart, he doesn’t think Hizbullah is a “legitimate” political party. This would come as news to the 24 Hizbullah deputies seated in Parliament and the millions of ordinary Lebanese belonging to what an American presidential candidate has just told them is an illegitimate political entity.
Maybe Obama sees them sort of like Republicans in Chicago’s city hall.
But the real head scratchers in Obamas’s statement have to do with his idea of how government should work in Lebanon. He thinks the Lebanese government should deliver “better services” to the Shia - actually believing that bringing national health care or maybe food stamps to the south will “peel away” ordinary Shias and cement their loyalty to the government. He also thinks we should make the Shias see Hizbullah as an “oppressive force.”
Brooks thinks Obama has been well briefed on Lebanon - that’s a pile of crap. First of all, the writ of Lebanese law does not run in the south - no services, no government officials, just Hizbullah. Perhaps Obama never heard the expression relating to Hizbullah “a state within a state.” How, pray tell, is Obama going to get government services to a people when the terror bosses of Hizbullah control access to the population? How is he going to “peel away” Shias while showing Hizbullah to be “oppressive?”
Of all the platitudinous nonsense ever uttered by Obama, this comes close to taking the cake.
Well, until he said “The U.S. should “find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services.”
Wha? Who? WTF? The Shias already have an a very fine mechanism that is “an effective outlet” for their grievances. It’s called Hizbullah. And make no mistake, being funded to the tune of $300 million a year by Iran allows the party to set up an entire social welfare infrastructure that addresses the basic needs of the Shia in a way that the Lebanese government never did. Sorry, Barry but if you would return to earth with the rest of us mortals, you would realize your half assed opinions about the situation in Lebanon can only do damage to the very people we are seeking to help.
It only gets more bizarrely stupid the more he opens his mouth. No liberal panacea for what ails Lebanon would be complete without the “root causes” meme - as in, “Gee, if only the terrorists grew up with good food, shelter, heath care, and a 37′ Sony Trinitron, their hearts would melt and the world would be a fine place, indeed.” He believes both Hamas and Hizbullah “need to understand” that they are going down a “blind alley” with violence that “weakens their legitimate (gulp!) claims.”
Can Obama pick and choose which “legitimate claim” Hamas might want to pursue? Maybe they don’t want peace. Maybe they view their #1 legitimate claim to be the destruction of the Jewish state and death to every jew they can lay their hands on. How now, Barry? Will you help Hamas pursue that legitimate claim?
Hizbullah is a slightly different story but only because you can vaguely place their “legitimate claims” in the context of standing up for the Shia underclass - something that this past week’s violence revealed as a sham as Michael Young put so brilliantly in this piece. Basically, Young believes that Hizbullah’s attempted power grab this past week opened a schism between the Shias and the rest of Lebanese society that has made them more isolated than they were.
To even speak of “legitimacy” of claims by Hamas or Hizbullah is outrageously naive. Obama keeps insisting he has a “realistic” outlook on our enemies. And while he makes some of the right noises about Iran and Syria, he more often comes up with ludicrous statements like this that call into question his fitness for the presidency.
Lebanon is not some senate district in Chicago where someone can jump in and butt some heads together, shower a little money, and talk of about economic development as if it were just a question of opening a spigot somewhere and out would pour goodwill and prosperity.
Our friends in Lebanon are very worried about this man becoming president. They fear he will sell them down the river in order to get a peace deal with Iran or broker a Middle East peace with Syria and Israel. The temptation will be great to do so no matter who is president - McCain or Obama - to give in to Syria’s demands on Lebanon and leave the Lebanese people to the tender mercy of Hizbullah and Gangster Assad’s henchmen.
So far, it doesn’t appear to me that Obama has grasped the essential truth of what is at stake in Lebanon and may not see much wrong with abandoning the tiny country to its own, tragic fate.
And in the game of nations, no Mulligans are allowed.
I’m not what you would consider a devout man but I have this constant urge to pray for this for this country in the face of such lunacy.
Comment by Robert — 5/16/2008 @ 4:02 pm
As I recall, McCain couldn’t distinguish between Sunni and Shiite. Isn’t THAT a critical piece of information?
Tell me something radio host, what qualifies you to judge Senator Obama? Sitting there watching Fox News Pentagon propagandists?
You better start swinging at Obama now. Go ahead, have at it. Smear him. Call him a Muslim and tell us about all his ties to terrorism.
It won’t matter. That stuff doesn’t work anymore. Because our next chief executive will be a Black man, a Democrat, and actually elected.
President Barack Hussein Obama
Say it again
Where do I call Obama a Muslim?
Where do I say he has ties to terrorism?
The answer is nowhere my friend. And your blanket condemnation coming on this site only shows you to be an ignoramus of the first order. I have, in fact railed against some on the right’s efforts to portray Obama as a Muslim:
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/02/24/enough-with-all-of-this-obama-is-a-mooslim-crap/
And no one has ever said Obama has ties to terrorists. Perhaps YOU could explain what he’s doing hanging around with an ex-terrorist - someone who showed no remorse about blowing people to smithereens. The fact that this little piece of info doesn’t seeme to perturb you only shows you to be one the densest Obama partisans out there - a brainless, mindless automaton who can’t think for himself and worships at the altar of a fake, a fraud, a phony, a snake oil salesman who has never accomplished anything in office and yet promises the moon, the sky, and the stars.
Only a nitwit like you would believe someone like that.
ed.
Comment by Babalu — 5/16/2008 @ 4:43 pm
Rick,
You absolutely nailed this one! Great article. This is a big story that tells us a lot about the mind of Obama. The more Obama defines his “change” the scarier it gets.
_______________________________________________________________________________
“Our friends in Lebanon are very worried about this man becoming president. They fear he will sell them down the river in order to get a peace deal with Iran or broker a Middle East peace with Syria and Israel. The temptation will be great to do so no matter who is president – McCain or Obama – to give in to Syria’s demands on Lebanon and leave the Lebanese people to the tender mercy of Hizbullah and Gangster Assad’s henchmen.” – Rick Moran
_______________________________________________________________________________
It sounds like Obama is being coached by Jimmy Carter. This is dangerous stuff that will sorely harm our national security. Obama is so bad, I may reconsider my current refusal to vote for the eco-neocon McCain!
Comment by DrKrbyLuv — 5/16/2008 @ 6:00 pm
I sincerely apologize for my past accusation that you suffer from “white guilt”. I thought you were giving him a pass. I now see that you only attack on provable deficiencies (e.g. platitudes on Lebanon issues). In retrospect, I think I agree with you that the failures of his poor judgment (with his choice of associates) pales in comparison to the famine of his foreign policy knowledge. Will it be enough?
Comment by Michael B. — 5/16/2008 @ 6:24 pm
P.S.
I think you gave Babalu the best ass-ripping I’ve ever seen. I almost felt sorry for him.
Almost.
Comment by Michael B. — 5/16/2008 @ 6:28 pm
Babalu: (see post 2)
The great thing about your post is that you can use it anywhere and against any comment that sets you off. Just take out the “radio host” stuff and paste the rest at as many blogs as possible.
Why bother addressing the specific points in the article (that would take some actual knowledge of the issues) when you can use your auto-rant.
Comment by DrKrbyLuv — 5/16/2008 @ 9:18 pm
Babalubama claims our next President will be a Black man, a democrat and actually elected. All of that is debatable.He’s not even an actual African-American what with his hippie mom white and his abandoning daddy more Arab than Kenyan Black. And I see Barry Hussein as from the Marxist wing of the dimmy party. And lastly, the same old tired canard about SCOTUS selecting Bush over the rightful winner algore. If anyone is responsible for Bush’s vote margin in Fla. it is the media for calling the election for algore before the polls closed in the Panhandle and the votes apparently miscast for Buchanan by the NY-transplant libs who couldn’t understand the dimmy designed butterfly ballot. I know- it is all ancient history, but my esteemed congress-wad Bobby Wexler is still beating the impeachment drum also.
And yeah, the media is biased toward Rethuglicans. That’s why the moobats want the fairness doctrine reinstituted- they can’t or won’t support airhead america and apparently PBS and NPR don’t get enough tax dollars nor do CNN, CBS and MSNBC/NBC garner effective ratings vs. Faux/Fixed News. Yes, the biased to the right media that drools over barry and gets aroused sexually when looking at or listening to the Messiah. Babaloser surely doesn’t think the media has been fair to the evil BusHitler or does he? Or that the NY Times is patriotic and wants us to defeat the Islamofascists? In another time and place Pinch and his minions would be hanged for treason.
Comment by HE HATE ME — 5/16/2008 @ 10:14 pm
No one gave babalu an ass whupin
he is right
McCain has mistaken every single mideast issue from leaders names to political parties to historical events and he gets a free pass
he gets it from the press and you don’t seem to remember any of those sins either
and who can blame him for not remembering when one republican was swiftboating and another was smearing? It’s not republicans don’t wage personal attacks de riguer
You are here in a small self congratulatory circle while your party is losing support. Three special elections in hard republican districts voted in democrats
wake up guys
the problem isn’t in them
the problem is in you
The right wing talking heads and think tanks experts spread out on Fox News and AM radio and convince people that John kerry shot himself in the foot and that John McCain fathered a black child.
Think about that. Spreading lies about John Kerry who is a decorated navy combat veteran. Being gossiped and lied about by political operatives. Veterans being insulted by bloggers.
Here is a perfect example of how the Republican Brand gets tainted. It’s because of Republican Cronies appointed by Bush who have no business running ANYTHING.
“This move by Obama comes after VoteVets.org and CREW produced an email on Thursday from a VA official–Norma Perez–in which she advised a number of VA employees, including psychologists, social workers, and a psychiatrist that, due to an increased number of “compensation seeking veterans,” the staff should “refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out” and they should “R/O [rule out] PTSD” and consider a diagnosis of “Adjustment Disorder” instead.”
Remember this administrator is a Republican who claims to support the troops. Perhaps with a magnetic ribbon she does. But like congressional republicans cutting benefits to soldiers and keeping them over there just to kick the Iraq fiasco can down to the Democrats….these are all reasons why you are losing.
I might be wrong
I don’t think I am.
Comment by oy — 5/16/2008 @ 11:44 pm
So Rick, what do you really think of Obama?
Comment by Mary — 5/17/2008 @ 8:41 am
Seven and a half years of the worst foreign policy in the history of the United States, and you’re “right on board” for more of the same.
Let’s take a look at a few of the highlights:
An endless war that has now gone on for longer than World War II. (It was McCain who pointed this out at a recent commemoration ceremony at Pearl Harbor) We were able to completely rebuild our Navy and a good part of our Air Force, mobilize 16 million people and defeat two world powers all over the world in less time than we have been able to do what????????? in Iraq.
A war that is costing 3 billion dollars a week! A child dies of starvation every six seconds in Africa. For three billion dollars, you could feed every one of them.
A war that will cost over a trillion dollars and is killing our economy and creating more poverty in the USA.
An Al-Qaeda that has reconstituted itself to pre- 9/11 strength, and which – had we not invaded Iraq and given them a “new cause” – would probably now either be non-existent, or consist of a couple of dozen guys hiding in caves.
Bin Laden and Al Zarqawi alive and well, and regularly sending out tapes to promote their cause.
Sanctioned humiliation and torture at Abu Ghraib.
A strengthened and defiant Iran, moving right ahead with their development of nuclear weapons.
ZERO progress on the Israel – Palestinian front, with Hamas now controlling Gaza.
Lebanon rapidly coming apart.
Personally…….I’ll take the “pie in the sky” approach…….
Comment by tetvet68 — 5/17/2008 @ 9:29 am
The War in Iraq is, though admittedly not popularly known as such, a campaign within the War on Terror. The wisdom of its merit is up for debate,obviously, but that doesn’t make it less a part of the bigger war than the North African campaign or Italian campaign, which were both seen by many as diverting resources away from taking the war to the enemy in Europe, can be taken out of the History of World War II. The fact that we as a nation are in mortal danger from Islamic Extremist should have long ago solidified our national resolve to follow through on the President’s pledge to seek and destroy the enemy wherever he goes. But it is no surprise that the President who had already gone out of his way to cross the aisle and work with the opposition, often to the disgust of Republicans/Conservatives, would have only the most cursory of lip service paid even in the aftermath of 911 and indeed have his teeth kicked in at every opportunity by democrats. I understand the need to discuss the merits of the invasion of Iraq. I also recall that democrats and republicans alike agreed it was the thing to do (and most European Countries believed that weapons of mass destructions existed there). Then I recall that democrats believed that Iraqis would not welcome Saddam’s removal,they did. Then no opportunity was spared to create the storyline that failure was an eventuality, while conveniently forgetting that countless UN warnings,impediments to inspections,satellite and intelligence data all pointed to the need to act on Iraq. And while the mantra of “no wmds found” droned on and on and on, the torture rooms, rape rooms, evidence of wmd used on Iraqi citizens, terror camps, stockpiles of old wmd weapons, underground facilities that may have had sinister uses such as weapons productions, the recollection of Iraq firing missile after missile at Israel, and their building of the super gun, also aimed at Israel from the first Gulf War; all conveniently slipped from the consciousness of the left.
There is nothing perfect about American Stategy in Iraq. There wasn’t perfect strategy in any American conflict. Indeed, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, MacArthur and many others would have been sacked during WWII; if all other things being the same, they were Republicans and the modern extremist left and it’s press corp was in place.
I’m not a republican. I voted for Obama in the primary, but I can say now that I won’t be supporting him in Nov. because he is not knowledgeable in military matters, in foreign matters, in economic matters. He sure can give a whopper of a speech though. I want to see the town hall meetings that McCain has proposed and see how he works without a net.
Comment by Bob — 6/11/2008 @ 12:22 am