Tag Archives: Rich Lowry

Putin Endorses McCain–Well, sort of!

Just as Obama’s glow from his “endorsement” by Nuri al-Maliki had begun to fade, along comes Putin to remind voters what a dangerous place the world really is–and that putting a very junior Senator at the helm would be insanity.

Before Obama’s 200 national security advisors could reach consensus, the voters were also reminded of McCain’s long-standing admonition that he didn’t see Putin’s soul when looking into his eyes–he saw the letters “K-G-B.”

And as for Obama (in the words of Rich Lowry in Real Clear Politics)…

the Bush and Obama statements in the immediate wake of the crisis could have been issued by a joint campaign. Bush’s spokeswoman urged “all parties,” both Georgians and Russians, “to de-escalate the tension and avoid conflict.” Obama declared that “now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint.” In their implied moral equivalence, these reactions were a little like urging the Kuwaitis to de-escalate with Saddam’s Iraq in August 1990

Putin might as well have uploaded an ad for McCain on Youtube. Here’s Lowry’s take on McCain’s history with Russia and Putin…

McCain’s proposal from a few months ago to boot Russia from the G-8 has gone from seeming needlessly provocative to practically prescient. Together with the surge in Iraq, the Georgian crisis is the second strategic matter on which everyone else has followed the senator’s lead.

McCain warned of Russian designs on its “near-abroad” when Boris Yeltsin was still in power, and advocated the enlargement of NATO into Eastern Europe — as a way to cement those countries into the West and check Russian adventurism — years before the Clinton administration adopted it as policy.

McCain’s judgment benefits from years of marinating in national-security issues and traveling and getting to know the key players; from a hatred of tinpot dictators and bloody thugs that guides his moral compass; and from a flinty realism (verging at times on fatalism) that is resistant to illusions about personalities, or the inevitable direction of History, or the nature of the world.

Continue Reading…

Here’s a link to an earlier post which illustrates McCain’s prescience on Russia (Youtube video embed’s from 1999 & 2000).



Filed under Military, Politics, World News

Obama, Community-Organizer-in-Chief!

Many years ago, I was in a business that required a lot of creative problem solving. And, as is common in many such endeavors, there were certain old sayings that could be safely relied upon in establishing boundaries for solutions. One that was often relevant was this one…

“If you ask a cobbler to solve a problem, you can bet the solution will involve shoes.”

Funny how the same old saying works just as well when you substitute “community organizer” for “cobbler.”

Obama apparently sees the world through the eyes of his chosen profession. All Americans’ broken souls can be repaired if we can only come together as a group with a common agenda. The world’s divisions can be healed by identifying what each country needs and appealing to that interest. Wars can be prevented by injecting real leadership and organizational skills where chaos now reigns. By bringing the parties together in a common cause, Obama can solve all of humanities ills.

Well, at least that is the theory of Obama…and his hero, Saul Alinsky.

This is the reason why Obama sounds a lot like Chauncey Gardiner (of Jerzy Kosiński’s Being There). Like Gardiner, Obama is taking an incredibly complex world and trying to shoehorn it into a simple paradigm. It sounds good, but it just won’t work.

Rich Lowry has an article in today’s RealClearPolitics that touches on some of the reasons why the world cannot be “talked” into harmony. Here’s an excerpt…

In their litany of American presidents who met with hostile dictators, supporters of Barack Obama cite John F. Kennedy and his meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna in 1961. They leave out how it went.

The earnest, young American president wanted to forestall any possibility of misunderstanding and to win Khrushchev’s commitment to the international status quo. The blustery, risk-taking Soviet premier wanted to bludgeon Kennedy into making concessions that would further the Soviet goal of global revolution. With such clashing objectives, the two leaders didn’t exactly hit it off.

When Kennedy thought he was being accommodating, Khrushchev thought he was being weak. He pocketed rhetorical concessions by Kennedy and demanded more. Afterward, Kennedy called it “the roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy adviser George Ball later said that Khrushchev had perceived Kennedy as “young and weak,” and Kennedy confidant Gen. Maxwell Taylor thought Khrushchev concluded he could “shove this young man around.” Vienna was the backdrop for Soviet assertion in the Cold War flash points to come.

Not all talking is created equal. Which is why it’s folly for a presidential candidate to make a blanket promise to negotiate personally with adversaries. Asked last year at the YouTube debate if he’d be willing to meet “without precondition, during the first year of your administration … with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea,” Obama said “yes.” Since then, he’s tried to elevate his ill-considered improvisation into foreign-policy gospel.

So when, in a speech in Israel, President Bush characterized trying to talk adversaries out of their hatreds as appeasement, Obama and his supporters reacted as if he had been skewered to the core. The Obama Doctrine had been attacked! On foreign soil! They countered that the act of talking is, in itself, not appeasement. True enough. But neither is talking a substitute for strategy.

Read the rest this excellent article here…The Limits of ‘Talk’

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics