Skip to comments.Never mind the Ides of March, beware the Surprises of October
Posted on 03/04/2012 7:09:35 AM PST by nathanbedford
Obama is scheduled today to deliver a much ballyhooed speech to AIPAC, which bills itself as the most influential foreign policy lobby in America. According to various news articles, Obama will reiterate his recent boasts that "he does not bluff" and that it is "unacceptable" to America for Iran to develop the bomb.
How should we conservatives react to the speech?
First we should understand Obama's motivations for the speech and our own misconceptions about Obama himself and his foreign policy.
Our misconceptions about Obama are easy to state, we conservatives regard him in the realm of foreign policy to be Jimmy Carter with anemia. We think he is a typical McGovern liberal who will shrink from military action even when the national interests of America require nothing less. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Obama's motivation for making the speech are also easy to misjudge. Yes, we understand that he is no doubt desperate to recover the erosion he has sustained in the Jewish vote. We understand that, historically, the Jewish vote and not less Jewish financial support have been absolutely indispensable to Democrat victories in national elections. Indeed, there are studies that show that when the Jewish vote at the national level falls below 60 to 70%, Democrats do not win the election. It is difficult to overstate the electoral power of the concentrated Jewish vote, the propaganda value of Jewish financial contributions, the moral power of Jewish opinion makers toward installing Democrats in the White House.
So, yes, Obama is making a speech to the Israeli lobby to reestablish that vital relationship which has so often succored Democrats but which now is so frayed as to be at the point of sundering. But Obama is aiming for much more and we must understand the scope of his ambitions.
We think that Obama is in a box in which he is trapped by his ideology and destined to lose Jewish vote. To the contrary, it is we who are in a box.
Let us return now to our misconceptions about Barack Obama and to do that let us revisit some of our assumptions about the unnatural marriage between The Left and Islamism. We often ponder why The Left has lent support to a homophobic, misogynist, theocratic ideology which will cheerfully murder most leftists as soon as it obtains power? We have uneasily and perhaps tentatively concluded that the left is operating on the old principle, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
The enemy, a robust and Democratic United States of America which, so long as it stands on its feet, stands athwart the path of socialist utopia. Both militant Islam and The Left regard America as the enemy because it is the principal obstacle to the imposition of Sharia for one and statism for the other. Many have opined that Obama's fecklessness in the war against suicidal, murderous, militant Islam is simply because he is a closet Mohammedan.
I do not subscribe to that view but I do believe that he is a Marxist and a Black Liberationist which is to say that he instinctively despises America and would reflexively side with her enemies providing that does not damage world socialism or his own personal ambitions.
The idea that Obama is a weak Jimmy Carter leftist constitutionally afraid of military action misjudges the man. Most leftists do not shrink from blood. We are accustomed to viewing Hitler as the most bloodthirsty man of the 20th century but a comparison with other communist dictators, as has been made by The Black Book of Communism, reveals that it is Stalin and Mao who can claim that dubious honor. On a percentage basis, the left generally murders more of its population than did even Hitler, his Jewish victims excepted.
Since Roe vs. Wade the left has facilitated the death of over 40 million babies and Barak Obama in his time has been foremost among the champions of abortion. Indeed, he has gone on record supporting the murder of babies who have miraculously survived the abortionist's knife. The idea that Obama would shrink from seeing blood on his own hands is without support in his biography.
I share the view of many that Obama is a narcissist, a cardinal characteristic of which is lack of conscience. When Obama opposed the war in Iraq I believe he did so because he opposed one of the aims of the war, to turn Iraq into a fulcrum to effect the democratization of Islam and render it a bulwark in the middle of the Muslim world for democracy and capitalism. I do not believe that he opposed the war over scruples about military adventurism.
When, as commander-in-chief Obama has to decide between pacifism in the face of a threat to his personal ascendancy as President of the United States, he will choose war. I believe that leftists to date have supported militant Islam and its jihad against America because they believe that at the end of the day they will stand over a prostrate America and vanquish the Muslim threat leaving the field to themselves alone.
This is the way communists have operated from the beginning. That is why we had a Molotov/Ribbentrop pact. When the time comes they will sacrifice any number of lives for their own ideology.
So we can expect Obama in today's speech to aim much higher than reconsolidation with the American Jewish voting block. I believe he will lay the predicate for an October Surprise which will involve military action against Iran's nuclear establishment and along the Straits of Hormuz. If Iran reacts by attempting to close the Straits of Hormuz, so much the better from Obama's point of view.
He will expect, and he will get, not just a reconciliation of Jewish voters but the support of evangelicals who identify with Israel and plain old-fashioned American patriots who predictably will rally around the flag and rush to support their President.
He is laying the predicate for an October Surprise in today's speech. Can anyone imagine that he will strike, if he does strike, after and not before the election? The timing will unmask Obama's cynicism. We must unmask him now!
Our difficulty will be that he will be right to strike Iran and it will be difficult to demonstrate that Obama is not acting to save the nation as well as Israel. Right now, every American who fills his car at the pump has reason to curse Obama but all that will be washed away in a flood of patriotic fervor when the missiles fly. Obama will be right to strike but his motives will be absolutely corrupt.
We are in a box.
It will be almost impossible to convince the public that they should vote against Obama's reelection by arguing that his motives were corrupt even as we concede that his policy was correct.
Nevermind the Ides of March, beware the Surprises of October.
Excellent, as always.
The loathing I have for a man who would put young Americna patriots lives at risk for his own political gain, particularly when that gain is aimed at the fundamental change and destruction of our Constititonal Republic is beyond what I can post on this forum.
God grant the American people to see through it and not be fooled.
Just saw Newt address just this question on meet the press. He was asked how this comment separates him from the President. Newt stated that he can’t answer the question. He pointed out that he does not know what that means. Or. something along those lines.
I guess the best response is that when Obama speaks, it is nothing more than “words, just words.”
He doesn’t bluff? That’s all he did during the 2008 campaign. He can’t be serious.
They will not go quietly so expect everything and the kitchen sink, be prepared.
I will share this.
The biggest October surprise will be the emptying of the strategic oil reserve to temporarily bring down the price of gasoline.
Hows about we try convincing the public that they should try electing a man who will continue the correct policies but without the corruption?
Agreed. Barack Obama does nothing without first weighing the pros and cons as to how his actions may affect his political prospects. He is a hrad-core leftist for whom the end justifies whatever means are necessary to achieve it. He will have no compunctions over taking the US to war with Iran to save his political hide. The autocratic Iranian government needs to be put down, with extreme prejudice - it has conducted asymmetric war against us since the feckless Jimmy Carter did nothing about the November 4, 1979 takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran. However, Americans should not trust that Barack Obama and his advisors will do it because of a dire threat to Israel and to the USA. When it comes to Obama, there can be no trust, only vigilance.
Agreed, he’ll wage war with Iran to win office again. The question is if he can wait until October.
All bets are off if Israel attacks Iran first. Obama would do nothing. I agree that his response to the resulting Mid East firestorm would be to empty the Strategic Petroleum Reserves.
Really. He talked about how war in Afghanistan was more important that war in Iraq. What has that gotten us? If Americans are tired of war, then war with Iran could backfire on Obama.
If he says he doesn't bluff, then odds are pretty good that he's bluffing.
Democrats have told us they believe war is for political gain. They are not interested in the strategic good of our nation, nor are they interested the wise management of our armed forces or even civilian deaths in other countries.
Our soldiers lives and civilian deaths in other countries are just tools to them. How many yelled and screamed when Obama continued to attack Libya long after the 60 day war powers act had passed?
I am afraid that the time to have handled Iran passed long ago with the Democrats stalling and blocking Bush and then ignoring the problem after Hussein took power.
Now that Hussein is suffering in the polls, this hypocrite and his hypocritical party will get us into a much larger and more dangerous war than if it had been resolved when we had the 4th ID on the Iranian border.
He is setting us up for large numbers of our own dead, and possibly a world war if all hell breaks loose.
The ability of Democrats to do the right thing is impossible. What is the right thing with Iran? I don’t know, but I do know that whatever Hussein decides to do, will likely be the wrong thing.
If he says he doesn’t bluff, then odds are pretty good that he’s bluffing.
Did you know that he dumped 30million barrels last year to celebrate “the Arab Spring”? Ok, officially, it wasn’t a celebration.
How much do we have left? Bush spent years rebuilding it after Clinton dumped millions of barrels.
What is wrong with Democrats? Do they not believe in preparing for emergencies?
The man is a raving lunatic.
The attack on Iran must be waged to achieve entirely different political and military ends than the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Although I had initially supported the war in Iraq I have come to the conclusion that it was one of the gravest errors of American foreign policy that ranks with Vietnam in the damage it has done the security of the country.
I supported the war in Iraq because I believed the justification which was that Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear weapon which he might hand off to terrorists who would smuggle it into America and detonate it in one or more American cities. That rationale still holds true in spades with respect to Iran. In this case our assumption that they are building a bomb is certainly true. Our assumption that they would pass bombs off to terrorists is much more likely because of their history.
Iran is an ideological country and Iraq was a thugocracy and therefore not as likely to risk its own survival for the sake of ending the world on time. Iran, under control of fanatical Muslims, poses a far greater risk. The risk is existential.
I justify a strike in Iran not on behalf of Israel but on behalf of our own security. If Iran gets the bomb and does not use it, nevertheless it will so alter the balance of power in the Persian Gulf that other nations will be driven to acquire the bomb and the odds of a nuclear exchange mount considerably. We will lose influence in the area and our ability to get precious oil will be at the mercy of the Iranians who will be virtually immune from attack by virtue of their possession of the bomb. They will also be largely immune from retaliation for terrorist attacks for the same reason.
For all the reasons cited it is imperative to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. That, however, does not require that we occupy the country. We might have to put some troops on the ground in some places temporarily but that is an entirely different matter than the occupation of a country like Iraq. Moreover, there is a decent chance of a domestic rising which might be furthered by us with money and arms. Finally, we should destroy the Iranian refineries which would deprive them of gasoline and bring their economy to a halt while we bomb their nuclear facilities and their command-and-control etc.
This is not to say that such an attack would be easy or success would be assured. It is to say that the balance of risks favor such attack.
The alternative is a possibility of atomic explosions in American cities until we surrender to sharia.
I believe there is any question but that Newt Gingrich would strike.
Thanks for the reminder, I completely forgot about that.
I guess Obama is a serial bluffer!
Please read (and save) my damning "J'accuse" of the Obama regime, Murdergate, and the liberal media establishment that protects the murdering leftist criminals.
I wrote and published it one day before the "death by natural causes" of Andrew Breitbart, while he was taking a routine evening walk alone near his home.
Matt Bracken, AKA Travis McGee on Free Republic
I would put nothing past this man and his crew of thugs from Character assassination to real assassinations. War to helping terrorists blow up buildings and citizens. I personally believe that for his election he would willingly sacrifice American lives—I hope I am wrong on this. I personalty believe He would rationalize any act as “Collateral Damage” for the “Greater Good”. We should be ready for ANYTHING—even to canceling the election —arresting all Republicans who object in Congress and having the president appoint replacements—until elections “at some future date”. What is so terrible that such ideas almost sound as if they could happen!
After watching the talking heads this morning, you have almost brought me back to reality. This a big thing for me.
I consider myself as a wayfaring stranger in this world...I believe I still am.
“What is the right thing with Iran? I dont know, but I do know that whatever Hussein decides to do, will likely be the wrong thing.”
Supposedly there is no sure thing but that is as close to it as I can imagine. He seems to have an unerring instinct to do the wrong thing. The wrong thing by the standards of a sane person that is, in his view he is always right.
“Do they not believe in preparing for emergencies?”
Of course not, in Aesop’s fable of the grasshopper and the ant the grasshopper is the Democrat! Actually they are much worse, the grasshopper in the fable laughed and sang and enjoyed the summer and invited the ant to join him in his enjoyment, a Democrat grasshopper would have taxed the ant ninety percent of what she gathered. Then he would have ranted and raved that the “RICH” ant was not giving her fair share.
“What is so terrible that such ideas almost sound as if they could happen!”
Added keyword: octobersurprise
...” this hypocrite and his hypocritical party will get us into a much larger and more dangerous war than if it had been resolved when we had the 4th ID on the Iranian border.”.....
We had a nephew sitting within eyesight of the Iranian border as a Bradley driver back in 2008. He told us the buzz was about going into Iran as things were starting to calm after the surge and the Anbar Awakening. The US had Iran surrounded with the most experienced and heaviest divisions in the Army, not to mention the USMC units that were in-country in Iraq. I stil don’t understand GWB’s thinking.
A nuclear Iran will not make liberal Jews walk away from Obama. In their minds, it will bind the US and Israel. It will be too late to attack Iran. Israel's security will depend on American security promises. These promises will depend on bipartisan goodwill, which will keep Jewish Democrats in line. America can make these security guarantees provisional on Israeli concessions to the Palestinians in the Piece of Israel at a time Process. Independent Jews may vote Republican this election, but a 20% shift in Jewish votes is unlikely to make a difference in Ohio or Pennsylvania. The press will still be in the tank for Obama. Any lost Jewish donations will be inconsequential given the donations of corporations that have benefited from the regime.