Sent to you via Google Reader
Can YOU see the angry bunny face?
Sent from my iPad
|[link] [15 comments]|
It's doubtful whether Joe Biden carries much weight within the Obama administration, but his instincts are in the right place when it comes to Hamas, and he was relatively coherent when defending Israel's blockade:
I think Israel has an absolute right to deal with its security interest. I put all this back on two things: one, Hamas, and, two, Israel's need to be more generous relative to the Palestinian people who are in trouble in Gaza....
[The Israelis have] said, 'Here you go. You're in the Mediterranean. This ship -- if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we'll get the stuff into Gaza.' So what's the big deal here? What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza? Well, it's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping eight -- 3,000 rockets on my people,'
Biden is wrong on almost every issue and frequently is a buffoon, but at some level he's not a bad guy--that's the way it seems, anyway--and occasionally that manifests itself in a burst of common sense.
While introducing the new National Security Strategy, President Obama recently declared that the "War on Terror" is over. More accurately, war as we know it is over. Through soft power, the United States has reinvented conflict into a feel good, region-building contingency operation where soldiers become ambassadors rather than warriors - seeking to win over our enemies rather than defeat them.
"We will always seek to delegitimize the use of terrorism and to isolate
those who carry it out," it states. "Yet this is not a global war
against a tactic – terrorism..."
First off, can Obama name one example how his administration has done anything to delegitimize Islamic terrorists?
I do agree that one can't declare war on terrorism (calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to
inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or
societies ... [to attain] political, religious, or ideological goals) any more than you can declare war on L-shaped ambushes. I concede that the Global War on Terror is not the best name for our current conflict. But the same argument could be made about World War II. Ultimately, what the war is called is pointless. The important thing is that it is brought to a quick, decisive, and favorable end, and as of yet there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
"... or a religion – Islam."
This is clearly not a war against Islam. The fact that our leaders continue to bring this up is an insult to everyone's intelligence, and pandering to our enemies. Members of the Islamic religion - the jihadists - are at war with us, whether we acknowledge it or not. But if one were to read the Qur'an, one would find that jihad is a pillar of Islam, not something that was taken out of context by misunderstanders of the so-called "religion of peace" or created by George Bush and Dick Cheney in order to justify their diabolical scheme. If you doubt me, see for yourself.
"Our long-term security will not come from our ability to instill fear
in other peoples but through our capacity to speak to their hopes."
The puss-nut diplomats and think tankers that came up with this s--t should be called pirates and turned in to the Russians. Since before Moses was a corporal, civilizations protected themselves by instilling "fear" among those who seek to subjugate or eliminate their culture - as jihadists do today. The fact that Obama doesn't want to "instill fear" in jihadists should be a matter of grave concern for Americans.
But possibly the worst thing is that the National Security Stra...