Archive for the ‘Christopher Hitchens’ Category

Winning The War (Not In Obama’s Gameplan)

July 30, 2008

The continued drive by many on the left and in the media to bring about an American retreat in Iraq has given rise to a whole gamut of emotions in me over the past few months, ranging from bewilderment and frustration to anger. The shortsightedness and lack of vision in people like Barack Obama and many in the media lead one to question their intelligence, their motives and their patriotism. Let us not forget, that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not started on the whims of a war-president. America was forced into taking up the fight against Islamic extremism and those who sponsored world-wide terror by the acts of her enemies – a fight that the United States should have begun many years earlier.

It is refreshing to read journalists such as Christopher Hitchens continuing to provide an untainted, ‘un-anti-American” (clearly far removed from the daily offerings of many in the American media) view on the necessity of the war against Islamic extremism and the success of the troops.

Hitchens’ latest article, The War Between the Wars, at Slate.com argues that we should be fighting Islamic extremism wherever it is in the world and that America and its allies are capable of taking on its enemies at more that one place at a time. It is Hitchens at his best and I only hope McCain and his team can stick to their guns on this issue and remind the American public of the serious consequences of Obama’s plan to run with our tails between our legs.

I like Hitchens’ argument against Obama’s and the left in general that two wars (in Afghanistan and Iraq) cannot be fought at once… (I have put some choice words in bold)

“…any attempt to play off the two wars against each other is little more than a small-minded and zero-sum exercise. And consider the implications. Most people appear now to believe that it is quite wrong to mention Saddam Hussein even in the same breath as either a) weapons of mass destruction or b) state-sponsored terrorism. I happen to disagree, but just for an experiment, let us imagine that some regime did exist or did arise that posed such a combination of threats. (Actually, so feverish is my imagination that I can even think of one whose name also begins with I.) Would we be bound to say, in public and in advance, that the Western alliance couldn’t get around to confronting such a threat until it had Afghanistan well under control? This would be rather like the equivalent fallacy that nothing can be done in the region until there is a settlement of the Israel-Palestine dispute. Not only does this mean that every rogue in the region can reset his timeline until one of the world’s oldest and most intractable quarrels is settled, it also means that every rogue has an incentive to make certain that no such settlement can ever occur. (Which is, of course, why Saddam threw, and now the Iranians throw, their support to the suicide-murderers.)

Maybe Obama should take note of the following before he provides more comfort to our foes with his plans…

“If it is true, as yesterday’s three-decker front-page headline in the New York Times had it, that “U.S. Considering Stepping Up Pace of Iraq Pullout/ Fall in Violence Cited/ More Troops Could Be Freed for Operations in Afghanistan,” then this can only be because al-Qaida in Iraq has been subjected to a battlefield defeat at our hands—a military defeat accompanied by a political humiliation in which its fanatics have been angrily repudiated by the very people they falsely claimed to be fighting for. ”

If we had left Iraq according to the timetable of the anti-war movement, the situation would be the precise reverse: The Iraqi people would now be excruciatingly tyrannized by the gloating sadists of al-Qaida, who could further boast of having inflicted a battlefield defeat on the United States. I dare say the word of that would have spread to Afghanistan fast enough and, indeed, to other places where the enemy operates.”

Hitchens finishes his above-quoted conclusion with these words of warning for the left and Obama…

“Bear this in mind next time you hear any easy talk about “the hunt for the real enemy” or any loose babble that suggests that we can only confront our foes in one place at a time.”

Unfortunately, Obama and his fans fail to see the significance of this fight against Islamic extremism. The significance for the future of our civilisation. Obama sees the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan as part of his political game. They are much more important than that.

McCain has always said he puts America first, before his own individual success. This has been clear from his outstanding career where integrity, honesty and loyalty were the foundation of his life. America has to remember this come election day.

Glib remarks from Obama that give his followers a superficial ‘warm fuzzy’ will come back haunt Americans should they choose to elect him – at no time will this be more haunting than when our troops are retreating and the enemy is celebrating on the streets of the cities in Iraq (assuming Obama sticks to his promise of surrendering in 16 months – he is already showing signs of the liberal flip-flop, so who knows?).

Advertisements

Barack Obama – Puppet on a String?

May 15, 2008

Barack Obama has been singled out for praise by most commentators in the mainstream media for being a breath of fresh air in the stagnant atmosphere of American politics. Many have been willing to overlook his lack of substance or original thought because they have been taken in by his promises of change and his hopes for a golden future. These fans of the O-man were somewhat taken aback by his rather indifferent attitude to the so-called Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s crazed rantings on America, Jews and AIDS conspiracy theories. Somewhat taken aback was about as far as the criticism of Obama went in liberal circles until Wright reiterated his extremist views to anyone who would listen – Obama was forced to disown his spiritual guide… about 20 years too late.

Christopher Hitchens, in another piercing and thought-provoking essay at Slate.com, raises some excellent points about the influence of Obama’s wife, Michelle, and her extremism. Could she be the guiding force behind Obama, and is he merely the benign façade covering some disturbingly extreme views held by his wife? If so, will these extremist ideas come to the fore, if he were to be elected President? Hitchens seems to think so…

 

“So numbed have I become by the endless replay of the fatuous clerical rantings of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that it has taken me this long to remember the significant antecedent. In 1995, there appeared a documentary titled Brother Minister about the assassination of Malcolm X. It contained a secretly filmed segment showing Louis Farrakhan shouting at the top of his lungs in the Nation of Islam’s temple in Chicago on “Savior’s Day” in 1993. Farrakhan, verging on hysteria, demanded to know of the murdered Malcolm X: “If we dealt with him like a nation deals with a traitor, what the hell business is it of yours?” His apparent admission of what had long been suspected—that it was the Black Muslim leadership that ordered Malcolm’s slaying—is not understood or remembered (or viewed) as often as it might be.

I invite you to look at the film of Farrakhan’s sweating, yelling, paranoid face and to bear in mind that this depraved thug, who boasts of “dealing with” one of black America’s moral heroes, is the man praised by Jeremiah Wright and referred to with respect as “Minister Farrakhan” by the senator who hopes to be the next president of the United States.”

Hitchens continues…

“the Philly speech [about race, Wright, and Obama’s racist grandmother] was a failure on every level, and if it was a failure on every level, and thus left Obama hideously vulnerable to the very next speech made by his foaming pastor, then that must raise questions of eligibility for the highest office.

“All right, then, how is it that the loathsome Wright married him, baptized his children, and received donations from him? Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama?”

“If there is a reason why the potential nominee has been keeping what he himself now admits to be very bad company—and if the rest of his character seems to make this improbable—then either he is hiding something and/or it is legitimate to ask him about his partner.

I recommend you read the whole essay, Are We Getting Two For One?, for it raises an issue, so far swept under the carpet… the influence of Michelle Wright and whether it is good for America.

Obama’s Foolish Faith

April 8, 2008

Christopher Hitchens, in his Fighting Words column at Slate.com (see link below), has recently turned his attention to Barack Obama demonstrating a skill all too rare in today’s media: the skill of taking down the smoke and mirrors trickery of Barack Obama. Hitchens is always worth reading, but his essay on Obama’s relationship with religious bigot, Jeremiah Wright, is simply an essential read to anyone who claims to be interested in American politics.

Obama’s crowd of followers blinded by his light should note…

“To have accepted Obama’s smooth apologetics is to have […] put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith. Mark my words: This disappointment is only the first of many that are still to come.”

Amusing and disturbing…

“You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)”

Christopher Hitchens sums up perfectly the folly of many in the media and in the Barack Obama fan club. They are trusting are man who is blatently untrustworthy. They are putting all their faith into a man who is guilty of bad faith.

Christopher Hitchens is an sharp as ever in his essay, Blind Faith, in which he offers his take on the Obama/Jeremiah Wright connection. I highly recommend a perusal.

 

 

Hitchens Nails Carter

May 22, 2007

“Mr. Carter quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad. He was the worst president we ever had.”

Christopher Hitchens slides this perfect quotation from Sen. Eugene McCarthy about Jimmy Carter into his latest posting on Slate.com. He then continues in his customary manner to strip Carter of any honour he claims to possess. It is an excellent read and the perfect antidote to the perpetual stream of anti-Bush, anti-Blair, anti-war, and anti-democracy coverage found in the mainstream media.

While I recommend you read the entire article, I cannot help extracting another quotation – in defence of the unfairly maligned, Tony Blair.

“He [Carter] also went on the British Broadcasting Corporation to make spiteful and cheap remarks on the retirement of Prime Minister Tony Blair, calling him “loyal, blind, apparently subservient.” Yes, that’s right, Mr. Carter. Just the way to make friends and assert “America’s basic values.” Show us your peanut envy. Heap insults on a guest in Washington: a thrice-elected prime minister who was the first and strongest ally of the United States on the most awful day in its recent history. A man who was prepared to risk his own career to be counted as a friend. A man who was warning against the Taliban, against Slobodan Milosevic, and against Saddam Hussein when George Bush was only the governor of Texas.

Well said, Mr Hitchens.

See also… Blair – A Man of Honour

                  Voice of America

                   The Scolai