National Security III

We focus on national security; thus, given the upcoming presidential election the notion of commander-in-chief comes to mind. Before sobering up for that discussion however, just as cartoons preceded the main feature in the old days, so observations of the primary process should serve the same purpose.

On the screen is the Democrat party’s nominating process, a self-abusive satire of upscale liberal guilt confessions. From the left’s Maureen Down for example, "People will have to choose which of America’s sins are greater, and which stain will have to be removed first. Is misogyny worse than racism, or is racism worse than misogyny?" My, my. The "monster" is not Hillary, it is us. Naturally. And we are horribly divided - from Obama headquarters the message that since their man has successfully transcended race (we agree) it follows that he is therefore uniquely qualified to transcend all our other divisions - region, class, party, generation and ideology. And Hillary’s claims are not far behind. That’s the high road.

Descend one level with these two and we encounter the low road. But let’s not take it; let’s ignore the fact that although Obama used the word "change" 33 times in the Feb/19 primary victory speech but when an Illinois senator he voted "present" 130 times rather than take a definitive stand on any issue at hand; let’s ignore Tony "the Obamanator" Rezko, Obama’s Chicago fund raiser, a "fixer" who was indicted in Jan on fraud, various extortion charges and money laundering for an Iraqi billionaire, N. Auchi, whom military analysts describe as Saddam’s bagman; let’s ignore "NAFTAgate" altogether; let’s ignore the reverend Jeremiah Wright through whom Obama found religion in the 80's, and who he prayed with before deciding to run for president, the same Wright who has spoken adoringly of Farrakhan as he has "epitomized greatness," that would be the same Farrakhan who talks of Jewish conspiracies, reviling Jews Hitler-style, and the same Wright who applauded Farrakham’s "integrity and honesty," the same Wright who Obama hopes to pray with just before the inaugural. And Clinton? Let’s ignore her scandals and a record tracing back to good ‘ol Arkansas of controlling "bimbo eruptions," to which she more recently has added the fiction of her "foreign policy experience," that experience being a series of world tours that her husband’s staff coaxed her into after her health care fiasco/embarrassment and such career highlights as Travelgate and Filegate.

Key after all, for all of us, is to look to the security of this country and our family. And all of us understand by now that Muslim meadievalists, anchored to a document which is nothing if not an atavistic inheritance of the dark ages will settle only for the eradication of Western civilization. This is non-negotiable and has been demonstrated so repeatedly. Only a fool would believe other wise. So we need protection. Who can do that?

The Constitution gives the President as commander-in-chief the authority to use America’s armed forces to "provide for the common defense". Congress can "declare war" but the Founders specifically rejected a proposal at the 1787 convention that would have given to Congress the power to "make" war. And over the years presidents have justified military action without specific consent from Congress, most recently Clinton’s involvement of the military in Haiti. So the flexibility is there; thus the selection of a president is freighted with considerable gravity, considerable responsibility, something more thoughtful and honorable than just, "Come on, I’m a Democrat, I vote the party line."

Our principle concern with Obama is the obvious fact that he is manifestly ill equipped to be commander-in-chief; he lacks the knowledge and experience to lead our (or any) military, he lacks the skill to leverage American prestige on the world stage, and - key - he lacks the instinct, the vigilance; he seems far better suited for a school board, or perhaps a career as a therapist.
Indeed, many thoughtful Democrats have come to agree; this has grown to become a major concern within the liberal camp. For example, from editor-in-chief of the New Republic, Martin Peretz, "My own qualms about Mr. Obama reflect his enchantment with negotiation. So far he has not allowed that there are conflicts in which negotiation is ipso facto futile, and conflicts in which there may be strategic consequences from the cult of talk. Talking certainly didn't work with Hitler and Stalin, although Western leaders actually negotiated with these tyrants face-to-face. Our partners in those evil days traduced every agreement they made. The same was true of diplomacy with Yasser Arafat. Mr. Obama says he would be open to a session with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And Mr. Obama's Karen Hughes, Samantha Power, says, ‘we need to get in a room with him -- if only to convey grave displeasure about his tactics, regionally and internationally.’ Maybe. But the president of the United States has many ways to communicate his opinion of a foreign leader. And when Mr. Ahmadinejad begs to differ, or expresses to the American president his low view of him, or walks out of the room, what then? Not military action, certainly, but the diplomatic option will have been squandered. I have no doubt that this idée fixe of the Democrats -- their ardent faith in the salvific power of diplomacy -- will be tried and found wanting."

Thank you Mr. Peretz.

Robert Craven