Is Obama Unfit To Serve?

Is Obama Unfit To Serve?

From the title, I know many of you will think I'm going to say yes, Barack Hussein Obama is unfit to serve. But it's not as simple as yes or no. The true, nuanced answer is: Obama may be too young to be President.

I know he meets the age requirement constitutionally, but that only pertains to his chronological age, and as I've said many times, most people today are at least a decade less mature than their actual age would normally indicate.

So Obama's new-age age is borderline, and I don't say that just to be provocative. Some things he said last night and today should give anyone pause – anyone that is who has the maturity to take a pause – anyone who is not sleepwalking to the tune of Hope and Change.- catchy, I know, but is it good to dance to? And really, has anyone ever seen a sleepwalker dance?

During last night's "debate," The Chosen One said that as President, he would act "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."

For one to utter something that astonishing, he'd either have to grossly ill-informed or he'd have to acknowledge that we've been successful in destroying al-Qaida in Iraq, and since he can't say the latter and he's certainly aware of al-Qaida in Iraq now, he's stuck with his absurdity as an indicator that he's not mature enough to deal with reality.

Today, John McCain was quick to reply in typical Republican fashion – he said that he wanted to inform the freshman Senator that al-Qaida was already in Iraq.

Yes, that's considered tough talk for a Republican.

Not content with his initial stupidity, Obama then shot back with: "I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq." That's like SO mature!

Obama then launched into the canned and unproven and unprovable liberal line that there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until President Bush made it a rallying point. Uh-huh. Time for my power nap.

In this short example, Obama first demonstrated a fundamental immaturity, and then he followed it with proof positive that he's unfit to be President, and he did it in twenty-five words or less.

What, you don't see it? OK, let's all take Barry's view. He's going to pull the troops and stand by if chaos ensues even if it turns into genocide, and that's not my imagination talking, he has actually said that. Then he would "act" if al-Qaida regrouped in Iraq? Can you imagine the economic and human cost of that scenario?

The war may be expensive now, but if we were to withdraw and then have to go back in, you know it would only be after a major disaster had already taken place in Iraq, and by "disaster," I'm not talking about what liberals call a disaster now, I'm talking the kind of scale that gives "disaster" a good name – massive death in Iraq in the sort of numbers that liberals have already been lying about for five years, where Iran may have established a presence along with al-Qaida, and where the concept of "civil war" seems positively quaint.

Not to mention the rest of the line Obama didn't finish – that the oil, you know, the only reason we went into Iraq in the first place, might have gone up in smoke and the price for what's left of it could leave economies sputtering all over the globe.

Although by then, presumably the Senator will have gained some maturity so it's just the price we'll have to pay for electing the second Democrat Boy-President in a row.

Here's Obama's complete statement: "As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

Then the sensible and mature course involves staying on the present course because that's the one that has a chance for stability. Anything else Obama would do is irresponsible precisely because it's rooted in the immaturity of hope and change.

Oh and speaking of the Boy-President, some feminist recently enumerated several points on which she said that Barack Obama was more feminist than Hillary. This begs the question: will Obama really be our first woman President?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend


About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Is Obama Unfit To Serve?

  1. Urban Lenny says:

    i thought you'd be out celebrating Ralph Nader's birthday. Or at least Chelsea Clinton's…"unproven and unprovable liberal line that there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until President Bush made it a rallying point."More accurately, i would say "..until we invaded and created the chaos that allowed them to come into the country and set up a base of operations, steal tons of unguarded explosives and munitions, and kill thousands of American troops." But that's just word choice.Seriously thoug– you say it's "unproven and unprovable", however all available evidence points to that fact that there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq before March 2003, and that there certainly was no collaboration between Al Qaeda and Saddam.Now i know that Dick "Last Throes" Cheney said:

    "[Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] took up
    residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the
    al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and
    then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last
    June. As I
    say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."

    However, you and I both know he's being a bit dishonest (shock!) here. As the Washington Post notes, Zarqawi only publicly allied himself with Al Qaeda after the US invasion. He surely was a terrorist before March 2003, but he was not Al Qaeda. If memory serves, he was loosely affiliated with a militant group that was based in the Kurdish part of Iraq, which– until the invasion– was essentially autonomous, and was protected as a part of the US's northern "no-fly" zone. According to Bruce Reidel (a former CIA al-Qaida expert), in a article written for Foreign Affairs:Zarqawi's strategy [of pitting Sunni against Shia] did prompt criticism from
    other jihadi groups and some second-guessing within al Qaeda, but it nevertheless
    succeeded brilliantly. In a letter to Zarqawi dated July 9, 2005, [Al Qaeda number 2 Ayman Al] Zawahiri questioned
    the wisdom of igniting Sunni-Shiite hatred in the Muslim world, and Zarqawi became
    known within the movement as al Gharib (the Stranger) because of his extreme views.
    Still, he pressed ahead, and the al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan never challenged
    him publicly. Although he led only a small percentage of the Sunni militants in
    Iraq, Zarqawi was at the cutting edge of the insurgency, the engine of the civil
    war. By late 2004, he had formally proclaimed his allegiance to bin Laden, and bin
    Laden had anointed him "the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq."So they did work in concert, and had contacts, but this only began in earnest after the invasion Ted. He went to Iraq in 2002 specifically to prepare for the coming invasion and lay the groundwork for a militant insurgency.
    The Bush administration didn't need to go to war to take out Zarqawi.

    In fact, there's evidence that the Iraq war actually helped keep Zarqawi
    alive longer — and certainly presented him with more easily accessible
    targets — than would have been the case if the United States had not
    invaded Iraq. As NBC News
    reported back in 2004, U.S. military planners drew up plans to take out
    Zarqawi three times in 2002 and 2003, but the Bush administration
    killed the plans each time. Why? Because, military officials told NBC,
    the Bush administration feared that destroying Zarqawi's terrorist camp
    in Iraq "could undercut its case for war against Saddam."Means to an end, i suppose.

  2. TedWest says:

    Leonard. This is just too easy. Don't you think I held anything back in anticipation of you? And you're not even forcing me to be more clever.
    So first, thank you for proving once again that your stupidity knows no bounds and for making my case that al-Quida involvement in Iraq is "unproven and unprovable."
    Now rather than parse each sentence, I'm going to give you a chance: pick one point* (I'm tired of the "proof by overwhelming disinformation" tactic), and I will help you destroy yourself. Go ahead, any point at all will do.
    By the way, if you're going to cite sources, please cite reputable ones. It's not that an individual article might not be accurate, it's simply that Post and NBC bias guarantees that you can't know what's correct and what's not -or what's been left out. And specifically, Jim Miklaszewski is not an unbiased journalist, and I use "journalist" here in the loosest sense.
    And The Brookings Institution? Are you kidding me? Yet even there you show that you know just enough to be dangerous – to yourself.
    * I reserve the right to use your other words, points, and references against you as needed.

  3. Urban Lenny says:

    I would simply counter that there is NO proof that Al Qaeda did exist in Iraq prior to the Invasion. Even thought you dismiss every single source i provide, the fact that there exists NO reputable sources claiming the contrary (Dick Cheney is not reputable– sorry) would lead most reasonable people to conclude that the Administration's oft-repeated (and still held) belief that Al Qaeda was in Iraq and that Saddam did collaborate with them is as credible as the other false excuses (see: WMD, democracy, etc.) propagated by them to justify the war.Attacking the source(s) is such a weak response. When you cant address the facts, attack the messenger, right? So the NBC reporter just made it up. Michael O’Hanlon– who although he is with Brookings, is a strong and consistent supporter of Bush's war– just made his statements up. Former National Security
    Council member Roger Cressey is lying too. Theyre all lying to smear Bush and give comfort to our enemies! Holy shit!And the Washington post is lying too. That CIA report from 2002– that's a lie. The DIA report from the year before? It probably didnt even really exist, right?The only "liberal media" excuse is old and tired. And lame. If there IS evidence to support what you say, i'd love to see it.

  4. Urban Lenny says:

    And always with the personal insults! William F. Buckley would be ashamed.

  5. TedWest says:

    Meaning no disrespect, Bill Buckley wouldn't let you shine his shoes if you offered to pay him for the privilege.
    OK, it's time for some very straight talk.. You need to go elsewhere, and it's not because you're inept, which you are, and it's not because I'm not having fun with you anymore, which I'm not. It's because you seem to be incapable of understanding and you won't take direction.
    I know you come here because you understand that no one knows his subject better than I, and so you want to discuss things civilly. But I won't indulge you simply because you're asking nicely, and 'I've already spent enormously more time with you than you deserve. That's because you're out of control biased and a blind follower of an empty shirt. As such, what point is there in attempting to show you anything?
    And I want you to understand that there are people here on the right who are happy to get along for whatever reason. They see hope that I know doesn't exist. Go there. But before you do, I want you to know that of all the liberals I've encountered, you're one of the nicest. So what? At the end of the day, you not only believe nonsense, you treasure it.
    Now let me explain a few of the problems you created for yourself in this thread. Call it a lovely parting gift.
    You don't understand that you can't simply present an article and call it proof. Just like I can't do that and expect you to believe it. So the MSNBC garbage you offered may be 100% accurate, but it's still garbage because without pointing out it's many flaws, it's written by someone I don't respect, and it cites people for whom I have even less respect.
    For example, one guy is associated with Wesley Clark and Richard Clarke both of whom are wholly unacceptable. And the other fellow, O'Hanlon, that's the same fellow who now believes the surge is working. Did you know that?
    But that, in itself, doesn't discredit O'Hanlon's earlier statement – that fact that he made it as an agent of the Brookings Institution does.
    So what's a body to do, you wonder? Nothing. you almost can't prove your case. So it's lucky there's no need to. I said that al-Qaida's not being in Iraq was unproven and unprovable. But you don't have to prove al-Qaida wasn't tehre. I'd have to prove it was – if I'd claimed it was. But I didn't. I was merely commenting on Obama's remark, and since he was stating a negative, it was, in fact unproven and unprovable. And Obama himself claimed a negative that he can't prove.
    But more important is that Obama's comment is irrelevant. it was a complete non-sequitur, exactly like the one John said to Dox a few weeks back when the latter said that Harry Reid must be going crazy at the prospect of a McCain Presidency. Vox John responded that it was the Republicans who went on a spending spree in recent years. Yeah OK, so what? That in no way diminishes the comment Dox made.
    So OK, al-Qaida wasn't in Iraq, it was just some no-name terrorists. So what, al-Qaida's there now… if the last guy hasn't turned off the lights yet. And your side said we'd be their best recruiting aid and that our presence would inflame the Middle East. Instead, Al-Qaida is on the verge of being completely vanquished In Iraq, and even better, it's being rejected by the citizenry.
    But what makes your point even less relevant if that's possible is that we didn't attack Iraq because of al-Qaida. Our intent was to neutralize a threat in the person of Hussein that would become immensely greater after 9/11 than it was before. We did that. Then al-Qaida showed up. Great! That saved us the trouble of hunting them all over the Middle East.
    Now debating tactics and Bush's management is completely apropos, but when al-Qaida got there is not. One big problem is that Bush should never have gone through the UN. That allowed too much time to pass when we could have been destroying things.
    Because what's certain is that the status quo in Iraq was no longer acceptable after 9/1, and I won't go into all the reasons because among other things, I don't feel you're capable of grasping them
    Lastly, let me return to your references – the Post, NBC, an article, some discredited people, some anonymous people, etc. You're welcome to believe them if you choose. I believe other people whom I consider more credible – and far more objective. But you can't even understand that concept.
    Whereas I would take anyone to task who was spouting junk, you believe anyone who supports your beliefs – great circle you've got going there!
    I even have an example as current as last night that shows the difference between you and me. There's a guy named Ben Shapiro who wrote a column about what McCain had to do to win. In fact, there were two guys who wrote columns on that subject yesterday, the other being Tony Blankley.
    Now I know what McCain should do, but I'm always open to other viewpoints from intelligent people, but I didn't know who Shapiro was. I started reading his column and shortly encountered this line about Obama::
    "His focus on change means he despises this country the way it is."

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s