RSS
Home
Obama's words embolden oppressors
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Iraq and Iran prove facts on the ground matter more than Drive-by media defined "perception"
Conservative Republicans are often cowed into defeatism during political battles against liberal Democrats with the refrain that "perception matters more than reality." I always recoil from this scoffers' rationalization for surrender to the power of the Leftist-dominated media.
The facts on the ground in Iran and Iraq justify such re-coilings.
One can't deny that perceptions of reality matter, nor that words, even and especially those of President Barack Obama, matter. In fact, the words of Presidents are "actions" in a very real sense.
The problem with these concepts are not their inherent truth, but rather, the inexact applications of same that we are most often subjected to.
Whose perceptions?
Since the beginning of the "Bush-lied" era in 2003, we were told that we were "losing in Iraq", before we won. We were told that Reagan was an amiable dunce that would provoke WWIII, before we won the Cold War. We were told that Gitmo and waterboarding made us less safe, while we weren't attacked for seven years.
Despite the liberal press and some political results in the United States caused by the false perceptions they conveyed, the fact of the new Liberty option exercised by Arabs on full display to their Persian neighbors mattered more. It should also be noted that, despite perceptions, Bush was re-elected in 2004 and launched the surge in 2007 despite the 2006 elections that returned Congress to the Democrats.
Which words?
Obama and many of his sychophants in the press point to his Cairo speech as having inspired the massive election turnout in Iran. Certainly, the words utterd in Cairo "mattered", but surely his lengthy appeals to working with the powers that be mattered more than his fleeting utterances to those aspiring to power.
Much has been made of Obama's long silence in support of Iran's freedom fighters and his refusal to condemn the regime. Obama's defense was that we shouldn't "meddle" in their internal affairs. But Obama did meddle early on in favor of the regime:
"You've seen in Iran," explained President Obama, "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."
Obama's own, incredible words complimenting the Supreme Leader in the first few days after the street protests in Tehran began, together with his earlier appeasing appeals to the mullahs from Cairo are better evidence that his words emboldened Iran's ACORNs to keep their President in office that makes ours so subservient.
Define "meddle"
Obama claimed that he didn't want to "meddle" in Iran's affairs by denouncing the Iranian regime. He has since decided he should so meddle, after all but Ron Paul Kim Jung Il have joined the meddling. But Obama had already meddled in his own way with words that emboldened the regime.
Moreover, Obama seems to care more about perceptions in the World Press than about the reality on the ground in Iran. Apparently, if the Supreme Leader claims that we cause street protests and the New York Times agrees, then it is a fact. He tries to justify his departure from 200+ years of American Free World leadership with references to past CIA aided coups.
But again, that business is all down the drain today. Obama is now the meddler in cheif.
Bush was right
The real reason behind Obama's reluctance to meddle is that to do so is to implicitly concede that Bush was right in his Democracy Project and he and the Democrats are again on the wrong side of history.
Obama's words matter alright, just like Carter's "inordinate fear of Communism" emboldened a USSR with designs on Kabul. Obama's words advocating inaction remind of how Osama bin Laden interpreted Clinton's inactions in the 90s made him thinkal Qaida could defeat the "weak horse"/"paper tiger" US on 911.
Paper covers rock. Scissors cut paper.
A cowboy on a strong horse showed this tiger's paper covered I-rock!
It appears Obama's words are scissors insisting on cutting US paper.
Deterrence vs Aggression-inviting Weakness
Lech Walesa and numerous East Europeans said that Ronald Reagan's Evil Empire speech undercut the Soviet Union's credibility and emboldened them to tear down the Berlin Wall. Of course, Reagan's words were back up with credibility-enforcing actions with missiles in Europe, massive defense spending, Grenada and Star Wars.
What message is Obama sending and to whom? What is the perception of the Obama reality in the minds of oppressors and the oppressed?
That matters more than what the liberal press perceive.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
.jpg)
.jpg)
