Obama Enfeebled

Caroline Glick over at the Jerusalem Post gets it spot on in her column titled "An enfeebled Obama." I get hate mail and posts from leftists who decry that there is nothing wrong with "talking to our enemies," and "acknowledging our mistakes and apologizing." There is nothing wrong with "engagement" and the peace "process." So it goes...utter pap, pure naivete. Ironically, if we were dealing with the semi-sane Soviet Union, like the good old Cold War days, some level of engagement makes sense. But we are not. We are up against madness in Ahmadinejad and the mullahs in Iran, the likes of which we have not seen since Hitler put the luger to his skull in the bunker in Berlin. We are dealing with terrorist groups in Hezbollah and Hamas that are dead set on destroying our ally, Israel...and if they succeed in that, Western Europe and the United States are on their dance card. What hubris leads a man like Obama to believe that by force of his personality, he can overcome a Medieval death cult like militant Islam? But he persists:

As for Iran, during his meeting with Netanyahu in May, Obama gave the clear impression that the Iranian regime had until September to accept his offer to negotiate the disposition of its nuclear installations. But it is now September, and in its belated response to Obama's generous offer of engagement, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime rejected the terms of Obama's engagement out of hand. Obama did not retaliate by taking his offer to negotiate off the table or - perish the thought - working to implement the sanctions he had pledged would follow an Iranian rejection of his open hand.

Instead, Obama announced that he is sending a senior US official to meet with the Iranians on October 1. And with that announcement, any residual doubt that Obama is willing to live in a world in which Iran is armed with nuclear weaponry dissipated completely.

Sane people should reread that last sentence several times - "a world in which Iran is armed with nuclear weaponry," should make you take a deep breath. There are differing intelligence estimates, and we all know how accurate those can be to begin with, but in the worst case they are about three months away; the best, about a year. Now having a nuclear bomb, libtards would say, doesnt' mean much. You have to have a way to weaponize and deliver the device. OK, on the delivery front, how about this:

That's a Shahab-3 launched three days ago that puts Israel, U.S. bases in the Gulf Region and Saudi Arabia in range. Oh, did I say Saudi Arabia? The Sunnis (Saudis) and the Shiites (Iranians) don't like each other very much. Last time the two sects teed it up was the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) when we say children being used by the Iranians to walk through mine-fields ahead of their precious Revolutionary Guard...some 1.5 million people died in that dust up.

So instead of a leader who understands the grave nature of realpolitik in the Middle East, we are left with a man who adores the adulation of a crowd, a man who, disturbingly seems to want to be accepted for his personality rather than his accomplishments. As the columnist says:

Since Obama took office, he has been abandoning one US ally after another while seeking to curry favor with one US adversary after another. At every turn, America's allies - from Israel to Honduras, to Columbia, South Korea and Japan, to Poland and the Czech Republic - have reacted with disbelief and horror to his treachery. And at every turn, America's adversaries - from Iran to Venezuela to North Korea and Russia - have responded with derision and contempt to his seemingly obsessive attempts to appease them.

We are in serious trouble folks. The decision is simple at this juncture and was brilliantly spelled out in the Wall Street Journal yesterday: a) allow Iran to go nuclear and risk nuclear proliferation in the Gulf and potential nuclear conflict between Israel and Iran or b) take out their nuclear facilities before it is too late. What will it be Mr. President?