Obama's Policies

I've been inactive on this blog for quite a but as an alternative to writing a letter to the editor of the Citizen, I thought I would express some ideas here first and maybe follow up with said letter. First I'd like to be clear, I don't read Dave Warren. I have read his editorial contributions to the Citizen in the past and sometimes I read the headline and the first couple of lines but then I think to myself "Nothing good will come of this. Read no further. Don't do it to yourself". Today I failed to follow that advice and read this column.

First of all I've been following some of the polling on Obama's performance and I have no idea where Warren is getting this idea that Obama's policies are not going over very well. This poll is from a month ago but I don't think its wise to change course on a day to day basis according to the latest polls. People aren't happy about the economy. They don't feel confident the steps Obama is taking are going to be sufficient to turn the economy around and they have every right to feel uncertain about the future. According to the latest Rasmussen polls 68% believe that the majority of bailout money is going to the people who caused the crisis and I don't see how anyone can dispute that is the case. And Americans are hesitant to push forward on health reform duing an economic crisis but its ludicrous to sugggest that Americans don't overwhelmingly favor comprehensive health care reform. However, those who are decidely negative about Obama's performance and policies are the pundit class, which includes Mr. Warren. And it seems to me that these negative opinions have been getting more than their fair share of airplay.

The main argument I take exception to is this idea that the American people voted for Obama because they were sick of the Republicans, not because they were in favor of his policies. Odd how we've been told in the past two US elections that "anyone but Bush" was a strategy that could not win. A Democrat could only get elected by suggesting alternative policies. And now we're told that in fact people only voted for Obama because he wasn't a Republican. But remember Obama wasn't just a Democrat with liberal policies. He had the most liberal voting record in the Senate (I won't dwell on the fact that oddly enough John Kerry was the previous "most liberal Senator"). He was the number one liberal in the Senate but somehow when people elect this uber-liberal they are expressing their desire to be a center-right nation. Mr.Warren's explanation for this phenomenom? Middle America is stupid.

But then comes the kicker - "The video to Iran is the latest catastrophe. Mr. Obama simply does not understand how his 'olive branch' will be received, not only by the mullahs in Iran itself, but wherever else on the surface of the planet the United States has enemies."

I'm going to go out on a limb here but I'm willing to speculate that David Warren has no idea how this olive branch will be received by the mullahs in Iran. I'd be willing to bet that David Warren has never been to Iran. Just for the record, since it is a fact which is grossly under reported, the Iranian mullahs have declared nuclear weapons un-Islamic and sworn to never develop them. I think we can all agree that the mullahs take religious matters seriously. Whether, as a matter of foreign policy, we choose to believe this is a sincere fatwah against nuclear weapons is debatable but I for one would like to see this fact mentioned everytime someone mentions Ahmadinehad's professed desire to wipe Israel off the map because the truth is, regardless of what Ahmadinejad says, the mullahs run Iran and call all the shots.

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that President Obama's olive branch to Iran has an infinitely greater chance of resolving the ongoing conflict between the US and Iran than more tough talk as a way to avoid showing any signs of weakness. You know what is a sign of weakness? When we all laughed and laughed at the idea that the Iraqis could withstand the full force of the American military and now 4,000 American soldiers are dead. 4,000. 90% of those deaths don't even involve the Iraqi military or any kind of serious military arsenal. How about Afghanistan? How about Bin Laden? That old saying "Better to be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt" also applies to looking weak and incompetent.

The whole world knows that the US can talk tough about Iran and Syria and Pakistan all it wants but it's hands are tied. How exactly does one launch a war against Iran with 130,000 troops stationed next door? And in term of being state sponsors of terrorism, Iraq has nothing on Iran. Iraq should never have even made the list. Iran has a seriously outdated military but a military none-the-less (Iraq had basically nothing left by 2003) and a huge terrorist network at its command.

See ... now I've spent two hours writing this rant when I should be reading my CCNA study guide and doing the labs. Just say no to David Warren.

Update: I'd also like to point out how sick I am of hearing how unqualified and inexperienced Obama is. Bush had never been outside the US before he was elected president ... not even to Canada! To quote Lewis Black "Even drunk on a bet you make it to Canada!". Based on that alone, Bush was never qualified to make foreign policy decisions.

Update 2: Warren has a kindred spirit in William the Bloody who, along with Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, holds the dubious distinction of never having been right about anything. Kristol objects to Obama referring to Iran as the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is the official name of the country, and laments the fact the Obama doesn't make any explicit or implied threat of consequences if Iran doesn't stop it program of developing nuclear weapons. A program which Iran says it doesn't have and the US has no credibile evidence of the existence of such a program. I ask you, Mr. Kristol, when did you stop beating your wife?

Update 3: Boy, Obama's approval ratings sure have taken a beating. Hmmmm let's compare that graph with this graph.