America’s typical, on-going, xenophobic, White-is-right mentality, which dominates the political landscape, has finally decided how to “deal with” the Presidential candidacy of Sen. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. They have already gone from the whispered innuendo about him secretly being a Muslim, to openly declaring that “Islamic terrorists will rejoice” if Sen. Obama is elected, as Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) did recently.
Terrorists worldwide will indeed be emboldened by an election victory by Sen. Obama they argue, not so much because of his name,Â or because of his family background, but becauseÂ terrorists favor Sen. Obama’s, which true, patriotic Americans recognize as “surrender” policies that wouldÂ translate intoÂ victory for the global jihad movement.
An Obama victory, they argue, will be a sign of future Western “appeasement” of America’s terrorist enemies, just as Neville Chamberlain’s victory in the United Kingdom, resulted in useless attempts to appease German Chancellor Adolf Hitler before World War II.
But the Bush administration, which I believe would never to leave anything to chance, when there’s a chance to cheat in order to affect the outcome, probably has some tricks up its sleeve.
Speaking of Hitler-era scare tactics. Before the success of the Troop Surge in Iraq, I thought that President Bush might stage a Reichstag Fire-type event in this country, in order to justify–as Hitler justified–martial law, a suspension of the Consitution, and the abolishment of German democracy in 1933. I thought, Noon Jan. 20, 2009 can’t get here soon enough, since the rascal won’t be impeached, that’s when the 44th President of the United States is due to be sworn into office. Then, I’ll be able to breathe easy.
But now, I don’t think Mr. Bush feels like he has to hold on to power in order to see his aims achieved. I think his plan now, is to leave office, but before leaving office, provoking a military confrontation between this country and Iran.
That strategy has many outcomes. At home the tactic will freeze in place all the Democratic Party anti-war rhetoric, by replacing the 2003 unjust, illegal, and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq, with a 2008 shooting war, with another dangerous militant Islamic country as our target.
Presidential candidates Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Sen. Obama (and Sen. Hilary Clinton [D-N.Y.] if she’s still in the race when the provocation occurs) will get a 3:00 a.m. call on the Red Telephone in their bedrooms, to brief them on the incident, the U.S. proof that Iran is the guilty party, and advanced warning that The President has already launched the U.S. counter-attack.
Sen. McCain, of course, will cheer the policy and call for “more of the same” until they holler “Uncle.” But what will Sen. and presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama Jr. say and do? Even though Mr. Bush has absolutely no credibility in this subject area, whatsoever, and even though the circumstances surrounding this year’s upcoming military strike against Iran will be equally suspicious, what will Sen. Obama do?
The easiest thing for him to do, is to back the Bush gambit, thus tying his own hands to have to continue dealing with another unjust and immoral, Bush-provoked war against an Islamic country. That’s the easiest solution. Shoot first. Ask questions later. The American way,
The more difficult choice would be to insist on carefully examining any information used to justify a Bush-sponsored military assault against Iran, either by this country or by its Middle East surrogate, Israel, America’s 51st State, but if Sen. Obama seems to flinch at all, many White folks will consider him wanting, as far as executive leadership is concerned.
I think that way of thinking is wrong. I would prefer the kind of President who would think: ‘What would Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. do in this situation?’ rather than someone who might want to do what Gen. George Custer might do in the same situation.