The manure Barack is shoveling: Part 2

Previous Posts:
Barack knock
Michelle Obama: "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country."
Did I mischaracterize Michelle Obama?
The manure Barack is shoveling: Part 1 - limited love for America; unlimited love for (fantasy) ideals

Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.
---Pope Benedict XVI

"I'm going to back Obama [...] he as a symbol has really excited people, and he's definitely confusing to everyone who really hates America for hating, you know, Muslims [...] I can't wait to see what he stands for."
---Actress Susan Sarandon, Mid-February, 2008

Barack, himself, in 2004, didn't believe he would "know what he was doing" enough to run for President in 2008. This explains why Barack adopts liberal trope, point by point by point by point, all the way down the menu of issues. Barack doesn't feel confident departing liberal orthodoxy on any issue.


Barack is not ready. Like the pretty girl who never has to grow as a person, Barack's looks and charisma may forever stunt his development as a thinker. We shall see. The main point, now: Barack is not ready. He is dangerously not ready.

One example was Barack's spur of the moment debate promise to talk to the world's worst dictators. Worse than the promise was Barack's post debate reaction: rather than tamp down his debate statement - as his aides were trying to do, and were urging him to do - Barack, over the ensuing days and weeks, doubled down. Paul Mirengoff, of Powerlineblog, covers a subsequent debate:

Obama eventually won this [debate panderfest] by promising personally to talk to Raul[Castro], Ahmadinejad, etc. without precondition. He did assure us, however, that he would first prepare for these meetings.

Clinton suggested that bestowing a presidential visit on the world's worst regimes without first getting something in return might not be particularly shrewd. Obama was having none of it. That might have made sense in the old days, he said. However, now that President Bush has turned the world so decisively against us, it would smack of "arrogance" to expect anything from Raul Castro or Ahmadinejad before rushing off to talk to them.

First:
Pres. Bush has not turned the world decisively against us. This claim is either 1) naive or 2) manure. Make your choice.

Second:
Barack openly admitted (I will prepare for those meetings) he doesn't know what's going on in Cuba or Iran. Why else would he wish to talk with Castro or Ahmadinejad? Their policies and beliefs are an open book. That Barack wishes to speak with them is tacit admission he has not read the already opened book.

Third, and most important:
Here's why you don't talk to oppressive dictators: our national policy is to encourage dissenters inside the oppressive dictators' nations.

A U.S. Presidential meeting further legitimizes a dictator inside his own country. That U.S. President thus discourages the success of internal dissenters who are risking their lives to oppose the dictator.

This is not to say a U.S. President should NEVER meet with an oppressive dictator. Rather, a U.S. President should leave that meeting with enough gained value to offset the resulting discouragement of internal dissent inside the dictator’s country.

The levels of oppression inside Cuba, Iran, and N. Korea do not seem to have registered with Barack. He seems to think oppression is what happens when the media accurately quote Michelle.

This is what spontaneous internal dissent looks like in Iran. From Pajamas Media, do consider reading it all, and looking at the video:

It happens every day on the streets of Tehran: a police squad grabbed a young woman for dressing immodestly. But this time, the young woman fought back, and a crowd defended her and attacked the police. Thanks to cell phone video, the Internet, and brave Iranian citizen reporters, Ardeshir Arian is able to tell the story.

Over 300 Iranians, independently shopping at a mall, spontaneously joined together to successfully attack the Iraqi police who were trying to arrest a young woman for dressing immodestly. They chanted and/or cried out the following:

“You have put us on since 1979 until now”

“We do not want the Islamic regime”

“A revolution is happening”

“How many people do you think you can kill?”

Do we want Barack Obama to legitimize Ahmadinejad at the expense of protestors who spontaneously attack Iranian police?

Do we really want a POTUS who, rather than back away from a heat of the moment debate comment, instead (petulantly? politically strategically?) doubles down
1) in favor of Ahmadinejad, and
2) against the interests of brave Iranians who risked their lives to oppose police?

BTW, after one Iranian policeman was beaten by the crowd, and after other Iranian Police ran away, the police later came back in force, and made at least a dozen arrests(level of brutality unknown to us) in the shopping mall area.