The Spectator: "No, the only way to assess their position is to look at each man in the round, at what his general attitude is towards war and self-defence, aggression and appeasement, the values of the west and those of its enemies and – perhaps most crucially of all – the nature of the advisers and associates to whom he is listening. As I have said before, I do not trust McCain; I think his judgment is erratic and impetuous, and sometimes wrong. But on the big picture, he gets it. He will defend America and the free world whereas Obama will undermine them and aid their enemies.It's an excellent article, and you should read the rest.
Here’s why. McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America’s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor."
Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west’s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That’s why he believes in ‘soft power’ — diplomacy, aid, rectifying ‘grievances’ (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America’s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ‘cut investments in unproven missile defense systems’; he will ‘not weaponize space’; he will ‘slow our development of future combat systems’; and he will also ‘not develop nuclear weapons,’ pledging to seek ‘deep cuts’ in America’s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.
I'm still trying to figure out what exactly Biden meant when he told the crowd of Democrat fundraisers that they needed to stand behind Obama in the upcoming crisis, because his decision(s) would appear to be wrong. Did he mean Obama would cave to a threat, showing weakness before aggression, and embolden our enemies everywhere? That's certainly plausible, and it would mean Joe was asking them to stand behind Obama, because no one else would. Alternatively, was he saying that Obama would respond aggressively and recklessly to a situation, say by invading Pakistan, to show he's tough, and the fundraising group would be shocked and dismayed? Hope we don't have to find out...
Another cross-post from DLMSY.