Posts Tagged ‘withdraw’

The Blame Game Masters: Iran’s Plan B Has Always Been Obama’s Plan A-Z. Consider How Obama Blames Bush For His Iraq Failure.

June 18, 2014

This is almost funny it’s so sad.  Iran has mastered how to defeat America by watching the master at defeating America at work: Barack Hussein Obama.

Analysis Iran maneuvers to win blame game if nuclear talks collapse
By Paul Richter
June 17, 2014, 4:46 AM|Reporting from Vienna

Iran’s nuclear negotiating team has come to this city hoping to seal a deal on its disputed nuclear program that will finally remove the international sanctions crippling its economy..

But just in case they don’t win that diplomatic victory, they are carefully positioning themselves to come away with a valuable second prize: a win in the ugly blame game that would follow the collapse of negotiations.

Tehran’s team wants to make sure that if its talks with six world powers collapse, many nations would conclude that Iran had been prepared to compromise and the obstacle was the maximalist demands of the United States and its hawkish Israeli and Persian Gulf allies.

The Iranians hope that if many countries come to that view the countries will begin to shed sanctions, allowing Tehran to sell its oil again, and to continue pursuing a nuclear program.

What happens to the sanctions, the world’s great point of leverage on Iran, “depends on who wins the blame game,” said Cliff Kupchan, a former State Department official who follows Iran for the Eurasia Group risk consulting firm.

Iran’s last president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, liked to project an image of thunder and fire. He didn’t look reasonable to the world audience, and didn’t much care.

But the smiling team of President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif seek to come across as reasonable representatives of a country that deserves more than pariah status.

In the run-up to this fifth round of talks, Iran’s nuclear negotiating team has put considerable effort into convincing the world that they are not the threat to a diplomatic solution to the 2-decade-old dispute over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

At a news conference last Saturday, Rouhani stressed Iran’s “goodwill and flexibility” and his hopes that a deal could still be wrapped up by the current deadline of July 20.

He seemed to signal that he was prepared to set aside Iran’s longstanding enmity with the United States, saying it might cooperate with the U.S. on the struggle against Sunni extremists in Iraq. Of course, as a responsible world power, any Iranian step would be consistent with “international law,” he emphasized.

Rouhani also argued that the sanctions are unraveling anyway. “Conditions will never go back to the past,” he said, in an apparent effort to convince oil-consuming nations they will soon be able to resume oil purchases.

Foreign Minister Zarif, meanwhile, has been building a case that Iran’s goals in the nuclear negotiations are reasonable and that the West’s are extreme.

In a Washington Post Op-Ed article last week, Zarif wrote that in 2005, he and Rouhani floated a plan to the West that would have allowed an international panel to regulate Iran’s nuclear program based on whether they thought it was peaceful. Instead, the George W. Bush administration demanded a halt to Iran’s uranium enrichment, undermining diplomacy and leading to a huge expansion of the Iranian nuclear program.

“They were mistaking our constructive engagement for weakness,” Zarif wrote.

He argued that “small but powerful constituencies” in the West have been calling for tough action against Iran by saying that the country is only a couple of months from having enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

In fact, Zarif wrote, Iran would still need “several years” of work to complete all the complex processes needed to turn the fuel into a bomb.

He pointed out that 2005 and 2012 National Intelligence Estimates, which represent the U.S. intelligence community consensus, concluded that Iran wasn’t trying to build a bomb.

The Iranian team is hoping that if the talks collapse, the defection of a few non-Western oil-importing nations, such as China, Turkey or India, might begin an accelerating unraveling of the sanctions.

Obama administration officials contend the sanctions have remained strong since the signing of an interim nuclear deal last November that eased some of the penalties on Iran.

Many countries remain wary of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, in part because of evidence that Iran for years was secretly expanding the program.

Yet the administration has some vulnerabilities in the public relations battle.

One is that many countries are increasingly skeptical of the U.S.’ heavy use of its powerful economic sanctions, which the White House this spring has imposed on Russia because of the dispute over Ukraine.

Many countries, including some in Europe, see Congress’ use of sanctions as excessive.

A senior administration official, asked in a briefing this week about Iran’s efforts to win over world opinion, may have bolstered its argument by warning that if Tehran didn’t yield in negotiations it would be clobbered by more sanctions legislation.

“If Iran does not feel it can make the choices that are necessary, I have no doubt that Congress will take action,” warned the official, who declined to be identified under administration ground rules.

We’ve never seen such a demagogue in the White House.  EVER.  This wicked man ran promising to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.”  Obama deceived and lied his way into office, pure and simple.  And dug in like a disease-bearing tick, he proceeded to “fundamentally transform America” by abandon any and all compromise and ramming home his Stalinist partisan ideology by whatever means necessary (usually Stalinist means through “executive orders” and simple lawlessness, mind you).

Everything was Bush’s fault.  And as that myth started to wear out, everything was the Republicans’ fault.  Obama is a one-trick pony, and the blame game is his one trick so he keeps doing it over and over and over again, ad nauseum.

Our enemies have taken notice of how pathologically weak and cynical Obama is.  And they have taken note of how to be like Obama and use rhetoric to delegitimize truth.

Obama demonized George Bush over EVERYTHING.  Except the way Bush won the Iraq War.  Obama didn’t demonize that; nope: he tried to take credit for it (as I documented in a recent article).  Joe Biden put it this way when Bush was long out of office and everything seemed to be going so, so well:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

Obama BOASTED in 2011 about how wonderfully HIS plan had worked to produce a stable Iraq:

“This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

Of course, NO ONE in the Pentagon had agreed with Obama’s plan.  They had BEGGED Obama to keep the sort of residual force in Iraq that John McCain had described America as needing to ensure true long-term security:

QUESTIONER: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years —

McCAIN: Maybe a hundred.

QUESTIONER: Is that — is that —

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea — we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans —

QUESTIONER: So that’s your policy?

McCAIN: — As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, then it’s fine with me. I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, and equipping and motivating people every single day.

Had we remained in Iraq the way we remained in South Korea and the way we remained in Japan and the way we remained in Europe, WE WOULDN’T BE WHERE WE ARE NOW.

And where we are now is a complete disaster, with Iraq collapsing to terrorists who are – get this – WORSE than al Qaeda while we beg our ENEMY Iran – which is responsible for one third of all American deaths and casualties suffered in Iraq – to help us because we are too weak to help ourselves now.

Let’s look at the timeline of what the military said was wise and what they said was idiotic.  Let’s start with Feb 2, 2009 only days after Obama took office:

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Obama was a fool.  He still IS a fool.  He will ALWAYS be a fool.

Note that we DID have an end-run around the just-as-stupid-as-Obama Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: just re-categorize the troops as “support troops.”  And there are PLENTY of such end runs if Obama had wanted them: for example, now, if Obama sends in ANY troops, he could provide cover for them by declaring them to be under the protections of embassy personnel.  He could have ALWAYS played such games had he wanted to.  The fact of the matter is, Obama wanted OUT of Iraq.  He cut and ran, just as we said.  He never TRIED to negotiate anything but his ass not hitting the door on his way out.

Note that back in 2009, literally one day after taking office (January 21), Obama was already IGNORING the superior knowledge and wisdom of the military and frankly even his own experts in his own cabinet that he had chosen.  And he imposed his idiot liberalism on America and now we’re paying for it and will pay far MORE for it soon.

Note that American military commanders ALWAYS assumed that Obama wouldn’t be such a fool as to do what he did, as this article underscores:

Despite Obama’s declarations Friday and the celebrations they have sparked on the liberal blogosphere, the Pentagon certainly seems to believe its forces may well be in Iraq after 2011. NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki reported on Friday that “military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated. And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years.” Some have suggested that such statements from the military are insubordination and contrary to Obama’s orders, but they could also reflect discussions between the White House and the Pentagon to which the public is not privy. Then there’s the monstrous U.S. embassy unveiled last month in Baghdad, the largest of any nation anywhere in the history of the planet and itself resembling a military base. Maintaining this fortified city will require a sizable armed U.S. presence in Baghdad and will regularly place U.S. diplomats in armed convoys that put Iraqi civilian lives in jeopardy.

The fact is this: the military demanded that we need to have at least 20,000 men as a residual force; Obama refused to listen to wisdom and ordered the military to draw up a new plan.  So the military scratched their heads at Obama’s arrogant idiocy and returned, asking for at least 10,000 troops.  Again, Obama refused common sense.  Obama was only going to allow a way-too-small force of 3,000.

And when Obama came to the Iraqi Prime Minister with that clearly-too-small-to-do-any-good number, Nouri al -Maliki understood that Obama had absolutely no intention of truly remaining as a stabilizing force in Iraq, that he was cutting and running, that America under Obama was useless, and that he would need to run to the Iranians instead of relying on the Americans.

In other words, Obama lost the war right then and there.  Obama – who wanted OUT – offered absolutely nothing whatsoever that al-Maliki could use, which made it easy for al-Maliki to refuse Obama’s “assistance.”  Hence no status of forces agreement.

Let’s go to a period – April 10, 2011 – after the Obama-King-Dumbass-of-the-Universe policy on Iraq is on the verge of being implemented:

WASHINGTON — Eight months shy of its deadline for pulling the last American soldier from Iraq and closing the door on an 8-year war, the Pentagon is having second thoughts.

Reluctant to say it publicly, officials fear a final pullout in December could create a security vacuum, offering an opportunity for power grabs by antagonists in an unresolved and simmering Arab-Kurd dispute, a weakened but still active al-Qaida or even an adventurous neighbor such as Iran.

The U.S. wants to keep perhaps several thousand troops in Iraq, not to engage in combat but to guard against an unraveling of a still-fragile peace. This was made clear during Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ visit Thursday and Friday in which he and the top U.S. commander in Iraq talked up the prospect of an extended U.S. stay.

Note how the media slants and distorts the story.  The military wasn’t having “second thoughts” about this idiotic move by Obama; THEY HAD ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

Also, note that they feared not only terrorists taking over Iraq, but the terrorist State of Iran taking over Iraq.  Under Obama’s wicked, demon-possessed stupidity, BOTH ARE NOW HAPPENING.

We learn – if we care about history rather than liberal’s fact-warping rhetoric – that:

Obama’s plan, as his advisors have often said, is subject to “conditions on the ground,” meaning it can be altered at any point between now and 2011. Underscoring this point, a spokesperson for New York Rep. John McHugh, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said on Friday that Obama “assured [McHugh] he will revisit the tempo of the withdrawal, or he will revisit the withdrawal plan if the situation on the ground dictates it. … The president assured him that there was a Plan B.”

In other words, Obama made the call.  He made the call AFTER Bush had secured victory.  And Obama foolishly made THE WRONG CALL.  And now the Middle East is melting down around us as a result of our Idiot-in-Chief.

Of course, we now know what Obama’s “PLan B” was: to blame Bush for Obama’s idiotic failures and count on the mainstream media to sell it.

As another example of how the Fool-in-Chief annihilated American influence in the Middle East, consider how Obama – after his “red line” debacle refused wisdom in sending aid to the pro-democratic rebels in Syria as John McCain and Lindsey Graham begged Obama to do a good two years plus ago.

We had a chance to topple Syrian dictator Assad AND install a government friendly to us, but Obama dithered too long and blew any chance we had.  And then – because Obama is a true fool – he involved Russia and Putin who takes Obama to school every time they negotiate.  And Putin maneuvered Obama into literally NEEDING Assad to remain in power to secure a WMD deal that Putin and Assad held over Obama’s head like a carrot while Assad murdered now well over 160,000 of his own people.  And while a vicious terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – ISIS – metastasized first across Syria and now into Iraq.

These are all just facts.  It is what happened.

But the way Obama – using his “Iran Plan B” strategy as per the top article above – has handled his debacle is to blame Bush for it.  If Bush hadn’t started the war, we wouldn’t be here.

You know, just like “If I didn’t have an opposable thumb, I wouldn’t have smashed my finger with this hammer.”

It is significant that BOTH of Barack Obama’s Secretaries of State – first Hillary Clinton and then John Kerry – voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq.  Because they looked at the clear and present danger that Iraq posed and they looked at the intelligence evidence that Bush was also looking at, and they came to the same decision that any rational human being would come to faced with such overwhelming evidence.

History records THAT as a fact as well.  It also records the fact that nearly sixty percent of DEMOCRATS in the United States Senate (29 of 50) supported Bush’s policy on Iraq in the form of something called “the Iraq WAR Resolution.”  That’s right, kids: “The Iraq WAR Resolution.”  Only to turn on him like treasonous dogs the moment that politics and unbelievable dishonesty and cynicism on the part of the Democrat Party entered into the picture.

Again, note that the two people who served as Obama’s Secretaries of State – Hillary Clinton and John Kerry – both voted “YES.”

Democrats are demonic, backstabbing traitors.  And if you give them power, they will undermine America every single time.

So Obama is trying to play games and blame pretty much all of the scandals that HIS administration is responsible for on Bush.  Like the VA scandal.

Now Obama’s – OBAMA’S – failed policy is coming home to roost.  And the man who just a few years ago was claiming total credit for Iraq is now using his army of media cockroaches to suggest that Bush so screwed up Iraq that it’s wrong to blame Obama.  BULLCRAP.

The fact of the matter is that George W. Bush secured victory in Iraq and handed off a safe, stable, secure nation to Barack Obama.  Barack Obama claimed credit for what he received and in so doing claimed ownership of it.  Had his policy not been so wrong, had he not so completely and so arrogantly IGNORED his wise military advisors, we would not be in this mess.

Don’t let Obama play his “Iranian strategy” on this one.

 

Advertisements

Obama Leaves Trinity 23 Years Too Late To Matter

June 2, 2008

Well, Barack Obama has left Trinity United Church. He has demonstrated that he is morally qualified to be president.

Oops. It’s 2008, and NOT 1985, when the move would have demonstrated that he actually had a functioning moral compass.

Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago was no more toxic last Sunday than it was over twenty-three years ago when a young Barack Obama first arrived. In his 1993 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” Barack Obama recalled a vivid description recalling his first meeting with Wright back in 1985. The Rev. Wright warned Barack Obama that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation. It’s not that Obama didn’t know about the radicalism at Trinity. It’s that he didn’t care.

Obama has said that Jeremiah Wright was instrumental in attracting him to the church he joined and has acknowledged he titled his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” after one of Wright’s sermons. One of Wright’s sermons, “The Audacity to Hope,” was so inspiring to Obama that he titled his book “The Audacity of Hope” after it. That message, by the way, contained the phrase, “white greed drives a world in need.”

So you can only imagine how Jeremiah Wright must have felt when Barack Obama threw him under the bus and denounced his views when they were the exact same views he had been preaching the day Obama came to the church 23 years before. Obama was fine with them before they became national public knowledge, and disapproving of them after. But Wright had been preaching the same message when he married Barack and Michelle Obama; he’d been preaching the same message when he baptized their daughters; he’d been preaching the same message when Barack Obama asked him to serve on his campaign’s spiritual leadership council. And in point of fact, he had been preaching the same message the day Barack Obama dis-invited him to speak at the event announcing his candidacy for president.

Of Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama, one of these men has been consistent his entire career; and that man has been Jeremiah Wright, not Barack Obama. Jeremiah Wright didn’t just begin saying this stuff at age 72; he’s been preaching the same message to the same choir for well over thirty years. Does anyone actually believe that Jeremiah Wright just discovered his message?

Wright spoke out to defend himself and the views he had held over his long career in ministry. He said that Obama was denouncing him because he was a politician, and was saying things that politicians say and doing what politicians do. Obama attacked the man who he had once so proudly endorsed as his spiritual mentor following that revelation, saying, “What I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing.”

Which is, of course, exactly the sort of thing that would make a posturing political demagogue angry.

With this prelude, let me interact with Barack Obama’s press conference announcing his withdrawal of membership from Trinity. But let me begin by asking the questions that pointedly WEREN’T asked at the press conference:

* How on earth can you possibly justify having remained in that church environment for 23 years?

* Are you suggesting that Jeremiah Wright just recently discovered these views, and in no way harbored them all along?

* How can you have endorsed Jeremiah Wright, calling him your spiritual adviser, your uncle, your mentor, your moral compass, and then disavow this man who has been preaching the same message all along? How are you not responsible for his teachings and views when you so completely endorsed the man for so many years? What about other friends and spiritual advisors you have similarly endorsed over a period of years, such as Rev. Michael Pfleger? What about Rev. Otis Moss, who you again endorsed this very day? He embraced Pfleger as a friend of Trinity, and then specifically thanked God for Pfleger’s hateful remarks immediately after he made them! How on earth can you claim not to in any way be responsible for these peoples’ views when you have endorsed the people who have been saying these things for years?

* Do you endorse Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan as your church has officially done? Why on earth would you remain in a church that would endorse such figures of hate and divisiveness?

* As an ostensible intellectual, are you completely ignorant of the teachings of the black liberation theology embraced by Trinity? Are you ignorant of where it derived from or what it represents? How do you – as a self-acknowledged intelligent man – justify sitting under the teaching of what is clearly a blatantly racist and anti-American theology?

Now let us look at Obama’s version of reality in his leaving Trinity Church as given in his prepared remarks:

We have many friends among the 8,000 congregants who attend there. We are proud of the extraordinary works that the church continues to perform throughout the community, to help the hungry, and the homeless and people in need of medical care.

I have tremendous regard for the great young pastor who has taken over – Rev. Moss – and continue to admire the work that Rev. Wright did in building up the church. But it’s clear that now that I’m a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity – including guest pastors – the remarks will be imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long held views, statements, and principles.

We obviously saw an example of that in the recent statements by Father Pfleger, who is someone I have known, who I consider a friend, who has done tremendous work in Chicago, but made offensive statements that had no place in our politics and in the pulpit; that unfairly mocked and characterized Senator Clinton in ways that I think are unacceptable.

It’s also clear that Rev. Moss and the Church had been suffering from all the tension my campaign has visited on them. We’ve had news organizations harassing members at their homes and their work places. We had reporters grabbing church bulletins and calling up the sick and the shut-in in an attempt to get news about the church. We’ve had news organizations scrutinizing Rev. Moss’s sermons and attempting to make political hay out of even the most innocuous or innocent remarks by him. That’s just not how people should have to operate in their church. It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace.

Barack Obama speaks of the politicization and news coverage of his church as though both he and the church are somehow victims. It is true that no president in recent memory has ever had his church become such an issue. But, in the words of Rolling Stone Magazine (which is liberal to its core):

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama’s life, or his politics. The senator “affirmed” his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a “sounding board” to “make sure I’m not losing myself in the hype and hoopla.” Both the title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright’s sermons. “If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from,” says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, “just look at Jeremiah Wright.”

The thing that makes Trinity United Church so incredibly relevant politically is because it is 1) such an intensely radical church environment, and 2) because Barack Obama is so intimately connected with a pastor who has been demonstrated to be a purveyor of anti-Americansism and racial hatred. You’re just not going to find anything like that in an examination of the church affiliations of John McCain, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and on and on. None of our presidents who have come before would ever have dreamed of joining such a radical church, or so deeply embracing such divisive pastors.

As I have pointed out before:

When Jeremiah Wright talked about “white greed” in his now-famous “Audacity of Hope” message, he was perfectly expounding on black liberation thought. When he claimed that white America deliberately created the AIDS virus as a genocide against blacks, he was accurately exegeting black liberation ideology of class based warfare against the oppressed black class. Or, expressed negatively, when he said that anti-crack cocaine penalties were instituted by racist legislators for the purpose of incarcerating as many blacks as possible, how was that in any way contrary to his central theological beliefs? When Wright denounced Israel as a Zionist state that imposed “injustice and … racism” on Palestinians, how was this not in perfect accord with his theology? When Wright railed against “AmeriKKKa” in his sermons, just how was that contrary to black liberation thought? And when Wright lectured American society that it deserved 9/11, was this in any way out of bounds with either the teachings of black liberation theologians or the Marxism from which they derived their message?

As for his “many friends among the 8,000 congregants who attend” at Trinity, is Barack Obama referring to those thousands of cheering congregants who gave the hate of Michael Pfleger a standing ovation, and who similarly rose to cheer the rants of Jeremiah Wright? Michael Pfleger, by the way, is not merely a “guest speaker,” but a regular speaker at Trinity. Was he referring to the Rev. Otis Moss, who called Pfleger a “brother beloved, he is a preacher par-excellence, he is a prophetic powerful pulpiteer” before his message and said “We thank God for the message, and we thank God for the messenger. We thank God for Father Michael Pfleger. We thank God for Father Mike” after the message? How on earth could Barack Obama continue to call Otis Moss a wonderful young pastor and speak of his tremendous regard for this man who so embraced and applauded anti-American hate and anti-white racism?

In the same message in which Pfleger mocked Hillary Clinton and spoke of her feeling that she was entitled to the presidency because she was white – and that many white Americans were crying with her – Pfleger also said, “Racism is still America’s greatest addiction. I also believe that America is the greatest sin against God.”

And I cannot help but watch and read Barack Obama’s statements – as well as the Democrat’s embrace of this man – with stunned amazement. He is not outraged by the statements themselves as much as he is offended that they have been broadcast and covered in a way harmful to his candidacy. There is simply an appalling lack of outrage over appallingly outrageous statements that we now know so thoroughly characterize the life and soul of his church.

Obama said, “I am not denouncing the church. I am not interested in people who want me to denounce the church because it’s not a church worthy of denouncing. And so if they’ve seen caricatures of the church and accept those caricatures despite my insistence that’s not what the church is about, then there’s not much I can do about it.”

Obama’s description of “caricatures” hearkens to his previous statements that his pastors’ views had been taken out of context in endless loops. But we now know that the views we have heard are neither caricatures or statements out of context: rather, Wright defended them one by one, and they accurately represent the pastor’s position. Furthermore, the church congregation that embraced these radical preachers wildly cheered and applauded all these terrible remarks – including the very worst ones. How one earth does one NOT find all the church worthy of denunciation?

And Obama said, “I have to say this was one I didn’t see coming. We knew there were going to be some things we didn’t see coming. This was one. I didn’t anticipate my fairly conventional Christian faith being subject to such challenge and such scrutiny,” said Obama. He said it has been months since he has been at the church, on Chicago’s South Side. “I did not anticipate my fairly conventional Christian faith being subjected to such…scrutiny.”

I ask, how can a candidate for the highest office in the world be so uncomprehending? How can he show such idiotic personal judgment? How can he even condemn these remarks when he sees them as “conventional”? There is no question that he is taking a whining tone here; it’s not that outright offensive vile hate was coming out of the church; it’s that he didn’t anticipate his “fairly” conventional Christian faith being subjective to scrutiny. He still doesn’t get it. He has said he disapproves of or disagrees with the remarks that now number in the dozens; but there is simply no demonstration even yet that he was genuinely offended by anything other than the attention these many statements of hate received.

Obama’s defenders have analogized the toxic environment of Trinity with the revelations of the sex abuse of priests in the Catholic Church. But there is no similarity, unless the priests in mass after mass shouted out that they were abusing young teenage boys as the crowds screamed and applauded their approval. The abuses occurred in secret, and their revelation brought outrage; the sermons of Jeremiah Wright (and now Michael Pfleger) occurred at the pulpit in the midst of a cheering congregation.

Similarly, Obama’s defenders have attempted to create a moral equivelence between Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger and John McCain and John Hagee and Rod Parsely. Again, come on! McCain barely knew these men. They weren’t his friends. They weren’t his “spiritual advisors.” They didn’t marry him or baptize his daughters. McCain didn’t write books named after their sermons. And McCain didn’t endorse them – as Barack Obama has specifically endorsed his growing list of radical reverends – they endorsed him. Only fools would accept such a ridiculous comparison.

And Obama’s defenders have said that a candidate for president ought to be able to hear divergent and even divisive views without having those views ascribed to that candidate. Obama himself said, “I do think that there is certainly a tradition in the African American church, but I think there’s a tradition in a lot of churches, to speak out about injustice, to speak out against issues like racism or sexism or economic inequality. And, you know, my hope would be that pastors who — well, let me put it this way. My hope would be that any presidential candidate can go to a church and hear a sermon and even hear some controversial statements without those views being imputed to them and being subject to the same exacting political tests that a presidential candidate or that presidential candidate’s statements would be.”

But then let all the people who hold this view go to a white supremacist church and listen to their views for 23 years. Let them bring their families into this environment, and let them say of the white supremacist church pastors what Obama has said of the radical pastors of his own church. You know that they would never do this, because they could not stomach the message. The point is that Obama – and these knee-jerk liberals who are defending him – do and have affirmed the radical, racist, anti-American message of Trinity United Church. Obama’s membership is no big deal to such people simply because don’t have a problem with the church’s teachings.

This is a church and a pastoral leadership affirmed by the church that has embraced the person and teachings of Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam. It is a church whose poison has repeatedly been demonstrated for everyone to see. And anyone who would tolerate such an environment for any length of time has no business of ever being a president of the United States.