Panzerfahrtsverlangen

The American Spectator - Obama’s Tank Ride

Barack Obama’s handlers had obviously wanted the candidate’s appearance in Germany to invoke comparisons to presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Yet their original choice of Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate — venue of Reagan’s historic 1987 “tear down this wall” speech — was rejected by Germans who noted that Obama is merely a candidate, rather than an actual president, and objected to the Democrat’s appropriation of their symbol of national unity for a political campaign event.

Foiled in their original quest for an iconic backdrop, Team Obama accepted as an alternative speech location the plaza adjoining the Siegessaule (”Victory Column”) about a mile west of the Brandenburg Gate. Alas for the apostles of Hope, the symbolism of this site has proven “problematic,” as a spokesman for Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats told Der Spiegel.
…
In the worst-case scenario — a gaffe or blunder that exposes the Democrat to criticism or ridicule — this overseas odyssey could go down in history as Obama’s equivalent of that fateful 1988 tank ride by Michael Dukakis.

While Obama has far more charm than Dukakis, what made the image of Dukakis in that tank so potent was that it showed the Democrat straining to seem what he so obviously was not — a credible candidate for Commander-in-Chief. It was the transparent phoniness of the gesture that hurt.

They want their tank ride, and they want it now! Must have TANK RIDE!!! TANK RIDE!!! .. We wantssssss it, yes, my Preciousssssssssss …. Tank Ride.

Related Posts

    No related posts

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator on 22 Jul 2008 at 12:26 am

    Obama Warns Of “Fighting The Last War”…

    Democrat Barack Obama warned Wednesday about the danger of “fighting the last war” as he pledged to …

Comments

  1. Alon Levy wrote:

    I’m not sure how seriously to take an article that, in order to make Obama look weak, quotes three pundits’ view of what must happen to him, and dwells on irrelevant history. There’s exactly one independent fact offered in the article - namely, Obama’s lead in the polls. The article describes it as “narrow to nonexistent”; an equally biased article on The American Progress would describe it as “steady.”

    It’s fantasy masquerading as serious analysis. It’s as if Ezra Klein wrote an article for TAP noting how McCain’s weakness of economic issues makes the Republican Party look ridiculous, citing articles by Paul Krugman and Dean Baker.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 4:26 pm

  2. Redhand wrote:

    I think the days are long gone (at least 7.5 years :-( when one could look at the Repubs and say they are better stewards of U.S. national security than those effete, anti-war Dems. On Bush’s watch we’ve had the worst attack on U.S. soil since the British burned the White House (and make no mistake about it, the Bush Administration dropped the ball big-time letting this happen). We’ve had a tragically mismanaged war against the wrong parties that’s resulted in even more casualties than the 9/11 attacks. And, we’ve barely weathered an assault on our civil liberties– torture, redention, incarceration without legal review, warrentless surveillance, ad nausiam –that future generations will see as the closest America has ever come to Hitler’s infamous “Enabling Act.”

    Even if Obama decided to ride a tank, he could not possibly look worse than our swaggering “mission accomplished” flight-suited numb-nuts President on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Now that truly a sight worthy of ridicule.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 5:33 pm

  3. a former european wrote:

    Redhand, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Its stuff like that that ALMOST makes me rethink my support of Obama (i.e. if the Leftburgers love him so much, am I joining the kook brigades by supporting him also?).

    George Bush has been a disaster as president for numerous reasons: unchecked growth of govt and govt spending, lack of any progress on border security or illegal immigration, pork-barrel politics, failure to develop a sound energy policy, failure to push for education reform, and a gross mis-handling of the Iraq Counterinsurgency phase of the war, among others.

    Blaming Bush for 9/11, however, is just ridiculous. If you can’t keep a sense of perspective and reality, one of the hallmarks of Bush Derangement Syndrome, then you just lose credibility with everyone but the tinfoil helmet demographic.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 9:56 pm

  4. Redhand wrote:

    Blaming Bush for 9/11, however, is just ridiculous. If you can’t keep a sense of perspective and reality, one of the hallmarks of Bush Derangement Syndrome, then you just lose credibility with everyone but the tinfoil helmet demographic.

    I do think Bush was negligent in responding to intelligence reports predicting an Al-Q attack on the US in August 2001. According to Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Solution:

    The CIA tried to warn Bush about the threat from Al Qaida with the hope that presidential action could energize government agencies and head off the attack. On Aug. 6, 2001, the CIA sent analysts to Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, to brief him and deliver a report entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.”
    Bush was not pleased by the intrusion. He glared at the CIA briefer and snapped, “All right, you’ve covered your ass.”

    I also have a sore spot about Condi Rice’s claim that what happened on 9/11 was beyond the realm of imagination:

    On May 15, 2002, CBS News reported that President Bush had been warned about possible al Qaeda hijackings on August 6, 2001. The Washington Post reported the story on May 16. “President Bush and his top advisers were informed by the CIA early last August that terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden had discussed the possibility of hijacking airplanes,” the paper reported. “White House spokesman Ari Fleischer confirmed that Bush had been told about the possibility of hijackings but he declined to say what had been revealed during his intelligence briefings.” On May 16, Rice held a press briefing; she insisted that no one could have envisioned the events of September 11. “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people…would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,” Rice said.

    Rice’s remark was surpassingly odd. No one could have predicted use of a hijacked plane as a missile? In fact, ever since September 11, news reports had mentioned earlier warnings about that very sort of activity. On May 18, 2002, the Post’s Bob Woodward and Dan Eggen challenged Rice’s statement. After quoting Rice’s remark, they outlined some previous warnings:

    WOODWARD AND EGGEN: But a 1999 report prepared for the National Intelligence Council, an affiliate of the CIA, warned that terrorists associated with bin Laden might hijack an airplane and crash it into the Pentagon, White House or CIA headquarters.
    The report recounts well-known case studies of similar plots, including a 1995 plan by al Qaeda operatives to hijack and crash a dozen U.S. airliners in the South Pacific and pilot a light aircraft into Langley.

    “Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House,” the September 1999 report said.

    I’d have earned my tinfoil hat if I’d claimed Bush knew about the 9/11 plan and let it happen to launch the GWOT. But to pretend that this Administration wasn’t seriously negligent in its Al-Q threat assessments before 9/11: Nah. To that extent I do hold Bush responsible: Hey, it happened on his watch.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 12:09 am

  5. John the Marine wrote:

    Redhand,
    Don’t worry you’ve earned your tinfoil hat with out a doubt. Bush has screwed up (see 3. AFE) their is no question. However, blaming the U.S.’s lack of preparedness for 911 soley on Bush neglects the fact that the previous adminastration wasn’t exactly aces in this department either. Not to mention that “W” had been in office only 8 months.

    Also, out of curiosity what have the Democrats (the ohter incompitent & corrupt party) done, or will do, to enhance security? Do, you really beleive that Mr. Change and Hope is going to make America more secure? What, do you think that he is going to smile at the world while singing kumbya with the UN Chior and it is going alright? Liberals, (or Progressive whatever it is you guys call yourselfs these days) I’ll never understand you.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 6:45 am

  6. David C. wrote:

    We’ve had a tragically mismanaged war against the wrong parties /blockquote>

    Mismanaged yes, wrong parties no. Are Al Qaeda and the Taliban the wrong parties? I assume you are talking about Iraq, but even so your statement is a gross exaggeration.

    And, we’ve barely weathered an assault on our civil liberties– torture, redention, incarceration without legal review, warrentless surveillance, ad nausiam –that future generations will see as the closest America has ever come to Hitler’s infamous “Enabling Act.”

    This is hysterical BDS, and ignores the behavior or other U.S. administrations in wartime. Remember how Bush rounded up Arab-Americans and put them in special camps? Oh wait, he didn’t. Exactly one U.S. citizen — Padilla — was deprived of his constitutional rights, and the administration has submitted to court rulings overturning its actions. Making comparisons to dictatorship or Hitler is just plain crazy. Anyone who thinks the patriot act is any signficant way comparable to the enabling act is either historically ignorant, a complete nut, or both. There has been no “assault on civil liberties” whatsoever. None, zero. Name me one right that you’ve lost during the Bush administration. And I don’t mean the “right” to carry a pocketknife onto an airliner, I mean actual constitutional rights.

    And you do know that rendition was employed by the Clinton administration, rignt?

    Even if Obama decided to ride a tank, he could not possibly look worse than our swaggering “mission accomplished” flight-suited numb-nuts President on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Now that truly a sight worthy of ridicule.

    Of course he could. Things can always be worse.

    if the Leftburgers love him so much, am I joining the kook brigades by supporting him also?).

    No, but you are allying with them. It will be interesting to see if BDS types return to sanity after Bush is gone. But I wouldn’t count on it.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 7:34 am

  7. Redhand wrote:

    However, blaming the U.S.’s lack of preparedness for 911 soley on Bush neglects the fact that the previous adminastration wasn’t exactly aces in this department either. Not to mention that “W” had been in office only 8 months.

    John, John, please notice that I didn’t “blame” 9/11 “solely” on Bush. And what happened is “OK” because “W” had “only been in office eight months”? What kind of standard is that?!

    As a former conservative Republican who steadfastly believed during the Cold War that “The Democrats simply can’t be trusted with the conduct of U.S. foreign policy,” I’ve certainly changed my views (and earned a tinfoil hat in your estimation). However, the conduct of the Bush Administration and its blank check, no-questions-asked Republican Congress during his first six years convinces me that unchecked pre-emptive wars and unilateralism are even worse threats to US security than anything the Democrats could do.

    Let me ask you something, John. Was Bush ‘41 “singing kumbya with the UN Chior” when, unlike his idiot son, he assembled a powerful UN-sanctioned coalition to kick Saddam out of Kuwait? I trust Obama to use similar instincts in handling foreign policy in his Administration. I don’t think he’s a closet disarmer or weak sister like Jimmy Peanut. I do think he’s an incomparably better choice in foreign policy and military affairs than John “the Iraq-Pakistan Border” McCain.

    Hell, are you really willing to vote for somebody who’s so confused he can’t even get basic geographic facts right? Would you give Obama the same pass if he made such an embarassing verbal slip?

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 8:01 am

  8. Stephen wrote:

    An eight-month Mulligan on a matter of national security is a bit much. Certainly any Republican, JTM for instance, never would extend such benefit of the doubt to a Dem president. (Nor should he be expected to.)

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 9:32 am

  9. David C. wrote:

    that unchecked pre-emptive wars

    We’ve had exactly one preemptive war during the Bush administration. And that war was against a country that was an open enemy of the U.S. that we were already regularly dropping bombs on. So your fear of “unchecked preemptive wars” is just a bit overblown, to say the least.

    and unilateralism

    What unilateralism? Just because Bush wasn’t able to build as large a coalition as his father, doesn’t make his foreign policy unilateral. The U.S. has worked with its allies in numerous ways throughout the Bush administration.

    even worse threats to US security than anything the Democrats could do.

    We are more secure with Saddam gone, not less — just as we’d be more secure with the Iranian or North Korean regimes gone. (Not that I’m advocating attacking them). The whole idea of preemptive war is to eliminate a potential threat before it gets around to hitting you.

    I trust Obama to use similar instincts in handling foreign policy in his Administration. I don’t think he’s a closet disarmer or weak sister like Jimmy Peanut.

    Why? He’s totally inexperienced and gives every indication of being as naive and weak on foreign policy as Carter. I think theres no question that our enemies greatly prefer having Obama in the White House as opposed to McCain, who they might have some respect and fear of.

    Hell, are you really willing to vote for somebody who’s so confused he can’t even get basic geographic facts right? Would you give Obama the same pass if he made such an embarassing verbal slip?

    Obama’s made all sorts of embarrassing verbal slips. Maybe you haven’t noticed?

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 9:40 am

  10. canuckistani wrote:

    Isn’t the standard for Presidents supposed to be “ready on day 1″?
    Yeah, Obama has made a few verbal slips. What’s disturbing is the fact that McCain keeps repeating his gaffes after being corrected on matters of foreign policy, which is supposed to be his strong suit.
    If I were to go around telling people I was an expert on cars, and talked about 2008 AMC Gremlins and Ford Camaros, how many times could I make the same mistakes before people started suspecting I was full of s**t?

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 10:03 am

  11. David C. wrote:

    An eight-month Mulligan on a matter of national security is a bit much.

    The Bush administration bears some blame for 9/11, but its difficult to see what exactly it could have done to prevent it. It’s impossible to completely protect the U.S. against acts of terrorism by people willing to commit suicide, and who are willing to strike any civilian target. And if Bush gets blame for 9/11, he also gets credit for preventing any subsequent attacks.

    It’s interesting how the same people who want to bash Bush for 9/11, are the same people who like to downplay the threat of terrorism, and are against most measures that actually have a chance to protect the country. They don’t like the patriot act, don’t like preemptive strikes against enemy states, don’t like rendition, are excessively concerned with the “rights” and treatment of terrorist suspects and even known terrorists, don’t like our government doing anything in secret, and generally want to cripple our intelligence agencies with legal restrictions. Most of the people who fall into these categories will, of course, be voting for Obama.

    Unfortunately it is going to take another major attack on the U.S. for many people to wake up, remember what it was like after 9/11, and stop their whining and sniveling about every effort taken to protect the country. There’s a reason attacking Iraq was so popular even among Democrats, and it wasn’t because Bush mislead them. It was because after 9/11, most of mainstream America realized that we couldn’t just keep sitting back and waiting for the next attack — that we needed to actively go after our enemies and eliminate them before they got around to attacking us. After the WMD intelligence failure, the mismanagement of the Iraq War, and no more major attacks on the U.S., most people have grown complacent and have forgotten what they knew after 9/11. Some of them, like Obama, never knew it at all.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 10:07 am

  12. Stephen wrote:

    David, AFE,

    I’m making a rather narrow point above, in reply to AFE. And, essentially, David concurs.

    And that point is that it is not merely BDS to hold Bush accountable for the 9/11 attacks. They happened on his watch. We’ve all heard about the famous August PDB. Etc. If he and his team had been at the top of their game, if they had turned in an “A” performance, they could have forestalled the attacks. Sure, no Republican wants to hold their guy to an “A” standard; a Dem probably wouldn’t either.

    But it’s a completely sane, if strict & perhaps partisan, view to say that Bush could have done better to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

    Strawman alert: no one is talking about “stopping all attacks anywhere at any time by any terrorist,” but specifically about 9/11, its preventability, and Bush’s performance on that matter.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 10:18 am

  13. David C. wrote:

    And that point is that it is not merely BDS to hold Bush accountable for the 9/11 attacks. They happened on his watch. We’ve all heard about the famous August PDB. Etc. If he and his team had been at the top of their game, if they had turned in an “A” performance, they could have forestalled the attacks. Sure, no Republican wants to hold their guy to an “A” standard; a Dem probably wouldn’t either.

    I basically agree with that, yes, except that I think that preventing well-planned and executed terrorist attacks like 9/11, is extremely difficult, and is as much dependent on good luck as anything else. So although I agree that Bush gets blame because he was in charge when it happens, I disagree that it was likely that he could have prevented it.

    Strawman alert: no one is talking about “stopping all attacks anywhere at any time by any terrorist,” but specifically about 9/11, its preventability, and Bush’s performance on that matter.

    True, but I think the point that we can’t really prevent all terrorist attacks is still highly relevant. I have read all sorts of ficitional accounts of terrorist attacks on the U.S. using many different methods. Well before 9/11, one Tom Clancy novel had an attack using airliners. But if people had suggested that it was really going to happen, most wouldn’t have taken it seriously. The U.S. is a big open country that is very vulnerable to terrorist attack. It is extremely unlikely that the U.S. will be ready for any given method, and much more likely that we will have to react in the aftermath of an attack.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 10:44 am

  14. a former european wrote:

    Stephen, to the extent you are saying Bush could have done better with terrorism preparadness, I will agree. This kind of point, however, is very difficult to analyze because it is impossible for anyone to remove from themselves the advantage of hindsight.

    In a post-9/11 world, look how much argument is still occurring over whether certain security measures should have been implemented, like the Patriot Act. Can you imagine the hue and cry if Bush had proposed the Patriot Act PRIOR to 9/11?

    In WWII, Roosevelt took a lot of criticism for US military unpreparadness allowing Pearl Harbor to occur. With the benefit of hindsight, it was very easy for scholars, pundits, and historians to reveal the “obvious” clues which had been overlooked at the time. While no fan of FDR, I always felt he got a bum rap on that issue. While no fan of Bush, I must, in fairness, say I think he is taking unfair heat on 9/11 as well.

    Since I’m being so fair-minded and all, let me say it is entirely inappropriate to compare Obama to Jimmah Cahtuh, the worst President in my lifetime. While Obama’s inexperience in certain areas is cause for concern, I would much prefer an unknown quantity to a proven jerk like McCain, or a proven catastrophe, like Carter.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 4:23 pm

  15. Alon Levy wrote:

    It will be interesting to see if BDS types return to sanity after Bush is gone. But I wouldn’t count on it.

    I would, provided Obama wins. Very few liberals appreciated the way the Democrats handled Iraq after the midterm election, or the way Obama caved on wiretapping earlier this month. Once Obama starts governing, they’ll find reasons to dump him on the grounds that he’s too conservative. Then, when he does something unpopular, they’ll convince themselves his approval rate would be higher if only he didn’t compromise so much.

    In a post-9/11 world, look how much argument is still occurring over whether certain security measures should have been implemented, like the Patriot Act. Can you imagine the hue and cry if Bush had proposed the Patriot Act PRIOR to 9/11?

    The Patriot Act was completely unnecessary. The obvious comparison is to British counterterrorism efforts, which have foiled a great number of attacks. In Britain, security forces had to get a warrant from an ordinary court for every single wiretap, and had to build prosecutable cases before acting. They treated these cases just like they would the IRA, or like the FBI would dangerous mafia bosses who controlled entire cities.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 7:17 pm

  16. John the Marine wrote:

    Redhand,
    First things first:

    I don’t think he’s a closet disarmer or weak sister like Jimmy Peanut.

    Priceless, “jimmy Peanut” I may use this in the future.

    Let me ask you something, John. Was Bush ‘41 “singing kumbya with the UN Chior” when, unlike his idiot son, he assembled a powerful UN-sanctioned coalition to kick Saddam out of Kuwait?

    No, different time and place.

    I trust Obama to use similar instincts in handling foreign policy in his Administration. I don’t think he’s a closet disarmer or weak sister

    I do think he is a weak sister, pinko whatever.

    I do think he’s an incomparably better choice in foreign policy and military affairs than John “the Iraq-Pakistan Border” McCain.

    Opinions vary, I’m not thrilled with McCain and probably will be holding my nose as I pull the lever.

    Certainly any Republican, JTM for instance, never would extend such benefit of the doubt to a Dem president.

    I haven’t been a member of the GOP since December of 2004. The reason why? Because Bush and the GOP Congress were/are corrupt, liberal lite, big government liars who didn’t deserve my support.

    An eight-month Mulligan on a matter of national security is a bit much.

    Absolutely, and an 8 year mulligan for Clinton is even more so,”a bit much”. Furthermore to excuse Bubba and his crack team of their huge share of responsibilityis regarding national security and terrorism in the early part of this decade is intelectually dishonest.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 7:50 am

« Dabbagh escapes from CENTCOM!
The Iraq-Pakistan Border »