It is now clear that the purpose of Barack Obama’s Berlin speech was to portray himself as a Churchillian visionary, ready to lead the world in a new march toward universal liberty. But his record is one of a cynical politician who subordinates all values and priorities to partisanship and to accumulating political power.
Obama bagan the speech with a nod to far-left anti-patriots and world socialists in America and Europe by proclaiming himself “a citizen of the world.” He then tried to elevate himself to the status of statesman and defender of human liberty by invoking the memory of Berliners’ defiance in the face of the Soviet Communists’ 1948 attempt to subjugate West Berlin.
But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city’s mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. “There is only one possibility,” he said. “For us to stand together united until this battle is won. The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty. People of the world, lookat Berlin!”
People of the world — look at Berlin!
Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.
OK, Senator Obama, Look at Iraq! If you want us to see you as a freedom-loving visionary who can lead us into the future then why can’t you look at, and see the potential in Iraq? Iraqis and Americans fight and bleed and work and sweat, shoulder to shoulder, to transform a nation from tyranny to a gleaming example of individual liberty, in the heart of the Middle East, surrounded by millions of people who are enslaved by brutal dictatorships and theocracies.
When Senator Obama had the opportunity to be an idealistic leader in the cause of Liberty he deferred to the defeatist dogma of those in his party who were agitating for failure in Iraq, in order to vindicate their position, that “Bush’s war” was an irreversible disaster.
In January, 2007 President Bush announced the radical change in strategy and tactics, including military, political and economic initiatives and a temporary increase in troop strength that would become known as “The Surge.” Minutes later Senator Obama said in a TV interview:
I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.
A few days later he said:
We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.
In July, 2007 as the intense combat phase of the new strategies and initiatives was in full force, and the troops deserved unqualified support from the home front, Senator Obama appeared on The Today Show and said:
My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.
He has repeatedly tried his best prevent success in Iraq, first by introducing legislation that would have aborted the surge just as it began, and by twice voting to withdraw funds for the Iraq operation, even as US troops were engaged in daily combat. For eleven months he has promised that if elected he will withdraw all combat troops on a predetermined schedule, regardless of the consequences.
In several interviews this week, Obama grudgingly admitted that the surge strategies have brought amazing success. But astoundingly, he still stands in opposition! Why? Here are his reasons:
- Iraq doesn’t matter because it was Bush’s mistake and because Obama, as an Illinois State Senator, opposed the 2003 invasion, and opposed toppling Saddam Hussein.
- He laments spending money could have been spent elsewhere.
- Defeating the major Al Qaeda offensive in Iraq was “a distraction.” The Al Qaeda leaders who organized the 9-11 attacks were, at the time, camped in Afghanistan. So Obama can’t be “distracted” by any Al Qaeda fighters who aren’t in or near Afghanistan.