September 28th, 2009

Victory: Obama’s football metaphor

Obama has an interesting take on the idea of victory. Watch (and by the way, kudos to the journalist asking the question):

To hear this question and then go immediately to a sports metaphor is surpassingly strange, and deeply revealing on Obama’s part. He simply does not think in terms of military or geopolitical victory.

Repeat this question to 100 people on the street, and I would bet that almost all would at least understand that it’s about victory in a war or quasi-war (either a cold or hot war, but a war) and not sport. All Obama had to do to reject the premise of the question and show that he at least comprehended its basis was to say “we’re not at war with Iran, so I don’t want to talk about victory.” You could then either agree or disagree.

Obama is free to reject the concept of war (and therefore victory) over Iran, and I’m free to think it’s dangerous of him to do so.

To be clear: the subject matter here is the development of nuclear weapons by Iran. Iran is indisputably a country that by its own admission has been our sworn and determined enemy for thirty years, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike, and has sponsored terrorism around the world aimed at our friends. Iran repeatedly calls us the Great Satan, and the war that it has waged all these long years has been global, and both cold and hot (the latter through surrogates).

Iran’s present intent regarding the development of nuclear weaponry is a skirmish in that long-lasting ongoing conflict, a cold and sometimes hot war that threatens to become much more hot. But whatever you call it, it sure ain’t football—and no one is suggesting it might be. But it suits Obama’s purposes to suggest that they are.

[ADDENDUM: Meanwhile, in other news, Iran seeks victory.]

6 Responses to “Victory: Obama’s football metaphor”

  1. Occam's Beard Says:

    Follow-up question for the Messiah: does he consider the Iranian regime an enemy, or an opponent? Or neither?

    And a follow-up to that one: does the Messiah grasp that while it may take two to tango, it only takes one party to make two parties enemies of each other? If someone considers you an enemy, then you two are enemies, regardless of whether you think so or not.

  2. neo-neocon Says:

    Occam’s Beard: Obama has already answered that question in the video. He sees Iran as a country that sometimes presents problems to be solved.

  3. huxley Says:

    Back when I was debating the war on terror on the mailing list of my very liberal church, my church friends kept resorting to the metaphor of the schoolyard.

    My friends imagined that they were the adults while the US, Iraq, Al-Qaeda, Iran and radical Muslims were the unruly children on the schoolyard who were fighting.

    To my friends, there was no question of anyone being right or wrong, much less victory or defeat. It was just schoolkids fighting and it didn’t matter who started it.

    My friends were the wise adults and it was their task to separate the kids who were fighting, get them back into class, hand out some milk and cookies, and perhaps put the kids down for a nap.

  4. grackle Says:

    Obama doesn’t think in terms of victory. The problem is that the enemy thinks in no other terms.

  5. Artfldgr Says:

    To hear this question and then go immediately to a sports metaphor is surpassingly strange, and deeply revealing on Obama’s part. He simply does not think in terms of military or geopolitical victory

    we cant seem to stop trying to surmise his ends in the framework of liking america, wanted it to prosper, and so on and so forth.

    its so schizo… dual mindish… (which is what many have said it takes to live within a communist system).

    he does not want to win in iran, since that would beat russia (his home of choice), close down their weapons game (in middle east and africa) and then lower the level of crisis (peace brings low cost fuel, etc).

    he does see things as a win, or else he wouldnt have tried to win presidential position. he wouldnt be rewarding those that helped him.

    how about us trying to accept that what he is doing is willful, with thought, and its outcome is what he wants to happen as it facilitates his ends, and everything else is smoke and mirrors and camoflage.

    figuring him out is a lost proposition. we will never figure out such people as they suffer a thought process disorder, (almost) subclinical sociopathy.

    how can he be a black man and support the country that is removing black men? how can he be so supported by planned parenthood? when they disproportionately put their offices in minority neighborhoods (13 million of the 45 million abortions since 1970 have been black).

    how can he throw 20 year relationships and longer under the bus as just whats convenient to do? (and then watch the victims try to rationlize their position under the transmission).

    how could a person with compassion, fellow feeling, desire for best outcomes. desire to enslave the people into a form of communism lite (socialism) or worse?

    well, each feeling person, like huxely has to turn their feelings and sense of morals off, and they will see what he is doing is completely pragmatic. that it makes sense if you have read the real heavy ideological stuff (where they never expect to be read but by the few and which is often too fringe for useful idiots and even fellow travelers. heck most are following a cliff notes version that is all surface and results and short on methodology and tactics).

    how could hitler do what he did. he believed marx, read all of marx (including his work ont he jewish question), and then executed marxs ideas as he saw it. just as lenin and them did it the way they see it.. and castro, et al does theirs. and how Obama is doing his.

    there is no way to be in ayers type group of friends and have a conflicted view of things no matter how sane cogent and capable you were presenting it.

    we refuse to add up a huge number of things in front of us and each time we are about to put the tally down… we stop, reverse and try to tally it up from another angle, and as the result is about the same, then do it again.

    its called shopping for an answer you want, rather than accepting what is there. in germany, to accept what was there, was to accept being a part of it, so no one did till after when it was safe to do so.

    My friends were the wise adults and it was their task to separate the kids who were fighting, get them back into class, hand out some milk and cookies, and perhaps put the kids down for a nap.

    these kids are caught making molotov cocktails, not scrapping in the halls with their fists and got carried away. even worse, they are spending dwell time contemplating and preparing actions and plotting. they are scheming to aquire parts and supplies and they intend to use them.

    in this case, would the wise adults do the same thing with the kids?

    what if the kids were leopold and loeb, and the other kid was Bobby Franks?

  6. craig Says:

    When will the worlds leaders realise that fighting Terrorists with weapons will never work.The Terorists have a self belief that dying for their Religion or race is the ultimate sacrifice.
    A British army general has suggested meeting with the taliban for talks.With is what happened with the Northern Ireland problem.
    After decades of violence peace has now returned.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge