The link below goes to a 12-page PDF document by Walid Phares that analyzes the two presidential candidates on how effective they would be in combating the progressive Islamization of America.As you can probably guess, McCain wins hands down. He understands much better than Obama what the enemy is, and how it can best be defeated.
I'm sure if you've been reading the IBA for longer than ten minutes, you know McCain is the one to vote for, at least if you're interested in the survival of the U.S. and the free world. But I'm posting it here to help you make a last-minute appeal to those who haven't decided. On the basis of pure survival against a real and growing threat, Phares makes some excellent arguments in favor of McCain, and Phares is a legitimate expert. Here's the PDF article:
3 comments:
Here are a couple of examples of Phares' analysis:
Are we at war or not?
Naturally McCain calls what we’re doing since 9/11 a War on Terror. On Terror or on something else, that is another subject, but the former POW sees it as a “war,” with a goal to attain and against a “foe.” Obama rarely calls it a war, often putting the blame on the United States, and he is vague regarding the “enemy.” In an article during the primaries, where my favorite candidate wasn’t McCain, I wrote that a US President who doesn’t see the enemy cannot defeat it. In the national election, I state even more emphatically that a candidate who does not admit that there is a war waged against our democracy can hardly defend us.
I would understand if Senator Obama proposes to end the War on Terror as a whole. I would obviously disagree that he can, but I would see his rationale of a unilateral pull out of the conflict which, by the way, could explain his platform of “sitting down” with actual foes such as Ahmadinejad, Assad and others. The problem remains that his position regarding the “what is” is still unclear. Is it that he doesn’t believe that we were attacked in a global manner, or is it that he believes that we provoked such a Jihadi campaign? Well, between Obama’s non recognition of the conflict and McCain’s basic attitude that we are at war, regardless of how to win it and when, I’d chose the latter.
Defining the Threat
In the last seven years, my main thesis in the defense of our democracy and of civil societies around the world recommended a clear cut identification of the threat. For if the latter was unidentified, unclear or subject to camouflage, the entire strategy of resistance to the menace would be ineffective and would put the homeland and allies under tremendous risks. President George Bush tried to identify the threat doctrine of al Qaeda, its allies and of the Iranian regime. But as of 2006, he retreated from educating the public on the foe’s world vision. In this election campaign, we have two candidates with different visions on the threat. Senator McCain gives it a name: Radical Islamic Terrorism (he recently used the term “Jihadists” one time); and Senator Obama who doesn’t identify the ideology of the terrorists. Naturally I would prefer the candidate who defines it, even if that definition needs to be improved, in this case, McCain.
"I think we are in a war against Islamic extremism, and I think that war is worldwide" John McCain
END OF STORY
Thanks for this excellent article by Walid Phares. I sent it to some of my friends who were about to vote Obama. Half of them decided on McCain after reading this chilling account.
Post a Comment