An interesting analysis from David Horowitz

As you are aware, Daffy Duck has been busy writing love letters to Østupid. The latest missive is apparently quite interesting, especially considering its timing, which is the point that is being made by David Horowitz.

You do not have to be a Middle East expert to understand that Arabs like strong leaders and not weak ones, and as would be suspected, Daffy Duck is out to exploit any perceived weaknesses in the UN-NATO alliance with regard to the enforcing of the no-fly zone. Could it be that Daffy Duck perceives the Østupid weakness and that is why he is writing his love letters?

The article in Front Page magazine is well worth reading to get some insight on this situation, especially as to how Østupid is being perceived as a weak leader by M.E. countries.

This is the same point that I have made from the time I started to read things about Østupid, that his inability to make decisions and his attitudes will be perceived as weaknesses by our enemies within Islam. It is also the point that I have made about Daffy Duck summing up the situation and seeing an opportunity that can be exploited (by once again sponsoring terrorism in the world). Make no mistake about it, Daffy Duck is a known terrorist and in the past he has sponsored others involved in terrorism. A good example is his sponsoring of the IRA.

When George Bush was President and invaded Iraq (even though a lot of us were against the action), one of the side benefits had been bringing Daffy Duck to heel. Daffy realized that if he did not change then he would be next. It was Moussa Khoussa who did all of the negotiations at that stage, including the giving up and destruction of nuclear weapons. Daffy was afraid of GWB, but he is not afraid of Østupid.

By the same token, I suspect that these same enemies in the M.E. had perceived Slick Willy as a weak President, and that the USA had been weakened during the Clinton presidency. I am guessing about this, but I suspect that when Slick Willy did not go after John Doe #2, who was involved in the bombing of the Murrah building in Oaklahoma City, that this sent signals to the enemy that they could get away with further action.

This is why you will find that when I sum up a candidate for the position of POTUS I am also looking at foreign policy weaknesses and strengths. Some potential candidates would be very bad. Any that want isolationism with regard to foreign policy need to rethink their strategies. They need to portray themselves as strong, not weak like Jimmah Carter. 

One of the potential candidates that I perceive to have the same bad instincts as Jimmah Carter is Mike Huckabee. What concerns me about Huckabee is that he is a pastor. This is a problem on several levels, but the one I am concerned about is the possibility of following in Carter’s footsteps and not being able to perceive the difference between a Christian pastor and an Imam. (I refuse to call them clerics).  From the snippets that I have seen of Huckabee, he seems to have a bit of a love affair with Islam. He seems to be soft on Islam (I could be wrong). Jimmah made blunders in how he perceived Khomenei because he saw Khomenei as a “man of God”.  It was simply not true. Well I fear that Huckabee would have that same lack of sense.  The USA does not need a POTUS like that. This is why I really think that Huckabee should stick to his program on TV and not make another run to be POTUS.


Comments are closed.