Useful Idiot

Okay, you and I already know Barack Obama is a useful idiot to pretty much any tinpot dictator around the world. Here is a great PowerLine entry regarding just that. And, of course, the usual New York Times whitewash of it.

This past Sunday the New York Times reported that in 1983, as a Columbia undergraduate, Barack Obama was among the useful idiots expressing high-minded disparagement of Reagan's defense policies. That's not exactly how the Times puts it, because reporters William Broad and David Sanger fail to supply the missing historical context that Charen's book provides, and perhaps because the Times itself figures prominently among the useful idiots chronicled by Charen.

This is what we as Americans have foisted upon ourselves. A 60s hippie/radical/anti-America type bent on weakening our country by any means possible.

JASmius adds: There's one little detail that Brother Trunk left out:

The Times article reports on Obama's 1983 article Breaking the war mentality. The Times notes that in the article Obama railed against discussions of "first-versus second-strike capabilities" that "suit the military-industrial interests" with their "billion-dollar erector sets," and agitated for the elimination of global arsenals holding tens of thousands of deadly warheads.

The Times chooses to portray Obama's 1983 article as the early expression of his continuing pursuit of "a nuclear free world."

President Reagan had the same ostensible goal, as a matter of fact.  He said so on many occasions.  The difference between Dutch and Judas Obamiot is twofold: Reagan knew how to attain a "nuclear free world" (or as close a fascimile as practical) because (1) he recognized who the enemy was; and (2) he understood that enemy had to be removed before the ultimate goal could be reached.  And he did so without firing a shot.

Barack Obama, being ideologically sympathetic with that era's enemy as well as our current ones, sees America as the enemy standing in the way of "peace" and is consequently waging a war against our own country from the inside.  Not in the hopes that his friends in Tehran, Damascus, Caracas, Pyongyang, Moscow, and Beijing will follow suit, but in the hopes that those friends will "cut us down to size" either by attrition or by open, direct, frontal attack.

He'd probably prefer the former, but I don't think in his (morally) black, scheming, flinty heart he'd mind the latter too terribly much.  After all, an aspiring dictator can't have too many "crises" to exploit.