Does the article talk about his preacher?
No Mord. Mainly the interview circle around Obamas qualification as the first demagoge since the 1930's.
I have translated the whole interview with bablefish. I hope you are able to understand it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US election campaign
"Obama, first Demagoge since the 30's-years"
Iran must be bombed, preventive wars is meaningful, Barack Obama leads an election campaign with cheap cheats. Each statement of Norman Podhoretz, a leading thinker of the "Neocons", has explosiveness. With WORLD ON-LINE ONE he spoke about the US election campaign, democracy in the Near East and an atomic impact against Iran.
WORLD ON-LINE ONE: Mr. Podhoretz, who will become the next American president ?
Norman Podhoretz: If I knew! I was in former times completely good to predict the exit of presidency elections – however this time am really heavy it. If you force me to set on a candidate I would say: John McCain.
WORLD ON-LINE ONE: Not Obama?
Podhoretz: I believe, Barack Obama is the first Demagoge in the American policy since the thirties. „Demagoge“ is a word, which is applied rarely to him, but it meets exactly. Demagoges appeal to the fears, to the ambition of the communities, which they represent. Just does Obama. He is frequently criticized, because he is so vague. Those, which practice this criticism, do not understand that straight that constitutes its charm! The people do not want to hear a plan of point of ten of Obama to the health reform. They would fall asleep anyway thereby. Instead it talks incessantly about „change“ and about „hope“, a cheap trick – however it functioned.
WORLD ON-LINE ONE: How far will Obama come in your opinion?
Podhoretz: That is to be prophesied not possibly. But I do not believe actually nevertheless that he wins the choice. Up to now this Demagogen everything is into the lap pleases, but as soon as it will speak seriously – as soon as it before a public must, which is not on its side –, its charm will fade.
WORLD ON-LINE ONE: In its new book „the fourth world war“ you forecast that the next American president, whoever he may be will adhere to „“ the Bush doctrine, simply because it the conditions of history correspond...
Podhoretz: ... I hope that. I remembered, when I wrote my book, which year 1952, thus what happened, when with Dwight D Eisenhower the republicans drew into the white house. Eisenhower took over the Truman doctrine, which planned „“ a containment of communism. I hope, with the Bush doctrine the same will pass. Finally the next president will be faced with a genuine risk. It is easy to smalltalk the terrorism so for a long time one in the opposition is, but which you do, if you carry genuine responsibility? While I wrote my book, I tried to find out with all forces, the democrats actually suggest which alternative strategy. They do not have.
WORLD ON-LINE ONE: Now the Bush doctrine has two sides. The front is as it were negative: The USA reserve themselves the right to lead preventive wars. The back is positive: One wants to fight the terror by democratization of the Near East. When did your Israeli friends actually stop laughing at this second component of the Bush doctrine?
Podhoretz: They laugh still. I respect this laughter, because they live together with the Arabs.
WORLD ON-LINE ONE: In the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi areas the democratization led of the Near East...
Podhoretz: ... to the choice victory of the radical-Islamic Hamas. I understand already, what you want to say. But you look: During the cold war I was an opponent of the idea that the Soviet Imperium will keep eternal and that one must arrange oneself therefore with it. The Roman realm was finite, the British Empire was finite, why it should be with the Soviets different? And why one should not give its Imperium thrust, so that it breaks down in itself? (Ronald Reagan did then finally.) When the Near East I think similarly. Here we have a region, itself opposite the virus of the democracy, which since the end of the Second World War ever continues to spread, than immune proved. Why should remain in such a way, if one looks only five or ten years into the future?
WORLD ON-LINE ONE: They cannot deny however nevertheless that free elections would bring the fundamentalists in the Arab countries today to power.
Podhoretz: People, which I respect much – people such as Amir Taheri, Fouad Ajami and Berne pool of broadcasting corporations Lewis, which the Islamic world well knows – says that it gives somewhat, what in the west it is hardly noticed here: In the Near East is the wahlurne already to and for itself an act of the revolution. Like always the choice also goes out, it justifies the principle of the people sovereignty – in contrast to the rule from above. Remember please the enthusiasm during the first free elections in the Iraq, the people with the blue colored index finger. In all other respects I do not see an alternative to the democratization of the Near East. The alternative is that one supports dictators, after the slogan: „It may be a Hurensohn – however it is our Hurensohn.“
WORLD ON-LINE ONE: Do you find in Ernst that the Americans Hosni Mubarak should fall? That would mean that Egypt was governed thereafter of the Muslim brother shank.
Podhoretz: Contrary to what is said about me and some of my political friends, we are not extremists. We are not moved. We understand that deliberation belongs to the policy. One does what appears possible in each instant. An example: I believe that the Saudis belong to our worst enemies, but even I am momentary to fall the Saudi king house because the consequences would be difficult-to-understand. Thus I take the view: The Saudis still come to the row, before this war past is. Everything at its time.
WORLD ON-LINE ONE: They plead to bombard Iran before the Iranian regime gets the atom bomb. Now all Europeans would answer to you that Iran gave atom bomb plans up nevertheless for the time being according to opinion of the US secret services its.
Podhoretz: All Europeans with exception of the Frenchmen. Sarkozy said evenly only: Should be necessary military impact, in order to stop Iran, then there must be military strikes.
WORLD ON-LINE ONE: They believe thus despite the American secret service report further that Iran at the bomb builds?
Podhoretz: Until straight the whole world was unanimous yesterday the opinion: We may not permit Iran to get the atom bomb. Over it there was no diversity of opinion. The only controversy turned around the question: How is one to stop Iran? Meanwhile it became clear that one cannot stop Iran – without military strikes only by diplomacy – and sanctions. Thus the people withdraw themselves to the position: Leave to them the atom bomb nevertheless! The American secret service report, which you state, did not continue to be anything as a preventive strike against the strong probability that the government decides Bush to bombard Iran.
WORLD ON-LINE ONE: What would be actually so bad at an Iran with nuclear weapons?
Resuming one left
Podhoretz: Consider nevertheless. The Iranians build the bomb. The Israelis sit beside it. Will the Israelis wait, until Iran uses the bomb against them? They must take the destruction threats of Achmadinedschad seriously. Thus they will lead a preventive strike. The Iranians again know that. The question is thus only, who wins a running to the red button.
WORLD ON-LINE ONE: Permit to me briefly to say, why a military strike would be now against Iran insanity. The Americans would meet not all nuclear plants, i.e. would not stop but against will would perhaps even accelerate, them the Iranian atomic program. The schiitische south Iraq in flames would come up. America and Israel would be perfectly isolated in a corner again.
Podhoretz: If this is the worst scenario, which you can invent, it is still better than what happens, if Iran gets the atom bomb. I spoke with former Israeli Air Force generals and her asked whether the Iranian atomic program can be stopped militarily. Their answer: „Naturally that is possible, the question is only whether one wants to pay the price.“ I believe by the way on the whole that the opposite of would happen, what you assume. The USA would look again strong. It is even possible that the rule of the Mullahs in Iran in itself would break down. In any case one became a military strike all different one a deep fright in-hunts. The United States would be no more paper tiger.
WORLD ON-LINE ONE: In order to return to the beginning of our discussion: Do you believe that a president Obama would arrange military strikes against Iran?
Podhoretz: No.
Topic: Norman Podhoretz about Obama (Read 1869 times)