Igbos have come under fire from one of their own over their alleged blind support for US President Barack Obama in his re-election bid. Angered by claims by his compatriots that Obama decisively won yesterday’s US Presidential Debate and is thus in a pole position to beat Republican challenger Mitt Romney on Nov. 6, Ezi Ochieke, a US-based political analyst, lashed out at celebrating Igbos, accusing them of being sentimental.

Ochieke came out fighting after reading yesterday’s report by News Express entitled “Nigerians celebrate Obama’s victory in decisive US Presidential Debate.” Below is his reaction, posted to the Yahoo! Groups Igbo World Forum and Igbo Forum:

“Obama has been widely acknowledged as winner of today’s rematch

in New York, with a CNN poll scoring it 46-39 in his favour.”

--News Express

“President Obama won the debate decisively! It was a total

 beat-down, kind of ass-whipping of Mitt ‘Robme’.”

--Chukwudi Nwokoye

* * *

Brethren:

Nigerians continue to demonstrate, and very sadly too, that they are the most retrogressive thinkers in the world, hung up, instead on the habitual use of flamboyant and unproductive grammatical jargons.

What is regrettable, however, is that even those who are exposed to the most advanced nation in the world in every manner of speaking, have refused to open their mind to learning. Yet, these same people nurse the aspiration to one day, play active role the governance of Nigeria or in the least, offer advice.

Many years ago, I reminded Mobolaji Aluko that as a notable person who has had the opportunity to observe how democracy works in America, and who has immersed himself equally, in the affairs of Nigeria, that he woefully missed a God-given chance to educate

Nigerians on the process of functioning democracy.

Instead, he (Aluko) chose to assassinate the character of Arthur Nzeribe, and demonize him over the initiation to impeach OBJ. Aluko’s beef, then, with Nzeribe, was that he engineered the annulment of Abiola’s June 12 victory.

My point here, yet again, is that Nigerians (especially Ndiigbo in Igbo Forum) are showing that they do not have the capacity to be objective regarding the Obama v. Romney debates.

No one says that we should be neutral. If you want to vote for Obama because he is a Blackman (African), then admit it, so that we may know where you stand. After all, tribalism is inherent. Only liars and abject fools claim to be non-tribal.

Why is it so difficult for us to honestly engage the politics of Obama v. Romney as observers for the sake of learning, and perhaps, acquire the knowledge to some day, have the privilege to teach, and be regarded as credible?

Many of us have expended considerable energy calling Romney a liar and other such choice words. The question is, on what basis is any Igbo person in Igbo Forum certified to call Romney or even Obama a liar?

These guys are engaged in active and adversarial politics, where each party cherishes the use of isolated content without context to score talking points.

Any Igbo who has any respect for learning, cannot in any way come out from last night’s presidential debate with the notion that Obama “won” the debate “decisively.”

Won decisively? Based on which points? What criteria?

The CNN poll scored 46 to 39, Obama, Romney respectively.

But the same CNN also says that 51% trusts Romney with the economy (and would be a better commander-in-chief) 35% for Romney. So how could any reasonable Igbo, learned person conclude that Obama won decisively?

But, even if Obama won the debate decisively because he is a better speaker, on the defensive, and helped by the moderator, who should have stayed neutral, that does not mean that the facts have changed.

That is why we, as Ndiigbo, should step back, and start examining the facts objectively, to the degree possible, and stop all this total load of rubbish partisan politicking - cheerleading

for Obama and calling Romney names.

On the issue of foreign policy, Libya to be specific, Romney fumbled so badly, indeed, because he chose (very bad mistake) to engage Obama (a lawyer) directly, asking him questions - giving him a chance to deflect blows. Romney should have made his presentation directly to the audience, and letting them form their own opinion.

The truth is that Obama won the debate because Romney messed up on the Libya (Benghazi) “terrorist” question, an area I was so sure that Romney would have nailed the coffin shut.

Obama, as an effective lawyer, and consummate politician, did not answer the question that was posed to him by the (potential) voter- as to why his administration did not provide security to the consulate.

Instead, he (Obama) detoured to enumerating his exploits in Iraq, Afghanistan and the crown glory of killing the al-Quaida kingpin.

Then, he ends by intimidation, informing everyone he is offended when his commitment to fighting terrorism is questioned.

But that was not the question. No one questioned his commitment to anything.

By the way, to show you how politically dishonest or savvy Obama is, he approached the questioner privately, after the debate was over to offer explanations why he was “cautious”

about the Libyan question. And Ndiigbo do not take these details into account when they trumpet Obama all over the place as their messiah? What does this say about these Igbo supporters or pundits?

The reason the Igbo should be careful in their blind tribal political affiliations is this: the same type of people that are terrorizing and killing Americans in Libya and other parts of the Arab-Muslim world, are the same kind of radicals in the name of Boko Haram that are terrorizing

Ndiigbo, killing and maiming Nigerians in northern Nigeria.

So, why would any Igbo who has interest in fighting Boko Haram or declaring it a terrorist organization, be supporting statements by an American administration that goes around making

excuses and apologizing for Islamic terrorism?

But that is neither here nor there.

What is here is that anyone who is objective knows that Obama and his team went on an apology (his usual trademark - politics of appeasement) tour for “Islamic” terrorism, because he does not want to offend Muslims.

At the debate, Romney failed on every count to point out where and why Obama has been a resounding failure on Libya and elsewhere in the so called Arab Spring Revolutions. I have

already written on these matters before the “Revolutions” started, during the “Revolution,” and what the outcomes would be. Thus far, I have been right on every count of my assessment of the situations.

Yes, Romney made a mistake in his presentation on the issue of Libya, in his direct enagagement with President Obama.

And the moderator who interrupted Romney twice as much as she interrupted Obama, helped Obama by advancing and reinforcing an interpretation to what Obama means or did not mean on the Benghazi crisis.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon us as neutral observers to throw partisanship aside, and referee based on the facts, not on presidential statesmanship and political and lawyerly rigmaroles.

Yet, this, appallingly, is what Ndiigbo are doing – supporting and pushing mediocrity, no sense of rational direction beyond crippling liberalism and paralyzing tribalism.

And these people want Nigeria to be a better place governed by the kind of thinkers we have in Igbo Forum? Hm, this kind thing sef do pass man!

By the way, Romney would have a chance to revisit the Benghazi security breach in the next debate, which would be strictly on foreign policy. Obama, equally, would have a chance to answer the question publicly for Americans to hear him loud and clear, why security was breached in Benghazi, and why he and his team were reluctant to call it (Islamic) “terrorism,”

and not rely on the moderator to help him out with his answers.

Peace,

“Ezii”

(the way)

E soo, e soro uzo.