Archive for the ‘Foreign Policy’ Category
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 27, 2010
The moral deficiency that is pacifism does not apply to all leftists.
Pacifists may live on the left, but not all leftists are pacifists.
It’s not that the left has an aversion to fighting. Indeed, they’ll get down and dirty with almost as much frequency as anyone. However, what makes most liberty-loving, Constitution-revering, rugged individualists snicker at the thought of a leftist standing up for, and defending, what they believe in is the fact that their “enemies” list reads somewhat differently than that of conservatives.
Conservatives see Islamo-fascists as the enemy.
Liberals see global warming as the enemy.
Conservatives fight terrorism.
Liberals fight greenhouse gases.
Conservatives speak out against dictators, tyrannies and totalitarians.
Liberals speak out against Arizona lawmakers, Tea Party protestors and conservatives.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar talks about keeping the government’s boot on the neck of BP until the Gulf oil spill is stopped, but Obamacrats never dare use such language when it comes to the likes of Iran or North Korea. That’s because conservatives fight despotic thugs. Liberals fight American corporations and “excessive” profits.
And where exactly has this Obamacratic “enemies” list left the United States of America? What good has come from the post-partisan, post-racial, post-common-sense messiah-in-chief – the one who was going to pummel through Bush-era barriers and get the entire world cuddling up together by virtue of his mere existence?
How about an all-time-high number of terror attacks against the United States? How about a Messianic Age that has seen more acts of evil perpetrated against America by terrorist punks than at any time in her history?
Richard Esposito and Pierre Thomas of ABC News write:
The pace and number of attempted terror attacks against the U.S. over the past nine months has surpassed the number of attempts during any previous one-year period, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security report issued on Friday, May 21.
The report notes chillingly that while US officials “lack insights” they believe that “operatives are in the country and could advance plotting with little or no warning.”
The DHS “Intelligence Note,” a short, non-classified report, makes concrete the concerns of a number of homeland security experts who have discussed with ABC News the pace and nature of the individual attempts. The report notes that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Pakistani Taliban have “expanded their focus” to include the United States.
Not that this administration is actually using the word “terror.”
Not that high-ranking Obamacrats – like Attorney General Eric Holder, for instance – will admit that Islamic fundamentalism has anything to do with these attacks.
Not that former Presidents – like William Jefferson Clinton, for instance – while addressing students at an Ivy League school actually bothered referring to the Times Square bomber as evil. (Instead, Clinton referred to the terrorist a “poor, tragic man.”)
Not that it is any secret that our Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, is better qualified to fold sweaters at the Big K … maybe.
Not that America’s enemies don’t pay close attention to all of this.
That sound you hear is the chant from caves and terror cells alike, from every corner of the world, of “Four more years! Four more years!”
See? Obama is a unifier.
Posted in Foreign Policy, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: appeasement, leftists, Liberalism, liberals, Obama | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 20, 2010
What's a little border among friends?
What would have been a real stride toward solidifying the “bonds” with Mexico that help to define our nation – as President Barack Obama said yesterday – was if the United States, in honor of our neighbors to the south, publicly announced a brand-spanking-new immigration policy identical to that of Mexico.
Just think of how historic that would have been.
With Mexican President Felipe Calderon standing by his side, imagine how thick the “bonds” that help define our nation – as President Barack Obama said yesterday – would have become if, as a true gesture of friendship and admiration, Barack Obama announced that the United States had decided to enact, word for word, the very immigration policy currently on the books in Mexico.
It would have been a moment for the ages.
Obama could have announced that simply to be an illegal alien in the United States would be a felony … just like it is in Mexico.
Obama could have announced that people would be admitted into the United States “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress” … just like they are in Mexico.
Obama could have announced that immigrants will be “useful elements for the country” and that they must have the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents … just like it is in Mexico.
Obama could have announced that foreigners can, and will, be removed if their presence disturbs “the equilibrium of the national demographics” … just like they are in Mexico.
Obama could have announced that those who are deported from the United States and re-enter the country illegally can be put in prison for up to ten years … just like in Mexico.
He could have done that.
Talk about missing a golden opportunity …
Instead, the White House opted to throw an over-the-top, glitz-and-glam state dinner last evening for the leader of the nation who supplies America with the vast majority of its illegal aliens – a party rife with celebrities, fashionistas and leftocrat elites. This is the same White House that has ridiculed corporations for paying CEOs outlandish sums of money, told us that we just can’t eat everything we want, and said that a recession was no time for profits.
Is there anyone who doesn’t believe that if crude oil were washing up on Louisiana’s shore while a Republican occupied the White House – and, say, a glamorous party honoring Israel were being thrown – a date would have been set already for the impeachment hearings?
Posted in Foreign Policy, illegal immigration | Tagged: Barack Obama, Felip calderon, Felipe Calderon, illegal aliens, illegal immigration, immigration policy, Mexico, Miexo, state dinner | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 19, 2010
I’m so delighted that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, has finally infused some badly-needed clarity into the immigration debate. I knew it was only a matter of time before the most consequential and sumptuous man ever to occupy the Oval Office wrapped his mighty hands around the tumor of confusion that is the immigration discussion and ripped it out of the body politic.
The healing may now officially begin.
And just like that, over two centuries of timeworn thinking – born of repression, exclusion, alienation and greed – has finally been cast onto the trash heap of time. The “fences” built by that overrated gang of dead, slave-owning white guys who obsessed over God, guns and liberty all those years ago are no longer a constraint in these newly transformed United States – except, of course, in the terrorist state of Arizona.
Taking a page from his “Citizen of The World” handbook, Barack Obama today said that the United States of America is not defined by its borders.
Speaking to Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama said:
Mr. President, your visit speaks to a truth of our time in North America and the world. In the 21st Century, we are defined, not by our borders, but by our bonds. So, I say to you and the Mexican people, “Let us stand together. Let us face the future together. Let us work together.”
I am regularly amazed – although I shouldn’t be – when liberals speak. So often when they open their mouths, they make sounds approximating coherent language but say absolutely nothing – and yet, their words are regularly heralded as sheer brilliance, particularly in the case of Barack Obama.
Take a moment and re-read what President Obama said.
There is not a proton’s worth of meaning or substance in a single word of it. It isn’t even banal enough to grab the attention of fortune cookie makers and bumper sticker companies.
He said nothing.
How exactly are we defined by our “bonds?” What on earth is that supposed to mean in the real world? How does what we may have in common with another nation define us?
Mr. President, the United States of America is defined by her values. We are defined, as talk show host Dennis Prager commonly says, by the American Trinity: “In God We Trust,” “E Pluribus Unum” and “Liberty.” It is what makes this country the greatest the world has ever known. It is what makes America a beacon to the entire world. It is what sets us apart from other free nations.
“Bonds” do not define this country … whatever that means.
That may, indeed, be the most birdbrained utterance ever to come out of Barack Obama’s mouth – and believe me, consdiering the body of his work, I don’t make such a statement lightly.
And what the hell does “let us face the future together” mean? (Did the White House hand out complimentary vomit sacks to those in attendance today?) Why not throw in an “All for one and one for all” while you’re there? Or a “We’ve got to pull together” for good measure?
Is this man paid by the cliche?
My God, is there a man alive who can spew more emptiness and meaninglessness that Barack Obama?
Incidentally, the crack staff here at Roman Around is trying to determine whether or not Obama bowed to Calderon.
Also, it cannot be confirmed whether or not Calderon presented Obama with the Cheech and Chong collectors DVD box set.
And just so you know … President Obama took two questions today – one from a reporter from Univision, and other from a Mexican newspaper.
That’s all, folks.
I’m surprised he didn’t mention anything about Arlen Specter getting his ass kicked last night.
Posted in Foreign Policy, illegal immigration | Tagged: allegal immigration, Barack Obama, defined by bonds, Felipe Calderon, illegal aliens, Mexican President, not defined by borders | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 11, 2010
British Prime Minister, David Cameron
In commenting on the resignation of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (and the ascendancy of the Conservative Party’s David Cameron to the slot), ZIP at the great Weasel Zippers blog writes: “I sense a box of DVDs and an iPod of Obama speeches in David Cameron’s future… “
While it is a great line I wish I would have thought of – or at least posted first – I think ZIP (with all due respect) may be slightly wrong on this one.
Remember, Barack Obama is not exactly a giver – unless, of course, you classify a fake eight-dollar-a-month tax “cut” funded by the rich as “giving.” He’s not exactly thoughtful – unless you consider his ability to woosh his head effortlessly from the left teleprompter to the right as contemplative.
Seeing as Barack Obama is a proponent of spreading the wealth, I predict that the President of the United States will ask Gordon Brown for the box of DVDs back so that he might redistribute them to David Cameron.
And in the spirit of friendship and narcissism, Obama may even update the collection with a few new titles:
–“The Great Obama Faintings of Campaign ’08.”
-“The Waters That I Walk Upon – How Humility Made Me The Most Important Human Being That Has Ever Lived. (The Barack Obama Story)”
-“How I Made The American Constitution Fall Down And Go Bam.”
Reports that the White House has been calling around for the best international shipping rates so that the HMS Resolute desk can be sent back to Queen Victoria in London cannot be confirmed.
President Obama is expected to be informed that Queen Victoria died in 1901 later today.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons | Tagged: Barack Obama, David Cameron, Gordon Borwn, new Prime Minister of England | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 13, 2010
He’s actually done it better before. There’s been a noticeable deterioration in his form since he presented the top of his head to Saudi royalty last year.
That was his finest hour.
Since then, he’s lagged a bit.
His performance for the Emperor of Japan, for example, was a bit fractured and forced; and for Pam Iorio, Mayor of Tampa, Florida, he seemed to be going through the motions.
He’s lost something.
I don’t know if it comes down to complacency, or simply a lack of practice, but President Obama doesn’t seem to be in touch with his submissive side as he once was. He just doesn’t acquiesce and exude weakness with the same verve and vigor he did in the early days of the Messianic Age.
He just doesn’t bow like he used to.
For those of the Kumbaya ilk, it’s understandibly troubling.
Don’t get me wrong. Those of us on the thinking end of the spectrum still understand that this President is the undisputed poster child for the new age of American weakness and appeasement. His policies are still a case study in how to relinquish superpower status without really trying.
But with his latest bow – this time to the Communist Chinese President – he seems to have some of the subservience that has defined him.
Frankly, it was a painfully weak bow – almost as if he wasn’t sure if he was going to go through with it. It was like he suddenly forgot how to peddle a bicycle, but remembered in the nick of time, just before he hit the mailbox.
It just didn’t have the same emasculating feel the bow to the Suadi king had.
As far as I’m concerned, if you’re going to embarrass your country (and yourself) by portraying utter submissiveness to a ChiCom, make it count. Bend all the way over. Let the Communist get a good look at those follicles. Offer to tongue-clean his shoes while you’re there. Get those babies as clear as glass by buffing them with an American flag.
Bammy’s definitely lost a step.
When a bonafide knee-pad leftist can’t even bend over and grab the ankles properly in the presence of a commie, you have to wonder what the world is coming to.
Now, THAT'S a bow
Posted in Foreign Policy, leftism, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: American weakness, Obama bow, Obama bowing, Obama bows to Chinese President | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 6, 2010
I already wrote, at length, about the President’s misguided and, frankly, infantile aspirations of a nuclear weapons free world in my piece “If We Could Just Get Rid of Those Blasted Nuclear Weapons…“
I won’t bother reiterating those arguments here.
I will, however, engage in a little head shaking – something that has become a habit since January 20, 2009 – at Barack Obama’s latest mystifying act as Commander In Chief.
With the eyes and ears of the entire world on him – including the enemies of the United States – the President has decided that his puerile, hacky-sack, dorm-room, raped-by-academia ambitions of a fuzzy-bunny-world trump the security of the country he is charged to preserve, protect and defend.
He has announced, inexplicably, that even if the United States is attacked biologically, chemically, or is crippled by a cyber-attack of some kind by a non-nuclear state that happens to be adhering to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, she will not retaliate with nuclear weapons.
That way, one of the banes of all leftism – the disproportionate response – can be avoided, and America will finally be respected and loved throughout the world.
So, in other words, as long as the bad guys are not using nukes – instead keeping their destruction confined to, say, chemical weapons (like VX gas, for instance) – the enemy can rest assured that the United States will never tap into its mushroom cloud makers. In the mind of Barack Obama, a million dead Americans as a result of a biological attack would not be enough to justify a nuclear response.
That sound you hear are the enmies of America shaking with fear.
Or maybe they’re just laughing.
From the New York Times:
President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.
But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.
This is pure insanity.
There are no words to adequately depict the contempt I have for this man in context of his role as leader of the free world. I’d venture to say that it is certainly equal (at the very least) to the level of disdain he shows for his country and Constitution. That he is actually in charge of defending the United States of America is dumbfounding.
In Obama’s world, if Iran launches a chemical or biological attack on the United States, then the option to use nuclear weapons as a response suddenly becomes an acceptible one because they “violated the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation”
Is this man serious?
(This is the same thinking that yields the belief that coercive and aggressive interrogation of enemy combatants is an unnecessary tactic, except in a ticking time-bomb scenario with millions of innocent lives hanging in the balance, as Senator John McCain has suggested. If the tactic is useful in that situation to extract critical information, then wouldn’t it be useful at any time?)
So, President Obama, who by default is conceding that nuclear weapons are, in fact, this nation’s most powerful deterrent, would be punishing Iran for going nuclear? Not for the biological attack itself? And if a nation that doesn’t have nuclear weapons orchestrates the same type of attack, our response will be a more measured, thoughtful, considerate one?
Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.
I suppose there is a long list of instances where the enemy has looked upon America and said, “Damn, those Yanks are right. We’ve got to give up our evil ambitions and embrace peace. Look at what they’re doing over there. We’ve been fools!”
It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.
Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.
White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.
This is extraordinary.
How in the world does this make the United States safer?
Mr. President, there is nothing to fear when the good guys have the weapons.
Now let’s say it all together … Liberals cannot be trusted with national security.
Posted in Foreign Policy, national security, Nuclear Weapons, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: new nuclear policy, Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, nuclear proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Prseident Obama, revamping American nuclear strategy | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 9, 2010
Not that it will matter, of course.
When do liberals ever pay attention to – or care – what the people they are charged to represent think? When do leftists ever concern themselves with the will of their constituencies?
The next time will be the first time.
Leftists know best – and they’ll tell you so.
When the electorate votes against the redefinition of marriage, for instance – which they have done each and every time it has been brought before the people – liberals immediately cry foul. Americans are stuck in the dark ages, they say. Angry God-types are poisoning the American bouillabaisse, they scream. Americans are nothing but bigoted, backwater, fag-hating pickup truck pilots, they screech. Protests, appeals, and rainbow flag waving inevitably pepper the map.
But it isn’t enough.
So, what do libs do?
They use leftist judges to magically find loopholes in the law so that they can bypass the brain-dead, hate-mongering electorate. It’s the only way to enact destructive leftist policies, and they know it.
Take the entire health care reform debacle as another example. Poll after poll shows that the American people categorically do not support ObamaCare. Most Americans abhor the idea of government meddling in things it has no right being involved in – especially something as important and personal as their health care. Yet, the President tells us he knows what’s best for all of us – and demands that we understand that. He believes this is his charge. This is his historic moment (as opposed to America’s). ObamaCare is such a good plan – so necessary for the American people – he’s asking Democrats to have “courage” to pass it.
Again, who cares what Americans want? Who cares that the overwhelming vast majority of Americans are satisfied with their health care? Why relegate oneself to trying to implement some targeted improvements to what is already the best health delivery system in the world when one can transform the whole damn thing?
Welcome to the Messianic Age.
But it only gets better.
Take this example from Joseph Curl of the Washington Times:
A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago and think President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security, a new poll finds.
The Democracy Corps-Third Way survey released Monday finds that by a 10-point margin — 51 percent to 41 percent — Americans think the standing of the U.S. dropped during the first 13 months of Mr. Obama’s presidency.
“This is surprising, given the global acclaim and Nobel peace prize that flowed to the new president after he took office,” said pollsters for the liberal-leaning organizations.
On the national security front, a massive gap has emerged, with 50 percent of likely voters saying Republicans would likely do a better job than Democrats, a 14-point swing since May. Thirty-three percent favored Democrats.
Of course, none of this is surprising. None of it.
Apologizing on foreign soil and bowing to foreign heads of state can only go so far.
But will any of this matter to the President – our Commander In Chief? Of course not. It doesn’t matter what we the people think. It only matters what the rest of the world thinks.
This leftist polling company seems to concur.
Allow me the chance to educate them on two small points.
First, global acclaim is incalculably meaningless in rating an American President’s performance. His “citizen-of-the-world” status is irrelevant to national security. My rule of thumb has not changed: Whatever world opinion is on almost any given subject of relevance, go with the opposite.
Second, ever since the terrorist Yasser Arafat snagged the prize – and Al Gore and the IPCC were awarded the world’s top “peace promoters” because of their work on the global warming hoax – the Nobel Peace Prize has about as much prestige as a colon polyp.
Democratic Corps, incidentally, was founded by Democratic talking head – and former Clinton adviser – James Carville along with Dem pollster, Stanley Greenberg.
The Third Way “calls itself ‘the leading moderate think-tank of the progressive movement.’
A moderate progressive?
Posted in Foreign Policy, national security, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: America less respected in the world, arrogance, Barack Obama, Democracy Corps-Third Way poll, less respected, national security | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2010
From the “Fancy That” file …
The religion of peace is wrapping its ever-loving, all-inclusive arms around the dregs of American society and inviting them to blow up infidels. According to a new Senate report, it turns out that a number of ex-convicts who saw the light and converted to Islam while behind bars in American prisons have made the most out of their post-incarceration lives by going to Yemen and trying to become new Al Qaeda team members.
(But don’t think it necessarily has anything to do with Islam).
Richard Sisk of the New York Daily News writes:
The focus on ex-cons was part of an intensified effort by Al Qaeda to involve Americans who could more easily slip through security and pose a “significant threat” to carry out attacks in the U.S., said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
“These Americans are not necessarily of Arab or South Asian descent” but “include individuals who converted to Islam in prison,” Kerry said in a foreword to the report by his committee.
As many as 36 of the ex-cons, nearly half from New York, were believed to be in Yemen, and U.S. counterterror officials were on “heightened alert because of the potential threat from extremists carrying American passports,” the report said.
The FBI and CIA were also concerned about a separate group of fewer than 10 Americans without criminal records who went to Yemen, converted to Islam and married Yemeni women to be allowed to remain in the country.
The report quoted a U.S. official who described the smaller group as “blond-haired, blue eyed-types” who fit the profile of Americans wanted by Al Qaeda for terror missions.
So Al Qaeda is racially profiling?
Most interesting (and painfully typical of those who live in Leftsville) is this post from a blogger at the Daily News website called hjo4:
When you keep people disenfranchised, placing them in prison, the only (thing) that’s being done is that we’re creating Home grown terrorist. I often wondered what would America’s reaction be when her own citizens became suicide bombers, I guess we’ll find out.
So, according to hjo4, imprisoning people – which disenfranchises them – transforms these individuals into home-grown terrorists.
In short, we are to blame.
We keep people disenfranchised.
By coming down hard on larcenists, thieves and embezzlers, we alienate them. By laying down the law with child abusers, sexual deviants and violent miscreants, we make felons feel terrible about themselves. By throwing murderers and rapists behind bars, we shackle the souls within.
Where has the self-esteem inside our nation’s prisons gone?
This is one reason why the closing of Guantanamo Bay won’t be happening anytime soon, despite President Obama’s waffle-in-the-sky dreams of eradicating everything George W. Bush.
Real life has a way of intruding on the dreams of even the most idealistic water walkers.
But it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Islam. What about all of those abortion clinic bombers?
Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: "conservative blog", al-Qaeda, ex-cons, ex-convicts, terrorism, Yemen | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 13, 2010
President Obama, this morning
When the government of Iran slaughtered its own people on the streets of Teheran, the President of the United States said nothing. With troops on the ground in Afghanistan – and with the entire world watching to see how the United States would proceed in the “war on necessity” – the President of the United States waited … and waited … and waited. After the terrorist attack on Fort Hood, the President made sure to offer a “shout out” to a nonexistent Congressional Medal of Honor winner at the Tribal Nations Conference, as well as a bunch of thanks to various staffers, before ever mentioning the slaughter of thirteen innocents on American soil by an Islamo-facist. After the near-terrorist attack on Christmas Day, the President took three days to respond.
Not exactly stalwart leadership.
But as we’ve come to see, the President can move fast when the situation warrants it (in his mind) – maybe even faster than a “black man running from the cops,” as Georgetown Professor Michael Dyson put it.
Yesterday, for instance, it took the President only thirty-five minutes – thirty-five minutes – to respond to the devastating earthquake that ravaged Haiti Tuesday. In fact, as of this writing – approximately 11:00AM, Wednesday morning – the President has just concluded public remarks about the tragedy.
He’s all over it.
This is not to say the President shouldn’t say anything. This is not to suggest that the United States should not call on its citizens to come to the aid of a nation that has been incalculably overwhelmed by such a disaster. The President, in fact, handled his response to this earthquake perfectly fine. I am of the mind that citizens of the United States must come to the assistance of fellow human beings in a time such as this. The America that President keeps apologizing for will step up, as always, and do what’s right. That’s what the American people do, despite who is in charge. That isn’t the issue.
I must ask … why does Barack Obama not treat the security of his own nation with the same seriousness and urgency that he does an earthquake? Why will he not stand up and speak out against the human evils that threaten his own country with the same fervor and assuredness he reserves for acts of nature? Why do acts of God and conservatives who defend the Constitution stir his passions more than acts of war against the United States?
Fair questions, no?
And incidentally, the word “tragedy” is the right word to use here. The President got it right. The earthquake in Haiti is a tragedy – unlike a terrorist attack, which is an act of evil. There is nothing more infuriating than hearing someone call a terrorist attack a “tragedy.”
So, okay, Mr. President … you promised “unwavering support” to the Haitian people in the aftermath of the earthquake there.
But how about showing a little “unwavering support” for your own nation? How about convincing the American people that you are commited to defending this nation? How about not making matters of national secutiry appear like an annoyance to you? How about acting like a nearly-successful terrorist attack on American soil is actually more serious than finishing the back nine in Hawaii? How about behaving like a Commander-In-Chief?
That would be nice.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Natural Disaster | Tagged: Barack Obama, earthquake, Haiti, response to the earthquake | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 7, 2010
A bit of a follow-up to my piece yesterday, “Enough With The ‘Gitmo Is A Recruiting Tool’ Crap”…
According the AFP, Al Qaeda says that last week’s suicide bombing that killed seven at a CIA base in Afghanistan was retaliation for American drone missile strikes in Pakistan.
While I obviously applaud the President for carrying out those strikes (being the slobbering, war-mongering, gun-loving, kitten-kicking ruffian I am), I can’t help but wonder …
Now that Al Qaeda has been very specific in saying what the US has done to prompt them to take their “revenge,” what will Barack Obama do? How will he react?
Will he take a page from his “I Hate Gitmo” handbook and conclude that air strikes – like the existence of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility itself – are a powerful recruiting tool for Al Qaeda?
Makes sense, doesn’t it?
If a prison for enemy combatants in the Caribbean is enough to bring in new suicidal talent to Al Qaeda Re-Up Centers, certainly full-blown missile attacks would be at least as effective in attracting fresh blood. I would think American war planes dropping bombs anywhere is a good propaganda tool for enemies of the United States, no?
Maybe we should quit the whole “dropping bombs” thing, too.
There must be a way to keep the enemy in check while doing all we can to make them happy.
Man, it’s tough to be President, isn’t it?
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, CIA base, closing Guantanamo Bay, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, terror attack of CIA Center | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 6, 2010
Yesterday, the President of the United States once again blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for boosting Al Qaeda recruitment.
It is a devastatingly idiotic contention that makes him – and this nation – look stupid and anemic.
At the risk of coming across as an aimless bomb thrower and smear merchant, I truly have to believe that Barack Obama and his senses are no longer on a first-name basis. Despite rumors to the contrary, his ability to dabble in coherence appears to be nonexistent, almost mythical.
I sincerely mean that.
To listen to him say anything anymore is both exasperating and frustrating. With each syllable that bounces out of his pie hole, he embarrasses himself and weakens my country. With the world watching – and with America’s enemies feeling as if they’ve been left the keys to daddy’s Porsche – Barack Obama continues to master the art of clueless charisma, showcasing his inability (or unwillingness) to grasp the real world, reprimanding his own country for the creation of terrorists elsewhere.
It’s not about the bad values or evil deeds of our enemies, because Lord knows if this country only gave in a little bit more, peace could actually become a reality.
No, it’s Gitmo’s fault – which translates into being George W. Bush’s fault – that the “underwear terrorist” was this close to carrying out his mission.
I assure you, I derive no great pleasure in saying that, as a Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama has earned a photograph next to the enty for “mortifying” in the Encyclopedia Do-Nothinga.
It’s as if the realities of terrorism have been annoyances to Obama, drawing attention away from his real work, temporarily derailing his Messianic train, throwing a monkey wrench into his Messianic machine, messing up his great Messianic plan. Such inconveniences, such pests these terrorists are.
As soon as he started talking yesterday, the stomach juices started gurgling in anger. My left eye began to jump.
How on Earth can the President look at his teleprompter with a straight face and effectively bend over like the noodleheaded wartime leader he is, grabbing his ankles for the throat-cutters and suicide bombers of radical Islam, and make the imbecilic claim that Gitmo’s existence is a “recruiting tool?”
This is an explanation I, for one, would love to hear.
Terrorist A: “Hold on, Mohammed. They’re going to be closing that Guantanamo Bay prison.”
Terrorist B: “Praise Allah. Do you think I can get my money back on these pipes, nails and fertilizer?”
Why the hell do liberals think they have the ability to transcend the space-time continuum and make terrorists see the evil of their ways and repent?
Wasn’t the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia a “recruiting tool” as well, according to Osama Bin Ladin?
How did that withdrawal work out for us?
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, Osama Bin Ladin issued a statement in which he specifically blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay for an increase in the number of recruits into the ranks of Al Qaeda. And let’s say that the Yemeni division of Al Qaeda came out with their own statement saying that because of Gitmo, they’re recruitment numbers are up eighty-seven percent in the last twelve months. And what if Al Jazeera hosted a round table of Al Qaeda terror cell representatives from sixteen nations, and among the resolutions agreed upon is one that says recruitment increases among aspiring terrorists are directly attributable to the existence of Guantanamo Bay? And what if a petition that read, “You are right, President Obama … Gitmo has been our greatest recruiting tool. Love, Al Qaeda” undersigned by twenty million terrorists were presented to the Commander-in-Chief, notarized and framed?
Even if all of those things actually happened – and even if Al Qaeda opened up a recruiting office in the heart of Times Square with posters all over the windows and doors saying, “Thank you, Gitmo!” – so what?
What difference should it make?
Does the United States now take its cues from the enemy?
Apparently so, because the sad reality is, the President of the United States is closing Gitmo because it agitates the terrorists.
And he is not kidding.
Welcome to “hope and change” national security.
what is with the big belt, Mrs. Obama?
One can only guess the Obamacratic response if, for instance, Al Qaeda claimed tomorrow that US battleships on the open seas are provoking them to murderous actions. Or that American aircraft carriers are making their otherwise disaffected males jump up to join the ranks of the terrorist class. What if they said they were angered because we don’t do enough in this country to make Ramadan more prominent? Or that MTV drives them to slaughter infidels? Will an emergency session of President Obama’s Cabinet be called to discuss “toning things down a bit” so we aren’t so provocative?
Does the United States now take into consideration that which may or may not offend those who are at war with her?
Seriously, since when does the President of the United States concern himself with the feelings, sensitivities and concerns of Al Qaeda? Since when does the President of the United States have the audacity to blame his own nation for the actions of those sworn to slaughter innocent Americans? Since when does this country acquiesce to the butchers who would slice the throats of our President’s daughters if given the chance?
Honestly, I don’t get it.
What happens once Gitmo closes? Does Al Qaeda finally calm down a bit? Like they did after American troops withdrew from Saudi Arabia?
And if Al Qaeda announced that NBA basketball caused recruitment to jump, would the President suspend play? If the terrorists said that Rachel Maddow was to blame for the boost in new recruits, would he move to have Rachel taken off the air? And what if Osama Bin Ladin said that Michelle Obama’s big black waist belts were to blame for Al Qaeda recruitment increases, would Bammy lay down the law and tell his wife she couldn’t wear them anymore?
On second thought …
One last question … if the closing of Guantanamo Bay was so critical to national security, as professed by Obamacrats across the board, shouldn’t it have been closed immediately?
As it stands now, it could be two years (or more) before it actually shuts down. That’s a long time to compromise the security of the country.
Posted in Afghanistan, Evil, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, leftism, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Al Qaeda recruitment tool, Barack Obama, closing Guantanamo Bay, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, terrorism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 30, 2009
I'm the President of the United States. See how I can bow?
If ever a President looked and sounded as detached, disconnected and disinterested in the events of the day as Barack Obama, I’m not aware of it. Jimmy Carter, for instance, never behaved as if the things he had to contend with were an annoyance, as Barack Obama does. He was simply an extraordinarily incompetent man who made appalling decisions. (And an anti-Semite to boot).
Bill Clinton, too, never made it seem like everything on his plate was as much of an inconvenience as Bammy does. While Slick Willie could charm the trousers off his frothing admirers, President Obama famously dismisses things in that eye-rolling, I’m-far-too-superior-for-this-kind-of-crap way that has become all too familiar. Obama always looks like he’d rather be talking about himself or nibbling on a waffle than tending to the real business of America.
For example, it was quite nice of the President to find the time, before hitting the links, to denounce the recent violence in Iran. For that, he gets a “credit where credit is due” sticker for his notebook. But he looked as if he had a thumbtack poking him in the roof of his mouth, or that he was wearing an over-starched pair of shorts. His apathy – body language, tone and overall demeanor – was as conspicuous as a piece of breakfast potato caught in Michael Moore’s beard. He didn’t even bother to wear a tie, looking as if he hastily grabbed the shirt Michelle had thrown over the top of the chair before he hit the podium.
Two days ago, in his initial statement after the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack, Barack Obama was as weak and pathetic as he has been at any time during his presidency. His response was, to say the least, frail and bungled; and in the aftermath of a terrorist attack that was essentially a success until the very last moment, seeing and hearing the leader of the free world sound as if the keystone cops wrote his remarks was feebleness at its finest. Within a half-hour of saying how “we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable,” he was teeing off at the Luana Hills Country Club.
Obama called the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack an “isolated incident.” His Homeland Security Chief said the “system worked.” Not once in his response did the President have the courage to identify radical Islam as the enemy. Never did the President use the word “terrorist.” Never did he summon the strength or show the necessary leadership in defining the evil that threatens America, as Ronald Reagan did when he called the “evil empire” exactly what it was.
These things matter.
It is simply not possible to develop a strategy against the enemy if one is not willing to identify it and understand it.
Oh yeah … yesterday, the President tried again, making another statement regarding the terror plot. Call it, “take two.” It was better than his first performance, but nothing more than a slice of “too little, too late.”
Leadership, thy name is Obama.
William McGurn, in a column published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, called “Obama Puts the Dis in Dissonance,” writes:
Here’s a timely New Year’s resolution the president might do well to deliver to his National Security Council: “When it comes to nasty regimes that brutalize their people, we will never again forget that the most powerful weapon in a president’s arsenal is a White House photo-op.”
The December headlines remind us that we have no shortage of these nasty regimes. In China, the government sentences Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison for writing a letter calling for legal and political reforms. In Iran, security forces fire on citizens marching in the streets. In Cuba, pro-government goons intimidate a group of wives, mothers and sisters of jailed dissidents—with President Raul Castro characterizing these bullies as “people willing to protect, at any price, the conquests of the revolution.”
In all these cases, the cry goes up: Where is the president of the United States?
For a man whose whole appeal has been wrapped in powerful imagery, President Obama appears strikingly obtuse about the symbolism of his own actions … With every statement not backed up by action, with every refusal to meet a leader such as the Dalai Lama, with every handshake for a Chavez, Mr. Obama is defining himself to foreign leaders who are sizing him up and have only one question in mind: How much can we get away with?
All of that overseas apologizing for America has had an effect. Each and every bow to a foreign head of state (e.g., the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan) has had an impact. All of that coddling of America’s enemies does matter. All of the nose-thumbing at friends and allies does make a difference.
The world does pay attention.
These are the snapshots of Obama’s first year that will be forever burned in the brains of people across the globe, friends and enemies alike.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Islam, leftism, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: attempted terrorist attack, Barack Obama, Northwest Flight 253, terrorism, weak foreign policy, weak presidency, William McGurn | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 10, 2009
So, let’s see if I’ve got this straight …
President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this year based on hope, or change, or whatever. He did nothing to earn it, other than he was not George W. Bush. Embarrassing as it was to be selected – and believe me, it was a joke even to many liberals – he decided he would have to accept the thing in person. That would mean yet another trip out of Washington. (How many excursions does that make since January 20th? He is building up one hell of a carbon credit tab.)
However, the President has decided – much to the chagrin of many Norwegians – that accepting the prize is more than enough. Obama will not be participating in a slew of events normally attended by the Peace Prize winner. That means a ton of cancellations, including a snubbing of the King of Norway.
But is this all about humility? Doubtful.
Or maybe just utter embarrassment? Getting warmer.
A war president accepting the Nobel Peace Prize?
I have no problem with it – other than the prize itself being an enormous sham – but to leftists, this has to be like urinating on a crucifix would be to a Christian.
Gwladys Fouché and Ewen MacAskill of the UK Guardian write:
Norwegians are incensed over what they view as his shabby response to the prize by cutting short his visit.
The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children’s event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.
He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.
According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.
“Of all the things he is canceling, I think the worst is canceling the lunch with the king,” said Siv Jensen, the leader of the largest party in opposition, the populist Progress party. “This is a central part of our government system. He should respect the monarchy,” she told VG.
It isn’t easy for Bammy to make friends, is it?
When Barack Obama sidesteps an opportunity to hold a press conference and be interviewed for television, it’s time to check and see if there are, in fact, icicles forming in hell.
The committee, however, is taking it all in stride. No biggie, they said.
The paradox of accepting the Nobel Peace Prize only days after committing an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan is, undoubtedly, at play in Obama’s mind. The fact that thousands of peaceniks are scheduled to demonstrate in Oslo during his visit there has to be gnawing at him. (Anti-war types staging a protest at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony doesn’t exactly make for a great White House photo op). After all, he’s the anti-war, anti-nuclear guy. He’s the one who will deliver the world from the clutches of war-mongering and capitalism.
Talk about conflicted.
Indeed, being protested at home by swastika-wielding racists and other conservatives is one thing, but in Europe?
That he will be discussing his decision to escalate America’s involvement in Afghanistan during his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize is, to say the least, an irony too delicious to ignore. Certainly, this isn’t the way he would have staged it.
Personally, I think he should accept the award on behalf of the United States military, as has been suggested by many pundits and wordsmiths over the course of the last several weeks. They are the real peace makers.
Of course, I’d like to win the lottery as well … and jam with Pete Townshend … and have non-moody teenage daughters.
Posted in Foreign Policy, leftism, Liberalism, Obama-Mania | Tagged: Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 6, 2009
Just when you think you’ve had your share of “You can’t make this stuff up” moments from one administration, Obamacrats turn around and top themselves. Considering the dizzying array of bungles and stumbles that Bammy and friends have regaled us with for nearly eleven electrifying months, this one is near the top of the hit parade. The words “competency” and “Obama” have, indeed, been the strangest of bedfellows since the beginning of the Messianic Age, but if this wasn’t about national security – and the lives of those serving in America’s armed forces – this would be pure comedy gold.
Back on October 8th, in a meeting with Obamacrat advisers (via video link from Kabul), General Stanley McChrystal finally got his chance to offer administration officials his reccomendations on what needed to be done in Afghanistan. It wasn’t the official National Security Council meeting with President Obama, mind you – that wasn’t scheduled until the next day – but a kind of “dress rehearsal,” to quote a phrase.
Anne E. Kornblut, Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post explain what happened next:
McChrystal began with the policy underlying his approach, established by the White House review hastily compiled in February that led to Obama’s March 27 strategy announcement and the deployment of nearly 22,000 new troops over the spring and summer.
In June, McChrystal noted, he had arrived in Afghanistan and set about fulfilling his assignment. His lean face, hovering on the screen at the end of the table, was replaced by a mission statement on a PowerPoint slide: “Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population.”
“Is that really what you think your mission is?” one of the participants asked.
On the face of it, it was impossible — the Taliban were part of the fabric of the Pashtun belt of southern Afghanistan, culturally if not ideologically supported by a significant part of the population. “We don’t need to do that,” (Defense Secretary Robert M.) Gates said, according to a participant. “That’s an open-ended, forever commitment.”
But that was precisely his mission, McChrystal responded, and it was enshrined in the Strategic Implementation Plan — the execution orders for the March strategy, written by the NSC staff.
“I wouldn’t say there was quite a ‘whoa’ moment,” a senior defense official said of the reaction around the table. “It was just sort of a recognition that, ‘Duh, that’s what, in effect, the commander understands he’s been told to do.’ Everybody said, ‘He’s right.’ ”
“It was clear that Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent” of the NSC document, said (National Security Adviser James L.) Jones, who had signed the orders himself. “I’m not sure that in his position I wouldn’t have done the same thing, as a military commander.” But what McChrystal created in his assessment “was obviously something much bigger and more longer-lasting . . . than we had intended.”
So let’s get this straight … the general was given an assignment – “Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population” – and arrived in Afghanistan in June intent on meeting that goal. It was a mission crafted and assigned by this administration. It was laid out in the March Strategic Implementation Plan. It was authored by the staff of the National Security Council.
But the Obamacrats around the table that day apparently forgot that, or didn’t know, or didn’t care, or figured no one’s memory would stretch all the way back to March.
It was their mission statement, and yet, one of them actually had to ask the general, “Is that really what you think your mission is?”
Dumb, dumber, Obamacrats.
One of my favorite George Costanza lines, from the Seinfeld program, keeps popping up in my head: “People this stupid shouldn’t be allowed to live.”
And then, to top it all off, Jones somehow seems dumbfounded – even astounded – that a general in the United States military, charged with the task of formulating war plans and leading soldiers in battle, would actually follow the orders he was given, saying, “Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent.”
What the hell was he supposed to take?
A vague interpretation of the intent?
A half-assed interpretation of the intent?
A lecture-hall and academia interpretation of the intent?
Do these people not know what the United States military does?
Isn’t James L. Jones a retired Marine Corps four-star general?
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan, Defeat the Taliban, General Stanley McChrystal, James L. Jones, Robert M. Gates, Secure the Population, Strategic Implementation Plan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 2, 2009
Maybe he was already tired
I’m sure they tried.
They were told to make it sound good.
It couldn’t have been easy – perhaps as difficult as any task these cadets will ever face as members of the United States military, including combat. It isn’t clear whether they were blatantly disobeying orders or were simply unable to beckon the fortitude needed to fake it.
In theory, cadets shouldn’t have to be reminded to greet their own Commander-in-Chief warmly, but they were.
Maybe this pre-speech prompting is standard procedure for every President who comes to speak at the United States Military Academy. If so, it is interesting to note that the cadets had no problem whatsoever responding eagerly to George W. Bush when he spoke there.
The fact is, the audience at last night’s Afghanistan-policy speech by President Obama was a touch on the quiet side.
One or two in the audience even dozed off.
In an opinion piece from Spiegel Online, Gabor Steingart writes:
Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.
One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama’s speech would be well-received.
Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.
One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.
The audience’s most enthusiastic responses came toward the end of the speech when the President (somehow) managed to shift focus away from himself and the obligatory blame-Bush-for-everything gabble and actually spoke of his own country in positive terms, brief as it was.
Otherwise, Obama’s “pre-surrender” strategy drew fairly apathetic feedback.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan policy, Afghanistan speech, Obama's West Point speech | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 2, 2009
Last night at West Point, with his nation at war, the world saw a man whose heart just wasn’t in what he was doing. Instead of a call to arms, Barack Obama offered a reluctant nudge. Instead of sounding like a wartime leader, he came off as a tedious academic. Instead of rallying the world behind a noble cause, he sounded like he was doing his best to put them to sleep.
Perhaps he could have used some.
The potent orator who could exhilarate the masses with his command of the electronic cue card was nowhere to be found. Instead, the world was treated to what amounted to a college lecture given by a man who either had an exhausting day at the office or was in need of a better teleprompter. It was a night where trashing George W. Bush became reflexive. It was an occassion where the word “victory” was never summoned. It was a call to battle where the nature of the enemy was largely ignored. It was a lackluster talk where what is at stake for America was never explained. More negativity was projected at his own country than at her enemies. More time was spent talking about leaving Afghanistan than in crushing the enemy there. And of course, he used the words “I” and “me” so often, he prompted hate mail from the other lesser-used pronouns.
And it only took three months to put it all together.
There was the obligatory Obama self-congratulatory rhetoric, like reminding everyone that it was he who brought the war in Iraq to a “responsible end” – something only made possible by the Iraqi surge, which he not only opposed but failed to mention last night. Of course, had he mentioned the Iraqi surge, he would have had to acknowledge its success – which means he would have had to acknowledge George W. Bush’s success.
(Some things just aren’t done, even for the sake of national security).
The President also blamed the current situation in Afghanistan on the Iraqi war – “Bush’s war,” he would have said if he only could. He also high-fived himself for the ruminative three-plus months it took to arrive at last night’s decision. After all, he said, he hadn’t seen a single plan that called for troops to be deployed before 2010 anyway.
Well, that explains that.
Indeed, as projected, Obama announced the deployment of fewer troops than had been requested by General Stanley McCrhystal – 30,000 instead of 40,000. He also called on America’s allies to step up and, presumably, help America make up the difference by committing their own soldiers to the fight. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether or not already-hesitant allies will be willing to offer up troops considering that Obama also announced his plan to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011.
How’s that for a battle plan?
Nothing says “lack of commitment” quite like a withdrawal timetable.
Quite literally, the President spoke of the necessity to increase troop strength in Afghanistan only to follow in his next breath with the importance of withdrawing those same troops eighteen months later.
Consider that it will take several months to get troops into the pipeline and ramped up in Afghanistan. (It took five months in Iraq). That means that the “surge” will actually have about a year to do what it needs to do before withdrawal begins. And despite the President’s assurances that conditions on the ground will be taken into account before withdrawal actually kicks in, how realistic is it that we will be able to win the support and trust of Afghans if they believe we will start pulling out the following year? And what exactly is to keep our enemies from settling back into a “lay low and wait” position? They’ve nowhere else to go.
Keep in mind that the build-up to the 2012 presidential election will kick-off not too long after the proposed withdrawal from Afghanistan is slated to begin. What talking point could be better for a leftist candidate looking to win back his anti-war base?
I haven’t had the chance to check, but I wonder how many nations have won wars by announcing their withdrawal timetable before actually employing the war strategy.
Let me be clear, I agree with the President’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. In that respect, I back the Commander-in-Chief. I certainly back the troops. There is no question of that. Whether or not Obama’s decision actually maximizes the chances for American success is the real question.
After the first few minutes, it admittedly became a tough speech to watch.
It felt like school … and I kept sneaking out of class.
Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard said it best on Fox News last night: “I think it was one of the worst speeches I could imagine in support of the right policy decision.”
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, War on Terror | Tagged: Obama's Afghanistan policy, Obama's West Point speech | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 1, 2009
The President will finally share his Afghanistan strategy tonight in a speech from West Point. Much to the dismay of the anti-war left, Obama will not be announcing a withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Not immediately anyway.
By all accounts, the President will announce what will amount to a limited “surge” – anywhere from 30,000 to 35,000 additional troops on the ground. It will be a strategy dressed in limitations (because war strategies only work if there are pre-defined limits).
Paramount to Obama will be that in announcing the troop uptick, he sound nothing like George W. Bush.
It’s what the enemy is counting on.
I’ll rightfully save the bulk of my commentary on the matter until after he has finished speaking (so that I can pull quotes to eviscerate). There are, however, things to look out for tonight.
As a whole new batch of Americans prepare to go to war, how often do you think we will hear the word “victory” come out of the mouth of Barack Obama this evening? How will the Commander-in-Chief inspire his troops tonight as they get ready to march into battle? With the world watching, how exactly will he lead?
White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs said that tonight’s speech will “outline for the public … the cost of [Obama’s] new strategy in Afghanistan and the limits on U.S. involvement there.”
“You will hear the president discuss clearly that this is not open-ended,” Gibbs said. “This is about what has to be done in order to ensure that the Afghans can assume the responsibility of securing their country.”
If this is any indication of what we can expect tonight from the President, it ain’t good.
Pray tell, how was President Obama, after only mere months of contemplation, able to decide that the war was not to be an open-ended one? That’s the kind of wartime leadership they sing about around the campfire.
Apparently, dithering begats clarity.
Here’s the reality of the situation … The moment Obama uses the phrase “exit strategy” or throws in the word “timetable,” understand that he has, for all intents and purposes, conceded Afghanistan. By using tonight’s West Point speech to make it known that America will be walking away based on some pre-determined set of limitations, without ever setting victory as the objective, and only after sending in less troops than his commanders in the field asked for, he will essentially be inviting the Taliban to hold back until the coast is clear.
Remember, the surge in Iraq was as much as psychological tactic as it was a military one.
If the American will to do what it takes to win has a shelf life, the patience of our enemies will prove to be as formidable a weapon as any we are up against on the battlefield.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan, Obama's Afghanistan policy, Obama's West Point speech, War in Afghanistan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 30, 2009
Not that I believe the United Nations (or any related organization) is actually good for anything other than reminding the rest of us that impotence does exist beyond Viagra users and cocaine addicts, but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – an autonomous body which reports directly to the UN Security Council and General Assembly – actually did the right thing on Friday.
Not that it actually matters in the grand scheme of things.
Not that it will make a damn bit of difference.
This is the IAEA, after all.
But by a count of 25-3, the IAEA passed a resolution demanding that Iran cease construction of a recently discovered nuclear facility near Qom and put an end to its uranium enrichment program.
Both the United States and Israel applauded the vote.
And yes, you read that correctly … the IAEA demanded Iran cut it out.
Meanwhile, Iran’s response to the IAEA resolution – to go along with five other UN resolutions – was to announce to the world that it is expanding its uranium enrichment program with the construction of ten new plants.
This smart diplomacy angle is really paying dividends.
The censure from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with rare backing from Russia and China, provoked anger in Iran where members of parliament demanded the withdrawal of co-operation with UN inspectors.
President Ahmadinejad announced last night that his Cabinet had ordered the building of ten new plants aimed at producing up to 300 tonnes of nuclear fuel a year, with construction to begin on five within two months.
He said that the Cabinet had also been studying plans to start enriching uranium to a higher level — high enough to be used in medical research but below that required for weapons.
Smart diplomacy seems to be cut from the same cloth as smart climate change science.
There really is nothing quite like having infirmity as the prevailing American foreign policy motif.
Indeed, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs released a statement about America’s patience wearing thin with Iran, and the promise of consequences if Iran doesn’t play nice, blah, blah, blah.
Still, I cannot help but wonder why is it that President Obama is willing to accept the notion that Iran is pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, but is not willing to accept that Iran really does want to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Iran | Tagged: IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran, nuclear power, smart diplomacy, UN, UN inspectors, United Nations, uranium enrichment | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 28, 2009
Aside from those who may enjoy a hint of sadomasochism in their private lives, getting spanked from two directions is probably not something most people aspire to – not even the President of the United States (unless he is from Arkansas or Massachusetts).
Any president, obviously, expects to weather his share of open handed political slaps from the other team. It’s what politics are all about. But when a president’s own side starts promising a smack back in response to a policy decision, and it is in addition to the searing heat already coming from the opposition on the same issue, things are definitely getting hairy.
With President Obama already establishing brand new standards for lackadaisical wartime leadership, he is apparently ready to tell the world how the United States will proceed in Afghanistan. The scuttlebutt is he will announce that he is sending as many as 35,000 troops there early next year – less than the 40,000 General Stanley McChrystal requested.
And while Obama’s many months of glittering indecision has disgusted and angered conservatives (and others), the idea that he will send anyone else to Afghanistan is angering some liberals.
Stephen Clark of Fox News writes:
President Obama is days away from announcing a new Afghan strategy, but his immediate battle could come from liberals within his own party who are vowing to “spank” the president for committing tens of thousands of more troops to the eight-year conflict.
“I think there will be some disillusionment within his base,” said Paul Kawika Martin, political director for Peace Action, a grassroots organization, who added that thousands of activists are planning to protest following the president’s announcement.
“We’re going to spank him for sending more troops,” he told FoxNews.com, adding that they may also “thank him” if he announces a quick exit strategy.
The White House has said that the U.S. won’t be in Afghanistan for another eight or nine years. But that won’t satisfy liberals, Martin said.
Indeed, conservatives have criticized the President for his world-class dithering on this issue. They have hit Obama hard on his disinclination to use the word “victory.” They have excoriated him for failing to give the impression to his own troops – and the world at large – that he is determined to do what it takes to win. He has helped build an image of a weakened America throughout the world.
However, there can be little doubt that if the President asks for Republican support for this 35,000 troop surge, he will wind up getting it. They may question – with good reason – why Obama feels he has the expertise to second guess his own generals by sending in less troops than requested, but Republicans will have to support the move.
Couple those Republicans with the Dems who actually would be willing to support the measure, and the President will be left having to contend with the anti-war left who are promising to “spank” him for his decision.
I’d love someone to define that for me. (No illustrations needed).
Even though Obama’s announcement is sure to reawaken the anti-war movement, Martin said, the protests won’t be as intense as they were in the Bush era because the movement has been weakened by the economic recession — some organizations have shed up to 40 percent of staff in the past year, he said — and is distracted by the national health care debate. He also said many members of the movement voted for Obama and trust him more than the Bush administration.
“So you don’t have that same type of anger,” he said.
But without the support of congressional Democrats, Obama will find himself in the awkward position of relying on the support of Republicans who largely oppose his domestic agenda. And he may have to explain how he supports a troop surge in Afghanistan when he opposed one in Iraq two years ago.
The word “irony” comes to mind.
Remember, this is the “necessary war,” according to President Obama. It is so “necessary,” in fact, that Obama has decided to go McChrystal-light.
Bammy knows best.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan policy, Obama, Obama dithering, War in Afghanistan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 25, 2009
235 British troops have been killed in Afghanistan to date – 98 this year alone. Support for the war in Afghanistan continues to drop among Brits, and according to British Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth, the reason can be summed up in two words: Barack Obama.
In ten-plus months of stunning, history-book rewriting governance, it has become clear that unless one is a tyrant, a totalitarian or a terrorist, President Obama really isn’t all that interested in diplomacy. In fact, it’s quite unlikely that even an Obama patented classic groveling bow before Gordon Brown (or Sir Paul McCartney) could make things better between the two long-time allies.
While President Obama continued, even this week, to valiantly blame every thing wrong with America – including the war in Afghanistan – on eight years of George W. Bush, Ainsworth pointed his finger at Obama.
James Kirkup, Thomas Harding and Toby Harnden of the UK Telegraph write:
Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.
A “period of hiatus” in Washington – and a lack of clear direction – had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.
Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.
The Defence Secretary’s blunt remarks about the US threaten to strain further a transatlantic relationship already under pressure over the British release of the Lockerbie bomber and Mr Obama’s decision to snub Mr Brown at the United Nations in September.
Some who have lauded Obama’s thoughtfulness and deliberateness in coming up with a plan of action for Afghanistan claim that those who criticize his “dithering” are ill-informed partisans hell-bent on finding fault with anything he does. Bammy supporters argue that additional troops would not have been available for deployment until January anyway (according to a “senior US defense official”) so the “dithering” issue is largely irrelevant and intellectually dishonest.
But it’s a silly argument.
Whether or not troops are ready to deploy today has nothing to do with whether or not a course of action can be devised. Troop availability today has no bearing on whether or not the Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces can formulate a war strategy.
The argument isn’t even logical.
For example, people regularly make plans and devise strategies for their futures by setting goals (buying a house, a car, saving for a child’s education, etc.), and almost always when the funds to make those goals a reality are not in hand.
Considering the speed with which the President embarked on his multi-trillion dollar spending sprees, it’s difficult to lend legitimacy to the “Obama is just being contemplative” argument. After all, the President is obviously more than willing to increase government spending to unprecedented levels without having the funds “in hand” to do so.
So, if troops were ready to deploy today, President Obama would have already come up with a plan?
Anyone who believes that, stand on his head.
All deployments take time to organize. All battle plans need preparation. Military commanders have already hinted that it could take several months to get new troops in the pipeline. But the plan must first exist.
There is nothing in waiting months and months to announce a strategy that bodes well for Obama on this score.
And if, for the sake of argument, Obama’s dithering actually was based on the fact that additional troops would not be available until January, wouldn’t he – or any of his dancing Obamacrats – have cited it endlessly it as a reason for the prolonged delay? Wouldn’t the mainstream media, ever quick to give the President the benefit of any doubt, have beaten that excuse to death by now?
Ten months in, and everything is still George W. Bush’s fault.
It isn’t as if Obama is averse to passing the buck … or bowing to it.
Next week, after more than three months of deliberation, the president is expected to announce that he will send around 34,000 more troops.
Mr Ainsworth, speaking to MPs at the defence committe in the House of Commons, welcomed that troop ‘surge’ decision, but lamented the time taken to reach it.
He said that the rising British death toll, the corruption of the Afghan government and the delay in Washington all hamper efforts to retain public backing for the deployment.
“We have suffered a lot of losses,” he said. “We have had a period of hiatus while McChrystal’s plan and his requested uplift has been looked at in the detail to which it has been looked at over a period of some months, and we have had the Afghan elections, which have been far from perfect let us say.
“All of those things have mitigated against our ability to show progress… put that on the other side of the scales when we are suffering the kind of losses that we are.”
The President is having a difficult time convincing anybody that he takes the war in Afghanistan seriously.
Ainsworth – the first British minister to publicly speak up against Obama’s turtle-paced approach to prosecuting the war – is clearly not happy.
A set of holiday DVDs presented in a festive gift case ought to put him straight.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan policy, Afghanistan War, Afghanistan war strategy, Bob Ainsworth, General McChrystal, Obama, Obama dithering, Obama war decision | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 24, 2009
Nidal Malik Hasan, terrorist
In all of their self-serving delusional grandeur, the mainstream media remains dogmatically determined to cite reasons other than Nidal Malik Hasan’s religion for the November 5th terrorist attack that killed thirteen at Fort Hood.
Believe it or not, they may have actually hit upon one, thanks to New York Times columnist Robert Wright .
It’s American conservatism.
In a piece published on Saturday, Wright blamed Hasan’s shooting spree on being “pushed over the edge by his perception of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.” (both of which were initiated by a Republican president).
And while Wright cedes that Hasan also “drew inspiration” from radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, now in Yemen, the Fort Hood shooting was, according to him, “an example of Islamist terrorism being spread partly by the war on terrorism — or, actually, by two wars on terrorism, in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
He went on to say that “Fort Hood is the biggest data point we have — the most lethal Islamist terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. It’s only one piece of evidence, but it’s a salient piece, and it supports the liberal, not the conservative, war-on-terrorism paradigm.” (Not that thousands of Islamic terrorist attacks all over the world over the course of many years are especially salient in understanding Hasan’s motivations, mind you).
In fact, Wright believes that Hasan’s actions are mostly the result of a noxious combination of conservative war-mongering and bats flapping around in his belfry:
It’s true that Major Hasan was unbalanced and alienated — and, by my lights, crazy. But what kind of people did conservatives think were susceptible to the terrorism meme?
These may be the two most asinine lines I’ve yet come across on the Hasan matter.
What is he talking about?
Hasan was isolated because he chose to be. Strange as it may seem to Wright, Hasan’s radical Islamic yammerings probably didn’t appeal to too many of his fellow soldiers. Talking jihad is not a great little ice-breaker.
Note how Wright initially classifies Hasan as “unbalanced and alienated.” By Wright’s reckoning, Hasan is crazy. Yet, in the next sentence, he appears to explain away the bulk of, if not all, Islamic terrorists, by suggesting that anyone “susceptible” to jihad must be, by default, “unbalanced and alienated.” In other words, terrorists, while bad, are prone to be frail mental flowers teetering on the edge of self-control, driven over the cliff by outside forces – in this case, two Muslim-erradicating wars waged by George W. Bush.
Seriously, this is how liberals think.
America – or rather, conservative America, with its propensity toward hawkish, unnuanced solutions to the most complex problems of the human condition – is to blame (at least in part) for driving Hasan to kill. Safe to say, if the United States were not involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, people like Hasan, while still unbalanced, would probably have never been pushed to blow away innocents.
If not for America, so the thinking goes, recruiting numbers at suicide-bombing re-up centers would plummet. (It’s one of the reasons President Obama gave for closing Guantanamo Bay, you’ll recall – because of its function as an Al-Qaeda recruiting tool). By such logic, America shouldn’t bother fighting against terrorists at all, thus ensuring zero recruitment among the murdering class. Only the unhinged and easily-provoked are “susceptible to the terrorism meme.”
How would such an approach work in the civilian world, I wonder, in dealing with criminals such as serial rapists? Or child molesters? Or murderers? Would societal conditions improve or deteriorate if law enforcement officials decided to stop being so “aggressive” in pursuing evil-doers? Does it make sense for law enforcement to back off for fear of creating more rapists? Or bank robbers?
Or are common criminals not as “crazy” or as easily provoked as jihadists?
Central to the debate over Afghanistan is the question of whether terrorists need a “safe haven” from which to threaten America. If so, it is said, then we must work to keep every acre of Afghanistan (and Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, etc.) out of the hands of groups like the Taliban. If not — if terrorists can orchestrate a 9/11 about as easily from apartments in Germany as from camps in Afghanistan — then maybe never-ending war isn’t essential.
However you come out on that argument, the case of Nidal Hasan shows one thing for sure: Homegrown American terrorists don’t need a safe haven. All they need is a place to buy a gun.
Liberals are funny when they try to think things through.
Take a moment to ask yourself this …
How many homegrown Islamist terrorist attacks have there been on American soil over the years?
Perhaps a better question is … how many homegrown Islamist terrorist attacks have there been on American soil over the course of time that did not involve a United States Army Officer (who most likely would not have had not too many problems acquiring a firearm anyway)?
It is precisely because America is not a safe haven that so many terrorist attacks have been thwarted over the years.
And why is it not a safe haven?
Because of the presence (both overtly and covertly) of those men and women charged with the task of defending the United States against all foes, foreign and domestic.
In short, it’s just not very feasible for terrorists to train and prepare for 9/11 style attacks in the United States (or in most free nations, for that matter) the same way they would be able to do in nations sympathetic to their cause. Obviously, preparations can be undertaken to varying degrees in almost any location, as evidenced by the number of stateside plots that have been squashed in recent years; but the notion that one can hatch, and train for, terrorist attacks with the same ease – and with the same scope – from “apartments in Germany” as they can from Taliban-protected camps in Afghanistan is ridiculous.
Just because one believes that terrorism can potentially spring from almost everywhere does not mean nothing should be done anywhere.
This is about values, not the ability to acquire a gun.
This is about having the courage to label evil, not the willingness to protect diversity at the expense of innocent lives.
Presumably, in Wright’s world, if those external forces that so played havoc with Hasan would just back off and stop doing whatever they’re doing to provoke the susceptibly unhinged who have yet to snap, terrorism would drop like President Obama’s approval numbers.
Posted in Dumb Liberals, Evil, Foreign Policy, religion, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Fort Hood, Nidal Malik Hasan, radical Islam, terrorism, terrorist attack | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 20, 2009
Continuing on his Accomplishing Nothing But Looking Damn Good For The Cameras Tour of Asia, this little gem was taken in Seoul, South Korea yesterday.
As you can see, President Barack Obama is breaking out his “tough guy” stance – posed an ready – as he shows off a little tae kwan do for President Lee Myung-Bak.
Whether this photo succeeded in scaring North Korea back the “nuclear talks” round table with Obama in unclear at this time.
Posted in Foreign Policy | Tagged: Asain Tour, Barack Obama, President Lee Myung-Bak, South Korea, tae kwon do pose | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 17, 2009
On the periphery of reality, where the myth of global warming has set up shop, there is a great deal of disappointment being directed at President Barack Obama, particularly from his fan base overseas. While banners across the globe implore Barack Obama to somehow “Stop Climate Change” – presumably so there can finally be one constant, unvarying temperature for all of humanity – the President is discovering that “hope and change,” while sufficient to move a whole lot of street vendor paraphernalia, amounts to nothing more than empty buzzwords poised to disillusion those fated to reside in the real world.
While it certainly would have been advantageous – both symbolically and environmentally – for the President to walk across the ocean to get to Asia, there’s a growing sense among the ecologically hysterical (i.e., the left) that the “hope and change” President is sizing up to be a big fat failure.
He just can’t seem to make anyone happy these days.
Germany’s Speigel Online has an opinion piece by Christian Schwägerl called “Obama Has Failed the World on Climate Change“.
US President Barack Obama came to office promising hope and change. But on climate change, he has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Now, should the climate summit in Copenhagen fail, the blame will lie squarely with Obama.
The folder labeled “climate change” that George W. Bush left behind for his successor on the desk of the Oval Office in January likely wasn’t a thick one. Although Bush once said that America is overly dependent on oil, he never got beyond that insight. He was too busy waging war on Iraq and searching for a legal basis for extraordinary renditions to pay much attention to the real threat facing humanity. “Forget the climate” seems to have been Bush’s unofficial motto.
Leftist pundits are innately entertaining beings. I enjoy them the same way I enjoy watching those guys who can simultaneously spin fifteen plates on the end of broom handles. They’re admittedly enticing for a few moments, but before too long, I need to get up and get a sandwich.
Mr. Schwägerl, you’ll note, was quick to point out that former President Bush all but ignored the “real threat facing humanity” during his time in office – global warming – and instead busied himself with war mongering and making totalitarians feel bad about themselves. Bush, obviously, never saw his dream of a world without ice caps come to fruition, thanks to a global cooling trend set off by global warming, but Lord knows he tried valiantly to destroy as much as he could.
The “folder” thing was a clever touch, too. (Leftists are inventive, aren’t they?)
When [Obama] took office at the beginning of 2009, it was clear that the success of the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December depended almost entirely on the US — that America needed to take a clear leadership role on a problem that could shake civilization to its very core.
On the weekend, Obama announced that there would be no agreement on binding rules in Copenhagen. It was the admission of a massive failing — and the prelude to a truly dramatic phase of international climate policy.
Barack Obama cast himself as a “citizen of the world” when he delivered his well-received campaign speech in Berlin in the summer of 2008. But the US president has now betrayed this claim. In his Berlin speech, he was dishonest with Europe. Since then, Obama has neglected the single most important issue for an American president who likes to imagine himself as a world citizen, namely, his country’s addiction to fossil fuels and the risks of unchecked climate change. Health-care reform and other domestic issues were more important to him than global environmental threats. He was either unwilling or unable to convince skeptics in his own ranks and potential defectors from the ranks of the Republicans to support him, for example, by promising alternative investments as a compensation for states with large coal reserves.
If, indeed, President Obama has “failed the world on climate change,” then I wholeheartedly applaud his grievous ineffectiveness.
The best thing Barack Obama can do for this country is to fail at implementing his initiatives.
Note how, according to Schwägerl speaking on behalf of the disenchanted international community, global climate change should be the “single most important issue for an American president who likes to imagine himself as a world citizen.”
As talk show host Dennis Prager likes to say, “Clarity is my friend.”
Maybe President Obama ought to bike to Oslo next month to accept his Nobel Peace Prize. The gesture would, at least, show his commitment to the cause.
Posted in Dumb Liberals, environmentalism, Foreign Policy, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: Barack Obama failure, Christian Schwagerl, Copenhagen, global climate change, Global Warming, Obama failed the world, Speigel Online | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 16, 2009
Can they stop badgering him with these incessant questions about Afghanistan? Is there nothing else to talk about? Do these mainstream media one-trick ponies realize the war there is not the only topic on planet Earth? Do they not understand that their one-dimensional appraoch to journalism is going to irritate the big man to no end if they keep pestering him about it?
It must be incredibly difficult for President Barack Obama to have to deal with persistent nagging from belligerent elements of the press corps (no doubt Limbuagh-dispatched insurgents) about his plans for Afghanistan when there are other matters to tend to, such as how good he looks and how cool he sounds. It must baffle him to no end trying to figure out how the right-wing managed to infiltrate the mainstream media. Who else but they would keep hassling him about this? A trip to Asia is no place to discuss foreign policy, especially when there are heads of state yet to bow to, apologies yet to be made, and American soldiers in harm’s way yet to blow off.
In Shanghai yesterday, the President’s panties were, indeed, in a twist as yet another tedious inquiry about Afghanistan came at him.
Mike Allen, at Politico, writes:
President Barack Obama made no effort to conceal his irritation when his press corps used the first question of his maiden Far East trip to ask what was taking him so long on Afghanistan.
Jennifer Loven of The Associated Press had asked: “Can you explain to people watching and criticizing your deliberations what piece of information you’re still lacking to make that call.”
“With respect to Afghanistan, Jennifer,” the president scolded, “I don’t think this is a matter of some datum of information that I’m waiting on. … Critics of the process … tend not to be folks who … are directly involved in what’s happening in Afghanistan. Those who are, recognize the gravity of the situation and recognize the importance of us getting this right.”
The cool president’s heated response reflected second-guessing from the press and Pentagon about a process that has spanned eight formal meetings with his war cabinet, totaling about 20 hours.
The White House has been deliberately portraying the process as thorough, emphasizing the opposing views the president has considered, as a way of positing a contrast with President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
How exasperating it must be for Barack H. Obama. The press is so captivated, so bedeviled, with the damn war, they’re completely missing these golden presidential photo opportunities. Does the press corps ever think of anything besides itself?
David Alexrod, White House senior advisor, blames this obsession with trying to get Obama to act presidential and take a decision about Afghanistan as a symptom of the “A.D.D. policial culture.”
Yeah, it’s us.
Where was this “thorough” deliberation process when the monumental failure known as the Stimulus Bill became the law of the land in about thirteen nanoseconds?
The fact is, Afghanistan – like everything else with Barack OBama – is still all about George W. Bush.
Obama knows that the moment any kind of decision on Afghanistan is taken, the war becomes his. And the moment he owns it, he can no portray himself as a victim.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, China trip, David Alexrod, Troops in Afghanistan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 12, 2009
One can only imagine the quandaries and complications that the most powerful man in the world must face on a daily basis. This goes way beyond having to decide which teleprompter to read from or how many waffles to eat before shooting hoops. This is exponentially more complex than crafting new and interesting ways to blame his own country for the ills of the world or deciding what is and isn’t terrorism. When one is both President of the United States and water walker, the challenges are prodigious – far beyond the likes of those that mere tea baggers and anti-government extremists must contend with.
-“Should I mention myself only once or twice in my Fall of the Berlin Wall Commemoration speech?”
-“Isn’t it important to describe how *I* felt after the Fort Hood “tragedy”?”
-“When do I tell everybody that it is their pleasure to have me as their supreme leader?”
It isn’t easy.
And thanks to everyone’s favorite whack-job totalitarian, President Barack Obama’s got even more decisions he’ll have to deal with.
It will be very interesting to see how the President – the man who launched a thousand indecisions – responds to an ultimatum given him by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
In short: It’s either Israel or Iran. Decide.
From the Jerusalem Post:
Speaking in Istanbul at the 25th Session of the Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation (COMCEC) of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Iranian president said that it was up to US President Barack Obama to realize his motto of “change”.
“The support of both Israel and Iran can’t go hand in hand,” he was quoted as saying by IRNA. “No change is made unless great choices are made.
“We would welcome the changes, and wait for big and correct decisions to be made… We will clasp any hand that is extended sincerely toward us, but changes should be made in practice.”
No doubt, it will please Ahmadinejad to no end knowing that President Obama is, in fact, all about change.
And hope, too.
In fact, helping things to fall into place for Bammy and his cooler-than-cool enlightened foreign polcy cats, is Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, William Burns, who, on Tuesday, told the Middle East Institute in Washington that the “U.S. recognizes the Iranian regime’s “right” to nuclear power, does not seek regime change and is ready for more talks with Iran.”
(This thing practically writes itself).
We seek a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. We do not seek regime change. We have condemned terrorist attacks against Iran. We have recognized Iran’s international right to peaceful nuclear power. With our partners in the international community, we have demonstrated our willingness to take creative confidence-building steps, including our support for the IAEA’s offer of fuel for the Tehran research reactor.
And then pretty flowers will bloom everywhere, fuzzy bunnies will prance across the rolling fields of brotherhood, beautiful puffy clouds will waft whimsically across skies of endless blue, and all the people of the world will join hands and sing songs of love and peace.
For some reason, I hear the following play out in my head:
Okay, Mr. Child Molestor. I have to run to the store. I’m trusting you to watch my kids because you said your child raping days are behind you, and you’re not even interested in pre-teens anymore. I believe you. I believe in second chances. I’ll be back as soon as I can. The girls’ room is upstairs, second door on the right. They’ll probably just sleep righ through. There’s soda in the fridge.
You see my point.
The real question is … why stop at Israel and Iran?
Why not present the always-ready-to-negotiate Barack Obama with a choice between secular government and Sharia law? Or between Islam and Christianity? Or between Holocaust and Holocaust denial?
The possibilities are endless.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Iran, Israel | Tagged: Israel or Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 31, 2009
When afforded the opportunity – which, granted, is rare – I like to point out when liberals say something that is honest. In the name of intellectual integrity, I cannot, in good faith, maintain a blog comprised primarily of commentaries on some of the day’s events and expect that liberals will never utter any word of truth at any time – although it is tempting to believe it. It is the very least I can do as my quest for clarity trudges forward.
On Thursday, in Pakistan, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, after saying that she found it hard to believe that the Pakistani government couldn’t “get” the Al Qaeda leadership in that country if they really wanted to, went on to say, ” We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan.”
Considering the existence of the “death tax,” Clinton is absolutely correct – America really does tax things that don’t move. (A sourec of pride for her, I’m certain).
For her honesty, kudos to Mrs. Bill Clinton.
Posted in Foreign Policy | Tagged: "We tax everything that moves", Hillary Clinton, Pakistan, Secretary Of State | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 28, 2009
President Barack Obama needs to grow up, quit all the whining, stop blaming every conceivable ill that exists in America on the other side, and at least try to appear as if leadership of some kind is attainable. It’s time for this colossal do-nothing President to get up off his backside and finally own his Presidency. Someone with some balls needs to pick up Mr. Obama, turn him over, flip the switch from “campaign” to “President,” inform him that he is now more than nine months into his term, and demand that he stop behaving like a prepubescent kickball team captain and finally act like a man accountable.
Democrats have the White House and both houses of Congresses (Lord helps us), and if there has ever been a more disengaged, sedentary, lackluster, bumbling, stumbling collection of stammering political lummoxes than the crew in charge right now, I’m not aware of it. And although the campaign is long over (calendar-wise), and the blame-Bush-for-everything window has long been hammered shut, the President is still trying to squeeze through.
The fact is, it’s too late for that now.
It now belongs to the Anointed One.
It is all his.
This is, after all, the real world – where enemies exist, lives hang in the balance and actions must speak louder than words. This is not a hacky-sack bull session among campus marxists-in-waiting and capitalism-sucks dope smokers. This is not Wednesday afternoon Mahjongg, or one of President Obama’s studly White House basketball games, or one of his twenty-nine thousand rounds of golf. This is reality … and the reality is, this is a nation at war, with troops in harm’s way, facing an enemy hell-bent on destroying this country and all it stands for, led by a holding-pattern President who needs to pull out his thumbs and actually lead. Unfortunately, America’s top Keystone Cop has done little more than show those who are under his command that they are, at best, secondary to such pressing matters as global warming, curbing CEO salaries, destroying private insurance companies and doing all he can to make sure Chicago hosts the 500 meter freestyle event.
How dare this President fiddle with five irons and lay his egotistical charms on the Olympic gods while America’s bravest wait for some kind of word from the mountain top as to what their mission in Afghanistan is. While Obama’s White House is busy brown-shirting their way into a war against the Fox News Channel – and he continues to distinguish his administration with Mao enthusiasts, 9/11-truthers, tax evaders, race-baiters and unaccountable czars – American troops are quite literally stranded in a strategic limbo wondering what the hell their Commander-in-Chief is waiting for.
On Monday, for instance, the President commented that after “long years of drift,” he was finally going to get America’s Afghanistan policy correct.
In response, Charles Krauthammer, of the Fox News Channel, on yesterday’s Special Report, said:
I want to point out one thing about what Obama had said, what he talked about: “the long years of drift.” There is something truly disgusting about the way he cannot refrain from attacking Bush when he’s being defensive about himself. I mean, it’s beyond disgraceful here. He won election a year ago. He became the Commander-In-Chief two months later. He announced his own strategy – not the Bush strategy, his strategy – six months ago, and it wasn’t off-handed. It was a major address with the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State standing with him, and now he’s still taking about “the drift” in the Bush years.
What’s happening today is not a result of the “drift in Bush years,” so-called. It’s because of the drift in his years. It’s because of the flaws in his own strategy, which is what he is re-examining. He has every right as Commander-in-Chief to re-examine his own strategy, but he ought to be honest, forthright and courageous enough as the President to simply say, “I’m rethinking the strategy I adopted six months ago, and not, once again, childlike attack his predecessor.
Also on Monday, the President of the United States, speaking to a military audience in Jacksonville, familiarly took leave of his backbone and once again proved why national security cannot be trusted to liberals and other children. With his nation at war, and troops already on the battlefield, he forever etched his name in the annals of great American war leaders, saying, “I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way. I won’t risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary.”
Is he kidding?
It’s been seven months.
This is the President of the United States, the most powerful man on the face of the earth, addressing members of the American military, the greatest fighting force the world has ever known, and the message he manages to convey – the words of inspiration he musters for those who have pledged their lives to defend this country – is he “won’t risk” lives “unless it is absolutely necessary.”
What about those who are at this moment in harm’s way, Mr. President? What about those who are already risking everything so that you (and the rest of us) can hit the links, or arrange pick-up games at the White House, or use fatty oils to fry up their latkes? What about the troops who are now fighting America’s enemies in a war that, not too long ago, you called a war of necessity?
Is it no longer a war of necessity?
Is the President aware that the words he speaks are actually heard and ingested outside of the friendly confines of his own mind? Including those who are currently serving in Afghanistan?
I humbly ask … Is it at all posibble for the man who won a whopping 52.7% of the popular vote last November – the man who proclaimed incontrovertibly that victory was the only option in Afghanistan – to stop blaming his own inability to chew gum and q-tip his ears at the same time on George W. Bush?
Yes, yes, we know … Along with all of his other atrocities, Bush probably took great delight in kicking little puppies, thought nothing of cutting in front of little old ladies at the Post Office, and stole coins from the blind pencil guy on the street.
Regardless, Barack Obama is in charge today. This is his ship. Nine damn months is long enough.
The President, of course, employs the same “it-was-him-not-me” approach when dealing with domestic issues (e.g., unemployment, health care, growing deficits, etc.) Note that as he attempts to “tackle” the myriad of challenges facing the United States – and defend his all-too important legacy-in-progress – everything always comes down to doing all he can to try and deal with the incalculable disasters he inherited from George W. Bush.
It wasn’t him, he cries.
Eight years of bad policies just can’t be undone like that, he explains.
Things will get worse before they get better, he promises.
It’s not easy, he says.
Blah, blah, blah.
Proclaiming that America’s problems still boil down to the preponderance of pervasive blunders and destructive policies perpetrated and implemented by George W. Bush, he figures, will have the citizenry nodding and sighing in agreement, as if to say, “We understand, Bam. We’re with you. Just get to it when you can.”
Forget the fact that Obama already sees his role as a rebuilder and transformer. It is his charge (in his own mind) to reconstruct this nation from the ruins of the more than two centuries of social injustice, run-away capitalism, and international bullying that preceded him. He first has to salvage what he can from the calamitous reign of George W. Bush, then he can beat down the Founding Fathers.
Someone – anyone – who is more concerned with the well-being of the United States than whether or not they will continue to have access to the messianic inner circle needs to shake some damn sense into the man who cannot let go of the blame-Bush-for-everything game plan that got him the job. This incessant cry-baby approach – the victimization mentality of “it-isn’t-my-fault-because-this-is-what-was-handed-to-me” – must come to a screeching halt immediately.
Enough is enough.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberalism, military, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: "blame bush", Barack Obama, Blaming Bush, Do-nothing President, Foreign Policy, ineffective Presidency, stop blaming George W. Buah, War in Afghanistan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 14, 2009
An important new blog has been added to the Roman Around blog roll.
It is called Keep America Safe and is the creation of Liz Cheney, William Kristol and Debra Burlingame.
Their mission statement, in part, reads as follows:
The mission of Keep America Safe is to provide information for concerned Americans about critical national security issues. Keep America Safe seeks to influence public policy by encouraging dialogue between American citizens and their elected representatives in order to produce legislation and executive action that enhances the national security of the United States.
Keep America Safe believes the United States can only defeat our adversaries and defend our interests from a position of strengh. We know that America has, for 233 years, been an unparalleled force for good in the world, that our fighting forces are the best the world has ever known, and that the world is a safer place when America is trusted by our allies and feared and respected by our enemies. Keep America Safe will make the case for an unapologetic approach to fighting terrorism around the world, for victory in the wars this country fights, for democracy and human rights, and for a strong American military that is needed in the dangerous world in which we live.
On the Keep America Safe home page is a terrific video, professionally produced called Rhetoric vs Reality.
Please check it out, bookmark the site, and visit regularly.
They’ve done a fine job.
Posted in Foreign Policy, national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Debrah Burlingame, Keep America Safe, Liz Cheney, William Kristol | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 5, 2009
CNN Political Analyst, Roland Martin
One day after President Barack Obama’s bid to bring the 2016 Olympic Games homes to the United States failed – and an apoplectic mainstream news media descended into broadcasting pandemonium, coping as best they could with the shock and horror of the President’s embarrassment – CNN political analyst Roland Martin penned an opinion piece, taking “giddy” Republicans to task for basking in the President’s failure.
He effectively challenged the patriotism of those nasty old, mean-spirited, transformation-hating right-wingers who celebrated Chicago’s elimination from contention.
Never one to mince words, let me state, without equivocation – free of any apology or excuse – that I proudly wear the ” giddy” Republican label that Martin is busting a journalistic pimple over.
I’ll tattoo it on my forehead, if necessary.
Admittedly, prior to the announcement that Rio de Janeiro would be the host city for the 2016 Olympics, I was fairly neutral on the whole matter. I actually couldn’t have cared less. I even said so on this blog.
Outside of the nose hair trimming techniques of early 8th Century Persians, I don’t know that there is much that is less interesting to me than the Olympics.
However, since the announcement last Friday – and witnessing the reaction of the Obama-backed media complex since – I have shifted my thinking.
I will use Martin’s piece to help me explain why.
Whenever President Obama has traveled overseas and offered pointed and direct assessments of the United States, some of them critical, Republicans have ripped him for criticizing America, saying a president should always defend the United States.
So I want to hear the explanation by these so-called patriots of their giddy behavior over the United States losing the 2016 Olympic Games.
Yes, the United States. The bid that was rejected Friday by the International Olympic Committee was not a Chicago, Illinois, bid. It was the official bid submitted by the United States Olympic Committee and was representative of the nation. Tokyo’s bid was that of Japan; Madrid’s was that of Spain; and Rio de Janeiro’s was that of Brazil.
Republicans want to spin the decision as a massive loss by President Obama and the Democrats who have always controlled Chicago politics.
“Hahahahaha,” wrote Erick Erickson on the conservative “RedState” blog, “I thought the world would love us more now that Bush was gone.”
What the critics don’t see is that Obama’s loss on the Olympics is America’s loss. Any red-blooded American who loves to see the American flag raised and the national anthem played when one of our own wins a gold medal should blast the Republicans’ giddiness over the loss.
First of all, for clarity’s sake, no President of the United States has ever criticized or apologized for his own country on foreign soil. It is inconceivable that any President would ever do so. It simply would never serve the best interests of the United States, in any way whatsoever – yet, President Obama has done it on several occasions. In no uncertain terms, it is unaccepatble behavior for the Commander-In-Chief of the United States of America. It is not how a President preserves, protects and defends the Constitution.
That he – President Obama – finds it appropriate to do so, with mere months under his belt as the nation’s Chief Executive, while effectively thumbing his nose at the over two centuries of American history that preceded him, is, at the very least, arrogant; it is, at most, a dangerous precedent that isolates and instills less confidence and security in those nations that look to America as the world’s defender against evil (think of Poland and the Czech Republic). It is a weakness that emboldens America’s enemies.
This criticism of President Obama would apply to any President who asserts that kind of spinelessness, regardless of his party affiliation, skin color, or city of origin.
As far as the “red-blooded” Americans Martin is referring to whom he says should be blasting “giddy” Republicans like me, I must ask:
How exactly is not getting the Olympic Games “America’s loss?” In what way?
It seems that Mr. Martin is somehow equating patriotism with support of the games coming to Chicago.
Typical liberal non sequiturism.
I’m an American – a proud American – and whenever that flag goes up (when possible), regardless of where I am, whether there are Olympic Games going on or not, I stand and salute it. Likewise, wherever and whenever I hear Star-Spangled Banner, I take a moment (when possible) to stop and honor my country. Whether it is played in Rio, Chicago, Europe, or on the moon, the significance is not – nor should it be – diminished based on locale.
It’s true, I am not a fan of the Olympics. But so what? Patriotism has nothing to do with the Olympic Games.
For what it’s worth, before each sporting event I attend, I remove my hat, face the flag, and salute my country. I fly flags proudly at my home, and handle them properly, removing them at night and during inclement weather. I proudly wear a flag lapel pin because I honor this nation and those who fight to defend her. I don’t need an international athletic competition held on American soil to serve as a barometer of how patriotic I am, or whether or not I support the United States of America.
Besides, there are plenty of people who fervently support our Olympic athletes who would rather see the games played elsewhere. Let someone else deal with the nightmarish traffic, pollution, community upheaval, and ever-present terrorist threats that accompany the event.
And just to keep my friends in the environmentalist movement happy, what about the massive carbon footprint that human beings from well over a hundred countries would leave behind?
Having recycling bins strewn about the Olympic Village just isn’t green enough.
Americans love home field advantage, and we always desire to show the rest of the world what we are made of.
I don’t care if Republicans want to rip President Obama over going to Copenhagen, Denmark, to pitch for the games. This isn’t about politics. It’s not about ideology. This is about America. OUR pride. Our chance to shine. Our loss of the games.
So, to all the critics happy about us losing the 2016 games, turn in your flag lapel pins and stop boasting of being so patriotic. When an American city loses, like New York did in the the last go-round, we all lose. And all you critics are on the same level as the America haters all across the world.
You should be shouted down for not backing your own country. The next time any of you bang out a press release about “Buy American” or “Support our troops,” remember this moment when your cynical, callous and small-minded brains happily rejoiced when America lost the 2016 Olympic Games.
Mr. Martin, Americans show the world what we are made of by our values. We show the world what we are made of by standing up to evil and defeating it. We are the Shining City Upon The Hill because we are a nation that believes in God-given liberty and the power of the individual. We stand as a beacon to the world’s huddled masses not because we have the longest jumpers, fastest runners and strongest weightlifters. We are the greatest nation on Earth because America gives anyone and everyone the opportunity to be the very best they can be, without government restraint.
That’s how America’s greatness is measured.
People come here not because we have killer sprinters and world class pole vaulters.
It’s interesting how Mr. Martin can make the claim that this was not about politics.
Why on Earth would President Obama personally jet to Copenhagen to pitch his adopted home city if there was not political pressure to do so from his cronies back home? I mean, why Chicago? Why not other American cities that could probably have been more accomodating than the splendidly corruptible Windy City?
Because everything is about the ever-enigmatic, charismatic, President of the World, Barack Obama.
He is the Liberal King. He can do anything.
I also love how Mr. Martin says that the bid to bring the Olympics to Chicago was “about America.”
Does he have any inclination of how ridiculous he sounds?
The Olympics are not about America. They’re about multiculturalism. They’re about leveling the playing fields between nations. They’re about moral and cultural equivelancy. They’re about the whole world coming together in some sort of pseudo-hand holding, kumbaya-type of kinship manifested through athletic competition.
“America,” Mr. Martin?
How about the troops in harm’s way? Why the hell has the President dragged his feet on Afghanistan while American fighting forces literally hang in the balance waiting for him to decide what he is going to do? How good is it for America that, at one minute, Afghanistan is a war of necessity and at the next, it is an issue he is unsure about? Aren’t the men and women of the Armed Forces “about America?” Do they not deserve the President’s attention before he makes himself available to the damn International Olympic Committee?
American pride is not about where the Olympic Games are being held.
Sure, one can make a case that America is about winning in those games. I’ve nothing against that. When America wins – even in the Olympics – it is a good thing.
But the locale of those games is all “about America?”
Who’s brain is “small-minded,” sir?
America shines when she liberates oppressed peoples. America shines when she defends her allies and keeps her promises. America shines when she come to the aid of people in trouble, in all walks of life, all over the world. America shines not because her athletes throw a jevelin the longest, or swim the fastest. America shines because she is a shining city upon a hill, as accommodating as any nation that has ever existed.
And by the way, as a New Yorker, I did not lose when my city was rejected as the host of the 2012 Olympic Games, nor did my family, friends and fellow New Yorkers.
I actually celebrated.
And keep in mind, that was while George W. Bush was President, not too long after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The fact of the matter is, the Olympics are not good for local economies. The 2016 Games, if the pattern had held true to form, would not have been a boost to Chicago, as many instinctively (and reflexively) believe. Since the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, every host city has actually lost money.
Stefan Szymanski of the Washington Post writes:
The truth is that the local economy doesn’t get much of a boost while those shiny new athletic venues are being built. Many of the jobs created are filled by specialists who come in from outside — to construct a BMX bicycle track, it helps to have built one before — and they take their pay home with them. To the extent that local labor is tapped, suppliers are taken away from other projects in the area, raising costs in the process. It would be nice to think you could create an Olympic city by hiring an army of the unemployed, but mega-projects like this do not work like that.
My charm will conquer all
President Obama’s grandest mistake in this whole affair was never giving anyone the impression that he wanted the Olympic Games to come to Chicago because it was good for the United States of America. Nothing in what he said or did surrounding his attempt to bring the games to Chicago was ever about his country.
It was always about him.
And whether justified or not, the impression that he was paying back some old debts to former Chicagoland chums was foremost in the minds of many.
It was his arrogance – the continuation of his United Nations “America-Has-Been-Great-For-Nine-Months-Since-I-Came-Along” approach – that killed Chicago’s chances. It was his belief in his own power to persuade, simply by virtue of his unprecedented presence before the OIC in Copenhagen that killed the bid. It was his self-centered, rambling, unfocused gobbledygook about how the Games would feel to him and his family that deep-sixed it. It was his wife, Michelle, emoting about how the games would make her feel, and how it would remind her of her father that helped knock Chicago out in the first round.
For those reasons, President Obama needed to be brought down a few pegs.
This country is not about him.
With each failure of his radical agendas and misprioritized deeds, America wins.
That is why I am “giddy,” Mr. Martin.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Media Bias, Obama Bonehead, politics, Sports, Values | Tagged: "giddy" Republicans, 2016 Olympics, Chicago Olympics, CNN Commentary, President Obama failure, Roland Martin | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 27, 2009
There is no need for in-depth analysis here.
There is nothing that necessitates a detailed breakdown by anyone in the punditocracy.
In this case, the President of the United States is as clear as the san-serif font on his teleprompters. In fact, unlike the text that scrolls across the face of his electronic cue-cards, his words, in this instance, are not empty or vapid. Dare I say it … there is not a stitch of ambiguity in what the Commander-In-Chief of the United States Armed Forces is saying.
With the recent revalation that the nation of Iran has kept a secret nuclear plant hidden from UN inspectors for many moons, Barack Obama has taken a page from the I’m-A-Lover-Not-A-Fighter songbook and made it clear that he is not looking for, nor does he want, victory against Iran.
I actually had to pause to allow that concept to sufficiently sink in.
Victory is not what the current Iranian crisis is about, according the President of the United States.
(Think about that for a moment).
The President did not imply it or indirectly suggest that victory wasn’t his aim – he actually came right out and said it, in those very words.
He is “not interested in victory.”
Just like that.
It can hardly be misinterpreted.
If there are words more gutless, more disgusting, that one can hear come out of the mouth of the President of the United States (other than “I Barack Obama, do solemnly swear ….), I’d like to know what they are.
Here was the brief exchange between The One and a reporter:
REPORTER: You just mentioned sanctions that have bite. What kind of sanctions –and I know you can’t get into detail – but what kind of sanctions at all would have bite with Iran? Do you really think any kind of sanction would have an effect on somebody like Ahmadinejad?
Secondly, some of your advisors today said that this announcement was a “victory.” Do you consider it a victory? And if so, why didn’t you announce it earlier since you’ve known since you’re President-elect?
OBAMA: Uh … This isn’t a football game. So, I’m not interested in victory. I’m interested in resolving the problem. The problem is that Iran repeatedly says that it is pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and its actions contradict its words.
Or maybe I shouldn’t be.
Take another moment to let it sink in … The President of the United States of America – the most powerful man in the most powerful nation on Earth – has publicly asserted, in no uncertain terms, that he does not seek victory against a rogue nation whose government not only slaughters its own citizens on the streets, but openly backs terrorism, has called for the destruction of Israel, has a thug madman as its President, poses a genuine threat to its neighbors and the world oil supply, and is on the brink of having the capability of producing nuclear weapons.
Rather, he’s interested in resolving the problem – whatever that means.
What the hell is he talking about?
I haven’t the inclination or patience to try and parse the messiah’s words. Sometimes, taking things at face value is more than enough.
Let us hope that Obama’s interest in victory carries over to the election of 2012.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Iran, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: "not interested in victory", Barack Obama, Iran, weak foreign policy | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 24, 2009
In case you hadn’t noticed, this is quite a President we have here.
Ever eager and willing to bend over backwards for thug dictators, terrorist appeasers and human rights violators, President of the World (and quite possibly the vast majority of the galaxy), Barack Obama, is equally exhilarated about thumbing America’s nose at longtime allies.
Some of America’s staunchest supporters and embracers of liberty are in Eastern Europe – particularly Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama’s decision to scrap the installation of critical missile defense shields in those two countries – which has incidentally pleased Russia to no end – isn’t exactly securing him any invites to (former Polish President) Lech Walesa’s house for supper and scrabble. Former Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek said, “The Americans are not interested in this territory as they were before. It’s bad news for the Czech Republic.”
After all, if you can’t alienate your friends, who can you alienate?
Meanwhile, in Israel, the percentage of people who believe that President Obama is a friend to their nation is at 4% – that’s four bloody percent!
Compare that to 88% under President George W. Bush.
And now this little tidbit from Great Britain this morning.
David Hughes from the UK Telegraph writes this very important – and telling – piece:
The juxtaposition on our front page this morning is striking. We carry a photograph of Acting Sgt Michael Lockett – who was killed in Helmand on Monday – receiving the Military Cross from the Queen in June, 2008. He was the 217th British soldier to die in the Afghan conflict. Alongside the picture, we read that the Prime Minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure a few minutes “face time” with President Obama after five requests for a sit-down meeting were rejected by the White House.
What are we to make of this? This country has proved, through the bravery of men like Acting Sgt Lockett, America’s staunchest ally in Afghanistan. In return, the American President treats the British Prime Minister with casual contempt. The President’s graceless behaviour is unforgivable. As most members of the Cabinet would confirm, it’s not a barrel of laughs having to sit down for a chat with Gordon Brown. But that’s not the point. Mr Obama owes this country a great deal for its unflinching commitment to the American-led war in Afghanistan but seems incapable of acknowledging the fact. You might have thought that after the shambles of Mr Brown’s first visit to the Obama White House – when there was no joint press conference and the President’s “gift” to the Prime Minister was a boxed DVD set – that lessons would have been learned. Apparently not. Admittedly, part of the problem was Downing Street’s over-anxiety to secure a face-to-face meeting for domestic political purposes but the White House should still have been more obliging. Mr Obama’s churlishness is fresh evidence that the US/UK special relationship is a one-way street.
Remember, liberals actually care what the rest of the world thinks about the United States … or should I say liberals care what our enemies and assorted international leftists think about the United States. (It’s crucial to keep in mind that the world does not look down upon this country, as Obama would have us believe. The world’s leftists look down upon the United States).
Perhaps if Gordon Brown ordered soldiers into civilian neighborhoods to slaughter innocents, President Obama would be more receptive to him. Perhaps if the Polish government ordered innocents to be rounded up and shot for speaking out against them, the President of the United States would be willing to work with them. Maybe if Israelis fired missiles into civilian territories and strapped bombs across their chests to blow up pizza parlors, Bam would make it his business to address their concerns.
While one can make the case that Obama’s “cold shoulder” is rooted in how Great Britain handled the releasing of a convicted terrorist to Libya earlier this month, let us all be as realistic as humanly possible.
This is Barack Obama we’re talking about – apologist, waffler, foreign-policy novice. He doesn’t even refer to the current war as such. It is an Overseas Contingency Operation, remember? How can one believe that the President is troubled by the release of a terrorist when one of his first actions as Commander-In-Chief was to order the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba closed?
Hughes’ “one-way street” comment obviously does not apply to the history between the United States and Great Britain – see World War I, World War II, the Cold War. But as we all stand witness to a brand new history being forged by the in-over-his-head, wonder boy from Illinois, it is obvious that all one-way streets clearly lead right back to the Messianic Palace.
(Uh, oh. I used the word “boy.” Did you hear that, Maureen Dowd?”)
Posted in Foreign Policy, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Gordon Brown, Great Brtain United States relations, Michael Lockett, UK telegraph David Hughes, US UK relations | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 19, 2009
As I sit here collecting my thoughts, sipping at my iced coffee, doing my best to frame my arguments coherently, I am angry.
My approach on this blog has been to try and infuse humor, sarcasm, biting satire, occasional abrasiveness and well reasoned arguments into a collection of blog entries I hope are as entertaining as they are insightful.
Sometimes, I forego the humorous approach and write what could be accurately called straight “essays,” like the companion pieces I posted last week about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment – First Amendment Musings and More First Amendment Musings (A Follow Up).
And while it is tempting to do so here, I’d like to veer away from a straight-forward First Amendment colloquy and inoculate some values into the discussion.
Recall that during his lackluster inauguration speech, President Barack Obama said, “Our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus—and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.”
While partially correct in one area, he was flat out dead wrong in another.
He is correct in the sense that we are a nation of comprsied of Christians, Jews, Muslims and even nonbelievers. America’s people come from every corner of the globe. And indeed there are cultures that have had varying degrees of influence on different areas of American life. All of that is undeniable.
But as nifty as all of that may sound to multiculturaliststhis, this country was not shaped by every language and culture on Earth.
The Mongolian influence on American life, for example, is nonexistent; the Malaysian culture’s impact on America would remain negligible even if it were multiplied by a thousand billion; and although the Tunisians may very well be wonderful people, they had no influence on the shaping of America. Moreover, as difficult as it may be for some to believe, the United States was not – repeat not – built on an Islamic value system, nor did Islam have any influence on the nation’s development, its founding document, or its Constitution.
America was shaped by the English language, the Anglo-Protestant culture and the Judeo-Christian value system.
Liberty, equality of opportunity, individualism, and the freedom to go as far as one’s abilities, passions and desires take them is what America has always been about.
(E Pluribus Unum has a meaning).
Thus, understanding that the vast majority of those who subscribe to the modern misinterpretation of the “separation of church and state” tend to be on the left, I would like to pose these hypotheticals to separationists:
Let’s say the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) – part of the Department of State – implemented several outreach programs and publications for the upcoming Christmas season designed to bring people together and cultivate understanding between those who may not be Christian and those who are.
And let’s say the State Department issued a publication tracing the ancestry of American-Christians to more than eighty countries with an emphasis on discovering the diversity of those cultures as seen through the celebrations of Christ’s birth. The content of such a publication would include essays by young Christians talking about their faith. Such a thing would be used to create a bridge of tolerance and acceptance of Christianity among nonbelievers.
And let’s go on to say that the following articles were being published by the State Department just in time for Christmas 2009: “The Concept of a Christian in America ‘Brand'”; “Advocacy (Civic and Political) of the Christian-American Community”; and “Community Innovation/Community Building.” The writer or writers would contact Christian American experts in each of these fields.
And, finally, picture a publication put out by the State Department called “Being Christian In America” It is the IIP’s crown jewel, full of stories and insights on the “varied experiences” on America’s Christians, complete with illustrations.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Allow the words – and the spirit – of the First Amendment to bounce around in your mind as you contemplate such a hypothetical situation.
Would the ACLU be sending in the big guns?
Would conspiracy theorists be chirping about an all-powerful Christian-right steering America into the pits of a theocracy?
Now, just to make it interesting, go back to each of those aforementioned IIP scenarios and substitute every reference to Christianity with Islam. Make it so that the IIP’s outreach programs are geared toward the Muslim holy month of Ramadan instead of Christmas.
Does it change anything?
What if I told you that this was no longer a hypothetical situation, but an honest-to-goodness initiative of the Obama administration underway right now?
Would that change anything?
Pamela Geller at the great American Thinker website writes about a “cable” that has been sent from Hillary Clinton’s State Department to all American embassies and consulates around the world:
Here is but the latest act of submission to Islam by your State Department. A State Department cable has just been sent out with this announcement :
The Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) has assembled a range of innovative and traditional tools to support Posts’ outreach activities during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
Can you imagine every Embassy and consulate putting up a Menorah and having some Rabbis as speakers via a webcast?
Can you imagine if we had the Stations of the Cross put on the walls of all of our embassies, consulates, and other posts, as well as the many Department of State buildings across the country, including C Street?
Why aren’t priests, pastors, etc. invited during Christmas to give blessings or talk about Christianity in the United States?
Can you imagine if the Buddha were revered and we had some monks coming to do a meditation session with all of the officers of each embassy, consulate, etc.?
Can we get printed and distributed Hare Krishna posters for all of our posts, so as to reach massive audiences?
I mean, put it in reverse and see how crazy it is. Absolutely nuts.
She’s right, of course.
Since we have successfully crossed over from the presumptive world to the real one, I wonder if we can we now expect to see the cape-wearers of the American Civil Liberties Union spring into action against the federal government. Can we anticipate the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) to start assembling “innovative and traditional tools” for every other faith? Where exactly are the outreach initiatives for Jews and Hindus? Or Satanists and Atheists?
Again, leaving the First Amendment issue aside, allow the magnitude of this reality to sink in.
Let it get you angry, as it does me.
This is not what the federal government is there to do.
From all across the world, stories of Ramadan violence being perpetrated by practitioners of Islam are coming out daily. Any reasonable person would only have to take a rudimentary look around the world to notice that the overwhelming percentage of the world’s violence and brutality is being undertaken by Islamists – and that during the holy month of Ramadan, these occurrences increase.
The idea that the United States of America would actively bend over in this way for the “religion of peace” – the ideology that creates the murderous terrorists that want to destroy us – while Muslims across the globe continue to persecute non-Muslims in nations they control is both disgusting and unforgivable. By conservative estimates, one tenth of all Muslims on Earth support fellow adherants of Islam who target innocents, deprive others of basic human rights, and strive to subject the entire population of the world to Sharia law – that’s a mere one hundred million people.
Does the President forget what religion spawned those who brought down the Twin Towers on September 11th?
Is the President blind to the fact that at least one tenth of the Muslim world celebrate September 11th as a triumph?
Does it not register in the deep recesses of his messianic brain that we are still at war with Islamo-Facist terrorists?
Is it really the right thing to do to spend taxpayer dollars on “reach out” programs on the religion that produced (and continues to produce) such vermin?
Honestly, what the hell goes on in a liberal mind?
How on Earth does President Obama have the audacity to launch a taxpayer funded, State Department-sponsored, “Love a Muslim” campaign after the horrific slaughter of innocents by the Iranian government? Or the continued atrocities being undertaken in Sharia-run nations and terrorist strongholds, like tortuous clitorectomies performed on young women, the slow sadistic beheadings of dissenters and infidels, and the denial of even the most basic human rights?
And the irony?
As much as liberals wince and whine when religion is brought into the public sphere, note how easily they genuflect at the feet of those who adhere to a faith that promotes the blowing up innocents, the flying of planes into buildings, and the launching of rockets into civilian neighborhoods in the name of their religion.
What the hell is this President thinking?
Was his multi-city overseas American apology tour not enough to add to the weakness and vulnerability being put forth by this administration?
Why is he hell-bent on sparing the feelings of terrorist thugs and other human debris while the memory of three-thousand of his own murdered countrymen at the hands of those who would do it again without blinking an eye – those who subscribe to the “religion of peace” – still burns vividly?
It is mystifying.
This is not to say that the United States is at war with Islam. It simply isn’t true. Indeed, the majority of the world’s Muslims are not terrorists. Millions of Muslims live peacefully in this country.
But Muslim extremists are at war with us; and in a 21st Century World, the overwhelming vast majority of terrorism – and the greatest threat to national security – comes from practitioners of Islam. No other group, religion, cult or organization comes remotely close to posing the threat that radical Islamists pose.
And just think, my tax dollars are paying for “Muslims Are Okay” reach-out programs.
You’re damn right I’m angry.
Posted in First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: First Amendment, IIP, International Information Programs, Islam, Obama, Ramadan, State Department | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 11, 2009
She channels no one else
She is Secretary of State, hear her roar – with a husband too famous to ignore.
All of the King’s horses and all of the King’s men could not help keep Hillary Clinton from losing her cool again.
And really, who could legitimately blame her?
How exactly was she supposed to react?
She was asked by a Congolese student, through a translator, what her husband – former President Bill Clinton – thought of a trade deal involving China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The former President, of course, has had his share of the limelight in recent days for coming to the rescue of two American journalists imprisoned in North Korea. Thanks to his heroics, he is a bonafide rock star once again – something that must be a source of great joy to Mrs. Clinton on a multitude of levels. That the Secretary of State, who has been in Africa on a trip she had hoped would raise awareness of much of continent’s plight, would be asked what her famous hubby thinks about anything makes a little fire breathing on her part quite understandible.
She is the Secretary of State, dammit.
ABC’s Kirit Radia writes:
“You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?” Clinton replied, clearly irked by the thought of being her husband Bill’s spokeswoman.
“My husband is not secretary of state, I am,” she replied. “If you want my opinion I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband.”
Irritated is a fair, if not understated, word.
But the problem, as Radia writes, was that the question from the student was translated incorrectly.
Apparently the translator made a mistake and the student had wanted to know what President Obama thought of the deal. A State Department official tells ABC News the student went up to Clinton after the event and told her he was misquoted. No immediate word yet how Clinton responded.
Still, imagine what the students thought when her response was translated back and they heard Clinton call President Obama her husband….
Hillary Ridham Clinton Obama?
The logical follow up question: Mrs. Clinton, what does your husband say about his wife being married to the current President?
Annoying as it may have been, Madame Secretary, there are two things to be said.
One, the only reason you are known to any of us outside of your personal sphere of freinds, family and acquaintences is that you are are married to Bill Clinton. He is a former President of the United States. By default, he will always cast a shadow larger than yours.
Two, a little dignity goes a long way.
Nice time, mix in a chuckle or a quip.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton | Tagged: Channeling My Husband, Congolese student, Hillary Clinton, Secretary Of State | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 5, 2009
Venezuela's positive dictator wannabe, Hugo Chavez
I recall an incident that occurred during the 2004 presidential election cycle – the year the Republicans held their convention in New York City – while taking my then-twelve year old twin daughters to an RNC event at the big Post Office (The Farley Building) on 8th Avenue in Manhattan. We were climbing the steps, making our way inside to create banners and signs for the upcoming convention – pro-Bush stuff – when the three of us we were accosted by a small group of foul-smelling, maggot-infested, neo-hippie types shouting out their anti-Bush slogans at us.
They waved angry fingers at us, showered us with endearing terms like “nazi lover,” “fascist” and “baby-killer” and prettied it all up with some choice expletives. They moaned and groaned about Bush eroding the rights of American citizens, compared him to Hitler, and waved their own signs (cleverly substituting the “s” in “Bush” with a swastika).
The irony of being able to protest against one’s own government without the fear of being hauled away because of it, while screeching about the corrosion of civil rights, was obviously lost on them.
The “protestors” were still there when we left about two hours later, but by that time, they were tuckered out. They were sitting on the steps in front of the big post office, signs strewn all over the ground, probably too stoned to lob insults at anyone anymore. One exhausted Kerry-gal – obviously worn out beyond words – could only muster a glance at my daughters and a single comment: “Lookit. Twins. Cool.”
Obviously, it’s hard to take people who cheapen words like “fascist” seriously. These pampered rabble-rousers who bellow incessantly about totalitarianism and the suppression of rights and the destruction of civil liberties have no sense of how infinitely foolish and contemptible they sound spouting off about despotism in a country that affords them the most liberty of any in the world. It goes without saying that spoiled brat college kids who use words like “nazi” in describing George W. Bush – as well as American conservatives in general – profoundly dishonor and degrade the millions and millions of innocents who experienced the utter brutality and ruthlessness of the Nazi regime, not to mention the brave warriors who fought against them and lost their lives defending the very liberty these campus brain-deads take for granted.
And while people like George W. Bush are relentlessly vilified by the artists and performers we admire, ruthless dictators like Fidel Castro are somehow glorified. While leftists continue to pump fists and cry about the need for President Bush to stand trial for crimes against humanity, they laud genuine violators of human rights like Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.
This is an extension – or the logical result – of what talk show host Dennis Prager calls the “Age of Stupidity,” born in the 1960s. We now live in an age where free, young people – with more liberty than they can handle or often deserve – walk down the streets with the likeness of a murderous hooligan like Che Guevara on their t-shirts thinking it’s “cool.” (Try to envision young Americans walking around with Hitler apparel in the 1930s and 1940s).
This is the era where equality trumps liberty and moral equivalence runs rampant. This is the time where thug nations like Syria hold a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. This is the moment when the President of the United States is content to stay silent while innocents lay slaughtered in the streets of Iran by the hands of government.
And yes, this is the time when American elitists embrace dictators.
Totalitarian hob-nobber and well-respected thinker Sean Penn once said that Hugo Chavez is “much more positive for Venezuela than he is negative.”
(All he needs are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and he’ll be fine).
One must wonder what the likes of Penn, Kevin Spacey, Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte and other back-slapping entertainment-land comrades of totalitarians and thug rulers across the globe think of a story like this from Reuters:
More than a dozen of 34 radio stations ordered shut by the Venezuelan government went off the air on Saturday, part of President Hugo Chavez’s drive to extend his socialist revolution to the media.
The association of radio broadcasters said 13 stations had stopped transmitting, following an announcement Friday night by government broadcasting watchdog Conatel that 34 radio outlets would be closed because they failed to comply with regulations.
Critics said the crackdown infringed on freedom of speech and that owners were not given the right to a proper defense.
“They’re closing the space for dissidents in Venezuela,” William Echeverria, head of the National Council of Journalists, told RCTV, a private cable TV station, which did not have its broadcasting license renewed in 2007.
Chavez defended the closures, calling them part of the government’s effort to democratize the airwaves.
I suppose that’s what President Obama is trying to do to the American health care system – democratize it.
“We haven’t closed any radio stations, we’ve applied the law,” Chavez said on state television. “We’ve recovered a bunch of stations that were outside the law, that now belong to the people and not the bourgeoisie.”
Chavez supporters say they are waging a “media war” against private news companies and have denounced in recent days what they say is a renewed offensive by privately owned domestic and international media to discredit Venezuela.
Diosdado Cabello, the public works minister who also oversees Conatel, said some of the radio stations were shut because they did not have their broadcasting licenses renewed and others transferred them illegally to new owners.
Those damn bourgeoisie. They ruin everything.
Kevin Spacey with Hugo Chavez
To hear it from the left, President George W. Bush was everything from a war-hungry, civil rights crushing totalitarian to a flat-out murderous fascist. He was a war criminal and a free-speech thwarting right-wing power-crazed authoritarian. All of the world’s ills can, in some way, be traced back to something done, said, conceived or associated with George W. Bush, according to leftists, Obamacrats and other mental adolescents.
No, there were no rape and torture rooms in Bush’s America like there was in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, nor did W’s government round up those who spoke out against his administration like the governments in Iran and Venezuela do. (Hollywood, the music industry and newsrooms across the nation would have gone to tumbleweeds if they had). Also, keep in mind that no media outlets were shut down by George W. Bush’s government – nor would they or could they have been.
Yes, First Amendment rights remained fully in tact under W.
Nonetheless, ask any leftist for his recollections of the Bush years, and the vast majority of them will tell you that fascism practically ruled the day. His “regime” couldn’t have ended fast enough. That America survived to reach the Messianic Age may be proof positive that God really does exist. (You can catch him sneaking cigarettes in the rose garden now and then).
Imagine for a moment if anyone in the Bush administration had even remotely suggested that a privately-owned media outlet in this country be shut down by the government.
Imagine the backlash.
With the announcement that the ever-benevolent, big-hearted Hugo Chavez is “democratizng” the Venezuelan airwaves by shutting down opposing-viewpoint media outlets, when will we be privileged enough to hear from Mr. Penn and Mr. Glover on the matter? Where are the representatives of the American branch of the Hugo Chavez fan club today now that free speech has taken another hit in Venezuela? Where are the defenders of freedom and human rights now?
Not that it will matter, mind you.
Chavez is a hero to these people.
Indeed, he could line up a hundred dissenters against the wall, have them shot, and you can bet your bottom dollar that someone as detestable as Danny Glover will still kiss his ass and call it ice cream.
… and, of course, still manage to find a way to blame it on George W. Bush.
…or the slave-owning Founding Fathers.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Hugo Chavez, Liberalism, Uncategorized | Tagged: Hugo Chavez, shutting down 34 radio stations, Venezuela | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 3, 2009
The sun is setting on Gitmo
Democrats long ago lost their ability to keep themselves from advocating policies that are proven failures. They, too, misplaced their capacity to distinguish between things that sound real nice from things actually rooted in common sense (the War on Poverty, multiculturalism, raising taxes on the rich, etc.). In the “PM” days of William Jefferson Clinton (Pre-Messiah), Dems used to be very good – in fact, remarkable – at being able to twist, convolute and rework facts to cloak their misguided allusions while keeping things sounding so reasonable. They could look you in the eye, wave their fingers at you, convince you they were brewing cappuccino from mud water and charm your socks off while chipping away at your liberties.
They were clever that way.
These days, Dems run a more “in-your-face,” let’s-have-a-go-at-Marxism kind of ship.
Sure, President Barack Obama is as good as anyone – if not better – at shoving a whole lot of platitudinal cadence together to create some of the sweetest sounding emptiness this side of Mario Cuomo. It can hardly be denied. From redefining “earmarks,” to declaring that a recession is no time for corporations to make profits, to his “strategic” silence in the wake of the violent upheaval in Iran, no one can peddle the farm food – and be praised for it – like our current Commander In Chief. In fact, early on in his seventh-months-feels-like seven years term, he was running circles around Bubba in terms of yanking the wool over the eyes of salivating disciples.
However, in recent times, it seems that Democrats are also losing the ability to hear when their own “stupidity” alarms go off. Whereas at one time, they could catch themselves, regroup, and redefine the parameters of the game in short order, today’s Dem – including the Messiah himself – is slipping. Oh sure, they still promote stupid, unproductive, emotion-based policies, but they don’t seem to be able to play their smoke-and-mirrors game as well as they used to. Maybe they’re getting lazy. Maybe they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
I opt for the ladder.
For instance, why on earth would it be necessary to open up a prison for terrorists within the contiguous 48 states when a perfectly functioning, tremendously successful, fully-equipped, enormously secure, efficiently run facility already exists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? Why would anyone bring suspected al-Qaida, Taliban and enemy fighters who are already under lock and key onto the mainland United States so they can be locked up closer to the American people?
Who thinks up this stuff?
The words “ill-conceived” seem somewhat understated, but House Republican leader John Boehner is otherwise spot on: “The administration is going to face a severe public backlash unless it shelves this plan and goes back to the drawing board.”
At the very least, yes.
The President has had a wild bug in his nest since Day One in wanting to see the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay closed. His rationale has yet to move the needle on the “Makes Sense” meter, but it doesn’t matter. To Obama and all the happy little Obamacrats, anything connected in any way to his predecessor George W. Bush, no matter what it is, no matter how effective or successful it has been, must be eradicated. It is irrelevant that Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has absolutely nothing to do with the prison at Abu Grahib, Iraq, but it just sounds so good – and feels so right – to Leftocrats that Gitmo is being crushed by President Transformation.
True, speaking out against such atrocities as the Iranian government slaughtering its own people may be too much for any Annointd One to have to handle, but shutting down a well-run, secure detention facility that houses people who wish to wipe America off the face of the earth with such decisiveness is the mark of real leadership.
Besides, the world will love us for it.
So, in the deep recesses of the liberal mind, it stands to reason that the best thing to do – the right thing to do – after Gitmo closes up shop is take those well-guarded murderous vermin from their secure confines outside of the United States and bring them into to the United States.
From Fox News:
Several senior U.S. officials said the administration is eyeing a soon-to-be-shuttered state maximum security prison in Michigan and the military penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, as possible locations for a heavily guarded site to hold the 229 suspected al-Qaida, Taliban and foreign fighters now jailed at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.
The officials outlined the plans — the latest effort to comply with President Barack Obama’s order to close the prison camp by Jan. 22, 2010, and satisfy congressional and public fears about incarcerating terror suspects on American soil — on condition of anonymity because the options are under review.
White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said Friday that no decisions have been made about the proposal. But the White House considers the courtroom-prison complex as the best among a series of bad options, an administration official said.
This is why Democrats cannot be trusted with national security or other serious matters.
Indeed, as alluded to in the Fox News article, it makes perfect sense that there are only bad options to choose from; That’s because Obama’s plan to close Gitmo is a monumentally bad idea.
Why do it?
What is the strategic advantage in it?
It simply is not necessary. Doing so will provide absolutely no benefit to the nation and will not make her more secure.
Even if someone spiked the White House stash of Lucky Charms with LSD, how could anyone possibly think such an assinine suggestion as bringing terrorists into America when it doesn’t have to happen sounds like a reasonable alternative to keeping the facility at Guantanamo Bay open? That Obama is willingly and voluntarily closing Gitmo, and is considering bringing the terrorists detained there onto American soil, is just the latest prize from his Big-Bag-O-Incompetence.
Since January 20th, it is astounding how regularly the citizens of the United States are peppered with embarrassingly bad, horribly reasoned policies based in sheer demagoguary.
That’s why today’s liberal is dangerous.
Why go through what will be a costly, time-consuming, totally unnecessarily symbolic move when there is simply no good reason to do so?
Does closing the facility make America safer?
Is it good for the country?
Those are the only questions that matter.
Because Leftocrats act almost entirely on emotion and resist the urge of the thinking class to ascertain “what happens next,” and because transporting terrorist thugs onto the very soil they wish to destroy stands as the “best option” to Obama and Company, America is quite literally made that much more unsafe for the sake of appeasing the whims of President Obama and the children in charge.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: closing Gitmo, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, John Boehner, President Obama | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 30, 2009
Obama and Manuel Zelaya in April
As innocents lay murdered in the streets of Tehran at the hands of murderous government thugs, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, chose to be silent on the matter for a week. The leader of the most powerful nation on earth decided to keep quiet while citizens of Iran – denied of even the most basic human rights – were butchered by their government.
The time just wasn’t right.
It just wasn’t his place to meddle, impose, or interject anything that may have potentially upset the despots at the top.
Condemnations mean nothing, his supporters cried. President Obama handled everything just as he should have, the sycophants explained. For Obama to speak out against what was happening in Iran would have served no real purpose, they said.
“Sheer Brilliance!” they exclaimed, drooling all over themselves, thankful for every moment George W. Bush was not calling the shots.
When the President finally addressed the matter, under mounting pressure to emerge from his ice cream cone and do something remotely presidential, he spoke as a man inconvenienced, perhaps perturbed at ostensibly being forced to act as such outside of his comfort zone – away from warm bosom of expanding the debt, nationalizing health care and constructing his legacy.
A man works from sun to sun, but a Messiah’s work is never done.
After a too-little, too-late slice of weakness and afterthought, the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, shockingly accused our President of meddling in their affairs.
Who’d have thought?
But President Obama has apparently learned his lesson.
He has decided that silence just isn’t an option anymore when one is the leader of a nation built on fat-catism, bigotry, slavery, corruption and imperialism. Thus, Bam has spoken out – with a kind of strength rarely seen since he asked if he could be allowed to finish his damn waffle on the campaign trail last year – against the coup in Honduras. (I use the word “coup” because it’s the one being used by the press at this time. It’s a debatable point).
In fact, the removal of the dictator, Manuel Zelaya – a man enthusiastically supported by Venezuelan leader and all-around fun-loving hooligan, Hugo Chavez – has prompted the President to denounce the coup as illegal.
Arshad Mohammed and David Alexander from Reuters write:
U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and would set a “terrible precedent” of transition by military force unless it was reversed.
“We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there,” Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.
Zelaya, in office since 2006, was overthrown in a dawn coup on Sunday after he angered the judiciary, Congress and the army by seeking constitutional changes that would allow presidents to seek re-election beyond a four-year term.
The Honduran Congress named an interim president, Roberto Micheletti, and the country’s Supreme Court said it had ordered the army to remove Zelaya.
The European Union and a string of foreign governments have voiced support for Zelaya, who was snatched by troops from his residence and whisked away by plane to Costa Rica in his pajamas.
Obama said he would work with the Organization of American States and other international institutions to restore Zelaya to power and “see if we can resolve this in a peaceful way.”
Thus, the President – quicker than a fly on a picnic spare rib – opened his mouth and unequivocally condemned the action, siding with the likes of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
Chavez, of course, has accused the United States of having some sort of hand in the Honduras “coup.”
Perhaps Chavez isn’t quite as savvy as many take him for – or maybe he has just grown accustomed to having an American right-wing, war-thirsty imperialist like George W. Bush at the helm.
Chavez will soon understand that President Obama is a bonafide, card-carrying leftist.
The idea that Obama would have anything to do with toppling any of the left-heavy governments of Latin America is almost as preposterous as expecting anything other than an apology from Obama for America’s mere existence, which understandably led Chavez to come to such a conclusion.
Said Chavez: “They will have to get to the bottom of how much of a hand the CIA and other imperial bodies had in this.”
I can almost hear Obama saying, “Damn, that guy is good. Someone get the CIA on the horn!”
Update – June 30, 2009 12:26 PM
Talk show host Dennis Prager makes a very important point on his radio program today – and helps support my inclination that what happened in Hondouras really wasn’t a coup.
Zelaya was removed from power by decree of his nation’s Supreme Court for Constitutional violations. He was replaced by a member of his own party – hardly what one would consider a coup.
The military did not take over the country.
Thank goodness Obama had the gumption to declare something that actually was legal an illegal act.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: Barack Obama, coup, Honduras, Hugo Chavez, Manuel Zelaya | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 25, 2009
It isn’t often that an opportunity as golden as this presents itself so readily. The only question is whether or not President Barack Obama will step up to the plate and seize the moment. Sure, Bam is sufficiently well-versed in apologizing for his own country on foreign soil, but he hasn’t done it so much from home – certainly to the shagrin of the Blame America First contingency of a Bam-A-Lang-A-Ding-Dong Brigade. And seeing as he probably isn’t inclined to spontaneously hop on his big old jet and fly to some country with a horrible human rights record to grovel and express his shame of America (unless the teleprompter advises him to do so), chances are quite good that the world might be treated to a good old fashioned slice of humble pie – or waffle – from deep within the friendly confines of the U.S.A.
It’s sure to soften the hearts of our murderous enemies everywhere.
The Politico is reporting that the recent winner of the Iranian elections, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, isn’t happy with our President. He’s even going so far as to compare Obama to his predecessor, George W. Bush.
Short of drilling machine screws into Obama’s toe nails, is there anything Ahmadinejad could have done that would have been worse?
Talk about brutality.
From the Politico:
Reacting to Obama’s comment Tuesday that he is “appalled and outraged” by crackdowns in Iran, Ahmadinejad said, “Mr Obama made a mistake to say those things … our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously Bush used to say.”
“Do you want to speak with this tone? If that is your stance then what is left to talk about… I hope you avoid interfering in Iran’s affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it,” he added, according to Reuters.
And from the screeching throats of liberals all across the star-spangled map will come the admonitions that the President should have said nothing – that a statement of condemnation from the White House was nothing more than an ill-advised bone thrown to the war-mongering American right-wing.
See what happens when you appease the God-happy, gun-toting, Dick Cheney lap dogs?
You piss off Ahmadinejad.
How dare Obama agitate the Iranian whack-job when everything was just starting to get better, and world peace was just around the bend.
Bam had better find out what Ahmedinejad’s favorite movies are.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Iran, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: "appalled and outraged", Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Obama, Obama is like Bush | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 23, 2009
..and still champion
That sound you heard was not your air mattress springing a leak. It was me letting out a much-needed sigh of relief. I can finally lay down my weary head and begin focusing on other matters thanks to the Iranian Guardian Council, who today put to rest any doubts regarding the integrity of the recent elections there.
The country’s top electoral body said that “no major fraud or breech” was found to exist in the way the election was conducted.
Thus, there will be no new vote. The results will stand.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is winner.
Hard to believe, I know.
(Water is also wet).
Meanwhile, the government in Iran is issuing harsher warnings to the annoying protestors who just don’t know when to leave well enough alone.
Karin Laub of the Associated Press writes:
Ebrahim Raisi, a top judicial official, confirmed Tuesday that a special court has been set up to deal with detained protesters. “Elements of riots must be dealt with to set an example. The judiciary will do that,” he was quoted as saying by the state-run radio. The judiciary is controlled by Iran’s ruling clerics.
In recent days, Iran’s supreme leader has ordered demonstrators off the streets and the feared Revolutionary Guards has threatened a tough crackdown. At least 17 people have been killed in near-daily demonstrations, including at least one that drew hundreds of thousands.
Plans to move forward with Obamacrat diplomacy will almost certainly be delayed until the remaining protestors have the good sense to sit their asses back down and do what they’re told.
The President ought to be finished with his waffle by then.
(He plays second fiddle to no one).
Meanwhile, unconfirmed reports suggest that preparations are underway at the White House for a new set of sensitivity training courses.
-“Terrorists Are People, Too.”
-“Always Blame Thyself.”
-“Our Founding Fathers Are No Better Than Their Founding Fathers.”
The classes are voluntary, but those choosing not to attend will be terminated immediately.
Posted in Foreign Policy | Tagged: Guardian Council, Iran election results, Iran vote fraud, Iranian elections | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 23, 2009
As an “add-on” to the piece I posted on Sunday called “Bam Acknowledges the Iranian Upheaval,” I wanted to tip my hat to talk show host Mark Levin who made a very interesting point on his radio program Monday evening – something I wish I would have made myself in the article.
When it was originally reported that the election results in Iran were very close, and that the very real possibility existed that the opposition (Mir-Hossein Mousavi) could pull out a victory over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President Barack Obama wasted no time in giving himself a pat on the back and a hearty attaboy, crediting – at least in part – his now much-hearalded (and thoroughly vacuous) speech in Cairo, Egypt as a catalyst for the start of a “new dialogue” in that country.
That he did so came as no surprise, of course.
Indeed, it fit in quite famously with his modus operandi – that is, everything that Obama says and does is all about Obama. Everything else – if it cannot be shaped, molded, redefined and beat into political submission – is irrelevant.
Mark Levin – The Great One – points out how Obamacrats had no problem devouring bromide after bromide from Bam’s Big Box-O-Platitudes, calling his empty speech in Cairo the fuel behind what was seen at first as a potentially historic election.
Even now, some credit Bam’s Cairo teleprompter read as the spark and inspiration behind the courage summoned by the people of Iran to rise up in protest against their government when the election results took a curiously decisive and comfortable turn toward an Ahmadinejad victory.
Levin notes how looking toward Cairo as some sort of catalyst for the events in Iran is nothing more than sycophant media-hype, Obama-spun fantasy-world nonsense, and liberal wishful thinking. Rather, one needs to look toward the successes in Iraq – and the policies implemented by the Bush administration – as a more reasonable explanation as to why the events in Iran have unfolded as they have.
He’s absolutely right.
No one – absolutely no one – in the mainstream media (and God forbid, the administration) would ever dream of attributing the turnaround in Iraq as having any sort of influence on the extraordinary happenings over the past week in Iran. It can only be Obama, savior to the world, foil to the xenophopic notion of American exceptionalism, with his delightfully naive perceptions of the world and his unwillingness to confront and label evil, that could actually move the people of Iran to rise up and fight for their basic human rights. The slow and steady push toward democracy in the once despotic nation of Iraq could not possibly have anything to do with the upheaval in neighboring Iran, according to leftists.
After all, to a liberal, crediting George W. Bush for anything outside of slaughtering innocents and war crimes is worse than a dozen ice picks to the eye or mentioning God in public.
Indeed, in my piece on Sunday, I was very critical of the President’s handling of the situation in Iran – how unreliable, weak and embarrassing it makes the United States look.
On his radio program on Monday, Mark Levin helped to illustrate my point – although he certainly doesn’t know me from Adam. (All I can say, as an admirer of his, is “thank you, Great One.”)
Please take a moment to compare and contrast how President Ronald Reagan, in December, 1981, spoke out against the government-led violence in Poland to President Barack Obama’s words almost 28 years later.
As I speak to you tonight, the fate of a proud and ancient nation hangs in the balance. For a thousand years, Christmas has been celebrated in Poland, a land of deep religious faith, but this Christmas brings little joy to the courageous Polish people. They have been betrayed by their own government.
The men who rule them and their totalitarian allies fear the very freedom that the Polish people cherish. They have answered the stirrings of liberty with brute force, killings, mass arrests, and the setting up of concentration camps. Lech Walesa and other Solidarity leaders are imprisoned, their fate unknown. Factories, mines, universities, and homes have been assaulted.
The Polish Government has trampled underfoot solemn commitments to the UN Charter and the Helsinki accords. It has even broken the Gdansk agreement of. August 1980, by which the Polish Government recognized the basic right of its people to form free trade unions and to strike.
I urge the Polish Government and its allies to consider the consequences of their actions. How can they possibly justify using naked force to crush a people who ask for nothing more than the right to lead their own lives in freedom and dignity? Brute force may intimidate, but it cannot form the basis of an enduring society, and the ailing Polish economy cannot be rebuilt with terror tactics.
I want emphatically to state tonight that if the outrages in Poland do not cease, we cannot and will not conduct “business as usual” with the perpetrators and those who aid and abet them. Make no mistake, their crime will cost them dearly in their future dealings with America and free peoples everywhere. I do not make this statement lightly or without serious reflection.
The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for — those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That’s what they do. That’s what we’ve already seen. We shouldn’t be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the — Iranian people are seeking to — let their voices be heard.
Now, what we can do is bear witness and say — to the world that the, you know, incredible demonstrations that we’ve seen is a testimony to — I think what Dr. King called the — the arc of the moral universe. It’s long but it bends towards justice.
How exactly can one accurately measure the moral arc of the universe when one cannot – or is unwilling to – first take a stand against that which is immoral?
Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, War on Terror | Tagged: Barack Obama, Iran, iran protests, Iranian violence, post-election Iranian violence | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 21, 2009
It’s being called a change in approach.
Allow me a moment or two to set this straight in my mind.
He was against imposing values before he was for it, even though he was adamant about imposing at least some ideas before he said he was in favor of staying out of things altogether. All of this, of course, came before he finally crawled out from behind his ice cream cone to say something about the violence and upheaval in Iran, despite his inclination not to perturb the murderers and thugs of the world, or throw a monkey wrench into his policy of appeasement and paddy cake.
If ever there was a leader with less of a clue about foreign policy than President Barack Obama – without having to backtrack all the way to Neville Chamberlain – it isn’t readily apparent.
Willing to throw the nation of Israel (one of our closest allies) under the bus, making demands of them, i.e. imposing values, while attempting to make nice-nice with those who would think nothing of slitting the throats of his own children is frustrating enough. Having his Secretary of State say that if North Korea doesn’t watch out, the United States may put them back on a “bad guy’s list” of terrorist nations is, indeed, embarrassing. But to come to the conclusion that it was strategically (and politically) expedient to say nothing and play “neutral” towards the horrendous acts of brutality being perpetrated by the Iranian government on its citizenry in the streets of that country until now – when it was clear that the heat of the political winds were calling him to do so – is downright bad leadership.
It was up to the President of the United States to take an open and unequivocal stand, without mincing words and without concern for his image, against the violence and cruelty taking place in Iran right away. It was up to the leader of the free world to say “to hell with worrying about how sour my relationship with Iran might get if I say something,” and act like a President – someone who gives a damn about something other than his popularity and legacy. It was time to show resolve by pulling a page from the Reagan and Thatcher handbook and engage Iran directly with immediate condemnations.
One would think that the images and reports of innocents being slaughtered in the streets by a despotic government ought to raise the ire of a man so shaped and influenced by the graduates of the protest culture. One would assume that the fist-pimping, community-organizing, radical leftist that burns deep within the President would summon the spirits that moved his mentors to work to overthrow the “tyranny” of the United States back in the day and at least act like the violence in Iran matters to him.
Maybe the President left his outrage at customs counter in Egypt.
It’s absolutely stunning.
On one hand, without an inkling of hesitation, the President is willing to publicly announce battle strategies while still at war, overhaul and socialize the greatest health care system the world has ever known, grow the national debt to unsustainable levels, apologize for the actions of his own country overseas, demand that Israel roll over yet again for those who want to see her destroyed, and generally blame everything that is wrong with the world on the previous administration. Yet, on the other hand, as the innocent in Iran are butchered by the government in some of the most remarkable and shocking pictures many have seen in a long time, Obama decides that the best thing to do is take a “wait and see” approach … until now, that is. He has realized, to his great dismay, that the whole Iranian “upheaval thing” isn’t just going to fade into news archives and back pages.
He actually had to say something about it.
And so he did.
He has called on Iran to “stop all the violent and unjust actions” … and only a week or so late!
(That sound you hear are members of The Guardian Council shaking in their shoes).
Said the President:
The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
Martin Luther King once said – “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.
The words themselves are fine, but its impact – a week overdue and seemingly forced – has the effect of a paraplegic threatening to kick the ass of a professional wrestler.
Remember, the United States is to lead by example, according to the President.
Another speech or two in Cairo ought to crack that nut.
Naturally, saliva gushing Obamacrats have hailed the President’s silence and sudden change in course as brilliant strategy.
A blogger called Anna at Ben Smith’s blog at the Politico website echoes the sentiments of many Obamacrats, writing:
Had (Obama) come out in support of the idea that the election had been rigged, he’d have given the ruling elites a lot of ammunition: the great Satan is trying to influence Iranian affairs again, beware the Westerners, etc. But this way, he’s only saying things that are incontestable: free speech must be protected and governments cannot kill citizens with impunity.
This is yet another brazen example of why liberals – while quite good at making music and designing websites – cannot be trusted with matters of national security.
Blame America first.
To Anna, and other leftocrats, it is the United States that would have exaserbated the situation in Iran by openly and swiftly castigating the actions of the government there. It is America that would have fuelled anger in Iranian’s ruling elites had Obama said anything deemed disparaging and critical (because Lord knows the Ayatollah Khamenei and friends were all waving their American flags and looking toward us for moral guidance right up until the Iranian elections). In other words – in Anna’s world – if Obama can keep quiet in the wake of some of the ugliest violence against innocents seen in quite a while, America won’t be as great a Satan as it most certainly would have been otherwise.
Beacuse, after all, it matters what Iran thinks of us.
Of course, I’m wondering what Obama will do if the Iranian government flat-out refuses to be led by American example?
What if the Iranian government dosen’t stop all the “violent and just actions against its own people?”
Will Obama break out the “whooping stick” and put them on a new list?
Or maybe (dare I say it) threaten them with some United Nations fist pumping?
Can sanctions be right around the corner?
Another poster at Smith’s blog at Politico makes this important point:
Obama seems to forget that “universal rights to free speech” aren’t guaranteed in Islamic society. The protesters have no right to be doing what they are doing and they will be cleared from the streets and punished by Islamic law.
Liberals routinely speak of how close-mined, non-nuanced, and “black and white” conservatives are. It’s as interesting a theory as it is false because it requires no thought. Liberals are overwhelmingly the ones who see things in “black and white.” There are no “shades of grey” in the lefty rainbow.
For example, to be against same-sex marriage is to be a homophobe. In the mind of a liberal, there’s simply no chance that a conservative may simply wish to keep the definition of marriage as it has always been and still not hate gays.
To liberals, the war against islamo-Facism (if they even consider it a war anymore) is all about Osama Bin Ladin … and that’s it. That there are a multitude of terrorist groups with the same objectives as Al Qaeda is irrelevant to them.
Only platitudes (and probably warfare itself) carry any weight with liberals. For Obama to implacably condemn what the Iranian government has been doing to its own people, would have been a waste of time, according to libs. Iran wouldn’t be influenced or compelled to change their ways based on a Presidential condemnation, they’d explain. For Obama to demand a stop to the violence would have been pointless, they’d argue – and it’d be meddling in other people’s affairs. Conservatives are fooling themselves to think it really matters if the President of the United States stands up for so-called “freedom” and “democracy.”
Who are we to demand anything?
What right we do we have?
(Perhaps Israel is asking the same question of Obama who has demanded that Israel remove settlements from the “occupied territories.”)
Keep in mind that these criticisms of conservatives come from the people who lap up and suck on Obama’s empty bumper-sticker platitudes like a liberal on a working man’s paycheck. Recall how they cried, sighed and shuddered at the “brilliance” of his poster-board, slogan-happy rhetoric when he spoke in Cairo. Remember how they fawned and fainted when he gabbed in Germany, speaking in flowery, pointless, uncourageous, cleverly crafted news-bite fodder (proven even more hollow by his week of “neutrality”).
Obama regularly uses words like “peace” and “unity” and liberals wet themselves. Yet, when the bell rings, and the time comes to actually stand up and defend those principals that foster basic human rights, Obama shuts up. He knows liberty is offensive to some people.
But that is precisely what the President of the United States should have been doing from the moment it became apparent what was happening in Iran – boldly speaking out against the government-led violence, condemning the actions of the Iranian government, sending a crucial message that America not only supports those who fight for the basic human rights, but is never afraid to say so.
Liberals, of course, find no importance in doing this, unless no one is offended in the process – that is, except American conservatives. Being openly critical of the Iranian government would have gotten a whole bunch of Mullah panties in a twist, and that just couldn’t be allowed to happen.
The fact is, while liberals continue to applaud what they see as a brilliantly tempered strategy on the part of Barack Obama to “stay out of it,” those of us who actually are cognizant of the real world understand that such “neutrality” makes America look weak and disinterested … and our enemies know it.
America cannot be disinterested and neutral when such obvious examples of brutality are on display for the world to see.
Yes, this President is a veritable platitude-machine, careful not to offend anyone, speaking in vague generalities, throwing out meaningless phrases like “working together,” “common ground” and “striving toward peace,” all the while never exuding the courage to define and condemn that which is evil – unless you consider corporate profits and being without health care insurance evil.
That is a huge problem.
When the President of the United States cannot denounce the likes of the Iranian government, it is bad for the world.
Sure, it was a nice touch for Obama to quote Martin Luther King Jr. in his comments, but I doubt there are too many of the Iranian elite doing a double-take saying, “Damn, he’s right, you know.”
We’d be the Great Satan no matter how many times we puckered up to kiss their backsides.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, War on Terror | Tagged: Foreign Policy, Iran, Iranian election violence, Iranian protestors, Iranian violence, Obama | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 11, 2009
The picture in question (taken Monday) depicts the President of the United States speaking on the telephone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
I have a few reactions to this now controversial picture – the least of which is that someone needs to tell the President of the United States to take his damn feet off the furniture. Using such a celebrated and historic piece as the HMS Resolute desk as a hassock is unbecoming.
It simply would never occur to me to lay my feet on such a treasured artifact, let alone allow a less-than-flattering photograph of me doing so to be released. Of course, I am not cut of messianic cloth, nor do I play a messiah on this blog, so I admit to being out of my league.
As I have written about several times since his anointment, tradition and history mean less to this President than his predecessors.
A far cry from the famous images of John Kennedy working at the Resolute desk while little John John played below, Obama’s regular-guy, kick back style is presumably meant to depict this White House as more accessible and relatable to the common folk – like having vulgar comedians speak at what used to be “stuffy” washington insider events, or taking the wife to New York City for a “Date Night.” Unfortunately, his less-than-presidential approach serves no purpose beyond making the White House a less dignified one.
Looking at the picture, I also cannot help but wonder where his liberal heart has gone.
How is it that the man whose stated mission is to tear down cultural and political barriers and bring the world together for a giant group hug – the man whose compassion and appreciation of the sensitivities of people from every corner of the globe has been heralded and slobbered over as one of the benchmarks of a new age of global understanding – didn’t make it a priority to remember that Middle Easterners take it as an insult to be shown the sole of the foot?
It’s not as if he is prone to ignorance, mind you. He certainly made it his business to avoid “insulting” anyone during the first leg of his American Apology Tour by bowing to the Saudi king, remember? The picture, after all, does show the leader of the free world – a man who has promised to wash away the bad feelings created by the previous administration – leaning back, with the bottom of his feet to the camera, speaking to the leader of the Israel.
Not particularly presidential, nor very complimentary.
Not very bright either.
Granted, it isn’t a traditional insult to Jews as it is to Arabs, but many Isrealis are taking it as such.
Howard Arenstein from CBS World Watch writes:
Israeli TV newscasters Tuesday night interpreted a photo taken Monday in the Oval Office of President Obama talking on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an “insult” to Israel.
They saw the incident as somewhat akin to an incident last year, when the Iraqi reporter threw a shoe at President Bush in Baghdad.
It is considered an insult in the Arab world to show the sole of your shoe to someone. It is not a Jewish custom necessarily, but Israel feels enough a part of the Middle East after 60 years to be insulted too.
Was there a subliminal message intended from the White House to Netanyahu in Jerusalem, who is publicly resisting attempts by Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to force Israel to stop any kind of settlement activity in occupied territories once and forever?
Whether or not it is true, it shows the mood in Israel. They feel cornered. The reactions out of Israel reflect that feeling.
In and of itself, under normal “non-leftist-in-office” circumstances, the photograph would probably not have triggered nearly as much controversey as it has.
But the controversey is real … and certainly the most critically important point in this matter is the perception among many Israelis that their country’s relationship with an Obama-led United States is rapidly changing for the worse. The steadfast alliance between the two nations has now hit a very dangerous crossroads, and the President seems more than willing to let that very important friendship take a big hit. The obsession with bonafide leftists like Obama to create moral equivelancies across the board in the form of elevating the enemies of freedom while abandoning liberty’s defenders is now manifesting itself in the form of high ranking Israeli officials talking about possible sanctions against the United States.
This is coming from one of America’s strongest allies.
How long has Obama been in office?
From the Jerusalem Post:
In a sign of growing concern in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government over US President Barack Obama’s Middle East policies, Minister-without-Portfolio Yossi Peled proposed Israeli sanctions on the US in a letter to cabinet ministers on Sunday.
In the 11-page letter, obtained by The Jerusalem Post from a minister on Monday, Peled recommends steps Israel can take to compensate for the shift in American policy, which he believes has become hostile to Israel.
“Obama’s ascendance represents a turning point in America’s approach to the region, especially to Israel,” he wrote in the letter. “The new administration believes that in order to fight terror, guarantee stability and withdraw from Iraq, a new diplomatic slant is needed involving drastic steps to pacify the Muslim world and the adoption of a more balanced approach to Israel, including intensive pressure to stop building in settlements, remove outposts and advance the formation of a Palestinian state.”
Peled added that faced with an American government with an activist agenda that does not mesh with Israel’s, traditional reactions are no longer relevant. He said he expected that Obama would eventually realize that appeasement and dialogue with countries that support terror would not have positive results.
Obamacrats are concerned with legacy.
The most disturbing passage in Howard Arnstein’s article reads:
Israel’s Channel One TV reported that Netanyahu was told Tuesday by an “American official” in Jerusalem that, “We are going to change the world. Please, don’t interfere.” The report said Netanyahu’s aides interpreted this as a “threat.”
Prior to embarking on the latest leg of his American Apology Tour to the Middle East last week, the President made it a point to declare that he was not in favor of the United States (or Israel, for that matter) imposing their values on other nations. Yet, Bam and Company are unwavering in saying Israel must stop any and all settlement activity in the occupied territories.
Indeed, one of the most overused – and incorrectly applied – words in public discourse today is “hypocrisy.”
Not in this case.
Gabriel Malor from the great Ace of Spades blog writes:
I don’t even have the words to say how shameful Obama’s treatment of our allies has been. But this is more horrifying than merely irritating our coalition partners; it goes beyond destroying our special relationship with the UK. Those are bad things, but this is beyond the pale. He is throwing a good people to the wolves. It sickens me.
The Messiah has been in office less than six months.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Israel, Liberalism, Middle East | Tagged: Barack Obama, insult to Araba, Israeli insult, Obama's feet, Obama's middle east insult, Picture of Obama's feet, soles of his shoes, Soles of Obama's shoes | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 8, 2009
Euna Lee and Laura Ling
I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before some Obamalicious blog demon, or thesaurus-happy Daily Kos protégé, is able to craft a piece that somehow finds a way to blame George W. Bush for this. If not Bush specifically, then certainly the United States in general – or at least the United States as it had been shaped by the war-hungry, right-wing regime that preceded the Messianic Age.
Either way, now may be the perfect time for the President of the United States to finally sit down with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il – as he has said he would be thrilled to do as the anti-Bush President – and kick it around a bit. After all, two American journalists have been sentenced in North Korea – for crimes unspecified – to twelve years of hard labor. It is now the President’s job to find out what these two reporters have to done to anger Kim Jong Il and exactly what the United States must do to keep Mr. Jong Il from getting any angrier.
Blaine Harden from the Washington Post writes:
Laura Ling and Euna Lee, television reporters detained in March along North Korea’s border with China, received harsher sentences than many outsiders had expected. But several experts in South Korea predicted that talks will begin soon to negotiate their release.
The U.S. government said it was “deeply concerned.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated that the United States is thinking – I say, thinking – of returning North Korea to the “blacklist” of terrorist nations.
A bold move.
Whether the United States is also considering calling Kim Jong Il a bad name or threatening to never allow North Korea a seat on the United Nations’ Human Rights Council is unclear.
(Reports of high-level State Department officials referring to Kim Jong Il as “a meanie” cannot be confirmed).
On possibly putting North Korea back on the list of nations that sponsor terrorism – and in responding to a group of Senators who have requested that the Obamacrats do so – Senator Clinton said, “Well, we’re going to look at it … There’s a process for it. Obviously we would want to see recent evidence of their support for international terrorism.”
This is why Democrats cannot be trusted with national security.
North Korea was already on that list. They were removed for promising to make concessions regarding their nuclear program – which they clearly have not followed through on. What precisely does Mrs. Clinton need to see that would convince her that North Korea should be returned to that list? What further “evidence” is required?
She probably refuses to jump to any Bush-era “Axis of Evil” conclusions.
Meanwhile, the trial of Ling and Lee went off with a hitch … apparently.
The five-day trial of Ling and Lee was held in Pyongyang’s Central Court, the top court in North Korea. Outside observers were not allowed.
“The trial confirmed the grave crime they committed against the Korean nation and their illegal border crossing,” the official Korean Central News Agency said. It said the court sentenced “each of them to 12 years of reform through labor.”
The “grave crime,” however, was not explained. The reporters had earlier been accused of unspecified “hostile acts.” Legal analysts in South Korea said the North Korean court may have sentenced the women to the maximum of 10 years of hard labor for hostile acts and added on two years for illegal entry.
The detention and sentencing of the two journalists has coincided with — and become entangled in — a series of provocative acts by North Korea that this spring have angered its neighbors, its historical allies and much of the world.
Long range missile firings and nuclear weapon tests aside, if President Obama can find out which motion pictures are personal favorites of Mr. Jong Il, and then house them in an attractive display case, the United States can come to the negotiation table with a leg up. Bam can even throw in an autographed copy of his book, an audio library of his best teleprompter reads and strict assurances that the United States will never, ever do anything to provoke or irritate North Korea.
As Blaine Harden of the Washington Post writes:
In the past, North Korea has released Americans who have entered the country illegally. The government also has a history of brinkmanship, turning confrontation and bluster into negotiations that reward it with food, fuel and other concessions.
The two incarcerated journalists work for Current TV – a cable network led by former Vice President Al Gore that probably trails the Belly Button Lint Network in terms of viewership.
And although not asked to do so – and with no prompting from the studio audience – family members of both of these journalists have offered public apologies to North Korea for whatever “crimes” they may have committed.
Because evil dictators always take into account the heartfelt pleas of suffering Americans when conducting their affairs.
Up to this point, Mr. Gore has been silent on the matter, but there is speculation that he could go to North Korea himself to handle negotiations for the journalists’ release.
Whether or not he will help save the Earth by using a hybrid to get to North Korea is unclear.
The truth is … I pray for both of these women to return home safely and quickly.
I sincerely do.
After a series of “Hey, look at me! I’m important!” gestures on the part of North Korea, most agree that at some point soon these journalists will be released as part of yet another “deal” struck between the United States and North Korea.
Al Gore would, indeed, be perfect for that.
Lord knows, he’s had enough practice apologizing to the trees and sky for how horrible humanity has treated them.
Posted in Foreign Policy, North Korea | Tagged: Euna Lee, Kin Jong Il, Laura Ling, North Korea | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 3, 2009
Had he not been elected to the most powerful office in the world – and if not for his capacious and affecting community organizing resume – perhaps President Barack Obama might have found a proportionate level of success as a professional arbitrator or matchmaker. The chances are quite good, for instance, that he could have brought the pot and the kettle a little closer together.
The President, on the eve of his trip to the Middle East – where perhaps a new set of apologies for American deeds are on the docket for international consumption – said the United States was not there to lecture or impose its values on countries with questionable records on human rights and political freedoms, like Egypt, where he is scheduled to grovel tomorrow.
Said the President:
“The danger, I think, is when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture.”
This, of course, is coming from the man who has literally “imposed” his radical Marxist-flavored agenda on his own country – the leader of the party quick to chide conservatives for being ideologues and quick to accuse them of trying to impose their value systems on liberty-loving Americans who measure their freedoms by their ability to abort children at will and the ease with which they can acquire condoms at school.
Surely, there must be something amiss here.
The President can’t be against imposing values on those who may not agree with him, can he? From the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, to the government takeover of General Motors, to the closing of Guantanamo Bay, to the unparalleled expansion of government, to the exponential inflating of the national debt, to using taxpayer money to help fund abortions overseas, to the nominating of an unqualified jurist to the Supreme Court, how is it that Obama is now all-of-a-sudden anti-imposition?
Let me humbly suggest that Obama is not against the imposition of value sets on human beings who may not be so ready to jump on his waffle wagon. Rather, because he is a leftist of prodigious proportion, he is opposed to any imposition of conservative values.
That seems to make more sense, doesn’t it?
Indeed, like anyone in power, Obama selectively chooses his “impositions” – only he throws in an unmistakable dictatorial twist.
The man has used a plethora of public funds to attempt to “save” private entities from ruin – something completely antithetical to the free market system that built this nation – and in the process is on track to create a national debt larger than the combined debt of the previous 43 presidents. He has spent almost incalculable amounts of taxpayer money on pork-barrel projects supposedly geared to stimulate economic growth – projects like making public housing projects more “green” and supplying doorknobs to buildings that need new ones – and in the process, has afforded the federal government the opportunity to literally run a private corporation. He is also in the process of completely transforming the medical delivery system in this nation – with unprecendented, unchecked speed – into a nightmarish rationed European-style government-run healthcare debacle where Washington will serve as everyone’s HMO.
If that’s not imposition, what is?
Of course, the President won’t be dealing with American conservatives overseas. He’ll be taking his Kleenex-spined, “Let’s not tick anyone off” Kumbaya approach on the road to the ever-accommodating Middle-East.
Obama has made it clear that the United States will continue to vigorously shake off the irons of crippling Bush-era policies and Reagan-like cowboyism. America won’t be doing any of that “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” nonsense anymore.
Instead, America will serve as a “role model” to the world, as Obama put it.
We will lead by example.
The long list of examples of despotic nations who turned themselves around by taking a page from the American “Lead By Example” songbook will inspire today’s struggling oppressors and violators of decency.
The human-rights deniers and evil-doers of the world will only need to watch America to see the error of their ways.
(Can I get a big “Hell, yeah!” from the audience?)
Indeed, it is a new day in the United States.
(Removes barf bag from top drawer. Keeps it at the ready).
This idea that a President of the United States would be wrongly “imposing” a value system by simply doing what he is supposed to do – that is, advocating for the advancement of freedom, having the conviction to label evil, and promising to protect liberty-loving people everywhere – is shamelessly preposterous. If not the President of the United States, then who else will (or should) affirm the values that foster liberty?
It seems infeasible for liberals to admit certain realities – and not just the obvious stuff, like the existence of evil, or the fact that it’s okay to use the words “Islamic” and “terrorist” in the same sentence. They grapple with the idea that, like it or not, politicians will regularly attempt to infuse, or “impose,” their value set into what they do politically, regardless of what side of the aisle they stand on.
That’s why we elect them.
The value system of the person we elect to represent us is supposed to matter.
Yet, to liberals, only conservatives stoop so low as to “impose” their values on people. While liberals seek to make things better for absolutely everyone (for our own good), conservatives seek to impose. That’s because they see differences between themselves and those on the right as more than just philosophical – they see them as moral. To them, conservatives have ulterior motives. Thus, because conservatives are almost always driven by less than noble aims, conservatism itself is inherently beastly.
Whereas conservatives overwhelmingly believe that libs are simply wrong (with endless data to back up those assertions), liberals believe conservatives are also bad.
It’s all part of liberal denial.
After all, how could saving the world and wishing to make everyone equal be an imposition?
The fact is, politicians from both the left and right regularly attempt to “impose” – to one degree or another – their value systems on the electorate – although conservatives do it far less than liberals do.
It can’t be denied.
By definition, because conservatives believe in small government – and thus, less government intrusion – there is less to “impose.” The key is that conservatives tend to adhere to the letter of the Constitution – or profess to do so – while liberals openly and unabashedly manipulate what they believe is a pliable document – a Constitution that lives and breathes – into often unrecognizable conformations that allow them to easier “impose” their agendas on the public, i.e. Roe vs Wade. (The Constitution, for example, is silent on abortion and enumerates no rights to privacy, but thanks to “emanations” and “penumbras,” it magically became a Constitutional matter).
In short, this entire matter is really just a case of “To Impose or Not To Impose.” It’s all about the situation, the audience and the political points that can be scored.
(Gee, what else is new?)
The Obama foreign policy template is to make sure to avoid annoying, offending, or upsetting anyone at all costs – except, possibly, the Israelis. The same basic “offend no one” approach holds true on the domestic front – except, of course, where conservatives are concerned. All bets are off at that point. They’re fair game to be chastised, criticized, marginalized and excluded – except when Bam grants safe (and controlled) passage.
Indeed, Obama calls for unity, but a quick gander at the Obama/English dictionary shows that “unity” simply means he wants everyone to think like him.
Talk about imposition.
Please understand my point here when it comes to this notion of not wanting to “impose” values on others. I think it’s a vague term to begin with, and unless the President is thinking of invading Egypt and installing a democratic government, he simply sounds silly and weak. Defending the values that have made (and continue to make) the United States the greatest nation the world has ever known – and making the case for those values – is not an imposition on anyone.
Obviously, I don’t expect him (or want him) to go into Saudi Arabia – or anywhere – like a guns-a-blazin’ lunatic and start demanding things and insulting those who are welcoming him into their country. I wouldn’t ask that of any president. That isn’t my point.
There are ways to do things, and there are ways to do things.
I suppose that in the wake of President Obama’s unfounded plan to close Guantanamo Bay, and his moronic move to announce publicly the United States withdrawal date from Iraq, I could make the claim that the President is “imposing” his security-compromising policies and terrorist-appeasing war plan on folks like me who regard national security and the realities of living in a dangerous world as an adult matter.
But alas, I am only an American conservative – and that’s pretty low on the Bam totem pole.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: "imposing values", Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Imposing American values, Middle East trip | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 29, 2009
barracks four at gitmo - this arrow points to mecca
This is one of those instances when the needle spikes heavily into the red on the “Obvious” meter.
If such a thing as a relevant “non-story” exists – one that might be extracted from the “Did You Know The Sky Is Blue” file – it is the reality that some of the prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay have actually gone back into the terrorism business. It’s as shocking as finding out that a Hollywood actor is going “green.”
The revelation that some ex-Gitmo prisoners have returned to the vocations from whence they came – blowing up innocents, preparing for a profusion of virgins in the afterlife – should amaze no one. It would be akin to contending that some prisoners who are released from jails in this country actually go back and commit more crimes.
Did you also know that water is wet?
Still, the significance of this cannot be overstated.
From Fox News:
The Pentagon said Tuesday it has fingerprints, DNA, photos or reliable intelligence to link 27 detainees to the battlefields since their release from the prison on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
That’s about 5 percent of the 540 terror suspects released from the prison. Another 9 percent of freed Guantanamo detainees are suspected to have rejoined the terror activity. That’s 74 detainees in all.
“What this tells us is, at the end of the day, there are individuals, that if released, will again return to terrorist activities,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday.
Some constitutional lawyers have disputed the data because it is not specific about the evidence used to track the detainees.
The Pentagon said all the detainees captured, and in most cases held, for years at Guantanamo were tied to Al Qaeda, the Taliban or other foreign fighter groups.
It was interesting to read some of the comments from Obamaniacs at the FoxNews.com website regarding this story.
Among the more fatuous lines of thinking I came across is one that (naturally) takes aim at former President George W. Bush. The idea is that the people released from Gitmo were set free while Bush was still President, thus the blame for any terrorist activity or acts of war that eminate from any of the big 540 can be placed directly at the feet of former President.
Yet another inherited problem for President Messiah to have to contend with.
(Couldn’t we just let him finish his waffle?)
This logic, presumably, is aimed to refute those who express disdain and outrage over President Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo (like me). According to the dancing Obamacrats, those of us quick to attack the current President for his decision to close the facility ought to sling their poison arrows at former President Bush for allowing terrorists to run free under his watch. After all, most of the Gitmo-folk would never have even considered engaging in such a deplorable way of life had the Muslim-hating Bush not driven them to it. (Remember, just a few days ago, President Obama said Gitmo’s mere existence has caused Al Qaeda recruitment to increase).
Is there anything that requires less thought than the “Blame America First” approach?
Indeed, there is a cartoonish myth that exists among Leftocrats and screeching anti-war types that many of those held in Gitmo shouldn’t even be there – that they were innocently living their lives, minding their own businesses, exchanging eggplant recipes, bothering no one, when they were suddenly and ferociously abducted by American gun-toting, bible-thumping, Qur’an desecrating, anti-Muslim military men with bad attitudes and a whole lot of artillery.
If anything is further from the truth, I’d love to see the brochure.
typical gitmo cell - how inhumane
That I even have to pose these questions is exasperating enough, but as I regularly ask my liberal friends (without ever getting a sufficient response), is it not clear by now that the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay are a different breed than the ordinary, off-the-rack, garden variety bad guys that occupy our nation’s jails? Isn’t it obvious that these dregs of society exist in a league all their own? Isn’t it clear what separates these lowlifes from others?
Unlike the armed robbers, rapists, murderers, and other detestable examples of human debris that populate our prisons, the Gitmo “detainees” are a direct threat to national security.
That’s the key.
The prisoners of Guntanamo Bay are a threat to national security.
These are people picked up on the fields of battle, waging war against the United States – those who do not wear the uniform or insignia of a specific nation. These are not “wrong place at the wrong time” halo-wearers snatched from libraries while studying for their medical degrees. These are not innocents rounded up at soccer games or kidnapped from neighborhood florists.
These are terrorists.
It really isn’t hard to understand – for those who allow their synapses to fire correctly.
Because of this unique status, the Gitmo crowd cannot be treated as typical criminals. They cannot be afforded Constitutional rights. Matters of national security cannot be put on display for public consumption in a court room.
This is war.
Even if the argument had a scintilla of credence – that Bush is to blame for releasing these terrorists, therefore conservatives who oppose Obama’s proposed closing of Gitmo are being, at the very least, hypocritical – what exactly has President Obama done or proposed that would change that situation for the better? President Obama stands firm in wanting to see Gitmo closed, although there is isn’t a single reason that can justify it (other than attempting to get people around the world to “like us” again), nor is there any plan in existence that betters it.
Guantanamo Bay exists because it works.
This “non-story” highlights two important points – one, that Guantanamo Bay must be kept open to house those enemy combatants deemed genuine terror threats against America, and two, that the process of releasing anyone from its confines had better be an undertaking so difficult and complex that blindfolded neurosurgery would seem easy by comparison.
(The photos were taken by US Army Sgt. Sara Wood in 2006. The entire set can be seen here).
Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberalism, War on Terror | Tagged: "terror suspects", 540 terror suspects, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 20, 2009
From the “Just So You Know” file …
There is some chest thumping coming from the President of everyone’s favorite friendly neighborhood buddy-nation. Yesterday, Iran test-fired a “new advanced missile” with a range said to be about 1,200 miles. As the AP reports, that puts “Israel, southeastern Europe and U.S. bases in the Middle East” within its reach.
Said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Defense Minister (Mostafa Mohammad Najjar) has informed me that the Sajjil-2 missile, which has very advanced technology, was launched from Semnan and it landed precisely on the target.” Semnan is 125 miles of Tehran.
AP reporter Ali Akbar Dareini writes:
The announcement will not reassure the U.S. government, coming just two days after President Barack Obama declared a readiness to seek deeper international sanctions against Iran if it shunned U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama said he expected a positive response to his outreach for opening a dialogue with Iran by the end of the year.
Of course he does. Ahmadinejad has been nothing short of accommodating and cooperative since he first warmed our hearts with his Holocaust-denial, anti-American rhetoric and calls for Israel’s elimination.
What a guy.
President Obama – who has said he is willing to pow-wow with Iran regardless of what it does or says – is not only delusionaly confident in his fairytale “sit down and tell me what we’ve done to make you angry” foreign policy, but he is sure his TV-star magnetism and personal popularity will be enough to muster international support for sanctions against Iran should it come to that.
His “rock star” status certainly has served him well trying to build up that Afghanistan posse, didn’t it?
Most Western analysts believe Iran does not yet have the technology to produce nuclear weapons, including warheads for long-range missiles. A group of U.S. and Russian scientists said in a report issued Tuesday that Iran could produce a simple nuclear device in one to three years and a nuclear warhead in another five years after that.
The study published by the nonpartisan EastWest Institute also said Iran is making advances in rocket technology and could develop a ballistic missile capable of firing a 2,200-pound nuclear warhead up to 1,200 miles “in perhaps six to eight years.”
When the meeting does take place between Bam and Whack Job, I wonder if the President will bow in front of Ahmadinejad or just offer to comb the falafel crumbs from his beard.
Posted in Foreign Policy, War on Terror | Tagged: Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, missie test, Sajjil-2 | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 2, 2009
From the “If This Had Been Anyone Else” file …
President Obama probably won’t recognize the sound, but what he is hearing is the resonance of the United States of America turning rosy red in embarrassment. (And you didn’t think such a thing could make a distinctive sound, did you?) It isn’t an explosive noise, or anything that will scare anyone. Rather, it is the sound of a mortified assemblage of heads shaking in shame – a sensatory humiliation that may not be picked up by the normal human ear, but is certainly distinguishable to dogs and Messiahs alike.
It has a certain “you’ve got to be kidding me” timbre to it that most non-Saviors cannot realize.
For the nation who has everything, including a 25 Classic Film DVD set that cannot be played there, what else could an American President offer as a gift – outside of beef jerky and JC Penny gift certificate packs – that could leave a lasting impression?
What gift could the most powerful man in the world offer the Queen of England?
How about an Ipod?
From the UK Telegraph:
Barack Obama met the Queen at Buckingham Palace today and gave her a gift of an iPod loaded with video footage and photographs of her 2007 United States visit to Richmond, Jamestown and Williamsburg in Virginia. In return, the Queen gave the President a silver framed signed photograph of herself and the Duke of Edinburgh – apparently a standard present for visiting dignitaries.
It is believed the Queen already has an iPod, a 6GB silver Mini version she is said to have bought in 2005 at the suggestion of Prince Andrew.
See, this is why I am not President. It would not occur to me to present an MP3/video player to British royalty.
A PlayStation 3, sure. But an Ipod, no.
To be fair, according to USA Today reporter Richard Wolf, an aide to the President later told him that Obama also gave the Queen a “rare songbook signed by Richard Rodgers.”
Earlier, Mr Obama had spoken of his admiration for Her Majesty but indicated that his wife was handling the details of their royal meeting. “There’s one last thing that I should mention that I love about Great Britain, and that is the Queen,” he said at the end of his joint press conference with Gordon Brown.
“And so I’m very much looking forward to meeting her for the first time later this evening. And as you might imagine, Michelle has been really thinking that through — because I think in the imagination of people throughout America, I think what the Queen stands for and her decency and her civility, what she represents, that’s very important.”
I am willing to take hits for what will surely be interpreted by some as callous, partisan, lock-step nitpicking on my part – just another unknown right-wing blogger looking for anything to chide the President on.
Not that he hasn’t given even the mildest of critics opportunity after opportunity to do so.
In the grand scheme, it is, admitettedly, a “non-story” – but it wouldn’t be if the GOP were at the helm.
Some choice comments on this story from the UK Telegraph website:
Dear People of the United Kingdom, please accept my sincerest apologies, this is so embarrassing. We usually are more classy in the USA. Perhaps we should subject ourselves to the crown again. Perhaps we can’t handle it after 200 years after all!
To our British cousins – Please forgive our once-great country for sending an idiot to represent us. Unfortunately, Obama will continue to embarrass us with his bumbling, inept foreign policy. We did not learn a lesson with Jimmy Carter.
George Bush, though mistaken on some issues, was genuine, resolute and enamored of his country and the principles on which it was founded – characteristics completely lacking in this Kenyan impostor who achieved power through deceit, thuggery and slick self-promotion. I believe it will not be long before the vast majority of Americans and Brits alike rue the day he ever came on the scene.
Note to Michelle: Don’t give ANY more presents. Ask someone who has experience giving – not taking – to do this important diplomatic task for you, and make sure it’s not another Leftist. Leave the job up to a Conservative grownup.
Ha! Obama probably likes watching footage of himself all the time but I sincerely doubt that Her Majesty is in any way narcissistic. And doesn’t she take he favorite cameraman everywhere with her to do the official shoot? What a poorly thought out gift. “In return, the Queen gave the President a silver framed photograph of herself – apparently a standard present for visiting dignitaries.” Nothing extra? Not so special, then, is he?
-Expat in the USA
Reportedly, along with video and stills of the Queen’s 2007 visit to America, the Ipod contains a collection of show tunes, including selections from West Side Story and Hair.
I probably do not need to add anything at this point.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: Barack Obama, Gift for Queen Elizabeth, Ipod, Queen Elizabeth | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 31, 2009
Liberals always feel better about themselves – like they’ve righted some dastardly wrong – when they spare the offended among us any more undue hurt by changing the names of things they deem objectionable and unseemly. After all, the societal goal of today’s Leftocrat is to make sure that no one – outside of conservatives – is ever offended at any time for any reason. On the liberal hit parade of bugbears and pariahs, “Do Not Offend” is a perennial top-five smash.
In the curious mind of today’s liberal (or should I say progressive) there is hardly anything worse, outside of putting a Wal-Mart in New York City, than being offended. Long-used terminology that is not meant to be in any way pejorative is now offensive. Thus, in the ongoing Age of Political Correctness, “crippled” has become “physically challenged” and “retarded” has morphed into “mentally handicapped.” This is the same mindset that will have us calling the dead “living impaired,” and liars “ethically discombobulated” before too long. Of course, these adorable little non-abrasive labels don’t change the fact that an individual who is crippled is still crippled, or that someone who is mentally retarded is still retarded.
We just don’t call it that.
The word “retarded” is ugly – or should I say “cosmetically distinctive.”
“Crippled” sounds judgmental somehow, and liberals despise judgments – unless it is against a conservative and his dazzling array of archaic, bigoted, multi-phobic positions.
Remember, liberal bigotry fosters unity.
This word-swapping makes libs feel better – and that is precisely what sits at the heart of all liberal policy, feelings. Truth is, at best, secondary, and problem-solving almost always translates into increased funding and/or decreased freedoms. Equality trumps liberty. Indeed, if “Thou Shalt Not Offend” were one of God’s commandment, then some of that judgmental religious stuff so “offensive” to progressives might be more palatable. If it were in the Bill of Rights – Congress Shall Make No Law That Offends Any Portion of the Electorate – the slave-owning Founding Fathers might be less abhorrent to today’s campus cacklers and multi-cultural warriors.
It is this metastasizing idiocy that has prompted the Obamacrats to stop using the phrase “Global War On Terror,” adopted by the Bush Administration after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and instead use the ever-loving, less-offensive, not-so-war-sounding “Overseas Contingency Operation.”
It almost sounds like a good will operation or a free cheese drive.
Last week, Fox News reported:
Critics have pleaded with the Obama administration to abandon the use of “Global War on Terror” because they say it mischaracterizes the nature of the enemy and its abilities.
The fact that enemy has attacked and murdered innocents all over the world hasn’t clouded Obamacrat thinking. Only a leftist can “mischaracterize” thousands and thousands of dead innocents at the hands of murderous terrorists across the globe.
In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirms the change.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday the Obama administration had dropped “war on terror” from its lexicon, rhetoric former President George W. Bush used to justify many of his actions.
“The (Obama) administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself. Obviously,” Clinton told reporters traveling with her to The Hague for a conference on Afghanistan, which Bush called part of his “global war on terror.”
The phrase was strongly criticized by human rights groups who said it was used to justify many actions, such as the opening of the Guantanamo Bay prison for detainees held without trial at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba.
Internationally, the phrase was seen by critics as a “with-us-or-against-us” philosophy, overly dependent on military force and what many Muslims decried as an attack on Islam.
A red flag should reflexively unfurl when the words “human rights groups” are used. In the same way “peace activists” really don’t advocate peace, human rights groups don’t give a damn about genuine human rights.
To these folks, the greatest war-mongers, perpetrators of evil and offenders of human rights in the world is the United States of America.
Perhaps the next foreign policy initiative of the Obama administration will be to request detailed reports from leaders around the world enumerating not only those things that America currently does that are offensive, but of things not to do in the future, lest our actions antagonize and disoblige anyone else.
In other news, God help us.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberalism, War on Terror | Tagged: Barack Obama, Global War On Terror, Hillary Clinton, Overseas Contingency Plan, Political Correctness, War on Terror | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 18, 2009
If ever there was a “Boy, if this happened to George W. Bush …” moment in the two months since Barack Obama became President, it would have to be Tuesday’s St. Patrick’s Day display of Messianic moonbattery at the White House.
Let’s be clear.
Had this happened on “W’s” watch, there would have been an immediate call to action to all Lefty laptop rat-a-tat-tatters in basements across the map to let the word go forth. TV talk-show monologue makers would be thanking the gods for such a fruitful bounty. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC would have spent at least twenty minutes on it on her sparingly watched television program. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC might have been forced into an orgasmically-induced change of undergarments had the Cowboy President done such a thing. It might have even warranted two columns on the New York Times front page (I’ll give you below the fold).
President Obama hosted Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowan at the White House yesterday in honor of St. Patrick’s Day.
Both men appeared before the press.
After a teleprompted address by the President, Mr. Cowan started his remarks, also teleprompted. However, after a paragraph or two it was evident that something wasn’t quite right with the Prime Minister’s statement.
Then it became obvious.
Prime Minister Cowan was reading the wrong statement.
There was apparently a teleprompter boo-boo and he wound up re-reading Obama’s remarks, given just a few moments earlier. Cowan caught the error, turned the President and said, “That’s your speech.”
It was fairly embarrassing – a teleprompter teleproblem .
After a chuckle, Obama returned to center-stage, presumably to play the role of Messiah and save the day.
It was, by all accounts, a situation tailor-made for Obama. Here was an opportunity for the grand orator himself – the greatest rhetorician, perhaps, since Roosevelt – to step into his element and salvage what could only be described as amateur hour at the White House. If anyone could, he could rescue the moment. Here was what so many had been waiting for – to hear America’s most eloquent elocutionist step up to the plate and show why he is The One. Who else but he in all of Creation could deliver on an occasion as awkward as this?
Obama proceeded to speak – but to the mild surprise (and disappointment) of some, he was reading off the teleprompter again. It was odd – particularly because here was a man touted as the anti-Bush, in terms of articulation, standing there with a chance to show why he was so good, but didn’t. Or couldn’t.
To be fair, maybe the right “ad-libs” didn’t immediately come to mind.
Still, he sounded fine, doing his best to move past the teleprompting flub … that is, until it was apparent that what he was reading off the electronic cue-cards was wrong. Really wrong.
He was actually reading the statement Prime Minister Cowan was supposed to deliver a moment earlier.
The faux par became perfectly clear when the President thanked himself for the invitation to the White House.
(It simply isn’t possible to make this stuff up).
How long do you think it would have taken, had he not expressed his undying gratitude to himself, before he realized he was speaking words that really made no sense coming from the American President? Is Obama so teleprocessed that he has no ability to comprehend what he is saying? The President certainly reviews what he is going to say at any public venue before hand. Did it not occur to him that what he was reading was not familiar? Or if it was, that it wasn’t meant for him? Maybe he just misremembered.
Does Michelle wind him up for the question period?
Posted in Foreign Policy, humor, Silly Stuff | Tagged: Barack Obama, Brian Cowan, St. Patrick's Day, teleprompter | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 8, 2009
it's okay, bubula
This metrosexualized edition of the Chief Executive is tiresome.
The President has already admitted that he’s been a bit overwhelmed since taking office – precisely the thing every American wants to hear from the Chief Executive of the world’s most powerful and influential nation. What with the recession, all of that budget stuff and the war crap to contend with, it’s little wonder the poor guy is feeling a bit inundated. It’s one thing to insult the Prime Minister of your closest ally (and thus, the nation) by throwing a bunch of DVDs his way while being presented with three memorable and breathtaking gifts, but to admit openly to an angry British press corp – and the world at large – that the job has just been too much in the early going is akin to saying, “Dear World, I am incompetent, I’m in over my head, but I do speak well. Love us again, please.”
Just imagine George W. Bush handing Prime Minister Tony Blair a stack of movies as his country’s offering for the traditional exchange of gifts between the two nations. The likes of Letterman and Leno would be lambasting Bush for forgetting the beer and chips.
But as long as we’re pulling things from the “In Over His Head” file …
The President is considering the idea of extending a warm, friendly hand to some of the more moderate members of the Taliban, presumably because they are teetering between the ideologies of blowing up innocents and extending liberty to all. The notion of coming up with a decent gift for the Prime Minister of Great Britain may have been a troubling one, but making nice with some of the less-murderous element of the Taliban is probably a lot less “overwhelming” than just wiping them from the map.
That kind of stuff annoys people.
In an interview with the newspaper published on its website, Obama said that some of the U.S. success in Iraq involved reaching out to Islamic fundamentalists who had been alienated by the tactics of al Qaeda in Iraq.
Mr. President, are you admitting that there has been success in Iraq?
“There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region,” he said. “But the situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex.”
The Times said that in the interview, Obama also left open the option for American operatives to capture terrorism suspects abroad even without the cooperation of a country where they were found.
“There could be situations — and I emphasize ‘could be’ because we haven’t made a determination yet — where, let’s say that we have a well-known al Qaeda operative that doesn’t surface very often, appears in a third country with whom we don’t have an extradition relationship or would not be willing to prosecute, but we think is a very dangerous person,” he said.
“I think we will have to think about how do we deal with that scenario in a way that comports with international law and abides by my very clear edict that we don’t torture.”
Surely, these user-friendly Taliban would be entitled to, at least, 10 DVDs apiece – but Obama shouldn’t tell them that at the beginning.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Obama's first 100 days, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: 25 DVDs, Gordon Brown, Obama, overwhelmed, Taliban | 1 Comment »