« As I suspected ... | Main | Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners »

The Obama Follies

It is safe to say Obama's foreign policy has so far been an unmitigated disaster.

  • He scolded the United States for being "arrogant, dismissive", and "derisive" toward Europe.
  • During his European Celebrity Tour, he was greeted by adoring fans and leaders alike, only to be snubbed by our "Allies" regarding his proposal for more combat troops to Afghanistan and more money to help fight a global depression.
  • Though Obama has a new "comrade" in Prime Minister Medvedev, the communist will do nothing to assist with the current North Korean nuclear stand off.
  • The Chinese, as well, refuse to do anything to punish the North Koreans, even going so far as congratulating Kim Jong Ill on his victorious election (I believe he obtained 99.9% of the vote).
  • Obama bowed to the Saudi King, and our oil prices have rose ever since.
  • Spoke heatedly about how North Korea "broke the rules" after their much publicized and anticipated missile launch, relying on the UN Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the action. That action did not come until a full two weeks after the missile was launched. They have now resumed the operation of their nuclear facilities which are capable of producing weapons grade nuclear material.
  • Dropped a key demand that Iran shut down its nuclear facilities prior to engaging in talks concerning its nuclear ambitions. It would also allow Iran to continue enriching uranium during any talks.
  • Chastised us for our treatment of Native Americans centuries ago. Also scolded us for our past history of slavery.
  • Pointed out that we have been the only nation to ever use a nuclear weapon, allowing for no context, of course.
  • Has no coherent plan to deal with " pirates", or as some more appropriately call them, Islamic terrorists.
  • At the start of the 5th Summit of the Americas, Obama gave a friendly "Yo, that's my dog" handshake to Hugo Chavez, American hating "leader" of Venezuela, and personal friend to Fidel Castro.
  • He has lifted restrictions on Cuba, long an enemy of the United States, and purveyor of human rights atrocities.

So, with all of these misguided and dovish overtures aimed to paint the United States as a world thug who, under Obama the Savior, needs to repent for it's eeeeevil ways, how does he see fit to treat our strongest, staunchest democratic ally in the middle east, Israel?

From Haaretz.com:

Obama team readying for confrontation with Netanyahu

In an unprecedented move, the Obama administration is readying for a possible confrontation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by briefing Democratic congressmen on the peace process and the positions of the new government in Israel regarding a two-state solution.

The Obama administration is expecting a clash with Netanyahu over his refusal to support the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
In recent weeks, American officials have briefed senior Democratic congressmen and prepared the ground for the possibility of disagreements with Israel over the peace process, according to information recently received. The administration's efforts are focused on President Barack Obama's Democratic Party, which now holds a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The preemptive briefing is meant to foil the possibility that Netanyahu may try to bypass the administration by rallying support in Congress.
The message that administration officials have relayed to the congressmen is that President Obama is committed to the security of Israel and intends to continue the military assistance agreement that was signed by his predecessor, George W. Bush.

However, Obama considers the two-state solution central to his Middle East policy, as he reiterated during a speech in Turkey on Monday, and he intends to ask that Netanyahu fulfill all the commitments made by previous governments in Israel: accepting the principle of a Palestinian state; freezing settlement activity; evacuating illegal outposts; and providing economic and security assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

Administration officials made it clear to congressmen that the Palestinians will also be required to fulfill their obligations in line with the road map and the Annapolis process.

According to the reports received in Israel, the U.S. administration is not concerned about recent statements by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman calling for a rejection of the Annapolis process or overtures made by Netanyahu during the election campaign.

U.S. officials say they will wait and hear Netanyahu's position from the prime minister himself when he meets Obama in Washington next month.

No hurry to play mediator

The Obama administration is also not opposed to the resumption of negotiations between Israel and Syria but will insist that the Syrian track not be used in Jerusalem as a way of evading obligations undertaken by Israel as part of the Annapolis process.

Obama is in no hurry to bring the U.S. in as lead mediator between Israel and Syria. American involvement, which both Israel and Syria consider essential for substantive progress, will remain conditional on progress in the dialog between Washington and Damascus.

Regarding Iran, the Obama administration is preparing the ground for a policy distinguishing between Iran's right to have nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment done under international supervision, and the actual building of a nuclear weapon.

Obama is making a huge mistake alienating our closest democratic ally in an otherwise democratically devoid region.

His idea of a successful foreign policy is to capitulate to rogue regimes like that of Venezuela and Cuba, while isolating countries which we have come to rely on both as an ally and a tremendous source of mid-east intelligence.

As he bows down before and shakes hands with every America-hating thug who comes along and then laughs at Obama behind his back, he readies his administration for an all out diplomatic war with one of our most valued allies in one of the most dangerous areas of the world.

Whether this is a course built upon naiveté, ambivalence, or self-loathing, it is dangerous, and should be viewed as such.

The alienation of Israel by the United States on the world stage would be a folly of such magnitude, that it could very well propagate anti-semitic thoughts and actions among peoples who already have a leaning toward hatred of the Jewish state, thereby fostering an atmosphere where the threat of Israeli destruction could become not just a rallying cry for militant groups, but a breeding ground for true action.



TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/35341.

Comments (61)

Scolded the US? Did you re... (Below threshold)
Lisa:

Scolded the US? Did you read the whole speech? He admitted our (Bush/Cheney's) approach had been arrogant. (No surprise to the members, most of whom failed to support the invasion of Irag) and then called them out for anti-Americanism and the kind of going nowhere partisanship that you're espousing. Our foreign policy (and I use that term loosely) was devasted by the last administration and Obama has a load of fences to mend.

President Obama's foreign p... (Below threshold)
kevino:

President Obama's foreign policy: "No Despot Left Behind".

Foreign policy re Israel?</... (Below threshold)
irongrampa:

Foreign policy re Israel?

BOHICA.

Obama will be wondering why... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Obama will be wondering why Israel will be bombing Iran within the next 6 months.

"Regarding Iran, the Obama ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"Regarding Iran, the Obama administration is preparing the ground for a policy distinguishing between Iran's right to have nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment done under international supervision, and the actual building of a nuclear weapon."

Can we say North Korea after Madeline Albright made her visits.

A disaster in the making.

Pointed out that ... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:


Pointed out that we have been the only nation to ever use a nuclear weapon, allowing for no context, of course.

The "context" being World War Two? Don't worry too much. I think most people are, at least, familiar with World War Two and the reasoning behind unleashing that big blast-thingy.

His idea of a successful foreign policy is to capitulate to rogue regimes like that of Venezuela and Cuba . . .

You need to look up the meanings of "capitulate" and "rogue regime."

Obama bowed to the Saudi King, and our oil prices have rose ever since.

Our oil?

Yes OUR oil bonehead...chec... (Below threshold)
914:

Yes OUR oil bonehead...check the price lately?

Ha ha ha. That's really abo... (Below threshold)
Jake McKee Author Profile Page:

Ha ha ha. That's really about all I can say to this post. It's not well reasoned or even reasoned. It's simplified talking points regurgitated for our reading. Let's take these point by point:

It is safe to say Obama's foreign policy has so far been an unmitigated disaster.

Yes, because with so much to clean up and recover from, 3 months is a completely worthwhile timeline with which to evaluate his overall success. Are conservatives the ones that have propped the line that history is the judge, that while Iraq could take 50 years, it is all worth the effort, that we can't judge success for decades?

He scolded the United States for being "arrogant, dismissive", and "derisive" toward Europe.

I would hardly say "scolded". But without the context of the VERY. NEXT. LINE. of the speech, this is a worthless discussion point. Haven't you ever said "Look, I may not be the smartest person, but let me call you out on something..." when you're trying to get a point across?

During his European Celebrity Tour, he was greeted by adoring fans and leaders alike, only to be snubbed by our "Allies" regarding his proposal for more combat troops to Afghanistan and more money to help fight a global depression.

Skipping the silly "Celeb Tour" line. Do you honestly think that the entire conversation about more troops came during this trip? Please. Besides... if you are so upset about not getting more troops for Afghanistan, then I assume you were upset with Bush went ahead knowing he wasn't going to get many troops?

Though Obama has a new "comrade" in Prime Minister Medvedev, the communist will do nothing to assist with the current North Korean nuclear stand off.

Yes, the puppet master controlling the entire universe that is the USA failed under Obama. Because under Bush, the Western relationship with Medvedev grew significantly and yet, North Korea still fires a rocket. But hey, they've been busy locking down their country and building a nuke and rocket program in the three months since Obama took office!

The Chinese, as well, refuse to do anything to punish the North Koreans, even going so far as congratulating Kim Jong Ill on his victorious election (I believe he obtained 99.9% of the vote).

Yes, the Chinese, like the North Koreans have completely altered a decade's worth of positions and actions in the region in the last three months. They've been busy! Or not.

Obama bowed to the Saudi King, and our oil prices have rose ever since.

Yep, oil prices were nearly free and the Saudis were doing everything we asked before the bow. Again... or not. Look, Obama got weirded out and pulled a stupid brain fart. To read so much into something so stupid is just flat ridiculous.

Spoke heatedly about how North Korea "broke the rules" after their much publicized and anticipated missile launch, relying on the UN Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the action. That action did not come until a full two weeks after the missile was launched. They have now resumed the operation of their nuclear facilities which are capable of producing weapons grade nuclear material.

Read up a little bit about how the North Korean brain/diplomacy actually works. They're making these moves to get attention on the world stage as a real player. Rushing to condemn them just draws attention that they so desperately crave. But hey, let's not factor in the reality of international diplomacy, let's just get angry because things didn't work on YOUR timeline.

Dropped a key demand that Iran shut down its nuclear facilities prior to engaging in talks concerning its nuclear ambitions. It would also allow Iran to continue enriching uranium during any talks.

Because that demand worked SO well in the past. Why continue failed policies?? Have you ever bought a car or negotiated for ANYTHING? It's not about sticking rigidly to your process, it's about GETTING. WHAT. YOU. WANT. If that means changing tactics, then so be it. Complain when it doesn't work, not because it's not unsuccessfully repetitive.

Chastised us for our treatment of Native Americans centuries ago. Also scolded us for our past history of slavery.

Missed this one, but are you saying that you actually support our treatment of Native Americans and our history of slavery? Dude, really?

Pointed out that we have been the only nation to ever use a nuclear weapon, allowing for no context, of course.

Like you offer no context here?

Has no coherent plan to deal with " pirates", or as some more appropriately call them, Islamic terrorists.

This is just flat ridiculous, especially since I'm not sure if you're talking about Somali and Kenyan pirates or al Quaeda. Assuming the later, do you honestly think that the President of the United States doesn't have plans for dealing with THE biggest issue his administration has on their plate? I can see you saying "I don't agree with his plans, or I don't think he's acting fast enough", but saying he doesn't have any plans is to imply that he's taking month long vacations instead of getting to work....

At the start of the 5th Summit of the Americas, Obama gave a friendly "Yo, that's my dog" handshake to Hugo Chavez, American hating "leader" of Venezuela, and personal friend to Fidel Castro.

Burn him! Burn him at the stake! From one photo, you've determined that our duly elected President is wanting to have a slumber party with Chavez? You do realize that our #4 import country for our oil supplies is Venezuela, right? Punching Chavez in the face to show him your true feelings probably wouldn't be well received.

He has lifted restrictions on Cuba, long an enemy of the United States, and purveyor of human rights atrocities.

"Long an enemy"? Please. They were once a staging ground for Russia. But as far as I know, the Cold War has ended. Perhaps not in your head? Look, Castro is a prick and a human rights violator. But decades of sanctions hasn't stopped that, has it? Again, perhaps it's time to try another tactic.

And just to be clear, Obama has lifted SOME restrictions, not "restrictions".

---

So let's be honest here: You don't like Obama, you don't have anything real (yet) to get truly angry about, so you're just making up a bunch of random foolishness to make your point. We get it. You don't like Obama.

So let's be honest here:... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

So let's be honest here: You like Obama, you don't have anything real (yet) to get truly excited about, instead you're just defending a bunch of random foolishness that underscores his inexperience. We get it. You worship Obama.

This may be difficult for t... (Below threshold)
JC Hammer:

This may be difficult for the GOP to understand, but sometimes, U.S. presidents meet foreign leaders we're not fond of. Once in a while, U.S. presidents even negotiate with foreign leaders who are clearly our adversaries -- Kennedy talked to Khrushchev, Nixon talked to Mao, Reagan talked to Gorbachev. Are we to believe it's scandalous for Obama to simply shake hands -- not negotiate, not strike any deals, not come to any agreements, just press the flesh -- with the Venezuelan president? That a simple handshake undermines the "prestige of the United States"?

So what do we wait for, Jak... (Below threshold)
Greenbow:

So what do we wait for, Jake?

No, let me rephrase that - what would it take for you to get pissed at what Obama's doing? Give Israel to Iran? Maybe make a nice deal to let Iran have Iraq, and 'help' out in Afghanistan? How about add trillions more to the deficit? Would THAT get your steam up, or are you so in love with the IDEA of Obama that you can't imagine the REALITY could ever be anything other than what you dream?

Have you seen this comment ... (Below threshold)
rory:

Have you seen this comment made by Obama at a press conference held after the Latin American Conference-

It is in an article from The L.A. Times-

In a news conference capping a three-day meeting of leaders from the Western Hemisphere, Obama also said the U.S. must engage other countries through humanitarian gestures, not only military intervention.


I am so glad Obama is out there talking up America to the rest of the world....

We've never done any humanitarian gestures before Obama -only military interventions.

America according to Obama....

I doubt any Liberal journalist will even see what needs to be questioned of Obama here, or that any conservative or neutral journalist will win the next question bingo and be allowed to challenge him on this statement at Obama's next stateside presser.

You're so bad at this blogg... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

You're so bad at this blogging thing, Shawn, that it's downright adorable.

JC -The problem wi... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

JC -

The problem with our current diplomatic system is that EVERYTHING means SOMETHING. One leader bowing can be seen by THAT country's culture as an indication of subservience - when to our own it's something completely different.

That's why Obama's got folks who supposedly navigate the protocol minefields and brief him on what he's supposed to do. Frankly, given his gaffes with gifts and bowing and the like - they must have outsourced it to a call center in India.

On preview -

Our military DOES do humanitarian work, Rory - but you know that. They've got the people, the vehicles, the logistic chain to get the stuff there - pretty much to anywhere in the world there's a port or a landing strip.

Guess it isn't humanitarian unless NO military personnel are involved... but the Christmas tsunami toll would have been a lot worse if it hadn't been for our military!

Whoa, be easy guys. The Ame... (Below threshold)
Chaka Sulaymon:

Whoa, be easy guys. The American era of supremacy and abuse of peoples around the world including both foreign and domestic is rapidly fading into the sunset.

Chickens are coming home to roost, in the Americas, the Middle East, Africa and here at home. But take heart, what has been so terribly wrong is being set right and if you think you don't like these first 100 days wait until the end of 100 weeks. Get ready to enjoy the era of sorting out. All the meanspirited-ness of American past and present wickedness is being revealed and an accounting is occurring and if you don't like the way things have turned out you shoulda picked your own damn cotton!

So relax and get to tea-bagging!

Obama also helped seal the ... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Obama also helped seal the fate of the young journalist who was convicted of being a spy. His statement regarding her was NOT a catagorical denial that she was a spy, but he left wiggle room to suggest that she might be a spy; just that he was not told about her.

Another refusal by the One to do anything that might damage his 'popularity' with our enemies.
He couldn't bear to stick his neck out just a fraction for the life of an American citizen.

Well, for a guy like Obama ... (Below threshold)
Patrick:

Well, for a guy like Obama who says he doesn't like to look back and instead prefers to look forward than why does he blame his predecessor for everything and apologize for every perceived thing we as a nation did that he does not like? I especially liked the part when Obama responded to Daniel Ortega's long-winded anti-American rant that he appreciated the fact that Ortega did not blame him for things that happened when he was three months old. As always with Obama, he is most interested in making sure he does not get held responsible for anything. And did anybody notice how that line sounded very similar to the one he used when people brought up his relationship with Bill Ayers (who was directly responsible for a least a few man-caused disasters in his day...)?

I would personally prefer a president who is willing to at least pretend that he is proud of his country just a little bit. This self-loathing thing gets very old and yes it does make us look weak. Do you really believe we are gaining self-respect to an extent that we will really see anything positive for us that will come about it other than the fact that perhaps liberals can travel to Europe again without hiding their heads in shame for whatever reason? In my opinion it is the Europeans who should hide their heads in embarrassment when ever they see an American coming because they continually and steadfastly refuse to confront evil and do any of the heavy lifting that needs to be done to keep the world safe. One would have thought that liberating continental Europe and protecting them for the Soviet menace for all those years would have bought us more than a couple of decades of good will. Even after 9/11 we got more sympathy from them than actual help in Afghanistan and that remains true to this day. I think the overall NATO contribution has always been less than adequate - especially when it comes to actual combat forces. It always seemed to me that NATO's contribution was more heavily weighted in the areas of support/logistics personnel rather than combat forces. As for Iraq, the French and the Germans were in reality against confronting Saddam Hussein mostly because they were looking after their own financial self-interest because they both had lucrative financial dealings with the guy. So liberals need to stop pedaling the fiction that the Europeans were the ones who were altruistic about Iraq and we were the misguided ones. I think the real reason why the Europeans hated George W. Bush so much is because he was a stark reminder to them of how impotent and unwilling they are as a people to do anything about confronting threats around the globe - even when the problems lie in their own backyard.

So let's be honest here:... (Below threshold)
Jake McKee Author Profile Page:

So let's be honest here: You like Obama, you don't have anything real (yet) to get truly excited about, instead you're just defending a bunch of random foolishness that underscores his inexperience. We get it. You worship Obama.

Yes, I do like Obama. That's wrong? So which is it? is this just random foolishness (like I said) or is it world ending issues (like the blogger seems to imply)? Can't have it both ways, my friend.

No, let me rephrase that - what would it take for you to get pissed at what Obama's doing?

What's to say that I'm not pissed at "what Obama's doing"? Did I say that I worship him? No, that was you. Why would you assume that I worship him because I'm responding to foolish, pointless talking points this blogger has brought up? One thing I don't like about the Obama admin? I think that his decision to back off torture investigation (note that word wasn't "prosecution") is flat out wrong.

Give Israel to Iran? Maybe make a nice deal to let Iran have Iraq, and 'help' out in Afghanistan? How about add trillions more to the deficit? Would THAT get your steam up, or are you so in love with the IDEA of Obama that you can't imagine the REALITY could ever be anything other than what you dream?

Has he said anything about giving Israel to Iran or giving Iraq to Iran? Come on, that's just ridiculous. Would I get steamed if I heard that? Well of course. If I had ANY indication that that was the direction he was pushing, I'd be the first to call him out. But he's not, there are NO signs, so of course I'm not steamed in advance on the idea that it might some day happen.

Yes, I'm scared by the idea of adding trillions to the deficit, but I'm also reading many economist saying that spending, not freezing is how you get out of the hole.

There is absolutely a dream with Obama. I had a dream with Bush when I voted for him too. We ALL should have the dream of our President. But I'm a rational, smart person who hopes for some balanced, rational approach to how we talk about world affairs. If Obama turns out to be a joke, I'll say so. But again, I'm not going to do so just because YOU don't want to give him time to prove himself.

Jake: "I had a dream wit... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Jake: "I had a dream with Bush when I voted for him too."

Seriously? Or are you just trying to play nice with people who automatically assumed that you're a commie because you pointed out in generous detail how hilariously bad this blog post is?

@hyperbolist - Seriously. I... (Below threshold)
Jake McKee Author Profile Page:

@hyperbolist - Seriously. I wasn't even slightly impressed with Gore and probably would have voted for Bush the first time (had I not been in the middle of a sudden move, causing vote casting to break for me). I voted for him the second time because I didn't think Kerry was capable and at that time I didn't believe that any admin would take such a dim view of my citizenship vs. their own power.

I also thought it was important to show the world a vote of support in not changing horses midstream. Turns out, I was flat out wrong.

But no, as a NYC resident on 9/11, I always clung to the one shred of true leadership Bush displayed - the pile of rumble line about how he (and the world) hears you. I believed that he would display that same prowess in other matters as well. I voted for him based on that dream.

(To be clear, the "dreams" were vastly different between Bush and Obama, but certainly similar)

Probably what bothers be mo... (Below threshold)
Patrick:

Probably what bothers be most about Obama's World Apology Tour is that he does not bother to point out the deplorable behavior of other countries around the world while he slams the United States. We certainly are not hearing Castro, Chavez and Ahmedinejad apologizing for their atrocious human rights violations and the other things they should be hanging their heads in shame about. They just continue to rail on about how bad America is and still Obama just can't wait to have grip and grin sessions with all these cretins without pre-condition or any expectation of receiving anything of substance in return. There needs to be some balance and here and a least a tacit acknowledgment of the generous nature of the United States and the extent that we have advanced the cause of freedom and liberty around the world. People still leave their own countries and want to come to the United States to live and did even during the alleged horrors of the last eight years...

Barry's in way over his hea... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Barry's in way over his head. He won't learn until foreign governments knee him in the balls several times. He still thinks he's back "organizing the 'hood". Evidently all that 'vast executive experience' never taught him that foreign governments play by a different set of rules.

Israel has nothing to lose ... (Below threshold)
MPR:

Israel has nothing to lose except for their existence. They have a book on Obamalala and it probably goes back before he was born. They know all about who he listened to in school and in his career. They probably know more about him than most Americans. They know he will pressure them to give up security and he will "talk" to Iran. It will be costly to Israel but, when they bombed the nuclear plant in Iraq none of the pilots were expected to return. Gee, kind of a good thing they did. Imagine if Sadam had a nuke when he invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia and used it against the coalition or his neighbors.

"But again, I'm not going t... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"But again, I'm not going to do so just because YOU don't want to give him time to prove himself."

Jake -

As far as I'm concerned, Obama's history gives him a definite need to prove himself.

He quit, according to his own biograpy, as a community organizer because he wasn't having an effect.

He edited the Harvard Law Review... but there's nothing written by him in it. Also, his grades have never been released, or any of his papers.

His management of the Annenburg Challenge money... well over $200 million was spent on Chicago schools with no result.

His tenure as a State Senator has nothing to recommend it - the only people he 'helped' were in Grove Parc, and if you google up THAT the 'help' wasn't much for THEM, but it was GREAT for the contractors.

His time as a US Senator was spent running for office. He wrote no legislation, got nothing passed, voted occasionally - and parlayed THAT into a shot for the Presidency.

And he won.

Since then - he's been spending money like a drunken sailor, (with apologies to drunken sailors everywhere...) and most economists say that recessions usually start to ease off about the 16th month, no matter HOW much money is spent. But Illinois got 12% of the federal highway 'stimulus' money, so someone got paid back.

Yeah, I'd say he's got something to prove - that he's got (a) a clue, and (b) the good of the ENTIRE country in mind, and (c) that he's not Pelosi's sock puppet.

Obama is a willing, posturi... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Obama is a willing, posturing puppet, like all the rest of his predecessors. We can criticize him all we want, but unless we dig deeper than the surface, its going to be the same old thing. Sad, but true.

"the only nation to ever us... (Below threshold)

"the only nation to ever use a nuclear weapon"

Piffle.

Every nation that has nuclear weapons has used them.

It's called testing.

"We certainly are not he... (Below threshold)
Jake:

"We certainly are not hearing Castro, Chavez and Ahmedinejad apologizing for their atrocious human rights violations and the other things they should be hanging their heads in shame about."

So let me get this straight, so I make sure I follow the twists in this logic.

* Iran, Cuba, and Ven are all doing things that they need to apologize for.

* They're not apologizing, so they're even worse as countries.

* So apologizing would help them improve their status in the world.

* But apologizing makes you weak. (or at least appear weak)

* So we shouldn't apologize for the things we've done wrong.

* Not apologizing makes you worse as a country

My head's spinning. We want the countries doing things we don't like to apologize, but when our leader apologizes for the things we've done wrong (in his and my opinion, of course), he's making us weak.

You know why we apologize even though the despots don't? Because we're better than them.
*

JLawson-The thing ... (Below threshold)
rory:

JLawson-

The thing is that not only what you say is true, the fact is that we did plenty of humanitarian and charity work in the Third World before Obama.

What is wrong with this guy?

It is truly depressing.

He doesn't react as an American he reacts as an individual.

He things about how it is about him first.

Yet, he is the President of United States.

What he said was utterly untrue and not necessary-yet he still had to go to the level of a falsehood. He had to go out of his way to criticize the United States.

We don't interact with foreign countries on a humanitarian level, only military intervention.

That is patently false- yet he still went there.

What is wrong with him?

When a nuclear cloud or 2 p... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

When a nuclear cloud or 2 pops up over the middle east what will the "magical one" then say? Bush's fault? Angry white voters clinging-to-their-guns-and-bibles fault? No doubt it'll be the fault of America or certain Americans.

If this dipshit isolates Israel with the threat of Iran having the bomb nearly realized things will get ugly real fast. Who the hells advising him? George friggin Mitchell????? Great.

btw Jake, this isn't your encounter group. Being "better" than someone is only realized through strength and the willingness to use it for your national interests, especially survival of your society. History doesn't lie, ask Neville Chamberlain or the Vichy French.

Jake- Obama legiti... (Below threshold)
rory:

Jake-

Obama legitimized Ortega and Chavez and validated the both of them continuing to blame all the faults of their countries on America and the past.

What situation does that create?

It allows Chavez and Ortega to not be held accountable. The poor in their country see very little of the revenue from those countries' natural resources and they are told it is America's fault.

Don't blame the corruption of Ortega and Chavez.

Obama gave credibility to that argument by sitting there while the Latin American cameras were rolling and accepting it as fact not even bothering to refute one percent of Ortega's 50 minute diatribe except to excuse his three-year-old self.

Chavez has funneled millions of dollars to himself, he has a corrupt regime, and he holds power through a military thugocracy.

Ortega won less than 37% of the vote in his last election [which even that 37% of the vote was heavily disputed] and he was given millions of dollars from guess who to win that election?

Chavez.


typo-Make that-</p... (Below threshold)
rory:

typo-

Make that-

He *thinks* about how it is about him first.

You obviously don't get it ... (Below threshold)
Patrick:

You obviously don't get it Jake! The only thing I agree with you about is that we are better than them - which is why Obama needs to stop apologizing all the time!

Personally, I don't think we should be apologizing at all - especially to countries like Cuba, Iran and Venezuela. All three of the leaders of those countries have no interest in improving relations with us - they need us as an enemy because it diverts attention from all the nasty stuff they are doing to their political opposition at home as well as the other things that are being done to the detriment of the rest of their nations such as spending billions of dollars on nuclear weapons and or conventional armaments they don't need while the rest of the country crumbles around them and as unemployment and inflation skyrockets because of the fact that many nations like us no longer do business with them and it hurts THEIR economies. Having Obama becoming our Apologizer-In-Chief makes us weaker and them appear stronger in the eyes of their own people because now guys like Chavez and Ahmadinejad can point with pride and show them that their brand of leadership is working. You can just hear their propaganda machines spinning that one: "America is apologizing to us! Through our resolute and righteous strength our greatness is now beyond doubt and our place in the world is assured!"

As a matter of practicality, I really don't care if they apologize or not either and the fact that Obama is doing it on our behalf without receiving anything similar from them seems rather pointless - especially because in the end it would amount to little more than a group hug while we get stabbed in the back after it is over. Actions and not words especially as it relates to what Iran is doing in regards to their nuclear weapons program is what truly matters. We saw from the North Korean example that words did not match up with the actions they were taking under the cloak of secrecy and now they likely have some kind of nuclear weapons capability. Has the rhetoric coming from Ahmadinejad gotten any better now that Obama seems to want to come to the table with cap in hand and no preconditions? Here is what he said last week:

"You yourselves know that you are today in a position of weakness. Your hands are empty, and you know you can no longer promote your affairs from a position of strength."

He goes on from there:

"But today, with the grace of God, and thanks to Iran's national unity, the recommendations of Supreme Leader (Ali Khamenei), and the following of his (path), nearly 7,000 centrifuges are spinning today at Natanz, mocking them."

It all makes you feel all warm and safe inside doesn't it? He sounds pretty steadfast in his belief that Iran needs to be a nuclear power (despite the fact that his country has some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world) and all of Obama's groveling is pretty damned unlikely to sway his opinion. Now put yourself in the position of the average Israeli citizen. I bet they feel like a lot of Americans did during the Cuban Missile Crisis right now...

Why is it that liberals love to embrace tyrants like these guys? Why do they love Castro, Chavez and Ahmadinejad so much anyways when their human rights records are so atrociously bad? In Iran they hang homosexuals and women are treated like property. I don't think it is somehow up to us to understand their culture and be sensitive towards them when such behavior is beneath contempt. Why are so many liberals so uptight about Christians - particularly if they are conservative? I don't see them killing gays and beating women as part of their religious heritage yet these very same people think we are somehow disrespecting Islam. Now I am the one that is truly confused here. Explain THAT bit of logic to me!


Ugh, it's far too late, and... (Below threshold)
Jake:

Ugh, it's far too late, and apparently because I'm not a line-towing, anti-liberal, Conservative/Republican, I just "don't get it". But a few responses before heading to bed:

"btw Jake, this isn't your encounter group. Being "better" than someone is only realized through strength and the willingness to use it for your national interests, especially survival of your society. History doesn't lie, ask Neville Chamberlain or the Vichy French."

Encounter group? Don't know what that is. And I agree! Being better than the next guy IS about strength! When someone cuts you off in traffic, you could shoot him (Strength Type A) or you could cut him some slack, forgive, and move on with your life (Strength Type B). Personally I believe that there is value in Type B. Not shooting the jack@$$ in traffic doesn't make you "lesser". Yes, history doesn't lie - so read up on something other than Neville Chamberlin.


"Why is it that liberals love to embrace tyrants like these guys?"

Ugh. Here we are again. Damn liberals and their love of all that is wrong with the world. Damn liberals and their desire to see the world burn, when the conservatives just want to propagate good and happiness. Seriously, could we have one conversation that doesn't devolve into a "damn liberals" line?

"Why do they love Castro, Chavez and Ahmadinejad so much anyways when their human rights records are so atrociously bad"

First - I don't love these guys, and I'm checking my comments... yep, never said I did. Can't even find anything that suggested it. Or hinted at it. Thanks for jumping to massively incorrect conclusions though. Really helps the conversation stay intelligent...

Second - If these guys dropped dead tomorrow, it'd be a better world. I have no "love" for them, and I don't in any way admire them. In fact, because of these facts, I want to see them and their repressive regimes improved.

Here's my question, and I ask that you actually answer it: What's more important to you? The results or the process?

Personally, I want the results, and (within legal/moral/logical reason) I'm less concerned about how we get there. The hero of the Right, Reagan, engaged with the Evil Empire on a regular basis in order to END the Cold War.

Are you saying Reagan was wrong to engage? Would you have wanted him to shut out any and all conversations until after they cleaned up their acts?

"Having Obama bec... (Below threshold)
Jake:


"Having Obama becoming our Apologizer-In-Chief...."

We've so very much lost track of what was actually said it's not even funny. Let's copy/paste the transcript, shall we?

---

It's more difficult to break down walls of division than to simply allow our differences to build and our resentments to fester. So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we've allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad.

On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.

So I've come to Europe this week to renew our partnership, one in which America listens and learns from our friends and allies, but where our friends and allies bear their share of the burden. Together, we must forge common solutions to our common problems.

---

So which part do you guys disagree with? That we've shown arrogance to Europe? That we benefit from a better partnership with them? That there has been an insidious anti-Americanism in Europe? That we fail to acknowledge Europe's role on the world stage? That America does good? That we need to do a better job of listening to Europe? That Europe needs to share their part of the burden? That we need to work together to solve common problems?

Please do tell me what part of the FULL speech you disagree with, not the cherry picked, out of context portion that makes Obama look bad and you giddy with joy because of it.

I am not that impressed wit... (Below threshold)

I am not that impressed with Obama so far, but there are some things that I actually like. I am glad that the USA walked out of the ridiculous UN racism conference, and surely Israel will notice that. Of course, Israel will not approve of the two-state solution, and neither do I since, it will never work.

As far as the pirates are concerned, Obama is not the only leader involved, or uninvolved, in this situation. These pirates have been around for a long time, and it is ridiculous to see how this has escalated. Every nation that has been affected should take care of this problem--it would not be difficult!

I do not think that we should be involved with Iran, let Israel take care of it. Israel gave pretty much everyone in that region a serious beatdown a couple times before, and I am certain that they could do it again if they want to. If we involve ourselves with Iran it will hurt us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jake:Geez, where d... (Below threshold)
Patrick:

Jake:

Geez, where does one start here?

We have failed to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world? I am trying to figure out exactly what they have done to deserve any real praise to be perfectly honest with you. But I will accept that perhaps we should be nicer as it is apparently better to lie to oneself than speak the truth - that is the art of today's politics it seems.

Obama failed to articulate exactly what it was that we did that was so dismissive and arrogant. Obama falls in the same tired old trap of repeating the talking points and leaving out the factual context which would tend to disprove the narrative. The only thing close that I can recall specifically was Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" comment which was said more in praise for the new emerging democracies in Europe that were proving to be far more willing and helpful in regards to our efforts in Iraq. I think some of the traditional powers in Europe took it all a bit too personally but then again that goes back to my opinion that many Europeans are a bit sensitive about not bearing a greater share of the burden when it comes to confronting tyrants around the world.

Yes, he did say America has done good. Excuse me if I cannot give him a standing ovation for that - when he does it more I will be happy to do so. I still think he would be well advised to stop bashing his predecessor at every opportunity and tone down the blame America for everything speeches. The campaign is now over unless he is already working on his re-election bid for 2012 which is entirely possible knowing his way of working things as he seems more interested in campaigning than doing the job he was elected to do. He is the President of the United States now and it is time for him to start representing our interests for a change.

I read that little speech before you posted it and did not feel the need to try to disseminate it here because like most of Obama's speeches it lacks any real substance. I am happy he called on Europe to contribute more and bear a greater share of the burden. How has that worked out for us Jake? We got another big zero from our European friends when it came to our requests for more combat troops for the AfPak region but they get to feel better about themselves because we have acknowledged their leading role in the world despite getting more evidence that proves the exact opposite. Thank heavens for smart diplomacy!

And no I am not giddy with joy as Obama gives away the store and gets nothing in return. Diplomacy is the art of giving and taking and when we consistently get nothing in return time and again I cannot give Obama high marks for his performance thus far. The US should still be dealing with other countries from a position of strength and when that advantage is thrown away which such reckless abandon than I have to express concern.

And I never accused you personally of having any love for Castro, Chavez or Ahmadinejad. But quite a few liberals would rate all three ahead of the former President Bush and I have to say that is just plain stupid. Maybe that is not you - I am not going to go back and read everything you ever posted. I will take your word for it although I don't know where you rate Bush on the scale with the other three. Care to let us know for the record? If you don't answer what might that silence mean?

And yes, Reagan engaged diplomatically with the Soviets. But he did it from a position of strength though and that was with an even more formidable opponent. Does anything Obama has shown indicate to you that he will do likewise with countries like North Korea, Iran or Venezuela? He just smiled that stupid grin of his when he accepted that anti-American book from Chavez. He even thanked him as the cameras rolled. Obama got pwned by a two-bit dictator in front of the entire world. If Obama had a spine he would have given the book back to Chavez and told him to never insult him or our country that way again. What made Chavez think he could embarrass Obama that way and get away with it? Did he sense weakness on Obama's part perhaps? What if the roles had been reversed and a US President gave another world leader a book that described how bad that leader's country had been? I suspect the media would have been aghast at such an incredible insult. But Obama seems to think we are the problem so perhaps he does not perceive it that way. I find that more than a bit disturbing.

Somebody referenced this incident on another site and suggested that Obama was happy to get a new copy of the book as his own copy was getting a bit dog-eared at this point... :)


Chaka"Whoa, be eas... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Chaka

"Whoa, be easy guys. The American era of supremacy and abuse of peoples around the world including both foreign and domestic is rapidly fading into the sunset.
"

As the left masturbates to the idea.

Gee Supremacy and abuse of peoples include things like rebuiliding Europe and Japan, helping other nations recover from national disasters, feeding and clothing millions of noncitizens, etc.

As far as America in decline, if it is so it is because Obama is pushing us down that road with Pelosi and Reid and others like yourself gladly assisting him.

So, after reading the post ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

So, after reading the post and the comments, the extreme left notes:
1. Vile reference to "tea bagging".
2. Hyper, as usual makes fun of the poster.
3. We should follow our "dreams".
4. Comparing talks with two superpowers with thug nations are comparable.
5. We can spend ourselves out of the recession.

So far, idiotic thinking as usual. (now get ready, I will be vilified.)

Don't forget these helpful Barry moves: Delaying the switchover to digital to help a friend in Chicago make a few million more. Releasing CIA documents to show the world how cruel we are?

Submission Accomplished. Face it, you extreme lefties are backing a very empty suit. I will bet Barry can't even believe he is where he is. ww

Chaka is right!Ame... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Chaka is right!

America has been the sole force of evil in the world for far too long.
It was America that introduced Slavery to the New World. It was America that administers justice by Drawing and Quartering. It was America that killed 15 Million people in our Death Camps during WWII which we started. It was American Soldiers that created comfort women in Asia. It was America that tossed Chinese Babies in the Air and used Bayonets on them. It was America that recruits 10-14 year old and sends them to war against our neighbors. It was the American secret police in who made another 20 million disappear in our camps in Siberia. It was American arrogance that decides that we could take all the people in the city and move them to the country and then swap and create famine where 20-50 million more died. Remember the good old days when we held China and proudly stated not Dogs or Chinese allowed.

It is the USA that has such repression that we had to build walls and lay mine to keep Americans in the country. Each year dissatisfied American get on rafts and brave waters to make it the shores of freedom loving Cuba.
It was America that blew up the rainbow warrior when they interred with our nuclear testing.

How about the 80'w when AMerican Death Sqauds were crossing the country side.

Patrick, thanks for the len... (Below threshold)
Jake McKee Author Profile Page:

Patrick, thanks for the lengthy reply, even if my thanking you for it apparently would show my position of weakness. :)

I'm swamped today without time to go into the details of how when another country's leader hands you something at a public event, it's usually not a good idea to throw it in the floor and spit in his face.

But look, I'll ask two questions about the question of arrogance towards Europe:

1. Have you traveled to Europe lately?

2. Do you feel they have any use to the world at all?

Awaiting your answers.

"2. Do you feel they have a... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"2. Do you feel they have any use to the world at all?"

If you are talking about the people in power, they are more of a detriment to the rest of the world than they ever have been. If you are speaking of the citizens of Europe and their diversity, they are the very reasons we are here. Usefulness is a common ground, and it is the people in power that are behind the division and conflict. Obama's suggesting our "arrogance" is another device used to cause that division.

The more i hear about him t... (Below threshold)
Flu-Bird:

The more i hear about him the less i care for him and he,ll never be a president ever no matter what the liberal birdcage linners say

swamped today with... (Below threshold)
maggie:
swamped today without time to go into the details of how when another country's leader hands you something at a public event, it's usually not a good idea to throw it in the floor and spit in his face.

Mayor Guiliani.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/11/rec.giuliani.prince/

WildWillie: actually, a lar... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

WildWillie: actually, a large majority of the American public supports Obama. So, rather than criticize his proponents as "extreme leftists", you should probably just refer to yourself as an "extreme rightist", for the sake of accuracy.

Why is it that liberals love to embrace tyrants like these guys? Why do they love Castro, Chavez and Ahmadinejad so much anyways when their human rights records are so atrociously bad?

Yeah, love 'em so much, idiot. Iran-Contra: thanks, liberals! Hey, wait a sec... And what about all the right-wing despots that Republicans have so readily embraced? Musharraf, the Saudis, Pinochet, Noriega (until he went rogue). No Democratic President that I'm aware of has collaborated with Ahmadinejad, Castro, or Chavez. However, St. Ronnie Raygunz and his fellow hawks palled it up with despots all the time. For every embarrassing photo of Albright with Kim Jong Il, there's a photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein or something to that effect.

Being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong, but it usually does make you look stupid and/or ill-informed.

As for all of the anti-Europe asininity, exactly which countries in the world are worthy of a right-winger's respect these days? If not Europe (and certainly not Soviet Canuckistan!), then where? Do you now believe that the United States of America is the only respectable nation on earth, except for its Marxist congress-critters and Islamo-fascist President?

Have I traveled to Europe r... (Below threshold)
Patrick:

Have I traveled to Europe recently? Not in several years but I lived in Europe (and Saudi Arabia for that matter) for many years before Bush was president and this idea that rampant anti-Americanism is a development over the last eight years is patently false. My point about Europe has always been that when you compare the continent's economic influence versus their contribution to the global security equation that the two do not match up in ways that make many look upon them favorably in that regard. There is more to global leadership them being a world trade partner - there are responsibilities that go well beyond that. I don't have the statistics in front of me but the EU is a very powerful economic alliance and one that compares favorably with the US economy in size and scope so excuse me for thinking that Europe can do more when it comes to fighting tangible threats like Islamic extremism.

The fact of the matter is that in many European countries Muslim populations and as a result real influence of this particular demographic is growing at a very rapid rate and many disturbing changes are happening in countries like the UK, Sweden, Belgium and France among many others. In many cases, these people are not assimilating into the general population as is more commonly seen among different ethnic groups in the United States yet the governments over there are granting them more unique rights (including Sharia courts in Britain to settle legal disputes including domestic violence cases) without them having to assume the responsibilities that go along with being citizens of those countries. It is a very worrying development if this trend continues unchecked. I am a firm believer that you are first a citizen of nation you live in and whatever your heritage is comes after that. Identifying yourself as descending from Mexico, India, Denmark, Iraq or whatever is perfectly fine - it is important to identify where your family has come from because cultural awareness is a good thing. I am proud of my own Scandinavian background. But you are still citizens of where you have chosen to live first and there are expectations that go along with that.

As for the post about the gift Chavez gave Obama I stand by my thoughts about that. I did not say that Obama should have spat in his face but he should have given the book back because it was a blatant insult to the United States and Obama as well because he is the President. If he did not know what the book was about he should have asked Chavez about the book he was being given and what it was about - I doubt he would have resisted the temptation to lecture Obama about the evils of the United States as it relates to Latin America. But Obama is so damned smart (or so that is the narrative we are all being force fed by the liberal media) I am willing to wager that if he has not read this particular book that he is aware of what it is about. I am sure his friend Bill Ayers already recommended it to him.

Patrick: what should Europe... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Patrick: what should European countries do about their rapidly growing Islamic populations? Restrict immigration to non-Islamic people? Impose quotas on Islamic families (which, after all, are much larger on average)?

Leaving aside the question of whether or not this is something to be worried about, the issue of whether or not a morally acceptable solution to the 'problem' of the demographic expansion of Islam in Europe is incredibly difficult.

Now who looks stupid and/or... (Below threshold)
Patrick:

Now who looks stupid and/or ill-informed Hyperbolist? Don't even pretend that you believe that Democratic presidents have never done business with any global tyrants before or made poor foreign policy decisions. And the whole Iran-Contra issue has always been presented by liberals as the worst thing ever. Which party got us into Vietnam anyways? Hell, JFK backed the overthrow and assassination of South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem when he was deemed to have outlived his usefulness to us - so don't present your side as being holier than thou. People like you look the other way when it is convenient - you probably think Vietnam was Nixon's fault...

What has Obama done differently in regards to countries like Saudi Arabia? Do you really think his relationship with them is going to be different than any previous administration? If so why did he bow to the Saudi king? And yes, he did bow...

And who says I am defending every relationship a Republican president has had with every world leader? I am just identifying several people right now that we should not be climbing in bed with unless one likes having a scorpion in your sleeping bag...

Hyperbolist:What E... (Below threshold)
Patrick:

Hyperbolist:

What European countries need to do is not give Muslims special rights and start expecting them to respect the laws of their respective nations. If your religion conflicts with the laws of the country that you live in to the extent that you cannot abide by them then perhaps it is time to go elsewhere. It is ridiculous that the British are making exemptions for them because it debases their own laws and heritage. Is that hard for you to understand? Liberals are really into secularism these days so I don't understand why this particular trend is not bothering you because religion in these cases is being needlessly and dangerously pandered to. There also seems to be a lack of desire and will to have these people assimilate with the rest of the population. I don't know if it is a lack of outreach (and I don't mean accommodating their every demand - I mean treating them equally, respectfully and giving them opportunity) or what but it seems like these different demographic groups live amongst themselves as if they are a country within a country. That is not healthy and that is why things are better in the United States in that regard.

maggie,Yeah, I rem... (Below threshold)
max:

maggie,

Yeah, I remember some guy named Guiliani. Didn't he run for president? How'd that work out for him?

As to your comparison, obviously apples and oranges, but nice try.

Both Republicans and Democr... (Below threshold)

Both Republicans and Democrat presidents make deals with totalitarian thugs. It's a dirty world, and our leaders do what they have to do. But the difference is this: Republicans have no illusions who they're dealing with, but Democrats believe that the lefty thug is god on earth. Witness all the paeans in lefty opinion magazines to Mao, Che, Castro, etc.

Carter, that consummate fool, actually believed that Daniel Ortega was interested in human rights, despite the fact that it was obvious he was just Fidel Castro's mini-me.

I said that a Democratic Pr... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I said that a Democratic President has never collaborated with Castro, Chavez, or Ahmadinejad. I didn't say that they haven't stooped to the level of working with despotic a-holes. And so, I never even implied that Democrats don't do what Republicans do. I'm aware of JFK's sordid dealings. It's funny, though, that conservatarians usually refuse to acknowledge that Saddam Hussein was a Republican tool, as was Osama bin Laden and Noriega. Was it necessary? No, probably not. Something that ought to embarrass some fans of St. Ronny? Yes, certainly.

I live in a more liberal and secular part of the world than you, Patrick. When Muslims lobbied the provincial government of Ontario to let them practice Sharia law within their own community, they were told by the premier that no, that would not be tolerated. Seems to me a pretty simple solution to a potential problem of an illiberal culture within a liberal multicultural society. As for the British rewriting their own laws to accommodate illiberal Muslim practices, I'd like to see some examples before jumping on the "OMG England is surrendering to the Mohammadan hordes!!!" bandwagon.

@maggie - as mentioned, app... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@maggie - as mentioned, apples and oranges comparison. Rudy wasn't handed a bag of cash in Saudi Arabia in front of cameras. He issued a statement from his office, through his staff. Different deal.

Well, good for the Canadian... (Below threshold)
Patrick:

Well, good for the Canadians then. I am thankful that at least our good friend and ally north of our border is showing common sense. It is too bad the appeasers in Europe seem unwilling to do likewise. But here are some articles about Sharia courts in Britain:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3522

I am sure there are many other references to this - feel free to do the research as it only took a minute to do it. If this does concern you then by all means jump on the bandwagon - this is absolute proof that the British are rewriting their own laws and giving up at least some of their sovereignty. More to come I suspect...

I am not refusing to acknowledge such ties between Republican administrations and people like Noriega and others. And yes, a relationship was had with Saddam Hussein although I would hardly call him a Republican tool since he was pretty much executed as a direct result of our capturing him. At the time we offered Saddam intelligence information during the Iran-Iraq war Iran was a much hated enemy because of the US embassy hostage crisis so a little context there would be helpful. A lot of relationships were formed during the Cold War with some despicable characters but these relationships were always part of a larger strategy of defeating communism around the globe which would thus hurt Soviet influence in a large number of very strategic areas. In the cases of Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega Republican presidents acted to defeat them when their actions and activities were no longer tolerable.


Thanks for the links. Sucks... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Thanks for the links. Sucks to be a young girl growing up in a Sharia household in England--hopefully Gordon Brown or someone with more testicular fortitude can address the problem with conviction rather than politically correct platitudes...

@52: No, it's not apples a... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

@52: No, it's not apples and oranges. You will never see an actual photograph of a U.S. official being handed a bag of cash, so introducing a ridiculous scenario doesn't help your argument. Giuliani made a public statement about why he rejected the check from the Saudis, which made national news. That would be pretty much in the same ballpark as a spit in the face.

#55 - Nice try, still apple... (Below threshold)
Jake:

#55 - Nice try, still apples and oranges. You are trying to compare an impromptu (and apparently unwelcomed if you watch the new video out) meeting Obama had on the spot to, as you say, a specifically crafted public statement.

The original point made was that Obama should have flat out rejected Chavez's book right there in person. @maggie made a connection between the idea that it's not a good idea to spit on a foreign leader when they give something in front of cameras and Rudy's denying of a check from the Saudis and responding with a public statement some time later. They're not the same.

Ask LaMedusa about the Kenn... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Ask LaMedusa about the Kennedy assassination, Jake.

Jake, Some time l... (Below threshold)
maggie:

Jake,

Some time later?

Guiliani made his statement of refusing the
check on 09/12/01, the next day.
You must have a very strong back, as you're
quite good at moving goal posts.

Ask LaMedusa about... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Ask LaMedusa about the Kennedy assassination, Jake.

hyper, not every conversation involves the need for your involvement, and you know it has become millions of people who want to know what the hell is going on with our government. It is not just me you should be asking anymore no matter how much you try to use that sarcasm when you haven't anything intelligent to say.

Ask hyper about his globalist and corporate leanings, Jake. Also ask him if he really thinks he's part of that "Big Club" just because he's a corporate shill, like he's actually worth something to them. Better yet, ask yourself the same question.

And @56. They are both staged events with the same results: to sway public opinion and cause division. Obama, Mrs. Obama (hugging the queen of England), Ahmadinejad, and the other leaders currently in power are playing scenes to distract and lead the public astray. Personally, they may not like each other that much, but politically their goals are the same. Nice try? Only if you are all about the "improved" sales of Apple computers.

Maggie, Jake's back is prob... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Maggie, Jake's back is probably aching after that heavy duty copy and paste he pulled at #34 to "prove" his "point". Goal poster is a tough job when you actually have to read the source article and pay attention to the conversation. "Nice try" from the weakest link is always quite amusing.

Jake McKee,Never s... (Below threshold)
Shawn:

Jake McKee,

Never seen you around here before. Welcome.

Boy, it's a good thing I didn't write this solely for you, cause, well, it would have been a BIG dissapointment.

I think you've been playing with Legos a bit too long.

I've read a few of your missives concerning Obama, and I must say, for all your accomplishments, both in business and writing, you come off sounding like a one trick robot.

While I could just as easily dissect your screed line by line, I'll let it speak for itself.

Especially here.

Do you still believe what you wrote then, or have you allowed recent history to infiltrate your thought process in a logical way yet?

Eh, who am I kidding. Nothing will change your way of thinking.

BTW. I used to love Legos when I was a kid.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy