Posts Tagged ‘nuclear weapons’

Blame Barack Obama And Failed Democrat Policies For North Korea

April 5, 2013

Let’s see.  Under the Obama presidency and under his regime, North Korea has had two nuclear tests, repeatedly tested ballistic missiles, threatened America more times than in ANY previous administration, and just moved missiles to threaten South Korea.  Right after re-starting a nuclear plant that they had shut down under Bush.

Generals and foreign policy experts are saying that North Korea – under the Obama regime’s handling, mind you – is a greater threat than it has EVER been.

Meanwhile, under Obama’s failed presidency, we had the meltdown that the mainstream media liberals so idiotically called “the Arab Spring.”  We had violent revolutions across the Arab world as the governments of vital U.S. allies were toppled by terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  With Egypt now instituting sharia law to complete the insult.  We have incredible bloodbaths under Obama with Syria’s death toll now numbering over 70,000.   We have Iran on the verge of getting their nukes and their ballistic missiles and their Armageddon.  And where are the hypocrite Democrats now who teed off so viciously on George W. Bush???  Where are they in decrying Obama for a far, far worse and more unstable world?

Let’s get in our memory trains and take a little ride, when Obama’s future Secretary of State was demagoguing Bush in the most savage way imaginable:

Democrats blew it on North Korea
Now they should join Republicans to force changes in the country’s behavior
October 15, 2006 12:00 am
By Jack Kelly / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

If Democrats went after America’s enemies with the ruthlessness with which  they attack Republicans, the Axis of Evil would be toast.

No sooner had North Korea completed its (botched or faked) nuclear bomb test  last weekend than Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Clinton,  D-N.Y., were blaming it on “the failed policies of the Bush administration.”

That annoyed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.:

“I would remind Sen. Clinton . . . that the framework agreement her husband’s  administration negotiated was a failure,” he said. “Every single time the  Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something — not to kick out  the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor — they did  it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with  further talks.”

Media commentators spun Mr. McCain’s remarks as jockeying with Ms. Clinton  for the presidency in 2008, but in fact Mr. McCain had been speaking out against  her husband’s Agreed Framework deal with North Korea since May of 1994.

Here is the history Democrats would like you to forget: The CIA began  worrying in the late 1980s that North Korea was trying to build an atomic bomb.  President Clinton attempted to head them off by offering a massive bribe. If the  North Koreans would forgo their nuke plans, the United States would provide them  with 500,000 tons of free fuel oil each year, massive food aid and build for  them two $2 billion nuclear power plants. The deal made North Korea the largest  recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Asia.

Mr. McCain was against the deal from the get-go, because it was all carrots  and no sticks, and there were no safeguards against North Korean cheating.

North Korea took the bribes President Clinton offered, and kept working on  its bomb.

Two experts told a House committee in April of 2000 that North Korea was  producing enough highly radioactive material then to build a dozen bombs a year,  but it is unclear when the North actually built a bomb (if yet) because our  intelligence on the reclusive regime there is so poor.

Most experts think North Korea restarted its nuclear weapons program between  1997 and 1999, said Paul Kerr of the Arms Control Association. But the  Congressional Research Service thinks the North began cheating in 1995.

Signs of cheating were abundant by 2000. Secretary of State Madeleine  Albright flew to Pyongyang that October to put lipstick on the pig. She offered  dictator Kim Jong Il a relaxation of economic sanctions if he’d limit North  Korea’s missile development. Kim took those carrots too, but kept building  missiles.

The Bush administration called North Korea on its cheating and suspended fuel  aid pending an improvement in its behavior. North Korea declared (in 2002) it  had the bomb, and the United States organized the six-party talks to try to  persuade it to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Like Mr. McCain, I thought the Agreed Framework was a bad idea from the  get-go. But I don’t blame the Clinton administration (very much) for trying.  Massive bribery hadn’t been tried before, and if it had worked, it certainly  would have been preferable to war. And, since as far as we know, serious  cheating didn’t begin until 1997 or 1998, it can be argued the deal did buy us a  little time.

But even though the ultimate failure of the Clinton policy of appeasement is  excusable, the refusal of Democrats to acknowledge that failure is not.

Democrats tend to view foreign policy crises through the narrow prism of  their impact on domestic politics. But the villain here isn’t Bill Clinton or  George Bush. It’s Kim Jong Il. And what’s important here is not which party  controls the House of Representatives. It’s whether we can prevent a second  Korean War.

Democrats ordinarily make a fetish of “multilateralism,” which is what  President Bush has been pursuing through the six-party talks, the only format  that offers hope of reining in North Korea short of war, because only China is  in a position to force North Korea to behave.

Kim wants direct negotiations with the United States, both to undermine the  six-party talks, and because he wants to return to the good old days when the  Clinton administration was providing him with aid in exchange for, in effect,  nothing. Democrats, astoundingly, want to give him exactly what he wants,  without first insisting upon a change in his behavior. They would rather restore  a failed policy than admit a mistake.

If tragedy is to be avoided, Democrats must stop putting their partisan  ambitions ahead of the security of the United States.

And, of course, to this day, if Obama were to attack North Korea with as much vile as he has repeatedly attacked Republicans, the Axis of Evil “toast” would be a pile of burnt ash.

I contemplate Kim Jong-Un’s fearmongering rhetoric and have a hard time telling the difference from Obama’s rhetoric on issues such as the sequester.  Both men seem to very much have in common a complete lack of grasp on reality when they are dealing with their political foes.  Just as both men’s national press corps’ seem to have the same determination to present whatever the hell their “dear leaders” are saying with as much deceit.

Democrats, who were of course nearly completely responsible for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, attacked, backbit, undermined, slandered and demonized George Bush at every turn in his attempt to hold talks that would include China as the ONLY country that could reign in North Korea.

Let’s go back and remind ourselves of that, as well:

The radioactive glow had barely worn off Kim Jong Il’s face when liberals began to lay the blame for North Korea’s detonation of a small nuclear device (maybe) at George W. Bush’s feet. But their criticisms have left many of us downright confused.

On North Korea, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid complained, “the Bush administration … [has] made America less secure.” His remedy? “Speak directly with the North Koreans so they understand we will not continue to stand on the sidelines.” Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.), the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, concurred that “the strategy must include direct engagement with the North [Koreans].”

Potential Democratic presidential aspirants also want the U.S. to assume the lead role in this unfolding drama. Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wisc.) demanded that the Bush administration jettison its “hands-off approach to North Korea,” because “the stakes are too high to rely on others.” And Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) noted that “for five years, I have been calling for the United States to engage in direct talks with North Korea” and “for five years this administration has ignored them.”

But, rather than ignore the metastasizing cancer in North Korea, the United States has expended considerable diplomatic capital on the so-called six-party talks — the long-running effort by the U.S., China, Russia, South Korea and Japan to convince Kim Jong Il to abandon his nuclear program. This multilateral process, moreover, grew out of the failed Clinton-era effort to engage the North Koreans directly. Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) recently described that process in scathing terms: “Every single time the Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something –not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from the reactor — they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with further talks.”

President Bush abandoned the one-on-one approach when he learned that the North Koreans violated their agreement not to enrich uranium (in exchange for a cool $350 million in fuel), opting instead to invite China and the other regional powers into the process. Thus began three years and five frustrating rounds of six-party talks. At first North Korea participated. Then in February 2005 it withdrew in a huff, only to re-engage a few months later for two more grueling rounds. Finally, Kim Jong Il sent a clear message about these talks when he launched two short-range missiles into the Sea of Japan in March of this year, then seven more over the 4th of July weekend.
Kerry and his allies dismiss this aggressive form of multilateral diplomacy as nothing more than “cover for the administration to avoid direct discussions.”

Hence the confusion. We thought that one of the major foreign policy fault lines separating liberals from conservatives has been whether the United States should reserve the right to act unilaterally to protect its national interests (the conservative position favored by Bush) or whether we should act only after securing the support of our allies (the liberal position embraced by Kerry and virtually all Democrats).

As a presidential candidate, John Kerry summed up the multilateral approach: “Alliances matter. We can’t simply go it alone.” We must exhaust all avenues of diplomacy, persuade rather than bully, and “assemble a team.” The Bush administration’s “blustering unilateralism,” he concluded, is “wrong, and even dangerous, for our country.” And nowhere, Kerry said, is the need for multilateral action more “clear or urgent” than when it comes to preventing the proliferation of nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction.

And that leads us to North Korea. It appears Kerry favored the multilateral approach before he opposed it. In a major foreign policy address at Georgetown University in 2003, he actually praised Bush’s engagement in the six-party talks: “Finally, the administration is rightly working with allies in the region — acting multilaterally — to put pressure on Pyongyang.” And, he added, “the question is why you’d ever want to be so committed to unilateralist dogma that you’d get on [that merry go round] in the first place.”

So what gives? Isn’t it time for lawmakers to transcend the finger-pointing and focus on the real issue?

Let’s give Sen, Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) the last word: “The president’s political opponents attack him for a ‘unilateral’ approach to Iraq. Now they attack him over a multilateral approach to North Korea. Listening to some Democrats, you’d think the enemy was George Bush, not Kim Jong Il.”

Mike Franc, who has held a number of positions on Capitol Hill, is vice president of Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation.

North Korea is now a more psychotic threat than ever before.  But where’s all the denunciations of Obama from the ideologues who used to reign blame down on George Bush???

Remember how the president of the United States was responsible for absolutely everything that went wrong when Bush was that president?  Now we have a president who absolves himself as being responsible for ANYTHING while we’ve got a media that has actively covered up for his failures.  And where are we now?

Our greatest statesman today seems to be Dennis Rodman.

We are watching rogue nation after rogue nation rearing its ugly head and rising to threaten the world because they know that a weakling and a coward is the pathetic failed leader of once-great America.

We are also watching the United States of America degenerate into a banana republic under this failed presidency.  Our welfare roles are rising even faster than the nuclear-armed dictators who shake their fists at us.

Here’s one for you: if Republicans were even a FRACTION as treasonous and willing to undermine America’s national security for cynical political advantage as Democrats have been, they would be demanding that Obama hold one-to-one talks with Kim Jong-Un the way Democrats did when Bush was president.

You probably wouldn’t want me as president: what I would have done – whether in 2006 or today – would be to arm Taiwan with nuclear weapons (to the frothing and rabid outrage of China, which claims that Taiwan is part of China).  And I would simply tell China: “North Korea’s nuclear weapons are every bit as unacceptable to the United States as Taiwan’s having nuclear weapons is to you.  Disarm North Korea’s nukes and we’ll disarm Taiwan’s nukes.”

Just ONE Of The Armageddons The Failed Obama Presidency Has Given America: North Korea Can Strike America With Nukes Now

January 25, 2013

I saw Megan Kelly interviewing an expert in the Far East on North Korea.

He pointed out that just two years ago Obama’s Defense Secretary stooge was saying that North Korea wouldn’t be able to strike us with nuclear weapons for five years yet.

And sure enough, that’s what Obama’s Secretary of Defense said back in January 12, 2011 - just two years ago:

BEIJING — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned Tuesday that North Korea was within five years of being able to strike the continental United States with an intercontinental ballistic missile, and said that, combined with its expanding nuclear program, the country “is becoming a direct threat to the United States.”

Mr. Gates is a former director of the C.I.A., and his statement, officials said, reflected both a new assessment by American intelligence officials and his own concern that Washington had consistently underestimated the pace at which the North was developing nuclear and missile technologies.

And the same expert who reminded us of that fact pointed out that if you can put a satellite into orbit, you can strike any damn place on earth.

And North Korea under the Obama regime did precisely that.  And is about to stick its thumb in America’s eye with further nuclear tests.

It’s funny.  I vividly recall Obama mocking and attacking George W. Bush’s policy on North Korea.  Because Obama clearly didn’t believe Bush was failing enough and thought he could fail bigger and faster than Bush could ever dream of failing.

But Obama has also given America a fun new game to play.  Remember “The Lady Or The Tiger?”  Obama’s version is “The Tiger Or The Bigger Tiger.”

I warned you repeatedly that Obama would preside over a nuclear-armed Iran.  I pointed out the DOCUMENTED HISTORIC FACT to you that the Democrats mocked and attacked George W. Bush for declaring that Iran was a nuclear threat.

And of course, with the Obama-regime enabled Iran already having built 24 nukes, well, they’re pretty damn nuclear – in stark contrast to the demon-possessed bureaucrats who make up the DemoCrat Party.

So do you prefer being nuked by the psychotic Allah fanatics in Iran or the psychotic atheist fanatics in North Korea?

I love all the possibilities the Obama regime is giving us.

When Iran decides to assemble its nukes – because it already has an arsenal that it could assemble within weeks at any point in time – it will be able to blockade the Strait of Hormuz with absolute impunity and drive up gasoline to $15 a gallon unless we want to face several of our cities destroyed with nuclear weapons.  It will be able to launch wave after wave of global jihad against the West with impunity for the same reason.  And it will be able to assemble a coalition to attack Israel with impunity for the same reason.

If our “chickens havn’t already come home to roost” in Obama’s God Damn America, it surely will on that day.

In a sick, twisted way, it is a “blessing” that Obama was reelected.  Because the disasters that are coming because of Obama’s first four years of failed and dishonest leadership will be impossible for him to demagogue to the shoulders of George W. Bush or anybody else.

Joe Biden Mocked Iran’s Growing Nuclear Capability In Debate: Because He’s A Fool And Ignorantly Mocks Just Like The Fool He Is

October 13, 2012

Joe Biden mocked a lot of things in his debate Thursday night.  He mocked Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, of course.  But he also began to grin like the village idiot pretty much every time Paul Ryan began an answer, as if to point out that the world’s most intolerant lunatics can’t emotionally handle a different opinion in any way, shape or form.

Psychologist and brilliant political commentator Charles Krauthammer said that Joe Biden’s debate preparation clearly consisted in watching the movie “The Shining”:

And it’s a classic comparison: I don’t know how Jack Torrance (Nicholson’s character in the movie) would have debated any differently than Biden if he wasn’t allowed to take his axe to the debate.  In fact, I’ll bet Jack Torrance would have been slightly more polite than Joe Biden, and refrained from interrupting Paul Ryan 85 times the way Biden did.

CNN (which for the record declared Ryan the winner in their polling by a 48 percent to 44 percent margin) had an interesting find that was somewhat surprising: it said that women thought that Paul Ryan had won the debate by a larger measure than men did – which is exactly the opposite that one would expect given that women are considerably more likely to vote Democrat than men.

I have a feeling that many women put themselves in Paul Ryan’s shoes and saw Joe Biden as an overbearing, domineering, patronizing rat bastard who would mock them and denigrate them and smirk while a woman was talking so that everybody would know he thought she was an idiot.  And they didn’t like it.  And that debate performance may hurt Obama more than a lot of people realize right now for the very reason that it emotionally turned off the very women voters that Obama is most counting upon.

A female Republican pollster on Huckabee’s program pointed out that Obama and Biden actually depicted the two kinds of men women most loathe: Obama as the passive, uncaring, uninvolved man who couldn’t even generate the emotional energy to manufacture a little bit of eye contact; and Biden as the overbearing, loutish, patronizing, dismissive blowhard.

That said, one of the things that Joe Biden mocked was Iran getting a nuclear weapon.  It was frankly amazing how dismissive he was of what pretty much every expert in the field says is a frighteningly real possibility.

But those who dismiss Iran’s capability are as stupid as those who dismiss their resolve.

Let me give you a very real example as reported by the extremely überleftist Daily Kos:

The Christian Science Monitor reports that an Iranian engineer has told a reported what we suspected:  That they hijacked the drone and fooled it into landing in Iran.  The fact that it landed intact seemed suspicious.  But how could they have defeated the super power that spends more on it’s military than the rest of the world combined?

Simple:  They jammed the control signals forcing it into autopilot mode, then overrode the GPS signals to fool it into landing in Iran.

Iranian electronic warfare specialists were able to cut off communications links of the American bat-wing RQ-170 Sentinel, says the engineer, who works for one of many Iranian military and civilian teams currently trying to unravel the drone’s stealth and intelligence secrets, and who could not be named for his safety.Using knowledge gleaned from previous downed American drones and a technique proudly claimed by Iranian commanders in September, the Iranian specialists then reconfigured the drone’s GPS coordinates to make it land in Iran at what the drone thought was its actual home base in Afghanistan.

Read all about it here.

The article goes on to say that the US will continue to fly over Iran.  But based on this information it seems likely that future flights will meet a similar fate.

This seems like a huge vulnerability.  Makes one wonder if a big chunk of our military budget has been wasted.

What you need to understand is the Obama administration talking heads and the intelligence and military brass that serve at Obama’s pleasure basically said at the time Obama lost one of his drones over Iran that there was no way in hell Iran had the capability to comandeer a drone and the thing must have crash landed.

They also dismissively said this:

US officials skeptical of Iran’s capabilities blame a malfunction, but so far can’t explain how Iran acquired the drone intact. One American analyst ridiculed Iran’s capability, telling Defense News that the loss was “like dropping a Ferrari into an ox-cart technology culture.”

Yet Iran’s claims to the contrary resonate more in light of new details about how it brought down the drone – and other markers that signal growing electronic expertise.

A former senior Iranian official who asked not to be named said: “There are a lot of human resources in Iran…. Iran is not like Pakistan.”

“Technologically, our distance from the Americans, the Zionists, and other advanced countries is not so far to make the downing of this plane seem like a dream for us … but it could be amazing for others,” deputy IRGC commander Gen. Hossein Salami said this week.

According to a European intelligence source, Iran shocked Western intelligence agencies in a previously unreported incident that took place sometime in the past two years, when it managed to “blind” a CIA spy satellite by “aiming a laser burst quite accurately.”

More recently, Iran was able to hack Google security certificates, says the engineer. In September, the Google accounts of 300,000 Iranians were made accessible by hackers. The targeted company said “circumstantial evidence” pointed to a “state-driven attack” coming from Iran, meant to snoop on users.

Well, guess what that “ox-cart technology culture” did with the Ferrari Obama gave them?

They reverse-engineered it and built their own model so successfully that it overflew most of Israel (via their proxy puppet Hezbollah) and netted themselves all kinds of photographic intelligence (most useful for target acquisition) with it.  When Israel shot it down they discovered that it was built with stealth technology – which was why it had been able to penetrate Israel’s defenses.

Now, if you are a complete and abject fool the way Joe Biden and Barack Obama are complete abject fools, then you will keep dreaming your naive fool’s dream that Iran is a bunch of technological retards who are actually being cowed out of their holy war by some stupid sanctions.

If you’ve got a functioning brain in your head, you won’t think that way at all.

Experts say Iran is very close to having a nuclear bomb, as USA Today back in November of LAST YEAR pointed out:

There’s time for stricter sanctions to get Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, but the Islamic republic is much closer to such weapons than previously believed and a military strike may be necessary, foreign policy experts say.

“With each time we have used sanctions, they’ve had more impact, but ultimately if Iran wants to pay the cost, it can get nuclear weapons,” says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The question is, can we raise the cost enough?”

Western diplomats and nuclear experts who reviewed intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program say Iran has continued work on nuclear weapons with the help of foreign scientists, despite sanctions organized by the Obama administration, a report in The Washington Post said.

Iran IS close to a nuclear weapon.  And for Joe Biden to smirk and mock like the damned fool he is was just one of the numerous examples of Biden not only mocking, but doing so at incredibly inappropriate times.

And not merely “close”; DANGEROUSLY close.

I have pointed out REPEATEDLY that when Iran gets a nuclear bomb in will be ENTIRELY Democrats’ faults and particularly Obama’s and Biden’s fault.  You can go back to the 2008 debates for the Democrat presidential nomination and you can see every Democrat mocking George Bush for saying that Iran was a growing nuclear threat.  They dismissed it and mocked it and cited a report that turned out to be completely false and Iran has been the little nuclear bomb-making engine that could on Obama’s watch.

And the only thing – the ONLY thing – that has slowed Iran down was the Stuxnet virus that the United States and Israel developed UNDER GEORGE BUSH.  And Stuxnet was just one of the many secrets that the Obama administration treasonously leaded to try to make Obama look good on national security to compensate for his failed economy.

Speaking of secrets, Obama has apparently held a not-quite-secret enough negotiation with Iran via Qatar letting Iran know that Obama will suspend the hardest sanctions later if Iran will suspend production on enriched uranium until AFTER the election in November.  Which is another way of saying to Iran that if they hold off production for a month or so Obama will give Iran its nuclear weapon and not do anything to stop it.

Folks like me call that high treason.

Another development is almost as bad.  When Iran gets the nuclear bomb – and if Obama is reelected I guarantee you that Iran will get the bomb – they will not have to use it directly to hurt us badly.

Once Iran becomes a nuclear power with the bomb and the means to deliver it, they will be off-limits to any kind of attack.  It will be not only too late, but WAY too late to deal with the threat they pose.  And one of the things they will be able to do is block the Strait of Hormuz – and send oil prices to $12 a gallon – with absolute impunity.

Here’s another thing that Barack Obama has endowed America with: the threat of a Chinese missile capable of wiping out every single aircraft carrier in our fleet and transforming the naval balance of power in the world:

A new ‘smart missile’ threatens to tip the balance of power towards China, US military analysts say.

The latest generation of the Dong Feng 21D (DF-21D) [Photo] is a supercarrier killer according to experts on China’s armaments. The missile can be launched from land and strike an aircraft carrier 900 miles away.

China has 11,200 miles of coastline. That fact coupled with the range and accuracy of the new missile could spell doom for any US or allied carrier fleet.

Patrick Cronin, a senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program that is part of the Washington, DC Center for a New American Security organization admits the DF 21D is designed to kill carriers—specifically US Naval carriers. “The Navy has long had to fear carrier—killing capabilities. The emerging Chinese anti-ship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post—Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose.”

China and Iran are allies.

If we try to end a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, will we be surprised to find out that China has given Iran a few aircraft carrier killers?

Joe Biden smirked and mocked his way through the debate.  But this is a terrifyingly real possibility that is no laughing matter to anybody but the most deluded of fools.

Unless Iran is told – AND UNLESS IRAN BELIEVES - that the United States will launch a massive military strike that will wipe out Iran’s nuclear capability and as many damned Iranians as get in the way of our wiping it out, they will soon have a nuclear bomb.

And you can read all about the war that the Bible told us would happen in the Book of Revelation.

Why Are Iranian, Syrian, Russian And Chinese Warships Planning ‘War Games’ In The Middle East? I Think I Know.

June 22, 2012

First, the report which was first revealed by the Iranian Fars News Agency:

Arutz Sheva

Iran, Russia, China and Syria are planning to hold
the largest war games exercise in the Middle East in less than a month, Iran’s
Fars media reported Tuesday.
Citing “informed sources,” the report said
that 90,000 soldiers from the four countries are to take part.The
massive war games drill will include air defense and missile units as well as
ground, air and naval forces. It is scheduled for early July.

A total of
400 planes and 1,000 tanks are said to be taking part, among them “12 Chinese
warships… Russian atomic submarines and warships, aircraft carriers and
mine-clearing destroyers as well as Iranian battleships and
submarines.”

All of the above are to arrive shortly in Syria, according
to the report.”

Russia denies that any war games will take place.  While it is certainly possible there won’t be any 90,000 troops and hundreds of ships, etc. flooding the Syrian coast, I personally don’t have much more trust in Russia (especially under Putin) than I had for the U.S.S.R.  So allow me to entertain the notion that the FARS report is accurate.

Given the environment (I mean, Syria has now brutally murdered way, WAAAAAY over 14,000 of their own citizens while Egypt is in political meltdown), why on earth would anybody be doing a war game?

Consider one other rather massive “elephant-in-the-room” development: Iran has clearly used the just-suspended-as-futile UN talks as nothing more than a way to keep stalling for time while developing their nuclear weapons program – a program that never would have existed in the first place without Russia and China.  Which of course is exactly what Israel and American conservatives said was the case from the very beginning.

And Syria is nothing more than a puppet state of the Iranian regime.

So let me answer my question: why on earth would Iran, Syria, Russia and China conduct “war games” while war that is very definitely NOT a game looms everywhere?

Because they want to deter Israel from launching its attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, that’s why.  How could Israel attack Iran with the Russian, Chinese, Syrian and Iranian navies massed off her coast???

Heck, it may have been Obama’s idea.  Obama is more desperate to stop an attack by Israel that could hurt his re-election campaign than he is about Iran getting the bomb.

I wrote an article back in February of 2009, shortly after Obama took office, titled, “It’s Official: Iran Will Have The Bomb On Obama’s Watch.”  As we speak, Iran is racing toward nuclear weapons, and by all accounts already has the uranium to make at least five bombs whenever it wants to under Obama’s regime.

The fascist powers that be – Syria, Iran, Russia, China and the United States of God damn America under Obama – do not want Israel to be able to defend her right to exist.  Fortunately, God has other plans.

The Bible amazingly predicted 2,600 years ago that in the last days Russia would lead a massive invasion of armies that incredibly correspond to most of the Islamic states against Israel.  And we’re getting closer and closer to the kick-off of violence.

One of the few Old Testament prophecies that was never fulfilled – YET! – is that the city of Damascus would be utterly destroyed.  I look at the incredibly wicked state of Syria today recently murdering over fourteen thousand of her own people as a puppet state of Iran, and the one thing I can tell you as a certainty is is that Damascus has it coming to them.

Iran Is On The Verge Of Having Nukes Because Of Barack Obama

March 6, 2012

Let’s go back to 2007:

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy
Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson missed the debate to attend the funeral of Cpl. Clem Robert Boody in Independence, Iowa. Boody was a Korean War soldier whose remains Richardson had helped retrieve from North Korea earlier this year.

The National Intelligence Assessment report on Iran, released Monday, was the focus of the first third of the two-hour debate.

The assessment concluded that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 largely because of international pressure — reversing a conclusion made two years ago that the nation was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons.

The Democrats used the issue to criticize each other as well as President Bush. Yet their own prescriptions for dealing with Iran are similar — and fairly close to the administration’s approach of increasing diplomatic and economic pressure to force Tehran to suspend enriching uranium that can be used for making nuclear weapons.

The leading Democratic candidates have differed over whether to negotiate directly with Iran. In a July debate, Obama said he would be willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a position criticized by Clinton and others. But front-runners Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all said they would not rule out military action against Iran.

For their part, Republican candidates have said that the new intelligence estimate did not change their view of Iran as a major threat to the United States — a view also held by Bush.

In the Democrats’ debate Tuesday, the focus on foreign-policy issues gave Clinton a chance to bring up what many people believe was the high point of her eight years as first lady — her speech at the 1995 U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. In it, she castigated China over its treatment of women, arguing that women’s rights could no longer be considered separate from human rights. The Chinese government blocked the speech from being heard within China.

As at the Black & Brown Forum here Saturday night, the debate did not provide any landscape-shifting moments. Exchanges among the candidates were polite — but also at times direct, particularly over the recent bill sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that unofficially declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to vote for the bill. When asked whether she thought the Revolutionary Guard were “proliferators of mass destruction,” she said “many of us believe that” and suggested that earlier comments by Obama and Edwards about Iran indicated that they did too.

Edwards and Obama responded that they believed Iran was a threat to stability in the Mideast but that the administration was moving toward an unnecessary war.

“What I believe is that this president, who, just a few weeks ago, was talking about World War III, he, the vice president, the neocons have been on a march to possible war with Iran for a long time,” Edwards said. “We know that they’ve prepared contingency plans for a military attack.”

Obama, who missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote in the Senate because he was campaigning in New Hampshire, also drew parallels to the Iraq war buildup.

Five years later, what is Obama saying as everything he believed has turned out to be wrong and Iran is closer than we can possibly know from having nuclear weapon capability?  He’s STILL saying that Republcians are talking too tough.   What is frankly amazing is that Barack Obama went from saying that he had Israel’s back one day to saying America had no “military doctrine” to lift a finger to help Israel the very next day.  He’s not willing to go to war against Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program, but he’s all too willing to launch a vicious pre-emptive nuclear strike on his Republican challengers.

And as for whatever lip service Obama is mouthing to Israel that he will support them, Obama’s own Secretary of State just got through saying:

“… a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention. There are comments made that certainly don’t reflect the United States, don’t reflect our foreign policy, don’t reflect who we are as a people.”

Well, that’s comforting.  Particularly given the fact that Hilary Clinton has no right whatsoever to speak for anyone or anything other than Democrats and the Obama administration.

Only WAR will deter Iran from its determined history of developing nuclear weapons.  You know, the very same damn nukes that Obama and Democrats treasonously demonized Bush for seeing coming.

Barack Obama is a weakling and a coward, and the ONLY thing in the way of Iran becoming a nuclear power is Israel.  Obama has no intention of lifting a finger to help Israel; rather, he will sit back like a gutless fool and demonize Israel for the aftermath of an Iran attack that is more Obama’s fault than ANYBODY’S.  You watch: Israel will attack Iran, gas prices will soar, economies will tank and Barack Obama will demonize Israel for creating a crisis that he refused to stop.

Benjamin Netanyahu pointed out some frightening facts in his speech last night: if Iran gets the bomb, you can guarantee that it will shut down the Strait of Hormuz and drive up oil prices and that it will launch a wave of international terrorism far beyond what it has already done.  And all we’d have to do to stop them would be to sacrifice a dozen of our largest eastern cities in an atomic firestorm.

“No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!” — Jeremiah Wright, personally selected by Barack Obama to be his reverend and personal spiritual advisor for over twenty years.

More and more, Obama reminds any historically-intelligent observer of Neville Chamberlain.  The British prime minister who allowed Hitler to rise and grow too powerful for England – and who has rightly been judged to be the worst appeaser of all time – was absolutely ruthless in his cutthroat approach to dealing with his own domestic political rivals.

This is God Damn America.  And Iran gets the bomb in God damn America.

Transcript And Video Of Benjamin Netanyahu Proving The Case For Preemptive War Against Iran In AIPAC Speech

March 6, 2012

Link: http://ironicsurrealism.com/2012/03/05/transcript-israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahus-speech-at-aipac-2012/

Thank you for the warm reception. It could be heard as far away as Jerusalem – the eternal and united capital of Israel.

More than two thirds of the Congress is in attendance here tonight.

I deeply appreciate your being here.

Last May when I addressed the Congress, you stood up to applaud the state of Israel. Now I ask the 13,000 friends of IL here to stand up and applaud you,
the representatives of the American people. Democrats and Republicans alike, we applaud your unwavering commitment to Israel.

I want to recognize Yossi Peled who is here tonight. Yossi was born in Belgium. His parents hid him with a Christian family during World War II. His father, and many other members of his family, were murdered at Auschwitz. His mother survived the Holocaust, returned to reclaim Yossi, and brought him to Israel. He became one of Israel’s bravest and greatest generals. And today, Yossi Peled serves as a minister in my government.

Yossi’s life is the story of the Jewish people – the story of a powerless and stateless people who became a strong and proud nation able to defend itself.

And ladies and gentlemen, Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself.

I’d like to talk to you about a subject no one has been talking about recently….Iran.

Every day, I open the papers and read about these redlines and these timelines. I read about what Israel has decided to do or what Israel might do.

Well, I’m not going to talk to you about what Israel will do or will not do. I never talk about that. But I do want to talk to you about the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. I want to explain why Iran must never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

President Obama has reiterated his commitment to prevent this from happening. He stated clearly that all options remain on the table, and that American policy is not containment.

Well, Israel has the same policy. We are determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We leave all options on the table. Ad containment is definitely not an option.

The Jewish state will not allow those seeking our destruction to possess the means to achieve that goal. A nuclear armed Iran must be stopped.

Amazingly, some people refuse to acknowledge that Iran’s goal is to develop nuclear weapons. You see, Iran claims that it’s enriching uranium to develop medical research. Yeah, right. A country that builds underground nuclear facilities, develops intercontinental ballistic missiles, manufactures thousands of centrifuges, and absorbs crippling sanctions – is doing all that in order to advance…medical research. So you see, when that Iranian ICBM is flying through the air to a location near you, you’ve got nothing to worry about. It’s only carrying medical isotopes.

Ladies and Gentlemen, If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then what is it? That’s right, it’s a duck –but this duck is a nuclear duck. And it’s time the world started calling a duck a duck.

Fortunately, President Obama and most world leaders understand that the idea that Iran’s goal is not to develop nuclear weapons is ridiculous. Yet incredibly, some are prepared to accept an idea only slightly less preposterous: That we should accept a world in which the Ayatollahs have atomic bombs.

Sure, they say, Iran is cruel, but it’s not crazy. It’s detestable but it’s deterrable.

Responsible leaders should not bet the security of their countries on the belief that the world’s most dangerous regime won’t use the world’s most dangerous weapons. And I promise you that as Prime Minister, I will never gamble with the security of Israel.

From the beginning, the Ayatollah regime has broken every international rule and flouted every norm. It has seized embassies, targeted diplomats and sent its own children through mine fields. It hangs gays and stones women. It supports Assad’s brutal slaughter of the Syrian people. Iran is the world’s foremost sponsor of terror. It sponsors Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and terrorists throughout the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Iran’s proxies have dispatched hundreds of suicide bombers, planted thousands of roadside bombs, and fired over twenty thousand missiles at civilians. Through terror from the skies and terror on the ground, Iran is responsible for the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans.

In 1983, Iran’s proxy Hezbollah blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 240 American servicemen. In the last decade, its been responsible for murdering and maiming American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just a few months ago, it tried to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in a restaurant just a few blocks from here. The assassins didn’t care that several Senators and members of Congress would have been murdered in the process.

Iran accuses the American government of orchestrating 9/11, and it denies the Holocaust. Iran brazenly calls for Israel’s destruction, and they work for its destruction – each day, every day. This is how Iran behaves today, without nuclear weapons. Think of how they will behave tomorrow, with nuclear weapons. Iran will be even more reckless and far more dangerous.

There’s been plenty of talk recently about the costs of stopping Iran. I think it’s time to talk about the costs of not stopping Iran.

A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically increase terrorism by giving terrorists a nuclear umbrella. That means that Iran’s terror proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas will be emboldened to attack America, Israel, and others because they will be backed by a power with atomic weapons.

A nuclear-armed Iran could choke off the world’s oil supply and make real its threat to close the Straits of Hormouz. If you’re worried about the price of oil today, imagine how high oil prices will be when a nuclear-armed Iran starts blackmailing the world.

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, this would set off a mad dash by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and others to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. The world’s most volatile region would become a nuclear tinderbox waiting to go off.

And the worst nightmare of all, Iran could threaten all of us with nuclear terrorism. It could put a nuclear device in a ship heading to any port or in a truck parked in any city. Think about what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in the hands of radicals who lead millions in chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” For the sake of our prosperity, for the sake of our security, for the sake of our children, Iran must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons!

The best outcome would be if Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program peacefully. No one would be happier than me and the people of Israel if Iran actually dismantled its program. But so far, that hasn’t happened.

For fifteen years, I’ve been warning that a nuclear-armed Iran is a grave danger to my country and to the peace and security of the world. For the last decade, the international community has tried diplomacy. It hasn’t worked. For six years, the international community has applied sanctions. That hasn’t worked either. I appreciate President Obama’s recent efforts to impose even tougher sanctions against Iran. Those sanctions are hurting Iran’s economy. But unfortunately, Iran’s nuclear march goes on.

Israel has waited patiently for the international community to resolve this issue.

We’ve waited for diplomacy to work. We’ve waited for sanctions to work. None of us can afford to wait much longer.

As Prime Minister of Israel, I will never let my people live under the shadow of annihilation.

Some commentators would have you believe that stopping Iran from getting the bomb is more dangerous than letting Iran have the bomb. They say that a military confrontation with Iran would undermine the efforts already underway, that it would be ineffective, and that it would provoke even more vindictive action by Iran.

I’ve heard these arguments before. In fact, I’ve read them before.

In my desk, I have copies of an exchange of letters between the World Jewish Congress and the US War Department. The year was 1944. The World Jewish Congress implored the American government to bomb Auschwitz. The reply came five days later. I want to read it to you.

“Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our forces elsewhere…..and in any case would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources….”

And here’s the most remarkable sentence of all. And I quote:

“Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans.”

Think about that – “even more vindictive action” — than the Holocaust.

My Friends, 2012 is not 1944. The American government today is different. You heard it in President Obama’s speech yesterday.

But here’s my point.

The Jewish people are also different. Today we have a state of our own. The purpose of the Jewish state is to secure the Jewish future.

That is why Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.

We deeply appreciate the great alliance between our two countries.

But when it comes to Israel’s survival, we must always remain the masters of our fate.

Israel’s fate is to continue to be the forward position of freedom in the Middle East. The only place where minorities enjoy full civil rights; The only place where Arabs enjoy full civil rights. The only place where Christians are free to practice their faith; The only place where real judges protect the rule of law; And as Prime Minister of Israel, I will never allow anything to threaten Israel’s democratic way of life. And most especially, I will never tolerate any discrimination against women.

This week, we will read how one woman changed Jewish history. In Synagogues throughout the world, the Jewish people will celebrate the festival of Purim. We will read how some 2,500 years ago, a Persian anti-Semite tried to annihilate the Jewish people. We will read how his plot was foiled by one courageous woman – Esther.

In every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. We are blessed to live in an age when there is a Jewish state capable of defending the Jewish people. And we are doubly blessed to have so many friends like you, Jews and non-Jews alike, who love the State of Israel and support its right to defend itself.

Thank you for your friendship, Thank you for your courage, Thank you for standing up for the one and only Jewish state.

Make Obama, Biden, Clinton And The Democrat Party Wear Nuclear Iran Like An Albatross Of Shame

February 7, 2012

I want you to go back to December 2007 and reflect on documented history:

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy
Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson missed the debate to attend the funeral of Cpl. Clem Robert Boody in Independence, Iowa. Boody was a Korean War soldier whose remains Richardson had helped retrieve from North Korea earlier this year.

The National Intelligence Assessment report on Iran, released Monday, was the focus of the first third of the two-hour debate.

The assessment concluded that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 largely because of international pressure — reversing a conclusion made two years ago that the nation was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons.

The Democrats used the issue to criticize each other as well as President Bush. Yet their own prescriptions for dealing with Iran are similar — and fairly close to the administration’s approach of increasing diplomatic and economic pressure to force Tehran to suspend enriching uranium that can be used for making nuclear weapons.

The leading Democratic candidates have differed over whether to negotiate directly with Iran. In a July debate, Obama said he would be willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a position criticized by Clinton and others. But front-runners Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all said they would not rule out military action against Iran.

For their part, Republican candidates have said that the new intelligence estimate did not change their view of Iran as a major threat to the United States — a view also held by Bush.

In the Democrats’ debate Tuesday, the focus on foreign-policy issues gave Clinton a chance to bring up what many people believe was the high point of her eight years as first lady — her speech at the 1995 U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. In it, she castigated China over its treatment of women, arguing that women’s rights could no longer be considered separate from human rights. The Chinese government blocked the speech from being heard within China.

As at the Black & Brown Forum here Saturday night, the debate did not provide any landscape-shifting moments. Exchanges among the candidates were polite — but also at times direct, particularly over the recent bill sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that unofficially declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to vote for the bill. When asked whether she thought the Revolutionary Guard were “proliferators of mass destruction,” she said “many of us believe that” and suggested that earlier comments by Obama and Edwards about Iran indicated that they did too.

Edwards and Obama responded that they believed Iran was a threat to stability in the Mideast but that the administration was moving toward an unnecessary war.

“What I believe is that this president, who, just a few weeks ago, was talking about World War III, he, the vice president, the neocons have been on a march to possible war with Iran for a long time,” Edwards said. “We know that they’ve prepared contingency plans for a military attack.”

Obama, who missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote in the Senate because he was campaigning in New Hampshire, also drew parallels to the Iraq war buildup.

Who – and which party – turned out to be right?  And who couldn’t have been more wrong???

Secretary of State Leon Panetta – serving as Obama’s attack poodle – spilled the beans on an Israeli attack on Iran:

Panetta believes Israel may strike Iran this spring
United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a growing possibility Israel will attack Iran as early as April to stop Tehran from building a nuclear bomb, according to reports.
7:03AM GMT 03 Feb 2012

The Washington Post first reported that Panetta was concerned about the increased likelihood Israel would launch an attack over the next few months. CNN said it confirmed the report, citing a senior Obama administration official, who declined to be identified.

“Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June – before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb,” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote.

“Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon – and only the United States could then stop them militarily,” Ignatius wrote.
 
Ignatius did not cite a source. He was writing from Brussels where Panetta was attending a NATO defense ministers’ meeting.
 
Panetta and the Pentagon both declined comment on the Post report.

Israel, widely believed to possess the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal, views Iran’s uranium enrichment projects as a major threat and has not ruled out the use of military force to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
 
Iran says its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

The Post article said the postponement of a joint U.S.-Israeli military exercise that had been scheduled for this spring may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon.
 
Washington and the European Union imposed tighter sanctions on Iran in recent weeks in a drive to force Tehran to provide more information on its nuclear program.
 
Iran has said repeatedly it could close the vital Strait of Hormuz shipping lane if sanctions succeed in preventing it from exporting crude, a move Washington said it would not tolerate.
 
Israel’s military intelligence chief said on Thursday he estimated that Iran could make four atomic bombs by further enriching uranium it had already stockpiled, and could produce its first bomb within a year of deciding to build one.
 
But in his rare public remarks, Major-General Aviv Kochavi held out the possibility that stronger international sanctions might dissuade Tehran from pursuing a policy he had no doubt was aimed at developing nuclear weapons.
 
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said separately that “if sanctions don’t achieve the desired goal of stopping (Iran’s) military nuclear program, there will be a need to consider taking action.”

What if Israel had done something similar shortly before our Navy Seals went into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden???  We would have rightly blasted such treachery.

That said, Israel has no choice BUT to attack Iran because Barack Obama and the entire Democrat Party are traitors and cowards who put the United States and the state of Israel at grave risk by demanding we stick our heads up our asses and keep them there until it was too late. 

Re-read this sentence: “”Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon – and only the United States could then stop them militarily.”  And let me translate it for you.  Israel will attack Iran – and start a war in the Middle East – because it knows it cannot trust a pathological weakling like Barack Obama to stand up to evil.  They know they will have to do what Obama lacks the moral will or courage to do; and Israel’s attack will mark the failure not of Israel but of Barack Obama.

Obama despises Israel in his actions in spite of his devious rhetoric and the thought of that nation having the courage to protect itself in the face of his cowardice fills him with dread.

You can bet that Obama won’t launch an attack on Iran.  Bottom line: he is a pathological weasel.  What he’ll do is sit back like a trembling little coward and wait for Israel to do what any decent nation would do for not only its own survival but for the sake of sanity itself and attack Iran.  And then Obama will tut-tut naughty Israel for its aggression.

This is the most obvious train-wreck in human history.  In early February of 2009 I wrote about America’s enemies seeing a weakling in the White House and smelling blood:

When Iran gets its nuclear weapons, we will start seeing some hard-core “generated international crises.” Right up the wazoo.

I’ve written about Obama’s dilemma in dealing with Iran before (and see also) Given the fact that Obama opposed the war with Iraq due to what he claimed was insufficient evidence of Iraqi WMD, how would he be able to go to war with Iran when the evidence will likely be even more flimsy? I mean, we were IN Iraq for several years; we actually SAW their WMDs in the Gulf War. We know very little about Iran’s weapons programs.

That same month in 2009 I wrote It’s Official: Iran Will Have The Bomb On Obama’s Watch.

In November 2008 shortly after the election I pointed out and asked: President Obama Not Ready For Coming International Crisis. Are You?

And before the election I explained the interesting phenonema as to Why Islamic Extremists Support Democrats and Obama.

Oh, I also pointed out the fact back in 2008 that Biden Reported Stating Israel Must Accept A Nuclear Iran.

In August of 2008 I asked a question: Iran And The Bomb: What Are We Going To Do?

And I can go all the way back to April of 2008 in one of my very first blog articles titled Democratic Debate: Promising Armageddon in which I concluded:

Allow me to guarantee you that a Democratic administration will see a nuclear Iran. Given their policy on Iraq, it becomes an implicit campaign promise. And it will see a nuclearized Middle East. Democrats have spent forty years proving that they are cowards who will not stand by their allies, and their actions will come home to roost.

A Republican president can say to the Iranians, “We went in to Iran when we thought they might attack us, Iran. And I promise that will do the same to you if you continue your weapons program.” And no one can question that. A Republican president can say to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, “We stayed with Iraq and defended them even when it was difficult, and we’ll do the same for you.” and no one can question that.

One of the things that I here point out is that even if Obama surprises me and actually attacks Iran, it will also be a shocking surprise to Iran that believes that Obama is a weakling and a coward based on his own words.  They would not have similarly believed that McCain was such.  Which is to say that even if Obama does the right thing and attacks Iran, it will be a war that didn’t have to be fought had we just voted with wisdom and courage in 2008.

Here we are now, on the verge of a nuclear Iran and a regional war involving Israel and Iran that the United States will most assuredly be drawn into at great economic cost (at a minimum) to ourselves.  Entirely due to the fault of Barack Obama and a treasonous Democrat Party.

When we voted for Barack Obama, we voted for a nuclear Iran.  We would accept nothing less.  We voted for the most expensive gasoline in American history.  We voted for an economy that would remain in shambles.

As I close this, I want to point out another FACT that history needs to remember.  I wrote a three part series in May 2008:

Iraq War Justified: Lessons from Saddam’s History (Part 1)

Iraq War Justified: What the Chronology Reveals (Part 2)

Iraq War Justified: Paralysis, Corruption at U.N. Made Truth Impossible (Part 3)

One of the primary points that I documented was that we had no choice to go to war with Iraq because three countries – Russia, China and France – blocked every serious international effort to prevent Iraq from developing WMDs which American foreign policy rightly concluded was unacceptable.  For the record, we are facing basically the same situation now with Iran and with Syria.  And how are we going to gain international cooperation when Russia and China can block any meaningful effort at international cooperation with their respective veto powers?

Three sites provide a list of statements that top Democrats made as they gave their support for the Iraq War before they treasonously turned on a president at war.  You can see that they talked as tough as “Dubya” EVER did about military action against Saddam Hussein; but when it came time for these cowards to put their money where their mouths were, well, that was when they cut and ran:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

I have repeatedly attacked the Democrat Party for its:

Opposition to the Iraq War (which 60% of Senate Democrats voted for, only to repudiate and claim Bush deceived them); opposition to the Patriot Act; opposition to Domestic Surveillance on calls from international terrorists; opposition to Gitmo, even though it is the only reasonable place to hold these people that no country wants; the demand for full legal representation in civilian courts for terrorists; opposition to even the reasonable use of profiling to weed out terrorists.  And I could go on and on.  It boils down to the fact that the left despise anything that help us win the war on terror or protect us from terrorism.

And to quote Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright who demonized America in his “No, no, no!  Not God bless America.  God DAMN America!” sermon, “Our chickens have come home to roost” for voting for this disgrace and this party of disgrace.

There is one person – Barack Obama – and one party – the Democrat Party – that are 100 percent responsible for the crisis we are about to face.

After Setting Middle East On Fire And Allowing Iran To Build The Bomb, Obama Follows Up By Dismantling America’s Nuclear Deterrent

October 27, 2011

A picture is worth a thousand words, so:

Obama has set the Middle East on fire.  He didn’t do it via “hope and change” there any more than he inspired it in the broken wreck he’s made out of America.

He did it by devaluing and destabilizing the U.S. dollar which every Middle Eastern nation that has anything to do with oil has to base their own currency on (oil is bought and sold exclusively in U.S. dollars).  What is just really, really bad food inflation here has been catastrophic in the much weaker Middle Eastern economies.

That people are actually so utterly stupid that they are looking at the shocking damage Obama has made of foreign policy is proof that we are in the very last days just before the world chooses to worship the satanic beast of the Book of Revelation.

So Obama has set the Middle East on a fire that is continuing to burn out of control.  He has allowed Iran to grow closer and closer to its goal of having nuclear weapons and the nuclear immunity that will accompany it.

And he is simultaneously dismantling the American nuclear arsenal – and the deterrent that that arsenal created for the last sixty damn years:

US’s Biggest Nuclear Bomb Dismantled in Texas
By BETSY BLANEY Associated Press
AMARILLO, Texas October 25, 2011 (AP)

The last of the nation’s biggest nuclear bombs, a Cold War relic 600 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was dismantled Tuesday in what one energy official called a milestone in President Barack Obama’s mission to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

This is God damn America.  And God will surely damn the American people for electing the greatest fool who ever lived as he labors unceasingly to bring about World War III and Armageddon.

We can go back a few years, to when demonic, vile, un-American Democrats – including Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton – demonized George Bush for trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.  And we can zoom ahead and see how the same weakness that epitomized the Democrat Party has taken America to new depths of weakness since.

When I say that the Democrat Party is under the direct control of Satan, I tell no lies.

Now Iran has the bomb, Russia and China are arming themselves and the United States of America under the biggest fool who ever sat in the Oval Office is dismantling the only thing that gives us any power following Obama’s destruction of the US economy.

God damn America does not have long to go.

On How Obama Will Damage America For Decades To Come

September 30, 2010

Obama is a disaster in every possible sphere of leadership.

But the question then becomes, “In which particular sphere does Obama’s disastrous failure of leadership represent the greatest danger to America?”

Thomas Sowell answers the question:

September 28, 2010
A Warning from Thomas Sowell
Anthony Kang

Frankly, there aren’t enough words or superlatives in the English dictionary to describe the great Thomas Sowell. With an unparalleled gift to explain even the most complicated subjects in simple and easily understandable terms, few can match the pedigree and contributions of the Hoover Institute senior fellow. Author of the new book, “Dismantling America,” Sowell recently sat down for an interview with Investors Business Daily’s David Hogberg. And along with a few priceless jabs at Michelle Obama, sociology, Newsweek, and the public education system, Dr. Sowell discussed why he (like Niall Ferguson) believes America may be entering a prolonged period of decline.

“The only analogy I can think of from history is when the Norman conquerors of England published their laws in French for an English-speaking nation,” Sowell says about the Obama administration’s governing style, a style he characterizes as unconstitutional.

As someone who, if forced to, would label himself as more libertarian than conservative — though he has irked many with his support of American combat missions in Iraq — most noteworthy (and a bit shocking) about the interview is what Sowell believes the greatest threat is — terrorism, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the international scene. Questioned as to what some of the current markers of national decline are, it isn’t “huge bills that fundamentally change the way the economy operates,” reckless government spending, social engineering programs and the national debt which worry the economist the most, it is national security and President Obama’s foreign policy.

And Sowell makes a few not-so-subtle Neville Chamberlain analogies that are almost impossible to ignore:

Of course, the one that trumps them all is on the international scene. That’s where Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons. I’m just staggered at how little attention is being paid to that compared to frivolous things. If a nation with a record of sponsoring international terrorism gets nuclear weapons, that changes everything and it changes it forever.
Someday historians may wonder what were we thinking about when you look at the imbalance of power between the U.S. and Iran, and we sat there with folded hands and watched this happen, going through just enough motions at the United Nations to lull the public to sleep. That, I think, is the biggest threat.

Sowell also condemns the president for affronting our allies (in particular, the British and Israelis) in “clever” yet unmistakable ways the general public may not notice, further hastening America’s decline:

His first foreign policy gambit was to fly to Russia and offer to renege on the American commitment to put a missile shield in Eastern Europe…All he really got out of that was a demonstration of his amateurishness and of his willingness to sell out allies in hopes of winning over enemies. That ploy was tried in the 1930s and didn’t work all that well.

These are no ordinary times, with no ordinary president. Leading up to the historic “Hope and Change” election, commentators on the Right could not possibly have attacked Obama and his intentions to fundamentally change the identity and economy of America more than they already had. Even so, not only has President Obama fulfilled every single “fear-mongering” indictment down to a tee, he’s exceeded them — making even some his most extreme opponents look clairvoyant. So with keeping that in mind, and considering all the new challenges we face domestically, that one of the greatest economic minds of our time would still elevate national security and terrorism to such a level truly speaks volumes about the reality and situation of Iran.

Also citing the lack of expertise and national discussion in international issues, former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton confirmed to Greg Gutfeld that he was seriously considering a presidential run on Red Eye last week. Bolton-Sowell 2012? One can only dream. But hey, if a community organizer can get elected, why not someone with ten times the accomplishments and wisdom?

I’ve said many of the same things, myself.  Just not as well, and not as succinctly.  For example, I said:

If Iran gets its nukes, it will be able to do a number of things: 1) attack Israel, assuring Israel that if it uses its nukes against Iran, Iran will use its nukes against Israel; 2) shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which would immediately drive up the price of oil.  The cost of gasoline in the U.S. would soar above $15 a gallon; 3) dramatically increase Iranian-sponsored terrorism worldwide.

If you don’t believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would pick a minimum of one of these options, you’re just nuts.

Just as I also pointed out that Obama was enraging our enemies even as he alienated our allies.

It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to see that Iran is employing a lot of rocket scientists to create a ballistic nuclear missile capable of striking the United States and Israel.  But when Democrats are in charge, even the most trivial aspects of common sense are akin to the most sophisticated form of theoretical mathematics.

It is a fact – a FACT – that George Bush tried to deal with the threat of Iran when it was possible to avert their nuclear ambitions; but that Democrats did everything they could to prevent him from succeeding against the insane jihadist regime.  I quoted an LA Times article from just three years ago in which every single Democrat presidential candidate stated that Iran was not a meaningful threat, and in which they denounced Bush’s efforts to draw attention to the danger posed by Iran:

“DES MOINES — Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.”

But the fact that the failure to deal with Iran rests ENTIRELY in Democrats’ hands won’t stop them from blaming Bush when Iran rears its vicious head against the world.  Any more than it stopped them from blaming Bush for the 2008 economic collapse in spite of the fact that they had had total control of Congress for the previous two years, and even though they had repeatedly prevented Bush from regulating and reforming GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – which were at the epicenter of the disaster.

It’s just what cowards do.  And the Democrat Party is the party of moral cowardice going back to at least the Carter years, if not dating back to the waning days of the LBJ administration.

You can go back and review the record.  Nearly 60% of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate (29 out of 50) voted to authorize the Iraq War Resolution.  Furthermore, virtually every single top Democrat was on the factual record agreeing with George Bush and supporting his reasoning to attack Saddam Hussein -

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

- and yet Democrats en masse cowardly, despicably, and I would argue treasonously, turned on Bush and turned on our troops in time of war.  For no other reason than to treacherously obtain a cheap political advantage aided and abetted by a mainstream media propaganda apparatus that could have come right out of the vile brain of Joseph Goebbels.

In addition to their opposition to the Iraq War (which again 60% of Senate Democrats voted for, only to repudiate and claim Bush deceived them), Democrats opposed the Patriot Act; opposed Domestic Surveillance which allowed the US to track calls from international terrorists into the United States; opposed Gitmo, even though it is the clearly the ONLY reasonable place to hold incredibly dangerous terrorists that no country wants; opposed allowing terrorists to be tried in military tribunals to safeguard intelligence techniques and personnel, and to prevent the court system from being hijacked by enemies of freedom; opposed  even the most reasonable use of profiling to weed out terrorists intent upon murdering Americans; and even declared surrender in the vile “I believe that … this war is lost” statement of Harry Reid, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader.  I could go on.  It boils down to the fact that the left despise anything that help us win the war on terror or protect us from terrorism.

"RUN AWAY!!!"

"RUN AWAY!!!"

To the extent that Barack Obama has done anything – ANYTHING – right at all in the war on terror, it has only been because he repudiated himself and demonstrated that he was either an incompetent fool or a lying hypocrite.  Obama – after publicly denouncing, undermining and alienating the CIA – has continued the policy of “torture” by continuing the policy of “rendition” in which terror suspects are sent to other countries that use torture.  Obama – after continually denouncing Bush over Gitmo – has STILL not closed the facility down two full years after usurping the office of the presidency with lies.  Obama is using a surge strategy in Afghanistan after denouncing Bush’s successful surge strategy in Iraq and blatantly predicting it would fail.  And Obama is now continuing the Bush policy of using predator drones to attack terrorist positions inside Pakistan that US Special Operations forces cannot reach.

That said, Obama – in denouncing Iraq (the war we could and did win) while demanding we massively build-up in Afghanistan (our second Vietnam) may well prove to be the most disastrous military quagmire since the LAST time Democrats led us into the actual Vietnam.

Iran WILL get the nuclear bomb.  Democrats guaranteed that Iran would be able to do so.

Iran will become a plague upon global peace and security unlike anything the world has ever seen at least since the rise of the Nazis and the abject failure of FDR and Neville Chamberlain to deal with the clear and present danger.

And when that day comes, America will be unable to meaningfully deal with it because Barack Obama and the Democrat Party made us economically incapable of rising to any significant occasion.

Obama, How Have You Failed America? Let Me Count The Ways

June 2, 2010

I can’t get away from Obama’s arrogant boast from last year.  It has just been thoroughly destroyed too many times, in too many ways:

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”

Let’s examine this on a clause-by-clause basis and see how Obama has fared:

This was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick? Another way to put it is “This was the moment companies dropped their health care coverage so every sick person could one day lay helplessly in their own filth on Medicaid.”

(Fortune) — The great mystery surrounding the historic health care bill is how the corporations that provide coverage for most Americans — coverage they know and prize — will react to the new law’s radically different regime of subsidies, penalties, and taxes. Now, we’re getting a remarkable inside look at the options AT&T, Deere, and other big companies are weighing to deal with the new legislation.

Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill’s critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.

That to go along with ObamaCare now acknowledged to cost FAR more than Democrats falsely said, and along with the fact that this boondoggle has forced businesses to write down billions of profits that could have been used to create jobs.

Good jobs for the jobless? How about any jobs whatsoever for the jobless?  Unemployment was 7.6% when Bush left office.  Obama promised it wouldn’t get over 8% because of his stimulus, but he lied.  And now it’s 9.9% and unlikely to get much lower for a long time to come.

When the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal? Let me just say three words: Gulf of Mexico.  The oceans are rising due to millions and millions of gallons of oil that Obama has done nothing to even slow down.  I mean, my God: it took him like six weeks to even tell us that he was responsible.

This was the moment when we ended a war? How about this was the moment when we tried to take credit for George Bush ending a war? Just what war has Obama ended?  The general in command in Afghanistan says its a “bleeding ulcer” over there, and that “nobody’s winning.”  So it’s probably not that war.  And it’s hard to imagine he’s talking about North and South Korea, given the fact that those countries are on the verge of total war in a situation that has gone to hell during his misrule.  Nor is it likely he’s talking about Iran, given the fact that his fool policy that even his own Secretary of State once openly mocked as “irresponsible and frankly naive” has completely fallen apart, and now Iran can build nuclear weapons any time it wants to.

And secured our nation? Oh, yeah.  You’ve done a hell of a good job on that one, Barry Hussein:

Washington (CNN) — For the first time in nearly four years, a majority of Americans think that a terrorist attack is likely to occur somewhere in the United States in the next few weeks, according to a new national poll. . . .

Fifty-five percent of people questioned say an act of terrorism in the U.S. over the next few weeks is likely, up 21 points from last August. Forty-three percent said such an attack is not likely, down 21 points from August. . . .

The survey’s release comes one day after the Obama administration released its first National Security Strategy, a 52-page outline of the president’s strategic approach and priorities on battling terrorism.

And now here’s the very last one, tumbling into the toilet like the turd-in-chief is tumbling in the polls:

And restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.  Here’s what Obama’s “restoration of America’s image” actually looks like:

Japan’s prime minister resigns over Okinawa base
By Mari Yamaguchi The Associated Press
Posted: 06/01/2010 07:52:12 PM PDT

TOKYO – Embattled Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said Wednesday he was resigning over his broken campaign promise to move a U.S. Marine base off the southern island of Okinawa.

The prime minister had faced growing pressure from within his own party to resign ahead of July’s upper house elections. His approval ratings had plummeted over his bungled handling of the relocation of the Marine Air Station Futenma, reinforcing his public image as an indecisive leader.

Or let me put it this way: “You have restored America’s image, Mister President Obama-san.  We now revere your country as never before due to your most wonderful greatness.  Now will you please take all your American crap and your American prestige and get the hell out of our country?  It is only because we honor YOU so much, Obama-san, that we want America the hell out of Okinawa after being here for 65 years.”

“We had so much contempt for Bush – you see, we don’t even call him Bush-san – that we allowed America to remain during his presidency.  It is only because of our profound and deep admiration of you that we are kicking your ass to the curb now, Obama-san.  You are last, best, greatest hope on earth, Obama-san.  Now please not to let door hit your skinny ass on way out.”

So let’s tally up: fail until we die of socialist health care, fail big time until our unemployment benefits run out, fail all over the Gulf of Mexico and likely all over Florida and then the East Coast, fail until we cut and run, fail while getting ready for the next massive terrorist attack, and, finally, fail ingloriously all over the world.

I know, I know: I didn’t tell the truth.  I’m nowhere NEAR through with the list of all the ways that Obama has completely failed America.  Obama has failed to control spending as our deficit soars like a rocket ship.  Obama has failed to secure our financial system as our banks have closed at MORE THAN DOUBLE THE RATE OF LAST YEAR.  Obama has failed to act on illegal immigration.  Etcetera.  Etcetera.  Obama has failed his own rhetoricObama has just failed, period.  Obama has even failed to kick his smoking habit.

Let me try to paraphrase Obama’s speech above in a way that properly corrects the record:

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to realize that we had the absolute suckiest president in our nation’s entire history at the very time we needed a good one the most.

.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 519 other followers