America’s Enemies Smell Weakling In White House

Then candidate for Vice President Joe Biden warned us: if you vote for my inexperienced, lightweight running mate, the world will test Obama, and this country will experience “a generated international crisis”:

“Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you – not financially to help him – we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis.

“Gird your loins,” Biden told the crowd. “We’re gonna win with your help, God willing, we’re gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It’s like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy.”

The Delaware lawmaker managed to rake in an estimated $1 million total from his two money hauls at the downtown Sheraton, the same hotel where four years ago Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., clinched the Democratic nomination. Despite warning about the difficulties the next administration will face, Biden said the Democratic ticket is equipped to meet the challenges head on.

“I’ve forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I’m not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it,” the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. “This guy has it. But he’s gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.”

“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision’,” Biden continued. “Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”

And Biden all but assured his audience that it would appear even to his most ardent supporters that a President Obama would have no idea what he was doing, but to trust him and support him anyway.

Well, it’s been just over 2 weeks.  And our enemies already seem to be smelling the weakness in the air above the White House.

We’ve got North Korea recognizing a weak Democrat when it sees one:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama already has senior envoys working on crises in South Asia and the Middle East. The new administration has said little, however, about how it will handle a standoff with an increasingly hostile, nuclear-armed North Korea.

The North does not like being ignored by the United States, which the Bush administration was reminded of in 2006 when Pyongyang quickly moved itself up the list of top U.S. foreign policy problems by staging nuclear and missile tests.

North Korea is again showing signs of restlessness, and its belligerence toward its Asian neighbors could escalate should Pyongyang see a lack of U.S. attention or urgency.

In recent days, the North has pledged to scrap pacts designed to prevent hostilities with South Korea and apparently is preparing to test-fire a ballistic missile capable of striking the western United States.

We’ve got Iran all but shouting to us in its satellite launch that they’re going to have a ballistic missile to go with the nuclear bombs Barry Hussein is going to allow them to build:

Reacting to the launch, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: “This action does not convince us that Iran is acting responsibly to advance stability or security in the region.”

US state department official Robert Wood said Iran’s activities could “possibly lead to the development of ballistic missiles” and were of “great concern”.

French foreign ministry spokesman Eric Chevallier said France was “very concerned” about the launch.

“We can’t help but link this to the very serious concerns about the development of military nuclear capability,” he said.

UK Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell said the launch underlined the UK’s “serious concerns about Iran’s intentions”.

“There are dual applications for satellite launching technology in Iran’s ballistic missile programme,” he said in a statement.

“As a result, we think this sends the wrong signal to the international community, which has already passed five successive UN Security Council resolutions on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme.”

Iran is expected to have enough uranium to make at least one nuclear weapon this year.  In 2009.  And when they have the bomb – and mark my words, President Obama will do NOTHING that will ultimately prevent Iran from developing the bomb – Iran will be able to launch and sponsor terrorism around the world with impunity.

And we’ve got Russia all but rubbing Obama’s face in the mud in Afghanistan:

Kyrgyzstan nailed down promises of debt relief and billions of dollars in aid from Russia and promptly announced plans to close a U.S. air base crucial to the war in Afghanistan.

And as a result:

By some estimates the cost of shipping will triple for NATO for supplies moved through central Asia.

And all of this has happened just as Obama assumes his exalted orifice.

I’m not exactly seeing a climate of fear as our enemies state astonished at Barry Hussein’s magnificent awesomeness and wonderfulness.

Maybe they watched him fumbling with the window instead of going through the door to enter the Oval Office.  And then they saw him nock his noggin on Marine One.  And then maybe they said, “If this is the leader of the free world, we’ve GOTTA take advantage of this clown.”

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 SAW their WMDs.  We know very little about Iran’s weapons programs.

Given the fact that Russia and China have used their veto power to block any meaningful sanctions (just as Russia and France did to prevent meaningful UN sanctions against Iraq, by the way), there will not be an “international consensus.”  Does anyone believe that Europeans will be willing to go to war with Iran, particularly when Europe is heavily reliant upon Iranian (and ally Russia’s) oil?

And would Iran take any threat of war – which will clearly be the only deterrent to their nuclear program – seriously?

Had we elected John McCain, we would have had a President who could have confronted Iran by saying, I supported attacking Iraq because I believed that they had weapons of mass destruction.  And I will attack you if you continue any further with your weapons program.  And the man who supported the surge strategy – when few (particularly Barack Hussein Obama) had the courage to join him in doing so – would have had immediate credibility with the Iranians.

All window fumbling and noggin knocking aside, Barack Hussein Obama will not have any credibility whatsoever in the minds of our enemies.

And that fundamental lack of credibility of our leader that will undermine American credibility in the eyes of our worst enemies.  And that is going to cost us repeatedly in the days and months ahead.

12 Responses to “America’s Enemies Smell Weakling In White House”

  1. HelloKitty Says:

    Oh, baloney.

    This is probably the first time in 8 years that our enemies are even aware that we have a functioning President.

    Bush was the favorite stooge of dictators, and the recruitment poster-child for jihadis and suicide bombers worldwide.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Your brain is baloney.

    Why did Russia wait until Obama to get its lacky-state to close the Khyber Pass? Do you have so much baloney for brains that you think that was an accident?

    And when Iran gets its nuke, it will be OBAMA who let them have it.

    Robert Heinlein said this:
    “Anyone who clings to the historically untrue – and thoroughly immoral – doctrine ‘that violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedom.”

    It is baloney brains who think that confronting one’s enemies is weakness, and fighting evil is immoral. You people are utterly stupid on every level imaginable.

    This crap that fighting terrorists means that they recruit more terrorists is utterly dumbass beyond belief. Ok, fine. Let’s surrender instead. And we should have surrendered to the Nazis and Japan for the same dumbass reason: they increased their recruitment when we went to war with them, too.

  3. hl Says:

    You are correct, Michael, we do have a weakling in charge and our enemies know it well.

    I came across this post and wanted to pass it on to you. I think it has merit. Daily, I see Obama LYING, inciting fear and chaos to advance his radical agenda.

    I appreciate the posts you write, they are true, instructive and helpful. Keep up the great work exposing the corruption and telling the truth.
    It matters BIGTIME!

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    That’s a great metaphor for what’s going on (i.e. “Steal This Book”). And I think it’s true.

    You go back to Obama’s life, and he was profoundly shaped by people just like Hoffman. He was shaped by Frank Marshall Davis, and by Saul Alinsky, and others. This is a man who is far more comfortable with leftist radicals than he is with ordinary Americans. He shares their goals, not ours.

    Obama summed it up well in Dreams of My Father pp 100-101:

    “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students. The foreign students.The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night,in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints. We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.”

    Obama has no real interest in expanding or improving our capitalist system, and only fools and the pathologically naive believe he does. No, his goal is to impose a socialist agenda, just like all those people he used to hang with would want him to do. He’s not a “sellout.” Throughout his life, he’s always been quite loyal to radicals, Marxists, hard-core feminists, and socialists.

    And what Obama did, just like the thesis of Hoffman’s Steal This Book, was to present himself as a mainstream candidate in order to destroy mainstream America.

    Good point. I may come back and link to that article for one of my own, borrowing the author’s analogy with my own thoughts above.

    And thanks for the encouragement. Blogging is an investment of time. It’s real nice to have at least one person say it aint wasted time.

  5. Bobo Says:

    What an idiotic article. President Obama is inheriting not only Bush’s failed domestic policies but his failed foreign policies as well. History will prove that going to Iraq was wrong. Taking the “eye off the ball” of Afghanistan was a mistake. Al Qaeda sure tested Bush early in the administration and he failed miserably even after the warnings from the Clinton administration to watch terrorist groups, particularly Bin Laden and the now infamous “Bin Laden/Al Qaeda determined to use planes” memo that went unread and unnoticed by Condi. Bush did nothing to stop Iran from gaining further knowledge or how to make a nuclear bomb and did nothing to stop N. Korea from continuing their nuclear technology build up as well as their rocket launching capability. So to come out and say we have a weak president now is ludicrous! Bush was re-elected on the premise that we don’t change the commander in chief during a war and that Kerry was an idiot. The same right wingers (Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Riley etc..) that said we need to back and stand behind the president during war are now saying how weak President Obama is and we should be scared. What happened to the loyalty of the office? It’s all different when the other party is leading. A bunch of hypocrites I say. Don’t get me wrong and say I’m a bleeding heart liberal. I want to see pinpointed smart strikes on North Korea and Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. We should have sent a predator with hell fire missiles to assassinate Sadam Hussien. Sending American boys and girls to “free” Iraq was not a good idea. This is just another example of hate politics and nonsensical right wing thinking.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    What an idiotic comment. But then what can you reasonably expect from someone who calls himself “bobo” (I must assume you’re either a smart elephant or a dumb clown).

    The fact that Obama has ALREADY completely changed the Bush foreign policy – and signaled our enemies of the new weakness – doesn’t register with you. No, you will still blame Bush for everything because that’s your ideology.

    Russia WAITED until Bush left, and then stuck a shank in OBAMA with this Khyber Pass deal.

    You ask: “What happened to the loyalty of the office?” Let me answer. Liberals like you killed it wit your unrelenting Bush derangement syndrome politics. Going after a president in time of war the way you did was unconscionable. First you supported removing Saddam from power –

    – then you spent the next five years tearing him down and calling him a liar and a warmonger. 60% of Senate Democrats voted to authorize the war they condemned. And you’ve got your Senate Majority Leader saying, “I believe this war is lost,” and Jack Murtha accusing innocent Marines of war crimes.

    I won’t waste any more time. But let me direct attention to your comment: “Don’t get me wrong and say I’m a bleeding heart liberal. I want to see pinpointed smart strikes on North Korea and Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. We should have sent a predator with hell fire missiles to assassinate Sadam Hussien.”

    And stop and think, for just a moment, if an elephant or a dumb clown can do that, and think how liberals would have reacted to ANY of that stuff had Bush done it. You want to talk about coming unglued? Here’s a sample headline: “Bush expands Middle East warmongering to Iran.” The vitriol would have been unrelenting.

    And Obama was one of the ones bitching about Bush’s war decisions. He was one of those “bleeding heart liberals” you describe.

    Btw, it’s against the law to assassinate heads of state. The whole world would have come unglued had we violated that policy.

    And btw, when Iran gets nuclear weapons, and they WILL get them, only abject fools will blame Bush for it. That will all be on Obama’s watch. Same thing with the next terror attack. It’s yours. Wear it.

    So put your “This is just another example of hate politics and nonsensical right wing thinking” in your crack pipe and keep on smoking.

  7. ecrivan Says:

    You’re a paranoid moron….but you’re in good GOP company.

    Get over it. We won. You had your shot and you blew it in such a big way that we’ll now spend 3-4 years just cleaning up the toxic mess that is the byproduct of the GOP’s gross incompetence….all while accomplishing more in the first three weeks than Shrub did in eight years.

    If The President didn’t see the door on his first day, perhaps it was because he was thinking about the collapsed economy that W left behind.

    If The President hit his head on the door of AF1, perhaps it is because he is TALL and preoccupied with more important things, like a catastrophic and shameful war in which more Americans and who-knows-how many innocent Iraqis died that week…..or the shameful slaughter of innocent Palestinians by Shrub & Co’s best buddies in Israel.

    Lucky for us all that we don’t have to listen to blowhards like you every day in the so-called liberal (but actually GOP/corporate-owned) media.

    Now, a prescient word from one of the last good Republicans:

    Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.
    ~ Gen. George S Patton

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    It’s funny that you mention Patton, considering he would have delivered a well-deserved bitch slap to your face that would have resounded through the ages were he alive today. You’re a genuine idiot if you think Patton wanted a weakling like Obama running the country.

    Republicans created this mess? Dumbass. It was Democrats who presided over the last two years of economic slowdown. It was Democrats who were in charge of Fannie and Freddie while their stock plunged 90% (and just so you know, dumbass, Congress has direct oversight over Fannie and Freddie).

    It was Democrats who forced the Community Reinvestment Act that gave sub prime home loans to people based on their ethnicity who couldn’t pay them back, dumbass.

    It was liberal pro-Democrat organizations like ACORN that continued to sue to push the envelope on the CRA to force more and more and more stupid loans through the mortgage system in the name of “The fundamental right to own a home.”

    It was Democrats who were in charge of Fannie and Freddie while they were making all their colossally moronic loans: Former Fannie chief executives Daniel Mudd and Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson (both of whom were part of the Obama campaign, btw); former Freddie Mac CEOs Richard Syron and Leland Brendsel – all damn Democrats.

    It was Democrats Chris Dodd and Barack Obama who raked in more Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions than any other politicians – while Fannie and Freddie were pursuing disastrous policies. And not just Fannie and Freddie, but bankrupt and corrupt banks like Lehman Bros – Dodd and Obama were #1 and #2 in those, too. Taking money from corrupt entities while they engaged in corruption.

    It was under Democrat Franklin Raines’ watch that Fannie perpetuated it’s worst fraud that precipitated this disaster.

    It was Democrats like Barney Frank who blocked Bush from regulating Fannie and Freddie at a time when it could have done some good. Frank said in the NY Times on Sep 11, 2003:
    ”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

    It was Democrat Barney Frank who – as Chairman of the House Financial Services Cmmttee – had DIRECT OVERSIGHT of Fannie and Freddie while its stock plunged to nothing and while it was in the process of melting down with nearly $6 trillion in mortgages and destroying our economy. On July 14, just before Fannie and Freddie went belly up, the fat bastard said:
    “REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

    They’re in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we’re going to do some things that are going to improve them.”

    And it was Democrats who blocked reform of Fannie and Freddie again in 2006, voting against the reform in every committee and vowing a filibuster. By then it was too late.

    So you’re the moron – and a morally depraved moron at that.

    And btw, it’s going to be Democrats who allow Iran to build a nuclear bomb so they can ramp up their terrorism like we have never seen.


  9. worddreams Says:

    I find it amazing that liberals always resort to insults to prove their point. Could the comment-ors take out ‘dumbass’, ‘moron’, ‘paranoid moron’, ‘Bush’s fault’ (that’s another issue, though), and still make their point.

    Here’s my point: What happens when our enemies do more than smell the stench of weakness? Are the 6-8 foiled terrorist attempts this past week good work on our part or our enemies that they challenge us so aggressively on our home turf?

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    I don’t understand liberal bloggers, worddreams.

    For example, while I frequently go to sites like huffingtonpost and even mediamatters to in my search for information, I have never bothered to comment to any liberal sites. I mean, why bother? I’ve always thought it would be like throwing pearls before swine (used as metaphor, not as insult). We have completely different worldviews, different religious systems, different sources of facts/news. I’ve always believed we have to marshal like-minded people and defeat the left; not argue with them.

    When I first started this blog, all I got was leftist attacking me. Not attacking my arguments/facts; attacking ME. It was a very depressing introduction to blogging.

    I have learned to fight fire with fire. If I get attitude, I give it back. I delete comments with actual profanity (and I get a lot of it), but usually let the lesser names slide.

    I mean, if Obama as president of the United States can use the word “jackass,” then what can you do?

    As to your final paragraph, I find it distressing that not only did we suffer so many attempted attacks, but several of the attackers were actually born in this country.

    If liberals were wise, they would be deeply concerned. They have to know that THEY will be blamed and go down with Obama if we suffer a terrorist attack after Bush kept us safe.

    Whether I like him or not (and it’s ‘not’), I acknowledge Barack Obama as my President. I will support him when he does right, and oppose him when he does wrong. Undermining all the Bush protections that kept us safe was wrong.

    Where I’m most in a bind is in those many areas that Obama demonized Bush policies as a candidate, only to do the EXACT SAME THING when he got into office (domestic eavesdropping, rendition, Patriot Act). On the one hand, we should want him to do the right thing; on the other hand, he should pay for his self-serving hypocrisy and demagoguery.

  11. worddreams Says:

    I wrote a post at from a writer’s perspective (my worddreams blog is about writing) to show how to characterize a believable liberal/democrat character in a novel. I stayed away from the insults that so often pepper liberal/democrat debates, but included the traits I notice in an interview that make it abundantly clear when a liberal is being interviewed. I’m almost never wrong.

    Your post is way too rational, factual, even-handed to be from the pen of a liberal.

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    I read your description of the “liberal” character/characteristics with interest.

    No disagreement – although I would point out that while there are certainly SOME noble-minded liberals as you are describing, there are plenty of extremely self-centered and deeply embittered and cynical liberals out there. Michelle Malkin’s “Culture of Corruption,” for example, presents an overwhelming presentation of dozens of powerful politically-connected liberals who can screw the poor up one side and down the other again and again and again – even as they cynically pretend they’re helping the very people their screwing.

    I view what is happening as a clash of worldviews. As a conservative, I embrace a Judeo-Christian, traditional moral worldview. And I believe that modern liberalism embraces the worldview of Postmodernism. And in that worldview, there ARE no “absolutes,” there IS no “truth,” morality is socially-constructed, and politics, education, and virtually everything else therefore revolves around “the will to power” rather than either truth OR morality.

    It’s a worldview that welcomes incredibly fuzzy thinking, ends-justify-means pragmatism, arguing via rhetoric rather than facts/truth/ethics, identity politics, and pretty much what we’re seeing.

    I have had some major debates with liberals, and allowed them to post their views repeatedly and present their case.

    But most of the time, like you point out, I get insults and rhetoric in stark contrast to ANY kind of appeal to the facts or the truth.

    I believe that – in the “road to hell is paved with good intentions” perspective – that there are plenty of people who can be well-intentioned and at the same time believe/advance terrible things. But so much of the time, I encounter people who think if I disagree with them, I can only be evil. And of course it is very difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone who holds as a major premise that you are evil.

    Good luck on your writing projects!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: