Posts Tagged ‘MacArthur’

The Moral Idiocy Of Obama’s Attitude Toward The Five Taliban Generals: Meet Five ‘Old Men’ Who Won World War II

June 9, 2014

I have been amazed – as I always am when I listen to liberals endlessly recycle stupid, morally idiotic arguments from other liberals – about the meme that the five Taliban generals Obama released to return to killing Americans are somehow “old men” who are “out of the loop” and therefore no threat to the United States.

First of all, allow me to point out that the Defense Department experts Obama himself consulted ALL warned against the trade, likening it to “handing over five four-star generals of the Taliban”:

Senior military officials had advised President Obama not to make the Taliban-for-Bergdahl trade, a senior Defense official told Fox News, likening it to “handing over five four-star generals of the Taliban.”

The claim adds to the picture that is emerging about the tense internal debate over whether to proceed with freeing five hardened Taliban leaders from Guantanamo in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s release.

Sources told Fox News earlier this week that the Obama administration largely bypassed the intelligence community to green-light the swap, after such an exchange was first floated several years ago.

The Defense official, in explaining internal military opposition to the exchange, said many in the military considered Bergdahl to be a traitor — a reference to allegations that he deliberately abandoned his post in 2009.

What we keep being told is that these five Taliban four-star generals are all “old men” who are therefore “has beens.”  How old are they?

Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa was born in 1967.  He’s 47 years old.

Mullah Mohammad Fazl was likewise born in 1967.

Mullah Norullah Noori was born in 1967 and is the apparently popular-with-terrorist-generals age of 47.

Abdul Haq Wasiq was born in 1958, making him a really old fifty-six years old.  Clearly the grandpa of the group of war criminal terrorist murderers.

Mohammad Nabi Omari was born in 1968, making him the baby of the group.  He is 46 years old.

Wow.  These guys were old.  I mean, really, really old, right?  WAY to old to be effective generals, Obama and his cockroach minions assure us.

And yes, these five were an incredibly high price to pay.

Let’s compare them to OUR old “has been” men who defeated the Nazis and the Japanese during World War II.

Meet five men who were ALL older than the OLDEST of the Taliban generals who were released:

Dwight (Ike) Eisenhower, born October 14, 1890: Dwight D. Esienhower was fifty-five years old when he accepted Nazi Germany’s unconditional surrender after leading the Allies to complete victory.  Not bad for an old man who had last fired a shot at the enemy in anger during World War I.

George S. Patton, born November 11, 1885: at the time World War II ended, this particular old, washed-up old man was sixty years old.  He was regarded by the Nazis – somehow in site of his dotage – as the Allies’ very best attacking general.  He was used as bait for the D-Day invasion, as the Germans simply refused to believe that America would sideline its greatest warrior.  And then he ultimately drove a tank division right up Hitler’s whazoo at the Battle of the Bulge when he led the greatest armored counterattack in the entire history of warfare to relieve the critically important garrison at Bastogne.

It’s actually kind of interesting: the man the Nazis considered our very best general also happened to be our very OLDEST general in the European theater.

Omar Bradley, born February 12, 1893: Bradley was fifty-two years old when he got through kicking Adolf Hitler’s ass.

Douglas MacArthur, born 26 January 1880: which makes “the god of war” 65 years-old when he defeated Imperial Japan and brought an end to World War II.  Not bad for such a ridiculously old man.

Again, fascinating: our “god of war” who was our most brilliant military strategist in the Pacific was also our very oldest general in that theater.

Raymond A. Spruance, born July 3, 1886 was fifty-nine years old when he defeated Japan and with MacArthur was most responsible for winning World War II in the Pacific.

So just in case anybody happens to be stupid enough to believe the liberal’s utter bullcrap, guess what: YOU CAN BE OLD AND BE AN AWESOME, AWESOME GENERAL WHO WINS WARS AND DEFEATS ENEMIES, DUMBASS.

And anybody who has the brainlessness to believe that if you’d put these men away for a dozen years and then released them that they’d be of no use to America in the war has to be considered beneath the level of drooling moron.

These five terrorist generals are the very best the enemy had that were in our custody.  Obama – in his desperation for a “photo-op” – literally allowed our enemies to ask for these five BY NAME.  And now they are free to kill Americans for years and years to come.

It turns out that far more important than the trigger pullers who actually fight wars are the old men who know how to recruit, organize, , fund, train and lead the trigger pullers.  And Barack Obama just let the five best generals the Taliban had go free for one low-ranking traitorous deserter turd.

This isn’t a question of whether Obama had the right to do it.  According to the law he signed, he didn’t, HE BROKE THE LAW.  But consider that a president has the “right” to pardon anyone he wants.  So now imagine a president pardoned every single one of the millions of vicious criminals who are in our jails – every murderer, every rapist, every gang member – and put them back on the street to return to their lives of oppressing good people.

What would your response to such an insane act be?

Impeach that worthless president’s ass, that’s what.

The lies straight out of hell that have characterized this whole miserable presidency are amazing.  The same Susan Rice who went to every major Sunday morning political show and lied to the American people as per her master’s instructions did it again when she told us that the deserter Bowe Bergdahl “served with honor and distinction.”  Do you know what an absolute outrage that is?  Do you understand that this administration has literally slandered every single member of Bergdahl’s platoon that did NOT desert and describe themselves as being “ashamed to be an American” and later tell us that they were warriors for Islam.

In practically the same breath she told another lie straight out of the devil’s mouth: she claimed that Bergdahl “was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.”  And no, these demon-possessed liars who want to warp bad people into good people and good people into bad people have so turned their backs on the truth and so turned their backs on justice and so turned their backs on America that it is unreal: Bowe Bergdahl is – and this according to every single member of his platoon or company who have spoken out in any way – an American DESERTER who abandoned his post and his brothers and intentionally sought out the enemy.  That’s what he is.

The Obama administration just told a plain lie about why they refused to notify Congress AS THE LAW REQUIRES OBAMA TO DO.  Obama claimed that it was because Bergdahl was so sick he was just about to die.  Which became a blatantly obvious lie when the turd got out of a truck and walked just fine to the helicopter that took him away.  And the American physicians at the overseas base pronounced him healthy.  Oh, and the “evidence” that Bergdahl was “at death’s door” was contained in a proof-of-life video that Obama had for several months and therefore he had plenty of time to notify Congress as the law requires.  But being Obama, Obama just switched lies.  And explained that, oh, he’d forgotten until just now: there had been a threat to execute Bergdahl if any word got out about the trade.  Only such threat does not exist in any intelligence report.  And since Congress had been notified about the Osama bin Laden raid, they could clearly be trusted to handle this.  Oh, and the only people who should not be trusted with secrets actually turn out to be Obama and his entire administration rather than Congress.

Keep in mind that this is an administration that just blew the cover of its top CIA official in Afghanistan – and they’ve got the elephant balls to point fingers about “leaks”?

It’s this simple: Obama was desperate and determined to get the Veterans Administration scandal that proved the deadly incompetence of socialized medicine once and for all out of the headlines.  And so he came up with the idea of trading a probable traitor for five generals who will kill tens of thousands of people with many of those being Americans.

Obama’s presidency is a disgrace.

You watch that video that the terrorists took of the Bergdahl exchange and you see that it was a masterpiece of propaganda that frankly just shows America for the cowardly disgrace that it is under Obama.  The terrorists are clearly in charge; they’ve got the guns and the US troops sent to pick up the trash (that’s Bergdahl) are weaponless.  Who are the strong?  They are.  Who are the weak?  We are.  They shake the hands of the terrorists, legitimizing them and showing again who is in control (they are) and who is the beggar (that’s us).  They shaved Bergdahl’s beard and figuratively disgraced all Americans as unmanly just like Obama is decidedly unmanly.  They tell Bergdahl not to come back or else they’ll kill him in a warning that is clearly for the entire cowardly United States of America.  And then the whole sorry group of Americans climbs into a helicopter and flies away, a la the last helicopter out of Saigon in the Vietnam War as we bailed out in disgrace.

You must understand: ALL of these things are true about America under Obama.  That’s why an emboldened Putin is seizing territory just like Hitler and Stalin did to launch the world into WWII.  And that’s why Obama is having to go to Asia and to Europe to desperately try to reassure panicking allies who realized they bet on the wrong horse that – all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding – you can count on Obama’s “God damn America” to protect you.  But when you’re constantly having to verbally assert that you’re not weak, it’s only because YOU ARE WEAK.

I’ve been saying this for years: Obama is the worst of Neville Chamberlain, who was an absolute dictator in tyrannously imposing his domestic agenda while being a totally weak little boy in the face of threats such as Hitler.  If Obama treated America’s enemies the way he treats Republicans, he would have emptied America’s nuclear arsenal in strikes by now.

And then of course there’s the jubilant video of the five terrorist generals being welcomed as heroes in Qatar, where they’ll be virtually entirely free to do whatever they want as they live in luxury.  Brothers in arms coming home to heroic welcome, and hey, little Muslim boy, wouldn’t YOU like to be this cool?  Just be a terrorist!  I have no question that the five Taliban four-star generals can and probably already ARE directing more deadly actions against America over the phone, over the Internet, over Skype, etc.

On our end, of course, we had Obama who spiked the football as if he’d actually done something WONDERFUL rather than evil for trading a deserter and probable collaborator for five enemy generals while the war against us still rages.  He has Bergdahl’s father come on so he can praise Allah for the release of his son.  I can only suspect that Obama wanted Allah’s name to be praised but was too much of a coward to do it himself and so did it by proxy.

America has become such a pathetic joke under this president.

I don’t have any doubt at all that Bergdahl – who said he was ashamed to be an American BEFORE he removed his uniform and deserted his unit to collaborate with the enemy – has created a lot more Americans who are ashamed to be Americans.  Because any country that would have a disgrace like Obama lead them and any country that would trade five top generals for one collaborating deserter is a place to be ashamed of, indeed.

Advertisements

Why Fighting For Our Country Under Obama Is Different Than Any Other Time – Except Maybe Vietnam

July 5, 2010

Fighting a war under the command of Barack Obama is very different than fighting under the command of any president who has ever come before.  Up until president #44, commanders-in-chief actually had some degree of trust in the soldiers under their command.  They put them into battle for one reason, summed up by President Ronald Reagan’s statement: “We win, they lose.”  They sent them with commonsensical rules for civilized warfare, and then they gave them the mandate to go out and win.  Today we have a commander-in-chief who would prefer not to talk about actually winning:

I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.”

In order to avoid the potential for some kind of awkward “victory,” our soldiers and Marines are literally unable to shoot when every element of common sense and the entire history of warfare tell them to shoot:

Troops: Strict war rules slow Marjah offensive
By Alfred de Montesquiou and Deb Riechmann – The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Feb 15, 2010 15:08:51 EST

MARJAH, Afghanistan — Some American and Afghan troops say they’re fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

“I understand the reason behind it, but it’s so hard to fight a war like this,” said Marine Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. “They’re using our rules of engagement against us,” he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can’t count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

“This is difficult,” Lance Cpl. Michael Andrejczuk, 20, of Knoxville, Tenn., said Monday. “We are trained like when we see something, we obliterate it. But here, we have to see them and when we do, they don’t have guns.”

That mindset doesn’t just apply to our fighting men on the ground, who are put in a position in which they can’t defend themselves if their enemy flouts Obama’s miserable rules of engagement.  The pilots flying overhead and the artillerymen on surrounding positions are prevented from supporting our soldiers if they get pinned down, too:

Family calls U.S. military goals ‘fuzzy’
Parents of soldier killed last week criticize firepower restrictions

By DENNIS YUSKO, Staff writer
First published in print: Thursday, June 24, 2010

QUEENSBURY — The parents of a Lake George soldier killed in Afghanistan attacked the Obama administration Wednesday for “flower children leadership,” and said they would work to change U.S. rules of military engagement in the nine-year conflict.

Hours before holding a wake for their 27-year-old son in Glens Falls, Bill and Beverly Osborn heavily criticized a military policy implemented last year that places some restrictions on when American troops can use firepower in Afghanistan. The new rules were set when Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal assumed command of the Afghanistan effort, and have reportedly made it harder for troops to call in for or initiate air power, artillery and mortars against the Taliban.

The counterinsurgency policy is intended to reduce civilian casualties and win the allegiance of Afghans, McChrystal had said. But echoing criticisms from the Vietnam era, Bill Osborn said Wednesday that it’s tied the hands of service members on the ground.

“We send our young men and women to spill their blood and we won’t let them do their job,” he said from his Queensbury home. “Winning hearts and minds is wonderful, but first we have to defeat the enemy.”

And then we wonder why Obama doubled the American body count from Bush in 2009, and is now on pace to double his own total (which means four times the Bush 2008 Americans KIA).

We just suffered the highest number of American causalities for a single month in the history of the war.  Mind you, EVERY month becomes the new “deadliest month” under Obama.

From icasualties.org:

For those who are historically ignorant, America firebombed Tokyo and Dresden in World War II.  We didn’t make sure that every single person who could possibly get killed during an attack was a 100%-confirmed “militant” before we sent a wave of death at our enemies.  If we’d resorted to that form of liberal moral stupidity, we would have lost – and the only question would have been how many of us would have ended up speaking German, and how many of us would have ended up speaking Japanese.

Thank God we didn’t have Obama leading us back then.

But our rules of engagement still weren’t getting enough American soldiers killed, so Team Obama came up with a better idea: how about ordering soldiers to go into battle with unloaded weapons? That’s right. Soldiers are now told to wait until they actually start falling down on the ground dead before they can actually be allowed to fumble a round into the chamber.

Fighting a War without Bullets?
by  Chris Carter
05/25/2010

Commanders have ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol with unloaded weapons, according to a source in Afghanistan.

American soldiers in at least one unit have been ordered to conduct patrols without a round chambered in their weapons, an anonymous source stationed at a forward operating base in Afghanistan said in an interview. The source was unsure where the order originated or how many other units were affected.

When a weapon has a loaded magazine, but the safety is on and no round is chambered, the military refers to this condition as “amber status.” Weapons on “red status” are ready to fire—they have a round in the chamber and the safety is off.

The source stated that he had been stationed at the base for only a month, but the amber weapons order was in place since before he arrived. A NATO spokesman could not confirm the information, stating that levels of force are classified.

In other words, our guys can’t prepare their weapons to actually fire until they are already under attack.

Imagine sending our police into a building filled with armed gang members like that.

And you want to know how to win a medal in Obama’s army? Don’t do anything. Certainly don’t actually shoot at the enemy.

Hold fire, earn a medal
By William H. McMichael – Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 12, 2010 15:51:31 EDT

U.S. troops in Afghanistan could soon be awarded a medal for not doing something, a precedent-setting award that would be given for “courageous restraint” for holding fire to save civilian lives.

The proposal is now circulating in the Kabul headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force, a command spokesman confirmed Tuesday.

“The idea is consistent with our approach,” explained Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis. “Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions.”

Soldiers are often recognized for non-combat achievement with decorations such as their service’s commendation medal. But most of the highest U.S. military decorations are for valor in combat. A medal to recognize a conscious effort to avoid a combat action would be unique.

It used to be that the hero was the guy who took on the enemy. Now it’s the guy who crawls into the fetal position and walks away from a battle with an unfired weapon.

We can only wonder what Obama’s version of Audie Murphy will look like.

And Iran sure doesn’t have to worry about Obama shooting at them as they develop their nuclear arsenal so they can cause Armageddon.

About the only thing regarding the military Obama is actually determined to fight for is gay rights. You can bet that the same political weasels who won’t let our soldiers actually shoot at the enemy will fight tooth and nail for the right of homosexual soldiers to be able to buttrape their buddies. Because we don’t have nearly enough gay rape in the military. That’s going to be the new meaning to “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Don’t tell, because that homosexual is the new protected class.

And if all of the above doesn’t beat all, you probably don’t want to hear about the fact that Obama’s timetable for a cut-and-run had nothing whatsoever about satisfying military issues and everything about satisfying political ones within Obama’s radical leftwing base.  The military wasn’t even consulted, according to General David Petraeus:

McCain: “General, at any time during the deliberations that the military shared with the President when he went through the decision-making process, was there a recommendation from you or anyone in the military that we set a date of July 2011?”

Petraeus: “Uh, there was not.”

McCain: “There was not – by any military person that you know of?”

Petraeus: “Not that I’m aware of.”

Nobody knows what the hell is going on over there.  Are we going to stay and fight?  Or cut and run?  Most of the Obama administration is saying that we are most definitely going to cut and run in July 2011.  Take Vice President Biden, who says, “In July of 2011 you’re going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it.”  All Obama will say is that “We didn’t say we’d be switching off the lights and closing the door behind us.” which isn’t really saying anything.

All the money is on a pullout, as Obama cuts and runs.  The Afghan people know that, know that the Taliban will soon be their landlords, and aren’t about to risk any kind of meaningful alliance with America that would be necessary to actually winning over there.

Do you remember FDR telling Churchill, “I’ll give you a year, and then we’re running with our tail between our legs where it belongs”???

If it’s a war worth fighting, it is a war worth sticking around to fight.

We will win when we allow our fighting men to fight.  And not until then.

If you wonder whether Afghanistan is going to become like Vietnam, stop wondering: it already has.  Because we’re fighting Afghanistan the same way we fought Vietnam – with the mindset of putting our troops in danger while simultaneously preventing them from securing victory.

Afghanistan and Iran: Weakling President Obama Confronted By ‘Strong’ Candidate Obama

September 28, 2009

Anne Bayefsky yesterday characterized Obama’s foreign policy as “the mouse who roared.”

Words don’t mean anything unless a leader has the character, integrity, courage, and resolve to stand behind them.

In July 15, 2008, candidate Obama roared regarding Afghanistan:

I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That’s what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month,” Obama proclaimed in a major foreign policy address on July 15, 2008. “And that’s why, as president, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.”

In March 27, 2009, President Obama roared:

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.

But now, just six months later, Obama is hiding from his generals and refusing to even LOOK AT his own General’s (Gen. Stanley McChrystal) troop request which will be necessary to carry out Obama’s own strategy.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Obama doesn’t even want to look at it yet.

Here’s the current situation:

Within 24 hours of the leak of the Afghanistan assessment to The Washington Post, General Stanley McChrystal’s team fired its second shot across the bow of the Obama administration. According to McClatchy, military officers close to General McChrystal said he is prepared to resign if he isn’t given sufficient resources (read “troops”) to implement a change of direction in Afghanistan:

“Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn’t ready for it.”

Here’s the current situation:

In interviews with McClatchy last week, military officials and other advocates of escalation expressed their frustration at what they consider “dithering” from the White House. Then, while Obama indicated in television interviews Sunday he isn’t ready to consider whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, someone gave The Washington Post a classified Pentagon report arguing more troops are necessary to prevent defeat.

Here’s the current situation:

Those officials said that taking time could be costly because the U.S. risked losing the Afghans’ support. “Dithering is just as destructive as 10 car bombs,” the senior official in Kabul said. “They have seen us leave before. They are really good at picking the right side to ally with.”

The roaring mouse has been replaced by a timid, weak, pandering, patronizing, appeasing – and most certainly DITHERING – president.

Bush used to talk to his troop commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq every week; Obama has spoken JUST ONCE with Gen. McChrystal in the last seventy days.

Obama has spent more time talking with David Letterman than he has his key general in Afghanistan!!!

Clear implication to McChrystal: Talk to the hand.

A recent article entitled, “Pentagon worried about Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan” ended with this assessment from a senior Pentagon official:

“I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier.  We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war.”

Which answers the question as to why our troops so overwhelmingly supported Bush, and sat on their hands when their new commander-in-chief addressed them.

Charles Krauthammer points out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what the Democrats themselves said:

Bob Shrum, who was a high political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war” and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq.In retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading. Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war. It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but stuck.

And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in conjunction with Afghanistan.

And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no way out.

Reminds me of Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who said, “I believe myself that … this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything.”  Reminds me of Democrat House Majority Whip James Clyburn openly acknowledging the fact that good news for American troops in Iraq would actually be bad news for Democrats.

The party of cut-and-run is already preparing to cutand run.  On the war they said we needed to fight and win in their campaign rhetoric.

By the way, Obama’s refusal to use the word “victory” is right here.  Nearly a year to the day after Obama said “This is a war we need to win,” Obama said (you can go here for the interview):

I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.

Well, first of all, Obama is factually wrong in his history: Hirohito didn’t sign the surrender to MacArthur.  Secondly, he is utterly morally wrong in his foreign policy.

Let’s compare Obama’s refusal to pursue victory with the strategic vision of a great president:

“Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.” – Ronald Reagan

Reagan’s America: winner; Obama’s America: loser.

Let’s turn now to Obama’s abject failure in Iran.

In his April 16th, 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama roared:

“I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

But he did nothing.  NOTHING.  And now Iran already has them at their whim.

And  in The Jerusalem Post, we get a picture of the REAL Obama:

The Iranians have already called Obama’s bluff. An Iranian newspaper referred to the American agenda on July 26 this way: “[T]he Obama administration is prepared to accept the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran… They have no long-term plan for dealing with Iran… Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”

Obama had a historic opportunity at the United Nations gathering: he was the first American president EVER to serve as the chair of the UN Security Council.  He had the power to shape the agenda, and confront Iran over its now overwhelmingly clear nuclear weapons program.

He pissed his opportunity away, and drove NOTHING.

Anne Bayefsky described how Obama utterly failed to force any kind of showdown with Iran – even when the opportunity was literally handed to him.  She concludes by saying, “There is only one possible answer: President Obama does not have the political will to do what it takes to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb.”

Remember that pandering, appeasing, pathetic weakness when Iran gets the bomb and the ballistic missile system to deliver it.  Remember that when they launch wave after wave of terror attack with impunity.  Remember that when they shut down the Strait of Hormuz and send the price of gasoline skyrocketing to $15 a gallon.

As for Israel?

Only a brain-dead and witless minority of 4% of Israelis believe Obama hasn’t sold them down the river; by contrast, 88% of Israelis believed Bush was pro-Israel.

Hearkening back to the Carter Administration which Obama’s frighteningly resembles, Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wants to make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.

Apparently, Saudi Arabia is a better friend of Israel than the United States.

I believe God will supernaturally protect Israel when they are attacked by an enemy that will be emboldened because of American abandonment of Israel and a perception of American weakness.

Alas, America won’t be so fortunate.

I had crystal clear clarity when I heard that Barack Obama’s pastor of 23 years shouted:

“No, no, no!  Not God bless America, God damn America!”

And Barack Obama’s incredibly weak and pandering response was that:

Rev. Wright “is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.”

I believe that God WILL damn America under this President.  And I believe that that damnation has already began.