Posts Tagged ‘Neville Chamberlain’

Neville Chamberlain Strategy: Obama Fighting WWII All Over Again By Giving Up Czechoslovakia (Georgia) And Then Poland (Ukraine)

March 25, 2014

Was Russia’s seizure of Ukraine’s territory (Crimea) a big deal?

The NATO Secretary-General thinks it is:

(CNSNews.com) – Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine and annexation of its Crimea region is “the most serious security crisis since the end of the Cold War,” NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday.

“We have seen Russia rip up the international rule book,” Rasmussen told an audience at Georgetown University in Washington DC. “Trying to redraw the map of Europe, and creating in just a few weeks the most serious security crisis since the end of the Cold War.”

The only real country left in Europe thinks that it is:

The Ukraine crisis is the worst in Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall and diplomacy is now essential to avoid military escalation, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on Monday.

Russia’s intervention means “the threat of a division of Europe is real again,” Steinmeier said as he arrived for an emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers.

This ought to be a much worse crisis – and a much bigger deal – than it actually is: because the fact of the matter is that we signed a treaty to protect Ukraine and to keep this very thing from happening.  And we are more obviously weaker now than we have ever been now that we have dishonored ourselves by abandoning our commitment.

Every nation on earth will start to scramble to acquire nuclear weapons to protect their borders and there will be NOTHING we can do to persuade them to give up those weapons.  Because we have now proven that our word is no good and we will ultimately renege on whatever we promise we’re going to do.

This is a crisis that will continue to build and build long after Ukraine leaves the media’s ADD-style attention span.  You know, while the mainstream liberal media is micro-fixated on that Malaysian airliner that nobody has any idea whatsoever happened to.

But please don’t think Barack Obama did anything stupid while all this was going on: he still spent his usual countless hours formulating his NCAA brackets.

Of course the same Democrats who had demonized George Bush just for playing golf while there was a war going on only to hypocritically shrug their shoulders while Barack Obama has played more than seven times more golf than Bush did (164 rounds compared to Bush’s 24).

I noted in my obtaining of the above facts on presidential golf that the U.S. media that criticized Bush so heavily for golfing have been strangely silent about Obama’s “love for the game.”  It has been the FOREIGN media that has attacked Obama for his golfing as the classic evidence of an absentee president who fiddles around on the golf course while the world is burning.

When we compare Vladimir Putin to Barack Obama we get a bare-chested man riding a stallion compared to a weasel-thin, dumbo-eared metrosexual riding a bicycle while wearing mom jeans and a geeky helmet.

And don’t think the world – and particularly all of our enemies – haven’t noticed what the man who has gutted the American military is: weak.

I have on numerous occasions compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain.  Chamberlain was, like Obama, a ruthless tyrant when it came to domestic policy.  Because of the power of his office, he could simply dictate.  And dictate he did.

But when it came to dealing with aggressive and even hostile foreign governments, the world sat in stunned horror as Chamberlain proved himself to be an empty suit.  He couldn’t dictate to Hitler with an executive order.  So he did nothing while Hitler grew stronger and stronger and bolder and bolder and more and more aggressive.  Until it took a war to stop him.

That’s where we’re at now.

Democrats want to tell us that Putin invaded Georgia and seized their territory when Bush was president.  And that is true.  But please consider two things that make that meaningless: 1) George Bush TRIED to avert the Russian seizure of Georgia in April of 2008 when he proposed that Georgia AND UKRAINE be allowed into NATO.  That move would have stopped Putin dead in his tracks.  Don’t tell me that Bush didn’t wisely see what completely blindsided Obama coming.  But weak, cowardly, gutless liberalism is weak, cowardly, gutless liberalism both here and in Europe.  And liberals wouldn’t tolerate such a “provocative move.”  Oh, no.  The spirit of Obama is the spirit of weakness and appeasement.  If we bare our throats and demonstrate to our enemies by our nakedness that we are not a threat, their reasoning goes, we will avert war and live in a Utopia of peace and harmony.  You’re seeing more of the same as we speak with Obama’s giveaway of the internet to countries that are hostile to us.  And 2) Putin seized Georgia with less than three months left in Bush’s presidency – and you tell me if you have any honesty whatsoever what Democrats would have done had Bush moved aggressively to respond to Putin after Obama and Democrats had spent basically eight years demonizing him as a warmonger.

What was Obama’s response to Putin over Georgia once he got into office?  Did he stand up to Putin?  Did he push for the rest of Georgia not yet seized and Ukraine that had not yet had its territory seized to become part of NATO like Bush had done?  Nope.  He was pretty good at spending time with his NCAA brackets between rounds of golf then, too.

Bush TRIED to solve the problem in Georgia and Ukraine before either happened.  What did Obama do???

In fact what Obama did was issue his infamous “reset” button with Russia.  He and Hillary Clinton, being as incompetent as they are morally stupid, botched that horribly, of course.  But it sent a crystal-clear message to Putin: America under Obama is weak.  They will let me get away with murder.  And so murder I will.

More evidence (and more conservatives who saw Putin’s aggression coming): Sarah Palin:

Remember what a bimbo the mainstream media made Sarah Palin out to be (remember, it’s OKAY to trivialize a woman as long as it’s liberals doing it to a conservative).

But in 2008, Sarah Palin predicted something in which she turned out to be right and every liberal on earth turned out to be a morally idiotic jackass.

She predicted that if coward and fool Barack Obama were elected president, it would embolden Russia into invading Ukraine given the kind of idiocy and naïve weakness he displayed when Putin invaded Georgia:

“After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

Of course, the mainstream media savaged her for that.  What else is their mission if not a fools’ mission???

And Mitt Romney:

In their third presidential debate, President Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney when he said that Russia remained a threat to the United States. Here’s what Obama said in the debate:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al-Qaida’s a threat because a few months ago when you were asked, what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia — not al-Qaida, you said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

But, Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. You say that you’re not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq, but just a few weeks ago you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now.“And the — the challenge we have — I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong.”

Here’s how Mitt Romney responded. Notice how Obama tries to cut Romney off before he can make his point:

MR. ROMNEY: I’ll respond to a couple of the things you mentioned. First of all, Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe, not —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Number one —

MR. ROMNEY: Excuse me. It’s a geopolitical foe. And I said in the same . . . paragraph, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin, and I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election he’ll get more backbone.

Mitt Romney didn’t have “rose-colored glasses” when it came to Russia and Putin.  History records that Barack Obama had the most asinine-looking rose-colored glasses ever devised when it came to them.  And Democrats have the naked dishonesty to stupidly try to argue that nobody could have seen Putin’s seizure of Ukraine coming.

And, oh, yeah, that “flexibility” thing.  Remember that?

How did I title my article on that one?  “Traitor-in-Chief Barack Obama Caught Red-Handed On Tape Playing Naked Politics With Critical National Security

Obama’s open-mic moment with Russia:

Obama: This is my last election…After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir

And what do we have now?  The “worst crisis since the end of the Cold War” being played out after Obama has “more flexibility” to appease our enemy whom Obama went very much on the record to say was NOT our enemy at all.

How “flexible” are you feeling now, I wonder, Obama, you jackass?

So here’s the deal now that Obama has pulled America’s pants down and bent over for Russia and begged to have our national security and our prestige butt-raped: just like in World War II, we’re going to have to fight a world war to get our prestige that our weak, cowardly, gutless puke pissed away.

Obama’s “strategy” – if you could call his doing nothing a “strategy” – is this: where the world became outraged after Hitler’s second violation of a sovereign nation, what if instead of fighting the world had done NOTHING?  What if we’d just allowed Hitler to have what he wanted and not do anything about it?

You see, THAT’S “peace” to a liberal.  There is no war because we won’t fight.  No matter what.  And no matter what Hitler – or Putin – or any other thug does, we won’t fight.  So we have “peace.”

Here’s the really funny thing about this: I’ve been reading liberals’ op-eds on this Russia-Ukraine thing, and the consistent theme is that Republicans don’t really have a solution now, either.  So you can’t blame Obama for being weak because Republicans don’t want to go to war, either.

DAMN THESE PEOPLE ARE PATHOLOGICALLY DISHONEST.

Here’s the simple fact: as I already documented above, the “Republican response” would have begun going on six years ago back when we truly could have DONE something short of going to world war three.  The “Republican response” would have began with Sarah Palin’s wisdom – and then after that Mitt Romney’s wisdom – that Russia and Putin were true threats.  Which is something our failed Disgrace-in-Chief STILL doesn’t understand.

The “Republican response” would have been NOT to gut America’s military so that we are clearly too damn weak to do a damn thing about much of anything.  That probably would have stopped Putin right there.

The “Republican response” would have been to follow through on what Bush started and LEAD by insisting that Georgia and Ukraine become protected by NATO membership.  That DEFINITELY would have stopped Putin.

We never would have BEEN in this situation had there actually been a “Republican response.”

There comes a point when idiots have so destroyed something that it cannot be made right again.  And don’t try “spin” reality such that Republicans who CLEARLY saw this disaster coming and SAID it was coming wouldn’t have done anything different to avert it.

Now the same media that literally mocked Sarah Palin for seeing the Russian threat and mocked Mitt Romney for “stealing a [functioning] national security policy from the 1980s is dishonestly trying to say that Republicans should have to fix the world that Obama has damn-near singlehandedly broken beyond repair.

Remember Obama boasting of how he would restore America’s prestige?  Where is it now after Obama has repeatedly issued “red line” warnings and then done NOTHING and countries like Russia push us around like we’re the pussies that we have become under Obama?

It aint over.  Putin gave a speech justifying what he did in Crimea by talking about his duty to protect ethnic Russians wherever they may be.  And the thing is that following the collapse of the former Soviet Union – whose territory Putin wants to reclaim for Mother Russia – there are “ethnic Russians” all OVER the place.

Putin gave himself the carte blanche right to invade and seize virtually every single country in eastern Europe.

And now he’s massing Russian troops in a very possible move to invade Ukraine and seize the rest of it.

And Obama has already promised that there is no possible way that he will respond militarily.  Because he is a weak and stupid man who lays all his cards down on the table to make sure his enemies know his vulnerabilities in advance.

You wonder what Hitler would have done had Neville Chamberlain said, “Do whatever you want.  I won’t stop you.”  Probably nothing good.

Here’s one on that: Vladimir Putin has built his new hegemony primarily upon his exporting of Russian oil and natural gas and his ability to shut the tap on any European state that would oppose him.  What has Barack Obama done to counter this hegemony?  Has he promised to increase American oil and natural gas exports and essentially taken Putin’s power away without firing a shot?  That would counter his “oil is evil” philosophy, wouldn’t it?  And so while Putin is lording it over Europe and Europe is cowed into refusing to go along with any tough sanctions against Russia as a consequence, Obama STILL won’t allow the Keystone oil pipeline which he has kept shut down for YEARS.

This isn’t even about going to war – although Obama was nothing short of a FOOL to simply take war completely off the table and signal Putin his abject weakness in advance – it’s about simple reality and Obama’s inability to understand it.  OIL IS REALITY; Obama’s alternative energy is magical unicorn fairy dust.  Obama’s refusal to harness reality makes him a weak fool.

Meanwhile, China, which like Russia and very much unlike America has also been strengthening its military, ALSO has territorial ambitions.  Because weakness is the ultimate provocation.

And like Russia, they know we will do NOTHING.

World War II was the result of European and American weakness.  World War III will result from the same liberal weakness in Europe and America.

And you can lay the blame for that coming global war ENTIRELY on Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s feat.

A nation that allows tyrants to become emboldened has a death wish.  And America proved that it has a death wish when it stupidly elected and then even more stupidly re-elected Barack Obama.

I have long marveled at the precision of Bible prophecy in the last days.  The Bible rightly predicted that Israel would miraculously and against all odds be regathered as a nation.  It foresaw the rise of Russia as a world power which it had never been in history.  It described a last days confederation of countries led by Russia and Iran (Persia) that EXACTLY matches the Islamic states relative to their enmity to Israel today.  It anticipated the coming together of a European union which had never in history happened.  It knew that one day China and the kings of the east would be able to assemble an army of 200 million soldiers when at the time the prophecy was given there weren’t two-hundred million human beings on the entire planet.

The Bible prophecies all of these things and many, many others which have come to pass in these the last days of human history before the coming of the Beast.

But it never once mentions America.

That used to bother me greatly: how could it be that the mightiest nation in the history of the world isn’t even mentioned in Bible prophecy?

The answer is terrifying: the United States isn’t mentioned because it either won’t exist at all – having catastrophically imploded – or it will be so weak and so irrelevant that it won’t matter at all in the last days.

When you voted for “God damn America,” you voted to go extinct like the Dodo bird.

In the end, a leader will come in fulfillment of every Democrat’s and every liberal’s and every socialist’s fondest dreams.  His government will so take over the world that literally no one will be able to buy or sell anything without the government’s approval.  He will promise a Utopia but deliver the whole world into hell on earth.

And Barack Obama – along with the Democrat Party and everyone who supports them - is his useful idiot.

You won’t be able to stop him politically because Democrats and liberals all over the world will vote for him.  You won’t be able to fight him because liberals will take away all of your guns.

The coming of Antichrist and his mark of the beast didn’t have to happen, but the God who knows the end from the beginning knew 2,000 years ago – knew in fact before the foundation of the world – that the terminal generation of Americans would be a stupid and depraved one.

 

 

Great General Leaving Afghanistan So Fool President Can Be The Weakling His Leftist Base Demands

February 16, 2011

Here’s a stunner: did you think Afghanistan was going badly?  It’s about to get a LOT worse.  Because yet another top general under Obama – and probably the greatest field commander of this generation - is on his way out:

Gen. David Petraeus, the most celebrated American soldier of his generation, is to leave his post as commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, The (London) Times reported Tuesday.

The Times reported that the Pentagon aims to replace Petraeus, who was appointed less than eight months ago, by the end of the year.

Sources have confirmed that the search for a new commander in Kabul is under way. It forms part of a sweeping reorganization of top American officials in Afghanistan, which the Obama administration hopes to present as proof that its strategy does not depend on the towering reputation of one man.

[...]

Many of the moves are expected to coincide with a reduction in US troop numbers, which Obama has promised will start this summer, despite General Petraeus’s objections.

The news that the general himself would be leaving Kabul stunned close observers of US strategy, but the Pentagon insisted Tuesday it was a natural development, given the demands of running the war and Washington’s need for fresh blood in a crucial role.

“This is a heck of a demanding job,” Morrell said of General Petraeus’s central task of driving the Taliban from its strongholds in southern Afghanistan, which US commanders now claim is almost complete. “He will have to be rotated out at some point.”

Nothing to see here, folks.  Please return to your hovels at once.

You remember General Patton, of course, and how he was always whining about the all the stress and how he didn’t want to fight and all he wanted to do was go home.  Happens all the time.

You get to see the REAL REASON for this departure via Reuters:

The question is what this move, if confirmed, would mean for policy.  Petraeus, more than anyone else, has been identified with the intensified military campaign in Afghanistan which, according to critics of the policy,  has reduced prospects of a political settlement by alienating Taliban leaders who might otherwise be coaxed into peace talks

Petraeus has been a towering figure in Washington and difficult to challenge politically. He had what was seen in the United States as a good track record in Iraq. And he was backed by Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — making it very hard for those within the U.S. administration who disagreed with his assessment to win President Barack Obama over to their point of view. 

Moreover, Obama had already sacked two generals — Generals David McKiernan and Stanley McChrystal — and could hardly dismiss a third. (If I remember rightly — and no doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong — no president since Abraham Lincoln has changed his generals so frequently in wartime.) Promoting Petraeus would be far easier.

His departure, especially with Gates on his way out, could create the space for Obama to recalibrate Afghan strategy, backing away from the military surge and focusing more on a political settlement - if he wants to do so.

Appeasement will work.  It has always worked before.  The best thing you can do is ignore the fact of history that weakness is a provocation and appease, appease, appease your enemy.

If it hadn’t been for Neville Chamberlain and his highly succesful policy of appeasement, it’s difficult to imagine how the world would not have erupted into war in 1939.  Thank the all powerful state that we listened to weakness and gave up Poland and Czechoslovakia to Hitler and gave up Manchuria and China to Tojo.  Strengthening our enemies by giving them land and materials while becoming weaker ourselves is invariably a certain path to peace and prosperity.

I’ll stop.  Pathetically ignorant and naive weakling moral idiot liberals will probably actually think I’m being serious.

It is stunning what an embarassment and what a disgrace the first community agitator ever to become president has been for this country.

Remember how Obama predicted Iraq would be a failure and said the surge strategy wouldn’t work?

The Fool-in-Chief said back when he was just another fool liberal US Senator:

January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

But, of course, George Bush was right about Iraq and about the surge; Obama was the totally wrong moron he still is.  And in fact Iraq went so well that soon after Bush left office the Obama administration was crowing:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

You can see those and other statements from Obama in article documenting just what a cynical and manipulative liar this appeasing weakling truly is.

One of the many ways you can see how loathsome liberals are is their hypocritical turnabout on General David Petraeus himself.  Or should I say, “General Betray Us?”

As we get ready for Obama to show his liberal spots and cut-and-run as anyone not a moron always said Obama would do, consider that the same heroic General Petraeus who had previously been lambasted as General Betray Us simply because he commanded troops and fought for his country while a Republican was president essentially said that Obama’s 2011 cut-and-run timetable was merely a political decision.

And let’s not forget how Obama not only demonized the war in Iraq that Bush won only to claim credit for Bush’s victory, but also how Obama made Afghanistan “the good war.”  And allow me at the same time to take a trip down “I told you so” lane:

Charles Krauthammer pointed 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.

Afghanistan was just a way to demagogue Bush in Iraq by describing Afghanistan – where Obama is failing so badly – as “the good war” and Iraq – where Bush won so triumphantly – as “the bad war.”  It was beyond cynical; it was flat-out treasonous.

George Bush selected Iraq as his central front for sound strategic reason.  Iraq had a despotic tyrant who supported terrorism.  Saddam Hussein needed to be removed to mount any kind of successful peace effort in the Middle East.  Iraq is located in the heart of the Arab/Islamic world.  It has an educated population relative to the rest of the region.  It also offered precisely the type of terrain that would allow American forces to implement their massive military superiority in a way that mountainous, cave-ridden Afghanistan would not.

Bush was determined to fight a war where he could win.  Obama foolishly trapped us in a war that would bleed us.  Why?  For no other reason than pure political demagoguery.  And he needs to be held accountable.

And where are we now under Obama’s failed leadership???

An 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.”

See my piece from last year predicting this failure.  Read that article and explain to me where I was wrong, liberals.  I dare you.

I’m still waiting, you pathetic liberal vermin.

Bush won in Iraq; he changed the entire dynamic in the Middle East.  And if anything is contributing toward the movement toward democracy in the Middle East, it is the fact that George W. Bush built a democracy in the very heart of the Arab and Muslim world.  Barack Obama demanded that we fight in Afghanistan – where Bush had essentially mounted a containing operation because Afghanistan is and always has been the grave yard of empires.  And he has been losing there miserably ever since he dramatically and massively escalated the war there.

Obama insisted that we cut-and-run where we could win; and he demanded that we fight to the bitter end where we would bog down.

I’ve tried to explain that to liberals.  But better to teach physics to my dog than common sense to a liberal.  Iraq was perfect terrain for the US to mount a successful military operation; and Afghanistan is the worst terrain imaginable for our tactics while serving as the best terrain imaginable for the guerrila tactics of the Taliban.  You ever try to drive a tank up a mountain or fly a gunship into a cave?  Bush succeeded in Iraq largely because he wasn’t a fool and fought in the right geography.  Obama is losing in Afganistan because he’s a fool.  Plain and simple.

Look at the casualties in Afghanistan: Obama more than doubled the 2008 casualties in Afghanistan under Bush in his first year.  And then he took that figure that he doubled from Bush and increased it by over 57% his next year as Failure-in-Chief.

And now here we are in “preparation-t0-cut-and-run” mode after Obama utterly failed.

And we now already know that the whole war fiasco was nothing but cynical politics from the get-go for Obama:

… the president decided to set a timetable for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan because, he said, “I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”

And liberals are the kind of scum – and “scum” is if anything to weak of a word – who continue to denounce Bush’s victory even as they cheer Obama for first losing and then cutting and running in defeat and disgrace.

Cynicism piled on top of more cynicism.  A sauce of weakness poured over that.  And then – like the cherry – appeasement on top.

Obama will almost certainly offer General Petraeus the Chairman of the JCS position.  I hope General Petraeus turns him down and resigns.  But General Petraeus will likely believe that he’s better serving his country by taking the top military position.

Here’s why I believe he’s wrong to do so, and NOT serving the country’s interests at all.  Suppose you are a master mechanic and you take a job at a repair shop.  I’m the owner of the shop, and I am a total disgrace who is determined to screw the customers and ruin their cars.  You take the job because you think you can at least mitigate the disaster I create.  But can you, if you’re carrying out my orders?  You’re going to end up doing nothing more than assisting me while I screw the customers and ruin their cars.  If you REALLY want to help the customers, your best bet is to quit and then blow the whistle on all the harm I’m causing.

And that’s what General Petraeus should do.

Most generals don’t want to do that.  They don’t want to make that unfamiliar transition from military strategy to political policy.  But as long as General Petraeus continues to serve a fool, he’s only going to end up implementing foolish and unworkable policies.

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 Foreign Policy: Weakness Is As Weakness Does

May 24, 2010

I really liked the Flopping Aces title (which appears below) better.  But I had to come up with something different.

Forrest Gump came up with a more fitting line, too.  But that one would have been reduplicative, too.

So I combined the two together.

Obama foreign policy: weakness through weakness
Posted by: DrJohn

On March 26, in what was clearly an act of war, a North Korean torpedo sank a south Korean ship, killing 46 sailors. The Obama administration reacted by expressing a strong amount of “caution.” Two months later, Hillary Clinton finally got around to calling the situation “highly precarious.” The Obama administration supported South Korea’s move to cut trade with North Korea but then made clear it was afraid – afraid of pissing off North Korea:

“We are working hard to avoid an escalation of belligerence and provocation,”

This has become the hallmark of Obama foreign policy. Hillary Clinton has become Neville Chamberlain. I expect to hear that she’s gotten a “Peace with honour” accord with North Korea that will include a bundle of concessions. The US has been frustrated at the hands of the North Koreans before. A quick search for “North Korea reneges” yields 29,700 hits. But it’s not just North Korea. It seems to be the official policy of the Obama administration to have its ass kicked over and over and over.

Obama unilaterally decided to drop a plan for missile defense for Eastern Europe. Obama hoped to get support for sanctions against Iran in return without any commitment from Russia.

Obama’s climb down is likely to be seen by Russia as a victory for its uncompromising stance.

Today, however, analysts pointed out the decision would help Obama secure Moscow’s co-operation on a possible new sanctions package against Iran and would further his desire to “reset” relations with Moscow following a dismal period under the Bush administration.

How did that work out? Not so well:

Brazil, China, Russia: No To Iranian Sanctions

So what does one do when this approach fails? Why, you keep repeating it if you’re Obama.

Iran has been thumbing its nose at the US continuously. During the Presidential campaign Obama asserted that the world must keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What does Obama do?

“Weakness Through Weakness.”  That about sums it up.

The fit is soon truly going to hit the shan, and we will have the greatest appeaser since Neville Chamberlain running the show when it happens.

Jimmy Carter is thrilled that he is no longer the biggest disgrace the White House has ever seen, and Neville Chamberlain is sitting up in his grave in expectation that his own title of “World’s Worst Appeasing Weakling” will soon be given to a better useful idiot, as well.

When Iran obtains its nuclear weapons, no one outside of Iran will be more responsible than Barack Obama and the Democrat Party:

From the Los Angeles Times:

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

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.

George Bush TRIED to confront Iran over its nuclear weapons program several years ago.  And Democrats said, “NO WAY!  WE ARE WEAKLINGS, WE ARE COWARDS, WE ARE APPEASERS, AND WE WILL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO THWART AND UNDERMINE YOU, AND TURN A GROWING DANGER INTO A FUTURE WORLD WAR III.”

What did now-Vice President Joe Biden say?

“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?”

And what did now-President Barack Obama say?

Obama … also drew parallels to the Iraq war buildup.

What I’ve been consistent about was that this saber-rattling was a repetition of Iraq, a war I opposed, and that we needed to oppose George Bush again,” Obama said. “We can’t keep on giving him the benefit of the doubt, knowing the ways in which they manipulate intelligence.”

To put it in terms of Obama’s own rhetoric, we SHOULD have given Bush the benefit of the doubt.  Because Obama was entirely dead wrong and Bush was completely dead right.

Remember that policy of engagement and consensus-building that has gotten absolutely nowhere while Iran has raced toward a nuclear bomb?

And where has that got us?

Washington Times headline from March 2010:

CIA: Iran capable of producing nukes

Now we know, in light of an ominously developing history, that Democrats were complete idiots and demagogues who were weak and appeasing and utterly unwilling to face a clear and growing danger.

And who was on the right side?

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.

We were fools in 2008.  We elected a fool to the White House.  We put fools in charge of Congress.  And now we are on the verge of paying a terrible price for our foolishness.

Nobody knows what North Korea is going to do.  They are frankly nuts.  They have openly threatened war over anyone trying to call them out for initiating what is clearly a clear act of war.

And Iran?  They are possibly even more nuts.  They’re not just paranoid isolationists with their twitching fingers poised over the nuclear button; they are crazed religious lunatics who believe that starting World War III will force their beloved Twelfth Imam to reveal himself and lead the whole world to conversion to Islam.

At the very, very least, if we’re really lucky, all Iran will do is finance and foment international terrorism and attack us with nuclear-armed impunity.  If we’re kind of lucky, Iran will block the Strait of Hormuz and send gasoline prices soaring to $14/gallon until we prostrate ourselves and provide a suitable package of concessions.  If we’re not too lucky, Iran will launch a conventional attack against Israel along with a host of Muslim allies.  And if we’re quite unlucky, Iran will initiate World War III by launching a full-scale nuclear attack.

And we can thank Barack Hussein Obama that his policy of “weakness through weakness” is bringing us ever closer to the red fangs of an insane global war, just as Neville Chamberlain’s policy did before him during the 1930s.

Saudi Source Says Obama Willing To Give Afghanistan To Taliban For Quiet

November 23, 2009

Back in May of 2008, I wrote about the danger of appeasement that the election of a liberal Democrat to the presidency posed.

The trend of American casualties had been increasing, without question, but we have NEVER seen the kind of DOUBLING of fatalities (we’re now at 293 American fatalities, versus 155 last year, with more than a month to go) that we are seeing now under Obama’s leadership.  That’s because the Taliban and the terrorists now know that we have a dithering, indecisive, vacillating and appeasing weakling in the White House whom they will be able to push around.

And apparently their piling on is paying off big as “the leader of the free world” cringes before them.

This story is only coming from a single source in Saudi Arabia, but, if true, it means we’re at Neville Chamberlain’s level of disgusting appeasement in exchange for a psuedo “peace in our time” all over again.

Afghan Source: The U.S. Has Offered the Taliban Control in Return for Quiet

An Afghan source in Kabul reports that U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is holding secret talks with Taliban elements headed by the movement’s foreign minister, Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, the U.S. has offered the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.

Source: Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), November 22, 2009

Even going back to April of last year, the Democrat presidential debates displayed a frightening ignorance of history, which would invariably lead to appeasement and – following the pattern, more demanding and stubborn enemies who sensed our weakness -  if their policies were ever implemented:

As a student of history, I remember the abject failure of the Western allies to grasp the growing threat of their enemies throughout the 1930s. I remember the refusal of the liberal governments of the Allied powers to comprehend what are now known to have been fundamental realities of naked aggression and looming war. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain abandoned his country’s commitment to Czechoslovakia with a promise from Hitler of peace. The liberal, “anti-war” Chamberlain returned home saying, “I believe it is peace in our time!” Chamberlain saw Britain’s policy as a willingness to compromise and a desire for peace. But Hitler saw only weakness, hesitation, and cowardice, and became emboldened for total war. Again and again, the West had had an opportunity to demonstrate its genuine resolve to Hitler, and again and again the West had failed to stand.

In our present day, the Democratic Party has demonstrated a shocking degree of treachery in regard to Iraq. It is their war as much as it is Republicans’ war – because it should be America’s war.

History repeats itself because we keep putting the same sort of moral cowards in power.

Note that I was referring to Iraq, rather than Afghanistan, in my above warning.  Why?  Because the Democrats were talking tough about Afghanistan, even as they talked about walking away from Iraq.  Who could have known that a Democrat would so violate his own promises and be so shockingly weak in a war that he himself said was a “must win”? I fully believed that Barack Obama would be a weakling and an appeaser in office; but I simply had no idea that he would be as pathetically weak as he has actually revealed himself to be.

Thankfully, George Bush’s surge strategy in Iraq worked – and worked so well that even Obama’s weakness hasn’t been able to turn the success in Iraq around.  Barack Obama opposed that strategy and said it would fail.  And when he was proven wrong, this weakling and coward merely deleted his wrong, deceitful, and malicious prediction from his web site.

Obama’s dithering (and that’s the term Pentagon officials used, rather than merely Dick Cheney, btw), have 1) emboldened the enemy, 2) undermined American troop morale, 3) undermined the confidence of the military that Barack Obama will remain true to his commitment, and 4) weakened the people of Afghanistan’s trust for us all at once.

The last is the worse: the months that Obama has spent cravenly dithering while the resurgent Taliban have spread their control has forced the Afghani people to begin to choose the Taliban – whom will stay the course – over a U.S. under Barack Obama which clearly won’t.  And that means we may have already lost.

And now this?

What do you expect from the president who sold out Poland to Russia on the 70th anniversary of weakling appeasers just like Obama selling out Poland to Russia?

On top of the defeat in Afghanistan, Obama faces a far more significant defeat in Iran.  Obama is desperate to talk; Iran is determined to build nuclear missiles.  Iran will get become a nuclear military power under Obama’s watch, because the only way to prevent them from becoming such a power is to be willing to go to war with them to stop them – and Iran knows that Obama will not take that step.

As the nightmare of a nuclear-armed Iran manifests itself in the form of increased terrorism, sky-high gas prices, and even nuclear war, just remember: we conservatives tried to warn you.

Update, November 23, 2009: Did I say that 293 U.S. soldiers have been killed so far this year?  Make that 297.  Meanwhile, the survivors are hunkering down and beginning to despair that they are in Afghanistan for no apparent reason while their commander-in-chief dithers around for three months more worried about his own political skin than about his soldiers.

Obama Helps Russia Reassemble Iron Curtain

September 19, 2009

One of the things Obama has most wanted to prove was that he isn’t Bush — as though no matter how stupid his policies might be, as long as they aren’t Bush’s they must be good.

Well, Obama aint Reagan, either.

Obama appears to intend to not only roll back every Bush policy, but the fundamental victory of the Reagan presidency over the U.S.S.R.

Friday, September 18, 2009
Mark Steyn: Obama helping Putin restitch Iron Curtain
Scrapping of U.S. missile defense plans hands big victory to Russia’s new czar.

Was it only April? There was President Barack Obama, speaking (as is his wont) in Prague, about the Iranian nuclear program and ballistic missile capability, and saluting America’s plucky allies: “The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles,” he declared. “As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.”

On Thursday, the administration scrapped its missile defense plans for Eastern Europe. The “courageous” Czechs and Poles will have to take their chances. Did the “threat from Iran” go away? Not so’s you’d notice. The dawn of the nuclear Ayatollahs is perhaps only months away, and, just in case the Zionists or (please, no tittering) the formerly Great Satan is minded to take ‘em out, Tehran will shortly be taking delivery of a bunch of S-300 anti-aircraft batteries from (ta-da!) Russia. Fancy that.

Joe Klein, the geostrategic thinker of Time magazine, concluded his analysis thus:

“This is just speculation on my part. But I do hope that this anti-missile move has a Russian concession attached to it, perhaps not publicly (just as the U.S. agreement to remove its nuclear missiles from Turkey was not make public during the Cuban Missile Crisis). The Obama administration’s diplomatic strategy is, I believe, wise and comprehensive – but it needs to show more than public concessions over time. A few diplomatic victories wouldn’t hurt.”

Golly. We know, thanks to Jimmy Carter, Joe Klein and many others, that we critics of President Obama’s health care policy are, by definition, racist. Has criticism of Obama’s foreign policy also been deemed racist? Because one can certainly detect the first faint seeds of doubt germinating in dear old Joe’s soon-to-be-racist breast: The Obama administration “needs to show more than public concessions over time” – because otherwise the entire planet may get the vague impression that that’s all there is.

Especially if your pre-emptive capitulations are as felicitously timed as the missile-defense announcement, stiffing the Poles on the 70th anniversary of their invasion by the Red Army. As for the Czechs, well, dust off your Neville Chamberlain’s Greatest Hits LP: Like he said, they’re a faraway country of which we know little. So who cares? Everything old is new again.

It is interesting to contrast the administration’s “wise” diplomacy abroad with its willingness to go nuclear at home. If you go to a “town hall” meeting and express misgivings about the effectiveness of the stimulus, you’re a “racist” “angry” “Nazi” “evilmonger” “right-wing domestic terrorist.” It’s perhaps no surprise that that doesn’t leave a lot left over in the rhetorical arsenal for Putin, Chavez and Ahmadinejad. But you’ve got to figure that by now the world’s strongmen are getting the measure of the new Washington. Diplomacy used to be, as Canada’s Lester Pearson liked to say, the art of letting the other fellow have your way. Today, it’s more of a discreet cover for letting the other fellow have his way with you. The Europeans “negotiate” with Iran over its nukes for years, and, in the end, Iran gets the nukes, and Europe gets to feel good about itself for having sat across the table talking to no good purpose for the best part of a decade. In Moscow, there was a palpable triumphalism in the news that the Russians had succeeded in letting the Obama fellow have their way. “This is a recognition by the Americans of the rightness of our arguments about the reality of the threat or, rather, the lack of one,” said Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Duma’s international affairs committee. “Finally the Americans have agreed with us.”

There’ll be a lot more of that in the years ahead.

There is no discreetly arranged “Russian concession.” Moscow has concluded that a nuclear Iran is in its national interest – especially if the remorseless nuclearization process itself is seen as a testament to Western weakness. Even if the Israelis are driven to bomb the thing to smithereens circa next spring, that, too, would only emphasize, by implicit comparison, American and European pusillanimity. Any private relief felt in the chancelleries of London and Paris would inevitably license a huge amount of public tut-tutting by this or that foreign minister about the Zionist Entity’s regrettable “disproportion.” The U.S. defense secretary is already on record as opposing an Israeli strike. If it happens, every thug state around the globe will understand the subtext – that, aside from a tiny strip of land on the east bank of the Jordan, every other advanced society on earth is content to depend for its security on the kindness of strangers.

Some of them very strange. Kim Jong-il wouldn’t really let fly at South Korea or Japan, would he? Even if some quasi-Talibanny types wound up sitting on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, they wouldn’t really do anything with them, would they? OK, Putin can be a bit heavy-handed when dealing with Eastern Europe, and his definition of “Eastern” seems to stretch ever further west, but he’s not going to be sending the tanks back into Prague and Budapest, is he? I mean, c’mon …

Vladimir Putin is no longer president but he is de facto czar. And he thinks it’s past time to reconstitute the old empire – not formally (yet), but certainly as a sphere of influence from which the Yanks keep their distance. President Obama has just handed the Russians their biggest win since the collapse of the Iron Curtain. Indeed, in some ways it marks the restitching of the Iron Curtain. When the Czechs signed their end of the missile-defense deal in July, they found themselves afflicted by a sudden “technical difficulty” that halved their gas supply from Russia. The Europe Putin foresees will be one not only ever more energy-dependent on Moscow but security-dependent, too – in which every city is within range of missiles from Tehran and other crazies, and is, in effect, under the security umbrella of the new czar. As to whether such a Continent will be amicable to American interests, well, good luck with that, hopeychangers.

In a sense, the health care debate and the foreign policy debacle are two sides of the same coin: For Britain and other great powers, the decision to build a hugely expensive welfare state at home entailed inevitably a long retreat from responsibilities abroad, with a thousand small betrayals of peripheral allies along the way. A few years ago, the great scholar Bernard Lewis warned, during the debate on withdrawal from Iraq, that America risked being seen as “harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.” In Moscow and Tehran, on the one hand, and Warsaw and Prague, on the other, they’re drawing their own conclusions.

I am still just as stunned by the Obama betrayal of a fundamental American commitment as the Poles and Czechs.  I mean, stop and think about it:

Obama announces his betrayal of Poland and Czechoslovakia on the anniversary of the inevitable result of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s selling of Eastern Europe down the river to Hitler and Stalin.  The rationale?  That Iran is farther behind on its ballistic missile technology than had been previously believed.

And, yet, on that very same day, we learn that a confidential report from the International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran – contrary to previous intelligence assessments – can now make a nuclear bomb whenever they damn well want to.  And we become even more aware that the IAEA has been more intent on covering up Iranian (and before that Iraqi) development of weapons of mass destruction.

And my gosh, wasn’t it Democrats who kicked Bush for relying too much on intelligence assessments that can well be faulty?  Even when not only U.S. intelligence, but every single major intelligence service in the world, supported the primary conclusion that Saddam Hussein had WMD?  Why on earth does the same Barack Obama who as a candidate demonized Bush over trusting faulty intelligence on Iraq now so implicitly trust intelligence that Iran is not working on long-range missiles?

And then the very next day following that terrible 70th anniversary of September 17, 1939, Iran – which by the way can make nuclear bombs – shows just how insane they are by releasing a statement that denies the Holocaust occurred and vows that Israel’s days are numbered.

On September 17, 2009, President Barack Obama unilaterally abrogated a security agreement with two of its key Eastern European allies – who have been so loyal to America that they have kept troops in Iraq and Afghanistan – in order to appease an unfriendly Russia.  And the only thing worse than this capitulation to Russia is the despicable timing of said capitulation.

As Mark Steyn states in his title, this will result in a seismic shifting of Eastern European nations away from the untrustworthy United States and toward Russia.  All of Eastern Europe is in play: Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Lithuania – and especially already-attacked Georgia – are now aware that they are basically on their own with a hungry Russian bear looming over them.

September 17, 2009 was a shameful day for Barack Obama and a shameful day for the nation that he represents.

Neville Chamberlain Deux: Obama Betrays Allies To Appease Enemies

September 18, 2009

For the official record, I have compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain sixteen times in separate articles (seventeen counting this one).  British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was ruthless in advancing his domestic policy agenda, but became one of history’s most infamous appeasing weaklings in bowing down to Hitler’s threats and demands.  In seeking to avoid war at any cost, he guaranteed the worst war in human history – at least until now.

Prime Minister Chamberlain went to Munich expressing his desire to discuss a peaceful settlement with Germany under terms that included reneging on the British pledge to defend Czechoslovakia.  Jan Masaryk, the Czech Minister in London, called on British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax on the eve of the Munich Conference and said, “If you are sacrificing my nation to preserve the peace of the world, I will be the first to applaud you. But if not, God help your souls!”

Britain had betrayed Czechoslovakia for an empty promise that Neville Chamberlain naively believed would bring “peace in our time.”  Edouard Daladier took a more realistic view: “The fools,” he said bitterly, acknowledging the cheers of the crowds who believed Chamberlain’s statement.  “If only they knew what they are cheering.”

In one of those twists of historic irony that seem so commonplace in accompanying the greatest tragedies in human history, Barack Obama announced his betrayal of the previous American administration’s commitment to Poland and Czechoslovakia on the 70th anniversary of the bitter fruit of the Munich Conference.  It was on September 17, 1939 that Stalin’s forces streamed into Poland as a direct result of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasing betrayal and demonstration of weakness.

A Reuters article underscores the highly ironic timing of the Obama betrayal:

For Poland, the timing of the announcement is particularly sensitive. Thursday marked the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of eastern Poland following a pact between Moscow and Nazi Germany, an event seen by Poles as “a stab in the back.”

Is Obama even aware of the historic irony?  Probably not.  As Jules Crittenden points out, “The Obama administration doesn’t study history. It reimagines it.”

As usual, Obama has altered the facts on the intent of the missile shield.  It was – contrary to Obama’s assertion – not merely intended to protect the United States from a ballistic missile attack, but to serve as a bulwark against Russian aggression of eastern European countries (remember the recent Russian invasion of Georgia?).

Mr. Bush had developed a special relationship with Eastern Europe as relations between Washington and Moscow deteriorated. The proposal to deploy parts of the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic were justified on the grounds that they would protect Europe and the eastern coast of the United States against any possible missile attacks from Iran.

But the Polish and Czech governments saw the presence of American military personnel based permanently in their countries as a protection against Russia.

Poland and Czechoslovakia took a big risk trusting the United States instead of coming to terms under the sphere of hostile Russia.  And now they are revealed to have been fools for trusting the Americans:

“We have been hearing such things for a while now via different papers, from some conferences and so on,” said Waszczykowski, deputy head of Poland’s National Security Bureau which advises President Lech Kaczynski.

“This would be very bad. Without the shield we would de facto be losing a strategic alliance with Washington,” he said.

Michael Wisniewski, the Poland director of the Europa 21 foundation, expressed how Obama hamstrung the pro-USA movement throughout the entire eastern European region:

After 9/11 Poles expressed solidarity with USA without any hesitation. Despite the fact that we were risking alienation from some of our European partners. And after we joined US-led coalition against terrorism, we were verbally attacked by Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Shroeder – leaders of two major European powers. But our position was clear and firm – we would stay with USA and fight against common enemies – enemies who attacked our ally and the whole free world. No other country had so special status in Poland – almost 80% Poles sympathized with US. Poland is not great military power – but have some influence on the eastern Europe and was a real stronghold of American interests in this region. Whatever Germans, French or other UE countries would do – Poland always stood arm to arm with US.

Now it belongs to the past. It’s not only about this incident, but it was something that created great outrage here. It’s impossible to remain so positive towards US now – people are reacting emotionally. Even most pro-US media and journalists comment, that our close relations with USA was mistake. That we were wrong and we should focus on our closer neighbours – like France or Germany.

The Obama administration announced its betrayal of Poland and Czechoslovakia – and the abandonment of the shared values that had framed their relationship with the United States – with a telephone call.  At least it wasn’t done via Twitter.

The Poles and the Czechs have the virtue of not being so stupid and naive as to fall for Obama’s beautiful lies.  They are not dancing in the streets over the announcement of their betrayal:

Poles, Czechs: US missile defense shift a betrayal

WARSAW, Poland — Poles and Czechs voiced deep concern Friday at President Barack Obama’s decision to scrap a Bush-era missile defense shield planned for their countries.

“Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back,” the Polish tabloid Fakt declared on its front page.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski said he was concerned that Obama’s new strategy leaves Poland in a dangerous “gray zone” between Western Europe and the old Soviet sphere.

Recent events have rattled nerves throughout central and eastern Europe, a region controlled by Moscow during the Cold War, including the war last summer between Russia and Georgia and ongoing efforts by Russia to regain influence in Ukraine. A Russian cutoff of gas to Ukraine last winter left many Europeans without heat.

The Bush administration’s missile defense plan would have been “a major step in preventing various disturbing trends in our region of the world,” Kaczynski said in a guest editorial in Fakt that also was carried on his presidential Web site.

Neighboring Lithuania, a small Baltic nation that broke away from the Soviet Union in 1991 and is now a NATO member, also expressed regret over Obama’s decision.

Defense Minister Rasa Jukneviciene said that the shield would have increased security for Lithuania and she hoped missile defense would not be excluded from future talks on NATO security.

“This NATO region cannot be an exception and its defense is not less important compared with others,” she said.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he still sees a chance for Poles and Czechs to participate in the redesigned missile defense system. But that did not appear to calm nerves in Warsaw or Prague. [...]

An editorial in Hospodarske Novine, a respected pro-business Czech newspaper, said: “an ally we rely on has betrayed us, and exchanged us for its own, better relations with Russia, of which we are rightly afraid.”

The move has raised fears in the two nations they are being marginalized by Washington even as a resurgent Russia leaves them longing for added American protection.

The Bush administration always said that the planned system — with a radar near Prague and interceptors in northern Poland — was meant as defense against Iran. But Poles and Czechs saw it as protection against Russia, and Moscow too considered a military installation in its backyard to be a threat
.

“No Radar. Russia won,” the largest Czech daily, Mlada Fronta Dnes, declared in a front-page headline.

Any nation that has made any kind of a deal with the United States should seriously rethink the trustworthiness of their partner.  Because the American promise doesn’t mean a whole lot under this administration.

It appears highly likely that Obama is abandoning a U.S. commitment and betraying Poland and Czechoslovakia in order to get some kind of commitment from Russia to use its leverage to stop Iran’s nuclear program.  The only problem is that Russia is even less trustworthy than the new United States has become under Obama.

We’re not going to get squat from Russia that is anything other than a superficial and meaningless exercise.

Jennifer Rubin concludes her piece on Obama’s betryal of Poland and Czechoslovakia with this:

The administration that promised to restore our standing in the world is on quite a roll. Open hostility toward Israel. Bullying Honduras [link]. Reneging on promises to Eastern Europe. A strange policy indeed that dumps on our friends in the vain effort to incur the goodwill of our enemies. And if one is a “realist,” not a fabulist, it should be apparent that this is a losing proposition. We will lose our friends and gain nothing. Weakness and the betrayal of our allies do not ameliorate tensions with our adversaries. We had a Cold War topped off by the Carter administration to prove that. But Obama’s never been very good at history.

In April of last year I wrote this about Democrats and Iran near the end of the piece:

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.

And here we are: Iran can now make a bomb.

And neither Russia nor Obama are going to do a damn thing to stop it.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers