Weak Obama Administration Sends Blathering, Empty Words, Never Resolve

Barack Obama had this to say on September 3:

Let’s also be clear where we stand. Just as we refuse to accept smaller European nations being dominated by bigger neighbors in the last century, we reject any talk of spheres of influence today. (Applause.) And just as we never accepted the occupation and illegal annexation of the Baltic nations, we will not accept Russia’s occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea or any part of Ukraine. (Applause.)

Reality flash: Crimea has ALREADY BEEN ANNEXED.  Past tense.  They already have the new passports to prove it.

It’s DONE.  Past tense.  It happened.  Obama waved bye-bye as the train left the station.  He already accepted it.  Any words to the contrary are lies from a proven liar.

When Obama says, “Let’s be clear where we stand,” you can count on him uttering something utterly empty and hollow and meaningless.

To remind of one of his speeches (which he plagiarized), it’s “Just words.”

Joe Biden said the United States would pursue ISIS to the gates of hell:

“We take care of those who are grieving and when that’s finished, they should know we will follow them to the gates of hell until they are brought to justice,” Biden said. “Because hell is where they’ll reside.”

How the hell can we do that when the Obama administration won’t even issue the order for our troops to leave their own gates?  I will never forget the cowardice and betrayal of Obama and Hillary Clinton when they issued their damned by God “stand down” order as a U.S. ambassador and three American heroes were being murdered in Benghazi.  Obama pukes want to claim that no stand down order was ever given; rather, it was nothing more than a weird coincidence that the attack on the Benghazi compound went on for HOURS with no American relief of any kind whatsoever ever bothering to show up in spite of repeated pleas for help.

And all Obama did afterward was factually LIE over and over and over again and claim it was some kind of spontaneous mob uprising and the United States’ fault because of some stupid Youtube video rather than what it was: a planned, coordinated and professionally executed terrorist attack proving that Obama’s “we’ve decimated al Qaeda” and “the terrorists are on the run” garbage was the very worst kind of dishonest politicizing of US national security.

I’ll quote your own “God damn America” “reverend” to you, Obama: “your chickens have come home to roost.”

I mean, we won’t even pursue them to SYRIA, let alone hell:

08.28.14
Why Obama Backed Off More ISIS Strikes: His Own Team Couldn’t Agree on a Syria Strategy
Written by Josh Rogin Eli Lake

After lots of bluster about striking ISIS on Syria, President Obama threw cold water on the idea, disappointing those who wanted him to broaden the war.

After a week of talk of eliminating the “cancer” of ISIS, President Obama said Thursday that he was not planning to significantly expand the war against the Islamic extremist movement anytime soon.

His remarks came after days of heated debate inside the top levels of his own national security bureaucracy about how, where, and whether to strike ISIS in Syria. But those deliberations – which included a bleak intelligence assessment of America’s potential allies in Syria — failed to produce a consensus battle plan. And so Obama, who has long been reluctant to enter into the Syrian conflict, told reporters Thursday that “we don’t have a strategy yet” for confronting ISIS on a regional level.

Those inside the administration advocating for going after ISIS in both Iraq and Syria were sorely disappointed – and lamented their boss’s lack of urgency in rooting out a threat that only days before was being described in near-apocalyptic terms.

“Senior strategists in the U.S. government have been working hard all week to gather multiple options that the president had asked for to strike ISIS in Syria. There was a deep rooted belief among many — especially among military circles — that the ISIS threat can’t be kicked down the road, that it needs to be confronted now, and in a holistic way,” said one Obama administration official who works on the Middle East. “This press conference is going to lead to even more doubt by those that thought that this White House was ready to take meaningful action against ISIS across the board.”

We’re going to pursue ISIS to “the gates of hell,” the Obama fools blather.  We’re not going to pursue them at all.

The complaint of an unnamed special operator:

“Chase them to the Gates of Hell? How the [f—] are we going to do that when we can’t even leave the front gate of our base!?”

We’re told about Obama’s return to Iraq after his cowardly cut-and-run caused the complete meltdown that has since taken place that “‘frustration and confusion reign’ among Americans on the ground there.”

But all the tough talk from Obama about “cancer” and Biden about the gates of hell must surely mean we’re at war with ISIS.  I mean, right?

Wrong:

Asked during a daily press briefing whether the administration considered the reported beheading of Steven Sotloff – the second American journalist killed in that manner by ISIS in two weeks – to be an act of war, [State Department spokeswoman Jen] Psaki said, “I’m not going to put new labels on it.”

So we’re going to pursue them to the gates of hell.  We just don’t have the balls to say that we’re at war.

Obama will say one thing and then immediately say the opposite thing.  So Obama says we’re going to “destroy” ISIS and then almost immediately after says ISIS is a “manageable problem.”  So you can understand why the men who are tasked with putting their lives on the line to carry out Obama’s policy suffer from “frustration and confusion.”  It’s a contagious disease they caught from Obama.

I mean, according to Obama pukes, terrorism is really only just “a man-caused disaster” or “workplace violence” and we’ve surrendered in the war on terror and will only participate in “an overseas contingency operation.”

Bow down to your terrorist masters, American.  Pray to Allah that they don’t saw your head off.  That’s basically the Obama strategy that he won’t tell you about.

So let’s go back to Russia and Ukraine.  I mean, even as Obama is blathering the gibberish, “we will not accept Russia’s occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea or any part of Ukraine” – to applause rather than jeers, amazingly – RUSSIA WAS ACTUALLY IN THE PHYSICAL ACT OF INVADING THE REST OF UKRAINE AFTER ANNEXING (AGAIN PAST TENSE) CRIMEA:

NATO Chief, At Summit, Says Russia Attacking Ukraine
By Reuters
on September 04 2014 7:47 AM

(Reuters) – NATO’s top official accused Moscow outright on Thursday of attacking Ukraine as allied leaders gathered for a summit to buttress support for Kiev and bolster defences against a Russia they now see as hostile for the first time since the Cold War.

U.S. President Barack Obama and his 27 allies meeting at a golf resort in Wales will also discuss how to tackle the Islamic State straddling parts of Iraq and Syria, which has emerged as a new threat on the alliance’s southern flank, and how to stabilise Afghanistan when NATO forces leave at year’s end.

“We are faced with a dramatically changed security environment,” NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters on arrival at the summit. “To the east, Russia is attacking Ukraine.”

Okay, to the extent they haven’t ALREADY DONE IT, they’re doing it.  But have no worries, because Obama won’t accept it.  Even though he already HAS.

I hope he decides not to accept any more bowel movements coming out of his scrawny little butt, too.  That way he will explode even MORE jammed packed with weasel feces than he already is.

Obama talked REAL tough about Russia’s next move: a seizure of a NATO member state such as Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania.  Putin has the same ready-made strategy that they used and are still using against Ukraine and that Hitler used against the same region: exploit the fact that ethnic Russians are living in these areas and create a crisis as a pretense for invasion.  I’m guessing Obama just can’t believe that Russia would actually do that.  You know, the way Obama just didn’t believe that Syria would use weapons of mass destruction REPEATEDLY.

Remember his “red line” warning?  Remember what happened to Assad as a result?  Oh, that’s right: NOTHING.  As pointed out in the Washington Post:

When President Obama declared Friday that “there will be costs” for any Russian intervention in Ukraine, you could hear the laughter emanating from the Kremlin — followed by the sound of Russian military vehicles roaring into Crimea and seizing control of the peninsula.

“Costs?” Vladi­mir Putin must have thought. Just like the “costs” Obama imposed on the Assad regime in Syria?

Just last year none other than Putin helped Obama get out of his pledge to impose costs on Bashar al-Assad’s government for crossing his “red line” and using chemical weapons on its people.

In August 2012, Obama issued a similar warning to Syrian officials, warning that Assad would face consequences if “we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.” Assad responded by moving and using his chemical weapons — not once but 14 times beginning in December 2012, just four months after Obama declared his red line.

Obama did nothing.

Then Obama began backing away from his declaration, saying, “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.” But when he went to the world and asked them to join him in enforcing “their” red line, the British Parliament voted no and NATO declined to help. Soon, the administration was lowering expectations. A U.S. official was telling the Los Angeles Times that any U.S. strike would be “just muscular enough not to get mocked.” Secretary of State John Kerry declared that any strike would be “unbelievably small” and would not really constitute “war.” Then Obama decided he needed to go to Congress and get approval for his “unbelievably small” strike. And when it became clear that he did have the votes, in stepped Putin to rescue Obama from an embarrassing defeat by offering a deal to have Syria disarm.

Which of course gave Putin prestige that he robbed from Obama and worse yet the United States.  And which literally made Putin’s close ally Assad an indispensable ally to Obama necessitating his remaining in power.

Every rogue nation and terrorist army on earth now knows that Barack Obama is a weak, indecisive, coward who will not act or will at worst act incredibly weakly after prolonged dithering.

As we speak, Mexico has seized one of our Marine heroes and imprisoned him for going on six months.  Obama has done nothing.  Two Americans just had their heads sawed off by ISIS in front of the entire world.  Obama has done nothing.  Three Americans are being paraded for propaganda purposes in North Korea when they aren’t working in a hard labor camp.  Obama has done nothing.  Four US military aircraft have been bullied and intimidated by Chinese fighters as China pushes America out of the region.  Obama has done nothing.  ISIS has seized more than 36,000 square miles of territory, creating a caliphate as large as the United Kingdom.  Obama has done nothing.  ISIS has become the first true terrorist army that according to Obama’s own experts constitutes the greatest threat to the United States since the rise of Nazism in World War II.  Obama has done nothing.  ISIS has become the first self-funded terrorist organization and is raising huge sums of money every single day to finance operations such as a coming massive attack against the United States on our soil and Obama has done nothing.  Russia has invaded one country that had a treaty protection with the United States and now threatens others.  Obama has done and history has now proven will do NOTHING.

We’ve talked about Russia and we’ve talked about the events in Syria that spread across Iraq due to Obama’s pathological weakness and cowardice and ignorance.  Let’s talk about the nexus between the two:

Remember when Obama openly mocked Mitt Romney for his statement that Russia constituted America’s biggest geopolitical threat?  Remember his “zinger”:

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years….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.”

Who was right and who was treasonously WRONG???

Who is Syria’s primary ally?  Russia, that’s who:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been Bashar al-Assad’s vital political ally since the start of the Syrian conflict three years ago.

Russia and China won’t let anything happen to their buddy Assad or to Syria.

USA Today was forced to admit the following in their headline about Obama’s deal: “Chemical Weapons Deal May End Up Strengthening Assad.”

WASHINGTON — Pursuing a diplomatic resolution that would allow President Bashar Assad to surrender Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile runs the risk of extending his stay in power and undercutting support of rebels who have been fighting his regime with U.S. support, some Syria analysts say.

“Assad is going to come out of this stronger,” said Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council official who is now a professor at Penn State.

Is that precisely what happened?  You betcha.

And so we have this outcome in Syria, thanks to Russia:

Putin Defies Obama in Syria as Arms Fuel Assad Resurgence

President Vladimir Putin, condemned by NATO for annexing Crimea, is now defying the U.S. in Syria by sending more and deadlier arms to help Bashar al-Assad score a string of advances against insurgents, military experts say. […]

“Russia is now doing everything to ensure that Assad wins convincingly,” Alexei Malashenko, a Middle East analyst at the Moscow Carnegie Center, said by phone. “If Russia can show it’s capable of carrying out its own foreign policy, regardless of America’s wishes, it will be a major achievement for Putin.”

Russia wins.  Putin wins.  Syria wins.  Assad wins.  America loses and loses big.  All thanks to Obama’s foolishness and weakness and cowardice.

What about Iran?  Whose their daddy?  Russia:

During a televised interview on Feb. 5, President Hassan Rouhani commented on Iran’s international relations, asserting that there will be a new dynamic in Iran-Russia relations. Although Rouhani’s government is in general pursuing the objective of improving relations with immediate neighbors, there is no doubt that Russia occupies a special position in Tehran’s regional and international strategy.

Whose got Iran’s back?  Russia, and of course China as our “nightmare” scenario becomes reality under and because of Obama:

A prospective security alliance between Iran, China and Russia will give the cash-strapped United States a nightmare, an Iranian academic tells Press TV.

Russia and Iran are at the heart of an anti-Western alliance.  You can literally write a book about it, as has in fact been done.

Obama has taken ALL pressure off of Iran to halt its nuclear program.  I still remember how the leftist propaganda “press” celebrated Obama’s “achievement.”  Here’s a headline from USA Today, dated November 24, 2013:

How The Iran Deal Was Done

A Los Angeles Times headline nearly seven months later on June 17, 2014 undescores the fact that there wasn’t a “deal”:

Iran maneuvers to win blame game if nuclear talks collapse

I mean, wait a minute, I thought Obama had a great deal.  Apparently not so much as this headline from July 15, 2014 indicates:

Iranian Nuclear Talks Near Collapse?

Reuters) – A major speech by Iran’s Supreme Leader has limited the ability of the Iranian delegation at high-level nuclear talks to make concessions with six world powers and this could scuttle chances for Tehran to reach an accord to end sanctions, diplomats said.

In a public address filled with technical detail, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said last week Iran needs to significantly increase its uranium enrichment capacity, clashing with the powers’ push for it to be reduced to minimise the risk of nuclear bombmaking, as July 20 deadline for a deal nears.

So what did Obama do?  He arbitrarily extended the deadline, just as he arbitrarily extended so many ObamaCare deadlines.  It doesn’t matter if the negotiations will clearly ultimately go NOWHERE as Obama allows Iran to continue to advance its ballistic missile technology without any sanctions whatsoever.  And when Iran has the means to deliver its nukes, rest assured they will have their nukes in very short order.  Thanks to Obama and thanks to Democrats.

When Iran has the means to reliably deliver a nuclear warhead to America, the world will change in a profound and terrible way.  And they ARE BEING ALLOWED TO DEVELOP THAT WEAPON WITHOUT HINDRANCE THANKS TO BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY.  Reuters points it out:

Exclusive: Iran pursues ballistic missile work, complicating nuclear talks

(Reuters) – Despite apparently reducing illicit purchases that breach U.N. sanctions, Iran is pursuing development of ballistic missiles, a confidential U.N. report says, posing an acute challenge to six powers negotiating with Tehran to rein in its nuclear program.

On Sunday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described as “stupid and idiotic” Western expectations for his country to curb its missile development. He decreed mass production of ballistic weapons, striking a defiant tone just before nuclear talks resumed on Wednesday in Vienna.

The high-stakes negotiations aim for a deal by a July 20 deadline to end a long stand-off that has raised the risk of a wider Middle East war.

Tehran’s often repeated view that missiles should not be part of the nuclear talks appears to enjoy the support of Russia, one of the six global powers.

When you realize that Russia is the real power behind Syria and what is going on there and the real power behind Iran and what is going on there which is the power behind Iraq and what is going on there given that Obama cut-and-ran from Iraq after we had WON the war and had a peaceful, secure, stable country if we had just remained there as the top military and intelligence leaders BEGGED Obama to do at the time, you should understand that Obama’s pathetic ignorance of the world constitutes a clear and present danger to America.  Putin protected and sheltered Syria’s Assad.  We could never get anything accomplished on the international front because Russia would block anything we tried to do against Syria.  And again, to quote Jeremiah Wright, “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” because of the fool Obama.

Democrats – I mean, even including the uberleftist Elizabeth Warren – are saying we need to respond more powerfully than anything our Coward-in-Chief is willing to do.  But they’re just empty WORDS that mean NOTHING.

Why do I call Obama and other Democrats “cowards.”  I call them that because they are fearful of alienating their own base which demands weakness rather than strength.  And then when public opinion suitably shifts, they’ll say stuff to reflect opinion.  73% of Americans are concerned with ISIS and 58% disagree with Obama’s pathetic response to the clear threat.  But if ANY Democrat were sitting in the White House other than Obama, they would be as weak and as passive because they would have the same damn leftist base that they live in fear of, wouldn’t they?

Remember that it was none other than Hillary Clinton who “reset” our relationship with Russia and gave us the vicious Russian monster that we have now.  After Obama begged Russia for time and said in his second term he’d be able to “be more flexible.”

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

I have repeatedly attacked the Democrat Party for its:

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

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

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

A Response To Obama’s Whining About The Right Being Unfair Over Gulf Disaster

Without ado, here’s what Obama said the other day about conservatives and tea party people over his inability to get squat done about the Gulf of Mexico disaster:

“Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying ‘do something’ are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much,” Obama said. “Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks who, just a few months ago, were saying this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms.”

On Obama’s blatantly false portrayal, conservatives think “government is inherently bad.”

Obama’s charge simply rests entirely upon his demagoguery.  Essentially his implicit claim is that conservatives are anarchists who want no government whatsoever.  We want gangs of hoodlums ranging the streets.  We want looting and mayhem.  We want a complete and total destruction of government, such that every man does what is right in his own eyes – or dies trying.

With all due respect (which amounts to none at all), bull crap.  Anarchists are on the side of the left, not the right.  Just as virtually every single terrible political philosophy that has ever existed have been on the side of the left, not the right.

Obama’s conclusion that if someone wants the government to do anything at all, he must therefore necessarily want everything that Obama is doing to massively increase the size of the government bureaucracy is so ridiculously stupid it is frankly hard to believe he’d make such an argument.

“If you want any government action at all, you must want want Big Brother.”  I mean, please get real.

I can’t help but wonder if mega-government types like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin described their enemies in the same terms.  The charge would have been no more valid for them than it is for Obama.  They, too, were proponents of huge government who were warring with those who favored less intrusive government.  The argument would have been no more valid for these two leftist socialist tyrants than it is for Obama.

Furthermore, the right is doing nothing more than holding you to the same standard of blame that you personally helped heap on George Bush over Katrina five years ago.  If you don’t like being hit with stones, you shouldn’t have started throwing them.  Bottom line.

What conservatives and tea party activists want and always have wanted is responsible, limited government.  We want the kind of government that is described in the American Constitution, rather than the Constitution of the U.S.S.R.

You’re right, Obama.  We DON’T want you “trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government” as you’ve been trying to do from your first day in office.  What we DO want – in your own words – is for you to “plug the damn hole.”  And unless I’m somehow very mistaken, the two things are clearly not the same, are they???

Am I the only one who thinks that “ObamaCare” and “plug the damn hole” are different?

I can tell you one of the things I most certainly DON’T want my government to do: whine.

So when are you going to stop whining and actually DO YOUR DAMN JOB, Obama???

And if you’re going to kick someone’s ass over this most disgraceful response that demonstrates a fundamental lack of leadership, why don’t you start with your very OWN???

You made so many pathologically narcissistic promises it defies comprehension.  You boasted that you were going to be the guy whose election would mark the day “when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal.”  Are we just supposed to somehow not notice that you’ve turned the oceans black instead?

You were also the guy who promised that you would keep unemployment from rising over 8% if we enacted your massive porkulus that has completely failed.  You were also the guy who promised that you could win Iran over and get them to halt their nuclear weapons program through your policy of what always amounted to appeasement.  You were also the guy who promised that you would do a bang-up job winning the war in Afghanistan after demonizing your predecessor’s far more successful efforts.

And now you whine and whine when someone asks the legitimate question, “How’s all your over-the-top bullshit working out?”

You cry about people blaming you even as you systematically blame people who don’t have anywhere NEAR the blame that you have for this mess.  YOU’RE the one who took more BP money than anyone else.  YOU’RE the one who granted the permit for the drilling platform that exploded.  YOU’RE the one who granted a bunch of environmental waivers for that platform before it exploded.  YOU’RE the one who dithered for more than two weeks while a massive crisis unfolded.  YOU’RE the one who didn’t employ the procedure that has been on the books since 1994.  YOU’RE the one who has completely failed to do a damn meaningful thing at every single turn.

If you really want to blame somebody else, Mr. Obama, why don’t you blame the millions of abject fools who elected you when it should have been obvious to anyone with more than two functioning brain cells that you were clearly not up to the job???

At the very least, you’d finally be blaming the right people for a change.