Posts Tagged ‘Sarkozy’

Obama’s Casual Contempt For America Caught On Film

March 31, 2010

United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1 — The Flag; §8. Respect for flag:
The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.”

Those are just words, of course.  But those words have meant a great deal to patriots throughout American history.

One writer recounts his memories of an ancestor at the Battles of Chattanooga and Chicamauga while growing up:

I had heard the story often growing up. Men took the flag much more seriously during the Civil War era. To see one’s flag fall in battle was a demoralizing event, and therefore an act much desired by the opposing side. This resulted in many a Flag Bearer feeling as if he had a huge target painted on his chest. It was a dangerous occupation.

“He was in the war at Chattanooga, Chickamauga,” related my mother, “ … his flag bearer was running in front of him, and he got shot and he went down and the flag was falling … and in those days you would never let your flag touch the ground … and he grabbed the flag, pulled it off the [pole], and he shoved it in his tunic.” Charles then promptly got shot himself, and bayoneted, with the blades and musket balls ripping though the flag as well as the flesh.

This Civil War site records the words of William H. Carney, who received the Medal of Honor for his actions during the 54th Massachusetts Regiment’s legendary assault on Fort Wagner:

He was struck with one shot, but not being felled he continued, and then was struck with a second shot. On his struggle to cross the beach to the rear he met a member of the 100th New York Regiment who started to assist him, when Carney was struck with another shot in the head. The other soldier asked Carney to let him carrier the colors so he could more easily walk, but Carney refused, saying that no one other than a member of the 54th Massachusetts should carry the colors.

Finally, after an unlikely arrival alive at the rear guard hospital area, he saw his wounded and dying comrades who saw him carrying their colors and cheered him. He was able to tell them “Boys, the old flag never touched the ground.”

Now let me show you the casual contempt displayed toward the American flag by a man who is masquerading as the President of the United States of America:

.

.

I would love to be there to see William Carney greet Barack Obama with a hard punch in the mouth for his indifferent disgrace to the American flag.

And I can imagine that Carney would have administered a second, even harder shot in the mouth to Obama after finding out that Obama was the first African-American president.

One day we will look back at Barack Obama and call him a national disgrace.

Bu-Bu-But I thought Obama Was Making The World Love Us After Bush

January 6, 2010

The world just loves that Barack Obama, the lamestream media keeps telling us, and they love America because of Obama.

Other than the fact that they don’t.

Sarkozy cools toward Obama

Source: Global Times
December 29 2009]

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has gone cold on his US counterpart Barack Obama, the Financial Times (FT) reported Monday.

Sarkozy, whose pro-Washington stance has seen him nicknamed “Sarko the American,” stressed that France and the US were “the same family” during his first face-to-face meeting with Obama in April since the US elections last year.

But the French president has clashed since then with his US counterpart on a series of issues, raising the question of whether Sarkozy is reverting to the anti-US posture of his predecessor, Jacques Chirac.

“He has now shifted from a pro-Bush position to an anti-Obama position,” the FT quoted Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, international affairs spokesman for the opposition Socialists, as saying.

Obama’s irritation with his French counterpart began when Sarkozy tried to grab the limelight at the G20 summit in London in April and talked condescendingly of the US President in private.

Sarkozy told colleagues that he found Obama to be inexperienced and unbriefed, especially on climate change, according to The Times of London.

In September, the French president expressed his frustration over how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the priority that Obama attaches to the long-term goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.

The French government also refused a US request to send more troops to Afghanistan, while several other European allies are planning to do so.

The French press often publishes Sarkozy’s unflattering comments about Obama’s lack of prior government experience, his alleged difficulty in reaching decisions or his domestic electoral setbacks.

“The paradox of the situation is that in terms of the relationship with the US, he can do a Chirac in that he can criticize the Americans but he can do it from a position that is 180 degrees different from Chirac,” the FT quoted François Heisbourg, an adviser to the Foundation for Strategic Research, a Paris-based think tank, as saying.

“He can play to a habitual anti-American standpoint but not from a position that is fundamentally anti-American,” he added.

Agencies – Global Times

“Pro-Bush position”?  “Anti-Obama position”?  Blasphemy!!!  “Objective” journalists across the nation tear their robes at this crime against He-Who-Makes-Their-Legs-Quiver.

This “anti-Obama position” didn’t just happen overnight.  It began with Obama’s reckless spending plan also known as the stimulus.  Many leaders of European countries that had already seen the socialist road to hell did not want to go over it again, as Obama demanded:

But it is not just Canada where the unemployed are faring better. Other countries, too, decided against a massive stimulus plan. In March, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel nodding in agreement at his side, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared: “the problem is not about spending more.” Later that month, the president of the European Union, Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek of the Czech Republic, castigated the Obama administration’s deficit spending and bank bailouts as “a road to hell.” The Washington Post wrote that there was a “fundamental divide that persists between the United States and many European countries over the best way to respond to the global financial crisis.”

The unemployment rate in the European Union was higher than in the United States to begin with even before the Obama administration’s spending. By January, the EU unemployment rate stood at 8.5 percent — almost a whole percentage point higher than ours.  So what has happened since the big U.S. stimulus spending spree was passed? We more than caught up with the EU’s high unemployment rate.  By August, the last month data is available for the EU, the U.S.’s unemployment rate slightly exceeded the EU’s — 9.7 versus 9.6 percent.

And of course the leaders of Europe were right, and Obama is an  inexperienced, unqualified, and incompetent socialist nincompoop.  And watching your fellow leader on the other side of the pond fail doesn’t inspire either confidence or camaraderie.

Another issue has been the unrelenting march of Iran toward nuclear weapons while Obama dithered, pontificated, and showed his weakness while many European leaders are after years FINALLY beginning to understand the threat of a nuclear Iran.  From an article I wrote months ago:

And Obama is displaying his steely resolve…

Western diplomats had initially said the international powers would not accept any attempt to drag out the negotiations beyond Friday.

However, the United States said that it was now prepared to wait for Iran’s reply.

… by showing even less resolve than France.  In answer to the question, “Why Is a World Leader Distancing Himself From President Obama?”:

One major sticking point has been President Obama’s softer stance on Iran, while President Sarkozy prefers a more hawkish approach. Sarkozy said last month: “I support America’s outstretched hand. But what has the international community gained from these offers of dialogue? Nothing but more enriched uranium and centrifuges.”

This on top of other remarks Sarkozy has made about Obama’s naivete and weakness:

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

Even pantywaist Europe is calling Obama a pantywaist.  And that is the definition of “pathetic.”

Our enemies have been smelling a weakling in the White House since Obama won the election.  Obama talked tough when he had to to win the election, but that tough talk was always a lie.

And of course Obama’s “deadline” for Iran to suspend its nuclear program has now come and gone without so much as a whimper from Obama.

With such profound differences on how to rebuild their economies and take care of their people (or not), and on how to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and protect their people (or not), you can see why the honeymoon might be over.  Just because a thrill goes up Chris Matthews leg doesn’t mean that one goes up Nicholas Sarkozy’s.

Well, at least the terrorists don’t dare attack us under the beloved Obama.

Oops, wait a second.  I guess we’ve had a dozen attempted terrorist attacks in 2009, including two that were completely undetected on Obama’s watch.  Versus years of being safe under George Bush after he took measures (which Obama dismantled) to keep the country safe.

Not to mention two successful domestic jihadist terrorist attacks in 2009 that resulted in the deaths of Americans.

Obama vowed to completely and fundamentally change the way the world views the United States, and inspire global cooperation.  But when it comes to Europe, Obama gets to talk to the hand.  Obama wants Europe to massively tighten its security.  But it appears he’s fixating on the splinter in Europe’s eye rather than the gigantic log in his own:

NEWARK (CBS) ― It’s a tale of shocking ineptitude: CBS 2 has learned a series of missteps unnecessarily added to the mayhem at Newark Liberty International Airport on Sunday. The six-hour delay stranded thousands of people, creating extreme crowding and chaos.

The mistakes made at the airport give new meaning to the term “domino effect.” It was a cascading series of missteps that cry out for action.

The sign at the Transportation Security Administration screening post at Newark read: “Premises Under Constant Video Surveillance.”

What it should add is: “If We’re Lucky.”

The Post and Courier has this to say about Dear Leader Obama’s handling of the war on terror – oops – make that the “overseas contingency operation” (sans the “overseas” part):

President Obama replaced the top intelligence professionals installed by President Bush on the grounds that they were tainted by what he considered the unethical practices of the last administration in fighting the war on terror. He damaged morale in the intelligence community by reopening a closed investigation of allegations of detainee mistreatment. President Obama has shunned the very concept of a war and has shown a preference for treating terrorist attacks as criminal acts.

Whether the president’s actions gave terrorists an advantage isn’t obvious, but this year for the first time in eight years there have been two undetected terrorist attacks on the United States. The first came on Nov. 5 at Fort Hood, Texas, when Army Maj. Malik Hassan killed 13 and wounded 30 in an attack apparently inspired by radical Muslim views. Hassan was known by U.S. intelligence to be in frequent contact with Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, the same man said to have counseled the unsuccessful Christmas Day bomber.

How’s that “the world loves us now because Obama is president” thing working for you?

I remember the words of Janet Napolitano as she changed “terrorist attack” to “man-caused disaster”:

“In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear…”

There’s still time to use replace “man-caused disasters” with the phrase, “bury-our-heads-in-the-sand-and-hope-it-all-goes-away.”

Maybe “the politics of fear” had the virtue of bearing at least some resemblance to reality.

Hmmm:

Or…

Barack Obama’s Dithering Foreign Policy About To Give Iran Nukes

October 24, 2009

For the official record, it was not Dick Cheney who first accused Barack Obama of dithering over Afghanistan while our troops languished and died.  It was the Pentagon.  From September 22, 2009:

In interviews with McClatchy last week, military officials and other advocates of escalation expressed their frustration at what they consider “dithering” from the White House.

From September 18, 2009:

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

Obama has turned “dithering” into a weapon of mass destruction against American foreign policy.  Our allies are being forced to make increasingly tough decisions as to whether we really are the horse they should bet their lives on.  And our enemies are resurgent, believing that the president who has demonstrated a lack of resolve will withdraw if they can pile up a high enough body count.

On November 7 there will be another election in Afghanistan.  And there will not be anywhere near enough troops to provide adequate security.

There would have been, had Obama accepted his own handpicked general’s assessment.  But there won’t be.  It seems increasingly likely that the resurgent Taliban will be able to thwart the elections, creating an ongoing political instability which will cascade into a major failures against stability in Afghanistan.

But Obama is not just dithering in Afghanistan.  Rather, his entire foreign policy is based on dithering.

A nuclear-armed Iran capable of destroying Israel, capable of blockading the Strait of Hormuz and causing oil prices to quintuple, capable of launching a wave of global jihad such as the world has never seen, looms.

October 24, 2009
Barack Obama’s policy on brink of collapse as Tehran does last-minute nuclear stall

President Obama’s policy of diplomatic engagement with Iran is close to collapse as Tehran backtracks on a crucial deal aimed at cutting its stockpiles of nuclear fuel
.

Iran agreed a deal “in principle” at talks in Geneva to ship the majority of its low-enriched uranium overseas for reprocessing into nuclear fuel that could be used for a medical research reactor.

A deal outlining this was finalised in Vienna this week and a deadline of midnight tonight was set for the agreement to be sealed with Tehran.

The framework deal, along with an offer to allow international inspectors into its newly-revealed enrichment plant at Qom, was hailed as evidence that Iran was responding positively to the diplomatic track.

Today, however, with just hours until the deadline, Iran has turned the table on its foreign interlocutors with a rival proposal, demanding that it be allowed to buy higher enriched uranium directly from abroad. [...]

The counter-proposal was outlined on Iranian state television today as the clock ticked down to the midnight deadline. “The Islamic Republic of Iran is waiting for a constructive and confidence-building response to the clear proposal of buying fuel for the Tehran research reactor,” state television quoted an unnamed source close to Iran’s negotiating team as saying. [...]

Russia and China’s reluctance to consider new sanctions is forcing Washington to seek a coalition of willing allies to impose their own economic blockade on Iran if efforts to get UN sanctions fail.

Tehran’s latest move comes straight from a well-thumbed Iranian playbook and looks like yet another stalling tactic to test the West’s resolve and buy time to avert new sanctions
. But Western patience is growing thinner by the day, with diplomats warning that the apparent breakthrough in Geneva on October 1 may be less positive than it first seemed.

Anxiety is now growing about what will happen on Sunday when inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arrive in Iran to inspect the long-hidden nuclear plant at Qom.

“It’s like Groundhog Day,” a senior Western diplomat involved in the Iran negotiations said. “Except in Groundhog Day you wake up every day and everything’s the same. With this, you wake up every day and everything’s just a little bit worse.” [...]

Britain, France and Israel believe that Iran has all the know-how it needs to build a bomb and that weaponisation studies have continued despite Tehran’s insistence that it halted them years ago.

The IAEA has called Western intelligence on weaponisation “compelling” and chided Iran for refusing to answer questions on the subject.  Iran remains in breach of five UN resolutions calling on it to halt enrichment until outstanding questions about a military dimension to the programme are resolved.

And Obama is displaying his steely resolve…

Western diplomats had initially said the international powers would not accept any attempt to drag out the negotiations beyond Friday.

However, the United States said that it was now prepared to wait for Iran’s reply.

… by showing even less resolve than France.  In answer to the question, “Why Is a World Leader Distancing Himself From President Obama?”:

One major sticking point has been President Obama’s softer stance on Iran, while President Sarkozy prefers a more hawkish approach. Sarkozy said last month: “I support America’s outstretched hand. But what has the international community gained from these offers of dialogue? Nothing but more enriched uranium and centrifuges.”

This on top of other remarks Sarkozy has made about Obama’s naivete and weakness:

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

Even pantywaist Europe is calling Obama a pantywaist.  And that is the definition of “pathetic.”

Our enemies have been smelling a weakling in the White House since Obama won the election.  Obama talked tough when he had to to win the election, but that tough talk was always a lie.

We are looking at exactly the same scenario regarding Iran as George Bush faced regarding Iraq; namely, veto-wielding permanent member UN nations that will thwart any meaningful or legitimate sanction that could truly stop the rogue nation’s quest for weapons of mass destruction.  This has been the case for years.  We cannot rely on international consensus as the basis for our security; it will let us down every single time.

Nor can we rely upon dialogue with evil tyrants to achieve our foreign policy objectives.  What I said a year ago last August in that regard is even more true now.  You simply cannot negotiate with an untrustworthy partner who does not want peace.

As far back as April of 2008 I pointed out that the election of a Democrat to the White House would guarantee a nuclear-armed Iran, concluding:

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.

And it’s actually even worse than I thought.  In Barack Obama, we have a president who has repeatedly demonstrated he is toothless as an enemy, and treacherous as a friend.  Subsequent to that piece, Obama reneged on a major missile defense deal with key Eastern European allies in order to appease a hostile Russia – who gave us nothing in exchange for our betrayal.  And if that wasn’t bad enough – we sold out Poland to Russia on the 70th anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Poland in 1939.

Barack Obama will not go to war with Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.  And Iran knows that.  Iran also knows that their Russian and Chinese allies will prevent any sanction that could truly hurt them from passing the useless United Nations.

As a result of Obama’s dithering, the world’s worst terrorist state will soon have the bomb, and the ballistic missile capability to deliver that bomb.  And when they get it, the world will change in very scary ways.

French President Says Obama Lives In A Fantasy World

September 25, 2009

Big Government has the fuller story.  The key exchange:

Obama: “We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

The rest of Sarkozy’s remarks were every bit as amazing:

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”

Obama has a “virtual” call for global disarmament.  And Sarkozy basically suggests Obama defecate into one hand and wish into the other, and then see which hand gets full first.

But here’s the thing: Obama is going to offer the hand full of wishes to Iran, North Korea, and other enemies of freedom.  Guess which hand he’s going to keep offering to the rest of us?

Reminds me of the old song from Supertramp:

Dreamer, you stupid little dreamer;
So now you put your head in your hands, oh no!
I said “Far out, – What a day, a year, a life it is!”
You know, – Well you know you had it comin’ to you,
No there’s not a lot I can do.

Only the stupid little dreamer the Supertramp song was referring to was probably not the new leader of the free world.

Obama The Leering Cad: Not The Return To The Clinton Era We’d Hoped For

July 9, 2009

Note: Important Update and Comment appears below.

To be filed under the category, “A picture is worth a thousand words.”

Democrats are going to say, “He’s not looking at her butt!  He’s looking at… well, he’s looking at something on the floor!!!”

And I say, “Not with that look on his face, he isn’t.  And don’t think Sarkozy doesn’t know exactly what’s going on, either.”

There are many Democrats who laud the Clinton era, and yearn for a return to that gilded age when the streets were paved with gold.

There are flaws with their memories, of course: a comparison between the Bush and Clinton years doesn’t make George Bush look bad at all; the Bush tax cuts, contrary to Democratic talking points, actually led to “the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history”; the Clinton budget surplus turns out to be a myth that really should be exposed as such once for all; and everything else aside, Clinton’s biggest successes as president came AFTER voters rejected disastrous Democrat rule in the Republican revolution of 1994.

But let’s agree: things were a whole heckuva lot better with Bill Clinton at the helm than they are now under Obama’s faulty steering.

That said, this is NOT the return to the Clinton years anybody was wanting.  If you really want to be more like Bill Clinton, Barry Hussein, PLEASE don’t be like Bill was with women.  ANYTHING BUT THAT.

I hope Michelle slaps you silly, Barry.  I hope you sleep on the lawn tonight.  I hope a few $6,000 purses don’t cut the mustard.

UPDATE: I have since seen the video, which I will post, that presents a very different “picture” as to what happened:

The still image seems to show a laser-beam focus on the girl’s rear end; the video shows what would amount to a quick glance in the course of helping another woman down a step.  To the extent that Obama is “leering,” it amounts to something in momentary passing.  Nothing to get worked up about.

For the record, I wouldn’t have run the story if I’d seen the video rather than the picture.

I don’t take down articles.  I have NEVER taken down an article.  Why not? Because that’s what the left does, all the time.  They run absolutely terrible stories (such as the Daily Kos story questioning whether Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy with Trig because it was really Bristol Palin who was actually pregnant with a child fathered by Todd Palin), and when the facts come out disproving such an attack they simply delete it and move on like nothing happened.  There was never an apology, never a mention that they had participated in anything wrong.  Just nothing.

I don’t want to be like that.  I want to take responsibility.

Someone took a “still” of a video that – while itself unedited and therefore “true” – created a very different inference as to what actually transpired than the whole story (or video) would have provided in context.  This is what the left does all the time: they isolate one aspect of a story from the context and broadcast an artificial and propagandized view of reality.  And they rarely ever admit what they are doing.

Here’s a fact-checked example of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – not to mention most of the mainline media – doing almost exactly the same thing with statistics that someone did with that “Obama leering” video:

With growing violence on the U.S.-Mexico border fueled by powerful drug cartels, officials from both countries have been repeating a shocking statistic to suggest this isn’t just a Mexican problem.

“This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States . . . more than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border,” President Barack Obama said on a visit to Mexico on April 16, 2009. “So we have responsibilities as well.”

Obama joins many other U.S. and Mexican officials — from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the Mexican ambassador to the U.S. — who have cited versions of the 90 percent figure in arguing for greater U.S. intervention. For his part, Obama has pledged to commit more money and resources to stem the flow of guns south of the border.

But Obama, Clinton and others have left out important qualifiers when citing the 90 percent statistic, which originates from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The agency doesn’t have statistics for all weapons in Mexico, where gun sales are largely prohibited; the figure is based on only guns that the Mexican government sent to the ATF for tracing and that the ATF found were traceable.

Along those lines, the number was cited correctly by William Newell, an ATF special agent who oversees the bureau’s operations along border in Arizona and New Mexico, when he testified before a House subcommittee on March 24.

“In fact, 90 percent of the firearms recovered in Mexico, and which are then successfully traced, were determined to have originated from various sources within the continental U.S.”

Gun rights groups say the number has been widely and intentionally distorted to advance a gun control agenda.

And on April 2, 2009, Fox News ran a story on its Web site dismissing the statistic as a “myth.” The article cites statistics from the Mexican government that suggest only about a third of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico are submitted to the ATF for tracing; and it notes that many guns submitted to ATF cannot be traced. Therefore, the writers conclude, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the United States.

According to the article, “a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.” The article goes on to say many weapons are coming from a wide variety of foreign sources including China, South Korea, Spain and Israel, as well as from the Russian mafia and other nefarious sources in Asia, South and Central America.

“Reporter after politician after news anchor just disregards the truth on this,” National Rifle Association spokesman Chris Cox told Fox News. “The numbers are intentionally used to weaken the Second Amendment.”

ATF officials challenge the suggestion that Mexico only sends them guns they suspect are from the United States. In fact, the ATF found about a quarter of the 90 percent were made in other countries and then taken illegally from the United States into Mexico.

Here’s the Fox News story with the fuller array of facts.

What the mainstream media, and what President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, did with guns in Mexico is what largely passes for “news” today.  Half truths frequently amount to whole lies.  And we get carefully edited half truths that appear to tell a story supporting the liberal agenda as a matter of course today from our “journalists.”

Whenever you tell a story from one side, one “snippet,” you run the risk of bias.  And our drive-by media is filled with bias today.

I am doing something that the above media and persons have not done; I am presenting what amounts to a retraction, along with the full evidence so that people can come to their own conclusions.

So any liberal who wants to criticize me for this story, go ahead.  Just realize that even when I’m wrong, I’m STILL better than your people and your sources.

International Scholar Ajami Explains How Obama Is Failing Re: Iran

June 23, 2009

There is no question that Barack Obama has been widely criticized for offering weak statements on a developing Iranian situation with demonstrators literally risking death to protest what they view as a

While women are being gunned down in the streets, Obama has said he doesn’t want to “meddle” in Iran.  While such women and hundreds of thousands of others are demonstrating and even dying for their vote of Mousavi to be counted against the man whom the Iranian mullahs put in power (Ahmadinejad), Obama has publicly claimed that there is no difference between the two.  And while the Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a progressively harsher and more lethal crackdown on his people, Barack Obama has taken the Ayatollah’s side, claiming:

President Barack Obama says he believes supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has deep concerns about the civil unrest that has followed the hotly contested presidential election there.

Obama repeated Tuesday at a news conference his “deep ir own, concerns” about the disputed balloting. He said he believes the ayatollah’s decision to order an investigation “indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns.”

The Iranian Ayatollah really isn’t that bad of a guy.  You heard it from Barack Hussein first.

It’s not a question as to whether Obama has been tepid in his response to the mass demonstrations in Iran; it is OBVIOUS he has been tepid.  To date, he has delivered three statements on Iran — having been forced to make the third, somewhat more strongly-worded statement, as a result of Congress’ display of unity in its resolve to stand with the Iranian people.  His first statement delivered on June 15 was simply pathetically weak.  Pure and simple.   And even the French and the Germans have shown more moral backbone and more moral indignation than Barack Obama.

When a French president displays moral outrage, while an American president displays political appeasement, it is more than a shame: it is an absolute abdication of leadership.  And, even worse, when an American president is behind Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in exhibiting moral courage, it is truly a sign of the last pathetic gasps of a fading republic.

No, the question isn’t whether Obama is being tepid; it’s merely a matter of asking why he is being so incredibly tepid.

The reason, from all accounts, is that Obama (cynically if realistically) expects the Iranian leadership to prevail in this current struggle, and he doesn’t want to antagonize the Iranian regime in a way that might undermine his subsequent efforts at the direct negotiations he campaigned on.  That, and he doesn’t want to be accused by the Iranians of “meddling” when that has already been proven absurd: the Iranians have ALREADY accused us of meddling whether we have been or not.

I would argue that Ronald Reagan’s “meddling” when he called the Soviet Union “an evil empire” and when he  said, “Mr. Gorbachev: tear down this wall!” are what is in order.  It isn’t “meddling” to call a spade a spade.  It is hardly “meddling” to decry in the strongest of terms the absence of liberty and freedom in support of a demonstrating people who clearly yearn for them.

We can never know what would have happened had we only done something that we were too timid to do.  It is right to stand with the Iranian people against an evil and unjust system; it is wrong to cynically play realpolitic in the faint hope of having that same evil and unjust system offer a diplomatic bone down the road.

But, getting back to the main point, are Obama’s concerns that he might undermine future negotiations with Iran valid?

I would argue that Obama’s whole project of attaining success through diplomacy with Iran was a fool’s project to begin with.  We are talking about a regime that has based itself for over 30 years on conflict with and opposition to “the Great Satan”, America.

At no time during the Obama presidency have they demonstrated any willingness to cease their efforts toward nuclear weapons.  They simply have no reason to do so.  And there is virtually no reason to believe that Barack Obama will be able to give them one.

By any realistic expectation, Obama’s policy of diplomacy and negotiation with Iran has ALREADY FAILED, as even the New York Times recognizes.  There is nothing left in terms of hopes of future negotiation breakthroughs to hope for.  If nothing else, how is Obama going to personally meet with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or the Ayatollah Khamenei, when the fundamental legitimacy of their government is in such open question?

An insightful article by one of the premier experts on Iran offers insights on precisely how and even why Barack Obama has failed on Iran:

JUNE 22, 2009

Obama’s Persian Tutorial: The president has to choose between the regime and the people in the streets.

By FOUAD AJAMI

President Barack Obama did not “lose” Iran. This is not a Jimmy Carter moment. But the foreign-policy education of America’s 44th president has just begun. Hitherto, he had been cavalier about other lands, he had trusted in his own biography as a bridge to distant peoples, he had believed he could talk rogues and ideologues out of deeply held beliefs. His predecessor had drawn lines in the sand. He would look past them.

Thus a man who had been uneasy with his middle name (Hussein) during the presidential campaign would descend on Ankara and Cairo, inserting himself in a raging civil war over Islam itself. An Iranian theocratic regime had launched a bid for dominion in its region; Mr. Obama offered it an olive branch and waited for it to “unclench” its fist.

It was an odd, deeply conflicted message from Mr. Obama. He was at once a herald of change yet a practitioner of realpolitik. He would entice the crowds, yet assure the autocrats that the “diplomacy of freedom” that unsettled them during the presidency of George W. Bush is dead and buried. Grant the rulers in Tehran and Damascus their due: They were quick to take the measure of the new steward of American power. He had come to “engage” them. Gone was the hope of transforming these regimes or making them pay for their transgressions. The theocracy was said to be waiting on an American opening, and this new president would put an end to three decades of estrangement between the United States and Iran.

But in truth Iran had never wanted an opening to the U.S. For the length of three decades, the custodians of the theocracy have had precisely the level of enmity toward the U.S. they have wanted — just enough to be an ideological glue for the regime but not enough to be a threat to their power. Iran’s rulers have made their way in the world with relative ease. No White Army gathered to restore the dominion of the Pahlavis. The Cold War and oil bailed them out. So did the false hope that the revolution would mellow and make its peace with the world.

Mr. Obama may believe that his offer to Iran is a break with a hard-line American policy. But nothing could be further from the truth. In 1989, in his inaugural, George H.W. Bush extended an offer to Iran: “Good will begets good will,” he said. A decade later, in a typically Clintonian spirit of penance and contrition, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright came forth with a full apology for America’s role in the 1953 coup that ousted nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.

Iran’s rulers scoffed. They had inherited a world, and they were in no need of opening it to outsiders. They were able to fly under the radar. Selective, targeted deeds of terror, and oil income, enabled them to hold their regime intact. There is a Persian pride and a Persian solitude, and the impact of three decades of zeal and indoctrination. The drama of Barack Obama’s election was not an affair of Iran. They had an election of their own to stage. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — a son of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolutionary order, a man from the brigades of the regime, austere and indifferent to outsiders, an Iranian Everyman with badly fitting clothes and white socks — was up for re-election.

The upper orders of his country loathed him and bristled under the system of controls that the mullahs and the military and the revolutionary brigades had put in place, but he had the power and the money and the organs of the state arrayed on his side. There was a discernible fault line in Iran. There were Iranians yearning for liberty, but we should not underestimate the power and the determination of those moved by the yearning for piety. Ahmadinejad’s message of populism at home and defiance abroad, his assertion that the country’s nuclear quest is a “closed file,” settled and beyond discussion, have a resonance on Iranian soil. His challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, a generation older, could not compete with him on that terrain.

On the ruins of the ancien régime, the Iranian revolutionaries, it has to be conceded, have built a formidable state. The men who emerged out of a cruel and bloody struggle over their country’s identity and spoils are a tenacious, merciless breed. Their capacity for repression is fearsome. We must rein in the modernist conceit that the bloggers, and the force of Twitter and Facebook, could win in the streets against the squads of the regime. That fight would be an Iranian drama, all outsiders mere spectators.

That ambivalence at the heart of the Obama diplomacy about freedom has not served American policy well in this crisis. We had tried to “cheat” — an opening to the regime with an obligatory wink to those who took to the streets appalled by their rulers’ cynicism and utter disregard for their people’s intelligence and common sense — and we were caught at it. Mr. Obama’s statement that “the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as had been advertised” put on cruel display the administration’s incoherence. For once, there was an acknowledgment by this young president of history’s burden: “Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.” No Wilsonianism on offer here.

Mr. Obama will have to acknowledge the “foreignness” of foreign lands. His breezy self-assurance has been put on notice. The Obama administration believed its own rhetoric that the pro-Western March 14 coalition in Lebanon had ridden Mr. Obama’s coattails to an electoral victory. (It had given every indication that it expected similar vindication in Iran.)

But the claim about Lebanon was hollow and reflected little understanding of the forces at play in Lebanon’s politics. That contest was settled by Lebanese rules, and by the push and pull of Saudi and Syrian and Iranian interests in Lebanon.

Mr. Obama’s June 4 speech in Cairo did not reshape the Islamic landscape. I was in Saudi Arabia when Mr. Obama traveled to Riyadh and Cairo. The earth did not move, life went on as usual. There were countless people puzzled by the presumption of the entire exercise, an outsider walking into sacred matters of their faith. In Saudi Arabia, and in the Arabic commentaries of other lands, there was unease that so complicated an ideological and cultural terrain could be approached with such ease and haste.

Days into his presidency, it should be recalled, Mr. Obama had spoken of his desire to restore to America’s relation with the Muslim world the respect and mutual interest that had existed 30 or 20 years earlier. It so happened that he was speaking, almost to the day, on the 30th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution — and that the time span he was referring to, his golden age, covered the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the American standoff with Libya, the fall of Beirut to the forces of terror, and the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Liberal opinion would have howled had this history been offered by George W. Bush, but Barack Obama was granted a waiver.

Little more than three decades ago, Jimmy Carter, another American president convinced that what had come before him could be annulled and wished away, called on the nation to shed its “inordinate fear of communism,” and to put aside its concern with “traditional issues of war and peace” in favor of “new global issues of justice, equity and human rights.” We had betrayed our principles in the course of the Cold War, he said, “fought fire with fire, never thinking that fire is quenched with water.” The Soviet answer to that brave, new world was the invasion of Afghanistan in December of 1979.

Mr. Carter would try an atonement in the last year of his presidency. He would pose as a born-again hawk. It was too late in the hour for such redemption. It would take another standard-bearer, Ronald Reagan, to see that great struggle to victory.

Iran’s ordeal and its ways shattered the Carter presidency. President Obama’s Persian tutorial has just begun.

Mr. Ajami, a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is the author of “The Foreigner’s Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq (Free Press, 2007).

It is more than fitting that, in an article that is ostensibly about Barack Obama’s poor handling of the Iranian election opportunity, Dr. Ajami should begin and end with Jimmy Carter.  Because we truly have seen much of Barack Obama’s native and failed policies before in the person of Jimmy Carter.

The biggest problem facing Barack Obama is that he is viewed – and I believe very rightly – as weak.

Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” – and he defeated it without even having to fire a shot simply by forceful and continuous confrontation.  George W. Bush called Iraq, Iran, and North Korea “the axis of evil” – and he defeated one of its members and replaced it with a stable democracy (over Barack Obama’s opposition, by the way).

Barack Obama is viewed by rogue regimes as being unwilling to go to war to stand up for American policy or American values.  He will pursue negotiation and diplomacy come what may – and in so doing allow tyrants to take advantage of the United States.

That is why “North Korea’s Kim Jong Il has challenged President Obama more in four months than he did President George W. Bush in eight years.”

Bottom line: with a Reagan, or with either Bush, dictators knew that there was a point beyond which they dared not go, lest the U.S. unleash its might upon them.  They have no such fear about Barack Obama, and for good reason.

Obama: Fool Or Tool, Either Way He is Dangerous

May 3, 2009

I came across an interesting article via Atlas Shrugs.  I don’t know who Dr. Wheeler is – or if he is actually interacting with an actual French intelligence source (or if that source is being honest if he is) – but the read is interesting and illuminating.

A LAUGHINGSTOCK IN PARIS

Dr. Wheeler has interesting friends in faraway places. He is inside, and always has a fresh skinny inside the beltway and outside — this time, outside the Left Bank. Every once in a while I will run an entire piece of Jack’s, because it’s too juicy not share. But subscribe to his newsletter — worth every penny.

Obama laughingstock

100 DAYS OF BEING A LAUGHINGSTOCK IN PARIS

Paris, France. It is very cool to be a French intel guy. A spectacular meal at a Parisian bistro with $90 entrées and a $200 bottle of Bordeaux? No problem. I’d known this fellow since he got me out of a jam in Sudan years ago. His James Bond days are over, but still, riding a desk for the DGSE — Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure (General Directorate for External Security), France’s military intel agency – in Paris has its decided benefits.

One of them is not being infected with Obamamania. “My agency considers him a joke,” he confides. “Every day there is some fresh lunacy that we cannot believe. Mr. Bush would often make us angry. But at this man we just laugh.”

“In truth, it also makes us sad,” he continued. “French resentment towards America is strong, so being able to laugh at your country feels good. But it is such a sad and strange thing to see America – America The Great! – do something so crazy as to elect this ridiculous man.”

“There are many people in America who think he isn’t a legitimate president as he wasn’t born in the US and isn’t a natural citizen. What do you think?” I asked.

He shrugged. “I wouldn’t know. I’ve never had reason to make an inquiry.”

“There are a lot of people convinced he is a traitor who hates America and is actively determined to destroy it. Any opinion on that?”

He didn’t shrug at this. After a long slow sip of wine, he mused, “I would not go that far. Many of his actions, however, are very puzzling because they are so counter-productive regarding America’s best interests. There seems to be a consistent pattern in that direction.”

“What does Sarkozy think of him?”

Nothing but contempt.”

After a pause he asked, “And Langley?”

“Well, if you thought the war they waged against Bush was intense, it was nothing compared to how they’re going to screw Obama. He has tried to gut them with the ‘torture memo’ release and slashing their budgets. The morale is depressed, sullen, and enraged. You know what a left-wing outfit Langley is. They thought he was their boy and they feel betrayed. All kinds of damaging stuff on him will be appearing via their media friends.”

He nodded. “And in Tel Aviv City?”

He was referring to the huge underground city complex of Langley’s underneath the US Embassy in the Israeli capital. “That’s an interesting question. You know how vast and deep the relationship is there. Langley is making every effort to overcome the total and massive distrust their Israeli colleagues have for Obama, whom they know is selling them down the Jordan River. So far though this effort is in words. The Israelis are waiting to see what Langley does.”

He said nothing. I smiled. “You guys wouldn’t be Langley’s cutout for thwarting BO regarding Israel, would you? I’d never suspect that…”

He continued to say nothing, gave me only a slight smile in return, and poured me another glass of wine. “The Bordeaux is good, yes?” I nodded.

“You know, the French media worships this man the same as yours in the US. All of this ‘100 days’ talk, it is impossibly stupid. Most anyone in the French elite, the business leaders, Sarko’s people, they all know this. They all think this is some crazy joke of the Americans. But it is a very, very dangerous joke. For 100 days your president has been a laughingstock among the tout le monde No one may be laughing 100 days or 10 months from now.”

He leaned forward. “The world can go – how do you say – sideways with this man very quickly. No one he has working for him knows what they are doing – possibly excepting Mrs. Clinton – and he certainly does not. All of us in our little community are worried – us, our friends in Berlin, London, Tel Aviv, and Langley too as you say. It is not like the barbarians at the gates. It is everythere are no gates. The Somalis, Chavez, Iran, Putin, Beijing, the ‘Norks” as you call them, the list is long and it is growing. We are not sure what to do.”

It took me a moment to respond. “The best thing that has happened now is Obama making Langley his enemy. They will be cooperating with you more, be more a part of your worried community. Working together, you can undermine his efforts more effectively, block and maybe even repair the damage.”

It was my turn to lean forward. “Then again, all together you could be more pro-active. The man is a mystery. Nobody can make public his actual birth certificate, or even the particular hospital he was born in, or his college grades, or how he got into Harvard, or how he made editor of the Harvard Law Review and never wrote a single article for it. It goes on and on. He really is a Zero. I think all of you guys should find all of this out and make it known.”

I added, “The quicker the better, before the laughing stops and the real dangers begin.”

“What is that phrase you use?” he asked. “Something to consider?”

I laughed. “Yes, there is much to consider – and much that you can do. I mean, really, if the Soviet Union could be dismantled, so can this presidency.”

It was a beautiful April afternoon in Paris. He walked me back to my hotel. It could be that the times we live in may get even more interesting.

I added the links to the article.  Whether the French intelligence agent sipping his Bordeaux and disclosing his insider knowledge is genuine or a literary device, the facts and fears presented are nevertheless legitimate facts and fears.

Barack Obama is pursuing so many dangerous and foolish policies at once that it is simply unreal.  The U.S. is on the hook for $12.8 trillion dollars – and counting.  He is taking over the auto industry by way of a foolhardy government-UAW partnership that will produce political correctness at the expense of profits.  He is seeking to nationalize one-sixth of the American economy by taking over health care, which is guaranteed to become a massive boondoggle and a massive failure.  He is attempting to impose cap-and-trade on the energy industry in yet another takeover, which will (in Obama’s own words) necessarily send energy prices skyrocketing.  And he has all but decided to surrender on a war on terror that he refused to even call a war on terror any longer.  And his bowing down before the king of Saudi Arabia and shaking the hand of an America-hating Venezuelan dictator only underscore the massive changes in our foreign policy.

Any one of these policies by themselves would undermine America; Obama is pursuing all of them very nearly at once.  Fear – and the desire of many Americans to feel like the government is “doing something” – have created the perfect storm of imposing radical action in the name of averting the “crisis.”

Is Obama a laughingstock among those in the know?  I’m sure not laughing.  Whether he’s a fool or a tool, Obama is the most dangerous man in the world.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers