Tag Archives: foreign policy

Obama: All for Some But None for Liberty

Evidently history does repeat itself, or at least President Obama’s idea of “justice” is consistent. This is particularly true of moments in time when Mr. Obama is confronted with forces and situations where there is a clear-cut difference between those who champion liberty and the proper application of the rule of law, and the semblance of law as applied by the tyrannical and the ruthless.

In 2009, after Mr. Obama bloviated about having reached out to the Iranian mullahs to say that “his country” was ready to “move forward” with relations between the two countries, proceeding with “courage, rectitude and resolve.” That declaration, made in Cairo, Egypt, offered hope to the Green Movement in Iran, the Green Movement being a majority of Iranians who wanted to return to the days of freedom and liberty for their people, days unwitnessed since the Iranian Islamist revolution that delivered the non-native Islamist mullahs to power.

But in the days after the 2009 elections in Iran – an election declared rigged by everyone short of the ethically ambivalent Jimmy Carter, when the basiji and secret police were murdering freedom protesters in the streets, even as they screamed out in every avenue of communication possible for US assistance, Mr. Obama dashed the hopes of the Iranian freedom fighters. With the simple statement that the United States did not want “to be seen as meddling” in the disputed Iranian presidential election, Mr. Obama extended a figurative middle-finger to those brave people literally dying in the streets of Tehran in a quest to be free of Islamist oppression.

Mr. Obama, with those simple words, abandoned the battle for liberty and freedom being waged by people yearning to be free.

Fast forward to the present day and yet another instance of a quest for freedom from the unjust and tyrannical, this time involving the imprisonment of a former United States Marine, if in fact, there can ever be anything a kin to a “former Marine.”

The Washington Times reports that in March of 2014, honorably discharged Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooresi was imprisoned, “for illegally crossing from California into Mexico with three firearms in his truck. The Marine maintains that he crossed the border by accident after making a wrong turn on his way to meet a friend. He faces up to 14 years in prison if convicted.”

Since that time Americans, of every political denomination, have urged President Obama to do something – anything – to secure the release of Mr. Tahmooresi, a veteran diagnosed with PTSD. Again, from The Washington Times:

“More than 134,000 people signed a petition on the White House’s ‘We the People’ website asking the president to demand the release of Sgt. Tahmooressi, who was imprisoned nearly five months ago for illegally crossing from California into Mexico with three firearms in his truck…

“‘As in all cases when a US citizen is arrested overseas, our goal is to see that Mr. Tahmooressi is treated fairly during the judicial process with the hope that he can receive the support, both emotional and medical, that he may require now and at the conclusion of the proceedings,’ the White House said in an official response Friday.

“‘Mexican authorities have been very willing to engage on this issue. They have provided prompt and continued consular access and visitations,’ the statement continued. ‘We respect the rule of law and expect the judicial process of sovereign nations to protect other US citizens who might find themselves in similar circumstances in the future. We will continue to monitor the case and work with the Mexican authorities as this case proceeds through the Mexican judicial system. We continue to urge the Mexican authorities to process this case expeditiously.’”

Once again, Mr. Obama conveniently abdicates his responsibility to champion those seeking freedom and liberty from the oppression of tyranny.

Did Mr. Tahmooresi cross the border into Mexico with those firearms? Yes, and realizing his driving error, he freely offered up the fact he had those firearms. He did not try to hide the fact that he was in possession of the weapons and did not obstruct the Mexican authorities at the border. What should have been an instance where the Mexican authorities refused entrance to Mr. Tahmooresi based on his possession of the weapons, became a political hostage talking, and a political hostage taking that the Mexican government (if that’s what you want to call what they have) knew full well they would get away with given Mr. Obama’s milquetoast response to those crying out for actual justice in instances of tyrannical oppression.

Is it any wonder why the overwhelming majority of active-duty military personnel believe that Mr. Obama does not have “their six”?

Obama: All for Some But None for Liberty

Evidently history does repeat itself, or at least President Obama’s idea of “justice” is consistent. This is particularly true of moments in time when Mr. Obama is confronted with forces and situations where there is a clear-cut difference between those who champion liberty and the proper application of the rule of law, and the semblance of law as applied by the tyrannical and the ruthless.

In 2009, after Mr. Obama bloviated about having reached out to the Iranian mullahs to say that “his country” was ready to “move forward” with relations between the two countries, proceeding with “courage, rectitude and resolve.” That declaration, made in Cairo, Egypt, offered hope to the Green Movement in Iran, the Green Movement being a majority of Iranians who wanted to return to the days of freedom and liberty for their people, days unwitnessed since the Iranian Islamist revolution that delivered the non-native Islamist mullahs to power.

But in the days after the 2009 elections in Iran – an election declared rigged by everyone short of the ethically ambivalent Jimmy Carter, when the basiji and secret police were murdering freedom protesters in the streets, even as they screamed out in every avenue of communication possible for US assistance, Mr. Obama dashed the hopes of the Iranian freedom fighters. With the simple statement that the United States did not want “to be seen as meddling” in the disputed Iranian presidential election, Mr. Obama extended a figurative middle-finger to those brave people literally dying in the streets of Tehran in a quest to be free of Islamist oppression.

Mr. Obama, with those simple words, abandoned the battle for liberty and freedom being waged by people yearning to be free.

Fast forward to the present day and yet another instance of a quest for freedom from the unjust and tyrannical, this time involving the imprisonment of a former United States Marine, if in fact, there can ever be anything a kin to a “former Marine.”

The Washington Times reports that in March of 2014, honorably discharged Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooresi was imprisoned, “for illegally crossing from California into Mexico with three firearms in his truck. The Marine maintains that he crossed the border by accident after making a wrong turn on his way to meet a friend. He faces up to 14 years in prison if convicted.”

Since that time Americans, of every political denomination, have urged President Obama to do something – anything – to secure the release of Mr. Tahmooresi, a veteran diagnosed with PTSD. Again, from The Washington Times:

“More than 134,000 people signed a petition on the White House’s ‘We the People’ website asking the president to demand the release of Sgt. Tahmooressi, who was imprisoned nearly five months ago for illegally crossing from California into Mexico with three firearms in his truck…

“‘As in all cases when a US citizen is arrested overseas, our goal is to see that Mr. Tahmooressi is treated fairly during the judicial process with the hope that he can receive the support, both emotional and medical, that he may require now and at the conclusion of the proceedings,’ the White House said in an official response Friday.

“‘Mexican authorities have been very willing to engage on this issue. They have provided prompt and continued consular access and visitations,’ the statement continued. ‘We respect the rule of law and expect the judicial process of sovereign nations to protect other US citizens who might find themselves in similar circumstances in the future. We will continue to monitor the case and work with the Mexican authorities as this case proceeds through the Mexican judicial system. We continue to urge the Mexican authorities to process this case expeditiously.’”

Once again, Mr. Obama conveniently abdicates his responsibility to champion those seeking freedom and liberty from the oppression of tyranny.

Did Mr. Tahmooresi cross the border into Mexico with those firearms? Yes, and realizing his driving error, he freely offered up the fact he had those firearms. He did not try to hide the fact that he was in possession of the weapons and did not obstruct the Mexican authorities at the border. What should have been an instance where the Mexican authorities refused entrance to Mr. Tahmooresi based on his possession of the weapons, became a political hostage talking, and a political hostage taking that the Mexican government (if that’s what you want to call what they have) knew full well they would get away with given Mr. Obama’s milquetoast response to those crying out for actual justice in instances of tyrannical oppression.

Is it any wonder why the overwhelming majority of active-duty military personnel believe that Mr. Obama does not have “their six”?

Rand Paul Blames America First, Advocates Appeasement

If you needed any more evidence that Rand Paul is totally indistinguishable from his father on foreign and defense policy and is a member of the Blame America First crowd, here’s that evidence.

On February 25th, when interviewed by the Washington Post’s Robert Costa, Sen. Paul falsely accused “some Republicans” of harboring a Cold War mindset and exhorted the US to maintain a “respectful” relationship with Russia even in the face of Russia’s invasion and occupation of the Crimea.

Speaking to the liberal WaPo, Rand said:

“Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time and I don’t think that’s a good idea.”

Excuse me? REPUBLICANS are stuck in the Cold War era?

On the contrary, it is Russia’s government, especially its President Vladimir Putin (an unreconstructed KGB thug) and his inner circle (composed mostly of his fellow KGB thugs and other members of the Saint Petersburg clique) who harbor a Cold War mindset – and deep-seated hatred of America and the Western civilization.

(Which is not surprising, because just like a wolf will always remain a wolf preying on sheep, KGB thugs will always remain KGB thugs and will always prey on weak victims.)

It is Vladimir Putin’s Russia which has, in recent years:

  1. Repeatedly flown nuclear-armed strategic borders into US, allied (Japanese), and even neutral (Swedish) airspace and said the Russian AF was “practicing attacking the enemy.” What on Earth have SWEDEN and JAPAN done to Russia? For that matter, what has America done to Russia? Nothing.
  2. Repeatedly (on at least 15 separate occassions) threatened to aim or even use its nuclear weapons against the US and its allies.
  3. Invaded two sovereign countries that dared to try to break out of Moscow’s sphere of influence and align themselves with the West (Georgia and UKraine) and continues to occupy both countries.
  4. Repeatedly violated several arms reduction treaties, including the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and the INF Treaty, the latter being violated by Russia by repeatedly testing and deploying nuclear-armed missiles banned by that treaty.
  5. Deployed nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad District, next to Poland, threatening that loyal ally of the US.
  6. Backed America’s enemies around the world – North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba – to the hilt, with diplomatic protection at the UN Security Council, weapons (including the advanced S-300VM air defense system), nuclear fuel (Iran), and nuclear reactors (Iran).
  7. Stationed a spy ship, the Viktor Leonov, in Cuba (it’s still there).
  8. Conducted, and continues to conduct, a wave of hateful anti-American propaganda in domestic and foreign (e.g. RussiaToday) media.
  9. Sent an Akula-class nuclear-armed submarine close to the US submarine base in King’s Bay, GA.
  10. Domestically, assassinated high-profile dissidents (Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko) and jailed hundreds of others.

Yet, Rand Paul claims that REPUBLICANS are the ones “stuck in the Cold War era”?!

How dare you even make such a false and outrageous claim, Senator?!

America is supposed to have a cordial, “respectful” relationship with such a hostile country, led by a KGB thug, and appease it (“avoid antagonizing it” in Randspeak) ?

No, Senator. You are dead wrong. Most Republicans are very critical of Russia (and of President Obama’s soft policy towards it), but NOT because of Cold War past.

Republicans are critical of Putinist Russia and Obama’s reset – and demand a tougher policy – because of Russia’s CURRENT and RECENT behavior, which has been very aggressive, anti-American, and dangerous to America’s own national security.

It is because of Russia’s CURRENT and RECENT behavior that Republicans demand that tough steps be taken towards Russia.

But Rand says no. He claims the US should “avoid antagonizing Russia” and have “a respectful relationship” with Moscow even despite Russia’s recent aggression, because Russia is still a geopolitical and military power which wields hundreds of ICBMs.

You are dead wrong again, Senator.

The only right response to intimidation and aggression, especially from dictatorships like Putin’s Russia, is strength and toughness, not “respect” and appeasement as you advocate.

ReaganPeaceQuote

In fact, the ONLY thing dictators and bullies like Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un respect and fear is STRENGTH combined with TOUGHNESS – a bold moral stand against them combined with a demonstrated willingness to use that STRENGTH if need be.

Dictators and aggressors like Putin understand only the language of force. The only thing that can deter them is superior military and economic force, combined with a proven willingness to use it to stop these dictators and aggressors. All human history, from the ancient times to the 21st century, demonstrates this.

Potential aggressors prey on weak victims, not strong ones. Weakness is provocative; it entices aggressors to commit actions they would otherwise refrain from.

And it is ESPECIALLY important to build up and show strength in the face of POWERFUL aggressors like Russia and China. They, having dramatically built up their economic and military strength, are so self-confident, so sure of their power, so emboldened and arrogant, that ONLY superior military and economic power, combined with a proven willingness to use both, can deter them from making more mischief.

Rand’s argument is essentially: “Russia is a geopolitical and military superpower, so let’s be weak in the face of such power and play nice with it.” That is a recipe for aggression, death, and destruction.

But Rand Paul, despite his pious assurances that he supports a Reaganite “Peace Through Strength” foreign policy, clearly doesn’t understand that, and never will. He claims Obama’s “reset” (read: appeasement) policy has been good for America – even though it is that failed “reset” policy that got us into this mess in the first place!

“We ought to be, I think, proud of where we’ve gotten with that relationship, and even when we have problems with Russia, realize that we’re in a much better place than wer were once upon a time.”

At a time when most Americans have realized that Obama’s “reset” policy has been an utter and disastrous failure, Paul thinks it has worked great and thinks the US should be “proud” of it!

Dictators and aggressors like Putin will not cease attacking weaker victims, and threatening the United States, if the US continues its utterly failed “reset” (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia, China, and Iran. This is the very policy that got us into the current mess in the first place. Yet, Rand wants to double down on it.

Rand also says the US should “avoid antagonizing Russia over Ukraine” because Ukraine has, for a long time, been in Russia’s sphere of influence. “The Ukraine has a long history of either being a part of the Soviet Union or within that sphere.”

It’s true that Ukraine has long been in Russia’s orbit – but NOT by its own free will! NO country on Earth has ever freewillingly been in Russia’s sphere of influence! All countries which have ever been in Moscow’s orbit fell into it as a result of Russian aggression, whether an overt invasion and occupation (as in Ukraine’s case) or through Russian-sponsored coups (e.g. Cuba and Nicaragua) and guerilla wars (e.g. Vietnam).

The only reason why Ukraine has been under Moscow’s yoke for a long time is because of Russian occupation – that is, Russian domination imposed by force.

Now Ukraine is trying to break free of Moscow’s yoke – and THAT is why Russia has invaded it.

But Rand doesn’t stop there. Not only does he advocate more appeasement of Russia, he falsely accuses America of telling Ukraine what to do. He told the WaPo on Feb. 25th:

“I don’t think it behooves us to tell the Ukraine what to do.”

You are lying yet again, Senator. No American politician is telling Ukraine what to do. The US, along with the European Union, is simply supporting (although inadequately and half-heartedly) Ukraine in its desire to free itself from the Russian yoke and integrate with the West – a choice the Ukrainian people have freewillingly made (and stood for even when their former dictator sent snipers and riot police against them).

The US has never dictated to the Ukraine what to do. OTOH, Russia has, and continues to. Russia has always adamantly opposed Ukraine’s possible integration with the West and last December even bribed the oligarchs in the Ukrainian parliament to steer Kiev away from the West. Now that the Ukranian people have ousted their former dictator Viktor Yanukovych and his oligarch chums, Putin has invaded the Ukraine – to ensure, by brute force if necessary, that Ukraine does not join the EU and does not integrate with the West.

Rand Paul is lying once again, in the “best” traditions of the RussiaToday/Alex Jones/Blame America First/Ron Paul crowd: he accuses AMERICA of telling another country what to do, when it is actually America’s adversary who is dictating to that country its future path.

Shame on you, Senator Paul, for lying so blatantly to the American people, for badmouthing America and your fellow Republicans while speaking to a liberal media outlet, for whitewashing and appeasing Russia, and for advocating treasonous policies!

Shame on you, Washington Post, for giving this traitor another venue to vent his anti-American garbage!

Shame on you, 31% of CPAC attendees, for voting for this traitor!

The utter failure of Obama’s “reset” policy

putin_210

putin_210

Russia’s decisions to grant asylum to Edward Snowden and to send warships to the coast of Syria to protect that country’s regime from the United States are just the latest hostile steps taken by Russia against the US, in a long line of hostile actions take against the US under Vladimir Putin’s rule.

But these two events are notable in and of themselves, because they are the final nails in the coffin of the Obama Administration’s utterly failed “reset” (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia.

Despite, or perhaps because of, this utterly failed and shameful policy, Russia is even more hostile and virulently anti-American than it was in January 2009.

This is not surprising to anyone who actually knows foreign policy well – unlike the self-appointed “experts” populating the Council on Foreign Relations, the Obama administration, RINO Republicans like Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell, and most Washington (and European) think-tanks, who to this very day delude themselves that the “reset” has been a success and that Russia is a partner rather than a foe. (Obama himself falsely claimed in September, AFTER the Snowden affair and Assad’s chemical weapons attack on Syria, that “we succeeded” and that the “reset” allegedly produced “a whole host” of outcomes beneficial to the US.)

Nor is it any surprise to Mitt Romney, who, last year, correctly called Russia “America’s #1 geopolitical foe”, although China seems to compete hard for that coveted title. Mitt Romney was absolutely right, and Obama absolutely wrong, all along.

Already during the Bush years, I was warning that the Bush administration, where Condoleezza Rice (a RINO of the same mold as Colin Powell who, just like Powell, voted for Obama) called the shots on foreign policy, was engaged in craven appeasement of Putin’s Russia – a policy that even Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s nat-sec advisor, condemned as shameful and Chamberlain-like.

President Bush unilaterally cut America’s nuclear deterrent, scrapped the USAF’s most modern and capable ICBMs (MX Peacekeeper missiles), and retired the USAF’s most capable cruise missiles, the AGM-129s. Moreover, he cravenly sought Vladimir Putin’s permission to deploy a meager 10 interceptors in Central Europe to protect the US from Iran.

Barack Obama and his administration elevated appeasement to an art, calling it “reset” and starting a long, one-way street of concessions to Russia in the vain hope the Kremlin would reciprocate.

Since 2009, the US has agreed (under New START) to cut its own nuclear deterrent by 33% while allowing Russia to grow its own; to intrusive inspections of its missile defense facilities; to allow Russia to join the WTO; to make no more than symbolic complaints about Russia’s massive human rights violations; and to cancel plans to deploy missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama has also made massive cuts in missile defense spending and programs, killing those programs that would’ve provided the most effective defense (MKV, KEI, ABL, SM-3 4th stage). In 2012, he even promised the Russians “more flexibility” on missile defense and nuclear weapons after his reelection.

And yet, Russia has not become even one iota more cooperative or less hostile since 2009.

While Russia has provided some meager assistance to the US in Afghanistan – renting aircraft and opening its supply lines to that country – it had already been cooperating on that front since 2001. Obama and his utterly failed “reset” policy had nothing to do with this. Russia is cooperating on Afghanistan out of its own national interest – NOT because of any desire to collaborate with the US on anything. Terrorists based in Afghanistan pose a much greater danger to Russia than the US.

Russia, in any case, is not much help there – renting its aircraft is far more expensive than operating the USAF’s own, and delivering supplies through Russia is several times more expensive than through Pakistan.

So Russia’s “help” on Afghanistan is utterly useless. The US could’ve procured a number of additional American-made C-17 aircraft (and thus also create some US jobs) instead of renting those grotesquely-expensive Russian planes.

On nothing else has Russia been cooperative.

It has not cancelled the sale of S-300 air defense systems as is often erroneously claimed – it has decided to sell a different (but equally capable) S-300VM instead of the S-300PMU. Moreover, it now plans to sell it to Syria as well.

It supplies America’s enemies – Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and even Hezbollah – with diplomatic protection and (excepting NK and Cuba) with weapons. Russia’s deputy foreign minister has even said this about Hezbollah:

“We cooperate with Hezb’allah and respect the Lebanese people’s will… this party, which has proven its credibility [over the course of time], must [have its opinions] respected.”

Russia has built nuclear reactors in Iran, has supplied tons of nuclear fuel to that country, and continues to supply it with that, as well as weapons and diplomatic protection. If Iran ever acquires a nuclear weapon, let alone uses it against anyone, Russia will be directly responsible.

Russia had the Boston bombers (the Tsarnayev brothers) wiretapped for months before the Boston bomb attack, and withheld critical information from US intel and law enforcement – information that could’ve prevented the terrorist attack. In other words, it willfully allowed the terrorist attacks to succeed. (But that doesn’t stop Putin from deceitfully posing as a friend of the US, and many Americans, including many Republicans like Dana Rohrabacher and Pat Buchanan, from being utterly duped by Putin.)

Moscow also continues to widely disseminate anti-American propaganda – at home and in the US itself – through state-owned radio and TV channels such as “Russia Today”/RT, which broadcasts in the US and on the Internet, is wholly owned and operated by the Kremlin, employs Russian propagandists and some useful American idiots, and spreads vociferous anti-American propaganda. (And because of births of a feather tend to flock together, Ron Paul fans like Julie Borowski love to appear on that channel.)

RussiaToday is, BTW, operating ILLEGALLY in the US, in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires all those who perform PR work for a foreign actor, and all media outlets which perform such work or present a foreign actor’s viewpoint or propaganda, to register at the DOJ as foreign agents, constantly notify the DOJ of their financial operations, and, in case of TV channels, permanently display a “Acts on behalf of a foreign actor” strip on the TV screen.

RT has not satisfied any of these legal requirements, meaning that it is operating illegally in the US and is thus a criminal organization.

And, as a part of their craven appeasement policies, the Bush and Obama administrations have tolerated this.

You can see what persons and entities have registered in the US on behalf of any country here. Pick “Russia” from the list and see for yourself – the RussiaToday channel has NOT registered as with the DOJ as an agent of the Russian government.

Russia has been busy for the last several years building an increasingly capable missile defense system – while demanding that the US stop developing and upgrading its own and foreswear deploying it abroad.

Moscow has, simoultaneously, been pursuing an offensive arms race against the US – extending the service lifetimes of its current weapons while ordering large numbers of new ones. On order are, inter alia, 400 new ICBMs, hundreds of SLBMs, 8 ballistic missile subs, hundreds of 5th generation stealthy PAKFA fighters, and new tanks. Russia is also building new Tu-160 from stockpiled components and developing a new, stealthy bomber – the PAK DA. Russia’s navy is building new, more capable classes of ships as well, and one Akula class submarine spied on the USN’s submarine base at Kings Bay (GA) last year.

In the last year, Russia’s provocative and hostile actions have only worsened, as it has begun flying  nuclear-armed bombers (and their escort fighters) very near US airspace and twice INTO Japanese airspace, as well as into Swedish airspace once. This included simulated strikes on US missile defense sites in Alaska, California, and Japan, on Japanese bases, on US bases in Guam (a strategically important island in the Western Pacific), and Sweden’s military bases.

What’s worse, Russia’s aggressive, simulated attacks have found Sweden completely unprepared to defend itself, due to its shortage of fighters and pilots.

When asked by reporters what they were doing flying close to Alaska, the Russians said they were “practicing attacking the enemy.”

This is what they consider the US to be: “the enemy.” Those are their words, not mine.

In September, the civilized world observed the 30th anniversary of the Soviet massacre of KAL007, a civilian airliner that erroneously ventured into Soviet airspace and was shot down. The commander of the base from which the Su-15 interceptors executing the shootdown originated was one Anatoliy Kornukov – later Commander of the Russian AF under Yeltsin and Putin, photographed happily sharing drinks with the later.

This criminal is one of Putin’s drinking friends.

But I’m not surprised. Once a KGB thug, always a KGB thug. Putin has spent his entire adult life learning to hate and to destroy, then trying to destroy, the Western civilization, including the US. He’ll never change, just like an Islamic terrorist will never forego jihad. What I am surprised by is that so many Americans were so foolish that they reelected Barack Obama, the author of the “reset” appeasement policy, last year – over the realist, tough, no-nonsense Gov. Mitt Romney. November 6th, 2012, will likely be the most shameful date in American history for perpetuity.

Below: Photos of Vladimir Putin meeting and shaking hands with other virulently anti-American dictators around the world.

putin

 

Obama’s Speech-Putin’s Ruse

kerrysavingface_donkeyhotey

                                  

I’m starting this blog with some comments that appeared on the GOPUSA site I agree with about Obama’s speech followed by my commentary as usual. In the first comment Lurch is the nickname for Kerry :D

Comment by jenersea
September 11, 2013 @ 1:48 pm

Leave it to Lurch to suck up to the Communists led by Putin again. I think all of this was and is that he could get close to his heros again and take orders from them. Only Lurch and his stupes in the State Department would believe that the weapons will be confiscated and destroyed. All the time they will be sitting there on the Russian Naval Base awaiting the next use of them by Assad. Lurch, dig out the old files and see that you always have to verify everything that the Russkies sign onto. Complete incompetents. Mean while the illegal invasion continues on our Southern Borders non-stop.

Comment by eagle525
September 11, 2013 @ 2:19 pm

Obama is way out of his league on international politics … Putin ( Russia’s Prime minister) will eat Obama alive every time. That is what happens when a totally inept community organizer, with zero governance experience is elected to the nations highest office. Obama’s election to office is indicator of the American voters ignorance of current events and politics.

 js071257  
September 11, 2013 @ 2:44 pm

If we accept this deal, we have surrendered our status as the super power of the world.

You can NEVER take use of force off the table.

But paint me as one of those tin foil hat wearers, who believes this is exactly what Obama wants. He despises this country for the prosperity we have achieved over the past two hundred years and now he has the power, along with willing traitors in our congress and the statist media, to put us in the kind of harm’s way, we will never recover from.

Comment by eagle525
September 11, 2013 @ 3:49 pm

Well I will go along with your commentary and do believe O is intentionally sinking this country,
However, my opinion is that he is destroying us from within … socially, economically and morally. He is succeeding where Obama Bin Laden failed

 The above comments were on the  GOPUSA site and I agree with them totally. I thought Obama’s speech was weak and self centered as usual as he is saying he’s the one who ends wars and is taking credit for his threat for using force for ending this stalemate. Meanwhile new surveys show that 2/3 of the American people trust Putin more than they do Obama. If Obama is really concerned about “the children” over there we should have sent in a strike three years ago when the rebels were more pro-American  instead of now  when they are mostly Al-Suriyah, Al-Nusra and Al Qaeda  which are the most aggressive groups

Meanwhile Putin is playing Obama like a fiddle and the Assad agreement was just a clever  ruse on Putin’s part. While Obama is taking credit for Putin’s suggestion of having Assad hand over his weapons to U.N. inspectors he (Putin) is supplying Iran with S-3000 surface to air missiles and shield over their nuke plants in case we want  to  strike  them. Striking Iran’s nuke plants is what we should have done long ago  to show we are powerful and mean business, but wimpy Obama didn’t do that so now they are a year away from developing a nuke and carrying out their plan to destroy Isreal  and destroy us too in the process with Russia  shielding them with a missile shield.

Russia in 2007 signed a contract to deliver five of the advanced ground-to-air weapons — which can take out aircraft or guided missiles — to Iran at a cost of $800 million.

In 2010, then-president Dmitry Medvedev cancelled the contract after coming under strong US and Israeli pressure not to go ahead with the sale of the weapons system, drawing vehement protests from Tehran.

The source told Kommersant that Russia’s offer would depend on Iran’s withdrawing a $4 billion lawsuit that it has lodged at an international court in Geneva against Russia’s arms export agency.

While all this is going on the white house released a statement saying they would continue to pursue those responsible for the deaths of four U.S. citizens in Benghazi. What a total misconception. What a total bunch of B.S. The American people will not fall for that. It’s been a year and they know who the culprits are and the media even interviewed them at one point. Obviously he (Obama) studied at the OJ Simpson school of finding the perpetrators.

Last night on Sean Hannity’s show   the father of Ty Woods appeared with Col. Olver North and read a letter he sent to Obama demanding answers to the deaths and who gave the order to stand down.

In the United States, the families of those killed a year ago at the consulate say the Obama administration has yet to tell them what really happened, and why it is that none of the killers has been captured or killed.

“It’s hard. I never expected this from my government,” Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, told Fox News. “All they have to do is tell me the truth.”  Sean Smith was a consulate information officer  who  was  among the four people killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists.

The White House on Wednesday pledged it would continue to pursue those responsible for the deaths of four U.S. citizens a year ago in Benghazi, Libya.

“The events of last year, losing four brave Americans – Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – brought home the reality of the challenges we face in the world,” press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement marking the first anniversary of the Benghazi attack and the 12th anniversary of the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

As one commenter astutely said:

“First thing he (Obama)  should do is admit to lying to the American people. Secondly, explain why security was denied when requested. Thirdly, who gave the order to stand down and refuse to go to the aid of the Americans. This is just another shell game this administration plays in order to cover for their incompetence. The same people who now want to bomb innocent civilians are doing so to cover for all the scandals confronting them, Benghazi, IRS , AP and NSA. The say they will do something about Benghazi which seems unlikely, but when are they going to do something about the others?”

We have had some blatant scandal level cover ups within the Obama administration and every one of them have fizzled out as Obama, Eric Holder, liberal Congressional leaders, and the liberal media continue to ignore efforts to find out what happened and who was responsible for the decisions involved. And for who is Holder, who is supposed to be our chief law enforcer, but is really our chief law breaker, doing this? Well our current President of course…as Holder is the “enforcer” for the Obama led Chicago style takeover of our federal government.

NOW PUTIN ARMS IRAN!

Iran to U.S.: ‘We will destroy your world’…

PAPER: US can’t prove Assad ordered chemical attack…

» Russia to send Iran missile systems » News — GOPUSA

» Another year, another Benghazi pledge from Obama » News — GOPUSA

» A year after Benghazi families still wait for answers » News — GOPUSA

 

Hypocrisy When It Comes To Obama

DonkeyHotey (CC)

The nation recently celebrated Martin Luther King’s million man march and famous speech in Washington D.C. in which he declared, ”I have  a dream where we judge a person not by the color of his skin ,but the content of their character.” Enter Barack Obama. Ask anyone why they voted for him and blacks say “Because he’s black”’ and whites say, ”because he’s the first black president,” even though nobody knew anything about him and the  media never properly vetted him. If you dare criticize Obama you are labled a racist. Today there are still many unanswered questions about him from who his real father is, his fraudulent birth certificates (he listed three versions), his fraudulent social security number (they claim it was a typo),his questionable college attendance since there are no records of him attending Occidental or Columbia and no pictures of him  in any yearbooks or newspapers and nobody remembers him at either college, and how a young kid fresh from Indonesia  with no job could afford both colleges and there is no record of him taking out any loans, but he’s the first black president so that’s all that matters and if you criticize him on any of these you’re branded a racist. What happened to judging a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin? MLK must be turning in his grave. I wonder what these people think if they knew MLK was a republican?

Recently on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said the reason republicans in congress are reluctant to criticize Obama with the exception of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio is because of being labeled a racist.

Well lo and behold, wonder of wonders, two leading Hollywood leftists, Ed Asner and  Mike Farrell are speaking out against their guy Obama on Syria and admit that Hollywood is not speaking out against Obama like they did with George Bush for fear of being labeled anti-black.

Another reason some Hollywood progressives have been reticent to speak out against war in Syria, according to Asner, is fear of being called racist.

“A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama,” he said.

Farrell and Asner both say that beating the war drums on Syria is one of many mistakes Obama has made.

“I voted for him, but I’m not proud. He hasn’t thrown himself on the funeral pyre. I wanted him to sacrifice himself. Instead, he has proved himself to be a corporatist, and as long as he’s a corporatist, he’s not my president,” Asner said. “A lot of people have lost hope — with the betrayals, the NSA spying … People aren’t getting active because ‘Who gives a shit?’ is essentially the bottom line.”

Adds Farrell: “I’m frankly deeply disappointed in the president’s foreign policy, war-making, his reliance on military rather than diplomatic responses, his use of drones, continued allowance of the Guantanamo prison. He’s a disappointment to me and other people I know.”

As much as Obama is loved by Hollywood power-brokers, Asner says he doesn’t fear backlash by speaking against the president.

“Hollywood can’t mobilize for that either,” he joked. “If they try to punish me, what are they gonna do? Take away my pension.

Another one speaking out against Obama going into Syria is his biggest cheerleader Chris Mathews. What’s the matter Chris, lose that Obama thrill running up and down your leg?

Many people are viewing  the attack on Syria as a beginning of biblical fulfillment of the coming  end of times with Damascus being leveled “Behold, Damascus is about to be removed from being a city, and will become a fallen ruin,” reads Isaiah 17, a passage some Christians say they believe details a horrific event that leaves the city uninhabitable and leads to worldwide tribulation and the second coming of Christ. Damascus is the Syrian capital and one of the world’s oldest cities.

Another passage in Isaiah 19 deals with civil war in Egypt and the rise of a “fierce king.”

Talk of those prophecies has intensified as President Barack Obama considers a U.S. military strike on Syria in response to what Washington says is evidence that the Syrian leadership used chemical weapons against its own people. In turn, Syria vows to retaliate against neighboring Israel if the U.S. strikes.

Speaking at a news conference in Paris, Sec.of State John Kerry said the videos make clear that the attack is not something Americans can ignore.

The United States has accused Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government of using chemical weapons in an Aug. 21 assault, and cited intelligence reports as saying it killed at least 1,429 people, including more than 400 children. The videos show the victims exhibiting what appear to be symptoms of nerve gas poisoning.

“Those videos make it clear to people that these are real human beings, real children, parents being affected in ways that are unacceptable to anybody, anywhere by any standards,” Kerry said. “And the United States of America that has always stood with others to say we will not allow this – this is not our values, it’s not who we are.”

Where was Kerry when Saddam gassed 5000 people in one day and killed a million of his own people. Kerry, Hilary, Harry Reid and I bet even Obama were castigating Bush for going into Iraq. Kerry bashed our troops just like he did in the 60’s saying “American soldiers were terrorizing Iraqui women and children in the dead of night kicking their doors down.” Now all of a sudden they want to do this “across the bow” strike on Syria that will open up a whole can of worms? Assad has Russia, Iran, and North Korea in back of him while all we have is “moral support” This can kick off  WW 111. Incidentally the so called stockpiles of gas Assad has are the WMD’s we were looking for in Iraq. Saddam had them shipped out before, during and after the war by Russian soldiers disguised  as Iraqis which is why we didn’t find them so Bush didn’t lie after all. Besides, Germany said Saddam had them, France said he had them, Britain said he had them and Saudi Arabia said he had them and he did have them until he shipped them out to Syria.

At a recent press conference Obama’s chief of Staff   Denis McDonough said Obama, Congress and the rest of the world no longer doubt the fact Assad carried out such horrific crimes against his people.” McDonough also said we have no military allies just  their moral support and don’t need them for just a missile strike.

As one commenter noted: “How can we believe ANYTHING, especially since this press conference was filled with BLATANT LIES…

LIE – “We feel very good about the support we have”
….REALITY – Obama et al are HORRIFIED at the broad coalition AGAINST their plans.

LIES – “Nobody now debates the intelligence” – “Everybody believes that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people”
….REALITY – Everyone doubts the intelligence. Many wonder whether the rebels themselves did this to bring us into the war.

LIE – “If chemical weapons are moved to the front lines, it means a greater risk of them being proliferated”
….REALITY – If chemical weapons are moved to the front lines, they will be USED, not “proliferated”

Columnist Kyle Smith in today’s N.Y.Post said,”Ruthless dictators who have been murdering their own citizens by the thousands aren’t likely to be scared by a pre-announced two day show of fireworks. Obama’s message that we should send  in a “clear and decisive very limited way”is another classic. Dictators don’t do limited.They do ruthless. That’s how they passed their final exam in dictator school.”

As columnist Charles Krauthammer  said, ”I say send a text. It’s less expensive.” :D

Ed Asner Explains Hollywood Silence: They 'Don't Want to Feel Anti-Black'...

Syria's 'rebels' and soldiers agree: Military strikes will change nothing...

Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate

OBAMA TO LINK SYRIA WITH IRAN?

Some see biblical visions of doom...

WorldTribune.com: UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD on eve of war

PAPER: Regime forces may have used gas without Assad's permission...

Rep. King: Obama Acting More Like ‘Community Organizer’

The End Of Policy Revisited

us_map_flag

us_map_flagNote from Taylor: My buddy, William K, sent me an email last week in reply to this article from Reason Magazine. I don’t 100% agree with him, especially on foreign policy where I think he’s dead wrong, but he brings up some excellent points.

Hi Taylor,

I almost agree with what he’s saying. I do agree that the GOP has an almost non-existent public policy. I disagree with the idea that the Democrat party has no public policy. It may be that there is nothing distinctly new about their policy, but I believe their policy is to chisel in the public a new dependence upon the types of central planning (efficient government or some other euphemism) which provides the essentials (food, health, transportation, even jobs). Most of the impactful parts of Obamacare have not actually been implemented and can, in theory, still be brought down. What I do agree about is the sort of dishwater leadership we currently have in both chambers and the party at large.

Furthermore, there’s nothing “wrong” with the Democrat policy agenda. It’s working as long as they can tie their failings to the nebulous “other” which is the source of all wrongs. Were it not for the “other,” we might have found the philosopher’s stone of governance. In any case, true scandals (intelligences leaks, Ambassador Stevens killed in the Islamist attack on Benghazi and the subsequent obfuscation of what happened and why, the IRS targeting conservative oriented non-profits which faced scrutiny at a rate of almost 15:1, etc.) have yet to stick or gain traction. There are three more years and no sign that any of these will actually matter.

Regardless of the legality or the propriety of their actions, what the Democrat party is doing is working, even if it is slower than what they prefer. This incremental approach works, even if it is frustrating for them. If a conservative compromises on a law over a conviction, he moves further away than where his ideals state he should be. If a liberal compromises the same way, his march is simply a little slower.

Finally, I want to point out one thing that bothers me about libertarians, especially the more fiscally conscious ones – the ones with whom I am probably the most aligned. There seems to be a streak of isolationism in them and a aversion to defense spending. While a lot of energy based problems are self-inflicted, one cannot deny that the American Navy has kept the seas safe for international commerce. Our Navy basically guarantees that the crude petroleum produced in the Levant is able to make it to America as well as the mostly free Western Europe. Our defense spending as a percentage of GDP has been falling for decades. If our Navy shrinks too much, we risk conceding important trade routes and strategic seas. China has recently published a map which claims Philippine territory de facto and de jure controlled by the Philippines which is slowly being consumed by Chinese soft invasions (invasions which we are, by treaty, supposed to repel, but for which we do nothing).  Without defense spending, we have no ships, no fuel, no sailors to protect our interests and the interests of our allies. I honestly even hate the euphemism “interest” because it makes it sound like protecting commerce on the seas and protecting territorial integrity of allies is just a hobby, like knitting or bird watching. These are not pedestrian dawdlings – this is impactful for not only our way of life, but for the mostly democratic and free way of life that is genuinely threatened by the Communists in China and the Oligarchs in Russia.

Sincerely,

William K.

Jabberwonky – August 11th

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

When: Sunday, August 11th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Jabberwonky on Blog Talk Radio

What:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Whether it’s “down the rabbit hole”, or “through the looking glass”, the world of politics is often referred to in the lexicon given to us by Lewis Carroll. No matter what, those terms are resurrected when referring to something that has gone terribly wrong. And that’s what’s here on Jabberwonky…

Tonight: After a little hiatus due to vacation, it’s time to talk a little bit about how our politicians decide to spend their free time – and our tax dollars. Also, more fun with the IRS, sex and politics California-style, socialism v. fascism in America, and just how screwed up is our nation’s foreign policy and security apparatus.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Romney’s Foreign Policy Speech

Mitt Romney spoke today at the Virginia Military Institute. In a strong foreign policy speech the GOP candidate reminds citizens that current president Obama has been passive in the Middle East. Quoting a Syrian woman speaking about the Obama administration, “We will not forget that you forgot us,” Romney says it’s time to change course in the region.

Romney’s vision includes strengthening our military and championing free trade working with nations around the world who are committed to free enterprise and helping those who share our values.

To Obama, Mid-East Violence and Murders: “Bumps in the Road”, Israel: “Noise”

Violence-in-the-Middle-East_13

In comments made during a CBS ’60 Minutes’ interview, Barack Obama described violent attacks on embassies in the Middle East and the murder of US ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, as “bumps in the road”.

When asked if recent events in the Middle East had changed his outlook on supporting the Arab Spring, Obama responded: “Well, I’d said even at the time that this is going to be a rocky path. The question presumes that somehow we could have stopped this wave of change.  I think it was absolutely the right thing for us to do to align ourselves with democracy, universal right, a notion that people have to be able to participate in their own governance.   But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because, you know, in a lot of these places, the one organizing principle has been Islam.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207861/Obama-describes-wave-Middle-East-violence-murder-U-S-ambassador-Libya-bumps-road.html

A coordinated military maneuver, confirmed by the head of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center as a terrorist attack, that employed rocket propelled grenades and other heavy weapons, which was launched on the anniversary on 9/11 against an American embassy that directly led to the death of four Americans, including an ambassador, is a “bump in the road”?

During the interview, Obama admitted that his campaign ads had made mistakes, but somehow, CBS News didn’t find that piece of information newsworthy enough to share with their viewers.

When asked if he was disturbed by fact checkers proving assertions in his ads were untrue, Obama responded:  “Do we see sometimes us going overboard in our campaign, are there mistakes that are made, areas where there is no doubt somebody could dispute how we are presenting things? You know, that happens in politics.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbs-doesnt-air-obama-admitting-mistakes-campaign-ads_652973.html

That happens in politics when a campaign cannot run on its record in office, is so desperate to win that it deems it necessary to employ every long used dirty “progressive” smear tactic and suffers from a severe shortage of ethics, morals and socially redeeming qualities.

Remember when the United States was unquestionably Israel’s strongest ally?  Not anymore.  According to Obama, Israel is merely “one of our closest allies in the region”.

Since his inauguration, Obama has attempted to appease the Islamist world with an “even-handed” approach.  Now Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has serious doubts about American resolve to stand behind Israel.

For his part, Obama admitted to viewing Netanyahu’s requests for the U.S. to take a harder stance against Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons as “noise” he must ignore when making American security decisions.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/09/24/obama-israel-closest-allies-region/

Is it sheer coincidence that the exact same word was used to describe Israel by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?   “I have spoken about this topic at length, previously. We generally speaking do not take very seriously the issue of the Zionists and the possible dangers emanating from them. Of course they would love to find a way for their own salvation by making a lot of noise and to raise stakes in order to save themselves. But I do not believe they will succeed. Iran is also a very well recognized country and her defensive powers are very clear.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-refers-israel-concern-over-iran-noise_652967.html

Is this any way for America to conduct foreign policy?  Does having cities in twenty different countries descend into weeks of anti-American violence and murder sound like a “bump in the road” or more like just cause for alarm?  Does treating long-time ally Israel like they are simply “one of our closest allies in the region” sound like a recipe for successfully enlisting new allies in the future?  Is this what Americans view as making America safer?  Is this what Americans see as elevating America’s standing in the world view?

Is it accidental that a large number of Americans who are currently engaged in early voting are oblivious to this information?

America deserves better than this, does it not?

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/to-obama-mid-east-violence-and-murders-bumps-in-the-road-israel-noise/

Obama’s Carter Moment in the Middle East

While it’s not happening practically on the eve of the election, the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi are rapidly shaping up to be like President Carter’s situation with Iran in 1980. But, before the Romney camp can start celebrating, there are some very important issues that need addressing when it comes to the fumbling of the current administration. And there are some loose ends that need to be tied together.

First, let’s take a look at the events of yesterday, before the attacks. In the morning here in the States, Obama delivered remarks at the Pentagon. The more cynical among us were probably surprised that he limited himself at least a little, when it came to taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden.

Most of the Americans we lost that day had never considered the possibility that a small band of terrorists halfway around the world could do us such harm. Most had never heard the name al Qaeda. And yet, it’s because of their sacrifice that we’ve come together and dealt a crippling blow to the organization that brought evil to our shores. Al Qaeda’s leadership has been devastated and Osama bin Laden will never threaten us again. Our country is safer and our people are resilient.

Perhaps the reference to the devastation of Al Qaeda’s leadership was alluding to the most recent death that has been brought up in context with the Cairo attack. But, that is something to consider a little later. For now, let’s leap to much later in the day, but still before the Cairo attack.

Andrew Kaczynski – @BuzzFeedAndrew

Only images of this tweet remain, this one from Andrew Kaczynski on BuzzFeed. The debate over government accounts deleting tweets, and the Library of Congress archives of those electronic communications can wait for another time. By the morning of September 12th eastern time, the Obama administration was backing down from this initial statement. It is not a reaction. The embassy doubled-down on the sentiment after the attack. But, this one came before it started, presumably because the embassy personnel knew there might be a riot in the first place. Questions and reprisals flew over this, and the administration’s attempt to back down from this position arguably is falling flat. Diplomatic personnel do not communicate with the world without guidance, period. Claiming that this was “unauthorized” is worse than admitting to the position, because it implies that there is a rogue element within the diplomatic corps that has the ability to communicate on behalf of this administration without any sort of guidance or supervision. And, bluntly, it is silly. This statement is typical of this administration, that has bent over backwards to appease Islamist organizations. One has to suspend disbelief to take this morning’s quasi-retraction of the statement seriously, especially since paraphrased forms of it were in both Obama’s and Secretary Clinton’s statements on these events – or event, depending on how one interpreted them.

That brings us to the tragedy that overshadowed the Cairo incident, and monopolized the official statements from the administration. Over the coming months, there is no doubt that there will be arguments over whether the Iran Hostage Crisis was better or worse than the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three diplomatic staff members. Secretary Clinton was quick to point out that Libyans stepped up to help Americans, and defend the Consulate, including a mention that they carried the Ambassador’s body to the hospital. But, it’s unlikely that is the whole story. Before her speech, news had already broken that contradicted at least part of the Secretary’s comments. The whispers are already out there that the Libyans might have been involved in the attack, and that security at the Consulate wasn’t sufficient.

Given that, there is a possibility that these two attacks may be utterly unconnected, not even sharing cause. The anti-Mohammed movie is a rather thin excuse, even with many radicals in play in both nations. One of the filmmakers is in hiding, and another that has been attributed with the work is associated with a Coptic Christian organization in America. The fact that the film had been promoted to one extent or another by Terry Jones, of “Burn a Q’uran Day” fame, further muddies the water. Regardless, all accounts state that the film itself is laughable, poorly made, and definitely wouldn’t have been destined for anything but demise in obscurity if it wasn’t for these events. Perhaps it was enough to spark the flag desecration and chanting about Osama bin Laden in Cairo, but buying that it sparked the armed attack in Benghazi would be foolhardy. Conversely, accepting Secretary Clinton’s contentions that Ambassador Stevens was well-liked and accepted in Libya might not be intelligent either. That is by no means an implication that Stevens was doing anything wrong. It is a suggestion that maybe he was meeting more resistance in his attempts to help the Libyans than the administration is willing to admit publicly. That certainly makes more sense than blaming this all on an obscure, poorly made film.

And, in all of this, it seems that the media is happily avoiding one subject that this administration probably has no desire to cover. That is the question of the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama would have everyone believe that this an innocuous social service organization, that many current and former Islamic terrorists just happened to be associated with at one point or another during their lives. On the other side, alarmists cry that the organization is kin with Satan himself, and is hell bent on the destruction of the West. As with most things in life, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. For the purposes of bridging cultural gaps, perhaps it would be better to compare it with another organization that Americans are probably a little more familiar with – Sinn Fein, the political arm of Irish Republican Army. This suggestion is in the context of defining the function of the Muslim Brotherhood, not to imply direct connection between that organization and any terrorist groups. The MB has been scrupulous about keeping itself separate from those groups, and that is plainly illustrated by the fact that terrorists are apparently not welcome in the organization. They move on to more radical action after leaving the MB, period. But, that doesn’t change the fact that many Islamic terrorists get initial experience in Islamic activism within the MB. Sinn Fein was also careful to stay above the fray, and did not dirty its hands directly in the terrorist activities of the IRA. That is where the similarity lies, and there alone. Where Sinn Fein was implicated in funding IRA activities, the MB has not been connected financially or otherwise with any known terrorist organizations – at least that has not been uncovered, or reported widely.

The story behind these events is still unfolding, and it is possible that details may continue to filter out to the public even beyond November. But, the current take away is that yet again, the Obama administration has shown itself to be wholly disorganized, as shown with the initial communications from the Cairo Embassy via Twitter. To suggest that the President is beyond his depth is probably an understatement. Cairo and Benghazi do not exist in a vacuum, and Obama has done a great deal of harm to this nation’s diplomatic relations with the only true ally in the region – Israel. And that in itself is yet another story illustrating the amateurish foreign policy management in this administration. Whether or not this becomes a coffin nail for the Obama camp in November remains to be seen, but it would be bluntly insane if the Romney camp did not leave it alone for now, only to resurrect it late next month.

« Older Entries