Tag Archives: foreign policy

Putin Wins, Unrest On Russian Horizon?

.

Vladimir Putin will once again serve in the Kremlin as President of Russia, raking in an estimated 62% of the vote one day ago.  The closest competitor in the race was communist Gennady Zyuganov, bringing home around 17% of the votes.

Mr. Putin will enter his 3rd term (6 year term) .  He is returning after a 4 year gap where he served as prime minister under Dmitry Medvedev: who will now become Prime Minister.

However all is not well in the Russian Federation as opposition leaders have said that the result was marred by ballot-rigging and bribery.

The U.K. Daily Mail is reporting that Mikhail Kasyanov, Mr Putin’s former prime minister and now an opposition activist, said: ‘These elections are not free, that’s why we will have protests tomorrow. We will not recognise the president as legitimate.’

Even the last leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, has unkind words about Putin, saying, “These are not going to be honest elections, but we must not relent.  Honest elections should be our constant motto for years to come.”

 

Fox News GOP Debate Recap: Are You More Conservative Than a 5th Grader?

Fox News hosted yet another GOP Primary debate on Thursday night and the entire field was there…well, besides Gary Johnson, but is he in “the field” these days, really?  From the top the thing that interested me the most was that this debate seemed to be set up as the “are you conservative enough” debate.  I liked that.  I like to think the tea party has played a big role in making this election about conservatism more than any other in recent years.

Every question asked seemed to be tinged with the inquiry “Are you conservative enough?”  It was obvious Gingrich and Romney were the two candidates under the most pressure to answer that question with authority.  Gingrich spent a large amount of his time invoking Reagan and defending himself against the “lobbyist” label.  Not surprisingly, Gingrich did his best to remind voters that he basically forced Clinton to sign welfare reform in the nineties…and also he is the smartest candidate ever in the history of Presidential primaries.  In case you didn’t know.  But in all seriousness, Newt is the smartest guy in the room and it always shows.  Newt’s issue on Thursday wasn’t could he convince voters he’s smart, but could he convince voters he is a true conservative.  The jury is still out on whether he did that or not, but now that he has attained “front-runner” status, Gingrich is seeing an increase in attacks on his conservative credentials.  I think he maintained in this debate.  He did not do anything to worry his supporters but I don’t think he made many new fans either.  As with the debate last Saturday night, Americans will need to decide if they are satisfied with a Debater-in-Chief, or do they want more when it comes to a Gingrich candidacy.

Ron Paul started out very strong.   As always, he is masterful in his understanding of domestic economics.  It’s the spending, stupid!  Ron Paul was on fire Thursday night until it came to the foreign policy segment.  Then Ron Paul said something about warfare vs. welfare in Washington and how Iran would be totally willing to play nice if we weren’t so bossy and suddenly you could hear crickets chirping.  Even Paulbots seemed slightly subdued by his answers.  Perhaps they knew that even with so much support for his ideas behind him, Paul always manages to sound like a kook to the general audience when he starts talking foreign policy.  I’m sure he lost no support at all.  Paul supporters are nothing if not loyal (read rabid).  However, with surging Iowa numbers in recent days, Thursday’s debate was a great opportunity for him to seize the lead.  This performance was not his best, and will most likely not contribute to an Iowa lead.  If anything, Paul proved that all Obama would have to do in a general election is bring up Iran and foreign policy and that would be the end of a viable Paul candidacy.

Santorum and Bachmann were definitely the most solid in terms of conservative principals on the debate stage.  Santorum gets Iran.  It’s a shame the MSM (and many on our side of the media spectrum as well) has labeled him as the “social conservative”. I believe that label keeps people from really hearing his valid and dire warnings about the dangers of a nuclear Iran.  Rick Santorum gets Iran.  Whether we vote for this man for President or not, that is something that more Americans need to be paying attention to.

Bachmann was also very solid.  In her home state of Iowa she seemed comfortable, relaxed and she looked fantastic.  Did you know that Bachmann is 55?!  I’ll have what she’s having!  Bachmann doesn’t garner much mainstream favor with her Midwest accent and her Evangelical brand of Christianity, but the woman knows her facts and she is smart.  If voters are looking for a true conservative, she’s one to look at.

Even Perry did well Thursday, looking much more comfortable and even applying a little good natured self-deprecation.  Perry has many other qualities to recommend him to the position of POTUS besides his debating skills.  In our desperation to find a formidable debate opponent to Obama I hope we don’t overlook other important qualities for a good GOP candidate.

Should I mention Huntsman? Ok, fine.  Jon Huntsman was there. He talked.  He said stuff. He talked some more.  I wish he would stop doing that.

As the debate season rolls on and Republican voters duke it out for their favorite candidates, the process becomes more and more frustrating.  People are beginning to express election fatigue already, and are frankly nervous about selecting the right opponent to Obama.  That’s understandable. I share those nerves.  However, Thursday’s debate should be heartening to conservatives.  Oh, the battle still rages, but when the underlying question of a national primary debate is “Who can prove they are the most conservative candidate?”, that is a win for conservatism in general.

 

CNN Republican Debate Recap: Debate Fatigue and Box Wine

I have a confession to make.  I was really bored by Tuesday’s Republican debate.  I know, its shocking.  Somebody found a primary debate boring? Quel horreur!  It is my job to comment on such things and I watched it eagerly, but as I was writing my traditional recap I realized that I just wasn’t that excited about what I had seen.  It’s not that the candidates weren’t interesting or capable.  Actually all of them seemed more prepared then they have been in the past. There were no major gaffes or senior moments.  The topic of national security is certainly engaging enough as debates go, but still that wasn’t enough to raise my excitement level.  Everyone did just fine.

Herman Cain is doing his homework, as always.  It’s one of the things I really appreciate about him as a candidate.  He is obviously weak on foreign policy and security issues.  Of course he is; he’s a business man.  He does not have the advantage of being privy to the tidbits of information and exchanges that result from working inside government.  Cain has to develop his foreign policy and domestic security stances just like the rest of us – by studying and employing old-fashioned common sense.  It puts him at a disadvantage, no doubt; but Cain has proven he is up to the challenge and he always seems to go into every debate knowing more than he did the last time.  Cain is what it looks like when a regular, average Joe runs for President.  Some people don’t like that, but I think its kind of neat.

This was the first debate that didn’t turn into the Mitt Romney show.  In fact, Romney probably got less camera time on Tuesday night than he has in any debate so far this year.  It was refreshing.  That being said, he (predictably) made the best use of every second. He was confident and assured in his answers.  Romney said nothing out of line or out of order or out of Romney.  Even his hair was on board. 

Maybe that is my problem with this debate.  It was predictable.  Everyone performed according to their character descriptions in the GOP Primary Field Handbook.  Cain was weak but adequate in his depth of knowledge on the subject.  Ron Paul gave his typical RonPaul-y answers about minding our own business as a nation and if we would just be nice to the terrorists they would stop hating us and leave us alone in peace.  Predictably there were more than a few Ron Paul fans in the audience.  Santorum stayed true to form: feisty, with a touch of whine but bolstered by his strong conservative stance on social and security issues alike.  Jon Huntsman was…there.  His daughters graced CNN with an appearance on the debate pre-show.  They were way more interesting than their father and they seemed like lovely young ladies.  I didn’t care for their lipstick, though.  The shade of red made me suspicious.  Rick Perry was just fine, but I always feel like I’m holding my breath when he speaks.  He seems like a nice man and I hate to see him struggle up there, which he does all too often.  But Tuesday he was fine.

Perhaps the only two people who really interested me in this debate were Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann.  This was Newt’s first debate as a “front-runner” and it remained to be seen how his platform/performance would change in light of that.  It didn’t really change at all which is a good thing, I suppose.  Newt was simply Newt, the smartest (if not crankiest) guy in the room.  Newt knows his stuff…and Newt does not like gotcha questions.  For the most part I believe Wolf Blitzer behaved accordingly.

If anyone “won” that debate it was Michele Bachmann.  Bachmann has a seat on the House Intelligence Committee and she is obviously privy to some very sensitive information.  She knows what she is talking about and when Bachmann speaks on foreign policy, security and Obamacare she sounds more competent than any of her compatriots on the stage.  In fact, it infuriates me to hear people refer to her as an idot, a la Sarah Palin.  I don’t know how you can listen to her speak of the nuances of foreign aid and intelligence and conclude that she is dumb.  You may not care for her social stances or her tea party label, but the woman is wickedly smart and deserves respect for that.  I really feel we need a woman like Bachmann in the House for as long as possible, but if she were our President, I have no doubt she would fight for this country every day she was in office.

In the end, the predictability was my problem.  No one came out with anything new or different.  Everyone pretty much held the line on the stances they have developed throughout this process.  There were no surprises; besides a couple of small differences on withdrawing troops and securing the border the candidates pretty much in line with each other and the Republican outlook on such issues.  Except Ron Paul, of course…but there’s an “except Ron Paul” implied in every line I write about these debates.  I know, ultimately it is a good thing that there were no fireworks.  Its important for the people to see the candidates lay out their positions logically as much as possible.  Its good that they were predictable because it helps us feel confident about how they will behave in the general elections.  But it makes for boring television sometimes.  I admit, debate fatigue is setting in.  There are at least four more debates to go.  I think I’m going to need a bigger box of wine.

 

Full Video of November 12th CBS/National Journal GOP Presidential Debate

Join CDNews for coverage of tonight’s CBS/National Journal Republican Candidate debate at Wofford College in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

The debate will be hosted by CBS News and the National Journal. The focus of tonight’s event will be on national security and foreign policy.

What to Watch For:

Rick Perry will need to have a strong performance tonight to overcome a string of debate mis-steps. He also has little foreign policy experience which may come through this evening.

Newt Gingrich will most-likely come on strong keeping-up with his strong debate appearances throughout the year. The former speaker has polled above all other candidates in the area of the military and international crisis handling.

While his domestic policies are popular among Republicans, views differ on his foreign policy and national security stances. This could be a differentiating moment for Rep. Paul, positive or negative.

Herman Cain’s business experience may not help tonight. The 9-9-9 plan will probably show up somehow, but overall expect Cain to focus on his “peace through strength and clarity” foreign policy. Specifics have been light the few times he’s mentioned it in campaign speeches and his foreign policy views have not been the subject of any real media focus or debate questioning.

Mitt Romney led the pack in a recent CBS News Poll that asked which candidate is best-suited to be Commander-in-Chief. Among likely Republican primary voters, 26% chose Romney to Gingrich’s 21%. Cain and Perry were 11% and 9% respectively.

This may be the last debate that features the entire current cast of 8. Future debates will start limiting invites to those with a larger share of support. Expect Huntsman and Santorum to miss future debate appearances as their poll numbers have stayed consistently below 5%. Bachmann could fail to receive invites shortly after that if her numbers continue to hold right at or near the 5% mark.

Where to Watch: Here is the Recording of tonight’s debate – full-length (long blank pauses are commercial breaks, be patient or forward through to the next segment)

Rep. Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran are "an act of war"

Rep. Ron Paul doesn’t get much time at the game show-style Republican debates to explain his policy views. Most of the questions he’s gotten center on his domestic policy which line up with a large portion of the Conservative base.

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace took a few minutes to have Rep. Paul tell voters how he would shape American foreign policy – specifically on Iran.

Keep listening past the Iran segment and you’ll also get to hear his thoughts on a third party candidacy.

Obama Says ALL His Decisions Were Correct


Last night (October 18, 2011) President Barack Obama had an interview with ABC’s Jake Tapper, aired on Nightline. The interview lasted just over six minutes. During that interview, at about the 2/3 point, Obama said, “I guarantee it’s going to be a close election because the economy is not where it wants to be and, even though I believe all the choices we’ve made have been the right ones, we’re still going through difficult circumstances.”   [emphasis mine]

WOW! Talk abort chutzpah! No mistakes, no mulligans needed (reference to his golf), no do-overs. It must be really nice to be this self-assured.

Let’s see. Can we bring up the Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), better known as Obamacare? “The health care bill that we passed is absolutely the right thing to do, but it’s going to take a while before it’s even fully implemented, much less taken full effect,” Obama said during the interview. “… absolutely the right thing to do …?” Richard S. Foster, chief actuary for Medicare, said that PPACA will result in cuts to hospitals that will jeopardize access for seniors, as well as costs that will increase from 2010 -2019, but after that may be savings later. Not mentioned in Foster’s report is another factor that will impact senior’s health care – decrease of access to primary care physicians (PCPs) as the many newly-insured patients complete for an already short supply of PCPs.

Actuaries for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) said that under PPACA the uninsured would decrease from the current 57 million to 23 million by 2019, with 21 million newly insured being insurance company exchanges, most of whom will receive healthcare and/or insurance coverage subsidies. These 21 million newly insured patients will be competing with the Medicare patients for what already is a shortage of PCPs. Reimbursements are generally about 30% lower for Medicare than private insurance. Diminished access to care for Medicare patients is a very likely outcome of PPACA.

And as of last Friday (October 14, 2011) Health and Human Services gave up on a major part of Obamacare, Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS), that was supposed to reduce the deficit by $86 billion.

Now let’s turn our attention to the economy. Unemployment is currently 9.1%. After an initial “stimulus” of $787 billion in 2009 (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA]), government spending had no effect on the economy. We were told that the unemployment rate, if ARRA was passed, would not go above 8%. It has gone as high as 10%. The country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the most often used measure of economic activity. In terms of real (i.e. inflation-adjusted) per capita (i.e. population-adjusted) GDP, the U.S. economy has declined at an annual rate of 0.29% since 2008, as compared to an annual growth rate of 1.15% during the eight prior years. Obama’s latest stimulus, the American Jobs Act (AJA), a $447 billion fiasco that even the Senate would not pass. He is now trying to sell it in small pieces. His track record on the first stimulus wasn’t very good, so why does he expect the second one to be any better?

Have I mentioned foreign policy? While he has made numerous faux pas, let’s limit this discussion to Israel. Obama called for a Palestinian state that should be focused on Israel’s pre-1967 borders. Not content with that, he was “less than gracious” to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama, upset over Israel’s decision to approve Jewish construction in east Jerusalem, snubbed Netanyahu during his visit to the White House. The White House denied Netanyahu the red carpet treatment generally afforded to visiting heads of state. The Israeli prime minister and Obama didn’t pose for photos together, and Netanyahu was excluded from dinner with the president. When Netanyahu wouldn’t agree to concessions, Obama left a meeting with him, though he invited Netanyahu to stay at the White House, talk to Obama advisers and “let me know if there is anything new.”

I am quite sure that you can think of some additions. But for Obama to make the claim that ALL of his choices were correct shows him to be a completely arrogant narcissist.

But that’s just my opinion.

The Cult of Excuse

Life is not fair. Anyone who has ever dealt with a government institution knows that government is inevitably less fair. Never the less, it is effective politics to claim that life can be made fair because fairness is undefined and carries a beloved connotation. This idea of fairness has evolved into something particularly despicable recently, a cult of excuse. The obsession with victim hood has turned victimizers into victims, and has made all excuses reasons to behave inhumanely. This has eviscerated traditional morality, something the American left has tried to do since the turn of the century along with their fascist analogs in Europe.

 

There is a very popular opinion among those on the left and some on the very far right that the attacks of September 11th 2001 were the fault of American foreign policy. This may be effective, although ignorant, as a political argument, but morally it is complete hogwash. There simply is no fault to speak of. Terrorist chose to take a particular action in order to make a political point, an action that is, no matter what the case, wrong. America had helped Bin Laden free Afghanistan from communism, Bin Laden went after the U.S. when Kuwait refused help from him and took help from the U.S. instead. Yet besides the reality of the situation, the cult of excuse took hold, ignoring all rational political and moral realities.

 

A more recent event has shown that this cult of excuse is incredibly pervasive. Three hikers were picked up by Iranian authorities in Iraq and charged with spying. When the last two were finally released, they expressed an odd opinion. Although they did admit they were held unlawfully and charged with crimes they were most certainly not guilty or capable of, they placed a majority of blame on their home country, the United States. Citing American foreign policy as the reason they were held. Factually, Iran is an oppressive regime that has committed atrocities on their own people, and their behavior is a reflection of this and a reflection of the weakness and permissiveness of America’s new foreign policy of appeasement. The moral reality of this incident is simple. Iran imprisoned three innocent people on trumped up charges, which is simply wrong. The cult of excuse is so ever present that despite knowing that Iran’s actions were inexcusable, they still showed sympathies to their captures reminiscent of Stockholm syndrome.

 

Simply put, there is no excuse for doing what is invariably wrong. Civilization relies on this concept. Yet time and again, excuses are provided for wrong doing by third parties or by the victims themselves. What this develops is a platform by which to blame something other than the individual. Individuals, being imperfect, are happy to oblige this way of thinking. While those making the excuses use the blame that should fall on the individual as a political weapon. The victimizers are obliged to victimize more, thus creating more fodder of blame to be used politically. It works out very well for politicians, civil servants and those who have something to gain from said blame, but is utter poison to society and the victimizers’ next victim.

 

With Friends Like These…

Since the beginning of the War on Terror, the United States has taken on the task of forming hostile nations into allies in the Middle East. The best analogy I can think of to currently describe the way things have gone is likening our nation building efforts to the comic strip “Peanuts”. The nations that we go to war with are much like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, America in this scenario, to kick. We run to kick the football, Lucy moves the football, and we fall on our behind. The difference is that immediately afterward, Charlie Brown knows that he’s been had and vows to never fall for that again, before he inevitably does. Our politicians on the other hand, refuse to reflect on the results of past interventions and many times embrace a “full steam ahead” approach.

I don’t write this as apologetics for Ron Paul, the Cato Institute, the founding fathers, Reason Magazine or any other well known libertarian intellectual cause. Instead, I’m going to use an inherently conservative thought process, the cost-benefit analysis. Liberals hate the cost-benefit analysis because it shows that their government programs to be counter-productive; this is why they often resort to arguing based on emotions and intent. Unfortunately, despite President Bush’s noble intentions, the major engagements of the War on Terror may not pass the cost-benefit test.

We invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to eliminate Al-Qaeda and to topple the country’s acting government, the Taliban. While fighting the enemy, we also helped set up an acting Afghan government. And in 2004 Hamid Karzai was elected president of the country and the US has supported him ever since. However, it has been revealed that Karzai and his family are corrupt and that he perhaps fraudulently won re-election in 2009. The US decided to express its disapproval by sending a troop surge of 30,000 to double down on our efforts of giving him a stable country to govern. Worse yet, its also been learned that Karzai, behind our back, has been in talks with the Taliban and has had diplomatic relations with Iran. But even before Karzai’s corruption became apparent, he still wasn’t exactly our BFF. Karzai frequently threw the US “under the bus” in press conferences and openly supports the farmers there growing Opium poppy despite our requests. Even taking Karzai out of the equation, a cost-benefit analysis must be done (not in this article) on whether or not we should still be fighting in Afghanistan. Former CIA director and current Secretary of Defense Leon Panneta estimated in 2010 that there were no more than 50-100 Al-Qaeda still in the country.

Next we turned to Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator who ended up getting what he deserved, not many Americans on either side of the political aisle would disagree with that. But, as the Iraq war winded down and the US turned into a police force to help stabilize their government, the people at home wondered what the new Iraqi government would look like. While still in its infant stages, details of the new Iraqi government have been disappointing at best. It appears as though Iraq has warmed up to its former hated enemy, Iran. This is particularly bad, because the Iraq-Iran conflict helped to keep Iran in check. This is why in the 1980s we helped supply Iraq with materials to produce chemical/biological weapons; with the idea of them to using the weapons against Iran. Further showing its gratitude towards the US, Iraq recently voted against Saudi Arabia’s proposal to increase oil production at OPEC’s 2011 conference. Seeing nations turn their back on the US after the US had invested large sums of money isn’t particularly unusual, but what makes this different is that the US still has 50,000 soldiers over there. This is a blatant slap in the face.

Worst of all is Libya. If there is something positive to be said of the War in Libya, one could say that its been the least costly of the wars. Despite its comparatively low price tag, Libya could quite possibly have the costliest long term consequences. To clarify, just like Saddam, Muammar Gaddafi is an evil dictator who deserves whatever grisly fate that awaits him. But, the United States went to war for the stated goal of stopping an alleged massacre that never took place, not for “regime change”. Then, in spite of goals which stated otherwise, we stayed until the regime change was complete. Now the question that remains is, “What now? Who are these rebels?”. That answer appears to be an interesting mix of regular citizens who grew tired of their oppressor, radical Islamic insurgents, and long term US ally Al-Qaeda. Wait… no, that’s not right, Al-Qaeda’s goal is to destroy the US and Israel. While the new Libyan constitution hasn’t been written, it was released that Sharia law is anticipated to be the main source of inspiration. If the Muslim Brotherhood’s popularity in Egypt is any indication, the so called “Arab Spring” will not have positive long term effects on the US and it’s allies. Rarely do events have 100% negative consequences without a silver lining, and Libya very well could be one of those times. In life there are disappoints and ideas that backfire, but rarely do you spend money and resources to create a nation whose leadership’s stated goal is to destroy you. Before many marriages that end in divorce go bad, there is usually a blissful honeymoon. Likewise the Libyan rebels started off giving the US a deserved gift, by denying their request to extradite Lockerbie bomber Al-Megrahi.

The Middle East has plenty of hostile countries, some unfriendly indifferent nations, and very few allies. One of those nations considered friendly to the US is Kuwait, particularly after we saved them from Saddam Hussein’s invasion in Desert Storm. Now to Kuwait’s credit, they have repaid us with their support in the UN by voting against us a region-low 67% of the time. More and more on the right, people grow disenfranchised by our foreign involvements. Republican California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said that behind closed doors, most republicans will admit that Iraq was a mistake. This sentiment briefly gave businessman Donald Trump the affection of some republicans when he considered a presidential run. One of Trump’s main platforms was taking trillions of dollars in oil from Iraq to offset our costs there. The fact that the idea garnered some support among republicans shows that at the very least, they’re willing to admit that the Iraq war didn’t yield desired results; so they feel the need to get something out of it. I agree that in retrospect, knowing what we know now, it was a mistake. But you can’t go around taking nation’s oilfields or anything else for that matter, might doesn’t make right. The equivalent I draw from the people who support the US taking oil from these nations we intervene in is this: Let’s say I cut your grass without me asking. You either try to stop me or passively let it happen. When its done I take some household appliances to compensate myself.

A best case scenario in these countries is that we pay billions yearly for their defense, having them become reliant on us, allowing them to become socialist in nature; all while complaining about our presence and influence. This allows them to become what I like to call “International democrats”. They do nothing to warrant the US taxpayer paying for their defense or fighting for them, yet we do it. What would be better is if we charged them at cost or more for us to protect them, but even then, that’s only a solution if you want to use our military men and women as mercenaries instead of only using them to “protect the US Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic”. Better would be forcing these nations to pay for their own defense, taking them off the government payroll.

In the world there are going to be problems that arise on an international level. Friendly dictators and elected officials alike will lose power or get overthrown from time to time. When a US-friendly regime loses power its one thing, when the US pays great costs in lives and money to create a hostile regime is infinitely worse. Woodrow Wilson’s progressive dream is alive and well today with the goal of “making the world safe for democracy”, championed by republicans (McCain, Graham) and democrats (Lieberman). Creating democracies in a region where the people who make up the electorate despise the US would seem to make the policy mutually exclusive with safety at home.

Tim Pawlenty Releases Middle-East Foreign Policy Statement

Governor Pawlenty gave these remarks in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations:

Tim PawlentyI want to speak plainly this morning about the opportunities and the dangers we face today in the Middle East. The revolutions now roiling that region offer the promise of a more democratic, more open, and a more prosperous Arab world. From Morocco to the Arabian Gulf, the escape from the dead hand of oppression is now a real possibility.

Now is not the time to retreat from freedom’s rise.

Yet at the same time, we know these revolutions can bring to power forces that are neither democratic nor forward-looking. Just as the people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria and elsewhere see a chance for a better life of genuine freedom, the leaders of radical Islam see a chance to ride political turmoil into power.

The United States has a vital stake in the future of this region. We have been presented with a challenge as great as any we have faced in recent decades. And we must get it right. The question is, are we up to the challenge?

My answer is, of course we are. If we are clear about our interests and guided by our principles, we can help steer events in the right direction. Our nation has done this in the past — at the end of World War II, in the last decade of the Cold War, and in the more recent war on terror … and we can do it again.

But President Obama has failed to formulate and carry out an effective and coherent strategy in response to these events. He has been timid, slow, and too often without a clear understanding of our interests or a clear commitment to our principles.

And parts of the Republican Party now seem to be trying to out-bid the Democrats in appealing to isolationist sentiments. This is no time for uncertain leadership in either party. The stakes are simply too high, and the opportunity is simply too great.

No one in this Administration predicted the events of the Arab spring – but the freedom deficit in the Arab world was no secret. For 60 years, Western nations excused and accommodated the lack of freedom in the Middle East. That could not last. The days of comfortable private deals with dictators were coming to an end in the age of Twitter, You Tube, and Facebook. And history teaches there is no such thing as stable oppression.

President Obama has ignored that lesson of history. Instead of promoting democracy – whose fruit we see now ripening across the region – he adopted a murky policy he called “engagement.”

“Engagement” meant that in 2009, when the Iranian ayatollahs stole an election, and the people of that country rose up in protest, President Obama held his tongue. His silence validated the mullahs, despite the blood on their hands and the nuclear centrifuges in their tunnels.

While protesters were killed and tortured, Secretary Clinton said the Administration was “waiting to see the outcome of the internal Iranian processes.” She and the president waited long enough to see the Green Movement crushed.

“Engagement” meant that in his first year in office, President Obama cut democracy funding for Egyptian civil society by 74 percent. As one American democracy organization noted, this was “perceived by Egyptian democracy activists as signaling a lack of support.” They perceived correctly. It was a lack of support.

“Engagement” meant that when crisis erupted in Cairo this year, as tens of thousands of protesters gathered in Tahrir Square, Secretary Clinton declared, “the Egyptian Government is stable.” Two weeks later, Mubarak was gone. When Secretary Clinton visited Cairo after Mubarak’s fall, democratic activist groups refused to meet with her. And who can blame them?

The forces we now need to succeed in Egypt — the pro-democracy, secular political parties — these are the very people President Obama cut off, and Secretary Clinton dismissed.

The Obama “engagement” policy in Syria led the Administration to call Bashar al Assad a “reformer.” Even as Assad’s regime was shooting hundreds of protesters dead in the street, President Obama announced his plan to give Assad “an alternative vision of himself.” Does anyone outside a therapist’s office have any idea what that means? This is what passes for moral clarity in the Obama Administration.

By contrast, I called for Assad’s departure on March 29; I call for it again today. We should recall our ambassador from Damascus; and I call for that again today. The leader of the United States should never leave those willing to sacrifice their lives in the cause of freedom wondering where America stands. As President, I will not.

We need a president who fully understands that America never “leads from behind.”

We cannot underestimate how pivotal this moment is in Middle Eastern history. We need decisive, clear-eyed leadership that is responsive to this historical moment of change in ways that are consistent with our deepest principles and safeguards our vital interests.

Opportunity still exists amid the turmoil of the Arab Spring — and we should seize it.

As I see it, the governments of the Middle East fall into four broad categories, and each requires a different strategic approach.

The first category consists of three countries now at various stages of transition toward democracy – the formerly fake republics in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. Iraq is also in this category, but is further along on its journey toward democracy.

For these countries, our goal should be to help promote freedom and democracy.

Elections that produce anti-democratic regimes undermine both freedom and stability. We must do more than monitor polling places. We must redirect foreign aid away from efforts to merely build good will, and toward efforts to build good allies — genuine democracies governed by free people according to the rule of law. And we must insist that our international partners get off the sidelines and do the same.

We should have no illusions about the difficulty of the transitions faced by Libya, Tunisia, and especially Egypt. Whereas Libya is rich in oil, and Tunisia is small, Egypt is large, populous, and poor. Among the region’s emerging democracies, it remains the biggest opportunity and the biggest danger for American interests.

Having ejected the Mubarak regime, too many Egyptians are now rejecting the beginnings of the economic opening engineered in the last decade. We act out of friendship when we tell Egyptians, and every new democracy, that economic growth and prosperity are the result of free markets and free trade—not subsidies and foreign aid. If we want these countries to succeed, we must afford them the respect of telling them the truth.

In Libya, the best help America can provide to these new friends is to stop leading from behind and commit America’s strength to removing Ghadafi, recognizing the TNC as the government of Libya, and unfreezing assets so the TNC can afford security and essential services as it marches toward Tripoli.

Beyond Libya, America should always promote the universal principles that undergird freedom. We should press new friends to end discrimination against women, to establish independent courts, and freedom of speech and the press. We must insist on religious freedoms for all, including the region’s minorities—whether Christian, Shia, Sunni, or Bahai.

The second category of states is the Arab monarchies. Some – like Jordan and Morocco – are engaging now in what looks like genuine reform. This should earn our praise and our assistance. These kings have understood they must forge a partnership with their own people, leading step by step toward more democratic societies. These monarchies can smooth the path to constitutional reform and freedom and thereby deepen their own legitimacy. If they choose this route, they, too, deserve our help.

But others are resisting reform. While President Obama spoke well about Bahrain in his recent speech, he neglected to utter two important words: Saudi Arabia.

US-Saudi relations are at an all-time low—and not primarily because of the Arab Spring. They were going downhill fast, long before the uprisings began. The Saudis saw an American Administration yearning to engage Iran—just at the time they saw Iran, correctly, as a mortal enemy.

We need to tell the Saudis what we think, which will only be effective if we have a position of trust with them. We will develop that trust by demonstrating that we share their great concern about Iran and that we are committed to doing all that is necessary to defend the region from Iranian aggression.

At the same time, we need to be frank about what the Saudis must do to insure stability in their own country. Above all, they need to reform and open their society. Their treatment of Christians and other minorities, and their treatment of women, is indefensible and must change.

We know that reform will come to Saudi Arabia—sooner and more smoothly if the royal family accepts and designs it. It will come later and with turbulence and even violence if they resist. The vast wealth of their country should be used to support reforms that fit Saudi history and culture—but not to buy off the people as a substitute for lasting reform.

The third category consists of states that are directly hostile to America. They include Iran and Syria. The Arab Spring has already vastly undermined the appeal of Al Qaeda and the killing of Osama Bin Laden has significantly weakened it.

The success of peaceful protests in several Arab countries has shown the world that terror is not only evil, but will eventually be overcome by good. Peaceful protests may soon bring down the Assad regime in Syria. The 2009 protests in Iran inspired Arabs to seek their freedom. Similarly, the Arab protests of this year, and the fall of regime after broken regime, can inspire Iranians to seek their freedom once again.

We have a clear interest in seeing an end to Assad’s murderous regime. By sticking to Bashar al Assad so long, the Obama Administration has not only frustrated Syrians who are fighting for freedom—it has demonstrated strategic blindness. The governments of Iran and Syria are enemies of the United States. They are not reformers and never will be. They support each other. To weaken or replace one, is to weaken or replace the other.

The fall of the Assad mafia in Damascus would weaken Hamas, which is headquartered there. It would weaken Hezbollah, which gets its arms from Iran, through Syria. And it would weaken the Iranian regime itself.

To take advantage of this moment, we should press every diplomatic and economic channel to bring the Assad reign of terror to an end. We need more forceful sanctions to persuade Syria’s Sunni business elite that Assad is too expensive to keep backing. We need to work with Turkey and the Arab nations and the Europeans, to further isolate the regime. And we need to encourage opponents of the regime by making our own position very clear, right now: Bashar al-Assad must go.

When he does, the mullahs of Iran will find themselves isolated and vulnerable. Syria is Iran’s only Arab ally. If we peel that away, I believe it will hasten the fall of the mullahs. And that is the ultimate goal we must pursue. It’s the singular opportunity offered to the world by the brave men and women of the Arab Spring.

The march of freedom in the Middle East cuts across the region’s diversity of religious, ethnic, and political groups. But it is born of a particular unity. It is a united front against stolen elections and stolen liberty, secret police, corruption, and the state-sanctioned violence that is the essence of the Iranian regime’s tyranny.

So this is a moment to ratchet up pressure and speak with clarity. More sanctions. More and better broadcasting into Iran. More assistance to Iranians to access the Internet and satellite TV and the knowledge and freedom that comes with it. More efforts to expose the vicious repression inside that country and expose Teheran’s regime for the pariah it is.

And, very critically, we must have more clarity when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program. In 2008, candidate Barack Obama told AIPAC that he would “always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.” This year, he told AIPAC “we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” So I have to ask: are all the options still on the table or not? If he’s not clear with us, it’s no wonder that even our closest allies are confused.

The Administration should enforce all sanctions for which legal authority already exits. We should enact and then enforce new pending legislation which strengthens sanctions particularly against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who control much of the Iranian economy.

And in the middle of all this, is Israel.

Israel is unique in the region because of what it stands for and what it has accomplished. And it is unique in the threat it faces—the threat of annihilation. It has long been a bastion of democracy in a region of tyranny and violence. And it is by far our closest ally in that part of the world.

Despite wars and terrorists attacks, Israel offers all its citizens, men and women, Jews, Christians, Muslims and, others including 1.5 million Arabs, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to vote, access to independent courts and all other democratic rights.

Nowhere has President Obama’s lack of judgment been more stunning than in his dealings with Israel.

It breaks my heart that President Obama treats Israel, our great friend, as a problem, rather than as an ally. The President seems to genuinely believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies at the heart of every problem in the Middle East. He said it Cairo in 2009 and again this year.

President Obama could not be more wrong.

The uprisings in Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli and elsewhere are not about Israelis and Palestinians. They’re about oppressed people yearning for freedom and prosperity. Whether those countries become prosperous and free is not about how many apartments Israel builds in Jerusalem.

Today the president doesn’t really have a policy toward the peace process. He has an attitude. And let’s be frank about what that attitude is: he thinks Israel is the problem. And he thinks the answer is always more pressure on Israel.

I reject that anti-Israel attitude. I reject it because Israel is a close and reliable democratic ally. And I reject it because I know the people of Israel want peace.

Israeli – Palestinian peace if further away not than the day Barack Obama came to office. But that does not have to be a permanent situation.

We must recognize that peace will only come if everyone in the region perceives clearly that America stands strongly with Israel.

I would take a new approach.

First, I would never undermine Israel’s negotiating position, nor pressure it to accept borders which jeopardize security and its ability to defend itself.

Second, I would not pressure Israel to negotiate with Hamas or a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, unless Hamas renounces terror, accepts Israel’s right to exist, and honors the previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. In short, Hamas needs to cease being a terrorist group in both word and deed as a first step towards global legitimacy.

Third, I would ensure our assistance to the Palestinians immediately ends if the teaching of hatred in Palestinian classrooms and airwaves continues. That incitement must end now.

Fourth, I would recommend cultivating and empowering moderate forces in Palestinian society.

When the Palestinians have leaders who are honest and capable, who appreciate the rule of law, who understand that war against Israel has doomed generations of Palestinians to lives of bitterness, violence, and poverty – then peace will come.

The Middle East is changing before our eyes—but our government has not kept up. It abandoned the promotion of democracy just as Arabs were about to seize it. It sought to cozy up to dictators just as their own people rose against them. It downplayed our principles and distanced us from key allies.

All this was wrong, and these policies have failed. The Administration has abandoned them, and at the price of American leadership. A region that since World War II has looked to us for security and progress now wonders where we are and what we’re up to.

The next president must do better. Today, in our own Republican Party, some look back and conclude our projection of strength and defense of freedom was a product of different times and different challenges. While times have changed, the nature of the challenge has not.

In the 1980s, we were up against a violent, totalitarian ideology bent on subjugating the people and principles of the West. While others sought to co-exist, President Reagan instead sought victory. So must we, today. For America is exceptional, and we have the moral clarity to lead the world.

It is not wrong for Republicans to question the conduct of President Obama’s military leadership in Libya. There is much to question. And it is not wrong for Republicans to debate the timing of our military drawdown in Afghanistan— though my belief is that General Petreaus’ voice ought to carry the most weight on that question.

What is wrong, is for the Republican Party to shrink from the challenges of American leadership in the world. History repeatedly warns us that in the long run, weakness in foreign policy costs us and our children much more than we’ll save in a budget line item.

America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment, and withdrawal. It does not need a second one.

Our enemies in the War on Terror, just like our opponents in the Cold War, respect and respond to strength. Sometimes strength means military intervention. Sometimes it means diplomatic pressure. It always means moral clarity in word and deed.

That is the legacy of Republican foreign policy at its best, and the banner our next Republican President must carry around the world.

Our ideals of economic and political freedom, of equality and opportunity for all citizens, remain the dream of people in the Middle East and throughout the world. As America stands for these principles, and stands with our friends and allies, we will help the Middle East transform this moment of turbulence into a firmer, more lasting opportunity for freedom, peace, and progress.

Words Really Do Make A Difference

What a difference the choice of wording makes!

On September 14, at Ground Zero, President George W. Bush declared:

“I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people — and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”

Simple words from the heart and soul of a man who was tireless in his fight against terrorism. These words struck a chord so deep within me and inspired me so much that this quote is now framed and hanging on the wall in my home office.

While I did not agree with everything that President Bush did in office it was not hard to see that he was committed to take whatever action necessary to make sure the perpetrators of the most heinous act of terror on American soil were punished. In the midst of the most horrific terror and most overwhelming sorrow our nation has ever faced in modern history, I saw resolve in our nation’s leader.

It is most unfortunate that the same cannot be said for the current administration.

Words are no longer simple and from the heart and soul, they are instead pretentious, flowery,  calculated and pre-determined at an attempt to “soften the blow” of the reality we face as a nation. This administration fails to realize that calling a lion an overgrown cat doesn’t change the ability for destruction that a lion is instilled with.

In 2009, in her first testimony to Congress, newly appointed Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano sought to diminish the steadfast determination of this nation’s military men and women who were and still are sacrificing their time, blood, sweat, tears and very lives to bring justice that Americans so rightly deserve for the terrorist attacks against us. During her testimony she couldn’t bring herself to breathe the “t” word, opting instead to rename the attack and others like them to “man caused disasters”. I guess it just sounded “cuter to her!  When asked by the German news site Spiegel Online if Islamic  terrorism “suddenly no longer posed a threat” to America, she stated that this administration wanted to move away from the “politics of fear”, opting instead to “be prepared for all risks” that can occur.

It appears as though she missed the mark on that one! This administration is not at all prepared for any risk that comes along! Investing in the stock market is more risky now than it was in the previous administration. In today’s housing market, it is quite risky to buy a house. And one of the biggest risks Americans take today is driving up to the gas pump! The price of gas is rising at a rate of overwhelming proportions! Personally, I would never have called any of these situations terrorism, but it does most definitely resonate with Ms. Napolitano’s newly defined terminology. President Obama and his administration are most certainly causing an abundance of disasters. But isn’t this just running headlong back into the “politics of fear”? They would probably do better if they chose to call it more along the lines of “politics of conspiracy.”

President Bush was very clear that we would make no distinction between the terrorist themselves and the countries and leaders who harbored them. Not so with President Obama, because there is no longer a “War On Terror”, it is now downgraded to an “Overseas Contingency Operation.” What does that even mean?

According to the definition given at dictionary.com, this is the last term in the world that would give me confidence that we have things under control.

con·tin·gen·cy
dependence on chance or on the fulfillment of a condition; uncertainty.

Thesaurus.com gives synonyms for “contingency” as: accident, crisis, crossroads, emergency, event, if it’s cool, incident, juncture, likelihood, occasion, odds, opportunity, pass, pinch, predicament, probability, strait, turning point, uncertainty, zero hour

Plus there are a few more listed.

So, I could essentially rename President Obama’s Operation as “Across The Ocean If It’s Cool Operation”.

Or how about “Transmarine Crossroads Operation”?

Hmmm…. We could go with “On The Other Side Of The Very Large Body Of Water Uncertainty Operation”. No… none of those combination of flowery words seem to give me true confidence that yes, we will take whatever means necessary to see this to an end!The latest member of Obama’s administration to try his hand at flowery rhetoric is Eric Holder. Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, when asked if enhanced interrogation methods were used in obtaining information that led to the eventual killing of Osama bin Laden, Mr. Holder simply could not bring himself to affirm that yes, our country succeeded in killing the mastermind behind the most horrific terrorist attack on our land! In true fashion that is this administration, he said, there was a “mosaic of sources that led to the identification of people who led” our military to Osama bin Laden. He said that assuming enhanced interrogation methods were used is hypothetical. OK, if you say so, Mr. Holder! Come on now, let’s be real! I guess this is what he had to say, because the sensibilities of the left just cannot handle the truth in this matter! And  my goodness! What if Muslims found  out that we indeed used some form of enhanced persuasion on these enemy combatants!? They might just retaliate…. or something! But wait! We can no longer call them “enemy combatants” !  Let’s instead call them “Bad Person Contenders”. Or we could even say a “patchwork” of things led us to identify the “Revolutionary Serviceman”? Yes! Much better! That will work indeed! It’s all good. Just look it all up at thesaurus.com!

And finally, in an effort to make everyone feel better about events in history, I guess we will now have to reprint all the previous books that use that horribly offensive word “War”. Hitler was bad enough! We don’t want to have to utter that horribly offense “W” word! So now we will just call it “World Kinetic Military Action 2”. And we really must use the written number rather than the Roman Numeral to keep things from appearing so barbaric! Oh hey, look! Now it makes it seem almost like a movie sequel- right?  Things weren’t so bad after all!

See now?  Changing the words to “tone down” the harsh reality makes you feel allllll better now… right??!!

President Obama, Why aren’t we..

Oratory, promises, statements, pleas for acceptance.  Obama has worn his heart on his sleeve, much like the liberals that slaughter the rear-end of their automobiles with stickers to espouse their love for the killing of the unborn, the forcing of the will of the government on us all and whatever new oppressive piece of false-front selfishness shows up on the Huffington Post or Daily KOS.

In re-reading Obama’s innaguration speech, I find many statements about the things Mr. Obama thought we must do and I ask, if we should have been doing these things since January of ’09, why aren’t we?

“We come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises”, Obama says. His administration has expended great amounts of energy airing its grievances against the Chamber of Commerce, the wealthy, corporations, the Tea Party, Conservatives.. seriously, petty?  We heard that the stimulus would prevent unemployment above 8%, that we wouldn’t have lobbyists in the administration, that an open hand would positively affect our international relations with the likes of Iran and North Korea; that we would have a less-partisan Washington, well.. why don’t we?

“We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age”.  The odd thing on greenish stuff is that it’s not the GOP slowing Obama down, it’s his own party.  Eco-freaks are filing expensive law suits to prevent the building of wind and solar farms.  If wind is so great, why are progressives fighting it? If GM’s Volt is the answer to our foreign oil dependence, why isn’t anyone buying them? If we are supposed to be building up a successful economic sector around green jobs – why aren’t we?

“The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small..” Obama got this one right – this isn’t a question, we know the answer – it’s too big and getting bigger. Obama’s new budget will increase the national debt by $7.2 TRILLION over the next decade. Obama even made a campaign promise to cut the deficit in half within his first term. Well, Mr President, why aren’t you?

“And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day..” Just pointing out all the falsehoods here would take a book.. dems fighting the Senators that want to fight raising the debt ceiling, the lack of transparency (no posting bills online, backroom meetings without C-SPAN, recess appointments for critical administartion officials .. one could go on) – If we were to spend wisely and do our business in the light of day- why aren’t we?

“..and so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity” – unless you were Egyptian in the early days of the January 25th revolution or of course, Israeli.

“We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense..” – Obama, you’ve apologized for everything under the sun, including STDs in Guatamala .. 70 years ago.  As far as defense, isn’t the Commander-in-Chief (a term I use lightly) more concerned with the potlical perspective of what happens in Afghanistan than completing the mission? How long did the Afghanistan surge approval take for Obama to give once the generals had recommended it?

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history” of course, unless you are a Democrat. Anyone remember the Black Panther DOJ mess?  Yeah, the White house surely doesn’t want to. Obama’s infamous line, “let me be clear..” is often followed by some cocky slight of Conservative values and supported by policies like Net Neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine that seek to quiet those who disagree with the progressive agenda.

Obama also said: “The challenges we face are real.. They will be met”, although Obama has said that he feels that 70% of his objectives have been met .. the rest of the American population is left feeling that we aren’t meeting any challenges and are wincing at the thought of what the remaining 30% will do to the country.

I’ll leave you with a quote from George Washington:

“Let it be told to the future world that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it.”

This one – great American Conservatives are taking care for you – well not really for you.

Bring on 2012.

What’s With All The NewSpeak?

Since being introduced to the Obama administration, new terms have come into existence and old terms are getting new definitions.  Every time a new phrase, altered term or historical revision becomes public, I imagine Orwell’s Winston in his cubical at the Ministry of Truth pulling up old stories and “rectifying” them.

Some memorable acts of rectification are the Department of Homeland Security’s re-terming of  acts of terrorism.  It’s not terrorism, it’s a man-made disaster.  This newspeak is well-demonstrated in speeches and official forms such as the DHS’ “Business Emergency Plan“:

The following natural and man-made disasters could impact our business:
○ We have developed these plans in collaboration with neighboring businesses and building owners to avoid
confusion or gridlock
○ We have located, copied and posted building and site maps.
○ Exits are clearly marked.
○ We will practice evacuation procedures ____ times a year.

In early 2009, Obama felt it necessary to revise the term that describes military actions taken since 9-11.  The administration ordered an end to the use of the phrase “Global War on Terror” and demanded the substitution of the now infamous “Overseas Contingency Operation”.  Supposedly this new terminology clarifies our recent military actions.  The administration tried to make it’s case by pointing out that you can’t have a war against terror because terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy.  No wonder our foreign and domestic policies are a mess, just the names of these policies and actions makes no sense – the content of them is doomed.

The next cleaning-up of the American vocabulary was about those persons captured on the field of battle: Enemy Combatants. No more are they enemies or combative, they are simply detainees – fairly sterile.  But – isn’t that the point?

Most recently we have Obama’s switch to the phrase “freedom of worship” in place of  “freedom of religion”.  During the President’s 2009 global apology tour he used the correct phrase, but lately worship has been the go to freedom.  Is it that important?  A post at FirstThings makes the case:

The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It’s about the right to dress according to one’s religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don’t go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves—yet “freedom of worship” would protect none of these acts of faith.

How about the terms that just seemed to have disappeared?

  • Islamic extremist
  • Islamic radical
  • Militant Islam

The cleansing of American verbiage has a single focus – the defense of Islam.  Notice that there has been no new term created for oil spills, bailouts, unemployment, Russian spies, or anything else that has no ties to Islamic nations or groups.  Every newspeak term or revisionist re-definition is of or relating to Islamofascism.  If Americans stay upset over 9-11, Iran’s nukes, and continuing hate speech by Islamic leaders here and abroad, there is no way Obama can make their extremist views palatable to the American public.  If nothing else, he’s managed to replace the Jewish voters he’s lost due to his constant insults to Israel with a much more progressive constituency.

Obama Takes Sides: Hugo Chavez Over England

On April 2nd, 1982 the Argentine Military invaded and occupied the Falkland Islands which had been home to nothing but British Shepherds for years. The British Navy responded with the largest naval action since WWII and In the ensuing Falklands War 900 people lost their lives.

The British won the war and maintained ownership and control of the Falklands. Now the British Falklands are under attack again, this time diplomatically. The Falkland Islands have been found to be oil rich, and Argentina wants them again. Backed by Hugo Chavez chanting “Queen of England the Empire is over,” 32 Latin American and Caribbean heads of state agreed to support “the legitimate rights of the republic of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with Great Britain”.

The question for the UK has been, Where is Obama?  At Telegraph.co.uk Nile Gardiner writes,

If the Obama administration does not take a clear position in support of London, the Anglo-American Special Relationship will be significantly damaged. It is imperative that in the coming days the White House issues an unequivocal statement backing UK sovereignty over the Falklands in the face of Argentinian bullying, and sends a clear signal that it stands united with Great Britain.
President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cannot remain neutral and sit on the fence over an issue of vital national interest to the United Kingdom. While British and American soldiers fight side by side on the battlefields of Afghanistan, the United States must stand shoulder to shoulder with the British people as they once again confront Argentine aggression and defend their own kith and kin.

That was in February 2010, The Obama admin had done just that, sit on the fence, until now. Now he has done the exact of what Britain ever expected. Obama has sided with (Socialist) Latin American countries in demanding sovereignty negotiations over the Falklands. This is yet another slap in the face to our ever shrinking list of allies in an attempt to appease those that should be our enemies.

The American position on the Falklands and the current issues over British Petroleum are a sign to England that their friendship with us means nothing. We will lose our old friends.

By siding with the Chavez back Argentina, Obama is sending a clear signal to our allies that they mean nothing to us and to Communists we are on their side. Chavez is a rabid wolf that cannot be appeased, this will only whet his appetite. Seeing this weakness from the USA will prompt him to conduct his lifelong dream and invade Colombia.

The British paid for the Falkland Islands in blood, and will never give them up regardless of what position Obama takes.

Follow @StopObama2012 on Twitter

Sources:

  1. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/180325/Barack-Obama-sparks-new-row-over-Falklands
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
« Older Entries Recent Entries »