Powered by Max Banner Ads
Obama Sends Letter To Chirac, Angers Sarkozy, Another Ally Bites The Dust
Remember when Obama campaigned around the country on the phony premise that president Bush alienated our allies and wrecked our relationships overseas? Anybody with a brain knows that was total bullshit and a weak liberal talking point, but assuming it was true let’s look at president Barry’s track record so far.
It has been revealed today that president Obama bizarrely sent a letter to former French president Jacques Chirac. You know, the prick who caused us to rename French fries “Freedom” fries. He was our worst ally after 9/11 and went out of his way to stick his finger in America’s eye.
But for some reason Obama sent him a letter saying he looked forward to working with him in the future.
“I am certain that we will be able to work together, in the coming four years, in a spirit of peace and friendship to build a safer world.”
To put it in perspective so that even a liberal can understand it, that would be like a newly elected European president sending a letter to Bush saying he looked forward to working with him in the coming years.
Suffice it to say, French president Nicolas Sarkozy is none to pleased.
Now let’s look back and see what kind of “repairs” Obama has made to Bush’s foreign policy that was allegedly in such tatters.
1. Insulted UK PM Gordon Brown during official White House visit and gave him a DVD box set that doesn’t even play on European dvd players.
2. Hillary Clinton gave Russia a red button with the word “reset” in Russian on it meant to signify a fresh start for relations. Unfortunately, the wrong Russian word was on the button.
3. Banned Mexican trucks from U.S. highways which is a clear violation of NAFTA and has sparked a trade war with Mexico.
4. Publicly waffling on commitment to Poland and other former Soviet Block allies on missile shield.
5. Insulted French president Sarkozy by sending letter to previous president whom he hates and we hate pledging cooperation (on what I don’t know).
This must be that “change we can believe in” I’ve been hearing about for two years.
Report: Hillary Clinton To Accept Secretary Of State Position
The Guardian is reporting that Hillary Clinton will accept the Secretary of State position offered by president-elect Obama.
Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.
I’m a little surprised that Hillary is actually going for it. She’s giving up the opportunity to make an impact on policy for decades to come as a powerful U.S. Senator.
Even though I disagree with her on pretty much everything, I think she’s a fine choice for Secretary of State. She’s certainly competent and well versed on the issues, and has a fine reputation overseas.
-Chris Jones
Video: Katie Couric Holds Barry Accountable
Congratulations to Katie Couric for having the courage to ask Barry a few tough questions. Unlike the rest of the media, Katie held Obama’s feet to the fire as it relates to the surge and his continued failure to support it. I think at least in this instance Obama was revealed for who he really is — a guy that doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.
(hat tip to Hot Air)
Barack Obama: All Hat And No Cattle
When the next edition of Webster’s Dictionary is released, you might well find when you look up the word ‘Chutzpah’ an 8 x 10 glossy photo of Barack Obama sitting along side the definition. Chutzpah is about the only word one can use when describing Barry’s current overseas trip.
An overseas trip his campaign labels one of “fact-finding” even though his may be the only fact-finding trip ever in which the person taking the trip declares what the facts are what he intends to do about them prior to actually taking said trip or gathering said facts.
Chutzpah is indeed an appropriate word to describe a candidate for President who travels to a war zone in which his own country is still at war and conducts what in effect are unilateral negotiations with that country regarding the presence of U.S. forces.
Immediately following his inappropriate, unilateral, negotiations with Iraqi leadership, Barack Obama announced that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki envisioned combat troops being out of Iraq by 2010, which put him more or less in line with his own position. Thus, marking the first time in U.S. history that a presumptive nominee for President took it upon himself to hijack negotiations about troop levels in the middle of a war with the media in tow. This from a 46-year old community organizer with no military experience and 1-term as a U.S. Senator under his belt. In truth only about 1 year as a U.S. Senator, because he decided to run for President after only a year in the Senate.
Probably the most incredibly arrogant and shockingly stupid thing Barack Obama has said during his overseas dog and pony show came during a press conference in Jordan.
He told a drooling press that even after the incredible success he witnessed in Iraq he was committed to his 16-month withdrawal timetable. Obviously that’s no surprise given the fact that before he left for Iraq he assured everyone of that commitment, which again calls in to question the purpose of the trip given that “commitment.” The really outrageous part is when he said that Gen. Petraeus expressed opposition to his timetable for withdrawal during their discussions, but as President he would have to look at the broader picture.
So now this 46-year old 1-term Senator with no military experience thinks he knows more than Gen. David Petraeus. A man who took Rumsfeld’s failed strategy in Iraq and turned it around completely. A man with more than 30-years of military experience? A man who graduated at the top of his class from West Point and holds a masters degree in public administration and a Ph.D in International relations from Princeton? A man who is not only the greatest military mind in America, but was named by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines as one of the world’s top 100 intellectuals?
I think this above all shows exactly the kind of President Barack Obama would be — a terrible one. During an airport press conference a couple of weeks ago, Obama offered a glimmer of hope that maybe he could be flexible upon receiving new information when it comes to Iraq. He said he would “continue to refine” his position on Iraq after speaking with commanders on the ground. His shrill un-American and anti-war base became hysterical at the prospect of their golden boy not being committed to defeat. So barely four hours after talking about “refining” positions he called another press conference to assure everyone that regardless of what he learned in Iraq he was indeed committed to defeat.
His commitment has never been and will never to doing what is best for America, but instead what is best for his far-left supporters. A real leader would have dismissed the shrill complaints of some and said you many disagree with my position evolving on Iraq, however I must go where the facts take me.
Barack Obama doesn’t have the guts to do that. If he becomes President you can count on our national security policy being set by people who don’t believe in national security. People who don’t believe we face a grave threat from Islamic fundamentalism. Obama’s far-left base believes the only real threat to America is George Bush, and once he’s gone an Obama administration can give the terrorists whatever they want and they’ll leave us alone.
The very worst appeasers and cowards make up Barack Obama’s core base of support and he’s shown his willingness to capitulate to them on the most serious issues our country faces — those involving national security.
Electing Barack Obama would be the biggest mistake this country could ever make.
-Chris Jones
Wes Clark Hits Back At McCain Via Facebook
Ben Smith over at Politico is reporting that Gen. Wes Clark is now hitting back at John McCain via his Facebook page. After his ridiculous and laughable perfomance on “Face The Nation” yesterday, Clark’s “status” on Facebook says this:
“Wes Clark knows that John McCain is largely untested and untried when it comes to national security matters”
It’s almost as funny now to hear that as it was yesterday on “Face The Nation.” It’s the kind of statement that just begs for a “and Barack Obama is?”
-Chris Jones
Obama Calls McCain’s Foreign Policy Ideas “Naive”
From the AP:
Barack Obama laid into John McCain on Friday for advancing a tough-guy foreign policy that he called “naive and irresponsible,” serving notice that he’s ready to launch a full-throttle challenge to the Republican presidential contender on international relations in the general election campaign.
Lumping McCain together with President Bush, Obama declared: “If they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that’s a debate I’m ready to win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.” He blamed Bush for policies that enhance the strength of terrorist groups such as Hamas and “the fact that al-Qaida’s leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan,” among other failings.
I don’t really know what the hell Barack Obama is talking about. President Bush doesn’t have anything to “answer for” when it comes to protecting the United States.
It’s President Bush who’s kept us safe since 9/11. What has Barack Obama done? Oh yeah, he’s given a bunch of speeches.
I just hope Obama keeps his promise to debate John McCain on foreign policy “anywhere, anytime” because that should be fun to watch.
Obama Adv: Obama Never Said He would Meet With Iran Without Precondition
Thanks to Hot Air for pointing out the latest lies and distortions from the NY Times. In a piece about John McCain allegedly trying to tie Obama with Hamas, an outright lie is made by an Obama advisor.
Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”
Here’s what Obama’s campaign website says:
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Just in case Barry’s team tries to change the website and claim it never said that, I captured the entire page which you can look at HERE.
Want more proof?
In the following clip, Barack Obama says he will meet with Iran without preconditions:
John Edwards: Poverty Guru and Foreign Policy Expert
In an obvious attempt to give the illusion of foreign policy experience, John Edwards called Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf yesterday after the Bhutto murder.
Amazingly, Musharraf actually took his call. Edwards reportedly told him to allow an international inspection team to investigate the Bhutto murder, if he wants to have any credibility left. This was of course before the body was even on ice and details were still sketchy.
Clearly this was a political stunt to be used on the campaign trail. Edwards had no business calling a world leader to tell them to do a damn thing. I’m surprised that Musharraf even took his call to begin with. John Edwards doesn’t know anything about foreign policy, or Pakistan, or the War on Terror.
I have to laugh every time I hear one of Edward’s stump speeches. He truly is the phoniest candidate that has ever run for President. It’s amazing that anyone could take a filthy rich trial lawyer seriously when he howls about corporate greed, “two Americas,” and the middle class.
John Edwards often talks about our “broken system” and our “corrupt system” that’s totally “rigged” against the little guy. But what I’m wondering is how John Edwards the “son of a mill worker” got to be so damn successful under such a corrupt and broken system?
The system was good enough for him, but now that he has his 30,000 sq. ft. house, it’s time to change the system for the rest of us.
John Edwards is a far-left phony who should leave foreign policy matters to the grown-ups. His “shtick” is pretending to identify with poor people and he should just stick to that.
-Chris Jones
Foreign Policy: Clinton vs. Pelosi
The Politico has an interesting piece about the huge differences between the Nancy Pelosi wing of the Democratic party and the Hillary Clinton wing.
Clinton’s and Pelosi’s differences of detail cumulatively add up to something large — two distinct strands of thinking about where threats to U.S. national security lie and how aggressive to be in confronting them.
Or as I like to say “Dumb & Dumber”
Posts
