Barry Obama hypocrisy on foreign policy

Notice that when the RNC spends $150 thousand bucks to refurbish Sarah Palin's wardrobe, the corrupt liberal mainstream media jumps all over the story, yet refuses to mention that Obama thugs are attacking McCain supporters, or that his cronies in states nationwide are trying their damndest to quell anti-Obama dissent?

Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds. They bitched and moaned that their civil liberties were being stolen when President Bush pushed to pass the Patriot Act and also institute warrantless wiretapping, to TRULY protect us. Yet, Democrats attempt to sift through your garbage (in the name of "recycling"), to enact the Fairness Doctrine, or ban anti-gay/Islamic terrorist speech, truly stealing our first amendments.

The dumb fuckers on the Left, including the MSM, are nowhere to be found. Instead they're all sipping their lattes, driving their Volvos, and castigating Christians.

Just another day in a soon-to-be Obama nation.

Speaking of liberal hypocrisy, try this one on for size. Undoubtedly, you've heard smug liberals proclaim that invading Iraq (in 2003) was illegal and that we had no business here. In one of the recent presidential debates, Democratic candidate Obama stated the following:

"When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us."

But he had stated in 2007, "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there."

Furthermore, it was okay in the late 1990's for President Clinton to interject American military forces in Serbia to halt a genocide occurring against Bosnian Muslims?

How the hell is Iraq or Darfur ANY different? All three have or would be done to prevent or halt genocide.

The answer is that it's not different; it's just the matter of liberals, so consumed with their of Bush, Christianity and Conservatism, to concoct stories, courtesy of the aforementioned corrupt liberal MSM.

MSNBC: Deal reportedly reached on U.N. Iran resolution

Big fat whoop.

Yawn.

According to Leftist Propaganda Tool MSNBC, "Six world powers, including the United States and Russia, have reached a deal to seek a new U.N. resolution on Iran's nuclear program, European officials said Friday.

Does anyone REALLY think that Iran will fulfill the terms of said "deal?"

Of course the Left does. Furthermore, look at how faithful North Korea was regarding its "deal." The international community, in six-party talks, purportedly struck a deal with the rogue Kim Il Jung regime whereby his country would disband his nuclear weapons program.

"North Korea had agreed in February 2007 to begin dismantling its nuclear program in exchange for aid and other concessions.

Scientists began disabling its reactor in November, and in June blew up the Yongbyon cooling tower in a dramatic show of its commitment to the pact. Eight of the 11 steps needed to disable the reactor were completed by July, North Korean officials said."

Now they've "reversed course."

"North Korea barred U.N. nuclear inspectors from its main nuclear plant on Wednesday, and within a week, it plans to reactivate the plant that once provided the plutonium for the explosive test two years ago, a senior U.N. nuclear inspector said. The North ordered the removal of the U.N. seals and surveillance equipment from the Yongbyon reactor, a sign it is making good on threats to restart its nuclear program."

And now the international community believes rogue nation #2, that being Iran, will fulfill the terms of its deal?

Not bloody likely.

Here's the "teeth" of the deal: "The proposed new resolution is a compromise — no new sanctions but a tough statement to Iran that Security Council resolutions are legally binding and must be carried out."

I'm sure Iran is shaking in their boots. That will show 'em!!!

I had a conversation with quasi-radical liberal co-worker discussing the flashpoint topic of Iraq; I had queried said co-worker, pondering why it was okay for the Clinton Administration to insist to the world that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction while engaging in a low-intensity war with Iraq for eight years, but yet when George W. Bush ENFORCED the 14 resolutions that Saddam violated, he became a pariah.

Smugly, the aforementioned liberal stated that Clinton's "actions" were acceptable because he used the United Nations as a vehicle to halt Saddam's weapons program. Of course, as I replied, this is the same United Nations that engaged in the Oil-for-Food scandal, allowed Security Countil member countries (Russia, France, and Germany) to engage in clandestine business opportunities with Saddam, and hosts such purveyors of human rights, Saudia Arabia, Libya, etc. on its United Nations Human Rights council.

That's a bundle of credibility, if I do so say myself.

And now we really think the new "League of Nations" will actually enforce an Iranian weapons resolution?

Haven't we been down this road before?

Obama's problem

So Barry Hussein Obama FINALLY visited Iraq; the streak of 900 plus days since the Democratic presidential candidate, who is absolutely unequivocal in his belief that United States military forces should be withdrawn from the country, is over.

The man, the agent of change, has presumably conversed with American military commanders and seen the progress of the surge on a microscopic level. So will the hard deadline of 16 months to remove all aforementioned troops stand?

On the whole we've seen Obama covertly, almost sneakingly, gravitate towards the political middle. According to the Baltimore Sun:

"He has softened or abandoned his earlier positions on a parade of issues, including wiretaps, abortion, trade with Mexico and Canada, gun control and public funding of his own campaign."

Of course, the morons on the far-Left are sulking that Obama abandoned the ideals that attracted them to his campaign in the first place. But, as I think most of us on the Right have established, 1.) despite efforts by the far-Left minority to establish the United States as Europe-lite, we are a CENTER-RIGHT country; 2.) Obama KNOWS that the key to his winning the presidency lies with working-class, sensible Democrats; those who "cling" to their guns and God, who have friends and family serving in the United States Armed Forces, and whose incomes are affected by obnoxious, far-Left induced, gas prices.

Barry may be understanding that the beliefs of the far-Left do not even remotely embody those of the rest of the country. I work with a gal whose views closely parallel the vile, odious far-Left: 1.) she is elitist; 2.) loathes those of us who adhere to a Judeo-Christian moral standard; 3.) lives in a fantasy world where terrorists are viewed as romantic freedom fighters waging a just war against marauding American imperialistic crusaders; 4.) mistakenly believes that George Bush and his neoconservative cronies created terrorism.

To whom does Barry wish to cavort and identify? Is it the far-Left? Or is it the working-class Democrat to whom rival Hillary Clinton empathized?

MSNBC: Joint Chiefs head: Iraq security gains holding

So why withdraw troops now?

Nationally, we've heard the cavalcade of "bring 'em home" chants from our leftist elected officials. On the Minnesota front, Democrat challenger to Senator Norm Coleman, Al Franken (aka Stuart Smalley) has made troop withdrawal a hallmark of his campaign platform.

According to MSNBC, "Iraq appears on track to establishing sustainable security — a key step toward withdrawing U.S. troops — the top U.S. military officer said Monday after visiting the newly quiet Sadr City section of the capital."

So tell me again why we want to withdraw now, as Iraq appears well on its way to becoming a bastion of democracy in the Middle East? Why would we throw away not the hard-fought successes we've gained in the past five years, but the four-thousand plus deaths of our fighting men and women.

I guess what they say about liberals and Democratic enablers is true: human life really is unimportant, especially if it's an American life. But, try to tell me that those opposed to freedom and democracy (see: Al Qaeda, or any other Islamic group of murderers, Guantanamo Bay detainees) lives are NOT more important in the eyes of the Left.

Because it ain't true.

You see, the Democrats have hedged their bets; they've allied themselves with the terrorists in a perverse arrangement whereby Islam uses the Democrats, and the Democrats conveniently forget that this "religion of peace" fundamentally opposes women's rights, multiculturism, alternative lifestyles, etc.

Yet, the Democrats, so blinded by the hatred for George Bush, as well as that of Christianity, have offered up their multicultural umbrella, in the hope that the poor Islamists will join them.

An honorable piece from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune concerning the Bush Administration

Kudos to Katherine Kersten of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune; mired in a wretchedly foul cesspool of journalism, she accurately documents just how the United States is safer since the Bush Administration was elected to the White House.

Some items to note, and to which Kersten alludes, and FINALLY, what Liberals seem to forget: there were an obscene amount of terrorist attacks upon American interests under the Clinton Administration, and Republican administrations prior.

I find it comical when Liberals rebuke Bush for CREATING terrorism, yet they fail to realize that terrorist acts, a vast majority, actually, were committed against Americans 20 years before the man took office: for example, the Iranian hostage crisis and the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, circa 1983.

The bottom line is this that Liberals need to understand: get your damn facts straight.

Repeat after me: “Iraq has made us less safe….”
May 28th, 2008 – 8:23 AM

“We are less safe today than before we invaded Iraq.”

This line is repeated so often that we take it as an obvious truth. Even those who call for an honorable and aggressive conclusion to the Iraq War frequently assume that the war has left us with a more dangerous world.

Every now and then, however, a commentator ignores the conventional wisdom and takes a hard look at the unvarnished facts.

John Hinderaker of Power Line has done just that, and the result is stunning in its simplicity and power. Here is the piece, with permission from Power Line:

ARE WE SAFER?

On the stump, Barack Obama usually concludes his comments on Iraq by saying, “and it hasn’t made us safer.” It is an article of faith on the left that nothing the Bush administration has done has enhanced our security, and, on the contrary, its various alleged blunders have only contributed to the number of jihadists who want to attack us.

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful. What follows is a partial history:

1988

February: Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, Chief of the U.N. Truce Force, was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah.

December: Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York was blown up over Scotland, killing 270 people, including 35 from Syracuse University and a number of American military personnel.

1991

November: American University in Beirut bombed.

1993

January: A Pakistani terrorist opened fire outside CIA headquarters, killing two agents and wounding three.

February: World Trade Center bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000.

1995

January: Operation Bojinka, Osama bin Laden’s plan to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, discovered.

November: Five Americans killed in attack on a U.S. Army office in Saudi Arabia.

1996

June: Truck bomb at Khobar Towers kills 19 American servicemen and injures 240.

June: Terrorist opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one.

1997

February: Palestinian opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one and wounding more than a dozen.

November: Terrorists murder four American oil company employees in Pakistan.

1998

January: U.S. Embassy in Peru bombed.

August: Simultaneous bomb attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 300 people and injured over 5,000.

1999

October: Egypt Air flight 990 crashed off the coast of Massachusetts, killing 100 Americans among the more than 200 on board; the pilot yelled “Allahu Akbar!” as he steered the airplane into the ocean.

2000

October: A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39.

2001

September: Terrorists with four hijacked airplanes kill around 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

December: Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber,” tries to blow up a transatlantic flight, but is stopped by passengers.

The September 11 attack was a propaganda triumph for al Qaeda, celebrated by a dismaying number of Muslims around the world. Everyone expected that it would draw more Muslims to bin Laden’s cause and that more such attacks would follow. In fact, though, what happened was quite different: the pace of successful jihadist attacks against the United States slowed, decelerated further after the onset of the Iraq war, and has now dwindled to essentially zero. Here is the record:

2002

October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam’s government.

2003

May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia. October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.

2004

There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2005

There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2006

There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2007

There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2008

So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

I have omitted from the above accounting a few “lone wolf” Islamic terrorist incidents, like the Washington, D.C. snipers, the Egyptian who attacked the El Al counter in Los Angeles, and an incident or two when a Muslim driver steered his vehicle into a crowd. These are, in a sense, exceptions that prove the rule, since the “lone wolves” were not, as far as we know, in contact with international Islamic terrorist groups and therefore could not have been detected by surveillance of terrorist conversations or interrogations of al Qaeda leaders.

It should also be noted that the decline in attacks on the U.S. was not the result of jihadists abandoning the field. Our government stopped a number of incipient attacks and broke up several terrorist cells, while Islamic terrorists continued to carry out successful attacks around the world, in England, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere.

There are a number of possible reasons why our government’s actions after September 11 may have made us safer. Overthrowing the Taliban and depriving al Qaeda of its training grounds in Afghanistan certainly impaired the effectiveness of that organization. Waterboarding three top al Qaeda leaders for a minute or so apiece may have given us the vital information we needed to head off plots in progress and to kill or apprehend three-quarters of al Qaeda’s leadership. The National Security Agency’s eavesdropping on international terrorist communications may have allowed us to identify and penetrate cells here in the U.S., as well as to identify and kill terrorists overseas. We may have penetrated al Qaeda’s communications network, perhaps through the mysterious Naeem Noor Khan, whose laptop may have been the 21st century equivalent of the Enigma machine. Al Qaeda’s announcement that Iraq is the central front in its war against the West, and its call for jihadis to find their way to Iraq to fight American troops, may have distracted the terrorists from attacks on the United States. The fact that al Qaeda loyalists gathered in Iraq, where they have been decimated by American and Iraqi troops, may have crippled their ability to launch attacks elsewhere. The conduct of al Qaeda in Iraq, which revealed that it is an organization of sociopaths, not freedom fighters, may have destroyed its credibility in the Islamic world. The Bush administration’s skillful diplomacy may have convinced other nations to take stronger actions against their own domestic terrorists. (This certainly happened in Saudi Arabia, for whatever reason.) Our intelligence agencies may have gotten their act together after decades of failure. The Department of Homeland Security, despite its moments of obvious lameness, may not be as useless as many of us had thought.

No doubt there are officials inside the Bush administration who could better allocate credit among these, and probably other, explanations of our success in preventing terrorist attacks. But based on the clear historical record, it is obvious that the Bush administration has done something since 2001 that has dramatically improved our security against such attacks. To fail to recognize this, and to rail against the Bush administration’s security policies as failures or worse, is to sow the seeds of greatly increased susceptibility to terrorist attack in the next administration.