The Democrats Lost Their Minds (And My Respect) Today
And branded themselves as forever irrational and unreasonable. Quite frankly, it was difficult to keep from laughing at their inane and ridiculous ravings. It was the most pathetic display I have ever witnessed.
Because Obama is so self-involved, he assumed the President was speaking about him, specifically, got his elitist feathers in a ruffle, and all the other Democrats came running to said, "Yeah! What he said!" Fools. Bluddy group-think fools. This display of bad behavior by the Democrats (and the MSM) was so far out of left field, the field hasn't even been built yet, but they came anyway. In droves. In wave after whining wave. Endless whimpering and voices dripping with hate-filled smarminess.
The "offensive" part of President Bush's speech that set off the chain reaction of insanity within the Democratic Party.
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." (Full Text of Speech Here)
The difference in the reactions of the members of the Knesset and the Democrats was night and day. The Knesset vigourously applauded President Bush in agreement. Obama and the Democrats spewed hate-filled and irrational accusatory expletives about the non-existent "accusation".
All Obama should have said in response, since he says he agrees with the President, was, "I agree."
While President Bush did not name or reference Obama in any manner, shape, or form during his speech in Israel to the Knesset, he did warn against appeasing enemies. Obama was sure quick to own the statement, though, wasn't he? Inserting himself into an equation that did not call for him. Obama assumed the President was speaking about him specifically, and that couldn't be further from the truth. Obama needs a psychological work-up - and quick! Imagining yourself the center of all attention has got to be a serious disorder. Obama responded to the speech, angrily and irrationally, before the President had even concluded.
It is important to understand how very little Obama understands about terrorism as his immediate guilt-filled abreaction to the President's comments have again revealed. We now know, without a shadow of a doubt, Obama's belief is that America, in a time of war, should assume a posture of weakness, provide the comfort of appeasement to the enemy, and admit defeat (surrender) to the enemy.
The rest of the Democrats all over the internet, TV, and radio today, including the "journalists", sounded like escaped mental patients. ABC, CBS, and NBC were most egregious in the lies they easily told the public, also accusing the President of naming Obama specifically.
Since 9/11, President Bush has repeatedly said the United States will not negotiate with terrorists or terrorist regimes.
March 20, 2001, Remarks by the President and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel in Photo Opportunity, The Oval Office
Q Prime Minister Sharon, did you manage to convince the President Bush that you will not negotiate under fire? Do you think that this message is clear, and do you think that President Bush agrees with you about this issue?
PRIME MINISTER SHARON: I didn't have to talk to President Bush about that. I think what I understand the policy of this great democracy, the United States, is that one should not surrender to terror and pressure and violence. And therefore, I don't have to work too hard on this thing. I even didn't try.
But I understand, and I believe that they do, and I appreciate that respect that -- to that approach that one should never surrender to terror, and that the free world should struggle against terror, local, regional and international terror. And I'm sure that the United States leads such a struggle, and we are a partner in the struggle. I think that is in the interest of every democratic state, because in order to keep stability -- and I'm a great supporter of the President's policy of keeping stability in the Middle East -- the main danger to stability is terror. And that, I believe, will be -- should be the common goal of every democratic country in the free world.
June 26, 2001, Remarks by the President and Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon in Photo Opportunity, The Oval Office
PRIME MINISTER SHARON: I've said it very clearly. Israel will not negotiate under fire and under terror. We said it because if we do that we'll never reach peace. That is the point. It's not -- what I'm saying is not an obstacle, not a barrier against peace. On the contrary. If we will be very strict, then the Palestinians will understand they cannot gain anything by terror. Therefore, we have to be very strict in order to reach peace, which all of us would like to have.
August 24, 2001, Remarks by the President and Secretary Rumsfeld in Announcement of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Crawford Community Center, Crawford, Texas
Q Mr. President, on Israel, as well, following up on that, today the Israelis pushed farther into Palestinian territory, attacking two houses in Hebron. So far the peace talks that were agreed to between Peres and Arafat haven't happened.
I know you say that the U.S. is engaged by Egyptians, Palestinians, are calling for more U.S. involvement. What is it going to take for the U.S. to actually get more involved, take more action in order to bring about peace in the Middle East?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's start with this. In order for there to be any peace talks in the Middle East, the first thing that must happen is that both parties must resolve to stop violence. The Israelis have made it very clear that they will not negotiate under terrorist threat. And if Mr. Arafat is interested in having a dialogue that could conceivably lead to the Mitchell process, then I strongly urge him to urge the terrorists, the Palestinian terrorists, to stop the suicide bombings, to stop the incursions, to stop the threats.
February 7, 2002, Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
MR. FLEISCHER: Obviously, this is an issue that is very troubling to all Americans and to the President. The President is very concerned about what has happened with the kidnapping of Mr. Pearl. It is the longstanding policy of the United States government, and that remains in place, that the United States government does not and will not negotiate. But the United States has worked very productively with Pakistan.
September 18, 2002, Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer, James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
Q Mr. Blix, the head of the inspections part of the U.N., has had meetings with the Iraqis. He's supposed to have more meetings with the Iraqis. There's talk about another meeting in Vienna two weeks from now. Is that not negotiating with the Iraqi, even if they're "practical arrangements"?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, what you're seeing there is actually some of the more technical conversations that would be expected. These are not negotiations with the Iraqis about the terms of inspection. Obviously, there are some rather mundane things that go in to having inspectors depart one country and arrive into another country. That's not the same, though, as the terms of the inspections.
Q You're confident there are no discussions about, say, as under the previous regime of inspections, giving notices when you're going to --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President's position is that Iraq lost a war and, as a result of the loss of the war, they negotiated and accepted the terms of the armistice. That is not up to negotiation. That is the word that Iraq gave as the condition for ending the war that they lost. And that will not be renegotiated. These technical conversations are of a different sort.
December 27, 2002, Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan, Crawford Middle School, Crawford, Texas
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think those are conversations we continue to have with our friends and allies, Mark. But we continue to seek a peaceful resolution of the situation that North Korea has created by its pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. And we will continue our consultations with friends and allies in light of these latest moves by the North Korean regime. But let me make it clear that we will not negotiate in response to threats or broken commitments.
January 8, 2003, Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer, The James S. Brady Briefing Room
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I can belabor the point. I can go back to all kinds of briefings where this issue, since November, has been talked about -- will you or won't you talk. Let me try to be the most helpful on it, why I think there may be some confusion about what policy was. But I think the central issue still remains, what's going to happen next? What will North Korea now do?
But what we have always said is there have been channels of communication that have been open that have been used, and those channels represent North Korea's mission to the United Nations up in New York. We've also consistently said that we're not going to negotiate, and we will not negotiate. But we will talk to North Korea about North Korea's intentions and how they intend to come back into compliance with the obligations that they committed to.
January 9, 2003, Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer, James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not sure that's quite the issue. In this instance, Governor Richardson, who was the former Ambassador to the United Nations, received communication from the North Koreans in New York -- the North Korean Ambassador -- saying that he wanted to visit with Governor Richardson. Governor Richardson called the State Department. Under all our agreements with North Korea, in order for the U.N. Ambassador to the United Nations from North Korea to travel outside of New York, the State Department has to grant permission, per the agreements. So Governor Richardson, knowing that as a former Ambassador, contacted Secretary Powell. Secretary Powell said that he had no objections to North Korea traveling to New Mexico to visit with Governor Richardson. And we don't know what it is that North Korea wants to say to Governor Richardson; the only message that we expect is what America's position is, that we are ready to talk and that we will not negotiate. That's the United States position, and you should not see this as anything beyond that.
January 13, 2003, Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer, James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
MR. FLEISCHER: There is a perfect consistency here. Mr. Kelly said that once we get beyond their nuclear weapons than there may be opportunities in the front in the area of energy. But as I made clear before, I said the United States is willing to talk, not negotiate. We are willing to talk about North Korea dismantling its facilities and coming back into international compliance with their obligations. Having done that, once they do that, then, at that point, North Korea can resume its place as a sovereign nation that is respected and treated by other nations in a manner consistent with their resuming those international obligations.
January 10, 2006, Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
MR. McCLELLAN: There is a growing majority within the international community that is telling Iran that if it does not come into compliance, if it does not negotiate in good faith, there is only one option that will be left, and that is referral to the Security Council. And then that matter would be discussed at the Security Council. I'm not going to try to speculate about what happens at this point. At this point, we are in discussions with Europeans and others about how to move forward and get Iran to get back to the negotiating table.
January 19, 2006, Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, James S. Brady Briefing Room
MR. McCLELLAN: And as I indicated, clearly, the al Qaeda leaders and the terrorists are on the run. They're under a lot of pressure. We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business. The terrorists started this war, and the President made it clear that we will end it at a time and place of our choosing. We continue to pursue all those who are seeking to do harm to the American people, and to bring them to justice.
January 27, 2006, Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, James S. Brady Briefing Room
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's policy and legal requirements that we have. And if Hamas is the government, then we would review aspects of our aid program under that policy and legal framework that's in place.
Q Isn't it, though, U.S. policy, if you're not negotiating with terrorists, not dealing with terrorists, not, therefore, supporting terrorists, wouldn't it be a requirement for the United States, under its own policy, to cut off aid to a Palestinian government --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I indicated to you earlier in that statement we do not, and will not, give money to a terrorist organization.
January 31, 2003, President Bush Meets with Prime Minister Blair, Remarks by the President and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, The Cross Hall
THE PRESIDENT: Let's see if I can be polite. Saddam Hussein has had 12 years to learn how to deceive, and I would view this as more deception on his part. He expects to be able to convince 108 inspectors that he is open-minded. The only way that he can show that he is truly a peaceful man is to not negotiate with inspectors, is not to string the inspectors along, but to disarm in front of inspectors. We know what a disarmed regime looks like. We know what it means to disarm. There's no negotiations. The idea of calling inspectors in to negotiate is a charade. If he is going to disarm, he must start disarming. That's the only thing he needs to talk to the inspectors about, is, here, I'm disarming.
May 23, 2006, President Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel Participate in Joint Press Availability, The East Room
PRESIDENT BUSH: Our primary objective is to solve this problem diplomatically. I've told the American people that I will, on all issues, we'll try diplomacy first and exhaust diplomacy. And I explained to the Prime Minister that -- about our diplomatic efforts -- the most important thing in diplomacy is that there be a shared goal and -- in other words, you have to have a common objective, a common goal in order to get people to come together around it. And now we have got a common goal throughout most of the world, and that is, Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. And that's important, and we are now working the diplomatic front around that goal.
We have a variety of options, one of which, of course, is the United Nations Security Council, if the Iranians aren't willing to show progress toward that goal. We're working very closely with what's called the EU3. That's Germany, England and France. And I've been pleased, and Secretary of State Rice has been pleased about their willingness to stay tough on the goal, of achieving the goal. Sometimes when you've got a variety of negotiating parties, it's easier for one -- a non-transparent negotiator to pick off a weak link. And yet, they've been firm, and that's important for Israel to know. It's important for me to praise our partners for that strength of purpose.
Obviously, there's other parties we have to work with, including Russia and China. In other words, you can't get anything out of the U.N. Security Council unless there's an agreement that the Iranians are not negotiating in good faith and aren't willing to go forward. And so we're spending a lot of time working with our Russian friends, in particular, to make it clear to them that Iran is showing no good faith.
And one of the interesting issues that the Iranians have tossed out in this debate is that they believe they have the sovereign right for civilian nuclear power. And my position has been, fine, it's just you don't get to enrich the fuel necessary for the plant. And so we provided a -- I thought a very interesting opportunity for them to say, if you want civilian nuclear power, you can have your plant and the international consortium will provide the fuel for the plant. And we'll pick up the spent fuel from the plant. And this was a very realistic and reasonable approach, and it's been rejected by the Iranians.
And so I say to our friends in our consortium, I'm not so sure these people really do want a solution and, therefore, let us make sure that we're willing to be working together in the U.N. Security Council. That's where we are. We're headed -- we're on the cusp of going to the Security Council. And I repeat to your question, obviously, we'd like to solve this issue peacefully and diplomatically. And the more the Iranians refuse to negotiate in good faith, the more countries are beginning to realize that we must continue to work together.
October 31, 2006, Press Briefing by Tony Snow, White House Conference Center Briefing Room
MR. SNOW: We didn't tell them anything. We're not negotiating with them at this point. What we're doing is -- now that you've got the process ready for the six-party talks, the President has said, look, we're happy that the six-party talks are going to resume; it's important to ensure that the North Koreans abide by U.N. Security Council resolutions and treaty obligations.
This is very good news. This is a real step forward. And also what it does, one hopes, in the fullness of time, is that the North Koreans will renounce all nuclear programs in a verifiable way; you'll avoid the threat of an arms race in the region; you'll avoid the threat of having a destabilized Korean Peninsula. You're going to have the opportunity for the North Koreans to take advantage of economic, political, and cultural offerings that have been made by the other parties to the talks. There's a way forward now and we're going to continue to move --
November 17, 2006, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Tony Snow, Thang Loi Hotel, Hanoi, Vietnam
MR. SNOW: As you know, we are not negotiating directly with the North Koreans. Conversations with the North Koreans would resume in the framework of the six-party talks. I don't want to -- as I said, I know it's frustrating, but I'm just not in a position to characterize what may be said diplomatically to the North Koreans from the parties to the talks.
May 12, 2008, Interview of the President by Lukman Ahmed, BBC Arabic, Map Room
Q You are calling both Iran and Syria to halt their support to Hezbollah. But in the absence of any direct contact with Iran and Syria, your administration -- how do you think both countries should stop doing this? You are not negotiating with them, you are not exploring other means to have them halt their support.
THE PRESIDENT: So what's there to negotiate? I mean, they know my position. Early on in my administration we sent the word to the Syrians, with top administrative officials, that if you want better relations with the United States, stop supporting these extremist groups that are trying to stop the advance of free societies. And every time, their response was nothing. So they know our position, the Syrians and the Iranians.
May 09, 2008
Obama Needs a History Lesson
by Jack Kelly
In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama said something that is all the more remarkable for how little it has been remarked upon.
In defending his stated intent to meet with America's enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."
That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.
I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.
FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.
Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.
Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.
When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's response wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.
Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.
Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.
"There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"
That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."
It's worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years.
The closest historical analogue to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet with no preconditions with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well.
History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days, noted a poster on the Web log "Hot Air." The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it's dangerous. As Sir Winston Churchill said:
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
What do you expect from a guy that believes there are 57 states - with one more to go!
"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
57 states? His staff decided that Obama would not visit Alaska and Hawaii because those states are not important? Good to know.
This is interesting given that Obama has always closely surrounded himself, personally and professionally, with racists, radicals, bombers, and thieves. Perhpas Obama feels the successes he has gained through his intimate relationships with these unsavory and hate-filled people have given him a familiarity with terrorists the run-of-the-mill American would never seek out.
No comments:
Post a Comment