Author Topic: How's that Hope & Change working out for yas?  (Read 502 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
How's that Hope & Change working out for yas?
« on: June 02, 2010, 05:10:10 PM »
Enjoying the Socialist agenda so far??  Federal Government regulating and in charge of more private industry, including Automobile, Banks, School Loans, and now Healthcare, than ever before, Double digit unemployment, increasing revenue starved states, one of the worst Stock market months on record, pissing off international allie after allie, while placating terrorists and their Countries of support, Piss poor follow-up to helping prevent a natural disaster that makes Katrina look like a spring shower, U.S. Debt higher than its ever been, and greater than every adminstration, in the history of the U.S. ........combined?

Enjoying the fruits of your vote?


Obama's Crises: From Hope to Cope

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel told a conference organized by The Wall Street Journal in November 2008.

A moxie sound bite in an exhilarating moment: Emanuel, and his election-winning candidate, Barack Obama, were still ascending, the passionate rhetorical rockets of hope and change only two mere months from empowering policies guaranteed to place America in a far superior global position, an in-sync-with-the-planet, non-confrontational orbit guided by "smart diplomacy," multilateral cooperation and Obama's own unique, enlightened personality.

Obama's thrilling campaign rhetoric, however, has proved to be a transitory opium of the masses, and time and events have revealed Emanuel's zest for the opportunity a crisis offers ambitious men to be nothing more than embarrassing, hubris-drenched immaturity.

Indeed, time and events have cruelly rephrased Emanuel's brash declaration. Crises -- serious international and domestic crises -- are wasting the Obama administration, eroding its political capital, and exposing its debilitating combination of inexperience and weakness.

Consider this list of major crises President Obama confronts -- and this is a list, not a rank order, for events within the next 24 hours, a North Korean nuke striking Seoul, for example, or a Greek default, could radically order any precedence:

1) The economy, 2) the Middle East, 3) Gulf of Mexico oil spill, 4) Korea on the brink, 5) Global War on Terror (GWOT), 6) illegal immigration and border security, 7) divisive domestic agenda (health care, taxes, cap and trade).

The crises, of course, interweave, wickedly. The economy involves tax policy, but also global relations, such as Chinese and Greek domestic fiscal policies, over which Washington exerts minimal control. The economy also involves energy markets, which links to Middle Eastern stability, and domestic production, which connects to the oil spill, which links back to the divisive domestic agenda's "green initiatives."

Obamites may object to GWOT, since the president ditched the GWOT in favor of "overseas contingency operation" (OCO). He insisted on his rhetorical frame. However, events like the Christmas terrorist, Maj. Hasan's Ft. Hood massacre and the Times Square terror attempt have exposed his verbal hocus pocus. Afghanistan, Iraq and Times Square are linked battlefields in a global war.

The Middle East is shorthand for a snake's nest of crises, Iran's nuclear bomb and Iranian finagling in Iraq being the most dangerous. However, the Gaza Flotilla fracas, which today pits Israel against Turkey, ought to drop Obama's claim of "smart diplomacy" into the dustbin of history.

The dispute could fizzle for several reasons (including Turkey's and Israel's numerous common interests), but if it does not, where is the U.S. leverage in this tangle between the Eastern Mediterranean's (and Middle East's) two most powerful nations, who are both ostensible U.S. allies?

Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize (the unique personality component of his November 2008 policy tool kit), so he should want to stop a shootout if Turkish warships escort another aid convoy to Gaza, as the Turkish government has threatened to do, right?

Obama may have very little clout with Israel. In diplomatic posture, the Obama-led U.S. does not act like a reliable Israeli ally. Obama uses his own personal indignation to send macro-political messages, and he treats Israeli leaders with disdain. Israelis may have a reached a point where they will do what they conclude they must do to assure their own survival, and that includes openly confronting the so-called "peace activists" who are really propagandists for terrorist groups committed to Israel's destruction.

Obama administration support for an Armenian genocide resolution miffs Turkey. Ankara also insists it kept Obama senior officials fully informed as it conducted nuclear program negotiations with Iran, only to have the U.S. condemn the deal. Turkish regional diplomacy since 2008 suggests the Turks have concluded President Obama is going to let Iran get a nuclear bomb, and they are going to accommodate themselves to that dangerous reality. Kiss off, Washington.

Obama confronts converging crises -- crises exacerbated by the perception he is weak. Hope has turned to cope, and just barely so. How Obama succeeds or fails in each of these immanent crises will either make or break his administration.


Will the damage be too great, we can't overcome?  That'll be the question

« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 05:39:19 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How's that Hope & Change working out for yas?
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2010, 04:07:13 AM »
Israel alone

Posted: June 03, 2010

Vice President Joe Biden, wrong on virtually every major foreign-policy issue since his election to the Senate in 1972, nailed this one: He warned that actors on the international stage would test the new, inexperienced president.

He knew that President Barack Obama's enemies would perceive his strength-through-peace (versus peace-through-strength) approach as weakness. They do and are acting accordingly.

Candidate Obama vowed to hold high-level talks with Iran and North Korea without "preconditions." Obama promised a "reset" of all things President George W. Bush, with no more talk of "victory" in Iraq and Afghanistan. He reneged on the promised missile-shield defense in Poland and the Czech Republic. He waits for countries like China and Russia, both of which have business interests in Iran, to agree to "tough, crippling" sanctions.

The president dropped the term "war on terror" and refuses to call Islamofascists "Islamofascists." He apologetically says America is vital in maintaining world peace "whether we like it or not." He sent a videotaped message to Iran telling of our willingness to re-engage the country ? if only it would unclench its fist. It unclenched more time for Iran to pursue a nuclear bomb. The administration was painfully slow to acknowledge that the Times Square truck bomb attempt involved foreign Islamic terrorists.

The administration chastised Israel for settlement construction in an area of east Jerusalem that President Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush and even Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat assumed would be part of Israel in any peace agreement. During Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's state visit, Obama treated him worse than a White House dinner gate-crasher.

To truly understand anti-Israel vitriol in Middle East read "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Hussein"

How's the hope and change working out?

- North Korea, in an act of war, sank a South Korean ship.
- Iran may now have sufficient materiel and technical knowledge to build a nuclear bomb.
- The Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah ? under the nose of United Nations "peacekeepers" ? continues to stock southern Lebanon with weapons that threaten Israel.

Now comes the anti-Israel "humanitarian" flotilla.

After Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, the terror group Hamas seized power. Israel and Egypt began a naval blockade of ships in and out of Gaza. Though Israel had uprooted every Israeli settler from Gaza, Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Israel, a bombardment that continues today.

Israel already sends humanitarian aid into Gaza and allows others to do so. Israel even agreed to allow the supposed humanitarian flotilla cargo to enter, provided Israeli security could check it for weapons. And never mind that some of the flotilla's "humanitarian activists" appear to have ties to terror organizations.

The flotilla's attempt to run the blockade resulted in nine deaths when the Israeli military boarded ships to inspect the cargo. As Israel's enemies hoped, Israel stands accused of a "disproportionate" response.

But why the flotilla now?

The most significant intervening event is the election of President Obama. Now Israel's most important ally considers Israeli intransigence the principal obstacle to peace with the Palestinians in particular and in the Middle East in general. The activists got the message: Israel is on the defensive.

Israel, with good reason, feels alone.

Obama, like Bush in his second term, seems willing to accept a nuclear-armed Iran ? even as Iran threatens Israel with annihilation. Obama apparently considers a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable, even if it ignites a regional nuclear arms race ? since Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan fear Iran more than they do Israel.

Give Obama credit for continuing many of Bush's policies.
- Gitmo remains open, the administration finally understanding that the prison exists for a reason.
- He continued rendition,
- the terror surveillance program
- the increased use of drone predators in Pakistan.
- He used the same "state secrets" argument to fight courtroom disclosure of sources and methods.
- He increased troop strength in Afghanistan
- and continues the Bush "clear and hold" strategy for that country and Iraq.

But Jimmy Carter governed as a strength-through-peace president. He pressured the shah of Iran to release "political prisoners." The shah was toppled, only to be followed by the repressive and threatening Islamic Republic of Iran. Carter urged Americans to abandon their "inordinate fear of communism." Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev considered Carter weak and rewarded him by invading Afghanistan. This triggered a chain reaction from which the world continues to suffer. The Arabs and Muslims who fought to expel the Soviet Union then turned on the United States and the West in a grand plan for an Islamic world.

Israel's response to the flotilla was an act of self-defense. The Western world's reaction has been shameful. Western countries once again fail to distinguish the arsonist from the firefighter.

In 1962, the United States imposed a naval blockade ? a "quarantine" ? on Cuba. What would we have done to a "humanitarian" flotilla determined to help Fidel Castro place Soviet missiles 90 miles from Florida?


How's the hope and change working out?

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BSB

  • Guest
Re: How's that Hope & Change working out for yas?
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2010, 06:26:28 AM »
I don't agree with much of that. We almost went to war with NK under Clinton so they must have been pushing his buttons. Al Qaeda has been forced to scatter even more then they did under Bush except for the first year or so we were in Afghanistan. While the attack at Fort Hood was successful the attempt in the air over Detroit, and the one in NYC, were not. All three of those, even with one successful one, indicate how difficult it is now for Al Qaeda to launch a major attack like 9/11. As for Biden, he immediately went on Charlie Rose after the recent event and defended Israel's right to set up a blockade of Gaza. Further, it would be suicidal to push Obama too far. As a Democrat he would have no choice but to push back hard. That, more then anything else, worries me.


sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How's that Hope & Change working out for yas?
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2010, 11:12:39 AM »
His track record speaks otherwise, I'm afraid, BSB
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BSB

  • Guest
Re: How's that Hope & Change working out for yas?
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2010, 11:32:52 AM »
I just gave you his track record.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How's that Hope & Change working out for yas?
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2010, 11:36:45 AM »
So did I, in the original 2 postings.  Outside of stepping up unmanned drone attacks in Afghanistan and continuing both Rendition & Gitmo, unless we actually get ourselves another 911, I don't see this President doing anything other than placating/appeasing.  That's his track record with enemies and countries supportive of Islamic terrorist activity
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle