Somehow in the Obama Era... Our Troops Keep Their Sense of Humor

-God Bless Our Troops-

& Prayers be with the Soldiers
and Families of Ft Hood...

h/t Bob Lloyd

Why They're All Saying "NO" to Obama

Amir Mizroch writes in the Jerusalem Post:

Everybody is saying no to the American president these days. And it's not just that they're saying no, it's also the way they're saying it.

The Saudis twice said 'no' to his request for normalization gestures towards Israel ... Who says no to the American president twice? What must they think of Obama in the desert kingdom?

...

The North Koreans said 'no' to repeated attempts at talks, by test-launching long-range missiles in April; Russia and China keep on saying 'no' to tougher sanctions on Iran; the Iranians keep saying 'no' to offers of talks by saying they're willing to talk about everything except a halt to uranium enrichment.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is saying 'no' by refusing to meet with Binyamin Netanyahu until Israel freezes all settlement construction; the Israelis said 'no' by refusing to agree to a settlement freeze, or even a settlement moratorium until and unless the Arabs ante up their normalization gestures. Which brings us back to the original Saudi 'no'.

...

Everyone has worked it out by now: The great secret is out- America's economy has made Obama a weak president, and he will likely remain weak throughout his first term... for the next three years, expect to see a world that says 'no' to Obama. No meaningful and dramatic diplomatic initiative can come out of the White House in the next three years, as long as Obama remains weak.

...Iran could turn up the heat on US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will stymie Obama's plan to win and withdraw. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has the US president by the kishkes, in a manner of speaking.

And so do the Taliban.

So, when a president with so many problems comes asking for a favor, everyone finds it easier to just say no...

Read more at the J-Post -here-

___________________

WHERE is the Left on Iran?

Throughout the Cold War years, the self-appointed moral watchdogs of the American left preached to us ad-nauseum on the perils of supporting anti-communist dictators like The Shah, Samoza, and Pinochet. We only damaged our own credibility when backing those who did not uphold human rights above all- regardless of the complex security challenges and/or decidedly undemocratic opponents that confronted these allies. This according to the McGoverns and Carters of the world, anyway.

And the pragmatism that lay behind the defense and intelligence policies that they so heavily criticized -these were in actuality proxy struggles with the expansionist Soviet Union- was brushed aside by liberals as cynicism and a lame excuse for continued US "imperialism". But these views were decidedly in the minority in the United States- and the narrow appeal of such short-sighted thinking surely contributed to McGovern's drubbing in the 1972 election.

Later, pollyana do-gooder Jimmy Carter showed us all how it's done with his withdrawal of support of Samoza over human rights concerns- perhaps it never occurred to him that we'd get something 10x worse with the communist Sandinistas: armed and trained by Moscow, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia... and allied with Havana in a Kremlin-funded enterprise to export communist revolution throughout central and South America.

Now we have a President Obama that basically got elected trashing America's proud history and defense policy-as he continues to do- as well as proposing that we downgrade our position as leader of the free world. All in all, there's not much daylight between Obama's zeitgeist and the finger-wagging, simplistic moral assumptions of the Cold War left.

So with the president's astounding silence and even apparent disinterest in today's Iranian crisis, WHERE is the moral concern of the holier-than-thou left now? Shouldn't these hypocrites being asking a few questions now that Barack Obama has kissed-up to Ahmedinijad and the Iranian theocracy since before he was even elected? We're talking about a former kidnapper and Holocaust-denying president of what all can now see is a brutal police state; one racing towards constructing nuclear weapons with the oft stated aim of wiping Israel from the map; a regime that cozies up to most or all of America's enemies; who supplied a large amount of Iraq's instability; one that publicly stones adulterers and petty criminals after burrying them up to their necks... and today is shooting unarmed protesters in the street. (Gateway Pundit).

Obama has now gotten his 3am-crisis-call- and so far he's done little but pound the snooze button. The complete inaction and lack of leadership is stupifying. Of course, the irony is that while the Ayatollah Khamenei is now laying blame for his Iranian citizens' uprising on the "Americans" and "the Jews"- the United States under Obama is really not doing anything of substance to support the protesters and would be counter-revolutionaries. To add insult to injury for the freedom-seeking patriots of Iran- the Obama administration also has zeroed out funding for pro-democracy programs inside Iran from the State Department budget for fiscal 2010... just as protests in Iran are ramping up (Newsmax).

Khamenei is now hinting strongly of a much harder crackdown to come- he's already using Hamas thugs imported from Gaza, who are showing their appreciation for the funding, arming, and training of their Islamofacist terrorist organization by cracking heads in the street alongside Iran's own plainclothes security forces.

Compare this all to Ronald Reagan's brave and unwavering support for Solidarity in Poland in the early 80's: in collaboration with Pope John Paul and Polish anti-communists, Reagan helped those seeking freedom in any way possible- with money, training, equipment such as radios and stepped-up VoA broadcasting to help liberate those behind the Iron Curtain.

Obviously -although it’s the last thing Team Obama want to hear- Ronald Reagan’s support of Poland’s Solidarity in the dark days of the Soviet-ordered crackdown is the model- not the preposterous straw-man argument of “what are you going to do, invade?” disingenuously presented by the do-nothing, Obamapologist left/MSM.

Most importantly, Reagan brought the Poles moral support with consistent public statements that gave the revolutionaries hope. The Gipper did this not only because of his belief in the cause of freedom worldwide; he also recognized the larger geopolitical implications of peeling the Warsaw Pact away from a weakened USSR bit-by-bit (similar to the effect that a free Iraq and free Iran could have on the Middle East today). While most referred to European states behind the Iron Curtain as Soviet "satellites"- Reagan insisted on calling them "captive" nations. And not only was Reagan right, visionary, and victorious... but the Poles remember who was with them when it seemed all was lost... that's why Poland is one of America's strongest allies for over 20 years now.

Shamefully, it seems Obama's primary concern is to bide a little more time for the the Mullahs and Ahmedinijad to pull themselves up by their bootstraps... while they beat-down any hope of actual democracy. Barack's already bet all his chips on legitimizing this vile regime- a democratic revolution in Tehran could be downright embarassing at this point. Once the Mullahs put a lid on things over there, these boys can all get back to talking business... just like they do it back in Chicago.

A liberated Iran does little to help Obama politically... which is all that ever really interests him in the end. Besides the obvious embarassment that would result from a new Iranian revolution -or even a substantially more moderate regime in Tehran- Obama appears to lack a Plan B. And if Iran becomes a struggling young democracy, trying to create a better society while battling the country's darker forces (a development any normal US president would have welcomed) -like, say, Columbia- it looks like Obama might just turn on them, too- as he's far more interested in cozying-up to the Castros, the Chavezes, and other tin-pot bullies who hold America in contempt... while snubbing the allied nations that share traditional American values of freedom, democracy, and free-market enterprise.

In other news, Obama's poll numbers are headed south: Rasmussen's daily tracking has him at a weak +1% rating- only once before has it slipped lower -to zero- and that was last week. The more friendly Gallup has him at a job approval of 58%- still a new low for this administration- looks like the deprogramming of the delusional Obamamania cult has begun.

UPDATE 6.21.09: make that Rasmussen poll differential a negative two (-2%)... a new low, and the first time in negative territory for the Obama Administration.

Obama Blows a Slam-Dunk

Barack Obama is clearly not qualified to be President of the United States- period. The chance to topple the maniacal regime in Tehran is right-there for the taking... and Obama is standing frozen like a deer in the headlights. Our False Prophet appears to have no idea what a golden opportunity he is passing up... overthrow this evil regime without firing a single shot... get their Armageddon-inspired nuke program off the world stage... and free 30 million people all at one time. But the boy wonder is too stupid to see it... or somehow just doesn't care? Perhaps he's happy to sell out Israel and the Iranian's people's right to freedom for some perceived political gain- it's hard to imagine what on God's Earth he's thinking, really.

Reagan would have toppled Ahmedinijad last night, and you'd have read about it in the papers today... but NO, we've got a non-committal coward who's instead obsessed with having the DNC hector Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh rather than deal with America's actual enemies. Obama's surely too busy with petty domestic politics to do what history would expect of him... we'll all pay the price for it.

And if anybody doesn't think that American-delivered freedom in Iraq has been a substantial factor in bringing this about... think again; the effects of a free Iraq, in which there is a spectrum competing parties and substantial economic freedom must be dramatic upon the Iranians. Many of them visit Iraq annually... and today's New Iraq has maintained a Shiite Islamic character for the most part without the repressive policies the Iranians must endure. These two countries have long been competitive in most ways... and surely the Iranians feel they are missing out on something most Iraqis now enjoy.

Unfortunately for the appalling and incompetent regime in Tehran, this is exactly the opposite of how it was supposed to all work out... Bush was "losing"... and they were going to swoop-in and control their former Iraqi adversaries at America's expense.

Isn't this what George W Bush told you was going to happen in the Middle East following Iraq's liberation? Maybe that's why Barack Obama has so little apparent interest in finishing the job in Iran... no matter how much it benefits the US and free world. Anyone who expected him to act in the interests of the United States -rather than for his own political security- hasn't taken a serious look at how Obama got this far in the first place.

Of course, a ruthless, narcissistic thug like Ahmedinijad has a lot in common with Obama- small wonder Barack's been kissing his posterior since before he was even in the White House. He's the kind of guy a Chicago Machine hack can do business with... maybe that's why Barack's got his back.