Perhaps this Memorial Day President Obama should think about why we owe Europe and the world an apology.
1. The American Cemetery at Aisne-Marne, France. A total of 2289 American graves.
2. The American Cemetery at Ardennes, Belgium. A total of 5329
3. The American Cemetery at Brittany, France. A total of 4410
4. Brookwood, England American Cemetery. A total of 468
5. Cambridge , England. A total of 3812
6. Epinal, France American Cemetery. A total of 5525
7. Flanders Field, Belgium. A total of 368
8. Florence, Italy. A total of 4402
9. Henri-Chapelle, Belgium. A total of 7992
10. Lorraine, France. A total of 10,489
11. Luxembourg, Luxembourg. A total of 5076
12. Meuse-Argonne, France. A total of 14246
13. Netherlands, Netherlands. A total of 8301
14. Normandy, France . A total of 9387
15. Oise-Aisne , France . A total of 6012
16. Rhone, France. A total of 861
17. Sicily, Italy. A total of 7861
18. Somme, France. A total of 1844
19. St.. Mihiel, France . A total of 4153
20. Suresnes, France. A total of 1541
This is just Europe. A total of 104,366 dead American soldiers. It doesn't include those buried in the Pacific.
And we have to watch an American elected leader who apologizes to Europe and the Middle East that our country is "arrogant"!
How many French, Dutch, Italians, Belgians and Brits are buried on our soil, defending us against our enemies?
We don't ask for praise, but we have no reason to apologize.
Hopefully, Americans remember this in November 2012 and 2014.
Showing posts with label obama's weak foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama's weak foreign policy. Show all posts
Monday, May 31, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Terrorists Also Cross Arizona/Mexico Border
Terrorists from Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc., are learning Spanish and crossing the Arizona/Mexican border. Muslim prayer rugs, jihadist uniform patches are being found on the ground in Arizona. It is not just an illegal immigration issue, but a national security issue as well. Watch this video.
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html
Monday, May 17, 2010
Who is the Real Human Rights Violator
Gulags. Rouge organ harvesting. One child per family. Male baby favoritism. Etc. Etc. Yet another Obama administration apologist was talking to the Chinese, apologizing for the Arizona immigration law. This administration is filled with some of the biggest losers in world history.
From the AP:
From the AP:
The United States and China reported no major breakthroughs Friday after only their second round of talks about human rights since 2002…
Michael Posner, the assistant secretary of state, told reporters that another round will happen some time next year in Beijing…
Posner said in addition to talks on freedom of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial discrimination.
He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the American record and in fact raised on its own a new immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a person’s immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in the country illegally.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Strikes Back at Obama
Our loser of a President, Barack Obama, gets schooled on what real leadership looks like by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Perhaps Barack can borrow some balls from Michelle.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Get Ready for a Nuclear Iran
This is too important. I am re-posting in full. More ineptitude from Obama.
By John Bolton
Monday, May 3, 2010
Wall Street Journal
Negotiations grind on toward a fourth U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution against Iran's nuclear weapons program, even as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrives in New York to address the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference. Sanctions advocates acknowledge that the Security Council's ultimate product will do no more than marginally impede Iran's progress.
In Congress, sanctions legislation also creaks along, but that too is simply going through the motions. Russia and China have already rejected key proposals to restrict Iran's access to international financial markets and choke off its importation of refined petroleum products, which domestically are in short supply. Any new U.S. legislation will be ignored and evaded, thus rendering it largely symbolic. Even so, President Obama has opposed the legislation, arguing that unilateral U.S. action could derail his Security Council efforts.
The further pursuit of sanctions is tantamount to doing nothing. Advocating such policies only benefits Iran by providing it cover for continued progress toward its nuclear objective. It creates the comforting illusion of "doing something." Just as "diplomacy" previously afforded Iran the time and legitimacy it needed, sanctions talk now does the same.
Speculating about regime change stopping Iran's nuclear program in time is also a distraction. The Islamic Revolution's iron fist, and willingness to use it against dissenters (who are currently in disarray), means we cannot know whether or when the regime may fall. Long-term efforts at regime change, desirable as they are, will not soon enough prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons with the ensuing risk of further regional proliferation.
We therefore face a stark, unattractive reality. There are only two options: Iran gets nuclear weapons, or someone uses pre-emptive military force to break Iran's nuclear fuel cycle and paralyze its program, at least temporarily.
There is no possibility the Obama administration will use force, despite its confused and ever-changing formulation about the military option always being "on the table." That leaves Israel, which the administration is implicitly threatening not to resupply with airplanes and weapons lost in attacking Iran—thereby rendering Israel vulnerable to potential retaliation from Hezbollah and Hamas.
It is hard to conclude anything except that the Obama administration is resigned to Iran possessing nuclear weapons. While U.S. policy makers will not welcome that outcome, they certainly hope as a corollary that Iran can be contained and deterred. Since they have ruled out the only immediate alternative, military force, they are doubtless now busy preparing to make lemonade out of this pile of lemons.
President Obama's likely containment/deterrence strategy will feature security assurances to neighboring countries and promises of American retaliation if Iran uses its nuclear weapons. Unfortunately for this seemingly muscular rhetoric, the simple fact of Iran possessing nuclear weapons would alone dramatically and irreparably alter the Middle East balance of power. Iran does not actually have to use its capabilities to enhance either its regional or global leverage.
Facile analogies to Cold War deterrence rest on the dubious, unproven belief that Iran's nuclear calculus will approximate the Soviet Union's. Iran's theocratic regime and the high value placed on life in the hereafter makes this an exceedingly dangerous assumption.
Even if containment and deterrence might be more successful against Iran than just suggested, nuclear proliferation doesn't stop with Tehran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others will surely seek, and very swiftly, their own nuclear weapons in response. Thus, we would imminently face a multipolar nuclear Middle East waiting only for someone to launch first or transfer weapons to terrorists. Ironically, such an attack might well involve Israel only as an innocent bystander, at least initially.
We should recognize that an Israeli use of military force would be neither precipitate nor disproportionate, but only a last resort in anticipatory self-defense. Arab governments already understand that logic and largely share it themselves. Such a strike would advance both Israel's and America's security interests, and also those of the Arab states.
Nonetheless, the intellectual case for that strike must be better understood in advance by the American public and Congress in order to ensure a sympathetic reaction by Washington. Absent Israeli action, no one should base their future plans on anything except coping with a nuclear Iran.
Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations" (Simon & Schuster, 2007).
By John Bolton
Monday, May 3, 2010
Wall Street Journal
Negotiations grind on toward a fourth U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution against Iran's nuclear weapons program, even as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrives in New York to address the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference. Sanctions advocates acknowledge that the Security Council's ultimate product will do no more than marginally impede Iran's progress.
In Congress, sanctions legislation also creaks along, but that too is simply going through the motions. Russia and China have already rejected key proposals to restrict Iran's access to international financial markets and choke off its importation of refined petroleum products, which domestically are in short supply. Any new U.S. legislation will be ignored and evaded, thus rendering it largely symbolic. Even so, President Obama has opposed the legislation, arguing that unilateral U.S. action could derail his Security Council efforts.
The further pursuit of sanctions is tantamount to doing nothing. Advocating such policies only benefits Iran by providing it cover for continued progress toward its nuclear objective. It creates the comforting illusion of "doing something." Just as "diplomacy" previously afforded Iran the time and legitimacy it needed, sanctions talk now does the same.
Speculating about regime change stopping Iran's nuclear program in time is also a distraction. The Islamic Revolution's iron fist, and willingness to use it against dissenters (who are currently in disarray), means we cannot know whether or when the regime may fall. Long-term efforts at regime change, desirable as they are, will not soon enough prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons with the ensuing risk of further regional proliferation.
We therefore face a stark, unattractive reality. There are only two options: Iran gets nuclear weapons, or someone uses pre-emptive military force to break Iran's nuclear fuel cycle and paralyze its program, at least temporarily.
There is no possibility the Obama administration will use force, despite its confused and ever-changing formulation about the military option always being "on the table." That leaves Israel, which the administration is implicitly threatening not to resupply with airplanes and weapons lost in attacking Iran—thereby rendering Israel vulnerable to potential retaliation from Hezbollah and Hamas.
It is hard to conclude anything except that the Obama administration is resigned to Iran possessing nuclear weapons. While U.S. policy makers will not welcome that outcome, they certainly hope as a corollary that Iran can be contained and deterred. Since they have ruled out the only immediate alternative, military force, they are doubtless now busy preparing to make lemonade out of this pile of lemons.
President Obama's likely containment/deterrence strategy will feature security assurances to neighboring countries and promises of American retaliation if Iran uses its nuclear weapons. Unfortunately for this seemingly muscular rhetoric, the simple fact of Iran possessing nuclear weapons would alone dramatically and irreparably alter the Middle East balance of power. Iran does not actually have to use its capabilities to enhance either its regional or global leverage.
Facile analogies to Cold War deterrence rest on the dubious, unproven belief that Iran's nuclear calculus will approximate the Soviet Union's. Iran's theocratic regime and the high value placed on life in the hereafter makes this an exceedingly dangerous assumption.
Even if containment and deterrence might be more successful against Iran than just suggested, nuclear proliferation doesn't stop with Tehran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others will surely seek, and very swiftly, their own nuclear weapons in response. Thus, we would imminently face a multipolar nuclear Middle East waiting only for someone to launch first or transfer weapons to terrorists. Ironically, such an attack might well involve Israel only as an innocent bystander, at least initially.
We should recognize that an Israeli use of military force would be neither precipitate nor disproportionate, but only a last resort in anticipatory self-defense. Arab governments already understand that logic and largely share it themselves. Such a strike would advance both Israel's and America's security interests, and also those of the Arab states.
Nonetheless, the intellectual case for that strike must be better understood in advance by the American public and Congress in order to ensure a sympathetic reaction by Washington. Absent Israeli action, no one should base their future plans on anything except coping with a nuclear Iran.
Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations" (Simon & Schuster, 2007).
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Make Mine Freedom
Here a great cartoon about freedom created in 1948. This is must watch and great to show the kids. Very prescient today, given our current leadership:
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Obama's Weak Nuclear Play
Nothing worse than a leftist ideologue leader purposely weakening America's national security. President Obama is like those people that watch Texas Hold 'Em on TV, and think they could play with best. The problem is that in real life one doesn't get to see the hole cards like on TV. Russia and China are far better players and they just gamed our novice President. Obama has so many tells, and he got played. Actually its not that hard to play Obama. Iran does it weekly.
Rudy Guiliani has it right in National Review Online:
I just hope we can survive the ineptness of the Obama Administration. We will need to reverse course as soon as Obama is voted out of office. Even then, our country will have been weakened and we could be attacked. And it will Obama's fault, just like 9/11 was Clinton's fault.
Please check out our social networking site for politics, www.uglygov.com
Rudy Guiliani has it right in National Review Online:
“President Obama thinks we can all hold hands, sing songs, and have peace symbols,” Giuliani says. “North Korea and Iran are not singing along with the president. Knowing that, it just doesn’t make sense why we would reduce our nuclear arms when we face these threats.”
“The president doesn’t understand the concept of leverage,” Giuliani continues. “He’s taken away our military option and it looks like he would prevent Israel from using a military option. He also hasn’t gotten Russia or China to agree. With Russia, he should have made them put their cards on the table. Instead, like with the missile shield, he gave up and got nothing for it. He negotiated against himself. That is like reducing the price of your house before you get an offer.”
“Leverage means the other guy has to be afraid of you,” says Giuliani, a former associate attorney general. “I worked for a president, Ronald Reagan, who understood that brilliantly, and that’s how he won the Cold War. You need to appear to be unpredictable. [Reagan’s] State Department understood that you need to create pressure, to create something they’re afraid of. Tell me where Obama has done that.”
“This president has taken so many steps backward in dealing with national security,” Giuliani concludes. “Beyond this nuclear policy, this is still an administration in a state of confusion about how to deal with terrorism. They’re out of control. And they have shown an inability to make tough decisions. It’s not inconsequential how the president dithers over so many issues, yet when it comes to dealing with Israel, one of our strongest allies, he doesn’t show much ambiguity. With Israel, he has been extremely hostile. His treatment of the Israeli prime minister [during his recent Washington visit] was shocking.”
I just hope we can survive the ineptness of the Obama Administration. We will need to reverse course as soon as Obama is voted out of office. Even then, our country will have been weakened and we could be attacked. And it will Obama's fault, just like 9/11 was Clinton's fault.
Please check out our social networking site for politics, www.uglygov.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)