Thursday, April 08, 2010

President Appeaser's Playground Mentality


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't seem to recall President George W. Bush lashing out against critics in the media. The Media of Mass Deception constantly disparaged, insulted, ridiculed, debased, and lied about President Bush and his policies practically every day while he was in office. President Bush was the type of man who ignored the vitriol against him and did his job as Commander in Chief. He kept us safe for seven years after the 9/11 attacks.

Obama? Not so much. We have already had four attacks (one was thankfully thwarted - the Christmas Day pantywaist bomber) here on U.S. soil, and with Obama's naive foreign policy, he's rolling out the red (how apropos for the Marxist!!) carpet; encouraging rogue nations to attack us because "we won't retaliate with nuclear weapons."

What kind of fool tells the enemy the strategy we have planned to keep this nation safe? Answer: NONE!! Even a fool knows not to show his hand in such a way. This clown Resident of the White House and his loony commie advisers are placing America in grave danger. It's like having middle school level children running the country. And, when someone like Sarah Palin legitimately criticizes their stupid policies, the bogus POTUS answers back like a dumb-ass nincompoop!

Despite the seriousness of the nuclear appeasement mistke by ObaMAO, it's comic relief to read Gateway Pundit's post:

It’s On… President Appeaser Lashes Out at Sarah Palin

The comments are hilarious, too! These are some of my favorites:

AuntieMadder
April 8th, 2010 6:53 pm #2
Snippy little b!tch today, wasn’t he? Must have been way past time for a nicotene fix.

*******

bill-tb
April 8th, 2010 6:53 pm #3
She does appear to be a tad bit smarter than you, sir.

*******

Chisum
April 8th, 2010 6:54 pm #4
Oh boy, The Won must be feeling a bit threatened by Sarah.

I guess it’s because she’s so dumb. And he’s so freakin’ brilliant.

Just ask him.

*******

MAJ Mike
April 8th, 2010 6:55 pm #5
Exactly what makes THE WON any more of a nuclear warfare expert than Ms. Palin?

Hell, the Nuclear Weapons Targeting Courses I took for the Infantry Officer Advanced Course, Field Artillery Officer Advanced Course, and the Command and General Staff Officers College make me a more highly trained Atomic Weaponeer than THE WON.

*******


exceller
April 8th, 2010 7:12 pm #13
This week alone should leave no doubt in anyones mind that our president is a madman.
Three mindless, nonsensical and dangerous acts.
- Removing “Islam” from the foreign policy publications.
- The retarded change in our nuclear stance.
- The empty treaty with Russia on Nukes.

All three of these actions weaken America’s standing in the world.

*******

jetstream
April 8th, 2010 7:16 pm #14
As usual, the strawman argument is put forth to deflect from the true issue.

Strawman: expertise/knowledge of nuclear issues

True Issue: defense strategy

*******

Dipso Facto
April 8th, 2010 7:18 pm #19
Boy, this really makes Obama look petty and whiny.

The president of the United States saying, “The last time I checked” like a teenage girl.

What a dope. His mouth is his own worst enemy.

*******

OverTheCoastline
April 8th, 2010 7:18 pm #20
Bad move, Mr. President. Calling out Sarah Palin – - much like your attempts to lash out at Rush Limbaugh and Fox News – - only makes you look foolish, unfocused and floundering.

*******

Deana
April 8th, 2010 7:19 pm #21
I see others have had the same thought I do: After the news that has come out over the past couple of days, no one in their right mind would ever accuse Obama of being an expert on nuclear issues.

This man is so . . . strange. What is it about him that he constantly has to pick on people by name? I’m sure ever president has felt like responding directly to critics but I simply cannot recall any other president EVER picking people out by name and being harsh in his response to them.



Yep!!

Added a bit late, but this one is just too funny not to include!

zefal April 8th, 2010 8:34 pm #81
He plans on defending each one of the 57 states by placing joe biden look-a-like scarecrows in each one. If that doesn’t work he’ll go nuclear and place nancy pelosi scarecrows. Last resort: thermonuclear with barney frank ones.




Ha!!

Hat Tip:

Gateway Pundit

10 comments:

Kevin said...

"He kept us safe for seven years after the 9/11 attacks." Yes, but what about before? You say there were four attacks on U.S. soil since he took office. But how many people died? How many died when Bush was in office? I don't see a comparison here.

What is so crazy about eliminating a couple thousand nuclear weapons? I don't get it. When everyone gets health care all Republicans have a fit. When the Democratic president lessens the chance of a nuclear war, the Republicans have a fit. Would they rather a nuclear war? Maybe the Republicans think they can fix the economy by building a couple thousand more weapons that can destroy the earth...And I don't think that a person who quit mid-term from being a governor of a small populous state can say too much about the nuclear policy of the U.S.

Christinewjc said...

It was Clinton's fault. His typical liberal cronies didn't do what was necessary to keep this country safe. Jamie Gorelick's stupid policies were at fault for not allowing the various intelligence agencies to communicate easily with each other. Have you ever read the 9/11 report Kevin?

I think that it was very naive of Obama to show his hand to the rogue nations and state that he wouldn't use nuclear weapons against adversaries - even if we were attacked by them. What sane person in their right mind would say such a thing?? Even Ahmadinejad mocked him and called him an amateur.

At least Bush showed strength in his policies. Obama is just such a wimp!

Sarah Palin has more common sense in her pinkie than Obama & his radical cohorts EVER had.

Christinewjc said...

Voting Female:
Obama: A Dangerous Nuclear Moron; An Expert? Don’t make me GAG


Yep!

Gary Baker said...

Kevin,

"When the Democratic president lessens the chance of a nuclear war, the Republicans have a fit. "

You are making the assumption that the elimination of weapons made a nuclear war less likely. Kind of the inverse of liberal assumptions in the Regan era. They were convinced his military build up made war more likely, and they weren't shy about saying it. And they were wrong.

"And I don't think that a person who quit mid-term from being a governor of a small populous state can say too much about the nuclear policy of the U.S."

And I know that steering away from the substance of a discussion to attack the person making the argument shows you have a weak case at best.

History has shown that weakness invites war, not peace. It's the same garbage liberals tried to push against the Nazis, and if you get your way the end will be the same was well.

"Would they rather a nuclear war?"

False dichotomy and insultingly stupid question. History simply shows that the best way to prevent a fight is to prepare for one. Now, that doesn't appeal to the type of people who would rather be enslaved and told what to do than fight for self determination, but it is the truth.

Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
Of course 9/11 was Clinton's fault (I say with a snicker). There is no sense in blaming the sitting president for what happens on his watch, especially something as horrific as 9/11. I am so glad, using that logic, that you will be happy to blame Bush for all the economic problems this country is having.

Hi Gary,
Sorry, the original post was about nuclear weapons and Sarah Palin--and that isn't going off the subject. That is discussing the subject. I'm not sure what you were reading in the post that Christine provided.

The more weapons, the greater the chance of them being used. To me that makes sense. We have thousands of nuclear weapons around and that naturally increases the chance of a nuclear weapon being used.

Any nuclear weapon makes nuclear war more likely. If there were no nuclear weapons, there would be no threat of nuclear war (but not conventional types of war). I would rather have a conventional war than a nuclear war. I would rather have a landscape gutted of most people rather than no landscape. But that is my own opinion. There is no doubt that weakness invites war, but so does strength. So we have to do a balancing act. So far humans have not found the balancing act. War is part of our nature. Hopefully we are taming that as time goes on.

I disagree on your view of history and war: "History simply shows that the best way to prevent a fight is to prepare for one." Which history are you talking about? I seem to recall the Congress of Vienna and all the mess that caused. I also seem to remember all the treaties that were signed before WWI in hopes that they would prevent war, but all it did was make war more likely.

The Treaty of Versaille also tried to reduce the military might of Germany, but all that did was enrage them and look at the mess that happened in WWII. That type of 'strength' led directly to WWII. History would have been very different if France and the other major powers at the end of WWI had treated Germany a bit different.

We are the strongest country in the world, yet that hasn't stopped us from having two wars going on at the same time. It won't stop us from going to war in the future either. Let's just hope a nuclear missle isn't lobbed our way...

Gary Baker said...

Hi Kevin,

"The more weapons, the greater the chance of them being used. To me that makes sense. We have thousands of nuclear weapons around and that naturally increases the chance of a nuclear weapon being used."

Incorrect. It may make sense to you, but history (pick whichever one you like) doesn't back it up. The key is the intent of the person or group possessing the weapons. The US has had varying numbers of weapons (nuclear) since they were invented and the probability of use has been determined by policy, not numbers.

Liberals really do think black is white and up is down, don't they? It's not surprising that your view of strength is backwards, too.

Let's talk about the Treaty of Versailles. Very bad for the Germans. Punitive reparations. Really ticked 'em off, no doubt about it. But the treaty didn't cause the second world war. The major powers failed to enforce the provisions and allowed Germany to rearm. Any one of them could have stepped in for years and squashed them like a VW bug. Instead they followed the liberal mantra of negotiation and toothless diplomacy. It's the same mistake that the UN was engaged in with Saddam when Bush took office. Clinton supported one useless sanction after another. Meanwhile, UN corruptocrats were getting rich off oil-for-food and the sanctions were in free fall. It was a lesson that Obama still refuses to learn as Iran gets closer to nukes. Weakness of resolve is like any other weakness: It will quickly be identified and exploited by enemies.

I'll certainly agree that there are different types of strength, but historically liberals choose the ones that allow them to be the last enslaved, perhaps getting favorite pet status from their new masters.

Christinewjc said...

Kevin,

Obama is still blaming Bush for everything that Obama and his clueless cronies aren't getting accomplished to create jobs here in America. So...when will it be Obama's fault?

Obama has no clue how to grow jobs. He thinks that big government is the answer to everything.

He's so wrong! And I mean that in every sense of the word!

Kevin said...

Hi Gary,
I still have to disagree with you about the Treaty of Versaille "But the treaty didn't cause the second world war." I will agree that if all treaties (not just this particular one) were enforced, things might have been different. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

What would you suggest to Obama about Iran? I mean specifically. If you could tell him what to do and he would do it, what would you have him do?

Hi Christine,

At what point does one president get credit or blame? It is hard to say. Usually when things get bad, it is the current president. When things get good, it is the current president. I don't think there is a correct answer here. Obama inherited two wars from Bush. Is that the fault of Bush? Well, they started on his watch. But you can say the problem started with Clinton. But did it really start with Bush Senior or Reagan or Carter and so on? The economy was going sour when Bush was president. Now it is very sour during Obama, but getting better (slowly). Is Bush making it get better now? Well, he isn't in power. Maybe some of his policies he put into place before leaving office helped. Maybe they didn't. Maybe it is time to put the blame or praise on the current president for all things. I can see this working if we somehow could wipe the slate clean after every president, but our form of government doesn't work like that.
So in the end the Republicans will blame everything bad on the Democrats, while saying they are making things better. The Democrats will blame everything bad on the Republicans, while saying they are making things better. That is politics.

Gary Baker said...

Hi Kevin,

"What would you suggest to Obama about Iran? I mean specifically. If you could tell him what to do and he would do it, what would you have him do?"

First thing: Don't let your alligator mouth overload your hummingbird rear. He was all over the campaign trail with a litany of how Bush's policies had been terrible and he could do much better with diplomacy. And like so many academic theorists with no practical experience, he could make it sound good.

In one of his first speech as president elect, Obama was all bluster and tough talk:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035367.html

The bottom line was that the international community had to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The current path was "unacceptable."

Okay, that's history. My suggestion of specifics: Take responsibility. If you go through the article posted above, you will note that Obama said that "the international community" would have to stop Iran. One thing that some people never get (or perhaps they do and simply prefer it) is that assigning responsibility to everyone is the same as giving accountability to no one.

I would advise the president to speak privately but candidly with Iran's leaders. The content of the message would be that right now the US is so strained that it would be really difficult for us to mount any kind of offensive against their nuclear capability. On the other hand, Iran does have a nearby neighbor with a vested interest in making sure they do not develop nuclear weapons, and we will be very happy to support their actions, and BTW, lots of countries might not be too eager to purchase oil with a fair likelihood of having contamination that will go airborne when the stuff is burned.

Yeah, I think that about covers it...

Either that, or quick the posturing. When the press asks, you simply say "Yes, Iran is going to have nuclear weapons and we've decided not to take action."

Either alternative takes more guts than I give the president credit for, but I sure would like to be surprised.

Kevin said...

Hi Gary,
Well, I would agree with you. The problem is what comes next--a private talk with the Iranian government may lead to nothing. What then? Press Israel to go to war (which means we get involved as well)? Can we handle a war with Iran as well as Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't know the answer to that.
Anyway, diplomacy is just that: make a posture, see what happens. Then make another one and the cycle continues until things get much better or much worse.