Tag Archives: libya

The Short-Term-Thinking Ideas of Liberals on Foreign Policy

Red Eye is the one of the greatest TV shows ever.  It is fun, witty, bizarre, informative in spite of itself, and a place where you will hear commentators be bluntly honest where in other formats they would be more reserved.  And then there is Bill Schulz, Bill is the liberal on Red Eye…most of the time he plays just a coked out hobo spouting idiocy…but sometimes he’ll tell you what he really thinks, and that’s when his spiel turns from funny to just plain stupid.  But it’s not that the real Schulz is particularly below average…in fact, I think his honest moments show us the level of idiocy of your average liberal (and probably some of your dumber libertarians*) on foreign policy.  So to give you an idea of how little your average liberal knows, let’s look at some comments made by Red Eye’s liberal voice.

So let’s start with a discussion about his opinion about Obama’s term in office so far.

Amb. John Bolton: And significantly in the days of the IRA terrorism, Britain was led by Margaret Thatcher—we’re led by Barack Obama.

BS: Who has got a really good record so far.

Bolton: Five dead in Massachusetts .  And four Americans in Benghazi.  All unanswered at this point. That’s the signal to the terrorists that it’s open season.

BS: I think so far that’s a great record.  You don’t want anyone dead, but those are the realities of our war on terrorism.  I thought he’s done a great job defending this country so far.  I have never understood that argument.

Bolton: The question is stability in the Middle East where the Arab Spring has turned badly wrong.  The loss of influence in Iraq.

BS: How is that his fault?

Bolton: Because of the policies he’s pursued.  The withdrawal from Iraq, the withdrawal from Afghanistan. And the unwillingness to take on the war on terror.  The unwillingness to go after countries like Iran and North Korea who are pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

BS: I think if you ask most Americans they’re going to say I want out of Iraq.  I want out of Afghanistan.  And I don’t see what the negative repercussions will be.

Red Eye April 23rd

So so many stupid statements in such a short period of time.  Let’s deal with the last statement first.  That because people wanted out of Iraq then it’s a good thing.  Leadership is not about doing what the people want.  Leadership is about doing what is best for the nation in the long run. If those happen to match up, great.  But when they diverge leaders do the unpopular thing, they will try to convince the nation that it is the best thing, but if they can’t they will still expend all their political capital and even commit political suicide to do what is important and right .  But just doing what is popular is the base and cowardly move of hacks.  And to praise that is idiocy that only liberals can embrace.  It doesn’t matter if everyone thinks a course of action is wrong, if you believe it to be right and it is your job to set policy you do what you believe to be right.  Now there may be compromises here and there to ensure the most good comes about depending on the limitations of your power, but overall you do not care about what is popular if you are a leader.

But then let’s deal with the truly idiotic statement of “And I don’t see what the negative repercussions will be.”  Which pretty much sums up the rest of his comments and shows the differences between liberals and their opponents.  Liberals are too stupid to see any long term consequences.  They think only in the emotional moment.  Libertarians and conservatives on the other hand both consider the long term perspectives—where they differ is Libertarians focus on the consequences of action and conservatives point out that the consequences of inaction outweigh the negative effects of action.**

So let’s look over some of Obama’s foreign policy moves.

Iraq: Bush was an idiot who didn’t have a plan on how to rebuild Iraq.  But if I can lay into Bush for being short sighted, Obama was worse.  First off, did he do any of the right things and begin to rebuild Iraq?  Nope he left, and left it to crumble.  Yeah there are still US soldiers there (so if anyone tells you he ended the war in Iraq, they’re either lying or they’re dumb) but there are not enough there to do anything substantive…only enough there to get killed.  Great plan Barry.

Then he did something even more short sighted.  You don’t have to be terribly bright to realize that the Middle East is going to take up a large portion of foreign policy for a while.  Part of the reason to go into Iraq was not only to stop a dictator (something we should have done in the  early 90’s) and to stop support for terrorist networks…but one of the major reaons, long-term reasons, (besides stability, but you’d need a plan for that) was to establish a base from which we would be centrally located in the Middle East and thus have more effective influence on the entire area.  Right now our only major staging grounds (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel) are kind of on the periphery of the Middle East.

So thinking short term Obama not only doomed the nation to chaos again but he also blew one of the most important long term goals of the war.  Also since problems you don’t fix always tend to come back, don’t be surprised to see that this is not the last of major US troop deployments in Iraq in your lifetime.

time.afghan

Even the liberals at time seem to have an understanding of exactly what will happen if we leave the Taliban in charge.

Afghanistan:  Initially I thought this might not be a complete cluster.  We were burning more poppy fields than under Bush, and the initial stories of the uptick in drone warfare were hopeful.  But then we found out drones weren’t being used to take out high value targets we couldn’t easily get to, they were being used without any concern.  No one was being captured, no one was being interrogated.  You run a war as much on intel as you do on manpower….yes you can perhaps keep the problem at bay by an unrelenting drone war, but that is like sandbagging a river that shows no sign of stopping its flooding, the minute you stop sandbagging the flood will break, the second you stop the drones the flood will break (keep in burned with acidmind Obama was planning on putting strict rules on how to use drones should Romney have won).  And then you will have no drone and no intel to work with.  Whoever takes over from Obama will have their hands tied on both fronts.  And not only that…we’ve been in negotiations with the Taliban.  That’s right we want to make peace with the people who throw acid in women’s faces for not wearing a burka and who shoot little girls in the head.  I want you to take a look at these pictures.  Those are the people Obama has tried to negotiate a peace with.  Take a long look.  You cannot, you must not negotiate with things that can do that to the innocent. The collateral damage of war is one thing, the intentional mutilation of innocent is another, and any society that can coexist with people who do this as typical means to get what they want has no right to call itself civilized.  And to negotiate with butchers like that sends a very clear message that America does not stand for ethics, values nothing but her own whims, and will tolerate any evil so long as it does not bother us.

Iran: Besides leaking information about the virus we planted in Iranian computers and probably leaking information of Israeli plans to attack to ensure everyone in Iran was safe.  But while general incompetence abounds in not seeming to realize psychotically crazy religious people with nuclear weapons is a bad thing (and I would like here to thank Bush for blowing all his political capital by not having a plan, thus not being able to deal with this before moron boy took over) it takes a special kind of stupid to consistently back the wrong horse.   In Iran that would be the uprising in 2009 where (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/15/iran-elections-protests-mousavi-attacks)  the people of Iran rose up against the government run by the Ayatollah…and the US did nothing.  Now you can argue to me all day long about how we couldn’t do much…but please consider that in the light of running guns to Al Qaeda backed rebels in Lybia and Syria…to using US intel to help these groups allied with our enemies…to giving money and weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt…during the pro democracy, true pro democracy uprising in Iran, we did nothing.  No word of encouragement.  No behind the scenes support, not even running our jets and ships dangerously close to their border to remind them we are watching.  NOTHING.  When it is a real battle between tyranny and liberty, this worthless pieces of scum did nothing.  I can’t promise that there was any way for this uprising to succeed, there probably wasn’t, but because we did nothing we made it very clear to every real desire for liberty in the world that we will not back you.

Israel: Obama has made it clear time and again he will not defend the democracy of Israel, going so far as to compromise the safety of Israeli intelligence officers so he could appear like the leader he is not (notice also they haven’t gone after this and like leaks that they thought made them look good…but leaks that made them look bad hell they’ll bug the AP, call reporters criminals for reporting, and god knows what else in the days to come.

In each and every dealing with Israel Obama leaves no doubt that support for Israel will be tepid at best, and nonexistent at worst, only encouraging further buildup and, God forbid, aggression.

Arab Spring: So while the pro-democracy protests of Iran were left to die, the pro tyranny, pro-Sharia, pro-Al Qaeda uprising of the Arab Spring were praised, supported, encouraged, armed, supplied, and even given money after their reigns are in place.  I wonder if the long term consequences of this will be five countries supporting terrorism where we had just gone through so much in Iraq to get rid of one.  Again I feel the long term effects of this will be less liberty and more terror.

I could go on, but in every single move the Obama administration has taken it has set long term advantages for the very people who want to destroy liberty and held back the long term strength of those who defend it. Don’t believe me on the weakening of our side, well then I would suggest you take a look at the latest lawsuit against Obama by the families of some of the dead members of SEAL Team 6…they’re not happy.

(yes the video of the press conference is very long, you may want to come back later and watch it because it’s worth it…though infuriating).

But back to Bill Schulz, it’s not a one night occurrence.  Try this recent debate with former CIA Agent Mike Baker on the May 1st show.

BS:The congress thing is true.  When he ran in 2008 it was not a Republican led Congress.  It is now.  There is no way he can get this to happen.  You guys can complain about that but that’s the fact.

Mike Baker: You know why he’s not closing Gitmo.

BS: Because Congress won’t let him.

Baker: Bush spent several years doing what Obama found out is almost impossible to do.  Get someone to take these people.

BS: Well Yemen wants 90 of them why won’t we give them to them.

So Bill’s genius idea is to send them to a nation where terrorists are numerous and partly in control.  Can’t see the possibility of a jail break at all, can you?

Baker: The best way to end this prison let them die from the hunger strike.

BS: A lot of them have never been tried for anything and we don’t know if they’ve done anything.  I don’t necessarily know if that’ s a great idea.

This is the face of "You can't possibly be that stupid." brought to you by Mike Baker.

This is the face of “You can’t possibly be that stupid.” brought to you by Mike Baker.

Baker: I’m sorry what.

BS: None of them have been tried for anything and we’ve already released a bunch that were innocent.

Baker: We just randomly picked these guys up and threw them in there?

BS: A lot of people have admitted that we’ve done just that.  A guy working under Cheney said just that.

Greg Gutfeld: I think Baker’s going to kill you .

BS: No but isn’t that true?

I’ll agree Gitmo isn’t perfectly simplistic and that we probably did pick up a few innocent people (there is a reason we have the term “the fog of war”)…but the way Schulz is portraying it (especially if you watch the recording) is that everyone down in Cuba was just minding their own business and the US military randomly picked them up off the street (hence Baker’s face)…also the guy Schulz is likely referring to, Lawrence Wilkerson, who was on Colin Powell’s staff (yeah real conservative credentials there) is also on the record that we made up all the evidence against Saddam and he never had any WMD programs…which in light of the fact that we had to ship 500 ton of yellow cake uranium out of Iraq (according to CNN).  Also Wilkerson currently makes a living as a pundit who goes on left wing shows and says that the GOP is nothing but a bunch of racists.  Given that he’s clearly a liar (or too stupid to understand what 500 tons of uranium is) and he hates the party he supposedly is from (thought I doubt) his statements about us taking the innocent and shipping them to Gitmo so one finds that his statements may be more motivated by leftist ideology than those pesky things known as facts, which makes most of his points as being the kind you should take with a grain of salt.

Yes military tribunals would be nice…but Schulz in his hypocrisy has forgotten about the constant blocks from liberals who wanted to give them every single civil liberty of US citizens and all protections of the Geneva Conventions (this ignores that little point that the Geneva Convention only applies to those in uniform, and the uniform clause was put in there specifically to prevent the major kind of terrorism that these terrorists were engaged in.  The Geneva Convention wanted to set rules that you will fight in certain ways, or we will not guarantee your safety in the least and you’re on your own.  To offer this scum those protections only encourages the kind of behavior you don’t want to encourage…but there again we go back to Obama and other leftist). And their lack of understanding of all rules and regulaions, laws, constitution, etc.

And an earlier part of the conversation dealt with the foolish idea that Gitmo is something that makes us enemies…yeah cause our drone attacks are making us so many friends (I don’t buy into the pacifist BS that the drones do nothing but kill innocent children, I’m an adult and realize there is such a thing as unintended collateral damage…but on the same token Barry is rather haphazard in his use of drones and doesn’t seem to care about doing the normal thing and trying to limit collateral damage where possible).  But back to creating enemies. It’s not creating more enemies.  Religious psychopaths tend to hate whether they have a reason to or not.  Note they hated us before the first Gulf War, they hated us before the Shah was put into power, the Mufti of Jerusalem was conspiring with Hitler on how to kill all the Jew in the 1930’s before there was a major Western presence, they have waged endless and constant war on the west since, well, their founding. When you found a religion on an act of genocide (the killing of the Jews of Medina) the after effects tend to be people who find enemies whether you give them a reason or not.  If we pulled out every Western base from the Middle East tomorrow AND moved all of Israel here to America…I’d lay down my entire net worth on a bet that would say they would still be calling for death to the Great Satan.  We’re not making enemies by our actions, an ideology that hates reason is going to find any example of it as an enemy.

The fact of the matter is that no sane person thinks the people in Gitmo are a bunch of saints.  The fact of the matter is that liberals only care about what’s popular now and doing what they want now with no concern for long term.

Yeah Bush botched the job at rebuilding…probably because he wasn’t a real neoconservative (go back to the Bush/Gore debates, you will hear him say he doesn’t believe in nation building), it’s just that like his liberal sensibilities he did the only thing that made sense in the short term.  The fact of the matter is that we don’t have anyone in power right now in this nation who thinks long term, and we haven’t had one for a while (although we did blow the chance to have one very recently).  I’ve pulled out Bill Schulz  as the representative of liberal thought here, but you hear dumb shit like this all over the place, not just on the token liberal of one show, and it is an ideology of short term thinking that will always lead to problems.

*Honestly, libertarians, why are you letting your party get taken over by the whiny anti-war crowd. You used to be Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater types who encouraged destroying tyranny.  What happened?

**Libertarians may dispute the idea that they don’t see as far into the future as conservatives, but history backs up neoconservatives on this point in terms of foreign policy

***Anyone who thinks George W. —Let me expand entitlements, give federal control of education, sign stimulus bills, not worry about Tort reform, Social Security reform, cutting any part of the government, do nothing about Fannie and Freddie –Bush was a fiscal conservative in any way, shape, or form is deluding themselves.  But he lowered taxes!  No he didn’t, conservatives know that a temporary tax reduction has no lasting effect on the economy, so even that move wasn’t conservative.   The man was conservative only in the part of “conservative” that is a gross misuse of the word and that the GOP needs to drop, let’s the use government to promote social values.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Conservative, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Israel, liberal arrogance, NeoConservative, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

Obama’s abysmal attempt to look like he understands foreign policy

So as we approach this last debate Obama is beyond desperate…he’s to the point where he is just making his ignorance his only argument.

Namely Obama’s latest ad makes 5 really stupid claims.

1. The first is that Romney got his facts wrong about Obama not calling Benghazi a terrorist attack.  Obama didn’t call it a terrorist attack, his people went on a major cover up to hide his incompetence.  They kept saying it was about a video…if you believe that please contact me I have some lovely bridges to sell at rock bottom rates.  Meanwhile here is a link to a lot of videos that show the cover up…also I have video of Candy Crowley admitting that Romney was right and Obama is a liar. 
So what are they covering up?  Oh just that they knew there was a riot going on at the time.

Just that they had a predator drone over Benghazi that could have done something to stop the attack and save our people.

 

That Ambassador Stevens constantly requested security time and time again.  Including just 2 hours before his death.

  Along with the military advising to not pull down security in Benghazi.  

 

Also you have the Libyan PM saying it was a terrorist attack and a bunch of other people.

That the CIA told them within 24 hours that it was Al-Qaeda so there is no excuse whatsoever for the two weeks of lies.

 

So why this massive set of lies, cover ups, and leaving our own people to be murdered?  Because if you admitted the truth that Al-Qaeda is stronger than ever you have to admit that Obama’s triple plan of groveling, drone strikes that yield no actionable intelligence, and killing Bin Laden did nothing, less than nothing actually and Obama is a miserable failure on the terrorist front.

…oh…by the way…it appears that the latest scandal is that Obama didn’t even order the Bin Laden raid…Obama, or more accurately Valerie Jarett who seems to be the one who wears the pants in the Oval Office, kept calling it off…so the military and CIA just did it themselves and only told Barry after SEAL Team 6 was already in Pakistani airspace and couldn’t turn back.  God bless the United States Armed and Intelligence Service…and the opposite to that worthless excuse of a president. 

 

Oh on a related topic, when Barry says he ended the war in Iraq, I would like someone to remind him we still have lots of soldiers in Iraq fighting terrorists. And dying.

2. Obama claims Romney has undermined our relationship with Britain because of his comment about worries about Olympic security…you know the same worries everyone in Britain had.

As opposed to Obama’s reprehensible treatment of Israel which borderlines anti-Semitic.

As opposed to giving the British PM DVD’s as present.  Ignoring the tackiness of giving DVD’s, he gave DVD’s that only work in the U.S.

Or returning the bust of Churchill, which is an absolute insult to the British.

Or his lack of knowledge about etiquette during a toast to the British Queen.

Perhaps his deferential treatment to terrorist organizations like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Or how about back-stabbing Poland and breaking a treaty with them for missile defense.

Obama has pissed off all of our allies.  Romney has good relations with Britain, Poland and Israel.  Remind me again who is less qualified in foreign policy.

3. The ad then tried to hit Romney because he said as foreign policy issues come up he will consult experts for each area of the world.  Heaven forbid! Romney will seek out the advice of experts.  Truly the acts of a terrible leader.

Unlike Obama who consults Valerie and no one else.  I mean this is Obama, he knows so much he doesn’t need to ever consult his jobs council, or his economic council…and let us remember Obama is such a great leader he never needs to attend his daily security briefing.  Obama is just so great he doesn’t need to seek advice from anyone…and that seems to be working just horrifically.

Good leaders seek advice…they make their own choices, but they surround themselves with people who offer informed advice…meanwhile Obama surrounds himself with pretty much the same kind of people who were telling Mao that everything was working and going great and the people were happy and prosperous.  (Election day is going to come as a complete shock to Barry.)

And trying to hit someone for saying they would seek advice just seems beyond pathetic.  Oh, this is the Obama administration.  They have created whole new levels of beyond pathetic.

4. They of course claim that Romney and his advisors are war mongers (because Obama’s done such a bang up job to achieve security…see point 1).

From ancient Rome to Sun Tzu to Ronald Reagan there has always been the knowledge that if you want peace you prepare for war because nothing acts like a deterrent to war like being the kind of people you don’t want to attack.

But to make Romney sound like war monger both in this ad, and in various other articles I’ve seen they try to compare Romney to that evil Neocon Bush.  This is stupid as Bush wasn’t a NeoCon, he was a foreign policy wimp and idiot, just like daddy.  Yes Bush had a brief flirtation with Neoconservatism after 9/11 when it was clear to even idiots like Bush that Neoconservatism is the only policy that works…but he soon fell back on idiocy.   A Neoconservative believes in building democracies…not just invading and thinking a democracy will just magically spring up.

Yes Romney has a lot of Neoconservative advisors…advisors that Bush ignored.  Ones that say if you have to invade, oh, have a plan for rebuilding the nation.  Minor stuff like that.

And let’s keep in mind it was Obama, not Romney or Bush, who did nothing for the last four years while Iran built up a nuclear program.  It was Obama who did nothing when the pro-Democracy protestors in Iran were slaughtered.  It was Obama who supported the pro-Islamist Arab Spring.  It was Obama who did nothing about Syrian genocide.*  It was Obama that has never spoken out against the violence against women and children by Muslim Brotherhood, and pretry much all of Islam.  See 14 year old girl in Pakistand that just wanted an education – truly evil – I am still blistering from his speech against them about that – Oh wait – no he never said a word.

No one wants war. But there are things worse than war—tyranny and genocide for instance.  And the person who is really committed to peace and against war, does everything in their power to make sure the causes of  (tyranny, genocide, weapons of mass destruction) things and does build up and prepare.  Obama seems to have done everything he can, short of assassinating little known Austrian nobility, to ensure the world is unstable.

Remind me who is pushing us to war?

Oh and before you bring up that BS story that Iran wants to talk now (you know only a few weeks before the election) right when Obama most needs a foreign policy victory…do you think maybe it’s because Iran wants a weak president in the Oval Office who will do nothing to stop them from wiping Israel off the face of the Earth?

(Okay that’s unfair.  Obama won’t do “nothing” when Israel is destroyed.  He’ll probably cheer.)

5. Not knowing who the enemy is.

Then of course they try to make fun of Romney saying that Russia is our chief adversary is stupid.  You know that country

Is there anyone he doesn’t grovel to…oh year, democracy and non-tyrannical nations.

Obama want to be more “flexible” with…like FDR was flexible with Stalin…

You know Russia which is in good with our enemies in Syria and Pakistan.

Russia which is supporting Iran.

Russia which is in a new alliance with China (and they’re such a friendly, human rights respecting bunch)

Russia controlled by dictator Vladimir Putin (if you think he won an honest election, boy are you stupid) who locks up anyone who disagrees with him.

Russia which is trying to become friends with all those Islamist countries.

Russia that just bought the election in Georgia.

Russia which has been poisoning foreign leaders it doesn’t like.

Russia which is selling aircraft carriers to China so they can expand their sphere of influence. 

Russia which is right now doing tests of its nuclear arsenal. 

Yeah that Russia which any foreign policy expert with half a brain knows Russia is really missing its former glory and wants it back (the Obama video tries to show Romney for being an idiot by quoting Colin Powell…who advised which idiot?  Oh that’s right.  Powell the genius who backed invading countries when we had no plan on how to rebuild them).   Will they fail eventually?  Yes.  But that doesn’t mean they won’t slaughter scores if someone isn’t there to stop them.

 

———-

 

The fact is that Romney plans a foreign policy of actually knowing something and developing of strong alliances, actually backing our allies, showing strength, and backing up our values with action if needs be. You know, the policy which saves lives in the long run  and expands freedom….unlike Obama’s policy of groveling, cowardice, Chamerlain-esque appeasement,  and cutting the military in a way that Obama’s Secretary of Defense called “shooting ourselves in the head”.

With support from dictators like that, how could you possibly be opposed to Obama?

*By the way, where did Syria get a weapons program from.  I can find nothing about a Syrian weapons program from any source until everyone was worried that their biological and chemical weapons would fall into the hands of terrorists.  It’s as if this weapons program just appeared out of nowhere…I mean it’s not like someone drove a massive amount of chemical and biological weapons into Syria from neighboring Iraq right before the invas–…oh, so that’s where they went.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Capitalism, character, Congress, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, NeoConservative, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Tyranny

Faux Outrage at Romney Calling Obama on Being Inept

Liberals are in a tizzy.  How dare Romney critique Obama on apologizing for free speech.  How dare Romney criticize Obama when a U.S. diplomat is dead as a result of Obama’s complete incompetence.  How dare Romney push to get a man out of office whom he believes, justifiably so, is so inept at everything he does that to let him have another 4 years in the Oval Office would lead to irreparable damage to both this nation and our allies.  How dare he! For shame, Romney, for shame!

So no shocker liberals are idiots for multiple reasons, but let’s go over a few of them.

The first, and possibly my favorite:  How dare he use the murder of people to help himself.  The first thing I try to do in an argument, believe it or not, is to look at it from the other person’s point of view (you’d be surprised how this makes you feel other people are idiots more often than it builds tolerance, but that’s another discussion for another day).  So liberals from Romney’s  point of view Obama is inept, putting the lives of U.S. citizens at risk, and the first inclination of both he and his administration is to apologize to butchers at any and every chance.  If you were Romney, the only ethical thing to do is to get Obama out of office through any and all ethical means. * Bringing up Obama’s many failures is a an ethical and important way to get rid of the ass.**  To do anything less would be to allow such a terrible executive to stay in power—to not make a point of this would have been to allow Obama to stay in power, to actively work for what Romney believes will harm this country—in short to not bring it up would be unethical.  Yes, for shame that Romney did the only ethical thing available to him.

And both parties are guilty of this.  Right now, it’s being highlighted that the media didn’t throw this hissy fit when Kerry used dead soldiers in Iraq to hit Bush. ()  Yes some Republicans said it was classless and tacky, I don’t recall doing so myself because quite frankly if you think the war isn’t worth it that’s a damn valid point.  I thought the war was worth it, and it was—granted it would have been better if it had been carried out by someone with a brain, but just because Bush was a moron doesn’t negate the fact that Kerry would have been even more incompetent at bringing democracy to Iraq.  So Kerry bringing up dead soldiers or not isn’t relevant (the fact that Kerry seemed shocked that people die in war however might be a good point of showing how dumb Kerry was) to the argument, fewer people were dying because Saddam was gone.  Now any Republicans who had a problem with Kerry doing this back then would be hypocrites to complain about Democrats outrage now, just as the media is hypocritical of showing outrage for one but not the other.

The fact is that there is really no shameful behavior in a campaign there is only a question of relevant and effective.  Bringing up Obama’s failures is relevant if you’re argument is that Obama is utterly incompetent, which he is.  Bringing up dead soldiers in Iraq is relevant if your argument is that the Iraq war was wrong, which it wasn’t (it was just managed by idiots).  Shame is only relevant when you’re acting against what you believe, which in both cases was not the fact.  However Kerry’s central argument was dumb so this point was irrelevant.  It’s just like liberals now bringing up Romney’s tax returns.  Their argument is they need to see them to determine if Romney has done anything illegal…which is dumb…if a candidate is that rich they’ve got good lawyers and accountants, which means even if they are doing as many illegal back door deals as say, Nancy Pelosi, their lawyers and accountants are not going to be dumb enough to put them in their tax returns.  Further you don’t think the IRS under Obama didn’t already go through them with a fine tooth comb?  Trust me if there was stuff there Obama would have already leaked it…I mean it’s not like Romney’s taxes are a classified state secret (and we know Obama has no qualms about leaking that).

Now you can argue that Romney doing this might not have been effective and counter to his goal of unseating Obama, as many in the McCain/RINO wing of the Republican party seem to be doing (yes because we should listen to McCain advisors on how to run a campaign because they clearly know how to win…) but really that’s tangential to the faux outrage by the Democrats.

Second you have people getting upset about insulting the president (yes Republicans were guilty of this too during Bush). I’m sorry but I live in a Constitutional Republic.  The president and politicians work for me, not the other way around.  They are not gods, they are not kings or nobility; they are human beings.  And they deserve to be called out on their failings. Due to their position of service they deserve to be called out on it even more as they are my employee and when they do such a terrible job they deserve to be told what utter !@#$ing scum and idiots they are.  And like the outrage over calling out people when others have died, the only question is, is it relevant.  Calling Bush Hitler for defending liberty…doesn’t quite make sense (an idiot he was, evil no…of course liberals were seldom calling him an idiot for the right reasons).  Calling Obama a socialist when he acts and says everything a socialist would, perfectly justified.  ()

Now, onto the real meat of the matter.  Obama’s foreign policy incompetence and Romney’s justified critique of it.

Let’s get our timeline set.

1.            The US embassy in Cairo issued an apology for free speech.

2.            Riots began in Cairo and Libya.  The embassy repeats the statement several times.

3.            It became known that a US citizen had died in Libya (it was not known at the time that it was the Ambassador).

4.            The Obama administration, after some dithering, has the initial apology removed.

5.            Romney issued a condemnation of the initial apology.

6.            The day after this all happens Romney gives a speech calling for leadership and condemning Obama for not offering any, and Obama gives a speech that once again apologizes for the fact that we have free speech.

The problem here for liberals is that because the apology came before the attacks that Romney’s statement is wrong and false.

Let’s deal with this.

I’ve tried to watch the video, I might condemn it for poor production value or the fact that it was clearly made by a moron, but by doing so I would be doing it as a private citizen.  A US Embassy has no right to critique, let alone condemn the expression of free speech by citizens of the US.  Furthermore as this was made by Coptic Christians who are being slaughtered by the Muslim Brotherhood, you might understand why they’re taking their frustration out on Muslims (it’s the only religion I know of that was founded by a child raping butcher who personally ordered the genocidal massacre of the Jews of Medina…but I’m sure it’s a religion of peace having started with such an upstanding beginning).  But my point in bringing this up is I’ve haven’t heard of any condemnations by the US Ambassador condemning the abuse of Jews, Coptic Christians, or hell even women by the Muslim Brotherhood…but let’s condemn people for using their Constitutional Rights.  It also makes such fascinating comments like “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy.” (Didn’t notice much of it in Charlotte when half the party objected to the word God being put in the platform…that was unfair actually…they were booing the inclusion of Jerusalem being listed as the capital of Israel.  So I apologize for saying the Democrats are against religion.  They’re not.  They’re just against Jews.)  Also I hate to tell them this respect for religions isn’t a cornerstone of America (it’s also a republic not a democracy)…right to express your beliefs is a cornerstone, but I don’t have to respect you when you do.  I have every right to think you’re a complete moron or even evil (and before you begin to argue with me on that, you first have to tell me you respect the beliefs of the Westboro Baptists and that you would condemn anyone who would try to denigrate them for their batshit crazy ideas).  I will defend your right to express your dipshit ideas, so long as such expression does not harm me or others, but don’t expect me to respect you for being dead wrong.

And Romney’s response.

Okay so since the attacks occurred after the apology it might be a little out of line that Romney said the administration’s “first response” to the attack was not to condemn them but to apologize.  Yeah sure the embassy repeated the message after the attacks began but  I mean it’s not like the Secretary of State issued an apology of her own after the attacks had already begun at about 7:54pm…oh wait…what…she did?  Oh shit, I guess he’s right their first reaction was to condemn free speech rather than condemn the butchers who throw a hissy fit over a video that one would otherwise ignore if you weren’t crazy (you know the same butchers murdering Coptic Christians and putting Jews and women in their sights).

You can see the original at https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/245717059693080576 (but I expect that will be taken down soon.)

[Author’s note: it would appear I have my times a little mixed up, Hillary’s tweet came about 10 minutes after Romney’s statement…which is despicable in its own right…however as it also appears that the embassy twice sent out messages backing up their previous abhorrent statements, Romney is still correct in say that the administration’s first inclination was to apologize after the attacks begun…I messed up in my time lines, Romney did not. 9/13]

So then we had this morning where

Romney made the point that

“An apology for America’s values is never the right course”

And Obama again apologized for the First Amendment‎, “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

Question, which of these two sounds closer to “I may not agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it to the death” which is supposedly the American tradition that keeps the Westboro Baptists from being beaten to death.

So all that is left is Romney right that this is symptom of a greater amount of incompetence on Obama’s part.  Yes it is.  Because it is Obama who has attempted 4 years of appeasement to no avail.  Because it is Obama who gave help to the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and Egypt and allowed these al-Qaeda tied Islamists to take over (yes the two countries had dictators, but US policy should not be to change one dictator for a worse one).  Obama in turn left pro-democracy forces in Iran be slaughtered.  He is currently backstabbing our ally Israel at every turn.  He is chummy with a Russia that is giving nuclear capabilities to Iran and helping Syrian tyrants slaughter people (I’m not thrilled with either side in Syria, but that doesn’t mean I want outside forces helping to encourage the pointless slaughter).  He is the one giving money to the butchers in Egypt.  He and his administration are responsible for their not being a Marine contingent in Libya to defend the ambassador but only local hired help…who may have been involved in the attack. 

I could go on and I probably will later. But on numerous levels the administration may not have caused the riots but it has done everything in its power to make sure the butchers behind these riots came to power and even today this administration is giving them cover and blaming things like free speech as the cause, not a culture of barbarism in countries run by tyrants.

And to attack Romney and not Obama is either rank hypocrisy or utter cluelessness.   Either way, shame on you liberals.  Shame.  Obama created the situation that killed the ambassador by being weak, by backing butchers, and by apologizing for America.

*You could assume that Romney is not ethical, out for power for power’s sake, and has no principles…however, there is no evidence to justify such a claim.  He gives overly generously to charity and does not live in garish style, so greed doesn’t seem to be a factor.  I can’t find any evidence of cronyism in his administration as Governor.  Nor does he seem centered on himself at every moment, so ego doesn’t seem to be his motivation.  Now those things do seem to drive other people, but I see no evidence of it in Romney, so assuming he’s not acting out of what he believes to be ethical duty seems a foolish assumption.

**Democrats, don’t like being called asses or jackasses?  Too bad, you’re the ones who put it on the letterhead.  Or have you repudiated the jackass for the ostrich?

3 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, First Amendment, Free Will, God, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics, Tyranny

Romney at VFW: America the Hope of the Earth



But remember we’re arrogant

But remember we’re not special in the world

And let’s not forget that we believe in American exceptionalism like Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism (yeah thanks Barry for comparing us to that excuse for a nation)…and that we should apologize to the butchers who kill our men but not when you slander a man and accuse him of felonies when you have not even an iota of proof (by the way we have tons of proof, the least of which is your Executive Privelage order, that shows you actually were complicit in the string of felonies known as Fast and Furious)…and that we should support every revolution backed by Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood (Syria, Lybia, Tunisa, Egypt) but let people in Iran who want democracy to be murdered.
I’m ready for a change, how about you?

Also, Mitt is going to meet with anti-Communist figher Lech Walesa and the great Tony Blair, two men who understand what America is, and Obama isn’t (by the way Walesa has refused to meet with Obama).



1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Israel, Mitt Romney, Obama, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny

The Best Patriotic Films: Tie for #14 Air Force One

 

“The dead remember our indifference; the dead remember our silence. I came here tonight to be congratulated. But today, when I visited the Red Cross camps, overwhelmed by the flood of refugees fleeing the horror of Kazhakstan, I realize I don’t deserve to be congratulated. None of us do. The truth is we acted too late. Only when our own national security was threatened did we act. Radek’s regime murdered over 200,000 men, women and children and we watched it on TV. We let it happen. People were being slaughtered for over a year and we issued economic sanctions and hid behind the rhetoric of diplomacy. How dare we? The dead remembered: real peace is not just the absence of conflict; it is the presence of justice. And tonight I come to you with a pledge to change America’s policy. Never again will I allow our political self-interest to deter us from doing what we know to be morally right. Atrocity and terror are not political weapons, and to those who would use them, your day is over. We will never negotiate. We will no longer tolerate and we will no longer be afraid. It’s your turn to be afraid.”

I will vote for anyone who speaks like this about foreign policy and has the courage to back it up.

This is the American ideal.  A country that does what is right not is what is convenient.  A nation that stands for principle not rank short-sighted avarice.

Dear god, have we failed to live up to that ideal.

The last good film Harrison Ford made.

But at least we have the ideal; whereas with most nations the majority considers only saving its own hide…we at least keep that feeling here in the majority (I hope.)

But the movie does point out that there have been times we have not acted in our self interest. The villain smugly remarks, “You who murder a 100,000 Iraqi’s to save a nickel on a gallon of gas are going to lecture me on the rules of war.”  This is a typical liberal piece of bull (Blood for oil) because it ignores the basic rules of economics.  Economics states that if you want cheap things you deal with dictatorships, as they somehow have much lower production costs (something about slave labor being very cheap).  Any idiot who has taken more than a nanosecond to think about it knows that if we really wanted cheap oil and only cheap oil we would have (1) let Saddam have Kuwait instead of driving him out and (2) lifted the embargoes on Iraq rather than invading it.  We in fact did the thing guaranteed to raise oil prices; we protected one nation and tried to bring democracy to another.  We stood on principle, not greed for cheap goods.  (Now if only we could stand on principle AND bother to come up with a plan for rebuilding the nation after we defeat the military, that last part was kind of lacking in Afghanistan and Iraq).

But it is not jus the speech that embodies the best in American ethics that makes this movie great.  It is its understanding of patriotism, and the interesting way it goes about showing how American patriotism is actually different than most forms of patriotism.

When justifying his actions of killing a defenseless man to the captured first daughter, the villain, Korshunov (played by the ever chameleon like Gary Oldman) states:

Korshunov: That’s the first time you ever seen a man killed, huh? You think I’m a monster? That I would kill this man? Somebody’s son? Somebody’s father? I am somebody’s son too. I have three small children. Does that surprise you?

Alice: Why did you kill him?

Korshunov: Because I believe. And when I shoot this man I know…how deep was my belief. That I would turn my back on God Himself…for Mother Russia. My doubts, my fears, my own private morality…it dissolves in this moment…for this love.

You may think this is extreme and farcically overblown…but then you realize that good little Nazis, and good little Brownshirts, and followers of Franco and Saddam and Tito, all probably decent people from supposedly Christian nations, did unspeakable things in the name of country. And the in the east, the Chinese crucified Tibetan monks for the glory of China, the Khmer Rouge created the killing fields for the greatness of Cambodia and the list goes on.

And up front, yes we’ve had our insane sons-of-bitches.  No doubt, no question, no argument there.  But we tend not to hold them up as our great patriots.

Our great patriots don’t “would turn [their] back on God Himself” and don’t put their “private morality” below country.  No our patriots tell their nation and their king, ‘Up yours George, we’re leaving the nation we loved with all of our heart and starting our own.’  Our patriots head north, saying, ‘my love of state is nothing compared to my love of what is right, and the Union is what is right.’  Our patriots go to Britain and fight the Kaiser and the Nazis when our country says no it’s not our fight.  Our patriots go to China and fight the Japanese when our nation says it’s not our problem.  Our patriots understand that when it comes to a choice between country and personal morals, it’s time to tell the country and its leaders something that ends with “…and the horse you rode in on.”  Because America isn’t a just a nation of borders and history, it is a nation not founded on where one race or tribe settled or conquered.  It is a nation of ideals and if the people that inhabit the land betray those ideals, a patriot’s duty is to the ideals before “king and country.”

Also the movie points out very important part of America:

“The Presidency is bigger than any one man.  Didn’t they teach you that at Yale?”

I don’t know about Yale but they clearly don’t teach it at Harvard these days.  Yes, the presidency is an important office (not really, it’s supposed to be the weakest of the three branches), but while the office is important, the person who holds is human and very easily disposable (we get rid of them every 4 to 8 years), and even the best of them are replaceable and flawed.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Conservative, Foreign Policy, Free Will, Individualism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny