At the dedication of the Union Cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, the most renowned orator of the day spoke eloquently (we think) for more than two hours, with no breaks for the audience or himself. What he said that memorable day may well be recorded and documented somewhere. To my knowledge, however, his speech is not enshrined on the wall of any Washington, DC Mall monument.
Abraham Lincoln spoke for fewer than three minutes at Gettysburg, but his words were truly immortal.
Trey Gowdy and his repub. panel mates might have taken heed of this great lesson of history. Rather than giving Ms. Clinton a national audience for over nine hours to allow her to wallow in the victim hood of constant political badgering, they would have been better served, and the Republic possibly preserved, had they instead asked the former Secretary of State but three questions:
(1) Mrs. Clinton, you have testified that you put out the fabrication that an internet video caused the death of our four Americans serving in Libya. You told us today that you did so knowing it to be false, in order to persuade the Arab governments to stop further mob attacks on our nation's in-country facilities. Beside that absurd linkage between a video and other Arab dictators motivation to engage in mob control pursuits, you also personally told that lie to the mothers of Glen Daugherty and Shawn Smith at their coffin return ceremony in Delaware. What possible reason did you have to lie to these grieving parents, saying that you personally would "get and punish that murderous video maker" ?
(2) Mrs. Clinton, you have testified that Congressional budget cuts prevented the State Department from adequately providing security to our facilities in Libya. How did you decide it was more important to spend $60,000,000.00 on converting the Paris, France Embassy building to solar power instead of improving the security of Ambassador Stevens and Shawn Smith?
(3) Mrs. Clinton, on September 10, 2012, the Office of the President issued a Press Statement, assuring Americans that because the next day was the eleventh anniversary of the 911 World Trade Center attacks, every US government facility, and particularly those located in hotbeds of radical extremist activities, had been placed on Def Con 1, a veritable war footing in preparation for fully anticipatable attacks. Despite this directive from the President, you and the State Department changed absolutely nothing in Ambassador Steven's schedule for September 11th - his one day trip to Benghazi for a leisurely outdoor patio dinner with Turkey's Ambassador. Did the President lie to the American people, or did you intentionally ignore his directive to protect Ambassador Stevens and his staff taken to Benghazi that deadly anniversary day?
Sadly, The repubs failed us, as did Mrs. Clinton in Libya.
Friday, October 23, 2015
Monday, October 19, 2015
Did Ann Compton just save the Union?
Having retired gracefully to the south of France (actually that would be Algeria, should say south in France), ABC News rushed Ms. Compton back to Washington on Friday to confront Josh Earnest personally in his west wing office. Why, you ask, did these key guardians of media integrity and intellectual honesty fly Compton back and reinstate her to the White House beat? Simple answer - they decided that a rare opportunity to expose the pompous and self important CBS 60 minutes program as being a fraud in the tank for Obama/Hillary had just presented itself.
Last week, Steve Kroft asked the president a number of questions about the use of a private e-mail server by former Secretary of State Clinton. Mr. Obama in answering these soft ball questions dismissed the entire matter as nothing more than mundane political fodder for the republicans in the run up to the 2016 election. The most outrageous claim so casually offered by the president was his assertion that nothing transpired by Ms. Clinton's exclusive use of an easily hackable, bathroom stored server that could have compromised national security. Giving up the identity of a CIA spy in Libya as just one example that Kroft might have followed up with to factually challenge that absurd assertion that this Secretary of State, through her entire four year tenure, never once communicated anything relevant to our nation's national security. But of course, he didn't.
Indeed, in the face of this blatant attempt by the nation's Chief Law Enforcement official to compromise, and shut down even, an ongoing FBI criminal investigation, Mr. Kroft said absolutely nothing. CBS gave the president a national platform and audience to send an unequivocal message to Attorney General Lynch: "nothing to see here, these are not the drones you are looking for, move on".
Thus, armed with the full transcript of the president's August 18, 2014 Presser, Ann Compton demanded Josh Earnest reconcile Mr. Obama's 60 Minute performance with his categorical statement in answer to her press conference question of that date regarding the July local police shooting of an unarmed young, black man in Ferguson, Missouri:
"I have to be very careful about prejuding these events before investigations are completed because, although these are issues of local jurisdiction, the DOJ works for me and when they're conducting an investigation I've got to make sure that I don't look like I am putting my thumb on the scales of justice one way or the other. So, it is hard for me to address a specific case beyond making sure ... people can trust the process, that as a consequence you end up with a fair and just outcome."
(President Barrack Obama, 8/18/14; speaking at the White House Press Room to Ms. Compton)
When Ann Compton read that same quote verbatim to Mr. Earnest, he replied: "At this point what difference does it make, whether they were a group of Libyians out for a stroll or a group of demonstrators who decided just to kill four Americans, what difference does it make?" At which point, CBS Senior White House Reporter, Bill Plante, leaped up from his seat just as his head exploded.
To my knowledge, no News Outlet, reporter or talking head in the entire country has asked the White House to explain Mr. Obama's egregious violation of his own articulated standard for not tampering with ongoing FBI criminal investigations. Accordingly, I imagine this Blog Post is either satire or fantasy journalism ethics.
Last week, Steve Kroft asked the president a number of questions about the use of a private e-mail server by former Secretary of State Clinton. Mr. Obama in answering these soft ball questions dismissed the entire matter as nothing more than mundane political fodder for the republicans in the run up to the 2016 election. The most outrageous claim so casually offered by the president was his assertion that nothing transpired by Ms. Clinton's exclusive use of an easily hackable, bathroom stored server that could have compromised national security. Giving up the identity of a CIA spy in Libya as just one example that Kroft might have followed up with to factually challenge that absurd assertion that this Secretary of State, through her entire four year tenure, never once communicated anything relevant to our nation's national security. But of course, he didn't.
Indeed, in the face of this blatant attempt by the nation's Chief Law Enforcement official to compromise, and shut down even, an ongoing FBI criminal investigation, Mr. Kroft said absolutely nothing. CBS gave the president a national platform and audience to send an unequivocal message to Attorney General Lynch: "nothing to see here, these are not the drones you are looking for, move on".
Thus, armed with the full transcript of the president's August 18, 2014 Presser, Ann Compton demanded Josh Earnest reconcile Mr. Obama's 60 Minute performance with his categorical statement in answer to her press conference question of that date regarding the July local police shooting of an unarmed young, black man in Ferguson, Missouri:
"I have to be very careful about prejuding these events before investigations are completed because, although these are issues of local jurisdiction, the DOJ works for me and when they're conducting an investigation I've got to make sure that I don't look like I am putting my thumb on the scales of justice one way or the other. So, it is hard for me to address a specific case beyond making sure ... people can trust the process, that as a consequence you end up with a fair and just outcome."
(President Barrack Obama, 8/18/14; speaking at the White House Press Room to Ms. Compton)
When Ann Compton read that same quote verbatim to Mr. Earnest, he replied: "At this point what difference does it make, whether they were a group of Libyians out for a stroll or a group of demonstrators who decided just to kill four Americans, what difference does it make?" At which point, CBS Senior White House Reporter, Bill Plante, leaped up from his seat just as his head exploded.
To my knowledge, no News Outlet, reporter or talking head in the entire country has asked the White House to explain Mr. Obama's egregious violation of his own articulated standard for not tampering with ongoing FBI criminal investigations. Accordingly, I imagine this Blog Post is either satire or fantasy journalism ethics.
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Valerie Plame: Media Role Model or Ignored Relic from Dust Bin?
As my last post - Knives and Garrotes - was mis-characterized as an anti-gun control screed, which it was not (See Blog Post: Guns and Roses, 12/16/12), I will avoid any subtlety here. My theme now, as it was then, is that intellectual dishonesty is a lethal cancer on the body politic because such lack of integrity by opinion makers undermines the very foundation of the fourth pillar sustaining our Constitutional Republic - a free press with public credibility. (There I go again - JD, enuff bombast for U?)
As you all know, I am not supporting Ms. Hillary for coronation as the next President of these United States. Nonetheless, my exclusive focus now is on the national media posture as it pertains to the former Secretary of State's public disclosure, thru unsecured e-mails, (yes PLURAL: sent and received) of the name of a secret CIA spy (yes, a foreign spy working for the US) stationed in Libya.
This critical appraisal will be squarely set in the relevant context of the media coverage of the leaking of Ms. Valerie Plame's identity to the public during the second term of the W. Bush Administration. To assert that the main stream media (MSM) went all high dudgeon over Mr. Richard Armitage's leak to Mr. Robert Novak may well be the understatement of all times. The two most prominent Bush Administration officials that these great guardians of the life of CIA operative Plame demanded be imprisoned after being publicly "Frog Walked" out of the White House in hand cuffs and leg irons were Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Calls for the impeachment of President Bush were advanced as well, I'm quite sure.
This massive outpouring of righteous indignation at an Administration official(s) endangering the life of a CIA operative must surely be prologue for what we will see and hear from the MSM soon, right? There is no factual dispute here, Ms. Hillary's campaign spokesperson on Friday acknowledged that she had fingered an actual spy working behind enemy lines, but said two others had sent her this CIA operative's name and had not informed her of a secret classification covering that identity. Sure, we should not expect the most experienced SEC/STATE in history to know that the names of working spies in a war zone constitute a state secret.
To this debacle, I will simply quote Israel's Benjamin Netenyahu as to what I predict will be the MSM coverage of Ms Hillary:
"The response from this body - nearly every one of the [meia outlets] ... represented here - has been absolutely nothing. Utter silence. Deafening silence."
Before writing this Post further, I just stared at this quote for 45 seconds,before posing a more positive note: anyone finding a MSM demand for Ms. Hillary to be Frog Walked to Jail for possibly killing an American CIA spy will be given a six month extension to his or her Elite Membership. Good hunting you'se guys.
As you all know, I am not supporting Ms. Hillary for coronation as the next President of these United States. Nonetheless, my exclusive focus now is on the national media posture as it pertains to the former Secretary of State's public disclosure, thru unsecured e-mails, (yes PLURAL: sent and received) of the name of a secret CIA spy (yes, a foreign spy working for the US) stationed in Libya.
This critical appraisal will be squarely set in the relevant context of the media coverage of the leaking of Ms. Valerie Plame's identity to the public during the second term of the W. Bush Administration. To assert that the main stream media (MSM) went all high dudgeon over Mr. Richard Armitage's leak to Mr. Robert Novak may well be the understatement of all times. The two most prominent Bush Administration officials that these great guardians of the life of CIA operative Plame demanded be imprisoned after being publicly "Frog Walked" out of the White House in hand cuffs and leg irons were Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Calls for the impeachment of President Bush were advanced as well, I'm quite sure.
This massive outpouring of righteous indignation at an Administration official(s) endangering the life of a CIA operative must surely be prologue for what we will see and hear from the MSM soon, right? There is no factual dispute here, Ms. Hillary's campaign spokesperson on Friday acknowledged that she had fingered an actual spy working behind enemy lines, but said two others had sent her this CIA operative's name and had not informed her of a secret classification covering that identity. Sure, we should not expect the most experienced SEC/STATE in history to know that the names of working spies in a war zone constitute a state secret.
To this debacle, I will simply quote Israel's Benjamin Netenyahu as to what I predict will be the MSM coverage of Ms Hillary:
"The response from this body - nearly every one of the [meia outlets] ... represented here - has been absolutely nothing. Utter silence. Deafening silence."
Before writing this Post further, I just stared at this quote for 45 seconds,before posing a more positive note: anyone finding a MSM demand for Ms. Hillary to be Frog Walked to Jail for possibly killing an American CIA spy will be given a six month extension to his or her Elite Membership. Good hunting you'se guys.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Two Knives and a Garrot equal one Assault Rifle
In, 1999 - a long, long time ago, indeed, way back in a previous century - Neil was preparing over the summer to enroll in Vermont's Middlebury College. Striving to assist my son matriculate the ball down the field toward a more successful academic career than my own, I endeavored to incorporate in a multi-page narrative all the best examples of classical logic and rhetoric (with comparisons to sophistry) from my Davidson College years.
Now, sixteen years later, I remember very little of my essay, about which Neil has confirmed having no recollection whatsoever, despite its classical prose honed at the desk of Classics Professor George Labban, R.I.P. The exclusive recollection still fresh in my own mind is that the rhetoric of logic, when done well, is the most persuasive form of the rational polemic. Here is the very example I shared with Neil: A raging dialectic debate, then in the forefront of U.S. opinion makers just as it is today, focused on the transformational utility of gun control measures. These gun control advocates advanced as their central tenet the purported direct cause and effect correlation of private gun ownership prohibitions with achievement of the universally desired goal of the eradication of gun violence, citing accurate crime stats from several nation's with these prohibitions that had experienced sharp drops in firearm murders. For them, however, that fair proposition was invariably followed up by pure sophistry. These gun banners then asserted unequivocally that such mass gun confiscations, by ending unlawful shootings, secured universal public safety by prevention of homicidal criminal violence.
Regrettably, logic and reason immediately put the lie to this grandiose claim. As I wrote to Neil:
"After Great Britian banned the private ownership of firearms, murders by garroting increased by over 2000 per cent annually."
Now, I did not actually research England's record of strangulation homicides. Nonetheless, the imperative of comparing all methods of murder to ascertain effectiveness of any particular prevention policy is obvious and would not to be overlooked by intellectually honest persons seriously proposing to repeal an Amendment to our Constitution enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Again the obvious - humans bent on doing murderous harm to others will readily substitute alternate available weapons for the guns denied them.
Indeed, a recent news article from Great Britain reported that a Member of Parliament was calling for restrictions on the sale of steak knives due to a recent significant increase in homicidal stabbings. One could easily ask - would serving forks with multiple prongs be next up for confiscation in England?
In sum, therefore, this rhetorical exercise has demonstrated by irrefutable logic that the evil in men's hearts will not be deterred by mere gun control laws; they are no panacea in that all western societies having implemented them have achieved little if any enhancement to public safety. Would that our nation's policy makers and talking heads had been graduated either by Middlebury or Davidson.
Now, sixteen years later, I remember very little of my essay, about which Neil has confirmed having no recollection whatsoever, despite its classical prose honed at the desk of Classics Professor George Labban, R.I.P. The exclusive recollection still fresh in my own mind is that the rhetoric of logic, when done well, is the most persuasive form of the rational polemic. Here is the very example I shared with Neil: A raging dialectic debate, then in the forefront of U.S. opinion makers just as it is today, focused on the transformational utility of gun control measures. These gun control advocates advanced as their central tenet the purported direct cause and effect correlation of private gun ownership prohibitions with achievement of the universally desired goal of the eradication of gun violence, citing accurate crime stats from several nation's with these prohibitions that had experienced sharp drops in firearm murders. For them, however, that fair proposition was invariably followed up by pure sophistry. These gun banners then asserted unequivocally that such mass gun confiscations, by ending unlawful shootings, secured universal public safety by prevention of homicidal criminal violence.
Regrettably, logic and reason immediately put the lie to this grandiose claim. As I wrote to Neil:
"After Great Britian banned the private ownership of firearms, murders by garroting increased by over 2000 per cent annually."
Now, I did not actually research England's record of strangulation homicides. Nonetheless, the imperative of comparing all methods of murder to ascertain effectiveness of any particular prevention policy is obvious and would not to be overlooked by intellectually honest persons seriously proposing to repeal an Amendment to our Constitution enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Again the obvious - humans bent on doing murderous harm to others will readily substitute alternate available weapons for the guns denied them.
Indeed, a recent news article from Great Britain reported that a Member of Parliament was calling for restrictions on the sale of steak knives due to a recent significant increase in homicidal stabbings. One could easily ask - would serving forks with multiple prongs be next up for confiscation in England?
In sum, therefore, this rhetorical exercise has demonstrated by irrefutable logic that the evil in men's hearts will not be deterred by mere gun control laws; they are no panacea in that all western societies having implemented them have achieved little if any enhancement to public safety. Would that our nation's policy makers and talking heads had been graduated either by Middlebury or Davidson.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
A Very Bad Deal - Part Tres
For his entire term in Office, President Obama has pledged to Israel and to the entire civilized world that he would take any and all steps necessary to prevent the mad mullahs of Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, as they are sure to use them against the Jews and us, as well.
Indeed, seemingly out of step with his nation's plans to annihilate Israel, one former Iranian President expressed appreciation for the existence of the national Jewish homeland, stating that it made their total destruction so much swifter due to having the vast majority of the world's Jews gathered so close together in a "ONE BOMB STATE". Nice touch there. Hitler would be envious of this good Muslim's sense of efficiency. [ Please, everyone offended by Governor Huckabee's oven analogy, be assured - I am not implying in any sense that President Obama's antipathy toward Israel, while very real and deeply felt, is analogous to the Nazi regime's final solution. ] In my heart, I feel that Obama views Israel as the bully in the Middle East region, able to intimidate and push around its neighbors because the Jews possess the Bomb, and have the where-with-all to use it effectively from Tripoli to Tehran. Accordingly, truth be told, the President sees Iran, with a short break out time to possess its own nuclear weapons, as a necessary counterweight to Israel and that nation's war propensities. Mr. Obama has, in fact, spoken repeatedly of his full acceptance of Iran as a very significant "regional power" in the Middle East.
Of course, that very candid acceptance, seeming approval even, makes the logical alternative to Obama's false choice between - a terrible 10 year agreement and war - off the table for the Administration. Having ousted Israel from the international community of civilized nations, and welcomed back in Iran with open arms (to be funded by a 150 billion dollar pay-off), any international cooperation on effecting regime change in Tehran now is absolutely prohibited.
What a shame. In 2009, the entire civilized world saw the mad mullahs rocked to their very core by pro-democracy protests in Tehran. Rather than support the people of Iran desperately wanting to become free again, this President sent secret letters to the mullahs asking them to forgive America for its many transgressions against Iran, starting with the 1952 CIA sponsored coup that put the hated Shah back on his imperial throne in Tehran. Thus, abandoning the millions fighting and dying in the city streets, President Obama got into bed with these murderous thugs to make nice with them and there unbounded hatred of Israel and us. They remain, despite this Deal of Total Appeasement, at war with America (or are their chants of "death to America" merely seeking our demise as the result of old age), and now the President has forbidden the entire civilized world from even saying rude things about, let alone seek their removal from power, these murderous rulers. We shall all reap the bitter fruits of this harvest of shame.
Indeed, seemingly out of step with his nation's plans to annihilate Israel, one former Iranian President expressed appreciation for the existence of the national Jewish homeland, stating that it made their total destruction so much swifter due to having the vast majority of the world's Jews gathered so close together in a "ONE BOMB STATE". Nice touch there. Hitler would be envious of this good Muslim's sense of efficiency. [ Please, everyone offended by Governor Huckabee's oven analogy, be assured - I am not implying in any sense that President Obama's antipathy toward Israel, while very real and deeply felt, is analogous to the Nazi regime's final solution. ] In my heart, I feel that Obama views Israel as the bully in the Middle East region, able to intimidate and push around its neighbors because the Jews possess the Bomb, and have the where-with-all to use it effectively from Tripoli to Tehran. Accordingly, truth be told, the President sees Iran, with a short break out time to possess its own nuclear weapons, as a necessary counterweight to Israel and that nation's war propensities. Mr. Obama has, in fact, spoken repeatedly of his full acceptance of Iran as a very significant "regional power" in the Middle East.
Of course, that very candid acceptance, seeming approval even, makes the logical alternative to Obama's false choice between - a terrible 10 year agreement and war - off the table for the Administration. Having ousted Israel from the international community of civilized nations, and welcomed back in Iran with open arms (to be funded by a 150 billion dollar pay-off), any international cooperation on effecting regime change in Tehran now is absolutely prohibited.
What a shame. In 2009, the entire civilized world saw the mad mullahs rocked to their very core by pro-democracy protests in Tehran. Rather than support the people of Iran desperately wanting to become free again, this President sent secret letters to the mullahs asking them to forgive America for its many transgressions against Iran, starting with the 1952 CIA sponsored coup that put the hated Shah back on his imperial throne in Tehran. Thus, abandoning the millions fighting and dying in the city streets, President Obama got into bed with these murderous thugs to make nice with them and there unbounded hatred of Israel and us. They remain, despite this Deal of Total Appeasement, at war with America (or are their chants of "death to America" merely seeking our demise as the result of old age), and now the President has forbidden the entire civilized world from even saying rude things about, let alone seek their removal from power, these murderous rulers. We shall all reap the bitter fruits of this harvest of shame.
Monday, July 20, 2015
A Very Bad deal - Part Deux
Hope and change captivated a nation six very long years ago, when multitudes - almost beyond counting -roared their approval of President-Elect Obama when he assured us that soon the seas would stop their rise, summer temperatures would cool and peace among all nations was achievable by America simply extending an open hand to our adversaries, instead of the confrontational closed fist of the Bush bullies. Well, at least in foreign policy implementation (contrary to the Obama promises of keeping our doctor and health insurance), this President has been true to his word, by pursuing an American leadership retreat across every continent on the globe. Instead of projecting American power to deter, or if undertaken, to punish hostile acts by our adversaries, this Administration has asked all the evil-doers of the world to play nice with us because we truly do want to be friends with everyone.
In Mr. Obama's public announcement last week of the Iran Nuke deal - not Peace for our Time, but peace for the next 10 years, after which most all restraints on Iran's nuclear weapons program will be lifted- he called out the blood thirty butchers of Tehran and pleaded with them to enter "Like" on the President's facebook page:
"Our differences are real and the difficult history between our nations cannot be ignored.
But it is possible to change the path of violence and rigid ideology in foreign policy based upon threats to attack your neighbors ... That's a dead end.
A different path, one of tolerance and peaceful resolution of conflict leads to ... more engagement with the international community, and the ability of the Iranian people to prosper and thrive.
This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. We should seize it."
Ah, if only the REAL WORLD'S malevolent dictators were swayed by such SWEET REASONING to repudiate their brutal intentions to dominate and conquer. Most assuredly, insane monsters such as Hitler and Stalin, having lived through the horrors of WWI, with millions upon millions slaughtered, would have recognized, had Obama told them, that going to war again just 20 years after the 1920 Paris Peace Treaty was definitely a "dead end". Of course insane dictators care little, if at all, for the millions upon millions killed in their wars, so long as they triumph - as they always expect to do.
So, count me skeptical as to the mad mullahs of Iran being swept away by the silky tones of Mr. Obama's offers of warm fellowship and friendship, when their sole and exclusive objective is making everyone worldwide bow down in obedience to their Deity, or die.
In Mr. Obama's public announcement last week of the Iran Nuke deal - not Peace for our Time, but peace for the next 10 years, after which most all restraints on Iran's nuclear weapons program will be lifted- he called out the blood thirty butchers of Tehran and pleaded with them to enter "Like" on the President's facebook page:
"Our differences are real and the difficult history between our nations cannot be ignored.
But it is possible to change the path of violence and rigid ideology in foreign policy based upon threats to attack your neighbors ... That's a dead end.
A different path, one of tolerance and peaceful resolution of conflict leads to ... more engagement with the international community, and the ability of the Iranian people to prosper and thrive.
This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. We should seize it."
Ah, if only the REAL WORLD'S malevolent dictators were swayed by such SWEET REASONING to repudiate their brutal intentions to dominate and conquer. Most assuredly, insane monsters such as Hitler and Stalin, having lived through the horrors of WWI, with millions upon millions slaughtered, would have recognized, had Obama told them, that going to war again just 20 years after the 1920 Paris Peace Treaty was definitely a "dead end". Of course insane dictators care little, if at all, for the millions upon millions killed in their wars, so long as they triumph - as they always expect to do.
So, count me skeptical as to the mad mullahs of Iran being swept away by the silky tones of Mr. Obama's offers of warm fellowship and friendship, when their sole and exclusive objective is making everyone worldwide bow down in obedience to their Deity, or die.
A Very Bad Deal indeed
I desperately wanted to be able to support an agreement among the world's major powers and Iran that would prevent that rogue, terrorist nation from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The President is correct that the alternatives to a diplomatically negotiated settlement of this challenge to the survival of Israel, as well as the existential threat Iran poses to its Arab neighbors are themselves fraught with grave risks.
Of course, when the leaders of the civilized world confront an evil as monstrous as Iran, with its ruling Mullahs believing that God Almighty requires death (meaning: total annihilation) to both the little Satan and us, the Big Satan, there are no pain free/risk free policy choices. As Winston Churchill observed to Neville Chamberlain after the Munich dismemberment of the Czech nation to appease Hitler's insatiable appetite for conquest: "You had a choice between dishonor and War, now you shall have both."
By telling the world that he was not elected to be a war president, Mr. Obama has assured every adversary that he will make whatever concessions they demand to prevent even a threat of hostilities. That posture, wherein the other side absolutely know you will not walk away from the negotiating table and pursue stiffer sanctions or a possible military strike, makes those talks, not negotiations, but rather arranging the terms of surrender.
At least Neville Chamberlain was candid and honest with the people of Great Britain, in telling them that the price of "Peace for our Time" was the enslavement of a free Czech nation to the Nazi vice grip. Even Churchill respected him for not claiming that what he had done wasn't appeasement, pure and simple, coupled with the assertion that Hitler would keep his word of honor, and had no additional territorial aspirations. Sound similar - the Mullahs have told Obama that they have no aspirations to possess nuclear weapons.
What would Sir Winston think about our President's announcement last week that he had achieved Peace with Iran? Here are some of Mr. Obama's assertions in that White House address to the nation:
*BO: "That's the deal. It has the full backing of the international community."
WC: "That's a bald face lie, as Israel vehemently opposes this agreement, as most probably does Saudi Arabia, Egypt and ten or more middle east nations fearful of Iran's aggression." [Possibly, Obama meant to send a message to Israel - you are now considered an outcast, rogue state, unworthy of inclusion in the community of civilized nations. Nice touch there.]
*BO: "Put simply, ... the IAEA will have access where necessary, when necessary."
WC: That's a bald face lie, when Iran objects to any or all proposed IAEA inspections, IRAN sits on the Committee which will decide whether any such visits are allowed, so the claim that the IAEA decides where and when it will inspect is, put simply, false."
*BO: "If in a worst case scenario, Iran violates the deal, the same options that are available to me today will be available to any U.S. President in the future ... in a far stronger position with Iran further away from a weapon."
WC: "That's a bald face lie. Did he even read that assertion before he read it on the teleprompter? He postulates a "worst case" scenario confronting a future president, but then in the same sentence claims that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon through violating this agreement. Of course, the "worst case" is Iran gets the bomb, so any future president's attempt to compel their compliance with this dead deal will be against an Iran ready able and willing to annihilate both Tel Avis and Washington, D.C."
That level of arrogance - in bald face lying repeatedly to the American people in the belief that should they know the true level of Obama's appeasement, this deal will be rejected overwhelming in Congress - is truly dishonorable and most probably will lead to war. Shame on all of us, should we not be contacting our elected representatives night and day from this point forward demanding that this deal be dumped.
Of course, when the leaders of the civilized world confront an evil as monstrous as Iran, with its ruling Mullahs believing that God Almighty requires death (meaning: total annihilation) to both the little Satan and us, the Big Satan, there are no pain free/risk free policy choices. As Winston Churchill observed to Neville Chamberlain after the Munich dismemberment of the Czech nation to appease Hitler's insatiable appetite for conquest: "You had a choice between dishonor and War, now you shall have both."
By telling the world that he was not elected to be a war president, Mr. Obama has assured every adversary that he will make whatever concessions they demand to prevent even a threat of hostilities. That posture, wherein the other side absolutely know you will not walk away from the negotiating table and pursue stiffer sanctions or a possible military strike, makes those talks, not negotiations, but rather arranging the terms of surrender.
At least Neville Chamberlain was candid and honest with the people of Great Britain, in telling them that the price of "Peace for our Time" was the enslavement of a free Czech nation to the Nazi vice grip. Even Churchill respected him for not claiming that what he had done wasn't appeasement, pure and simple, coupled with the assertion that Hitler would keep his word of honor, and had no additional territorial aspirations. Sound similar - the Mullahs have told Obama that they have no aspirations to possess nuclear weapons.
What would Sir Winston think about our President's announcement last week that he had achieved Peace with Iran? Here are some of Mr. Obama's assertions in that White House address to the nation:
*BO: "That's the deal. It has the full backing of the international community."
WC: "That's a bald face lie, as Israel vehemently opposes this agreement, as most probably does Saudi Arabia, Egypt and ten or more middle east nations fearful of Iran's aggression." [Possibly, Obama meant to send a message to Israel - you are now considered an outcast, rogue state, unworthy of inclusion in the community of civilized nations. Nice touch there.]
*BO: "Put simply, ... the IAEA will have access where necessary, when necessary."
WC: That's a bald face lie, when Iran objects to any or all proposed IAEA inspections, IRAN sits on the Committee which will decide whether any such visits are allowed, so the claim that the IAEA decides where and when it will inspect is, put simply, false."
*BO: "If in a worst case scenario, Iran violates the deal, the same options that are available to me today will be available to any U.S. President in the future ... in a far stronger position with Iran further away from a weapon."
WC: "That's a bald face lie. Did he even read that assertion before he read it on the teleprompter? He postulates a "worst case" scenario confronting a future president, but then in the same sentence claims that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon through violating this agreement. Of course, the "worst case" is Iran gets the bomb, so any future president's attempt to compel their compliance with this dead deal will be against an Iran ready able and willing to annihilate both Tel Avis and Washington, D.C."
That level of arrogance - in bald face lying repeatedly to the American people in the belief that should they know the true level of Obama's appeasement, this deal will be rejected overwhelming in Congress - is truly dishonorable and most probably will lead to war. Shame on all of us, should we not be contacting our elected representatives night and day from this point forward demanding that this deal be dumped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)