Here’s what commitment to “talk to friends and foe alike” will get you….


You know…Obama likes to talk….and has committed to talks without preconditions with Iran….

Apparently other enemies, borderline enemies, and rogues have been listening and they like his approach on “talking to friends and foe alike”:

From Russia, with love:

On Wednesday, the day after Obama’s election, Medvedev threatened to move short-range missiles to Russia’s borders with NATO allies even as the U.S. offered new proposals on nuclear arms reductions as well as missile defense. Allowing Russian observers at planned missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic were among them, U.S. officials said………..

………(On Saturday) A Kremlin statement said Obama and Medvedev “expressed the determination to create constructive and positive interaction for the good of global stability and development” and agreed that their countries had a common responsibility to address “serious problems of a global nature.”

To that end, according to the Kremlin statement, Medvedev and Obama believe an “early bilateral meeting” should be arranged.

Happy Hamas:

Under the outgoing U.S. President George Bush, the United States refused to talk to Hamas.

“It’s a big change — political and psychological — and it is noteworthy and I congratulate President Obama,” Meshaal said in the interview with Sky News website from the Syrian capital Damascus.
“But as a result of the election and the change, he should know he has duties to the United States and in the whole world and in hotspots, especially in the Middle East.”

“…we are ready for dialogue with President Obama and with the new American administration with an open mind, on the basis that the American administration respects our rights and our options,” Meshaal told Sky.

Of course, Obama will get right on it in scheduling that little sit down…remember Obama said during the campaing that Hamas (and Hezbollah) have legitimate claims: 

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.”

And then, of course, there is this lecture, in letter form, from Ahmadinejad of Iran on Thursday:

“I congratulate you on being able to attract the majority of votes of the participants of the election,” Ahmadinejad said in a message carried by the official IRNA news agency.

“I hope you make the most of the chance of service and leave a good name by preferring people’s real interests and justice to the insatiable demands of a selfish and indecent minority,” he said.

“You are generally expected to make a fast and clear response to the demands for basic… change in US domestic and foreign policy, which all people in the world and Americans want on top of your agenda,” he told Obama.

Unfortunately happy speeches on “hope” and “change” and proclamations for talking without preconditions will now need to be replaced with some solid foreign policy….I “hope” Obama breaks his campaign promises on his approach to Iran, Iraq, terrorists, depleting weapons systems……I’m pulling for him, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in his foreign policy.  We shall see.

Advertisements

“The Freshman’s Arrogance”


NY Post)

(Pic: NY Post)

I can’t help myself but to post in-full a piece from Confederate Yankee (see below)…..

This piece clearly outlines Obama’s interference into US policy on Iraq and his arrogance in trying to press US military commanders to become political and change their view to suit Obama’s campaign.

This infuriates me even more than the current government bailouts for companies that made lots of Democrat cronies wealthy….and this should be front and center in the MSM and McCain should be hitting this issue hard….this is unspeakably selfish, arrogant, and a TRUE peek into how a President Obama would handle the military and conduct his policies…..all to suit his whims, desires, and self-absorbed views.

Be sure and read the links in the piece, particularly the first link to Amir Taheri’s newest article on the subject…..Something else in his article also caught my eye…apparently since Taheri announced what he knew about Obama’s interference in Iraq, he has been the victim of multiple death threats from Obama supporters.

Taheri has issued this plea to Obama:

……I must also appeal to him (Obama) to issue a “cease and desist” plea to the battalions of his sympathizers – who have been threatening me with death and worse in the days since my article appeared.

Wonder if Obama has directed these threats in much the same manner that he, by directing his supporters, has threatened and interrupted the radio show in Chicago?  Wonder when Obama will try to send out the DOJ dogs to destroy Taheri…..???

Back to the main topic of this post….Here is Confederate Yankee’s piece “The Freshman’s Arrogance” in its entirety:

New York Postcolumnist Amir Taheri continues to hammerDemocratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama today for secretly meddling in U.S. foreign policy in Iraq for his own naked political gain. Taheri first madethese allegations on Monday, quoting Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari on the record as saying that when Obama visited Iraq in July, he tried to convince Iraqi government officials to not work with President Bush’s Administration.

Obama told the Iraqis that President Bush’s administration was in a “state of weakness and political confusion,” and tried to convince the Iraqis to wait to negotiate on troop-level agreements until the next administration took office in 2009. At the time of his trip in July, Obama had a comfortable lead in the polls over John McCain and was assuming he would likely be President.

The American Spectator reportsfrom sources inside the campaign that Obama’s advisers were stumped for more than five hours trying to figure out a response to Taheri’s article, because:

  • the account was true
  • there were at least three other witnesses to the conversation between Obama and Zebari
  • the campaign felt there were enough reporters in Iraq that “were aggressive enough” to debunk a denial, causing the campaign even more embarrassment.

 Instead, Obama’s campaign attempted to rebut Taheri’s article with a snide accusation that Taheri was confusing the Status of Forces agreement with a Strategic Framework Agreement, with a statement that read:

“This article bears as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial. Barack Obama has consistently called for any Strategic Framework Agreement to be submitted to the U.S. Congress so that the American people have the same opportunity for review as the Iraqi Parliament,” said Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi. “Unlike John McCain, he supports a clear timetable to redeploy our troops that has the support of the Iraqi government. Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades.”Tellingly, the Obama campaign never attemptedto push the Post for a correction or retraction of Taheri’s charges, and observers quickly noted the campaign’s response seemed to confirm the story.

Taheri’s response in today’s New York Postgives the Obama campaign both barrels, first stating that if there was any confusion about the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA), the confusion came on the part of the Obama campaign, as the documents are closely intertwined. Tom Maguire notes the campaign’s apparent confusion in Barack Versus Barack On Iraq, which shows Obama’s own web siteis consistent with Taheri’s claims.

Ed Morrisey at Hot Air excoriates Obama for his “me first, country second” arrogance.

First, SenatorObama has no authority to negotiate on behalf of the executive branch, which has sole authority to conduct foreign policy. Second and most important, Obama attempted to interfere against the interests of the United States.He can ask all the questions he wants, but when Obama started pressing Iraqi officials to stop negotiations with the executive branch — in other words, break one level of diplomatic contact and freeze a military alliance in time of war — that crossed a line and clearly violated the Logan Act. It also makes clear that Obama would do anything to get elected, even harm diplomatic relations between the US and an ally.And while many are focusing on Obama’s interference in foreign policy, Taheri also noted in his Monday article that Obama tried to use his trip to pressure the military to support his political goals.

As he has made clear on numerous occasions, the first-term Senator has consistently pledged a date-based withdrawal built according to his own timetable, not a conditions-based withdrawal determined by upon security and political considerations and competencies on the ground.

Obama pressured U.S. commanders for a “realistic withdrawal date,” a date that would have been used as a transparent sop to his radical left-wing political base, and an attempt to unethically put those U.S. military commanders in a position of potentially influencing the course of the 2008 U.S. presidential elections. Commanders declined to be baited.

Barack Obama attempted to compromise the pledge of military commanders to remain apolitical, while actively undermining the foreign policy of the current administration while our soldiers are still deployed.

Barack Obama clearly values what is best for Barack Obama, but does he value anything else?

Obama’s “Lunch with a Madman” Approach to Foreign Policy


The words of President Bush on the 60th anniversary of IsraeI’s Statehood….

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists…as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along…We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.

We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Barack Obama is offended and says:

It is sad that President Bush would use a speech on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack……That is “exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s dividing our country and that alienates us from the world.”

Oh, really? 

First, he didn’t mention Obama by name…but Bush could have been talking about any Democrat out there today….they are all for talking our enemies to death!  It has proven so effective in the past…:)

And I guess the fact that terrorists killing 3000 of our citizens had nothing to do with divisions between the US and radical Islamic countries (not to mention terrorist groups).  I guess the fact that Ahmadinejad wants to blow Israel off the map is legitimate and helpful in this world we live in, huh?

And, further, Obama doesn’t count his reverend’s verbal attacks against our country and its citizens as divisive?  And talking about Obama’s peers….Is it “appalling” when Democrat leaders declare the war lost (when its not) or when Nancy Pelosi decides to don head gear and suck up to Assad in Syria (against the requests of the US government)? 

And in the words of Greg Gutfield at the Dailygut.com:

So let me get this straight: Obama thinks it’s wrong for Bush to say, on Israel’s birthday, that we shouldn’t appease enemies of Israel. Okay. Then, would it have been better for you, Obama, if Bush had echoed your words – that we should lunch with an Iranian madman who vows to wipe Israel off the map? That’s one hell of a birthday gift.

Get over yourself Obama….you’re in the big leagues now!

Besides all of his protestations, why the defensiveness?  Obama’s own website says he will TALK to friend an foe alike:

  • Talk to our Foes and Friends:   Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs.
  • McCain has a good response to Obama’s misplaced defensiveness:

    “This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?”

    Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama’s position was a serious error. It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?”

    My guess is Barack would like to talk about the “legitimate issues” that Iran has with Israel and the destruction of that country….much like what he believes are “legitimate issues” articulated by Hezbollah and Hamas…..

    Obama’s own words (as taken from Confederate Yankee):

    The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.”

    Obama is stuck on stupid with “root causes”….he sounds like his Reverend….falsely blaming groups of people for the failures of others…..Obama’s “root causes” theory for terrorists  does nothing more than legitimize the motives of hateful people for hateful causes….just like his Reverend! 

    From Confederate Yankee, here are two of the “issues” of Hamas and Hezbollah that Obama apparently thinks are legitimate:

    • From Hamas’ “Charter”: There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”
    • Hezbollah’s main goals are to fight against “western imperialism”, achieve the destruction of Israel, and establish Islamic rule in Jerusalem.

    Read the rest of the “legitimate claims” post by Confederate Yankee.  This blog clearly outlines what Hamas and Hezbollah believe….and asks the question, “What is legitimate about those beliefs Obama”?