Tag Archives: Cold War

Obama’s Persian Peace Pact

Iran-Obama-copertinaOriginally posted at American Thinker blog

After proselytizing the Kenyans on the subject of gay rights, Barack Obama, the man who becomes irate if people disagree with him, dropped in on Washington D.C.’s American University to badger Iran deal critics into submission with a baffling amount of bombast.

The premise of the president’s argument is that it’s not fair to oppose the Iran deal, or justify war, without first giving a diplomatic agreement the chance to fail.

Barack Obama’s posturing began when he linked his anti-war stance with JFK’s “concrete actions and effective agreements,” which, according to Obama, “avoided nuclear catastrophe…and…created time and space to win the Cold War without firing a shot at the Soviets.”

After admitting that the agreement with Iran “does not resolve all problems,” the Nobel Peace Prize winner contended that the deal with Iran is his effort to avoid the unilateral U.S. action vs. international consensus and exaggerated “mindset” that led us into the Iraq war.

Then, without accepting one iota of responsibility for the obliteration of everything that was accomplished in Iraq prior to his taking office in 2009, Obama the Arbitrator said that when dealing with a lying regime that vows to wipe Israel off the map and declares “Death to America, his “preference [is] for a peaceful diplomatic solution.”

Barack Obama began setting the opposition straight by injecting political put-downs and references to “partisan prisons, headline-grabbing headlines… [and]…virulent opposition.”

Among other things, the president clarified that even though the process for resolving inspections of an Iranian “suspicious undeclared site,” could take up to 24 days, inspectors “will be allowed daily access to Iran’s key nuclear sites.”

Great. If the Iranians deny inspectors daily access, a mere 24 days after being denied, access will be granted.

Obama also mentioned that he didn’t believe the Iranians would behave like Bruce Jenner did for 65 years and hide nuclear material, because “nuclear material isn’t something you hide in a closet.”

What the president didn’t elaborate upon was whether or not Iranians would bury nuclear material in a covert facility similar to the secret enrichment facility discovered in Fordo.

Either way, no worries, because although Obama has been unable to find Lois Lerner’s emails or been successful at catching illegal felons with stolen guns running around sanctuary cities, and despite his inability to catch Jihadi John, Barack Obama vowed that after 24 days, “The bottom line is, if Iran cheats, we can catch them, and we will.”

When referring to prohibition of weapons-related research, the president threw around the word “permanent,” but then went on to admit that the peaceful program limitations would last only 15 years, which is a far cry from permanent.

Then, after reassuring the supportive audience that his diplomatic expertise alone can prevent war, the president offered the disclaimer that if the permanent measures fail, in 15 years the U.S. will have better tools to stop what could have been prevented 15 years earlier.

From there Obama segued to the $56 billion in sanctions relief Iran will receive, which is probably enough money to finally accomplish the full ushering in, via world chaos, of the 12th and final Imam/savior of humankind, aka Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Mahdī.

In the president’s limited, one-sided mind, disagreeing with sanctions is on par with rejecting diplomacy. In other words, just to make a new friend, Barack Obama would hire a known pedophile to run a preschool based purely on the child abuser’s promise to keep his hands off the children.

Conciliator Barack did concede that Iran would funnel money into their military, as well as other “pernicious activities” America objects to. However, according to President Mediation Expert’s estimation, Iran will use most of the sanction relief to improve the lives of the Iranian people.

So the president, who doesn’t trust law-abiding Americans with legal firearms, believes that a terrorist regime, rather than use the money to advance their nuclear capability, will fund pensions, pay salaries, and pave the very streets where Iranian leaders hold public beheadings.

Then, in an effort to convince those who oppose the diplomatic deal with Iran, the president acknowledged that the group we’re about to bestow $56 billion upon “supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah… proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies, including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq…[and]… tried to destabilize our Gulf partners.”

Barack Obama explained that with or without the sanctions relief, Iran has been engaged in these sorts of nefarious activities for decades. So in other words, giving Iran money is similar to the liberal ‘they’re going to do it anyway’ argument that drug addicts should be provided with clean needles and that free condoms should be handed out to sexually active 13-year-olds.

The president also contended that risking Iran getting the bomb is reasonable because although “Iranian hardliners chant ‘Death to America’ [that] does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe.” In fact, said Obama:

[i]t’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting ‘Death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.

So, in an attempt to convince Congress to support his diplomatic deal with a genocidal terrorist state, Barack Obama gave a pass to Iranians he doesn’t know while comparing the Republican Caucus, not to mention 50% of the American people, to Iranian hardliners who chant ‘Death to America.’

Leaving no stone unturned, the president rationalized that if he agreed with Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu’s defiant stance against the Iranian deal he would be “act[ing] against his better judgment,” which would be an “abrogation of [the] constitutional duty,” he habitually flouts.

Then, for good measure, to those who he says “have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong,” repeatedly wrong Obama issued the same confrontational dare he posed concerning Obamacare and immigration reform when he “challenge[d] anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, more plausible alternative.”

Finishing up his Iran-bad/Iran-deal-good spiel, peacenik Obama placed the full onus on Congress:

If Congress kills this deal, we will lose more than just constraints on Iran’s nuclear deal or the sanctions we have painstakingly built. We will have lost something more precious: America’s credibility as a leader of diplomacy. America’s credibility is the anchor of the international system.

On the other hand, if Congress doesn’t kill this deal and Iran does acquire a nuclear bomb, what the world stands to lose thanks to Barack Obama will be more precious than our “credibility as a leader of diplomacy” or our standing as the “anchor of the international system.”

Obama and Putin: Mr. Flexibility Cancels Meeting with Russian Leader

GumbyPokey-630x472Originally posted at Clash Daily

If that infamous fly that usually lands on Obama’s face in the East Room were to make its way to a wall in Putin’s office, there’s a good chance Mr. Fly would get quite an earful. Imagine Vladimir Putin’s private reaction to a US president canceling plans to meet with him during his visit to Moscow next month.

Like the rest of us, Vladimir is finding out what Americans – from Supreme Court Justices to governors of red states to conservatives and Tea Party members – already know: If you differ with Barack Obama, he doesn’t take it well.

Lest we forget, this is the man who sent a message to Putin via Dmitry Medvedev that after the 2012 election he’d be “more flexible.” The problem is that America’s president is extremely rigid and his self-described flexibility is based solely on conditions that require total flexibility and complete agreement from people other than himself.

Of late, Mr. Flexibility is angry because of Russia’s Obama-style, in-your-face defiance in its decision to grant NSA leaker Edward Snowden temporary asylum, as well as Putin’s perceived pigheadedness over issues like gay rights.

So Obama canceled talks with Putin but made time to visit Jay Leno, where he needled the Russian president by discussing what he calls Russia’s “gay propaganda” policies and the “underlying challenges” the man-child now faces when dealing with Moscow.

In other words, Barack Obama’s answer to those “underlying challenges” is to dictate to Russia his views on homosexuality and attempt to publicly chasten Putin for harboring Edward Snowden, the man his administration considers a domestic spy for exposing a homeland espionage program that he denies even exists.

The president defines Russia’s refusal to embrace a radical gay philosophy and denial of the administration’s request to extradite Snowden in this way: “There have been times where they slip back into Cold-War thinking and a Cold-War mentality.”

In Mr. Flexibility’s narrow worldview, a sovereign nation like the US has the right to change laws to benefit LGBT couples, but another, equally sovereign nation has no right to “prohibit propaganda of homosexuality to minors.” Since past behavior is usually an indication of future conduct, here’s a prediction: America’s “First Gay President” will likely ease tensions with Russia by threatening to boycott the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.

But, it’s not yet 2014, so to begin the process Obama cancelled previously scheduled one-on-one talks with Putin.  Instead, prior to attending the G20 economic summit, Obama will stoke the cold war embers when, on behalf of clean energy, he adds a stop in Sweden.

White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said, “We’ll still work with Russia on issues where we can find common ground, but it was the unanimous view of the president and his national security team that a summit did not make sense in the current environment.”

What’s more likely is that “it was the unanimous view of the president,” period.

As for the “current environment”, there were already strains over the US barring 18 Russians for human rights violations and Russia signing a bill that bars US adoptions.

But what really seems to irk Mr. Flexibility is Putin’s stance on international issues that resemble similar decisions Obama has made concerning uprisings he felt inclined to assist, as well as the Kremlin’s ongoing suppression of critics with tactics similar to the ones Obama utilizes via the IRS and the NSA. And then there’s Russia’s willingness to harbor anyone who places barriers in the way of the president being able to silence detractors.

So once again, like a spoiled brat, Barack Obama is in the throes of a very public temper tantrum. To the detriment of world peace and possibly our country’s well-being, the president is choosing to fight his childish battles by demeaning the president of Russia on late-night television.

Bandaging the Bruised Bear

Slide1

Every baby boomer remembers the 1964 Goldwater campaign ad, which juxtaposed innocent children, pledging allegiance to the flag, with an impassioned Nikita Khrushchev waving his finger in the air vowing, “We will bury you…your children will be Communists!”  Khrushchev’s warning was the impetus for American teachers to hustle students into hallways instructing them to close their eyes or go blind from the blue flash.  The reality of the “Cold War” made anxious, impressionable children shiver at the sound of civil defense warnings with the delayed announcement “This is a test,” leaving a few horror-struck seconds to wonder if “duck and cover” was in order.

The Cold War ended in the 1980’s and was brought about by the policies of President Ronald Reagan whose actions mirrored the sentiment Goldwater expressed in his ad when saying, “I want American kids to grow up as Americans and they will, if we have the guts to make our intentions clear, so clear they don’t need translation or interpretation just respect for a country prepared as no country in all history ever was.”

Reagan had a hawkish stance, intense understanding of evil, unmatched diplomatic skill and an insightful ability to understand the devastating effect rigid, centralized governmental had in fostering Russia’s economic troubles.  That, coupled with the Soviet Union’s obsessive-compulsive desire to build an immense military machine to support a dictatorial regime, was the disastrous combination that shook the foundation of an oppressive system.  Reagan accurately assessed that if he engaged the economically strapped Soviet Union in an arms race there was no way they could prevail and total collapse followed.

Presently, the “sick Russian bear” is being reconstituted into the “evil empire” Reagan worked hard to eradicate. Barack Obama seems ignorant to the fact that,” Putin is, first and last, a Russian nationalist, utterly pragmatic (or ruthless) in the tools he will use to strengthen the Russian state…and is slowly and systematically changing Russia’s direction. When Russia changes direction, the rest of Europe should indeed be nervous.”

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is currently in the process of accomplishing this goal with the help of American President Obama.  Rather than staring down the Bear like Reagan did at Reykjavik by rejecting missile defense conditions, Obama acquiesced to demands and shelved U.S. plans to position nuclear-missile shields in the Poland and the Czech Republic to protect Eastern Europe and U.S. interests from the Iranian nuclear threat. Unlike Obama, Gorbachev did the adjusting to Reagan at Reykjavik after a immovable Reagan told him point blank, “There was no way he could tell his people that their government would not protect them against nuclear destruction.” Thus, forcing Gorbachev to comply.

Even General Secretary Yuri Andropov recognized Reagan’s SDI program was “a bid to disarm the Soviet Union” and understood Reagan’s calculation that, “…the USSR would exhaust its material resources and therefore be forced to surrender.”  Today Eastern Europe, as well as astute Russian diplomats easily identifies Obama’s willingness to back down to the Russian threat to station missiles in an enclave near Poland as an implication of U.S. weakness. Obama’s pacifism is“…fueling fears of resurgent Kremlin influence.”  Reagan held the line; Barack Obama surrendered time-tested principles.

Gorbachev abided by Reagan’s firm appeal to “Tear down this wall!” Yet, the defeat of Communism doesn’t seem to be enough for President Obama. As always, his is the better way. Utilizing conciliation and placation Obama is tenderly removing the Bear’s foot from a trap that has safely held it in check for almost thirty years.

Obama’s actions have shocked many and “…represent the appalling appeasement of Russian aggression and a willingness to sacrifice American allies on the altar of political expediency. A deal with the Russians to cancel missile defense installations send a clear message that even Washington can be intimidated by the Russian bear.”

According to Glyn Davies, U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran is moving; “…closer to a dangerous and destabilizing possible breakout capacity,” which is the reason the Bush Administration initiated plans for a missile defense system in the first place.  Russia disagrees, and is fiercely defensive of Iran. Obama, unlike Bush, is obviously unaware that a Persian cat and a wounded bear would make short work of a mollifying dove.

Obama’s anemic argument for dropping the plans at Russia’s behest for the controversial missile defense shield program is that presently, Iran is not a threat. His Administration contends  “They have no potential at this moment; they have no capacity to launch a missile at the United States of America.”  This is a position that exhibits a shocking lack of foresight, especially from those who vigorously criticized the Bush Administration for failing to strengthen the New Orleans levees in order to avoid impending catastrophe.

Obama failed to flinch when Russia welcomed the news of the U.S.’s agreement to dispose of missile defense in Eastern Europe by saying, “…it saw no reason to offer concessions in return.” His immature conviction that the United States should participate in, “…constructive, honest engagement with Iran to resolve the issue” of nuclear proliferation in hopes that Tehran will, “take immediate steps to restore international trust and confidence,” is as naïve and misguided as his assurance of Medvedev’s liberal, pro-Western stand.

President Reagan was acutely in touch with the moral duty to protect this nation. Unlike Reagan, Barack Obama, seemingly void of a moral core, would have willingly submitted to Gorbachev’s demands if it were he and not Reagan attending the Summit in Iceland. Giving in to a “…Third World nation with First World nuclear weapons” is Barack Obama nursing Reagan’s “sick bear” back to health.

Dmitry Medvedev said, “Russia’s democracy is weak, its economy is ailing and the country faces long-term problems with the health of its population.” Ronald Reagan touted America’s strength and superiority, recognized and exploited to the world’s benefit the immorality and incompetence of Soviet Communism. Obama, on the other hand, chides the U.S. at every turn and lauds the former Soviet Union as a “great power, vowing that while crafting U.S. policy he’ll, “…keep Russia’s interests in mind.” An astonishing statement from an American president giving Khrushchev’s prophesies chilling potential for fulfillment.

Appeasing sentiments that shelving the missile defense system will encourage the Russian bear to extend an olive branch is tantamount to national security psychosis. Obama is deluded if he thinks our future with Russia “…has to be more than just security or dismantling weapons.” If America refuses to deal with the Soviet mindset, in the same manner, as Ronald Reagan deemed crucial, we might as well crawl back under our school desks and anticipate a flash of blue light.

%d bloggers like this: