hell the book aint even a hard copy it looks like a paperback?

What a bunch of well fill in the blank.

Catherine

Like or Dislike: 0  0

What is, or should be, “crystal clear to absolutely everyone in the world” (and if it isn’t yet, it soon will be) is that Obama is really an even bigger idiot (and far more dangerous) than we on the Right have been warning that he is.

[in his] “address to thousands of cheering French and German youth in the Rhenus Sports Arena in Strasbourg. Mr. Obama said, ‘In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.’

Uh, Mr. Obama…what European leadership are you speaking to exactly?”
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kemp/090415

And there are others I’ve never seen before raising their voices to protest his abhorrent behavior…

“This loathsome creature goes abroad and shames all of us. …….. We as Americans have sacrificed our blood sweat tears and money for the rest of world, and we have pulled Europe’s chestnuts out of the fire in two major wars, including the re-building of our enemies when WWII ended. Then there was NATO and the Berlin airlift, not to mention the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, thanks to President Reagan. There is nothing for which America should apologize, ever, except for electing a Marxist idiot like Obama…”
http://rightisright113.blogspot.com/2009/04/idiots-who-voted-for-obama-should-be.html

His presidency is an enormous embarrassment to sane people everywhere.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Larry W: What I don’t like is the talk about Obama being “anti-American” and/or “weak” with regard to criticism and apologies. It’s crystal clear to absolutely everyone in the world that he’s not criticizing America — he’s criticizing George W. Bush.

I know that’s why you’d like to believe, Larry. However it’s simply not true. Let’s look, for example, at his al Arabiya interview fresh out of the Oval Office box.

A “ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect”. Tell me exactly where George W. Bush, or any predecessor has not “respected” the Muslim world?

In fact, the Assyrian International News Agency ran Mona Charen’s op-ed about Obama’s persistent references to this supposed “non-respect”.

One of President Obama’s first official acts was to grant an interview to Al Arabiya, the Arabic-language television network that broadcasts worldwide. This signified, aides explained, the new page that Obama meant to turn in relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds. Just as he did last week in Europe, Obama began the conversation by criticizing America. Asked about relations between Israel and the Palestinians and the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy, President Obama said, “What I told [Mitchell] is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues — and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen.” Throughout the rest of the interview, Obama returned again and again to the word “respect,” stressing that his administration — unlike previous American administrations — would base relations with the Muslim world on “mutual respect.”

~~~

Lest this slander pass into conventional wisdom, it must be protested. George W. Bush was never disrespectful to the Muslim world. He was extraordinarily careful to telegraph his respect for the Muslim faith — some thought to a fault. (“Why is it,” asked one wag, “that the only people who say Islam is a religion of peace are Christians?”) Bush made the Feast of Eid, which marks the end of Ramadan, an annual White House celebration with prominent Muslim guests. He arguably saved more Muslim lives through the African AIDS initiative than any other world leader could claim. Mrs. Bush made improving the lives of women and girls in Afghanistan her special project. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when this was not an obvious move, President Bush visited the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C. to telegraph to the nation that anger toward American Muslims would be a misplaced response to the atrocity.

The caricature of Bush as a heedless militarist and xenophobe — which no one is doing more to promote than the current president — is a libel.

As Charles Krauthammer pointed out in WaPo:

Every new president flatters himself that he, kinder and gentler, is beginning the world anew. Yet, when Barack Obama in his inaugural address reached out to Muslims with “to the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” his formulation was needlessly defensive and apologetic.

Is it “new” to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn’t just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to “restore” the “same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”

Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years —- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world —- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved —- and resulted in —- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The only way Obama can pass off creating a “new mutual respect” is by dissing and nullifying the past respect from prior administrations. I agree with both Charen and Krauthammer… it is both “libelous” and “off the mark”.

Then we come to Europe… where he claimed America is dismissive and arrogant.

Addressing a crowd of some 2,000 mainly students from France and Germany, Mr Obama said: “In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world.

“Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

Perhaps Obama should explain what “leading role” Europe played in the recent past that we are supposed to appreciate? They have been a follower, not leader, since WWII… and at that, it only came by pulling teeth at the UNSC or NATO.

He then follows with chiding Europe for it’s anti-Americanism. Yet he justified that disdain by pointing out first that America had been “arrogant and dismissive”. In short, he provided them with an excuse for their anti-Americanism.

Nile Gardiner, Director of the Thatcher Center for Freedom, called this an insult not only to President Bush (whom Obama did not even have the balls to call out by name, blaming the nation instead), but also to the sundry troops that have laid down their lives to liberate Iraqis, allowing them to have the freely elected government they have today.

I would also like to add that Obama’s comments not only reflect badly on Bush, our troops and the nation, but equally on all coalition nations who also participated in Iraq… including but not limited to the UK and Australia, and the 30+ other nations who contributed service personnel and aid.

I would guess this “crystal clear to absolutely everyone in the world” perception you have is purely a pipedream on your part. And in fact, many believe Obama looks like a whiny child complaining to mommy that it’s all his siblings fault, and as an embarrassment to Americans, servicemen and women, and Iraq coalition nations.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Cary:

I just watched that segment. Very entertaining. But it’s also illuminating.

The reason I found the comment I referred to in Thumb Wars to be so hilarious is that it’s a bit of solid wisdom which was totally unexpected – a dose of solid reality protruding suddenly into the fantasy. Delicious! On the other hand, Danny Kaye is funny because he’s a clown, a very talented clown, but a clown none the less.

The reason I used that piece was because it got my point across. While I appreciate your sharing something you enjoy with me, and which I also enjoy, there was no point to it other than the shared visceral pleasure, no intellectual contribution to what we were discussing.

So, I feel I should thank you for giving such an excellent illustration of the differences I was trying to highlight.

Regards.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

obama wants the world to see him as a great leader,every country that he has entered as president of the united states see him as an idiot,he wants to rule the world,show me just one leader of any country around the world that is willing to hand over their country to obama,chevez was all smiles as he shook hands with obama then wiped his hands off on his pants leg to erase obama touch,iran says obama is worse than president bush,because he hold out a hand that wants to destroy iran,every thing obama say he is going to do ,he does the opposite,he is dangerious to our country and to the world.he is an insult to our country,he is an insult to our laws and more inportant to our constitution,he took an oath to protect and defend this country from all enemies foreign and domestic, that oath to him is just mere words,words he can walk away from and feel nothing,he is the terror that we need to fear,he and his administration is hell bent on destroying our country,he wants to make every one that disagrees with him as an enemies of the country,if you believe in our constitution,our laws,if you believe in no obortion,if you have put on our uniform to protect our country here and around the world then your the enemies,if you speak out,you will be watched like a criminal,instead of a hero. WE ALL NEED TO PRAY TO GOD TO DELIVER US FROM THIS EVIL,PRAY,PRAY FOR OUR COUNTRY,PRAY FOR OUR PEOPLE,PRAY FOR THE WORLD.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Wordsmith:

A semi-rhetorical question.

What would ZERO-Blanko do if he were in a situation where the needs of the country were clearly at odds with his narcissistic fantasies of what they should be?

A semi-rhetorical answer.

If he is unable to distinquish between the needs of his ego and the needs of the country, then his love is of himself and not the country.

So far he’s not shown me he’s capable of separating the two, and all indications are that when push comes to shove, his ego will always take precidence over America.

POINT, MATA

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mata:

There’s an ugly truth to absorb here. Venezula is a US trading partner for their oil. And unless the O admin is willing to replace our dependence upon Chavez with use of our oil, shale and natural gas fields, we’ll continue to be a trading partner.

I don’t like that we have to deal with Chavez at all. But I can understand meeting someone who contributes to the US energy lifeblood…. like them or not.

I’m going to have to put this one in the ugly-but-necessary column. Otherwise it’s rather disingenuous to complain about shaking hands wtih a US trading partner… scummy as they are.

All that said, it’s embarrassing to have a POTUS run around the world groveling and apologizing for our nation. And there in lies the “weak” view… not the handshake, the apologies.

Good thing that he’s an elected official, and not king. I daresay the US will survive, and recouperate from the Obama reign. We lived thru Carter… we’ll live thru the O. Just alot of teeth grinding inbetween.

I don’t have much with which to argue. Well stated.

What I don’t like is the talk about Obama being “anti-American” and/or “weak” with regard to criticism and apologies. It’s crystal clear to absolutely everyone in the world that he’s not criticizing America — he’s criticizing George W. Bush. This is congruent with the way the leaders of the world want to view things: it’s not that the USA is a bad country; it’s rather that the USA happened to (unwisely, in their view) elect a bad leader, who behaved in a very arrogant and self-serving manner.

Now, I understand entirely that Mata and virtually everyone else on this blog would categorically reject that characterization, but the point is that this is precisely the way that virtually the whole world sees things. It’s not an illusion that George W Bush’s international approval ratings were on the order of 10%. Obama wants to repair that; so he’s basically throwing President Bush under the bus, as opposed to remaining mute on Bush’s policies or defending Bush’s policies. You can call it scapegoating, but I think that most objective analysts would conclude that Obama’s actions have been constructive to the future international interests of the USA.

There’s a lot of sentiment here that Obama’s actions (e.g. “bowing” to the Saudi king, shaking the hand of Chavez) constitute “weakness,” and that somehow it is to the advantage of the USA to always appear to be “tough.” Recall, however, that Theodore Roosevelt’s advice was to “speak softly, but carry a big stick.” The world is very familiar with the size of the “stick” carried by the President of the USA. With this in mind, a little bit of soft speech goes a long way in international diplomacy.

Just as in the case of the economic situation, none of this is theoretical. We’ll all get to see how it plays out, over time.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach

Like or Dislike: 0  0

To Wordsmith:

Oh please don’t think my comment was directed at you. I was speaking in generalities about how conservatives think Obama meeting Chavez is such a bad thing. I’ve seen other photos posted on other conservative websites that make it seem like Obama and Chavez are best friends. That’s what I meant by the “gotcha” moments.

I also understand why you posted it.

Ron

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Ron #38:

Besides it not like past presidents haven’t done this before!

Ron, I agree with the substance of your comment. The photo in and of itself isn’t a big “gotcha”. But it’s published not to “be like the left”, but to mock them for all the times they’ve published Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. There is, of course, a big difference between the two meetings.

What I think is sad, however, is how much Obama seems to be over-extending his hand of friendship, going far above and beyond what he should. Let Chavez cross the room and come to him with smiles; call the book Chavez handed him for what it is….but of course Obama can’t and doesn’t and won’t, because he can’t help but be who he is at heart: a liberal with far left leanings and socialist instincts wrapped in centrist clothing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley #36:

But I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree that Obama has the US interests at heart.

Obama has successfully convinced me that his interests lie solely with elevating his own status in the world’s eyes. He’s an opportunist who attempts to be bolstered internationally by diminishing the US.

Actually, I see merit in both you and Cary’s outlook: I think Obama does have the best interest of the nation at heart, even if we don’t believe his policies will achieve the nation’s best interests. The thing is, I don’t feel he draws a distinction between his own ego and sense of self-importance (I really think all the hype surrounding his “ascendency” has gone to his head, and he’s “thinking big” and carving out his niche in the history books to be another “MLK/JFK” romanticized figure) and that of the nation’s interests. They are one and the same, as far as he is concerned.

I’d think that many of us believe that our personal values and beliefs are “good for the nation” and that the country and the world would be a much better place if only people thought more like we do, in terms of shared values and politics.

All his talk of unity and bipartisanship and “reaching across the aisle” and “governing from the center” is really about getting the country to unite around his values, his beliefs, his politics.

He’s already decided in his heart and mind that what transpired under the Bush Administration constitutes torture. There is no discussion, no gray area, no ambiguity, no nuances, no listening to the other side, no inquisitiveness.

Like or Dislike: 0  0