A perfect description of the Obama administration from Dick Cheney:
As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.
He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.
Why should he try to portray the United States as at war when he believes, as most leftists do, that our enemy has a valid reason to hate us and to make war on us?
You gotta love this paragraph towards the end of the article from Politico:
Foreshadowing the party’s strategy for next year’s midterm congressional elections, GOP officeholders have eschewed the customary partisan restraint following a terrorist incident, and have baldly portrayed Democrats as weak on security.
Really? So the Democrats showed “partisan restraint” against Bush after a terrorist incident?
Puhlease…
The arrests of the young men in Miami on terror related charges is the Bush regime’s most clumsy attempt yet to gin up the fear that has allowed them to pose as the protectors of the nation and the world since the collapse of the World Trade Towers.
See author page
I can see clearly why the Progressive Socialists vilified this man and hated him so much, while they lived in dread of his appearance on the public stage, and probably why Bush kept him muzzled: he is brilliant and not about to play footsie with a bunch of Marxists.
People like Cheney need to lead this country not a bunch of impotent appeasers that want to weaken us militarily and destroy our economy with vague plans of wealth redistribution for the rest of the word. Obama is an enemy of Freedom and of this country!
I don’t think GWB particularly muzzled Dick Cheney. It’s just that Mr. Cheney was filling the traditional role of all Vice Presidents. Let the #1 guy be front and center unless asked to perform to the contrary! But then some people always try to find a way to diss GWB no matter what!
I was reading the Politico comments earlier this morning. Whenever Cheney speaks it’s like throwing red meat to the lions. He manages to turn the O-bots into instant stupid every single time he opens his mouth.
A couple of weeks ago I read an article in the Canadian Free Press about Obama as weak, the journalist went on to say it was time for Obama to “Cheney-up” Loved it!
The Zero is hands down our worst President ever. I was expecting a little more of a competative battle with Carter, but he has just blown him right away. It would be amusing that he grades himself as a, “solid B+,” if he weren’t so absolutely dangerous for the country.
I really wish Cheney’s heart were healthier, as we really need him, or someone like him as POTUS.
Obama is pretending we are not at war.
How odd that the other side is at war against us, and promises more death.
Even odder that they are attacking our weakest link: air travel.
With the new restrictions, and the adamant refusal to profile, no one will be able to fly without Congressional authorization.
This will destroy many jobs and further harm the economy.
This is no longer a game; we will end up losing all of our civil rights and see Sharia law imposed upon us by a supine Administration.
How’s that hoax and chains working for you?
“How’s that hoax and chains working for you?”
I hope you don’t mind if I use that line?
John Fund was on FOX today suggesting that Obama was keeping the Yemeni stuff quiet because he didn’t want anything to interfere with the release of their detainees from GITMO.
Now the WH is firing back, wondering if they really believe what they say. Getting the impression that Obama’s 11 months has turned him into quite the war fighter, as opposed of course to that old “eyes of the ball” Bush and the evil Cheney. Why, that old Cheney is pointing fingers, wondering again…..does this administration really have a problem with pointing fingers? Are they serious?
Yeah, sure.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/30/white-house-takes-gop-critics-terror-plot-response/
Speaking of Yemen, looks like the manchild’s war fighten behavior has caused some al Qaeda recruitment over there, thought the lefties didn’t like stuff like that, guess we might want to keep that quiet while he’s trying to pretend we are not at war. Silly Cheney and the Obamabots, if only they really knew what is going on, Obowma teaming up with the Sauds and all.
Bet Yemen’s al Qaeda can hardly wait til those detainees are sprung. Whatever it costs us, that prison is going to close come hell or highwater.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/29/americas-drone-war-in-yemen-al-jazeeras-take/
Wait, wait, I’m confused. How does Obama’s 7% increase in the military budget, and 30,000 troop surge, fit into “Pretending we’re not at war” ???
Also, did you hear about what was going on in the Supreme Court with regard to prison rights while all of you were crying about Gitmo? I suppose that the liberal powers-that-be overshot: all they were aiming to do was whitewash mainstream progressivse , and they ended up whitewashing many Neo-Cons as well. Rather billiiant.
(See below for my thoughts on Cheney)
although I will say that Dick Cheney is deeply intelligent man. He not only understands the concepts of war in a way that Obama (or Bush) never will, but he is able to communicate them with devastating clarity, all the while wielding a politico mastermind. It would be very, very interesting to see this man as the Commander in Chief someday.
That increase to troop levels via the surge will expire in roughly 2 years time, it is clear (edit, sorry didn’t mean you) many people have not dealt with the history of warfare or even dealt with simulated warfare (aka games). This surger is treated more so as a security detail to beef local pro-American militas in the Afhgan reigon and less a major counter-insurgency force and will be withdrawn in a very short ammount of time. To detail the issue, after the fall of Nazi-Germany it took over two decades worth of counter-insurgence work by both American and Russian forces to finaly break any means of the Nazi party of taking root once again and forcing a new war. This is something not covered much in history books, and to this day both former Cold War enemies still have bases in or near Germany to this day. Obama’s plan is to withdraw all known presecene of American forces and bases in an area of conflict in a very short time period, to the forces that have declared war on the Americans this praticaly means that the enemy forces are fleeing in 2 years and all you have to do tacticaly is curtail troop movements and agendas for that long.
The enemy filed an 18 page declaration of war on the United States of America back in 1993, of which many Americans are totally ignorant to till this day and assume that Bush, Jr is the warmonger. This enemy is moraly and spirtualy ready to sacrafice everything they have, including their personal lives, to see the demise of the United States of America and failure to understand this point of view is extremely fatal. The current White House admistration and the House of Congress have refused to understand the hostile disposition the 18 page declaration holds, and thus why Obama is labeled as pretending we are not at war while the enemy still is.
Hitler and his fellow diplomats sat to French and British talks of, “Peace” when in reality Hitler’s Military forces were massing on the French border for Blitzkrieg. This use of appeasement by Hitler was able to give his invasion forces the time needed to prep while French politicans were blind to the attack. Modern day appeasement is giving the enemy just the same amount of breathing space with flakey diplomatic disucssions while the hostile forces mass and mobliize. Iran is doing just that during many, “peaceful” talks while their military and science divisions scramble to finalize nuclear weapons before Israel can pre-emptively halt those plans with force. Any person who thinks Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful uses only is a blind fool, given an allied nation to Iran just finished testing their own Nuclear weapon. This ally? North Korea. And both nations have not hidden their hatred and desire to damage and destroy United States of America and both nations have fiscal connections to funding radical milita cells to engage in harrassing tactics to distract their enemies.
The Taliban has already been seen as, “disappearing” from the Afhgan tribal areas after the West Point Speech detailing troop surge and standard deployed forces being withdrawn in a short ammount of time. Any time you know your enemy’s forces are to withdraw due to a decline of conflict with your forces over a set period of time, you will order your own forces to taticaly retreat and regroup and swear to a “peaceful” existance until that withdraw date is done with. This praticaly gives your forces the ablity to further train, equip, recruit, and even intergrate agents into the infrastructure of the new Government your enemy is trying to build in the area. To think the Taliban and Al Q are going to just sit down to peaceful talks and mean to be peaceful is a fool’s dream.
It isn’t politically correct for me to say this but, I’ve never been feted for being politically correct so here goes; We are not at war with Islamic terrorism, we are at war with Islam Unfortuanately too many of our leaders and our citizens need to learn more about the history of Islam and its expansion. Our current and past administrations have gone down the polictically correct and myopic road of ignoring history. Islam has been at war with the western world ever since they consolidated their hold on Arab lands in the 7th century.
What the 1st Ammendment does not say, is that we MUST allow the immigration of muslims or any member of a religious sect that has as a basic tenent of their published doctrine, the overthrow of our way of life, our government and the imposition of sharia law.
There is currently an Islamic population of around 2 million in the United States, these people should be allowed, as the constitution guarantees, the right to practice their religion without prohibition. There is however nothing in the Constitution that should bar us from banning the further emmigration of Muslims to this country. We only have to look to Europe, especially Denmark to see the potential ills of unfettered immigration of muslims. Denmark has a vocal Islamic population clamoring for the imposition of Sharia law. As their population as a percentage of the total population grows, so will their demands. When the Islamic population becomes large enough, as we have seen throughout history, we can expect armed rebellion.
Islam has used emmigration since their exodus to Mediana in 622 as a tactic to infiltrate an area and then overthrow it. When the muslim population is in the minority they are typically peacefull, it is when their populations grow strong enough that they become openly hostile and rebellious
Read your history…. don’t fall for Islamic lies. Their allah is not the God of Abraham. Do not fall for the polictically correct feces being fed to you by those that do not want to offend this segment of the population. We are at war with Islam, fundamentalist Islam.
One of the many things stressed in the Art of War is to understand your enemy’s culture and faith and to understand your nation’s. Our current Government has expressed the inablity to do just that.
@Mr. Irons
Interesting comments.
“Obama’s plan is to withdraw all known presecene of American forces and bases in an area of conflict in a very short time period…..?
While you’re correct, this “very short time period” will be just enough of a window for Obama to wrap up the privatization of American forces like he’s been doing so well. Don’t forget, he’s on somebody’s else’s schedule too.
@Donald Bly
” There is however nothing in the Constitution that should bar us from banning the further emmigration of Muslims to this country.”
I would support this, along with the required emigration of Christians.
Yes, he is. But even a Private Military Corporation(s) that will fill the void of the American forces/NATO forces won’t be healthy for American Defense intrests as this proxy army will rally netural peoples to join the enemy side domesticaly and internationaly. These companies are ruled by the same agenda that fuels any captialist business, the dollar. Political agendas could easily see these PMC’s paid to physicaly backstab the American people they were orginaly hired to protect via a higher priced contract to betray the orginal one.
Then isn’t it possible, Mr. Irons, that “American Defense” interests have not been high on the priority list of either Obomber or Bush’s administrations?
Have to agree there, but put in mind that the President’s powers related to warfare is restricted by the House of Congress due to the powers detailed in The Consitution. Squarely blaming only one branch of Government for Security/ Defense intrests is a cop-out. A lot of the many issues to Security stem right after the 2006 elections for House of Congress seats, but the major security issues and war issues stem back well over 40 years due to a blind eye to the true motives of the enemy we fight now. This is a problem to be placed on both major Political parties.
well that’s a good point. And at the risk of sounding of anti-American, I have to wonder why such is a system is worth defending in the first place.
@N. Ando
Forced emmigration of Christians would be in violation of the 1st Ammendment.
Are Christians persecuting you? Are Christians plotting to kill you? What’s your beef with Christians?
Have a little respect for the Constitution. No one is advocating for the forced emmigration of muslims.
It was worth defending when the Politicans were representing their voters at a National level. As of now, a large portion of Senators and Congressmen ridicule and disenfrancise their fellow Statesmen on many issues and policies that are creating an atmosphere on par with how attitudes were in the House of Congress piror to the Civil War. The system itself is worth defending, the American lives worth defending, the corruption and scandals wrecking this Nation is not. And the enemies of this Nation know we are in a situation of Political Meltdown and unrest and is a prime chance to cause massive chaos.
Donald, by what I was reading I think he ment only to allow Christain immigration into the Nation.
I have no problems with religions that don’t have the overthrow of our government or the death of those that do not believe as they do as a core doctrine.
My salvation is not dependent upon any other persons belief system. I just don’t want to die because of their beliefs.
You know, i was reading some old speeches. One came to mind, almost like R.R. was talking to us now. Here’s an excerpt:
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer–not an easy answer–but simple.
If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace–and you can have it in the next second–surrender. ~ Ronald Reagan
“Peace without victory; accommodation” He really is acting like if we avoid confrontation that our enemy will “learn to love us”
God i hate (sorry to be so direct) Liberal utopian-ism. It’s so steeped in fantasy. Its right up there with Scientology. Im almost praying Hilary to challenge him already and take over. (And thats saying alot considering i wanted him to beat her, figuring him an easy victory against McCain)
Dont mind me to much, hit the eggnog a bit hard tonight. 🙂 Happy Holidays friends.
Donald, I’m afraid that the refusing muslims citizenship might fall into the ” Liberal utopian-ism” that Cuss was talking about. Or rather, a “Conservative utopianism.” Although it really saddens me to use the term “Conservative” to refer to the religious-right, I don’t believe that they are.