Next Time, Vote for the American Guy. (BITTER TRUTH)

Warnings from the Right and Left

In wake of North Korean missile launch, Joe Lieberman and Sarah Palin hammer president on proposed missile defense cuts

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_R-l1iejog.../North+Korea+Missile+Launch+From+Space+AP.jpg
North Korean missile launch, as seen from space. (PHOTO: Associated Press)

Former President Ronald Reagan drastically stepped up defense spending, but did not want nuclear war. Instead, he wanted to achieve the same idyllic goals embraced by Barack Obama and liberal Democrats--world peace--but looked to do so in a feasible, realistic way that would render nuclear weapons and defense systems unneeded, rather than simply echo the unrealistic fantasies of tweed-clad academics and merely hope for the mutual eradication of all such weapons. Reagan moved toward making nuclear weapons obsolete by increasing the power and scope and strength of the American military, by investing in missile defense systems, by employing a proactive and confidence-inspiring attitude toward foreign policy, and by ensuring through a reduced tax burden and other fiscally conservative economic measures that we would be stronger on an individual level here at home.

Similarly, former President George W. Bush cut taxes to strengthen the American economy, increased intelligence and defense spending, adopted an aggressive foreign policy, and also made giant steps in terms of missile defense. He was derided for it, dismissed as a "cowboy" by traditionally white flag-waving European powers and called "stupid" by the political left in America. But at the end of the day, George W. Bush kept America safe.

President Barack Obama, however, is doing little more than inviting disaster in the name of political correctness and meaningless outward overseas perception, and with each hour he continues down his current path we move closer and closer to the day where America will learn, firsthand, just how dangerous the combination of arrogance and ignorance truly can be.


And people on both sides of the political aisle are taking notice, as in the past 48 hours both former Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman and conservative Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have come out staunchly against Barack Obama's planned cuts in missile defense spending.

First, when it comes to matters of foreign policy and national defense, I've always had a soft spot for Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Today, the former Democrat criticized President Barack Obama's planned cuts in missile defense systems and spending, saying that such cutbacks would endanger the United States and U.S. interests, and could lead to the perception that America cannot be depended upon by her allies. In a letter penned by Lieberman to President Obama, he wrote that our cooperation on missile defense systems "is now a critical component of many of our closest security partnerships around the world," and expressed worries that cuts to missile defense spending and defense spending in general "could inadvertently undermine these relationships and foster the impression that the United States is an unreliable ally."


Poland stuck its neck out in support of former President George W. Bush and his missile shield, only to watch as the new American president suspended the plans after Poland's intent was already conveyed to Russia and to the rest of the world. High and dry, Barack Obama left Poland, for no reason other than to perpetuate his idyllic worldview of a planet free from nuclear weapons--and, presumably, free from all evil, poverty, death, destruction, and capitalism--regardless of the consequences.

Secondly, even though it was a single comment from Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey which set the tone for much of the derisiveness toward Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin during last year's presidential direction, Fey's refrain of "and I can see Russia from my house" underscores much of why Palin is in a unique position to discuss missile defense.

In fact, Palin is charged with command over the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard, the only National Guard unit on permanent active duty, and because of her proximity to Russia--thank you, Tina Fey--and to North Korea is privy to matters of national defense and security which other governors and legislators may not necessarily be exposed to.

Such a unique position as Alaskan governor should have added weight to a press release offered yesterday by the governor's office in Juneau which the mainstream press, hesitant to offer anything which could even slightly portray Palin as competent, seemed to inexplicably overlook. From the release:

"I am deeply concerned with North Korea’s development and testing program which has clear potential of impacting Alaska, a sovereign state of the United States, with a potentially nuclear armed warhead,” Governor Palin said. “I can’t emphasize enough how important it is that we continue to develop and perfect the global missile defense network. Alaska’s strategic location and the system in place here have proven invaluable in defending the nation."


Governor Palin stressed the importance of Fort Greely and the need for continued funding for the Missile Defense Agency. The governor is firmly against U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ proposed $1.4 billion reduction of the Missile Defense Agency. Greely’s isolated location in Alaska as well as its strategic location in the Pacific allows for maximum security and development of the country’s only ground-based missile defense complex.

"Our early opposition to reduced funding for the Missile Defense Agency is proving to be well-founded during this turbulent time,” Governor Palin said. “I continue to support the development and implementation of a defensive missile shield based in Alaska. We are strategically placed to defend the critical assets of the United States and our allies in the Pacific Theater."



Anybody who is surprised by Barack Obama's funding priorities--for example, pulling $1.4 billion from missile defense but gladly offering more than $5 billion to organizations like ACORN--should be given a strict talking-to for the failure and refusal to pay attention during last year's election, where his disdain for all things military was discussed by a wide variety of fair or right-leaning media outlets, including here at America's Right.

On May 21, 2008 for example, I wrote that Obama's "laissez-faire attitude toward the Global War on Terror and national security, combined with his twisted, suicidal faith in the hearts and consciences of some of the most evil men in the world, should worry every American who values their freedom -- not to mention their head." With that sentiment, I included a short video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sj91NH5fvw&feature=related


To say that Obama's movements toward American disarmament--with regard to missile defense as well as the shelving of the F-22 fighter jet--were somehow surprising is to ignore everything that we have learned about Barack Obama, even what we have learned from Barack Obama himself.

In the meantime, I continue to find it amazing how, on so many issues, former president George W. Bush still remains the preferred scapegoat among blame-shifters small and large on the American political left, even months after the election of the liberal Messiah. I'll tell you what, though -- Bush may not have been able to properly pronounce the word "nuclear," but at least he understood that word's geopolitical importance and the threat such weapons could present.

And between you and me, I'd rather have an American president who mispronounces "nuke-u-lar" than an ignorant, idyllic, naive Neville Chamberlain type whose bedside Webster's Dictionary in the White House residence is perpetually open to "detente."


Jeff Schreiber, America's Right
 
'Divorced From Reality'

Fantastic. A must read commentary in today's Wall Street Journal. Here we have an American president who was able to assume office because words meant nothing, arguing that when dealing with the threat of atomic terrorism, "words must mean something."

Where does the idealism on the left end?

Just as the dirty crack addict on the street will not break his addiction regardless of whether you give him a dime or a twenty, terrorists around the globe will not simply ignore their blind and bred hatred of the Infidel because the American president declares America to not be at war with Islam.

Even if it did matter--it doesn't--no amount of pandering or America-bashing will convince those who dream of sawing off American and Israeli heads to somehow change course and ask us to the next dance.

So the detente-at-all-costs approach to foreign policy continues.
And the Wall Street Journal editors absolutely eviscerate the president for it.




The Nuclear Illusionist

Obama's 'moral authority' won't deter Tehran or Pyongyang.



"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."

So declared President Obama Sunday in Prague regarding North Korea's missile launch, which America's U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice added was a direct violation of U.N. resolutions. At which point, the Security Council spent hours debating its nonresponse, thus proving to nuclear proliferators everywhere that rules aren't binding, violations won't be punished, and words of warning mean nothing.


Rarely has a Presidential speech been so immediately and transparently divorced from reality as Mr. Obama's in Prague. The President delivered a stirring call to banish nuclear weapons at the very moment that North Korea and Iran are bidding to trigger the greatest proliferation breakout in the nuclear age. Mr. Obama also proposed an elaborate new arms-control regime to reduce nuclear weapons, even as both Pyongyang and Tehran are proving that the world's great powers lack the will to enforce current arms-control treaties.


There's no doubting the emotive appeal of Mr. Obama's grand no-nukes vision. Ronald Reagan shared a similar hope, and in recent years these pages have run a pair of news-making essays by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn positing such a diplomatic goal. They probably gave Mr. Obama the idea. But the Gipper understood the practical limits of arms control in delivering such a world, and Messrs. Shultz and Kissinger are hard-headed enough to know that global rogues must be contained if we are going to have any hope of a nuclear-free future.


Mr. Obama recognized this rogue proliferation threat in his Prague address, but to counter it he offered only more treaties of the kind that are already ignored. OK, not merely more treaties. Two days earlier in Strasbourg he also vouchsafed the power of his own moral example.


"And I had an excellent meeting with President Medvedev of Russia to get started that process of reducing our nuclear stockpiles, which will then give us a greater moral authority to say to Iran, don't develop a nuclear weapon; to say to North Korea, don't proliferate nuclear weapons," Mr. Obama said, implying that previous American Presidents had lacked such "authority."


The President went even further in Prague, noting that "as a nuclear power -- as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon -- the United States has a moral responsibility to act." That barely concealed apology for Hiroshima is an insult to the memory of Harry Truman, who saved a million lives by ending World War II without a bloody invasion of Japan. As for the persuasive power of "moral authority," we should have learned long ago that the concept has no meaning in Pyongyang or Tehran, much less in the rocky hideouts of al Qaeda.


The truth is that Mr. Obama's nuclear vision has reality exactly backward.
To the extent that the U.S. has maintained a large and credible nuclear arsenal, it has prevented war, defeated the Soviet Union, shored up our alliances and created an umbrella that persuaded other nations that they don't need a bomb to defend themselves.


The most dangerous proliferation in the last 50 years has come outside the U.S. umbrella on the South Asian subcontinent, where India and Pakistan want to deter each other. No treaty stopped A.Q. Khan. Meanwhile, the world's most conspicuous antiproliferation victories in recent decades were the Israeli strike against Saddam Hussein's nuclear plant at Osirak, and the U.S. toppling of Saddam and the way it impressed Libya's Moammar Ghadafi.


All of which means that any serious effort at nonproliferation has to begin with North Korea and Iran. They are the urgent threat to nuclear peace, the focus of years of great-power diplomacy and sanctions. U.N. resolutions have formally barred both countries from developing an atomic bomb and the missiles to deliver them. If Iran acquires a bomb or North Korea retains one despite this attempt to stop them, then the world will conclude that there is no such thing as an enforceable antinuclear order. It will be every nation for itself.


In the Middle East, a Shiite bomb will send the region's Arab nations scurrying to Pakistan to get a Sunni weapon. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and perhaps even Iraq will be in the market for a deterrent. The Turks -- long a power in the region but wondering if NATO membership is enough protection -- will also seek to join the nuclear club. Meanwhile, Japan will increasingly wonder if Americans would really risk an attack on themselves in order to protect Tokyo. The nightmare imagined by strategists at the dawn of the atomic age in the 1950s, with every major nation getting the bomb, will be that much closer.


Mr. Obama is a brilliant talker, and his words thrilled a Europe that wants to believe he can conjure peace and a nuclear-free world. But note well how little the Europeans answered the President's call for more troops in Afghanistan, much less any help in stopping a nuclear Iran. Mr. Obama is offering pleasant illusions, while mullahs and other rogues plot explosive reality.

The Wall Street Journal
 
The real problem with the recent election was the voters had no good choice for president.

So we are stuck with what we have and really "good candidates" will not run for election until the turmoil in the world calms down.

That is the bitter truth of this whole mess we are in. :cool:

Obama is a show off, a grand stander! His purpose was personal power and prestige. His agenda has not been for us it's been for his ego.

Dude: News Flash......Election is over......Quit crying!.....Get over it, put away the sheet.....a half black man is in the white house - the most powerful man in da world!....get over it....or move to: oh! that's right, there's nowhere for racist zeros anymore......
Dude! You need some ink!
 
The real problem with the recent election was the voters had no good choice for president.

So we are stuck with what we have and really "good candidates" will not run for election until the turmoil in the world calms down.

That is the bitter truth of this whole mess we are in. :cool:

Obama is a show off, a grand stander! His purpose was personal power and prestige. His agenda has not been for us it's been for his ego.

So Bob Barr, Ron Paul , Romney, Fooliani, Huckelberry, were not good choices?

If their message didn't suck so bad they may have been contenders. But then again that is also your message.
 
Warnings from the Right and Left

In wake of North Korean missile launch, Joe Lieberman and Sarah Palin hammer president on proposed missile defense cuts

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_R-l1iejog.../North+Korea+Missile+Launch+From+Space+AP.jpg
North Korean missile launch, as seen from space. (PHOTO: Associated Press)

Former President Ronald Reagan drastically stepped up defense spending, but did not want nuclear war. Instead, he wanted to achieve the same idyllic goals embraced by Barack Obama and liberal Democrats--world peace--but looked to do so in a feasible, realistic way that would render nuclear weapons and defense systems unneeded, rather than simply echo the unrealistic fantasies of tweed-clad academics and merely hope for the mutual eradication of all such weapons. Reagan moved toward making nuclear weapons obsolete by increasing the power and scope and strength of the American military, by investing in missile defense systems, by employing a proactive and confidence-inspiring attitude toward foreign policy, and by ensuring through a reduced tax burden and other fiscally conservative economic measures that we would be stronger on an individual level here at home.

Similarly, former President George W. Bush cut taxes to strengthen the American economy, increased intelligence and defense spending, adopted an aggressive foreign policy, and also made giant steps in terms of missile defense. He was derided for it, dismissed as a "cowboy" by traditionally white flag-waving European powers and called "stupid" by the political left in America. But at the end of the day, George W. Bush kept America safe.

President Barack Obama, however, is doing little more than inviting disaster in the name of political correctness and meaningless outward overseas perception, and with each hour he continues down his current path we move closer and closer to the day where America will learn, firsthand, just how dangerous the combination of arrogance and ignorance truly can be.


And people on both sides of the political aisle are taking notice, as in the past 48 hours both former Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman and conservative Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have come out staunchly against Barack Obama's planned cuts in missile defense spending.

First, when it comes to matters of foreign policy and national defense, I've always had a soft spot for Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Today, the former Democrat criticized President Barack Obama's planned cuts in missile defense systems and spending, saying that such cutbacks would endanger the United States and U.S. interests, and could lead to the perception that America cannot be depended upon by her allies. In a letter penned by Lieberman to President Obama, he wrote that our cooperation on missile defense systems "is now a critical component of many of our closest security partnerships around the world," and expressed worries that cuts to missile defense spending and defense spending in general "could inadvertently undermine these relationships and foster the impression that the United States is an unreliable ally."


Poland stuck its neck out in support of former President George W. Bush and his missile shield, only to watch as the new American president suspended the plans after Poland's intent was already conveyed to Russia and to the rest of the world. High and dry, Barack Obama left Poland, for no reason other than to perpetuate his idyllic worldview of a planet free from nuclear weapons--and, presumably, free from all evil, poverty, death, destruction, and capitalism--regardless of the consequences.

Secondly, even though it was a single comment from Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey which set the tone for much of the derisiveness toward Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin during last year's presidential direction, Fey's refrain of "and I can see Russia from my house" underscores much of why Palin is in a unique position to discuss missile defense.

In fact, Palin is charged with command over the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard, the only National Guard unit on permanent active duty, and because of her proximity to Russia--thank you, Tina Fey--and to North Korea is privy to matters of national defense and security which other governors and legislators may not necessarily be exposed to.

Such a unique position as Alaskan governor should have added weight to a press release offered yesterday by the governor's office in Juneau which the mainstream press, hesitant to offer anything which could even slightly portray Palin as competent, seemed to inexplicably overlook. From the release:

"I am deeply concerned with North Korea’s development and testing program which has clear potential of impacting Alaska, a sovereign state of the United States, with a potentially nuclear armed warhead,” Governor Palin said. “I can’t emphasize enough how important it is that we continue to develop and perfect the global missile defense network. Alaska’s strategic location and the system in place here have proven invaluable in defending the nation."


Governor Palin stressed the importance of Fort Greely and the need for continued funding for the Missile Defense Agency. The governor is firmly against U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ proposed $1.4 billion reduction of the Missile Defense Agency. Greely’s isolated location in Alaska as well as its strategic location in the Pacific allows for maximum security and development of the country’s only ground-based missile defense complex.

"Our early opposition to reduced funding for the Missile Defense Agency is proving to be well-founded during this turbulent time,” Governor Palin said. “I continue to support the development and implementation of a defensive missile shield based in Alaska. We are strategically placed to defend the critical assets of the United States and our allies in the Pacific Theater."



Anybody who is surprised by Barack Obama's funding priorities--for example, pulling $1.4 billion from missile defense but gladly offering more than $5 billion to organizations like ACORN--should be given a strict talking-to for the failure and refusal to pay attention during last year's election, where his disdain for all things military was discussed by a wide variety of fair or right-leaning media outlets, including here at America's Right.

On May 21, 2008 for example, I wrote that Obama's "laissez-faire attitude toward the Global War on Terror and national security, combined with his twisted, suicidal faith in the hearts and consciences of some of the most evil men in the world, should worry every American who values their freedom -- not to mention their head." With that sentiment, I included a short video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sj91NH5fvw&feature=related


To say that Obama's movements toward American disarmament--with regard to missile defense as well as the shelving of the F-22 fighter jet--were somehow surprising is to ignore everything that we have learned about Barack Obama, even what we have learned from Barack Obama himself.

In the meantime, I continue to find it amazing how, on so many issues, former president George W. Bush still remains the preferred scapegoat among blame-shifters small and large on the American political left, even months after the election of the liberal Messiah. I'll tell you what, though -- Bush may not have been able to properly pronounce the word "nuclear," but at least he understood that word's geopolitical importance and the threat such weapons could present.

And between you and me, I'd rather have an American president who mispronounces "nuke-u-lar" than an ignorant, idyllic, naive Neville Chamberlain type whose bedside Webster's Dictionary in the White House residence is perpetually open to "detente."


Jeff Schreiber, America's Right

Go stick your head back up your ass, I ment in the sand, same difference.

you are irrelevent as BusyBitch.
 
Basically Obama got 10 million more votes than McCain from a country that has 303 million people.

Do the math :)

Millions did not vote.

So refresh my memory, How many did Bob Barr get, I think Nader beat him?
and the ultra right were calling Barr a liberal. Maybe he should Pair up with Palin next time, see if they could possibly loose by more. *snicker*
 
Obama is a show off, a grand stander! His purpose was personal power and prestige. His agenda has not been for us it's been for his ego.

"Amid evidence of a surge of populism in response to abuses on Wall Street, respondents said by more than two to one that Democrats cared more about the needs of people like themselves than Republicans did. Seventy-one percent of Americans said Mr. Obama cared more about the interests of ordinary people than about large corporations."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/us/politics/07poll.html?_r=2&ref=politics
 
:rolleyes: Joe Lieberman is not "from the Left."

Lieberman is "from the left" as occasionally as McCain is "from the right".


The_Trouvere said:
"Amid evidence of a surge of populism in response to abuses on Wall Street, respondents said by more than two to one that Democrats cared more about the needs of people like themselves than Republicans did. Seventy-one percent of Americans said Mr. Obama cared more about the interests of ordinary people than about large corporations."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/us/politics/07poll.html?_r=2&ref=politics


Yes, Obamamedia would think that.

New York Times Killed Stories of Obama’s Links to Vote Fraud/ACORN During Campaign because it was a “game changer” for the election and might hurt Obama’s campaign.

The New York Times is a not an impartial observer of the political scene.
Rather it is a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.
 
MeeMie said:
In wake of North Korean missile launch, Joe Lieberman and Sarah Palin hammer president on proposed missile defense cuts

Who me? Nervous?
 
New York Times Killed Stories of Obama’s Links to Vote Fraud/ACORN During Campaign because it was a “game changer” for the election and might hurt Obama’s campaign.

An assertion like that requires a link to a reputable source.
 
Meemie's c&p report neglects to mention that Alaska has the last remaining ground-based missile defense system. They have become obsolete.

"Alaska’s strategic location and the system in place here have proven invaluable in defending the nation." Past tense, sure. Not needed any more.

Oh, and that bit about Bush's strategic savvy? "Bring 'em on."
 
Meemie's c&p report neglects to mention that Alaska has the last remaining ground-based missile defense system. They have become obsolete.

"Alaska’s strategic location and the system in place here have proven invaluable in defending the nation." Past tense, sure. Not needed any more.




You have a reading comprehension problem.

The direct quote from Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin is pointing out the importance for a missile defense system, contrary to Obama's belief that it is not needed.

It has been, and should be maintained and developed as, an important resource in our national defense system.

That was the whole point of both articles posted at the top of this page.



As for your remarks about President Bush, "get over it".
 
You have a reading comprehension problem.

The direct quote from Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin is pointing out the importance for a missile defense system, contrary to Obama's belief that it is not needed.

It has been, and should be maintained and developed as, an important resource in our national defense system.

That was the whole point of both articles posted at the top of this page.



As for your remarks about President Bush, "get over it".
Do a little research. Missiles have improved and they don't need to live in silos any more. In fact, silos are vulnerable and wasteful.
 
Do a little research. Missiles have improved and they don't need to live in silos any more. In fact, silos are vulnerable and wasteful.



Palin's quote doesn't make any mention of silos.

“I continue to support the development and implementation of a defensive missile shield based in Alaska. We are strategically placed to defend the critical assets of the United States and our allies in the Pacific Theater."

She is advocating for the development in that particular location.

You are the one limiting it to old technology - not she.
 
Palin's quote doesn't make any mention of silos.

“I continue to support the development and implementation of a defensive missile shield based in Alaska. We are strategically placed to defend the critical assets of the United States and our allies in the Pacific Theater."

She is advocating for the development in that particular location.

You are the one limiting it to old technology - not she.
"Governor Palin stressed the importance of Fort Greely and the need for continued funding for the Missile Defense Agency. The governor is firmly against U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ proposed $1.4 billion reduction of the Missile Defense Agency. Greely’s isolated location in Alaska as well as its strategic location in the Pacific allows for maximum security and development of the country’s only ground-based missile defense complex."

That means silos.
 
You are quite the naive little toady aren't you? Your posts always bring to mind the specter of a tonsured monk, out of touch with the world, perusing by candle light a collection of dusty tomes full of old information. :rolleyes:

:confused: Because he posted a New York Times story about a public-opinion poll released this week?! Who's out of touch here, vetteman?
 
The New York Times is completely politicized and not a credible source.

:confused: There is no more credible daily newspaper in the U.S. You must be thinking of the New York Post.

In America we have mainstream media outlets (mostly credible), and RW media outlets (rarely credible), and that's all. There is no LW analogue to Fox News or the NY Post. The LW press is mostly limited to overtly political magazines and radio shows.

All of which you know perfectly well, vetteman.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top