Liberals Concerned Over Obama's Indecision
aggreen
Obama's Indecision
By Ken Blackwell
"Cost of indecision about Afghanistan is mounting." That's not a
headline in Human Events or some conservative blog. It's the title of
a column by the dean of liberal Washington pundits, David Broder. Even
David Broder is concerned about President Obama's failure to decide on
a proper course of action in what the president himself called "a war
of necessity."
Broder points to the drawn-out indecision as making the war on the
ground more dangerous. He believes that the American people and, most
significantly, America's allies, are being demoralized by what the
White House calls a process.
Our NATO allies joined us in Afghanistan because the U.S. had been
attacked by al-Qaeda. It was an acid test of the NATO alliance: For
the first time since 1949, NATO went to war. Can we afford this
extended failure to act?
What will become of NATO, the most successful example of Democratic
Party leadership? Let's not forget that it was Harry Truman and his
party who put NATO together. Ohio's "Mr. Republican," Sen. Bob Taft,
wanted no part of NATO. That's why Ike challenged Taft and beat him
for the 1952 Republican presidential nomination.
All of that is now at risk. Well, liberal Obama supporters say that
Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai is corrupt. Right. And have you heard that
Churchill drank too much? That's what opponents of a forceful U.S.
policy in World War II said in defending their indecision. The Karzai
regime is guilty of human rights abuses, liberals say. I wonder how
long the allies considered Joe Stalin's crimes before pledging aid to
"the Russian people."
After Hitler's unprovoked attack on the USSR on June 22, 1941,
Churchill responded with speed. "If Hitler invaded Hell," said the
Prime Minister, a lifelong anti-communist, "I would at least make
favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
Al-Qaeda did not invade hell; they invaded our homeland. We had the
full support of NATO in going after them where they lived --
Afghanistan. Even the French rushed to our side in pressing that war.
This is the war that candidate Obama accused George Bush of
neglecting. He charged that Bush "took his eye off the ball" to pursue
the destruction of Saddam Hussein. Well?
Now Obama seems unable to even find the ball. We should not be
surprised. In early 2008, candidate Obama produced a 52-second YouTube
video to send to the "Peace Caucus" attendees in Iowa.
You have only to google "52 seconds" and "Obama" and you can watch it.
Candidate Obama promises not to "weaponize space." He seems unaware
that ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads have been
traveling through space since 1957 -- four years before this youthful
and inexperienced candidate was born. He pledges "a world without
nuclear weapons." So did Reagan. But Reagan would make sure that the
U.S. possessed a nuclear shield -- his famous Strategic Defense
Initiative -- before lowering our nuclear sword.
Notice how this most fluent of speakers stumbles over the word
quadrennial. It means he's reading a script. No harm in that. Many
candidates do. But it also means he had not spent enough time in the
corridors of power even to recognize the word. QDR -- the quadrennial
defense review -- is a phrase as familiar to national security experts
as GDP -- gross domestic product -- is to budget analysts.
Obama was unprepared then. He's still unprepared. Harry Truman was
also a liberal Democrat thrust suddenly into the White House. But
Harry could make a decision. He put a sign on his desk: "The Buck
Stops Here." Obama should read that sign.
Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and a
former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/obamas_indecision.html
at November 21, 2009 - 08:59:42 PM EST
Alexander Arnakis
<aggr...@netscape.net> wrote:
>November 20, 2009
>Obama's Indecision
>By Ken Blackwell
>
>"Cost of indecision about Afghanistan is mounting."
Sure, even *I* am concerned about Obama's indecision (and not just
about Afghanistan). That doesn't mean that, at this point, I would
prefer any Republican to Obama.
aggreen
inv...@invalid.invalid says...
***Me, neither. The whole damn bunch now in D.C., on both side of the
aisle, should get thrown out!
AGGreen_2
> November 20, 2009
> Obama's Indecision
> By Ken Blackwell
>
***Ken Blackwell..... the Republicunt fucker who rigged the Ohio vote in
2004.
AGGreen_2
***Another constitutionally challenged Republicunt moron. Only 1/3 of
the Senate is up for re-election.
***Get a fucking education, teabagger.
Stephen Adams
Yeah, yeah. If Republicans win it's because they cheated. If Democrats
cheat, it's justified because they are the 'saviors of the world' and
nobody should object.
-Stephen
--
Stephen Adams
crathv...@tznvy.pbz (rot13)
AGG
> AGGreen_2 <AssClownO...@Al.net> writes:
>
> > On 11/21/2009 8:00 PM, aggreen wrote:
> >> November 20, 2009
> >> Obama's Indecision
> >> By Ken Blackwell
> > >
> >
> > ***Ken Blackwell..... the Republicunt fucker who rigged the Ohio
> > vote in 2004.
>
> Yeah, yeah. If Republicans win it's because they cheated. If
> Democrats cheat, it's justified because they are the 'saviors of the
> world' and nobody should object.
>
> -Stephen
***Such assinine statements kills the imposter's radical leftist
credibility! LOL!
--
AGG
> On 11/21/2009 9:31 PM, aggreen wrote:
> > In article<b88hg5tg1tkhm986n...@4ax.com>,
> > inv...@invalid.invalid says...
> > >
> > > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:00:42 -0800 (PST), aggreen
> >><aggr...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > November 20, 2009
> > > > Obama's Indecision
> > > > By Ken Blackwell
> > > >
> > > > "Cost of indecision about Afghanistan is mounting."
> > >
> > > Sure, even I am concerned about Obama's indecision (and not just
> > > about Afghanistan). That doesn't mean that, at this point, I would
> > > prefer any Republican to Obama.
> >
> >
> >
> > ***Me, neither. The whole damn bunch now in D.C., on both side of
> > the aisle, should get thrown out!
> >
> >
>
> ***Another constitutionally challenged Republicunt moron. Only 1/3 of
> the Senate is up for re-election.
>
> ***Get a fucking education, teabagger.
***Did I say they should be changed all at once? Try again, Democrap!
--
AGG
***Have you noticed that raqdical left Democrats cannot make their
point with factual arguments. Their only tactic is to make believe they
are someone else and resort to personal attacks. Most Democrats are so
lame...so sad...
--
v1_0
> In article <b88hg5tg1tkhm986n0kmbubuue9v6oe...@4ax.com>,
> inva...@invalid.invalid says...
That would make no difference so long as the political parties remain
as they are today. The key would be to reduce (or totally remove)
the ability of a political party to have its own money or to manage
the money of a candidate.
We are at the point where it is almost impossible for an independent
candidate to run for office - due to the amounts of money that each
party can bring to bear in a campain. This forces each candidate to
select one party or the other, and to submit to its will - if they do
not remain 'in good standing' then the party can quite simply give its
support, and more importantly money, to some other candidate.
It is true that PACs wield a lot of money as well - that too would
have to be addressed so as to not allow an undue influence. (I cannot
qualify 'undue' at this time. Just saying it is something to
consider).
Unfortunately, this is not in the interest in the political parties
and they are able to block any movements of this nature, at this
time. I suppose, if more people start to think about kicking both
parties out... then it may get to a point where something like this
works. There will only be a small window of opportunity to legislate
the change, before the next iteration of parties gets strong enough to
block things...
-V