Archive | October, 2009

Irresponsible delay in additional troop commitment to Afghanistan; or, the abysmal US foreign policy:

29 Oct

October 29, 2009

While the Obama Administration is “mulling over,” a decision regarding sending additional troops to Afghanistan, a decision that actions on the ground already determined, the Taliban is getting stronger, and the “democracy” in Afghanistan is being destroyed.

It is good that President Obama takes his time and undergoes serious deliberations before sending more troops into harm’s-way, but taking months, not weeks, is not only a sign of weakness, it is a sign that the President is trying to please the liberal part of the Democratic party at the expense of our troops on the ground, and at the expense of good logical thinking.

Procrastinating regarding troop deployment to Afghanistan in the face of strong attempts by the commanders on the ground to get the additional personnel, is not a responsible posture by a Commander-in-Chief. This is particularly irresponsible when the Commander-in-Chief is a young, inexperienced person, a man with little knowledge of either international politics, or of military matters.  

Barak Obama has no other option but to send a large number of troops to Afghanistan, or the United States would join the USSR in demonstrating that there are really no super-powers who can stand up to injustice in our world. Not sending additional troops to Afghanistan would boast Al Qaeda, and make what the United States Administration calls “radical Islam” become a major player in determining international behavior.

It is time to move, Mr. President. Time is running out while “Afghanistan is burning,” and with it the prestige of the United States. It is time to move, time to move with an overwhelming force, a force large enough to win, and to liberate the Afghan people from tyranny, and the rest of the world from a growing threat of Al Qaeda and “radical Islam,” growing influence. 

Tel-Aviv, Israel October 16, 2009


Hillary Clinton Russia visit after Obama agreed to scrap the [Eastern] Europe missile defense shield, served as another reminder that the American Secretary of State, and her boss, America’s President Obama, are quite inept at dealing with international issues. Betraying European allies by giving up the European missile defense initiative as a carrot to Russia, backfired, as were most of Obama’s overtures towards the Islamic World. Russia, and for that matter China, are not only rejecting the Obama Administration additional sanctions on Iran, these two developing international power-houses may aid Ahmadinejad in his quest for getting enriched Uranium, and perhaps even the bomb itself. The United States seats on the sideline while Iran is mocking the US President, and vowing to destroy Israel, the United States only dependable Middle East. Scrapping the missile incentive at the cost of European allies security, and letting Iran enhance its military strength so that it can indeed be a threat to Israel, are but two of many examples of how Barak Hussein Obama is willing to sacrifice allies for what must appears to him, as a personal benefit. The matter of lacking loyalties to allies is bad enough, but sacrificing allies and getting no returns, is another. Scrapping the missile shield did not bring Russia closer to the United States any more than did Obama’s Cairo speech apologizing to the Islamic world for US past behavior, cause the Islamic World to come closer to the United States. With all its flaws, the United States was always known as a loyal and dependable ally to its friends. In short few months the Obama Administration dispelled that notion; what a shame! Even George W. Bush whose methods in dealing with terror, and with the American civil rights, were questioned, was trusted by United States allies. Allies may have not always agreed with President Bush, and some considered him a bully, the younger President Bush was a dependable ally to United States friends. President Obama lack of loyalties, and adherence to commitments, can only be compared to Jimmy Carter’s who, by many accounts, with George W. Bush, and now perhaps with President Obama, is likely to have been the CO-worst President in the United States. The International Community is sending signals that suggest displeasure with Obama’s Administration. The rejection of the United States and Obama’s personal efforts to bring the Olympics to the United States, the French announcement that no more of its troops will be committed to Afghanistan, the fact that only 4% of Israeli Jews consider Obama an ally, and the Abbas refusal to follow United States lead in the Middle East peace effort, are but a few examples. Present Obama policies are reducing the United States role as a world leader, while allowing Russia, the European Union, and China to gain momentum in the way of becoming superpowers. There is little, or no doubt that Barak Obama, as a person, is internationally much more popular than was George W. Bush. Obama’s charisma, and speaking abilities, cannot be question. That not withstanding, Obama’s character, loyalties, and policies are eroding his earlier gains of support from the International Community, and as the President’s image goes, so does the image of the United States. There may be still hope that Obama may review his record and decide to return to being an international honest-broker. Time, however, is short, and Obama must act or lose his, and the credibility of the United States as the world leader

Limbaugh’s, versus the factual, truths

26 Oct

Rush Limbaugh often speaks about how his facts are checked to be 90+% acurate…how much of that is interpertation, or manipulation, only “the” Rush really knows!

Very recently Rush Limbaugh was dooped by a satirical blog about a bit of Obama’s work that was critical of the Constitution. When, while still broadcasting, Limbaugh was told about his arror, “the” Rush did not apologize, but rather stated that in his opinion, President Obama actually believes what was attributed to him in the mock article.  Because of that belief, he, “the great Limbaugh,” stated that it was not wrong for him to report as factual a story that did not exist; but that he, Limbaugh, believes President Obama embraces.

Rush Limbaugh is a dangerous man because he seems to believe that his truths are more true than are actual truths. This fact makes the existance of Limbaugh a threat to [American] civilization since he seems to have great and loyal following that accept his words as gospel.

Limbaugh is not, as advertised, a spokes person for conservatism, he rather seems to anchor the political right of conservatism, and does so based on his own views, even as they require that he manufacture “facts” for supporting these views…

In spite of the fact that Rush Limbaugh is, at times, a loose cannon, the “Rush” often appears to be quite an intelligent person, a man with some valuable insights. Limbaugh has his thirty-five “Undeniable Truths,” many of which are obsolete since the USSR is gone, some are credible, but some are off-the-wall.  Some of Limbaugh “Truths,” include, those presented in 1988:

  • Peace does not mean the absence of war
  • War is not obsolete
  • There is only one way to get rid of nuclear weapons -use them.
  • The peace movement in the US, whether by accident, or desiign, is pro-communist
  • Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society
  • There is a God
  • The US will again go to war
  • To more and more people, a victorious US, is a sinful US
  • This is frightening and Ominous
  • There will always be poor people
  • This is not the fault of the rich
  • You should thank God for making you an American; and instead of feeling guilty about it, help spreading our ideas worldwide.

The following “updated” list was read on Limbaugh’s radio show in 1994, making a number of items from his 1988 obsolete. Seven items about the USSR that were removed could, for example, apply to present day’s Russia, other overlap, and a few other are new. Following are select number of Limbaugh’s “Truths,” for the reader to decide how true, the Limbaugh’s “Truths” are:

  • There is a distinct singular American culture – rugged individualism and self-reliance – which made America great.
  • The Earth’s eco-system is not fragile.
  • Character matters; leadership decends from character
  • I AM NOT ARROGANT [Capitals by this author]
  • My first Undeniable Truths are still undeniably true
  • Follow the money. When somebody says, “It’s not the money,” it’s always the money.
  • Liberals measure compassion byhow many people are given welfare.
  • Conservatives measure compassion by how many people no longer need it.

The selected group of Limbaughs truths chosen above, is but a sample of how Mr. Limbaugh can have positive insights, on one hand, and without pause moves on to ridiculous views that are based entirely on his own thruths, truths that have little, or no, basis in fact.

US plans may unwittingly determine the ultimate timetable for Israel/Iran actual interaction!

21 Oct

The Iran Revolutionary Guard, and Israel’s military, are each making plans to reduce each other’s ability to cause serious damage to the other. The fact that United States influence on either the two participants, due mostly to other external forces, is largely diminished, may put the US in the role an unwitting catalyst that could be the determining factor of when, and if, an actual conflict will occur. 

Not withstanding Obam’s Islamic sympathies, Iran knows that as long as the United States controls Iraq’s airspace, a preemptive strike on Israel would be difficult, if not impossible. Since the most direct route from Iran to Israel is a flyover Iraq, other options may not be too enticing. The Iranians also know that Iraq’s government will not be an obstacle to its (Iran’s) flying over Iraqi territory, and that neither Jordan, nor Syria would get in its way.

Based on the above, United States relinquishing of Iraq air space control would be instrumental in any Iranian plan to strike Israel, before Israel acts to take out its (Iran’s) nuclear facilities.

Israel, on the other hand, a country that cannot allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, also realizes that flying over Iraq would be much more difficult when the Iraqi government takes control of its own airspace. Israel’s option is to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities via missiles with nuclear heads from submarines in the gulf (which Mubarak already sent segnals that he is not likely to resist,) and by flying over Iraq using its airpower and nuclear arsenal. The United States may, after all, be the determining factor behind a strike date for Israel, it may unwittingly do so by setting the date it intends to let Iraq take over control of its own airspace.

Because neither Iran, nor Israel is ready to blink, a military confrontation could well become a reality. The date for such confrontation will, however, be likely determined by the United States even without its direct involvement.

Since neither the Russians, the Chinese, or the North Koreans, seem to wish that Iran’s nuclear development be curtailed, when a date positive is set for United States handing over airspace control to Iraq, a date for Israel to strike Iran may be also established.

Fox News versus the Obama Administration: A contest of losers?

19 Oct

Fox News is an entertainment channel, and as such gets a very large audience. If one was to view the channel as a serious news and political source of information, one would surly be disappointed!

Some of Fox News experts, such as Rove (who lost the 2004 election for the GOP) and Morse (who Clinton kicked out in disgrace) are proven losers. Some, like Glenn Beck, are shameless actors who play on audience sympathies, rather than to deal with facts. Fox does have a few more serious reporters, people like Bill O’Reilly, with whom I more often than not, disagree, but who seems sincere in his effort. On balance, however, the Fox News outlet is either a sham news, or simply a marginal entertainment, network.

The Obama Administration, on the other hand, is no great performer as the governing entity of these United States. With impunity, the Obama Administration turns its back on allies (such as Eastern Europe, and Israel,) and makes a fool of itself in trying to engage the country’s  foes.

With the largest national debt in history, Mid East process in shambles, budding Irans missile and nuke programs, North Korea, the European misseile defense, the Obama’s Administration performance is as abysmal as the Fox News channel at doing what they are supposed to do.

So far, in near eleven months of the present Administration, the Obama and Fox teams appeared tied for worst at what they do

Michelle Obama as a Presidential candidate:

17 Oct

If United States Presidential elections were to be held tomorrow, a candidate Michelle Obama, regardless of past faux pas, would likely be a winner by a landslide.

And, if Barak Obama becomes a two term President ready to leave office without too many catastrophes; in 2012 a Michelle Obama candidacy may not be a laughable matter.

A Michelle Obama candidate will not get the 27% to 28% die-in-the-wool Republicans, including the religious right, most rednecks, and the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn back followers; BUT:

A Michelle Obama candidate would likely get

  • 90% Of African American votes
  • 70% or more women votes who don’t fall into the above category
  • 50% +  of die-in-the-wool white male Democrats
  • 60% + of independents who do not fall into any of the above   categories

No wonder Hillary Clinton states unequivocally that she will not make another Presidential run; Michelle Obama would make Hillary look foolish if she tried to compete.

Just think: The lady who did not like America, or was not proud to be an American, until her husband became the formal Democratic Presidential candidate; becoming the first woman, and first full blooded African American President of these United States! 

Pat Goor says: The road is paved with good intentions; why did Obama win the Nobel Prize?

11 Oct

When I was growing up my mother used to say when I did not live up to promises I made: “The road is paved with good intentions.”

I never received a Nobel Peace Prize for my good intentions; enough said?

The “virtual” Obama wins again! When will the “real” Obama emerge?

11 Oct

The only way Barak Hussein Obama could have made Man of the Year, and be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, is if the selection committees went on what we all wish Obama was (the virtual man) and not based on what he has proven to be, or on what little he has accomplished to date.

Nearly ten months into office and nothing but promises. Guantanamo closing is delayed, as is the return of troops home. Gays in the Military are still under don’t ask don’t tell, and the international community is at a loss to understand what Obama will actually do.

When the real Obama did act he managed to lose the Olympics to Brazil, he is not winning in Afghanistan, and he has increased the US debt beyond anyone’s wildest imagination

It is time for the virtual Obama to be put to bed, and for the real Obama, whoever he may be, to emerge. Times are hard, and a real leader and doer is needed, will the real Obama be able to fill that void?

Obama, the Nobel [Peace Prize] “Sham!”

10 Oct

While Barak Hussein Obama is contemplating sending 40,000 (and likely eventually more,) troops into Afghanistan, a part of the Islamic World, the Nobel Prize Committee consider him the most important peacemaker in today world, what a sham!

Since Obama’s overtures towards the Islamic World appear to have played a key role in the Nobel selection, one must wonder what is the real motive behind Obama’s selection?

Delaying the closure of Guantanamo (with mostly Muslim inmates,) more troops to Afghanistan, and a slow withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, do not make Obama appear one who is reaching to Islam. Only Obama’s treatment of Israel versus the Palestinians makes the US President appear pro-Islam. But, is Obama pro-Islam due to birthrights, a dislike of Israel, and the desire for access to Islamic controlled oil, or are his motives the legitimate desire for peace? One must wonder!

Too many things point to a grossly flawed selection of Obama as the Prince of Peace. The Nobel selection was a sham!

More troops to Afghanistan versus Nobel Peace Prize: An oxymoron! Or, is Nobel Committee doing Islam’s bidding?

9 Oct

At a time when President Barak Hussein Obama is facing a decision regarding sending additional American troop to Islamic Afghanistan, the Nobel Prize Committee may make this Peace Prize winner (a winner due a great deal to his efforts to reach-out to the Islamic World,) into a laughing stock.

In the realworld, for America not to lose (let alone win) the war in Afghanistan, it would require an overwhleming force (of which the 40,000 additional troops required by the commanders in the field, is only the beginning.) But, how would it look for the Nobel Peace [with Islam] Prize winner to commit 40,000 more troops to that Islamic country?

Since it appears that the Swedes are in the pocket of Muslims, could the Nobel Committee be playing Obama, testing his resolve, and his actual commitment to peace?

Even though the need for additional troops in Afghanistan is very real, can the world chief peacemaker, Barak Hussein Obama, in clear conscience, commit the much needed troops, and also accept the Nobel Peace Prize?

Obama’s Nobel selection: Another anti-Jewish/Israel travesty!

9 Oct

Even though in recent years there were a number of notable exceptions, the Swedish people continue to demonstrate anti-Jewish sentiments. Selecting Barak Hussein Obama as winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Price, is similar to selecting Yassar Arafat and Jimmy Carter, two other notable anti-Israel political figures whose contribution to World Peace was, at best, zero!

The Nobel Committee suggestions that Obama’s overtures towards the Islamic World are acts of peace are simply ludicrous; Obama’s birthrights and his desire to gain access to more Islamic controlled oil were clearly the prime motives behind his Islamic sympathies.

Recent anti-Israel and totally unsubstantiated Swedish press, coupled with the selection of at least the three anti-Israel/Jewish Peace Prize winners, suggests that perhaps Sweden, or at least the Noble Prize Committee, possess anti-Jewish/Anti-Israel sympathies.

Obama anti-Israel leanings are quite clear; only 4% of Israeli Jews feel that the American President can be trusted, and is a friend of Israel. On the other side, however, the Islamic World does not embrace Obama as the United States President, they mock him in that role; yet many Muslims do accept him as a brother muslim, which through his birth, he indeed is, and will always be.

The selection of Barak Hussein Obama as the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner is an insult to all those who earned the Prize by honest and diligent contribution to world peace.