Democrats: Americans Don’t Care About Benghazi, But They Care About Bin Laden

October 15, 2012 at 7:10 am (2012 Election, Benghazi, Christopher Stevens, Democrats, Donna Edwards, Foreign Policy, Libya, Mitt Romney, Obama Administration, Osama Bin laden, Situation Room, Stephanie Cutter)

Democrats for some reason seem to think that the singular act of killing Osama bin Laden equates to a successful foreign policy.

Problem is, the President’s other foreign policy tactics – disarming our Marines, creating a policy of ‘courageous restraint’, negotiating with the Taliban by releasing their commanders in exchange for a “promise” of peace talks, and failing to provide adequate security to our consulate buildings – demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of world events.

There is real concern over the President’s weak foreign policy.

On CNN’s The Situation Room yesterday Democratic Rep. Donna Edwards joined Stephanie Cutter and Team Obama in dismissing real concerns over Libya.

Watch as she first admonishes that we must “take the politics out of this,” then drops this bomb:

“…what voters care about, they may not care about Benghazi, but they care about Bin Laden.”

Utterly disgraceful.
The polls seem to indicate otherwise, as Obama has been sliding consistently since the real story about Benghazi has come to light.  Prior to the attack and cover up, Obama polled strongly in foreign policy, having a 49 to 41% edge over Mitt Romney regarding the question of ‘who do you trust to do a better job of protecting Americans from terrorist attacks’.  Now those results have reversed course, with Romney leading 48 to 42%.
We care, Ms. Edwards.  We care about being attacked on the anniversary of 9/11.  We care about the administration covering it up.  We care about being lied to.  
Ask Christopher Stevens family if they care about Benghazi.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Middle East Scholar: Obama Considered ‘Weak, Feckless’, Bush ‘Feared’

October 2, 2012 at 11:03 am (Arab Spring, Benjamin Netanyahu, Brookings Institute, Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, Israel, Middle East, President Obama, Shadi Hamid)

Yea but … Obama killed Osama.  Hadn’t you heard?

Via Bloomberg: 

… all we have from Obama is passivity, which is a recurring theme in the administration’s approach to the Middle East. So is “aggressive hedging,” a term used by the Brookings Institution’s Shadi Hamid to describe Obama’s strange reluctance to clearly choose sides in the uprisings of the Arab Spring.

“There’s a widespread perception in the region that Obama is a weak, somewhat feckless president,” Hamid, who runs the Brookings Doha Center, told me. “Bush may have been hated, but he was also feared, and what we’ve learned in the Middle East is that fear, sometimes at least, can be a good thing. Obama’s aggressive hedging has alienated both sides of the Arab divide. Autocrats, particularly in the Gulf, think Obama naively supports Arab revolutionaries, while Arab protesters and revolutionaries seem to think the opposite.”

Leaders across the Middle East don’t take Obama’s threats seriously. Neither Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor the Arab leaders of the Gulf countries believe he’ll act militarily against Iran’s nuclear program in his second term.

Not to fear, we don’t take it very seriously here either when the President pretends to be a tough foreign policy advocate.

When it comes to foreign policy, it looks like it was actually George Bush who had the big stick.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obama Considering the Release of World Trade Center Bombing Mastermind

September 20, 2012 at 4:10 pm (Blind Sheikh, Egypt, Foreign Policy, Osama Bin laden, Peter King, President Obama, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, Wendy Long)

What.  The.  Hell?

The Obama administration is weighing the release of blind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman — the spiritual adviser to the 1993 World Trade Center bombers — in a stunning goodwill gesture toward Egypt that has touched off a political firestorm, officials said yesterday.

The Egyptian government “asked for his release,” an administration source told The Post — and Rep. Peter King (R-LI) confirmed the request is being considered.

The White House, State Department and Justice Department each issued statements denying any deal is in the works, but, “There’s no way to believe anything they say,” said Andrew McCarthy, the former assistant US attorney who prosecuted Abdel-Rahman. “I believe there may already be a nod-and-wink agreement in place.”

Let me get this straight.  We have our embassies attacked and diplomats murdered in the name of radical Islam, and the administration’s answer is to run apology ads in Pakistan, and reward the attacks by negotiating the release of a man who was not only very actively involved in the WTC bombing in 1993, but many other attacks in Egypt itself?

Why not just say, ‘thank you sir, may I have another?’

New York’s own Wendy Long released the following statement:

The Obama Administration is reportedly considering the Egyptian government’s call for the release of convicted terrorist Omar Adbel Rahman, also known as the ‘Blind Sheikh,’ who was sentenced to life in prison in the U.S. for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. 

U.S. Senate candidate Wendy Long said, “The reports are so outrageous that they are hard to believe.  But Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi is on record saying that he will seek the release of this convicted criminal terrorist from President Obama when they meet next week in New York.  President Obama and Senator Gillibrand must assure New Yorkers and all Americans that the United States will not cave in to Morsi’s demand.” 

Long continued, “There is now evidence that suggests that Egyptians attacked the U.S. embassy nine days ago for the very reason of pressuring the United States to release Rahman.  We cannot possibly reward the attacks on American sovereign territory and American lives with more apologies, concessions, and now the possible release of a terrorist killer of Americans.  New Yorkers and all Americans want this insanity to stop.”

There is no better word to describe this – insanity.

Has there ever been a weaker or more out of touch President when it comes to foreign policy than this one? The proper response to Egypt’s request to release the sheikh is to Fed Ex pictures of Osama bin Laden’s bullet riddled dome, and including a post-it note that says shut the f*** up.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Romney: "Look to Poland" as a Way Out of Economic Crisis

July 31, 2012 at 7:14 am (Economy, Europe, Foreign Policy, Look to Poland, Mitt Romney, Poland, President Obama, Russia, Warsaw)

Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is in Poland today, ready to deliver a foreign policy speech that will stress the United States long ties with the nation, and highlight his differences with President Barack Obama.  The Romney campaign has provided excerpts of his speech to be delivered in Warsaw.

Highlights include a stark economic contrast not only between the Poland of decades ago and today, but of the economic policies preferred by President Obama, and those that would be implemented by a President Romney.

A move to economic liberty and smaller government can lead to prosperity … just “look to Poland”.

I began this trip in Britain and end it here in Poland: the two bookends of NATO, history’s greatest military alliance that has kept the peace for over half a century.  While at 10 Downing Street I thought back to the days of Winston Churchill, the man who first spoke of the Iron Curtain that had descended across Europe.  What an honor to stand in Poland, among the men and women who helped lift that curtain.
After that stay in England, I visited the State of Israel – a friend of your country and mine.  It’s been a trip to three places far apart on the map.  But for an American, you can’t get much closer to the ideals and convictions of my own country.  Our nations belong to the great fellowship of democracies.  We speak the same language of freedom and justice. We uphold the right of every person to live in peace. 
I believe it is critical to stand by those who have stood by America. Solidarity was a great movement that freed a nation. And it is with solidarity that America and Poland face the future.
In 1955, in my country, Rosa Parks said “no” to a bus driver who told her to give up her seat to a white person, and in doing so, started a revolution of dignity and equality that continues to this day. Mohamed Bouazizi, a street vendor in Tunisia, was denied his business wares by a government functionary, and in protest committed suicide by self-immolation. With that act of defiance, the Arab Spring was born.
Nicolai Ceausescu stood before an audience of 200,000, recounting for them his supposed works on their behalf. One elderly woman shouted out what others only thought. “Liar,” she said. Others echoed her, first hundreds, then thousands. And with the fall of Ceausescu days later, the entire nation had awoken and a people were freed.
And here, in 1979, a son of Poland, Pope John Paul the Second, spoke words that would bring down an empire and bring freedom to millions who lived in bondage. “Be not afraid” – those words changed the world.
I, and my fellow Americans, are inspired by the path of freedom tread by the people of Poland. 
# # #
At every turn in our history, through wars and crises, through every change in the geopolitical map, we have met as friends and allies.  That was true in America’s Revolutionary War.  It was true in the dark days of World War II.  And it has been true in Iraq and Afghanistan.  There has never been a moment when our peoples felt anything but mutual respect and good will – and that is not common in history.  
Americans watched with astonishment and admiration, as an electrician led a peaceful protest against a brutal and oppressive regime. 
“It has to be understood,” as President Walesa has recently said, “that the solidarity movement philosophy was very simple.  When you can’t lift a weight, you ask someone else for help and to lift it with you.”
John Paul the Second understood that a nation is not a flag or a plot of land.  It is a people – a community of values. And the highest value Poland honors – to the world’s great fortune – is man’s innate desire to be free.    
Unfortunately, there are parts of the world today where the desire to be free is met with brutal oppression: Just to the east of here, the people of Belarus suffer under the oppressive weight of dictatorship.  The Arab world is undergoing a historic upheaval, one that holds promise, but also risk and uncertainty.  A ruthless dictator in Syria has killed thousands of his own people. In Latin America, Hugo Chavez leads a movement characterized by authoritarianism and repression.  Nations in Africa are fighting to resist the threat of violent radical jihadism.  And in Russia, once-promising advances toward a free and open society have faltered.
In a turbulent world, Poland stands as an example and defender of freedom.
# # #
This is a country that made a prisoner a president … that went from foreign domination to the proud and independent nation you are today.  And now, for both our nations, the challenge is to be worthy of this legacy as we find a way forward.  The false gods of the all-powerful state claim the allegiance of a lonely few.  It is for us, in this generation and beyond, to show all the world what free people and free economies can achieve for the good of all.
# # #
Perhaps because here in Poland centralized control is no distant memory, you have brought a special determination to securing a free and prosperous economy.  When the Soviet Empire breathed its last, Poland’s economy was in a state of perpetual crisis.  When economists analyzed it from abroad, one heard talk of the prospect of starvation in major cities.
But from the depths of those dark times, this nation’s steady rise is a shining example of the prosperity that economic opportunity can bring.  Your nation has moved from a state monopoly over the economy, price controls, and severe trade restrictions to a culture of entrepreneurship, greater fiscal responsibility, and international trade. As a result, your economy has experienced positive growth in each of the last twenty years. In that time, you have doubled the size of your economy.  The private sector has gone from a mere 15 percent of the economy to 65 percent.  And while other nations fell into recession in recent years, you weathered the storm and continued to flourish.
The world should pay close attention to the transformation of Poland’s economy. A march toward economic liberty and smaller government has meant a march toward higher living standards, a strong military that defends liberty at home and abroad, and an important and growing role on the international stage.  
Rather than heeding the false promise of a government-dominated economy, Poland sought to stimulate innovation, attract investment, expand trade, and live within its means.  Your success today is a reminder that the principles of free enterprise can propel an economy and transform a society.
At a time of such difficulty and doubt throughout Europe, Poland’s economic transformation over these past 20 years is a fitting turn in the story of your country.  In the 1980s, when other nations doubted that political tyranny could ever be faced down or overcome, the answer was, “Look to Poland.”  And today, as some wonder about the way forward out of economic recession and fiscal crisis, the answer is to “Look to Poland” once again.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obama: Dictator Hugo Chavez has Not Had a "Serious National Security Impact"

July 11, 2012 at 9:29 am (Dictator, Foreign Policy, Hugo Chavez, Marco Rubio, National Security, President Obama, Venezuela)

In an interview that aired on a Spanish language station in Miami, President Obama made the incredibly naive statement that Hugo Chavez doesn’t pose a threat to the United States.

Oscar Haza, a well known Miami Spanish-language broadcast journalist and anchor, scored an interview this week in Washington with President Barack Obama in which Obama said Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has not posed a “serious” national security threat to the United States…


Then, Haza asked about the alliance between Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Iran.

“We’re always concerned about Iran engaging in destabilizing activity around the globe. But overall my sense is that what Mr. Chávez has done over the last several years has not had a serious national security impact on us,” Obama said. “We have to vigilant. My main concern when it comes to Venezuela is having the Venezuelan people have a voice in their affairs, and that you end up ultimately having fair and free elections, which we don’t always see.”

Today, Senator Marco Rubio explained why this is an ignorant statement… 

Here is Rubio’s full statement: “It’s now disturbingly clear that President Obama has been living under a rock when it comes to recognizing the national security threat posed by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

“Hugo Chavez is not only a threat to the Venezuelan people’s freedom and democratic aspirations, he has also supported Iran’s regime in its attempts to expand its intelligence network throughout the hemisphere, facilitated money laundering activities that finance state sponsors of terrorism and provided a safe haven for FARC narco-terrorists, among many other actions.

“Just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal detailed how Hugo Chavez circumvents U.S. and EU sanctions to help prop up the Assad regime in Syria. And even Obama’s own State Department belatedly but rightly expelled Chavez’s consul general in Miami for her ties to a plan to wage cyber-attacks on the U.S.

“President Obama continues to display an alarmingly naïve understanding of the challenges and opportunities we face in the Western Hemisphere.”

Why do the world’s most significant dictators get the “never mind the man behind the curtain” treatment from our government?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Will Obama be Impeached if U.S. Takes Military Action in Syria?

March 13, 2012 at 10:11 am (Congress, Foreign Policy, Impeachment, President Bush, President Obama, Syria)

Of course, we all know that had President Bush entered into a second military action without Congressional consent, nobody would really care. 

Wait, what?

Via the Daily Caller:

A Republican congressman has introduced a bill that appears to warn President Obama that he could be impeached if the United States gets involved militarily in Syria without congressional approval.

The bill introduced last week by North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones declares that it is an impeachable offense for a president to authorize military action against another country without consent from Congress…

… Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that “our goal would be to seek international permission” — and not necessarily congressional approval — before taking any military action in Syria…

… The bill calls “the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress” an “impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Both Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul and Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich last year called Obama’s authorization of military intervention without congressional approval in Libya an impeachable offense.

Read the rest here…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Congressmen Respond to State of the Union Address

January 25, 2012 at 7:07 am (Bailouts, Chris Gibson, Darrell Issa, Economy, Ford, Foreign Policy, GM, Osama Bin laden, President Obama, SOTU, State of the Union)

That State of the Union last night was uninspiring, boring, and an utter mess.  We don’t need to fear voters being fooled by quasi-inspiring speeches during the next campaign, that is for sure.  The President has clearly lost the only skill he ever possessed – an ability to read off a teleprompter.

The President tried to lay out his economic vision by sandwiching the bulk of the speech between two stories that ‘spiked the football’ on Osama Bin Laden?  The speech meandered with no real path to follow.

What’s more is, he doubled down on just about every failed platform he has introduced in the last 3 years, giving the Republicans a plethora of material to work with leading into 2012.

He backed up the auto bailouts, including recognition for GM despite the cost of nearly $15 billion to American taxpayers.  He used Ford as an example, despite the company having never taken the bailout.  He doubled down on companies such as Solyndra, that went bankrupt despite a $535 million loan from the government.  He blamed his predecessor for the current economic state, but failed to recognize his role in the troop withdrawal from Iraq.  He touted more spending, more spending, more spending…

In short, the President is nothing more than a used car salesman, willing to dress up any lemon with a slew of lies and half-truths.

Congressman Darrell Issa had this to say about the State of the Union:

The President tonight outlined a laundry list of popular programs without regard to what they cost and his own record in office.

He has failed to deliver on economic growth promises, has squandered $800 billion in stimulus funds, and vetoed jobs and affordable domestic energy bills passed by Congress.  What is clear is that he is pursuing a partisan class-warfare agenda aimed at dividing the American people.  

The American people deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them.  I am ready to work with the President to cut the regulations and red tape that make it harder for workers and businesses to succeed, to confront the irresponsible overspending by this President and preceding Administrations, and to keep America competitive in a global economy.

And for our loyal New York readers, Congressman Chris Gibson (NY-20) struck a more complimentary tone, releasing the following statement this evening: 

“I firmly believe 2012 has the potential to be a year of growth and recovery for our country, if we make the right choices.  Specifically, I think there are five areas with which we can find common ground.  They include: comprehensive tax reform that creates a simpler and more fair tax code, regulatory relief, the expansion of domestic energy production, infrastructure investment, and bureaucratic consolidation and reform.  These are all areas which will directly help our country’s hardworking families, small business owners, and farmers, while ensuring our nation returns to a path of fiscal responsibility.  My constituents want Washington to achieve results and I’m confident that, working together in an era of divided government, we can do just that.  Additionally, as a former soldier, I appreciated the President’s recognition of the fine work our men and women of the military have conducted as well as the parallel he drew between their missions around the world and what we need to accomplish here at home.

Permalink Leave a Comment