Video compiled here at Thinkin’bout Stuff back in 2006… sure seems to fit nearly three years later:
|
|
|
|
Today we play, what did he really say…
On invading Pakistan:
From AP August 1, 2007 (link dead, but I have some of the original text) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted — an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
Now, I won’t deny that a covert operation to take out Osama bin Ladan or other terrorists would be a good thing… but announcing intentions to do so is hardly covert and is irresponsible for someone who wants to be president.
On meeting with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and North Korea.. in his own words:
And as an added bonus, I transcribed the question and the answer for you:
Question – In 1982 Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
Obama – I would! And the reason is this, that, the notion that somehow not talking to countries, ah, is punishment to them, ah, which has been the guiding, ah, diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous. Now Ronald Reagan, and Democratic presidents like JFK, constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil … evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them, they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country. Ah, but we have the obligation to find, ah, areas where we could potentially move forward. And ah, and I think that it is, ah, a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq, one of the first things that I would do in terms of, ah, moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward, ah, is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria, because they’re gonna have responsibilities if Iraq collapses, they have been acting irresponsibly up until this point, but if we tell them that we are not gonna be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that, ah, they are gonna have to carry some weight in terms of stabilizing the region.
What’s interesting here is agreeing to meet without precondition is only the tip of this iceberg:
Please… listen to what he says before his handlers spin him back around in the right direction, because if he does get elected president, there are no Mulligans in the real world.
|
|
|
|
Spree over at Wake Up America has a great post highlighting similarities between between Adolph Hitler and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
If you add Kim Jung Il and Hugo Chavez to the mix, you can almost see the potential for an alliance similar to Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo during WWII. The one responder at YouTube to the Evil Then, Evil Now video thought I was way off base:
yeah… i seriously doubt north korea, iran and chavez have as much power as say italy nowadays… To compare it to the age of facism is kinda insulting to the soldiers who fought in it and died for it.
My reply:
Not yet.. and there is still time to prevent it, but the risk is much greater now, with bigger and badder weapons. I look at where we are today as being somewhat comparable to where the world was around 1937… no insult intended, but we need a wake up call or we will be lamenting the loss of millions of people 10 to 20 years from now. Thanks for the comment.
Maybe the similarities are coincidental; maybe North Korea, Venezuela and Iran are not the military powers that Germany, Japan and Italy were 70 years ago; but the fact is… they don’t need to be. In this age of nuclear weapons, they don’t need to be.
Could they defeat us in a full scale war? Of course not. But how sweet is victory when your enemy is vanquished but your friends are destroyed and millions have died.
Why these three? Wake Up America has the Hitler/Ahmadinejad comparison covered, but why Tojo/Kim Jung Il & why Mussolini/Chavez?
North Korea is located in geographical proximity to Japan, has a desperate dictator who is widely viewed as a nut case, has tested a nuclear weapon, is testing delivery systems, and has already threatened to use them on neighbors and the USA.
Venezuela is lead by a “president” who is not viewed as a serious threat, yet. While perhaps the least threatening from the perspective of weapons, motive and ambition, Venezuela is ideally positioned to provided a staging area for an attack on the US Southern and Eastern US.

Is there an alliance today? Probably not. But these three have hatred of America in common, so the potential is there.
|
|
|
|
The Democrats new found power seems to have them experiencing a manic high, resulting in delusions of grandeur that include an irrational vision of the world where Congress is the head of the Executive Branch. First there was Senator Carl Levin, soon to be Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, proclaiming that the President must set a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Next up is Rep. Tom Lantos, who will likely chair the House International Relations Committee:
“The White House must try a new and bold approach to the vexing North Korean problem.”
Well, guess what the President must do… he must define foreign policy strategy (with input from several sources including Congress) and he must execute that strategy in the United States’ best interest because… news flash… he’s the President. So, what exactly is this “bold new strategy” Lantos and the other Dems say the President must try? From AP:
… a mission by Christopher Hill (US negotiator) would demonstrate “our peaceful intent,” said California Rep. Tom Lantos “the administration’s refusal to permit visits (by U.S. diplomats) to North Korea must end and must end now.”
|
|
|
|
He was the biggest high school freshman I’d ever seen. Left back twice before moving to our town that summer, he had a two year advantage over the rest of us. Although we were friends most of the summer, that changed rather quickly when I made the mistake of blocking him to the ground during a pick-up football game; when he chased after me with a scythe, I was pretty sure our friendship had come to an abrupt end.
When school started that Fall, he made it clear he was still looking for pay back. I was a small, relatively tough kid, but he was huge. We were in the same gym period and he made sport of chasing me around the track and threatening me; so much so that, as a side effect, I got an “A” in gym from the teacher who had no clue why I was running so fast and so long.
|
|
|
|
Well, it’s clear he has no intention of showing the class and courtesy of other former presidents, but it is truly sad to watch as he makes a fool of himself by continuously trying to rewrite history to improve his place in it while tearing down our current president. The latest was actually one of his mildest attacks:
The Non-Proliferation Treaty referred to is the one signed by North Korea in 1985 and violated ever since, before and after the 1994 agreement to buy North Korea’s compliance.
|
|
|
|