First time visitor? Learn more.

It is possible to frustrate Obama on foreign policy issues

by Speranza ( 101 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Gaza, Hamas, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Palestinians at December 27th, 2012 - 8:49 am

Miss Glick reminds us that despite his second term victory, Obama can be stymied on foreign policy by a determined, united, focused, and coherent oppositon.

by Caroline Glick

Today the National Journal reported that Obama is reconsidering his decision to appoint Chuck Hagel Secretary of Defense. As I wrote in my previous post, there is no chance that Obama will appoint a supporter of a strong Israel to any senior foreign policy post because he wouldn’t appoint someone who doesn’t share his basic animosity towards Israel. But in Hagel, he chose someone even more outspoken in his animus towards the Jewish state than Obama.

Hagel’s looming appointment provoked angry responses from many leading Jewish voices in the US. Whether this opposition made a difference in driving Obama to reconsider his choice is unclear. Plenty of other influential groups – including senators, members of the military and lobbyists for homosexual rights – expressed their discomfort and opposition to the prospect of having Hagel serve as Defense Secretary. Still it is notable that Hagel’s possible appointment sparked an outcry among prominent American Jews and that this outcry had some unknown impact on Obama’s possible decision to cancel Hagel’s appointment.

If Obama indeed scuttles Hagel’s elevation to Defense Secretary, it shows that it is possible to fight Obama on foreign policy even in his second term, and win, at least sometimes. This is important information for Republicans, American Jews, and the Israeli government.

Obama will have multiple, massive domestic challenges to contend with in his second term. If he wishes to focus on advancing his domestic agenda, he may well punt on foreign affairs.

The US President’s inbox is always overflowing. One of the hardest things for a president to do is take control over his own agenda.

Just consider the issue of gun control. Certainly, as a liberal Democrat, Obama is for it. But Obama has never made the issue of restricting gun ownership  a priority during his presidency. Now in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre, he is suddenly spending a lot of time on the issue and going into a head to head battle with the National Rifle Association.

Maybe Obama will win this battle. Maybe he’ll lose it. But he will be focusing on it a lot in the coming weeks. Again, this is not an issue that was ever central to his agenda. But due to an unforeseen event, it has become an issue that he is now forced to spend time on.

There are of course, many more foreseeable issues Obama will have to devote his presidential time, energy and capital to. The biggest among them is Obamacare. Budgetary and tax woes are not far behind. With only 24 hours in the day, Obama will not be able to focus on Israel or foreign policy on a daily basis. And in order to make time for other things, which are more important to him, or more immediately pressing, Obama may be willing to back down.

[.......]
In retrospect, it would certainly have been better for Israel – and for America – if Sharon had stood up to Rice and simply refused to permit Hamas to participate in the elections. It would have been better to have had a public fight with Washington and kept Hamas out of power than maintain warm relations with the Bush administration while empowering a terror group that openly seeks the annihilation of Israel and the Jewish people.

This brings us to Obama, his apparent decision to stand down on Hagel,  US relations with Israel in Obama’s second term in office, and finally to how the Israeli election campaign plays into all of these things.

HERE IN Israel, the Left’s basic diplomatic attack on Netanyahu involves accusing him of having wrecked  Israel’s relations with the US by standing up to Obama. But whereas by not standing up to Bush and Rice, Israel got Hamas in power and missiles on Jerusalem, by standing up to Obama, Israel is still in control of Judea and Samaria and the two-state delusion has been increasingly discredited in Israel, and to a lesser degree in the US.

Moreover on Iran, Israel has coaxed a reluctant US administration into passing serious sanctions against Iran, and while the economic pressure hasn’t made any dent in Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Israeli pressure has made it harder for Obama to simply accept Iranian nuclear weapons. Vocally expressing Israeli concerns has certainly helped Republicans maintain pressure on Obama to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and publicly support a potential Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear installations.

It is understandable that Netanyahu is keeping mum on his diplomatic achievements. He can’t risk even worse relations with Obama by mentioning his success in keeping the US President at bay in his quest to diminish Israel’s strategic options.

[.........]
Israel faces massive challenges in the coming years. The apparent scuttling of Hagel’s appointment is a hopeful sign that if we keep our heads about us, we can prevent Obama from taking steps that are truly antithetical to Israel’s survival.

But we must understand, the reason Hagel’s appointment was apparently abandoned is because the opposition to his appointment was strong, coherent, and unified. Israel needs a strong, coherent government to meet the challenges it will face in the next four years, including working with a hostile Obama administration. We won’t get one if the leaders of the nationalist camp are using the Left to weaken and discredit one another.

Read the rest - Hagel, Obama and theIsraeli elections

Tags: ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

101 Responses to “It is possible to frustrate Obama on foreign policy issues”
( jump to bottom )

  1. Speranza
    1 | December 27, 2012 8:51 am

    I still think that we would have been better off with Rice as Secretary of State rather than Lurch.


  2. MikeA
    2 | December 27, 2012 8:56 am

    The light at the end of the tunnel is an on coming train…
    Obama will weasel some lesser know a-hole into the position.

    (in a mood this morning…)


  3. MikeA
    3 | December 27, 2012 8:56 am

    Sorry to go off topic but… anyone seen this? It’s about a month old and might have been linked to before.


  4. Speranza
    4 | December 27, 2012 8:58 am

    MikeA wrote:

    Sorry to go off topic but… anyone seen this? It’s about a month old and might have been linked to before.

    A great way to end the year by being more depressed.


  5. Speranza
    5 | December 27, 2012 8:59 am

    MikeA wrote:

    The light at the end of the tunnel is an on coming train…
    Obama will weasel some lesser know a-hole into the position.
    (in a mood this morning…)

    Any one who works for Obama is a weasel asshole however some are more assholey then others (and I am thinking of Kerry and Hagel).


  6. 6 | December 27, 2012 9:05 am

    Why would American Jews object to Obama appointing an anti-Israeli individual to the post of Secretary of Defense? They are getting precisely what they overwhelmingly voted for, after all. Duh…


  7. MikeA
    7 | December 27, 2012 9:05 am

    @ Speranza:

    True, those guys are both slimy and Kerry is a traitor to his country and should be treated as such.


  8. MikeA
    8 | December 27, 2012 9:05 am

    @ Mike C.:

    If you are expecting people to deal with the consequences of their actions, this will be a long day…. ;)


  9. 9 | December 27, 2012 9:07 am

    The problem is that the GOP’s foreign policy is just as horrendous as the Democrats.


  10. Speranza
    10 | December 27, 2012 9:08 am

    Mike C. wrote:

    Why would American Jews object to Obama appointing an anti-Israeli individual to the post of Secretary of Defense? They are getting precisely what they overwhelmingly voted for, after all. Duh…

    Speak for your self. Those whose Judaism means something to them (the Orthodox) voted for Romney. Upper West Side secular/liberal Jews voted Obama.

    By the way how many Catholics in Ohio and Pennsylvania and WASPS in Virginia voted for Obama?


  11. Speranza
    11 | December 27, 2012 9:09 am

    Rodan wrote:

    The problem is that the GOP’s foreign policy is just as horrendous as the Democrats.

    That’s a bit of an overstatement.


  12. Speranza
    12 | December 27, 2012 9:10 am

    MikeA wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    True, those guys are both slimy and Kerry is a traitor to his country and should be treated as such.

    Kerry was an early Obama supporter in 2008 (when Hillary was considered to be the front runner) so this is his reward.


  13. Speranza
    13 | December 27, 2012 9:11 am

    But we must understand, the reason Hagel’s appointment was apparently abandoned is because the opposition to his appointment was strong, coherent, and unified.

    That’s a money quote we should learn from.


  14. 14 | December 27, 2012 9:16 am

    @ Speranza:

    Beats me -- I’m an atheist. I really don’t care about or ask about the religious affilliation (or lack thereof) of other people. None of my concern. But IIRC, self-identified Jews voted strongly for Obama in the last two elections.


  15. 15 | December 27, 2012 9:19 am

    @ Speranza:

    Other than Israel, how is the GOP better than the Democrats. Both support The House of Saud, the Muslim Brotherhood and Nation Building.


  16. 16 | December 27, 2012 9:20 am

    @ Speranza:

    By the way how many Catholics in Ohio and Pennsylvania and WASPS in Virginia voted for Obama?

    The blessed and Holy Flyover Country!


  17. 17 | December 27, 2012 9:22 am

    If Obama indeed scuttles Hagel’s elevation to Defense Secretary, it shows that it is possible to fight Obama on foreign policy even in his second term, and win, at least sometimes

    That’s a big if. We stopped Susan Rice only because he had someone worse waiting in the wings. I have no doubt that Rice would have lied her way through a confirmation hearing, and unless the GOP were willing to filibuster her she would have been confirmed. The Democrats have no problem with her. Hagel will get through without any problems from the Senate. Oh, a couple of Republicans may squawk, but he won’t be filibustered, and the Democrats would confirm a potted plant if Obama sent them one for a cabinet position.


  18. 18 | December 27, 2012 9:23 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    We stopped Susan Rice only because he had someone worse waiting in the wings.

    Yup, Susan Rice was a bait!


  19. 19 | December 27, 2012 9:27 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Other than Israel, how is the GOP better than the Democrats.

    Other than being alive, how is it better than being dead? Your comment is self-refuting. Other than theis REALLY HUGE ISSUE, the Republicans are just the same, but even that is untrue. Just because the media make John McCain the spokeshole for the Republican Party on foreign policy, don’t mistake that for an official position. The Republicans are divided on foreign policy. The thing is, the Democrats are not. Still, Obama doesn’t have a solid majority for his foreign policy. If he did, he’d get a congressional resolution through in a heartbeat. He can’t get it through, so he doesn’t try. A defeat would look bad. At the same time, the peopel who are against him don’t have a solid enough majority to actually do anything about it. It takes a veto proof majority in the congress to do anything substantive about Obama’s Foreign policy, and even then Congress’ powers are strictly circumscribed. They could cut off funding for his war making efforts, but Obama has already shown that the “power” of th epurse is pretty meaningless.


  20. 20 | December 27, 2012 9:31 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Yup, Susan Rice was a bait!

    I think you are right there. Oh, Obama woudl have taken her if he could have got her, but after Benghazi she was pretty much toast. He put her out there to give the Republicans the sembalence of a victory but the reality of a loss. After she went down, Kerry was a shoe-in. The Republicans don’t have the tenacity to go after Kerry. I don’t know that Kerry is really any worse than Rice. Yes, he is a traitor, but Rice cuddles dictators too, and she only hasn’t betrayed this country because she hasn’t had the oppertunity that Kerry did. No one that Obama nominates will really be acceptible, but elections do have consequences. We’re going to be living with the consequences of an Obama Administration for the rest of the time America endures.


  21. Speranza
    21 | December 27, 2012 9:33 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Other than Israel, how is the GOP better than the Democrats. Both support The House of Saud, the Muslim Brotherhood and Nation Building.

    There are those in the GOP who are Bushie types (Scowcroft, Baker, Lugar) who are Arab lick spittles, and then there are those such as Gingrich, Bolton, Perry, Ileana Ros-Lethinin, Allen West et al who know which end is up.


  22. Speranza
    22 | December 27, 2012 9:35 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    By the way how many Catholics in Ohio and Pennsylvania and WASPS in Virginia voted for Obama?
    The blessed and Holy Flyover Country!

    I mean I am not being snarky or disrespectful but everyone always throws up how many “Jews” (most of whom have Liberalism as their real religion) voted for Obama, well plenty of damn non-Jews voted for Obama too!


  23. Speranza
    23 | December 27, 2012 9:37 am

    Mike C. wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Beats me — I’m an atheist. I really don’t care about or ask about the religious affilliation (or lack thereof) of other people. None of my concern. But IIRC, self-identified Jews voted strongly for Obama in the last two elections.

    They are Jews (only on Passover and Yom Kippur) in name only and most of them like you are atheists or agnostics.


  24. coldwarrior
    24 | December 27, 2012 9:37 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    By the way how many Catholics in Ohio and Pennsylvania and WASPS in Virginia voted for Obama?
    The blessed and Holy Flyover Country!

    from the looks of it, only the wasps et cetera in phillie voted for 0. the rest of the voters sure didnt


  25. 25 | December 27, 2012 9:37 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Other than theis REALLY HUGE ISSUE

    This about this how are Republicans Pro-Israel when they support the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood? IF Republicans are so divided on foreign policy, why

    Just because the media make John McCain the spokeshole for the Republican Party on foreign policy, don’t mistake that for an official position. The Republicans are divided on foreign policy.

    It’s beyond John McCain. Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayote, Paul Ryan and others all support the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s Republicans who keep pushing for intervention in Syria on behalf of al-Qaeda.

    At the same time, the peopel who are against him don’t have a solid enough majority to actually do anything about it. It takes a veto proof majority in the congress to do anything substantive about Obama’s Foreign policy, and even then Congress’ powers are strictly circumscribed.

    The Republicans can speak out against Obama’s Pro-Islamist foreign policy. They don’t because they support it. Rand Paul speaks out, but where are the others? Instead I see Republican after Republican calling for more FOR Islam.

    The GOP and Democrats are both whores of the Caliphate.


  26. 26 | December 27, 2012 9:41 am

    @ Speranza@ Speranza:

    then there are those such as Gingrich, Bolton, Perry, Ileana Ros-Lethinin, Allen West et al who know which end is up.

    Bolton and Ileana Ros-Lethinin are nation builders who support the Muslim Brotherhood. Gingrich and Perry don’t talk much about this. Allen West along with Rand Paul are the only 2 who publicly speak out against nation building.

    Ask yourself this, why does Republican official after another push for intervention in Syria? Fox News is just running anti-Assad propaganda and not explaining the rebels are al-Qaeda.

    The GOP has no credibility with me on foreign policy.


  27. 27 | December 27, 2012 9:42 am

    @ coldwarrior:

    Push for a plebiscite to let Phillie succeed. :wink:


  28. coldwarrior
    28 | December 27, 2012 9:45 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    Push for a plebiscite to let Phillie succeed.

    phillie isnt part of pa, it is part of the new state called eye95corridoria


  29. 29 | December 27, 2012 9:47 am

    @ coldwarrior:

    Honest question, do you find any difference in the foreign policy of the GOP and Dems?


  30. theoutsider
    30 | December 27, 2012 9:52 am

    @ Rodan:
    Rand Paul is the only one of that group that is against nation building. West wants to go to war with Iran, which would ultimately lead to nation building there.


  31. Guggi
    31 | December 27, 2012 10:00 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    West wants to go to war with Iran, which would ultimately lead to nation building there.

    Wrong.


  32. 32 | December 27, 2012 10:08 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Rand Paul is the only one of that group that is against nation building. West wants to go to war with Iran, which would ultimately lead to nation building there.

    Except for John McCain and Hillary Clinton, no one wants nation building in Iran. It’s about taking out their nukes. I do support Persian Nationalists who want to get rid of their Arab-Islamic regime in Iran. But it’s up to them to do this.


  33. 33 | December 27, 2012 10:19 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Mike C. wrote:
    @ Speranza:
    Beats me — I’m an atheist. I really don’t care about or ask about the religious affilliation (or lack thereof) of other people. None of my concern. But IIRC, self-identified Jews voted strongly for Obama in the last two elections.
    They are Jews (only on Passover and Yom Kippur) in name only and most of them like you are atheists or agnostics.

    Well, who really is/isn’t a Jew is something for Jews to sort out. I’m not qualified to have an opinion.


  34. theoutsider
    34 | December 27, 2012 10:33 am

    @ Rodan:
    Taking out their nukes via bombing means thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of casualties. It would mean devastation of large parts of Tehran and other population centers. You don’t think we’d be involved in the rebuilding effort?. BTW, I enthusiastically support the in country opposition to the Mullahs. They just don’t have enough muscle right now to do anything.


  35. 35 | December 27, 2012 10:35 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    It would mean devastation of large parts of Tehran and other population centers.

    And the problem with this is? Do you kno whow many civilians died in the bombings of Germany and Japan during World War Two? Annuclear Iran is a greater threat than Germany or Japan ever posed. Don’t you think we shoudl do something about it? Or do you propose that we just wait and hope the Mad Mullahs convert into reasonable people once they get nukes? That appears to be Obama’s strategy.


  36. 36 | December 27, 2012 10:40 am

    @ theoutsider:

    Taking out their nukes via bombing means thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of casualties. It would mean devastation of large parts of Tehran and other population centers.

    So what, like I care?

    You don’t think we’d be involved in the rebuilding effort?

    No.


  37. 37 | December 27, 2012 10:45 am

    @ theoutsider:

    Iran should be prevented from developing deployable nukes of any size or fashion by any means necessary. Pakistan having this capability is bad enough, we needn’t duplicate the mistake. As for Pakistan, even the hint of deployment should bear catastrophic consequences. In many ways, we can’t put the genie back in the bottle in that region, but we can limit his procreation and put the fear of God in him with our far more dreadful genie.


  38. 38 | December 27, 2012 10:46 am

    @ MacDuff:

    Thankfully India has nukes and that’s what keeps the Pakis in line.


  39. Guggi
    39 | December 27, 2012 10:47 am

    EPA head Lisa Jackson to resign post

    Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, who pushed through the most sweeping curbs on air pollution in two decades, announced Thursday morning she will resign her post.


  40. waldensianspirit
    40 | December 27, 2012 10:50 am

    Kerry is the advantaged infection into foreign policy which will expose the disease already developing but the antibody phase is not going to be pleasant


  41. huckfunn
    41 | December 27, 2012 10:51 am

    Guggi wrote:

    EPA head Lisa Jackson to resign post

    Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, who pushed through the most sweeping curbs on air pollution in two decades, announced Thursday morning she will resign her post.

    See headline thread.


  42. Guggi
    42 | December 27, 2012 10:53 am

    huckfunn wrote:

    See headline thread.

    ok :-)


  43. waldensianspirit
    43 | December 27, 2012 10:55 am

    It was a mistake Ann Dunham didn’t have free morning-after pill every morning. Yet I’d rather she’d have waited till third trimester for a partial-birth abortion


  44. theoutsider
    44 | December 27, 2012 10:55 am

    @ Rodan:
    So you’d be OK with bombing the shit out of Iran, and the Mullahs becoming more powerful? Is that what you want?


  45. waldensianspirit
    45 | December 27, 2012 10:56 am

    @ huckfunn:
    Guess we need the first few hours of a headline to blink


  46. waldensianspirit
    46 | December 27, 2012 10:56 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    So you’d be OK with bombing the shit out of Iran, and the Mullahs becoming more powerful? Is that what you want?

    They have no power over the second death


  47. theoutsider
    47 | December 27, 2012 10:57 am

    @ Rodan:
    And, we would be involved in the rebuilding. There is no doubt about that.


  48. waldensianspirit
    48 | December 27, 2012 10:57 am

    red headlines on drudge says the senate is going after guns including grandfathered ones


  49. waldensianspirit
    49 | December 27, 2012 10:59 am

    New York State Senator Blasts “Asinine” Newspaper Editors Who Published Map Of Gun Owners…

    Heehee! I wonder what brought this on


  50. lobo91
    50 | December 27, 2012 11:00 am

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    red headlines on drudge says the senate is going after guns including grandfathered ones

    Good thing nobody gives a crap about the Senate. Nothing they pass has a chance in hell of getting through the House.

    If there’s going to be any movement on gun control, Obama’s going to have to do it himself, which means he owns it.


  51. Daffy Duck
    51 | December 27, 2012 11:02 am

    @ lobo91:

    one thing gun control legislation does is spike gun prices….might be time for me to market some closet queens and ca$h in. :-)


  52. waldensianspirit
    52 | December 27, 2012 11:02 am

    @ lobo91:
    And you saw the graph wz put up earlier. 74% against and growing


  53. huckfunn
    53 | December 27, 2012 11:05 am

    lobo91 wrote:

    If there’s going to be any movement on gun control, Obama’s going to have to do it himself, which means he owns it.

    Now that you mention it: Ammo ban: Open Letter to BATFE Regarding Sporting Purpose Exemption

    To Whom It May Concern,

    It has come to my attention that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is considering further restrictions for various types of ammunition used in both rifles and handguns as they pertain to the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. I am personally concerned that further restrictions on commonly used ammunition would represent a serious breach of the intended scope of the original limitations set forth under the laws created in the Gun Control Act. As the file, dad-richardson-opening-statement-at-ap-ammunition-listening-meeting.pdf, posted at your website states, “The law also provides a sporting purpose exemption from this definition for any projectile ‘which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.’”


  54. waldensianspirit
  55. 55 | December 27, 2012 11:07 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    And, we would be involved in the rebuilding. There is no doubt about that.

    Iran, a once modern country (by Middle East standards) has been being deconstructed since the Islamic revolution in ’79, with little help from us. There’s a pretty fine line between deconstruction and destruction.


  56. 56 | December 27, 2012 11:07 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    They’ll never get a handgun ban past the Senate. Even if they did, it is DOA in the House, and there are a lot of Dem Senators who will lose their job in 2014 if they try it. I hope they do, in fact. Let’s get the mask off this beast once and for all, and let the American people see the Democrats for the totalitarian fascists that they are.


  57. 57 | December 27, 2012 11:16 am

    Mike C. wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    Mike C. wrote:
    @ Speranza:
    Beats me — I’m an atheist. I really don’t care about or ask about the religious affilliation (or lack thereof) of other people. None of my concern. But IIRC, self-identified Jews voted strongly for Obama in the last two elections.
    They are Jews (only on Passover and Yom Kippur) in name only and most of them like you are atheists or agnostics.
    Well, who really is/isn’t a Jew is something for Jews to sort out. I’m not qualified to have an opinion.

    During the Kosovo War I talked to a rabbi about all of the prominent people with Jewish ancestry who were supporting the Muslim cause. He said, “We don’t consider them Jews.”

    ‘Nuff said.


  58. 58 | December 27, 2012 11:16 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    So you’d be OK with bombing the shit out of Iran, and the Mullahs becoming more powerful? Is that what you want?

    I would be OK bombing the shit out of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Egypt or any Islamic hell hole. I do not care about those people and it would send a message. Don’t confuse my stance against nation building as supporting Pacifism. My dislike of the GOP’s Pro Muslim Brotherhood/Nation building crap comes from the Right. I am against nation building, but have no problem with nation destroying.


  59. 59 | December 27, 2012 11:16 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    A handgun ban is prima facia unconstitutional at the moment, given Heller v DC. So is any law ordering gun owners to keep all firearms unloaded/locked up/both, by the same ruling. Barring passage of a constitutional amendment, (which isn’t even scifi; it’s fantasy) they’ll have to overturn Heller first.


  60. 60 | December 27, 2012 11:18 am

    @ 1389AD:

    Like I said, that’s for the Jews to settle, not me.


  61. 61 | December 27, 2012 11:18 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    theoutsider wrote:
    It would mean devastation of large parts of Tehran and other population centers.
    And the problem with this is? Do you kno whow many civilians died in the bombings of Germany and Japan during World War Two? Annuclear Iran is a greater threat than Germany or Japan ever posed. Don’t you think we shoudl do something about it? Or do you propose that we just wait and hope the Mad Mullahs convert into reasonable people once they get nukes? That appears to be Obama’s strategy.

    Obama’s strategy is that of Vidkun Quisling. He doesn’t want our enemies to become reasonable -- he wants our enemies to win.


  62. 62 | December 27, 2012 11:19 am

    @ 1389AD:

    Israeli Jews supported Serbia. American Jews (not all) supported the Muslims.

    Did you see my post from last night?


  63. 63 | December 27, 2012 11:19 am

    @ Mike C.:

    The Dems have spent 15 years recovering from passing the 1994 “Assault Weapons” ban. Now they are going to throw it all away for a bill that stands zero chance of passing. What a damned shame :P


  64. waldensianspirit
    64 | December 27, 2012 11:22 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    And how many Lanzas went up against the White House?


  65. 65 | December 27, 2012 11:23 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    I am convinced the Dems will do nothing. They will only do something if the Republicans show signs of “compromise” on the gun issues. Then they will pounce on it. I doubt the GOP will even dare go for gun control. They know many on the Right don’t like them and guns are one of the few reasons I still reluctantly support the GOP.

    Both parties will be playing with fire if they dare enact more gun control.


  66. huckfunn
    66 | December 27, 2012 11:23 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    @ Mike C.:
    Gun control legislation with any teeth won’t pass 2 houses of Congress. The “control” will come in the form of ammunition bans and restrictions via executive orders. See my #53 above.


  67. 67 | December 27, 2012 11:24 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ 1389AD:
    Israeli Jews supported Serbia. American Jews (not all) supported the Muslims.
    Did you see my post from last night?

    Yup. I was at work yesterday evening though.


  68. 68 | December 27, 2012 11:24 am

    @ 1389AD:

    Oh, I know that. I was trying to bait the Outsider into defending Obama’s position, but even he knows Obama is indefensible. SCOAMF. Obama wants Iran to get nukes. I think he’d transfer nuclear technology in a heartbeat if he thought he could get away with it.


  69. 69 | December 27, 2012 11:25 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    The Outsider just goes by whatever talking points OFA sens him.


  70. waldensianspirit
    70 | December 27, 2012 11:28 am

    Obama should raid some more guitar shops to look macho


  71. 71 | December 27, 2012 11:28 am

    @ huckfunn:

    The “control” will come in the form of ammunition bans and restrictions via executive orders. See my #53 above.

    Obama will be sneaky about that.


  72. huckfunn
    72 | December 27, 2012 11:31 am

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    Obama should raid some more guitar shops to look macho

    He could do a Pete Towsend and smash ‘em up while singing “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.


  73. theoutsider
    73 | December 27, 2012 11:32 am

    @ Rodan:
    I work for OFA? Do you really believe that?


  74. waldensianspirit
    74 | December 27, 2012 11:33 am

    @ huckfunn:
    :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


  75. huckfunn
    75 | December 27, 2012 11:34 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ huckfunn:

    The “control” will come in the form of ammunition bans and restrictions via executive orders. See my #53 above.

    Obama will be sneaky about that.

    Yep. Weekend surprise. BOOM!


  76. 76 | December 27, 2012 11:34 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    I work for OFA? Do you really believe that?

    You don’t have to work for them to get their talking points emails.


  77. waldensianspirit
    77 | December 27, 2012 11:35 am

    George H.W. Bush In Intensive Care, Libs Root For Him To Die…

    Wow! Just wow


  78. 78 | December 27, 2012 11:40 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    I don’t get that. They should be upset. Poppy Bush was a Progressive and set the sage for Democratic dominance at the Presidential level the last 20 years. Leftists are weird.


  79. theoutsider
    79 | December 27, 2012 11:48 am

    @ Rodan:
    Since When? I actually speak for myself.


  80. heysoos
    80 | December 27, 2012 11:49 am

    interesting subject, but our super on the ball congress will no doubt put it on the back burner, not because it’s important but to cover their asses….if these nitwits don’t buckle down and get focused and get people back to work the issue will become totally moot…as for guns, just keep bombing the grabbers with facts and stats


  81. heysoos
    81 | December 27, 2012 11:50 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Since When? I actually speak for myself.

    good…then tell us how much debt is too much, in rounded off numbers if you like


  82. 82 | December 27, 2012 11:50 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Since When? I actually speak for myself.

    You repeat their talking points.


  83. 83 | December 27, 2012 11:51 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    I remember when Ted Kennedy was near death and the walking libturds were “warning” us about saying anything cruel about him. With a few exceptions at Free Republic, everyone was respectful. There’s a part of me that says “take screen shots of this, so that when that anti-Semitic pig Jimmy Carter finally bites it, we can repay them in kind.” But we won’t. It’s that sense of decency we have.


  84. 84 | December 27, 2012 11:51 am

    @ heysoos:

    He’s awaiting OFA an email for an answer.


  85. 85 | December 27, 2012 11:52 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    I don’t get their dislike of Poppy Bush. He was a man of the Left. I guess he wasn’t Leftwing enough for them.


  86. 86 | December 27, 2012 11:53 am

    @ Rodan:

    Both the US and NATO have irretrievably gone over to the dark side:

    Failed Muslim narcoterrorist province of Kosovo wants to join NATO – with US approval


  87. waldensianspirit
    87 | December 27, 2012 11:54 am

    heysoos wrote:

    good…then tell us how much debt is too much, in rounded off numbers if you like

    With significant digits no need to think out sub billion details; just a nice rounded off guesstimate would make theoutsider a legitimate commenter


  88. 88 | December 27, 2012 11:54 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Carolina Girl:
    I don’t get their dislike of Poppy Bush. He was a man of the Left. I guess he wasn’t Leftwing enough for them.

    Exactly what I was thinking.


  89. 89 | December 27, 2012 11:56 am

    @ Rodan:

    He’s a Republican. That’s all they care about. Remember, these are the same people were were screaming NO BLOOD FOR OIL in 1991 as they drove to the protest marches on the Bay Bridge.


  90. 90 | December 27, 2012 12:01 pm

    @ 1389AD:

    Can you do this as a Special Report. This is a disgrace. I am sure the so called anti-Terror Republicans will support this. After all the anti-terror hero Bush shook hands with an Islamic terrorists.

    But as some conservative claims, Kosovars are White European Muslims, that makes them different!
    //////


  91. theoutsider
    91 | December 27, 2012 12:02 pm

    @ Rodan:
    Really? I don’t think so! Even, when I called into your radio show? I had a few drinks, and smoked a couple of bowls. There was no talking points.


  92. 92 | December 27, 2012 12:05 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    He’s a Republican. That’s all they care about. Remember, these are the same people were were screaming NO BLOOD FOR OIL in 1991 as they drove to the protest marches on the Bay Bridge.

    Yeah the No Blood for Oil crowd was very quiet when Obama went to war on the UK and France’s behlaf for Libyan Oil.


  93. 93 | December 27, 2012 12:06 pm

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Really? I don’t think so! Even, when I called into your radio show? I had a few drinks, and smoked a couple of bowls. There was no talking points.

    If you’re smoking cannabis on top of several drinks, how do you even remember what you were talking about?


  94. 94 | December 27, 2012 12:06 pm

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Really? I don’t think so! Even, when I called into your radio show? I had a few drinks, and smoked a couple of bowls. There was no talking points.

    When you called you were speaking your mind. But when you post here I swear it comes straight from OFA.


  95. RIX
    95 | December 27, 2012 12:07 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    George H.W. Bush In Intensive Care, Libs Root For Him To Die…
    Wow! Just wow

    Yet the Libs maintain the pretense that they operate on a higher
    moral plane.
    Mostly I think that they operate from bitterness
    and envy.
    Rooting for the death of this WWII hero is beyond despicable.


  96. 96 | December 27, 2012 12:07 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Yep -- and that is PRECISELY what that was.


  97. 97 | December 27, 2012 12:08 pm

    @ RIX:

    I don’t politically like Bush but I do not wish him death. Progressives are really deranged.


  98. 98 | December 27, 2012 12:09 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Yep — and that is PRECISELY what that was.

    If Obama became a Republican and still implemented Leftist policies, Progressives would turn on him.


  99. 99 | December 27, 2012 12:09 pm

    New thread.


  100. RIX
    100 | December 27, 2012 12:12 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ RIX:

    I don’t politically like Bush but I do not wish him death. Progressives are really deranged

    .

    Absolutely.


  101. Speranza
    101 | December 27, 2012 12:32 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ RIX:
    I don’t politically like Bush but I do not wish him death. Progressives are really deranged.

    They are a sick bunch.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David