Obama and Hillary Open Mouth and Insert Foot:Open Dialogue With Middle East
Author: thecerebralgarageIt is being reported today that hillary Clinton,our new Secretary of State,has said that there seems to be a breath of relief coming from the world since Obama won the election and Bush isn’t in power anymore. I’m going to break this once more: OBAMA WAS RUNNING AGAINST McCAIN,whose values and agenda were much different than Bush’s. McCain’s plans were so good,they caused Obabama to flip several times during the debates and mirror exactly what McCain was saying about foreign policy! Hillary did the same thing!
She and her new boss(that’s GOT to be a pimp slap in the face for her),are going back to the old Democratic way of having an open dialogue with the Middle East,this includes the Saudis(we have to talk to them,we get Quaker State from them),Kuwait(we own them anyway),the UAR(another piece of prime American real estate),Iraq,Afghanistan,Iran(our sworn enemy since the fall of communism),Syria(another sworn enemy),Palestine,Israel,Egypt,you all know whos’ there. It’s basically a who’s who of who hates America and Christianity the most,and of course they are breathing a sigh of relief because under Bush,the military kept the pressure on them,and under Obama(a commander and chief who has never served in the military),the pressure to conform with the war on terror is going to ease. In fact,it’s going to ease to the point where they will have four years to plan somethign else that going to make the world look at America and go,”You could have done somethign about this long before it happened,” like when Clinton actually had word from a sniper team that Obama was in ther sights after the bombing of the USS Cole and didn’t give the order to kill. Thinking back to 9-11,he should have had his seperated from his body by a 30.06.
Open dialogue with the Middle East means only one thing:That we are about to bend over and get fisted once more by the Saudis who now know they will have control of the oil markets again because they know Obama and the left will not open up strategic oil fields for America to being it’s own domestic production and keep the pressure on the shieks not to manipulate the market again like they did last summer. It also means that america will automatically begin to weaken our military prescence there,as we already are by beginning the troop withdrawl from Iraq to give insurgents time to infiltrate and corrupt governments that are not strong enough by anyone’s standards to allow the military and advisors to step out of the way. Think back to the fall of Saigon,and that is what is beginning to take place in Iraq. The days will draw closer to the US withdrawl,and the insurgets(the syrians,Palestinians,Hammas,Iranians,and others) will be perched like vultures waiting for an opening and when they see it,we will watch the fall of Baghdad first hand. Who’s going to get blamed for it? America. Actually,we know where to place the blame. It starts with the CIA for giving our President bogus information on weapons of mass destruction and leading he and the Congress to go to war with Iraq. Granted,Sadam needed to go. He’d worn his welcome out. He was getting cocky since Regan was out of office anyway. The second blame for any kind of loss and early withdrawl in Iraq goes to the bleeding heart media. The war could be fought as a war should be fought,and if the powers that be have learned one damn thing from this,it’s keep the media well away from the military operations and just let them report on the bright lights and loud booms as the Marines and Army and Air Force and Navy do their thing and vanquish the enemy. See,when a terrorist is staying in a house full of people,and usually these chicken shit fuckers do that,and you send a rocket to the house and blow it up,it usually kills everyone in the house. That’s what rockets do. Terrorists are like those crack heads that run from the cops and try to hide under someone’s bed. Sometimes you gotta bust the whole house up to get them out,and most of the time the people hiding them know what’s up.
So now we have this open dialogue begining again. How about some open dialogue with Chavez down there in Venezuela? They own Citgo oil,and everytime he wigs,it closes american refineries down. Lyondell/Citgo in Pasadena,Tx. is being closed down indefinitely until they can get some Venezuelan crude back from that lunatic. How about we have an open dialogue with Mexico and tell them if they don’t straighten out the drug cartels that are killing people left and right on border towns,including government officials,that they’re NEXT.
Here’s how the open dialogue should go:
Hey,we’re America. You know us. You know our military. You know we can kick your ass if we want to,all we need is a half assed reason. Now all of you better play right in that sand box or when we get done,you’ll all be in time out and there won’t be any sand left. Now,how about a lot more listening,and a lot less running your mouths. Palestine and Hammas? One more rocket,just one more rocket…and we let the choke chain off of Israel. Remember when they took that from you in 6 days? It’s fixing to hapen again. Cease fire means not even a spit ball crosses the line.
I don’t know. I just DOknow,that when the Democrats start this “open dialogue” crap,and knowing how they don’t us to be America,they want us to be Europe,we usually come off looking weak,and it takes a Republican with actual military experience to get them shaking in their shoes again. Personally,and I don’t mean this as a slight against women,I think having a female secretary of state is a mistake when dealing with the Islamic and Muslim world. Condoleza Rice was barely semi-effective,and history shows that the better agreements and truces worked out were done by male envoys. It’s just a fact. These old school shieks and leaders do not see women as equals,and I know that’s a shock to the Rosie O’Donnels and the flannel wearing type,but they DON’T. You want results in the Middle east and with China? Bring back Kissinger or James Baker. They got things done.
we’ll see….we’ll see….
Ben
January 28th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
A couple of quick hits. First of all, the idea that a president should have been in the military is not only false, it’s patently anti-historical. Thirty-nine of forty-four American presidents have never had military duty in a combat zone. I’d say Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, handled himself quite well, as did FDR during World War II.
The second point is that Bill Clinton never gave an order to kill Bin Laden, not Obama. That would be awkward for everyone. But what you’re advocating is hindsight – American public opinion for the Serbian expedition was very low, and the aim of that was to stop ethnic cleansing. If Americans were opposed to bombing intervention when ethnic cleanings was occurring, they wouldn’t have been pleased with launching a few missiles at Bin Laden BEFORE he had attacked the United States. Hell, the vast majority of Americans had never heard his name prior to September 11th. Though, if it helps, I would have supported Clinton attacking Bin Laden back then, just as I supported the bombings in Serbia.
Blaming the CIA for the justification for Iraq is a copout. Ultimately it’s the president’s decision to go to war, and the president’s alone. You can blame surrounding circumstances but he made a choice for war, not the CIA, and he must live with it. That’s part of being a leader. President Obama has inherited a terrible economy which wasn’t his doing, but ultimately it’s his job to turn it around. And he has four years to do so or risk getting kicked out of office, and that responsibility is his to shoulder regardless of whose fault it was prior. That’s what it means to be a leader – no excuses no matter what.
Killing terrorists holed up in homes is a war crime when innocent civilians are involved, and I’m sad to see you condone committing atrocities. Some of those innocent civilians are exactly what you said – aiding and abetting – while others are truly innocent people being intimidated by individuals that may be threatening their family. The point is this: the United States should have shown more foresight than putting themselves in that position in the first place.
Talking to enemies is not seen as weakness. Ronald Reagan spoke with the Soviet Union often and managed to reduce nuclear weapons on both sides through diplomacy, not military action. Is he a wuss?
January 28th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Here is somethign that I will have to say for the CIA…Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs….I don’t think I need to say a whole lot else when it comes to the CIA feeding bogus information and the President making a lame decision based on intel that was wrong,as it came out in the congressional witch hunt. As far as killing terrorists in homes? if they run into a home and use the family there as a shield,well,when bullets fly,things get hit. This is a war much like the war in Vietnam where our soldiers don’t know who is coming at them. I know from first hand accounts from a friend’s two sons,both have done multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had no choice but to gun down women and children that have been sent at them wearing belts of dynamite and grenades,and the same goes in Iraq as it did in Vietnam. Chances are,if one person in that house has an AK or an RPG,the rest of the house if full of them,so you erradicate the target so it doesn’t come back in the future and kill you. George S. Patton said it best. The only way to win a war is TOTAL WAR. This war wasn’t designed to win,it was just a surgical venture,dictated by the imbedded media scrutinizing decisions made by military leaders on the field,and by the Commander and Chief at every turn.
As far as most people not knowing who Bin Laden was before 9-11? yes we did. We knew of him and Al-Quieda after the bombing of the USS Cole,and as I said,a US sniper team had the man responsible in their sights,and the order was not issued.
You know,the greatest warriors would rather use diplomacy over fighting. No soldier wants to go to war. as far as me condoning atrocities? do you condone Iraqui or syrian insurgents dragging our soldier’s bodies through the streets? Do you condone them being beheaded and their bodies being found on the side of the roads to and from Baghdad? When diplomacy is answered with animalistic,senseless violence and the killing of innocent civilians by mass murdering bombers,then that must be met by the same amount of violence and more to show the enemy that we will not bend,we will not suffer,and we will outlast and overrun.
The United States SHOULD have shown a little bit more foresight before crossing the border from Afghanistan to iraq,but now we’re there,side by side with the British and Australians who are dieing each day,who are fighting in a war that’s tide is based on the media’s influence. Do not ever forget,the same senators and Congresspeople that voted for going to war,along with the president,did so based on intelligence that was faulty,and out and out lies in most cases. These same elected officials,are now the ones whining to get the troops out of iraq,and Obama is doing that,by redeploying 20,000 Marines to Afghanistan.
I would suggest a quick trip back into history of the Regan/Gorbachev summits,and the total bluff of the Star Wars Defense Initiative. Truth be told,it got as intense and as close to war with the Soviets then as it did with Kennedy and Krushchev and the Cuban Missle Crisis.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Thought you should read this:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/
January 28th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
I agree with you abnut not having a female Secretary of State. The Muslim despots do not see women as equals and one of the reasons the Arabs attacked Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War was because they had a woman Golda Meir as Prime Minister of Israel. If Tzipi Livni is elected Prime Minister of Israel next month, another attack of Arab states on Israel may not be far behind. I have nothing personal against women Secretaries of State, but if achieving peace in the Middle East is one of your goals, then you’ll need a man to deal with those misogynistic sheiks. After all their Holy Book the Koran has told them that most women are going to Hell anyway.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
I am not talking about that. I am talking about a documented instance,as high,ighted on the Discovery Channel and the History Channel of events leading up to 9-11. There was a unit of Delta Force that actually had Bin Laden in the cross hairs after the FIRST attack on the WTC and Clinton wouldn’t issue the order. One bullet then would have possibly saved how many lives?
January 30th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Lawsuit filed claiming Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve
There were serious questions about the constitutional eligibility of Hillary Clinton to serve as secretary of State. The issue arises from a vote held to raise the Secretary of States salary. Senator Hillary Clinton voted for this increase. The Constitution forbids members of the Senate from being appointed to civil office, such as the Secretary of State, if the “emoluments,” or salary and benefits, of the office were increased during the Senator’s term.