Romney: “Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea.”

The minute that came out of Romney's mouth, I knew he had not prepared for the foreign policy debate because it isn't important to him.  He doesn't bother to read the papers prepared for him on foreign policy as the only thing that matters to Romney it seems is the economy and his wealthy friends getting wealthier.  Not someone I want as President.  I still cannot get over his said this again last night:

Puzzling over this tonight from Romney: “Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea.” 

Late Update: Not the first time Romney has said this, apparently. More here.
David Kurtz

During the last night's debate when Romney talked about Iran's only route to the sea was Syria, I had a flashback to the GOP primary debate where he said the same thing and thought I must be imagining I heard it before, but I was right.  All these months later and no one has bothered to look at a map on the GOP side?

From the Washington Post site, Romney has said it six more times since then and again last night.  Why didn't his staff correct him?  I put up the first map because it shows the very reason we are talking and not attacking Iran's nuclear reactors.  To go from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and out to the Arabian Sea, you have to through the Strait of Hormuz which for years Americans and our NATO allies along with other countries on the Persian Gulf have been afraid Iran might mine that Strait.  In June of this year, it was revealed that there was a buildup in the Persian Gulf by the US and its allies:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, June 26 (UPI) -- In the wake of Iran's refusal to rein in its contentious nuclear program at talks in Moscow, the U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf is gathering pace, with four more Navy mine countermeasures ships arriving at the weekend. 

The Avenger class vessels out of San Diego will join eight U.S. and British navy mine hunters deployed in the region. 

Their main mission will be to keep open the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the only way in and out of the gulf, if the Iranians carry through on a threat to close the vital energy artery through which one-fifth of the world's oil supplies pass every day. 

Iran is reported to have in excess of 2,000 sea mines, including advanced Russian weapons, that could be used to block the narrow, 112-mile strait.

These could be used in conjunction with Chinese-designed anti-ship missiles and swarm attacks by fleets of armed speedboats manned by naval forces of the elite Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Read more:  UPI

The Air Force has joined the Navy buildup by increasing their resources in the Gulf with F-22 Raptors and F-15's moved to the region this summer.  Anyone thinking that we don't have a lot of resources in this region needs to look no farther then the fact that the Fifth Fleet of the US Navy headquartered in Bahrain.  We keep a carrier in the Persian Gulf at all times and another one in the Arabian Sea.

The Fifth Fleet of the United States Navy is responsible for naval forces in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and coast off East Africa as far south as Kenya. It shares a commander and headquarters with U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT).

Here is a map of the Middle East where you see that Iran does NOT border Syria and has plenty of access to water as its long coastline borders the Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf, and Gulf of Oman which connects to the Arabian Sea.

These same maps were shown over and over again during Gulf War I and Gulf War II but Romney and his consultants (other then Bush national security people advising Romney) obviously never paid attention to the countries in the Middle East.  Yet for months Romney has been saber rattling against Iran and how we need to quit talking and attack Iran.  Even Senator Lindsey Graham wants talks to stop with Iran.  Wonder what he thinks of Romney today after he went out on a limb for him or Cong Peter King on Libya?  

It is obvious that Romney didn't pay any attention during Gulf War I or II to what was happening in the region but now parrots what Fox News and Rush have to say.  That is no way to run foreign policy.  I went after McCain/Palin for not being ready on foreign policy but Romney/Ryan are even worse.  In fact, they are downright scary when you realize that Romney considers Russia our biggest geopolitical foe and thinks the World Court should indict the Iranian Leader for a speech:

During Monday’s presidential debate in Boca Raton, Fla., Romney brought up the notion of indicting Ahmadinejad for his inflammatory statements against Israel. The Iranian dictator famously was quoted in a speech saying that Israel “must be wiped off the map,” though the translation was later revealed to be somewhat inaccurate. 

“I’d make sure that Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation,” Romney said. 

So now Romney wants Ahmadinejad indicted for speaking out even though the translation was inaccurate and this man wants to be President?  Give me a break!

Then there is the little fact that once again Romney did not mention veterans last night but Obama did.  Imagine that after the uproar from the GOP Convention not mentioning veterans, that Romney did it again.

When I first joined Republicans for Obama, I wondered if I was doing the right thing, but now I know it was the right thing to do.  Romney is not ready on any front to be President and his ability to lie without batting an eye could be a foreign policy disaster.  Mitt Romney does not have the character to be President and it is time for the American people to send him back to one of his mansions for good on November 6th.

Romney Uses Middle East Crises for Political Gain - Epic Failure

Romney while trying to look Presidential instead looks like a political opportunist who does not have the best interest of the United States at heart as only his own personal aspirations count.

Where did Romney learn about the American Embassy Memo release about the video and the fact that it could set off riots?  It is alleged he worked on the press release for several hours, they embargoed the release, and it came out right after the State Department had learned at least one person had been killed.  Did he get the information from the intelligence briefing that is given to official candidates?  If it was, then Romney should only receive an overview of a national security briefing in the future.  The Romney news conference was a sham and absolutely disgusting since it happened before the President spoke to the American people.  Romney and the RNC Chair comments both were wrong about Lybya and are an embarrassment.  

Romney just accused Obama of not being truthful when Romney is the one who lies all the time.  How can he even say such a thing?  We all know Romney lies and doesn't believe in fact checking -- that is a fact.  Looks like Republicans are tanking for a reason with a candidate with zero integrity and empathy.  All Romney/Ryan are doing right now is pure politics when we have an ongoing foreign crises.  Neither one deserves to be near the White House.  

As a Republican I find Romney/Ryan and their comments this week reprehensible along with Republicans like Portman and RNC Chair Priebus who defended his comments without the facts.  When Portman admitted he didn't know about the memo from the American Embassy in Cairo when questioned by Norah O'Donnell he continued defending Romney anyway.  Says all you need to know.  Romney surrogates are saying what they are told to say and in the process are losing any ounce of integrity they have gained over the years. (Note:  I don't normally use the Daily KOS as a source but since I saw this interview myself and their comments said what I saw I am using them.  Conservative sites are lying or I didn't see and hear what I saw and heard.)

Most of the diplomatic corp is made up of non-partisan foreign service officers who work for Administrations of both parties and stay on the job even when there is a change at the Ambassador level.  Here is what a Foreign Service Officer has to say about the thought of a Romney becoming President:

09.14.2012 — 09:33 AMA Foreign Service Officer’s LamentFrom a Foreign Service Officer  

It’s probably not a surprise. But can I just say that if Mitt Romney wins in November, he is going to have a very chilly reception from his employees every time he goes abroad? I don’t think I can quite state the rage we’re all feeling towards him.

Josh Marshall 

Today Romney finally got around to condemning the anti-Muslim film or as Josh Marshall put it Apologizing to the Muslim Rioters which is what he accused President Obama of doing:

09.14.2012 — 11:20 AM

BREAKING: Romney Apologizes to Muslim Rioters 

AKA, condemns the anti-Muslim film now roiling the Middle East, like the White House and State Department did. 

Josh Marshall

Finally someone took on Sean Hannity who thinks he is a foreign policy expert -- he couldn't even carry McCain's briefcase IMHO.  Hannity, Rush, Levin and others should have used some common sense and lowered the rhetoric in the middle of an ongoing crises in the Middle East but they piled on the President treating him like he had no policy.  The one without a policy is their candidate Romney.  Finding the conservative media for the most part disgusting, unethical, and refuse to acknowledge the truth just like Hannity did with Senator McCain:

McCain to Hannity: Fox 'wrong about Libya'
By MACKENZIE WEINGER |
9/14/12 3:23 PM EDT 

Sen. John McCain on Thursday night clashed with Sean Hannity, telling the Fox News host that he and others on the network “were wrong about Libya.” 

McCain's remarks came after Hannity claimed he had accurately predicted that the Muslim Brotherhood would take control of Egypt, and pressed the Arizona Republican on why the Obama administration was not able to foresee this week's attacks on U.S. diplomats in North Africa. 

“How is it that Sean Hannity and a few others of us out here predicted with pinpoint accuracy that the Muslim Brotherhood would be in charge in Egypt? Their first task when they took over the Parliament was to declare Israel, our closest ally, an enemy. First, their number one enemy,” Hannity said. “How is it that the administration with all their intelligence and all the money we spend to help them and the CIA — how is it that they didn’t see this coming? And they kept telling the American people, this is democracy. Democracy. I don’t view the Muslim Brotherhood as democracy. They want Sharia law implemented now in Egypt.” 

McCain pushed back, telling Hannity that “that’s not clear that that’s true” and that he and Fox News were wrong with their take on the elections in Libya. 

“But also it was you and people on Fox that said in Libya, ‘we didn’t know who they were and let’s not help these people.’ They had an election and they elected moderates. They rejected Islamists,” McCain said. “And yes, there are Al Qaeda factors and there are extremists in Libya today, but the Libyan people are friends of ours, and they support us, and they support democracy. So you were wrong about Libya.” 

“I don’t think I was wrong about Libya at all,” Hannity replied. 

McCain jumped in, telling Hannity, “Yes I do, I know you were.” 

“No, I was not,” the Fox News host said. 

“I know you were. They had a free and fair election, and a democratic non-Islamic government was elected. So you were wrong,” McCain said. 

Hannity then said he was surprised McCain wasn’t siding with him. 

“They didn’t think the Muslim Brotherhood would take over? This is a known terror organization. We say we’re fighting a war on terror, we’re apologizing, our government, to Egypt after they raid our embassy and rip our flag down?” Hannity said. “Frankly, Senator, I would think you are with me on this.” 

The interview wrapped after McCain replied, “I am not taking the side of the administration. I am saying that the largest nation in the Arab world is something we have to carefully calibrate our actions with.” 

Source:  Politico

The arrogance of Hannity that McCain should agree with him is more then disgusting, it is despicable.  Then you have Sarah Palin accusing the President of palling around with terrorists who made a fool of herself last night attacking President Obama.  Why is Fox News even interviewing Palin?  Her comments are always strange and show a lack of comprehension about the issues.

Then we have this article which words fail me that this man is involved in a Presidential campaign and is someone who Romney relies on -- these words by and adviser are beyond reprehensible.  Mitt Romney is despicable to keep people like this on his staff.  It shows Romney has no integrity at all left as he panders to the Tea Party and far right fringe by keeping someone like this on his staff:

Top Romney Adviser Faults Obama For Murder Of U.S. Ambassador, Claims Romney Would Have Prevented AttackBy Judd Legum on Sep 13, 2012 at 11:30 pm 

The Romney campaign has escalated their attacks on President Obama following the murder of four Americans, including the ambassador, in Libya. In an interview with the Washington Post, Mitt Romney’s top foreign policy adviser pinned the blame for the attacks squarely on Obama and flatly claimed they would not have happened if Romney had been president:
Advisers to Mitt Romney on Thursday defended his sharp criticism of President Obama and said that the deadly protests sweeping the Middle East would not have happened if the Republican nominee were president. 

“There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation,” Richard Williamson, a top Romney foreign policy adviser, said in an interview. “For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we’ve had an American ambassador assassinated.”

Previously, Romney, his campaign and the Republican Party accused Obama of “sympathizing” with the terrorists who killed Americans in the hours after the attack. The accusation quickly recieved widespread, bipartisan condemnation. Romney then repeated the charge.  

Source:  Think Progress

Mitt Romney has no core so he has adopted the core of the Tea Party and far right fringe it seems by following the "Southern strategy" which he seems to be doing to get elected:

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of winning elections or to gain political support in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans

This Romney/Tea Party Republican Party is going to lose a lot of Republicans with this Southern strategy which has moved into the north with voter suppression.  When Republicans take their blinders off and see them for what they are -- a group of bigoted people, they are going to vote against this group.  I didn't like Palin in 2008 when she ran with McCain -- thought her comments were over the top time and time again.  I voted for McCain not Palin.

I am so happy I took my blinders completely off this time.  Thanks to Mitt Romney I am seeing today's Republican Party for what it is -- no core, no ethics, and bigoted.  Senator McCain called out the fringe elements in 2008 while Romney embraces them in 2012.

Ron Reagan said it best:  Romney does not look Presidential -- he has a lack of character and judgement!

The Romance of the empty rhetoric of Barack Obama

On this Super Tuesday where we take a giant leap in nominating someone to oppose Obama, we are reminded that this is a very dangerous world in which we live.  Fortunately for the United States Benjamin  Netanyahu is the leader of Israel who will not back down to the thugs of the Middle East.  The President says the right words about Iran but they ring hollow and are mostly empty rhetoric as Wes Pruden details in his article about Obama, Iran, and Israel.  Sometimes when you watch Obama with Netanyahu, you are left wondering what Bibi is thinking when he talks to Obama.

Obama reminds me of someone with all the education but each step was only a checkmark to make more money.  Along the way he doesn't seem to have absorbed much from his education.  He would probably have been much happier in life if he could have been a professional basketball player instead of President.  It is the one thing outside of his daughters that you can see his face light up when he plays a pick-up game or even when he watches the games.

Now we are fast approaching a crossroads with Iran and while I was writing this article this morning, CNN reported in a Breaking News email:

"U.S. and other countries offer to resume negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, EU foreign policy chief says."

Will Iran now blink?  How appropriate on Super Tuesday.  Maybe this will assure a win for Obama in the Oklahoma Democrat Primary.

The most likely scenario is not that Obama's speech had anything to do with countries offering to negotiate with Iran again but that Netanyahu made perfectly clear while he was in the United States that Israel would not back down and retained the right to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities without notification on time and date to the US.  That is what I would bet has the some world leaders thinking twice and deciding to talk some more with Ahmadinejad of Iran. Will it stop Israel?  No one knows the answer to that one. Find the timing suspect since it showcases Obama on foreign policy and none of the four Republican candidates have foreign policy experience.

Using the words 'empty rhetoric' sums up Obama and pretty much the four candidates running on the Republican side.   The last thing this Country needs is to get in a war with Iran when our leaders seemed to have lost the will to win again.  Most countries now realize that Obama talks a great talk but doesn't walk the walk which puts the United States in a dangerous position.  Fortunately for the United States we have a friend like Benjamin Netanyahu who has a backbone of steel to stand up to people like Ahmadinejad.

The romance of the empty rhetoric

By Wesley Pruden on March 6, 2012

Words, words, words. Stonewall Jackson famously told soldiers to “make short speeches, and when you draw the sword throw away the scabbard.” 

Barack Obama is obsessed with words, and he never learned to make a short speech, and he’s certainly no Stonewall Jackson. The Israelis understand that, however well-meaning he may be. 

The president may even believe most of the stuff he hears himself say. 

Mr. Obama made another pretty speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, on Sunday that was thrilling only to those who gorge on the romance of rhetoric. Mr. Obama and his teleprompter put on a show of bluffery that was surely the envy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “Iran’s leaders should know,” the president said, “that I do not have a policy of containment. I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.” 

Almost any Iranian truck driver could guide a Mack truck through the loopholes with no fear of scratching the paint. The president won’t hesitate when it’s “necessary” to defend the United States and its “interests.” The president, of course, will decide when it’s “necessary,” and he gets to determine what those “interests” may be. It may be “necessary” to reassure the Islamic world by doing nothing beyond making still another speech. The “interests” of the United States, as Mr. Obama might define them, could only be defended by another bow from the presidential waist. 

Benjamin Netanyahu, the visiting Israeli prime minister who is accustomed to tense visits to friends in Washington, reminded Mr. Obama the next day that despite the president’s scolding about “loose talk of war” his own responsibility to his country is “to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate.” He could have reminded the president of the reply of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to French demands for tribute and other bribes for “offensive” remarks by President John Adams to Tallyrand: “Millions for defense, sir, but not one cent for tribute.” Such plain speech has gone out of style in Washington, when and where it is needed most. But not in Jerusalem, where the threat of hanging naturally focuses the mind, as Dr. Johnson said. 

Mr. Obama, with his high regard for his reputation as a man with singular gifts of pretty speech, no doubt imagines he has discharged his obligations to an ally with words (and a few notes of the music). If he were a true student of the Muslim mind, instead of being merely an admirer of the cultural gifts of Islam (such as they are), he would understand that the hard men in Tehran hear his rhetoric not as kindly sentiment but as evidence of weakness and flaccid impotence. That’s why they so eagerly get on with the pursuit of the weapons needed to “wipe Israel off the map.” The Islamic despots understand a thing or two about empty rhetoric.  

Excerpt:  Read More at Pruden and Politics.

Shark Tank.net: Allen West Drops the Hammer on Ron Paul

Once again the Shark Tank blog brings us the facts that the mainstream media misses or ignores.  We think that Allen West is 100% correct in his assessment of Iran and anyone who doesn't think so, has their head buried in the sand starting with Ron Paul.  The more I see and hear of Retired Lt Colonel West, the most impressed I have become.  He understands what leadership is all about and just how dangerous Iran is as a Country.  It is about time that someone stood up and took on Ron Paul and Colonel West has done just that.

Allen West Drops the Hammer on Ron Paul
August 13, 2011
by Javier Manjarres

Just a few nights ago, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul stated that he did not have a problem with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon because ‘everyone else already has one’ at the Presidential Debate in Iowa. This assertion did not sit well with Congressman Allen West (R-FL), as he expressed his strong disagreement with Paul’s statement during a Tea Party social event in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Paul’s McGovernite-inspired foreign policy signals just how disconnected he is to the reality of Iran the mortal threat it poses to the United States and the world. 

“That’s not the kind of guy you need to be sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”- Congressman Allen West

Is Vice President Biden now Going to Call for Obama to be Impeached on Libya?

Biden: "We should impeach presidents who launch attacks without Congressional approval" said to Iowa Dems in 2007

BP's Trade with Iran: From Environmental Disaster to National Security Threat

This video of Frank Gaffney who heads the Center for Security Policy interview with Larry Kudlow on CNBC sends chills up your spine.

Makes you wonder why this Administration has not been more on the offensive against BP with the oil leak in the Gulf. From Day One there has been something wrong about this whole deal from no fire booms on the coast required by the 1994 regulations to BP changing the procedures that very easily could have led to the disaster that killed 11 men. Why has Obama and his Administration been so slow to act? Are they are hiding something or just inept?

Gov Jindal of Louisiana has chosen to proceed with building sand berms skirting the coast line to try and stop this oil from getting into more marshlands of Louisiana. Oil is already pushing at least 12 miles into Louisiana’s marshes and two major pelican rookeries are now coated in crude. Gov Jindal has waiting weeks for a response from this Administration but they have stayed silent on his request.

Why has the Obama Administration been so slow to act? Guess BP knew what they were doing when they gave a lot of campaign contributions to Obama. Getting more obvious if you live in a Red State that this Administration is not quick to help out your State. He reminds a lot of people of some little kid who didn't get his way and threw a temper tantrum. He was definitely not ready to assume the responsibilities of becoming President and it shows. He would rather play than work. No one can ever complain that Obama is a workaholic -- more like a playaholic -- basketball or golf versus work and they win out every time.

BP's trade with Iran: From environmental disaster to national security threat
CNBC May 25, 2010

Frank Gaffney joins Larry Kudlow on CNBC to discuss the national security implications of British Petroleum's trade with Iran. While a BP rig exploded in the Gulf, the company was allowing the mullahs in Tehran to finance, among other things, its nuclear weapons project. The US military purchases hundreds of millions worth of oil from BP; under existing laws, the US has the right to cut ties with the petroleum company unless they stop doing business with the Islamic Republic.

For more information, see the Wall Street Journal article, "Oil Trade With Iran Thrives, Discreetly."

Ahmadinejad Accuses U.S. of 'Acts of Terror,' Defends Nuclear Program (US, GB, and France walkout)

Ahmadinejad Accuses U.S. of 'Acts of Terror,' Defends Nuclear Program
FOXNews.com

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the United States Monday of committing "acts of terror" and blamed the host nation at a U.N. nonproliferation conference for a worldwide spread of nuclear weapons, prompting the U.S. representative to walk out.

Excerpt: Read more at Fox News

NOTE: Reports have France and Great Britain also walking out. Why did the UN give this man a bully pulpit is what we would like to know.

Get Ready for a Nuclear Iran -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and others

Obama has been touting no upgrades to our nuclear weapons arsenal and in fact, wants to destroy many of them even if Russia doesn't honor the treaty. At the same time Iran is continuing on with its nuclear program while the Obama does nothing. Instead he disses Israel and attempts to destabilize their leadership.

"Whose side is Obama on?" is being asked more and more by American citizens. This paragraph by John Bolton, former UN Ambassador, states what is most likely to happen as Obama twiddles his thumbs doing nothing constructive like he did during the Iranian uprising when he and Clinton, Secretary of State, sided with the Government against the Patriots of Iran. The danger of his agenda is shown in this paragraph by John Bolton that the possession of nuclear weapons capability will spread throughout the Middle East.

Even if containment and deterrence might be more successful against Iran than just suggested, nuclear proliferation doesn't stop with Tehran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others will surely seek, and very swiftly, their own nuclear weapons in response. Thus, we would imminently face a multipolar nuclear Middle East waiting only for someone to launch first or transfer weapons to terrorists. Ironically, such an attack might well involve Israel only as an innocent bystander, at least initially

What is Obama's answer to that? Going to the United Nations which is using the same old rhetoric that does nothing to stop Iran. The United Nations whose leadership comes from Third World countries does nothing to stop radical leaders including what was happening in Rwanda which should be a huge black mark on the UN. A lot of rhetoric and pontificating thrown around that amounts to nothing.

When the people went to the polls to vote in 2008, they did not envision a President that would dis our allies and stand up for our enemies. We are positive that thought didn't occur to any voters other than his friends and allies who pushed him to run.

We know Soros is behind Obama but who else? Who years ago set everything in motion for him to become President? Was it Franklin Marshall Davis and his comrades? If we had the answer to who pulls the puppet strings today, we are sure all of this would be much clearer. Who replaced Franklin Marshal Davis in Obama's life when he died? That might be the answer everyone is looking for today. His mentor, Davis, was a Communist and child pedophile in Obama's formative high school years which has left a deeply flawed man with no background available for his college years and beyond except the radicals he was around in Chicago.

What can we expect out of Obama on the Iranian situation? Not much except more rhetoric would be the logical conclusion. What will Obama do if Israel strikes? We suspect he will vehemently condemn Israel which means the American people will have to stand up and have their voices heard for Israel if they make this strike. Even Arab nations like Saudi Arabia know a strike by Israel is in their best interest as they and other Arab countries don't trust Iran any more than the United States should. Israel, we believe, will be forced to do something as they can not survive a nuclear Iran as nuclear weapons would spread throughout the Middle East.

This is a nightmare scenario that today's leadership of the United States is ill prepared to handle with such a weak President and Secretary of State.

MAY 2, 2010
Get Ready for a Nuclear Iran
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and others
By John Bolton

Negotiations grind on toward a fourth U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution against Iran's nuclear weapons program, even as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrives in New York to address the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference. Sanctions advocates acknowledge that the Security Council's ultimate product will do no more than marginally impede Iran's progress.

In Congress, sanctions legislation also creaks along, but that too is simply going through the motions. Russia and China have already rejected key proposals to restrict Iran's access to international financial markets and choke off its importation of refined petroleum products, which domestically are in short supply. Any new U.S. legislation will be ignored and evaded, thus rendering it largely symbolic. Even so, President Obama has opposed the legislation, arguing that unilateral U.S. action could derail his Security Council efforts.

The further pursuit of sanctions is tantamount to doing nothing. Advocating such policies only benefits Iran by providing it cover for continued progress toward its nuclear objective. It creates the comforting illusion of "doing something." Just as "diplomacy" previously afforded Iran the time and legitimacy it needed, sanctions talk now does the same.

Speculating about regime change stopping Iran's nuclear program in time is also a distraction. The Islamic Revolution's iron fist, and willingness to use it against dissenters (who are currently in disarray), means we cannot know whether or when the regime may fall. Long-term efforts at regime change, desirable as they are, will not soon enough prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons with the ensuing risk of further regional proliferation.

Excerpt: Read More at Wall Street Journal

Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran

Once again Obama and Hillary are determined to destroy any attempts at the Pro-Democracy movement in Iran as they side with Russia. Are either of them ever going to come down on the side of Democracy? We have our doubts as both the backgrounds are deep rooted in Alinsky teachings which do not bode well for Americans. Every day this Administration makes it clear to Americans that they have a progressive agenda which will lead into socialism expecting all our previous enemies to love us. Stupid philosophy that only weakens America.

Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:34 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, reversing years of efforts during the Bush administration to help develop a civil society, congressional sources told Newsmax this week.

The move is apparently intended to please Iran’s rulers after they criticized President Obama and the State Department for allegedly seeking to fund a “velvet revolution” during the June presidential elections in Iran.

“It sounds like the Iranians complained in Geneva and we acceded to their demands,” a former senior government official familiar with the pro-democracy programs told Newsmax.

Excerpt: See Newsmax for Full Article

French Atomic Pique -- Sarkozy unloads on Obama's 'virtual' disarmament reality

This article from The Wall Street Journal leaves us speechless. We want to thank them for printing the truth while most of the media stays silent. This comment from the article is the most shocking part of the Obama visit to the UN:

But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons

They didn't want to "spoil the image of success?" This President is all about image and no substance. If anyone wanted proof, all they have to do is read this Wall Street Journal Article. Obama and his arrogance are harming friendships with our long time allies and playing right into the hands or Iran, Argentina, Cuba, Honduras, Russia and other oppressive regimes around the World. This is beyond disgusting because it is an OUTRAGE. We are sure that the MIA media will be covering this. (Sarcasm)

When are all Americans going to wake up to the person some of them elected for whatever reason including wanting to show they were not racist. What they thought they were getting and what we got are 180 degrees apart.

Obama is inexperienced, lazy, and his #1 priority of the Olympics over a decision on Afhanistan says all we need to know. Obama seems set on detroying the foreign relations of this Country, cannot make up his mind on Afghanistan -- so far voting present while he visits the Olympic Committee, and continues to send our Country into deep debt with his agenda for starters. One of his sponsors, George Soros, is going to get wealthier, e.g. funding offshore drilling in Brazil where Soros has a stake but tanking domestic oil production.

This is what you get when you elect someone who was brought up by Communist sympathizers whose mentor in his teen years was Communist and who has radicals for his friends. To this day members of the Beltway and other East Coast media continue to carry Obama's water. WHY?

REVIEW & OUTLOOK SEPTEMBER 29, 2009
French Atomic Pique
Sarkozy unloads on Obama's 'virtual' disarmament reality.

President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran's secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel. But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement.

Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion.

President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy.

Le Monde's diplomatic correspondent, Natalie Nougayrède, reports that a draft of Mr. Sarkozy's speech to the Security Council Thursday included a section on Iran's latest deception. Forced to scrap that bit, the French President let his frustration show with undiplomatic gusto in his formal remarks, laying into what he called the "dream" of disarmament. The address takes on added meaning now that we know the backroom discussions.

"We are right to talk about the future," Mr. Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. resolution on strengthening arms control treaties. "But the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises," i.e., Iran and North Korea. "We live in the real world, not in a virtual one." No prize for guessing into which world the Frenchman puts Mr. Obama.

"We say that we must reduce," he went on. "President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council Resolutions . . .

"I support America's 'extended hand.' But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusions are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions."

We thought we'd never see the day when the President of France shows more resolve than America's Commander in Chief for confronting one of the gravest challenges to global security. But here we are.

Source: Wall Street Journal

NOTE: Our bold and highlights

Center for Security Policy: No more surprises

Wonder where this Administration is getting their intelligence from now with this major gaffe on Iran's ability to build and deliver a nuclear bomb. How can Gates be so wrong? Has Obama already destroyed our intelligence capability?

Obama caved to the Russians on the Missile Shield for Eastern Europe for help on Iran (dumb move) and now we know Iran has the capability for a nuclear bomb so what else has Obama given up to make our enemies stronger and our allies weaker?

Sure hope voters learned a lesson that you never elect someone with ZERO experience to be President or someone this far left.

No more surprises (Cancel Missile Defense and Iran has Capability to Build a Nuclear Bomb)

Center for Security Policy ^ 18 Sept 09 Christopher Holton

Capitol Hill in Washington continued to be engrossed in the healthcare debate and the uproar over ACORN. But those weren't the most significant news stories of the day, even if they did garner most of the attention of the media. There were two other news stories which are likely to have much more far-reaching implications for America and the Free World.

First, the Obama administration announced that it was canceling plans to build missile defense installations and deploy interceptor missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Obama team came prepared with a nice spin on the explanation for this terribly myopic decision.

(snip)

Gates said that this decision came as a result of intelligence that the Islamic Republic of Iran's ballistic missile program had not developed as fast as previously thought and that this meant that the chief threat from Iran was not its planned Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) but rather its short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. (We'll get into the flaws in Gates' assertion a little later.)

(snip)

The AP reported that the nuclear experts at the IAEA were in agreement that Iran already possesses the capability to build a nuclear bomb and is "on its way" to developing a missile system capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. Specifically, the report declared that Iran was likely to "overcome problems" on developing a delivery system.

There have been times in the past when US intelligence estimates were proved wrong, but Secretary Gates had barely climbed down from the podium when his homily about the Iranian threat proved to be, well, hogwash. Congratulations Secretary Gates. You've set a new record.

(Excerpt) Read more at centerforsecuritypolicy.org

TOP US Commander - Iran Still Supports Iraq Attacks

Note: The President invited Iranian diplomats to the 4th of July celebrations at our Embassies around the World, was very late in his remarks about the Government of Iran attacking protestors, and now we find out that Iran is still behind attacks in Iraq. Why does this President want to talk with this dictorial Iranian Government when our Commander on the ground believes they are behind the attacks in Baghdad?


Top US Commander - Iran Still Supports Iraq Attacks

The top U.S. military commander in Iraq says that Iran still supports and trains militants who carry out attacks _ mostly with mortars and sophisticated roadside bombs _ inside Iraq.

Gen. Ray Odierno says the attacks have been reduced but are still a problem.

He spoke on Tuesday at his base outside of Baghdad, as Iraqi forces took control of security in the Iraqi capital and other urban areas.

June 30 was the deadline for American troops to pull out of Iraqi cities under a U.S.-Iraqi security pact. The pullout was completed on Monday.

Odiero says Tehran is "still supporting, funding and training surrogates inside Iraq" and that he believes "many of the attacks in Baghdad are in fact done by individuals supported by Iran."