When Reagan said things you believed him, you believed that he was going do to what he said he was going to do. Bush was the same. In fact, during his first term particularly, the leftists were all up in arms because he was doing exactly as he said he would do during the campaign.

Now we have Obamanation. He has shown over and over and over that his word means nothing. Except if its about pushing through his agenda on how he thinks the US should be… socialist.

I think the rest of the world is rejoicing over Obamanation being elected. They knew that he was unqualified and would help lead the country to a downfall. He is worse than Carter, and that was bad.

Unfortunately, words are, at least, ineffective.

The difference between Bush and Obama is that both understand this reality, but Bush was willing to go beyond words and Obama is not.

Korea, Honduras, Iran, Iraq, Russia… They smell blood in the water, a weak President – which is what Obamalamadingdong is – along with a Congress that has the nut jobs running things is the perfect setup.

Obama is ill suited for the job. The world knows it and they are all starting to feed off the situations going on all over the place. Korea knows Obama thinks all he needs to do is speak and it will be so. The US is weakened from the economy, and was made weaker by this idiots spending frenzy. They see the climate bill that just passed the house as a further sign that the economy of the US is moving toward colapse. Healthcare will be the last item needed to bring our country to its knees economically, setting us up for a big fall on the world stage.

Obama presents a clear and present danger to our country, yet I don’t see any who are calling him on it of those who can do so.

The question is whether Obama is capable of LEARNING that lesson.

I am afraid his ideology is so entrenched that he cannot.

Which means we’ll see similar things play out over the course of his Presidency, and those who truly seek freedom will despair of the USA being on their side in these things.

And that is a true national security problem imho.

It probably would have changed nothing in this situation in Iran. But I guess we’ll never know now. You are my age, and remember the Gdansk shipyards. In the Eastern European conflict there were two clearly defined ideologies.

This one is much “fuzzier.”

But, Obama asked for it. And this is one that he truly did “inherit.” But that’s nothing new…every President inherits a pile of foreign policy garbage…it’s in the job description.

In the beginning, from a national security perspective, it made little difference which of the two “won” the election — both are hard-liners who were selected, and controlled, by the Mullahs. If Obama backed the “loser,” with words (what is there left except outright military intervention — there’s only so much that “sanctions” can do — which, in this case, is nothing…) then the Mullahs, who would remain in control would be even less likely to be receptive to even a marginal change in their race to obtain nuclear arms.

If he came out on the side of the “loser” (and at that point, the only thing on the table was a choice between the two — a fraud of an election — not some “revolution” as it evolved into) then he solidifies the Mullahs against any possibility (however small) that they might alter their position.

Rock — meet hard place.

In the beginning, the Mullahs remained firmly in control and, even at this point, very few pundits consider real the possibility of “revolution” with “regime change” with that change resulting in the removal of the Supreme Leader and something resembling a free and democratic election — let alone the possibility of there being such with any possibility of the resulting regime being U.S. friendly.

Over the decades, we have tried economic sanctions. We have tried everything short of military intervention.

And Obama is unwilling to go to war. The American people wouldn’t support him going to war.
So all Obama has are words.

So, in the beginning, he took what he thought to be the best approach from a national security standpoint, i.e., taking a course which did not antagonize the Mullahs who, in his opinion, would remain in control and who, alone, had the power to alter Iran’s nuclear course.

In that light, it was a decent choice from the available alternatives. I certainly want a President who acts in response to international events with a firm view to national security.

(Of course, the fact that, in the beginning, he also was fighting to pass his agenda, he had to keep his eye on the ball. Since nothing he did relative to Iran would affect the course of events in Iran, he had to navigate a course which he thought would not de-rail his agenda…)

But..

But…

Reagan wouldn’t have approached it in this way. Bush II wouldn’t have timidly approached it in this way.

No. They, seeing that, no matter what they did, the Mullahs would remain in charge and firmly of the belief that, so long as they were in charge, no change in their policy would be effected (no matter who was “elected” as it relates to our national security) would have come out immediately on the side of freedom.

And with such support for freedom, the protesters might have the ability to effect real change potentially regime change.

Reagan and Bush would have seen no downside in supporting the protesters from a national security perspective and a potential Poland-like rise of Iran’s extraordinarily young population to create something which resembles a democracy.

With such a potential upside and no discernable downside to national security, Reagan and Bush would have let their internal moral compass, rather than marginal political considerations abroad and large political questions at home, guide their actions.

I heard his statement, and he uses the word “unacceptable.” This is unacceptable, etc. That is laughable. Because it begs the question, “Whachagonnadoboutit?”

I think we know the answer to that. Aside from fomenting the rebellion there really is nothing he can do. And now that he’s been given “what for” by the Iranian cockroach, his hands are politically tied. If he does heat up, or even maintain some tough talk, and Aquavelvajad brings the hammer down harder on his opposition, he will be viewed as responsible.

Obama is in a tough spot. But he asked for it.