Showing posts with label partisan politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label partisan politics. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Israeli PM Netanyahu Addresses Congress On Obama's Plan That Would Allow Iran's March To A Nuclear Arsenal



This was without doubt the most important speech PM Netanyahu has ever given and likely will ever give on a matter of our national security. Netanyahu's purpose was to educate Americans about the danger of Iran and to explain why Iran cannot be allowed to continue its efforts to build a nuclear arsenal. The threat Iran poses is not just to Israel, but to our country as well.

Did PM Netanyahu succeed? Time will tell. Unfortunately, many Democrat Congressmen and women boycotted the speech, making this issue of national defense a partisan political issue. And equally unfortunately, the major networks boycotted the speech, refusing to carry it. If the speech is to have its effect, it will have to break through a Democrat wall of silence.

PM Netanyahu gave a good summary of the Iranian theocracy's incredible record of bloodshed, aggression, conquest and terror. Not since its inception in 1979 has the theocracy moderated its actions, nor changed its targeting of Israel, Jews and Americans. And indeed, even as Iran develops its nuclear arsenal, it also is developing Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM). The only purpose of ICBM's is to reach out and touch countries at great distance, including the U.S., with nuclear weapons.

When Obama ran for President in 2008, he stated that under no circumstances would he allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons. Iran had to stop enriching uranium. And yet now, President Obama is negotiating a deal that would leave Iran with its nuclear program intact and, as it is currently constituted, a nuclear arsenal inevitable. It's insane. In trying to justify this plan, Susan Rice claimed that its impossible to stop Iran's nuclear enrichment. That is just ridiculous.

If Iran truly needs nuclear power for peaceful purpose -- which, given their oil and gas supplies, they do not -- then there are certainly reactor types that can provide it without also providing the enriched uranium and plutonium used for nuclear weapons. But what Iran has, between its reactors and heavy water plant, is a factory for producing nuclear bombs.

We were well on the way to breaking the Iranian economy with international sanctions when Iran held out the possibility of a deal to Obama and he bit like a trout on a worm. He dispensed with much of the international sanctions regime as he had dreams of doing a deal with the mad mullahs. The outlines of that deal are now clear. Iran get's to continue its march to a nuclear weapon while Obama claims some sort of hollow diplomatic victory. For the sake of our national security, Obama must never be allowed to complete this deal.

Let's hope that the Prime Minister's speech has its desired effect. The lives of our children and their children depend on it.





Read More...

Monday, July 5, 2010

Time To Dump Michael Steele


I have spent a tremendous amount of time on this blog taking the left to task for politicizing our foreign policy and prioritizing partisan advantage over our national security. The left has been, on this issue, utterly despicable and beneath contempt. Now, RNC Chariman Michael Steele has done the same, calling the war in Afghanistan "Obama's war" and labeling it "unwinable." To the credit of Republican Party (well, other than by the Republican Party's crazy Uncle, Ron Paul), no one else in federal office has taken that tack, nor should they. The reality is that we cannot afford to walk away from Afghanistan, the host country for al-Qaeda at the time of 9-11, without opening up a Pandora's box of negative consequences. As a threshold matter, one need only remember that it was the Soviet's loss in Afghanistan that put Islamic radicalism on steroids to begin with. Is there any reason why an American retreat from Afghanistan today would have any less of a disasterous effect in the long term?

Steele seems to be making about a major gaffe every month or two. But unlike his other gaffes, this one, on a matter of critical importance to our country, is unforgivable. Steele must go.

Read More...

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

A Partisan Democrat's Solution To End Partisanship


He is Washington's Most Toxic Asset. He, along with Chris Dodd and Bill Clinton, were the architects of our current economic meltdown. He is the Banking Queen - Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, as thoroughly partisan as anyone to ever have sat in Congress. In response to soon to be former Sen. Evan Bayh's chastisement of Congress for rank partisanship, Frank agreed and proposed his own solution to that problem:

. . . Frank says his fellow Democrat could do more to change that by staying in Congress and helping change the filibuster rule than by stepping out of public service.

Hah. His answer to the partisan crisis is to make the minority party irrelevant, thus allowing the majority Democrats to ignore Congressional Republicans. It would end partisan rancor by dispensing with any need for bipartisanship. When in God's name will Mass. voters turn this walking disaster out of office?

Read More...

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Biden Slings The Bull


Biden’s speech last night was a series of outrageous falsehoods, one after the other and one bigger than the other. Everyone expected him to go on the attack. There is no problem with that. But the substance of his attacks was patently ridiculous. If this is the best the far left has, their troubles have just begun.

You can read the transcript of Biden's speech here. The really over the top stuff was on foreign issues. First, Afghanistan:

Should you trust the judgment of John McCain, when he said only three years ago, "Afghanistan, we don't read about it anymore in papers because it succeeded"?

Or should you believe Barack Obama who said a year ago, "We need to send two more combat battalions to Afghanistan"?

This is so dishonest its mind-numbing. It doesn’t even rise to the level of comparing apples to oranges – they are at least two fruit. Three years ago, Afghanistan was a success. Obama was not calling for sending combat brigades to Afghanistan either three years ago. In fact, as you can see in the post below, he was calling for sustained operations in Iraq and arguing against cutting and running or setting a timeline for withdraw.

You will note in the above quote that Biden also calls for two battalions to Afghanistan. Does Biden, a career politician with no military, executive, or private sector experience, understand the difference between a brigade and battalion? I will grant that he may merely have mispoken on this one, but if there is any other indication that he is actually this clueless about the composition and organization of our military, then there is a major problem.

One would think Biden could go no further into outrageous and disingenuous fantasy. One would be wrong.

Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he says -- when he says we can't have no timelines to draw down our troops from Iraq, that we must stay indefinitely? Or should we listen to Barack Obama, who says shift the responsibility to the Iraqis and set a time to bring our combat troops home?

Now, after six long years, the administration and the Iraqi government are on the verge of setting a date to bring our troops home. John McCain was wrong, and Barack Obama was right.

Can Joe get more unethical. The only reason for our success in Iraq - the surge and its most vociferous champion, McCain – just got written out of history. Also written out of history is Biden and Obama’s opposition to the surge and their efforts to legislate defeat in Iraq. What makes this even more outrageous is that both Biden and Obama were on record arguing vociferously against timelines before they saw partisan gain to be had by tossing our national security under the bus and embracing defeat. See here and here.

Then there is Iran, where the myth of the left is that we have ignored Iran by not talking to them during the Bush presidency:

Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he rejected -- when he rejected talking with Iran and then asked, "What is there to talk about?" Or Barack Obama, who said, "We must talk and make clear to Iran that it must change"?

Now, after seven years of denial, even the Bush administration recognizes that we should talk to Iran because that's the best way to ensure our security.

We’ve been talking with Iran throughout the entire period of the Bush presidency. They have been stringing us along and negotiating with all the sincerity of Japan in 1941. Beyond our Ambassodor level talks in Iraq, we have fully supported talks with Iran by the Europeans in an effort to get them to suspend their nuclear program the past four plus years. Bush actually joined the last round of talks with a high level state dept. official. Even the Russian diplomat in attendance called Iran’s attitude a joke. And Biden would have us believe that unconditional talks with the One will solve the problems? This is not only disingenuous, it is dangerous.

McCain rejected unconditional talks with the Iranian regime. Not since Neville Chamberlain in 1938 or JFK in 1960 has any politician embraced unilateral and unconditional talks with an aggressive enemy. Both proved disastrous. I have yet to hear from the One why he expects his plans to do so would achieve any different result.

And finally, Biden highlight the Russian invasion of Georgia. He doesn't lie on this one about McCain, but he completely ignores Obama's response:

Ladies and gentlemen, in recent years and in recent days, we've once again seen the consequences of the neglect -- of this neglect with Russia challenging the very freedom of a new democratic country of Georgia. Barack and I will end that neglect. We will hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we will help the people of Georgia rebuild.

I'll leave the response here to Victor Davis Hanson:

Why evoke Georgia and Obama—when Obama had a three-strike-out response: 1) initially both sides were equally at fault; 2) then go to the UN and find resolution; 3) then suggest our taking out a genocidal dictator was equivalent to Russia attacking a democracy.

That is the most outrageous of it all. But on domestic issues and bipartisan issues, Biden was equally as disingenuous.

Theme one for Biden was the “American Dream slowly slipping away. . . “ He gave a litany of problems that he had heard from middle class people as he sped into Washington on the taxpayer dime, using Amtrak – a boondogle he has vigirously defended during his entire Senate career and to which he has directed billions in taxpayer dollars to subsidise. At any rate, back to the litany of problems from the middle class - as Biden says “he can almost hear them.” Yes, that’s right, the world "almost" is key. The conversations of utter misery he describes are imaginary.

Not surprisingly, these imaginary folk are suffering from a litany of economic ills and hard times as a result of Republican policies that have reduced their standard of living over the past eight years. No mention of –

- unemployment far lower during the Bush years than the Clinton years

- Economic growth just posted at a healthy 3.3% this past quarter

- The business cycle that occurs in capitalist economies

- The energy crunch caused by over 30 years of Democratic refusal to allow the exploitation of our resources and the creation of a regulatory scheme that further ties our abilities by handing the keys to the court house to radical environmentalists.

- The effect of ethanol subsidies on the cost of food

- The fact that capitalism, individualism and freedom are what have combined over two centuries to give us the highest standard of living in the world

The incredible concluding line to Biden’s theme one – “And, folks, these are not isolated discussions among families down on their luck.” They weren’t discussions to begin with. They were plucked from Biden’s imagination – the imagination of a doctrinaire progressive on the far left fringe of his party.

Theme two for Biden was Barack the Saviour, where he tried to take Obama’s paper thin record and turn into substance. Biden made it sound as if Barack, in his three years following in Saul Alinsky’s footsteps as a community organizer in Chicago, was the savior of Illinois. Biden really glosses over Obama’s record as a State Senator in Illinois, though he suggests that Obama was responsible for welfare reform in Illinois. This is another lie. Obama voted against the such reform in Illinois.

From there he moves from into the realm of pure falsehood in an attempt to show that Obama is above partisan politics:

And when [Obama] came to Washington, when he came to Washington, John and I watched with amazement how he hit the ground running, leading the fight to pass the most sweeping ethics reform in a generation.

Describing McCain’s reaction to Obama as “amazement” is more than a gross distortion, as is using this example to claim that Obama acts bipartisan and not as a far left ideologue. McCain made no secret of his disdain for Obama when it became clear that his talk on ethics reform was smoke and mirrors. I well remember this event when it happened because of the stinging criticism McCain directed towards Obama. Obama began working with McCain on an ethics reform bill. Within a week, he backtracked on his statements to McCain and pulled out of the bipartisan effort. The incident and McCain’s written response to Obama were reported in the papers at the time:

Republican Sen. John McCain on Monday accused his Democratic colleague Barack Obama of “partisan posturing” on the issue of lobbying ethics reform . . . “I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable,” McCain, R.-Ariz., wrote in a letter to Obama, D-Ill., Monday. “Thank you for disabusing me of such notions.”

This whole episode is so well documented that I can’t believe Biden highlighted this as their biggest and brightest example of bipartisanship by Obama. This goes beyond trying to turn chicken excreta into chicken salad. Its just renaming the excreta. Moreover, the other examples of bipartisanship cited by Biden had nothing to do with reaching across the aisle on issues of any controversy.

Biden still wasn’t done with his rewrites. He moved into oil and energy.

as oil companies post the biggest profits in history, nearly $500 billion in the last five years, John wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks.

McCain voted against the energy bill to give tax breaks to oil companies. Obama voted for it. This is at best, a complete distortion of reality, besides being populist pandering.

Millions of Americans have seen their jobs go off-shore, yet John continues to support tax breaks for corporations that send them there. That's not change. That's more of the same.

This is not a falsehood, but it is such wrongheaded populist pandering it deserves a mention. Businesses move off-shore if the combination of taxes, costs and regulations make it cost effective to do so. Haliburton is a classic recent example. Punishing corporations by increasing their costs of business in the U.S., a nation with already the second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, is clearly going to hurt our nation.

In summary, this was a real hatchet job that no one with an ounce of ethics or integrity could have given. It shows just how weak Obama is and just how base, unethical and transparent Joe Biden is. And as I say, if this is the best he can do, problems for the Democrats are just beginning.


Read More...

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Obama Would Rather Lose A War Than An Election

You may remember John McCain from when he was occaionaly covered in the news in the weeks prior to Obama's foreign tour. Here he is spelling out the character difference between he and Mr. Obama, whose ever changing positions on Iraq seem to have their motivation in partisan politics.

Read More...