So Obama Interferes With American Diplomacy While On His Glory Tour
September 17, 2008 / 12:50 pm • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierIt’s not treason. It’s the Obamessiah.
Dan Reihl has more and says:
Then we also have this outrageous sideshow that borders on, if not crosses over into what’s treasonous by Obama, particularly as he was working to ensure that a maximum number of troops remained at risk throughout the Fall campaign for his political benefit. Not only is it not the place of a Jr. Senator to displace the entire Executive Branch at time of war, what Obama really wanted to ensure was that Iraq would be a key point of discussion during the Fall campaign. He simply didn’t bank on our military succeeding as they have. As an aside, so far as I can tell, he still hasn’t even given them the credit for that they deserve. Given all that, that this self-serving empty suit fancies himself worthy of becoming CIC in January is a bitter joke the mainstream media seems prepared to perpetuate on the American people.
“Obviously, we can’t have US forces operating on the ground in Iraq without some sort of agreement, either a further extension of the UN resolution or some sort of Status of Forces agreement, some strategic framework agreement. As I said before, my concern is that the Bush administration — in a weakened state politically — ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain’ s administration.” (Emphasis added.)
For contrast, imagine this: Imagine George W. Bush going to Bosnia and working on some agreements that would be in place after Bill Clinton left office. Would that be treason, then? And imagine even further: Do you think it would hit the press? Yes, I think it might.
2 Responses to “So Obama Interferes With American Diplomacy While On His Glory Tour”
September 17 2008 / 1:10 pm
Reply
Should be a monster big story… Let’s see what happens… Story is all over the blogsphere and New York Post…
Taheri quite rightly points out the gross differences between Obama’s and McCain’s view of our current conflict.
Such differences are not just opinion, they are the paradigms upon which each of these candidates’ worldview is shaped.
McCain believes in the dynamic pre-emption and neutralization of threat. Obama believes in law enforcement, investigation and punishment (after the fact).
The two candidates are radically different – one acts, one reacts and both are creatures of habit.
McCain will step into the fray; Obama will consider, ruminate, equivocate and then react ambiguously, as he has done with every threat or controversy on which he has opined.
….The original new York Post column…
…WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
….follow up column…
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_objects_129453.htm
……….and comments at….
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172008/postopinion/letters/a_clear__safe_choice_for_no_more_9_11s_129449.htm
October 2 2008 / 10:42 pm
Reply
my comment is on tonights debate .after the debate palin reached for a small baby that she took out of the arms of the mother then took that small baby and handed it to a small child to carry down the stairs i couldnt belive what i was seeing is it so important to try and look good that you put a small child at risk why didnt she give the baby back to an adult to take care of . when will are young come first and then we ask what is wrong with the youths of today maybe its because the adults dont care what happens to them just what looks good.