See other Editorial Articles
Title: Why Obama Should be Thanking Bush
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.frumforum.com/why-obama-should-be-thanking-bush
Published: Jan 27, 2011
Author: John Guardiano
Post Date: 2011-01-27 16:28:03 by L Ron Paul Hubbard
Keywords: None
Views: 105
Comments: 9
President Obama barely talked about defense and foreign policy last night, except to unfairly disparage his predecessor, George W. Bush. “American leadership has been renewed and America’s standing has been restored,” declared Obama. In fact, when it comes to defense and foreign policy, Obama is living off of his Bush inheritance. He thus owes his predecessor a tremendous debt. For Bush has given Obama the public policies that have led to any success for which Obama now claims credit. Where, after all, has American leadership been “renewed” and “restored”? * Certainly not in the Middle East and Lebanon, where Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, has solidified its control: by toppling a western-oriented government there and imposing a new pro-Iranian prime minister. * Certainly not in Egypt and Tunisia, where people are protesting against tyranny and oppression, but with little or no apparent support from the Obama administration. * Certainly not in Russia, which has succeeded in forcing upon the United States a new nuclear arms control agreement which may well limit and constrain our ability to build and deploy a missile defense. * Certainly not in Iran and North Korea, which, despite Obama’s SOTU bravado, continue to develop nuclear weapons, while threatening and causing regional havoc and instability. * And certainly not in Mexico and Venezuela, where the drug cartels and dictator (Hugo Chavez), respectively, continue to undermine liberty, opportunity and the rule of law. In Iraq, it is true, progress has been dramatic; and, for all practical intents and purposes, the war there has been won. But this is not because of any new and brilliant policy pushed by Obama. To the contrary: it is because Obama adopted and continued the surge policy that Bush effected over the opposition of then-Senator Obama! In any case, Iraq could yet fall apart if we leave and abandon the country to the tender mercies of Iran. Which is why it is notable that, as Eli Lake has keenly observed, Obama said nothing about leaving Iraq in 2011. Instead, he talked about “finish[ing] the job of bringing our troops out of Iraq.” But our job is not to “bring our troops” home; our job is to win! Yet two years into his presidency, Obama still finds it impossible to utter that word. To his great credit, Obama has committed tens of thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. Yet he persists in his dangerous and detrimental call for a timeline for withdrawal. And he repeated this call in his speech last night: This July we will begin to bring our troops home. This was followed by the sight of American congressmen and senators rising to their feet to applaud the president. What does this tell our enemies? What does it tell our friends and allies? It tells them what Obama said at West Point in Dec. 2009, which is: I really don’t want the United States to be in Afghanistan; I have much more important things to do; and as soon as I can, I’m hightailing it out of here. Now, I know the President has since walked back his commitment to leaving Afghanistan by July of this year. But words have consequences. And in Afghanistan, the consequences of Obama’s timeline for withdrawal — which he reiterated last night — have been disastrous. Indeed, Obama’s words help to explain Hamid Karzai’s erratic and unpredictable behavior; and they help to explain why our troops have had surprising difficulty winning the allegiance of the Afghan people. Simply put, both Karzai and the Afghan people doubt America’s staying power and commitment to them, and for good reason given Obama’s own policies and pronouncements. And seeing our Congress leap to its feet to vigorously applaud the removal of American troops from Afghanistan does absolutely nothing but reinforce this perception of American weakness and irresolution. Finally, the president uttered a throwaway line about cutting from the defense budget tens of billions of dollars that the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, “and his generals believe our military can do without.” This is misleading. The generals are obligated, essentially, to toe Gates’ line. They “support” the cuts to the extent that they do mostly because they feel they have to. In any case, if Obama were serious about military “reform,” then he would have devoted more than one throwaway line to the topic. He would have embraced real reform of our military personnel, pay and benefits structures. Pay and benefits, after all, are the fastest-growing and most statist parts of the defense budget; and they threaten soon to subsume all Pentagon spending. In truth, though, Obama was more interested in scoring unearned political points than he was in seriously addressing public policy problems. Thus his cheap shots at George W. Bush. But far from disparaging his predecessor, Obama instead should be thanking Bush for providing him with the public-policies that he (Obama) has mostly adopted, and which are allowing him to claim credit on the world stage. There’s only one problem: it won’t last. The world is a rapidly evolving tinderbox that is waiting to explode. And so, at some point, Obama is going to have to develop a set of defense and foreign policies that will deter and avert conflict — and which, should conflict occur, will allow the United States to successfully prosecute that conflict. And the sooner he does this, the safer we all will be. Unfortunately, there’s no indication from his speech last night that Obama has given any thought to this problem.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: L Ron Paul Hubbard (#0)
That's a fact! They are indeed developing nukes! And, China has the neutron bomb!
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
If China has the,multi-potent in sooo many ways,Neutron Bomb,it will be a matter of 1 hour and 37 minutes before N.Korea has one of theirs on a boat bound for Iran. If the US would join Israel and destroy the ME once and for all,Bush will be vindicated (to all Americans that know what a piece of shit he truly is)as a true patriot, a man among men,a president worthy of Mt.Rushmore,the One,Ten,and Fifty dollar bill,a giant among midgets,ahh where was I? oh yeah,the toilet.(aka Al Queda)
There is not a lick of difference between the sociopaths obama and bush. U.S. DEFENSE FACTORY CONTROLLED BY RED CHINA "Citing national-security concerns, two Democratic lawmakers are engaged in a last-ditch effort to halt plans for the transfer of an Indiana factory that produces critical technology used in the guidance systems of U.S. ‘smart bombs’ to the People’s Republic of China. "The Department of Defense denies any impropriety, but some observers are asking: Is it a case of politics as usual, or a cover-up? The Magnequench factory (originally known as UGIMAG) was sold in August 2000 to a consortium that included Chinese interests. In 2001, it was announced the plant would be shut down. "The factory is responsible for producing 80 percent of the rare-earth permanent magnets used in the guidance systems of U.S. ‘smart bombs,’ according to lawmakers. "On Aug. 1, the office of Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., issued a statement indicating he and Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., were mounting a ‘last-ditch’ effort to halt the factory move to China. Citing the loss of 225 northwest Indiana jobs, Visclosky also expressed concern over the ‘transfer of sensitive defense technology to the People’s Republic of China.’ …" BUSH ADMINISTRATION STONEWALLS THE TECH TRANSFER "The two lawmakers reportedly received no response from letters sent to President Bush on March 6 and May 1. Two letters sent to Treasury Secretary John Snow (on May 20 and June 5) received a response turning down a request from the congressman for a meeting. Several phone calls also have received no response. … "Magnequench, a high-tech company created in 1986 by General Motors, pioneered the development and production of sintered neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) – magnets used in the guidance system of ‘smart bombs.’ Beijing San Huan New Materials High-Tech Inc. is a holding of the Chinese Academy of Science Business Group and was established in 1985. China National Non-Ferrous Metals – previously described by the Wall Street Journal as a ‘high-flying state company’ – operates under the control of the State Council, one of the major organs of the Chinese government. "The 1995 sale required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S., or CFIUS. The CFIUS is an inter-agency committee chaired by the secretary of treasury, tasked with conducting reviews of foreign acquisitions that might threaten national security. " ‘Concerns raised by American officials about what they considered a clear case of the PRC attempting to obtain control of vital U.S. weapons technology were shot down, and CFIUS permitted the buyout,’ reported Insight magazine and WND. …" BUSH SUBSIDIZES RED CHINA’S TRADE CAPABILITIES The U.S. Trade and Development Agency announced in a press release from Beijing, China (8/7/03) that "Earlier today, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) awarded a $585,250 grant to the Customs General Administration of China (China Customs) to partially fund a feasibility study on streamlining and modernizing supply chain capabilities and operations at Chinese ports. U.S. Ambassador to China Clark T. Randt, Jr. signed an agreement conferring the grant on behalf of USTDA. Mr. Gong Zheng, Vice Commissioner, signed on behalf of China Customs. The Global Alliance for Trade Efficiency, based in Washington, D.C., will conduct the study and contribute resources towards its completion." $585,250 AID AND COMFORT TO GWB’s "STRATEGIC PARTNER" "With China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in December 2001, the country’s overall trade volume is expected to increase greatly over the next few years. However, in order for Chinese ports to more efficiently meet the demands of increased trade, information technology-based solutions and customs training programs must be implemented. These improvements will help Chinese ports to process a larger amount of goods in shorter time periods. In addition, increased efficiency at ports of entry will enable China to meet WTO international trading standards, lower customs duties, and minimize non-tariff barriers to trade. "The USTDA-funded study will identify and evaluate the technical and training requirements China Customs needs to better process additional trade flows. The customs training program will also enable Chinese ports to become familiar with WTO trading norms, fraud prevention practices, customs management and international trade coordination." BUSH TRADE POLICIES DIMINISH THE DOLLAR "[T]he GOP House voted 270 to 156 for President Bush’s free-trade deal with Chile … consider what we got in this deal and what we gave up. "Chile’s GDP of $70 billion is not even 1 percent of ours. Her per-capita GDP of $4,400 is one-eighth of ours. We have thus gained access to a tiny Latin market, while Chilean manufacturers just gained privileged access to the $10 trillion U.S. market, where consumers have a per-capita GDP of around $37,000. "Moreover, to give the president his victory, Republicans had to put party interests on the shelf. For Democrats have lately begun to notice that under President Bush, one in every seven U.S. manufacturing jobs has vanished. U.S. manufacturing jobs have been disappearing at the rate of 75,000 a month for 34 months. U.S. workers in manufacturing are now fewer in number than in the 1950s and the smallest share of the labor force since the early 1800s." BUSH HAS CREATED MILLIONS OF JOBS IN COMMUNIST CHINA "Her trade surplus with America now accounts for 100 percent of China’s economic growth. Thus, it is unfair to say the president has not created any jobs. He has created millions of jobs in China, as he has presided over the loss of 2.6 million manufacturing jobs in the United States. …" BEIJING USES OUR MONEY TO BUILD THEIR MILITARY "According to a Pentagon report this week, China last year deployed and targeted 100 new missiles on Taiwan for a total of 450 and has begun a crash program to build longer-range missiles to strike and paralyze U.S. bases on Okinawa, Guam and South Korea. "China’s buildup now includes home production of the Russian Su-27 and Su-30 fighter-bomber, eight new Kilo submarines with anti-ship cruise missiles and Sovremeny destroyers with supersonic Sunburn missiles, originally designed by Moscow to sink aircraft carriers. These missiles are being purchased with the Nimitz, the Truman, the Kennedy, the Lincoln and the Ronald Reagan in mind." Source: Patrick J. Buchanan, WorldNetDaily.com, 8/4/03 IS BUSH’S AMBASSADOR TO THE PRC A LOBBYIST FOR U.S. CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS IN RED CHINA? "The new U.S. ambassador to China is an old Bush college friend who has spent the last decade representing U.S. companies in China. Last night, the President told a Washington audience that he supports ‘free trade’ with China, but there can be no free trade when one-third of the commerce is with companies controlled by the People’s Liberation Army. In short, China as a marketplace still seems to come first, ahead of our national security." Source: Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families End of Day, 5/8/01
Almost forgot this... ISRAEL SURREPTITIOUSLY AIDS CHICOM MILITARY TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE U.S. "Israel’s persistent clandestine military dealings with China have created waves with the U.S., reports International News Services. Israel has reportedly concealed from Washington an upgrade of a major weapons system it sold to China more than a decade ago. By assisting in upgrading China’s weapons system, Israel violated its commitment not to transfer U.S. technology to China without Washington’s permission. Israel is China’s second-largest arms supplier, after Russia. Although diplomatic relations between Israel and China were established only in 1992, military ties go back to the early 1980s. Until formal diplomatic ties were established in the early 1990s, the nation’s military relationship was covert. Israel sold approximately US$4 billion worth of arms to China during the covert relationship. "During the 1990s, while much of the West penalized Beijing following the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the Sino-Israel military relationship grew rapidly. After Israel was pressured by the U.S. to scrap a $250 million deal to sell China the Phalcon, an airborne radar system, the military relationship soured. Washington claimed that providing Beijing access to the technology would upset the military balance between China and Taiwan and threaten U.S. interests in the region. When the U.S. Congress threatened to cut the $2.8 billion it gives Israel annually if the deal went ahead, Israel buckled and scrapped it. "For years, the U.S. government has expressed concerns over Israel illegally transferring technology to China. During the Gulf War, the U.S. gave Israel Patriot Missiles as protection against Iraqi Scud missiles. In 1992, a U.S. intelligence report revealed that soon after the end of the Gulf War, Israel had sold Patriot anti-missile data to China. Washington has also alleged on several occasions that Israel violated agreements by exporting to China restricted U.S. technology it buys with yearly U.S. subsidies. This was the case with the largely U.S.-funded Lavi fighter-plane program, the technology of which Israel passed to Beijing. China’s F-10 fighter jet is believed to be almost identical to the Lavi. "In 2002, a deal for Israeli communication satellites was signed with the United States. Early this year, an Israeli delegation went to China for talks on rebuilding military ties. Beijing’s relationship with Israel has enabled it to acquire ‘dual-use technology’ that the U.S. and Europe have been reluctant to provide. [December 21]" Source: Al Santoli, American Foreign Policy Council’s China Reform Monitor, 1/12/05
they are both traitors to this country, now are you one?
"There is no compulsion in religion," – Holy Qur'an
Somehow, I doubt it!
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
=================================================== U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
There corrected it to be truthful. Another correction to make it more closely resemble the truth. The bulk of the article is such a load of dishonest shit that separating the few microscopic elements of truth would take an article longer that this piece of propagandizing disinformation.
Just what we needed! :(
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Certainly not in Iran and North Korea, which, despite Obama’s SOTU bravado, continue to develop nuclear weapons, while threatening and causing regional havoc and instability.
#2. To: BTP Holdings (#1)
(Edited)
China has the neutron bomb
#3. To: L Ron Paul Hubbard (#0)
#4. To: All (#3)
#5. To: L Ron Paul Hubbard (#0)
(Edited)
#6. To: paddlefeet (#2)
If China has the,multi-potent in sooo many ways,Neutron Bomb,it will be a matter of 1 hour and 37 minutes before N.Korea has one of theirs on a boat bound for Iran.
#7. To: Max, paddlefeet, BTP Holdings, L Ron Paul Hubbard, tom007 (#5)
Why Obama Should be Thanking Bush
I want to thank George Bush for putting me into the White House.
Also, like to give a nod to John McCain, Dick Cheney, and the GOP talking heads in DC for utterly abandoning their Conservative Base . . .
#8. To: L Ron Paul Hubbard (#0)
In Iraq, it is true, progress has been dramatic; and, for all practical intents and purposes, the
war there has been won country has been destroyed and at the cost of only 1.5 to 2 MILLION dead. But this is not because of any new and brilliant policy pushed by Obama. To the contrary: it is because Obama adopted and continued the
surge total destruction of all major infrastructure and culture policy that Bush effected over the opposition of then-Senator Obama!
#9. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#7)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest