Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category
If, God forbid, Rand Paul is elected president, the United States foreign policy will have gone from terrible to utterly incoherent and feckless. After reading this article, it’s clear that the American people know what they want. It’s clear, too, that the American people don’t have a clue what they want. Here’s what I’m talking about:
A majority of the American people is telling pollsters it wants the U.S. government to keep out of other nations’ business, that it does not want America to be at war indefinitely, and that it fears the U.S. government’s growing “homeland Security” powers—including the power to declare any American to be a terrorist and to kill him—more than it fears terrorism. Because Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has explained better than anyone why he shares these majority sentiments, he is halfway home to claiming foreign policy credibility for his 2016 presidential candidacy.
But only halfway, because the very same popular majorities also say they want the U.S. government to be much tougher against America’s enemies. Neither Paul nor any other candidate seems to have thought about what it would mean for the U.S. government to pull back from involvement in other peoples’ business, to make foreign commitments and conduct internal security according to the Constitution, while at the same time being tougher against our enemies.
It’s impossible to make sense of this gobbledygook. That’s why I won’t attempt it. There’s no doubt that Americans are tired of war. Still, they like the fact that we haven’t gotten hit with another 9/11 attack, though that will change if we don’t confront ISIL.
It’s impossible to look out for our self interests and not “meddle in other countries’ affairs.” If the United States wants to protect its interests, it’ll have to meddle in other countries’ affairs. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’d argue, in fact, that applying America’s founding principles is a force for good.
America’s worst days have happened when we’ve gone isolationist. Still, there’s a substantial portion of our population that’s always had an isolationist streak. Sen. Paul will insist that he isn’t an isolationist. He might even believe it. That doesn’t mean he isn’t an isolationist.
The United States goes isolationist when it doesn’t project military force. That doesn’t mean reflexively going to war. Ronald Reagan was a militarist but he didn’t get involved in wars. He jumped in in Grenada early in his administration and he bombed Kaddaffi’s home late in his administration.
Simply put, Reagan showed that a) he meant what he said and b) he wasn’t bashful about protecting US interests. Reagan’s projection of strength impacted the United States before he was even sworn in. In 1979, Iranian terrorists took the US Embassy in Teheran. The jet returning our diplomats didn’t clear Iranian air space until Reagan had completed his oath of office.
Sen. Paul’s live and let live foreign policy doesn’t project strength. I don’t doubt that he’d take foreign policy more seriously than President Obama but that’s a pretty low hurdle.
Simply put, our foreign policy shouldn’t be based on what polls show. It should be based on clear principles. It should be based on protecting US interests. If that ruffles feather in other countries’ capitols, that’s fine. It should start with the promise that we’ll send military aid to our allies. That includes arming the Peshmerga and the Ukrainian military.
It doesn’t mean reflexively going to war. It simply means standing up for ourselves.
If this article isn’t giving President Obama, the DGA and the DNC heartburn, then they’ll never get heartburn. Look at the story behind the headlines:
SPRINGFIELD — Gov. Pat Quinn has spent a political lifetime fine-tuning his image as a government reformer, but a new Early & Often Poll shows Republican Bruce Rauner may have wrested that mantle away from the governor.
The incumbent Chicago Democrat also has spent months trying to portray the multimillionaire private equity investor from Winnetka as an out-of-touch “billionaire,” yet voters in Illinois appear evenly split about which gubernatorial candidate best understands their everyday concerns.
And while Quinn again finds himself down by double digits in this latest poll by We Ask America, Illinoisans gave a decisive nod to Quinn running mate Paul Vallas over Republican Evelyn Sanguinetti as the best qualified lieutenant governor candidate to take over in the event of an emergency.
I threw that last paragraph in there to show how little running mates matter in voting for governors or presidents. This paragraph should frighten Democrats:
The poll had Rauner ahead of Quinn by a nearly-51-percent-to-38-percent spread with 11 percent undecided. The survey’s margin of error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
This race wasn’t on anyone’s radar other than in the Rauner household a year ago. Back then, most people would’ve thought that the biggest threat to Gov. Quinn would’ve come in a primary, not against a Republican.
Apparently, thousands of uppity peasants from the Land of Lincoln are demanding to be heard above the political machine. If Quinn loses, it’ll be the biggest shocker this election cycle by orders of magnitude. This race will undoubtedly tighten. Still, it’s likely that Gov. Quinn is facing a difficult fight:
“I think Rauner’s claim to ‘shake up Springfield’ may be resonating with voters,” Durham said. “It’s been in his TV ads and a big part of his speeches. Plus, it’s hard for a public official who has been around as long as Gov. Quinn to wear the reform hat when he’s been part of the system so long.”
It’s possible, too, that people just don’t trust Democrats. It isn’t like Gov. Blagojevich is a picture of virtue. Gov. Quinn’s served in government for quite awhile so that hurts his image as a reformer.
It’s especially worth noting that this was a large sample of likely voters. Further, only 11% of likely voters haven’t decided who to vote for. The further you read into the poll, the more daunting the task is for Quinn.
This video shows how President Obama’s trash-talking, which is he displays his ideology, has gotten the United States in trouble:
I wrote this article to highlight the fact that ISIL is an existential threat to the United States.I wrote the article because I’m tired of hearing politicians like Rand Paul, President Obama and Elizabeth Warren whine about not getting involved in a civil war in Iraq. That’s so totally intellectually dishonest that they should be ashamed of themselves.
Frankly, it exposes their dovishness.
The video starts with CNN’s Jim Acosta asking White House Press Sacrificial Lamb Josh Earnest if “it’s safe to say that” ISIL “isn’t JV anymore.” Like any dutiful sacrificial lamb, Earnest didn’t answer the question, opting instead to talk about what a great national security president Obama is.
Great national security presidents don’t let ruthless terrorists take a terrorist hotspot like Fallujah, then call them the JV team. That’s a bit of proof that President Obama isn’t a great national security president. Once ISIL expanded beyond Syria, President Obama should’ve known that they couldn’t be taken lightly. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA), said that “it takes an army to defeat an army“:
“It takes an army to defeat an army, and I believe that we either confront ISIL now or we will be forced to deal with an even stronger enemy in the future,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a statement. The group is “operating with military expertise, advancing across Iraq and rapidly consolidating its position,” she added.
“Inaction is no longer an option,” according to Feinstein.
President Obama initially campaigned on being the anti-war president. He’s ignored his commander-in-chief responsibilities the first 5+ years of his administration. That isn’t possible anymore. Because he’s been the appeaser-in-chief for that amount of time, nations of terrorists like ISIL are threatening to take over most of the Arabian Peninsula:
The Levant today consists of the island of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and part of southern Turkey.
This isn’t a rag-tag operation. They’ve got weaponry, tons of space for training terrorists, oil fields aplenty to fund their terrorist operations and the military hardware to protect their terrorist training facilities. It’s time President Obama stopped listening to the anti-war ideologues who’ve put us in this precarious position. It’s time he stopped pretending that getting out of wars without defeating the terrorists is the same as giving the terrorist the freedom to plan attacks against the US.
Simply put, there’s no substitute for winning. Since 2006, I’ve highlighted all the times Democrats talked about Iraq and Afghanistan. Each time they talked about those wars, they talked about “ending the war responsibly.” Democrats, whether it was Amy Klobuchar, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, talked about “ending the war responsibly.”
In fact, they didn’t talk about rolling up terrorist networks or gathering intel on the various active terrorist networks in southwest Asia, north Africa or the Arabian Peninsula. This administration talked endlessly about decimating core al-Qa’ida while ignoring emerging threats like ISIL. After pretending that these problems didn’t exist, Democrats are faced with dealing with them now that they’re established and threatening the Arabian Peninsula.
If President Obama’s ideology hadn’t forced him into pulling all US troops out of Iraq and if he’d acted swiftly to destroy ISIL when it was gaining steam, we wouldn’t be dealing with this crisis. It could’ve, and should’ve, been dealt with proactively.
Now that President Obama has procrastinated until the last moment, his options are limited. Still, it’s quite possible to cripple them with the right decisions. I hope President Obama makes the right decisions because our safety depends on it.
There’s now enough evidence to prove that Nancy Pelosi is as corrupt a Democrat as Harry Reid or President Obama. Last week, Pelosi’s PAC, which supports Democrat congressional candidates and incumbents, put together an ad so dishonest and defamatory that WDIO and KSTP, a pair of TV stations, pulled the ad. That didn’t stop Ms. Pelosi, though. Instead, Ms. Pelosi’s PAC doubled down by essentially running the same ad as a pop-up ad on RealClearPolitics. Here’s one of the ads from Pelosi’s PAC:
If dishonesty were diamonds, Pelosi’s PAC would be filthy rich.
Let’s get something straight from the start. Pelosi’s PAC doesn’t care about honesty. If they have to throw out integrity to defeat a Republican, that’s what they’ll do. While Democrats specialize in smearing Republicans, they aren’t that good at it.
When the House Majority PAC accused Stewart Mills of wanting tax cuts for his “wealthy friends,” I exposed that lie in this article in less than an hour. All it took was a quick visit to Stewart’s issues page on his campaign website. I proved that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats had lied again.
Stewart’s position is that tax simplification would immediately help small businesses by dramatically reducing a ssmall business’s compliance costs. Reducing compliance costs frees up capital, which can then be used to expand the business and create jobs.
There’s no question that Democrats see Mills as a threat. First, Pelosi’s PAC put together a defamatory ad against him. Sunday night, I saw another dishonest ad from the Democrats smearing Stewart Mills, this one paid for by AFSCME PEOPLE. The ads were virtually the same. They even used the same narrator and virtually the same dishonest statements. AFSCME PEOPLE’s ad will certainly be taken down as quickly as the Pelosi PAC ad was last week.
The TV station running the AFSCME PEOPLE ad, in this instance WCCO-TV, would be in the same negative legal situation as KSTP and WDIO would’ve been in if they hadn’t pulled the ad. When a candidate runs an ad, the TV station can’t pull the ad, which means the TV station can’t be sued. When an independent expenditure organization or a PAC runs a defamatory ad, the TV station can pull the ad, which puts the TV station in legal risk.
Pelosi’s PAC and other Democratic front groups will undoubtedly keep attacking Stewart Mills because Rick Nolan can’t defeat Mills without driving Mills’ turnout down. The Democratic machine doesn’t care if they’re fined for defaming a Republican candidate after the election. Their only priority is winning that election.
Technorati: Rick Nolan, Nancy Pelosi, House Majority PAC, AFSCME PEOPLE, Independent Expenditure Group, Smear Campaign, President Obama, Harry Reid, Culture of Corruption, Special Interests, Democrats, Election 2014
Alison Lundergan-Grimes’ speech at the Fancy Farm Picnic wasn’t a speech as much as it was an 8-minute long temper tantrum:
The highlight of Ms. Grimes’ temper tantrum came 6:10 into her speech. Here’s what she said:
Now I want you to put aside the partisan attacks and you’ll see that one of us represents the Washington establishment and one of us represents Kentucky.
That’s rich. Ms. Lundergan-Grimes speech is one negative attack after another, one temper tantrum after another. It makes sense that the candidate making the hyperpartisan attacks would then tell the people to “put aside the partisan attacks.” The only other notable thing Ms. Lundergan-Grimes said was “Sen. McConnell, you seem to think that President Obama is on the ballot this year. He’s not.”
That’s Ms. Lundergan-Grimes feeble attempt to distance herself from the Democrats’ agenda. When Ms. Lundergan-Grimes wasn’t throwing an on-stage hissy fit, she was talking up President Obama’s and Sen. Reid’s agenda item-by-item.
I haven’t paid much attention to this race but after watching Ms. Lundergan-Grimes’ temper tantrum, it’s easy to understand why Sen. McConnell has criticized her. Her stump speech is high on energy, high on partisan whining and short on talking about a pro-coal agenda.
Ms. Lundergan-Grimes tried talking up her pro-coal credentials once. She even hired a British actor to wear a hard hat in her pro-coal ad. While defending herself, she said that she’d stand up to Harry Reid. When he held a fundraiser for her and other Democrat candidates, though, she was silent as a mouse.
Of course, she talked about labor’s right to organize. Al Franken’s doing the same thing here in Minnesota. Both stop short, though, of saying they’re pro-mining. They’re both trying to win the labor vote without being pro-labor on mining.
Here’s a hint to Ms. Lundergan-Grimes: you can’t be pro-labor and anti-mining. You can be one or the other. You can’t be both.
The US Senate doesn’t need another Elizabeth Warren. There’s already one too many of them in there. Barbara Mikulski and Barbara Boxer don’t need another companion pushing a hyperliberal agenda.
Kentucky needs a senator who will stand up to Harry Reid and President Obama. Kentucky needs a senator who’s fought the EPA’s anti-coal regulations.
Ms. Lundergan-Grimes didn’t stand up to Harry Reid when she had the chance and she certainly didn’t stand up for coal miners. That’s why Ms. Lundergan-Grimes is wrong for Kentucky.
Friday night, Greta van Susteren expressed her frustration with Harry Reid and the Democrat-controlled Senate. Here’s what she said:
You know, I don’t know what’s going to happen in this year’s midterms but I hope that the American people think long and hard, because if you’re gonna say that something is a humanitarian crisis and it’s so important for the nation and then you leave town, I can’t think of a greater way to not do your job.
Greta spoke while the House voted on the immigration bill. She spoke specifically about how the House was still in session while passing a bill to fix the border crisis. She highlighted the fact that she didn’t know if the Republican bill was a great bill or a terrible bill but she respected the fact that they were at least sticking around in an attempt to fix the problem.
She then lit into the Senate, saying that the Senate called the situation a humanitarian crisis before leaving for a 5-week vacation. Greta noted that they didn’t even stick around to try and work through the differences between the House bill and the Senate bill.
That isn’t surprising. Sen. Reid has practiced my-way-or-the-highway tactics since becoming Majority Leader. Sen. Reid is the chief source of the disintegrating attitude in DC. Between President Obama’s hostility and trash-talking and Sen. Reid’s daily lies, they’re a two-man wrecking crew with their sights set on demolishing bipartisanship.
The chief lesson to be learned from Sen. Reid’s irresponsible behavior is that Democrats aren’t nice people that we simply disagree with as Gov. Romney used to say. It’s that too many Democrat senators and congresscritters are despicable low-lifes who care more about winning political battles than they care about doing what’s right for the nation.
Their priorities show in their my-way-or-the-highway style of governing. Their priorities show in how they turn 3 paragraphs and 128 words about economic growth into a 22-word sentence telling the world that “the rich” think they need another tax break.
Simply put, Harry Reid is a tyrant. He’s turned the Senate into a graveyard, a place with 358 bills have died without so much as a committee hearing or a debate. He’s taken away the right of Republicans to represent their states. For that matter, the Democrats don’t represent their states. They represent Sen. Reid, who represents President Obama.
What’s interesting is that Democrat senators haven’t complained that they represent President Obama instead of representing their states. Since that’s the case, perhaps it’s time those states noticed that they aren’t being represented. Perhaps it’s time they elected someone willing to represent them, rather than electing someone who represents a tyrant and a power hungry president.
When Congress passed the bill reforming the VA hospital system, it became the first bipartisan reform bill passed during the Obama administration.
The Senate gave final approval Thursday to sweeping legislation aimed at fixing the troubled Department of Veterans Affairs, marking a rare moment of bipartisan accord triggered by the widespread treatment delays veterans faced at agency facilities.
The legislation passed 91-3 a day after the House overwhelmingly approved the package. It now goes to President Obama’s desk.
The $17 billion measure is intended help veterans avoid long waits for health care, hire more doctors and nurses to treat them, and make it easier to fire senior executives at the Veterans Affairs Department.
As with any bipartisan bill, this isn’t a great bill. It definitely is flawed. With that being said, Republicans got Democrats to include the Republicans’ top priorities in the bill.
First, the bill includes a provision that lets vets opt out of the VA system. Those opting out will get a voucher giving them the right to go to a private clinic or hospital. This provision isn’t available to all vets, though it’s available to a significant number of vets.
It’s also a great first step towards demolishing the corrupt VA hospital system.
The other major concession Republicans won was a provision that gives the VA secretary the right to fire employees who aren’t doing their jobs. Again, this is a major concession from Democrats, mostly because this gives Republicans the impetus to pass legislation that gives all cabinet secretaries this right.
Democrats will find it difficult to argue that only the VA secretary should have that authority, especially considering how popular this provision is with taxpayers. They’re tired of hearing about people like Lois Lerner committing crimes, then getting put on paid administrative leave while the department conducts their investigation. Taxpayers want heads to roll.
It’s pretty pathetic that the first truly bipartisan reform bill didn’t pass until the sixth year of this Democratic administration. It’s quite the indictment against President Obama’s administration and Harry Reid’s my-way-or-the-highway leadership. It’s the best proof that Washington, DC needs a Republican majority in the US Senate. Without a GOP majority, there won’t be another bipartisan bill passed during this administration.
One of the things that Rick Perry hasn’t gotten credit for is his moving 1,000 National Guardsmen to the Tex-Mex border. It isn’t that people haven’t commented on Gov. Perry’s decision. It’s that there’s been too much second guessing of his decision:
The governor is simply trying to grab headlines, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest replied.
He said the administration hopes “Gov. Perry will not just take these kinds of steps that are generating the kind of headlines I suspect he intended, but will actually take the kinds of steps that will be constructive to solving the problem over the long term.”
Like most of the stuff coming from this administration, Earnest’s comments are BS. It isn’t that Gov. Perry is trying to grab cheesy headlines. It’s that he’s trying to fix a problem created by the federal government that’s spilled into his lap:
Deploying 1,000 Guardsmen “has nothing to do with unaccompanied minors or children crossing the border,” Perry said, because data show “only 20 percent of those apprehended crossing the border illegally are children.”
The Texas Department of Safety found that 203,000 illegal immigrants were arrested and charged with more than 640,000 crimes since 2008, Perry told the Trib. “Of those crimes, 3,000 were homicides and nearly 8,000 were sexual assaults,” he said. “Thousands of lives have been shattered forever, that shouldn’t have (been), if the federal government had done its job.”
Thanks to President Obama’s indifference to protecting Americans, literally thousands of Texans’ lives have been ruined. The Texas Department of Safety’s statistics are irrefutable. The children flooding in are just part of the crisis. The biggest part of the crisis, though, is that thousands of illegal immigrants have committed heinous crimes that’ve ruined people’s lives.
Border Patrol data show that the number of children entering Texas illegally has grown from about 5,000 in 2012 to more than 50,000 this year. “Inaction encourages other minors to place themselves in extremely dangerous situations,” Perry wrote in his letter to the president. “…Every day of delay risks more lives. Every child allowed to remain encourages hundreds more to attempt the journey.”
President Obama doesn’t see this as a humanitarian crisis as much as he sees it as a political opportunity. He wanted tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to flood into the US in the hopes of forcing Republicans to pass “comprehensive immigration reform.” President Obama’s problem is that the crisis got tons of press, which made it look like a) the administration tried manufacturing this crisis and b) this administration and other Democrats don’t care about consistently enforcing the border.
Republicans have repeatedly said that they won’t pass immigration reform until enforcing the border becomes a high priority for this administration. That isn’t something pro-open borders organizations like La Raza or pro-open borders legislators like Luis Guttierez are interested in.
That’s their problem. The overwhelming majority of people polled demand that the border be secured before talking about legalizing the illegal immigrants already in the country.
It’s gotten to the point that Republicans get better grades on immigration than Democrats get. Gov. Perry might run for president in 2016. At this point, he should because he’s getting high marks for taking border security seriously. He’s taking his law enforcement responsibilities seriously, too, which is more than they think about President Obama.
Technorati: Rick Perry, Border Security, National Guard, Texas Department of Public Safety, Republicans, President Obama, Violent Crimes, Border Crisis, Luis Guttierez, Open Borders, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Democrats
Then-Sen. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton both railed against President Bush’s confrontation of terrorists where they lived. They both preached the gospel of “smart diplomacy.” Six years later, we now know that “smart diplomacy” is just a euphemism for appeasement and retreat, if not outright isolationim.
Nowhere is the failure of the Obama-Clinton “smart diplomacy” foreign policy more apparent than in Libya. Walter Russell Mead’s article highlights that failure succinctly by quoting a State Department travel advisory:
The security situation in Libya remains unpredictable and unstable. The Libyan government has not been able to adequately build its military and police forces and improve security following the 2011 revolution. Many military-grade weapons remain in the hands of private individuals, including antiaircraft weapons that may be used against civilian aviation. Crime levels remain high in many parts of the country. In addition to the threat of crime, various groups have called for attacks against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests in Libya. Extremist groups in Libya have made several specific threats this year against U.S. government officials, citizens, and interests in Libya. Because of the presumption that foreigners, especially U.S. citizens, in Libya may be associated with the U.S. government or U.S. NGOs, travelers should be aware that they may be targeted for kidnapping, violent attacks, or death. U.S. citizens currently in Libya should exercise extreme caution and depart immediately.
Sporadic episodes of civil unrest have occurred throughout the country and attacks by armed groups can occur in many different areas; hotels frequented by westerners have been caught in the crossfire. Armed clashes have occurred in the areas near Tripoli International Airport, Airport Road, and Swani Road. Checkpoints controlled by militias are common outside of Tripoli, and at times inside the capital. Closures or threats of closures of international airports occur regularly, whether for maintenance, labor, or security-related incidents. Along with airports, seaports and roads can close with little or no warning. U.S. citizens should closely monitor news and check with airlines to try to travel out of Libya as quickly and safely as possible.
The status of the country’s interim government remains uncertain. The newly elected Council of Representatives is scheduled to convene by August 4, but political jockeying continues over where and when to seat the parliament. Heavy clashes between rival factions erupted in May 2014 in Benghazi and other eastern cities. In Tripoli, armed groups have contested territory near Tripoli International Airport since July 13, rendering the airport non-operational. State security institutions lack basic capabilities to prevent conflict, and there remains a possibility of further escalation.
TRANSLATION: Libya is a disaster. Contrary to President Obama’s statement that al-Qa’ida is on the run, terrorist organizations, aka militias, control Libya. In September, 2012, Benghazi was a hot spot. These days, the entire country is a hot spot.
“Smart diplomacy” has become a punch line, and the dream Team Obama had of making Democrats the go-to national security party is as dead as the passenger pigeon.
President Obama is in way over his head. He’s never been interested in learning about the different actors on the world stage. That can’t be said about Hillary. She’s been interested in the different actors on the world stage. She just hasn’t been that bright. She could’ve stood up to President Obama but she didn’t. She acquiesced in the name of political considerations.
Libya isn’t a fight that needed to be fought, though it definitely needed monitoring. Killing militias would’ve been much more advisable than killing Khadaffi.
President Obama’s favorite foreign policy straw man is that there are only 2 options: all out war or isolationism. That’s either proof that he’s a liar or that he doesn’t have a clue. It might be proof of both.
Taking out Khadaffi was stupid. Not confronting Putin is equally foolish. Smart diplomacy isn’t as smart as arming people who would love to fight for their own freedom. Why President Obama prefers giving Putin free run of eastern Europe but insists on killing north African dictators is beyond me.
Most of the doves who’ve spoken out in favor of the Obama administration’s appeasement policy towards the Russian-Ukrainian war frequently cite the fact that there’s no appetite for the United States to get involved in another war. This isn’t surprising since strawman arguments are President Obama’s specialty.
In this instance, though, it’s a non sequitur argument.
The US can and should use its military to change the equation in eastern Ukraine. It’s just that that shouldn’t mean deploying US troops to Ukraine. It should take the form of putting the military’s most lethal weaponry in the hands of Ukrainian troops.
The Ukrainian military has been asking the US for military support for months now. President Obama has rejected their requests. With there now being no doubt that the Russians are firing on airplanes, it’s time for President Obama to stop being the wimpiest president in my lifetime. It’s time he stopped dithering.
President Reagan took down the Soviet empire. President Obama isn’t doing anything to stand in President Putin’s way to reconstitute the former Soviet empire. What’s most disturbing is that President Obama apparently doesn’t recognize the peril he’s putting our allies in.
Why doesn’t President Obama understand that Russia’s slicing up of Ukraine just emboldens President Putin to attempt to threaten other nations? Doesn’t President Obama care about foreign policy?
President Reagan brought down the Soviet empire by confronting the Soviets whenever they tried meddling in other countries’ affairs. He showed them that he was committed to arming anyone who opposed the Soviets. He forced the Soviets to spend more money on their expansionist goals than they’d anticipated.
Because the Soviet economy was pretty much worthless at the time, he forced them to spend themselves into the dust bin of history. By comparison, President Obama is essentially giving President Putin a free pass with Ukraine, which enables them to spend more money on destabilizing other neighboring countries.
There’s no reason to think that the Russian economy is any stronger today than the Soviet economy was in the 1980s. Similarly, there’s no reason to think that forcing Russia to devote most of its spending on military ventures will endear itself to the Russian people.
While President Reagan was forcing the Soviets to spend tons of money on foreign military interventions, he also undercut the Soviet government in the eyes of its people. President Obama is totally missing that opportunity.
Instead, he’s playing the 98-lb. weakling who gets sand kicked in his face while President Putin plays the part of the menacing bully. That’s why the latest Fox News poll shows people thinking that 75% of people think President Putin is getting the better of things while a pathetic 14% think President Obama is getting the better of Putin.
We need a real president. We don’t need a fundraiser-in-chief. We need a president who rethinks his strategy after it’s shown it’s a disaster.
Unfortunately, instead of having a real president that knows what to do on the world stage, we’ve got President Obama.