THE IRONY OF EUROPEAN ELITE AND OBAMA

Henryk Broder, German Jewish author and provocateur who wrote"Hurray We Are Capitulating", said so eloquently three years ago in the newspaper Die Welt.

"Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program."
... "We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat (Tony) Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy." ...
"In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China."
"On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance" ... Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass."
Arrogance. And ignorance.

"Our enemies have learned that we have no stomach for confrontation. We have grown so content within our material success that we view all conflict as economic problems to be solved through concessions and compromise. Broder wonders what Europe and the West will sacrifice next for appeasement. Who will be the next Czechoslovakia -- France? Sounds to me as though he is a speech writer for Barack Obama's Campaign!


Where have we seen that attitude before? How about among our very own history with the reticence of President Bill Clinton to act(in 1996) when he was notified that the Sudanese were willing to capture and turn over to the Americans, Osama bin Laden!

There was little question that under U.S. law it was permissible to kill bin Laden and his top aides, at least after the evidence showed they were responsible for the attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. The ban on assassinations -- contained in a 1981 executive order by President Ronald Reagan -- did not apply to military targets, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had previously ruled in classified opinions. Bin Laden's Tarnak Farm and other terrorist camps in Afghanistan were legitimate military targets under this definition, White House lawyers agreed. And yet Clinton and his "chums" choose to pass on the deal that would have saved many thousands of lives in my opinion!


Despite , and probably because of, this concept of appeasement that has swept over too many Americans. Barack Obama has been applauded and lauded, by the Left,for his detailed plan of "not listening to the generals in Iraq" even before he has made his first "campaign" stop in Country!

Obama made that statement before his entourage has left for Iraq. In his statement, He reaffirmed his commitment to an arbitrary 16 month time-table for withdrawing combat troops. Yet in typical chameleon style, he also claims he will listen to the generals.

The two positions are not congruent if the generals tell him that such a time-table is a mistake. Once again the Change artist reappears.
And as if that were not enough to make people realize that the megalomaniac in the empty suit thinks he can talk US out of harms way, I submit this quote from Glenn Johnson's article of July 16th.
"Our enemies have learned that we have no stomach for confrontation. We have grown so content within our material success that we view all conflict as economic problems to be solved through concessions and compromise. Broder wonders what Europe and the West will sacrifice next for appeasement. Who will be the next Czechoslovakia -- France?


Perhaps this type statement from the presumptive next President will give credence to the previous attitude.
Democrat Barack Obama warned Wednesday about the danger of "fighting the last war" as he pledged to focus on emerging nuclear, biological and cyber threats if elected president.
Two goals of his administration would be to secure all loose nuclear material during his first term and to rid the world of nuclear weapons, Obama told an audience before a roundtable discussion at Purdue University.

"Obama said adhering to nonproliferation treaties would put pressure on nations such as North Korea and Iran. North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon and Iran has an energy program the Bush administration warns could be a precursor to nuclear weapon development.

"As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy," Obama said" source: Breitbart.com.


It has to be either pure arrogance or stupidity to believe he or any president could rely on an agreement with either the Communists in China and North Korea, or with Islamic terrorists to disarm the nuclear weapons the all hope will some day destroy the bastion of freedom in the World!

This man is more dangerous than a loose cannon on the decks of a rolling ship!