Obama Lies Again; He’s no Reagan

In recent appearances Obama is trying to win back some moderate voters and the Republicans voting in Rush Limbaugh’s operation Chaos by stating that he would hearken back to the successful foreign policies of Ronald Reagan and Bush 41.

That’s the most politically opportunistic bald-faced lie that Obama’s made so far in a campaign that’s become full of controversy after the Reverend Wright “revelations.”

Somehow I can’t picture Obama putting nuclear missiles forward into Afghanistan and staring steely-eyed at the Communist Party in China until Tibet, North Korea, and Myanmar were freed from vassallage to China’s imperialist drive in the Asian Continent as President Reagan did with the Soviets in Europe.

Rather than supporting the Strategic Defense Initiative, he would instead be tearing it down, as his firm allies Ted Kennedy and John Kerry were at the time. (Indeed, they have ever since, and currently support the initiatives to delay and then defund Ballistic Missile Defense along with Barck Obama and Harry Reid.)  Rather than supporting a firm stance against the communists, he would have been talking about Nuclear winter, as most of his older supporters were at the time.

Rather than aiding the fragile governments of our southern neighbors against communist insurgencies, he’d probably side with the insurgents. After all he has the endorsement of FARC and Danny Ortega already.

Do you really think the anti-war candidate would have gone to war against Saddam in Gulf War I as President Bush 41 did? I don’t think so — rather Obama would stand for non-intervention as President Carter did even while three countries per year were falling to Communist Tyranny and Pol Pot was murdering a million Cambodians on Carter’s watch.

The clear difference between President Reagan and Barack Obama is in vision. Reagan looked ahead at things to come and prepared us for them, Obama’s political allies in the senate and house are playing “death through delay” with the rest of the Ballistic Missile defense program right now.

What’s Barack doing to stop one of the keystones of President Reagan’s defense policy from being pulled? He’s actively trying to tear it out of the arch of our strategic defense program. In February he pledged to cut Ballistic Missile Defenses.

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

Somehow I don’t think the press is going to call him on this outlandish speech, but it’s clearly a whopper. Barrack’s campaign is smoke and mirrors, it’s time the press asked him what his policy is on Taiwan, Myanmar, Tibet, North Korea, and South America. I mean we can guess a bit on South America since he’s said he would talk to Hugo Chavez and Castro, but what about the rest of the looming world problems?

 Update: Yet another Obama Lie that the press won’t call out.

Update: Other Obama Lies

Why has he sometimes said his first name is Arabic, and other times Swahili? Why did he make up names in his first book, as the introduction acknowledges? Why did he say two years ago that he would “absolutely” serve out his Senate term, which ends in 2011, and that the idea of him running for president this cycle was “silly” and hype “that’s been a little overblown”?

Update: If you want a clear contrast with Obama’s naivete on foreign policy, here’s some good analysis from Lee Cary at American Thinker.

9 thoughts on “Obama Lies Again; He’s no Reagan”

  1. I don’t see why that speech is so outlandish. Why do we have nukes? We don’t seem to have intention to use them, and they certainly don’t appear to be deterring war in general.

    When would we use them? The conventional wisdom would be, only when they were used on us. So why not just seek their banishment?

    The only people who would value a nuclear weapon from the perspective of wanting to use them are terrorists.

  2. As you said nobody wants to use them, but a simple geopolitical reality check will tell you why we must have them, and why Barack’s policy is foolish and suicidal for American interests and Freedom. Eastern Europe is out from under the bootheel of Communism because our nukes existed and were “used” without launching one as strategic counter to Soviet ambitions.

    You can visualize world peace and sing “Imagine” for the rest of your life, but that will neither make the Chinese stop their aggressions and usurpations nor will it make them get rid of their armaments.

  3. You can visualize world peace and sing “Imagine” for the rest of your life,…

    LOL Truth be told, I do have that song on my mp3 player. It’s a good song!

  4. ChenZhen, do you have your head so far in the sand that you can’t see the threats from not only the terrorists but also from North Korea, China and Iran. They either have or are trying to develop nuclear weapons and either use them against us or selling them to the terrorists who would love to use them against us. Judging from your comments, I presume you’re pushing for
    Clinton or Obama of which neither has the nerve to stand up the threats or
    the governments involved. In my lifetime, there have only been two Democrat presidents who had the guts to stand down the threats, Truman and Kennedy. In 1947, one of our C-47 transport planes wandered into East Germany where the Soviets forced it down. The Soviets demanded $100K for each of the crew and also they would keep the plane. Truman responded by telling them “Release the crew and aircraft within 24 hrs or else!” They complied. In 1962, Kennedy stood down Khrushev over the Cuban Missle Crisis and had the Soviets remove the medium range missles out of Cuba. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were both wimps when it came to dealing with a foreign powers and the threat of using the military to back up the power because they did what Obama and Clinton will both do and that is to gut the resources of the military while claiming to save money to give to the people in need. This entire nation is the people in need. I think you should read more history and not believe all the left leaning rhetoric that your high school teachers or college professors pumped into your head..

  5. I just haven’t seen any reason to believe that Obama or Clinton don’t have the nerve to stand up to the threats (as you say). I for one don’t confuse the reckless invading and beligerent sabre rattling of the current administration with a smart and reasoned foreign policy approach. Of course, it’s hard to say for certain without actually seeing them in action. But you’re right, I’m an Obama supporter.

  6. Seeing Obama in action may turn out to be like waiting for Jimmy Carter to do something decisive. At least you’re honest to
    admit you support Obama. Clinton would wet her finger and hold it up to find out what public opinion thinks about it. There are things that Bush has done that I don’t like. Given the flawed
    intelligence, he went with what he thought was right. When the team screws up, the coach gets blamed….

  7. Interestingly enough the people who did not pass on reservations about Curveball’s WMD intelligence were Clinton appointees. If that had been passed on perhaps we would not have gone to war.

    John O. Brennan, who worked with George Tenet, was involved, and he’s now an Obama advisor.

    From Tenet’s Book:

    Of Powell’s U.N. speech, Tenet writes, “It was a great presentation, but unfortunately the substance didn’t hold up. One by one, the various pillars of the speech, particularly on Iraq’s biological and chemical weapons programs, began to buckle. The secretary of state was subsequently hung out to dry in front of the world, and our nation’s credibility plummeted.”

    In truth, Powell blames Tenet for hanging him out to dry. Though Tenet takes some responsibility for his and his agency’s mistakes, he often dodges it in his book. “Maybe it’s just the way Washington works,” he laments when he gets blamed for intelligence failures. Or maybe it’s just accountability.

    He spends nine pages dissecting how a senior CIA officer, Tyler Drumheller, and the German intelligence service didn’t alert him to the fabrications of a source (code-named, appropriately enough, Curve Ball) who alleged that Iraq had mobile biological labs. This was a centerpiece of Powell’s U.N. presentation, yet Tenet offers no apology to Powell.

    But the other critical intelligence assessment he didn’t carry to the Oval Office — surely the most critical of his career — was his misgivings about invading Iraq. As I reported in my third book on Bush, State of Denial, in the months before the invasion in the fall of 2002, Tenet confided to one of his top aides, John O. Brennan, that he thought it was not the right thing to do. “This is a mistake,” Tenet told Brennan.

Comments are closed.