Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Nobody Fears Obama

Teddy Roosevelt earned respect around the world thanks to his policy known as "speak softly and carry a big stick". President Obama's slogan should be "speak softly and carry a big feather".

No drama Obama is basically ignoring the Wikileaks documents release. Why is he not doing more to stop this atrocity? Why has he not disabled Wikileaks? Perhaps, he secretly is enjoying this attempt to cut America down to size.

We've got two major slime balls here who have blood on their hands: Manning, the soldier who leaked the classified documents, who by the way, should be put in front of a firing squad as a warning to any future traitors, and Julian Assange from Wikileaks. These two have already endangered our troops and leaked a multitude of names of Afghans who have worked against the Taliban. What's the likelihood anymore Afghans will rise up to help us in the future?

Read about our weak, ineffective president from Gateway Pundit:

Frustrated O’Reilly on Obama: “I Don’t Think There’s Anybody in the World Who Fears Obama. I Don’t Think Anybody Does!” (Video)

"Bill O’Reilly tonight discussed the Wikileaks fiasco with Brit Hume.
After reporting on Obama’s weak response, O’Reilly exclaimed, 'I don’t think there’s anybody in the world who fears Barack Obama. I don’t think anybody does!'"




From Weasel Zippers:

Ralph Peters: Obama Is “Gutless” For Not Taking Down Wikileaks

"Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: 'This is an attack on the United States, on our security. We have the cyber capability to take down Wikileaks, could have done it before the first dump of information, could have destroyed their operating systems. President Obama decided not to do it because President Obama is a gutless wonder who cared more about his left-wing free-cyberspace base than he did about protecting the security of the United States……We have the capability to track cyber crime anywhere in the world, to go after it anywhere, take it on, and we’ve done nothing? And I’ll tell you, people are stewing about this because President Obama has overseen the gravest compromise — the greatest willful compromise because he did nothing — of our national security of any president in my lifetime.'"


From Joshua Pundit:

The Real Casualty of Wikileaks - Barack Obama's Presidency

"Most presidencies have a number of moments that define them, that reveal the essence of both the man and his administration.

Barack Hussein Obama has had a number of these moments already. But the current Wikileaks scandal has to be a true 'the emperor has no clothes' moment...a truly revealing portrait of a truly failed and impotent presidency.

Here we have the spectacle of a foreign organization not only openly publishing illegally obtained, highly classified documents that strain relations with our allies, compromise our diplomats and our intel and endanger our troops and operatives in the field but taunting us by giving us advance notice of their intent to do so.

Our response to what amounted to a threat to our national security? Did we get the CIA involved to take out the perpetrators? Did we even warn them that if they even thought about publishing this stuff and didn't return it immediately, there would be serious consequences?

No,we had our State Department's lawyer Howard Koh write a letter essentially saying 'this was really nasty of you, so please give us our stuff back, OK?'

And then President Obama went off to take care of some important things..play a little basketball and pardon a couple of turkeys.

The publishing of the Wikileaks documents does deep damage to American interests far beyond what was actually revealed. Our allies and US friendly assets among our enemies are going to think twice about cooperating with us, since the confidentiality of that cooperation is no longer guaranteed. Certainly no Arab government and possibly Israel are going to risk speaking openly and bluntly to us about security matters in the future. And our diplomats and agents abroad are also going to be more constrained about what they tell Washington, since it could come back to compromise their missions or even get them killed.

In view of that, President Obama's public statement on the matter is highly illuminating:


'President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal. By releasing stolen and classified documents, Wikileaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals. We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.'


Well...that'll teach 'em, won't it? Although I have to chuckle a bit at the line about how the Obama Administration supports 'responsible, accountable, and open government'. The American people certainly haven't seen anything like that here.

Still, it's worth looking at how puerile and ineffectual the White House's response to this attack - and I can't really refer to it any other way. The two Wikileaks episodes have shown us to be a world power in name only, governed by an administration who won't even respond forcefully to our country's enemies.

That's evident not only from how we've handled the leaks themselves, but from the actual Wikileaks revelations, especially the ones dealing with our non-policy on Iran.

Are we to believe that the entire resources of the US government were unable to track down Julian Assange and the Wikileaks people, recover the data and arrest and prosecute them?

There are really only two possibilities, and neither of them is pleasant to contemplate. Either the Obama Administration really doesn't know quite how to handle this or deep down, the president actually approves of the US being taken down a peg and is making a kabuki protest. That certainly would jibe with a number of other things the Administration has done.

In either case, what we have is a sitting President of the United States of America who has allowed a major attack on US Security to go essentially unchallenged. And there will be consequences."








3 comments:

Diogenes said...

Good gosh almighty, MoreLies, you seem VERY confused.

Your latest argument is that Obama is "a gutless wonder who cared more about his left-wing free-cyberspace base"?

"Why is he not doing more to stop this atrocity?"

"Why has he not disabled Wikileaks?"

And yet, time and time again, you have insisted that "Obama and his Marxist colleagues" are trying to shut down bloggers' free speech rights:
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2010/05/freedom-of-speech-in-jeopardy.html

And you've claimed that Obama "has appointed a proliferation of officials who have in various ways advocated restrictions on the freedom of speech":

http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2010/07/obama-exposed.html

Oh, and the obligatory accusation that Obama is "trying to take rights and freedoms from Americans... Wanting to regulate free speech on Internet."

http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2010/06/american-citizen-speaks-out.html

Face it: no matter what position Obama takes on ANY issue, you will reflexively take the opposite position, and criticize Obama accordingly.

You best get yourself to a proctologist, MoreLies. You apparently have an acute case of anal myopia, and it needs treatment.

JD said...

Harmless free speech is one thing. Giving our enemies US secrets is quite another. What we say here is of no danger to national security, but what manning did is wrong and extremely dangerous. You need a proctologist to remove your head from your ass!!!

Diogenes said...

Oh, I don't disagree that what Manning did was wrong. He was/is a soldier, and what he did was clearly illegal. While I'm not sure it quite reaches the standard of treason, he ought to be spending a good portion of his life in a stockade.

But Wikileaks is a different matter. Am I happy that Assange did this? Hell no. Should he be criminally liable? Questionable. HE didn't steal anything, Manning did.

It's very comparable to Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers back in the 60s.

REAL issues of free speech never involve "harmless" speeech. It's only when somebody is hurt, in one way or another, that the issue truly arises.