Filed under: Foreign Policy, History, Military, Progressivism, Terrorism | Tags: Europe, Missile Proliferation, Obama
Let’s see. North Korea shoots off a missile, claiming that it is a peaceful satellite. The rest of the world notes that it is a dangerous test of a long range missile. Obama says that if the North Koreans launch the missile, there will be serious consequences, which means that we will go back to the U.N., which will do nothing, nothing at all.
In the meantime, China is increasing their defense spending, building up their military. Russia has announced plans to build up their military, and have demanded that America refrain from putting missile defense in Eastern Europe. Iran is ever closer to their first nuclear weapon, and is cooperating with North Korea, attending their missile launch. North Korea is becoming a prime proliferator, selling nuclear technology to all the most disreputable nations.
[The perfect moment.] Obama denounced “fatalism” over nuclear proliferation and promised to lead a global effort to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons. He hailed the “courageous Czech Republic and Poland for “agreeing to host a defense against these missiles”. The Telegraph (UK) headline says: “Barack Obama goes ahead with missile defense shield despite disarmament pledge.”
President Obama requested a 10% cut in defense spending. [Nice timing] Barney Frank asked for a 25% cut. The Communist Party USA asked for a 50% cut.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced plans to cancel or reduce such major programs as the Airborne Laser, Multiple Kill Vehicle and the installation of additional Ground-Based Interceptor missiles in Alaska, and cut the MDA’s budget for Fiscal Year 2010 by $1.4 billion. These proposals would amount to almost a 15% cut in the MDA budget and a major reduction in our missile defense portfolio. Or so said a bipartisan group of Senators who oppose cuts in Missile Defense. Lieutenant General Daniel Maples, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that “the threat posed by ballistic missile delivery systems is likely to increase while growing more complex over the next decades,” their letter to the President went on to say. “Adversary nations are increasingly adopting technical and operational countermeasures to defeat missile defenses.” Ballistic missile technology has already proliferated worldwide and is a direct threat to both our allies and our homeland.
Well, some say that North Korea only attempts to scare us so that we will give them more aid. But they have passed nuclear technology on to Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Syria. Now, you can condemn all this as “provocative,” but only a damn fool doesn’t pay attention.
Obama, was on his apology and appeasement tour. In Strasbourg, the President of the United States said:
In recent years, we’ve allowed our alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there’s something more that has crept into our relationship. In America there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America’s shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.
But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad.
Greta Van Susteren asked her guest Ambassador John Bolton: “Is President Obama right? What do you think about his speech?” John Bolton said:
I was shocked at how poor his knowledge of history is. If he thinks tensions between Europe and the United States are of recent vintage, particularly during the Bush administration, he really needs some additional schooling.
If you go back to the time of the Revolution, there have been differences between Europeans and Americans very reminiscent of things we’ve seen in more recent years. If you read the diaries and letters of the British and American top political and military leaders in World War II, they were at each others’ throats. Lord Allenbrook, the British commander, didn’t think Dwight Eisenhower was fit to be Supreme Commander or Americans were fit to fight.
This goes back and forth all the time. The idea that, suddenly, he’s going to change this as a matter of attitude is itself a form of arrogance on his part.
President Obama needs to recognize that he is no longer in campaign mode. He is now the President of the United States, all of us, not just the ones who gave him campaign funds. Part of his duty is to preserve the dignity of the office of the Presidency, and a world apology tour just isn’t doing it. Did he not grasp the graciousness of President Bush who refused to comment in any way on his successors’ term of office?