Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers
Monday, November 02, 2009
|
|
Ken Blackwell on Why "Dithering is Dangerous"
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
2:25 PM
|
Over at FoxForum, Ken Blackwell makes some good points about the dangers of dithering ...
This delay, this months-long dithering is dangerous. The Soviets watched very carefully when Ronald Reagan fired the air traffic controllers for striking illegally. They were impressed by his swift and sure decisiveness. With Reagan, the KGB reported to the Kremlin party bosses, “words are deeds.” Obama’s Hamlet act is growing stale. President Kennedy knew how important the presidency is. He eloquently said: “I do not shrink from this responsibility. I welcome it.” Could it be that Obama’s very public shrinking from the responsibility of decision is what is causing his own shrinking in the American public’s support? We don’t need a president who, in the words of Newsweek editor Evan Thomas “hovers above us all, sort of a god.” What we need is a president who understands what Harry Truman meant when he posted that now-famous sign on his desk in the Oval Office: “The buck stops here.” (Emphasis mine)...
Obama's "dithering" has worked, so far, because it was in stark contrast to Bush's decisiveness. The public had grown tired of Bush, so the opposite of Bush seemed refreshing. At the end of the day, though, good leaders tend to be decisive. Obama should focus more on being a good leader and less on being the antiBush ...
|
|
|
Thursday, October 29, 2009
|
|
Clinton Takes Bush-Bashing to Pakistan
|
|
Posted by:
Meredith Jessup at
1:09 PM
|
After she prayed at the shrine for Muslim saint Muhammad Iqbal in Lahore today, Secretary of State continued her 3-day visit to Pakistan and delivered remarks to university:
As a way of repudiating past U.S. policies toward Pakistan, Clinton told the students “there is a huge difference” between the Obama administration’s approach and that of former President George W. Bush. “I spent my entire eight years in the Senate opposing him,” she said to a burst of applause from the audience of several hundred students. “So, to me, it’s like daylight and dark.”
Isn't that nice. It's so refreshing how this administration continues to look to the future and doesn't bend over backwards to appease other countries. Oh wait...
 Image Source: AP I really have to wonder how dignitaries from foreign countries--like Pakistan--would react if they visited the U.S. and we took them to pray at our National Cathedral. Am I wrong in assuming they wouldn't be happy, and may even consider us... intolerant?
I'm not criticizing Clinton or Pakistan for the vigil held at the shrine--I think it's lovely and important to recognize and have a healthy respect for different countries and their cultures. But one has to wonder... are we held to the same standard?
|
|
|
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
|
|
Sounds Good, But Will It Work?
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
3:30 PM
|
Thomas Friedman tries to offer a theoretical justification -- some might even call it rationalization -- for an American withdrawal in Afghanistan.
His argument reminds me a lot of the ones used by enablers -- enablers of abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics, you name it: That is, "they" won't change until "they" want to. We can't make it happen. And so the best we can do is get out. Then, "they'll" hit bottom and come to their senses.
Such an approach might well make sense in cases of private behavior -- thankfully, I don't have enough experience to know one way or another. But when it comes to very public behavior -- behavior that can result in a suitcase nuke going off in a major American city -- the reasoning is defective.
Friedman's approach might have worked in a different age, one without cell phones, computers and -- oh, yeah! -- suitase nukes. But if we fall for Friedman's line that a "stronger America" will result from abandoning Afghanistan, and then just leave, what could happen as a result? After all, it's important to weigh the risks of a proposed strategy, not just consider possible positive outcomes (as critics like Friedman would have been the first to tell the Bush administration).
Will America really be "stronger" -- as Friedman argues -- if Afghanistan falls to Al Qaeda and its allies, who then push the fight into the already-unstable nuclear power of Pakistan?
|
|
|
Monday, October 26, 2009
|
|
147 Dead in Baghdad, 500 Injured
|
|
Posted by:
Jillian Bandes at
9:46 AM
|
It's the deadliest day in two years for a country anticipating national elections in January, and for a President trying to build up his credibility on national security.

The high-profile Justice Ministry and Provincial Council complexes in Baghdad were hit by two simultaneous car bombs. Most analysts are blaming al Qaeda, though Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki balmed members of the Baath party as well. Maliki had recently removed security elements from Baghdad streets in an attempt to demonstrate his grip on security.
The timing of the blast coincided with the meeting of key cabinet ministers and political leaders who were congregating to discuss essential election law needed before the national elections.
From the wires:
With an attack Aug. 19 that killed about 100 people, insurgents have now wrecked an array of pillars of the state's authority: the Foreign, Finance, Justice, and Municipalities and Public Works ministries, along with the Baghdad provincial headquarters, which are all gathered in a fortified swath of downtown.
|
|
|
Thursday, October 22, 2009
|
|
Cheney: Obama Needs to Stop "Dithering" and "Waffling" on Afghanistan
|
|
Posted by:
Meredith Jessup at
1:14 PM
|
Go Dick, go!
Update: Politico is reporting the White House's response to former Vice President Cheney's criticism of the Obama administration's Afghanistan policy (or lack thereof):
"What Vice President Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform," Gibbs said Thursday. "I think we've all seen what happens when somebody doesn't take that responsibility seriously."
Calling Cheney's comment "curious," Gibbs attacked the Bush administration for allegedly taking years to provide the support necessary for the war effort in Afghanistan.
Read More...
|
|
|
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
|
|
79 Days and Counting...
|
|
Posted by:
Meredith Jessup at
9:33 AM
|
It has been nearly 80 days since General McChrystal's request for more troops landed on President Obama's desk. More than 100 U.S. soldiers have died in Afghanistan while they wait for some back-up.
In the meantime, Obama will be in New Jersey today campaigning and fundraising for Gov. Corzine.
Priorities, anyone?
|
|
|
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
|
|
Founder of Human Rights Watch Condemns The Organization
|
|
Posted by:
Jillian Bandes at
1:25 PM
|
In a very public and incriminating editorial in today's New York Times, Robert Bernstein, the founder of Human Rights Watch, says the organization "has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah," and that the organization has deliberately clouded "the difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally." Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism. From Volokh: At what point does the MSM stop treating HRW as a neutral source on human rights in the Middle East, and start treating it like the left-wing, anti-Israel, anti-Western organization it has openly become? And at what point do HRW’s liberal, human-rights oriented American donors become tired to enabling this? My question: will the exposure of HRW as an anti-Israel propoganda machine usher in further examination of other allegedly nonpartisan outlets and observers who claim authority in the region, such as the Middle East Studies Association or the U.N.'s Human Rights Council?
|
|
|
Monday, October 19, 2009
|
|
Hillary Steps in it Again
|
|
Posted by:
Meredith Jessup at
6:20 AM
|
Remember during the 2008 presidential campaign when then-Senator Hillary Clinton tried to trump-up her foreign policy credentials by (falsely) claiming to have landed in Bosnia as First Lady and having to dodge sniper fire? You'd think the embarrassment of having that story completely debunked would've made Clinton keep a tighter lid on that obviously active imagination of hers... but apparently she's stepped in it again.
During a visit to Belfast last week, Secretary of State Clinton was working to settle peace agreements and, during a speech she was giving to the parliament, that active imagination got away from her again. The UK Times reports:
[D]uring a speech [Clinton] made to the Stormont parliament she said that Belfast’s landmark Europa Hotel was devastated by an explosion when she first stayed there in 1995. The Europa, where most journalists covering the decades-long conflict stayed, was famed as Europe’s most bombed hotel, earning the moniker “the Hardboard Hotel”. However, the last Provisional IRA bomb to damage the Europa was detonated in 1993, two years before President Clinton and his wife checked in for the night. The last time the Europa underwent renovations because of bomb blast damage was in January 1994, 22 months before the presidential entourage booked 110 rooms at the hotel.
Whoopsie! And just because she's not running for office anymore, don't think she's lost her inner politician. When asked if this was another case of Clinton "mis-speaking," a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said that she had been trying to express "perception" of Belfast's darker days.
The spokesman told a Belfast newspaper: “We are not talking about the same thing [as ‘mis-speaking’ about Bosnia]. Secretary Clinton was simply contrasting.”
|
|
|
Friday, October 16, 2009
|
|
Krauthammer On Obama's Failed Foreign Policy
|
|
Posted by:
Jillian Bandes at
11:39 AM
|
|
As usual, he's brilliant. What's come from Obama holding his tongue while Iranian demonstrators were being shot and from his recognizing the legitimacy of a thug regime illegitimately returned to power in a fraudulent election? Iran cracks down even more mercilessly on the opposition and races ahead with its nuclear program. ...What's come from the new-respect-for-Muslims Cairo speech and the unprecedented pressure on Israel for a total settlement freeze? "The settlement push backfired," reports The Washington Post, and Arab-Israeli peace prospects have "arguably regressed." And what's come from Obama's single most dramatic foreign policy stroke -- the sudden abrogation of missile defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic that Russia had virulently opposed? For the East Europeans it was a crushing blow, a gratuitous restoration of Russian influence over a region that thought it had regained independence under American protection.
Not only does this de-legitimize the Nobel, but it taints his prospects of making any meaningful foreign policy accomplishments for the rest of his term. With Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran on the table, this isn't especially reassuring.
|
|
|
Thursday, October 15, 2009
|
|
Quelle Surprise: Sarkozy Says No More French Troops For Afghanistan War
|
|
Posted by:
Meredith Jessup at
10:45 PM
|
France will not send "a single soldier more" to fight in Afghanistan, though troops already deployed as part of the NATO-led coalition will remain there, President Nicolas Sarkozy told a French newspaper on Thursday.
Sarkozy claimed it was "necessary" to win in Afghanistan, but was unwilling to continue supporting the war efforts with French troops. Instead, the French President insists the Afghan troops fighting the Taliban need pay increases:
"[Afghan forces] will be the most effective in winning this war because it is their country. But we need to pay them more to avoid desertions that benefit the Taliban," said the French president. France currently has 3,000 troops in the NATO-led coalition battling the Taliban and training Afghan security forces. So far, 36 French soldiers have been killed since 2001. Sarkozy's comment came just after a call by NATO’s commander to send more troops to the restive southern region of Afghanistan. “To really complete the ‘shape, clear, hold, build,’ we need at least two additional brigades of coalition forces, somewhere between 10,000 or 15,000 troops,” Major General Mart de Kruif, NATO’s commander in the region, told AFP in an interview on Thursday. In order to clear other areas in the south, such as the Helmand province, “we absolutely need additional forces,” reiterated de Kruif.
Britain announced yesterday it would send an additional 500 soldiers to Afghanistan. Meanwhile, U.S. commanders on the ground requested more troops from President Obama more than a month ago and are still waiting for a White House reponse...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Blog Postings:
|
|
Last updated 7 Minutes 31 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 30 Minutes 53 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 37 Minutes 23 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 40 Minutes 58 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 50 Minutes 16 Seconds Ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archives of our Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
Comments Comments
•How the hell...
Re:
The Undecideds
By
Eugene
•Careful Because You Are My Biiiatch Axe
Re:
Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
By
Eugene
•My letter to congress - pass it along!
Re:
2,000 Pages of Mandates, Taxes, and Bureaucracy
By
Teresa
•Vote NO
Re:
Just Vote No
By
Kenny Z
•Jo Anne
Re:
Health Care Throwdown: Palin vs. Pelosi
By
Eugene
•peacefrog
Re:
Health Care Throwdown: Palin vs. Pelosi
By
Eugene
•Ladybug Sarah flyaway home .....
Re:
Health Care Throwdown: Palin vs. Pelosi
By
Jo Ann
•Originalist
Re:
Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
By
Ronna
•David...In Auschwitz Axie's Tiny Brain
Re:
Maine vote repeals gay marriage law
By
NeoConScum
•LJ
Re:
Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
By
Speedicut
•Neo
Re:
Dem Leader Hoyer: We'll have the votes by this evening
By
Eugene
•Jo ann
Re:
Health Care Vote Looms: Where Does Your Rep. Stand?
By
Ronna
•Ronna
Re:
Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
By
Origanalist
•L.J. regardless of how you spell embecil
Re:
Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
By
Ronna
•'Gene:Loathsome Nancy & Water Pail Steny
Re:
Dem Leader Hoyer: We'll have the votes by this evening
By
NeoConScum
•Here you go...
Re:
Maine vote repeals gay marriage law
By
David
•Careful with that axe, Eugene
Re:
Maine vote repeals gay marriage law
By
David
•Beta-Male Bamster is Pulling Tin Ears
Re:
NBC ranks Obama "INSENSITIVE" on Ft. Hood
By
NeoConScum
•Neo
Re:
Dem Leader Hoyer: We'll have the votes by this evening
By
Eugene
•Ronna
Re:
Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
By
L.J.
|
|
|
|
The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall
|
|
|
|
|
|
|