Ah the paradox that is Barack Obama:

He has stubbornly refused to acknowledge the triumph of the 2007 surge in Iraq, but is now calling for an "instant replay' of that wildly successful strategy in Afghanistan... (quote) “There may be some comparable opportunities in the region," Mr. Obama said.

So he has decided to employ his "outreach" strategy and write a love letter to the 'moderates' in Taliban-land. Too bad it wasn’t a month earlier. Mr. Obama would have been able to include a valentine card.

Now all of a sudden, we’re to kiss and make up-- forget that the Taliban has been providing Osama bin Ladin with safe harbor, and that the Taliban professes to be perhaps the hardest of the hard core factions of any Muslim extremist group that exists. So no moderates need apply.

Of course liberals are always doing paradoxical things to surrender to the enemy. They would rather appease than take a stand. And appeasement is provocative--it invites attack. And time and time again, history has proved it.

Remember that long forgotten organization, "America First"? America First-ers were the group that ran Wendell Wilkie as their anti-war candidate vs. Franklin Roosevelt in the 1940 election.

This once-influential leftist group, headed by Charles Lindberg as its unofficial spokesman, sought to appease and surrender to a sworn enemy of America ---the Nazis! They were hard-core isolationists-- vehemently opposed to any involvement with the goings-on in Europe in the late 1930's.

When the war clouds were gathering back then, it was Lindberg who unilaterally took it upon himself to send out "peace feelers" to Germany. He had arranged an audience with Herman Goering, the ever-pompous and arrogant chief of the Nazi Luftwaffe (air force).

Goering decide to make a pigeon of the naive Lindberg, and "revealed" to him fake plans of "experimental" German planes, such as a six-engined massive German bomber, with a 6000 mile range, supposedly capable of bombing America's Eastern coast, and then return safely to the Fatherland.

Lindberg meekly returned home with grave reports of Nazi military superiority --that the U.S. could never catch up-- and that America must at all costs avoid the coming war in Europe, should it occur.

Yes, like a liberal deer in the headlights, Charles Lindberg was blinded by fears of Hitler's supposed invincibility. And like Neville Chamberlain, he had in as much declared "peace through weakness". And reports of America First's near-treasonous activities in the United States that had filtered back to Germany, proved to be instrumental in Hitler's surprise declaration of war on America three days after Pearl Harbor

Which brings us to England's capitulation to Hitler in1938.

Neville Chamberlain was your classic liberal appeaser. He had served as British Minister of Health from 1924 to 1929. After he become Prime Minister in1937, he too surmised Hitler as invincible, and called for an appeasement foreign policy, culminating in the signing of the infamous Munich Pact in 1938, selling out Czechoslovakia to Germany, and along with that --the Skoda Works.

The Munich pact enabled Hitler to realize his most coveted European objective-- Czechoslovakia's famed Skoda Works. It was the worlds largest armaments factory; it produced heavy guns for the Nazi navy; heavy mortars and the fearsome M-42 machine guns for the Wermacht (German army), as well as locomotives, aircraft, ships, machine tools, steam turbines, and equipment for Germany's power utilities.

The Skoda Works gave Hitler and the Nazis their amazing armament capability to literally take on the entire world, and hold them at bay for the first four years of the war.

Nice job, Nev.

And the world will never forget (or forgive) Chamberlain for his calamitous "containment" policy of Germany, that in 1939, culminated in the official declaration of the Second World War.

Even after WW2, the liberals were at it again, working their devilish best to capitulate to America’s enemies. This time it was Julius and Ethel Rosenberg—America’s favorite historical couple. 

The Rosenbergs--who were the duo complicit in passing our original atomic bomb secrets to the Soviets between 45-47-- arguably could be stated as the cause that emboldened Stalin to close off 1948 Berlin, because he now held an equal hand in weaponry. Thus Stalin attempted to squeeze the Allies out of East Germany, thanks to the dastardly liberal deeds of Julie and Ethel Rosenberg. But Truman's famed Berlin airlift foiled everything.

Next on the liberal “most-wanted” list was Alger Hiss, who viewed spying against his home country as little more than ‘youthful  idealism', and who would be convicted of a only a minor charge (lying under oath)  for the small infraction of surrendering America's hydrogen bomb secrets to Russia, and prolonging and escalating the cold war for another 35 years!

Arguably, the damage from Hiss changed the course of world events (for the worse) more than any other individual in American history.

And were it not for the ultra rightist, Senator Joe McCarthy, who knows how many more communist sympathizers could have been organized into a faction and possibly seized control of the democratic party, just as the liberal leftists in congress have done today.

If it hadn’t been for McCarthy, there may have been no John F. Kennedy as president, but instead a radical democratic socialist candidate (ala’ Obama) opposing Richard Nixon in1960. And after the leftist attitudes from the Vietnam era in late 60's had taken hold, this ultimately led up to the election of another liberal apologist-- Jimmy peanut-farmer Carter.

For many years after World War II, the U.S. intelligence forces had done their job well. The CIA had succeeded in stalemating the KGB during the early Cold War years .But then came the election of Jimmie Carter in 1976, and the rise of Senator Frank Church.

Carter, like all liberals, believed in being "fair". On September 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed a Treaty with Panama 's strong man, Omar Torrijos, to transfer the Panama Canal to Panama, and it became one of the most heated treaties ever debated in the Senate. With a two vote margin, the transfer agreement was passed in 1978, thanks to the Senate lobbying of Frank Church.

And presently, our good friends the Chinese are seeking to aggressively expand in the isthmus country, and already own a major interest in port operations on the east and west sides of the canal. So in the event of war, the U.S. navy might be cut off from reaching our east and west coasts.

But Panama was but the least of Carter’s disastrous liberal legacy.

1977 also can be noted as when Carter made one of the most ill-conceived presidential decisions of all time: He issued an executive order that placed all nine U.S. intelligence agencies under one man: CIA Director Stansfield Turner; and If anyone wishes to seek the origin of the 9-11 attack, a good place to start would be right here.

In October of 1977, Turner decided to curb many of the clandestine practices that had brought the CIA much of its criticism from the liberal members in Congress, which were led by Idaho Senator Frank Church. In the" Halloween Massacre" of '77, Turner circulated an Oct 31st photocopied memo informing 800 CIA staffers (mostly Republicans) of their dismissal. To the joy and disbelief of our enemies, word spread quickly around the spy community that the U.S. had decided to delegate its intelligence priorities to non-human means, such as satellite observations and listening posts.

It has been noted by many historians that..."Stansfield Turner has been the single worst senior appointment in US history... and..."In eliminating virtually all human intelligence on the ground, he put the  U.S. at a strong disadvantage, especially in the Middle East and Afghanistan."

Now 32 years later, can any one dispute this most-scathing of historical criticisms?

Whatever his intentions, what Carter (and Turner) accomplished amounted to aiding and abetting the enemy, which resulted in our humiliation in Iran in the 1979 hostage crisis, the Russian war in Afghanistan in1980, and the bombing of our marines’ barracks in Lebanon in1982

And thanks to the liberal insanity of Jimmy Carter's dismantling of the CIA, we’ve lost control of our destiny in the Middle East-- giving impetus to the revival of Islamic fundamentalism-- which ultimately gave rise upon the world's stage to all of Islam's most infamous stars...Khomieni, Arafat, bin-Laden, Akmadinejad, and untold others -- including the 20 airliner hijackers who were responsible for 9-11.

Yes; the liberals--upholding the biblical inspiration of Judas--have always been seeking ways to betray the one who’s been good to them…their homeland—the United states of America!

And next in line to wear the mantle of  betrayal was another leftist America-hater, the convicted spy, John Walker, who  sold top-secret classified Pentagon information to the Soviets for 18 years. Among the secrets were keycodes being used by American ground troops fighting in Vietnam , and details about the Navy's most sophisticated nuclear submarines.

Since 1969, Walker had worked as a radio operator on a Navy supply ship (a job that gave him easy access to Pentagon keylists). And had the Cold War ever escalated to the real thing, the Soviets, knowing the locations of all American nuke subs, would have been able to destroy them all within days.

But what if there had not been any bleeding heart liberals around during the20th century? Had Lindberg and Chamberlain not been the men of their time, there may have been a European war… but a World War II?  And had it not been for the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss, would there have been the 40-year Cold War? And were it not for John Walker, the latter half of the Vietnam war could have taken an entirely different course-- the United states may have actually triumphed by the early 70s.

And of course without Carter in the Whitehouse in 76-80, who knows?  The entire mess in the Middle East, culminating in 9-11 may never have taken place.

But through out our history, whenever liberals have had their chance to deliver a black eye to their homeland, they're of the mindset..."There! That's what you deserve...you racist, bullying, militaristic, imperialist, expansionist, United States of America!”

The point is, liberals ALWAYS want to give our enemies the benefit of the doubt, figuring that even if they ARE liars, America (in the parlance of Michelle Obama) is a downright mean, racist country, and deserves not her status as a free prosperous nation, because it was built upon the backs of "oppressed” people, and foreign, "jingoistic" imperialism.

And to make a counterpoint: In modern American history, has a conservative ever been known to be a traitor to America 's best interests, either at home or abroad? Is liberalism some kind of insidious cultural disease? Or are certain individuals born with it-- an organic physiological affliction-- a sort of “left” brain vs. ”right” brain type of thinking?

Only God knows for sure.

But with the situation America faces on the foreign front, and with a Marxist-socailist anti-president running things on the homefront, America will need God's help more than ever to get us out of this one.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Most sincerely;

(your name)

 

Final post script to all conservative Americans:

The date: Sept 12, 2001: George Bush, standing atop the rubble of the World Trade Center; his approval rating -- 90%.

 

Can anyone ever surmise what got into Mr. Bush after that?

The scene: State of the Union speech; January 29, 2002. George W Bush announces his axis of evil--  comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, calling them "rogue countries" that are facing "serious consequences".  Ouch.

And so began the Bush-push in the Middle East, which to this day remains a mystery:

Why did we ever make an about-face in Afghanistan; especially after our great early success in routing the Taliban  after 9-11?

Only George Dubya knows for sure--or even why, he gave "The Evil Speech"

And can any one blame Iran for getting defensive? If a country declared you as evil, and on the side of terror, you just might tend to get a little paranoid, and maybe speed up your development of multi-staged missile boosters-- and more ominously-- nuclear weapons.

 

Of course this is exactly what happened.

Iran, out of the clear blue sky, suddenly rises to the top of George Bush's "hit list"--a diplomatic sucker punch that turned the course of history-- and could eventually (although not probably) touch off a nuclear Mideast war

And the rest is history.

March '03-- America invades Iraq. May '03...mission accomplished. Then with June '03, comes the blunder of blunders-- the U.S. firing of the Iraqi army, and touching off a wave of massive, nationwide unemployment--and the tragic Sunni-al-Queda 5-year insurgency.

Even if Bush had deliberately tried, the post-invasion scenario in Iraq could not have gone worse. After unilaterally invading Iraq and bungling the occupation, Bush severely undermined America's global standing and our credibility with our closest allies.

Here is the essence of the Bush-push: rather than negotiating with the Iranian mullahs-- who themselves had fought a 8-year war with Saddam in the 80's-- Bush announced, "You're either for us or against us!"

Was Dubya injecting some type of political steroid...or what? Was it Cheney who advised him to say that? It was about as anti-diplomatic as it gets.

And it was provocative.

Immediately Iran began, through 3rd world channels, to buy up contraband American technology on the black market, and used it for it's own weapons development. And tragically, the Iranians began the importation of the horrid I-E-D explosive, remote-controlled detonator devices into Iraq, which maimed and killed the bulk of all U.S. military casualties.

Plus, Bush's bluster only served to push Iran to step on the accelerator, and gas up its nuclear program. Iran immediately increased its purchase of centrifuges, and the manufacturing of u-238 (heavy uranium) for its nuclear fuel production.

And can we blame them? If the U.S. were threatened out of the blue by someone who suddenly pronounced hostilities, would we not immediately go on a wartime alert? Thus, in the overall geopolitical picture, Iran derived enormous benefits from the Bush foul-up.

Designating its leaders as "evil"  unleashed a huge sympathy reaction toward Iran from the other Moslem countries, and a wave of anti-Americanism ensued throughout the Islamic world.

 

Great job Mr Bush! Had it not been for "the EVIL speech", things could have gone so much better for America back then.

Despite all the animosity from the 1979 revolution, Iran had been slowly drifting back towards a detente with America.

In the late 1990's, the Taliban (a Sunni moslem sect) started a vicious religious cleansing persecution against Iranian Shiites in eastern Afghanistan. So after 9-11, Iran and the U.S. had a common enemy-- and Iran was openly talking with America about its own war on terror vs. the Taliban

 

Then came Mr. Bush's fateful axis of evil speech, which no doubt will go down as one Americas biggest foreign policy blunders in history--with harsh domestic consequences:

 

1) the speech declared war on Iraq- the first time that America was to attack, unprovoked, a sovereign country

Recent 30-year history has shown that Iranian "policies" concocted by the different Washington administrations never matched reality-- keeping any possible solution "inaccessible". That's why they were spectacular failures.