Jan 29 2009

President Barack Chamberlain?

Published by at 11:53 am under All General Discussions,Bin Laden/GWOT

Is President Obama negotiating a truce with al Qaeda? Is he going to legitimize these nut jobs by actually opening a dialogue and discussing terms as equals on the world stage? 

Barack Obama was working with Arab intermediaries to establish an unofficial dialogue with Al Qaida long before his election as the 44th U.S. president, according to a report in the upcoming weekly edition of Geostrategy-Direct.com.

Al Qaida has offered what has been described as a truce in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, according to the report.

Let me get this straight. We are kicking their butts and they offer a ‘truce’ in their butt-whooping in return for us leaving Afghanistan so they and the Taliban can re-grow their cancerous hold on the country? Why would we even contemplate such a idiotic surrender! We are the ones WINNING! Why would we agree to stop winning and retreat?? 

Is President Obama this stupid? Does he think WE are this stupid? Our Muslim allies are surely wondering if we are THIS STUPID!

Still, Saudi Arabia’ royalty fears any reconciliation between Al Qaida and the United States. The sources said Saudi King Abdullah worries that Obama’s effort would legitimize Al Qaida and bolster its status in the Gulf Arab kingdom.

Well, DUH!  It legitimize these vermin to treat them as world players worthy of treaties and agreementsut I say again. We have them penned in the tribal areas of Pakistan and we are picking them off. They are barely able to survive, let alone grow and plan attacks (though they do get these done somehow). I said the other day that watching Obama stumble on national security is like watching a 3 year old playing with a scalpel. Now that 3 year old seems to be sitting in my lap and my hands are tied!

It seems Obama wants to be the history’s next Neville Chamberlain, whose myopic focus on peace at all costs led to the deaths of tens of millions in war and atrocities. There is a point were the price of ‘peace’ is too much to humanly bear. We cannot always look away and wish for fantasy realities where everyone holds hands and loves each other.

President Obama, if you proceed down this path you will probably face a backlash the likes no one has seen in this country since its inception. Criminal Ineptitude is worthy of impeachment. You had better check with We The People – your bosses – before you go out on this limb.

Update: Gateway Pundit linked to a WSJ piece regarding the concern of many in the mideast over Obama’s Neville Chamberlain moments:

As the president told Al-Arabiya television Monday, he wants a return to “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”

Say what you will about the style — and practice — of the Bush years, the autocracies were on notice for the first five or six years of George. W. Bush’s presidency. America had toppled Taliban rule and the tyranny of Saddam Hussein; it had frightened the Libyan ruler that a similar fate lay in store for him. It was not sweet persuasion that drove Syria out of Lebanon in 2005. 

In the ebb and flow of liberty, power always mattered, and liberty needed the protection of great powers. The appeal of the pamphlets of Mill and Locke and Paine relied on the guns of Pax Britannica, and on the might of America when British power gave way. In this vein, the assertive diplomacy of George W. Bush had given heart to Muslims long in the grip of tyrannies.

Take that image of Saddam Hussein, flushed out of his spider hole some five years ago: Americans may have edited it out of their memory, but it shall endure for a long time in Arab consciousness. Rulers can be toppled and brought to account. No wonder the neighboring dictatorships bristled at the sight of that capture, and at his execution three years later.

Where Mr. Bush had seen the connection between the autocratic ways in Muslim lands and the culture of terror that infected the young foot soldiers of radicalism, Mr. Obama seems ready to split the difference with their rulers. His embrace of the “peace process” is a return to the sterile diplomacy of the Clinton years, with its belief that the terror is rooted in the grievances of the Palestinians. Mr. Obama and his advisers have refrained from asserting that terrorism has passed from the scene, but there is an unmistakable message conveyed by them that we can return to our own affairs, that Wall Street is more deadly and dangerous than that fabled “Arab-Muslim Street.”

Appeasement allows evil people to plan, prepare and execute their evil intentions under the veil of PR lies to the gullible. By going back to tolerating evil, Obama has given evil a new lease on life.

Update: BTW, a belated Hat Tip to Reader Kathie for the heads up on the original article.

13 responses so far

13 Responses to “President Barack Chamberlain?”

  1. CatoRenasci says:

    So much for Obama the centrist.

    Obama is not as bad as we on the right argued he would be, he is at least an order of magnitude worse.

    He could actually cause us to lose a war we’ve won and destroy American power within the next four years. Astonishing. People say he and the Democrats won’t tolerate losing a war on their watch…. nonsense, just hang on for the wild ride!

    Now, I think the American people will – once it dawns on them – react the same way they did to the loss in Vietnam caused by Congress: not to trust the Democrats on national security for a generation. Or, perhaps, Phil Gramm’s famous prediciton that within a decade people will be hunting Democrats with dogs will be born out an administration later.

    “Who lost China?” will pale as a question when the Democrats are held to account for this….

  2. KauaiBoy says:

    From your lips to God’s ears AJ—the real God that is.

    Again I feel safe in the hands of our military leaders and believe they will do the right things in the end to preserve our constitution and way of life.

  3. Frogg says:

    AJ, you seem to be well connected with military sources. Can you check out this internet rumor:


    Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is extremely frustrated with orders that the White House is contemplating. According to sources at the Pentagon, including all branches of the armed forces, the Obama Administration may break with a centuries-old tradition.

    A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.


  4. CatoRenasci says:

    Frogg – I suspect the rumor is just that – a rumor. The swearing of an oath to the president is essentially what the National Socialists did in Germany. This personal oath caused a number of (perhaps excessively) scrupulous German aristocratic officers to refrain from taking action against Hitler in the late 1930s when it was under fairly serious consideration, and again in 1944.

  5. AJStrata says:


    I actually do not have any real connections (just experience). I seriously doubt that would happen – it is illegal.

  6. Cobalt Shiva says:

    A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.

    Who is this person of spoke?

    Also, changing the oath would require Congress to rewrite the governing statute.

  7. Aitch748 says:

    I’m just a layman civilian, but somehow it sounds to me as if someone did float the “swear fealty to the President and not the Constitution” idea as a trial balloon somewhere. It’s good to hear that this won’t happen, but it does add to the long list of little things about the Obama “cult of personality” that should make any thinking person uneasy.

  8. kathie says:

    My hope is that Gates and Patreaus would resign before giving away Iraq or doing anything unconstitutional. Their resignation would get every ones attention very fast.

  9. Frogg says:

    I thought Obama was leaning towards sending more troops to Afghanistan and in obtaining more NATO support–not negotiating an American surrender? Which is it?

  10. Terrye says:

    It seems that the Military has rebuked Obama on halting the Gitmo trials. They might rebuke him on more than that. I think it would hurt Obama politically to go from promising to hunt down Osama to making deals with these guys.

    But who knows what this guy will do?

  11. bill says:

    This is satire, right?

  12. […] of the hype, adult stem cell therapies (click on image to read up on adult stem cells) continue to produce medical miracles: Stem cells transplanted into early-phase multiple sclerosis patients stabilised, and in some cases […]