Subscribe: Comments on: OBAMA: A LAMB FOR LIONS
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
back  chamberlain  hitler  mccain  neville chamberlain  neville  obama  oil reserves  oil  president  reagan  reserves  ronald reagan 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: OBAMA: A LAMB FOR LIONS


Politics served up with a smile... And a stilletto.

Published: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 17:55:17 +0000


By: major political parties of the past

Sat, 31 May 2008 21:08:08 +0000

[...] in your mind that this is the man who may very well have the responsibility of preventing Iran fro, evangelical ... for Obama? Seattle TimesCollege-age evangelicals are leaving the GOP, looking [...]


Wed, 21 May 2008 06:19:03 +0000

[...] took the candidate to task for his naive belief that “those who have influence with Hizbullah” care one whit what [...]

By: Rob

Mon, 19 May 2008 02:41:31 +0000

Whine,Waffle,Wobble, Weep is sure to follow in the next week or two for sure. Got to nail down those bleeding hearts.

By: RememberNovember

Thu, 15 May 2008 17:16:58 +0000

For those of you who aren't aware of the tired comparison of Chamberlain: ( from Glenn Greenwald's blogspot- yeah THAT Glen Greenwald, but it is pertinent, imho) In fact, though Ronald Reagan has been canonized as the Great Churchillan Warrior, back then he was accused of being the new 1938 Neville Chamberlain because he chose to negotiate with the Soviets and sign treaties as an alternative to war. Conservative Caucus Chair Howard Phillips, for instance, "scorned President Reagan as 'a useful idiot for Kremlin propaganda,'" and published ads which, according to a January 20, 1988 UPI article (via LEXIS): likens Reagan's signing of the INF Treaty to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's signing of an accord with Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler in 1938. The ad, with the headline, ''Appeasement Is As Unwise In 1988 As In 1938,'' shows pictures of Chamberlain, Hitler, Reagan and Gorbachev overhung by an umbrella. Chamberlain carried an umbrella and it became a World War II symbol for appeasement. According to the January 19, 1988 St. Louis Post-Dispatch (via LEXIS), when Pat Robertson was campaigning for President in Missouri in 1988, he "suggested that President Ronald Reagan could be compared to Neville Chamberlain . . . by agreeing to a medium-range nuclear arms agreement with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev." The Orange Country Register editorialized in September, 1988 that "Ronald Reagan has become the Neville Chamberlain of the 1980s. The apparent peace of 1988 may be followed by the new wars of 1989 or 1990." And even the very same Newt Gingrich, in 1985, denounced President Reagan's rapprochement with Gorbachev as potentially "the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Chamberlain in 1938 at Munich." God help us that we actually talked to Russia, had Arms-talks etc ( granted the USSR wasn't a tosspot terrorist organization- they were a BIGGER threat all together.) Move to strike Hitler from the discussion. Next.

By: retire05

Tue, 13 May 2008 15:18:45 +0000

Let's see: Obama wants us to support the UN resolution (read; give them money) against the sale of arms to Hezbollah Obama wants us to "engage in diplomatic efforts (read: sit down and talk with Hezbollah) Obama says we should back election reform then goes on to say that P.M. Siniora was democratically elected. Does that mean that he backs changing the democratic process of elections in Lebanon? He goes on to say that we should work with the "international" community (the U.N.) and the private sector (U.S. businesses) to rebuild what the damn terrorists are blowing up. Synopsis: We talk with Hezbolla which should work out about as well as the dealings Chamberlain had with Hitler. We back the U.N., which is candidate speak for giving them more of the American taxpayer dollars. Then we get the U.N., who we just gave millions of dollar to, and the private (U.S.) business community to rebuild what Hezbollah has/will blow up. Sounds like a plan for dealing with terrorists to me, boys and girls.

By: jambrowski

Tue, 13 May 2008 13:07:16 +0000

SNAFU... are we simply destined to repeat our follies over and over and over again. Every place we have went into to "help" the people, two great examples Somalia, Lebanon, and left when things got testy have turned into bastions of contempt for us, and rightly so. I loved Reagan, I am a Marine, but for the life of me, it was politics, piss poor planning, and lack of security that got my brothers killed there, that could have been fixed, easily. Now with Iraq and the regime change coming here soon, will we do the same thing we have done in the past, I will put money on it. All in the name of "change", yep economy took a hard hit and is coming back strong, and unemployment is at 5% life is soooo horrible, yes we can my arse.........

By: Pro Cynic

Tue, 13 May 2008 04:15:06 +0000

Naughty Bits... Some little political things to mull over: "An electoral disaster in the making," or "From the HazMat suit to the Barf Bag": McCain-Huckabee. Don't get me started on McCain's global warming disaster. Hussein 57: Your future POTUS Barack H...

By: Greg

Tue, 13 May 2008 02:13:05 +0000

Well, since Obama comes from Chicago and all, if he's calling Lebanese patronage corrupt then it's got to be out there on a whole 'nother level of corruption. I'm sure that it's the politicians giving the good jobs to their campaign donors that's making Lebanon such a hellhole. If only they had more wrought-iron fences.....

By: B.Poster

Mon, 12 May 2008 22:17:24 +0000

I'm being quite real. Yes, I think "bitter enemies" is probably spot on. Folks can and do take the US government to the cleaners. We are being used for what they can get out of us. In other words, they say one thing to us but do another. I'm not necessarily saying don't deal with them where we may have a common interest. It should be understood that these people are not our friends but instead are our enemies. Right now it seems we have common enemies. As such, they may not actively turn on us, yet. No where did I see where you advocated a military response. There is no leverage that we can use diplomatically and the military is to busy right now to pose a credible threat to Hezbollah. There's little to nothing we can do here. If Barack Obama or John McCain for that matter want to put their diplomatic skills to work, I have a suggestion. The problem: we are WAY to dependent on foreign oil. The solution: We have vast oil reserves in the US. In addition to this we have huge reserves of coal here as well. Using coal to oil technolgy that is available right now we probably have more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. We need to build more oil refineries and we need to tap into our own reserves. This would give us some leverage when dealing our enemies. Why have'nt we done it? Oil interests will generally say it is because of environmental regulations. Envrionmental groups will blame the oil companies. Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain should use their diplomatic skills to forge a compromise between big environmental grousp and big oil so that our own oil reserves can be tapped into and we can build more refineries. This might yield positive results for the American people. A fruitless diplomatic mission to Syria will probably yield nothing. We have no "carrots" to offer Syria that they cannot get elsewhere or that they would be interested in and we have no credible "sticks" to use either.

By: Mike J

Mon, 12 May 2008 21:08:15 +0000

A lot of good stuff here i found it very informative.