Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Sunday, September 20, 2009


And you thought it was Joe Wilson who interrupted Obama at the September 9th Joint Session of Congress. Your ears were apparently deceiving you. Pelosi might say your ears weren't balanced. In either case, if you have 15 seconds to kill, this is just the way to do it.



Former Jimmy Carter National Security Adviser and current Barack Obama foreign policy adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski gave an interview to the Daily Beast and intimated that if Israel attempts to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, the United States should take down their planes.

Q: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?
A: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

Q: What if they fly over anyway?
A: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse. [Israeli jet fighters and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty in international waters, off the Sinai Peninsula, during the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel later claimed the ship was the object of friendly fire.]
Based on the fact that Brzezinski is advocating intentionally attacking Israeli planes, does he believe the attack on USS Liberty was not the result of friendly fire?

Personally, I find it interesting how Brzezinski so willingly identifies Iraqi airspace as U.S. airspace when it suits the purpose of shooting down our ally's war planes.

According to the WASHINGTON NOTE, Brzezinski detested our going into Iraq. He was quoted as saying:
The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.
Wouldn't using land / air space obtained in a morally calamitous war only serve to exacerbate any problems that exist? If going into Iraq undermined our global legitimacy, how does piling on by using Iraqi airspace to attack Israeli planes restore that legitimacy?

The WEEKLY STANDARD BLOG puts this insane scenario into perspective:
...conjure the image -- the Obama administration sending U.S. aircraft up to protect Iran's airspace and it's nuclear installations from an attack by a democracy that is one of America's closest allies. Unfortunately, this may not be so hard to imagine in Israel, where the number of people who believe Obama is pro-Israel is at just 4 percent -- and falling. And given Obama's (literally) submissive posture to the Saudis, his indulgence of the Iranians, and his simultaneously hard-line approach to Israel, it seems even some of Obama's supporters can savor the possibility of a "reverse Liberty."
Based on the preponderance of less-than-stellar associates Barack Obama has chosen to affiliate himself with almost for as long as he's been alive, this shouldn't be all that shocking.

Here's the ENTIRE INTERVIEW at the Daily Beast.



This may be the most egregious lie yet from Barack Obama. The money quotes come shortly after the 4:00 mark. Stephanopoulos asks Obama about ACORN getting its funding cut off. His response is obviously deliberate ignorance but plausible deniability is more than just a stretch. When asked about the de-funding of Acorn Obama says,
"Frankly, it's not something I've followed closely. I didn't even know that Acorn was getting a whole lot of federal money."
Shortly after that, he makes reference to seeing one of the videos that exposed Acorn, saying it was "certainly inappropriate".

Considering Obama's extensive ties to Acorn, it is simply not believable that he hasn't been following it very closely. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, he should be following it closely based on what he saw on the "video" considering his extensive ties to Acorn.

Next, he expects us to believe that he didn't know Acorn was getting "a whole lot of federal money". Not only is that COMPLETELY unbelievable but if we were to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one, why on earth would he sign a bill that grants Acorn billions of dollars without knowing that's in the bill?

Taken further, if he is so willing to sign a bill that grants an organization like Acorn billions of dollars (unbeknownst to him), why on EARTH should he be trusted when he says he will not sign a health care bill that adds to the deficit.

To quote Joe Wilson, "YOU LIE".

Here's the entry on STEPHANOPOULOS' BLOG
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive