Hillary Dissed...not really.

A Coalition of Youth Groups declined an invitation for Sec. of State Hillary Clinton to speak at a gathering in Cairo, Egypt. Surprising? No, not after the way the Administration remained conspicuously in the shadows while the demonstrations were at their precarious hight and in need of a US safety net.

The USA, under Obama, has separated itself from the international fighters for democracy and it has become obvious to those who fought the fight that they owe the US nothing because the US did nothing to help. They have every right to dis any representative of the US who shows up after the fact to take undeserved credit. in actuality, Hillary was not being dissed; it was her office as a US representative for the President that was dissed.

Albiwan..

JFK's legacy to the Democrats

In the context of JFK's foreign policy, Obama's response to the uprising in Iran was embarrassing. Here was an enemy government to the US whose people, not an enemy to the US, clearly wanted support. Obama should have climbed up and down the Iranian government’s back and used the kind of language he used against Mubarak, a former ally. Figures that Obama would chastise an "ally" and insist on his stepping down but practically kissed our enemy’s ring for not wanting to offend or upset him.
One has to be on a different planet to not perceive what happened and to not understand the obvious differences in how Obama handled the situations. Although initially clumsy, Obama eventually did the right thing in Egypt and I’m sure his words gave the Egyptian’s heart. It should have been the same with the Iranian people but O was new to the job and his ego told him he could talk with Ahmadinajad and make him change his ruthless ways. Big mistake. Had the Iranian people succeeded perhaps we and the world would not feel so threatened by the probability of a terrorist state with a bomb.
And one cannot argue that it’s not Obama’s responsibility...because it is his responsibility as the most powerful man in the world to speak up on behalf of the oppressed. It’s what America stands for and what JFK so famously emphasized in his inaugural speech, one that Democrats and President Obama apparently have forgotten. President Kennedy intoned:

“We will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty....”

Albiwan

Those Who Do Not Learn From History....

Point is, while the Iranians were protesting, the President missed an historic opportunity to pitch democracy. Any idiot could have “deplored” the Iranian government’s heavy hand suppressing the protest. Encouragement, as he did with the Egyptian protestors, could have moved the Iranians to greater achievement. Having the US support is a valuable psychological lift for the disenfranchised. The President did not give it to the Iranians so where were they to turn? Nowhere, so they gave up.

Without Obama offering US help, will the Libyan protestors seeking democracy be the next to give up?

Albiwan..

the Bush Doctrine?

As for Egypt, I am thrilled that it's military maintained its dignity and allowed the people to continue their protests. Now the good news is that the military is organizing for democratic elections. But the trick will be to keep el Baradai out of the mix because he’s not a friend of the US and would likely bring the Muslim Bros into the process. If that happens the new govt will not be secular and that means sharia law and bye-bye democracy.

What the media is not reporting, and it's no surprise, is that Egypt is an example of a benefit coming from the overthrow of Saddam and the establishment of a democratic Iraq. But that would imply that something good came of the Bush Doctrine. The liberal media would rather swallow battery acid than give Bush credit for having done anything good. He was clumsy but his policy was smart. Now that Egypt has the possibility of becoming the second Arab Democracy look for other Arab dictatorships to fall. Miracles apparently can happen.

Obama eliminates Carter's Insidious policy...

Dear readers, for family reasons I have been away for a while. This is the first of several thoughts that I'll add to this site, some of which are a few weeks old but are compelling enough to be expressed.

Breaking News Alert: Obama administration proposes higher fees, down payments for homebuyers; replacing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
February 11, 2011 8:35:09 AM Washington Post
----------------------------------------
The Obama administration on Friday proposed raising fees for borrowers and requiring large down payments for mortgages in an effort to reduce the government's outsize footprint in the housing market.

It also proposed three options for eliminating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but warned that abolishing the mortgage giants without replacing them could have "particularly acute costs in its potential impact on access to credit for many Americans."

Well can you imagine that! After 33 years, a politician finally gets the credit for pulling his head out of his butt long enough to do the right thing and get rid of Jimmy Carter's 1978 CRA law that began the erosion at the foundations of our economy, an erosion so insidious that it nearly brought the US to the brink of economic collapse!!!

Reagan, Bush 41, Bubba, and Bush 43 didn’t have the courage to be the one to tell the lower income population, “sorry, but if you can’t afford to make the down payment on a house you will have to rent.” But Obama has finally done it and should get considerable credit for having done so. Hurray!

But even though Obama the liberal was the one to tie the bell around the cat's neck, don't you think it's interesting how little press was given to the story by the liberal media and also that the story broke quietly on the end of the work week, Friday, with no fanfare? I have the feeling that I am the only one who noticed.

Nevertheless, it's poetic that Carter, a stupid, bigoted old man, lived long enough to see his disastrous CRA effectively eliminated by Obama, a black man.

Albiwan..