Senator Obama’s Campaign Speech in Berlin

.

Barack Obama devoted several paragraphs of his Berlin Campaign Speech to the ten month Berlin Airlift, in 1948 and 49. Then, he summed up the remaining four decades of cold war with two sentences

Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity. People of the world — look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.

Those bullet holes should be a reminder to a would-be President not of a meaningless slogan, “our common humanity,” but of the reality of tyranny, of Soviet soldiers firing machine guns at Germans who tried to escape to the freedom of West Berlin. Those bullet holes should be a reminder that there have always been, and probably always will be, evil regimes, and that preservation of liberty requires leaders with iron will, who are ready to fight if necessary, to triumph over evil.

The Berlin Wall was there because an evil empire built it to imprison the people of East Germany under illegitimate rule. The Cold War was in progress and the world was bitterly divided, with the Western Alliance, including Western Europe and America on one side, and the Soviet Union on the other.

Even within the Western alliance there was rancorous disagreement, especially over how to respond to the Soviet Union’s installation of medium range nuclear missiles that were aimed at Western Europe. President Reagan and German Chancellor Kohl persuaded the NATO allies to position American nuclear missiles in Europe that could counter-attack if the Soviets fired theirs.

In Western Europe, including West Berlin there were massive street demonstrations demonizing Reagan and protesting the placement of the missiles. The notion that “the world stood as one” is simply delusional.

The Berlin Wall finally fell because the Soviet Union imploded. Several factors led to the demise of the Soviet Union but Ronald Reagan’s efforts were most significant. Reagan prevailed over the virulent objections of many in Europe and America who demanded accommodation with the Soviets that would have allowed the wall to remain, kept Europe divided, and left Soviet missiles in place without challenge.

Senator Obama expresses contempt and disrespect by celebrating destruction of the Berlin Wall without acknowledging President Reagan, and instead giving credit to a fiction, that the wall came down because the world “stood as one.” Any candidate for President of the United States of America, should call on the world to remember the inspiring words from Reagan’s June 12, 1987 speech at the Brandenburg Gate:

“Mr Gorbechov, tear down this wall!”

The reality of history and the human condition is that with the possible exception of the Olympic Games, virtually nothing of merit was ever accomplished by means of all the world standing as one. Humanity has always been in conflict and the great challenge has always been to ensure that somehow good triumphs over evil, that liberty triumphs over tyranny, and that truth triumphs over lies. Great human triumphs are usually accomplished only after overcoming opposition and adversity.

America is imperiled when one who would be President indulges in fanciful dreams of achieving peace and security through mushy expressions of “common humanity,” and expects he can, with clever rhetoric, persuade dictators, ayatollahs and terrorist thugs to disavow their pernicious goals and “stand as one” with the free peoples of the world.

A President must understand that to maintain peace and security requires strength, determination, perseverance, and willingness to use any Constitutional means to prevent those who would do America harm from succeeding.

Reader comments invited

The hard-core lefties are enraged by the emerging possibility of success in Iraq that could, eventually, reflect positively on President Bush. For years they have agitated for Congressional action that would result in abandoning the effort, leaving Iraq in chaos, and validating their position that “Bush’s War” was a catastrophe because Bush was evil and stupid.

Yesterday the Obamnia Summer Vanity Tour and Photo-Shoot paused for an interview with Katie Couric. Ms. Couric has apparently felt the jeers and sneers drawn by the media herd’s prostrate worship of Senator Obama, and actually tried to ask a few challenging questions.

Couric:

“You talk about a residual force remaining in Iraq, but you’ve been hesitant to really give a number…some of your advisors have said it could be tens of thousands of troops. Why can’t you be more specific as to what you envision?”

Obama:

Now, keep in mind that when I talk about timetables, people say that’s too specific, with respect to residual force, maybe not specific enough.

No Senator! Being specific is not the problem with a timetable that is announced to the enemies and pursued without regard to the consequences. The problem is that it’s a prescription for throwing away all the gains so far secured at great cost. It’s a plan to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Obama Continued:

My job as commander-in-chief would be to indicate to [Commanders on the ground] here’s our goal, here are the missions that we need to carry out. Now, you tell me what it is that we need in terms of boots on the ground, in terms of equipment, in terms of other capabilities that are gonna be required.

Fair enough. Then how about some detail on that mission? The current mission is to protect the gains that have been made, finish training Iraqi security forces and ensure that democracy ultimately prevails over terrorism. The Commanders on the ground say they can’t accomplish that mission with fewer troops, and that Obama’s withdrawal schedule would jepordize that mission.

So what would Obama’s new mission be? What parts of the current mission would he abandon? Obama has said his new mission would be “end the war.” Of course, the best way to really end the war is to stick with the current strategy and tactics. But Obama insists on abandoning the current strategy and tactics. So what does “end the war” mean? What are the commanders supposed to do, exactly?

Couric:

“If General Petraeus or the chairman of the joint chiefs, Admiral Mullen, say … “you cannot take out the final complement of combat troops. You need them in the theater,” you would say?”

Obama:

I will always listen to the commanders on the ground. And I will make an assessment based on the facts at that time. As I’ve said before … I am not interested in a false choice between either perfect inflexibility in which the next 16 months or the next two years I ignore anything that’s happening in Iraq. Or, alternatively, that I just have an open-ended, indefinite occupation of Iraq in which we’re not putting any pressure on the Iraqis to stand up and … take this burden on. What I’m gonna do is to set a vision of where we need to go, a clear and specific timeframe within which we’re gonna pull our combat forces out.

So the Senator rejects the “false choice” of inflexibility, but He is going to set “a clear and specific timeframe within which were gunna pull our combat forces out.” He was flexible before he was inflexibile?

Couric:

“And base your decision still on conditions on the ground as well?”

Obama:

Well, as I said before … I would not be doing my job if I’m not paying attention to the facts.

How cynically clever. He’ll “pay attention to the facts” – if that’s his job. BUT, he will pull combat forces out within his specific, predetermined timeframe.

Couric:

“… you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, Why?”

Obama:

Well … because … what I was referring to, and I’ve consistently referred to, is the need for a strategy that actually concludes our involvement in Iraq and moves Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

Why can’t Obama admit that the current mission is to prepare the Iraqis to assume total, sovereign control of their country, so US troops can leave? The current strategies are designed to support that mission, and they are working. He can’t acknowledge the obvious because of the elephant in the room; He needs the votes of the Bush-hating, anti-war base that believe their own hype: Iraq is a lost cause, success is impossible and “Bush’s war” is a catastrophe.

Couric:

“But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops … help the situation in Iraq?”

Katie oversimplifies because she apparently hasn’t made the effort to understand that adding troops was only one of several changes made eighteen months ago. those changes have resulted in what even obama finally, grudgingly admits is a dramatic improvement. The additional troops were needed to implement General Petreaus’ brilliant counter-insurgency and nation-rehabilitation strategies, that are still on-going.

Obama:

Katie, as … you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.

Couric:

“But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support it … so I’m just trying to understand this.”

Obama:

Because … it’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan….That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States.

So finally, after weeks of intense campaign debate over strategy and tactics in Iraq, after failing to make sense out of his contradictions, after failing to outwit even Kutsie Katie, Our Messiah and President-In-Waiting Barack Obama gives up and falls back on whining about…

The Money.

When President Bush ordered the surge strategies Senator Obama parroted the position of the leftist base. He said he was against the surge because it would make Iraq worse.

Now, he claims he was opposed, and is still opposed to the surge which he admits is a success because it costs too much money!

The bottom line, here at the bottom of the post, is voters are not informed by obama’s too-clever tap dance. All we really know about Obama is his skill at whipping up an emotional response from a crowd at a campaign event. If he becomes President will he ignore the virulent Bush-hating, Anti-Iraq fringe voters who get the credit for securing his nomination? Or, would he risk losing Iraq? The truth is we don’t know because he doesn’t know.

leaders chant “distraction!”

.

Tony Rezko of Chicago was convicted Thursday of 16 counts of fraud, money laundering and abetting bribery of public officials.

Mr. Rezko was an early supporter of and major donor to Barack Obama as he ran for the Illinois Senate. There are conflicting reports of the amounts donated by Rezko to Obama’s campaigns, ranging from $60,000 to Hundreds of Thousands.

In June, 2005 Rezko assisted Senator Obama in the purchase of a $1.6 million dollar home in Chicago.

The London Times reported on its investigation of Rezko, Obama, and the real estate deal back in March. The Times learned that a British-Iraqi billionaire, Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, who has a conviction for corruption in France, lent millions of dollars to Tony Rezko in May of 2005. Columnist Robert Novak reprted in March, ’08 that Pentagon sources called Auchi a “bagman” who laundered money in London for Saddam Hussein.

Three weeks after the loan from Auchi to Rezko, Senator Obama bought the house, and on the same day Mrs. Rezko bought the vacant lot next door.

What has not been widely reported is that the two parcels were offered for sale by the same seller, who insisted as a condition of sale, that they both be sold at the same time. It is often true in real estate, and it was this seller’s opinion, that the whole was worth more than the sum of the parts. The vacant lot had been landscaped and fenced to serve as a large side-yard and garden to the house.

The Google Earth satellite photo below shows how the the house and the vacant lot on the corner were fenced and landscaped as one property at the time Obama and Rezko purchased them.

Since Rezko had no use or need for the corner lot, it’s not a stretch to conclude that Obama couldn’t afford both parcels so Rezko got involved to satisfy the seller’s condition and help Obama buy the house he wanted. This was a tangible benefit, worth several Hundred Thousand Dollars, to Barack Obama from Tony Rezko.

Obama claims he was barely acquainted with Rezko, maybe having lunch with him once or twice a year. So why did Tony Rezko give Barack Obama this kind of financial assistance? What did Rezko, who was just convicted of facilitating bribes to government officials, receive or expect to receive in return?

So far, there is no answer. But the question is legitimate. Obama has virtually no record of experience or accomplishment that would indicate he is qualified for the Presidency. He claims he is better qualified than all the experienced Governors, Senators, Congressmen and Cabinet Officers who sought the nomination because his “judgment” is superior to theirs. Since he lacked the judgment to buy a more modest home that he could afford rather than get in bed with a Chicago gangster, his claim is at best weak

In a statement issued by his campaign a few hours after the verdict, Senator Obama said, “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew.” If that sounds familiar it’s because a month ago Obama said of Rev. Wright “this isn’t the man I knew.”

.

.

“This has been a long campaign and I will be making no decisions tonight,” Hillary Clinton announced.

As she spoke, supporters chanted “Denver, Denver, Denver!”

As of last night Barack Obama had finally secured enough pledged and super delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot at the Democratic Convention in Denver, this August. But Mrs. Clinton’s speech was hardly a concession. She did not play the part of the gracious looser. Not at all.

She claims to have won more popular votes than Obama, indeed more than any primary candidate in history. She conducted herself like a winner. One was reminded of Bill Clinton in 1992 when he came in third in the New Hampshire primary, but boasted that “we won New Hampshire.”

Earlier in the day she encouraged the media to report her desire to be the Vice Presidential candidate. Does she want Obama to pick her as his running mate? Maybe. Probably not.

Our view is that she began her 2012 campaign for President several weeks ago. She and Bill are certain Obama will lose this year, which sets up another opportunity for her, in four years.  Her strategy for now is to establish some perceptions in the minds of Democrat voters, as the basis for the 2012 campaign. Those perceptions will be:

• She should have won but the nomination was stolen from her. Many of the party loyalists still believe Al Gore was the “real winner” of the Presidency in 2000. She hopes they’ll come to believe the same about her run for the nomination.
• she was willing to sign on as VP, to help Obama unify the party, and help him become the first African-American President, but he rejected her out of foolish pride.
  

She probably doesn’t really want the VP slot and he would be crazy to give it to her. Accepting her on the ticket after all that has happened would make him look very weak. She comes with lots of negative baggage and with Big Bill, who could and would draw attention away from Obama throughout the campaign. Not to mention, Bill’s dicey post-presidential financial dealings.  Obama has much more to lose than to gain from Hillary as a running mate.

When Obama finally makes it clear that he isn’t going to pick her as VP she will be in position to create the perception that her generous offers were rebuffed, to the detriment of the Democratic party. Then, she and Big Bill will nurture the doubts in the minds of wavering Democrats helping them decide to stay home on election day, ensuring that Obama loses, positioning her as the nominee who should have been, and who will be, in 2012.

In the meantime, there is always the jackpot possibility that another stink bomb out of Chicago, from the Trinity Church, or the corruption trial of Obama’s friend and patron, Tony Rezko, or Obama’s past associations with radical leftists, could create new doubts among the party elite and swing the super delegate vote in her favor in Denver.

The Clintons have a lot of faults, but nobody ever accused them of being quitters. It’s going to be a very uncomfortable summer for the Democrats.

“If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy because that’s what he did with Kruschev…”

For someone who thinks he’s ready to be President, Obama appears appallingly ignorant of recent presidential history.

Or, perhaps he is deliberately targeting for deception, those voters who don’t have the time or inclination to refresh their memories.

As a matter of historical fact, President Kennedy’s diplomatic efforts with Soviet Premier Khruschev were a failure. Kennedy met with Khrushchev at the Vienna Summit in June 1961, his 5th month in office. Khrushchev conceded nothing and no agreements were reached. In fact, Khrushchev threatened to cut off American and West German access to West Berlin. The Kennedy-Khruschev Summit marked the beginning of a period of deterioration in American-Soviet relations.

Only two months later, the Soviets began construction of the Berlin Wall that divided that city for three decades.

A year later, in October, 1962 President Kennedy was given high altitude photos taken from U2 spy planes flying over Cuba that showed Soviet soldiers installing missiles with nuclear warheads. This in spite of the fact that Khruschev had promised that he would not locate offensive weapons in Cuba. Kennedy had naively believed he would keep his word.

President Kennedy assembled a group of senior advisors called “XComm” to help him deal with the Cuban missile threat and set up secret tape recorders to record XComm meetings and deliberations. Kennedy was recorded blaming himself for the crisis because he had publically warned the Soviets that if they ever placed any offensive weapons in Cuba “the gravest issues would arise.” On the tape he is heard saying, “…I should have said that we don’t care.” In other words, he regretted not being in a position to just shrug off the installation of nuclear missiles aimed at the US, only 90 miles from Miami.

On Monday, October 22, President Kennedy gave a televised speech to the nation. He revealed the secret Soviet missile project in Cuba, annonuced a “quarantine,” or naval blockade of Cuba to prevent any more Soviet arms from being delivered, and threatened to bomb Cuba if the missiles were not removed. For several days America lived with the very real possibility of imminent nuclear war.

Finally, the Soviets blinked. On October 27 they began dismantling the missiles in exchange for Kennedy’s promise not to invade Cuba, a promise he had already given several times. So, in reality Khruschev got nothing -  no concession.

In summary, Kennedy’s diplomacy was a disaster! It’s hard to imagine a worse outcome. But the use of force, the naval blockade and the threat of bombing did change Soviet behavior.

So which is it? Is Obama making references to historical events he has knows nothing about? Or, is he hoping his audience is ignorant and will believe whatever he says?

You can ask The Obama Campaign here