Obama Tells It Like It Isn't - Again

[Dave Schwartz]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124744075427029805.html

Obama Rewrites the Cold War
The President has a duty to stand up to the lies of our enemies.

By LIZ CHENEY
There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.

Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.

More at the link...

[ddog]

"This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."



Beyond question ,the above statement is and was true.

and from what you posted so was this:

"The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War."


I didn't bother to read the whole thing at the link as to jump from that statement to the quoted part you gave seems absurd at best.

They are not the least bit at odds.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dog,

So, your belief is that the USSR simply decided, in the interest of harmony and world peace, to let go of all the Eastern Block countries?

A kind of, "Give peace a chance" sort of thing?

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[46zilzal]

Don't you love revisionsits? especially with names like Cheney?

[lamboguy]

i get bored with horse racing too! that's what's good about this site, it lets you get a few things off your chest.

one thing i am positive on is no matter which side you are coming from, left or right, you are not going to change things while you have these leaders in place. meaning your head leaders and your immediate representatives. in fairness to fair, all they are looking to do is pick your pockets while you are sleeping.

[ddog]

Dog,

So, your belief is that the USSR simply decided, in the interest of harmony and world peace, to let go of all the Eastern Block countries?

A kind of, "Give peace a chance" sort of thing?

Regards,
Dave Schwartz


Dave

I will forgive you as you maybe struggling with some software issue or other which can lead to a loss of understanding! :D

But, the previous is beneath what I took to be your "powers".

PJB - has an interesting read that may help get you started again.



I have no interest in such a foolish debate , if that's your path here.

You know better, if you just want someone to defend bama , then this dog won't be barking up that tree.


http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-it-cant-happen-here-1595



PJB: It Can’t Happen Here
by Patrick J. Buchanan

So grave was the crisis in western China that President Hu Jintao canceled a meeting with President Obama, broke off from the G8 summit and flew home.

By official count, 158 are dead, 1,080 injured and a thousand arrested in ethnic violence between Han Chinese and the Muslim, Turkic-speaking Uighurs of Xinjiang. That is the huge oil-rich province that borders Pakistan, Afghanistan and several Central Asian countries that seceded from the Soviet Union.

Uighur sources put the death toll much higher.

The Communist Party chief in Xinjiang has promised to execute those responsible for the killings.

In 1989, fear that what was happening in Eastern Europe might happen in Beijing produced Tiananmen Square. The flooding of Chinese troops into Xinjiang bespeaks a fear that what happened to the Soviet Union could happen to China. Unlike Mikhail Gorbachev, the Chinese, as they showed in Tibet, will wage civil war to crush secession."

and a little more from the posting-----

"Ethnonationalism in the 1990s tore apart the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and broke up Czechoslovakia, creating two-dozen nations out of three. Last August, ethnonationalism, with an assist from the Russian Army, relieved Georgia of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Russia has its own ethnic worries in Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia, whose Moscow-installed president was nearly blown to pieces two weeks ago and where a Chechen convoy was ambushed last week with 10 soldiers killed."









P.S. You see, history didn't stop over there when we "won".
I don't get the constant inferiority complex that must be salved by the constant "we are the good and the light"?

We are and we aren't somtimes and most of the world that cares already knows that.

[lsbets]

Don't you love revisionsits? especially with names like Cheney?

So where was she wrong Timmy? Are you saying the Soviets weren't brutal? Are you saying they weren't tyrannical? Please back up your contention about her being a revisionist. Come on, use that great mind you love to tell us all you have. Or are you just being a reactionary because of who her dad is. You would never do that, would you? :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

Don't you love revisionsits? especially with names like Cheney? Or those in total denial like you?
For all intents and purposes, the day the Afghanis shot down the first Russian helicopter with our STinger, the cold war was over. Russia lost the war, ewent
broke, good night Irene.

As usual. Obama lies on the world stage. How can anyone stand by this lying SOS????????

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=ddog]"This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

Doggie, name the nations who stood up to Russia during the Cold War period. Was it the U.N.? Did the Useless Numbskulls take a really hard line against the USSR? No? Well then...was it mighty, fearless, intrepid Europe -- a true bulwark of freedom? :rolleyes: No? Well then, who? South American countries? African nations? The eskimos in eastern Siberia or Greenland, perhaps?

Was it not Reagan who bluntly and plainly told the world what kind of evil empire Russia was? Was it not Reagan who demanded that Russia tear down "that wall"? Was it not Kennedy before him who stood up to Russia during the Cuban missile crisis?

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

Read for yourself.
http://www.historyorb.com/russia/intro.shtml

[ArlJim78]

Obama is a revisionist, always going around apologizing or marginalizing US history. Many nations were involved and of course the final act involved the people of those nations rising up and taking to the streets, but the undisputed leaders were Reagan, Thatcher, Lech Walesa, and Pope John Paul II. They each helped pave the way for the eventual fall.

Obama doesn't know anything about this kind of leadership, because he isn't a leader. He's more like a rock star. He's a small inconsequential man compared to the people I mentioned.

[lsbets]

I didn't think you'd be able to answer zilly. Reactionaries like you who abandon reason are usually not able to articulate an argument when challenged.

[ddog]

[QUOTE=ddog]"This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

Doggie, name the nations who stood up to Russia during the Cold War period. Was it the U.N.? Did the Useless Numbskulls take a really hard line against the USSR? No? Well then...was it mighty, fearless, intrepid Europe -- a true bulwark of freedom? :rolleyes: No? Well then, who? South American countries? African nations? The eskimos in eastern Siberia or Greenland, perhaps?

Was it not Reagan who bluntly and plainly told the world what kind of evil empire Russia was? Was it not Reagan who demanded that Russia tear down "that wall"? Was it not Kennedy before him who stood up to Russia during the Cuban missile crisis?

Boxcar


b'car


That you ask such a question, defines a total lack of serious intent.

So, you can't think of one that may have helped support us, not one?

Astounding , the lack of thought and any sense or knowledge of history on this site sometime.

g'day matey!

cherrio and all that.

Of course, the people in the countries afflicted had no control of any part of the breakup there. I knew that was the case. Thanks so much for the view on that score, i am sure they will be happy to hear it.

[46zilzal]

I didn't think you'd be able to answer zilly. Reactionaries like you who abandon reason are usually not able to articulate an argument when challenged.
OR they have NO respect for the person puking out the statements. That could be the real reason.

[ddog]

Or those in total denial like you?
For all intents and purposes, the day the Afghanis shot down the first Russian helicopter with our STinger, the cold war was over. Russia lost the war, ewent
broke, good night Irene.

As usual. Obama lies on the world stage. How can anyone stand by this lying SOS????????


they tried to keep a corrupt system going worldwide via vast military blunders to enrich a few at the top of the criminal empire and it broke them eventually.

Sounds like, hmmmmmmmmmmm...................

It's coming.

Bush was right ,this suckers going down.
The previous "collapse" was child's play.

The next couple of years you will not believe.

Get your popcorn ready.

[lsbets]

OR they have NO respect for the person puking out the statements. That could be the real reason.

You are such a hateful, reactionary man. I highly doubt anyone with your temeperment could ever have been a doctor, as you claim to have been. Or if you were, I can easily see how you had to step down to become stall mucker.

You made an assertion. I asked you to back up that assertion. You were either unwilling or unable to. Whichever the case, you do make yourself seem to be the crazed reactionary in almost every thread you get involved in. So, would you care to point out where she was being revisionist? You are being challenged o former doctor (if you ever were one). What was revisionist about the article Dave posted? I'm not asking you to absolutely prove or disprove any point, just state which points you feel are revisionist.

[lamboguy]

i got to give bush some credit, when he went to take away your rights he disguised it as the patriot act. this guy is wide open, he just brought you the internet czar, i think he now has 37 czar's with 37 more to follow. he must have studied russian history, i think they had alot of czar's there once upon a time.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dog,

"This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

This is pure hogwash. It did not happen because "people stood up and decided anything."

The one single reason the U.S.S.R ceased to exist (thereby freeing the satellites) was because they were broke. They simply did not have the money to continue fighting wars. Afghanistan had a lot to do with that.

It appears obvious to me that it was MONEY, or lack thereof, that gave us the Eastern Europe we have today.


Sure,people "stood up" ... right after the threat was removed.


As for me desiring a "foolish debate..." I really do not see anything to debate. Anyone who thinks that the USSR decided to release its hold on Europe because the people "stood up" does not have a firm grasp on the history of our times.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[ddog]

since Tom brought in AFG and that's more important imo since that is not history, maybe this will help the thinking on that.

We are not going to end well there, using our current policies.
the thrust of them is all wrong, some people DON't WISH to have our or anything like our system "brought" to them.

One question for the other "conservatives" ? that wander around this site...

If as most of you say , our fed gvt can't be a force for good in building and running OUR economy, in a nation we understand or should , how do we expect we will do such a bang up job in a country we know very little about?





http://amconmag.com/article/2009/aug/01/00030/



We met on a wet winter day outside Altufievskaia station at the northern end of the Moscow subway system and drove into the countryside. Once the senior official responsible for Soviet economic and technical assistance to Afghanistan, Valerii Ivanov has had frequent visitors from the West since 2001. Each time, he explained his experiences developing the Afghan economy, and each time his visitors nodded politely and promptly ignored everything he said.

The situation in Afghanistan now is quite different from what it was in the 1980s. President Hamid Karzai enjoys genuine popular support, unlike the Soviets and their allies in the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan. The Taliban, despite their safe havens in Pakistan, receive nothing on the scale of money and weapons that the Mujahideen did in the 1980s. Nevertheless, casual dismissal of the past reveals a dangerous smugness as well as a profound ignorance of the Soviet-Afghan relationship.

Overshadowed by the publicity for President Barack Obama’s surge of additional troops to Afghanistan, the promised civilian surge of economic and technical assistance has attracted far less attention. Obama has pledged “a dramatic increase in our civilian effort,” including at least 600 nonmilitary advisers and billions of additional dollars of economic aid.

To win the war, however, the United States has to use its dollars much more effectively than Ivanov and his fellow Soviets did. To date, it has not done so. In May, the U.S. special inspector general for Afghan reconstruction, Marine Corps Gen. Arnold Fields, published his first audit report. Despite billions already spent, he could not be sure that U.S. funds had been well used.

America’s British and Canadian allies have also been talking of shifting their focus from combat to economic development. But their aid performance has been no better. A recent internal assessment for the British Department for International Development noted that more than half the UK’s projects were likely to fail and only 4.5 percent provided “value for money.” Nipa Banerjee, formerly Canada’s senior aid official in Afghanistan, wrote in February 2009, “There seems to be little concrete evidence that aid activities are having a positive impact on the lives of Afghans. Despite deployment of vast efforts, impact on the ground appears inadequate.”

Simply increasing the amount of aid is not the solution. The problem is neither too little money nor too few civilian advisers. These were not the problems for the Soviets either. Something deeper was, and is, at fault.

It suits our prejudices to imagine that the Soviets were solely agents of destruction. Yet while one arm of the Soviet state blew things up, the other built them, repaired them, and trained the local people to maintain them. In the upstairs office of his dacha, at the end of a bumpy village road that could do with some reconstruction of its own, Ivanov printed off a list of projects the Soviets had completed. The relevant archives had disappeared, he complained, apparently tossed out by some bureaucrat in the 1990s, a time when Russians were trying to expunge any memory of their years in Afghanistan. (As a historian, I can only despair at such vandalism. Nevertheless, I have been able to confirm most of the details from other sources.)




more at the link, try it out, it won't hurt , I promise.

[Sailwolf]

So where was she wrong Timmy? Are you saying the Soviets weren't brutal? Are you saying they weren't tyrannical? Please back up your contention about her being a revisionist. Come on, use that great mind you love to tell us all you have. Or are you just being a reactionary because of who her dad is. You would never do that, would you? :lol: :lol:

She was the one that said no black people were ever hanged by a mob.

[lsbets]

She was the one that said no black people were ever hanged by a mob.

In the article in question?

[ArlJim78]

there is some truth in that article about Afghanistan, one key line is;

"The lesson here is that the barriers to development lie not in a lack of aid but in poor human capital and weak social and political institutions"

most or all of the nation building efforts there seem doomed to fail.

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=boxcar]


b'car


That you ask such a question, defines a total lack of serious intent.

So, you can't think of one that may have helped support us, not one?

Astounding , the lack of thought and any sense or knowledge of history on this site sometime.

g'day matey!

cherrio and all that.

Of course, the people in the countries afflicted had no control of any part of the breakup there. I knew that was the case. Thanks so much for the view on that score, i am sure they will be happy to hear it.

Of course, there a handful of outspoken countries who supported us -- the notable Maggie Thatcher immediately comes to mind. But it was the U.S. who took the leadership role primarily. It certainly wasn't France, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Netherlands, etc., etc., etc. And it surely wasn't the U.N. Yes, West Germany played a role but only because the wall was there.

Up until BO got elected, the U.S.A. has always been the the bright beacon of Freedom in this dark world that just naturally gravitates toward authoritarian regimes of one kind or another.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

On a completely unrelated note, this thread has generated a google "Afghan Girls - Meet Afghan Girls for Dating" banner ad....gotta love Google!

[newtothegame]

At Least the American public is finally seeing Obama for the truth........

Trust on Issues
Voters Trust GOP More than Democrats on Eight of 10 Key Issues
Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues, including, for the second straight month, the top issue of the economy. They've also narrowed the gap on the remaining two issues, the traditionally Democratic strong suits of health care and education.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that voters trust the GOP (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues#) more on economic issues 46% to 41%, showing little change from the six-point lead the party held last month (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/mood_of_america_archive/trust_on_issues/voters_now_trust_republicans_more_than_democrats_o n_economic_issues). This is just the second time in over two years of polling the GOP has held the advantage (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues#) on economic issues. The parties were close on the issue in May (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/mood_of_america_archive/trust_on_issues/voters_put_democrats_gop_in_dead_heat_over_economy ), with the Democrats holding a one-point lead.
Voters not affiliated with either party trust Republicans more to handle the economy by a 46% to 32% margin.

Last week’s report of 9.5 percent unemployment (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues#), the highest since 1983, raised doubts about the economy and the president's handling of it. Consumer and investor confidence (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/premium_content/monthly_trends/rasmussen_consumer_index_monthly_trends)is now down to the lowest levels in three months. Just 39% now say President Obama (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues#) is doing a good or an excellent job on the economy while 43% rate his performance as poor. Those are by far the weakest numbers yet for the president.

The president's approval ratings also have fallen to new lows in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/).

(Want a free daily e-mail update (http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1102135387545&p=oi%5D)? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter (http://twitter.com/RasmussenPoll).

Most voters (52%) now trust Republicans more on the issue of taxes, also the highest level found in over two years. Only 36% trust Democrats more on taxes. A survey conducted at the end of June found that 39% of voters now expect their taxes to go up under Obama (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/june_2009/more_voters_see_their_taxes_increasing_under_obama ), the highest level of concern measured to date.

On national security, Republicans hold a 49% to 40% lead over Democrats. That’s down from a 15-point lead last month.

For the second straight month, voters put North Korea at the top of the list (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/war_on_terror_update) of biggest threats to U.S. national security.

Republicans hold a four-point lead on the issue of the War in Iraq, down from an eight-point advantage in June.

Even though American troops have now pulled out of all cities in Iraq (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/64_say_war_in_iraq_is_not_over_yet) and still are on schedule to be completely withdrawn by the end of 2011, 64% of U.S. voters do not believe the war in Iraq is over (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/64_say_war_in_iraq_is_not_over_yet).

The GOP has a 40% to 34% lead on the issue of immigration and is ahead 46% to 39% on abortion.

Republicans also edge out Democrats on government ethics and corruption for the second straight month, 34% to 33%. In June, the GOP held a six-point advantage on the issue.

Also for the first time in over two years, Republicans lead Democrats on the issue of Social Security 42% to 37%. Democrats held a six-point lead on the issue last month, and the parties were tied in April.

Democrats have also seen their leads shrink on two of the party’s strong points, health care and education. The party holds a four-point lead on health care, down from 18 points in May. The Democrats’ advantage on the issue is the smallest found in over two years.

Voters are evenly divided when it comes to the health care reform (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/june_2009/50_favor_obama_health_reform_plan_45_oppose_it) plans being promoted by the president and Democrats in Congress.

On education, Democrats lead Republicans 41% to 38%, also the smallest margin in over two years. Democrats held a 15-point lead in May on the issue.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of all voters say the average congressional Democrat is more liberal than they are, while 36% believe the average Republican congressman is more conservative (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/june_2009/only_44_say_their_own_congressman_thinks_like_they _do) in comparison to themselves. Just 44% say their own representative in Congress is about the same as them ideologically.

Republican candidates lead Democrats for the second straight week in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot).Support for the GOP remains unchanged this week - at its highest level over the past year, but support for Democrats dropped one point to tie its lowest level in the same time period

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1102135387545%26p=oi%255D) (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter (http://twitter.com/RasmussenPoll). Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/toplines/pt_survey_toplines/july_2009/toplines_trust_on_issues_july_5_7_2009). Crosstabs for Trust I (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/premium_content/political_tracking_crosstabs/july_2009/crosstabs_trust_on_issues_i_july_5_2009) and Trust II (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/premium_content/political_tracking_crosstabs/july_2009/crosstabs_trust_on_issues_2_july_6_7_2009) are available to Premium Members (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/premium_service_description) only.

SHARETHIS.addEntry( { title: "Trust on Issues", url: 'http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues' }); Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports Election Edge™ (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/premium_service_description) Premium Service offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage available anywhere.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

Four surveys of 1,000 Likely Voters were conducted by Rasmussen Reports Jully 5-7, 2009. The margin of sampling error for each survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Surveys of 1,000 Likely Voters
July 5-7, 2009

Issue

Democrats number on top

Republicans number on bottom

Health Care

46%

42%

Economy

41%

46%

Education

41%

38%

Iraq

41%

45%

Nat'l Security

40%

49%

Abortion

39%

46%

Social Security

37%

42%

Taxes

36%

52%

Immigration

34%

40%

Gov't Ethics

33%

34%








story attributed to rassmussen reports.....

[boxcar]

The people really get it on the Gov't Ethics Issue.

Boxcar

[wes]

New way to spell SNAFU! OBAMA!


wes