Tom McLaughlin

A former history teacher, Tom is a columnist who lives in Lovell, Maine. His column is published in Maine and New Hampshire newspapers and on numerous web sites. Email: tomthemick@gmail.com

Wednesday, May 01, 2013

Talk Is Cheap

Things ordinary people learn growing up in the neighborhood help to understand international relations. It’s obvious now that President Obama was bluffing when he warned Syria not to use chemical weapons, and the world knows it too. Syria called his bluff - crossed his red line. As the late Margaret Thatcher would put it - the president is going wobbly - and in doing so, making the world more dangerous. It would have been better if he’d kept his mouth shut, but talking is all he knows how to do.


Growing up we learned the toughest people didn’t talk much, whereas those who talked a lot tended to be the ones who wimped out at crunch time. Talkers lacked inner strength and were afraid others would detect that, so they chattered on about how tough they were. These are basic lessons men learn about other men. Those who come to power apply them.
Can you remember a president who talks as much as Obama does? When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail. Early in his presidency, Obama want on an apology tour of Europe and the Middle East making speeches about how he was different from other presidents. His foreign policy was to show Muslims how nice he was, that he wasn’t like those other guys. Then he really expected Muslim leaders would all want to make nice. It hasn’t worked out that way of course, and now our president doesn’t know what to do next. He has no other tools in his toolbox.

When a bully goes into a bar, he’s not going to pick on the toughest-looking guy in the place. But if he suspects the toughest-looking guy is really a wuss, the bully will definitely poke at him to see what reaction he gets. When he discovers the guy has a jelly spine he’ll pile on the humiliation. Just so, when the bullies and crazies of the world think superpower America has a wimp in command, they’ll keep pushing to see what they can get away with. It’s their nature. North Korea is doing it. Iran is doing it. The radicals in Benghazi were doing it. Now Syria is doing it.

It’s not going to stop.
A connection ties Benghazi, Syria and Iran and Obama together. First, Obama denied the Benghazi attack was terrorism, made up a story about it being caused by a mysterious movie few ever heard of, and ordered his officials to push the lie. His Mainstream Media lapdogs went with it and refused to look into it any further. Other sources offer explanations for what Ambassador Stevens was really doing in Benghazi: running weapons from radical Muslim rebels there to other radical Muslim rebels in Syria via Turkey. We know Iran has boots on the ground in Syria to support fellow dictator Bashir Assad and they knew what Ambassador Stevens was doing.
Now back to Obama’s bluffing: The day after the Benghazi attack Obama said: “And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.” On October 26th, he said: “[M]y biggest priority now is bringing those folks to justice and I think the American people have seen that’s a commitment I'll always keep.”
Umm, no, Mr. President, we haven’t seen that. It’s been seven months and nobody has been arrested or captured or “brought to justice” as you keep promising. All we’ve seen are lies, cover-ups, and evasions by you and others in your administration.
Regarding Iran’s efforts to build nuclear weapons he told the world: “Make no mistake . . .” the US will “do what we must” to prevent it, and “all options are on the table.” But was Iran dissuaded? Obviously not. They continue on their merry way with assistance from North Korea, China, and Russia - none of whom take Obama seriously either.

He’s commander-in-chief of the strongest military the world has ever seen, but he has little idea how to use it. It’s as if Obama is the remote control device for an awesome military machine but he has no batteries inside him - no courage - and now the world knows it.

And don’t tell me about how “brave” Obama was to authorize the hit on Osama Bin Laden. The SEALS who carried out the mission were the brave ones. Insider accounts describe the president as indecisive and dithering until then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta took control of the situation because the Obama and his closest confidant,Valerie Jarrett, kept postponing the decision.

And the “tough” drone strikes? To community organizer president, watching intelligence videos of al Qaeda leaders hiding in Pakistan or Yemen and then shooting them with Hellfire Missiles is like playing video games with the "Choom Gang" back in Hawaii.

The worst thing is, truly brave American soldiers under his command know all this too. Why can’t the president tell us what really happened in Benghazi? “The FBI is investigating,” he says. Of course, the FBI investigated Major Hasan the Fort Hood shooter and the Boston Marathon bombers too and cleared them both. Will Obama do something about Syrians using chemical weapons? Nope. Monday he told us he wants more investigation. As the LA Times put it: “Obama’s Red Line on Syria Grows Softer.”

Labels: , , ,

12 Comments:

Anonymous Larry said...

The idea of Tom still clinging to the moronic idea of an "apology tour" shows that he drinks the most potent of teas that his beloved "party" pours into his lemming-like brain.

Nothing will ever be more hilarious than Tom once posting a link to a site which fact-checked his malarky as a lie, but his link about the "apology tour" comes pretty close. I watched the whole video and surprise......not one apology! Obama states that we are not perfect and have made mistakes (to which one can argue that he SHOULD have apologized for these things) and mentions slavery and the mis-treatment of Indians, but never apologizes.

Tom appearently does not even read, or watch, his links.

Pull your head out of your a$$, Tom. You are a total embarrassment!

But thanks for the giggles.

5/2/13, 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can now start to understand why the Libtards gave him a "Nobel Peace Prize". But now I start to wonder if it was given to a Modern Day Prime Minister Chamberlain? Cause the "Muslim Fascists" are on the march.

5/3/13, 12:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry, Don't you think you should Up the Dose of your Medicinal Marijuana?

5/3/13, 12:20 AM  
Anonymous Larry said...

To "wimpy" anon:

What are you implying about the marijuana? That if I smoke enough of it then apologies will magically appear in the video?

So THAT'S why you guys are so disconnected from reality! And you want me to join you in La-La land.....how sweet of you.

I can picture Tom watching that video now going, "Huh? Maybe just one more bong hit and the apologies will show up."

5/3/13, 7:13 AM  
Anonymous Scott said...

Tough guys don't talk much? Tell that to Muhammad Ali. How about Lincoln?

Calling a president a wimp for talking is asinine. I'm surprised the Far Right position is not that THINKING is wimpy. Oh wait, that it kind their position.

And Tom, of all people, calling others a wimp is quite humorous. Tom is one who ridicules and name calls from the safety of his computer screen, and then does not even have the backbone to defend his BS when he gets called out on it. Nope, he hides his head in the sand and waits it out. He reminds me of a 2nd grade bully at recess. Calls people wimps and then goes crying to his mommy at the slightest retaliation.

5/3/13, 8:54 AM  
Anonymous Doug said...

I know that Tom usually likes to do his own links to factcheck sites disproving his own columns, but I am going to help him out since all he did this time is create a link to a video that had no apologies in it.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html

The :apology tour" is given 4 out of 4 "pinoccio's", which makes it the biggest whopper possible. They go on to give evidence of George W. Bush making statement that are much easier to classify as apologies for America.

But who wants the truth when it doesn't help your position. Why not just try and create your own reality?

Truly pathetic, Tom. I realize how weak you mjust feel with your positions, but come on, man up, strap on a pair, and base your arguements in reality.

But who wants the truth if it doesn't help

5/3/13, 12:52 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

So Obama deserves no credit for the success of the attack that killed bin Laden. It’s the classic tactic of trying to turn a strength into a weakness. I think it just kills some partisan republicans that we eliminated bin Laden with a Democrat in the White House. The article you linked, informed by a general who retired from the military in eight years before the bin Laden raid was launched, doesn’t credit the success of the mission to Panetta that you do in your blog. “Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was the only one of Obama’s top advisers who wasn’t on the fence about the whether or not to strike.” just isn’t the same thing as “…Panetta took control of the situation because the Obama and his closest confidant, Valerie Jarrett, kept postponing the decision.” So Obama shouldn’t have delayed the mission in the hopes of getting more conclusive information about the compound’s inhabitants? Imagine he rushed that mission only to find out bin Laden wasn’t in the compound, but instead it housed one or two of Pakistan’s highest military officers and their families (their West Point was a few hundred yards away). Pakistan, a radically Islamic nuclear power, would’ve viewed that as an act of war on their sovereign soil.

Think back to Obama’s declaration during a primary debate when he said he would strike within Pakistan’s borders if he had actionable intelligence of the location of high-ranking al Qaeda. I distinctly remember the hue and cry from Republican operatives like Limbaugh, Rove, Hannity and Kristol over such a “naïve” and ill-advised tactic. So, Obama’s wrong for threatening to strike within Pakistan’s borders, and he’s wrong for delaying a strike within Pakistan’s borders.

Political opportunists mischaracterized the government’s report on the Fort Hood massacre since its publication. The purpose of the report was to educate those in the military of the signs of a soldier’s evolving radicalization, not to dissect the actual attack, which is for the courts to do. The report doesn’t mention Islam once, but references “radical” and “radicalization” 24 times. Hassan isn’t even mentioned by name, but rather as the alleged perpetrator. A soldier can be radicalized to any end. Timothy McVeigh taught us that. The report was written to identify common signs of disaffected soldiers who might have a growing penchant for violence. It’s in the title of the report, “Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood.”

Esquire magazine published a substantial article in the wake of the shooting. While violent crime is up 22% in Kileen, TX, home to Fort Hood – the largest base in the U.S. – crime is down 7% in towns comparable in size. Crimes include soldier suicide, killing other soldiers and a 75% increase in domestic violence since 2001.

The Military had a choice of using the report as a learning manual to help identify those who might become violent or turn it into an 86-page screed against radical Islam. I think they made the smarter choice.

5/3/13, 6:29 PM  
Anonymous Mr Ed said...

The biggest joke is that many cannot see that there is no difference between Obama and Bush as far as warmongering goes and dealing death.

I'm thinking that Bush was a gentler soul actually compared to Mr Nobel Prize winner.

5/3/13, 10:13 PM  
Anonymous Maggie said...

I've never been able to figure Tom out. Is he an honest, well-meaning individual who just happens to be incredibly naive and ignorant, or is he a smart man who just happens to be dishonest and without scruples?

For instance, did he really believe his claim, despite all polls and evidence to the contrary, that Romney was going to win the election in a romp? How naive and ignorant was that?

Does he really believe that, although he has never heard a single apology for America from Obama, that there was an "Apolgy Tour" because that is what the Right Wing Media has suckered him into thinking?

My gut feeling is that Tom is a decent family man, perhaps not the brightest bulb, who has built up an irrational hatred of the left, which blinds him to many truths. He does not want to investigate matters outside his bubble, and only considers things that are filtered and fed to him by his favored Right Wing Media.

Kind of sad.

5/6/13, 12:27 PM  
Anonymous Cidny said...

Tom is like the grade school punk who writes nasty, mean-spirited things about others on the bathroom walls. Truth means nothing, it is all about tring to ridicule and mock. His writings should be taken as seriously as the photos he chooses to include. Believe it or not, there is a tiny little crowd who get off on Tom's type of "humor". The same people who as children giggled when they read that somebody was a "big fat stupid whore bitch" on the bathroom wall.

5/7/13, 11:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again, a good old-fashioned Tom-whuppin'!

I almost feel sorry for him.

5/8/13, 12:24 PM  
Blogger Nonstop Bail said...

This is such an interesting blog. You are very knowledgeable about this subject. Please check out my site.
Nonstop Bailbonds

7/7/14, 6:41 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home