That bust now sits in the home of the British ambassador. Obama didn't just want to relocate it, he wanted it given back to Britain. But none of this changes the fact that one of Obama's first actions as president was to return the Oval Office bust of Churchill. This second bust was supposedly under repair but has now mysteriously surfaced. The AP article takes its cue from a White House blog that initially attempted to deny this and obfuscate the issue by claiming possession of a second bust. This is reflected in resolutions passed by the Organization of American States and backed by the United States.įinally the AP article disputes the film's claim that Obama removed a Winston Churchill bust from the Oval Office. Despite the special relationship between America and Britain, and despite the fact that Republican and Democratic presidents have supported the British position, the Obama administration has switched sides and now supports the Argentine position calling for negotiations. The Argentine position supports negotiations over the control of the islands. The British position on the Falklands is that the islands belong to the U.K. So my argument about Obama is quite consistent with his actions against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.įourth, the AP article claims that I misrepresent Obama's position on the Falkland Islands. As Obama has made clear, he views Bin Laden and Al Qaeda quite differently, as international gangsters who go abroad to kill innocent people. I explained Obama's peculiar position by saying that he views these jihadis as freedom fighters seeking to liberate their countries from American occupation. My argument was based on the premise that Obama wants to close down Guantanamo and to extend constitutional rights to jihadis captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Third, the AP article "refutes" my contention that Obama is weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadis fighting against America by pointing out that Obama ordered the killing of Osama Bin Laden and has also approved drone strikes against Al Qaeda. But my point is that these measures are so weak that they cannot be expected to - and in fact haven't - deterred the mullahs in the slightest. By omitting the word "significant," AP can then claim that Obama has taken some measures, including some modest sanctions, against Iran. The prediction was that Obama "would do nothing significant" to prevent Iran from getting nuclear bombs. Actually in the film I recall a prediction that I made in my book The Roots of Obama's Rage. Second, the AP article quotes me as saying that Obama has "done nothing" to prevent Iran from getting nuclear bombs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |