Our present President will not go, could not go, shall not go.
Our past President did go, did speak, and with a blast of freedom, the wall came tumbling down.
Our present President did go to campaign, but will not go to remember, not to celebrate, not to commemorate.
Our past President went not to campaign, but to lead. He led, he stood, he believed. And the wall came tumbling down.
(Via Hot Air Headlines) I have a problem with this.
Germany will walk out of the U.N. General Assembly if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust in a speech he will give Wednesday, and it wants other European Union countries to do the same, the foreign ministry said.
My problem with this is that intolerance to Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism should be so instinctive and reflexive that nobody would have let Ahmadinejad talk at the UN in the first place. The Canadians aren’t bothering to wait for the inevitable vileness; they’re just going to walk out (via Instapundit). So on that curve the German response gets down graded from its original A to a B-.
Mind you, that’s a heck of a lot better than the F that we’re getting. Did somebody at the UN with a malignant sense of humor schedule this one? The President is going to speak the same day as Iran’s Ahmadinejad, Libya’s Gadhafi and Zimbabwe’s Mugabe; you have to wonder whether Syria’s al-Assad and/or North Korea’s Il-sung Jong-Il had scheduling conflicts. Doesn’t anybody at the White House check people’s work before they send it out?
Moe Lane
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
Today is an anniversary that is being marked rather somberly in places like the Baltic countries.
Seventy years ago today, the foreign ministers of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany - Vyacheslav Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop - stunned the world by announcing a non-aggression pact between their two (totalitarian) countries.
While there had been a great deal of vituperate invective between the two great socialist powers, the underlying reality was that they had long been de facto allies. During the 1920s and into the 1930s, the Soviet Union provided training facilities for German pilots as Germany tried to secretly rebuild its air force - something that was forbidden to Germany under the terms of the Versailles Treaty. In the meantime, the Soviet Union continued to be a very large supplier of raw materials to Germany’s rebuilding industries. And during the 1930s, Nazi Germany’s nascent “security services” learned a great deal from the Soviet Union’s “security agency”….
So on the surface, the agreement of a simple “non-aggression pact” seemed rather anodyne.
But it was the secret protocols that were the real “content” of the agreement.
We’ll look at those details - and why they are suddenly important again - below the fold.
As Track-A-’Crat notes, the administration is at best spinning its difficulties to get anybody else to take the Uighurs. The President is claiming that there have been no hard commitments, which implies that negotiations for giving some over to Germany are still going on:
Strictly speaking, that may be true. But according to information obtained by SPIEGEL, Germany has long since blocked the idea of accepting Guantanamo detainees — and has done so without having to issue an outright rejection.
In talks at the end of May, German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble presented US Attorney General Eric Holder with a list of criteria to be fulfilled before Germany would take nine Uighur detainees. Schäuble said Washington needed to present a clear case as to why the Uighurs, members of a Muslim minority in north-western China, couldn’t be taken in by the US or other countries. He also said America had to offer proof that they weren’t dangerous, and that they had a personal connection to Germany. He told Holder that Germany was unable to accept people who couldn’t travel to the US on a simple tourist visa.
During his incredibly successful [/snark] trip to Europe last week, President Obama rejected an invitation from French president Nicolas Sarkozy to visit Normandy, France — the site of the 1944 D-Day beach landing. The reason given by the Obama administration? They didn’t want to offend the Germans by having the U.S. president visit the site where over 4,400 allied soldiers died in the operation that made victory in Europe against the evil, inhuman Nazi German regime and its allies possible.
They didn’t want to offend the Germans. Amazing. Perhaps we should next cancel all July 4 celebrations out of fear of offending the British? Or perhaps we should cancel Easter out of fear of “offending” the Romans, or cancel all 9/11 remembrances out of fear of “offending” al Qaeda terrorists, or cancel Memorial and Veterans’ days out of fear of “offending” all and sundry who have had the misfortune of throwing themselves on American bayonets over the course of our nearly-223-year history.
Sounds absurd, doesn’t it? Absolutely — until you push a little further, and learn anew just what absurdity really is, courtesy — again — of the Obama administration:
Mr Sarkozy’s most senior aide said Mr Obama had agreed to come back in June for the 65th anniversary of the June 6th 1944, D-Day landings. A White House spokesman declined to comment on whether Mr Obama would travel to France in June.
So far, innumerable media outlets have reported that Obama will, in fact, be joining Sarkozy in Normandy on the June 6 anniversary of D-Day — but every one is citing Sarkozy and other European sources, because the Obama administration, for whatever reason, is refusing to confirm or deny whether Obama intends to honor those fallen — and those saved — by the historic D-Day operation.
It’s a simple question; the answer should be a no-brainer, and this topic should be a nonissue. Unfortunately, the indecisive and tin-eared Obama White House is, with its usual confusion, discombobulation, and ineptitude, quickly turning what should have been far less than a molehill into one heck of a forbidding mountain.
