<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; Ahmadinejad</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/ahmadinejad/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:30:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Neo-Disarmament</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/neo-disarmament/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/neo-disarmament/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>apgreco</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign-policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[north]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/neo-disarmament/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The Partnership : Five Cold Warriors and Their Quest to Ban the Bomb By Philip Taubman (HarperCollins Books, 478 pages, $29.99) Just as an Israeli airstrike against Iran appears increasingly likely, author Philip Taubman has published a book celebrating a growing movement among movers and shakers aiming to abolish nuclear weapons as soon as possible. The effort is spearheaded by some big names: Nixon-era national security adviser and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, prime architect of American foreign policy during the Nixon years; Reagan-era Secretary of State George Shultz, who became an advocate of nuclear weapons abolition during his tenure; Clinton-era Secretary of Defense William Perry, also a key architect of the development of Stealth technology; and former Georgia Democrat Senator Sam Nunn, who became a top defense and foreign policy expert during his two dozen years on Capitol Hill. Joining them as an adviser was physicist Sidney Drell, who was a nuclear weapons designer and close confidant of Soviet scientist Andrei Sakharov, called "the father of the Soviet H-bomb" by many historians. A sixth Cold warrior, diplomat Max Kampelman, also played an important role in getting the group together. Following biographical portraits of his subjects, the main part of Taubman's book narrates how the five men came to collaborate on the cause of promoting global abolition of nuclear weapons. The final section of the book explains the specific steps the five have taken to date, via articles, speeches, conferences, and tête-à-têtes with myriad prominent personages decorating their immense power Rolodexes. The book offers interesting anecdotes that add color to what otherwise would have been a dry read. Nunn, as a 24-year-old Congressional intern, visited NATO's massive Ramstein Air Base (in what then was West Germany) during the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. He was told by an Air Force general that in event of a Soviet attack he had one minute to get his planes aloft so they could escape destruction. Visiting NATO sites in 1974 as a freshman senator, Nunn was stunned to learn that ground commanders facing far more numerous Warsaw Pact forces envisioned early recourse to nuclear weapons, to prevent the Soviet Union's huge army from overrunning Western Europe. On that same visit Nunn was told by one base security officer that a team of terrorists could conceivably storm the base and make off with a nuclear weapon -- not three or four, but a team of ten could succeed. Taubman, whose thirty years with the New York Times included stints as chief of the Gray Lady's Moscow and Washington bureaus, makes no effort to conceal his enthusiasm for the project. Noting early efforts to block the group's initiative, Taubman writes that "entrenched interests… in the nuclear weapons priesthood are already mobilizing to block the disarmament movement." He cites Nixon/Ford Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger as "mockingly" telling one audience of defense analysts: "The dividing line between vision and hallucination is never very clear." Taubman notes that such skepticism is shared by Jimmy Carter's Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown, and Clinton-era CIA Director (albeit briefly) John Deutch. Taubman offers a harrowing chapter on nuclear theft, lax security and careless handling of bombs and warheads. If you are looking for a good night's sleep, skip this chapter. In a follow-on chapter he informs us that some 160 of 200 research reactors built worldwide run on bomb-grade fuel. There is, he writes, enough highly-enriched uranium -- four and a half tons worldwide -- to provide fuel for 170 nuclear bombs. (Their explosive yield is not specified, but presumably these would be Hiroshima-size bombs.) He also recounts several near-nuclear confrontations between the U.S. and Soviet Union, besides Cuba in 1962: during the Vietnam War over U.S. escalation; in 1969 between Russia and China over border disputes; a mistaken radar alarm that triggered a launch of B-52 bombers; and the sudden confrontation in the Mediterranean towards the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, over Israel's having trapped an Egyptian Army division on the west side of the Suez Canal. When the Nixon administration declared a nuclear alert during the confrontation, only Kissinger and then-presidential assistant Gen. Alexander Haig supported the move. Taubman reports that Kissinger told Haig, of the reluctant officials: "These guys were wailing all over the place." Taubman wistfully recounts Ronald Reagan's near-acceptance of "nuclear zero" at the 1986 U.S. -- Soviet Summit in Reykjavik as a missed opportunity to eliminate nuclear weapons by 2000. Gorbachev had offered it, subject to Reagan limiting his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) to laboratory research alone. But Reagan refused. The end of the Cold War gave strong impetus to superpower disarmament, with several arms reduction treaties passing. Nunn found himself in Russia during the August 1991 coup that unseated Gorbachev for a few days and led to the rise of Boris Yeltsin, who became the hero of the popular revolution that led to the demise of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. Nunn was appalled that during the days of the coup he could not get a straight answer from Russian officials as to whether the Russian nuclear arsenal remained under secure control. This was one of the spurs that led Nunn to collaborate with Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar in the hugely successful Nunn-Lugar nuclear threat reduction project, securing by 2011 nearly all the loose nuclear material inside Russia and finding employment for thousands of nuclear scientists. In 2001 Nunn and Lugar joined forces with funding from billionaire Ted Turner to form the Nuclear Threat Initiative, to promote new solutions to nuclear issues. It is in the final section that Taubman argues his case for proceeding towards nuclear zero. The ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency put in the Oval Office a passionate advocate of total disarmament, only two years after the high-profile disarmament supporters published and op-ed in the Wall Street Journal . In broad brushstroke, key ideas already floated by the group include de-alerting missiles and bombers from Cold War high alert status; securing loose nuclear material; creating a collaborative inspection program; and extending international control over nuclear facilities, under the aegis of the United Nations. The advocates further stress that the United States must set an example by taking the lead in reducing their own nuclear arsenal to a very low level (a few hundred). Failing this they say it will be impossible to persuade other nations to do the same. Taubman lauds the New START Treaty, ratified in December 2010, and the 2009 Nuclear Security Summit as examples of success in the direction of zero. But New START was a unilateral U.S. strategic arms reduction agreement, as the Russians were already below the treaty limits. The Russians can actually build newer, more modern missiles and add to their arsenal. And New START's verification provisions are more limited than the treaty it replaced (the Bush Moscow Treaty of 2002). The Washington, D.C. Nuclear Security Summit featured four dozen world leaders. Forced to attend was Israel, whose arm was twisted by the Obama administration. Israel got more attention for its arsenal than did North Korea for having exited the Nonproliferation Treaty and joined the nuclear club. Iran, meanwhile, continues to march towards nuclear capability. And thus we see the three elephants standing hardly noticed by abolitionists in the proverbial room. First, rogue states will not only decline to follow our good example; they will be induced to increase their arsenals, which become more valuable as our arsenal shrinks -- 100 nukes in Pakistan matter much more in a world with the U.S. at the same number, than in a world with the U.S. having a few thousand weapons. This runs counter to the psychology of civilized people who see nuclear weapons as being for deterrence only, but a nuclear Iran eager to destroy the Great Satan (U.S.) and Little Satan (Israel) will think differently. Proof of this was provided by the Soviets in the eleven months between the November 1985 Geneva Summit and the October 1986 Reykjavik Summit. In that short span the Soviets capped off their 25 year strategic buildup by adding 5,300 warheads, topping out at some 45,000 warheads -- this despite the U.S. having frozen the total number of its warheads in 1967 at just over 31,000, and reducing them constantly. So much for setting an example. Yes, Gorbachev came around, as Russia's economy imploded. Do not expect the fanatical mullahs to do the same. Second, absolutely confident verification of a clandestine stockpile of warheads and missiles is simply impossible at present, and likely will remain so for a long time. We failed to find a dozen jet planes Saddam hid in the sand, until after his overthrow. Concealing cruise missiles with nuclear warheads would be, by comparison, child's play. Finally, there is no justification for confidence in the UN's ability to stop any determined nuclear aspirant. The worst nations will simply ignore entreaties and evade inspections. What can work -- the only thing that can -- is positive regime change. The Soviet Union evaded arms treaty obligations for years, and concealed the full size of its massive strategic buildup; only with the accession of Mikhail Gorbachev late in the Cold War did things change for the better. Until similar change comes to Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran, expect abolition to remain what Schlesinger obliquely hinted it is: a hallucination masquerading as a vision. It was precisely this opportunity -- positive regime change -- that President Obama spurned in June 2009 when the Iranian opposition formed in fury at the stolen election that returned Islamist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Iranian presidency. Instead of siding with the demonstrators and uniting a coalition to put maximum pressure on the mullahs Obama stood aside; he contented himself with feeble verbal sallies. He pursued arms talks with a leadership that had never honored an agreement made, and clearly was determined to pursue its nuclear ambitions. And he allowed Russia and China to water down several rounds of sanctions. Only in the past two months have sanctions against Iranian oil and financial interests become strong enough to bite. Which brings us to the emerging showdown in the Persian Gulf, as Iran defiantly marches forward, Israel prepares to strike if, as is likely, sanctions fail, and America and Europe prepare for the convulsions likely to follow, which could include multiple wars in the Mideast and global economic disaster. Nuclear zero creates another danger: that public desire for abolition trumps practical obstacles to verification and pushes Western nations to disarm first. Were a nuke to detonate anywhere on the planet, momentum for unilateral disarmament could snowball. Nuclear zero advocates fan such emotional flames. Put simply, elephants in the room do not go away if you ignore them. And if not stopped, they can trample us all. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/neo-disarmament/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama Scissorhands</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/12/obama-scissorhands/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/12/obama-scissorhands/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Markisacopyrightthief</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Berlin Wall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[george-bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greece]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[italy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/12/obama-scissorhands/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ There are two ways to react to President Obama's latest round of defense spending cuts. One is emotional but somewhat justified. The second is to analyze of Obama's plans critically to reveal a transformation of our military that is as dangerous as Obama's transformation of our economy. Since Obama appeared with Defense Secretary Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey in the Pentagon press room last Thursday, many commentators have written and railed at length on radio and television about how these cuts will hollow our forces' readiness to fight. That reaction is understandable but it isn't on more solid ground than Obama's plan, because neither the plan nor the common reaction deals with the real dangers our nation faces. Under former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Obama imposed about $400 billion in defense spending cuts by his "Queen of Hearts" method of budgeting for defense: verdict first, trial after. They ended, for example, production of key weapon systems such as the F-22 fighter, the C-17 transport aircraft, and the DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer. Gates imposed those cuts before the Quadrennial Defense Review -- "QDR" in the inevitable acronym -- was performed. The QDR was supposed to be the congressionally mandated analysis of the threats the Pentagon is expected to deal with and from which its budget is supposed to be derived. But Gates and his team wrote the post-cuts QDR to justify the cuts rather than to justify a budget that answered the threats. In April of last year, Obama praised Gates's first round of cuts and then ordered a review of defense spending to double them. Last week's announced plan was the result of that review. It repeated the Queen of Hearts exercise and took it one step further. It took the planned smaller budget, fashioned our military's future around it, and then made big promises that cannot possibly be kept. The plan announced by Obama and Panetta plans a revision of our force structure: • To refocus our military to meet the rise of China's military force by "rebalancing" toward the Asia-Pacific region. • To be able to win one conflict and fight another to a stalemate. • To provide standing forces, for a limited time, to engage in new nation-building operations. • To meet every other challenge in space, cyberwar, and other fields of unconventional operations. So if we have to fight China, Israel has to deal with Iran on its own, Europe can deal with Russia, and the Middle East can stew in its own juices. And stalemate is now a strategy. But even that's a very tall order for a force that may be cut by as much as $1 trillion in spending over the next ten years. Let's get that bogeyman out of the way first. Just because a Pentagon budget is $700 billion a year doesn't mean that it will be more effective at deterring or defeating the threats than a threat-based $350 billion a year force might be. The unanswered questions are what capabilities do we need and what will it cost to have them? And there's the rub. Neither the Pentagon nor, as far as I can determine, the intelligence community has done the essential analysis to determine what we need our military to do. Obama's plan mentions things such as missile defense, cyberwar, and space operations as targets for investment, but it also plans to pour money into strengthening the failed NATO alliance and other such boondoggles. There's not enough money to go around. Our NATO allies haven't invested in their own defense since the fall of the Berlin Wall. With the euro about to slip on Greece and crash down on Italy, that trend isn't going to be reversed in the foreseeable future. Obama didn't demand that they do more for themselves, and under his plan we will not be able to do more from them without robbing money from funds essential to performing other plans Obama made. Obama knows that and, to be sure, Vlad Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hu Jintao know it as well. So with all the broad promises, where's the leaner budget to be spent, and how do we know that it won't be spent unwisely? For example, Obama's new-found dedication to nation-building is limited by its own statement that "U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations." You can't have it both ways. George Bush's biggest mistake since 9/11 was to pour too much blood and treasure into nation-building and it failed comprehensively despite the enormous investment. Planning to do less means you will accomplish less. Does anyone believe that Obama will allow further investment in missile defense or the other capabilities we need to thwart China's rise? I don't believe he will, and everything he has done to date reinforces that belief. China is investing unknown billions in an area-denial force. Its ships and aircraft aren't being designed to defeat the U.S. Navy, but only to deny it the ability to intervene successfully in Chinese operations in the Pacific region. Obama's plan says he will invest in everything we need to counter the area-denial strategy. But the categories of weapon systems Obama plans to use to respond to China -- missile defense, a new stealth bomber, undersea capabilities and space-based capabilities -- are among the most expensive weapons we ever buy. (A single spy satellite can cost over $1 billion.) With the cuts already in place, and more to come, we simply won't be able to spend enough to do what Obama falsely promises. The falsity of Obama's promises is clear from any serious review of his plan. He's making plans he knows will not -- and cannot -- be implemented. Based on his transformation of our economy into a government-run enterprise, Obama is -- not coincidentally -- making it financially impossible for our military and intelligence services to do what they will have to do even under his reduced vision of U.S. military power. There probably are ways to restructure the Pentagon budget. There could be a much less expensive force that would be more capable and effective in deterring and defeating aggression than the current $700 billion a year force. But, right now, nobody knows what it would look like. Back in the good old days (1981-1988) we had something called "defense guidance," which was the basis for something else called the "POM." The annual defense guidance process combined the best thinkers from the intelligence community and the military. They'd sit down and -- one by one -- assess our adversaries' intentions and capabilities. Once that assessment was done, they would analyze what we needed to have in the military tool box to deter or defeat the threats and compare it to what we already had or we'd already planned. They would propose to retire outdated weapons, resize and reshape our forces, and then come up with an outline of what we needed to pay for and invest in to ensure the threats were answered. That was the defense guidance for the year. At that point, the Pentagon's bean counters would turn it into the "program objective memorandum" -- the sacred "POM" -- from which the Pentagon's budget would be derived. It sounds simple, but defense guidance was an enormously complex intellectual exercise. Until we perform that process again, we can't know what our military forces need to be able to do to answer the many threats we face. Obama is leading us down a blind alley, and the only certainty is that what we will have -- in ten or twenty years -- won't be what we need. That gap in capabilities will, inevitably, be filled. Either with a properly-designed force, or with the bodies of those serving in one that was designed to fit a budget cut rather than the threats. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/12/obama-scissorhands/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chavez And Ahmadinejad Joke About Having Nuclear Weapons…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/10/chavez-and-ahmadinejad-joke-about-having-nuclear-weapons%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/10/chavez-and-ahmadinejad-joke-about-having-nuclear-weapons%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:48:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LanaGalloway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atomic-bomb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chavez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disposal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian-president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lavished-each]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mahmoud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[not-wish]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[praise-on-monday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[venezuela]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel wonk]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/10/chavez-and-ahmadinejad-joke-about-having-nuclear-weapons%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You know what would be hysterical? — Israel flattening Iran&#8217;s nuke facilities. (Reuters) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela&#8217;s Hugo Chavez lavished each other with praise on Monday, mocked U.S. disapproval and joked about having an atomic bomb at their disposal. &#8220;Despite those arrogant people who do not wish us to be together, we ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/10/chavez-and-ahmadinejad-joke-about-having-nuclear-weapons%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ron Paul and the Anti-Zionists</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/09/ron-paul-and-the-anti-zionists/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/09/ron-paul-and-the-anti-zionists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TrevorLandon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[felicia-sonmez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jeffrey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[messiah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[middle east]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[really-affluent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tehran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[yisroel-dovid]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/09/ron-paul-and-the-anti-zionists/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Manchester, New Hampshire -- Yesterday in Meredith, NH, Ron Paul shook a hand that shook Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hand. The hand belonged to Yisroel Dovid Weiss, an activist rabbi who leads a branch of]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/09/ron-paul-and-the-anti-zionists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ahmadinejad To Make Anti-US Latin America Tour…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/07/ahmadinejad-to-make-anti-us-latin-america-tour%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/07/ahmadinejad-to-make-anti-us-latin-america-tour%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 06:59:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cougar01</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chavez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[his-few]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[latin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mahmoud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president-hugo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sunday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel wonk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[western]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/07/ahmadinejad-to-make-anti-us-latin-america-tour%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Marxist-Islamist love affair continues. (AFP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, under increasing pressure from debilitating Western economic sanctions, Sunday begins a tour of Latin America aimed at shoring up ties with his few remaining allies. Ahmadinejad will meet fellow US foe and firebrand Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on a four-nation trip that coincides with ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/07/ahmadinejad-to-make-anti-us-latin-america-tour%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Petty Tyranny</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/05/obamas-petty-tyranny/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/05/obamas-petty-tyranny/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 02:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>richwas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[murder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nationalization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[predecessors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[robert-mugabe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[syria-or-robert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/05/obamas-petty-tyranny/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Like others too numerous to mention, I am appalled at President Obama's abuse of his office in making recess appointments when Congress is not in recess. Thus I am in partial agreement with Quin Hillyer that these are acts of tyranny. At the risk of quibbling with Quin, I am only in partial agreement with him because Obama isn't a tyrant in the sense that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Bashar Assad of Syria or Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe are tyrants. As much as one may dislike the manner in which Obama carries out his duties, he isn't ordering the murder of his political opponents and otherwise innocent civilians. It is an important distinction to make]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/05/obamas-petty-tyranny/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>American Weapons Manufacturer Taking U.S. Government to Court for Bid Disqualification</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/03/american-weapons-manufacturer-taking-u-s-government-to-court-for-bid-disqualification/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/03/american-weapons-manufacturer-taking-u-s-government-to-court-for-bid-disqualification/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 07:33:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Onoshobishobi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brazil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brazilian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[city]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hawker-beechcraft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kansas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/03/american-weapons-manufacturer-taking-u-s-government-to-court-for-bid-disqualification/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ In November I reported on American company Hawker Beechcraft being inexplicably disqualified from bidding on a weapons contract that appears ready to go to a Brazilian company named Embraer, which has questionable ties to America&#8217;s enemies. Embraer, a Brazilian aerospace giant which is  currently under investigation  for potentially making illegal payments to obtain government contracts, is essentially owned by the Brazilian government. Through their “Golden Share,” Brazil essentially has control over the company’s business operations. According to Embraer’s website, that Golden Share provision empowers the Brazilian government with veto rights over: “Creation and/or alteration of military programs, whether or not involving the Federative Republic of Brazil;” “Development of third parties´ skills in technology for military programs;” and “Interruption of the supply of maintenance and replacement parts for military aircraft,” among other things. But Brazil has their own explaining to do regarding their long and sordid history  with the rogue country of Iran . According to the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “In 1989, Brazil chose to sell Tucanos, Embraer’s relatively low cost and basic military aircraft, to Iran.” Currently, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Air Force operates around 40 Embraer T-27 Tucanos, according to the Washington Institute. In fact, the Iranians use the Tucano as their primary close air support aircraft. In recent years, Brazil has continued its troubling friendship with Iran and ruthless leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Hudson Institute notes that, “Another area of tension between Brazil and the United States relates to Iran. In November 2009, President da Silva invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Brazil. In May 2010, da Silva helped broker a deal in which Iran would ship only a portion of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey for reprocessing; the rest would remain in Iranian hands, where it could be further enriched for nuclear weapon production.” After I wrote the article, most of the pushback I received was related to whether or not the Brazilian aircraft was superior and therefore deserved the contract.  This painfully misses the point which thankfully, the U.S. government is conveniently highlighting for me. The point of my original article, which I apparently didn&#8217;t make obvious enough, was that Embraer didn&#8217;t &#8220;win&#8221; the contract.  Hawker Beechcraft was disqualified from bidding further without explanation.  The question I had and still have, is why? Thus far responses to all inquiries have been met with the transparency we&#8217;ve come to expect from this administration: complete silence, further highlighting the reason to continue asking the question. Not surprisingly, Hawker seems to feel the same way . Hawker Beechcraft, which has been excluded by the U.S. Air Force from competing for a contract to supply a new light attack aircraft, is fighting mad and fighting back. The Wichita-based manufacturer of business jets and turboprops filed suit yesterday with the Court of Federal Claims following notification that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) declined to review its protest of the Air Force decision, which was made public in November. Hawker goes on to make the case for their product which may or may not be better than the competition.  And perhaps they do have a superior product which would of course raise further questions, but, as is the case with me, some are more curious as to the bidding process that government has mysteriously employed in this situation. The Taxpayers Protection Alliance is one such group : The Taxpayers Protection Alliance applauds and supports American aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft&#8217;s federal suit in response to the recent series of outrageous and perplexing actions of awarding the Light Air Support and Light Attack and Armed Reconnaissance (LAS/LAAR) aircraft to the Brazilian company Embraer. By doing this, the Administration will be shipping jobs overseas, and putting a critical defense project in the hands of a hostile, foreign government. This is all at the expense of American taxpayers. In the contract bid to support the military’s LAS/LAAR aircraft program, our organization has already voiced its support for Hawker Beechcraft over Brazil’s Embraer to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in two separate letters here and here because of its ability to protect taxpayers and the country. The abrupt disqualification of Hawker Beechcraft will lead to the awarding of the contract – and the ensuing revenue to American taxpayers – to a foreign company currently under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits companies from bribing foreign government officials or making other illegal payments to obtain or retain business. The Administration’s awarding of this contract to Embraer would send billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars to Brazil that would otherwise stay in the United States. Hawker Beechcraft is right to file suit with the Court of Federal Claims to help ensure this Administration keeps defense contracting and production on American soil, where they belong. As is Congressman Tim Huelskamp of Kansas : (DODGE CITY, KAN.) &#8211; Kansas Congressman Tim Huelskamp released the following statement in support of Hawker Beechcraft after it was announced that the company had filed suit following its disqualification from competition for an Air Force Light Air Support (LAS) contract. As a result of the disqualification, the only remaining bidder is believed to be Embraer, a Brazilian company. Hawker Beechcraft had protested the disqualification by requesting a review by the Government Accountability Office, but the review was denied. Hawker Beechcraft has fulfilled similar U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force contracts for T-6A/B trainer aircraft since 1996. The contracts have been fulfilled in part at the company&#8217;s Wichita, Kansas facility. &#8220;It is simply wrong for the Obama Administration to hire a Brazilian company to handle national security when we have a qualified and competent American company that can do the job,&#8221; Congressman Huelskamp said. &#8220;With millions of Americans out of work, it makes no sense to award the work to a foreign company. Along with my colleagues in the Kansas delegation, I will continue to attempt to right this wrong in order to preserve America&#8217;s national and economic security interests.&#8221; According to data provided by Hawker Beechcraft, the AT-6 project supports 1,400 American jobs at 181 companies in 39 states. Additionally, the company has invested more than $100 million in order to meet the Air Force&#8217;s requirements for competition. But as I said, it&#8217;s the government that&#8217;s really making the case that there is something to investigate here.  No answer is forthcoming when asked why they would disqualify a long time vendor of the U.S. military who happens to be an American company making a potentially superior product which would create 1,400 U.S. jobs. I&#8217;m sure they have a great reason. Cross-Posted at BenHoweShow.com ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/03/american-weapons-manufacturer-taking-u-s-government-to-court-for-bid-disqualification/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Surprises Hiding in Plain Sight</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/30/surprises-hiding-in-plain-sight/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/30/surprises-hiding-in-plain-sight/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>IDontThinkSo0001</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communist-party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egypt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign-policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[north]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[north-korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/30/surprises-hiding-in-plain-sight/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ There is no question that some things will happen in the forthcoming year that generally will surprise foreign policy and defense analysts. Of course most of these worthies will never admit they hadn't had at least a brief thought about these contingencies. In reality many nascent situations already show their potential and should surprise no one. Perhaps Iran is the most obvious venue for the unexpected to occur, even though any confirmation it has perfected a nuclear weapon would be anticlimactic. Ahmadinejad already has proven himself capable of surprising even his short list of friends. The real opportunity for the "I wasn't ready for that one" award must arise from the ongoing covert operational environment that Iran's internal politics presents. The gathering of information as well as covert action against computer networks that occurred in Iran in 2011 can be expected to continue and grow during 2012. The result could be Iranian counter-action in the form of a stepped-up cyber and sabotage campaign of their own against American installations in the Gulf, while at the same time signing a mutual non-aggression pact with Iraq. The threats to close the Straits of Hormuz will continue, but that surprises no one and the U.S. Navy already has its contingency plans. North Korea always surprises observers because it maintains such an effectively closed society. Next year can be expected to be no different. In fact the biggest surprise would be to have no surprise at all. Interestingly there has been none of the usual quick analysis/propaganda coming out of Beijing that one would have expected in regard to the death of Kim Jong-il and the impact of the ascendancy of Kim Jong-un. The suspicion is that the Chinese believe the Obama administration wants a foreign policy victory so badly for this election year that it will be amenable to a deal with North Korea on terms it otherwise wouldn't consider. In addition it is reasoned that Kim Jong-un and his regents recognize they need an early victory to solidify the power transition in Pyongyang. This combination of factors could produce a diplomatic breakthrough even though it would be at the expense of North Korean military cohesiveness on the General Staff level. Pakistan provides a good chance for a surprise next year – though it seemingly does that every year. This South Asian nation has been in the midst of political turmoil ever since General Musharraf was booted out and Benazir Bhutto assassinated. Once again no strong civilian leader has emerged, so it would seem to be time for another coup. This time the army has a very good reason to take over once again. Pakistan's economy cannot make ends meet without external aid. At the same time Pakistan's internal civilian politics does not allow for the continued close relationship with the Americans that brings in the extra money. It's a perfect setting for another military coup surprise. And who knows, it might just spur Washington to an even earlier departure from Afghanistan. At least that's what some Pakistani generals might argue. In the field of military coups, Egypt would have to be high on the list of possibilities. This would be one of those surprises that was definitely in the "I told you so" category. The unexpected aspect would be the strong Islamic alignment of the coup. Ever since the coup against the monarchy in 1952 the military has been the éminence grise of any secular government. The military was the instrument of the original revolution and the ultimate defender of Arab socialism under Gamal Abdel Nasser from 1956. The opening now exists for the army to split apart with allegiance to their faith overriding allegiance to non-religiously aligned military tradition. The creation of an "Islamic Army of the Republic of Egypt" partnered with a Moslem Brotherhood and Salafist-dominated parliament would create a new dynamic, not only in Egypt, but the Sunni Arab world in general. If these "surprises" are not destabilizing enough for one to contemplate, it might be well to consider exactly how far the street reaction will go in Russia against Putin's reelection as president. The nearly twenty percent (19.2%) of votes obtained by the Communist Party in the parliamentary election was the second largest single block after Putin's own party, United Russia. The Communists may not be a major political factor at this time, but it is not something to disregard. Certainly Putin has to take the numbers into consideration in close votes in the Duma, but, more importantly, a rejuvenation of the Communist Party has the potential of stirring popular reaction. A repeat of Moscow's police forces' instinctive reaction to violently put down demonstrations could spread dangerously next year throughout Russia's urban centers. That would be destabilizing within Russia and internationally. There certainly are other areas of potential problems, but at least these few show what national security analysts have to consider. In a presidential election year, however, how much attention will the upper levels of the current administration in Washington pay to these potentials? ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/30/surprises-hiding-in-plain-sight/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What, If Anything, Could Convince a Ronulan Not to Vote for Ron Paul?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/27/what-if-anything-could-convince-a-ronulan-not-to-vote-for-ron-paul/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/27/what-if-anything-could-convince-a-ronulan-not-to-vote-for-ron-paul/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:00:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Onoshobishobi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[holocaust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[past-the-point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supporters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[willingness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/27/what-if-anything-could-convince-a-ronulan-not-to-vote-for-ron-paul/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The latest Ron Paul revelation of the day is that, apparently, he would not have sent American troops to Europe in World War II to stop the Holocaust . I mean, we&#8217;re getting to the point where this sort of thing isn&#8217;t even surprising anymore. To me, the key passage in this particular story is this: Paul then looked at me, and I politely thanked him for his time. He smiled at me again and nodded his head, and many of his young followers were also smiling, and nodding their heads in agreement . Clearly, I was the only one in the room who was disturbed by his response. I think we are long past the point where supporting Paul has become a status symbol of sorts for his supporters. Supporting Paul doesn&#8217;t say as much about Paul as it does about you and how hip you are. You are not &#8220;Establishment,&#8221; you reject conventional thought about how a Presidential candidate should look and act, you  are blazing the path for future third way candidates. Consider this fawning and servile piece by Tim Carney in which we are informed that it is the &#8220;GOP Establishment&#8221; that has improperly drawn &#8220;the bounds of permissible dissent&#8221; at excluding racist cranks, 9/11 truthers, and propagandists for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Yes, Ron Paul is the Barack Obama of 2012, and Tim Carney is playing the part of Andrew Sullivan. As the hits keep pouring in (and they are not nearly done), I am left to honestly wonder what would convince his supporters of the truth &#8211; that they are actually on the butt end of a cruel joke wherein instead of looking cool and hip the world at large is appalled at their willingness to smile and nod at literally every crazy thing he says. I have long theorized that the base of Paul&#8217;s support is hardcore anti-war leftists who find Barack Obama insufficiently dovish. However, at least some of his support is ostensibly Republican and/or non-insane Independent. What would it take at this point to convince these people that they&#8217;re just embarrassing themselves by holding fast to this flawed vessel? Compromising pictures of Paul with a male goat? Video footage of Paul suggesting that the Government wants to build a wall on the Mexican border to keep United States citizens from fleeing to Mexico? What? ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/27/what-if-anything-could-convince-a-ronulan-not-to-vote-for-ron-paul/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reading the Persian Tea Leaves</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/23/reading-the-persian-tea-leaves/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/23/reading-the-persian-tea-leaves/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TrevorLandon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ayatollah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ayatollah-khamenei]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[britain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politician]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/23/reading-the-persian-tea-leaves/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ It is always difficult to be an Iranian politician. One has to work so hard to make sure you are recognized as being against the right thing. Being properly negative -- and that also means being against the correct issue at the correct time -- requires considerable attention to the signs coming from the office of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This is not always easy. The leader's office is a form of combined national and international security staff. From this office reflects the consideration and movement of all key domestic and foreign policies. If you do not have access to this center, you are not "in the loop." The sacking of the British embassy is one of the more recent examples of touchy issues. Several hundred extremely mature "students" attacked the embassy and its guards. Reportedly the mob was organized by various hard-line politicians. It was a full day before it was clear in Tehran that this was an approved raid as far as the supreme leader was concerned. In a surprising reversal of his previously moderate stance, Tehran's mayor, Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, rushed to condemn Britain and extol the "revolutionary" strength of the "students." Joining him shortly afterward was the always politically alert speaker of the parliament, Ali Larijani, who made a point of explaining the action of Iranian "youth" as reflecting the view of all Iranians. This line had to have been transmitted through the supreme leader's office that already supported the embassy attack as "the people's reaction" to Britain's hostile economic action (sanctions). President Ahmadinejad used a reverse twist on the issue by attempting to cut the ground from under Larijani, a political competitor and possible presidential candidate in the 2013 elections. Having already knocked heads with the supreme leader over the issue of firing the intelligence minister, Ahmadinejad took a chance and went against the already established line by opposing the diplomatic sanctions already called for against Great Britain. A more cynical interpretation of the Iranian president's tactic would suggest he recognizes that Ayatollah Khamenei does not support him or his political future and in consequence Ahmadinejad decided to seek political support from the more moderate elements in Iranian politics. This tack is not as radical as it appears. Ahmdinejad always has sought the support of major political power centers before acting. His turning to those who represent a less pugnacious wing of Iran's political life may be his only hope of continuing to remain a major figure. No matter the reasoning, Ahmadinejad's actions point to divisions within the power players in Iran. For the moment, however, the supreme leader and the operative elements surrounding him have ultimate control of the key aspects of Iranian life. From a practical point of view the internal security service of VEVAK, the al Quds force within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the Council of Guardians are the operative instruments of Ayatollah Khamenei that hold the physical and ideological reins of power. They will remain the definitive factor for the near future, and it is the office of the supreme leader that maintains the coordination and balance among them. If an individual or group seeks to wrest power from the existing structure militarily, judicially, or politically, they seemingly have an insurmountable obstacle to overcome. Even the appearance of defiance is quickly put down, although at the same time disagreement on the paths toward a policy is allowed. This provides the illusion of a form of democratic process. If a politician -- as in this case Ahmadinejad -- takes a line contrary to that which is generally approved but beforehand can point to a form of consent from one of the power centers, this politician has covered himself. It's all quite logical and very Persian, but Ahmadinejad still has support from someone on the Council of Guardians. The signs are clear that the office of the supreme leader -- as well as Ayatollah Khamenei, himself -- at this time does not support Ahmadinejad for a further major political role. Larijani will take maximum advantage of the current president's period in the dog house to enhance his own chances for 2013. Further conflict with the United States and the European Union doesn't seem to benefit or disadvantage either figure. The real question is whether Ayatollah Khamenei can remain as the supreme leader. That question remains in the hands of the religious hierarchy -- not the electoral process. At this time no Iranian politician speculates on the country's future nuclear weapon. That major issue is considered the purview of only the top of the chain of command within the supreme leader's office. Ahmadinejad has done his job of holding fast to the myth that Iranian nuclear development is solely for civilian power use. The truth is that no matter the eventual outcome of the current internal political maneuvering, the creation of an Iranian nuclear weapon is just a matter of time. This was a decision made decades ago. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/23/reading-the-persian-tea-leaves/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

