Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Leaders of some of the most oppressive regimes in the world will be coming to New York next week for the annual opening of the UN General Assembly. Tyrants such as Cuba’s Castro, Iran’s Ahmadinejad, Venezuela’s Chavez and China’s Hu were all granted visas to enter the country and address the international community. Only one international leader was considered so horrible to be denied a visa,  Roberto Micheletti, the interim president of Honduras. The old president, Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales was removed from office because he tried to overthrow the nation’s constitution. This upset the socialist regimes in Latin America so and President Obama sided with the despots south of the border over a nation tryng to hold on to its constitutional democracy.

Today the President gave into years of Russian pressure and canceled the missile shield program, designed to protect former Soviet States Poland and Czechoslovakia who are now fledgling democracies. The President Chose the anniversary  of the Russian invasion of Poland to make his announcement. The President made his announcement on Constitution day in the United States. On a day where his country celebrates the freedoms created by its constitution, the Potus capitulated to an oppressive regime and duplicated the actions of Neville Chamberlain by selling out the same allies that Chamberlain did.

So what did the President get for his capitulation? Cooperation on Afghanistan ? How about help with getting Iran to drop its nuke program? A couple of tall Russians for the NBA? NOPE Nothing but a few snickers behind his back.

Trending: Patriotic Marine Vet Vows To Fight Socialism In Congress, Gets Accused Of Threatening AOC

The President’s support of tyrants over democracies has gotten us nothing except making our world more dangerous.

take our poll - story continues below

Who is most likely to win the Democrat nomination?

  • Who is most likely to win the Democrat nomination?


Obama’s Appeasement
The likely harm that results from the administration’s surrender on missile defense goes far beyond Europe.
by Seth Cropsey

The Obama administration chose an historic month to appease the Russians by reneging on the U.S. proposal to place ballistic missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. September 1st of 2009 was the 70th anniversary of the Nazis’ unprovoked attack on Poland. In the middle of the same month the Red Army invaded Poland–70 years ago to the day. At the end of this month is the 71st anniversary of the Munich agreement in which England and France agreed to allow Hitler to annex large portions of western Czechoslovakia. The administration’s decision was made public on the same day that the Associated Press reported on an International Atomic Energy Agency secret assessment that Iran has “sufficient information” to build a bomb, and is likely to “overcome problems” in developing the accompanying delivery systems.

Obama’s appeasement of the Russians in the same two countries is an eerie recapitulation of Western weakness. It accepts the Russians’ unsupportable assertion that ballistic missile batteries in Central Europe were intended to defend the U.S. against Russian missiles: They weren’t–Russian missiles aimed at the U.S. would travel over the North Pole, not Poland or Central Europe. War may not be the likely outcome. But a global reconsideration of American resolve and the wisdom of relying on our security guarantees lead neither to a safer United States nor a more secure world. Rather, they invite aggression.

As with Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler, appeasing the Russians is not likely to produce any positive results. There is no reason to think that–as the Obama administration evidently hopes–Russia will cooperate more fully with U.S. efforts to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power because we undercut leaders in Poland and the Czech Republic who expended considerable political capital in defense of military cooperation with the U.S? Once those defenses are cancelled, what incentive does Vladimir Putin have to pressure the Iranians? Is the elimination of a handful of ballistic missile interceptors and radar tracking systems likely to change Russia’s strategic evaluation of a nuclear-armed Iran?

The administration’s ostensible reason for cancelling the missile defense system is all the more dubious since Obama’s own National Intelligence Strategy, published last month, listed Iran’s “nuclear and missile programs” first in its catalogue of “nation-states that have the ability to challenge U.S. interests.”

The administration’s subsequent claim–that Iran’s long-range missile program has not progressed as rapidly as expected recapitulates the National Intelligence Estimate’s (NIE) finding in December 2007 that Iran had halted its effort to produce nuclear weapons. Who believed the NIE then, and does anyone still believe this to be true today? Should we soon expect an intelligence estimate that Iran doesn’t actually exist? What reason is there to think that if Iran failed to achieve all it hoped for with its long-range missile programs to date, the deficiency will not be addressed in the future? The vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is quoted in the 17 September issue of the Wall Street Journal saying that Iran and North Korea’s long-range missile capabilities “are not there yet.” Would it make better sense to wait until these capabilities are “there” before defending against them? If North Korea’s long-range missile abilities are now in question, will the effort to construct our own defenses against such attack be put on hold until we are satisfied that they represent an imminent threat?


The consequences will damage U.S. interests in Europe and around the world. The decision invites the question why this administration is more interested in pleasing those who “seek avenues for reasserting power that complicate U.S. interests,” (The National Intelligence Strategy of the United States of America’s partial description of Russia, published in August 2009) than it is in honoring commitments to one of our only European allies, Poland, whose people still believe that military defense remains a legitimate and moral instrument of state power.


The likely harm that results from this decision goes far beyond Europe. The U.S. has security commitments to Israel, Japan, and South Korea for example. How are leaders in those and other countries likely to regard the Obama administration’s failure to honor American security commitments? Does President Obama understand that the United States’ interest in keeping its word transcends his own political interest in continuing to distance himself from his predecessor?


This capitulation is all the more inexcusable because, unlike the situation that Chamberlain faced at Munich in 1938, Russia, unlike Nazi Germany, is still a relatively weak power. The Obama administration has as little to fear from Russia’s military as it has to expect that Russian goodwill or self-interest will have a moderating effect on Iran’s plans to become a nuclear power.



Send this to a friend