From China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Costless Contempt For Obama's America

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 14 Oct 2013 | Editorial

[IBD editorial writer]

Leadership: Iran's back to chanting "death to America," China's calling for a "de-Americanized" world, Russia kicks us to the curb in the Mideast and Venezuela hauls off five of our sailors. And what does the White House say? The sharp rise in anti-American incidents from antagonistic regimes stands in stark contrast to the environment three decades ago, when Ronald Reagan was president. As Beltway intelligentsia derided the Gipper as an "amiable dunce," the world's leading troublemakers saw the U.S. president entirely differently: as someone they'd rather not tangle with. That's why Iran's ayatollahs dropped the U.S. diplomatic hostages they'd been holding for 444 days like hot potatoes the day Reagan was sworn in. They wanted no truck from the new commander in chief, a man the left was calling "insane" and a "mad bomber." The mullahs apparently thought hard about what that might mean — for them. Today, just four days after supposedly reform-minded Iranian leaders said emblematic "death to America" chants would end, the same leaders U-turned on the promise (and implied thaw in relations) to renew the slogan as strongly as ever in the streets of Tehran. Why? Because they know there will be no response from a President Obama.

[IBD editorial writer]

It's getting bad out there as Obama shows his weakness.

[DownInFlames]

Wait until Thursday.

[SunkenCiv]

As Beltway intelligentsia derided the Gipper as an "amiable dunce," the world's leading troublemakers saw the U.S. president entirely differently: as someone they'd rather not tangle with. That's why Iran's ayatollahs dropped the U.S. diplomatic hostages they'd been holding for 444 days like hot potatoes the day Reagan was sworn in.

Thanks IBD editorial writer.

Here's the passage at issue:

In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.

Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president.

Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. [Rand Paul’s Really Ignorant Paragraph | 7 Feb 2013]

[SunkenCiv]

Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt’s Generals:
‘How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?’
Foreign Policy | 15 Aug 2013 | John Hudson
Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3055253/posts

Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt’s military — even as Cairo’s security forces massacre anti-government activists.

[by “anti-government activists” is meant church-burning jihadists]