Obama pisses on the Poles.

[cutthemdown]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18264036


President Barack Obama has caused an outcry in Poland after referring to a Nazi death camp as "Polish".

He made the remark at a ceremony in which he posthumously awarded Polish resistance fighter Jan Karski with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The White House says Mr Obama "misspoke" and regrets the comment but prominent Poles want an apology.

Poles suffered a brutal Nazi wartime occupation and reject any suggestion of responsibility for Nazi crimes.

Poles are particularly sensitive to comments linking their country to the Holocaust.

For years, they have objected to any description of Nazi German death camps as "Polish" because it can indicate involvement in the mass murder of millions of European Jews in camps built on their land.

[peacepipe]

whatever. is this the best you got? Ain't nothing changing the fact that on foreign policy,willard can't match up to Obama. As far as foreign policy/national security is concerned Obama & dems. have it by a good margin.

[El Guapo]

Well according to his buddy in Iran the holocaust never happened. I don't see what the issue is here.

[cutthemdown]

Who would call a Nazi death camp a Polish death camp. That is a strange mistake to leave out the Nazis. Obviously Obama does have more foreign policy experience now that he has been President for 4 yrs. But that didn't stop you all from blasting bush sr for Clinton who had none. Oh and the economy under Bush SR was better then Obama's economy right now. So to pretend that obama isn't somewhat vulnerable is shortsighted. He has the advantage, but it's not as big as I thought it would be before Romney picks a running mate.

[alkemical]

Who would call a Nazi death camp a Polish death camp. That is a strange mistake to leave out the Nazis. Obviously Obama does have more foreign policy experience now that he has been President for 4 yrs. But that didn't stop you all from blasting bush sr for Clinton who had none. Oh and the economy under Bush SR was better then Obama's economy right now.

Short term gains do not equal long term success.

[ant1999e]

whatever. is this the best you got? Ain't nothing changing the fact that on foreign policy,willard can't match up to Obama. As far as foreign policy/national security is concerned Obama & dems. have it by a good margin.

Yeah, let's go back to talking about how Romney bullied some kid in school 100 years ago.Hilarious!

[cutthemdown]

Short term gains do not equal long term success.

what does oh master of prose and quotes.

[peacepipe]

Yeah, let's go back to talking about how Romney bullied some kid in school 100 years ago.Hilarious!there's a differance between bullying & what Willard did,but that's beside the point. willards' foriegn policy...wait does he even have one other than restarting the cold war.
considering willards foriegn policy advisors are the same guys from GWB admin. so you got to figure willard will find a way to occupy guatamala.

[alkemical]

what does oh master of prose and quotes.

Well, your complaint on the ****ty economy is a direct result of the "good" economy.

Housing bubble burst, credit crunch - etc - many of these problems were due to short term thinking.

[houghtam]

Let's see... "Polish Death Camp". Extremely insensitive, false, but also how a lot of people who were actually in the camps refer to them...degree in German Literature with a concentration of German immigration to America here. I know what I'm talking about.

"Russia is our number one geopolitical foe". Pugnacious, insensitive, false, and shows that Mitt Romney hasn't a clue.

Yeah, I'll take Obama's foreign policy over Romney's any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Thanks for posting this, by the way. Saved me the trouble.

[TonyR]

Yeah, I'll take Obama's foreign policy over Romney's any day of the week and twice on Sunday.


Yup. Perhaps the number one question people should ask themselves regarding the upcoming election is the following:

Do you want to go to war with Iran?

If you said yes, you're an idiot and you should vote for Romney.

If you said no, you should vote for Obama.

It's almost as simple as that.

[cutthemdown]

Well, your complaint on the ****ty economy is a direct result of the "good" economy.

Housing bubble burst, credit crunch - etc - many of these problems were due to short term thinking.

You mean Clintons great economy dems tout all the time?

[cutthemdown]

Yup. Perhaps the number one question people should ask themselves regarding the upcoming election is the following:

Do you want to go to war with Iran?

If you said yes, you're an idiot and you should vote for Romney.

If you said no, you should vote for Obama.

It's almost as simple as that.

Shows how stupid you are. We go to war with Iran regardless of who we vote for.

[alkemical]

You mean Clintons great economy dems tout all the time?

I had an Econ Professor tell me it takes up to 7 years to fully judge the effects from policy. So, if his 'metric' is right - you'll see how the con plays it self out.

[ant1999e]

there's a differance between bullying & what Willard did,but that's beside the point. willards' foriegn policy...wait does he even have one other than restarting the cold war.
considering willards foriegn policy advisors are the same guys from GWB admin. so you got to figure willard will find a way to occupy guatamala.

The only difference is one fits your agenda and the other doesn't.

[Rohirrim]

The Poles should keep their mouths shut. Anybody who has watched Shoah knows how involved they were. Ask all the Poles who turned Jews over to the Nazis so they could take their properties. They're still living in them. They had no idea what was burning down the road? They saw the trains come full and leave empty? One Pole even stood on the side of the tracks and made throat slitting gestures at the Jews passing in trains, letting them know what was coming. He sounds quite proud of himself on the film.

[houghtam]

The Poles should keep their mouths shut. Anybody who has watched Shoah knows how involved they were. Ask all the Poles who turned Jews over to the Nazis so they could take their properties. They're still living in them. They had no idea what was burning down the road? They saw the trains come full and leave empty? One Pole even stood on the side of the tracks and made throat slitting gestures at the Jews passing in trains, letting them know what was coming. He sounds quite proud of himself on the film.

Yep.

[cutthemdown]

Oh man this is great stuff. So you are saying Obama really was saying the Poles have to face up to there part in the Holocaust. I love it, this is great stuff.

[DenverBrit]

The Poles should keep their mouths shut. Anybody who has watched Shoah knows how involved they were. Ask all the Poles who turned Jews over to the Nazis so they could take their properties. They're still living in them. They had no idea what was burning down the road? They saw the trains come full and leave empty? One Pole even stood on the side of the tracks and made throat slitting gestures at the Jews passing in trains, letting them know what was coming. He sounds quite proud of himself on the film.

Unfortunately, this was the story throughout occupied Europe.

Every country....allies included....had Nazi sympathizers and anti Semites who would gladly participate.
But those same countries also had many more citizens who did all they could to hide and shelter potential victims.
Poland suffered more than most and was betrayed by all sides. Their sensitivity is understandable.

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/498/losses.html

[TonyR]

Shows how stupid you are. We go to war with Iran regardless of who we vote for.

LOL If I'm stupid I hate to think what that makes you! How do you figure it would be remotely the same? Obama's foreign policy team will do everything possible to avoid it. Romney's neocons (basically the Bush/Cheney team all over again) would do the opposite.

[TonyR]

The only difference is one fits your agenda and the other doesn't.

How can you not see the difference between a deliberate action and misspeaking?

[barryr]

Glad I'm so wrong how liberals around here constantly give Obama excuses on anything no matter how weak.

[cutthemdown]

LOL If I'm stupid I hate to think what that makes you! How do you figure it would be remotely the same? Obama's foreign policy team will do everything possible to avoid it. Romney's neocons (basically the Bush/Cheney team all over again) would do the opposite.

Yeah the team that won the Iraq war, not the team that is losing Afghanistan. Obama will do what he has to do, or he will watch Israel do it and get sucked into the aftermath. Regardless Iran not giving up, and they will be bombed for it. No way we can let them join Pakistan/India/N Korea as late comers to the nuke club. Enough is enough. We can't deal with that in an area as vital as the Persian Gulf.

[DenverBrit]

Glad I'm so wrong how liberals around here constantly give Obama excuses on anything no matter how weak.

Liberals!! Squawk!! Squawk!!

http://parrotearth.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/angry-parrot-500x406.jpg

[houghtam]

Glad I'm so wrong how liberals around here constantly give Obama excuses on anything no matter how weak.

No one is giving Obama an excuse. We all agree that what he said was pretty insensitive, but it also doesn't really matter in the long run. Not only was it partially true, but it's also something that will be long forgotten by the time Obama starts running circles around Romney come debate time.

[cutthemdown]

Of course it doesn't matter in the long run. Its just a funny story that while receiving a medal you piss everyone off. The story about the drones killing babies is funny also considering he won the Nobel Peace Prize. I mean that one has to even make Dems laugh no? I can't think of any US President that deserves a peace prize outside of Carter.

The election will come down to the economy. If it gets better Obama looking good. If it stays flat it will be close. But if it gets any worst on the job front, or the markets take a big dive from the EU crisis, or both Romney may have a chance. Also the Supreme Court decision will impact the election. I'm just not sure if the court striking down the mandate would help or hurt Obama. It's a sketchy issue. One one hand it could make people pissed at the court and say Obama can change the balance. Or they could say what a loser, people said it was a crappy bill, he wasted 2 yrs on a healthcare overhaul that is unworkable.

[barryr]

Of course it doesn't matter in the long run. Its just a funny story that while receiving a medal you piss everyone off. The story about the drones killing babies is funny also considering he won the Nobel Peace Prize. I mean that one has to even make Dems laugh no? I can't think of any US President that deserves a peace prize outside of Carter.

The election will come down to the economy. If it gets better Obama looking good. If it stays flat it will be close. But if it gets any worst on the job front, or the markets take a big dive from the EU crisis, or both Romney may have a chance. Also the Supreme Court decision will impact the election. I'm just not sure if the court striking down the mandate would help or hurt Obama. It's a sketchy issue. One one hand it could make people pissed at the court and say Obama can change the balance. Or they could say what a loser, people said it was a crappy bill, he wasted 2 yrs on a healthcare overhaul that is unworkable.

It is odd(no, it isn't) that liberals have suddenly stopped worrying about the women and children that die from bombs from our hands, but once Obama became president, those worries just magically disappeared. They prefer to pretend it doesn't happen of course or somehow they get the realities of war when a democrat is in the WH, but all that goes away whenever a republican becomes president.

[houghtam]

It is odd(no, it isn't) that liberals have suddenly stopped worrying about the women and children that die from bombs from our hands, but once Obama became president, those worries just magically disappeared. They prefer to pretend it doesn't happen of course or somehow they get the realities of war when a democrat is in the WH, but all that goes away whenever a republican becomes president.

Or they are pissed that we're in any wars at all, but realize that it's militarily and strategically stupid to be like "Okay guys, see ya!" and leave all at once.

I'm also not too happy with the Iran situation, but I don't think it will ever come to war. Their technology is so far behind anyone else's, anyone else could beat them without a shot being fired.

Foregin Pplicy wise, Obama has his drawbacks to me, but he's waaaaaaaay ahead of Mitt on any foreign policy whatsoever.

[barryr]

Or they are pissed that we're in any wars at all, but realize that it's militarily and strategically stupid to be like "Okay guys, see ya!" and leave all at once.

I'm also not too happy with the Iran situation, but I don't think it will ever come to war. Their technology is so far behind anyone else's, anyone else could beat them without a shot being fired.

Foregin Pplicy wise, Obama has his drawbacks to me, but he's waaaaaaaay ahead of Mitt on any foreign policy whatsoever.

So they'll coincidentally be back when it is politically more in their favor to do so, like when a nondemocrat is in the WH. Obama is doing good to know where Poland is on the map.

[cutthemdown]

Or they are pissed that we're in any wars at all, but realize that it's militarily and strategically stupid to be like "Okay guys, see ya!" and leave all at once.

I'm also not too happy with the Iran situation, but I don't think it will ever come to war. Their technology is so far behind anyone else's, anyone else could beat them without a shot being fired.

Foregin Pplicy wise, Obama has his drawbacks to me, but he's waaaaaaaay ahead of Mitt on any foreign policy whatsoever.

The only wars we need to really worry about are the ones like Iraq where our goal is to remove the army, remove the govt, and put a new one in its place. I think the goal with Iran would be less ambitious. It would be destroy their navy removing their ability to wage war in the gulf. Destroy their air defenses and any jets the foolishly send up. Destroy as much of the nuclear sites as we possible can and even if we can't get deep enough to get it all, get deep enough to make it a decades worth of work to get back. By then I think our govt will hope the people rise up. My guess is we will do our best to stay away from civilian area.

No friggin way on the planet, outside of Iran attacking with ground troops do i see any scenario where we try and invade Iran with a ground war.

I think people are kidding themselves though, we could actually do to them what we did to Iraq. Our troop deaths come when we make them guard street corners and occupy cities. We won't do it though because we would have to kill tons of civilians, and I think our govt wants the avg Iranian to not hate us.

[alkemical]

The only wars we need to really worry about are the ones like Iraq where our goal is to remove the army, remove the govt, and put a new one in its place. I think the goal with Iran would be less ambitious. It would be destroy their navy removing their ability to wage war in the gulf. Destroy their air defenses and any jets the foolishly send up. Destroy as much of the nuclear sites as we possible can and even if we can't get deep enough to get it all, get deep enough to make it a decades worth of work to get back. By then I think our govt will hope the people rise up. My guess is we will do our best to stay away from civilian area.

No friggin way on the planet, outside of Iran attacking with ground troops do i see any scenario where we try and invade Iran with a ground war.

I think people are kidding themselves though, we could actually do to them what we did to Iraq. Our troop deaths come when we make them guard street corners and occupy cities. We won't do it though because we would have to kill tons of civilians, and I think our govt wants the avg Iranian to not hate us.

but we can't...if we go to war with iran...we'll lose in the currency war w/china, india & russia....

[houghtam]

The only wars we need to really worry about are the ones like Iraq where our goal is to remove the army, remove the govt, and put a new one in its place. I think the goal with Iran would be less ambitious. It would be destroy their navy removing their ability to wage war in the gulf. Destroy their air defenses and any jets the foolishly send up. Destroy as much of the nuclear sites as we possible can and even if we can't get deep enough to get it all, get deep enough to make it a decades worth of work to get back. By then I think our govt will hope the people rise up. My guess is we will do our best to stay away from civilian area.

No friggin way on the planet, outside of Iran attacking with ground troops do i see any scenario where we try and invade Iran with a ground war.

I think people are kidding themselves though, we could actually do to them what we did to Iraq. Our troop deaths come when we make them guard street corners and occupy cities. We won't do it though because we would have to kill tons of civilians, and I think our govt wants the avg Iranian to not hate us.

The US won't even need to put a single boot on the ground in order to render Iran and its entire arsenal useless. They are using technology that is decades old. A lot of it is Vietnam era. Their computer systems are extremely vulnerable, as the past five years and multiple instances of engagement in tech warfare have shown. Their navy, for the most part, consists of speedboats. They have a whopping total of 8 surface ships, all of which were commissioned over 60 years ago, and no capital ships. In comparison, the US has 250 surface ships.

Any "war" with Iran would be over before it started.

[cutthemdown]

but we can't...if we go to war with iran...we'll lose in the currency war w/china, india & russia....

I don't think the world is going to let them build a nuke. Not sure if we will see them get bombed, but I would not bet against it. I get it though. The Bush admin wanted Saddam out and decided they wanted to get the worlds ok for it. IMO there were plenty of reasons without WMD but they let that word blow up, listened to that lying defector, and now tons of people are dead.

No doubt saying now that Iran is building a nuke sounds like here we go again.

Scary stuff though if they ever test a nuke. What I would like to know is could a country build a nuke without ever testing one. You are sort of a science guy right? What do you think. I would think you wold have to actually set one off to really know if yours works.

[cutthemdown]

The US won't even need to put a single boot on the ground in order to render Iran and its entire arsenal useless. They are using technology that is decades old. A lot of it is Vietnam era. Their computer systems are extremely vulnerable, as the past five years and multiple instances of engagement in tech warfare have shown. Their navy, for the most part, consists of speedboats. They have a whopping total of 8 surface ships, all of which were commissioned over 60 years ago, and no capital ships. In comparison, the US has 250 surface ships.

Any "war" with Iran would be over before it started.

I agree which is why I believe they want to build a nuke. It's the only way they could really say better not mess with us.

[houghtam]

I agree which is why I believe they want to build a nuke. It's the only way they could really say better not mess with us.

Yes, but even they realize that to build one is one thing, to get it where it needs to go is another. If (big if) they are able to produce that technology, despite all of the countermeasures and guerilla warfare havoc we're wreaking on their computer systems, they will only be able to deliver it to Israel, who has the second largest stash of nukes in the world if you believe any of the reports.

This is all just posturing by Iran. I'm not really concerned about it, to be honest. Even with a nuclear warhead, Iran is a mere mosquito trying to ruin a picnic.

[alkemical]

Yes, but even they realize that to build one is one thing, to get it where it needs to go is another. If (big if) they are able to produce that technology, despite all of the countermeasures and guerilla warfare havoc we're wreaking on their computer systems, they will only be able to deliver it to Israel, who has the second largest stash of nukes in the world if you believe any of the reports.

This is all just posturing by Iran. I'm not really concerned about it, to be honest. Even with a nuclear warhead, Iran is a mere mosquito trying to ruin a picnic.

they are a distraction & being used as a tool to manipulate the US into more bad decision making.

[cutthemdown]

Yes, but even they realize that to build one is one thing, to get it where it needs to go is another. If (big if) they are able to produce that technology, despite all of the countermeasures and guerilla warfare havoc we're wreaking on their computer systems, they will only be able to deliver it to Israel, who has the second largest stash of nukes in the world if you believe any of the reports.

This is all just posturing by Iran. I'm not really concerned about it, to be honest. Even with a nuclear warhead, Iran is a mere mosquito trying to ruin a picnic.

See this is where we part. You are basically saying let them build a nuke, ours are bigger and we have more of them. What could they do with a few nukes. I think you are crazy if you think the leaders of most countries would agree with you.

The other problem is once they have one, other countries want one also. It ignites a mideast nuclear arms race that quite frankly does not suit our interests. If it means military action I think the USA will do it, regardless of who the President is. Sure Romney may do it 1 yr earlier, or without UN support, but Obama will do it also.

[houghtam]

See this is where we part. You are basically saying let them build a nuke, ours are bigger and we have more of them. What could they do with a few nukes. I think you are crazy if you think the leaders of most countries would agree with you.

The other problem is once they have one, other countries want one also. It ignites a mideast nuclear arms race that quite frankly does not suit our interests. If it means military action I think the USA will do it, regardless of who the President is. Sure Romney may do it 1 yr earlier, or without UN support, but Obama will do it also.

Nope, not saying that at all. I'm just saying that the "doom and gloom" message of Iran getting a bomb is much ado about nothing. With the actions that we and others have already taken and will continue to take, it's just not going to happen. My feeling is that in 5 years, the Iran thing will have long since been forgotten, and we'll have moved on to a new flavor of the month.

My bigger concern is North Korea, and honestly, I'm none too concerned about them, either. The difference between our military and the next closest in terms of overall effectiveness, including numbers, technology, infrastructure and logistics is so vast that I don't think people even realize it. Really the only military power who would pose a threat to the US is China, and I don't think China is in any hurry to get into a war with anyone, let alone a nation that could do just as much damage to China as China could to it.

[TonyR]

Obama's comments weren't intentional. But even if they were, one wonders whether or not he would have been "wrong"...


My grandfather is a Holocaust survivor. He was born and raised in Poland. To this day, he harbors the most resentment towards his "fellow" Poles for turning his family over to the Nazis. He refuses to even identify himself as Polish. Out of a family larger than 10, only he, a brother, and a sister survived.

The death camps in Poland were just as much Polish in their aiding and abetting, as much as they were German in fact. What Obama said did not embarrass me, even it was a slip. Poland, for far too long, has swept these atrocities under the rug. I point to the book by Jan Gross, "Fear: Poland and Anti-semitism after Auschwitz".

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/polish-concentration-camps.html

[Drek]

See this is where we part. You are basically saying let them build a nuke, ours are bigger and we have more of them. What could they do with a few nukes. I think you are crazy if you think the leaders of most countries would agree with you.

The other problem is once they have one, other countries want one also. It ignites a mideast nuclear arms race that quite frankly does not suit our interests. If it means military action I think the USA will do it, regardless of who the President is. Sure Romney may do it 1 yr earlier, or without UN support, but Obama will do it also.
If Iran is adamant about acquiring a nuclear weapon then yes, at some point it will result in military conflict.

The important thing here is how that conflict is shaped.

Lets look at the track record Obama has espoused since becoming president:
1. heavy reliance on intelligence gathering.
2. heavy reliance on drone attacks.
3. high priority missions conducted with special forces.
4. scaling back and withdrawing from persistent "troops on the ground" battles.

Now compare that to what Romney has espoused and what his advisers all pushed while working for W. Bush:
1. heavy ground force push to take control of the target country.
2. large persistent force on the ground.
3. U.S. funded rebuild during armed occupation.

So what model do you prefer? A LARGE part of our current fiscal debt and annual deficit comes from these prolonged foreign conflicts and nation building exercises. As a fiscally conservative individual I find that appalling.

Non-partisan fiscal accounting of the wars estimates the total cost over the last 10 years to be between $2.3-$2.7 Trillion dollars, with a final price tag in the $3.7 to $4.4 Trillion range.

The Affordable Care Act was signed into law as a $940 Billion total cost bundle over ten years. Even extreme right wing fringe groups estimate it at $1.4 Trillion over ten years.

So for the price of our two most recent wars we could have implemented the Affordable Care Act at it's most expensive format and bridged over 10% of our financial deficit each year. That's assuming no health care mandate money was even collected.

The problem with government isn't taxation, its the return on investment for the average American. Taxes that provide services at a good value are in line with EVERYONE'S ideology, unless you're an anarchist. Fire fighters, police officers, and disaster relief aren't things anyone actually wants to see cut. So I'm left wondering why the people who claim fiscal conservatism defend outlandish spending with no tangible benefit to the American people but oppose adding "health care" to the list of basics we provide our citizenry in exchange for their tax dollars and patriotism.

[elsid13]

Obama's comments weren't intentional. But even if they were, one wonders whether or not he would have been "wrong"...


My grandfather is a Holocaust survivor. He was born and raised in Poland. To this day, he harbors the most resentment towards his "fellow" Poles for turning his family over to the Nazis. He refuses to even identify himself as Polish. Out of a family larger than 10, only he, a brother, and a sister survived.

The death camps in Poland were just as much Polish in their aiding and abetting, as much as they were German in fact. What Obama said did not embarrass me, even it was a slip. Poland, for far too long, has swept these atrocities under the rug. I point to the book by Jan Gross, "Fear: Poland and Anti-semitism after Auschwitz".

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/polish-concentration-camps.html

As pointed out before Antisemitism was high all across Europe during that era and not just in Poland. Max Hasting in his book "Inferno" does an excellent job of writing the living history of that era about this subject. I don't believe in today "Western" World the brutality that conquered people experienced under foreign nations is truly understood. The Holocaust should never be allowed to have happened but there just as much suffering and evil done by the Soviets, Japanese and Western Powers that get swept under the rug in our collective minds.

[cutthemdown]

No doubt tons of the countries in Europe, the Vatican, etc played a part in what the Nazis did. Really though the poles that turned on the Jews just illustrates how they needed their own country. Good job by Obama for igniting this discussion on polish complicity while they give him a medal. You guys are right he is the master of politics. All hail the King.

[barryr]

Obama also won't allow Lech Walesa in the WH. Obama thinks he is too political. More like because he was against socialism.

JUNE 1, 2012 4:00 A.M.
President Obama Shuns Lech Walesa
The Polish Solidarity leader is “too political” for the administration.
By Rory Cooper

"According to the Wall Street Journal, Polish officials requested that Walesa accept the Medal of Freedom on behalf of Jan Karski, a member of the Polish Underground during World War II who was being honored posthumously this week. The request makes sense. Walesa and Karski shared a burning desire to rid Poland of tyrannical subjugation. But President Obama said no."

"Administration officials told the Journal that Walesa is too “political.” A man who was arrested by Soviet officials for dissenting against the government for being “political” is being shunned by the United States of America for the same reason 30 years later."

"Meanwhile, one of the recipients of the Medal was Dolores Huerta, the honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. So socialist politics are acceptable, but not the politics of a man who stood up and fought socialism."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/301474/president-obama-shuns-lech-walesa-rory-cooper

[Drek]

Obama also won't allow Lech Walesa in the WH. Obama thinks he is too political. More like because he was against socialism.

JUNE 1, 2012 4:00 A.M.
President Obama Shuns Lech Walesa
The Polish Solidarity leader is “too political” for the administration.
By Rory Cooper

"According to the Wall Street Journal, Polish officials requested that Walesa accept the Medal of Freedom on behalf of Jan Karski, a member of the Polish Underground during World War II who was being honored posthumously this week. The request makes sense. Walesa and Karski shared a burning desire to rid Poland of tyrannical subjugation. But President Obama said no."

"Administration officials told the Journal that Walesa is too “political.” A man who was arrested by Soviet officials for dissenting against the government for being “political” is being shunned by the United States of America for the same reason 30 years later."

"Meanwhile, one of the recipients of the Medal was Dolores Huerta, the honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. So socialist politics are acceptable, but not the politics of a man who stood up and fought socialism."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/301474/president-obama-shuns-lech-walesa-rory-cooper
Other than the whole "Lech Walesa has been accused multiple times by multiple sources with multiple dated documents of being an informant for communist secret police" deal.

You know, the thing Walesa has been most involved in this entire decade since he's no longer in political office, and the thing he recently sued their last elected president over, a president who would still be in office if he didn't die in a 2010 plane crash.

Yeah, Walesa isn't controversial at all.

[houghtam]

uninformed conservative tripe

Stop it.

[cutthemdown]

Obama is Mr Smooth! Whats next for him?

[houghtam]

Obama is Mr Smooth! Whats next for him?

Re-election.

[barryr]

Other than the whole "Lech Walesa has been accused multiple times by multiple sources with multiple dated documents of being an informant for communist secret police" deal.

You know, the thing Walesa has been most involved in this entire decade since he's no longer in political office, and the thing he recently sued their last elected president over, a president who would still be in office if he didn't die in a 2010 plane crash.

Yeah, Walesa isn't controversial at all.

Yeah, Obama has made it a priority to keep controversial people out of the WH.

[barryr]

Stop it.

I know, informed to you means sucking up Obama fumes to anything and everything he says and does.