“Afghans hate and will not tolerate their country being occupied by foreigner infidel.” This [historic quote] is verifiable over almost 24 centuries of history by referring to the Afghan experiences of Alexander the Great, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union. It took varying periods for the Afghans to get rid of each occupier—the Greeks were particularly tough to root out as Alexander created Greek colonies in the country—but in time each was defeated and left with its tail between its legs. And so will we.
Mr. Scheuer is a noninterventionist and skews his commentary that way, but there is no question that President Obama’s strategy of limited engagement while winning Afghan hearts and minds may not work. Scheuer is blunt on the point:
War means fighting, and fighting means killing, and any other approach to war means wasted resources and lives, and will yield nothing but defeat and the need to fight the same war over again. This is why Obama should have sent a marine [commander] to replace [General] McChrystal. This is also why he did not.
Finally, I get a ton of mail basically agreeing with Michael Scheuer and also arguing that the President is soft on terrorism in general. Some of the correspondents point to the fact that the President will not even use the words “war on terror.” True, but another fact defines Mr. Obama as the “drone king.” In his pursuit of terrorists, he has ordered scores of missile attacks launched from Predator drones. They have been devastatingly effective, killing hundreds of al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders along with some civilians. Obama has used this space-age weapon far more than President Bush did. So how do we explain that? If he’s soft on terrorism, why is he conducting a very aggressive missile campaign, which by the way the ACLU and other Far Left kooks hate? That’s an interesting question, is it not? Remember, President Obama is a complicated guy. One of the major themes of this book is that things are not always what they seem. I give a lot of credit to CIA Chief Leon Panetta, a true Patriot, for wising up Mr. Obama about the threat these terrorist killers pose to Americans. So the next time you hear that Mr. Obama is a Pinhead for not taking the war on terror seriously enough, remember that he is definitely the “drone king.”
* * *
O’Reilly: Okay. Uh, United States and Poland, putting the missile shield in Poland.
Obama: Mm-hmm.
O’Reilly: All right? Putin doesn’t like it.
Obama: Right.
O’Reilly: Are you gonna keep that missile shield in there?
Obama: I think that we have to make sure that, uh, uh—and I have said this before. The Russians are playing a game, and they pretend that this missile shield is directed against all their interests.
O’Reilly: Yeah, it’s ridiculous. It’s a defensive thing.
Obama: It’s, it’s a defensive thing. And we—
O’Reilly: So you are gonna keep it there then?
Obama: And, and given, given what has happened in Georgia, I think that we have to send a clear signal that Poland and other countries in that region are, are not gonna be subject to intimidation and aggression—
O’Reilly: Okay, so I just want to get this on record. If you are elected President, you are keeping the missile shield in Poland?
Obama: I believe that the missile shield is appropriate. I want to make sure it works, though. I want to make sure it works.
O’Reilly: Well, we are testing—
Obama: And that’s one of the problems that we have got.
O’Reilly: So Putin, uh, comes out last week and he says, “Hey look, uh, we are gonna reimpose our dominance on all of the countries that surround us. And we don’t care whether you like it or not, because you are tied down in Afghanistan—Iraq and Afghanistan—and we are gonna do what we want to do.”
Obama: Sure.
O’Reilly: Such a nasty little guy, number one.
Obama: [Laughs.]
O’Reilly: And would you agree with that assessment?
Obama: [Laughs.] Well, that—I’ll agree with the assessment that, uh—I wouldn’t look into his soul and, uh—
O’Reilly: Yeah.
Obama:—and think I know him.
O’Reilly: And I’ll put a cowboy hat on the guy.
Obama: Yes.
O’Reilly: This is gonna be a problem, all right?
Obama: Oh, this is a huge problem.
O’Reilly: Okay. And, and you are gonna have to confront Putin—
Obama: And we are going to—and that’s exactly right.
O’Reilly: Maybe not militarily, and maybe you can do it other ways. But Europe is weak and Europe is cowardly—
Obama: Right.
O’Reilly: You know, what are they gonna have? Another meeting? Yeah, Putin is quaking, aren’t they? Isn’t Putin quaking about that? They are gonna have another meeting—
Obama: Well, you know what? And here, here, here is the one thing I would say…. There are, there are two things where we can have some leverage over Russia. Number one is that, commercially, they are tied up with Europe, and they are increasingly integrating. Their stock market has taken a beating since they went into Georgia.
O’Reilly: Yes.
Obama: But that—
O’Reilly: Like they care.
Obama: Well, Putin may not care, but there are a whole bunch of folks that are—
O’Reilly: They do. Right.
Obama: There are a whole bunch of millionaires in Moscow who do care, all right? So that’s a leverage point. And the Europeans can be helpful in applying that leverage point, and that’s point number one. The second thing that we have to do is actually defensive: We have got to get our energy policy straight. As long as they are getting over $100 a barrel for oil, then they are gonna be able to act—and that’s the biggest problem we have.
* * *
On September 17, 2009, President Obama announced that the United States would scrap the planned missile defense shield for Poland and the Czech Republic. Notice in the interview that Mr. Obama said the missile shield was “appropriate,” but that it has to “work.” He did not swear he would keep it. He danced.
President Barack Obama, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (left), and Czech Republic President Václav Klaus (center right) share a toast at a luncheon before signing the New Start START Treaty on April 8, 2010. So what exactly are we celebrating?
White House
Photographed by Pete Souza
The President gave into Vladimir Putin’s paranoia about the shield because he wanted the wily Russian leader to lay off Georgia and Ukraine. This was one of those Chicago backroom deals. Putin got the shield shelved; Obama got less aggressive Russian military expansion. Poland and the Czechs got hosed.
Welcome to the real world.
Republicans, of course, screamed about the President’s “sell-out” to Putin, but since the situation is below the radar (sorry), most Americans couldn’t care less about it.
For the record, the Obama administration says it isn’t giving in to Russian demands; it is just shifting the missile strategy around. According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Patriot, the United States will now deploy Navy Aegis ships equipped with SM-3 interceptor missiles in the eastern Mediterranean Sea in order to block any aggressive action by Iran. Down the road, Gates says, the United States might install the interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic as well.
Again, few of your fellow citizens care about this. If you do, you can make the call as to whether or not it’s a Pinhead move.
* * *
O’Reilly: Yeah, let’s get to the economy. I want you to react to a couple of steps that I, that I pulled outta here. You are a big “tax the rich” guy.
Obama: [Laughs.] Yeah.
O’Reilly: Aren’t you?
Obama: Just you, Bill.
O’Reilly: I know.
Obama: I think you are making too much money.
O’Reilly: You and Hillary both, you just want to take my money.
Obama: [Laughs.]
O’Reilly: And you can have it; I mean, I
don’t care if I live in a hut.
Obama: [Laughs.]
O’Reilly: All right. And you want to “tax the rich.” Under President Bush—
Obama: Yes.
O’Reilly:—the government—the federal government derived 20 percent more revenue than under President Clinton. Did you know that?
Obama: Well, the, uh—
O’Reilly: Did you know that?
Obama: The, the economy grew, Bill.
O’Reilly: It grew. That’s right.
Obama: The economy grew, so—
O’Reilly: Under President Bush—
Obama:—so, so of course, uh, the, uh, the—
O’Reilly:—the, the economy grew 19 percent more than Clinton.
Obama: Right.
O’Reilly: See, this is what I am not getting about you Democrats—
Obama: No. No, no, no, no. Hold on, Bill.
O’Reilly: Nineteen percent—
Obama: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Don’t, don’t—hold on a second now. I mean, because you know, you, you, you—you know the famous saying about “There are—there are lies, damn lies, and statistics”?
O’Reilly: Yeah.
Obama: I mean, well, you and I can—we can play a statistics game—
O’Reilly: I know, I know it’s bull—I know it is—
Obama: So, so, so what…. Well, let’s, let’s, let’s be clear on the record, all right?
O’Reilly: All right.
Obama: The, uh…. During the Bush administration—
O’Reilly: Yeah?
Obama:—there was economic growth. Not as fast as during the 1990s, okay, but there was growth during the Bush administration. But what happened was, that wages and incomes—for ordinary Americans—the guys who watch your show—
O’Reilly: Yeah.
Obama:—the guys who you advocate for and you speak for on this show—
O’Reilly: Right.
Obama:—their wages and incomes did not go up.
O’Reilly: Why?
Obama: They went, they went down.
O’Reilly: Do you know why?
Obama: And the reason they went down—
O’Reilly: Yeah?
Obama:—is because most of the corporate profits and increased productivity went to the top—not just 1 percent—but the top one-tenth of 1 percent.
O’Reilly: All right. Let me submit to you that you are wrong—
Obama: And as part of, as part of—
O’Reilly: Let me submit to you that you are wrong, okay?
Obama: Right, okay, make your argument.
O’Reilly: We have been studying this issue—because we want to be fair and balanced and give all sides.
Obama: Right.
O’Reilly: The reason the wages have been depressed—and they are not that much: it’s about four or five hundred dollars, uh, for the Bush administration, real wages up; and about two thousand under the Clinton administration—is because there are 10 million immigrants—new immigrants—in the workforce—most of whom are illegal aliens.
Obama: Bill—
O’Reilly: Those 10 million—
Obama:—I totally disagree with you—
O’Reilly:—with their, with their salaries—
Obama: Yeah?
O’Reilly:—have brought it down. But again, that’s statistics, yes.
Obama: But, but, but, but—
O’Reilly: But let’s get back to “tax the rich.”
Obama: All right, but, but what—so let me just finish making my point.
O’Reilly: All right.
Obama: The fact is, for people in your income bracket—and mine—
O’Reilly: Right.
Obama: Now, we, we, we both come from humble beginnings and we worked our—and we were talking before the show. And the fact that, only in America, could we have this success.
O’Reilly: Absolutely.
Obama: And, and I—and I am not somebody who begrudges that success. I want people to—
O’Reilly: But you want 50 percent of my success—
Obama: No, I don’t want it—
O’Reilly: Yeah, you do.
Obama: No, I don’t—
O’Reilly: That’s your tax rate.
Obama: That is not true—
O’Reilly: Fifty.
Obama: What I am—
O’Reilly: Fifty.
Obama: What, what I have said is, is that, uh, uh…. Now let’s be clear about this—
O’Reilly: Payroll tax and, and income tax—50.
Obama: Well, listen—listen up. Now, let me—now, let me make sure that we are clear on, on the facts here. I would take your marginal rate back to what it was under Bill Clinton—
O’Reilly: Yeah, and that was 39.
Obama: And that was—you go back to 39.
O’Reilly: Right.
Obama: You can afford that. That’s point number one. Well, you can’t deny that you can afford it.
O’Reilly: Yes.
Obama: It’s not gonna hurt you.
O’Reilly: I am not gonna deny that.
Obama: All right? In exchange, I am cutting taxes—for 95 percent of Americans. Ninety-five percent—
O’Reilly: Well, guess what? Well, that’s class warfare—
Obama: It’s not—95 percent—
O’Reilly: And—
Obama:—is not class warfare.
O’Reilly: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Obama: And I am saying that 95 percent of the American people are getting a tax break—three times the amount of tax relief under my plan than John McCain’s. And that’s not my statistic—
O’Reilly: Here, here is—
Obama:—that is from—
O’Reilly: Here is what I got—
Obama:—from independent analysts.
O’Reilly: And, and, and it’s not all about me, believe me.
Obama: Go ahead.
O’Reilly: Twenty percent more revenue coming in under Bush than Clinton, all right? And he cuts taxes, people invest more. And he cuts the capital gains. And the government gets 20 percent more than under Clinton. You want to raise it back up—it doesn’t make sense. Secondly—
Obama: Well—
O’Reilly: Secondly—
Obama: Okay, go ahead.
O’Reilly: The payroll tax—over to 50? You are gonna hike it to infinity—
Obama: I am not.
O’Reilly: What, what’s the cap?
Obama: That’s not true—
O’Reilly: What’s the cap?
Obama: And all, all—
O’Reilly: Hold it! What’s the cap?
Obama: [Laughs.] All I said—[Laughs.] All I said is that after—
O’Reilly: Yeah?
Obama: Right? Then we could raise the cap. Not—
O’Reilly: That we could, or we will?
Obama: What I have said is, is that if we have got a set of options to stabilize Social Security—which I think is important—and I think you do, too, because there are millions of seniors out there—
O’Reilly: I do. Right.
Obama:—who depend on it. And we have got a couple of options. We could raise the retirement age—and I just left—talking to a whole bunch of guys who have been working—
O’Reilly: Look, I have no beef on this—
Obama: All right. So you don’t want to do that. Number—or number two, we could cut benefits. Try living on Social Security right now; that’s no fun if you are a senior. Number three, we could just do nothing, in which case Social Security will be—
O’Reilly: So—
Obama: And let me finish—and let me finish my point, Bill. Uh, in the upcoming years, it’s gonna be essentially, uh, a reduction in benefits. We could raise the payroll tax on everybody—
O’Reilly: Don’t do that.
Obama: Of course.
O’Reilly: Don’t do that.
Obama: But there is no free lunch.
O’Reilly: But what I�
��
Obama: So my only point is—
O’Reilly: No, there is a free lunch.
Obama: What is the free lunch?
O’Reilly: The free lunch is that—you are taking the wealthy American—the big earners, okay?
Obama: Okay.
O’Reilly: You are taking money away from them, and you are giving it to people who don’t have. That’s called “income redistribution.” It’s a socialist tenet.
Obama: No. Bill—O’Reilly: Come on, you know that. Obama: Bill, Bill—
O’Reilly: You went to Harvard—
Obama: Teddy Roosevelt supported the “progressive income tax.” Uh, look—
O’Reilly: Not at the level you do.
Obama: Bill, well, here is my point—listen, you, you are—you are making it out like I am talking about going back to 70 percent marginal rates—
O’Reilly: You are above 50—
Pinheads and Patriots Page 17