Sunday, September 14, 2008

Breaking News: Feinstein and Obama abrogate NATO’s self defense obligations on Late Edition.

In a shocking international development, California Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein abrogated the critical purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization only minutes ago on CNN's Late Edition.

As we all know, Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty provides:

"Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."

About twenty minutes ago on CNN’s Late Edition, Sen. Feinstein attacked Sarah for telling Charlie Gibson that the United States would be obligated to defend Georgia or Ukraine if those nations were members of NATO and subjected to a Russian attack. Wolf Blitzer looked at Feinstein like the Senator was growing a third eye. When the Senator was done, the Canis Lupus expressed his disbelief by telling/asking Feinstein that Sarah’s answer was correct and NATO did have a mutual defense obligation.

Feinstein then admitted the obvious accuracy of Sarah’s statements and conceded that the North Atlantic Treaty obligates mutual defense (per Article 5-above). However, and remarkably, the Obama surrogate then acknowledged that the Democrat position was opposition to intervention in Georgia or Ukraine because American resources are stretched. Vladimir Putin is going to rewind and watch the Senator’s statement about a hundred times since it will be a propaganda bonanza when the Russians tell the rest of Europe that the United States really won’t defend them from Russian extortion.

Feinstein was appearing as a high level Obama surrogate so we have to assume she was expressing the Obama/Biden position. Feinstein then went on to claim a lack of sufficient knowledge to form opinion or belief as to Georgia’s admission to NATO.

More significantly, now that we know that an Obama administration would shirk its responsibilities to some NATO members, is it not essential that the Obama campaign honestly disclose which NATO members would be supported and which would not be supported if attacked?

Obama, change the Russians can believe in.


Anonymous said...

We continue to peal away the fog of the carefully parsed words that vaguely craft the "change" mantra to discover more of what that "change" really is, is.

He intends to get rid of our free trade agreements and now, intends to not live up to our Nato obligations.

Does Obama intend to pull out of the Nato treaty?

Just what IS Obama's foreign policy?

Why would team Obama send out a high level surrogate, former Mayor and City Council member from a Sanctuary City, out to discuss such an important topic as Palin's response to Georgia and the Ukraine being a part of Nato and admit that she hasn't studied the topic well enough to form an opinion? Huh? Who made that decision?

Sarah had an opinion. Diane did not have an opinion. She admits to her ignorance on the topic, yet assails Sarah for having the correct answer as well having an well - informed opinion.

I guess those small town mayors may be more on the ball about foreign policy than those large "sanctuary", ROTC hating, large city mayors.

Maybe Sarah passed you up Diane in class when she achieved the title of GOVERNOR instead of SENATOR.

Anonymous said...

Well, for those keeping track, Sarah Palin has more foreign policy knowledge than Senator Diane Feinstein.

Diane Fieinsteins job today was to be a democrat woman, attacking a republican woman as being too stupid to be Vice President because, after all, she's never had an abortion and, horrors, is a conservative woman.

Then, proceeded to show that Sarah has MORE foreign policy knowledge and is more informed on the subject of Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO than she does herself.

Sarah wasn't even in the room for that battle of wits, yet still won.

I think Diane failed at her task today to show that Sarah isn't qualified. She did, however, show that she herself is unqualified.


Ken asks where NObama's health, school, and state senate records are... said...

Unbelievable! No wonder you can't trust the Dems because they view treaties as "scraps of paper."

NATO is opposed to the Ruskies and their kindred spirits in the Democratic Party want to help anyway possible.

Anonymous said...


You really know how to spin it Ted!

The shine is off the Sarah Palin apple, and no amount of spin will bring it back.

Anonymous said...

Where are we wrong 1:06? What is your point?

How do you feel about Obama's plan to pull out of NATO?

Is that some change we can believe in or is Diane just plain stupid? She likely went to an Ivy League school after all.

Is this a major Gaffe or an accidental glimpse into the Boo Hoo Bary Doctrine?

Anonymous said...

I wonder who was taking care of Diane's kids when she was on the city council and then mayor?

Anonymous said...

I wonder who was taking care of Diane's kids when she was on the city council and then mayor?

Anonymous said...

is the only reason diane feinstein a senator because she aborted a fetus discovered to have downs syndrome and thus, could serve her country legitimately as a woman?

Has Diane Feinstein ever had an abortion? It's important that we know that since she holds such a high office.

Is having an abortion the one qualification you need to be an intelligent woman in lib land?

democrats will take women backwards to a time when women couldn't achieve - the 60's said...

Was Diane Feinstein a stay at home mom like her caricature of those silly little ole conservative women she makes so much fun of?

Or, was she a working mom the whole time, like Sarah, a real conservative woman - not a caricature.

Did Diane Feinstein ever have a job and earn her own living or was she able to serve because of the wealth of her husband that she benefited from just for sleeping with him, like a kept woman so to speak.

Is Diane Feinstein the true Caricature of a Woman in modern America?

Anonymous said...

The 60's generation rallying cry was to create a society who's mission statement was "sex, drugs and rock and roll".

The children of those aging hippies have the updated rallying cry: "Recreate 68". That, more than anything, displays the weaker whinier version of their hippie liberal, amerika hating parents. What does that mean, anyway?

Sadly, Recreate 68 is the essence of the democrat platform.

Who's stuck in the disco generation? Obama is.

Anonymous said...

Oh my!
The Russians!
You've just scared me into voting for McCain!!!!

Anonymous said...

Gloria "I don't need a man to be fulfilled, yet got married anyway in her 60's" SteinMAN was correct when she said the only thing Hillary and Sarah have in comman is a shared chromosome. Thank God for that fact, for sure.

Well, actually the jury is still out on whether Hillary is a woman, but, just for the sake of argument, I'll give her that one.

Sarah's achievements came from her own hard work, all while having a family and having a faithful husband who shared in the parenting as he pursued his own endeavors at which he could achieve. The very goal of the feminist movement.

Hillary's achievements came directly from her womanizing cheatin, lying, impeached husband's achievements. She would never have been a candidate for office had her husband not been president. This is the very situation the feminist movement railed against as oppression by men over women.

Hillary is a carpetbagger in many ways - being a serious candidate without any achivement on her own, is just one way.

Who's the feminist?

Gee, I wonder who took care of the designer child while Hillary worked at the Rose Law Firm as a high powered, more than 40 hour a week, working mom.

Anonymous said...

Again, 1:48 - what is your point? Are you attempting to give us another glimpse into Obamanation's foreign policy?

Do you agree that Russia has the right to invade and occupy a neighboring country which did not attack it first?

What is the Obama doctrine on this subject?

Is there anyone dangerous in the world to you? Is there anything to fear other than conservative talk radio?

Anonymous said...

Is the reason Hillary only had one child because she aborted all the others Chinese style? Is that why libs think she is qualified to run for President?

Where's her executive experience?

Anonymous said...

The Clinton doctrine sent us into Kosovo, a country which he invaded and occupied that did not attack us first and did not have anything to do with 9-11.

How will the Obama doctrine be different?

Anonymous said...

Will the Obama doctrine send us into Darfur, a country that has not attacked us and had nothing to do with 9-11?

Does Obama accept the Clooney Doctrine on military invasion of a country that didn't attack us first and didn't have anything to do with 9-11?

Anonymous said...

Heck - we STILL occupy Kosovo. Did Bill intend to fight that war for a hundred years?

The Clinton doctrine had us attack Lybia in that now famous wag the dog asprin factory bombing that killed the child of the leader of that country.

Where was his Congressional War approval on that act of war?

How will the Obama doctrine be different than the Clinton doctrine?

Anonymous said...

This only confirms my support for McCain/Palin. National Defense and Foreign Policy are the #1 issues. Government "entitlements" are meaningless if we are dead or our nation no longer exists.
As a retired, twenty year U.S. Navy veteran, I remember serving during the Clinton years -- and being on a ship that couldn't leave the pier because there wasn't enough funding for spare parts. Isn't Obama already on record that he plans to slash defense funding?

Anonymous said...

I am a veteran of the war in Iraq and I remember visiting an Iraqi junk yard and welding pieces of metal unto our Humvee because Bush had the incredible foresight to overlook IED's the number one killer of US troops and not get us up armoured vehicles

Neither Clinton Nor Bush did right by the troops. Hopefully McCain or Obama can do better

Ken asks where NObama's health, school, and state senate records are... said...

Rumsfeld said it best, "You go to war with the army you have not the army you want to have."

Anonymous said...

Twenty five or more years ago I had a long conversation with a WWII Navy pilot. He started the war flying the Brewster Buffalo, a woefully inadequate aircraft. He next flew the Wildcat, a fairly inadequate aircraft. And by the end of the war was flying the Hellcat, a more than adequate aircraft. Was America letting him down by prosecuting the war without first making sure all our equipment was superior to that of the Japanese? Should all wars be put on hold until we have both numerical superiority and technical perfection? Is George Bush the only president who did not anticipate the enemies every move and counter it before it was made? In fact, please tell me which president has?

Anyone who complains about W’s foresight should be required to show that theirs is any better. Armchair generals with 20/20 hindsight always seem to be such geniuses.

Art A Layman said...


Not surprisingly you fail to recognize the difference between option and requirement.

Sometimes it seems in your case JD stands for "Just Dumb".

How them thar polls looking this week?