Obama’s Nuked New York Worry

ALeqM5haR_VXDI_3Nv_ksvCTAEswhUw8VAPresident Obama remains as sensitive to criticism as he remains immune to reality. Speaking at a news conference in the Hague, Obama addressed criticism directed at him by Mitt Romney, who insisted during the 2012 presidential campaign that Russia is America’s foremost foreign policy concern. “With respect to Mr. Romney’s assertion that Russia is our number one geopolitical foe, the truth of the matter is that America has a whole lot of challenges,” said the president. So what is one of the president’s primary concerns? “I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan,” said Obama. That’s a breathtaking assertion, one completely at odds with Obama’s ‘s reckless foreign policy. 

It was during the 2012 campaign that the president continually reminded Americans “al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead.” Yet even then, inconvenient reality intruded in the form of four Americans killed in an unambiguous terrorist attack in Benghazi, less than two months before the election. That attack caused the president to temporarily drop references to al Qaeda from his stump speech. But soon he was back at it, undoubtedly buttressed by a media that not only remained calculatingly disinterested in the Benghazi incident itself, but the disinformation campaign that immediately followed it as well.

The president made other assertions during the campaign that undercut his concern regarding a nuclear attack on American soil. “I made some commitments four years ago,” he said at several campaign stops. “I told you I would end the war in Iraq and we did it. I said we’d end the war in Afghanistan, we are.” 

Such euphemisms obscure reality. Obama didn’t end the war in Iraq. He abandoned the war in Iraq. As a result, an ostensibly on-the-run al Qaeda has become resurgent in that nation to the point where the al Qaeda-linked terrorist group, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), was able to raise its flag in the city of Fallujah in January.

Is there any doubt the same fate awaits Afghanistan? War-weary Americans, made that way in large part by a Democrat party that determined they could win the 2004 presidential election with an anti-war platform based on a tissue of lies, are prone to forget that it was the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan that spawned 9/11. “The fact is that 9/11 represented the first foreign-based attack on the continental United States, with significant casualties, since the War of 1812,” said former Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2009. “That attack emanated from Afghanistan under Taliban rule. The Taliban did not just provide a safe haven for al-Qaeda. They actively cooperated and collaborated with al-Qaeda. They provided a worldwide base of operations for al-Qaeda.”

On February 25, Obama formally ordered the Pentagon to make plans for a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan. Administration officials contended they would have preferred to keep a contingent of American forces there but, much like Iraq, they claim they were unable to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. 

In an article for the Wall Street Journal, Council on Foreign Relations fellow Max Boot detailed the administration’s half-hearted efforts to negotiate a deal with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, that centered around Obama’s disinterest in getting a deal done, coupled with his intention to leave far fewer numbers of troops in that nation than his military advisors suggested.

The same thing is occurring in Afghanistan, and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld believes that, once again, the fault lies with the Obama administration. “Our relationship with Karzai and with Afghanistan was absolutely first-rate in the Bush administration,” Rumsfeld told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren on Monday. “It has gone down hill like a toboggan ever since the Obama administration came in.” As for an SoFA, Rumsfeld noted the U.S. has them with more than a hundred nations, even as he further contended a “trained ape” could negotiate one. (There is little doubt our race-obsessed media will have a field day with that remark, even as the real point will be obscured in the process).

Gen. Ray Odierno, one of the architects of the 2007 troop surge that really had al Qaeda on the run in Iraq, spoke at a National Press Club luncheon in February. He illuminated the implications of such power vacuums. “The big threat to our national security is ungoverned territory, areas where we have terrorist organizations that become dominant and then try to export their terrorism outside the Middle East and into several other countries, including the United States,” he explained.

Add Libya to that list. As the Associated Press put it on March 22, Libya is a nation where “hundreds of militias hold sway and the central government is virtually powerless.” Moreover, it is “awash in millions of weapons with no control over their trafficking.” 

Unsurprisingly, many of those militias maintain the hard-line Islamist and al-Qaeda-inspired ideologies in a nation where extra-national smuggling remains a big business. That smuggling includes sophisticated weapons such as portable ground-to-air missile systems, known as MANPADS that have been sent to conflicts in Mali, Chad, Egypt and Syria. 

Many Americans, especially the antiwar left, would undoubtedly like to forget that Libya once had nuclear weapons. It was the war in Iraq that prompted Moammar Gaddafi’s decision to voluntarily surrender those weapons, lest he suffer the same fate as Saddam Hussein. Is there any doubt that such weapons would have been an integral part of the current smuggling agenda if they were still there? 

Unfortunately, the Obama administration may only be delaying the inevitable, due to its biggest foreign policy blunder of all: the latest deal with Iran.

The meeting that took place in Geneva in February between Iran and the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany, known as the P5+1 yielded nothing in the way of a breakthrough, despite two major–and foolish–concessions made earlier by the West. The first was the waiving of sanctions back in January, unlocking billions of dollar in oil revenue that allows Iran, among other things, to more easily aid their proxies in Syria.

But not just Syria, as the Israelis discovered when they intercepted a ship “stocked with weapons destined for terrorist groups” in an operation “organized by Iran” as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu characterized it. The shipment included Syrian-made M-302 surface-to-surface rockets. They had been flown to Tehran from Damascus and then transported overland to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf before setting sail for Gaza.

The second and far more onerous concession was allowing Iran to continue enriching uranium, as long as it did so below weapons-grade purity of 20 percent. Once again it was Netanyahu who pointed out the potential for disaster in such an arrangement, noting that the “Geneva Agreement cancelled the 20 percent stop but left the train on the track… so that one day, Iran will be able to rush forward to the final stop, on an express track, without slowing down for the interim stops,” he warned. “In a permanent agreement, the international community must get the Iranian nuclear train off the track.”

As of now, that’s not going to happen. The latest talks resumed in Vienna on March 18 and, in an ironic sense, closed the circle around Obama’s aforementioned sensitivity to criticism and his enduring naiveté. While an American Treasury Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity insisted that the Russians “have a shared interest in ensuring that Iran doesn’t obtain a nuclear weapon” and that the U.S. expects “that interest hasn’t changed and that they’re going to continue to be productive members of the P5-plus-1 process,” Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov had other ideas. He contended Russia might revise its stance in the nuclear negotiations, due to the tensions surrounding Ukraine. “We wouldn’t like to use these talks as an element of the game of raising the stakes taking into account the sentiments in some European capitals, Brussels and Washington,” Ryabkov was quoted as saying by Interfax. “But if they force us into that, we will take retaliatory measures here as well. The historic importance of what happened in the last weeks and days regarding the restoration of historical justice and reunification of Crimea with Russia is incomparable to what we are dealing with in the Iranian issue.”

It’s bad enough Western powers would let Iran enrich uranium at any level. Russia’s threat will more than likely harden Iran’s position. In turn, that might be all that is necessary to push the Middle East into a full-fledged nuclear arms race, led by Saudi Arabia. More proliferation, more nukes. More nukes, the greater the chance they end up in the hands of terrorists like al Qaeda. The same al Qaeda recently urging its terrorist affiliates to detonate car bombs in cities like Washington, D.C., Los Angeles–and New York.

In a November appearance at the 92nd Y in Manhattan, Israeli politician Naftali Bennett minced no words when it came to Iran. “These are very fateful days,” Bennett told the audience. “If a decade from now, God forbid, a nuclear suitcase blows up in an American city, we will be able to trace it back to these days.” Sadly, these are the days of an Obama administration with an unfathomable combination of arrogance and ignorance that makes such a possibility more real with each passing day.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Texas Patriot

    AA: So what is one of the president’s primary concerns? ”I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan,” said Obama. That’s a breathtaking assertion, one completely at odds with Obama’s ‘s reckless foreign policy.

    Apparently you have forgotten Obama’s consistent policy regarding preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but that’s no surprise. As a political hatchet man, you select and choose what you want to see in order to put Obama in a bad light. I wonder if you have ever considered how that approach separates separates you from the reality of what’s really going on?

    Seen in the light of his intent to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the multi-nation negotiations to verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programs, which include Russia and China, make perfect sense. If Iran refuses to verify the nonmilitary nature of its programs, it will be necessary to have Russia and China on board with us if it becomes necessary to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons complex. Seen in the light of the need to have Russia on board with that, acquiescing in Russia’s annexation of the ethnically Russian Crimea and possibly other predominately Russian parts of the Ukraine makes perfect sense. Technically such annexation may violate one international treaty or another, but there is no doubt that our preemptive strike to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons complex will violate some treaty or another as well. Allowing Russia to protect its interests in the Ukraine should be seen as the quid pro quo of allowing America to protect its interests against Iran. It’s a complex equation, but the truth is that our acquiescence of Russian action in the Ukraine may be just the thing Putin needs to placate the hard-liners in Russia in the event we need to act against Iran.

    But of course, none of that would have occurred to you if you are resolute and steadfast in your practice. of only seeing things in a light that is always skewed politically against Obama. Thanks for the great entertainment. Your writing makes about as much sense as a Mel Brooks movie, but it’s great comedy. Keep up the great work!

    • truebearing

      “Apparently you have forgotten Obama’s consistent policy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons”

      Is that right? What policy is that? Lifting sanctions so the Iranians have more money to develop weapons? I’d like to hear about this “consistent policy” with specifics, not a list of hopes and wishes.

      I see you’re defending Obama again, even to the point of suggesting his foreign policy failures are somehow the fault of those who report on them. Why don’t you take this opportunity to admit you voted for the worst president in US history and make it official?

      You seem to have deluded yourself into thinking that negotiations with nations like Iran are productive and any agreements will be honored. This shows you to be pathologically naive, or dishonest. Maybe both. Worse yet, you pretend to believe that failed negotiations will automatically trigger a nuclear attack on Iran by of all wimps, PantyWaist-In-Chief Obama. This level of delusion is call for psychiatric intervention.

      You have completely ignored Russia’s belligerent attitude and growing alliance with Iran. They aren’t going to agree to nuking Iran, nor will Chiuna, nor will either side with the US on anything. You are creating childish scenarios in your fantasy world that have zero chance of happening in the real world.

      Obama hasn’t acquiesced in the takeover of Crimea. He has provoked Putin with little girlish insults and empty blather about Russia’s weakness and mulilateralism. If there is a secret cooperation between Obama and Putin, Obama is playing the submissive role and Putin is not going to give Obama permission to do anything but disarm America, which is exactly what Obama has been doing, piece by piece.

      Ahlert’s piece isn’t the comedy here. Your reply is.

      • Texas Patriot

        TB: Ahlert’s piece isn’t the comedy here. Your reply is.

        You’re still around? I told you that I was no longer interested in what you have to say. Don’t you have some nice friends to play with?

        • truebearing

          It is a comment section. You know, free speech and all that stuff.

          I am interested in what you have to say, in as much as I hope no one is believing any of it.

          • Texas Patriot

            At least Drak is funny, but you’re not even that. Here’s a tip. If you really want to have an interesting discussion about anything, the first step is realizing that the truth is a lot more nuanced than you think, and there are always two sides to every argument.

            Unfortunately, if you can only see one side of things, you’re really not going to have anything very worthwhile to say about anything. Instead of parroting back the one-sided political baloney you obviously so prodigiously consume, please try to grow up and think for yourself.

            If you can ever get to the point of demonstrating that you can see more than one side of an argument, perhaps there will be something to talk about. Otherwise, please find a nice two year old you can have a food fight with.

          • truebearing

            That’s funny, especially coming from a guy with one whacked out theory that he trots out on every thread. You have a keen sense of inadvertent irony.

          • Texas Patriot

            At least my theory is original. But the truth of the matter is that I think it makes a lot of sense. Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons would be a disaster for America, Israel, and the entire civilized world, and Obama has consistently promised not to let it happen. His own vice president has assured the world that Obama is not bluffing.

            The biggest obstacle to preemptive surgical strike to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons complex would be massive resistance from Russia and China, and if he can neutralize that in advance by concessions to Russia and cooperation with China on their issues, the door is wide open to go forward on Iran in the event they fail to permit wide-open inspections, which no one believes they will.

            So what is your argument that there is no chance Obama will do it? Because he’s a “panty-waist”? That’s really impressive.

          • nomoretraitors

            Sorry, originality doesn’t substitute for correctness.
            How would “concessions” to Russia and China make them more amenable to our position concerning a nuclear Iran?
            These are 2 societies with a long history of brutal dictatorships. The only thing they understand and respect is force. Concessions are viewed as weakness.
            Didn’t Obama give Russia the “concession” of abandoning missile defense in eastern Europe? Did that deter Russian aggression in Georgia and the Ukraine? No. Did it motivate Putin to extradite Edward Snowden? No.
            Furthermore, both Russia and China stand to profit from Iranian nuclear research, which I think would outweigh any benefit from whatever “concessions” we might offer them.

          • Texas Patriot

            Russia and China will make a lot more money from rebuilding the the iranian nuclear complex if we destroy it than if we don’t. Allowing Russia to protect historically Russian Ukraine doesn’t harm us in the least, but it will give Putin cover with his own hardliners in the event we have to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons complex.

      • nomoretraitors

        “Why don’t you take this opportunity to admit you voted for the worst president in US history and make it official?”
        Because liberals never admit they’re wrong. It just isn’t in their DNA.
        “You are creating childish scenarios in your fantasy world that have zero chance of happening in the real world”
        The left has no choice but to live in a fantasy world as they are incapable of dealing with reality.
        “This level of delusion is call for psychiatric intervention”
        LOL (although the left may well be beyond psychiatric intervention.
        I think excorcism may be the only hope at this point)

  • Mladen_Andrijasevic

    Unfortunately, the Obama administration may only be delaying the inevitable, due to its biggest foreign policy blunder of all: the latest deal with Iran.

    Very true


    The Geneva deal – the scapegoat ceremony
    By Shmuel Trigano

    The scene of the signing of the Geneva Deal will remain in the annals of history. Kisses exchanged to celebrate a collective resignation of a consortium of superpowers facing a medium-sized power has something fascinating in it. In a few years we will see in this dizzying show the sign of the decline of the West as an international policy concept. In their fear of confrontation and their moral inability to name the enemy that threatens them, these powers have yielded to the blackmail of the clerical regime whose apocalyptic convictions have proven to be stronger than their faith in human rights, so celebrated by the West. What remains unclear in the announcement is what will Israel do now that the treason by its American ally has become obvious. The word is harsh but the evil and cunning of Obama’s policies is now clear to all. Israel’s existence is at stake from the lethal threat of both the Shi’a (whose anti -Semitism is stronger than the Sunni) and from the risk of being quarantined by the Western camp. It is this latter aspect that shines with clarity today.

  • Hungryman8

    I already heard this about a month back. Can’t believe he let it out. Sometimes what you read is true on the internet. I read that 0bama is going to set off a nuclear device in New York so that he can complete his mission of removing our Constitutional Republic and instating Martial Law permanently. I can’t believe this is coming true. I thought it was a rumor. Holy smokes! God please help us!

  • Hungryman8

    And maybe it is true that the Navy yard shooter was not a random act, but was planned to stop the navy General from arresting the sitting President for Treachery & Treason. I read that 0bama was about to be arrested, and his cronies foiled the justice by getting a gunman to go on a rampage. Hmmm… it sure makes you wonder?

    • Sharps Rifle

      The Navy doesn’t have generals.
      Next caller, please…

      • Hungryman8

        The term evades me at the moment. I don’t recall if it was Admiral or what. But I do know that there is a theory that a navy superior was about to arrest the usurper on that day the “shooter” arose. Look it up and let us know what you find

      • GinoMachiavelli

        Lesbian admirals?

  • Lanna

    How wrong Obama was about Russia, and how Right Mit Romney was about Russia becoming the super power. Obama said he feared a nuclear event in Manhattan, this time he is speaking of a real possibility due to his policies!

    • nimbii

      That’s for sure Lanna. But hey, Obama is a Communist too as are Jarrett and Axelrod. So what’s to worry about Russia or Islamic Socialism? Aren’t they all on the same team?

  • Habbgun

    The Left doesn’t care about a nuclear strike in Manhattan. They saw 9/11 first hand and couldn’t wait to use it for their political advantage. They blamed Israel, America, Western civilization (these days something of an oxymoron) and then the Tea Party. Let’s be honest what they really want. They want greater spying on Americans and more control like in the airports.

  • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks


    of a domestic rogue nuclear attack to turn America from a global military superpower into a SUPER-SURVEILANCE FORTRESS STATE believing it is better for our security.

    Click my name then my website for my piece on this subject.

  • Michael E Jones

    I noticed he used the term geopolitical in his speech today. I do not recall hearing him use it in his lexicon before. Where did he hear this before, he adopts it now to “sound” presidential. No he still sounds like a community organizer, He will not easily gain the “RSPECT” on the world stage.

    • truebearing

      Plus he threw in another bit of presidential sounding terminology with “America has a whole lot of challenges.” I’m surprised he didn’t say “sh*tload of challenges.” Smartest president ever.

      • http://europa-antiqua-arca.blogspot.com/ clavdivs

        Yeah, that’s an interesting tone to adopt in the second term of your presidency. Wasn’t Obama supposed to be dealing with these challenges?

      • iluvisrael

        yeah, just ask any ‘fallen heroes’ or ‘corpseman’

  • A Z

    “That smuggling includes sophisticated weapons such as portable ground-to-air missile systems, known as MANPADS that have been sent to conflicts in Mali, Chad, Egypt and Syria.”

    Would that smuggling include the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda and Chad?

    Does the the LRA have the $$ to buy manpads? Are our 200 to 300 soldiers at risk?

    Can our airmen and soldiers fire back after being shot at with a Manpad?

    What does defensive fire look like, when you are fired with a manpad?

    • truebearing

      Rules of Engagement, AZ. They can fired Manpads at our guys. We have to lob water balloons back…but not to actually hit them and get them wet. Just to scare them.

      • A Z

        My point is that these aircraft are not fighter or attack aircraft. They are transport or tanker aircraft. All they can do is use counter measure, try to bug out and pray.

        If your counter measure fail or you used your last one, you are dead if they still have more Manpads.

        • truebearing

          I agree. It is a very good point. I just thought I would take the opportunity to highlight the absurdity of Obama’s anti-American military BS. He’s going to get a lot of good men killed.

  • panola60

    Obama is worried about a nuke in NYC after support Iran’s (Death to America) nuke program. Worried after opening our borders to illegals?

    • Gee

      To quote the former Secretary of State – “What does it matter?”

  • A Z

    Does the Obama White House take security seriously?

    Do they think a Manpad is a step up from a Maxipad and 2 steps up from a Minipad?

    • truebearing


      Obama likes the Minipad. It makes him feel more comfortable, yet feminine.

      • A Z

        How can you be sure, which type he uses? He wears mom jeans. No doubt he walks differently.

        • truebearing

          I can’t be sure but watching him throw a baseball makes me think he goes for the delicate stuff.

  • truebearing

    Is Obama foreshadowing something here? And if he’s worried about a nuke being detonated in New York, why is he allowing Muslims to flood into the country? Why is he enabling Iran to complete its development of nukes? So many questions, so few reasons to believe or trust Obama.




  • steve b


  • DannyJeffrey

    A prediction from last November about a nuclear blast in NYC…

  • derrrrwood

    “His own vice president has assured the world that Obama is not bluffing.” Hahahahahahaha!!! Are you serious? Even Biden wouldn’t be dumb enough to say ” yes he is bluffing! ”
    Making concessions with the Russians or Iranians is like asking a rapist ” If I givayou a kiss will you promise not to rape me?”.

  • chris

    this is obama propaganda at it again iran will not attack us this is a joke,…..people continue to ignore fawtaws issued by iranian leaders opposed to building nuke bombs, an using them sayign its against religion but they think you a moron an wont look this up but believe what ever u want