Obama’s Foreign Policy Fraud Has Come Undone

Pages: 1 2

The mass riots and attacks on embassies do not mark the moment when Obama’s foreign policy imploded. That happened a long time ago. What these attacks actually represent is the moment when the compliant media were no longer able to continue hiding that failure in bottom drawers and back pages.

The media successfully covered for Obama’s retreat from Iraq, and the weekly Al Qaeda car bombings and rush to civil war no longer make the news. The media have also done their best to cover for Obama’s disaster in Afghanistan which has cost thousands of American lives while completely failing to defeat the Taliban.

Obama had hoped to cover up his defeat in Afghanistan by cutting a deal with the “moderate” Taliban, but the Taliban, moderate or extreme, refused to help him cover his ass. Attacks in Afghanistan have escalated, but the media have avoided challenging the bizarre assertions from the Obama campaign that the mission has been accomplished and Karzai will be ready to take over security in a few years.

And then the Islamists did something that the media just couldn’t ignore. They staged a series of attacks on American embassies and foreign targets beginning on September 11. These attacks, the most devastating and public of which took place on September 11, were accompanied by Islamist black flags and chants of, “We Are All Osama” in countries across North Africa and the Middle East.

The media have done their best to avoid dealing with the implications of Islamists carrying out a coordinated series of attacks on everything from foreign embassies to peacekeeping forces in the Sinai, by focusing on a Mohammed movie which the Egyptian Salafists exploited for propaganda purposes, rather than on the tactical support and level of coordination required to launch such a broad series of attacks and what the attacks and their scope say about the transformation of the conflict from stray attacks by terrorist groups to armed militias taking control of entire regions.

Rather than doing their job, the media seemed to be dividing their attention between reporting on the carnage without any context and putting out talking points to prevent Mitt Romney from taking political advantage of the disaster. The media’s accusations that Mitt Romney was politicizing the conflict were absurd, especially coming after the New York Times ran an editorial on September 11 attacking George W. Bush for not preventing the attacks of that day and after five years of Obama and his media allies politicizing every suicide bombing in Iraq.

While American embassies burned, the media were determined to go on doing what they had been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They had covered for Obama in three disastrous wars, one of which he had begun and which had exploded in the faces of staffers at the Benghazi consulate. And they are still covering for him, but the conflict has moved beyond the point where it can be relegated to the back pages of the daily papers.

Obama had hoped that the Islamists would see the advantage of allowing him to save face and give them another term of the same inept appeasement disguised as diplomatic soft power. Instead the Islamists seized on his weakness and trumpeted it to the world to humiliate him and the country that he had been temporarily placed in charge of.

Pages: 1 2

  • Mullah be Damned

    There is still a lot of covering for Obama going on by the Left. They are a stubborn bunch. Ignorant as mules.

    • lone ranger

      how correct you are……….

  • http://www.facebook.com/mladen.andrijasevic Mladen Andrijasevic

    But this just half of the story. Israel cannot permit that Obama's appeasement of Iran ends up in a similar debacle. Would anyone really expect that the Israeli leadership would trust the future of Israeli citizens on the promises of this administration with such an abysmal track record?

    Is there a way to fight the ignorance of the American electorate regarding Iran? Something that would compensate for the years of the American press not doing its job regarding Islam in general and Shia eschatology in particular? Actually, there is. This paper by Dr. Matthias Küntzel, delivered at Columbia University in 2008, is a serious and comprehensive analysis of the Iranian threat, something many have been looking for but which the media never provided.

    Matthias Küntzel: Antisemitism, Messianism and the Cult of Sacrifice: The Iranian Holy War http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/matth

    • crackerjack

      The US electorate is not ignorant concerning Iran. The US electorate is just extremely wary of being shoved into another contraproductive, desaster war based on yet another WOMD hysteria.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Evidence in Iraq was difficult for you to find, thus WMDs are now known never to exist?

        Iraq was no mistake. The mistake was sending too few troops and letting Rumsfeld try to dig his way out. The threat of WMDs should always be taken this seriously. How stupid can anyone be? It's as if you really think radical neo-cons invented everything just for the pleasure of making war. What kind of sick minds dream of such accusations? There are no radical Muslims, just radical neo-cons fomenting war by hurting their "religious feelings."

        The biggest mistake with Iran was not attacking it at the same time or perhaps before attacking Iraq. Actually, that would have shown Saddam Hussein how serious things were getting and we maybe would not have needed to take Iraq. Most of the trouble in Iraq itself was due to Iran on top of poor planning by Rumsfeld.

        So, follow mistakes of weakness with wishful thinking?

        Most of the discourse containing negative opinions about dealing forcefully with Iran are political attacks against Israel. Congratulations on avoiding those tired accusations as though the USA does not have a critical interest in supporting Israel in their defense of threats from Islamic supremacists. This nation has never had a more dangerous foreign policy than since Obama started having his influence. I wish he had succeeded, but he failed miserably on virtually every front, including getting involved illegally in fronts that surprised many of us. I hate Carter more because of his obscene, harmful post-presidency, but Obama is the worst modern president measured by the influence of his term in office. I pray we don't "double down" on this unprecedented disaster.

        • JoJoJams

          I agree. We attacked the wrong country and should have went after the mad mullahs in Iran instead of Saddam in Iraq. This would have (possibly) gotten Saddam to "see the light" and tone things down. Further, since Iran is mostly Shiite, and the larger majority of muslims are Sunni, the "griping" from the umma may not have been so bad, and there would also (most likely) been an assistance in our efforts from the young Iranians and the "green Movement", who hate the mad mullahs and what they've done to the Iranian people. Hindsight's a b1tch….

          • Jim_C

            I actually agree with this somewhat. It would have been a disaster in practice but in theory it's a lot better idea.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Why? We held Afghanistan and Iraq, we had them in a vice. They were supplying the insurgents in both countries, why not clear them out and not have that supply to deal with?

          • Jim_C

            If you keep that focus, I think that's doable. But I think of how much Israel might suffer the retaliation. I think that's a big reason why we hold back in many areas.

            I honestly don't think we had the resources in the long run to deal with all three countries. Iran's a much different beast–bigger, ethnically/religiously homogenous, relatively advanced.

            So the cost would have been even higher, and these relative "paper tigers" we took on have taken a serious toll. There'd be far more bloodshed than we've seen.

            On the other hand, it'd probably be a more conventional type war, as well, with enemies you could actually see and know they're there. So it does have it's plus side.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Iran is our enemy whether we recognize and act on it or not.

            Their IED's are killing our troops whether we act or not.

            I don't like playing the victim.

          • Jim_C

            I am all for killing bad guys, and Iran has plenty of them.

            Big picture, though, is we shouldn't be there doing another country's job for it, letting our people get blown up. Let them blow each other up. Let us concentrate on keeping our shores safe and gathering intelligence. Of the good that has come from this episode: it's no longer a handful of special ops or foreign soldiers familiar with the region–we now literally have tens of thousands of battle-seasoned soldiers who know and understand the region and what it takes to wage a mission there. It's maybe the best fighting force history has ever seen, and it will be able to train and make ready future soldiers.

            These countries are belligerent, but they're also relatively impotent: terrorism is their only means of getting to us. We are ready to act on Iran should they decide to develop nukes. Israel is more than ready. So, surgical strikes as a reminder the US is watching, and (God forbid it comes to it) but conventional war should any of these bozos eve get their act together. But this nation-building stuff has got to go.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            When they started killing us and arming our enemies it became our fight.

          • Jim_C

            Also Roger, consider this: Iran's mullahs may or may not be rational actors. While their rhetoric is belligerent, they act in a more sophisticated way, using Ahmadinejad as their "loose cannon" while they arrange chess pieces. Now, they are already the regional power. Knowing that strikes are imminent if they go forward with nuclear weapons, do they risk losing it all just to cement their status? Remember, Iran isn't some two-bit arbitrary desert fiefdom–it's a country with a long history and an educated population.

            So there is a possibility that Iran's mullahs may take the "crazy" route. There is also the possibility, maybe glimpsed in its last elections, that they decide survival and trade are worthwhile. In polls taken in several of the more advanced countries in the area, a good portion of the populace says Israel is not to blame for their own problems. They they would say Israel is to blame at all is ridiculous; but at least that strain of thought suggested by the polls makes one think intelligence work is the way to go in that region.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The argument against my suggestion assumes the need to have the Shia and Sunni militants attacking each other. If the Shia regime is gone, the thinking is that the united Sunnis would focus more on Israel and the USA. But that assumes we don't convince them how unwise it would be.

            In other words, Western leaders apparently never considered defeating Islam to the same degree that we defeated the Soviets, to the end.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Of course it doesn't.

            But as far as distracting straw men arguments go, it's as good as any other lame noise.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Hindsight's a b1tch…."

            I suppose. I actually believed this at the time as well, however I didn't consider the theoretical Shia Sunni balance. My fully formed idea of the present is that when Islam has been adequately tamed, we don't need them to be killing each other, and furthermore, by only going part way, we leave things to fester and that leaves too much ammunition for liberals to attack conservative foreign policy.

            Clean out Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and any other troublemaker that emerges. Never mind Shia Sunni problems because then our hegemony will be undeniably effective, and with true democracy established (see post WWII policy in Japan and Germany) we would have more clearly benign intentions and results.

            It is doing things in half-measures that leaves us vulnerable to criticism.

            Finally, Russia and China would not be pleased about our increased hegemony, but anticipating this would allow for us to cut deals that make it fiscally stupid for them to try to interfere. We can even give them immediate physical access to ports. The reduction in military costs alone would fund payoffs for the Russians and Chinese.

            If executed with boldness and confidence, it could have been over before the liberal attacks had any chance to cause damage.

            Am I missing something, or just too late with my suggestions? I would have started planning this at just about the time the special forces took off for Afghanistan.

            We'd still have the Muslim Brotherhood in the USA, but they'd still be mostly in jail in Egypt. Mubarak for president (of the USA)! Then we deal with Saudi Arabia.

            Actually, the Saudis are the ones who squelch this kind of approach by dividing all of the politicians against each other and against suggesting that Islam just might be a problem requiring a decisive kinetic solution. We'd actually have to overcome this problem before we even got enough political support for my ideas. The more I learned about Islam, the more I realized our political leaders have been compromised somehow. It was not that hard to confirm. Look what happened to Barbara Boxer when she asked for an investigation. Unbelievable.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Islam won't be tamed. It's against it's nature and since the 8th century people have learned that to their peril.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Islam won't be tamed."

            But Muslims can be tamed by destroying Islam. You are therefore literally correct and I was being lazy. I don't want to destroy the people, I want to destroy the ideology to tame whatever comes after Islam for those people, whatever it may be but I agree it will no longer be Islam if it can be said to be tame.

            "It's against it's nature and since the 8th century people have learned that to their peril."

            The 7th century was just as bad once Mohammed took off the stealth mode. As to its nature, this is 100% correct. It is purely evil. Muslims may as individuals often be fine people in spite of this evil, but there is no good at all in Islam. Islam is pure evil.

          • Jim_C

            I think it is clear at this point to liberals and conservatives alike that Islam As We Know It is a problem. Maybe not to certain domestic everyday liberals whose understanding of policy is to want to "give peace a chance" but in defense circles realism prevails. It is really mere diplomacy to suggest otherwise, especially when we have people in harm's way. In other words, it's just very bad politics to suggest a religion is at fault. But when it comes to planning, I think there is actually very little difference between liberal and conservative foreign policy in practice (if not in theory).

            Now you say "clear out" these countries–I assume you are suggesting a large-scale bombing campaign? I don't think it's justifiable. I think pre-emption is immoral and politically stupid. People point to "What if we pre-empted Hitler?" Yeah, but Hitler had troops massed on people's borders! That is recognizable as belligerent. He wasn't all rhetoric and underground activity.

            Conservatives are generally frustrated that no one is clearly seeing "the enemy." I understand this frustration. They want to put things in stark terms and escalate the situation so that all-out war is inevitable. I get that. But people forget the criticism Reagan took for not acting when Soviets shot down an airliner. A few years later, Berlin Wall came down. We need to remember that.

        • Kufar Dawg

          Iraq demonstrably HAD WMD, just ask the Kurds who were slaughtered by mustard gas on the orders of Saddam.

          • Reggie

            Was that supposed to make sense or something? How about we kill all the Iraqis because they have bad thoughts? Their intent is bad. Their intent is WMD. They are thinking about having a missile so lets kill them with our missiles numbered in the millions.

            See how stupid you sound right now?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            It did make sense.

            How about you don't ignore the things that are inconvenient for you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Was that supposed to make sense or something? How about we kill all the Iraqis because they have bad thoughts? Their intent is bad. Their intent is WMD. They are thinking about having a missile so lets kill them with our missiles numbered in the millions."

            Obviously you are a clueless collectivist. What you heard was "kill Iraqis because we can justify it now."

            The USA attacked a regime, not a population. Have you any clue at all how much each discharged guided weapon costs per round? Hellfire missiles have an incremental cost of about $67,000 not counting development. That is one system. Every time we fire today, our costs go up that much. Want another example how much we spend to minimize casualties? It's the entire strategy of the military you fool. Otherwise we'd simply use the most cost-effective form of collective punishment: nuclear bombs.

            "See how stupid you sound right now?"

            Repeat that line while looking in the mirror. The US war in Iraq saved lives you fool. Going to war is never easy, unless you are a collectivist. I suppose your anger comes from not bombing classes of people you hate.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mladen.andrijasevic Mladen Andrijasevic

        Are you trying to say that an average American voter knows that the mutually assured destruction doctrine would not work with Iran? That the Iranians are willing to start a nuclear war to trigger the return of the Mahdi? I do not think that is the case. I think most Americans have never heard of the Mahdi and his coming out of “occultation” and those who have heard dismiss it as crazy talk because they believe that if this was something to really be concerned about the press would be writing about it, and it does not. How many Americans have read what Bernard Lewis, one of the leading scholars of Islam said in his new book, Notes on a Century : Reflections of a Middle East Historian , page 333:

        Particular importance should be attached to the policies, and perhaps still more the attitudes, of the present rulers of Iran, who seem to be preparing for a final apocalyptic battle between the forces of God [themselves] and of the Devil [ the Great Satan–the United States]. They see this as the final struggle of the End of Time and are therefore undeterred by any level of slaughter and destruction even among their own people . "Allah will know his own" is the phase commonly used, meaning that among the multiple victims God will recognize the Muslims and give them a quick pass to heaven.

        In this context, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, namely M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) , would have no meaning. At the End of Time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter is the final destination of the dead– hell for the infidels, and the delights of heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement…

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          You may have confidence in the rationality and reasonableness of Iran's mullahs.

          Sane people have no such assurances.

          • Kufar Dawg

            I think the both of you have reached the same conclusions.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Are you trying to say that an average American voter knows that the mutually assured destruction doctrine would not work with Iran?"

          I would say that the average American voter SHOULD know that MAD will not work with Iran. Iran IS mad, as in irrational. MAD success requires rational actors, not mad ones.

      • july

        The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

        President Clinton stated in February 1998:
        "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production….

        • july

          Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits…. It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them."

          • july

            The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons…. Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal…. President Clinton ~ 1998

          • july

            Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors and had not met its obligations to 17 UN resolutions. The US felt that Resolution 1441 called for the immediate, total unilateral disarmament of Iraq and continued to show frustration at the fact that months after the resolution was passed Iraq was still not, in its view, disarming.
            Language in Resolution 1441 recalled that the use of "all means necessary" was still authorized and in effect from Resolution 678, and therefore maintained that if Iraq failed to comply with the "one final chance to comply" provision of Resolution 1441, then military action would be the result.

            Bush inherited the problem Clinton created signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and 9/11 which Clinton ignored the threats of.

          • Kufar Dawg

            Interesting read. Did Clinton ever state why he supported the islamofascists over the Christian Serbs in the former Yugoslavia? A rotten decision from what I've read.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Interesting read. Did Clinton ever state why he supported the islamofascists over the Christian Serbs in the former Yugoslavia? A rotten decision from what I've read."

            Clinton has deep ties to Saudi funding and empathy for Islamic victims. The list of his ME staff reads like a who's who of stealth Islamists, though he did have a few good people that I can think of. The rest are absolute dupes or Judases.

            You might check out a video from PBS and BBC called "Elusive Peace" a follow-up to the "50 Years War – Israel and the Arabs." You can see any of the 9 hour-long segments on my youtube channel without interruptions. There are actually 3 files uploaded, each with 3 segments.

            Anyway, in Elusive Peace, it shows Clinton trying to convince Arafat to take the deal from Israel in late 1999 and 2000. It is so transparent to witness the bad faith of the Palestinians and the administration is making excuses for Arafat and the Palestinians the whole time. It is so blatant, that a little criticism creeps out, but not without heavy doses of covering lies.

            Elusive Peace: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50ZktlbxsgY

            50 Years War, segments 1 through 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amIHl9GGTGU&fe

            50 Years War, segments 4 through 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lKDmsbcbR8&fe

            That does nothing directly to answer your question, but I suspect you will have a good idea after seeing the blatant appeasement taking place later in his administration. Loyalty to Christians is politically stupid in the West, at least when any non-Christians can see it. That is just the way of the world at present.

            I've also got the last 3/4s of "Iranium," which is interesting but a little too emotional for some to tolerate. There are excellent Pierre Rehov videos too for those who want to learn about the Jihad against Israel and typical Islamic tactics. Best one to start with is "Road to Jenin."

    • PaulRevereNow

      There is a good book about Iran, titled "The Iranians," by Sandra Mackey. The full title is "The Iranians: Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation." (Penguin Publishing 1996) This work talks about how Iran got in the position its in today, and what happened when the Shah fell, in 1979.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        I'm away from my library, and I forgot the name and author, but there is a pretty interesting book by an Iranian defector who went back to Iran on behalf of the CIA. Ever heard of it?

  • crackerjack

    Obama didn't start these wars. He inherited them from Bush Jr, who started them on a Neo-Conservative agenda of "Nation Building". This Neo-Conservative Nation Building notion was a desaster, destroying all form of rule and leaving a vacuume for criminals, warlords and islamists and handing the region to Iran on a silver plate.

    In the meantime, the Neo-Conservative Nation Building desaster has turned the whole region into a zone of permanent unrest, chaos and civil war and lost all support in the US public. The notion that a Republican president could start shipping US troops to the Middeast is wayward. Neo-Conservative Nation Building is dead and buried. RIP.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Obama didn't start these wars. He inherited them from Bush Jr, who started them on a Neo-Conservative agenda of "Nation Building"."

      He took the job under these terms and promised certain accomplishments.

      "This Neo-Conservative Nation Building notion was a desaster, destroying all form of rule and leaving a vacuume for criminals, warlords and islamists and handing the region to Iran on a silver plate. "

      The results of these particular examples are far short of ideal. Obama does worse but that is still Bush's fault? Why did he take the job if he can't offer any improvements as promised? You are correct about rule of law. This is what we fail to accomplish when we compromise with weak liberals about resources needed to get the job done. Rumsfeld tries to be a military genius and ends up screwing everything including causing expenses to go even higher than it would have to simply go in with enough force to establish rule of law up until we ensure the first Constitutionally held elections take place, also including insurance that law and order continues along Western norms. Don't like it? Too bad, that is what you get for failing to build your own nation that was acceptable to our standards.

      Don't ever apologize for Western standards of justice.

      "In the meantime, the Neo-Conservative Nation Building desaster has turned the whole region into a zone of permanent unrest, chaos and civil war and lost all support in the US public."

      Under Bush, things went way too slow. Some blame the treasonous behavior on the left, and while that is largely true, we can't forget the failures of Rumsfeld.

      "The notion that a Republican president could start shipping US troops to the Middeast is wayward."

      I don't think anyone has said that we must have a Republican president because he is guaranteed to send troops no matter what. Study what happened on Reagan's inauguration day and see what difference strong leadership can make. We just need a president that will be taken seriously, will speak clearly and with informed opinions about the truth of what threatens the West, and if in the end military action is needed, then probably we can just be thankful that by reacting, we will be avoiding the fiascos being played out across the Middle East and elsewhere. Even China knows it can get away with more belligerence under such a weak president even knowing outright war is virtually impossible at this stage. That is the cost of weakness, catering to the lowest common denominator of socialist expectations, and just plain idiotic lack of intelligent leadership.

      "Neo-Conservative Nation Building is dead and buried. RIP."

      You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have any clue about what Islamic justice is? At this point, we have only 2 directions; nation building or continuing Obama appeasement. Convince me Obama has it right.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        Can you imagine how much Obama would inherit if he's reelected?

      • Jim_C

        "Nation building or continued Obama appeasement?"

        That's it? That's the two choices?

        How about this: Nation build THIS country. Kill people who attack us.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "How about this: Nation build THIS country."

          OK, good idea. Start drilling.

          "Kill people who attack us. "

          Then what? Leave anarchy overseas, where global oil supplies are needed from? Sure. No problem. China won't take over, nor will Russia make a play to. "Nation-building is stupid," said the grade-schooler.

          • Jim_C

            "Gradeschooler," well, they used to call that philosophy of foreign policy "realism."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "well, they used to call that philosophy of foreign policy "realism."

            Mocking people and referring to them all as "neocons" is called "realism?"

            My point is that you want to "kill people who attack us" but then what? What comes the day after? You leave a freaking state of anarchy behind? The idea of nation building is realistic because it deals with what to do next. What do you think we did after WWII? That is the origin of nation building unless you want to use examples following WWI. I don't.

            People do some times use "nation building" as a euphemism for regime change. Well, what else can I say? Politics is a dirty business, but I try to state clearly what I mean to say.

    • Andy

      Please use spellcheck.

    • Hank Rearden

      Get up off your knees. The Islamists are coming after us. Bush didn't create that. Going into Iraq to demonstrate that an Islamic democracy was possible was the only original idea in this entire mess. The post-war was handled badly, but it may be that the conflict was "irrepressible." The Dems were always on Bush saying that he diverted from the "real war" in Afghanistan for the "wrong war" in Iraq. Well, we got a Dem president and he pulled us out of Iraq after we had won there, giving up that victory, and implemented the Dem policy of focusing on the "real war" in Afghanistan. How is that working out?

    • https://www.facebook.com/linda.shealey Linda Clements Shealey

      Obama's appeasement policy has failed and has weakened America. His chickens have come home to roost.

    • tagalog

      Neither Bush nor Obama started these wars. They were started by the Muslims. The initiating event was the United Nations forming the nation of Israel, although that event is only another incident in a very long-term process. You could draw the beginning line at the Versailles partitions of the Middle East, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, or at the rise of the Barbary Pirates. We responded to Arab-Islamic aggression. The mistake that both Bush and Obama made was in thinking like politicians instead of thinking like historians, who could easily see that the current flap is just another unfolding moment in the 1400-year Islamic-Christian war.

      • Jim_C

        That doesn't make the poster's point any less relevant. It wasn't long ago this site was calling people "traitors" for having the audacity to think trying to inject democracy via nation-building in the ME was a pipe dream.

        Now that a democrat has become president, it is safe for conservatives to say "Oh, right, that was a bad idea."

        Our tack all along should have been intelligence gathering (which was virtually nonexistent on Sept. 10, 2001) and Special Forces operations–a direction Don Rumsfeld was supposedly looking to invest in (rightly so) when he first took office.

        Granted, having full force in both countries has aided intelligence gathering considerably. From a tactical standpoint, there are a lot of positives that came out of Mr. Bush's war of choice, not the least of which was Iraqis voting.

        Unfortunately, that war tipped the balance of power toward Iran–which was predicted–and hasn't made us any more or less secure, for the lives and treasure it cost. That's the hard truth.

        Afghanistan should have been a live playground for Special Ops forces only, also providing a base from which to poke at Pakistan. And that's it. Christ, to think if we'd spent a fraction of what we did on those wars "nation building" at home…

        If the idea is to destroy this culture entire, we have the means. I really don't think we have the justification to go whole hog, yet, though. Do you?

        • PaulRevereNow

          Most people who write or comment on this site realized that the goal of achieving true Democracy in Iraq was going to take a long time, perhaps 15 years after the end of the war, in 2003; and delicate manuevering as well. You are correct when you say that Obama didn't start the Iraq war; however, Obama bears responsibility for the ill-advised hasty exit, and for telegraphing the U.S. evacuation date. And if you want to talk about non-existent intelligence, you should blame Bill Clinton for telling Louis Freeh not to accept Jayna Davis' 2000 pages of evidence on the OKC bombing; evidence which clearly showed that Terry Nichols visits to Mindanao were for more than visiting his wife's family. This evidence also contained sworn testimony that Timothy McVeigh was seen with Iraqi military men in OKC, a few days before the bombing. True, Bush did nothing from January 2001 until 9/11; but Bill Clinton had the first WTC bombing and the OKC bombing, and did nothing–for eight years.

          • Jim_C

            Re: non-existent intelligence–I meant our intel in the ME region was sorely lacking. We let Israelis and Saudis do our footwork. I actually give GWB credit–he took us from a Cold War defense model to one that included counterterrorism as a plank of foreign policy (as opposed to a "law enforcement" view of it). I'm liberal, but when Bush said "You're either with us or with the terrorists" I was proud of him. A few think tanks had been advocating this for years, including those of the so-called "neoconservatives" (again, to their credit), but Congress wasn't biting. Cold War was still providing pork. In Clinton's defense, he wanted to invest more resources on Al Qaeda but his opponents derided him as "obsessed." And with Lewinsky, he had the whole "wag the dog" problem. Anyone who sneers at this: you don't think Bill Clinton wishes he had been a wartime president? To quote Ochocinco: Child, please.

            So that's essentially the attitude that took us through 9/11. I remember reading a RAND Corp. tract in the early 90s that said explicitly said it would take a cataclysmic event before the government would have the gumption to act. Human nature and bureaucratic arrogance.

          • ritchloui

            My friend, I think that Mr Bush was hood-winked and deliberately pressured to go into a war on utterly fraudulent grounds. EVERYONE KNOWS we were lied to. The question is, why? As a chess move, basically the Queen (the USA) was thrown into an extremely vulnerable position, without sufficient aforethought and with her own people divided. She has in effect been ambushed and has no option but to retreat. In my opinion Tony Blair is not only a liar but he is a traitor. In my view he was on a mission all along. His conversion to Roman Catholicism also stinks. The Roman Church has been an unrelenting enemy of the UK for 500 years.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Did you have a point you wanted to make?

            "EVERYONE KNOWS we were lied to."

            Unpack that for us please.

      • ritchloui

        Well, the upside to the 'mistake' of creating Israel is that it has served as an advance warning system about what faces US ALL from Islam. At present we are expected to go along with a 100% reality disconnect. Islamic doctrine has never changed.

        You are wrong to think this is an Islamic/Christian war. Islam has offered Christians and Jews dhimminitude. Everyone else has ONLY slavery ahead of them. Even if the Chinese, Indians and Russians were to convert to Islam, they would all be slaves or, if they failed to submit they would simply be exterminated.

      • Kufar Dawg

        Why don't you tell your theory of the "Islamic-Christian war" to the millions of Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists who were slaughtered by the tens of millions in the Indian sub-continent? Or the tens of thousands of Jews slaughtered in Al Andalus and the former Yugoslavia by muslimes?

        • tagalog

          You mean they haven't already figured it out? I mean, I can see the West being stupid – we haven't been devastated, just bitten up a bit, but the Indians know Islam intimately, having shared a subcontinent with them. Al-andalus was a while ago (the fall of Constantinople and the Battle of Vienna are more recent), and Christians also mistreated the Jews there. Yugoslavians seem to have taken steps to deal with Muslims in their midst, although there's those pesky war crimes trials that the rest of Europe who doesn't have quite the same problem has been imposing.

    • Omar

      crackerjack, Bush did the right thing removing Saddam Hussein from power. Hussein was a ruthless dictator who gassed the Kurds and tried to illegally annex Kuwait. In addition, the Iraqi dictator had violated many UN resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm. Once Saddam was removed from power, real democracy came to Iraq. If the so-called "anti-war" movement really wanted peace, it would have protested in front of Iraqi embassies around the world calling for Saddam to disarm and abdicate power. But not one "anti-war" protest did that.

      • Jim_C

        Saddam would never have abdicated power. The whole civilized world was against him, not just "anti-war" protesters. But if those anti-war protesters had their way, there'd be a lot less dead Americans. There'd be a lot less injured Americans. But I suppose that's something to scorn.

        When was the mission ever clear? If it was to oust Saddam–we did so. After all the blood and treasure we've spent, though–is our country truly safer? Yes, there have been American-enforced elections, but is Iraq truly stable? Truly democratic? Has Iran been neutralized or strengthened? Would you feel comfortable moving to Baghdad or Fallujah?

        • Omar

          Actually, if the "anti-war" protesters really cared about peace, they would have protested in front of the Iraqi embassies around the world, calling for Saddam to disarm and obey the UN resolutions. Also, if the so-called "anti-war" protesters got their way, Saddam would still have been in power. The main goal of the "anti-war" movement is to undermine America abroad. It is never just "Bring the troops home" . In the Vietnam era, when the U.S. had withdrawn the troops in 1973, Washington was still giving supplies to South Vietnam. But as soon as the New Left Democrats were elected into Congress in 1974, their first act was to cut off all aid to Saigon. Within months, South Vietnam collapsed. Also, there were no "anti war" protesters denouncing human rights atrocities being committed by the communists in Vietnam and Cambodia after the war ended in 1975. Why was that? It was because the agenda of the so-called "anti war" movement was never just "Bring the troops home". It was to undermine America's efforts to confront of the totalitarian enemy.

          • Jim_C

            Is that stance much different, though, than a Ron Paul-type stance? or as another poster suggested, a George Washington stance?

            We were bamboozled into Vietnam in much the same way as we were bamboozled into Iraq, with trumped up intelligence and media complicity. To say so is not to say we should not consider communism or Islamicism a national threat. There are better cost/benefit ways to deal with such. Ronald Reagan himself stood by while Marines were attacked in Lebanon and the Soviets down a South Korean plane. A few years later, there was no more Soviet Union. I suggest that is the way to deal with Islamism. They have to fight their own battles. The technological tools are outstripping the mullah's injunctions. We are blessed: we are born free. When you're not born free, it takes a lot to understand what freedom even means.

          • Omar

            Ron Paul's foreign policy is a leftist's foreign policy.

          • Jim_C

            Oh, I thought it was based on the Founding Fathers' notions. Whoops. Well, now I think I've heard it all. Ron Paul has a "leftist foreign policy"–sometimes I wonder if you guys even hear yourselves. WTF does "leftist's foreign policy" even mean?

          • reader

            Ron Paul is not the Constitution guy. He's the Articles of Confederations guy. The leftist foreign policy is to undermine the United States. That's what it means. Ron Paul and the left are in the marriage of convenience over the foreign policy.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Ron Paul and the left are in the marriage of convenience over the foreign policy. "

            And it smells like Antisemitism, but I could be wrong. For the most part, this is merely a byproduct of a strong desire to destroy American hegemony completely and in some cases to destroy capitalism as the ultimate goal.

            Capitalism is seen as a legacy of the "lies" of the Judeo Christian ideals.

          • Jim_C

            "Capitalism is seen as a legacy of the "lies" of the Judeo Christian ideals."

            That sentence is close to insane and it makes me wonder if you ever read a book in your life.

            I know you guys want to go back to the good old days of the robber barons. That's fine, but if that's the case please don't pretend you're a proponent of liberty.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I said: "Capitalism is seen as a legacy of the "lies" of the Judeo Christian ideals."

            Jim replied: "That sentence is close to insane and it makes me wonder if you ever read a book in your life."

            Well, one of is is ignorant about the philosophies driving the attacks against Judeo Christian beliefs and history.

            So what is your alternative theory? Who are the supposed elites that control capitalism and make it inherently unfair according to those who despise it? Complete this sentence for me please: 'The Jews control_____.'

            Read any 19 century philosophers? I have books on tape but can't read or write. Poor me. You'll have to held me figure this out, wise guy.

            "I know you guys want to go back to the good old days of the robber barons."

            Yes, American conservatives want to go back to slavery, divine right of kings, and any other nasty historical reference you can come up with. I'm not even conservative. The industrial revolution is the whole reason that some degree of socialist policy is legitimate. People ask for tax policy that is proved to expand the economy and you think of this as robbery. You are a tyrant of simplicity.

            Idiot. If you don't understand something, it might be your fault.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If by "founding fathers notions" you mean by living in the 18th century, then yes you are correct. Isolationism was absolutely ideal at that time. In the nuclear age, it's insane.

            If only George could return today and slap your face.

            "WTF does "leftist's foreign policy" even mean?"

            Ask your heroes Barack Obama or Ron Paul.

          • Kufar Dawg

            Your suggestion to handle islamofacism boils down to do nothing, the problem will go away on its own. The thousands of people killed by muslimes in the USA at Ft. Hood, the WTC bombing, 9-11, Beltway Sniper says differently

        • ritchloui

          Personally I think that the US was tricked into going to war with Iraq . Why do I think that? Well, the US went without a clear mandate, without a clear mission, without a clear strategy, without any genuine planning for the atermath. That's just the good news. The bad news is that it was based on a pack of lies which, of course, means the mission is ENTIRELY compromised morally and legally. This has meant that the American people are divided. As Alan West keeps pointing out, you cannot win a war if you cannot identify the enemy. The American people urgently need to get themselves a decent leadership and save their country. They really do have MANY friends but it is very difficult for us while it is obvious the US leadership don't know what they are doing and don't even appear to know what is going on.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            " I think that the US was tricked into going to war with Iraq . Why do I think that? Well, the US went without a clear mandate, without a clear mission, without a clear strategy, without any genuine planning for the atermath"

            Totally wrong.

            Success was undermined immediately by the American left (with international support as always, but that would not matter if the Americans were loyal at all) as a campaign strategy for the upcoming election.

            The strategy was very clear, but the planning was compromised by political considerations, and the blatant undermining started soon after the capital fell. If you think the insurgents were unaware of the political adversaries (on the left) in the USA, you are totally naive. It was roughly a repeat of Vietnam, which distinctions only in the details.

          • Jim_C

            It wasn't even close to that. The people around Don Rumsfeld (who would have actually made a great peacetime Sec. of Defense) were too full of their own idealistic hubris. There are football fields' worth of videotape of these guys, and Dick Cheney, making pie in the sky predictions about the invasion. They were totally off base. The problems encountered were entirely the result of poor planning. Hence, the change to serious grown ups in Bush's second administration, the resignation of Rumsfeld, and the sidelining of Dick Cheney.

            The Left did what, exactly? Did it prevent funding? Did it write the ROEs? Did it do much of anything besides stand to the side, cordoned off, farting in a windstorm?

            I always say, when the towers were attacked, did you immediately think "We should invade Iraq, depose Saddam, and install a democracy?" But there were two people who did just that, and they were at the time Mr. Bush's closest advisers. Not only was it already gamed up, but they actually had two years to plan it out. That's a pretty shtty record, if objective facts matter.

          • objectivefactsmatter


            You don't appear to have comprehended what I wrote. You claim to disagree but then write statements that are consistent or even repeating in some cases what I said.

            1) Planning was too optimistic in many ways
            2) The wheels came off and the left immediately attacked politically

            "The Left did what, exactly? Did it prevent funding? "

            They were totally supportive of the Bush administration. Everyone knows this. No protests were held, no prominent politicians denounced anyone as liars, and since none of this happened, there were no negative consequences politically.

            "Did it do much of anything besides stand to the side, cordoned off, farting in a windstorm? "

            Nope, just farting. No media was present. Nobody knew about the 5 protestors standing around farting.

            "I always say, when the towers were attacked, did you immediately think "We should invade Iraq, depose Saddam, and install a democracy?"

            Unlike you, I was not completely detached from history and the world until that day. Hussein got what he deserved, the the Iraqis deserved better and the left prevented them from getting it. At least in my imagination. I'll defer to simple geniuses like you for "reality" though.

            I think I hear the phone ringing…it's from Colombia University offering you a job as a professor.

    • guest

      Obama inheried David Petraeus, a working counter terrorism strategy, a successful troop surge, Sunni allies in Iraq, and the Arab population turning against al Qaeda due to their civilian targeting. Obama opposed all this and his minions continually obstructed and second guessed a US war effort between 2006 to 2008. He abandoned our allies which led to al-Qaeda returning in Iraq and a coming civil war.

      In Afghanistan the US eliminated al-Qaeda and Bush instituted the intelligence programs which led to the death of bin Laden. Obama decided to negotiate with the Taliban, increase troop presence to provide Afghan army training, increase drone strikes in Pakistan and set a hard deadline for withdrawal.

      He presided over the creation of a caliphate run by al-Qaeda.

    • Drakken

      I am more of a advocoate of the total war concept, a lesson lost on Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of nation building, we should be in the nation destroying busines.

      • Jim_C

        Ah, an intelligent post. Killing people and breaking things and superimposing your will on the population are the best use of a military, I completely agree.

        • Kufar Dawg

          Gee, isn't that what the islamofascists are doing, minimally, all over the Mid-East and N. Africa right now?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "I am more of a advocoate of the total war concept, a lesson lost on Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of nation building, we should be in the nation destroying busines."

        The brutal facts are that you have to remove the malignant nation before fostering the healthy new one. "Total war" has meanings that vary by context. I think you mean total victory in war. I agree.

        However, the liberals raised on Soviet propaganda are programmed to fight on the side of our enemies. Our enemies now they have a permanently embedded 5th-column card to play any time the USA attacks an aggressor no matter how just our cause is. This is not contradicting my agreement with you, but I'm pointing out that it is not easy to manage politically today. Kennedy is probably the last president who could have (maybe) gotten away with threatening total annihilation on any enemy of the USA.

    • wayne

      crackerjack you give Crackerjacks a bad name.

  • fanlad

    And let the lie be exposed, Obama and his administration have been running guns and millions of dollars not only to Mexico and the drug cartels, but also running guns and billions of dollars to terrorist, Islamist, and radicals bent on the destruction of Israel and the United States. Define Democracy. Obviously it means majority mob rule under Sharia law.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "And let the lie be exposed, Obama and his administration have been running guns and millions of dollars not only to Mexico and the drug cartels, but also running guns and billions of dollars to terrorist, Islamist, and radicals bent on the destruction of Israel and the United States"

      Even if none of that were true, this man must go, urgently.

      "Define Democracy. Obviously it means majority mob rule under Sharia law. "

      If it was not so serious, I would laugh rather cry. But that does make me think about how often we take for granted we know what someone is saying when we don't. In the USA, "democracy" is almost always shorthand for "liberal democracy with strong constitutionally enforced individual rights." I have some interviews of the Saudi royal family and they claim that Sharia really is a form of democracy. You see, if we force Muslims to submit (as well as the dhimmis), then we have their consent. Get it? It's oxymoronic to talk about Sharia democracy, and they don't often say it out loud when we can get upset and fight back, but this is how they seduce politicians after the multi-million dollar annual checks have been cashed. I am sure Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barak Obama and perhaps even Bush would agree to this kind of nonsensical rhetoric.

      Details matter.

      • Kufar Dawg

        For the corrupt, amoral, apathetic worms who constitute our federal government the "majority mob rule under Sharia law" is as good a definition of democracy as any, because obviously they couldn't give a rat's ass about the rights of non-muslims in such a "democracy" and, after all, Iran is an Islamic "Republic" isn't it?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          For the corrupt, amoral, apathetic worms who constitute our federal government the "majority mob rule under Sharia law" is as good a definition of democracy as any, because obviously they couldn't give a rat's ass about the rights of non-muslims in such a "democracy" and, after all, Iran is an Islamic "Republic" isn't it?"

          Good enough for "them." Leftist are so racist (which explains their sincere belief in classes of people who need permanent protection) that they imagine they can dispose of the Muslims when capitalism and Judeo Christianity have been dispatched by the barbarians.

          Republicans who accept Saudi funding are perhaps even worse examples of moral character because they should know better. They believe in capitalism and don't openly hate Judeo Christian values, thus their personal stake is all that can matter.

  • Tony Walters

    There is so much hate speech here – many still have not accepted Barack Hussein Obama as their Personal Saviour. These pockets of resistance must be destroyed, the Insurgents incarcerated. Local, state and federal government agencies are standing by to do their job and restore harmony to this Great Country.

    • Lillith


    • objectivefactsmatter

      Did you take the pledge to vote for Obama with your class too? My teacher is so smart and awesome and cool.

  • Norman Berdichevsky

    The biggest liberal folly is to believe that in the lands where Islam has prevailed for 1400 years and where there has never been a peaceful transition of power, where the voters are mostly illiterate, or have never has access to a single bok translated from a foreign language into Arabic, where women and non-Muslims are permanently regarded as an inferior class of beings,where all the media are state controlled and a free press has never existed, where many men have no more than the most rudimentary educationm and have never travelled abroad, where there is no independent judiciary or ombudsmen, where the police cannot be depended on and where bribery of public officials is universal that "elections" and "democracy" mean anything.

    • ritchloui

      Well, the upside to the 'mistake' of creating Israel is that it has served as an advance warning system about what faces US ALL from Islam. You speak the truth my friend.At present we are expected to go along with a 100% reality disconnect. Islamic doctrine has never changed. The more Islamic Jihad tightens its grip the harder it is for the apologists to explain away the brutality. The predeliction for extra-judicial executions is Shariah compliant and needs very little excuse – which is the unmistakable message. Jihadis regarded it as their right to assult and even kill anyone they regard as having 'offended' them no matter how trivial.

  • Sunbeam

    Mr Obama didn't realize how it is so difficult to deal with these sort of people. He thought he might in a way. But what he didn't realize was how unpredictable these people can be; the Salafis, the Muslim Brotherhood and all that concern. I hope he has tasted the bitter fruit. It would be too late to consider giving him another four term. Another four term means disaster, and I am sure all wise Americans would not want to trade this risks. He is not only a failure, but have failed in many respect to bring about good to the American people, even as a defender of the nation. As such, the sovereignty of the state might be in jeopardy because of this. When you play the game of always giving in to the enemy just to please them for your image, it goes to say how weak you are, thus giving the enemy the upper hand. This is what happen to America today, always compromising without thinking for its own. And that's bad.

    • JoJoJams

      It's because he, like so many others, has a false vision of what "islam" is, and, though he professes to be a "Christian", his upbringing is antithetical to Christian mores, and he honestly believes islam is the peaceful benign "religion" he was led to believe. Of course, he's never been a "minority" (in religious belief) in a muslim land…. He believes the facade of what islam is, instead of seeing the actual fruits of that belief system – instead, blaming the problems inherent in islam on the "evil" west.

      • Kufar Dawg

        It's interesting to note, that while the zero was residing in Indonesia, the muslime cretins there were committing a genocide of tens of thousands of kafirs/infidels in E. Timor (the majority of whom were Catholic). Australia thankfully stopped the slaughter by direct, military intervention.

    • Jim_C

      Sunbeam, gonna have to disagree. He put a floor under the falling economy. He killed bin Ladin. He has killed more wanted terrorists than Bush. He's made it so kids can get health care and people with pre-existing conditions can't get turned down. When the economy crashed, it had all kinds of fallout, the worst of which happened to everyday people who lost jobs, had to give up their health plans, and take out loans on equity for illnesses. That's not the nightmare it could have been. We're supported by our allies, we've caught a bunch of home grown terrorists, and we're (almost) out of foreign entanglements that would have given the Founding Fathers a heart attack. That's not bad, considering where we were when his term started. I know you guys had big expectations for "The Savior," as you named him (but didn't vote for). But think: imagine the 3rd world shthole we'd be had it been Mitt Romney!

      • reader

        "that's not the nightmare it could have been." that's the record? hypothetical, in addition to being one lie after another? right. we know what he is. he is anti-american. he announced it himself by saying that he was going to fundamentally transform this country. this means only one thing: he hates this country.

      • Kufar Dawg

        What "floor under the falling economy"? The unemployment rate is worse, much worse, than it was when he took office — despite the official lies his regime reports to the public. I'll bet the real GDP is similarly worse.

      • ritchloui

        You seem to think that the war will be over if the USA retreats. Hum. No, I think what we are witnessing is an American Dunkirk moment. The over-confidence and the poor planning has been catastrophic. Nevertheless, the US is perfectly capable of rethinking and regrouping. However, the assault on the US will not be over. The aims of the Islamic Caliphate are not, and never were, limited to its existing territorial domain. It regards the ENTIRE global as its territory and must ultimately be subject to its laws. The OIC is the largest inter-governmental organisation in the world and no-one has even heard of it. They refer to themselves as the Ummah ie a proto-Caliphate.

  • ealha3

    "THEREFORE….!!!!" Again and again, what we read is the preaching to the choir. If there was an alternative, we haven't read it and it hasn't been published – not here anyway. We know the President and the State Dept. are AWOL in foreign policy – that's not enough of a reason for failure. We know they lie about their explanations for their failure – although that may be an admission, that's not even a reason for failure. What is needed is what should have been done – but wasn't, or what was done that shouldn't have been. Was there a policy in place that recognized the problems and sought to deal with them? If so, what was it? Has anybody asked? If there wasn't such a policy that's incompetence because it suggests an unwillingness or inability to identify problem areas that call for attention and a policy to solve. Let's try to focus on these issues. I think we will find that the real issue is Islam and those who believe it calls for violence against western culture. Anyone ready to formulate a policy to deal with this and still remain politically correct?

    • https://www.facebook.com/linda.shealey Linda Clements Shealey

      Not only are they AWOL on foreign policy, but AWOL period.

    • ritchloui

      Yes. This is not the first Dunkirk moment that the West has had. It's just that it's the US, and that comes as a great shock. Yes, the Chamberlain years are over. The US people MUST get themselves some good leadership and save their country.. The Islamic Jihad has been openly declared on the US and the world and they have announced in no uncertain terms that they intend to kill anyone, anywhere at any time if they are 'offended' by what is said, written or depicted of their prophet. These evil murderers are teflon Islam's cleaners.

  • Asher

    People want jobs, they want a better economy, and energy policy to utilize the resources in America, they want the EPA regulations curtailed, they want a peaceful world to raise their children, they want freedom of religion and the right to bear arms under the Bill of Rights, they want a responsible Washington for a change, one that can balance a budget and show they have brains and common sense, instead of self-centered greed. So far we have seen nothing but destruction and collapse from this administration, you have to be pretty dense to vote for Obama again, and believe that he has enabled world peace, when the Middle East has become a cauldron of warring tribes that hate America and Israel. When Ambassadors and people are getting killed who are supposed to serve the interests of the people over there, its time to look at the failures!

    • Spider

      Good post asher

  • Judith

    Obama’s foreign policy can be encapsulated as follows: apologise regularly to Muslims, make Israel the cause of all the problems in the world and appease and excuse Islamic terrorists. Tell me what else he has done that has had more of an impact on our Western way of life than these three simple policies.

    Obama (and Democrats) wants to Islamise the US (and the West) and destroy Israel as a Jewish state.

  • tagalog

    Why are our troops still in Afghanistan? Did the Afghanis in U.S. uniforms who attacked the U.S. helicopters and Harrier aircraft, and people and buildings at Baghram do any damage to Afghan property, or was their attack limited to U.S. people and materiel?

    Why are our ally's own people attacking our people, over and over? What possess our leaders, that no one seems to be clamoring for us to get our troops out of harm's way?

    I heard yesterday on the mainstream news that our military leaders have persuaded the Obama admininstration to put an end to U.S. troops training the people who use that training to attack and kill our people. I wondered when I heard that how much of a suppressed mutiny had to occur among our (usually) sensible military people to get Obama to go that far.


    If we're going to rely on diplomacy, send in the diplomats!

  • Spider

    Certainly this piece brings up the propaganda point for me. During the Bush administration and early years of the Iraq war – what did we see on TV 24-7 ? IEDs blowing up US soldiers, Graphic views of sniper attacks, Horrific battles, flag draped coffins, charred Americans dragged through the streets, carange of every sort graphically displayed and nothing but bad news reported – "This war is lost." etc. The second Obama took office everything changed. No more graphic clips of IEDs and all bad news on Iraq completely disappeared from the airwaves. It was almost like Iraq didn't exist any more and if it did exist it was now a good war because we no longer had a cowboy running it..This alone proves just how corrupt our media is and what they stand for – they need to be called out on this.

  • Chris

    The media will do its best to keep the lies going.

  • Omar

    The Islamists who have attacked the embassies need to be in prison. They have no right to attack other countries' property. Why isn't this administration doing anything. The Islamists don't want peace or democracy. The Islamists want to take over the world and impose Sharia on everyone. America, Britain, Israel and the rest of the free world must save the world from the Islamist threat.

    • Drakken

      No Omar, they do not need to be in prison, they need to be put in the grave, it is the only thing the savages understand.

  • workingmom

    As proven once again giving a flowery speech can never replace the hard work of actually governering.

  • clarespark

    We are beset by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of neo-isolationists, rooted in anti-Israel, racist, and neo-Confederate thought. Here is a guest blog on my website describing their ideology and its origins: http://clarespark.com/2012/09/14/ron-paul-anarchi…. "Ron Paul: Anarchist in Chief" by Phillip Smyth. It has gotten a great deal of attention, and I commend it to the readers of Frontpagemagazine.com.

    • Atlas_Collins

      Smears. Just because a freedom-loving American does not wholeheartedly support the schitty little foreign country of Israel (that was founded upon the repugnant concept of ethnocentrism), that doesn't make that person a "racist white supremacist" or an "anarchist."

      If you love Israel more than you love the United States, then move there.

      • Drakken

        So Sparky, just what would you call all of those countries that surround Israel? Pargons of virtue and shinning examples of everything good and nice? Let me break this down for you and make it really simple, Israel is our western ally, the surrounding muslim states are not, War is brewing and things will get worse so put your big man pants on and support an ally when your going to need them, instead of throwing them under the bus for self preservation.

    • tagalog

      Confederates? Confederates were internationalists, not isolationists. Just ask Mason and Slidell.

    • Ghostwriter

      Well,Atlas_Collins,if you think the Muslims are so great,why don't you move to the Muslim World? They'll be happy to have you,just before they kill you and drag your body through the streets.

  • chowching259

    Most Muslims voice their anger at infidels, but some will obey the violent commands of Muhammad. Fortunately there are many pseudo Muslims who are forced to maintain a religious facade; they go along with the herd for safety. Funding must be given to these pretenders; they can persuade brain washed believers to jump ship.

    • Drakken

      Not in a million years is that going to happen.

  • Andy

    You are right, of course, Dan, but you are a dreamer, too. His lies are believed and supported by much of the press and the more he is proved a disaster the more devoted they become (read the NY Times and barf) and a terrible pain in my gut tells me that America is about to meet its greatest disaster in November because the opposition has not been fighting effectively enough.

  • kim

    My my..when are people going to wake up and see how Presidents from Jimmy Carter,,both left and right set this all up and it was handed to obama to push? both sides are one world gov people, building their stupid one world Tower of Babel..all friends with saudi , head of muslim brotherhood. I still don't forget much..how the Bushes and Clintons as best friends were fighting for the WH..acting like enemies yet drinking and caught laughing about how they had set our minds…brainwashed..and Israel…they will be the ones to hit the grid in Iran to say nothing of the worm still there. they hit the power a month ago and will do it accross the whole of nukes. and when hit on attack back..Damascus will be rubble and many around will wail………

  • flowerknife_us

    The Fuse is lit now. Our President' appears remarkably aloof. While the Press either prints no headlines of current events or blames a silly movie.

    There is a war around the corner and we expect these(add any term(s) unprintable) to win it?

  • trickyblain

    Yes, it was Obama that felt that, by invading Iraq, it would inspire populations all over the middle east to rise up and throw off the chains of dictatorship. Or was that the Bush Doctrine? It's come to fruition, good job, W and the neos.

    It's easy to say Obama "lost" the unwinnable wars. What's harder is to pinpoint exactly how they can or could have been won….keep troops there forever to the tune of hundreds of billions per year? Yeah, we can afford that. Short of total genocide, there's no real way to end the occupations and still claim "victory."

    • tagalog

      Yeah, Bush's great mistake was to assume that bringing democracy to the Middle East and North Africa would bring wisdom and moral maturity to the Muslims who inhabit that region.

      Obama also did so much to enlighten our nation to the fact that it's quite possible for people to vote themselves democratically into authoritarianism. So much. Yessiree.

      • Jim_C

        Which mistake cost more?

        • reader

          Bush projected strength. Following the invasion of Iraq, Kaddafi gave up his WMD program voluntarily. Obama made a deal with Muslim Brotherhood, which is rising and killing Obama's own deputies, while he goes to bed and sleeps like a baby.

    • Draken

      It could have been won easily and quickly disenguaged. In Iraq, we should have put Saddams Generals in charge with American advisors to remind them of what happens if they don't toe the line and got out. Afghanistan, nothing that a few arc light strikes and lots of mini bases to conduct raids from.

  • tagalog

    The inevitable next chapter in the ongoing war between Islam and the West is about to take place. It will be a new Islam vs. Christian war, except that this time it will be a united Dar al-Islam against a fragmented West that once could form a Christian monolithic alliance, but no longer is able to do so barring some miracle.

    The Muslims took the Christian Middle East, Christian Byzantium, and Christian North Africa. They were turned away from the conquest of Christian Europe in France in 732 by Charles (the Hammer of God) Martel and the Christian Franks, in Spain in 1492 by the Christian Spaniards, at Vienna in 1683 by Jan Sobieski and a Christian coalition. This time, who knows? Today, those who are temperamentally capable of leading the West to victory over the Muslims are being prosecuted for hate crimes and vilified for being intolerant "fascists."

    In fairness to Obama, it wouldn't matter much who is President of the United States, the Muslims are obviously feeling ready to flex their muscle once again in the world. Obama is just a symbol for the almost impossibly weak West as it faces yet another new Muslim threat in the unfolding of this history. It reminds me of the movie "If…," where the school headmaster steps forward, saying "Boys, boys, I understand you!" only to take a bullet between the eyes from the rebellious students.

    • Jim_C

      Sure, it'd be nice if Obama could stand up there and say, "You riot about a YouTube video? You loonies got PROBLEMS!"

      Outside of that, how are we weak? We're taking out weddings, little girls, and terrorists left and right all over that region. Should be just drop the big kahuna? What's on your mind?

      • reading

        if Obama is taking little girls and weddings all over the place, why will you vote for him? Because you're a hypocrite, that's why. All this Bush lied, people died crap means nothing to you. It's all about socialist looting to you, that's why.

      • tagalog

        On this issue, the main thing on my mind is that we're on the verge of a resumption of a holy war (who'da thunk it, in the 21st Century? La plus ca change, la plus c'est la meme chose…) and it's obvious and staring us in the face and no one in authority in the West will admit it. In fact they deny it.

        Since I am not in a position to change anything, I take the position of an amused bystander. One day it won't be funny any more, but that day is still a ways away.

  • http://tarandfeathersusa.wordpress.com/ Iratus Vulgas

    Obama's foreign policy is a bit like if you were the manager of the Yankees and followed the advice of all of the other managers in the American League. Only the most naive would believe that could work out well.

  • Ghostwriter

    Let's be honest here. Muslims have a natural hatred for Americans. They don't like us and want to kill us. It's that simple.

  • Mickey Oberman

    More disturbing even than Obama's perfidy is the reaction of the "free" press.

    What is one to think of "Freedom of the Press" when it suppresses the truth and becomes a propaganda mill for a president and government that seems intent upon destroying the very country that grants it that freedom?

  • Gene W 1938

    Obama's policy did not implode. His policy is part of the Brotherhood's plan to
    1. Eliminate all Arab leaders who are not Cleric approved and do not run their countries under Sharia [Muslim] law. Only a few more to go.
    2. Turn the USA into a Third World nation.
    3. Eliminate the imagery or influence of all Judeo-Christianity.
    4. Wipe Israel of the map.
    The Battle is Evil versus Righteousness and Obama is as Evil and Satanic as is his faith. The majority of Americans want God gone … well look what you got now. If you are not God's, then to which god to you belong?