Not With A Bang But A Whimper: LA Times Admits That Obama’s (And Hillary Clinton’s) Intervention In Libya Was A MAJOR Disaster

We hear all the time from liberals that George W. Bush broke the law when he attacked Iraq and that Bush turned Iraq into a hellhole with his warmongering.

It’s time to point out a few things.

Number one, no, Bush DIDN’T break the law when he attacked Iraq; he actually passed “the Iraq War Resolution” that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, etc. voted for.  And when George Bush attacked Iraq, he did what nearly sixty percent of the Democrats in the US Senate authorized him to do.  And number two, when George Bush LEFT Iraq, he left a safe, stable region that prompted Joe Biden to say:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

… and for Barack Obama to boast in 2011:

“This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

and:

“[W]e will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe haven to terrorists.”

Bush left behind a safe, stable Iraq.  And all Barack Obama had to do was keep a small US force there to keep safe and stable what we had fought to make safe and stable.  Obama failed as only the worst kind of FOOL can fail by ignoring his top general’s urgent warnings and pleas to keep a force in Iraq:

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Do you want to know who broke the law and then left a ruined country that is completely going to pot now?

Barry Hussein Obama, that’s who.  Even the fool’s own damn LAWYERS told him that what he was doing was illegal and criminal.  But the thug in chief was above the law.

Obama’s reckless action in Libya prompted even a DEMOCRAT to say this about false messiah Obama:

Representative Lynn Woolsey charged the President of showing “contempt” for the Constitution, and insulting the intelligence of the American people.  Woolsey made the following statement: “The Obama Administration’s argument is one that shows contempt for the Constitution and for the executive’s co-equal branch of government, the United States Congress.  To say that our aggressive bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ‘hostilities’ flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.  This act must not stand, because we can’t afford another full-blown war—the ones we’re already fighting are bankrupting us morally and fiscally.  Let those who support the military campaign against Libya make their case, in an open debate culminating with a vote in the U.S. Congress.  The American people deserve nothing less.”

And yes, the criminal fascist thug Obama DID what he ACCUSED George Bush of doing when he attacked Libya without bothering to get ANY Congressional approval:

Senator Obama, taking a cheap shot at then-President Bush:

Barack Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

Do you remember being attacked by Libya?  Did the Libyans invade us?  I mean, maybe I was just asleep when it happened or something.  Otherwise, Barack Obama ought to be impeached, and the single witness against him should be … Barack Obama.  Barack Obama trampled all over the Constitution according to none other than … that’s right, Barack Obama.

George Bush got Congress’ approval before BOTH of his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

And not only did Obama’s adventure in Libya NOT have the approval of Congress, but it also has less approval than ANY US military action in the last four decades going back to Vietnam.

And just what in the hell made our Idiot-in-Chief decide to be the first president in the sorry history of Gaddafi’s forty-plus years of abusing his own people to shake hands with the monster?

Do you see what a meandering idiot this guy is?

So having just taken that trip down memory lane, let’s see what the uberliberal leftist snot rag the Los Angeles Times has to say about the hellhole that Libya has become under Obama’s hypocritical and incompetent watch:

U.S. intervention in Libya now seen as cautionary tale
By Paul Richter,  Christi Parsons
June 27, 2014, 4:00 AM|Reporting from Washington

• SHARELINES
  3 years after U.S. military intervention, Libya has become what U.S. officials dread most
  As the U.S. considers a limited intervention in Iraq, the experience in Libya is seen as a cautionary tale
  More than 50,000 people, including refugee and migrants, have flooded to Europe through Libya’s porous borders

A group of U.S. diplomats arrived in Libya three years ago to a memorable reception: a throng of cheering men and women who pressed in on the startled group “just to touch us and thank us,” recalled Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security advisor.

The Libyans were emotional because the U.S. and its allies had toppled leader Moammar Kadafi in a military campaign that averted a feared slaughter of Kadafi’s foes. Obama administration officials called the international effort, accomplished with no Western casualties, a “model intervention.”

But in three years Libya has turned into the kind of place U.S. officials most fear: a lawless land that attracts terrorists, pumps out illegal arms and drugs and destabilizes its neighbors.

Now, as Obama considers a limited military intervention in Iraq, the Libya experience is seen by many as a cautionary tale of the unintended damage big powers can inflict when they aim for a limited involvement in an unpredictable conflict.

“If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of overkill and overreach, Libya is the reverse case, where you do too little and get an unacceptable result,” said Brian Katulis, a Middle East specialist at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. “The lesson is that a low tolerance of risk can have its costs.”

Though they succeeded in their military effort, the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies fell short in the broader goal of putting Libya on a path toward democracy and stability. Exhausted after a decade of war and mindful of the failures in Iraq, U.S. officials didn’t want to embark on another nation-building effort in an oil-rich country that seemed to pose no threat to Western security.

But by limiting efforts to help the new Libyan government gain control over the country, critics say, the U.S. and its allies have inadvertently helped turn Libya into a higher security threat than it was before the military intervention.

Libya has become North Africa’s most active militant sanctuary, at the center of the resurgent threat that Obama warned about in a May address at West Point. A 2012 terrorist attack against the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Arms trafficking from Libya “is fueling conflict and insecurity — including terrorism — on several continents,” an expert panel reported to the United Nations Security Council in February. Weapons smuggled out of Libya have been used by insurgents in Mali, by Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria and by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

More than 50,000 people, including refugees from Syria and migrants from North Africa, have flooded into Europe through Libya’s porous borders, sharpening the continent’s immigration crisis.

The latest U.S. State Department travel warning portrays Libya as a society in near-collapse, beset by crime, terrorism, factional fighting, government failure and the wide availability of portable antiaircraft weapons that can shoot down commercial airplanes.

U.S. officials, now scrambling to reverse Libya’s downward spiral, say blame rests with the Libyans who took control of a country that has proved more dysfunctional than expected.

[…]

Some observers are warning that the administration eventually may be forced to do more. A Rand Corp. report this spring predicted that if Libya’s problems continue to worsen, another NATO intervention might be required.

“Libya is a lesson about the risks,” said Robert Danin, a longtime U.S. diplomat in the Middle East who warned about the risks of ensuing chaos. “With nation-building in disrepute, there’s a tendency now to want to declare victory and move on. But interventions can’t be done neatly.”

Here’s the money quote:

“If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of overkill and overreach, Libya is the reverse case, where you do too little and get an unacceptable result,” said Brian Katulis, a Middle East specialist at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. “The lesson is that a low tolerance of risk can have its costs.”

That’s precisely what Obama did across the Middle East: he declared victory and moved on.  It’s what he did in Iraq in spite of the fact that he refused to deploy ANY security force whatsoever; it’s what he did in Libya after he bombed the country into rioting and terrorism that led to the Benghazi debacle and Obama’s cover-up of that debacle; it’s what he did in Syria after his weakness-personified “red line” and his deal with Putin that secured Assad’s power-grip and ultimately led to the rise of ISIS that is owning Obama right now.  Again and again, Obama declared victory and moved on, having done little or nothing.  He assured us that al Qaeda – which is now larger, more powerful, wealthier and controls more territory than EVER in it’s history – was “decimated” and “on the run.”  But they WEREN’T running; they were running their FLAG up over OUR embassies!!!  And Obama declared that ISIS was “JV” and that just because they dressed up in Laker’s uniforms didn’t make them Kobe Bryant.  When we can now see that it’s OBAMA who is “JV” and ISIS is looking like Kobe Bryant at the very top of his game in comparison to anything our weak president is doing.

Obama lied to you, America: you can’t eat your cake and have it, too.  We either fight to win or we lose and ultimately we die.  Those are out choices.

Whether in Iraq, or Libya, or anywhere ELSE you want to name, “worst-case scenario” is now becoming the normal state of affairs under this spectacularly failed presidency.

The point is this: Bush went on the offensive and there are those who argue that he failed.  Mind you, Bush left office with a JUST A SMALL FRACTION OF THE FORCE that Obama escalated Afghanistan into and was responsible for about a fifth of the casualties suffered in Afghanistan and HE WON IN IRAQ UNTIL OBAMA PISSED VICTORY AWAY (see also here and here).  And here for what I predicted back in 2011.

Obama’s “red line” fiasco turned into a bloodbath in Syria.  Obama’s complete withdrawal from and abandonment of Iraq turned into the largest terrorist caliphate the world has ever seen.  And it will be coming at us soon because they’ve SAID it would be coming:

[The United States] intercepted a letter written from Al-Zawahiri to the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The letter described four stages that they would engage in: drive the Americans out, establish a caliphate in Bahgdad, use that base to attack other countries, attack Israel.

And as Obama has – as a result of his “policy” – utterly abandoned the Middle East to chaos and terrorism and murder – it is now obvious that Obama has failed FAR WORSE than Bush or any other president who ever lived.

Did you notice that Susan Rice was there again, she who is Obama’s top liar of choice first in Benghazi and more recently in the Bowe Bergdahl trade-your-soul and your five captured terrorist generals for a worthless turd deal???

I also can’t help but laugh that the same damn fool president who caused such a humanitarian crisis in Libya has also caused a similar one on our very own border with his ridiculously failed morally idiotic policies.

Somehow I remember the mainstream media propaganda that is our “journalism” today going ape poop over the Bush administration prediction that “we’ll be greeted as liberators” line.  But where have they been in the three years since Obama’s reckless, criminal and incompetent action in Libya broke down all civilized structures in Libya?  NOWHERE.  Because if you’re a reporter today, you view yourself as serving your messiah Obama and the Ultimate Cause of liberalism and secular humanism.  And you are willing to lie for your god and for your cause because you believe the ends justify the means.

George Bush essentially won the Iraq War in 21 days.  That’s how long it took for the air power to cripple Iraq’s ability to wage war and for US troops to largely secure the most vital parts of the country.  The rest of it was the attempt to “build and hold.”  Obama didn’t bother with that in Libya.  Hell, he didn’t even bother with it in Iraq.  As Jonah Goldberg pointed out:

Hillary Clinton has defined leadership in a democracy as a relay race: “You run the best race you can run; you hand off the baton.” Obama was handed a baton he didn’t want, so he dropped it.

Which is to say that even by Hillary Clinton’s standard, Barack Obama was a complete, unmitigated FAILURE who screwed America horribly in Iraq.  Obama lost what had been won at great cost because he didn’t like the baton he was held and threw it away like it was a piece of trash even as he claimed credit for the victory that he was about to piss away with his abject fool stupidity.

When you secure something, you stay there to make sure it STAYS secured.  That’s one of the great lessons that we learned in Vietnam.  We would take a hill at bloody cost, like “Hamburger Hill, and then withdraw a day after we took it to allow the communists to occupy it all over again.  We learned not to do that by paying a terrible price for our stupidity.  Only to have Barack Obama UN-learn it for us so we get Vietnam all over again.

At this point I submit that there is only one thing left to try regarding the Middle East: the World War II strategy.

In World War II we did not concern ourselves with “collateral damage.”  If you were a civilian and you were sitting on a Nazi tank, too damn bad for you.

We FIREBOMBED Dresden.  We killed something like 135,000 people.

We FIREBOMBED Tokyo.  We killed about 100,000 people – nearly as many as both the two atomic bombs combined did.

We were able to do that because we were a people who had something to live for, something to fight for, and therefore something to kill our enemies for.

We HAVE to respond to terrorist attacks.  And frankly at the same time, we’re simply not prepared any more – for various reasons including sheer exhaustion – to conquer, hold and rebuild.

All that is left is to bomb the populations that allow terrorism to fester into the stone age.  And if they start to get nasty again, bomb the rubble into smaller particles of rubble.  And DON’T GO IN.  LEAVE THEM to the consequences of their evil ideology.

Turn Afghanistan into “Lake Afghanistan” if that is what it takes to end the scourge of Islamic violence.  Because at this point, if these people are going to act like cockroaches, they need to be STOMPED like cockroaches.  And we don’t need to send in troops as long as we’ve got a big enough fly swatter from the air and our naval platforms out at sea.

I truly believe that if the message – the clear, consistent message regardless of president or party – was, “If you threaten us or our interests, we will bring the fire of hell to you, to your women and to your children,” terrorism would become a lot less popular.  All these Muslims would have to see is that yes, we DO mean business and we mean it in a very painful way.  But as it is now, there is no down-side to fostering terrorism whatsoever.  We do these precise, surgical strikes to avoid actually hurting anybody.  And all our enemies have to do is put a hand-lettered sign that reads “Baby milk factory” and our destruction of a weapons-of-mass-destruction facility becomes a war crime:

One of [CNN reporter Peter] Arnett’s most controversial reports during the Gulf War was a report on how the coalition had bombed a baby milk factory. Shortly after the report, an Air Force spokesman stated “Numerous sources have indicated that [the factory] is associated with biological warfare production”. Later the same day, Colin Powell stated “It was a biological weapons facility, of that we are sure”. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater stated “That factory is, in fact, a production facility for biological weapons” and “The Iraqis have hidden this facility behind a façade of baby-milk production as a form of disinformation.”

The image of a crudely made hand-painted sign reading “Baby Milk” in English and Arabic in front of the factory, and a lab coat dressed in a suit containing stitched lettering reading “BABY MILK PLANT IRAQ” only served to further the perception that purportedly civilian targets were simply being made to look like that by Saddam Hussein, and that Arnett was duped by the Iraqi government. The sign appeared to have been added by the Iraqis before the camera crews arrived as a cheap publicity ploy. Newsweek called the incident a “ham-handed attempt to depict a bombed-out biological-weapons plant near Baghdad as a baby-formula factory.”

Arnett remained firm. He had toured the plant in the previous August, and was insistent that “Whatever else it did, it did produce infant formula”. Described as being a veritable fortress by the Pentagon^{[citation needed]}, the plant, Arnett reported, had only one guard at the gate and a lot of powdered baby milk. “That’s as much as I could tell you about it … [I]t looked innocent enough from what we could see.” A CNN camera crew had been invited to tour this plant in August 1990. They videotaped workers wearing new uniforms with lettering in English reading, “Iraq Baby Milk Plant”.

If we’re not going to fight back – and fight back like we really mean it – we truly deserve to die.

I mean, my God, you pathetic, apathetic coward herd animals, just bleat until you die like the sheep you are.

Here’s another thing: the terrorists ARE fighting for a cause that they believe is very much worth dying for.  Versus us: what the hell are WE fighting for?  Are we fighting for Obama?  Are we fighting for political correctness?  Are we fighting for the determination to not allow God or any transcendent cause whatsoever to interfere with our abortion and our homosexual sodomy???

If I had a son, I would urge him with all the passion I had not to waste his life for this country at this point.  I served, as did my father, my father, my grandfather and my grandfather’s father before me.  But we served a very different nation which did not piss in the Eye of God.

We are losing the war on terror because secular humanist liberals like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have eradicated ANY reason whatsoever to actually fight for our own worthless lives – and if you believe in abortion your life is worthless by definition because you acknowledge that you began as the kind of thing that could have and even SHOULD HAVE been killed as a parasite or a disease – and our own worthless values.

We need to either figure out what it is that is worth fighting for in our age of secular humanism or we need to go out “not with a bang but a whimper” as the T.S. Elliot poem predicted we would.

Because in the age of Obama, a whimper is about all we’ve got.

Obama’s policy of inaction, of too-little-action-way-too-late, of bogus “red lines,” of retreat, of withdrawal, of apologizing, of weakening America and broadcasting the message of weakness to the world, has resulted in the world erupting into a firestorm that we now cannot put out with our meaningless and frankly depraved values.

Our own pathetic secular humanist values have been used against us and turned into a weapon of our own mass destruction.  We COULD fight, but as morally insane secular humanists we put on a strait jacket – and now we’re helpless while our rabid enemies are coming at us with the passion that comes from having a powerful cause that we long-since abandoned as a post-Christian culture.

And that’s why Armageddon is coming.

 

Hey, Bill Clinton, YOU Of ALL People Shouldn’t Be Talking About Other People’s ‘Messes’

The ONLY president whose “mess” is literally staining the blue dress of an intern talked about George Bush and Dick Cheney’s “mess.”

So maybe you should just shut the hell up about “messes,” huh, Slick Willie?

At least Dick Cheney never had to redefine the word “is” in order to get his dishonest ass not only impeached but get his law license stripped from him FOR PERJURY.

But let me point out a little bit more about another Bill Clinton “mess”: we call it the 9/11 attack.  Given that Iraq falling to pieces six years into to Obama’s presidency is “Cheney’s mess,” just how much are YOU to blame for the “mess” that George Bush found himself in when you’d been out of office for less than eight months???

Let’s see what Slick Willie had to say about Dick Cheney:

Clinton Says Cheney Criticism of Obama on Iraq Was ‘Unseemly’
By Erin McClam

Former President Bill Clinton told NBC News on Tuesday that former Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent remarks on Iraq amounted to “attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job of cleaning up the mess that he made.”

Cheney, in an Op-Ed and a YouTube video last week, said that President Barack Obama had emboldened jihadists by mishandling the crisis in Iraq, where Sunni insurgents have rampaged across northern cities.

Clinton responded in an interview from Denver, where he is hosting a conference of the Clinton Global Initiative, his post-presidency foundation.

“I believe if they hadn’t gone to war in Iraq, none of this would be happening,” the former president told David Gregory in the interview, which will air Sunday on “Meet the Press.”

He continued: “Mr. Cheney has been incredibly adroit for the last six years or so attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job of cleaning up the mess that he made. I think it’s unseemly.”

“And I give President Bush, by the way, a lot of credit for trying to stay out of this debate and letting other people work through it.”

In an Op-Ed for The Wall Street Journal, written with his daughter Liz, Cheney wrote that Obama “abandoned” Iraq by withdrawing American troops in 2011 without leaving some forces behind.

advertisement

“Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” the former vice president wrote. He concluded that Obama was securing a legacy “as the man who betrayed our past and squandered our freedom.”

In 2007, during his wife’s presidential campaign, Clinton said that he “opposed Iraq from the beginning.” His aides told reporters that Clinton had supported giving weapons inspectors more time.

In May 2003, two months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Clinton said that he supported President George W. Bush’s authority “to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” according to The Associated Press. He was also quoted praising Bush’s early handling of the conflict, the AP reported.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a senator in 2002, voted for the authorization of force against Iraq. She wrote in her recently released memoir, “Hard Choices,” that she “got it wrong. Plain and simple.”

I mean, really, President Sperm?  UNSEEMLY, you say?  I mean, boy, THERE’S a word that certainly applies to YOU.

But let’s consider Slick Willie’s rather bogus arguments first.

What did Bill Clinton USE to say about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction???

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”  –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”  –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Bill Clinton – mind you this was BEFORE the gigantic attack on the homeland of the United States – ordered an attack against Iraq.  What did he say in ordering that attack?

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. [..]

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party’s other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM’s ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM’s effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM’s questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, “Iraq’s conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

Clearly, even Bill Clinton says we tried the diplomatic route – and exhausted it – to no avail.  Next we spanked Saddam.  When diplomacy fails and the spanking fails, what the hell do you do?

You demonize the president who made the decision after the fact, of course.  While saying “Shame on you for doing to Obama the same thing that I’m doing now to Bush.”

What did Hillary say?

 “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”  — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

And:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Hillary couldn’t wait to share in the credit for when we got that rat bastard Saddam:

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

But there’s more here about Bill Clinton’s “mess” than the one one the blue dress.  There’s the fact that eight months after you perjured your way out of office with your sperm on Monica Lewinsky’s dress, ALL of the nineteen terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001 were already in America.  They ALL had their marching orders, following a plan and tactics that had been formulated during YOUR presidency.

It was because of Bill Clinton’s utterly weak and failed response to Islamist aggression in Somalia that led a man named Osama bin Laden to believe that America was a “paper tiger” and ripe for a massive attack:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden

Bill Clinton left America weak and blind by gutting our military and by gutting our intelligence capability:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.” The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

Then there’s the DotCom Bubble collapse.  Did you know that thanks to Bill Clinton, $7.1 TRILLION in American wealth was vaporized and a whopping 78% of the major Nasdaq valuation was destroyed, in ADDITION to the 9/11 attack that he left George Bush with???

Bill Clinton – shortly before leaving office (almost as if he knew it would be a disaster) greatly expanded the Community Reinvestment Act which was the primary cause of the 2008 crash.

Bill Clinton left George Bush not with answers to the terrorists he had allowed  first to become emboldened and next to actually enter America and plan their massive attack and not with answers to the RECESSION he passed to George W. Bush, but instead left George Bush with the disgusting task of trying to clean all of Bill Clinton’s PORN out of the White House computers.

George Bush spent the rest of his presidency cleaning up your messes, Bill, you vile hypocrite.

The last thing this nation needs is another dishonest leftist hypocrite to run America even further into abject defeat than it is already.

Hold Multi-Millionaire Hillary Clinton To The Same Standard As ‘Out-Of-Touch’ ‘Filthy-Rich’ Mitt Romney Or Just Acknowledge You’re A Hypocrite

Hillary Clinton said she left the White House with her still-smiling-from-all-the-oral-sex husband “dead broke”:

“You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Clinton said. “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. It was not easy. Bill has worked really hard. And it’s been amazing to me. He’s worked very hard.”

I grant that Bill worked really “hard” and “very hard.”  But that was mostly Monica Lewinsky’s doing. truth to be told.

But the “worked hard” jokes aside, what an out-of-touch LIAR Hillary Clinton is.

Make that what a filthy RICH out-of-touch liar.

Even the reliably leftist Politifact rules Hillary’s ridiculous claim as “mostly false.”  And that after giving her every possible benefit of the doubt imaginable.

Do you know what “dead broke” means?  It means you’re begging your parents to let you have your old room back.  It means you’re sleeping on somebody’s couch.  Hey, it means you don’t have gracious parents or gracious friends and you’re HOMELESS.

It DOESN’T mean you’re paying your mortgages for multi-million dollar HOUSES (plural).

The year “dead broke” Hillary left the White House, she and “worked hard” Bill made over $12 million:

As Hillary Clinton backpedaled this week on comments that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” after leaving the White House, financial disclosure forms shed more light on just how shaky that claim really was.

Technically, Bill and Hillary Clinton were in debt when they left the White House. Financial forms filed for 2000 show assets between $781,000 and almost $1.8 million — and liabilities between $2.3 million and $10.6 million, mostly for legal bills.

But as the outgoing first couple, they had tremendous earning potential. And within just one year, their financial troubles were effectively gone.

Hillary Clinton’s Senate disclosure forms show that in 2001, they reported earning nearly $12 million. Most of that came from Bill Clinton’s speechmaking, and the rest came from an advance for Hillary Clinton’s book.

And that didn’t even include Hillary Clinton’s Senate salary, Bill Clinton’s pension or money made on investments.

As soon as they left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate and was earning a $145,000 salary; her husband’s pension was also north of $150,000.

All told, their financial snapshot in 2001 was drastically different than when they left the White House — assets were listed at between $6 million and $30 million; liabilities were between $1.3 million and $5.6 million. And despite their financial issues, they got help from family friend and fundraiser Terry McAuliffe (now, the governor of Virginia) to secure a loan at the time for a $1.7 million home in Chappaqua, N.Y.

These finer details made Clinton’s comment about being “dead broke” all the more questionable.

But it was a DEAD BROKE DOZEN MILLION, WASN’T IT?

And now this “dead broke” lady is worth at least $120 million:

NEW YORK, June 23, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — Hillary and Bill Clinton’s current net worth is US$120 million, according to a Wealth-X estimate released today, a far cry from the less than US$5 million they had in the bank in 2001 at the end of Bill’s tenure as US president.

The net worth of the former First Lady, US Senator, and US Secretary of State, who is a likely Democratic presidential candidate for 2016, is under intense media scrutiny after she said in a recent interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer that she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001.

Wealth-X estimates that the combined net worth of the Clintons was below US$5 million when they left the White House. They amassed their current US$120 million fortune through fees from speaking engagements, revenues from their books, and her salary from her government positions.

Other sources have her wealth at $200 million, which she “earned” by “giv[ing] speeches to Goldman Sachs for $200,000 each.”  Which by the way puts her into Mitt Romney territory in pretty much every imaginable sense.

On the heels of her “dead broke” hypocrisy, hypocrite Hillary further twisted reality into a pretzel by declaring, “I’m not truly well off” like that arch-fiend who shall not be named [Mitt Romney]:

Hillary Clinton, who has a net worth upwards of $50 million, said in an interview that she is “unlike a lot of people who are truly well off.”

Clinton was derided for comments made last week that her family was “dead broke” when it left the White House in 2000 although they were far from the poverty line. Bill and Hillary Clinton have reportedly made more than $100 million since leaving the White House.

But Hillary, who charges a six figure speaking fee, says with a burst of laughter that she is not “truly well off” and that her wealth is the result of “hard work,” according to The Guardian.

America’s glaring income inequality is certain to be a central bone of contention in the 2016 presidential election. But with her huge personal wealth, how could Clinton possibly hope to be credible on this issue when people see her as part of the problem, not its solution?

“But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she protests, “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work,” she says, letting off another burst of laughter. If past form is any guide, she must be finding my question painful.

Hillary’s attitude on wealth has been the target of criticism, even from the left. Howard Fineman called her “dead broke” comment “disastrous” and “offensive to even some Democrats.” MSNBC’s Chuck Todd said that Hillary comes off as a “politician who perhaps only hangs out with millionaires and donors and feels poor by comparison.”

I mean, what would she have us believe?  Who paid $200,000 a speech from this woman?  Homeless people???  Obviously not: she got filthy rich telling filthy rich people exactly what they wanted to hear.  And as for her “hard work,” how hard is it to put your name on books that three other people are known to have actually written for her???

She got paid MILLIONS of dollars for work she didn’t do; but she “feels little people’s pain”???

I suppose that’s better than when she was earning her living by slandering little girls who were victimized by child rapists and getting hard-core pedophiles off scott free with technicalities.

Hillary Clinton is a LIFE of quintessential, abject, demon-possessed hypocrisy.  Which is why liberals love her so much.  She campaigns on “the war on women” when SHE warred on women far more viciously than damn near any man but the rapist she got off.  And she has the man-sized balls to run on “economic fairness” when she is every bit as filthy rich and every bit as in bed with the filthy rich as the people she demonizes.

When the Republicans have a rich candidate, you can count on the demonic-hypocrite Democrat Party and their media propaganda machine to demonize that candidate over wealth; when it’s THEIR candidate who is filthy rich – like FDR, like JFK, and more recently like John Kerry and now Hillary Clinton – suddenly the wealth of the candidate is entirely irrelevant.

And of course, the left plays the same abject hypocrite game with “the war on women.”  Obama pays his females far less than his males while demonizing EVERYONE ELSE for doing what HE DOES.  Obama was documented has having created a hostile workplace for women.  Female White House staffers called it a “boy’s club.”  I mean, literally, if a man is beating and raping a little GIRL, but he’s for aborting the child he fathers as a result of his raping, liberals like Hillary Clinton are FINE with it.

This is a sick nation that is about to die as a result of it’s voting for the wrath of God in the form of every Obama policy that Hillary Clinton would gleefully continue and accelerate.

You either care for America’s children the way Hillary Clinton “cared” for the little girl she demonized and raped a second time, or you would willingly lay down your life if it would stop A SECOND Saul Alinsky radical from taking office.

‘The Tide Of War Is Receding’: Barack Obama Is ENTIRELY Responsible For The Disastrous Meltdown In Iraq And Across The Middle East

USA Today posts the video of Obama blathering the words with the title: “the tide of war is receding.”

Even the reliably leftist Washington Post acknowledges that Obama was living in a fantasy world:

FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces.

A full YEAR ago, Charles Krauthammer was excoriating Obama on this naïve fantasyland nonsense.  He began that column with these words:

“This war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises …”

— Barack Obama, May 23

WASHINGTON — Nice thought. But much as President Barack Obama would like to close his eyes, click his heels three times and declare the war on terror over, war is a two-way street.

That’s what history advises: Two sides to fight it, two to end it. By surrender (World War II), by armistice (Korea and Vietnam) or when the enemy simply disappears from the field (the Cold War).

Obama says enough is enough. He doesn’t want us on “a perpetual wartime footing.” Well, the Cold War lasted 45 years. The war on terror, 12 so far. By Obama’s calculus, we should have declared the Cold War over in 1958 and left Western Europe, our Pacific allies, the entire free world to fend for itself — and consigned Eastern Europe to endless darkness.

That is PRECISELY what Obama did in Iraq: he declared victory and pulled out.  Completely.  And we now see nothing but “endless darkness” there as a result of that mindless stupidity based on the demon-possession that is liberalism.

The most amazing thing about Obama is that he just keeps repeating the same proven lie over and over and over again, almost as if he can fabricate his very own reality with nothing more than the “power” of his rhetoric – as this article written on May 20 of this year demonstrates:

Twice in the past two days, President Barack Obama has had the core premise upon which the foreign and national security policies of his administration have been based for nearly six years – that the “tide of war is receding” due to the decimation of the terrorist threat and the improved standing of the United States around the world – openly contradicted by two senior members of his administration.

On Monday, it was President Obama’s new FBI Director James Comey who told the New York Times that he just didn’t appreciate how serious a terrorist threat the United States still faced until he began seeing the daily intelligence briefs.

Tuesday it was General Keith Alexander, the recently retired director of the National Security Agency who told Mattathias Schwartz of The New Yorker magazine that not only has the terrorist threat against America not receded, it has gotten worse. Based upon “what I saw at the NSA,” General Alexander is quoted as saying, “there is a lot more coming our way.”

General Alexander should know of what he speaks. In addition to his eight years as the head of NSA, he ran the Pentagon’s Central Security Office as well as commanding the US Cyber Command office.

Despite the tremendous advances made by the US intelligence community since 9/11 and its extraordinary record at disrupting plots, Alexander says the US is at even greater risk. “Look at the way Al Qaeda networks,” he says before citing a growing list of examples. “From Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb, and now in Syria, the al-Nusra front.”

The new “decentralized” al-Qaida is not a mark of its weakness, says Alexander, but its strength and resilience. “You can say those are distant countries,” he claimed, “but a lot of these groups are looking to attack the United States.”

Left unremarked was what role, if any, premature US pullouts from Iraq and Afghanistan have upon the renewed capacities, capabilities, and zones of safe operation of America’s most virulent enemies.

Go back to the Benghazi debacle, in which the first US ambassador since the failed Carter administration was MURDERED by an al Qeada-affiliated organization.  What Obama had been saying – and amazingly continued to say – was that he had broken the back of al Qaeda, that he had “decimated” al Qaeda, that they were “on the run.”  And it was nothing but a lie from an either pathologically dishonest man, or a naïve fool – or BOTH as I believe – in order to get reelected.  He LIED to the American people on the very most important and sacred issue a presidents administers: our national security.

We find that the American team in Benghazi had repeatedly – at least eight times – BEGGED for additional security.  But Obama and his stooge Hilary Clinton ignored their pleas.  And after they were murdered, they covered up their disgraceful bungling and dishonesty by fabricating a video that ALL the people on the ground have said HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE COORDINATED, PRE-PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACK.

And I can say with complete assurance that it has now been demonstrated that Barack Obama is a pathological fool for whom it is impossible to learn ANYTHING.  He is a militant, rabid ideologue.  He is a truly demon-possessed man who is completely immune from all reality in his little bubble-world.

And it’s starting to truly fall apart both for Obama and more sadly and more tragically for America and the American people.

Krauthammer said a year ago:

The only constant in all of this is Obama as a candidate, as a Senator, decided we should be out of these wars, we should be out of the Middle East, the tide of war is receding, he repeats it over and over again and pretends it’s true. And that is the constant. We’re not in Iraq, we’re not in Syria, we’re not in Libya – we’re getting killed in Libya as we did – we’re not in Egypt. We are doing nothing. All the other actors are in play – the jihadists, the Russians, the Iranians, Hezbollah, but not the United States. We are irrelevant.

And as I documented above, Obama was STILL saying that garbage just a matter of DAYS ago.  To the extent that “the tide of war is receding” it is receding for the TERRORISTS because Obama has SURRENDERED TO THEM.

First, I can document that Barack Obama himself as well as his administration publicly acknowledged that George W. Bush handed off a safe, secure, stable Iraq.  Let’s consider what they said:

• “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.” — Joe Biden
• “This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.” — Barack Obama, 2011
• “[W]e will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe haven to terrorists.” – Barack Obama, 2011

And so Obama gave a boastful speech in 2011:

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end — for the sake of our national security and to strengthen American leadership around the world.  After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011.

As Commander-in-Chief, ensuring the success of this strategy has been one of my highest national security priorities.  Last year, I announced the end to our combat mission in Iraq.  And to date, we’ve removed more than 100,000 troops.  Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country’s security. […]

Over the next two months, our troops in Iraq — tens of thousands of them — will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home.  The last American soldier[s] will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops.  That is how America’s military efforts in Iraq will end. […]

This December will be a time to reflect on all that we’ve been though in this war.  I’ll join the American people in paying tribute to the more than 1 million Americans who have served in Iraq.  We’ll honor our many wounded warriors and the nearly 4,500 American patriots — and their Iraqi and coalition partners — who gave their lives to this effort.

And finally, I would note that the end of war in Iraq reflects a larger transition.  The tide of war is receding.  The drawdown in Iraq allowed us to refocus our fight against al Qaeda and achieve major victories against its leadership — including Osama bin Laden.  Now, even as we remove our last troops from Iraq, we’re beginning to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, where we’ve begun a transition to Afghan security and leadership.  When I took office, roughly 180,000 troops were deployed in both these wars.  And by the end of this year that number will be cut in half, and make no mistake:  It will continue to go down.  […]

So to sum up, the United States is moving forward from a position of strength.  The long war in Iraq will come to an end by the end of this year.  The transition in Afghanistan is moving forward, and our troops are finally coming home.  As they do, fewer deployments and more time training will help keep our military the very best in the world.  And as we welcome home our newest veterans, we’ll never stop working to give them and their families the care, the benefits and the opportunities that they have earned.

Ah, yes, that “the tide of war is receding” meme again.

Only DAYS ago our fool-in-chief Barack Obama was boasting:

The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been.

Anyone who claims that Barack Obama personally didn’t embrace Iraq as it was left to him, take credit for the progress, and assume responsibility going forward, is a stone-cold LIAR who has no shame, no integrity, no honor, nor virtue and no decency.  The problem is that if you are a Democrat, there is an overwhelmingly high likelihood that you are a truly VILE human being and so full of lies that it is beyond unreal.

Here is another fact: that Barack Obama IGNORED the advise of his generals and even his own hand-picked intelligence and national security people when he took office.  They told him – TOLD him – that he needed to keep a force of about 20,000 troops in Iraq to keep the country secure, stable and safe, to prevent al Qaeda from re-entering and to keep Iran out.

Obama, ever the arrogant, self-righteous FOOL, believed he knew better.

Let’s go back to the truly dark days that began God damn America after Obama assumed the presidency:

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

The military planned on remaining in Iraq for years to come simply because it would have been completely INSANE not to and only a truly demon-possessed president would be such a true fool:

Despite Obama’s declarations Friday and the celebrations they have sparked on the liberal blogosphere, the Pentagon certainly seems to believe its forces may well be in Iraq after 2011. NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki reported on Friday that “military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated. And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years.” Some have suggested that such statements from the military are insubordination and contrary to Obama’s orders, but they could also reflect discussions between the White House and the Pentagon to which the public is not privy. Then there’s the monstrous U.S. embassy unveiled last month in Baghdad, the largest of any nation anywhere in the history of the planet and itself resembling a military base. Maintaining this fortified city will require a sizable armed U.S. presence in Baghdad and will regularly place U.S. diplomats in armed convoys that put Iraqi civilian lives in jeopardy.

As I previously pointed out: Let’s go to a period – April 10, 2011 – after the Obama-King-Dumbass-of-the-Universe policy on Iraq is on the verge of being implemented:

WASHINGTON — Eight months shy of its deadline for pulling the last American soldier from Iraq and closing the door on an 8-year war, the Pentagon is having second thoughts.

Reluctant to say it publicly, officials fear a final pullout in December could create a security vacuum, offering an opportunity for power grabs by antagonists in an unresolved and simmering Arab-Kurd dispute, a weakened but still active al-Qaida or even an adventurous neighbor such as Iran.

The U.S. wants to keep perhaps several thousand troops in Iraq, not to engage in combat but to guard against an unraveling of a still-fragile peace. This was made clear during Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ visit Thursday and Friday in which he and the top U.S. commander in Iraq talked up the prospect of an extended U.S. stay.

Note how the media slants and distorts the story.  The military wasn’t having “second thoughts” about this idiotic move by Obama; THEY HAD ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

So what we have documented so far is that Obama took credit for Iraq, acknowledged that it was going well there, assumed completely responsibility for it moving forward, and utterly ignored the wise advice of his generals as he imposed his own stupid and morally-depraved will on reality.

Into 2007, President George W. Bush warned that if the U.S. didn’t stay the course in Iraq, the country could become a terror state or a recruiting ground for terrorists.  In one of his such addresses, Bush said:

Withdrawal would have increased the probability that coalition troops would be forced to return to Iraq one day, and confront an enemy that is even more dangerous. Failure in Iraq should be unacceptable to the civilized world. The risks are enormous.

Bush was right.  The military that Bush had the wisdom to listen to was right.  John McCain – who was savagely mocked by Barack Obama for saying this –

QUESTIONER: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years –

McCAIN: Maybe a hundred.

QUESTIONER: Is that — is that –

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea — we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans –

QUESTIONER: So that’s your policy?

McCAIN: — As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, then it’s fine with me. I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, and equipping and motivating people every single day.

– was right.  Anyone who can’t not now see that McCain was right is morally and psychologically insane.

Do you know who was so completely wrong it now defines belief????

Barack Obama is a fool.  And what is happening now as EVERYTHING we fought for has BEEN – past tense – PISSED AWAY – is proof that Barack Obama is a pure, unadulterated fool.  There is nothing but “fool” in that man.

So we know that Barack Obama promised everything was going to be fine.  He NEVER lamented that not having a status of forces agreement would result in failure in Iraq.  Quite the contrary: he pulled all the troops out without ever bothering to TRY to sign one and said we were out and the Iraqis were taking over and everything was going to be wonderful under his messiahship.  Again, let’s turn back to the day he started his presidency and met with General Petraeus:

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21. […]

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Does that sound like Obama was planning to stay to you?  Obama was hell-bent on withdraw – spelled “C-U-T A-N-D R-U-N” – from the get-go.  Anybody who says Obama withdrew because he couldn’t negotiate some stupid agreement with Iraq is a liar.  And yet in Obama’s fictional narrative – as fictional as all his other lies – he tried oh-so-hard to negotiate a status of forces agreement and that it’s Bush’s fault he failed and he so-badly wanted to keep troops in Iraq but without that agreement that he heroically tried to get he couldn’t in good conscience break HIS CAMPAIGN PLEDGE TO GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ.

That’s just simple history.

I’m going to use the only word that conveys the dishonesty: bullshit.  That is such total bullshit all the bovine fecal matter in the history of the world combined doesn’t match it.

Are you too stupid to understand?  Obama wasn’t staying in Iraq.  He wanted the hell out; he was getting the hell out.  He didn’t WANT a “status of forces” agreement; he wanted the hell out.  Period.

The whole “status of forces” garbage was never anything more than a PRETENSE to do what Obama had already publicly indicated he was going to do: leave.

I’ve pointed this out: there were WAYS around the status of forces agreement issue if we wanted to employ them.  The article I cite right above this line had one.  The fact that we’re now talking about covering any troops we send under the protection of our embassy is another.  But Obama had no intention whatsoever of staying, so he had no reason to bother to try to get an agreement to do something he wasn’t going to do anyway.

Further, from al-Maliki’s perspective, Obama gave the Iraqi Prime Minister no reason to undermine his own national poll numbers by signing a status of forces agreement for the very reason that Obama was at BEST leaving such a tiny force behind – a force that our own military assured Obama was WAY TOO SMALL TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING – that al-Maliki understood that Barack Obama was not a credible man and was not going to stand by Iraq.  Frankly, Obama all but told al-Maliki, “Rely on your Shiite base; rely on Iran.  DON’T rely on the United States.”

And that’s EXACTLY what al-Maliki did.  Which is a big part of why we’re in the mess we’re in now.

The military told Obama they would need a force of 20,000 troops to permanently secure Iraq.  Obama refused.  He demanded they come back with a smaller number.  They said we needed AT LEAST 10,000 men to have a prayer of preventing disaster.  Obama refused.  He would give them less than a THIRD of half the number they said they needed.

And al-Maliki – as big of a turd as he is – looked at the Great Turd and said, “To hell with you.  I’ll just consolidate my Shiite base and run for help to America’s enemy Iran.”  And that’s just what he did while Obama did NOTHING.

And what is the mess we’re in now?  We can’t stay out and we can’t go back in.  We’re just screwed.  Because it is hopelessly broken now and we can’t glue back what is hopelessly broken back together again.  The only chance we had was to keep a force in place that would have PREVENTED it from becoming broken to BEGIN WITH.

If that isn’t enough to prove that Obama’s “status of forces” garbage was never anything beyond total pretense on the part of Obama, here’s this: Obama is sending in 300 military personnel.  Without a status of forces agreement.  So those who say Obama couldn’t have troops in Iraq without a status of forces agreement now find themselves utterly refuted – by Obama.  Who just put in far too few troops far too late WITHOUT a status of forces agreement.

The dishonest, propagandist US media – and I mean “dishonest” and “propagandist” in “Ministry of Propaganda” terms – is casting the story as General Petraeus backing or siding with Obama.  And that is bullcrap – AS I DOCUMENTED ABOVE.  Petraeus was TOTALLY AGAINST Obama’s fool “strategy” for withdraw and cutting and running.  All Petraeus is acknowledging now is that thanks to Obama Iraq is broken beyond our ability to fix.

But understand Petraeus’ argument and see how Obama – even as he cites it rhetorically – is undermining it.  Petraeus is saying we can’t become the Shiite’s air force in what is becoming a religious war with the Sunnis due to the fear of the conflict spreading across the region as Sunnis and Shiites are drawn in.  Okay, so what is Obama then doing by inviting Shiite Iran in to become the Iraqi Shiite’s muscle???

And of course we’re helping Iran by proxy now when we help Shiite Iraq.

Keep in mind that Iran is a bigger threat than al Qaeda is.  Keep in mind that this is the Iran that is responsible for one-third of all the deaths and casualties sustained by American troops in Iraq.  Keep in mind that Iran has been murdering American troops by proxy dating back to the 1980s.  And then keep in mind that Obama just invited Iran to assume all influence over the region by creating a vacuum of American influence.

It is a disgrace.  A national disgrace.

There’s nothing we can do in Iraq now.  We had our chance – and Obama pissed it away.  Now all we can do is conduct a post mortem and understand that Barack Obama is the architect of catastrophic failure in everything he touches.

And of course Afghanistan is no more than five years away to being the same mega-disaster that Iraq has become thanks to Obama.  Because Obama’s same, idiotic, failed policies that were idiotic and failed in Iraq are going to be equally idiotic and fail just as wildly in Afghanistan.

There’s another half to this mess, though.  And Barack Obama is ENTIRELY responsible for that other half of the mess, too.

“ISIS” stands for “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.”  They came streaming into Iraq from the vacuum that happened under Obama’s fool watch and which Obama ignored in Syria.

Obama’s “red line” fiasco in Syria – and his complete fecklessness and endless dithering – taught ISIS a valuable lesson: they learned from Obama in Syria that a weak America under Obama was simply not prepared to go back into Iraq in ANY meaningful way.  And that Obama had guaranteed by his weakness and lack of resolve that their path to a caliphate was clear.

And that’s how – to paraphrase the words of Charles Krauthammer – Obama consigned the Middle East to endless darkness.

All across the Middle East – and you name a country – terrorists have learned that a weak, pathological disgrace has removed America from consideration as having any influence whatsoever.

And for the record, the incredibly euphemistically-named “Arab Spring” in which terrorists took over half the damn Muslim countries in the Middle East were FOOD RIOTS AS A RESULT OF OBAMA’S INSANE SPENDING AS HE DEVALUED THE US DOLLAR THAT BACKED THESE COUNTRIES AND THEN DEVALUED IT AGAIN AND AGAIN.

Obama is the fool who ruined the whole world.  He will ultimately be recognized as the Antichrist’s useful idiot who made the mark of the beast possible.

When George Bush was president, as much as anyone wants to slander him, the terrorists were hoping for some single big attack that would draw media attention to their cause.  Now, as a result of the worst fool who ever cursed America, they are literally seizing entire nations and giant chunks of nations as they create a caliphate from which to launch massive attacks against the Great Satan (that’s us) and the Little Satan Israel.

When George Bush was president, he created a state of Iraq which was unified, which al Qaeda was defeated and which was off limits to Iran.  Now, as a result of the worst fool who ever cursed America, Iraq is a bitterly divided state that will almost certainly devolve into an incredibly ugly civil war, an organization that by all accounts is WORSE than al Qaeda dominates the south, while the terrorist state of Iran now dominates the north of the country.

Now, you might think I’m done, but I’ve got more to say about these “blame Bush” liberals.  It boggles my mind that a full SIX YEARS after Bush’s last day in office, he is still being held responsible for everything by a president who has thus far refused to be held responsible for ANYTHING.

Do you want to blame Bush for the Iraq War?  Really?  Well, blame Bill Clinton.  He looked at the same basic intelligence that George Bush looked at and he agreed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat.  Blame former Senator and current Obama Vice President Biden for agreeing with George Bush that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United States and voting for the Iraq War Resolution.  Blame then-Senator and also former Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for voting for the Iraq War Resolution because she also saw the intelligence and agreed with George Bush.  Blame 2004 Democrat presidential candidate and current Obama Secretary of State for coming to the same conclusion as George Bush and ALSO voting for the Iraq War Resolution.  Hell, blame Harry Reid who likewise did the same.

I mean, look at all the Democrats who lied about Saddam having WMD.

Go ahead and blame George W. Bush for what very nearly sixty percent of the Democrat Senators – including every nationally important Democrat Senator – in America voted for.

If you bother to learn, you find that Saddam Hussein HIMSELF believed that he had such weapons and that every single commanding general in his military believed he had them.  Because he DID have them.

The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting.

According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

While reporting on this story, Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly said he is not surprised that the CIA and other nations believed Saddam had WMD since Hussein’s own generals believed they had them. He said that this proves President Bush did not lie and that he believed what Saddam’s own generals believed — that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD.

Did Saddam Hussein have WMD?  Yeah, he did.  He sent it to Syria.  We have the intelligence surveillance of the giant convoys heading for Syria.  You’ve simply got to be a danged fool not to know that they went to Syria.  Especially given the fact that Syria has since repeatedly used WMD against its own damn people the same damn way that Saddam Hussein in Iraq used WMD against HIS damn people.

Especially when ISIS just seized Saddam’s primary WMD factory.  I mean, damn, stupid: if Saddam didn’t have any wmd, how’s it that he had a wmd factory???

But if you’re of a mind to blame Bush for the Iraq War, could you at least have the honesty and integrity to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11, given the fact that EVERY SINGLE terrorist was in America, had their funding, and had arranged for their training, WHILE BILL CLINTON WAS STILL PRESIDENT???  Why don’t you blame Bill Clinton for leaving America both weak and blind after claiming a Cold War “peace dividend” and gutting America’s military and intelligence capability?

My point: Democrat stupidity caused the LAST 9/11 attack against America and if you’ve got a brain in your head you can already see that Democrat stupidity is just about to cause the NEXT 9/11 attack against America.

 

 

 

 

 

Obama’s ‘300’ In Iraq: It Won’t Be Like Thermopylae Because We Aint Sparta And Obama Definitely Aint Leonidas

The story is so dramatic and heroic: 300 Spartans, inserting themselves into a pass, held off a million Persians.

My Rottweiler’s version was of 300 Rotts withstanding an attack by over a million vicious Chihuahuas.

Anyway, “Obama’s 300” isn’t going to be a repeat of Thermopylae, let me assure you.

For one thing, let me assure you that Sparta never would have been Sparta if they’d been forced to fight under the same morally idiotic rules of engagement that our warriors are expected to employ.

Spartans fought to win.  The 300 men they sent weren’t “advisors”; they were hard-core warriors who were there to fight to the death.

That aint how we fight anymore.  We fight with political correctness so as not to make Obama feel sad.  You know, if we fight at all.

And anybody who wants to compare Obama with Leonidas – other than to point out what a worthless chump Obama is, as I do here – needs to be put in a straight jacket and locked in a rubber room.

We had a chance to win in Iraq; scratch that, WE HAD ALREADY WON IN IRAQ.  All we had to do was remain with a small force to keep what we had won safe.

Obama pissed our victory away.  Just like he pissed our health care system away with his socialist hijack.  And now it’s up to Obama’s 300.

One of the biggest reasons the 300 Spartans were successful was that they arrived before it was too late and there was still a chance to fight.  Obama’s 300 are way to few, worse, they are way, way, WAY too late.

NBC News To Obama: ‘The Public Is Saying, ‘Hey, Buddy, Your Presidency Is Over.”

The only place NBC’s Chuck Todd has it wrong is when he says Obama is in any way, shape or form the American public’s “buddy.”  Because Barack Obama is no decent American’s “buddy.”

Understand: according to an NBC poll, fully 54% of the American people believe that Obama cannot lead and get the job done.  Which is a larger margin than what he was elected by in either election (in 2008 he won with 52.9% of the vote and in 2012 he won with 51.1% – and you’d have thought he’d won a landslide by the way the fascist has governed).  And if that isn’t revealing enough, realize that sixty-one percent of independents say that Obama is a useless turd who cannot lead the country or get the job done.

Obama’s poll numbers are now WORSE than post-Katrina Bush’s.  That’s a hell of a job you’ve done, Obami.  In fact, over the last two years, Obama’s poll numbers are now worse than ANY president’s since Nixon’s.  His is THE worst presidency in HISTORY, bar NONE.

Chuck Todd: Public Is Telling Obama ‘Your Presidency Is Over’ In New NBC Poll
By Kyle Drennen | June 18, 2014 | 11:50

Appearing on Wednesday’s NBC Today, chief White House correspondent and political director Chuck Todd reported on the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showing President Obama’s poll numbers taking a nose dive and made this stunning declaration: “This is as if the public is saying, ‘Hey, buddy, your presidency is over. You may not believe it is, but your ability to lead and convince us that you have the right policies anymore, we’re not listening.'” [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

That observation was prompted by co-host Savannah Guthrie highlighting: “Let’s show the poll number you call the dagger. ‘Can the President lead and get the job done?’ 54% say no.”

In a prior question about the poll, Guthrie noted how the public was evenly divided – 50% to 50% – on whether Obama was a competent president. Todd replied: “And compare it to President Bush. He’s [Obama’s] actually in a worse situation. The Obama administration is seen as less competent than the Bush administration was post-Katrina.”

Despite all of the devastating news for the President in the new poll, which was released Tuesday afternoon, all of the evening newscasts – including NBC Nightly News – skipped the results.

On Wednesday, only Today covered the poll, it wasn’t mentioned on ABC’s Good Morning America or CBS This Morning.

Guthrie wondered if Obama’s unpopularity would “spell success for Republicans in the midterms.” Todd tried to find a silver lining for Democrats: “Republican numbers are worse now than they were four years ago. It isn’t translating. The public really is angry at both parties….So it’s mildly good news for Democrats, maybe they can separate themselves from the drag that President Obama is.”

Wrapping up the exchange, Todd explained another part of the poll that showed a dip in support for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election: “This is a reminder, she’s not – you know, some in the media treat this as if it’s a coronation. That President Clinton is an automatic in 2016. This is the voters saying no, she’s not.”

Here is a full transcript of the June 18 segment:

7:09 AM ET

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Well, as President Obama weighs his decision here, Dick and Liz Cheney are out with a new op-ed this morning blasting the Obama administration’s positions during wartime, saying, quote, “Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.”

We also have a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll out this morning. And for that we turn to Chuck Todd, NBC’s chief White House correspondent and political director. And Chuck, I know you’ve got some information about what options the President is considering with regard to Iraq.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: President’s Next Move on Iraq; Meets Congressional Leaders to Discuss Options]

CHUCK TODD: Well, there’s one option that’s off the table at this point, and that is air strikes, and here’s why. They just don’t have the targets. This is not a big army that you’re going after in ISIS. This is more like targeting Al Qaeda in Yemen, which means this is going to mean special forces. This is going to mean drones, very tactical strikes. There’s no way they can somehow bring in fighter jets.

GUTHRIE: Let’s get to NBC’s poll, because foreign policy, which for many, many years was a strong suit of the President’s in your polls, is now suddenly tanking.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The President and the Polls; Dip in Ratings on Leadership]

TODD: It is. It’s cratering. I mean, if you think about it, let’s go back to September, Syria. Then you have the crisis in Ukraine and then you had the situation with the Bergdahl trade, then we can talk about the Iranian negotiations, we can talk about the Middle East flaring up, and now the situation with Iraq. Everything is a negative, and these are now creating a situation, lowest ever, lowest job rating, lowest approval rating among foreign policy.

GUTHRIE: Let’s show competence, that says the President – people who think the President is competent, fifty [percent], incompetent, fifty [percent].

TODD: Well, this is a situation of the VA. And compare it to President Bush. He’s [Obama’s] actually in a worse situation. The Obama administration is seen as less competent than the Bush administration was post-Katrina. That’s VA, that’s health care, and foreign policy.

GUTHRIE: Let’s show the poll number you call the dagger. “Can the President lead and get the job done?” 54% say no.

TODD: And this is what’s amazing here. This is as if the public is saying, “Hey, buddy, your presidency is over. You may not believe it is, but your ability to lead and convince us that you have the right policies anymore, we’re not listening.” That’s what that poll question says. That’s the most dangerous poll question in this – in this survey for the President.

GUTHRIE: So does this spell success for Republicans in the midterms coming up?

TODD: Well, it’s not been a seesaw for some reason. The President’s numbers are worse now than they were four years ago, right before the Republican tsunami of 2010. But Republican numbers are worse now than they were four years ago. It isn’t translating. The public really is angry at both parties. We saw it with Eric Cantor. That’s one of the reasons he got tossed out. So this isn’t an automatic translation. So it’s mildly good news for Democrats, maybe they can separate themselves from the drag that President Obama is.

GUTHRIE: You still see a real Tea Party, non-Tea Party split in the GOP.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Tea Party Influence Growing?; Poll: Schism Withing GOP Over Role]

And let me ask you about Hillary Clinton. Because you took a poll, basically, “Would you vote for Hillary?” to a general electorate. And the numbers you got were, saying yes, 38%. No, 37%. And maybe, twenty-three [percent].

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The Politics of Hillary; Poll: Clinton Favorability Down]

TODD: Well, and this is a reminder, she’s not – you know, some in the media treat this as if it’s a coronation. That President Clinton is an automatic in 2016. This is the voters saying no, she’s not. She’s an automatic with Democrats. Her numbers with Democrats are better now than they’ve ever been. Much better than they were eight years ago. With the rest of the public, it’s another question.

GUTHRIE: Alright, Chuck Todd, thank you very much.

By the way, tomorrow on Today we will sit down with Secretary of State John Kerry to talk more about these U.S. options in Iraq, the possibility of cooperating with Iran, and much more.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2014/06/18/chuck-todd-public-telling-obama-your-presidency-over-new-nbc-poll#ixzz3520wvZN2

Frankly, as bad as I believed Obama would be, I nevertheless never thought that even the leftist propagandists at NBC would turn on him.

Let’s call this moment yet another “I TOLD you so!” alert.  Because I’ve told you over and over again with facts to back it up each time that Barack Hussein Obama is the worst curse that has ever plagued this nation.  God is DAMNING this nation into extinction because of this baby-murdering sodomy worshiper.

God damn America drags on.  But not for much longer: because we’re going to catastrophically collapse and implode and send the world into a depression and a crisis that will result in the coming of the Antichrist and the Mark of the beast.  And Democrats will cheer and take the mark and ultimately burn in hell forever and ever.

The Democrat Party, Liberalism OWN The Wealth Divide. Because They CAUSED It.

I came across this article from the Los Angeles Times a couple of days ago and something popped out at me.  I’ll bold face it when it appears in the article.  And then we’ll talk about it:

San Francisco leads the way with $15 minimum-wage ballot measure
By Lee Romney
June 15, 2014, 5:39 PM|reporting from SAN FRANCISCO

Eleven years ago, San Francisco set precedent with the first citywide minimum-wage boost, giving it the highest wage floor in the nation. Another first soon required all employers to provide paid sick days. Yet another mandated healthcare for all..

Now, the city that recently won dubious distinction for the fastest-growing wealth divide is leading again.

Let’s look at the timeline: San Francisco – THE most liberal, most Democrat Party-worshiping, city on earth – imposed their “highest wage floor in the nation.”

And then what happened as a result?  The city that “won the dubious distinction for the FASTEST-GROWING WEALTH DIVIDE.”  That’s what happened.

Because San  Francisco is FASCIST.  And FASCISM loves to pick who wins and who loses, who benefits and who gets punished.  Small businesses and new businesses that can’t afford to pay exorbitant wages get chased out, and the big, established businesses and the businesses that are started by wealthy elitists get to grow and grow and grow.  And the wealth divide is the inevitable result of liberal fascism.

What is true of fascists in San Francisco is just as true for our Fascist-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama:

Can You Guess Which President Had Worst Record On ‘Income Inequality’?

If Obama thinks he can pivot away from the failures of Obamacare towards the cause of relieving “income inequality,” he’s going to find even greater failures there already on the part of his administration.

The vast majority of gains in wealth have gone to the top earners, making income inequality increase drastically under Obama. In fact, of the last three presidents, the income gap didn’t change overall during the Bush years, increased second most during Clinton’s time, and has increased the most with only 5 years under Obama’s belt.

Obama himself has admitted this before questioning by George Stephanopoulos, where he amazingly tried to blame Bush for the 95% of income growth during his own “recovery” going to the top 1%.  

As we reported last year when Obama was loudly denouncing the nation’s “income inequality”:

President Obama… is presiding under epic Wall Street earnings (they crashed under Bush, remember?), deteriorating income levels for the middle class, an increasingly part-time nation partly fueled by the looming employer mandate of Obamacare, and long-term unemployment so persistent that millions of people are dropping off the labor force grid (that would be why the official unemployment rate is slowly going down).

And the Obamanomics failure extends to falling income across the board for the average American family. During the “worst recession since the Great Depression,” the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income fell by 1.8%, but fell by an incredible 4.4% during Obama’s “recovery.” That comes to each family making $2,400 less per year during Obama’s regime.

You would think the press would do its job and continue to question the president about his dismal record under this metric he keeps harping about, especially since the stimulus and Obamacare were so costly and supposed to relieve all of American’s ills.

Still waiting on the sea levels to lower, as well.

Notice, ALL of Obama’s regulations, all of his tax increases, all of his war on natural energy such as coal, oil and natural gas and all of his elevation of costly energy boondoggles, all of his policies of picking winners and losers, has done nothing but cause the wealth divide to soar, soar, SOAR.

What is interesting is that not only was Obama’s wealth gap worse than George W. Bush’s, but so also was Bill Clinton’s.  And keep in mind, this is the Bill Clinton who largely governed as a moderate, having renounced the big government liberalism that the Democrat Party embraces.  He assured us that under his presidency, “The era of big government is over.”  Because his “big government” period early in his presidency failed and failed the angry American people, and he had the wisdom to recognize it.

Obama brought it back.  And Hillary Clinton will grow it into even more of a fatal cancer than it already is under Obama.

We consider Obama’s policies and the result they have had on something that it turns out poor people need to live – FOOD – and we can only marvel at Obama’s hatred of the poor:

Price Index for Meats, Poultry, Fish & Eggs Rockets to All-Time High
June 17, 2014 – 11:20 AM
By Ali Meyer

(CNSNews.com) – The seasonally-adjusted price index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs hit an all-time high in May, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

In January 1967, when the BLS started tracking this measure, the index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs was 38.1. As of last May, it was 234.572. By this January, it hit 240.006. By April, it hit 249.362. And, in May, it climbed to a record 252.832.

“The index for meats, poultry, fish and eggs has risen 7.7 percent over the span [last year],” says the BLS. “The index for food at home increased 0.7 percent, its largest increase since July 2011. Five of the six major grocery store food group indexes increased in May. The index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs rose 1.4 percent in May after a 1.5 increase in April, with virtually all its major components increasing,” BLS states.

In addition to this food index, the price for fresh whole chickens hit its all-time high in the United States in May.

In January 1980, when the BLS started tracking the price of this commodity, fresh whole chickens cost $0.70 per pound. By this May 2014, fresh whole chickens cost $1.56 per pound.

A decade ago, in May 2004, a pound of fresh chicken cost $1.04. Since then, the price has gone up 50%.

Imagine, if you make it vastly more expensive to grow food, while issuing one crippling regulation after another, food will become more expensive.  You’d think that was common sense, but it is like nuclear physics or neurosurgery to liberals.

Liberals believe you can hate job creators and love jobs.  You can’t.  These people are pathologically morally insane and their moral insanity is bearing the fruit that insanity produces: fewer and fewer jobs, jobs that pay less and less, part-time jobs because of ObamaCare, a lower standard of living, higher food costs, higher fuel costs, more pressure on more families just to keep their heads above water.

Hillary Clinton arrogantly, self-righteously, and in the face of all reality to the contrary, claimed that she and husband Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House.  You want to talk about someone who is so utterly and so profoundly out of touch with reality and with ordinary people that it is beyond unreal?

“Dead broke” means asking your parents if you can have your old room back.  Or if they’ve passed, “dead broke” means begging a friend to let you sleep on their couch.  Or living in a shelter.  It doesn’t mean getting multi-million dollar loans to finance palatial “houses” while giving speeches for tens of thousands of dollars a pop.

But this out-of-touch crony capitalist fascist is actually going to run on the wealth divide that liberal policies impose on society.

These liberals are truly and simply nothing more than pure, cynical liars who count on the people’s ignorance and media propaganda (much the way Hitler and Stalin did) to secure their positions and entrench themselves.

 

The Blame Game Masters: Iran’s Plan B Has Always Been Obama’s Plan A-Z. Consider How Obama Blames Bush For His Iraq Failure.

This is almost funny it’s so sad.  Iran has mastered how to defeat America by watching the master at defeating America at work: Barack Hussein Obama.

Analysis Iran maneuvers to win blame game if nuclear talks collapse
By Paul Richter
June 17, 2014, 4:46 AM|Reporting from Vienna

Iran’s nuclear negotiating team has come to this city hoping to seal a deal on its disputed nuclear program that will finally remove the international sanctions crippling its economy..

But just in case they don’t win that diplomatic victory, they are carefully positioning themselves to come away with a valuable second prize: a win in the ugly blame game that would follow the collapse of negotiations.

Tehran’s team wants to make sure that if its talks with six world powers collapse, many nations would conclude that Iran had been prepared to compromise and the obstacle was the maximalist demands of the United States and its hawkish Israeli and Persian Gulf allies.

The Iranians hope that if many countries come to that view the countries will begin to shed sanctions, allowing Tehran to sell its oil again, and to continue pursuing a nuclear program.

What happens to the sanctions, the world’s great point of leverage on Iran, “depends on who wins the blame game,” said Cliff Kupchan, a former State Department official who follows Iran for the Eurasia Group risk consulting firm.

Iran’s last president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, liked to project an image of thunder and fire. He didn’t look reasonable to the world audience, and didn’t much care.

But the smiling team of President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif seek to come across as reasonable representatives of a country that deserves more than pariah status.

In the run-up to this fifth round of talks, Iran’s nuclear negotiating team has put considerable effort into convincing the world that they are not the threat to a diplomatic solution to the 2-decade-old dispute over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

At a news conference last Saturday, Rouhani stressed Iran’s “goodwill and flexibility” and his hopes that a deal could still be wrapped up by the current deadline of July 20.

He seemed to signal that he was prepared to set aside Iran’s longstanding enmity with the United States, saying it might cooperate with the U.S. on the struggle against Sunni extremists in Iraq. Of course, as a responsible world power, any Iranian step would be consistent with “international law,” he emphasized.

Rouhani also argued that the sanctions are unraveling anyway. “Conditions will never go back to the past,” he said, in an apparent effort to convince oil-consuming nations they will soon be able to resume oil purchases.

Foreign Minister Zarif, meanwhile, has been building a case that Iran’s goals in the nuclear negotiations are reasonable and that the West’s are extreme.

In a Washington Post Op-Ed article last week, Zarif wrote that in 2005, he and Rouhani floated a plan to the West that would have allowed an international panel to regulate Iran’s nuclear program based on whether they thought it was peaceful. Instead, the George W. Bush administration demanded a halt to Iran’s uranium enrichment, undermining diplomacy and leading to a huge expansion of the Iranian nuclear program.

“They were mistaking our constructive engagement for weakness,” Zarif wrote.

He argued that “small but powerful constituencies” in the West have been calling for tough action against Iran by saying that the country is only a couple of months from having enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

In fact, Zarif wrote, Iran would still need “several years” of work to complete all the complex processes needed to turn the fuel into a bomb.

He pointed out that 2005 and 2012 National Intelligence Estimates, which represent the U.S. intelligence community consensus, concluded that Iran wasn’t trying to build a bomb.

The Iranian team is hoping that if the talks collapse, the defection of a few non-Western oil-importing nations, such as China, Turkey or India, might begin an accelerating unraveling of the sanctions.

Obama administration officials contend the sanctions have remained strong since the signing of an interim nuclear deal last November that eased some of the penalties on Iran.

Many countries remain wary of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, in part because of evidence that Iran for years was secretly expanding the program.

Yet the administration has some vulnerabilities in the public relations battle.

One is that many countries are increasingly skeptical of the U.S.’ heavy use of its powerful economic sanctions, which the White House this spring has imposed on Russia because of the dispute over Ukraine.

Many countries, including some in Europe, see Congress’ use of sanctions as excessive.

A senior administration official, asked in a briefing this week about Iran’s efforts to win over world opinion, may have bolstered its argument by warning that if Tehran didn’t yield in negotiations it would be clobbered by more sanctions legislation.

“If Iran does not feel it can make the choices that are necessary, I have no doubt that Congress will take action,” warned the official, who declined to be identified under administration ground rules.

We’ve never seen such a demagogue in the White House.  EVER.  This wicked man ran promising to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.”  Obama deceived and lied his way into office, pure and simple.  And dug in like a disease-bearing tick, he proceeded to “fundamentally transform America” by abandon any and all compromise and ramming home his Stalinist partisan ideology by whatever means necessary (usually Stalinist means through “executive orders” and simple lawlessness, mind you).

Everything was Bush’s fault.  And as that myth started to wear out, everything was the Republicans’ fault.  Obama is a one-trick pony, and the blame game is his one trick so he keeps doing it over and over and over again, ad nauseum.

Our enemies have taken notice of how pathologically weak and cynical Obama is.  And they have taken note of how to be like Obama and use rhetoric to delegitimize truth.

Obama demonized George Bush over EVERYTHING.  Except the way Bush won the Iraq War.  Obama didn’t demonize that; nope: he tried to take credit for it (as I documented in a recent article).  Joe Biden put it this way when Bush was long out of office and everything seemed to be going so, so well:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

Obama BOASTED in 2011 about how wonderfully HIS plan had worked to produce a stable Iraq:

“This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

Of course, NO ONE in the Pentagon had agreed with Obama’s plan.  They had BEGGED Obama to keep the sort of residual force in Iraq that John McCain had described America as needing to ensure true long-term security:

QUESTIONER: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years —

McCAIN: Maybe a hundred.

QUESTIONER: Is that — is that —

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea — we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans —

QUESTIONER: So that’s your policy?

McCAIN: — As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, then it’s fine with me. I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, and equipping and motivating people every single day.

Had we remained in Iraq the way we remained in South Korea and the way we remained in Japan and the way we remained in Europe, WE WOULDN’T BE WHERE WE ARE NOW.

And where we are now is a complete disaster, with Iraq collapsing to terrorists who are – get this – WORSE than al Qaeda while we beg our ENEMY Iran – which is responsible for one third of all American deaths and casualties suffered in Iraq – to help us because we are too weak to help ourselves now.

Let’s look at the timeline of what the military said was wise and what they said was idiotic.  Let’s start with Feb 2, 2009 only days after Obama took office:

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Obama was a fool.  He still IS a fool.  He will ALWAYS be a fool.

Note that we DID have an end-run around the just-as-stupid-as-Obama Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: just re-categorize the troops as “support troops.”  And there are PLENTY of such end runs if Obama had wanted them: for example, now, if Obama sends in ANY troops, he could provide cover for them by declaring them to be under the protections of embassy personnel.  He could have ALWAYS played such games had he wanted to.  The fact of the matter is, Obama wanted OUT of Iraq.  He cut and ran, just as we said.  He never TRIED to negotiate anything but his ass not hitting the door on his way out.

Note that back in 2009, literally one day after taking office (January 21), Obama was already IGNORING the superior knowledge and wisdom of the military and frankly even his own experts in his own cabinet that he had chosen.  And he imposed his idiot liberalism on America and now we’re paying for it and will pay far MORE for it soon.

Note that American military commanders ALWAYS assumed that Obama wouldn’t be such a fool as to do what he did, as this article underscores:

Despite Obama’s declarations Friday and the celebrations they have sparked on the liberal blogosphere, the Pentagon certainly seems to believe its forces may well be in Iraq after 2011. NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki reported on Friday that “military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated. And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years.” Some have suggested that such statements from the military are insubordination and contrary to Obama’s orders, but they could also reflect discussions between the White House and the Pentagon to which the public is not privy. Then there’s the monstrous U.S. embassy unveiled last month in Baghdad, the largest of any nation anywhere in the history of the planet and itself resembling a military base. Maintaining this fortified city will require a sizable armed U.S. presence in Baghdad and will regularly place U.S. diplomats in armed convoys that put Iraqi civilian lives in jeopardy.

The fact is this: the military demanded that we need to have at least 20,000 men as a residual force; Obama refused to listen to wisdom and ordered the military to draw up a new plan.  So the military scratched their heads at Obama’s arrogant idiocy and returned, asking for at least 10,000 troops.  Again, Obama refused common sense.  Obama was only going to allow a way-too-small force of 3,000.

And when Obama came to the Iraqi Prime Minister with that clearly-too-small-to-do-any-good number, Nouri al -Maliki understood that Obama had absolutely no intention of truly remaining as a stabilizing force in Iraq, that he was cutting and running, that America under Obama was useless, and that he would need to run to the Iranians instead of relying on the Americans.

In other words, Obama lost the war right then and there.  Obama – who wanted OUT – offered absolutely nothing whatsoever that al-Maliki could use, which made it easy for al-Maliki to refuse Obama’s “assistance.”  Hence no status of forces agreement.

Let’s go to a period – April 10, 2011 – after the Obama-King-Dumbass-of-the-Universe policy on Iraq is on the verge of being implemented:

WASHINGTON — Eight months shy of its deadline for pulling the last American soldier from Iraq and closing the door on an 8-year war, the Pentagon is having second thoughts.

Reluctant to say it publicly, officials fear a final pullout in December could create a security vacuum, offering an opportunity for power grabs by antagonists in an unresolved and simmering Arab-Kurd dispute, a weakened but still active al-Qaida or even an adventurous neighbor such as Iran.

The U.S. wants to keep perhaps several thousand troops in Iraq, not to engage in combat but to guard against an unraveling of a still-fragile peace. This was made clear during Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ visit Thursday and Friday in which he and the top U.S. commander in Iraq talked up the prospect of an extended U.S. stay.

Note how the media slants and distorts the story.  The military wasn’t having “second thoughts” about this idiotic move by Obama; THEY HAD ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

Also, note that they feared not only terrorists taking over Iraq, but the terrorist State of Iran taking over Iraq.  Under Obama’s wicked, demon-possessed stupidity, BOTH ARE NOW HAPPENING.

We learn – if we care about history rather than liberal’s fact-warping rhetoric – that:

Obama’s plan, as his advisors have often said, is subject to “conditions on the ground,” meaning it can be altered at any point between now and 2011. Underscoring this point, a spokesperson for New York Rep. John McHugh, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said on Friday that Obama “assured [McHugh] he will revisit the tempo of the withdrawal, or he will revisit the withdrawal plan if the situation on the ground dictates it. … The president assured him that there was a Plan B.”

In other words, Obama made the call.  He made the call AFTER Bush had secured victory.  And Obama foolishly made THE WRONG CALL.  And now the Middle East is melting down around us as a result of our Idiot-in-Chief.

Of course, we now know what Obama’s “PLan B” was: to blame Bush for Obama’s idiotic failures and count on the mainstream media to sell it.

As another example of how the Fool-in-Chief annihilated American influence in the Middle East, consider how Obama – after his “red line” debacle – refused wisdom in sending aid to the pro-democratic rebels in Syria as John McCain and Lindsey Graham begged Obama to do a good two years plus ago.

We had a chance to topple Syrian dictator Assad AND install a government friendly to us, but Obama dithered too long and blew any chance we had.  And then – because Obama is a true fool – he involved Russia and Putin who takes Obama to school every time they negotiate.  And Putin maneuvered Obama into literally NEEDING Assad to remain in power to secure a WMD deal that Putin and Assad held over Obama’s head like a carrot while Assad murdered now well over 160,000 of his own people.  And while a vicious terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – ISIS – metastasized first across Syria and now into Iraq.

These are all just facts.  It is what happened.

But the way Obama – using his “Iran Plan B” strategy as per the top article above – has handled his debacle is to blame Bush for it.  If Bush hadn’t started the war, we wouldn’t be here.

You know, just like “If I didn’t have an opposable thumb, I wouldn’t have smashed my finger with this hammer.”

It is significant that BOTH of Barack Obama’s Secretaries of State – first Hillary Clinton and then John Kerry – voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq.  Because they looked at the clear and present danger that Iraq posed and they looked at the intelligence evidence that Bush was also looking at, and they came to the same decision that any rational human being would come to faced with such overwhelming evidence.

History records THAT as a fact as well.  It also records the fact that nearly sixty percent of DEMOCRATS in the United States Senate (29 of 50) supported Bush’s policy on Iraq in the form of something called “the Iraq WAR Resolution.”  That’s right, kids: “The Iraq WAR Resolution.”  Only to turn on him like treasonous dogs the moment that politics and unbelievable dishonesty and cynicism on the part of the Democrat Party entered into the picture.

Again, note that the two people who served as Obama’s Secretaries of State – Hillary Clinton and John Kerry – both voted “YES.”

Democrats are demonic, backstabbing traitors.  And if you give them power, they will undermine America every single time.

So Obama is trying to play games and blame pretty much all of the scandals that HIS administration is responsible for on Bush.  Like the VA scandal.

Now Obama’s – OBAMA’S – failed policy is coming home to roost.  And the man who just a few years ago was claiming total credit for Iraq is now using his army of media cockroaches to suggest that Bush so screwed up Iraq that it’s wrong to blame Obama.  BULLCRAP.

The fact of the matter is that George W. Bush secured victory in Iraq and handed off a safe, stable, secure nation to Barack Obama.  Barack Obama claimed credit for what he received and in so doing claimed ownership of it.  Had his policy not been so wrong, had he not so completely and so arrogantly IGNORED his wise military advisors, we would not be in this mess.

Don’t let Obama play his “Iranian strategy” on this one.

 

Obama’s Disinformation, Deception, Deceit Led To Disarray And Defeat In Iraq. And It Will Happen In Afghanistan As History Repeats.

There is no question whatsoever that George W. Bush handed Barack Obama a victory in Iraq as “messiah” took office.

The clearest expression of that victory came from his vice president, Joe Biden, who proclaimed after Bush handed over Iraq:

I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

I want you to note that while I used that statement from Biden several times (such as when he first said it), I quoted it from an article I read titled, “Obama’s Utterly Failed Policy With Syria, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan And The Entire Middle East Is A Clear And Present Danger.”  I just want to ask right now, WHO WAS RIGHT???

Obama – who had always demonized the war in Iraq – flatly stated the surge strategy that defeated the terrorists would not work.  The simple fact of the matter is that it DID work.  And the reason that we’re losing absolutely EVERYTHING we sacrificed 4,500 dead and over 30,000 wounded Americans is because under Obama we pulled out and LEFT.

But let me continue with Obama’s record of disinformation, deception and deceit.  Obama boasted:

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end — for the sake of our national security and to strengthen American leadership around the world.  After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011.

As Commander-in-Chief, ensuring the success of this strategy has been one of my highest national security priorities.  Last year, I announced the end to our combat mission in Iraq.  And to date, we’ve removed more than 100,000 troops.  Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country’s security. […]

Over the next two months, our troops in Iraq — tens of thousands of them — will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home.  The last American soldier[s] will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops.  That is how America’s military efforts in Iraq will end. […]

This December will be a time to reflect on all that we’ve been though in this war.  I’ll join the American people in paying tribute to the more than 1 million Americans who have served in Iraq.  We’ll honor our many wounded warriors and the nearly 4,500 American patriots — and their Iraqi and coalition partners — who gave their lives to this effort.

And finally, I would note that the end of war in Iraq reflects a larger transition.  The tide of war is receding.  The drawdown in Iraq allowed us to refocus our fight against al Qaeda and achieve major victories against its leadership — including Osama bin Laden.  Now, even as we remove our last troops from Iraq, we’re beginning to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, where we’ve begun a transition to Afghan security and leadership.  When I took office, roughly 180,000 troops were deployed in both these wars.  And by the end of this year that number will be cut in half, and make no mistake:  It will continue to go down.  […]

So to sum up, the United States is moving forward from a position of strength.  The long war in Iraq will come to an end by the end of this year.  The transition in Afghanistan is moving forward, and our troops are finally coming home.  As they do, fewer deployments and more time training will help keep our military the very best in the world.  And as we welcome home our newest veterans, we’ll never stop working to give them and their families the care, the benefits and the opportunities that they have earned.

This includes enlisting our veterans in the greatest challenge that we now face as a nation — creating opportunity and jobs in this country.  Because after a decade of war, the nation that we need to build — and the nation that we will build — is our own; an America that sees its economic strength restored just as we’ve restored our leadership around the globe.

Thank you very much.

I wonder what the “more than 1 million Americans who have served in Iraq” think of false messiah Obama now that they know that absolutely everything they fought for, everything their brothers died for, everything thousands of them suffered terrible wounds for, has been PISSED AWAY by a deluded and benighted fool?

I want you to realize that absolutely EVERYTHING Obama promised was a lie.  He claimed –

“And as we welcome home our newest veterans, we’ll never stop working to give them and their families the care, the benefits and the opportunities that they have earned.”

Allow me to reference the latest national news with an out-of-control, bloated, Veterans Administration bureaucracy in which veterans are literally DYING while they’re waiting just to get on secret waiting lists.

But let’s refocus on the OTHER galling, appalling, demon-possessed lie about the “success” of Obama’s “strategy.”  Obama boasted in the above speech:

As Commander-in-Chief, ensuring the success of this strategy has been one of my highest national security priorities.

Obama “ensured” that not merely a terrorist group BUT A DAMN TERRORIST ARMY WOULD FLOOD LIKE ROACHES ACROSS A THIRD OF IRAQ AND CREATE A CALIPHATE TO LAUNCH WORSE ATTACKS AGAINST AMERICA THAN 9/11.  THAT’s what he “ensured.”

I love the title of an article that primarily just pastes together a series of Obama’s blathering words and then gives us a few snippets that reveals the disgraceful failure of the blathering policies behind those blathering words.  The title says it all:

Obama to Iraq: Here’s the Book. Here’s the Phone. See You Later. It’s Tee Time!

In 2o11, as he lied his way to victory in the 2012 election, Obama boasted:

This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.

[W]e will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe haven to terrorists.”

Yeah, right, you wicked liar.

Time for that “Dr. Phil” question: “How’s all that Obama-ensuring-success-of-this-strategy-restored-leadership-around-the-globe working for you?”

Iraqi troops “Bergdahled” on us and just took off their uniforms and their body armor and deserted their posts:

Iraq: Militants seize Mosul as troops abandon posts
AFP
Mosul, Iraq, June 10, 2014

Gunmen seized Iraq’s second-largest city Tuesday as troops threw away their uniforms and abandoned their posts, officials said, in another blow to the authorities, who appear incapable of stopping militant advances.

In moral idiot Obama rhetoric, they “served with honor and distinction.”

The terrorist army is now firmly in control of pretty much ALL of the near third of Iraq dominated by Sunnis.  And they are fighting within 50 miles of Baghdad.  And employing such gruesome tactics that even al Qaeda blanches.

Literally Tuesday of last week, Obama was still foolishly boasting utter nonsense, such as this gem of abject moral stupidity:

The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been.

Let me just begin by pointing out that Barack Obama is not just a demon-possessed liar by my words; he’s a liar according to his own.  As I write this – and as Obama was blathering the above drivel – we have THE largest humanitarian crisis EVER erupting on our border with Mexico, as tens of thousands of illegal immigrant children have totally overwhelmed our Border Patrol resources.  Read about the disaster.  Anyway, Obama’s spin-stooges are arguing that these tens of thousands of new illegal immigrants aren’t flooding into America because Obama has abrogated the law and refused to enforce it, no; they’re pouring in here because of the out-of-control VIOLENCE that has overwhelmed their home countries.  Yet we’re less violent than we’ve ever been in the world.  Right.  My God, but this man lies refute his own lies with such regularity it is beyond unreal.

I mean, holy crap, tell that “the world is less violent than it has ever been” idiocy to the nearly 200,000 Syrians who have been murdered while Republicans and military leaders have BEGGED OBAMA TO FOR-THE-LOVE-OF-GOD-DO SOMETHING while he went to endless fundraisers.  In this peaceful Utopia of Obama’s there are more than one million Syrian refugees who have fled the terror and rape and murder of their homeland.  There are more Syrian school-age children in Lebanon right now than there are freaking LEBANESE school-age children!

It is BECAUSE of Obama’s disgrace and failure in Syria – typified by his despicable “red line” bullcrap empty useless rhetoric – that we now have the meltdown in Iraq.  ISIS is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.  ISIS now dominates a third of both countries.  Obama allowed cancer to metastasize and he did NOTHING but blather about what a wondrous success he’s created out of sand and now that cancer is spreading.

The same John McCain Obama savagely mocked for the sin of being completely right when McCain said we needed to have a long-term force in Iraq the way we had them in Germany and in Japan after the war has been begging Obama for more than three years to please for the sake of all living things to send some kind of aid for the anti-regime fighters.  Obama pissed away that opportunity the way he’s pissed away every other good thing in the universe and now the war is raging with well-trained, well-funded terrorists because Obama wouldn’t provide any training, any weapons or any funding for the pro-democrat fighters trying to oppose Assad.

Obama is the cancer that is spreading American weakness.  Nobody trusts us to stand by them.  Nobody SHOULD trust us to stand by them.  Because Obama has obliterated American resolve and American credibility.

In this world that is “more tolerant than it has ever been,” tell that to the Sudanese Christian woman who has been sentenced to suffer 100 lashes before being executed because she will not renounce her faith in Christ.  I can only suppose that Obama despises Jesus Christ and His Christianity every bit as much as the State jihadists who are going to murder her that he would say such a patently idiotic thing.

All of Obama’s pure lies aside, I was stating it back in 2011:

Libya, Iran, Entire Middle East Beginning To Spiral Out Of Control. Obama Entirely Responsible

Promise: we are going to fail in Afghanistan every bit as much as we are wildly failing in Iraq.  To announce to your enemy that you are going to leave is tantamount to offering your surrender.  And the Taliban will flood in and the terrorists will have TWO caliphates to attack America from the way they attacked us on 9/11.

Already al Qaeda is stronger than they have ever been and control more territory than they ever have.  We have lost the war on terror.  And therefore terror will be coming back to viciously bite us.

We are wildly failing.  And we are wildly failing because we have a Failure-in-Chief who has disgraced this nation and arrogantly brought the wrath of God down upon us.

Barack Obama is a liar without shame, without honor, without virtue, without integrity and without decency of any kind.  He blamed America and America’s presence for chaos and violence and argued that withdrawing from a confrontation with our enemies would result in a Utopia.  Because he is a fool.  The fact of the matter is that you either fight evil or you surrender to it.  If you blather words at it, which Obama has done, or negotiate with it (think of the Bergdahl trade; or think of Obama pleading with Iran to help us in Iraq), as Obama has done, or embrace it, as Obama has certainly done here at home, you become evil.  And that is where this nation is at, what it has degenerated into.

 

 

 

A New Term For Your Lexicon: ‘Bergdahling.’ We’re Seeing Lots Of It In Iraq Right Now As Aftermath Of Obama’s Cut And Run

First the pronunciation: remember Eva Gabor in Green Acres?  Good.  All you’ve got to do is say “dahling” the way she did and then put a “berg” in front of it and you’ll nail it.

Second, the definition: it involves 1) removing your uniform and 2) deserting your position, your unit and your buddies.  Technically, in Bowe Bergdahl’s case, it also involves 3) seeking out the enemy and likely collaborating, but to seek out and join terrorists the way Bergdahl did is either so stupid or so evil or so BOTH that it’s just too far out there.  I mean, that’s the trifecta, and as the Miami Heat appear to be discovering in the NBA Finals right now, such a three-peat is not easy.

So let’s just agree to define “Bergdhaling” as removing your uniform and deserting your position in time of war.

Well, okay, you could also go another way and define “Bergdahling” as a president selling out his nation’s national security for chump change out of an idiotic belief that it will politically benefit him.  So like other words, it’s got a range and the precise meaning depends on context.  If you’re talking about a president betraying America, he’s “Bergdahling” in this latter sense.  And if you talk about a soldier “Bergdahling,” he’s doing it in the former sense above and removing his uniform and deserting his buddies.

This is – I believe – an important term today.  Because thanks to Barack Obama’s utterly disastrous and disgraceful foreign policy, we’re seeing a TON of “Bergdahling” going on in Iraq:

Gunmen seized Iraq’s second-largest city Tuesday as troops threw away their uniforms and abandoned their posts, officials said, in another blow to the authorities, who appear incapable of stopping militant advances.

Because of this contagious phenomena of “Bergdahling,” a splinter group that is actually so bad even al Qaeda says they’re too vicious has overrun three Iraqi cities, already carved out a caliphate for themselves to launch new deadly attacks against the Great Satan America, and are swearing they will take Baghdad next.  Well, to be precise, because Barack Obama GAVE them free reign to reorganize and regroup and because of “Bergdahling,” anyway.

I mean, it’s amazing, this group taking over Iraq, ISIS, was established by a rabid killer who even al Qaeda viewed as “too extreme.”

Now, according to official White House doctrine as espoused by Barack Obama’s either most or least capable liar-liar-pants-on-fire Susan Rice, the fleeing Iraqi troops are, like Bowe Bergdahl, “serving with honor and distinction.”

From the reports, 800 terrorist fighters overran tens-of-thousands of Iraqi “Berghalers.”  Don’t forget to praise their honor or their distinction as they flee.

Because, you see, when your president is a Traitor-in-Chief, treason becomes a GOOD thing rather than a BAD thing.

While Barack Obama and his former opponent become former stooge Hillary Clinton can’t comprehend it, this is very, VERY bad for America.  In a letter intercepted between al Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri to his chief lieutenant al-Zarkawi, al-Zawahiri identified four stages to the terrorist strategy: 1) Drive the Americans out; 2) establish a caliphate; 3) attack the Americans; and 4) destroy Israel.

Al Qaeda and organizations like the lethal ISIS, stronger than they have EVER BEEN thanks to the graphic, monumental failure of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, now have their caliphate in both Afghanistan and in Iraq.  And they’re going to be going back on the offense against the United States – whom they now know are the “paper tiger” we WEREN’T under George Bush – and attacking us and our interests.

It’s an interesting thing, how our enemies rightly view us as ripe for attack when Democrats occupy the White House.  Because it was under the pathetically weak cut-and-run response of Bill Clinton that Osama bin Laden first boasted –

“After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians,” bin Laden said. “The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda … about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.”

– and began to plot his giant strike against the paper tiger that culminated on 9/11/2001.  Note that every single one of the nineteen terrorists who attacked us with our own airplanes and used them as flying bombs had planned their attack, infiltrated the United States, received their financing and had their training under the presidency of Bill Clinton.  Bush stepped into the job and didn’t have time to say much more than “how do you do?” before al Qaeda took advantage of the fact that Bill Clinton left America both weak and blind to punch us in the mouth.

I pointed this out years ago:

Osama bin Laden began to prepare for a massive attack on America. Oh, yes, he and his fellow terrorists hit America again and again: they hit the World Trade Center for the first time in 1993. In 1996 they hit the Khobar Towers where hundreds of American servicemen were living. In 1998 two embassies in Africa (Kenya and Tanzania) were bombed and destroyed by terrorists. And in 2000, terrorists hit and severely damaged the U.S.S. Cole. And Bill Clinton proved bin Laden’s thesis correct by doing exactly NOTHING.

Meanwhile, all throughout the Clinton presidency, al Qaeda was preparing to strike us. They brought in all the terrorists who would devastate us with their second attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001 during Bill Clinton’s watch.

America was both weak and blind due to Bill Clinton’s gutting both the military and our intelligence capability. And of course, being blind and unable to see what was coming would hurt us deeply:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.” The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

And so we were hit on 9/11 and were completely blindsided by the attack because Bill Clinton gutted the military and the intelligence budget leaving us weak and blind. And of course our spending skyrocketed because of the DotCom economic collapse that Bill Clinton left for George Bush that happened on Clinton’s watch but gutted $7.1 trillion in American wealth (almost as much as the Great Recession, btw) and which collapsed the value of the Nasdaq Valuation by fully 78% of its value as Bush was still trying to clean all the porn that the Clinton White House had left on the White House computers. And so Bill Clinton handed George Bush a massive recession and like whip cream on top of his economic disaster he handed George Bush an even more massive terrorist attack.

But, hey, don’t worry. Barack Obama is making all the same mistakes that Clinton made and then a whole bunch of even dumber mistakes that Clinton didn’t make.

Anyway, as you keep hearing that Obama will pave the streets with gold because Bill Clinton paved the streets with gold, please realize #1 that Clinton hardly ever paved the streets with gold and #2 realize that Barack Obama has not and will not govern the way Bill Clinton governed.

Maybe it’s time for more of you idiot Democrats to realize how wrong you’ve been.  Because Obama has completely failed on every front imaginable.  In Iraq, Obama rushed out of their and “ended the war.”  He wasn’t interested in bothering to even TRY to negotiate an American presence to safeguard what America had sacrificed 4,500 lives and 32,000 wounded along with billions of dollars to achieve.  The military warned Obama that his policy would end disastrously, the Republicans warned Obama that his policy would end disastrously, but Obama pulled the plug.

Just so you know how well things were going after Bush won the war, VP Joe Biden boasted:

“[It] could be one of the great achievements of this administration,” he said. “You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

So anybody who tries to blame this on Bush is a diseased-infested liar and if you don’t just slap some sense into that fool, don’t bother trying to talk any sense into him because he’s BEYOND sense.  Because Bush handed off a victory.  And it was such a victory that Biden tried to claim credit for it.

Since becoming president, Obama has done precisely what Osama bin Laden boasted a weak, pathetic “paper tiger” America WOULD do: we cut and ran.  Obama boasts of “ending wars” when all he did was fled and leave our enemies in a strong position to attack us again and again until we are dead and gone.

Anyway, President George Bush’s response to 9/11 so awesome and so lethal that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed- after his capture and yes, after his waterboarding – acknowledged that the American response was so massive and so overwhelming that he doubted that al Qaeda would ever dare to attack the United States again.

But he failed to realize how truly weak and truly pathetic a mighty nation like the United States could become if just one true liberal fool were ever allowed to become our president.

And now they’re right back in our faces.

And what’s Obama doing in response?  Why, he’s trading our “Bergdahlers” for the equivalent of five four-star generals.  Obama’s response is to weaken America and strengthen her enemies.

And our enemies know it.

Obama’s response – now AFTER FOUR MONTHS he’s finally even been bothered enough after all his dithering to even offer one – is “to do our part” – which he basically defines as doing NOTHING.  After Obama walked away for his weekend golf, none of our allies had any more assurance that Obama will stand by his allies and none of our enemies had any fear whatsoever.

I think of our troops who fought so hard and for so long and I just want to vomit.  Just reflect on the past week: first it blows up that our soldiers are getting the “benefit” of the bureaucratic, socialized medicine that Obama wants to impose on ALL of America when it doesn’t even work for the relatively small number of America’s veterans.  We find that our enemies in Gitmo are getting FAR better care than our troops are getting.   Then we have the Bowe Bergdahl fiasco explode, in which a deserter and very likely a TRAITOR is said to have “served with honor and distinction” while that same demonic White House demonizes every other member of Bergdahl’s unit who DIDN’T desert and who served their country.  And now we find out that Obama has blown EVERYTHING our soldiers spent the last ten years fighting for.

I am so disgusted.  So much sacrificed to win and Obama has so pissed it away that we are negative ZERO.