‘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 whichthe 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.

 

 

 

 

 

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

  1. dog walker Says:

    The next 911 ain’t gonna kill just a few thousand though.

  2. truthunites Says:

    Impeach and convict Obama.

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    dog walker,

    I agree. Next time they come, they’re coming big. And if an Obama-type is running the country (e.g., Hillary Clinton), we won’t do a damn thing about it.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    In order to impeach a president, that president’s party has to have some vestige of decency and integrity. Nixon wouldn’t have had a thing to worry about if Republicans hadn’t looked at the evidence and said, “It’s time for you to go.”

    Which is precisely why Obama will never be impeached: because Democrats are truly vile.

  5. dog walker Says:

    I can’t find it on the internet but I think I heard Obama say that if a someone, a country, attacked us with mass destruction he wouldn’t respond in kind. So we ain’t got no deterrence.

    There Used to be a diplomatic philosophy [sic]… walk softly but carry a big stick.

    Now what do we have… walk with a gentle sway and at the slightest sign of confrontation kneel and present a gaping maw.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    dog walker,

    I don’t know the remark you’re alluding to, but I don’t doubt for a SECOND that Obama would dither and do nothing if we were hit by a massive attack. I mean, after all, he’d be just like Bush if he did what he demonized Bush for doing.

    The thing that makes me hang my head in shame is that this nation truly does DESERVE this diseased presidency. We VOTED for it and we voted for it AGAIN.

    This is truly “God damn America,” and God damn America does not stand up for itself when an enemy attacks it.

  7. FMC Says:

    Yes, the miscreant Obama has messed up the entire Middle East. Personally, I think Obama has strong Muslim sympathies and that, deep inside, he may actually be one himself. After all, he had strong Muslim influences in his formative early years. This may have something to do with his policies regarding the Middle East. Of course, one would have to talk to satan to understand the rest.

    I have no doubt what is going on over there is Biblical and ,unknowingly, Obama and his minions are facilitating the end times process. We are watching prophecy unfold before our very eyes and America is asleep, but she will be forced from her slumber in the next attack. Unfortunately, this time it will be too late. We are going down big time like concrete boots in a lake.

    On a side note, I just read where about 70% of Detroiters can’t afford to pay their water bill and are calling on the UN for help. Detroit: this is what America is going to look like when this is all said and done.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    FMC,

    I’ve never gotten involved in the “Obama is a Muslim” thing simply because it frankly doesn’t matter. What DOES matter is that Obama has the same worldview of Muslim radicals, namely that Government is God. For radical Muslims, the theocracy rules over government with an iron fist in the name of “Allah”; for Obama, he has his “separation of church and state” which means that God is kicked out and Government replaces God as caretaker over society. And since there is a separation of church and state, “bureaucrats” become “the church” and carry out all of the functions of “God” as caretakers over society.

    Basically, the two agendas (radical Islam and radical liberalism) become one and the same. They BOTH want to crush individual human freedom and dignity (Obama has stripped the very Imago Dei by murdering 56 million human beings with abortion) and they BOTH want totalitarian Government control.

    It will be fascinating to see just how “Islam” plays out in the last days. Islam didn’t exist – and wouldn’t exist for another 600 years – when the canon of Scripture was completed. And the Bible doesn’t directly acknowledge Islam. YET the Bible in Ezekiel 38-39 lists a last-days coalition of Gog (Russia), Persia (Iran) and a list of nations/peoples that are ALL Muslim today. We also have TWO beasts with one being “the Antichrist” and the other being “the false prophet.” I submit that it is highly likely that one of these is a Muslim.

    Ultimately, the Bible doesn’t really HAVE to talk about Islam: because what Muslims want and what communists/Democrats want is the same thing: a human Government with the power of God imposing itself by force upon mankind.

  9. truthunites Says:

    “Which is precisely why Obama will never be impeached: because Democrats are truly vile.”

    Congress has got to at least start impeachment proceedings, otherwise there’s no hope for accountability.

    Two groups of people needed to ruin or destroy a country, a society, a culture.

    (1) Aggressors, whether overtly or covertly.

    (2) Cowards, who are supposed to confront the aggressors, but lack the courage to do so.

    #1 are the libs who believe their own lies. #2 are the RINO’s.

    When you add up the number of aggressors and cowards in political leadership, in academia, in the media, in churches, you get the horrendous mess that can only be cleaned up by a major reset.

  10. FMC Says:

    Yeah, it probably doesn’t matter whether Obama is Muslim or not. I do know one thing for sure, that he is not a born again Christian. Other than serving Satan, Obama shares one major thing in common with the Muslims and that is the destruction of this nation the way it was founded.

  11. Michael Eden Says:

    FMC,

    No, Obama is DEFINITELY NOT a Christian if the Bible has anything to say about it.

    Obama believes in something called “collective salvation.” His “salvation” is NOT based on Jesus Christ or faith in Him, but rather by the forced imposition of socialism upon America. If he imposes enough government on enough people, he can be saved according to his “collectivist salvation.”

    Obama is a false prophet, a false Christ. He claims a form of righteousness that is in fact a blasphemy to the revealed will of God.

  12. truthunites Says:

    “No, Obama is DEFINITELY NOT a Christian if the Bible has anything to say about it.”

    Agreed.

    I believe you’ll also agree that Obama has stated that he is a Christian, and that back in 2007 and/or 2008 when he was campaigning for President, he stated that he was a Christian. Furthermore, you’d also agree that many Christians believed his claim and therefore believed that he is a Christian, even to this day. Many Christians voted for Obama, believing that he is a Christian.

    Having established these preliminaries, suppose you, Michael Eden, met Obama. You share the Gospel with him. He says that you don’t need to share the Gospel with him because he’s already a Christian. You say that he’s not. Other people happen to be within earshot, and they say to you that you are being judgmental, and that it’s not your place to judge someone’s else’s salvation. That such judgment is reserved for Christ alone, and that you are putting yourself in Christ’s place. Further, that you are behaving like a judgmental Pharisee, and that it would behoove you, Michael Eden, to recall the harsh words that Jesus had for Pharisees.

    You are led away, and the entire room of people think you are a horrible example of Christianity, and they go up to Obama to apologize for your crude behavior of sharing the Gospel with him in the hopes that he would repent and turn to Christ. He assumes the magnanimous pose, and says that it’s quite alright, he’s engaged with Fundamentalists before, and simply wants to be gracious to such misguided judgmental people.

    What do you think Michael?

  13. FMC Says:

    ” He assumes the magnanimous pose, and says that it’s quite alright, he’s engaged with Fundamentalists before, and simply wants to be gracious to such misguided judgmental people.”

    Sometimes he has even called these Fundamentalists BITTER CLINGERS. I believe one time he was referring to the people of West Virginia, who he claimed clung to their Bibles and guns and that these folks, for some reason or another, were narrow minded and bitter. In this case, the magnanimous pose was very condescending, as I am sure in his elitist mind that most of the folks in West Virginia are like the characters from the movie Deliverance.

  14. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ve actually had that happen: not with Obama but with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    After all, they say they’re “Christians.” And who am I to say different???

    On that basis, I don’t have much of an argument. After all, what’s my opinion worth? (Mind you, what’s THEIR opinion worth, too?). We all have opinions, much the way we all have holes that poop comes out of.

    But I actually have something else that these people – and Obama – DON’T have: I have the Word of God.

    You can lay down in your garage and call yourself a car. You can even get other people to agree that, hey, if you want to be a “car” and you call yourself a “car” and lay down in the garage, dude, you’re a “car.”

    But it is the Word of God – which Obama publicly MOCKED – that decides what Christianity is and what the necessary content of faith for a “Christian” truly is. And by that measure, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons, and yes, Obama, fall radically short.

    If someone wants to claim that I put myself in Christ’s place for reading my Bible and seeing that Obama has nothing to do with the biblical concept of salvation, I will point out that Obama has elevated his human government over God and has made himself a false Christ who imposes a false way that leads to the wrath of God according to Romans chapter one.

    I allude to Obama’s embrace of homosexuality, of course. And the idea of “the magnanimous pose” and the so-called “open-mindedness “that it’s quite alright, he’s engaged with Fundamentalists before, and simply wants to be gracious to such misguided judgmental people” crashes into the Bible.

    What most people simply fail to understand is that the concept of human sexuality presented in the Old Testament was EXTREMELY COUNTER-CULTURAL in its time. There was the way the REST OF THE WORLD did stuff, and there was the way the God of the Bible told HIS PEOPLE to do stuff. You can readily find that the rest of the world was FINE with homosexuality, with cult prostitution, and all kinds of other sexually deviant practices. The New Testament repeated that Old Testament view of human sexuality without changing the standard of God’s timeless Word in a culture that was every bit as radically wicked as the one the Old Testament dealt with. The Old and New Testament is incredibly counter-cultural.

    So you’ve got the wicked Obama or the wicked pseudo-Christian whose soul is FAR from God and FAR from Christ who wants to say that God is wrong, that God is judgmental, that God is hateful and intolerant, and it was all the nations who are at WAR with God who are right.

    And we see a clear dividing line. We see an answer to the question Moses asked: “Who is on the Lord’s side?” And Obama AINT.

    So I would say, call me intolerant and judgmental for believing the Word of God and the God Whose Word it is. But I’ll point out that my arrogance doesn’t even come CLOSE to the arrogance of the person who opines that his or her opinion is so awesome that it transcends even God and His Word. We’ve ALL got opinions, but the Word of God is eternal and it stands alone.

  15. truthunites Says:

    “We’ve ALL got opinions, but the Word of God is eternal and it stands alone.”

    Agreed. But has this happened to you too: A professing Christian (usually liberal) says in response that the Bible was written by men.

    I.e., the Bible is fallible. And so he/she is not really transcending God and His Word, but simply being tolerant and loving, which you, the judgmental Pharisee, are decidedly not.

  16. Michael Eden Says:

    FMC,

    The fact of the matter is that “tolerance” in the way that the liberals think of it is NOT a biblical or Christian virtue. We’re simply NOT to be “open-minded people” who entertain the view that the viewpoint of the world is equal to God’s. It’s not. Period.

    But then what happens is rather amazing, when you consider it: as you underscore, what liberals do is present a standard that was never OURS as Christians to begin with, and then become the most hypocritical violators of the very standard that they seek to impose on everyone else.

    Liberals are THE most fascist and intolerant people on earth. They are EVERY BIT as fascist and intolerant as the jihadists; they merely have a different means of implanting their fascism (why fight and die when you can let lawyers viciously fight our opponents for us?). They say Christians should be “tolerant” of everybody else, but THEY’RE not tolerant of Christians. They who preach tolerance are radically INTOLERANT of everyone who disagrees with them.

  17. truthunites Says:

    Hi Michael,

    Do you share the Gospel with someone who shows that they are a politically liberal Christian?

    Suppose you meet someone who goes to your church and they support both abortion and gay marriage, and they usually vote for Democrats and liberal positions.

    Is it a Gospel issue or a sanctification issue? How do you tell the difference?

  18. Michael Eden Says:

    truthunites,

    There’s either something called “sin” or there isn’t.

    If there isn’t there is no NEED for the Gospel. No one has done anything wrong; thus we’re all equally “saved” or else evolution is true and we’re all equally dust and nothingness.

    If there IS such a thing as “sin” – and the Bible is rather clear about the fact that there is – then it is rather crucial to know what IS sin and what isn’t.

    Call me a prude for believing that God has a say on this one. As J. Vernon McGee once put it, “You might have a better plan than God, but what you DON’T have is your own universe.”

    And therefore those people who might stand there and tell me that what GOD says is sin ISN’T sin because Obama says otherwise are in a lot of trouble.

    I say this to liberals: if your God is Obama, then do what Obama says and follow Obama to hell. If your God is the LORD, then do what the LORD says.

    And you’ve got to be beyond brain dead if you believe that Obama and the LORD are declaring the same things. Because they are NOT.

    It turns out that Jesus not only spoke more about hell than anyone else in the Bible, but He spoke more about hell than almost everyone in the Bible COMBINED. There is a judgment and there is a hell.

    We need to be light, but we also need to be “salt.” Salt is a preservative; it is the declaration of righteousness and the call to live righteously.

    Our society is becoming rotten. And it is NOT becoming rotten because Christians are putting too much salt on it, that’s for sure.

  19. truthunites Says:

    “I say this to liberals: if your God is Obama, then do what Obama says and follow Obama to hell. If your God is the LORD, then do what the LORD says.”

    The politically liberal Christian in your church says that his or her God is not Obama, that it is the Holy Trinity, and that he/she still approves of pro-choice politicians, approves of marriage equality, and thoughtfully votes liberal Democrat.

  20. Michael Eden Says:

    The politically liberal Christian in your church says that his or her God is not Obama, that it is the Holy Trinity, and that he/she still approves of pro-choice politicians, approves of marriage equality, and thoughtfully votes liberal Democrat.

    truthunites,

    And the Zen Buddhist says he can hear the sound of one hand clapping.

    Given that abortion is murder according to the Bible (Psalm 139:13-16; Jer 1:5; and ask a liberal to explain Luke 1:41 and why the baby John the Baptist kicked in the womb when he was near the baby Jesus) and violates God’s clear command (“be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28)) and turns what God calls a blessing into a curse (Psalm 127:1-5 and Psalm 113:9) – and given that the Bible OVERWHELMINGLY CONDEMNS HOMOSEXUALITY IN EVERY SINGLE CONTEXT IN WHICH HOMOSEXUALITY IT DISCUSSED – I submit that you are trying to reason with psychologically and morally insane people.

    And at this point I think I am simply being obvious when I point out that NO ONE “thoughtfully voted for Obama.” Voting for Obama was the thoughtless act of a fool based on unrealistic and naïve promises that only fools believed.

    There comes that point where you are arguing with a fool and bystanders can’t tell which one of you is the fool.

    Their God is simply not the God of the Bible – OR THEY WOULD READ IT AND HEED WHAT IT SAYS INSTEAD OF FLAGRANTLY IGNORING GOD’S CLEAR WORD. If they claim that they are getting abortion and homosexuality from the Bible, demand that they show you where so you can refute them all the more soundly.

    Present the Word of God, and let them reveal what their TRUE source of authority is. Because it is NOT God.

    Which is to say that “The politically liberal Christian in your church” is a liar and a deceiver.

    In my blog, when I get such liars, I refute them soundly, and then I block them so I won’t ever have to deal with them again as per Prov 26:4-5. You can NOT debate with a liar who changes and warps facts and truth; all you can do is expose that liar and shake his or her dust from your feet unless and until he or she repents.

  21. truthunites Says:

    “Which is to say that “The politically liberal Christian in your church” is a liar and a deceiver.”

    Have you ever met and conversed with politically liberal professing Christians either in your church or elsewhere? Whether in person or on-line. If so, what’s the best outcome that you recall happening when you confronted them with truth in love?

  22. Michael Eden Says:

    Have you ever met and conversed with politically liberal professing Christians either in your church or elsewhere? Whether in person or on-line. If so, what’s the best outcome that you recall happening when you confronted them with truth in love?

    truthunites,

    Why don’t you first answer your own question? Have YOU ever… what’s the best outcome that YOU recall happening…???

    How many liberals have you converted??? I’d LOVE to hear your success stories.

  23. truthunites Says:

    Hi Michael,

    I can’t think of any. That’s why I’m asking folks like you so that I can learn to be more effective. I’ve been singularly unsuccessful, and thought maybe I’m doing something wrong.

  24. Michael Eden Says:

    truthunites,

    I’ve led a Muslim to Christ. I’ve actually even led a homosexual to Christ. Anyone who is willing to see their lives from God’s perspective can be saved.

    I’ve never led a liberal to Christ. I’ve never even come CLOSE.

    In the Old Testament, you see prophets AGAINST the people they preached to. These people WEREN’T going to hear God’s message. God KNEW they weren’t going to listen to His message. So He sent prophets to prophecy these peoples’ judgment and destruction. In many ways, that’s how I view myself as per liberals; I’m declaring the truth to them – and they will stand convicted by the truth. They’re not going to be able to stand before God and assert, “We didn’t know; how could we have known?” Because YES THEY DID. They just chose to ignore it.

    Liberals are not people who want to hear the truth. They disregard history. They invent their own facts. They play rhetorical games to try to make themselves the victim – which on their view is all they need to “win” an argument. Hypocrisy is their quintessential element; you CAN’T BE a liberal if you are not a pathological hypocrite.

    There are the odd liberals you can win – and I’ll explain why I think that will be more common in my next para – but as a general group these people ARE the wrath of God according to Romans chapter one and they’re PROUD of it.

    All that said, I’m actually encouraged by the young people who are increasingly turning on Obama. They are realizing that this demon-possessed LIAR has ruined their lives with his false promises and his false predictions and his failed worldview. Obama worships human Government in place of God; he is like a jihadist tearing down the alters of “infidels” as he tries to erect Government in PLACE of God. But his government is failing across the board and young people are waking up to giant government-student-debt loads that they can’t possibly ever repay because Obama’s economy will NEVER produce any meaningful JOBS for them.

    The answer, I think, to share the gospel with these people is to break their trust in human Government once for all. And thanks to Obama we have the FACTS and the HISTORY to do it. God made us and He built into us the need to worship something greater than ourselves; and human Government-as-God won’t do it. We need the real thing.

    It occurs to me why liberals may be such hypocrites – and here’s the theory that just popped into my head: it’s due to the size of their god (human Government). Our God is big enough to bless EVERYONE if He wills; we don’t have to be in competition with others for our God’s attention because our God can bless us and bless others at the same time. But not so liberal’s god; human Government is too inadequate. It can only “bless” one group by forcibly TAKING from another. There can only be “winners” if the Government decides that others will be “losers.” In order to give to you, Government has to seize from me. And so liberals by necessity must demand an uneven playing field. And it is NOT a field based on income because, of course, there are rich liberals who also demand to be “blessed” by having wealth seized from others and given to them. So modern liberalism is crony capitalist fascism by which Government takes from the rich to give to the poor, providing that the “rich” produce wealth and create jobs in industries the left doesn’t like. But if you’re into leftist Government temples like “green energy,” or “climate change” or “Hollywood,” well, then, you can be filthy rich and just get richer and richer and richer, can’t you??? And the result is that Hillary Clinton sneers that she EARNED her money unlike some people who don’t pay taxes – alluding to the Goldman Sachs types – and it doesn’t matter that Hillary and Bill Clinton got filthy stinking RICH giving $200k a pop speeches to Goldman Sachs types!!! And of course when you look at Goldman Sachs and many of their ilk, who do they give their campaign money to??? LIBERALS!!! I mean here’s a link for you, titled “Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor” from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/20/obama.goldman.donations/

    Hypocrites are IMMUNE from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That’s why you find it virtually impossible to lead a liberal to Jesus Christ.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: