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.

 

 

 

 

The Obama Administration’s Clueless Response To The Egypt Crisis

If you look at Obama’s frankly miserable polls, you find that Obama is doing better on the Egypt crisis than any other issue:

February 9, 2011
Obama’s Approval Rating on Deficit Sinks to New Low
Egypt ranks among issues on which Obama is best rated
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ — President Barack Obama’s approval rating for handling the federal budget deficit has gone from bad to worse in recent months, even as his ratings on all other major national issues have generally held steady. Currently, 27% of Americans approve of Obama on the deficit, down from 32% in November, while 68% disapprove.

Overall, Obama is doing much better on international issues than domestic ones. Among eight issues on which Obama was rated in the new poll, Americans give the president the highest approval ratings on foreign affairs and the situations in Egypt and Afghanistan. The deficit, the economy, and taxes rank among his lowest ratings, alongside healthcare policy.

And you find that 47% of those surveyed approved of Obama’s handling of Egypt.  Versus the 27% who approve of his handling of the deficit and the 37% who approve of his handling of the economy.

What is amazing is just what a remarkably incompetent job Obama has done in even his best rated issue.

Obama’s foolish mishandling of Egypt began before most of the rest of the nation knew anything about it.  The CIA said, “We warned of instability.”  And they warned Obama that the Mubarak regime could fall last year.  And like the kid who didn’t bother to start his term paper until the day after it was due, Obama did nothing.

Obama wasn’t “ahead” of the crisis in Egypt; he was so woefully behind and so hostile to actual positive reform it is almost funny.

After the crisis erupted with hundreds of thousands of Egyptians protesting in the streets, the Obama administration offered this pearl of ethical insight:

When asked if Mubarak was a dictator, Biden responded … I would not refer to him as a dictator.”

Said Obama administration observation came out the same day that dictator Mubarak shut down the entire internet in Egypt.

Then there was this penetrating analysis of the stability of the Mubarak regime by Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

The language coming out of the Obama Administration has verged on the bizarre as Egypt lurched into another political showdown in the streets on Friday…

“Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people,” Secretary Clinton said earlier this week…

And as Dr. Phil often asks delusional morons, “How’s that working out for you?”

Then you have Obama’s director of National Intelligence with this unbelievably stupid misrepresentation of reality:

“The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’…is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” Clapper said. “They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera…..In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.”

The Brotherhood uses the slogan, “Islam is the answer,” and generally advocates for government in accordance with Islamic principles. The movement has as a broad goal unifying what it perceives as Muslim lands, from Spain to Indonesia, as a “caliphate.”

James Clapper has simply got to go.  Clearly someone “clapped” his little light bulf off, and no one thought to clap it back on again.

What was the motto of this “largely secular” organization again?

“Allah is our objective.
The Prophet is our leader.
Qur’an is our law.
Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

I’m sure that sounds “largely secular” to any drooling imbecile you might happen to ask.

That said, if we put drooling imbecile’s in charge of our mainstream media, we’d probably see an improvement.  A lot of the media have depicted the Muslim Brotherhood as though it were the Salvation Army.

What does the FBI have to say about the Muslim Brotherhood?

Muslim Brotherhood, the banned opposition political outfit in Egypt, supports terrorism according to FBI Director Robert Muller. Muller made the statement during a Congressional hearing on Thursday where lawmakers said that the group is using peaceful protests in Egypt to grab power.

 “Elements of the Muslim Brotherhood here and overseas have supported terrorism,” Muller said in response to a question at a hearing on “Worldwide Threats” by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Muller, who refrained to give any further information in an open session, said that the United States has no relationship with Muslim Brotherhood.

What else can we know about the Muslim Brotherhood?

the Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwan Al Muslimun in Arabic, is frequently mentioned in relation to groups such as Hamas and Al Qaeda. And, although today they may be best known as the largest independent bloc in the Egyptian parliament, they are nearly always invoked as the origins for extremist visions of Islam that root today’s jihadist movements.

The Muslim Brotherhood were the prototypical terrorist organization, in the same way that the Italian Mafia was the prototypical criminal gang organization.  I would submit that it has become rather like the Sinn Féin to the Irish Republican Army.  It is the political and propaganda wing of the armed terrorist movement.

Many of today’s top terrorist leaders, such as #2 overall al Qaeda leader Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, came out of the Muslim Brotherhood.  But that’s nothing, because the #1 overall leader of al Qaeda – Osama bin Laden – came out of it too.

And then there are the words of the current Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohammed Badie:

“Arab and Muslim regimes are betraying their people by failing to confront the Muslim’s real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded. Governments have no right to stop their people from fighting the United States. “They are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme” over all non-Muslims.”

DNI James Clapper came by his genuine moral idiocy honestly; he caught it from his commander-in-chief.

For the record, one of Obama’s invited guests for his 2009 Cairo speech was the Muslim Brotherhood.  Apparently, Obama wanted them to pursue “democracy” and take over the country.

Since the violence erupted and the Egyptian government began to melt down, Obama has made public statements that the Egyptian foreign ministry said “inflame the internal situation in Egypt.”  Which of course means more riots and more violence.  But that shouldn’t be too surprising, given the fact that we find from the Wikileaks documents that the Obama administration has been backing rebels in Egypt practially since George Bush started moving his furniture out of the White House.

Obama has – incredibly – welcomed a role for the Muslim Brotherhood and that organization’s seventy-year-long push for sharia law as the law of the land in Egypt.

That’s the craziest, most clueless and most incompetent thing of all about this story.

Mind you, Obama hasn’t given a damn that the Coptic Christians are excluded from participating in their government while he pushes for a role for the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood.  All that matters is that the beloved Muslim Brotherhood be included.  This is similar to Obama calling for a brand new mosque to be built near Ground Zero, while doing nothing to help rebuild an existing Greek Orthodox Christian church that got destroyed.  Why doesn’t Obama’s inclusiveness always have a way of excluding Christianity and including Islam?

There’s talk of democracy in Egypt.  It certainly could happen; but it’s totally theoretical at this point.  Right now the only democracy in the Middle East is Israel.  And this is how Israel feels about the situation on their western border:

(Reuters) – If Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday.

Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to conform to the current ideology of political correctness.

Obama can either pat himself on the back or walk away from Egypt.  As things go well, Obama was absolutely central to everything (e.g., Chris Matthews having another tingle go up his leg: “it took Obama to have this happen“); as things go poorly, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.  Meanwhile, Israel has to live next door to whatever happens.  And they’re bitter over Obama’s betrayal of both a historic ally (and just what is the point of being a U.S. ally when Backstabber Hussein Obama will throw you under the bus the nanosecond it’s convenient for him to do so???) and of Israel itself.

The funniest thing of all – after listening to Obama’s speech on the situation in Egypt, in which he inserted himself by using his “this is the moment, this is the time” refrain – was this from ABC’s Jake Tapper:

“Also worth keeping in mind: cant find anyone in O admin who thinks whatever comes next will be better for U.S. interests than Mubarak was”

While I believe that Egypt will not ultimately fall into the terrorist faction of the growing list of rogue Islamist regimes, I can assure you my belief has nothing to do with Barack Obama.

Rather, I would argue that if this is what Obama has done best, then it truly testifies to just how incredibly incompetent and contemptible Barack Obama truly is.