Archive for the ‘Obama Lack of Leadership’ Category
Can’t Two Things Be True? The Iraq War Was a Mistake. It Was Also a Mistake to Abandon Iraq to ISIS.
They were both wrong. Both their policies were disastrous for U.S. interests.
The verdict is in on George W. Bush’s decision to oust Saddam Hussein.
We found no WMD program, no nuclear weapons program under Saddam in Iraq – the pretense for going to war. As thuggish a dictator as he was, he turned out to be a bulwark against Islamic extremism.
He was no threat to the United States. He was actually an asset.
Saddam hated al Qaeda and the Islamic radicals as much as we do. He did a superb job at killing them.
This is why W’s father, George H.W. Bush made the decision in Operation Desert Storm to push Saddam out of Kuwait, back to Baghdad, and to leave him there.
Reagan also understood Saddam’s value.
He was a counter to the even worse Iran — which is why we sided with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War.
We had an alliance with Incredibly awful Joseph Stalin against the even worse Adolf Hitler.
Not that Saddam was even close to as bad as these fellows.
But in 2003 W Bush made the decision to go to Baghdad to get rid of Saddam, and set up a flimsy replacement government that needed a permanent U.S. presence to survive.
Dumb decision to replace Saddam with this un-serious government.
We’d be far better off with Saddam still in place.
But even dumber is Obama’s decision to abandon Iraq to ISIS.
Obama compounded one mistake with an even worse blunder.
Pulling all U.S. forces out of Iraq suddenly and completely left a power vaccum that was filled by ISIS.
Obama is doing the same in Afghanistan.
Just about everyone agrees we had to go to Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and hunt down bin Laden.
But we’re now leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban – which no doubt will also become a safe haven for ISIS and every other fanatical Islamic group.
Two years ago, Obama thought it was a great idea to arm rebels in Syria in the hope that they might overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad – another Saddam-like strongman dictator.
The problem is these rebels included ISIS and other fanatical Islamists.
Obama claimed he thoroughly vetted the rebels and was only arming “moderate” Islamic rebels.
Are there any “moderate” Islamic guerrilla rebels?
If you believe that, I have horse-racing bet portfolio I’d like you to invest in.
Now Obama is bombing ISIS in Syria, who he used to think it was a good idea to arm.
Meanwhile, ISIS is riding around in U.S. tanks with U.S. rockets and weapons beheading people.
Obama also thought it was a great idea to help the Islamists get rid of the dictator in Libya Muammar Gaddafi. So now Libya is in a state of anarchy and terrorists are using the former U.S. Embassy as their headquarters.
Obama also sided with the Muslim Brotherhood against U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak – another strongman dictator. But at least he was a friend of the U.S. and not out to erase Israel from the map.
The good news in Egypt is that the Muslim Brotherhood has since been thrown out by the Egyptian military. So we have another Mubarak-style regime in Egypt, no thanks to Obama.
But that’s good for the United States.
The truth is Democracy doesn’t work in Islamic countries — at least not those that take the Koran seriously.
Sharia Law and democracy are incompatible.
If you have a vote in these countries, you will have one election one time.
If Saudi Arabia had an election, al Qaeda or ISIS would likely win. We don’t like the corrupt Royal Family that runs Saudi Arabia. But they’re better than the alternative.
We don’t like Assad, but he’s better than what would replace him. We certainly did not like Saddam or Gaddafi. But look what we have now. These countries have become Jihadist Wonderlands.
George W. Bush made one mistake. And it was a biggie – the Iraq War.
He should have just left Saddam in place. Saddam was a “managaeble problem,” to borrow the words of Obama.
Actually, he wasn’t the problem. Turns out he was a pretty good solution to radical Islam, which he hated.
So Bush made a big strategic mistake. Huge.
But Obama has taken the wrong side in literally every conflict in the Middle East. Not once has he chosen the correct side.
He sides with Hamas over Israel. He sides with the Muslim Brotherhood over Mubarak. He sides with “moderate elements” of the Taliban over Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan.
There are no “moderate elements” of the Taliban.
Obama has spent much of his Presidency trashing the Iraqi government — I guess as a way to justify America’s exit from Iraq.
As a result of Obama’s policies , ISIS now controls an area of Iraq and Syria the size of Indiana.
As flawed as George W. Bush was, do you think this would have ever happened if he were still President?
The entire Middle East is now in flames now because of Obama. We have no friends in the Middle East anymore, except Israel – who Obama constantly trashes.
Is Jordan a friend?
It doesn’t matter much because they’re in the process of being overrun by ISIS.
For what it’s worth, George W. Bush assembled a coalition of 48 countries to take on Saddam — the misguided venture though it was.
Barack Obama has persuaded a grand total of nine countries(including the great nation of Albania) to join his coalition to take on ISIS.
Great Britain and Germany have said “no thanks” to Obama’s idea of bombing ISIS in Syria.
That’s how much confidence our allies have in Obama.
Barack Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Winston Churchill by comparison.
Who the Hell Would Not Have Killed Bin Laden? It’s No-Brainer. But Obama Dithered for 16 Hours Over Whether to Give the Green Light to Let the SEALs Kill the Terrorist.
U.K. DAILY MAIL: Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.
The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.
In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.
Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ‘gutsy call’ made by the President.
Obama calls British Embassy the “English Embassy.” Does he know the difference between Great Britain and England?
But the media keeps telling us Rick Perry doesn’t know much
It’s also possible Obama was intentionally insulting America’s closest ally — in the same vein as returning the bust of Winston Churchill, giving the Queen an iPod as a gift, and revealing the U.K.’s nuclear submarine locations to the Russians.
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: It is gratifying to see President Barack Obama condemn the disgraceful storming of the British Embassy in Tehran by thugs acting at the behest of the Iranian regime. After all, Obama has been notoriously slow in the past to criticise the brutal actions of the Iranian government after initially extending the hand of friendship to it. But did he really need to make another embarrassing foreign policy gaffe while doing so?
In a press conference this evening, the president referred in stumbling fashion to the “English Embassy” in Iran instead of the British Embassy. One can only imagine the kind of howls of derision that would greet any presidential contender if that kind of basic error were made before, say, the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. You can watch the video above.
The Dow has dropped 11% since the debt deal last Monday.
JON PODHORETZ-NEW YORK POST: If Barack Obama loses next November, we’ll look back on Sunday — July 31, 2011 — as the day he became a one-termer.
He demonstrated the one key quality common to all unsuccessful leaders: Haplessness.
In the most confrontational partisan moment of his presidency, Obama ended up looking remarkably powerless. He didn’t get his way. To put it mildly.
The deal he endorsed on the debt ceiling will long be an object of debate for both right and left. There’s so much for everyone to dislike in it that people are lining up to rage against it, even
Obama’s ‘I’ Presidency . . . and why finding bin Laden would not have happened if Obama’s policies had prevailed
VICTOR DAVIS HANSEN-NATIONAL REVIEW: Here are a few excerpts from President Obama’s speech on Sunday night about the killing of Osama bin Laden.
“Tonight, I can report . . . And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta . . . I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . . I’vemade clear . . . Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear . . . Tonight, Icalled President Zardari . . . and my team has also spoken. . .These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief . . . Finally, let me say to the families . . . I know that it has, at times, frayed. . . .”
Most of these first-person pronouns could have been replaced by either the first-person plural (our, we) or proper nouns (the United States, America). But they reflect a now well-known Obama trait of personalizing the presidency.
The problem of first-personalizing national security is twofold. One, it is not consistent. Good news is reported by Obama in terms of “I”; bad news is delivered as “reset,” “the previous administration,” “in the past”: All good things abroad are due to Obama himself; all bad things are still the blowback from George W. Bush.
Two, there is the small matter of hypocrisy. The protocols for taking out Osama bin Laden were all established by President Bush and all opposed by Senator and then candidate Obama. Yet President Obama never seeks to explain that disconnect; indeed, he emphasizes it by the overuse of the first person. When the president reminds us this week of what “over the years I’ve repeatedly made clear,” does he include his opposition to what he now has institutionalized?
Guantanamo proves to have been important for gathering intelligence; Barack Obama derided it as “a tremendous recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.”
Some key intelligence was found by interrogating prisoners abroad; Barack Obama wished to end that practice: “This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of law.” “That will be my position as president. That includes renditions.” Renditions have not ended under Obama, but expanded.
FRED BARNES-WEEKLY STANDARD: President Obama isn’t quite in hibernation. But he’s saying less, proposing less, appearing in public less, doing less, interacting with Congress less, plugging his health care plan less, and singling out a Republican demon less. It took two years and the harsh rejection of a midterm election for Obama to figure out what shouldn’t have been a secret: The magic of the presidency declines with overindulgence.
Now several days go by at the White House with the president listed as having “no public schedule.” Or his calendar will feature only a string of Oval Office meetings described as “closed press.” That’s Washington lingo for no media coverage whatsoever.
The shift from overexposure to carefully targeted public appearances is the smartest political move the White House has made this year. Americans appear ready for a president who’s not in their face day after day, hectoring, sounding an alarm, and, more often than not in Obama’s case, boring everyone. The less Obama does in public, I suspect, the more popular he’s likely to become.
THE HILL: Somebody in the White House had the presence of mind to tell
the president that perhaps taking the kids to visit the Mayan ruins wouldn’t be the best thing to do when he has just ordered our Air Force to start bombing Libya.
The truly fascinating question is, What took him so long to make that decision?
The president’s trip to South America has been billed as a trade mission. And of course, trade is an important part of any strategy to boost our economy. Unless, of course, you are part of the union leadership, which has desperately tried to sink all trade agreements, including ones with Colombia and Panama. And by the way, the unions happen to be to biggest supporters of this president.
The Mayan civilization collapsed, scholars say, in either the 8th or 9th century. One theory holds that the reason for its decline was the collapse of trade routes, which would make the president’s visit somewhat germane in that our economy will collapse if we don’t keep trading. But that’s a pretty big stretch in the best of circumstances.
ASSOCIATED PRESS: Immersing himself in Brazil’s poverty and pride, President Barack Obama on Sunday held up the South American nation as a model of democratic change in a time of uprisings and crackdowns across the Arab world and yet another war front for the United States.
From Rio’s glamorous beaches to a notorious slum to an elegant theater, Obama glimpsed the city’s cultural extremes and offered the kind of personal engagement that can pay political dividends for years. Less than one day after announcing U.S. military strikes against Libya’s government, Obama made time to kick a soccer ball around with kids in a shantytown.
The competing stories of Obama’s itinerary — a war front in Africa, an economic commitment to South America — divided his time in incongruous ways. By morning, he spoke with his security team about the international assault against Moammar Gadhafi’s defenses; by night, he stood atop Corcovado Mountain and drank in Rio’s storied statue of Christ the Redeemer and the city lights far below.
Meanwhile, U.S. warplanes pounded faraway Libya.
Here are some especially bad optics from his Brazil vacation