Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy Bottom Line: Disgusting, Demoralizing and Completely Predictable

From the Washington Post’s article about Bob Woodward’s new book, Obama’s Wars:

“Everything we’re doing has to be focused on how we’re going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It’s in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room.”

Obama rejected the military’s request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end. “I’m not doing 10 years,” he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. “I’m not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars.”

Stop the presses. Our Marxist, Amerika-hating, ACORN-educated Community Organizer-in-Chief isn’t interested in victory over America’s enemies, who just happen to share his sick, twisted view of our amazing country. His attitude is like Jay Cutler being interested in making sure that the Green Bay Packers win on Monday night, which should come as a surprise only to the really slow kids who still haven’t caught on.

As far as wanting to get out of Afghanistan, I guess I’m a tad confused. Didn’t Barack Obama say that Afghanistan was the “good war,” the one we needed to focus on to defeat our terrorist enemy? Could that have just been–dare I say it?–politics? As it turns out, the shocking answer is “yes!”

Strangely missing from the WaPo article, but included in the U.K.’s Globe and Mail:

“I can’t let this be a war without end,” the President tells aides, “and I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”

Here’s the best, as in most disturbing, quote from the WaPo article. It nearly caused me to lose my breakfast:

During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said: “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

Lisa Beamer, how did you and your kids “absorb” the loss of your husband Todd? Did it leave you stronger? I’d like to ask anyone who loved one of the nearly 3000 victims of the 9/11 attack that our alleged Commander-in-Chief can refer to with such cold, clinically calculation.  By this argument, we should encourage more attacks like 9/11 because they are like great workouts: tough, painful, but they leave us “stronger.” Of course, Mouchelle Antointette didn’t have to leap out of a 100-story building with flames and smoke threatening her ample posterior. Nor did the Obamas’ prop kids. Some of the little people got the privilege of performing that service, demonstrating how well our country can “absorb” the effects of Islamic fanatics’ terrorist murders. “See,” says the president? “No worries. We–I mean they–can handle it.”

I hate to keep harping on this fact, but many of us were on to the Obama flm flam even before he was elected to the U.S. Senate back in 2004. That’s because we had read drivel like this hackneyed leftist pap, written by the One, right after 9/11, his attempt to explain it:

We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

Like many of B. Hussein’s remarks, these sound great. “Failure of empathy …”numbness to the pain.” Shades of an Oprah book club selection, and not frequently associated with guys who run around sporting filthy rags on their head and hacking off heads with machetes. Yes, he talk pretty at times. It’s just that this childish yip yap has absolutely no connection to reality. Seriously, is he kidding with this crap? Poverty? Of course, because nothing says poverty like being raised in as a lawyer’s son upper middle class home like Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the 9/11 attack. I guess I can cut the One a little slack on the ignorance charge, since Atta had received a university degree, and several of the other hijackers had attended the re-education camps known as colleges.


Here’s another little tidbit from the WaPo article about the book:

A classified exercise in May showed that the government was woefully unprepared to deal with a nuclear terrorist attack in the United States. The scenario involved the detonation of a small, crude nuclear weapon in Indianapolis and the simultaneous threat of a second blast in Los Angeles. Obama, in the interview with Woodward, called a nuclear attack here “a potential game changer.” He said: “When I go down the list of things I have to worry about all the time, that is at the top, because that’s one where you can’t afford any mistakes.”

The phrase “game changer” seems an odd one to use. It’s like he’s talking about LeBron’s decision to go the Miami Heat, not hundreds of thousands killed by incineration or radiation poisoning. I guess that choice of words shouldn’t be surprising given his admiration at our country’s ability to “absorb” even the worst terrorist attack, which is a good thing, since our ability to do so makes it possible for him to be sure to keep his leftwing moonbat base at a low simmer rather than the bubbling cauldron boil that is their natural state. Priorities are priorities.

Add another “first thing I think about when I wake up and last thing I think about before I go to bed” item to the list of concerns that occupy real estate in Obama’s massive brain “all the time,” presumably even on the golf course. Unemployment, the Gulf Oil spill, now a nuclear attack. Barry, a piece of friendly advice. Get some new writers. This threadbare line of yours has begun to lose its impact. It’s not quite as hackneyed as “tax cuts for the rich,” but, after all, that one has provided over sixty years of great service. How about this? Say that you were shaving, and then one of your daughters, say Malia, poked her head in and said “Did you stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons yet, Daddy?” Oh wait …

Despite the Obama apparatchiks’ efforts to characterize this book as something else, it reveals Barack Hussein Obama for what he has always been: a jug-eared, narcissistic, inexperienced, TelePrompTer-dependent, Chicago machine politician/con artist and walking illustration of the Peter Principle when occupying any position of actual responsibility. This book illuminates that which was obvious to many of us long before its publication: he is also very dangerous. We are not the only ones who have noticed that fact. So have our enemies.


Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, and Your calls. The Teri O’Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in color, Sundays 2-3:30 pm Central time  at Daring to Commit Common Sense, Fearlessly, and More Important, Cheerfully, in the Age of Obama.

Can’t listen live? Download it from iTunes and listen on demand.

As one listener wrote “one of the most insightful and entertaining pundits in America. Also, her voice is magical.”

Serious Ideas, Irresistible Entertainment. Warning: listeners may become hopelessly addicted.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

The Teri O'Brien Show

%d bloggers like this: