Is Obama Strong on National Security? Of Course Not and Here’s the Iron-Clad Case Against Him
Let me explain to you why the Obama administration’s propaganda leak effort to prove the president is tough on national security is nonsense.
Almost every example, with two exceptions — a computer virus against Iran and regime change in Libya — revolves around the willingness to combat or kill al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden. There has never been any question that the Obama administration views al-Qaeda as an enemy and a danger that should be wiped out — that isn’t the problem. The problem is this is the only factor in the world this administration sees as a national security threat, since al-Qaeda is eager to launch direct attacks against targets on American soil.
The administration does not act against any other possible national security threat, be it Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, North Korea, China, Russia, Pakistan, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Turkish Islamist regime, the Muslim Brotherhood, or anything else. The administration has shown its belief that engagement, flattery, refusal to help their intended victims, and concessions can win over these enemies. It has even tried to redefine the Taliban as a group that can be conciliated and given a share in a new Afghan government, despite its involvement in September 11.
The only partial exception to that list is Iran. Yet even there, the Obama administration avoided doing anything for almost three years, and even now the government has been desperate to make a deal with Tehran. Only Iran’s intransigence — and preference for stalling — has prevented some bargain. Even on the Iran issue, the administration did less than Congress wanted and virtually exempted China, Russia, and Turkey from having to observe the sanctions.
Thus, the one other case of administration “toughness” has been support for Israel’s strategy of using such delaying tactics as computer viruses. Of course, the administration is happy with low-cost, no-risk ideas that postpone its having to deal with Iran having nuclear weapons.
During its term, the administration has not been tough in terms of helping allies all over the world. A few dozen governments friendly or allied with America have been very disappointed by U.S. policy.
FB will not let me post this article. Gives me this error msg.
http://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/safe_image.php
Me too….
http://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/safe_image.php <<What the hell?
I’ve received the same error for every link I’ve tried posting on Facebook. I sent them a message saying I think it’s a mistake.
Sometimes I wonder if Obama is trying to make himself appear contemptible?
No other President needed such informicals as the NYT supplies him with in the course of revealing classified information.
Or maybe he does see himself as a real-life comic book superhero? Globama-man in the flesh! Look, up in the sky, faster than a denial of leaking classified information, higher than the deficit or his opinion of himself (OK maybe not that high), it’s Globama-man come to save the day.
Actually Obama is achieving things I previously thought were impossible. Before this I never considered that anything could further lower my opinion of him. I may support his re-election just out of curiosity to see how far down he can go.
Yea,he’s a comic book super hero alright….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0HWOdN7OTQ
This is exactly the type of material, and presented in this way, that placed in front of those smart (!)lawyers in our Congress could start a movement towards Impeachment Proceedings against this Chameleon Obama.
Bill Clinton went through Impeachment for an oral dalliance in a closet near the Oval Office…..anybody remember that nasty scene? He slithered away……but was not the same afterwards. A Scarlet Letter was stamped on his administration.
Obama’s leaks are far more serious and far more dangerous.
No, Clinton was impeached for perjury.
O.K., fair enough….I stand half-way corrected…..so I’ll take this opportunity to spin that into a pun and claim that that’s also an oral issue…as perjury being issued orally, or… better stop right there.
Doesn’t matter. Senate is Democrat.
……Granted, but don’t give up.
Wouldn’t a Motion passed by a House vote, aware of that, be like a “No confidence” vote in a parliament?
Smart,crafty lawyers on the Rules Committee should get to work. Maybe they are.
Unfortunately the Senate WOULD have a trial, but it’d be a show trial where Obama would be proven innocent. It would just make him look good, and it’d make the Republicans look bitter.
It simply doesn’t matter what Obama says; what he does shouts too loudly for me, at least, to hear his words. A president “tough on national security” does not weaken the military at a time of rising global violence, does not deliberately undermine important international alliances, and does not install political hacks in important appointive positions with authority over either foreign affairs or military posture. Q.E.D.
We’ve survived the ineptness of Jimmy Carter, the greed of the Clintons, but
the damage Obama has done may take generations to correct. Sadly, those who still consider voting for him may give us 4 more years of destruction of the
way of life so many fought, and yes, died for. I for one, am deeply shamed that our voting population didn`t see him for the pompous, egotistical empty suit that he is. It might even be funny if it weren`t so damaging. Oh, wait…
our enemies are splitting their sides !!
“It is not yet clear whether this operation will leave Libya worse off and will jeopardize U.S. interests. Note that the Libyan transitional government is stalling on elections, apparently because these might result in a radical, anti-American Islamist regime or a regional conflict that would produce a new civil war. At any rate, it was less a bold action than a mere going along with the crowd, and whether the operation was of any benefit to U.S. interests is still to be seen.’
This has to be one of the most under-reported stories of the past year. There is a strong case to be made that Libya is worse off now than it was under Gaddafi. You have militias running around the country all fighting for power and you also have the very real possibility of a radical, anti-American, Islamist regime taking over. In short, you could be seeing a new Somalia emerging from this mess, only this one will have oil revenues to fund terrorists and is located on the Mediterranean only a few miles off the coast of Italy. This could be a stunning failure for not only Obama, but for NATO too, yet you hear nothing about it on TV or in the mainstream media. And if Libya does fall apart, then the Obama administration and France and Britain should take the full brunt of the blame for getting needlessly involved in this civil war in the first place.
Worse, many of the Libyans now fighting with Libya’s militias fought against American troops in Iraq. Needless to say, these people don’t have a high opinion of the United States and would like nothing better than to see al Qaeda launch attacks against the west from Libyan soil. Yup, things are looking “better” and “better” in Libya and yet nobody either in Congress or the media is saying anything about it. Shameful.
Uh, which one of your listed nations there is gearing up to invade the United States? None? But sure, tell me more of this limited government you verbally support but don’t actually believe in.
Islam is invading. Look to Britain, and wait 10 to 20 years. It’s not a matter of faith. It’s a matter of politics. With Islam, they are one and the same.
Ned….
…..that’s my pet subject…..I’ve been calling it “penetration”, “subversion”, “infiltration”, via Hamas-associated C.A.I.R. propaganda and effective lobbying groups aimed at our Congress….Saudi financed madrassas in Northern Virginia-istan….Dearborn-istan on the order of a Fifth Column…
Does anyone remember Soviet moles, penetration, espionage, subversion starting oh, so quietly in the 1930′s or so?….later at the State Department via Alger Hiss?….. on and on.
Muslim/Islam is using these very same tactics right now as we read this……that’s our contemporary Invasion.
Lawfare citing “victimization” via the likes of the A.C.L.U.,…..on and on. “Study” Groups, “Ecumenical” committees and “Chairs” financed by the Saudi’s at Georgetown Univ.in our District of Columbia…..
Britain-istan should be seen by us Americans as a Muslim fait accompli,a stark lesson…. and so I try to emphasize this at every opportunity.
Where does it say that a constitutionally limited government can’t defend itself?
Well said, Tom. In fact I’ll go a step furter in making BB-brain V look even more ignorant in his attempt to snark: Those of us who argue for a constitutionally limited government often point out that our Constitution SPECIFICALLY designates Defense to be one of the very, very few powers and responsibilities given to the Federal Government!
Damn, but libs are ignorant. I truly wish that their ignorance was painful to them instead of the rest of us.
“Preemptive war” isn’t “defense.”
Actually…yes it is.
Your logical statement has no place among warmongers and those who walk on the Constitution while claiming to defend it.
Try reading the Constitution once in a while wes…you wouldn’t look so stupid that way.
Frankly, O is probably the weakest president we’ve had in the last 140 yrs. His domestic policy is to kill off jobs & the economy by taxing us to death, useless gov’t bail outs & foolish self-defeating fiscal policies.
As the author noted, his foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster! Give me Millard Fillmore any day. At least he knew who our enemies were & lived in realville as Rush says rather than in fantasy land.
Nuff said!
Obama has not raised taxes, you are delusional.
“(Even Jimmy Carter didn’t posture over the comparatively brave decision to launch an armed rescue mission of the U.S. hostages held in Iran.)”
“See how tough I am? I killed Bin Laden. That proves I really am tough. I mean, I gave the order and everything. Navy Seal Team Six – heck, all they did was risk their lives, go in there and pull the trigger – I did everything else. I mean, like Bill Clinton said, the downside for me was tremendous. So I’m tough. I killed Bin Laden.”
“The administration’s portrayal of this as some courageous decision shows more than anything how weak he is.”
Yep.
Rubin, Barack Hussein Obama is a Usurper for crying out loud. Why do you still call him President? How does one call a man who usurped the office of the POTUS deserve the respect of that title. The office is no longer sacred it has now been usurped. When are you going to do your own investigation into this issue? I will be looking forward to you participating in the investigation that has been going on for four years now.
1)Lead from behind
2)Hide behind someone else’s skirt
3)Claim victory if it happens
4)Blameshift defeat if it happens.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
A drone is not a policy. It’s a piece of equipment.
Obama doesn’t make tough decisions, he only takes credit for them after the fact.
Barry,
Great analysis. These points aren’t mentioned enough, if at all. What was the administration’s policy on Iran for its first three years in office? To do nothing and hope to “negotiate” on nukes, ignore the democracy movement. This was the same “strategy” applied toward Assad before he turned butcher on Syria. Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Turkey–all get passes. Israel, however, gets its leader lambasted by Obama chatting it up with the French president. What nonsense.
“During its term, the administration has not been tough in terms of helping allies all over the world. A few dozen governments have been very disappointed by U.S. policy.”
Now the U.S. is supposed to help “a few dozen” more governments!? Sorry, kind of been busy fighting and trying to figure how to pay for a couple big wars (and some other ones too) that we shouldn’t have been in in the first place….
Your opinion, while ill-informed and myopic, is noted.
Go ahead comment some more. It does wonders for the resolve.
The leaks once again divided the intel community beyond repair now. In the matter of Syria, BHO has officially deferred all decision making to Russia and China. No one will admit that Kofi Annan is a weak-kneed weasel who has been tasked with one of the more important decisions on how to handle Syria, when in fact the whole matter of Assad is under the rule of Iran. Ahmadinejad declared war on the United States two years ago with Syria as the proxy and Obama with the help of the Joint Chiefs and Hillary have voted only present. There is now not just one group of rebels there are perhaps as many as 20 and the cherry on the banana split in Syria is the chemical weapons located in numerous sites. Syria IS Iran.
Another good Rubin article, long on symptoms, short on solutions. Mr. Rubin’s assessment of threats is rather expansive (Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Turkey? These are threats to our national security?) or absurd (China, Russia?) What does Mr. Rubin propose we do concerning these “threats”? Attack them militarily? Apply sanctions? Engage via the State Department or maybe the UN? Oh, stop PR oriented White House leaks! Such lack of specificity is Mr. Rubin’s modus operandi, reflecting a vague dissatisfaction with the Administration’s bad policies, but offering no solutions.
The fact that the author listed Cuba as a threat to national security, discredits his opinion beyond repair. He is clearly stuck in 60′s. Sorry Ruben, but it is no longer the 60′s. How about the fact that Obama has decreased the number of nuclear warheads that Russia and the US have stockpiled. Rouge nuclear weapons being the greatest threat to our country.
I think you mean “rogue” rather than the make-up “rouge”. But your point is clear. Cuba is a threat? Bolivia is a threat? Turkey (out NATO ally) is threat? Mr. Rubin’s “threat” assessments leave something to be desired.
Other men have been lousy presidents….lying, cheating fools and even worse but I never doubted their basic Americanism….having nothing to do with any one’s birth certificate. I don’t feel the asame about obama’s
The only thing this CSIC (Choom-smoker-in-Chief) or SLIC (Secret-Leaker-in-Chief) seems to be good at is campaign-rhetoric, and even that only before select audiences and for as long as the teleprompters keep working. Gads!
Is he strong on NatSec? Because he had Osama killed? Because he sent a couple hundred “cruisies” into Libya after getting “permission” (LOL) from the UN, via Hillary? Because he “under-bussed” the Poles and Slovakians on missile defense to “reset” (LOL) with the Kremlin-crooks? Because he ignored Iran’s “Greens” to set the stage for negotiations (LOL) with the Mullahs, when anyone conscious since ’79 could have told him “fat chance for that”? Because he OK’es drone attacks on some 2cnd tier AlQuaeda ops in far-off places? What did he really accomplish? — Not much. If anything, he’s managed to increase uncertainties about outcomes, thereby multiplying the dangers.
True, Bolivia is not likely a real threat, nor Cuba. But, “our Nato friend/ally” Turkey? — Wouldn’t be too sure of them: We still get along, but barely. Forgotten the sudden denial of transit to our troops in 2003? How about Cyprus? Not much in the news, but maybe because we’re not pushing it? If we did, would the “Turkish Islamic State Revivalist” Erbakan still talk or act friendly? Forgotten their staging of blockade-runners 2 years ago, and their reaction to IDF’s (utterly legit) stoppage? What was our reaction? Mum, so as not to “offend” our alleged NATO-ally? How about our almost next-door-neighbor Venezuela, and their dalliance with Iran? How about the securing of our southern border? How about the impudence of Mexico’s president coming here to lecture our Congress? How about the small affair of the would-be Honduran dictator-in-spe, 3 years ago? How did we officially react?
Ask me, these are all issues of policy, to be clearly and openly stated by our Administration on a world stage, and to be backed by credible actions, credible because consistent with the situation and our stated resolve. Roosevelt would have called it “showing the big stick”. I simply call it the “responsibility of power”: use it or lose it! Trying to play both sides of an issue with one finger held up to test the wind-direction is not leadership. But leadership, above all, is what the WH-occupancy is all about. Use it, or lose it!
The recent leaks –regardless the who-done-it– tend to confirm that “leadership” was always “voting present” when it counted, and now, a few months to election-time, needs an image-boost. Hope it backfires, ’cause that’s all it deserves! “Image”, in the sense of Ms. Anna Wintour’s “Vogue”, is NOT what it’s about on the “stage” of real world affairs. Of that you may be sure!
There’s another bone to pick with the NewLeft Progs’ mind-set:
Not forgotten their and corrupt MSM journalists’ slanderous portrayal of George W. Bush during the period 2004-2008, and thereafter, as some under-educated, dim-whitted, out-of-tune-with-the-times near-Hitlerian political criminal and foreign policy idiot. To this I have but one reply:
Compare, if you will, the two pictures recently presented on a number of sites, of a youthful Obama, and of GW as a young man, the one in floppy hat and clothes slumming on some Hawaian beach smoking some kind of (probably illegal) weed, the other in full flight gear about to board a NatGuard F-86.
Does any NewLeft Prog actually have the dimmest idea of what you have to know, and how often you have to prove your ability, to some very unforgiving “graders”, before the AF lets you sign for a multi-million-$ combat jet? Rest assured, stupidity and/or mental stagnation better NOT be one of your attributes, not even a smidgen! — Not enough, getting into and graduating from some institution as prestigious as Yale LS was not easy, especially not for GWB’s age-cohort well prior to the days of “grade-flation”. Rest assured that even if “well-connected” you had better be neither the dumbest nor the laziest of the bunch! — Being a successful Texas Governor for years was equally not easy, I would bet.
Contrast the current WH occupant. At what, exactly, was he ever truly successfull before running for office? His “autobiography” 1, written when he was barely past 30? – What arrogance! And possibly ghost-written and not-so-accurate? – Double the arrogance! But, even if all true, then how come the total info-blackout at huge expense (to somebody other than himslef) of his complete past? What’s he hiding? Or, others for him? What would have been sooo embarrassing, if his predecessor was really that stupid and inept?
We may only guess, but my guess is that a truely immense lie was laid upon the American public in 2008, and since, and all possible attempts are being generated at this very hour to repeat it!
He left out the many blunders in eastern Europe, but there are space limitations. Many of obama’s errors, mistakes, and duty omissions will not be revealed for years unless some war breaks out and the countries he has betrayed and belittled blow his national security cover. Nobody elected him to vote present as president, it is an executive position, not a legislative soap box.
Not! Tehran: Iranian Stealth UAVs Photographed US Carriers
http://rusnavy.com/news/othernavies/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=14870
“I know a couple of translaters here that might help you do it for no cost if you want to make contact with me personally”