Get PJ Media on your Apple

VodkaPundit

Miss Me Yet?

January 9th, 2014 - 10:25 am

The headline is the old joke (it really is old already) about George W Bush. But in Iraq of all places, it might just be true:

Iraq’s ambassador to Washington says the Obama administration doesn’t fully grasp the consequences of failing to more aggressively combat a surging al Qaeda threat inside his country, pointedly suggesting that President Obama has been less engaged with Baghdad than his predecessor.

“Less engaged” might be the exact right phrase for the guy who didn’t know Washington couldn’t create shovel-ready jobs, what his own IRS was up to, whether his website would work, who the NSA was tracking, Fast & Furious, and all the rest.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (1)
All Comments   (1)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"Less engaged" is generous.

I'd use the term, "not engaged whatsoever".

The Iranians know it. The Chinese know it. And after Benghazi, and Obama's various other disengagements - "First I've heard of it" being the refrain for all, they've sized him up, found him to be a punk, and know not only that now is the time to go for it, they can be assured there'll be zero repercussions.

Sad thing is, the way the administration has done things, disengagement is now a fait accompli. We've proven to be witless and unreliable, so there's no possibility of re-engagement.

The Russian observation of us in Syria - -"A monkey with a hand grenade", is telling here.

And, with Susan "Dont-call-it-genocide-or-we'll-have-to-do-something" Rice as National security head, and Kerry as Sec-state, we can be assured that whatever happens we'll make a dogs breakfast of it.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All