Obama Dithers


Unscripted Questions And No Teleprompter Cause Our President To Look Befuddled

North Korea assaults South Korea with an artillery barrage; Obama frets over the Six Part Talks and figures we shouldn’t reward bad behavior with money.

But we should feel confident that the President’s closest advisers are more than capable to handle any emergency while the Chief struggles with indecision. Here we have some of the president’s own.

National Security Adviser Tom Donilon: He just rose to his current post in October, replacing Jim Jones. Prior to his tenure in the Obama administration, Donilon was chiefly … a Democratic operative. And a lobbyist for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for six years. Aren’t you glad a Fan-Fred lobbyist is advising POTUS on dealing with the wildly unpredictable, violent, and dangerous Kim family in North Korea?

Vice President Biden’s National Security Adviser Tony Blinken: Blinken’s national security resume is arguably a little stronger than Donilon’s, having worked around the national security apparatus a bit more than Donilon has. On the other hand, VP Biden calls Blinken “one of the smartest guys I’ve ever worked with,” (coming from the man who opposed the surge and wanted to divide Iraq into three separate states and leave them for Iran’s pickings, that’s quite a statement!) and he has the unabashed endorsement of violent-fantasy prone rabid left-wing blogger Spencer Ackerman, who calls Blinken an “energetic progressive.” Seriously.

Senior White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Counterterrorism and Arms Control Gary Samore: Among the chief architects of the controversial START treaty, which, according to its opponents like the Heritage Foundation, is tipped to heavily favor the Russians against U.S. interests. Samore also does a good job of misunderstanding the roots of strife in the Middle East. Hint: Arab states attacked tiny and barely armed Israel repeatedly before “arms control” was even a glimmer in Nixon’s eye.

US Ambassador to the United Nations Dr. Susan Rice: Where to start? How about Rwanda. Rice was in the Clinton administration’s State Department when that genocide occurred. She reportedly learned a lesson from that, which was that the U.S. should have intervened. But for some reason that same lesson didn’t apply to Iraq, where the U.S. had actual security interests at stake and from which Saddam Hussein threatened the region and the world. She appears to be one of a long line of “progressives” who advocate for U.S. involvement in international crises in inverse proportion to our national security interests that might be at stake (such thinking elevates Darfur above, say, Iraq). She was John Kerry’s senior foreign policy adviser during his 2004 run for the presidency.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: She boasts an undeserved reputation for international competence; her tenure at State got off to a rocky start with the Russian “reset” faux pas (which was an attempt to placate KGB man Vlad Putin & Co by taking a cheap shot at former President Bush while she was on foreign soil) and has only gotten smoother in direct proportion to her silence. That’s because like her boss, when she does speak, she tends to go around making apologies for the very nation whose interests she is supposed to represent.

We have nothing to fear, President Obama is confident that he can charm and win over our antagonists with campaign speeches and apologies for America’s transgressions in the past. He just needs to recapture the mesmerizing charm and momentum of the 08 election.

If all else fails, we have our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who not only had Saul Alynsky as a mentor, but was married to a president.

There are three basic ways we can look at this latest incident, we can ignore it and hope it goes away, we can have confidence in our administration, or we can be fearful. It is hard to have confidence in the man shown in the above video. Our best option is to hope we survive the next two years and destroy the Democrat party in the next election, excluding California of course.

America’s presence in the world is being diminished by the president’s flaccid and impotent responses to provocation. Aggressors are emboldened when hostile overtures are met with an outstretched hand and ingenuous threats of sanctions. The US was once a great nation; however, such notions are forgotten by enemies and allies, when our leader’s implied mantra is, ‘we capitulate so that we may exist in peace’.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well, there IS some stuff in here that kind’a agrees with my position: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101125/wl_asia_afp/nkoreaskoreamilitarynuclearweapons Included are “It claimed its first political victim when the South’s Defence Minister Kim Tae-Young resigned, following growing criticism that Seoul’s military and government reacted too softly to the assault.

The government said Thursday it would revise its rules of engagement, allowing troops to hit back harder if necessary.

Tuesday’s attack was the first time the North had shelled a civilian area since the 1950-53 war.” And: “Stung by criticism from newspapers crying for revenge, the South said the current “rather passive” rules of engagement would be completely revised.

The military will reinforce ground forces, especially on five border islands, and set different levels of counter-attack “depending on whether attacks are targeted against civilians or the military”, the presidential office said.”

And: “Seoul also wants to review its current agreement to consult the US-led United Nations Command before using South Korean aircraft in combat.” (Call it “The Learning Curve.”)

Re #37, excellent!

Now, again,

. . . . . If you have read Executive Order 13551, perhaps you can enlighten readers of FA as to HOW this order, . . . reveals more about the sort of approach he’ll take than his answer to the reporter’s question.”

. . . Would it hurt too much to explain and delineate his “approach?” Is it that this is actually a Non-Approach? Is this just more of the “Present” approach he employed so effectively during his 2 years in the Senate?

Repeat: We still won’t ask you to explain it’s likely impact on NK. That would be way too embarrassing. . . . . BUT, for pointing out the kind of feeble, and feeble minded slop that comes from an Administration out of its depth, AND for pointing to its ability to bamboozle its worshipers with vacuous documents like this one, . . . thanks.

@Nostradamus: #49

If Obama called for return fire for any attack from North Korea, it would be friendly fire to him. You don’t call for fire on your allies. North Korea is one of Obama’s allies. We know how he bows to dictators.

Just imagine the response by America if Canada started raining hot iron down on Bar Harbor Maine.

I have been asking a similar question regarding Israel not wiping out the Hamas. Why have so many US presidents asked Israel to keep taking the thousands of rocket attacks over the years and not return fire?

The only thing I can figure out is that if Israel destroys Hamas there would eventually be peace in the area and the US aid that we are giving to BOTH SIDES wouldn’t be needed any more. We all know that most of the AID money to foreign countries gets siphoned off and split up along its way to the ones it is SUPPOSED to be going to, and the ones getting some of it want to keep getting it.

@Tallgrass: @Tallgrass: #50

Watch the first few seconds when he is asked the question. His whole expression changes and he puts his fingers up to his nose, then his mouth, and he blinks several times. In one since we should give him a pass on this question because he isn’t used to being asked this kind of stuff. He is used to being asked questions where he can keep telling the world how great he is and how bad Bush was.

What a bumbling idiot.

@ Greg #37,

“The reason the sanction measures in 13551 are actually relevant is because North Korea’s corrupt internal power structure is partially maintained by providing a stream of luxury goods to governmental higher-ups in return for their loyalty to the dictatorship–a significant element of control in a nation where much of the population is periodically on the brink of outright starvation.

In connection with the Order, a number of specific persons and organizations were targeted. They’re all part of the mechanism that facilitates the movement of money, the aquisition of goods, etc:”

. . . You’re kidding. That’s it?

The order isn’t open to interpretation. This won’t stop “luxury goods” (as if that was ever critical), and your statement that the order names specific persons and organizations, does not make it more relevant, nor does it speak to “impact” that such an executive order will have. Your simplistic explanation of government corruption doesn’t provide insight into the Obama strategic thinking machine – probably because there is none. Ergo, you can’t delineate it.

The order only treats what is comfortably within the purview of the United States, and what this Administration is willing to control. This order will not stop goods/products/food from entering NK.

China has to plug the hole, but it will not do so for multiple reasons.

. . . Makes one long for Reagan.

(W)a(R)z. RethugliKKKanz.

Need anything more be typed?


Good God, I’m still amazed by the obvious insanity of some posters.

I try to replicate what I see, just for humor, and I can’t even come close.

Bliderberg! Illuminatus! Southern Strategy! Prescott Bushie! SHEEPLES!!!11eleventy


Nope, still can’t approach it.

I wanta agree with y’all righties … speakin’ Boiler Plate talking points like,’Yer fir us ore agin us’, it’s a sign of intelligence, or even speakin’ word salad, ’cause is just so Joe-6-Pack.

Whereas someone thinking their way through the complexity of an issue, becasue they appreciate the complexity, and can think at the same time …. Well, how could jah have a beer with that kinda guy?

Snerd Gronk; you know, on your 20zzz, what ever he is doing to AMERICA,
HE sure is spending too much abroad for the AMERICANS to afford that big spender

Mr. Obama starts out by saying we have to distinguish the acts of Iran and North Korea, but then doesn’t say how Iran’s acts have been different or less destabilizing than North Korea’s. Many might argue that Iran’s acts over the past thirty years have been more destabilizing than North Korea’s during that time period, but the President doesn’t appear to be in that camp at the present time.
The other statement of note is that he speaks the truth about his real inner motivation, that his major (and I say, sole) preference is to solve problems diplomatically (and without the use or threatened use of force). He is Captain Milquetoast. But even here, he doesn’t offer any explanation or policy when the other side refuses to negotiate, or negotiates merely to buy sufficient time to put their evil plans in full effect. But, my liberal media pals tell me Obama is Captain Awesome, so I am probably not getting the nuances that his fine mind sharpened at Columbia and Harvard.
We are so lucky to have Mr. Obama as President, aren’t we? And now we appear to be in the “six month” crisis that VP Biden mentioned two years ago. (So he was a little off on timing, but the rest of the buffoon’s statement appears to be coming true).

gracie; hi, you mentionned, SOME SAY HE IS BRILLIANT, I think they are not too bright
to say it, and to think it even less; they better eat good food for their brain to inflate,
hopeless but it could’nt be worse.

rich wheeler on your 43, what you said to SMORGASBORD, MUST BE DELUSIONAL

Smorg More great sarcasm in #44 and #53 . Who needs fantasy when Sarah Palin ACTUALLY called North Korea our ally on Beck’s Wed. show.

“W” with a rack is the Dem. Party’s greatest hope for retaining the W.H.IN 2012.

With 401k’s up 0ver 35% 2009-10 people out spending.I SAY GO IRISH.

Sarah apparently corrected her gaffe within 10 seconds of saying it.
But, more importantly, Sarah is a King-Maker for the Republican Party.
She likely will not be running herself.
How many will she encourage to get out and vote is important.
Many of those who support her ideas are at risk of sitting on their hands or voting for some tiny party rather than a Republican.
She can get that group out an voting Republican.
That’s how I see her role in 2012.

Rich #63-

Any idea if she made that comment in one of our 57 states or was it made in the country of Europe? Our Consitution, which was written 20 centuries ago, guarantees freedom of speech.

On Body Language:

There is not a chance that the French President would have so Obviously exhibited such “boredom,” had he been sitting beside President Reagan. Regardless what one might think of the French or any in Europe, it’s taken less than 2 years for them to lose all respect for Obama.

Remember how they applauded him before he was elected? Remember his “I-am-future-king-of-the-world” speech in Germany during the Presidential campaign?

Once in Office, the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT could only carry him so far.

Some people command respect, and others can’t buy it.

Hey Red

Your side loves the boilerplates did you get your copy of “DCCC’s Thanksgiving Cheat Sheet”


Looks like your masters feel you demorat dimwits need you own little teleprompters to speak with the brighter side of your families!!