Barack Obama’s megalomaniacal denial is placing the US in jeopardy


OBAMA AGREES behead_those_who_insult_islam_ CAIRO


What does it take? When does the American left catch on?

Barack Obama thinks he knows everything about everything. Just ask him. He’s never wrong. He cannot admit to being wrong. Anything that goes badly is someone else’s fault. (“I didn’t set the red line”, “I got bad intel.”) Wrong he has been and wrong he is.

This is highly revealing passage from an article written by Steve Hayes and Tom Jocelyn:

Four months before he was elected president, Obama traveled to Iraq for briefings on the war he had long opposed. He met with General David Petraeus, who was then seeking to consolidate U.S. and coalition gains resulting from the surge in American forces and the Anbar Awakening. When Petraeus insisted that Iraq, not Afghanistan, was the central front in the war against al Qaeda, Obama challenged him, arguing that Al Qaeda in Iraq—the organization that would grow to become ISIS—had little ambition or reach beyond Iraq.

According to an account of the meeting in The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama, by New York Times correspondent Michael Gordon and General Bernard E. Trainor, Obama questioned “whether al Qaeda in Iraq presented a threat to the United States.” He said: “If AQI has morphed into a kind of mafia then they are not going to be blowing up buildings.” Petraeus pointed to an attempted attack in Glasgow, Scotland, in 2007, as an example of AQI’s reach and expressed concern about “the potential of AQI to expand its influence to Syria and Lebanon.” Obama was unmoved. “The al Qaeda leadership is not here in Iraq. They are there,” Obama said, pointing to Pakistan on a map.

It was an instructive exchange. Obama, a first-term senator with no experience in military or intelligence matters, challenged the general who had beaten back a jihadist insurgency in Iraq, led a remarkable turnaround in the country, and was a leading figure in America’s broader war on terror. The assessments Petraeus offered were based on years of personal experience guiding U.S. troops against jihadist armies generally, and Al Qaeda in Iraq specifically, and they were bolstered by mountains of intelligence reporting on the enemy, its objectives, and its practices.

Obama simply thought he knew better. His challenge wasn’t based on facts that contradicted Petraeus, or on facts at all. Rather, Obama made a series of assertions based on nothing more than his long-held conviction that Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror. And when he was presented with evidence that contradicted his thesis, Obama simply set it aside and restated his own view. It’s a pattern that would play out repeatedly throughout his presidency.

This is nothing less than astonishing. Obama shuts out anything and everything that does not fall in line with his world view, facts be damned.

Similarly, Obama does not read intelligence briefs that are in conflict with what he wants to believe:

Malzberg pressed Attkisson, “But you’re telling me that you’ve talked to people in his inner circle or in the administration that are telling you that even though there are groups that might be on our terror list that are classified as terrorist groups, Obama in his mind doesn’t consider them to be terrorists because what because they have a gripe?”

Attkisson explained, “I don’t know the reason for it. I’ve only been told by those who have allegedly attempted to present him or been in the circle that have attempted to present him with certain intelligence that they’ve said that he doesn’t want it. He said he doesn’t want it. Or he won’t read it in some instances.”

Obama’s policies are not based on facts, they’re based on what he chooses to believe.

Obama has seen to it that radical Muslim organizations dictate to the FBI how to conduct investigations and train agents, demanding that “offensive” terms such as “Muslim”, “Islam” and “jihad” be omitted.

A former FBI agent says:

Guandolo said the failure to recognize the domestic Islamist threat had allowed domestic jihadist groups and their sympathizers to shape U.S. government create policies that do not acknowledge jihad as the root cause for the current global chaos.

An example, he said, is that the FBI has appointed a domestic Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas support organization leader to an FBI advisory council at the Washington headquarters.

Additionally, the FBI is failing to train agents and analysts on the Muslim Brotherhood network in the United States, Guandolo said.

“The FBI, no matter how diligent its agents are in their pursuit of ‘terrorists’, will never defeat this threat because its leaders refuse to address or even identify it,” he said. “This level of negligence on the part of the FBI leaders and their failure to understand the jihadi threat 13 years after 9/11 is appalling.”

Military leaders – such as Gen. Michael Flynn- who find themselves frustrated by Obama’s hamstringing of their efforts to fight ISIS are pushed out of power and often subject to smear campaigns. To wit:

U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.

Flynn asserts that Obama’s policy toward ISIS is one of confusion:

I think what the American people is looking for, is they are looking for moral courage and clarity and not a sense of passivity or confusion. I think there’s confusion about what it is we’re facing. It’s not defined as just 40,000 fighters in the Islamic state in Iraq and Syria. It’s also a large segment within that radical version of Islam that is threatening our way of life.”

Flynn echoes what is so obvious to everyone but Obama and his idiot sycophants:

He also slammed the administration for refusing to use the term “Islamic militants” in its description of ISIS and al Qaeda.

“You cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists,” Flynn said.

King Abdullah of Jordan has called the ISIS conflict a “third world war” and more:

“This is a war, as I’ve said repeatedly, within Islam.”

He gets it. Russia gets it. France gets it.

Obama doesn’t get it. He refuses to get it. To paraphrase Obama:

The future must not belong to those who would tell the truth about Islamic jihadists.

Obama’s response to the Paris attacks was strangely detached but one thing that fires him up is any American daring to question his omniscience:

He could have acknowledged people’s qualms as legitimate and argued at greater length, as former Ambassador to Iraq and Syria Ryan Crocker did in the Wall Street Journal, that we have processes in place that would effectively screen out terrorists. Or he could have proposed, like Speaker Paul Ryan, a pause before accepting any.

But that would have meant not taking cheap shots against the political opposition at home — the people who really make him angry.

Where does that leave us?

Al Qaeda is not decimated. ISIS is not jayvee. Iran is not our friend. Terrorists sent by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are not isolated extremists. Attempted bombings by operatives dispatched by the Pakistani Taliban are not one-off attacks. Planned assaults on American facilities overseas are not protests. Groups blowing up airliners are not contained. September 11 was not an episode. Mass casualty attacks are not setbacks.

The long war is not over.

For certain, Obama is going to continue to bark at Americans from the banks of Da Nile.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Good stuff, but nothing to new to long-time Obama observers. Just LOOK at the guy–the only people who get him angry are those who don’t see things as he does. I often remember how on election night he said he especially wanted to hear from those who don’t agree with him–as soon as he won the presidency, he started lying. He exhibits some of the traits of autism in his complete lack of an ability to grasp that his view of the world isn’t the only one.

There is real danger of terrorist attacks, but the United States is in no existential danger from ISIL, nor is the danger to any random individual American from ISIL all that high. You’re far more likely to be struck by lightning.

There is serious danger that we could do the nation enormous, possibly irrevocable harm by behaving stupidly, however. ISIL is essentially sending out invitations to all Western nations engage them in an epic ground war in the Middle East. They want this more than anything. Everything they do is calculated to provoke this and bring it about.

The potential catastrophe that could follow should be obvious to anyone. It’s the set up for a war that could become a total disaster even if you “win” it. They don’t care if they’re annihilated in the process. They want that, too.

You don’t fight crazy people on their own terms on their own ground unless you’re crazy yourself. You set the rules and you persist in following them. You don’t expect overnight results.

The greatest danger of disaster to the nation that I see at present centers on the irrational thinking within the republican party. Most of the presidential lineup displays that. The most rational voices are not those of the front runners, who seem to be the craziest. I honestly believe some will say or do anything they deem necessary to be elected. That certainly seems to apply to Donald Trump.

The president was not educated at West Point he has an opinion, I guess that means the debate is over he says the terrorists are no longer spreading they are shrinking, scientific fact cause he says so. Its a consensus of me myself and I. He will veto the bill that passed with 47 democrats cause it was not his idea and it doesn’t give away anything”free”. He and Hillary are not making political hay out of the Paris bombing by bashing those that disagree with them. Saying the refugees are just widows and 3 year old orphans. (lies)No solution but his dammit. I just dont know what will happen in January 17 when they pry his pen away from him.
Thanks to Greg I have read the bill and it in no way blocks muslims from the refugee process, but thats the way they are painting the opposition.

@Greg: “There is real danger of terrorist attacks, but the United States is in no existential danger from ISIL, nor is the danger to any random individual American from ISIL all that high. You’re far more likely to be struck by lightning. ”

Pray tell how you know there is no danger? the bottom line is you don’t. You are so far up obama’s ass that even if your family or friends were murdered by ISIS you still wouldn’t see the forest for the trees.

barry soetoro aka barack hussein obama is a traitor to the United States of America.

@Greg: Talk about irrational Greggie, how do you know that the US is not in danger of a terrorist attack, I want proof Greggie or your just blowing BS as usual!! Greggie, between Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and ISIS what is the common thread of all of these?? I’ll help you here, they are all radical muslim terrorist who call upon their muslim god as they commit their evil!! The real threat to our nation is the fact that democrats including Obola will not even acknowledge this fact!! The MSM is just a bunch of cowards when they parade children and women refugees as those under attack by caring Americans!! Refugees and the vetting process is only one improvement but the real crime is how Obola and the democrats fail to recognize the need to secure our borders, especially our southern border. It is a fact Greggie that terrorist are entering the US in this way and all Obola wants to do is protect them, this is disgusting and wrong Greggie. I’ll wait for you to prove the US is under NO threat and don’t forget the ongoing multiple FBI investigations. You are a real moron Greggie and a threat to our nation with your attitude. I am appalled that you defended our nation and now turn your back on it’s own security!! Make sure you take a couple refugees when they come here Greggie!! I will NOT be as stupid as that. I shall await proof of your statement of proof!!

@Greg: Greggie, obviously you’re not taking your Meds, and if you don’t think you should be then guess what, YOU ARE WRONG. You are in a horrible state of denial if you belive for one second that great damage can’t be done by a few of your Presidents terrorist buddies. Perhaps not to the extreme of several million kiled but enough to make the NY Times front page..if the NYT is still around afterwards. My personal hope is that Barry’s buddies hit San Francisco. Now, be a good lad and have yourself committed for a week or so.


There is real danger of terrorist attacks, but the United States is in no existential danger from ISIL, nor is the danger to any random individual American from ISIL all that high. You’re far more likely to be struck by lightning.

Aside from the real threat of a major, disruptive attack by radical Islamic terrorists, what we are in danger of is a longer, more drawn out war with a foe we are simply allowing to grow stronger and stronger. OK, since Obama pulled all the US troops out of the region, we missed the opportunity to stamp ISIS out in its infancy. OK, because Obama, the military genius and terrorism expert, deemed ISIS the JV that is not worthy of our attention, we missed the opportunity to deny them the means to grow, acquire sustenance and score victories that recruits tens of thousands. OK, because Obama doesn’t want to call an Islamic terrorist an Islamic terrorist and is more worried about infiltrating terrorists’ feelings than the lives of US citizens, we miss the opportunity to shut off a golden opportunity to easily sneak terror cells into our communities.

So then we have missed the opportunity to accomplish this task without re-inserting tens of thousands of US troops. But, Obama doesn’t want it to happen on HIS watch, so he misses opportunity after opportunity to use troops to begin blacking the eyes of ISIS that will begin to erode their air of invincibility.

This goes along with the opportunities we citizens missed in 2008 and 2012 to elect a leader.

The greatest danger of disaster to the nation that I see at present centers on the irrational thinking within the republican party.

Greater than global warming or LGBTQIA rights? Golly, it must be serious!!

Some (not all) of the folks telling us there is no existential crisis here are the same ones who say “We’re playing checkers, they’re playing chess” and “We’re playing Whack-A-Mole, but they’re in this for the long game.” They are trapped between what they know is a clash of completely different worldviews and not wanting to give the eeeevil Republicans ammo to use, which seems awfully petty.

Anyone who can look at what happens to non-Muslims when Muslims become the majority and say there’s nothing to see there is either blind, stupid, or just like Obama, a person who sees Republicans as the REAL problem, and America as the REAL threat to everyone else.

@kitt, #3:

Hopefully he will veto it, because it’s a stupid response that could actually raise the danger level rather than lowering it.

Consider: Entering the United States as a Syrian refugee is a lengthy process. You can figure on gaining admission taking anywhere from 18 months to 2 years. That’s the time that’s already involved. Since there’s the matter of a very wide ocean between the the Old World and the New, Syrian refugees are not just going to turn up on our doorstep after a long hike or a short boat ride as they do in Europe. They’re going to have to get into that 18-month-to-2-year-long line. So, while terrorists might be quickly slipping into Europe by blending in with the crowd of Syrian refugees, that’s not how they’ll try to enter the United States. They’ll arrive on a jet airliner after a flight of a few hours, relying on false identity papers to acquire student or tourist visas.

Nevertheless, the bill will force limited resources and manpower to be expended on extensive background checks of Syrian refugee applicants. That manpower and those resources will be diverted from other areas representing far greater risks—for example, the thousands of people quickly entering the U.S. daily on tourist or student visas. Consequently, as a measure for increasing homeland security, the bill is worse than useless.

A secondary failing is that it also lessens our stature as a nation prizing humanitarian values and principles, and makes us look weak, cowardly, and a bit stupid—a point probably lost on the fearful.

Of course the bill lets politicians pretend they’ve done something helpful, and will give them something to wave around and should about if Obama vetoes it. No doubt Obama fully realizes that. He just thinks there’s something more important involved than his approval rating. To my way of thinking, that’s commendable.

It’s incredibly difficult to listen to the pathetic phony expressions of compassion on display from Obama, and Clinton.

They couldn’t care less — but what a great political chess piece to use, what a great redirection of attention away from the fact that these two America-resenters created this Middle East disaster in the first place.

And in the meantime, DrJ., the world is forgetting that, . . . Iran is building it’s nuclear arms apace.

Jeopardy ? No Kidding, Jeopardy.

So, who are republicans going to get tough with and put in their place first? The Iranians? ISIL? Vladimir Putin? North Korea? Boko Haram? The hoards of murdering, rapist, drug-addicted Mexicans?

I’m sure Donald can handle it, while simultaneously cutting taxes. He can make Mexico pay for the wall, pay for the Crusades by taking the unbelievers’ oil, and finance everything else with the revenue from hat sales.

@Greg: Greggie Greggie Greggie, first intelligent question you have ever asked, where do we start!! Well 7 years ago and unfortunately and sad for America Obola lied about a healthcare plan and got elected President. Turns out he was a total loser at international affairs as well. He pulled out of Iraq with NO plan and then told America Iraq was stable!! He told America Al Qaeda was on their heels and they bombed the embassy in Benghazi and he blamed a video but we all know it was Al Qaeda and he lied to get elected a second term. Now he has told us ISIS is contained and they murder 130 in Paris including Americans at a nightclub with an American band from California!! Meanwhile China builds an island and an air base he he does nothing!! Where do the start Greggie, with a new commander and chief who will act like one versus a muslim sympathizer who refuses to acknowledge our enemy, who allows our southern border to be wide open and in fact wants to grant citizenship to 11 million ILLEGALS. You ask where do Republicans want to start and that’s easy, time to elect a Republican versus Hilldabeast who is worse than Obola. Geggie, 30 states don’t want Syrian Refugees and Obola won’t listen!! Don’t be such a moronic libturd!! Hope that helps but I doubt it. BTW, waiting for any proof you may have regarding you comment about America NOT being a threat for a terrorist attack. Once again for you moron, the common thread in all the terrorist attacks are the final words of the terrorists as they cry out to their muslim god!!


You say that ISIS/ISIL do not pose an existential threat – meaning they cannot wipe us out. Sure, unless they get a hand of some missile bound nukes, that is indeed unlikely. But they (and Al Qaeda before them) have already had a profound effect on our country. I don’t know how old you are, but I remember when flying was fun. You could walk right up to the airplane to greet your loved ones or see them off. Travel is now a nightmare, thanks to them. Under the pretext of scanning for terrorist funding, the government now can track all your financial accounts and transactions, even if you live overseas (FATCA) – we have lost our most basic freedom of privacy.

That’s just a couple of examples that indicate that arguably, in terms of our national values and freedoms that made the US special, terrorism has already done massive damage to us on an existential level.

I mentioned the possibility of nukes earlier. Sure, it is highly unlikely that they can get their hands on one, but if they did the results would be catastrophic. We as a nation are far more vulnerable to an EMP attack than ever before. If you set off a just one big nuke (or a couple of small ones) high above the central US, you can wipe out every computer, every integrated chip in the country. In the 60s, 70s and 80s, when our electronics were relatively crude, you could replace a few diodes and tubes and you’d be back in business. Not any more – integrated circuits can only be replaced, not repaired. Our entire electrical grid is unshielded. No more power. All vehicles less than 40 years old would be dead. No more refrigeration means conservation of food would be difficult – diabetics, who depend on refrgerated insulin with very limited shelf life, would be the first to die. We would have 300 million people – the vast majority completely clueless about how to get food and water except from a grocery store or running utilities. Food riots, anyone?

Of course that is the worst case scenario. A nuke going off in New York City would be bad, but nowhere near as bad as the EMP attack scenario. Nuking NYC would cause a couple million dead – the rest of the country still functions. EMP would send the country to third world status within a year, with maybe 90% of the people dead.

I’ve laid out the scenario just to show how little you need to provide “an existential threat”. This is why we are so worried about Iran, North Korea etc having nukes and missiles, and who they might possibly give them to. Ironically, they are not so afraid of an EMP counterattack – they already are pretty much 3rd world.


Nevertheless, the bill will force limited resources and manpower to be expended on extensive background checks of Syrian refugee applicants.

So, just give up? Forget about it? Look the other way?

I argue with a lot of liberals and I must say, you are just about the most blind. This is developing like the mess the left has created with illegal immigration; they allow it (ENCOURAGE it) to the point that, with 14 million individuals here illegally,
“we just can’t handle it… there’s nothing we can do…. the problem is just too big”.

So, here’s another one… Obama destabilizes an entire region and then decides, unilaterally, to bring refugees he has created here, en mass…. but, golly, we don’t have the resources to properly process refugees, assuredly infused with ISIS terrorists so, oh, what the hell, just let em in.

That manpower and those resources will be diverted from other areas representing far greater risks

What? Global warming? Maybe harassing conservatives with the IRS? What are we doing that is more important that our national security? (that’s me talking… I’m sure just about anything is more important than citizen’s safety to Obama)

Why not sign the bill into law? Then you would have a bipartisan effort that should silence most opposition… for the opposition is not to compassion for refugees but to the utter stupidity of bringing people from the most dangerous region of the world when ANYONE, man, woman or child, can be used as a suicide bomber. If Obama will not allow One-Eyed Jack to bring this to a vote and then sign it, it is more than apparent that his issue is that this is not being done HIS way the way HE says…. and that’s the sum of it. He is showing himself to be a spoiled little brat despot that wants to ignore the rule of law and the Constitution and even when he is putting national security at dire risk, he will NOT listen to any rational advice (which is the attitude that got us in this mess in the first place).

So, who are republicans going to get tough with and put in their place first? The Iranians? ISIL? Vladimir Putin? North Korea? Boko Haram? The hoards of murdering, rapist, drug-addicted Mexicans?

Indeed. Which of the problems that Obama has allowed to grow exponentially while he golfed, handed money to his campaign buddies, used the IRS to harass his political enemies and watched the economy tank, will the Republicans have to fix first?

Dr J
you are so easily frightened
It seems every week you find still another reason to pee in your pants
Certainly this current fear will turn out to be no worse than the Great ebola Epidemic.
Remember that one ?
You (some sort of medical professional) warned us “”MILLIONS COULD DIE”

it is one antidote for the fears people express here. Maybe the best one

Mr. Obama is the real ace of spades. Greg is the deuce.

@James Raider:Obama is a sociopath and a typical know-it-all leftist like his sheep who come here. Look back at two previous presidents and how they handled policies that weren’t working out so well. Carter trusted the Soviets. He realized that after three plus years in the WH that they couldn’t be trusted and admitted to that in a debate with Reagan. What did he do? He changed course and pushed for a large increase in Defense spending to counter them, albeit too late. Let’s look at G.W. Bush. Iraq wasn’t going well. Did he stick to that policy? No. He changed it and went with the Surge resulting in a victory that was later squandered by Obama.

Look at Obama. He refuses to changed failed policy regardless if it is National Security, the economy, health care, or anything else. He is an egomaniac who is only concerned about what’s best for him.

John, do you remember two brothers with a crock pot at the Boston Marathon?

I keep waiting for the announcement that Obama has played a 35 below par round of golf with 11 hole-in-ones.
Or that he invented peanut butter.
After all, he has all of the other hallmarks of a Great Leader, doesn’t he?
If he has his way, pretty soon you’ll be able to locate the United States by looking at a night photo of the globe and seeing where there are no lights.

@Petercat: LOL! (Really.) I look at some of the stuff he’s done, esp. in the last year, and his arrogance, and worst of all his plain bitchy manner, and I look at the way he’s covered by the media, and I get this sense that the reporters are just patiently waiting out his term. He’s SO awful, in every way, that even those who share his goals seem very pinched when they report on him. What a little wuss he is, prattling on and on in defense of this religion that blows people up, and then he gets visibly angry at the very existence of Americans who don’t think the way he does–they, of course, are the ultimate evil to him.


I argue with a lot of liberals and I must say, you are just about the most blind.

That’s because Greg is a JV troll.

@Greg: With the death of AHCA there will be loads of extra IRS employees lets use them to sift through the applications run prints through data bases to see if they have ever come up on a IED. But we must tell them that they are part of a conservative group so the applications wont ever be processed.

@CharlieGee: Your assessment of greg spell check failed try Summers Eve.

Remember last week when someone here posted, all bragging and proud, that Obama had sent 2-3000 sorties, or whatever his worshippers claim?

3000 in 14 months.

Today: ‘Russian airstrikes destroy 472 terrorist targets in Syria in 48 hours, 1,000 oil tankers in 5 days’.

@JSW, #27:

No doubt RT, Russia’s state-funded international media outlet and Mr. Putin’s personal propaganda tool, is a 100-percent-reliable source of information.

Apparently skepticism about the news is reserved for all private-sector, mainstream U.S. media sources.

Meanwhile, Turkey, a NATO member, just brought down a Russian warplane somewhere near the border between Syria and Turkey. This is an extremely dangerous development, no matter how anyone tries to spin it.

@Greg: Don’t you know Obama wishes HIS state run media could be as helpfu; then the truth of those 6000 sorties resulting in only 1500 kabooms could be totally buried.

Turkey bringing down the Russian jet is why it was a disaster to let the situation deteriorate to the point that they could move in and assert themselves. This is the result of “leading from behind”… especially when done poorly.

@Greg: That’s all you got? Yeah, if it’s not MSNBC, then it MUST be a lie! LOL You guys are so desperate.

@Greg: And we got to this moment because our President drew a line in the sand and failed to do anything when the line was crossed. He also failed to support Iraq.

@JSW, #31:

That’s all you got?

Pointing out that you’re quoting numbers from a state-owned Russian propaganda organ to argue for the superiority of the Russian response to ISIL over that of the United States should be sufficient to call the claim into question.