Former VP Dick Cheney Says Barack Obama Is a “Very, Very Weak President, Maybe the Weakest Certainly of My Lifetime … We’ve Got a Problem with Weakness, and It’s Centered Right in the White House.”
Former Vice President Dick Cheney blasted Barack Obama following his less than stellar speech at West Point.
Last night former VP Dick Cheney went on Hannity and blasted Barack Obama for the weak president he is following Obama’s questionable foreign policy speech at West Point. When asked by Sean Hannity whether America was in decline Cheney responded by saying, “I think the perception around the world is increasingly negative. But, I think the main focus in on our president. He’s very, very weak, maybe the weakest certainly in my lifetime.”
Former Vice President Dick Cheney blasted President Obama as the weakest president of his lifetime on Wednesday, following the president’s speech defending his foreign policy approach at the West Point commencement ceremony.
“He is a very, very weak president,” Cheney said in an interview with Fox News. “Maybe the weakest — certainly in my lifetime.”
Cheney went on to say that during a recent trip to the Middle East, allies he had “dealt with all the way back to Desert Storm” expressed alarm at the president’s handling of foreign policy.
“They all are absolutely convinced that the American capacity to lead and influence in that part of the world has been dramatically reduced by this president,” Cheney said. “We’ve got a problem with weakness, and it’s centered right in the White House.”
According to a recent FOX News poll, more voters think the United States is weaker since Barack Obama became president. About 52% of voters think the country is weaker and less powerful today than it was six years ago. That’s three times the 17 percent who say the country is stronger and more powerful.
Foreign policy has become a drag on Obama’s second term, with 60 percent of Americans disapproving of the president’s actions in the sphere of international diplomacy. Peter Lavelle, host of the CrossTalk program on the RT network, attributes the slump to a combination of factors.
“Obama is a very weak foreign policy president. It’s obvious he lacks interest and knowledge of global affairs. In fact, he has delegated his foreign affairs portfolio to a small number of amateurs: Samantha Powers, Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes. They and others have grossly and badly served this president,” Lavelle told RIA Novosti.
A recent Associated Press-GfK poll found that a majority of Americans disapprove of Obama’s handling of the Ukraine situation (57 percent) and his interactions with Russia (54 percent).
According to another poll conducted by CBS News and released Wednesday, 43 percent of Americans believe the United States’ image in the world has worsened since Obama took office, an increase from 2009, when 60 percent said the country’s image had improved.
Barack Obama Receives ‘Icy Reception’ from Cadets at West Point Visit … It was Not a Commander in Chief Speaking to his Troops
Maybe Barack Obama should have sat down and be made to listen to the graduating US Military cadets on foreign policy … Obama receives icy reception.
The cadets at West Point gave Barack Obama an “icy reception” yesterday at their commencement ceremonies as he rambled on with a meandering, nonsensical foreign policy speech that has drawn bi-partisan criticism. Even the NY Times questioned his big moment on foreign policy speech. The Washington Times reports that less than 25% of the cadets gave him a standing ovation upon his introduction. OUCH. According to a recent poll, Obama’s approval rating among the military is at 32%, look for that to go down further. During his speech Obama said, “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.” The problem is that this is the same man who said, if you like your healthcare plan and doctor, you can keep them, PERIOD. No one believes Obama anymore because his actions do not follow his words.
President Obama was welcomed by the Black Knight of the Hudson for his speech at West Point on Wednesday, but less than 25 percent of the cadets gave him a standing ovation upon his introduction, the Daily Mail reported.
“Receiving tepid applause and a short standing ovation from less than one-quarter of the audience upon his introduction, Obama argued for a contradictory foreign policy that relies on NATO and the United Nations while insisting that ‘America must always lead on the world stage,’ the paper reported.
CNN’s international correspondent Jim Clancy called the West Point response to President Obama’s meandering foreign policy address “pretty icy” Wednesday.
Clancy said it was “not really a great speech to give at the U.S. Military Academy,” and the address has drawn bipartisan criticism.
“It was a philosophical speech,” he said. “It was not a Commander-in-Chief speaking to his troops. And you heard the reception. I mean, it was pretty icy.”
UPDATE I: Just how bad was this Obama speech? From The Politico … Editorial boards at three major U.S. newspapers are criticizing President Barack Obama’s foreign policy speech at West Point as incomplete and failing to recognize America’s international standing.
- New York Times: President Obama Misses a Chance on Foreign Affairs
- Wall Street Journal: The President skipped a few world events in his big foreign policy speech
- Washington Post: At West Point, President Obama binds America’s hands on foreign affairs
Hmm, where were the calls from the State Department and Hillary Clinton to heed the warnings and requests from Ambassador Stevens in 2011 in Benghazi?
The US State Department issued a warning on Tuesday to avoid traveling to Libya and telling Americans currently in Libya to leave immediately due to security concerns. What, like the downward spiraling security situation in Libya has not been precarious for years? The evacuation warning came shortly after the USS Bataan, with about 1,000 Marines aboard, sailed into the Mediterranean Sea to assist Americans in leaving if necessary. So how is that Obama foreign policy in Libya working? Obama has managed to make a bad situation, even worse. But as Democratic wannabe presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says, “What difference does it Make”.
What’s the matter, Obama “#” foreign policy not working in Libya?
The United States warned its citizens Tuesday to avoid travel to Libya and advised that all Americans currently in that country leave immediately due to a precarious security situation.
“Due to security concerns, the Department of State has limited staffing at Embassy Tripoli and is only able to offer very limited emergency services to U.S. citizens in Libya,” a statement read.
The State Department said the security situation in Libya remains unstable almost three years since a revolution deposed the late leader Moammar Gadhafi. Military-grade weapons, including antiaircraft weapons, are in the hands of private individuals, the State Department warned.
Other threats come from extremist groups, which the U.S. says have made specific threats against American officials and citizens. The statement issued Tuesday warned that “travelers should be aware that they may be targeted for kidnapping, violent attacks, or death.”
The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against all travel to Libya and recommends that U.S. citizens currently in Libya depart immediately. Due to security concerns, the Department of State has limited staffing at Embassy Tripoli and is only able to offer very limited emergency services to U.S. citizens in Libya. This Travel Warning supersedes the Travel Warning issued on December 12, 2013.
The security situation in Libya remains unpredictable and unstable. The Libyan government has not been able to adequately build its military and police forces and improve security following the 2011 revolution. Many military-grade weapons remain in the hands of private individuals, including antiaircraft weapons that may be used against civilian aviation. Crime levels remain high in many parts of the country. In addition to the threat of crime, various groups have called for attacks against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests in Libya. Extremist groups in Libya have made several specific threats this year against U.S. government officials, citizens, and interests in Libya. Because of the presumption that foreigners, especially U.S. citizens, in Libya may be associated with the U.S. government or U.S. NGOs, travelers should be aware that they may be targeted for kidnapping, violent attacks, or death. U.S. citizens currently in Libya should exercise extreme caution and depart immediately.
Sporadic episodes of civil unrest have occurred throughout the country and attacks by armed groups can occur in many different areas; hotels frequented by westerners have been caught in the crossfire. Checkpoints controlled by militias are common outside of Tripoli, and at times inside the capital. Closures or threats of closures of international airports occur regularly, whether for maintenance, labor, or security-related incidents.
So what is the difference between Benghazi in 2011 and Libya today? Can you say Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection and his BS campaign slogan that Al-Qaeda was on the run. A note to those that embrace being uniformed … Benghazi is in Libya.
Posted May 28, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
al-Qaeda, America - United States, Barack Obama, Benghazi-Gate, Community Agitator, Epic Fail, Foreign Policy, Islamist, Jihad, Libya, Misleader, Obamanation, Radical Islam, State Department, Terrorism, United States, US National Security, War on Terror | one comment
The Smoking Email: Benghazi Email Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points … White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes
THE SMOKING BENGHAZI-GATE EMAIL … THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE … OBAMA PLAYING POLITICS WITH AMERICANS DYING.
Yup, not a smidgen of deceit, corruption and cover up …
As reported at the Washington Free Beacon, previously unreleased internal Obama administration emails show that there was a coordinated effort made in the days following the Benghazi consulate terror attacks that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, to portray the incident as “rooted in [an] Internet video, and not [in] a broader failure or policy.” The documents were gained by Judicial Watch, as result of a June 21, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Department of State. The documents show explicitly that emails sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans. WH adviser Rhodes also sent this email to top White House officials like David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack. Rice would then go on all five Sunday talk shows and lie to America and blame a video regarding what happened in Benghazi to protect Obama politically.
AMERICANS DIED AND OBAMA LIED … How much more proof do you need America to show that the Obama administration purposely and willfully orchestrated the Benghazi attack lies in order to distract the American public from Obama’s foreign policy failures ahead of an election? Usually the cover up is worse than the crime, but in this case four Americans died.
Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.
The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.
The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
Rhodes returns to the “Internet video” scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled “Top-lines”:
[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.
More from The National Review Online:
He wrote that the president and administration “find [the video] disgusting and reprehensible,” but said that “there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this move with violence.”
Additionally, Rhodes recommended Rice herald President Obama ahead of the upcoming elections.
“I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike,” Rhodes wrote. “There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet them.”
“Benghazi Emails Show White House Effort to Protect Obama — Staff attempted to insulate president’s policies from criticism ahead of election.” It’s everything that we knew!It’s everything we suspected about Benghazi. And remember, we still don’t know where Obama was for five to seven hours. The president of the United States was off the grid. At five o’clock, in the middle of the attack, the last he says to Hillary and Panetta or whoever it was (paraphrasing), “You guys handle it, take care of it,” and he’s gone. So goes the story.
And now we’ve got these e-mails saying that the White House staff redid the talking points. They massaged everything in order to protect Obama, plausible deniability, to make it appear, running of the election, Obama had no clue what was going on. It was not his policy, this or that. He was not involved. Whatever it took, the White House did. That’s the latest from this release from Benghazi. And, yeah, it’s too late for 2012, but it’s not too late for November this year, folks.
FLASHBACK TO FEB 24, 2014 Interview on Meet the Press … Susan Rice Says She Has No Regrets Over Initial Benghazi Interviews, ‘Patently False’ That I Misled American People.
Sec. of State Kerry Backpedals on Israel “Apartheid State” Comment and Tries to Blame Partisan Politics … However, There are Calls for Kerry to Resign
Hey John Kerry, why the long face? He has certainly put his foot in his mouth this time …
Secretary of State John Kerry is feeling the backlash from his ignorant comments about Israel could become an “Apartheid state”. Kerry tried to backpedal on the comments regarding one of the United State’s greatest allies; however, Kerry still found time to make excuses and blame partisan politics for his foolish comments saying, “I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes. The tape of Kerry’s comments was published by the Daily Beast on Sunday, a recording of Kerry’s comments to a meeting of the Trilateral Commission on Friday in which he lamented the breakdown of talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Secretary of State John Kerry, under fire for warning that Israel risks becoming “an apartheid state” in the absence of a peace deal, released a statement Monday evening pushing back hard.
“I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes,” Kerry said in a release put out by the State Department. “… If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution.”
Political purposes? As stated at Powerline, “Just how Mr. Pompous intends to disallow questions about his commitment to Israel is unclear. What is clear is that the questions being raised aren’t a matter of partisan politics.” The fact of the matter is that the criticism and backlash toward Kerry is coming from all sides, Democrats and Republicans alike. This is bi-partisan outrage. Last time I checked, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California was a Democrat. Boxer said on Twitter that any statement comparing Israel to apartheid “is nonsensical and ridiculous.” But wait, there is also criticism from the non-partisan Anti-Defamation League, the National Jewish Democratic Council, and by Democratic partisans like Senators Barbara Boxer and Mark Begich.
Fellow Democrat Nita Lowey of New York, ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, also spoke out on Twitter against the comments, saying: “Inflammatory rhetoric comparing Israel’s democracy to repugnant apartheid policy is irresponsible, inaccurate & counterproductive.”
Democratic Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska also spoke out against Kerry’s comments.
“Secretary Kerry knows as well as anyone that negotiating lasting peace in this region of the world is difficult but it’s not productive to express his frustration in this way,” Begich said in a statement Monday. “This remark also implies Israel should ignore the pact between [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas and the Hamas. Last time I checked, the U.S. didn’t negotiate with terrorist organizations and we shouldn’t expect the Israeli government to either.”
Senator Ted Cruz (TX-R) is calling for John Kerry to resign and for Barack Obama to accept it. Cruz said in a floor speech went on to say, “Secretary Kerry has thus proven himself unsuitable for his position and that before any further harm is done to our alliance with Israel.
“Mr. President, sadly, it is my belief that Secretary Kerry has proven himself unsuitable for the position he holds. And therefore, before any further harm is done to our national security interests and to our critical alliance with the nation of Israel, John Kerry should offer President Obama his resignation and the president should accept it,” he added. “Mr. President, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.”
Posted April 29, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Barack Obama, Democrats, Divider in Chief, Epic Fail, Foreign Policy, Islam/Muslims, Israel, Israel/Palestine, John Kerry, Leading from Behind, Middle East, Misleader, Obamanation, Politics, Republican, Scandal, State Department, Ted Cruz (TX-R), United States, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | one comment
The Obama Administration once again treating an American ally badly … I guess this is one way of making Hillary Clinton look good.
The Daily Beast is reporting that Sec. of State John Kerry said during a closed door meeting of the Trilateral Commission on Friday that if Israel doesn’t make peace soon, it could become ‘an apartheid state,’ like the old South Africa. That’s the way John Kerry, piss off one of America’s greatest allies, that will win them over. Hey Kerry, I must have missed which one want to eradicate Israeli’s? And who did Fatah just embrace last week … can you say Hamas. This is unbecoming of a Secretary of State and usually a president would be asking for a resignation, but not when they are doing Obama’s foreign policy bidding.
So Barack, then I told them if they do not accept our all or nothing peace solution, Israel could become ‘An Apartheid State’.
I see John, you do realize that was not meant to be repeated publicly, right?
The secretary of state said that if Israel doesn’t make peace soon, it could become ‘an apartheid state,’ like the old South Africa. Jewish leaders are fuming over the comparison.
If there’s no two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict soon, Israel risks becoming “an apartheid state,” Secretary of State John Kerry told a room of influential world leaders in a closed-door meeting Friday.
Senior American officials have rarely, if ever, used the term “apartheid” in reference to Israel, and President Obama has previously rejected the idea that the word should apply to the Jewish state. Kerry’s use of the loaded term is already rankling Jewish leaders in America—and it could attract unwanted attention in Israel, as well.
It wasn’t the only controversial comment on the Middle East that Kerry made during his remarks to the Trilateral Commission, a recording of which was obtained by The Daily Beast. Kerry also repeated his warning that a failure of Middle East peace talks could lead to a resumption of Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens. He suggested that a change in either the Israeli or Palestinian leadership could make achieving a peace deal more feasible. He lashed out against Israeli settlement-building. And Kerry said that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders share the blame for the current impasse in the talks.
NY Times Columnist David Brooks States: “Obama Has a Manhood Problem in the Middle East … Is He Tough Enough …?”
OUCH, Obama has a manhood problem in the Middle East, subtitled … Obama wears mom jeans.
New York Times columnists David Brooks went there this past Sunday on Meet the Press, questioning whether Barack Obama has the “co-jones” to deal with tough situations like in the Middle East and against a leader like Russia’s Vladimire Putin … “[L]et’s face it. Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have a, I’ll say it crudely, but a manhood problem in the Middle East. Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad, somebody like Putin?” NBC’s Chuck Todd said during the round table, “Internally they fear this”.
David Brooks: “And let’s face it, Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have a — I’ll say it crudely, but a manhood problem in the Middle East,” Brooks said. “Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad or Putin? A lot of the rap is unfair, but certainly in the Middle East, there’s an assumption he’s not tough.”
Chuck Todd: “Internally they fear this. It’s not just Bob Corker saying it, questioning whether the president is being alpha male — that’s essentially what he’s saying, he’s not alpha dog enough, his rhetoric isn’t tough enough. They agree with the policy decisions, but it’s the rhetoric. Internally, this is a question.”
Obama’s Chickens coming home to roost means American’s goose is cooked …
I would add it is more than a mere coincidence that everything that Obama has done in his six years in office has made the United States of America a weaker nation. whether it be domestic or foreign policy, Obama has done what many believe is irreparable damage to the US. One would almost say, it would be impossible to get so many things wrong. One might even say it was intentional.
It is impossible to dismiss as mere coincidence the Russian Bear’s invasion of Ukraine and the continuing mayhem of the Affordable Care Act. In their own ways, each reflects the full flowering of the policies of Barack Obama.
His chickens are coming home to roost, and what a mess they are making.
Obama’s sixth year in the White House is shaping up as his worst, and that’s saying something. He’s been in the Oval Office so long that it is obscene to blame his problems on George W. Bush, the weather or racism. Obama owns the world he made, or more accurately, the world he tried to remake.
Nothing important has worked as promised, and there is every reason to believe the worst is yet to come. The president’s casual remark the other day that he worries about “a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan” inadvertently reflected the fear millions of Americans have about his leadership. Not necessarily about a bomb, but about where he is taking the country.
My name is Barack Obama, “Welcome to Fantasy Island” …
A scorching OPED from the not so conservative Washington Post … President Obama’s foreign policy is based on Fantasy. What, you mean its a bad thing to have a foreign and domestic policy based on Unicorns and Pixie dust? Hey Barack, how are those rose-colored glasses fitting these days?
FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past. Secretary of State John F. Kerry displayed this mindset on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday when he said, of Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine, “It’s a 19th century act in the 21st century.”
That’s a nice thought, and we all know what he means. A country’s standing is no longer measured in throw-weight or battalions. The world is too interconnected to break into blocs. A small country that plugs into cyberspace can deliver more prosperity to its people (think Singapore or Estonia) than a giant with natural resources and standing armies.
Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not received the memo on 21st-century behavior. Neither has China’s president, Xi Jinping, who is engaging in gunboat diplomacy against Japan and the weaker nations of Southeast Asia. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is waging a very 20th-century war against his own people, sending helicopters to drop exploding barrels full of screws, nails and other shrapnel onto apartment buildings where families cower in basements. These men will not be deterred by the disapproval of their peers, the weight of world opinion or even disinvestment by Silicon Valley companies. They are concerned primarily with maintaining their holds on power.
The Heritage Foundation reminds us that this is exactly what Heritage’s James Carafano and Kim Holmes warned about early in the Obama presidency.
“The tenets of the Obama Doctrine… do not reflect history or the threats we face,” said Carafano, the E. W. Richardson Fellow, and Holmes, author of Liberty’s Best Hope: American Leadership for the 21st Century. “They will serve to undermine America’s strengths and make it more difficult for friends and allies to figure out where we stand or how we might act in critical times.”
Carafano and Holmes predicted in 2010: “The Obama Doctrine, by seeking to remake America to please others, will fail because, in the end, no one will like the instability, vulnerability, and economic stagnation that follow from a weaker America.”
As the Jawa Report opines, “When you’ve lost the Washington Post, you’ve pretty much lost all foreign policy credibility.”
Hey Liberals, Remember When Sarah Palin Predicted in 2008 That If Obama was Elected President, Putin and Russia Would Invade Ukraine … SHE WAS RIGHT!
HEY AMERICA, HOW’S THAT “HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF” WORKING OUT FOR YA?
Remember in 2008 when then GOP Vice Presidential nominee said during a campaign rally in a Reno, Nevada, “After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.” Palin was mocked profusely for her comments by the Left and the liberal MSM. Flash-forward to present day … GUESS WHO WAS CORRECT? Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is now saying “I told you so” from her Facebook page following reports of a Putin – Russian “military invasion” in the Crimean area of Ukraine.
Um, I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did …
Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as “an extremely far-fetched scenario” by the “high-brow” Foreign Policy magazine. Here’s what this “stupid” “insipid woman” predicted back in 2008: “After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”
With special thanks to JWF, they found this liberal gem from the past where Sarah Palin was mocked for her foreign policy comments regarding what would happen between Russian and Ukraine if Barack Obama was elected in 2008.
Palin helpfully offered four scenarios for such a crisis, one of which was this strange one:
After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.
As we’ve said before, this is an extremely far-fetched scenario. And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine’s pro-Western government without firing a shot, I don’t see why violence would be necessary to bring Kiev to heel. Watch the upcoming parliamentary elections in December to see if Moscow gets the pliable new government it wants.
So where are all those Democrats, Libs and liberal media types with their apologies? Doesn’t it just crush liberals that Sarah Palin was more correct on Russia than their Obamamessiah.