Remember When Barack Obama Ridiculed Mitt Romney During 2012 Presidential Debates about Russia … ‘1980s Are Calling to Ask for Their Foreign Policy Back’ … How Do Those “Rose Colored” Glasses Fit There Barack?

Yet another reason why you don’t elect, let alone reelect SNARK or a Campaigner is Chief …

Remember when Barack Obama made the snide, wise-a$$, ridiculing comment during the 2012 presidential debates to GOP candidate Mitt Romney regarding Russia and that the 1980′s want their foreign policy back? And everyone thought Obama was so cute making such a witty comment. So what do you think of Obama’s comments now as Russia and Vladimir Putin have invaded Ukraine.  Just curious America, how’s that “Hopey-Changey” stuff working out for ya? Where is your Moses Obamamessiah now? By the way Barack, how do those rose colored glasses fit?

Fox News’ Bret Baier opened a segment of his show Friday night by flashing back to an October 2012 presidential debate where President Obama ridiculed Republican presidential nominee Romney about his concern over Russia’s “geo-political” threat.

“You said Russia. Not Al Qaida. You said Russia,” Obama said regarding biggest threats. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the cold war’s been over for 20 years.”

VIDEO – Newsbusters

Mitt Romney’s intelligent, powerful and correct retort was as follows:

“Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe … and I said in the same paragraph I said and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin …”

Is it any wonder why at this moment so many Americans wish that had a do-over of the 2012 presidential election and they would not vote for Barack Obama. He has been wrong and an epic failure on everything in be domestic and foreign policy. What else would you expect but snark from an individual who was completely unqualified to be president?

Russian President Putin Laughs at Obama’s Weak Statements as Russian Troops Invade the Crimea Region of Ukraine (Update: Russian Parliament Unanimously Approves Military Intervention in Ukraine)

Elections do have consequences, especially when you elect a community agitator, a Campaigner in Chief, a Golfer in Chief, rather than a serious Commander in Chief …

Russian President Vladimir Putin looks to bring back the footprint and prestige of the former Soviet Union while Barack Obama makes the United States less influential and respected in the world. President Barack Obama issued a stern warning to Putin that Russia’s actions were a  “clear violation,” “breach of International law” in Ukraine. Obama also went on to say “that he was deeply concerned” and “there would be costs” and the U.S. would stop participating in preparatory meetings for the G8 summit set to be held in Sochi June 4-5. Obama said in an unscheduled statement from the White House briefing room, “Any violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing, which is not in the interests of Ukraine, Russia or Europe.” I am guessing that Putin has made a cost/benefit analysis that it is in the best interest of Russia. Who honesty thinks that Putin is afraid of anything Obama says?

As the rest of the world watches Ukraine, so does the White House.

Amid reports of Russian military and paramilitary presence in Ukraine, President Obama spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin for 90 minutes today, calling on Russia to withdraw its forces.

Obama “expressed his deep concern over Russia’s clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law,” according to a White House readout, warning that Russia’s activity “would negatively impact Russia’s standing in the international community” and “will lead to greater political and economic isolation,” according to the White House’s paraphrasing.

The U.S. will also stop participating in preparatory meetings for the G8 summit set to be held in Sochi June 4-5, the White House said.

UPDATE I: Charles Krauthammer: ‘The Ukrainians – and I Think Everybody – Are Shocked by the Weakness of Obama’s Statements’.

Some were astonished by Barack Obama’s comments as being incredibly weak, present company included. If you watch the above video and Obama’s statements you can see that this president does not get it. The weak, naive president’s statement sounded in more of a professorial lecture of a laundry list of feel good items like Obama was at a State of the Union speech rather than facing down a ruthless individual. Putin is KGB, he is merely laughing at Obama’s weak response and wanting no part in confrontation.

The Blaze reports on Charles Krauthammer’s comments from Fox News ‘Special Report’. Welcome to what 1980 would have looked like had the voters of the United States not had the common sense and where with all to elect Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter.

Syndicated columnist and political commentator Charles Krauthammer on Friday said President Barack Obama’s statement on the alleged Russian invasion of Crimea, Ukraine, was so weak it was “staggering.” In fact, he argued the president “could not have issued a more flaccid statement.”

Krauthammer told Bret Baier that the “Ukrainians — and I think everybody — are shocked by the weakness of Obama’s statements.”

“I find it rather staggering,” he added. “What he’s saying is we’re not going to really do anything, and we’re telling the world.”

UPDATE II: Russian President Vladimir Putin in calls Obama’s bluff and invades the Ukraine.

But the request appeared likely to go unheeded as the Kremlin issued a defiant-sounding statement saying Putin stressed to Obama that the situation in Ukraine poses “real threats” to the life and health of Russian citizens and compatriots who live in Ukrainian territory.

“Vladimir Putin emphasized that, in the case of a further spread in violence in eastern regions (of Ukraine) and Crimea, Russia maintains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population that lives there,” the Kremlin statement said.

Russia Invaded Ukraine: ‘Invasion’ by Russian Soldiers

Russia invading Ukraine  … Looks like a scene from ‘Red Dawn’

Putin’s War in Crimea Could Soon Spread to Eastern Ukraine And nobody—not the U.S., not NATO—can stop him, Welcome to 1979 and Jimmy Carter.

Why is Putin doing this? Because he can. That’s it, that’s all you need to know. The situation in Kiev—in which people representing one half of the country (the Ukrainian-speaking west) took power to some extent at the expense of the Russian-speaking east—created the perfect opportunity for Moscow to divide and conquer. As soon as the revolution in Kiev happened, there was an unhappy rumbling in the Crimea, which has a large Russian population and is home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet. It was a small rumbling, but just big enough for Russia to exploit. And when such an opportunity presents itself, one would be foolish not to take it, especially if one’s name is Vladimir Putin.

UPDATE III: Russian Parliament Unanimously Approves Military Intervention in Ukraine, even after Russians had already invaded the Crimean peninsula.

Russia’s parliament approved a motion to use the country’s military in Ukraine after a request from President Vladimir Putin as protests in Russian-speaking cities turned violent Saturday, sparking fears of a wide-scale invasion.

The motion follows President Barack Obama’s warning Friday “there will be costs” if Russia intervenes militarily, sharply raising the stakes in the conflict over Ukraine’s future and evoking memories of Cold War brinkmanship.

“I’m submitting a request for using the armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine pending the normalization of the socio-political situation in that country,” Putin said in his request sent to parliament.

I cannot reiterate more the words from The Lonely Conservative … “Elections have consequences. Not just for us here in the US, but for the world. Mission accomplished.” Amen Sister!!!

Reversal of Fortune: 53% of Americans Believe President Barack Obama is Not Respected on World Stage, 41% Think He Is

Leading from Behind: Remember when everyone said that all we had to do was elect Barack Obama and the world would respect us?

What happened to Barack Obama, the International Rock star? Now for the first time in his presidency, a majority of Americans think he is not respected Internationally. According to a recent Gallup poll, 53% of Americans believe that Obama is not respected on the world stage, while 41% think he is. This is quite a turn-around from 2013 where 51% thought he was respected and 43% thought he was not. Barack Obama is not only destroying America from within, he is dwindling America’s respect in the world as well. Can you say … EPIC FAILURE!

Does anyone really wonder why so many Americans have ‘Buyers Remorse’ and if they had a chance to have a re-vote on the 2012 election, they would not vote for Obama to be president.  Barack Obama can thank his lucky stars he was not elected the President of Ukraine. Speaking of the Ukraine, the Obama administration is warning Russia against intervening in Ukraine after the country’s parliament ousted president Viktor Yanukovych. As seen in the poll below that world leaders do not respect Barack, does anyone think Putin is scared of Obama? Hardly.

Gallup.com

GALLUP:

For the first time, more Americans think President Barack Obama is not respected by other world leaders than believe he is. Americans’ opinions have shifted dramatically in the past year, after being relatively stable from 2010 to 2013.

The results are based on Gallup’s annual World Affairs poll, conducted Feb. 6-9. Although opinions about a president’s perceived world standing often track with his job approval rating, a majority of Americans still thought world leaders respected Obama in 2010 and 2011, when his job approval was similar to what it is now. Thus, the recent decline may be more tied to specific international matters from the past year, such as the revelation the U.S. was listening in on foreign leaders’ phone calls, the situation in Syria, increased tensions with Russia, and an uneasy relationship between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Check out the amazing reversal in numbers from Democrats and Independents on their beliefs that Barack Obama is no longer respected as a world leader on the world stage. With Democrats a shift from +14 in 2013 to -11 in 2014. And for Independents, a shift from +12 in 2013 to -15 in 2014.

What would you rather have America, a Cowboy or a coward?

Immigration Quotas …If Its Good Enough for the Swiss, Why is Immigration Quotas & Restricting Free Movement Across US-Mexican Border s Bad Thing for America?

Switzerland wants to protect its borders and regulate immigration. Imagine that, a country wants to regulate who comes in to their country and does not want to allow free movement across EU borders. Those racist Swiss.

Swiss and European leaders reacted warily on Monday to the narrow approval by Swiss voters of a proposal to limit the number of foreigners allowed to live and work in Switzerland.

A bare majority voted in a referendum on Sunday to cut immigration quotas and require that Swiss nationals be given priority in hiring. The result could have far-reaching implications for relations between Switzerland and the 28-member European Union, of which it is not a member.

Laurent Fabius, France’s foreign minister, said Monday that the European Union would have to reconsider its relationship with Switzerland.

“It is a vote that causes concern because it means that Switzerland wants to withdraw into itself,” Mr. Fabius told RTL radio.

Viviane Reding, vice president of the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, told the BBC that Switzerland could not “pick and choose” among its agreements with the bloc, adding, “it is a whole package they have signed up to.” She said that the Swiss government must now explain how it intends to apply the results of the referendum.

NY Times Goes in the the Tank for Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton … Revisionist History Report Says Al-Qaeda Not Linked to Benghazi Attack & Was Fueled by Anti-Islam Video

All hands liberal MSM on deck … its time to shill for Obama and namely protect Hillary Clinton for 2016 … Benghazi-gate, What Benghazi-gate?

The NY Times reported this morning that Al Qaeda was not linked to the Benghazi consulate attack that killed four Americans, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Instead, the attack was led by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. However, most astonishingly, the Times was back touting that the attack was “fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.” GOOD GRIEF. Hmm, doesn’t the Times realize that Hillary Clinton is already on record that in September of last year, Clinton suggested the attack was the work of Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda affiliates?

Darrell Issa disputes NY Times Propaganda Piece on Benghazi and tries to educate a bias NBC ‘Meet the Press’ David Gergory

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.

The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.

In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.

You thought the MSM was in the tank for Obama? You haven’t seen nuthing yet. They will be all-in, all the time for Hillary Clinton from now until the 2016 presidential election. The Libs in the MSM now have to make up for a weakened, scandal plagued, dishonest and untrustworthy lame duck Barack Obama, the lie and disaster that is Obamacare and an anemic economy. So why not start with as Powerline calls it, some revisionist history on Benghazi. It would appear that we have found Hilary’s weak spot and the MSM must now cover it up … but what difference does it make?

The Times stops short of claiming that the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi was “spontaneous.” It says, instead, that the attack was not “meticulously planned.”

That may or may not be true. But the quality of the planning — good enough, as it turned out — seems irrelevant. Again, what matters is that the State Department should have been prepared for the attack and taken action accordingly. This the New York Times does not dispute.

It also matters that the Obama administration’s account of the attack, per Susan Rice, was inaccurate even if one accepts the Times’ dubious reporting. The Times acknowledges this, though it chooses to characterize Rice’s account as just a “misstatement.”

The adequacy or inadequacy of the Obama administration’s response as the Benghazi attacks unfolded also matters. So does the treatment of those in the State Department who have dared to question Hillary Clinton’s actions relating to Benghazi.

Whatever else the Times story demonstrates, I believe it shows that this story won’t go away as long as Hillary Clinton aspires to be president.

UPDATE I: House Intelligence chair, Rep. Mike Rogers, (R-Mich): Benghazi attack ‘Al Qaeda-led event.

The 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya was an “Al Qaeda-led event” according to multiple on-the-record interviews with the head of the House Intelligence Committee who receives regular classified briefings and has access to the raw intelligence to make independent assessments.

“I will tell you this, by witness testimony and a year and a half of interviewing everyone that was in the ground by the way, either by an FBI investigator or the committee: It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event. And they had pretty fairly descriptive events early on that lead those folks on the ground, doing the fighting, to the conclusion that this was a pre-planned, organized terrorist event,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told Fox News in a November interview.

“Not a video, that whole part was debunked time and time again,” Rogers added of the attack which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, “which just leads to questions of why the administration hung with that narrative for so long when all the folks who participated on the ground saw something different.”