Even MSM Reporters Had to Mock & Laugh at State Dept. Spokeswoman Jen Psaki Said … President Barack Obama “Doesn’t Give Himself Enough Credit for What He’s Done Around the World”
And now for the most absurd comment of the week … Imagine that, State Dept. Spokeswoman Jen Psaki thinks the Narcissist in Chief does not give himself enough credit.
Question: You know when you have told a complete whopper of a lie regarding Barack Obama and your spin has completely jumped the shark? Answer: When even the liberal MSM wets themselves laughing and mocks you. Just when you thought you heard it all from the Obama Administration comes the following. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said yesterday to the media that President Barack Obama “doesn’t give himself enough credit for what he’s done around the world”. HUH? Like what, the Middle East on the verge, Syria, Libya? Rise of terrorism? Russian President Putin? Benghazi? Russia on the move swallowing up former Soviet possessions? Allowing Iran to nuke up under the guise of a BS agreement? America looked upon as weak around the world? How about Obama being perceived as a weak leader? How did that Arab Spring work out? Needless to say the media found her comments pretty preposterous as well. One reported responded, “How much credit would you give him? What, like, 200 percent credit?”
Reporters clearly found her statement questionable and followed up with several questions about the president’s foreign policy. There was even some laughter.
“Jen, you would argue the president doesn’t give himself enough credit? How much credit would you give him?” Associated Press reporter Matt Lee asked. “What, like, 200 percent credit?”
Because Barack Obama has never spiked the football when it was convenient for himself.
From the Washington Free Beacon – The Full transcript exchange between State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki and the media :
JEN PSAKI: I would argue the president doesn’t give himself enough credit for what he’s done around the world, and that’s how the secretary feels too. We would not be engaged in comprehensive negotiations with Iran, which is where the program is stalled and is rolling back, if it were not for the role of the United States, along with the P-5 plus one partners, certainly. Ukraine, we’ve been engaged more or as much as any other country in the world in supporting the elections process and supporting the government and supporting their efforts moving forward. Yes, there’s more work that needs to be done. The point is, we need to continue to stay at it.
Q: But isn’t this a potential mission accomplished situation?
PSAKI: Absolutely not.
Q: Jen, you would argue the president doesn’t give himself enough credit? How much credit would you give him?
PSAKI: Well, I think what I’m — I would give him more than he has given himself. That’s what I just said.
Q: What, like, 200 percent credit?
PSAKI: So would the secretary.
Q: So — and for — and for –
Q: Credit for what? I’m sorry, credit for what?
Q: For what, yes, exactly? That’s the point.
Q: No, I mean, I don’t — I don’t mean, like, he doesn’t deserve credit.
Q: For the Iran negotiations?
Q: I mean — I mean — I’m talking, what specifically are you talking he doesn’t get enough credit for — (inaudible)?
PSAKI: For engagement initiatives like Iran, what we’ve done on Ukraine, efforts to dive in and engage around the world.
Q: I mean, Russia has still annexed Crimea. I mean, Iran — there’s ongoing negotiations, but is that the success here that you’re talking?
PSAKI: We’re talking about engagement in the world and taking on tough issues that present themselves. And the United States continues to play a prominent role doing that.
UNBELIEVABLE!!! For this administration it does not matter whether whether a foreign policy initiative is successful, just that Obama engages.
No one can say he did not get to his job approval rating the old fashion way … he earned it!
According to the most recent Gallup poll, 3 day rolling average, President Barack Obama’s job approval rating in back in the 30′s. Take your pick, the economy, record debt, record number of individuals on food stamps, failed green energy agenda, scandals like Benghazi-gate and IRS-gate, foreign policy disasters like Syria, Libya, the failed Arab Spring and the disastrous Russia reset and Obamacare … one wonders how Obama is not in the 20′s.
Democrats are panicking ahead of the 2014 midterm elections.
Posted March 15, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Benghazi-Gate, Democrats, Economy, Egypt, Epic Fail, Food Stamps, Gallup, Green Energy, Healthcare, Healthcare.gov, Hope and Change, Iran, Iraq, IRS-gate, Islam/Muslims, Job Approval, Misleader, Misrepresentation, Obamacare, Obamanation, Polls, Russia, Scandal, Syria, The Lying King, Ukraine, You Can Keep Your Insurance | one comment
Rutgers Faculty Approves Resolution to Rescind its Invitation to Condoleeza Rice to Speak at Commencement
THE LIBERAL INDOCTRINATION OF AMERICA’S COLLEGES …
Liberal, duplicitous Rutgers faculty looks to rescind the university’s original invitation to former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to speak at their Commencement. Condi is just to Republican to speak at Rutgers, according to the libs in the faculty. Get a load of the reason why the liberal elite at Rutgers do not want Condi to speak at the commencement. One professor said, “She was intimately involved in a campaign that was a manipulation. Whether she was aware of it or not. Our students are being manipulated to deliver a political point.” Another said, “an honorary Doctor of Laws degree should not honor someone who participated in a political effort to circumvent the law.” Hmm, I guess that also means that Hillary Clinton (Benghazi) and Barack Obama (Obamacare and his entire presidency) would be deemed the same as not fitting the criteria to speak at a Rutgers commencement? Add the entire Obama administration since the Rutger’s profs added, “whether some one was aware of it or not.” Who are these two face, elitist, liberal moon-bats kidding. Sadly, they are
teaching indoctrinating our children.
Hey Rutgers lib profs … talk to the hand
The Rutgers University New Brunswick Faculty Council approved a resolution yesterday urging the university’s Board of Governors to rescind its invitation to Condoleeza Rice to speak at commencement.
The Board of Governors voted earlier this month to award an honorary Doctor of Laws degree to Rice, who served as Secretary of State under President George W. Bush. She will be paid $35,000 for her commencement address.
But the faculty council cited her war record and her misleading of the public about the Iraq war as reasons for their opposition.
“Condoleezza Rice … played a prominent role in (the Bush) administration’s effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction,” according to the resolution. And she “at the very least condoned the Bush administration’s policy of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ such as waterboarding,” it said.
“A Commencement speaker… should embody moral authority and exemplary citizenship,” it continued, and “an honorary Doctor of Laws degree should not honor someone who participated in a political effort to circumvent the law.”
Could Bob Gates’s memoir Haunt Hillary Clinton in 2016 … “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the  surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa Primary”
Imagine that, Hillary Clinton doing something for political purposes … Is this woman really Presidential timber?
Say it isn’t so, who would possibly think that anyone with the last name of Clinton would do some thing for political purposes, rather than conviction. Thus comes the bombshell from Bob Gates new book where the former secretary of War says that “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the  surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary.” Nice, so she fakes a position knowing that a surge was needed, but puts a mission in danger for political purposes. But that begs the question, what hasn’t Hillary done in her lifetime that was not political?
Take a real good look at what many believe will be the next president of the United States. God Help Us.
To Hillary Clinton, What Difference Does It Make … ITS ALL POLITICAL!
In a new memoir of his time as secretary of defense in the Obama administration, Gates writes: “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the  surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. .?.?. The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”
Oomph. Just to jog your memory, Clinton announced that she opposed the Iraq surge being pushed by President George W. Bush in the days leading up to the announcement of her presidential bid. She instead proposed a freeze in troop levels in the country and advocated for a troop increase in Afghanistan.
The stories written at the time mentioned how Clinton was coming under pressure from the increasingly vocal anti-war left to oppose the troop surge — particularly given that it was becoming increasingly obvious that then-Sen. Barack Obama, who, unlike Clinton, opposed the Iraq war from the start, was going to be her main rival for the nomination. Opposing the surge was cast by many political observers as a sign to the left that she had evolved since her vote for the use-of-force resolution earlier in the decade.
Kind of makes you wonder why she did what she did with Benghazi and refused to fortify the consulate prior to September 11, 2012, even after repeated requests were made to do so. Nothing political there either, hmm?
But of course as Hillary says … WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates RIPS Barack Obama’s Leadership in “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War” … Obama Douted, “Outright Convinced It” [the Surge Mission] Would Fail”
Commander in Chief?
Really, Barack Obama, the so-called Commander in Chief sent 30,000 of America’s bravest and treasured resources into harms way in the Afghanistan surge and did not even believe in the mission? Robert Gates writes in “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,” the president was “skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail.”
Why would some one commit troops to a mission that one did not believe in? This is enormously troubling. Was it merely political?
Barack Obama: Commander in Chief or President Photo-Op?
In a new memoir, former defense secretary Robert Gates unleashes harsh judgments about President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the Afghanistan war, writing that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”
Leveling one of the more serious charges that a defense secretary could make against a commander in chief sending forces into combat, Gates asserts that Obama had more than doubts about the course he had charted in Afghanistan. The president was “skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail,” Gates writes in “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.”
Obama, after months of contentious discussion with Gates and other top advisers, deployed 30,000 more troops in a final push to stabilize Afghanistan before a phased withdrawal beginning in mid-2011. “I never doubted Obama’s support for the troops, only his support for their mission,” Gates writes.
A Damning must see VIDEO – lack of regard of others by the Obama White House
VIDEO – CNN: Et tu Bob? Fmr. Defense Secretary slams Obama on Afghanistan in new memoir
At a March 3, 2011, National Security Council meeting, Gates writes, the president opened with a “blast.” Obama criticized the military for “popping off in the press” and said he would push back hard against any delay in beginning the withdrawal.
According to Gates, Obama concluded, “?‘If I believe I am being gamed . . .’ and left the sentence hanging there with the clear implication the consequences would be dire.”
Gates continues: “I was pretty upset myself. I thought implicitly accusing” Petraeus, and perhaps Mullen and Gates himself, “of gaming him in front of thirty people in the Situation Room was inappropriate, not to mention highly disrespectful of Petraeus. As I sat there, I thought: the president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand [Afghanistan President Hamid] Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”
And the Barack Obama failures keep coming … This one was just as predictable as Obamacare.
Thanks to President Barack Obama and his premature withdrawal of American military forces out of Iraq in 2011, it would appear that the vacuum left is now being sucked up by Al Qaeda affiliates over-running parts of Iraq, including the city of Fallujah. So who did not see this coming when Obama withdrew US troops? Once again Obama’s foreign policy in the Middle East has been 100% wrong. As The Gateway Pundit reminds us, when George W. Bush left office the War in Iraq was won. Now, just 5 short years later all of the US gains in Iraq have been lost and the Al-Qaeda flag now flies above Fallujah. But I guess Obama and Democrats will attempt to blame this on W as well.
Black-clad Sunni militants of Al Qaeda destroyed the Falluja Police Headquarters and mayor’s office, planted their flag atop other government buildings and decreed the western Iraqi city to be their new independent state on Friday in an escalating threat to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, whose forces were struggling to retake control late into the night.
The advances by the militants — members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS — came after days of fighting in Falluja, Ramadi and other areas of Anbar Province. The region is a center of Sunni extremism that has grown more intense in reaction to Mr. Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad and the neighboring civil war in Syria.
Donald Douglass at American Power is 1000% correct and this Obama failure is going to hurt the United States for many years, decades, “This is specifically a result of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, and it’s going to come back a bite the U.S. and our allies for years to come”.
Republican senators on Saturday blamed the Obama administration for Al Qaeda affiliates over-running parts of Iraq, including the city of Fallujah, which the United States secured before President Obama removed all U.S. forces from that country in 2011.
Sen. John McCain, Arizona, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, called the recent turn of events “as tragic as they were predictable” and suggested Obama misled Americans into believing that Iraqi leaders wanted U.S. forces out of their country.
“While many Iraqis are responsible for this strategic disaster, the administration cannot escape its share of the blame,” the senators said in a joint statement. “When President Obama withdrew all U.S. forces … over the objections of our military leaders and commanders on the ground, many of us predicted that the vacuum would be filled by America’s enemies and would emerge as a threat to U.S. national security interests. Sadly, that reality is now clearer than ever.”
The Al Qaeda-affiliated fighters took over Fallujah on Friday after a bloody three-day battle, raising their flag over government buildings as a sign of victory, according to The Washington Post.
I really hope that Barack Obama is proud of himself for his ignorant and Pollyanna foreign policy decisions like Iraq where Obama has pulled defeat from the jaws of victory. As stated by the Ace of Spades says, all those “American troops spilled their guts fighting Al Qaeda in Fallujah in 2004.” And with this rank amateur president in office, it now seems all that precious American lives were for nothing.
How is America and the world going to survive three more years of this failed a$$ clown?
Posted January 4, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
al-Qaeda, Barack Obama, Community Agitator, Democrats, Divider in Chief, Epic Fail, Iraq, Islam/Muslims, Islamofascist, Jihad, Leading from Behind, Liberals, Military, Obamanation, Progressives, Radical Islam, Terrorism, US National Security, War on Terror, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | one comment
Remember When Joe Biden Said in 2007 that George W. Bush Should Be Impeached for What Barack Obama is About to Do?
Oh the hypocrisy from the LEFT …
Remember when Senator Joe Biden wanted Bush impeached for the very thing that Barack Obama is about to do? So what is different, oh it’s Barack Obama. So what is the difference? Oh that’s right, the current president is not a Republican. So if Obama attacks Syria without Congressional approval, will Biden be the first to file articles of impeachment against Barack Obama?
In 2007, Senator Joe Biden repeatedly threatened to lead an effort to impeach President George W. Bush in the House should he attack Iran without congressional authorization. Senator Obama agreed that Bush did not have the power to order a strike on Iran. This was not mindless, partisan saber rattling: Vice President Dick Cheney and the neoconservative establishment were actively pushing Bush to take military action against Iran.
On Hardball, Biden emphatically and passionately told Chris Matthews that Bush had “no constitutional authority … to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.” Biden was absolutely correct to point out the illegality of Bush’s intentions and threaten him with impeachment.
It turns out that his Democratic primary opponent and eventual running mate, then-Senator Joe Biden, had even stronger views about presidents attacking other nations without Congress’s permission:
Chris Matthews: You said that if the United States had launched at attack on Iran without Congressional approval, that would’ve been an impeachable offense. Do you want to review that comment you made?
Joe Biden: Absolutely. I want to stand by that comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don’t say those things lightly, Chris. you’ve known me for a long time. I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years. I teach separation of powers in Constitutional law. This is something I know. So I brought a group of Constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate pointing out that the president HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that — and I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly.
This is a striking statement.
What a joke, GWB’s three biggest critics when it came to his foreign policy were Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John Kerry. Now suddenly they are all hawks!
Col. Ralph Peters Blasts John Kerry on his Syria Speech … “Melodrama is Not a Substitute for Strategy” and His Stunning Hypocrisy
Once again Col. Ralph Peters calls it like it is … Melodrama and Hypocrisy!
Col. Ralph Peters blasted Secretary of State John Kerry for his speech on Syria. Peters said that, “Melodrama is Not a Substitute for Strategy.” Kerry never explained why there was a clear and present danger to the United States to get involved with attacking Syria. Peters also went on to call out Obama and Kerry for their hypocrisy. Kerry called Assad a thug and a murderer who had gassed 1000′s of his own people with poison gas, yet where was Kerry and Obama when it came to Saddam Hussein in Iraq? Hussein killed over one million people. Where was John Kerry and Barack Obama then?
Decimated Al-Qaeda? Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss … “the Threats are Very Reminiscent of What We saw Pre-9/11.” … “the Most Serious … I’ve Seen in a Number of Years.”
My what a difference an Obama presidential reelection year makes … Wasn’t Al-Qaeda decimated? … At least this time Obama did not blame Embassy closings on a video tape.
As reported by FOX News, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on the Sunday talk show ‘Meet the Press’ that that the threats are “very reminiscent of what we saw pre-9/11″ and the threats as “the most serious … I’ve seen in a number of years.”
The US State Department has now extended the closings of Embassies across the Middle East and North Africa, , as the terror threat across the region remained high through the final days of Ramadan. So how is it that a decimated Al-Qaeda caused the United States to shut down embassies and go on high alert?
Capitol Hill lawmakers, including top-ranking members of intelligence committees, on Sunday described the terror threat that closed 22 U.S. embassies and consulates across the Muslim region as the most serious one since before the 9/11 attacks and related to specific act or plot.
If I had plans to travel to certain places in the Middle East, I would probably go ahead and cancel them,” he said.
Rooney’s comments followed Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, telling NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the threats are “very reminiscent of what we saw pre-9/11.”
He also described the threats as “the most serious … I’ve seen in a number of years.”
But wait … Didn’t the Obamamessiah tell us during the 2012 Presidential campaign at stump speech after stump speech that Al-Qaeda was decimated and on the run? Barack Obama tried to portray us as some savior of America and that he had defeated Al-Qaeda. But of course with the Lying King, it was all rhetoric and misrepresentations as to what was really going on in the Middle East and terrorism. Obama told us that Al-Qaeda was on the path to death and yet then Benghazi happened. Obama boasted that Al-Qaeda was on the path to defeat and on the run, yet by the looks of the two dozen US Embassies and Consulates closed, nothing could be further from the truth. Barack Obama, the “Campaigner” in Chief would do and say anything to get reelected no matter what. He knows nothing about leadership, it was about being reelected.
Can we just come out and say the obvious … HE LIED!!!
Posted August 5, 2013 by Scared Monkeys
2012 Elections, 9/11, Africa, al-Qaeda, Barack Obama, Campaigner in Chief, Chicago-Style Politics, Egypt, Epic Fail, Iraq, Jihad, Leading from Behind, Obamanation, Pakistan, Radical Islam, Terrorism, The Dodger in Chief, The Lying King, Transparency, US National Security, War on Terror, World, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | 2 comments
ARE YOU KIDDING!!! US Closes 21 Embassies Due to Al-Qaeda Threat … Obama Officials Meet on Al-Qaeda Threat and Barack Obama Goes Golfing
The don’t call him the “Golfer” in Chief for nothing … Barack Obama is a complete joke as President … When the going gets tough, Obama goes golfing.
So lets understand this, 21 US Embassies have been closed due to what ABC News reporting that Senior U.S. Official intercepted Al Qaeda communications indicate a planned attack ‘Big,’ ‘Strategically Significant’ … and our fearless leader goes golfing. UNBELIEVABLE. How is it that high level meetings can be taking place with such an unprecedented security threats that so many Embassies and Consulates are closed in the Middle East and North Africa and Obama’s sees fit to go golfing yet again? What is actually more important to this guy, he celebrate his birthday, or US security and the war on terror?
Seriously folks, how does Obama go golfing when there was supposed terrorist chatter that has not been seen since 9-11? What is wrong with this man that he cannot comprehend that the perception that he take terrorism seriously matters? There is something seriously psychologically wrong with Obama that he cannot stop golfing in the face of what is reported as the greatest terror threat since 9/11.
On the day that almost two dozen U.S. embassies and consulates across North Africa and the Middle East are closed following the identification of a significant threat from an al-Qaeda affiliate, a senior U.S. official is providing new details about the communications intercepted from the terrorists, telling ABC News that al-Qaeda operatives could be heard talking about an upcoming attack. The official described the terrorists as saying the planned attack is “going to be big” and “strategically significant.”
“The part that is alarming is the confidence they showed while communicating and the air of certainty,” the official said, adding that the group — Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — appeared to have a media plan for after the attack.
Authorities do not know the exact target of the planned attack, according to the official.
“We do not know whether they mean an embassy, an airbase, an aircraft, trains,” the official said.
Today on “This Week,” Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-MD — the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee — said the intercepted communications called for a “major attack.”
“We received information that high level people from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are talking about a major attack,” Ruppersberger said. “And these are people at a high level.”
“It’s a very credible threat and it’s based on intelligence,” Ruppersberger continued. “What we have to do now is the most important issue, is protect Americans throughout the world.”