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.

Gallup Poll: Barack Obama’s Job Approval Ratings Back in the 30′s

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.

Credit – Gallup

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 [2007] 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 [2007] 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 [2007] 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

More damning excepts at Doug Ross.

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.”