Tuesday, March 04, 2014


Mona Charen at National Review:
Obama has shown greater bellicosity toward Republicans (described as "terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests") than toward our actual adversaries.
From somewhere at the bottom the ocean, a Mr. bin Laden begs to differ.

Also, too, these folks:

I'm not sure I can give you the exact number of Republicans Obama has had assassinated in drone strikes, but I'm assured that the figure is extremely low. Of the Republicans who sought to shut down the government last fall -- they're the ones described by White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer (not by Obama) as "people with a bomb strapped to their chest" -- I'm told that all are still alive, well, and un-droned.


Bonus dishonesty from Charen:
Among the academic set from which President Obama springs, everyone agrees that wars are the result of "arrogance" and bullying by the United States. So concerned was then-senator Barack Obama about the potential for U.S. aggression that he declined to vote for 2007 legislation that would have designated Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization.

The IRGC had been involved in training and arming terrorists worldwide, particularly in Lebanon (Hezbollah), but also in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories. But Obama worried that such a vote would be "saber rattling."
This is a reference to the 2007 Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Yes, Senator Obama opposed it -- but as Factcheck.org noted during the 2008 campaign,
Before the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was introduced, Obama cosponsored a bill that called for the IRGC to be designated as "a Foreign Terrorist Operation." Obama was one of 72 cosponsors of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which states (in part):
Iran Counter-Proliferation Act: The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization ... and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224.
Among the other opponents of Kyl-Lieberman was Jim Webb, who'd been secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan before becoming a DCemocratic senator from Virginia. He saw it as an invitation to attack Iran, calling it "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream" and adding:
At best, it's a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate.
Also voting against Kyl-Lieberman was Senator Daniel Inouye, who, of course, left an arm on a World War II battlefield while fighting for the U.S. Army. Neither Webb or Inouye has ever been known to wear mom jeans.


Even more dishonesty from Charen:
Formal conclaves that permit evil regimes to gain concessions in exchange for promises they quickly break are one form of dangerous talk. Obama has been perfecting another type as well: the empty threat. "For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside," the president declared in 2011. Shockingly, the tyrant willing to murder more than 100,000 people and displace millions didn't immediately grab his coat and obey. Obama did nothing to back his words with actions (like arming the opposition, which was then not dominated by al-Qaeda). Later he did something -- he spoke more words. This time, it was Obama threatening that, well, okay, Assad didn't have to go, but if he used chemical weapons that would cross a "red line for me." (Talk about saber rattling.)

When Assad flamboyantly hop-scotched over Obama's red line and received no response, the world rocked on its axis.
Expunged from Charen's account: Obama's threat of a military attack on Assad -- which, of course, was effectively blocked by her fellow Republicans. Sorry, it doesn't fit the Obama-as-hippie narrative.


Victor said...

Black is white.

White is black.

The sky and grass are blue or green, depending on what President Obama says they are - and then Conservatives will argue the opposite, and remark on how green the skies are today, and how blue the grass.

Obama is, of course, too black for the whites, and too white, for the blacks, they argue.

Obama's a despotic and power-mad tyrant at home.
But he's a gutless chickenshit who loses his tyrannical powers once something happens outside of the USA, and becomes a mewling kitty.

Uncle Mike said...

Didn't Obama kill Breitbart with his super-secret mind ray? Hell, I'd give him a third term just for that.

Ken_L said...

NRO has a stable of writers who churn out effectively the same post every few weeks. Charen is one, Hansen is another; the posts in question are kind of stream-of-consciousness rants listing a bunch of reasons they hate Obama. The hard core NRO subscribers lap the tripe up but there's no reason why anyone else should waste time reading it.

Glennis said...

Gee, Putin and Obama. which leader is more manly? Which leader is better able to protect his citizens against terrorist attacks?

The one who, on his watch, allowed four embassy employees to get killed in a very dangerous part of the world two years ago?

Or the one who just two months ago had two suicide bombs go off in railroad stations in his country's cities, killing 31 citizens?

They still admire the manly Putin and his rippling muscles, despite the fact that his country has suffered multiple terror attacks on his watch.

Unknown said...

John McCain is better than my brother-in-law; with McCain, I can change the channel.
Seriously, what's his deal? Does he think the Senate is his own personal bar to bloviate in?

Dave S. said...

That bar graph is hilariously, if unintentionally, suggestive, but only because it includes an item (number of strikes) that should not be there, based on the labeling of the y-axis.