OBAMA’S MIDDLE EAST DEBACLE

Although this video is is a little over one hour in length, I believe you will want to watch it til the end. The talk was delivered in April 2016,

October 24, 2018 | 11 Comments »

Leave a Reply

11 Comments / 11 Comments

  3. Obama’s Bizarre Iranian Love Affair Continues

    It’s a shame the Republican candidates continue to waste time hectoring each other over the most trivial matters when over the last few days it has become increasingly clear how completely the president of the United States sold out the interests of our country and the West to the Islamic Republic of Iran — by far (it isn’t even close) the biggest state sponsor of terrorism. The candidates are missing an extraordinary teaching moment about something of monumental significance, assuming they are paying attention to it themselves.

    The media — only a very few of whom (like Bloomberg’s Eli Lake and our own Michael Ledeen) seem even faintly interested in what is going on with Iran — is equally complicit and even more culpable in this fascination with the tangential.

    What the supposed journalists are missing is a chance to solve the greatest mystery of our times — why Barack Obama decided to sell out those Western interests to Iran; and why, at least for the moment, he has taken the Shiite side in the thirteen hundred year plus Sunni-Shiite civil war and in so doing placed humanity in jeopardy, making the mullahs stronger and virtually assuring they will eventually have atomic weapons.

    Why does this peculiar man who somehow ended up president of the United States make the often inexplicable decisions he does? Does he have real reasons (nefarious or otherwise) or is it, to be blunt, emotional disturbance?
    Sponsored

    But to those recent events: It now appears clear that Obama, for all his protestations in 2011, was never serious about overthrowing Assad. (We already know he didn’t turn out to be serious about his redline for the despot’s use of chemical weapons on his people.) When presented with a military plan to overthrow Assad in 2012 by supporting more moderate rebels who then still existed, we now learn Obama demurred.

    Why? I doubt the mullahs would have approved of the overthrow of their Syrian ally, and Obama, from the outset, was above all things bent on making a deal with Iran. He still is, even though he doesn’t really have one, not one that anyone understands anyway or has seen. The little bit of a deal he has is a moving target manipulated entirely by Ayatollah Khamenei who, unless Obama is actually an Iranian agent (I doubt that, but anything’s possible), has played our president like the proverbial violin and doesn’t seem as if he’s ready to stop. continue at https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2016/04/03/obamas-bizarre-iranian-love-affair-continues/

  4. Op-Ed: New Hillary Email Reveals Obama’s Israel Strategy

    The newly-declassified emails of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton have unexpectedly revealed a key part of the Obama administration’s strategy in dealing with Israel.

    Among the Clinton emails released this week was a 2010 memo from the Obama administration’s chief Middle East negotiator, Martin Indyk.

    Friends of Israel have long harbored deep concerns about indications that Indyk was unfriendly to Israel. But this is one of the rare instances in which we can see, in Indyk’s own words, how he crafted the strategy for U.S. pressure on Israel.

    In the mind of President Obama’s emissary, it is Netanyahu who is the problem, first, foremost, and always.
    In the memo, Indyk accuses Prime Minister Netanyahu of “humiliating” Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas, which “raises doubts about his seriousness.” Abbas’s refusal to disarm and outlaw terrorist groups, or extradite terrorists to Israel, apparently raised no doubts in Indyk’s mind. Nor did the constant flow of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda from Abbas’s PA appeared to have troubled Indyk very much. No, in the mind of President Obama’s emissary, it is Netanyahu who is the problem, first, foremost, and always.

    Indyk then explains, in the memo, what he sees as the most effective way of countering Netanyahu’s “inflated demands” (you know, such as expecting the Palestinian Authority to oppose terrorism). If the Israeli leader falls to succumb to U.S. pressure, “avoid recriminations” and instead portray the situation as “a ‘clarifying moment’,” Indyk advised. “The world will of course blame [Netanyahu]. But you should avoid any kind of finger-pointing in favor of a repeated commitment to a negotiated solution and a willingness to engage with both sides in trying to make that happen, when they’re ready.”

    It’s the classic good cop-bad cop strategy. Indyk knows that “the world will of course blame” Israel, so there’s no need for the Obama administration to take the heat. It can let “the world” do the blaming, while Obama and Indyk to pretend to be merely “willing to engage with both sides when they’re ready” — but of course, we all know who “isn’t ready,” wink-wink.

    It’s how you would expect the U.S. to deal with some unfriendly country, not with America’s only reliable and democratic ally in the Middle East.

    We’ve had a taste of Indyk’s attitude before. Back when he was U.S. ambassador to Israel, he described his role as that of “a circus master” whose job is to “crack the whip and get the [parties] to move around in an orderly fashion.” (Washington Post, Feb. 24, 1997) Likewise last autumn, speaking at the Adas Israel synagogue in Washington, D.C. on Yom Kippur, Indyk said that he “discovered” in the most recent round of failed negotiations “that we would crack the whip, but no one was responding to our whip cracks. That’s a change.”

    How frustrating for Indyk that the Israelis, who used to “respond” to his “whip cracks,” now seem less willing to succumb. Those dumb brutes!

    Over the years, Indyk has tried a number of innovative tactics to manipulate Israel into making more concessions.

    — He tried lobbying in the Knesset–something foreign ambassadors obviously are not supposed to do. Knesset Members David Levy and Aryeh Deri revealed on July 26, 1995 that Ambassador Indyk personally lobbied them, and other MKs, to oppose a Knesset bill that would have made it harder for Israel to give the Golan Heights to Syria. (Agence France Presse, July 26, 1995)

    — He tried pressuring Israel’s rabbinical leaders. Israel Television reported on December 18, 1996, that Ambassador Indyk visited former Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual leader of the Shas party, and asked Yosef to order Interior Minister Eli Suissa (a Shas representative) to block a housing project in a part of Jerusalem that was beyond the 1967 line.

    — He tried hassling Israeli cabinet ministers. The chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, MK Uzi Landau, revealed in March 1997 that Ambassador Indyk had been “pressuring members of the government” and “interfering in Israel’s internal political affairs.” (Haaretz, March 16, 1997)

    — He tried to interfere in the prime minister’s appointments. The Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot reported on July 8, 1997, that Ambassador Indyk “took part in the effort” to block Prime Minister Netanyahu’s choice for finance minister.

    — And he tried to interfere in Israel’s elections. According to The New Republic (Aug.11-18, 1997) Indyk “distinguished himself by exhorting [President Clinton] to campaign for [Labor Party leader] Shimon Peres” in the 1996 Israeli elections.

    Now the history books will record that when his previous attempts at interference failed, Indyk crafted a new U.S. strategy of pretending not to be pressuring Israel while letting “the world” help them achieve their unsavory goal of bullying Israel into making yet more concessions.

    Mr. Korn, chairman of the Philadelphia Religious Zionists, is former executive editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent and the Miami Jewish Tribune.

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17505#.VwImO3ovYxI

  5. I think everything said and felt about Obama since he came to office has probably over pervaded every Israeli’s mind to a point where, if we weren’t so pissed off about everything he’s done, we’d practically cease to have an identity. Since Obama was running in 2008, our response to his policies seems almost Pavlovian in nature. What will American Jews do for a messiah if he is no longer in office and, it seems also, that Israelis, at least for me, that we’ve been battered over the head with the sense of injustice we get from the Obama administration. I believe we should realize that and start preparing for meaningful political dialogues that don’t involve him and prepare to move on even if HIllary follows. And Ted, even if it’s true about his homosexuality or about the questionability of the status of his law degree, I believe they are irrelevant. His policies are bad in their own right. We should bash that and hopefully be able to purge our psyches from the eight years of his incredibly bad policies. We need to start talking about how Israel can solve it’s own problems without the Obama elephant in the room, and taking charge of our own destiny. What I basically mean is that Obama’s still getting too much press. Talking about his homosexuality or law degree only adds to that. We need more talk on how we can move forward after Obama leaves office. We already know the damage he’s done and it almost doesn’t matter why.

  6. Secret Service Agent Says Obama Is Muslim & Gay In New Tell-All Book

    In an interview with NBC News, Horner told Senior Political Analyst Tom Downey that he is one-hundred-percent positive that President Obama is not only gay, but a radical Muslim as well.

    “Everyone on the inside knows that Obama is gay and a Muslim, it is common knowledge,” Horner said. “I saw many men coming and going from Obama’s room, at all hours. I would say a good portion of the men, over fifty-percent, were Muslim.”

    Downey: “In your book you talk about several rituals Obama preformed to unwind from his busy schedule. Can you elaborate on these for our viewers?”

    Horner: “When no one was around, except his security, Obama couldn’t wait to get out of his suit and into his Muslim tunic. He would wear it while praying to the prophet Muhammad throughout the day. During these prayer sessions he insisted that he not be disturbed.”

  7. Bush and Obama show extreme stupidity by freeing known terrorists of the worst kind from GITMO in Cuba. Americans and others have been killed by the released terrorists.

    Obama wants to take this to new levels by bringing the last of these terrorists back to the USA mainland. He probably will hand Cuba the naval base for free.

  8. I replied:

    I have no interest in giving Obama a pass..

    I clearly showed that the US, including under Bush, catered to the Arabs. It is not just because we needed their oil but also because we didn’t want to alienate the Arabs in particular and the Muslims in general. Because the Arabs are so rich they have a lot of clout. Because they are so violent, we are intimidated by them.

    It was under Bush’s watch that Saudi Arabia was permitted to carry on the stealth Jihad in America.

    Having said all that, Obama took it to a new level by embracing Muslims at home and abroad. In this talk, my focus was on what Obama did rather than what the US did before him.

  9. Email received:

    YOU CLEARLY DO NO GOOD TO ISRAEL BY HAMMERING ON OBAMA.

    THE MIDDLE EAST DISASTER WAS SET UP BY ALL AMERICAN PRESIDENTS FROM FDR UP TO GW BUSH –
    THEY ALL SOLD THE WORLD FOR BARRELS OF OIL.

    OBAMA IS THE FIRST US PRESIDENT SINCE WWII WHO DOES NOT GIVE A DAMN FOR MENA OIL.
    TRY TO BE HONEST AND THINK WHAT THIS DID BY CAUSING A PERCEIVED US DEPENDENCE ON ALL THOSE BARREL-SITTERS.

    THE RECENT DEBACLES WERE STARTED BY GW UNDER CHENEY’S UMBRELLA – WHEN HE THOUGHT TO GRAB IRAQ’S OIL FOR THE TEXAS BARONS AND SHOW HIS FATHER THAT HE CAN DO ONE BETTER THEN HIM;
    GW ACTED LIKE THE PSYCHOPATH HE IS.

    OBAMA TODAY IS FREE TO LET ARAB FIGHT ARAB – SIMPLY BECAUSE HE DOES NOT WANT THEIR OIL – THEY
    WILL BUY US ARMS ANYWAY – WHY GIVE IT TO THEM? IF HE WANTS TO TAKE OUT A PARTICULARLY NASTY REBEL – HE SHOWED HE CAN DO IT IF HE WISHES SO. HE DID MUCH MORE ON THIS THEN GW.

    AND MOST IMPORTANT – OBAMA CAN AFFORD TO WAIT IT OUT FOR THE US ALLIES TO RID THEMSELVES OF THEIR DEPENDENCE OF OIL AS WELL – THIS POLICY IS CALLED TODAY – SUSTAINABILITY…..

    I WROTE ALREADY MORE THEN I SET OUT TO AND WONDER IF YOU ARE OPEN TO INTELLIGENT LECTURES.

    ARE YOU BLIND NOT TO SEE THIS – OR YOU HAVE ULTERIOR MOTIVES THAT DRIVE YOUR POSITION?

  11. A few corrections.
    1 Obama stumped for Odinga in 2006 and not 2008 as I said.\
    2. Bush agreed to give his vision speech embracing the state of Palestine on Sept 13/09

    He delayed it until June 2002.

    I claimed that both Michelle and Barak were forced to give up their law licenses. It seems that this is not true. My research was done in 2008. Subsequently, it was established that they were not forced to resign. My apologies.