Former Sec. of State Clinton has “Memory Lapse”… Throws Obama Under the Bus For His “Failed Foreign Policy”

Hillary Ramirez CartoonYesterday, I wrote about the relative morality and situational ethics of the American Political Scene.

Now, as if on cue, the Poster Girl for sleaze in American Politics, Hillary Rodham Clinton, yesterday threw her former boss, President Barack Hussein Obama,  “under the bus”. reports that

President Obama has long ridiculed the idea that the U.S., early in the Syrian civil war, could have shaped the forces fighting the Assad regime, thereby stopping al Qaeda-inspired groups—like the one rampaging across Syria and Iraq today—from seizing control of the rebellion. In an interview in February, the president told me that “when you have a professional army … fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict—the notion that we could have, in a clean way that didn’t commit U.S. military forces, changed the equation on the ground there was never true.”

Well, his former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, isn’t buying it. In an interview with me earlier this week, she used her sharpest language yet to describe the “failure” that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising.

“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.

As she writes in her memoir of her State Department years, Hard Choices, she was an inside-the-administration advocate of doing more to help the Syrian rebellion. Now, her supporters argue, her position has been vindicated by recent events.

Professional Clinton-watchers (and there are battalions of them) have told me that it is only a matter of time before she makes a more forceful attempt to highlight her differences with the (unpopular) president she ran against, and then went on to serve. On a number of occasions during my interview with her, I got the sense that this effort is already underway. (And for what it’s worth, I also think she may have told me that she’s running for president—see below for her not-entirely-ambiguous nod in that direction.)

Of course, Clinton had many kind words for the “incredibly intelligent” and “thoughtful” Obama, and she expressed sympathy and understanding for the devilishly complicated challenges he faces. But she also suggested that she finds his approach to foreign policy overly cautious, and she made the case that America needs a leader who believes that the country, despite its various missteps, is an indispensable force for good. At one point, I mentioned the slogan President Obama recently coined to describe his foreign-policy doctrine: “Don’t do stupid shit” (an expression often rendered as “Don’t do stupid stuff” in less-than-private encounters).

This is what Clinton said about Obama’s slogan: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

She softened the blow by noting that Obama was “trying to communicate to the American people that he’s not going to do something crazy,” but she repeatedly suggested that the U.S. sometimes appears to be withdrawing from the world stage.

During a discussion about the dangers of jihadism (a topic that has her “hepped-up,” she told me moments after she greeted me at her office in New York) and of the sort of resurgent nationalism seen in Russia today, I noted that Americans are quite wary right now of international commitment-making. She responded by arguing that there is a happy medium between bellicose posturing (of the sort she associated with the George W. Bush administration) and its opposite, a focus on withdrawal.

“You know, when you’re down on yourself, and when you are hunkering down and pulling back, you’re not going to make any better decisions than when you were aggressively, belligerently putting yourself forward,” she said. “One issue is that we don’t even tell our own story very well these days.”

I responded by saying that I thought that “defeating fascism and communism is a pretty big deal.” In other words, that the U.S., on balance, has done a good job of advancing the cause of freedom.

Clinton responded to this idea with great enthusiasm: “That’s how I feel! Maybe this is old-fashioned.” And then she seemed to signal that, yes, indeed, she’s planning to run for president. “Okay, I feel that this might be an old-fashioned idea, but I’m about to find out, in more ways than one.”

Excuse me, Mrs. Clinton…aren’t you leaving out one important fact?

For the first four years of the Obama Presidency, you were responsible for administrating this “failed Middle East Foreign Policy”, you are now criticizing your former boss about.

To the Wayback Machine, Sherman!

One week after Barack Hussein Obama was elected President of the United States, on November 4, 2008, he called Hillary and offered her the job of Secretary of State, despite the fact that she had no Foreign Policy experience. It was a suspicious choice at best, considering that fact that when they were running against each other in the Democratic Primaries,Obama had specifically criticized Clinton’s Foreign Policy credentials and the initial idea of him appointing her had been so unexpected that she had told one of her own aides, “Not in a million years.”

The fact that she had campaigned unreservedly for Obama after he defeated her for the Democratic Nomination, led to speculation that the Secretary of State job was a “reward for her loyalty”.

Hillary accepted the position, and now, 5 1/2 years later, even the Main Stream Media is hard-pressed to come up with anything she accomplished as Obama’s First Secretary of State.

It is obvious that Hillary is  distancing herself from her rapidly-tanking former boss in order to run for the Democratic Nomination for their candidate for the office of the President of the United States of America.

Last night, as I read about the interview and considered the possibility of Hillary Clinton running for President, a great many thoughts entered my head…some of them even repeatable.

In fact, there are a lot of images that race through my mind, as well, as I sit here at my computer this morning.

I remember the image of a lone terrorist, brandishing a machine gun, standing in front of the burning Benghazi Consulate.

I also remember the image of Benghazi barbarians dragging a murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens through the streets, taking pictures every few yards, with their cell phones.

My mind envisions the image of two brave Americans, up on a roof holding off 100 Muslim Terrorists, trying desperately to hold out for help which was denied to them, until finally the overwhelming numbers which comprise the horde of barbarians, murdered them as well.

I imagine Ambassador Stevens’ elderly mother, making the trip from the West Coast to the East Coast to pick up the lifeless body of her abused and murdered son, whom she and her entire family were so proud of.

Finally, I remember the show of hypocrisy involving members of this anti-American Administration solemnly welcoming the bodies of those brave Americans home.

And, later, what Former Secretary of State Clinton said, when grilled by Congressman Darrell Issa, in his House Sub-Committee:

What difference, at this point, does it make?

Former Secretary Clinton…the truth makes a big difference…to the families of those that were so savagely murdered that fateful night…and to the millions of Americans who still believe in this “Shining City on a Hill”.

Americans deserve the truth.

And, you should be ashamed to even consider running for President of the United States.

Until He Comes, 


Obama to Iraq: Here’s the Book. Here’s the Phone. See You Later. It’s Tee Time!

ObamaISISYesterday, while President Barack Hussein Obama was enjoying a leisurely Fathers Day on the links, every good thing that our Best and Brightest accomplished in Iraq was being turned into ashes, as that country continued to be under siege from the Muslim Terrorist Organization, known as ISIS.

How did this happen?

GOING…, 8/31/2010

Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq’s security forces; supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counterterrorism missions; and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year.

As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians — diplomats, aid workers, and advisers — are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war and builds ties with the region and the world. That’s a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.
This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq, one based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.

…Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners. New markets for our goods stretch from Asia to the Americas. A new push for peace in the Middle East will begin here tomorrow. Billions of young people want to move beyond the shackles of poverty and conflict. As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction — we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.

GOING…, 10/21/2011

Good afternoon, everybody. As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end — for the sake of our national security and to strengthen American leadership around the world. After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011.

As Commander-in-Chief, ensuring the success of this strategy has been one of my highest national security priorities. Last year, I announced the end to our combat mission in Iraq. And to date, we’ve removed more than 100,000 troops. Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country’s security.

A few hours ago I spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. I reaffirmed that the United States keeps its commitments. He spoke of the determination of the Iraqi people to forge their own future. We are in full agreement about how to move forward.

So today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.

Over the next two months, our troops in Iraq — tens of thousands of them — will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home. The last American soldier[s] will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops. That is how America’s military efforts in Iraq will end.

But even as we mark this important milestone, we’re also moving into a new phase in the relationship between the United States and Iraq. As of January 1st, and in keeping with our Strategic Framework Agreement with Iraq, it will be a normal relationship between sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect.

…So to sum up, the United States is moving forward from a position of strength. The long war in Iraq will come to an end by the end of this year. The transition in Afghanistan is moving forward, and our troops are finally coming home. As they do, fewer deployments and more time training will help keep our military the very best in the world. And as we welcome home our newest veterans, we’ll never stop working to give them and their families the care, the benefits and the opportunities that they have earned.

This includes enlisting our veterans in the greatest challenge that we now face as a nation — creating opportunity and jobs in this country. Because after a decade of war, the nation that we need to build — and the nation that we will build — is our own; an America that sees its economic strength restored just as we’ve restored our leadership around the globe.

GONE., 6/15/2014

The Obama administration said Sunday the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad will remain open amid the growing sectarian violence in Iraq but will increase security and that some embassy staff will be temporarily evacuated.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the staff will be moved to U.S. Consulate Generals posts in Basra and Erbil and to the Iraq Support Unit in Amman, Jordan.

The embassy is within the Baghdad’s Green Zone. It has about 5,000 personnel, making it the largest U.S. diplomatic post in the world.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) — swept across northern Iraq last week and captured the major cities of Mosul and Tikrit.

Iraqi government officials said on Sunday that ISIS fighters were trying to capture Tal Afar in northern Iraq and raining down rockets seized last week from military arms depots.

The government, meanwhile, bolstered its defenses around Baghdad a day after hundreds of Shiite men paraded through the streets with arms in response to a call by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani for Iraqis to defend their country.

ISIS has vowed to attack Baghdad, but its advance to the south seems to have stalled in recent days.

Meanwhile, Iraqi troops, many of them armed and trained by the United States, are fleeing in disarray, surrendering vehicles, weapons and ammunition to the powerful extremist group, which also fights in Syria.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said President Obama continues to receive updates on the situation from National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

And Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby confirmed that the U.S. military is providing security assistance to diplomatic facilities in Baghdad. He also said the relocation of some staffers will be done with commercial, charter and State Department aircraft and that the U.S. military has “airlift assets at the ready” should the State Department request them.

A U.S. military official told The Associated Press about 100 Marines and Army soldiers have been sent to Baghdad to help with embassy security.

United States Ambassador Chris Stephens remains unavailable for comment.

Almost 4 years ago, on 6/23/2010, I wrote a blog titled, Obama’s Kamikaze Presidency Part 2: Foreign Policy, in which I observed that

Obama’s Foreign Policy Agenda seems to follow a similar path to his Domestic Agenda. This administration appears to be re-active instead of pro-active. Smart Power! appears to be a euphemism for Crisis Management. That is a management style in which those in power procrastinate until a deadline or crisis, and then react in a frenzy, barking orders that are not easily questioned because of the immediacy of the deadline or crisis. In between deadlines and crises, those practicing this management style float along like the feather at the end of Forrest Gump.

And now, an ineffective, flailing, scrambling President Barack Hussein Obama is looking like a fool to a world who used to look to America as a bastion of strength and freedom, not weakness and political expediencies.

President Barack Hussein Obama has placed us in an untenable position with his weak and vacillating Smart Power! Foreign Policy.

Those who used to cringe in their desert tents, while calling us the Great Satan, now laugh in our faces as they walk across our southern borders with the rest of the illegal immigrants.

That is, if Obama simply does not invite them to the White House and meet with them, as he has the Muslim Brotherhood.

Unfortunately for our safety as nation, Obama’s Fantasyland view of the world, which is not unlike the old Coca Cola Advertisement where everyone had a Coke and a smile, set him up to be a disastrous failure at Foreign Policy.

A failure, which finds our enemies in Iran still working on a nuclear bomb and Russian Leader Vladimir Putin beginning the process of annexing surrounding countries and rebuilding the old Soviet Union, which was dissolved, thanks to the efforts of a real leader and American President, Ronald Reagan.

The popular defense, currently being thrown against the wall to see if it sticks by Liberals on behalf of their fallen messiah’s failed Foreign Policy, is to attack those who are critical of it, by claiming that we are all of bunch of “Christianist Raaaciiist Hate Mongers”.

In fact, the opposite is true.

We are Americans. We love our country. We cherish our freedom….and we praise and worship Our Creator, who gave it to us.

As we see our own freedom slipping away through the actions of a failed president and his willing minions, we are sympathetic to those Christians being killed for their faith by the followers of Mohammed in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East and North Africa. Additionally, we pray for Ukraine and the other former Soviet Bloc nations, who are presently under the threat of having their freedom taken from them.

We are critical of this president and his failed Foreign Policy because it is costing these nations their freedom, just as his failed, dangerous Domestic Policy is in the process of costing us our own.

Until He Comes,



Obama’s Economic Soliloquy: “Sound and Fury…Signifying Nothing”

Obama-Shrinks-2Yesterday, President Barack Hussein Obama spoke for one hour and six minutes at Knox College in Illinois. The speech was longer than all but one of his State of the Union Addresses.

The bad news? It was just the first in a series of speeches he’ll be giving under the title “A Better Bargain for the Middle Class”.

That’s right, boys and girls, our Petulant President is campaigning again, this time to distract and obfuscate.

A better title for this traveling lecture series would be “The Magical Mystery Tour”.

The Prevaricator-in-Chief has literally run out of ideas. So, he is recycling his “Growing the Economy From the Middle Class Out” bogus economic theory, praying that it distracts the nation from all of the scandals that are hanging over his head, like a piano in a Tom and Jerry Cartoon.

The problem he’s got is that he doesn’t sound like a U.S. President, who has a vision for our nation. Instead, he sounds like a visiting collegiate lecturer who has no lesson plan prepared.

You can tell by all the insipid double-talk he filled his soliloquy with . A straight talker, he ain’t.

Today, five years after the start of that Great Recession, America has fought its way back.

Together, we saved the auto industry, took on a broken health care system, and invested in new American technologies to reverse our addiction to foreign oil and double wind and solar power.

Together, we put in place tough new rules on big banks, and protections that cracked down on the worst practices of mortgage lenders and credit card companies. We changed a tax code too skewed in favor of the wealthiest at the expense of working families, locking in tax cuts for 98% of Americans, and asking those at the top to pay a little more.

Add it all up, and over the past 40 months, our businesses have created 7.2 million new jobs. This year, we are off to our strongest private-sector job growth since 1999. And because we bet on this country, foreign companies are, too. Right now, more of Honda’s cars are made in America than anywhere else. Airbus will build new planes in Alabama. Companies like Ford are replacing outsourcing with insourcing and bringing more jobs home. We sell more products made in America to the rest of the world than ever before. We now produce more natural gas than any country on Earth. We’re about to produce more of our own oil than we buy from abroad for the first time in nearly 20 years. The cost of health care is growing at its slowest rate in 50 years. And our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.

Thanks to the grit and resilience of the American people, we’ve cleared away the rubble from the financial crisis and begun to lay a new foundation for stronger, more durable economic growth. In our personal lives, we tightened our belts, shed debt, and refocused on the things that really matter. As a country, we’ve recovered faster and gone further than most other advanced nations in the world. With new American revolutions in energy, technology, manufacturing, and health care, we are actually poised to reverse the forces that have battered the middle class for so long, and rebuild an economy where everyone who works hard can get ahead.

…A growing number of Republican Senators are trying to get things done, like an immigration bill that economists say will boost our economy by more than a trillion dollars. But a faction of Republicans in the House won’t even give that bill a vote, and gutted a farm bill that America’s farmers and most vulnerable children depend on.

If you ask some of these Republicans about their economic agenda, or how they’d strengthen the middle class, they’ll shift the topic to “out-of-control” government spending – despite the fact that we have cut the deficit by nearly half as a share of the economy since I took office. Or they’ll talk about government assistance for the poor, despite the fact that they’ve already cut early education for vulnerable kids and insurance for people who’ve lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Or they’ll bring up Obamacare, despite the fact that our businesses have created nearly twice as many jobs in this recovery as they had at the same point in the last recovery, when there was no Obamacare.

With an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball. And I am here to say this needs to stop. Short-term thinking and stale debates are not what this moment requires. Our focus must be on the basic economic issues that the matter most to you – the people we represent. And as Washington prepares to enter another budget debate, the stakes for our middle class could not be higher. The countries that are passive in the face of a global economy will lose the competition for good jobs and high living standards. That’s why America has to make the investments necessary to promote long-term growth and shared prosperity. Rebuilding our manufacturing base. Educating our workforce. Upgrading our transportation and information networks. That’s what we need to be talking about. That’s what Washington needs to be focused on.

And that’s why, over the next several weeks, in towns across this country, I will engage the American people in this debate. I will lay out my ideas for how we build on the cornerstones of what it means to be middle class in America, and what it takes to work your way into the middle class in America. Job security, with good wages and durable industries. A good education. A home to call your own. Affordable health care when you get sick. A secure retirement even if you’re not rich. Reducing poverty and inequality. Growing prosperity and opportunity.

Some of these ideas I’ve talked about before, and some will be new. Some will require Congress, and some I will pursue on my own. Some will benefit folks right away; some will take years to fully implement. But the key is to break through the tendency in Washington to careen from crisis to crisis. What we need isn’t a three-month plan, or even a three-year plan, but a long-term American strategy, based on steady, persistent effort, to reverse the forces that have conspired against the middle class for decades.

Obama did his very best Lt. Frank Drebin impression in addressing his scandals,

Nothing to see here. Move along. Nothing to see here.

He begged the American public to ignore them.

Ambassador Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith remain unavailable for comment.

And, Mr. President, a series of didactic lectures designed to distract from America’s growing dissatisfaction with your lousy performance as an American President, is not a ‘debate”.

Especially, when your staff hand-picks the audience.

Oh, about the Vichy Republicans who you say are working with you. You had better work quickly, because they won’t be around after November of 2014.

And, as far as acting on your own, you do so at your party’s peril. 

As far as we hard-working members of the middle class are concerned, we would appreciate it, if you stopped generating twice as many Food Stamp Recipients as your idiotic Economic Policies produce jobs.

That, as least, would show you are actually accomplishing something positive.

But, you won’t. Just as the scorpion explained to the frog, after stinging him in the middle of riding piggy-back across a lake, you can’t help destroying a once robust American Economy.

It’s just your nature.

Until He Comes,


Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave: Syria, al-Qaeda, and Benghazi

obamamyworkDo you remember, right after Obama assumed the office of  President of the United States of America, his minions in the State Department announced that they would no longer refer to “The War on Terror” and that “Muslim Terrorists Attacks”, would be referred to as “man-caused disasters?

Over the next 5 years, Obama would bungle his way though his dealings with those who would kill us without a second thought, embracing them as “our new allies”, inviting them to the White House, and trying to convince our greatest ally, Israel, God’s Chosen People, to give half of their country to them.

Now, the Kenyan Kaiser is arming them.

Per The Los Angeles Times,

The training and Obama’s decision this month to supply arms and ammunition to the rebels have raised hope among the beleaguered opposition that Washington ultimately will provide heavier weapons as well. So far, the rebels say they lack the weapons they need to regain the offensive in Syria’s bitter civil war.

The tightly constrained U.S. effort reflects Obama’s continuing doubts about getting drawn into a conflict that already has killed more than 100,000 people and the administration’s fear that Islamic militants now leading the war against Assad could gain control of advanced U.S. weaponry.

The training has involved fighters from the Free Syrian Army, a loose confederation of rebel groups that the Obama administration has promised to back with expanded military assistance, said a U.S. official, who discussed the effort anonymously because he was not authorized to disclose details.

The number of rebels given U.S. instruction in both countries since the program began could not be determined, but in Jordan, the training involves 20 to 45 insurgents at a time, a rebel commander said.

U.S. special operations teams selected the trainees over the last year when the U.S. military set up regional supply lines to provide the rebels with nonlethal assistance, including uniforms, radios and medical aid.

The two-week courses include training with Russian-designed 14.5-millimeter anti-tank rifles, anti-tank missiles, as well as 23-millimeter anti-aircraft weapons, according to a rebel commander in the Syrian province of Dara who helps oversee weapons acquisitions and who asked his name not be used because the program is secret.

The training began last November at a new American base in the desert in southwest Jordan, he said. So far, about 100 rebels from Dara have attended four courses, while rebels from Damascus have attended three courses, he said.

“Those from the CIA, we would sit and talk with them during breaks from training and afterward, they would try to get information on the situation inside Syria,” he said.

The rebels were promised enough armor-piercing anti-tank weapons and other arms to gain a military advantage over Assad’s better-equipped army and security forces, said the Dara commander.

Here’s were it gets…frightening, sickening, and…traitorous…

According to the United Nations,

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was listed on 6 October 2001 pursuant to paragraph 8(c) of resolution 1333 (2000) as being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for “participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf or in support of”, “supplying, selling or transferring arms and related materiel to” or “otherwise supporting acts or activities of” Al-Qaida (QE.A.4.01), Usama bin Laden and the Taliban.

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) is an Al-Qaida (QE.A.4.01) affiliate. It was created in 1995 by Libyans who had fought in Afghanistan and had plotted against the Government of Libya. LIFG participated with the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (QE.M.89.02) in planning the May 2003 bombings in Casablanca, Morocco, that killed over 40 people and injured more than 100. LIFG has also been linked to the 2004 attacks in Madrid, Spain.

In 2002, Al-Qaida leader Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Hussein (QI.H.10.01), also known as Abu Zubaydah, was captured in Faisalabad, Pakistan, accompanied by at least three LIFG operatives and a fourth individual, the former head of the Sanabel Relief Agency Limited (QE.S.124.06) in Kabul, Afghanistan, who was also known to have ties to LIFG. LIFG commanders, including Abu Yahya al-Liby and the now-deceased Abu al-Laith al-Liby, have occupied prominent positions within Al-Qaida’s senior leadership.

On 3 November 2007, LIFG formally merged with Al-Qaida. The merger was announced via two video clips produced by Al-Qaida’s propaganda arm, Al-Sahab. The first clip featured Usama bin Laden’s (deceased) deputy, Aiman Muhammed Rabi al-Zawahiri (QI.A.6.01), and the second featured Abu Laith al-Liby, who then served as a senior member of LIFG and a senior leader and trainer for Al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

LIFG is believed to have several hundred members or supporters, mostly in the Middle East and Europe. Since the late 1990s, many LIFG members have fled from Libya to various Asian, Arabian Gulf, African, and European countries, particularly the United Kingdom. It is likely that LIFG has maintained a presence in eastern Libya and has facilitated the transfer of foreign fighters to Iraq.

By now, you’re saying, “But, KJ…that’s Libya, not Syria.”

Bless be the ties that bind…

On November 27, 2011, the UK Telegraph reported…

Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, “met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. “Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there.”

The “covert operation” was immediately laid bare when a rival Libyan rebel brigade detained Belhaj at Tripoli airport, accused him of travelling on a fake passport, and declared they would jail the senior military leader.

Only a letter from the country’s interim president was enough to persuade them to let him leave the country.

The meetings came as a sign of a growing ties between Libya’s fledgling government and the Syrian opposition. The Daily Telegraph on Saturday revealed that the new Libyan authorities had offered money and weapons to the growing insurgency against Bashar al-Assad.

Mr Belhaj also discussed sending Libyan fighters to train troops, the source said. Having ousted one dictator, triumphant young men, still filled with revolutionary fervour, are keen to topple the next. The commanders of armed gangs still roaming Tripoli’s streets said yesterday that “hundreds” of fighters wanted to wage war against the Assad regime.

According to information found at, in early 2012, President Barack Hussein Obama signed an intelligence finding that authorized U.S. support for the Syrian rebels, among whom are many heavily-armed, al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Gen. Martin Dempsey (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and then-CIA director David Petraeus unanimously back a plan to arm the Syrian rebels. (Even though, Obama and his entire Administration would vehemently deny it later.)

Also in early 2012, the CIA started working with Arab governments and Turkey to sharply increase the supply of arms shipments to Syrian rebels. (Source: The New York Times (March 25, 2013)

On the 11th anniversary of the most devastating Terrorist Attack ever perpetrated on American Soil, masterminded by Osama bin Laden and carried out by members of al-Qaeda, the U.S. Embassy Compound in Benghazi Libya, was overrun by Muslim Terrorists who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans.

Since then, there has been a lot of speculation as to the cause of the attack, and why Obama and his Administration tried to convince the world that an unknown Youtube video caused the Middle East Turmoil. David Horowitz’ tells us that there may have been a difference cause…

Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, writes that after Muammar Qaddafi’s fall from power in the summer of 2011, “[Christopher] Stevens [is] appointed ambassador to the new Libya run by [Abdelhakim] Belhadj [leader of the al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group] and his friends.” At this point, Stevens is tasked with finding and securing “the immense amount of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution.” Stevens’ mission is to help transfer “arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the ‘opposition’ in Syria,” where, “as in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.” These Syrian insurgents, organized under the banner of the “Free Syrian Army,” are fighting to topple the rule of their nation’s president, Bashar al-Assad. Benghazi is a logical place in which to station Stevens for this task, since, as Gaffney notes, it is “one of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands.”

Stevens’ duties include not only the transfer of arms, but also the recruitment of fighters willing to personally go into combat against the Assad regime in Syria. Aaron Klein writes that according to Middle Eastern security officials: “The U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi … actually serve[s] as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East.” Specifically, the building serves as a forum for U.S. collaboration with Arab countries—particularly the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments—on how to best support the Mideast’s various insurgencies, especially the rebels opposing Assad in Syria. Many of the fighters who are recruited are jihadists hailing from Libya and elsewhere in North Africa, and they are dispatched to Syria via Turkey (the lead coordinator of aid to the Free Syrian Army) with the help of CIA operatives stationed along the border shared by those two countries. One of the most noteworthy jihadists making his way to Syria is Abdelhakim Belhadj, former leader of the al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group that brought down Qaddafi in Libya before subsequently disbanding.

This type of covert activity “may help explain why there was no major public security presence at what has been described as a ‘consulate,’” says Aaron Klein. “Such a presence would draw attention to the shabby, nondescript building that was allegedly used for such sensitive purposes.”

Why are we arming those who want to “kill the Great Satan”? Is is naivete or insanity? Is Obama simply “standing with the Muslims”? Is he doing this in the “name of the Prophet”?

Can we Impeach him, yet?

Until He Comes,



Benghazigate: It’s Time for the Truth

benghazigate2The long-awaited hearings at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about the Benghazi terror attack of September 11, 2012,finally begin tomorrow. The mission of the Democrats will be to protect Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at all costs, because, at least for now, she is the front-runner to be their 2016 Presidential Candidate.

One of the witnesses is going to state that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making.

That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau.

… Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson’s lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.

Another witness who will testify against Ms. Clinton is Gregory Hicks, the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya.

According to Hicks…

I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.

The Libyan military agreed to fly their C‑130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements. Because we at that time — at that time, the third attack, the mortar attack at 5:15, had not yet occurred, if I remember correctly.

So Lieutenant Colonel Gibson, who is the SOCAFRICA commander, his team, you know, they were on their way to the vehicles to go to the airport to get on the C‑130 when he got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, you can’t go now, you don’t have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight.

They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it. So, anyway, and yeah. I still remember Colonel Gibson, he said, ‘I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military.’ A nice compliment.

Q: What was the rationale that you were given that they couldn’t go, ultimately?

Hicks: I guess they just didn’t have the right authority from the right level.”

Regarding Susan Rice’s lies, among them, blaming a Terrorist attack on an unwatched Youtube Video, when Obama and Hillary trotted her out on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows, Hicks remarked…

I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day.

My jaw hit the floor as I watched this.

According to the man who was ultimately responsible for the safety of those 4 murdered Americans, President Barack Hussein Obama, who was interviewed by his fan club at Morning Joe on the seldom-watched cable News channel, MSNBC, on the morning of October 29, 2013:

Anytime a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans who were serving our country get killed, we have to figure out what happened and fix it. But I do take offense with some suggestion that in any way, we haven’t tried to make sure that the American people knew as the information was coming in what we believed.

Pamtelones en fumar!

Obama was all over the place that day, attempting to put out the fire of Benghazigate, that was threatening his re-election, as summarizes for us:

President Obama declined to answer directly whether a CIA annex was denied urgent requests for military assistance during the deadly attacks last month on U.S. outposts in Libya.

The president did not give a yes-or-no answer Friday when asked pointedly whether the Americans under attack in Benghazi, Libya, were denied requests for help during the attack.

Fox News has also learned that a request from the CIA annex for backup was later denied.

“The election has nothing to do with the four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened,” the president said in TV interview with an NBC affiliate in Colorado.

When asked again, Obama said, “The minute I found out what was going on, I gave three very clear directives — Number 1, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.”

According to

Lt. Col. Tony Schafer told Fox News that sources were telling him that the President was watching the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya in real-time. Schafer told Fox that “only the President” could have ordered backup for the Americans who were under siege by terrorists so the President was most certainly informed of the situation as it was unfolding. “I hate to say this,” Schafer said, “according to my sources, yes, [the President] was one of those in the White House situation room in real-time watching this. And the question becomes, ‘What did the President do or not do in the moments he saw this unveiling?’ He — only he — could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something.”

And, in a related story from

In an unusual move, the Navy has replaced an admiral commanding an aircraft carrier strike group while it is deployed to the Middle East. The replacement was prompted by an Inspector General’s investigation of allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.

Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, the commander of the USS John C. Stennis strike group, is being returned to the United States for temporary reassignment.

In a statement the Navy said it had approved a request made by Vice Adm. John W. Miller, the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, to temporarily reassign Gaouette “pending the results of an investigation by the Navy Inspector General.”

The statement said Gaoutte would return to the carrier’s home port of Bremerton, Washington.

A Navy official familiar with the circumstances of the investigation said it involved allegations of “inappropriate leadership judgment” and stressed it was not related to personal conduct.

Uh huh.

Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, one of those brave Americans killed on 9/11/12, said, during an interview on Fox News:

This news that he disobeyed his orders does not surprise me. My son was an American hero, and he had the moral strength to do what was right … even if it would have professionally cost him his job, even if it would have cost him his life.

…The reason I’m speaking out right now is that after the facts came out that the White House […] watched my son and denied his pleas for help, my son violated his orders to protect the lives of at least 30 people. He risked his life to be a hero; I wish the leadership in the White House had the same level of moral courage that my son displayed.

Indeed, Mr. Woods. Indeed.

This week, we will see whether the Leader of the Free World will throw his Former Secretary of State under his now world-famous bus, as he apparently did those 4 brave Americans on that horrible night of September 11, 2012.

It will not surprise anyone if he does.

Harry S. Truman had a plaque on his desk which read,

The Buck Stops Here.

President Barack Hussein Obama has one on his desk, which reads, 

It’s Not My Fault.

The Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy: Another Time For Choosing

Tonight President Barack Hussein Obama and Republican Challenger Mitt Romney will square off for the final Presidential Debate, which will be on Foreign Policy.

According to the New York Times:

When President Obama and Mitt Romney sit down Monday night for the last of their three debates, two things should be immediately evident: there should be no pacing the stage or candidates’ getting into each other’s space, and there should be no veering into arguments over taxes.

This debate is about how America deals with the world — and how it should.

If the moderator, Bob Schieffer of CBS News, has his way, it will be the most substantive of the debates. He has outlined several topics: America’s role in the world, the continuing war in Afghanistan, managing the nuclear crisis with Iran and the resultant tensions with Israel, and how to deal with rise of China.

The most time, Mr. Schieffer has said, will be spent on the Arab uprisings, their aftermath and how the terrorist threat has changed since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. No doubt the two candidates will spar again, as they did in the second debate, about whether the Obama administration was ready for the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, and three other Americans. Mr. Romney was widely judged to not have had his most effective critique ready, and this time, presumably, he will be out to correct that.

The early line is that this is an opportunity for Mr. Obama to shine, and to repair the damage from the first debate. (He was already telling jokes the other night, at a dinner in New York, about his frequent mention of Osama bin Laden’s demise.)

I’ve heard Former Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, who is also Mitt Romney’s Foreign  Policy Adviser, state that Romney’s approach to Foreign Affairs with be like that of President Reagan: “Peace Through Strength”.

Amb. Bolton explained that concept further in an interview he did in September with The Washington Times:

It is central to successful U.S. foreign policy that we achieve the overwhelming preponderance of our key objectives diplomatically, without the use of force. But as the Romans said, si vis pacem, para bellum: If you want peace, prepare for war. George Washington used the maxim in his first State of the Union address, and in our day, Ronald Reagan characterized his policy as “peace through strength.” The point is clear.

Unfortunately, too many mistake resolve for belligerence. President Obama, for example, acts as if American strength is provocative, that we are too much in the world, and that a lesser U.S. profile would make other nations better disposed toward us. This is exactly backwards. It is not our strength that is provocative, but our weakness, which simply emboldens our adversaries to take advantage of what they see as decline and retreat.

…When our opponents sense a weak, inattentive U.S. administration, they are obviously motivated to seize the opening before a Reagan-like president appears. So, when Mr. Obama pleads with Russian President Medvedev to give him “space” before our election so Obama can be more “flexible” afterward, our adversaries take careful note. And when China’s official news agency scoffed last week that, “U.S. power is declining and it hasn’t enough economic strength or resources to dominate the Asia-Pacific region,” China’s neighbors shudder.

The perception of U.S. weakness can certainly be reversed, as Reagan did, but the costs are inevitably high. Today, debilitating cuts in the national-defense budget, with more to come if the sequestration provisions kick in, only make the task of rebuilding harder. International leadership is undeniably a burden, and many other countries benefit as free riders, but we cannot forget we are not leading out of altruism but because of the sustained economic and political benefits that accrue to America. We cannot have one without the other.

…George H.W. Bush correctly assessed his 1988 opponent Michael Dukakis by saying, “He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe.” This is essentially Mr. Obama’s view, that of a self-described “citizen of the world.” It rests on two elements. One is “moral equivalency,” seeing all nations as fungible, no one having a higher claim than another, including our own. Iran, North Korea, America — it’s just too parochial to treat them differently. The other is “mirror imaging,” the fallacy of seeing other nations as operating according to our same incentives and disincentives, our rationality and our same ranking of outcomes. While we can overcome these failures, we must first be aware how pervasive they are within the American Establishment.

…Beyond question, our gravest threat comes from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological) and the means to deliver them, including ballistic missiles. Whether in the hands of terrorists, rogue states or increasingly from a re-surging Russia and a rapidly advancing China, the WMD threat is growing. It has been so long since nuclear testing, above or below ground, that I worry too many Americans have lost sight of the power of nuclear weapons, seeing them as something from grainy black-and-white films from 1940s testing in Pacific atolls.

The consequences, however, are terrifying, whether we contemplate the loss of even one American city held hostage to nuclear blackmail by terrorists, or the prospect of Israel vaporizing in a nuclear holocaust. There is more to defending the United States than just the military assets we deploy. More fundamental is our basic attitude: Do we acknowledge, or not, the possibility — even the likelihood — that there are ideologies, religions or nations that wish us ill, even to the point of our destruction?

Amazingly, having just concluded a century where vicious ideologies like Nazism and Communism caused slaughter and torment beyond description, we find many political leaders — like President Obama (“the tide of war is receding”) — essentially prepared to declare “peace in our time.” No war on terror, no radical Islam, no geopolitical competitors, no nothing. This is a prescription not for peace ahead, but for imminent danger.

…Contrary to what its critics, including many in this country, say, American exceptionalism simply recognizes the reality of our distinct history. After all, a Frenchman, Alexis de Toqueville, first characterized us as “exceptional,” and he didn’t mean it entirely as a compliment! Mr. Obama once compared U.S. exceptionalism to Britain and Greece, and he easily could have listed the other 190 United Nations members. If everyone is exceptional, no one is, leading almost inexorably to believe that the United States has no special role to play internationally, even on its own behalf. It leads to a “come home, America” approach that inevitably weakens the United States, its friends and allies, and the values and interests we should be advancing.

Tonight, as you watch this last, and possibly, most important of the Presidential Debates, the question you need to decide for yourself is very simple: 

Which Foreign Policy will keep Americans safer from our enemies?

A return to Peace Through Strength and American Exceptionalism?


A continuance of the naive acquiescence, the alienating of our allies and embracing of our enemies,  that got Ambassador Chris Stevens murdered by Islamic Terrorists?

Hillary Commits Political Seppuku…or Does She?

On the eve of the Second Presidential Debate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, both politically and symbolically, fell on her sword for her President, Barack Hussein Obama…or did she? broke the story:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm around the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she is responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.

“I take responsibility” for the protection of U.S. diplomats, Clinton said during a visit to Peru. But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened in the attack that left four Americans dead.

The attack on the night of September 11 killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans at the American consulate in Benghazi.

The Obama administration has been heavily criticized after Vice President Joe Biden said during last week’s vice presidential debate that the White House did not know of requests to enhance security at Benghazi, contradicting testimony by State Department employees that requests had been made and rejected. After the debate, the White House said the vice president did not know of the requests because they were handled, as is the practice, by the State Department.

Clinton said President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions.

“I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha,” she added, noting that it is close to the election.

Clinton also sought to downplay the criticism that administration officials continued to say the attack was a spontaneous product of a protest over an anti-Muslim film, a theory that has since been discarded. In the wake of an attack, there is always confusion, Clinton said. But the information has since changed, she said.

The secretary of state also described the desperate scene in the State Department during the hours of the attack on the night of the assault. It was an “intense, long ordeal” as staff tried to find out what had happened.

Clinton said her mission now is to make sure such an attack will never happen again, but also that diplomacy, even in dangerous areas like Benghazi, is not stopped.

“We can’t not engage,” she said. “We cannot retreat.”

Mark Baisley wrote the following in an article on, which was posted early yesterday, before Hillary’s announcement last evening:

I am imagining that Hillary Clinton is spending a great deal of time with close advisors and political strategists this week. She has been a very good soldier for Barack Obama for four years now. But there is no way that Hillary Clinton is going to allow her own presidential ambitions for 2016 to be spoiled so that Barack Obama can be re-elected in 2012.

An inevitable gunfight has been building between the Chicago Democratic machine and the Arkansas Democratic royalty for weeks now. And President Obama can thank his short-sighted Vice President for expediting the inevitable shootout to begin at the same time as early voting.

President Obama has escaped disaster time after time with scandals and cover-ups that would have taken down the cleanest Republican president. The abuse of the National Labor Relations Board in an attempt to force Boeing to place its 787 plant in union-controlled Washington State left no chinks in Obama’s armor. Bribing Lockheed Martin with covering of legal expenses if they will postpone required layoff notices until after the election does not seem to have raised a single liberal eyebrow. Even invoking Executive Privilege to withhold information from Congress regarding the murders of an American Border Patrol and hundreds of Mexican citizens has not shaken the President’s loyal following.

But while the yellow-tinted, main-stream media is blatantly positioned on the side of the Democratic Party, they did not count on having to choose sides between Barack and Hillary in the final days of the 2012 presidential election.

It all started innocently enough. The President and his Secretary of State set out on an international tour beginning in 2010, sharing enlightened American liberalism to a welcoming world. Cultures who once hated America would naturally embrace the new oneness with a Presidential bow.

The State Department’s mission now includes promoting the agenda of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community worldwide. Or, as Secretary Clinton put it, “So here at the State Department, we will continue to advance a comprehensive human rights agenda that includes the elimination of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We are elevating our human rights dialogues with other governments and conducting public diplomacy to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons.” (See

We could certainly expect that asserting the LGBT acceptance message to other cultures, especially to muslim countries, would be the Obama Administration’sdaisy in the gun barrel milestone. To quote Secretary Clinton’s closing line in her address calling on every State Department bureau and every embassy to participate in the advancing of worldwide LGBT tolerance, this is “one of history’s great moments.”

Even Hollywood’s international ambassador, Madonna, did her part in carrying out the mission on an informal basis this summer. Last month, while entertaining a crowd in Washington, D.C., the pop star included this supportive mention of the President’s program, “Y’all better vote for f_ _ _ _ _ g Obama, OK? For better or for worse, alright? We have a black muslim in the White House. Now that is some s _ _ t. Some amazing s _ _ t. It means there is hope in this country. And Obama is fighting for gay rights. OK? So support the man, G_ _ _ _ _ mit!” This heartwarming message was delivered to an American audience shortly after returning to the U.S. from her tour in two decidedly Islamic countries, where she treated her muslim audience to a flash of her right mammilla during a concert in Istanbul.

After softening up the militantly modest sensibilities of Islam’s religious police through messaging, supported by Madonna’s indecent exposure tour, the Obama Administration got down to some thoughtful personnel deployments. In an apparent act of altruistic hope and change, the State Department dispatched a gay man as Ambassador to Libya. What could possibly go wrong?

…The Obama-Biden team seems very willing to let Hillary Clinton become the scapegoat for their poor handling of foreign affairs and for covering up the real story of a loyal American left shamefully vulnerable by a president who blows off intelligence briefings daily. Secretary Clinton will not take the fall for this president. And if Bill Clinton chooses to weigh in on behalf of his wife this month, Mitt Romney will walk across the finish line on November 6. In the worst timing for an administration up for re-election, a dithering media may actually choose to investigate the truth – out of not knowing what else to do.

Why would an Administration send an openly Gay man to be the Ambassador of a still-hotly contested, Fundamental Islamic country, where they hang people for simply being homosexual?

Was it to prove a political point, or is Obama and his Administration just that arrogantly and naively stupid?

And, why did Secretary of State Clinton take responsibility for the monumental screw-up in Libya, which cost four Americans their lives at the hands of Muslim Terrorists?

Consider how she intentionally timed her announcement to hit the eve of the Second Presidential Debate…

Is she protecting him in order to get Obama re-elected? Or, is she trying to expose him as inept and ineffective?

Another Democratic President, Harry S. Truman, famously said 

The Buck Stops Here!

Evidently, in Obama’s case, it doesn’t.

The Dickensian President…Barack Hussein Obama

At dear old Wooddale High School, in Memphis, TN, in 1976, I had my first speaking part in a theatrical production, as one of the night watchmen in Charles Dicken’s epic tale of redemption, “A Christmas Carol” (1843).

Little did I know, at the time, that I would perform in 9 Dinner Theaters as I got older, singing and dancing, and acting the part of comic relief in the productions (who woulda thunk it?).

But, I digress…

In a classic scene, two men approach the miserly Ebeneezer Scrooge in an attempt to solicit funds for the impoverished of London:

…“a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”

“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.

“You wish to be anonymous?”

“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”

“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides — excuse me — I don’t know that.”

“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.

“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”

Little did Charles Dickens know that, almost 200 years later, the United States of America would have a President as callous toward the murder of an Ambassador he chose, as Scrooge was toward the suffering of the poor.

The Wall Street Journal has the story:

Mitt Romney accused President Barack Obama on Monday of downplaying recent foreign crises as he seeks to gain an edge on foreign policy – a relative area of strength for the president.

President Barack Obama was assessing his support for the governments that have sprung up in the wake of the Arab Spring when he argued in a 60 Minutes interview that aired Sunday that “I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road.”

“Bumps in the road?” Mr. Romney said Monday as he sized up Mr. Obama’s interview performance and rattled off examples of tumult abroad. “We had an ambassador assassinated…twenty thousand people have been killed in Syria. We have tumult in Pakistan and of course Iran is that much closer to having the capacity to build a nuclear weapon. These are not bumps in the road, these are human lives.”

While Mr. Romney has been a regular critic of Mr. Obama’s foreign policies, that’s rarely been truer than in the last few weeks. Amid uprisings in the Middle East that led to the death of an American ambassador, Mr. Romney’s team blasted out a statement that caused a blowback even from conservatives who saw it as inappropriately timed.

Mr. Romney’s team has embraced his sharp tone as a winning strategy to help them contrast with Mr. Obama. Some 45% of registered voters said Mr. Obama would be a better commander in chief, compared with 38% who said Mr. Romney would, in a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

But there are signs that Middle East turmoil has eaten into Mr. Obama’s credibility on the issue. In the recent poll, 49% of voters said they approved of the president’s handling of foreign policy, a five point drop from August.

“This is time for a president who will shape events in the Middle East, not just be…at the mercy of the events of the Middle East,” Mr. Romney said Monday at his rally on a tarmac here in Pueblo.

The Obama campaign said Mr. Romney was taking the president’s words out of context. Lis Smith, a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, said: “He’s purposely misinterpreting the president’s words and making reckless statements about the death of four Americans in Libya, apparently for the sole purpose of his own political gain. Using this incident to launch political attacks should be beneath someone seeking to be our nation’s Commander-in-Chief.”

The Democrats also noted that Mr. Obama was referring to the climate in the Middle East more broadly and not specifically addressing recent events in Libya or Benghazi.

“There will probably be some times where we bump up against some of these countries and have strong disagreements, but I do think that over the long term we are more likely to get a Middle East and North Africa that is more peaceful, more prosperous and more aligned with our interests,” Mr. Obama said in the interview.

At the end of “A Christmas Carol”, Dickens wrote the following,

…He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.

Unfortunately I don’t see the same sort of 180 degree turn-around in Obama’s future.

So, I guess I’ll settle for his firing on November 6th, instead.

As Clint Eastwood said, 

If someone’s not doing their job…we’ve got to let them go.