As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Mattis Rips Apart Obama’s Foreign Policy in New Book

Barack Obama entered the White House with no relevant experience to be president.

Whatever you say about President Trump, he ran a major corporation and made billions of dollars. Barack Obama was a state legislator, a part-time job, and then a U.S. senator for a couple of years, much of which he spent running for president.

In his new book, Call Sign Chaos: Learning to Lead, former Defense Secretary James Mattis tears into Obama, faulting him both for his incompetence and his conceit.

According to the Washington Examiner:

He details in the book how Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, who was in charge of Iraq policy, were “ignoring reality” in the country and made a political decision to withdraw troops, a choice that allowed the return of al Qaeda in a new and more ambitious guise, the Islamic State.

“In Washington, the debate swirled throughout 2011 about how many, if any, U.S. troops should remain in Iraq,” Mattis writes, after the American-led coalition had established “a fragile stability” in the country after President George W. Bush sent a surge of troops in 2007. “Central Command, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the new Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, who had replaced Bob Gates, continued to recommend to the White House retaining a residual force, as did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” Mattis writes. But they were “talking to the wind.”

The White House “dealt with Iraq as a ‘one-off,’ as if the pullout of our troops there would have no regional implications, reinforcing our allies’ fears that we were abandoning them. I argued strongly that any vacuum left in our wake would be filled by Sunni terrorists and Iran.”

Mattis believes he was vindicated by events. Obama declared the war over, but “Iraq slipped back into escalating violence. It was like watching a car wreck in slow motion,” Mattis says. “All of this was predicted — and preventable.”

Obama made “catastrophic decisions” in Iraq, Mattis concludes. And he did so because he ignored the advice coming from multiple military and civilian advisers, thinking he knew better than all of them.

“At the top, then as now, there was an aura of omniscience. The assessments of the intelligence community, our diplomats, and our military had been excluded from the decision-making circle,” Mattis writes.

Mattis also described Obama’s handling of Syria, and his failure to enforce his “red line” against the use of chemical weapons, as a disaster with grave immediate and long-term consequences.

“Old friends in NATO and in the Pacific registered dismay and incredulity that America’s reputation had been seriously weakened as a credible security partner,” Mattis writes. “Within thirty-six hours, I received a phone call from a friendly Pacific-nation diplomat. ‘Well, Jim,’ he said, ‘I guess we’re on our own with China.’”

Mattis concludes, “Over the next several years, Syria totally disintegrated into hell on earth. The consequences included an accelerated refugee flow that changed the political culture of Europe, punctuated by repeated terrorist attacks. And America today lives with the consequences of emboldened adversaries and shaken allies.”


Video || Biden Appears to Forget Barack Obama’s Name

“My boss,” he says. You know, that guy who was the president and with whom I had lunch once a week and met with every day.

I guess it’s possible he was told by staff he shouldn’t be mentioning Obama’s name for some political reason. Even if that were the case, which I doubt, this sounds ridiculous.

This is getting scary bad.

Obama Took Hillary’s Loss as a Personal Affront

I’m sure Obama blamed Hillary Clinton much more than himself for President Trump’s win. I doubt he understood the depth of concern within the country that the nation was adrift from its moorings and losing its identity to Obama’s globalism.

Not to mention his lousy performance on the economy, including a perennially low GDP increases and stagnant wage growth.

According to the Washington Examiner:

Former President Barack Obama was unhappy with Hillary Clinton and her failed “soulless campaign” in 2016, saying he saw her loss as a “personal insult.”

The new details come from a recently released update to New York Times Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker’s book Obama: The Call of History.

The new edition, which includes Obama’s reaction to the 2016 election, said Obama compared himself to Michael Corleone, the titular character of “The Godfather.” Obama thought he “almost got out” of office untouched, like a mob boss avoiding a hit job.

Obama found himself shocked by the election results, thinking before Nov. 8 there was “no way Americans would turn on him” and “[h]is legacy, he felt, was in safe hands.” The book details that Obama could not believe Americans had “decided to replace him with a buffoonish showman 

What Did Obama Know and When Did He Know It?

Democrats don’t like this one bit. They and their allies in the media are suddenly recoiling from the notion of investigating someone. Because that someone is suddenly them, or their friends in the Obama administration.

And so they’ve become shrill, attacking Attorney General Barr as a hack whose gone from an honorable public servant to a lackey for President Trump.

And yet, what would Democrats do if the George W. Bush administration, with Dick Cheney lurking darkly in the background, decided to investigate the Obama campaign. And sent people to spy on the campaign, which is what happened to Trump. And requested dozens of “unmaskings” of Americans whose names the intel agencies were never supposed to reveal.

And it turned out THERE WAS NOTHING THERE.

Of course they’d be screaming bloody murder and demanding that Eric Holder get busy to uproot all the corruption of the previous regime.

Barr is doing what an attorney general should do. The Democrats are utter hypocrites. Do they not care about an administration investigating its political opposition.

Barr should follow this as far as it goes. It’s hard to believe Barack Obama did not approve such a contentious act as investigating a candidate for president. We need to know whether Obama knew and what information he had that led him to think such a probe was justifiable.

Video || Obama Calls Trump a Liar

I mean, he didn’t mention President Trump by name.

But everyone knows whom Barack Obama is talking about here during a speech he gave Monday in Nevada:

Unlike some, I actually try to state facts, I believe in facts, alright? I believe in a fact-based reality and a fact-based politics. I don’t believe in just making stuff up. I think you should, like actually say to people what’s true.

And then he goes on to some typical Democratic tax cut demagoguery, saying Republicans were trying to help out “billionaires and corporations,” etc.

Of course, like him or hate him, it’s clear Trump is a liar. I think even he’d admit that. You know, if he’s being honest . . .

But the sight of an ex-president attacking his predecessor and his policies in this vicious manner is something pretty new, I think. So let’s drop all this “We go high, they go low” nonsense, okay?

And BTW.

Which gives me an excuse to run this:

Don’t Be Fooled: The Obamas “Went Low” Plenty of Times

There’s a lot of chatter right now about how former Attorney General Eric Holder, who may be running for president, broke Michelle Obama’s “rule,” that, “When they go low, we go high.”

That’s “our motto,” she proclaimed during her 2012 DNC convention speech. Holder invoked it the other day, riffing, “When they go low, we kick them.”

Of course, in the current context of Democrats physically confronting Republicans and their elected officials, that’s pretty irresponsible.

Michelle kinda, sorta criticized Holder during an appearance Thursday on “Today,” saying she stood by her supposed maxim. “Fear is not a proper motivator,” she said, which sounds more like a dig at President Trump than Holder, but, whatever.

The fact is, Barack Obama frequently went low, repeatedly demonizing the opposition, and Michelle Obama did too, she was just subtle about it. I was frequently disgusted by her other 2012 campaign mantra, “Who are we?” in which she suggested that Republicans were morally contemptible.

From a speech she gave at a fundraiser on September 30, 2011:

Will we be a country that tells folks who’ve done everything right but are still struggling, “tough luck, you’re on your own”? Who are we?

Or will we honor that fundamental American belief that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, and if one of us is hurting, then all of us are hurting? Who are we as a nation? (Applause.)

Will we be a country where opportunity is limited to the few at the top? Or will we give every child a chance to succeed, no matter where she’s from, what she looks like, or how much money her parents have? Who do we want to be as a nation?

Will we lose sight of those basic values that made our country great and built our thriving middle class? Or can we rebuild our economy for the long term so that work pays, and responsibility is rewarded, and everyone — everyone — gets a fair shake and does their fair share?

That is the choice we face. Those are the stakes.

Seriously? Conservatives lack “basic values”? They just want opportunity for those at the top? They don’t care about people who are hurting? Please find me a conservative who ever told someone, “Tough luck, you’re on your own”?

It’s never enough for liberals, including Michelle, to disagree with conservatives. Conservatives have to be dumb, evil, or both.

Barack Obama, the Alinskyite, was much worse, of course. Famously there’s this one from 2010:

If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.

Here is Obama in 2015 talking about Republicans who wanted to put a temporary hold on taking Syrian refugees following terror attacks in Europe, sentiments he dismissed as “political posturing”:

Apparently, they are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America. At first, they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of three-year-old orphans.

Obama January 2013 suggesting Republicans don’t care about kids getting enough to eat and have “suspicions” about Social Security:

So they are suspicious about government’s commitments, for example, to make sure that seniors have decent health care as they get older. They have suspicions about Social Security. They have suspicions about whether government should make sure that kids in poverty are getting enough to eat or whether we should be spending money on medical research. So they — they got a particular view of what government should do and — and should be.

Very suspicious characters, those Republicans.

There are many more examples. Obama specifically demonized Republicans in ways George W. Bush never did Democrats. I covered both administrations, and in fact, Bush rarely if ever even used the word “Democrat,” not wanting to sound too divisive and believing the presidency was above such partisanship.

The Obamas didn’t just question Republican policy choices. They questioned their motives and their character. And that’s going pretty low.

Trump Denies He Considered Ending Obama’s Intel Briefings

Apparently, former presidents get intelligence briefings. Why? Because that’s what you do!

Anyway, according to the New Yorker, Trump considered revoking Obama’s:

As Trump stepped up his public and private attacks on Obama, some of the new President’s advisers thought that he should take the extraordinary step of denying Obama himself access to intelligence briefings that were made available to all of his living predecessors. Trump was told about the importance of keeping former Presidents, who frequently met with foreign leaders, informed. In the end, Trump decided not to exclude Obama, at the urging of McMaster.

Trump Tuesday denied it: “Never discussed or thought of!”

I do fault Trump for this. WHY DIDN’T HE CONSIDER IT? These president’s don’t need intel briefings. We don’t need people wasting time preparing them. And then, I assume, flying out to deliver them, since ex-presidents don’t come to you, you go to them.

People will argue the presidents need them to “give advice” to current presidents. I don’t think Trump is calling up the Bushes for advice. Not to mention Clinton or Obama. Anyway, if he needs their input, then give them the relevant intel. They’re private citizens now, don’t make the system continue to support them more than it has to.

Let’s face it, the reason ex-presidents want intel briefing is because it’s awesome!

Video || Trump to Americans: “You Are the Ones” vs. Obama’s “We Are the Ones”

This is a highly produced video by the White House of President Trump’s appearance Thursday at a newly reopened steel plant in Granite City, Illinois. BTW, what a great name for a place. Can you be a wimp and live in Granite City, Illinois? Wouldn’t make sense. Anyway, I show you this not to glorify… Continue Reading

Obama Attacks Trump From South Africa

Of course, it doesn’t seem that he mentioned President Trump directly, but everyone knew whom he was talking about. A former president, Barack Obama, assailed the current president in front of an appreciative crowd overseas. “You have to believe in facts,” he said, to knowing laughter from the crowd. “People just make stuff up.” Obviously,… Continue Reading

Stop All This Nobel Peace Prize Talk; It Only Leads to War!

From a piece I have running in the Washington Examiner. I hope you have a chance to take a look! Another effort is afoot to get inside a president’s head with a Nobel Peace Prize. It worked out very poorly the last time, when the leftist Norwegians who dole out the award gave it to… Continue Reading