Obama Losing The Washington Post?

[Bigfatbillsfan]

http://www.washingto...-is-inevitable/

 

After the article there are three more to look at down near the bottom. He's lost the late night tv comedians, several unions and even Chris Mathews. Who's next, Joe Biden?

 

Did he look behind the couch? Sometimes a newspaper can fall behind the couch.

[B-Man]

Obama’s Speech: Replacing Nothing with Nothing

By James Jay Carafano

 

 

President Obama took an interesting step in the War on Terror today. Rather than outline what he will do to address the setbacks America has suffered in its battle against the global Islamist insurgency, he promised an even more restrained effort and more transparency.

 

Mr. Obama justified doing less by describing a world where he was winning. That notion — and the accompanying promises — may placate progressives. But the world he described simply does not exist.

 

“Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world,” Mr. Obama declared. Nothing could be further from true. In the Middle East, most of America’s friends see us as a nation in decline, uncertain and, increasingly, a power that can’t be depended on.

 

“Today, the core of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat,” he added. That proposition is debatable. And it is certainly irrelevant. Al-Qaeda has dependable allies in the Taliban, Lakshar-e-Taiba, the Haqqani Network, and others of their ilk. They are undermining U.S. interests just as effectively as if bin Laden where still at the helm.

 

Further, the president virtually ignored the resurgence of political Islam that is destabilizing the Middle East. Sometimes it is in league with al-Qaeda, and sometimes it competes with al-Qaeda. Either way, though, it is a development that bodes ill for U.S. interests.

 

But rather than address the forces marshaling against us, Mr. Obama remains myopically focused on the war he wants to fight. He describes this war as “a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.”

 

Certainly there is nothing new with that vision — it has been the core of Mr. Obama’s strategy since 2011. In today’s announcement, the president is merely recommitting himself to pursue an already failing course of action, but less vigorously.

 

{snip}

 

In today’s speech, Mr Obama made it crystal clear that he is sick of war. The problem is: America’s adversaries are not.

Edited May 23, 2013 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

That was an opinion piece from a conservative columnist....Having said that, WAPO has had a few editorials (which is more of a reflection of the views of the paper than an opinion piece) that have come out criticizing the handling of the Obama administrations response and changing narratives regarding some of the scandals.

 

How does anyone NOT criticize the WH handling of the scandals? I mean this seriously. The days of saying "Even WAPO is critical..." passed over a month ago. The freaking HuffPost has reached a point where it's 85-point headline screams for Holder to go. It's only a matter of time before Joan Walsh and Markos Moulitsas start digging trenches next.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

 

The only people who have anything positive to say about this administration are dyed-in-the-wool rooster-in-the-mouth liberals who would rather cheer incompetence than question their own judgement.

[OCinBuffalo]

He helped make Nancy Pelosi more irrelevant than I would have ever imagined, and has managed to make Joe Biden and Debbie Wasserman Shultz disappear.

A finer example of "If you want something done right, put the far left(Obama) in charge of doing the opposite" you will not find.

 

.............................

 

Speaking of obliterating the Democratic Bench for personal gain, can PastaJoe or any other unmitigated moron, I mean progressive, tell me: which D is running for President in 2016? It ain't Hillary. Not now.

 

I will save our time, and annoyance, and bring the facts: Most serving D governors in red states, are problem children(um, Montana governor calling his own people rednecks, anyone?), inexperienced, or, basically Republicans that are OK with abortion, and, there is no Obama, after Obama. Wo from the Obama side of the D party is even kinda experienced enough to do the job, since GOVERNING WILL BE a 2016 issue?

 

I know the answer, but I doubt Joe does: There are 2(two) D guys(Edit: perhaps 3, and he's moderate too), both moderate, that might have a chance at winning in 2016.

 

The best part? IF either of these 2 guys I know get nominated and actually win? That is the end of the far left agenda. Everything but abortion will go out with the trash, or be completely FUBARed, especially Obamacare.

 

It's going to be interesting to say the least. Does the far left go all Ralph Nader, and ensure their party is doomed? Or, do they play it smart, go along with the moderate, hope he loses but they keep some key Senate/House seats, and then tries to start their nonsense again for 2020?

 

However, why would non-Ds vote for a moderate D, when you can vote for Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, or Rand Paul?

Edited May 24, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Jim in Anchorage]

A finer example of "If you want something done right, put the far left(Obama) in charge of doing the opposite" you will not find.

 

.............................

 

Speaking of obliterating the Democratic Bench for personal gain, can PastaJoe or any other unmitigated moron, I mean progressive, tell me: which D is running for President in 2016? It ain't Hillary. Not now.

 

I will save our time, and annoyance, and bring the facts: There is no currently serving D governor in a red state, that isn't a problem child(um, Montana governor calling his own people rednecks, anyone?), and, there is no Obama, after Obama, and, who from the Obama side of the D party is even kinda experienced enough to do the job, since GOVERNING WILL BE a 2016 issue?

 

I know the answer, but I doubt Joe does: There are 2(two) D guys, both moderate, that might have a chance at winning in 2016.

 

The best part? IF either of these 2 guys I know get nominated and actually win? That is the end of the far left agenda. Everything but abortion will go out with the trash, or be completely FUBARed, especially Obamacare.

 

It's going to be interesting to say the least. Does the far left go all Ralph Nader, and ensure their party is doomed? Or, do they play it smart, go along with the moderate, hope he loses but they keep some key Senate/House seats, and then tries to start their nonsense again for 2020?

 

However, why would non-Ds vote for a moderate D, when you can vote for Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, or Rand Paul?

Nether. If I could get odds I would go with Cuomo .A blue blood liberal Main stream enough to own NY. Only real negative at this point will be his confiscatory NY gun law which is a guaranteed vote loser.

[OCinBuffalo]

Nether. If I could get odds I would go with Cuomo .A blue blood liberal Main stream enough to own NY. Only real negative at this point will be his confiscatory NY gun law which is a guaranteed vote loser.

Nah. New York Governor? Besides, the question was really "who can get nominated that isn't essentially a D in name only"?

 

Cuomo would have a miserable time trying to win, with the far left running the endless parade of commercials I see right now, today, that are basically an infomercial for Republican ideology. Cuomo, lying or not, just comes right out an says "cutting taxes for business, no new taxes, controlling spending, focus on business, end the government expansion". I've never even seen him come close to saying anything about "the rich".

 

I would argue that Cuomo is losing the War on Guns in this state. They tried to take a guy's gun here a few months ago, and the uproar sent them scurrying back to Albany. Now? Everybody is blaming everybody else, because the public is pissed, and this is NY for God's sake.

 

When his gun speeches hit the national air? He's done. Cuomo was being really smart, and setting himself up...but he may have blown it with the guns overreach.

Edited May 24, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Jim in Anchorage]

You don't need to argue about what a gaff Coumo made on gun control to me. It's been a proven vote loser, never a gainer for years,and That's why the Dems abandoned it long ago.

His advisers must have been out of touch for 30 years on that one.

It's going to hurt him on the national stage,but he will always carry NY. This is the IQ 30 state that really believed Hillery wanted to be their US senator because she was concerned about NY , after spending all of 5 days there. Coumo doesn't need anyone West of NYC.

Tax breaks for business? Sure sprout that line all you want. No action, no here's what I'm going to do. Like Hillery bringing 100's of jobs to WNY. How? What's the plan? Master of the vague, he's a born hope and change Democrat.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Jim in Anchorage

[B-Man]

[DC Tom]

Ah yes, the last refuge of those who can't debate the facts; the personal insult. Class act.

 

I could have gone through those point-by-point and refuted them. I also could have asked you to eliminate the ones that were legislative and not executive, hence not Obama's accomplishments.

 

But given that your functionally incapable of that level of comprehension, "You're an idiot" made the same point with much less effort.

[B-Man]

 

Even for liberals, Obama has crossed a line

 

Those who have spoken out against the President’s expansion of government power have been investigated and intimidated

 

By Janet Daley

 

 

Barack Obama announced an end to America’s war on terror last week. In future, he declared, he would restrict the unmanned drone attacks that had been his own signature anti-terrorist initiative, and he would really, really make an effort to shut down the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay – as he had promised to do way back when he was running for president the first time.

 

 

Presumably, this pronouncement was designed to win back the favour of the liberal media, which has been energetically disowning him ever since his administration staggered into the most spectacular series of Washington scandals since Watergate. This suspicion is reinforced by the fact that buried in that War on Terror (End Of) speech was an almost subliminal attempt to address one of the most damaging of the White House embarrassments.

 

{snip}

 

But how much of this can actually be nailed to the White House door? Is there a “smoking gun” Obama email that says: go and get those guys who are giving me a hard time? Almost certainly not. But there was no need for one: he and his official spokesman had been banging on openly about the threat from Tea Party fanatics and the obstacle that Fox News presented to their virtuous reforms, for as long as they had been in power.

 

When you cast your opponents as the personification of evil – when you cease to see them as simply fellow countrymen who have different values and contrary views to your own, then this is where it ends.

 

Who, they implicitly demanded, would rid them of these turbulent enemies? Clearly, there were plenty of eager officials ready to try.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10080031/Even-for-liberals-Obama-has-crossed-a-line.html

 

 

 

 

[Nanker]

Nether. If I could get odds I would go with Cuomo .A blue blood liberal Main stream enough to own NY. Only real negative at this point will be his confiscatory NY gun law which is a guaranteed vote loser.

 

Well he was the head of HUD when the Freddie and Fannie fires were being stoked. But then again, the illiterate electorate made him the gubenor.

[B-Man]

and the other view..........................

 

 

They’ll Always Love Obama : It’s only a matter of time before the media are back in the tank.

 

Some conservatives think that the elite media are finally turning on Barack Obama and his administration.

The argument goes like this: The trio of scandals that have burst forth in the last couple of weeks—the events before, during, and after the deadly attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi; the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups; and especially the Department of Justice’s secret subpoenas of Associated Press phone records and targeting of Fox News reporter James Rosen as a potential co-conspirator in a leak investigation—will mark an inflection point. From here on out, journalists will apply far more scrutiny to President Obama. His free ride is over.

 

Don’t believe it.

 

In saying this, we don’t mean to suggest that journalists won’t ask tough questions or say critical things about the administration from time to time. But sooner or later they will—with a few impressive exceptions—revert to their ways. We are, after all, dealing with deeply ingrained habits and ideological commitments.

 

{snip}

 

The press at its best, Walter Lippmann wrote, “is like the beam of a searchlight that moves restlessly about, bringing one episode and then another out of darkness into vision.” But today’s media, especially on the Benghazi scandal, have attempted to take something out of vision and return it to darkness.

 

They want this story to vanish—though journalists owe allegiance to the truth.

[mead107]

Obama never takes fault for any thing. Always someone else did it. What ever happened to the buck stops with me. My people did it so I will take the blame. Never steps up. Piss poor manager.

[KD in CA]

Effectively mobilized the federal gov't on the BP oil spill, and held the oil industry accountable.

 

Was that the well that pumped hundreds of millions of gallons of oil into Gulf for months before anyone could figure out how to stop it?? Yup, to an Obamatard everything is an 'accomplishment'.

 

If this was Bush's record we'd be reading about the 'devastation of the Gulf' and Newtown happening 'on his watch'.

 

By the way, whatever happened to your opposition to the Patriot Act?

[Doc]

Obama never takes fault for any thing. Always someone else did it. What ever happened to the buck stops with me. My people did it so I will take the blame. Never steps up. Piss poor manager.

Is the quintessential liberal. Never taking responsibility for any of his actions and always blaming others. But any success, whoa boy, it's all him. And it's apparent that when he meant the buck stops with me, he was talking about campaign money.

[Nanker]

The latest from the US "What Difference Does it Make?" State Department.

Kerry, carrying on in the fine tradition of his predecessor and the rest of this corrupt, perverse administration makes claims that would make Dan Rather shudder with incredulity.

[B-Man]

Stupid

 

 

• By P.J. O’ROURKE

 

 

“You’re stupid,” is not something even his most severe critics usually say to President Barack Obama. But on Friday morning I picked up the Wall Street Journal and learned that the president had given a speech about the war on terror saying, “This war, like all wars, must end.”

 

That story was at the top of the front page. Immediately below was a photograph of flowers being laid at a makeshift memorial near the Woolwich Royal Arsenal where machine gunner Lee Rigby was hacked to death by terrorists.

 

This war, like all wars, must end when someone wins it. The president—speaking at the National Defense University, of all places—said, “the core of al Qaeda . . . is on the path to defeat.” And so it may be. But meanwhile, the core of al Qaeda, its aims and its beliefs, is also on the path to Boston and London and any number of other places.

 

On page 7 of Friday’s Journal was the headline, “Suicide Bombings in Niger Linked to Mali Islamist Group.” On page 9 was a report of terrorist Hezbollah militias aiding the terrorist Assad regime in attacking the rebel-held Syrian city of Qusayr where the rebels themselves are allied with yet more Islamic terrorists. And on pages 4 and 8 were more bad tidings from that perpetrator, abettor, and friend of terrorism, Iran. Iranian fundamentalists, in the chokehold they have on the country’s political system, are improving their grip. And, “according to current and former U.S. officials,” Iran has “escalated a campaign of cyberassaults against U.S. corporations. . . . The hackers were able to gain access to control-system software that could allow them to manipulate oil or gas pipelines.”

 

 

All that on a slow news day.

 

In 2001 Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, a declaration of war on terrorists and nations that harbor them. In his speech the president said, “I look forward to engaging . . . in efforts to refine and ultimately repeal the AUMF’s mandate.”

 

I like the president’s use of the word “efforts” here, as though he’s merely trying to be stupid. He doesn’t need to try. Earlier in the week he signed new policy guidance for drone strikes. In the future we will use lethal drones only on terrorists who are a “continuing and imminent threat to the American people” and not on terrorists who are a “significant threat to U.S. interests.” Although, assuming tremendously stupid efforts will be made to tell the two kinds of terrorists apart, maybe I’m wrong about the president not needing to try. The policy guidance also stipulates that there “must be a near certainty” that civilians won’t be killed or injured in a drone strike. Imagine how stupid a WWII Army Air Corps briefing officer would have had to be to say that to his B-17 pilots.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/stupid_729235.html

 

 

.

[B-Man]