The truth is not in Him. Perhaps even some libruls are coming,
slowly and reluctantly, to understand that verification must precede trust. Verification should keep them busy, because it is almost impossible to find anything about which He has not lied.
Even generally librul NPR seems to have had more than enough as early as November 2nd; President Obama’s credibility has deteriorated substantially since then.
“Bush Lied, People Died,” became a popular bumper-sticker slogan on the left after some of the reasons for going to war with Iraq — Saddam Hussein’s links to al-Qaida and the presence of weapons of mass destruction — proved illusory.
Coming after all that, Obama held out the promise of being a different sort of politician. It’s that patina that has now begun to rub away.
Obama’s frequent promises that people could stick with their doctors and insurance plans was a way of arguing that, although the status quo had to change, those who were happy with the way things were wouldn’t have to change.
It may have been too clever by half. [Emphasis added.]
“He was trying to thread the needle on an issue where people are incredibly risk-averse, says Brendan Nyhan, a government professor at Dartmouth College.
Having voters and the media grow increasingly skeptical is an almost inevitable aspect of the second-term blues for presidents, Nyhan says.
. . . .
All presidents must delegate. But if Obama is perceived as not taking the lead on issues that are central to his presidency — or is refusing to take responsibility when things go bad — that will cause real damage.
“You can only stand up so many times and say, ‘I don’t like this, but I didn’t know,” says Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha, a political scientist at the University of North Texas who has written books on presidential speeches and leadership. “If it happens too many times, it suggests a flaw in the White House decision-making structure, a White House that perhaps insulates him too much.” [Emphasis added.]
And if people come to believe Obama’s deliberating lying about his role to save face, that will only compound the president’s problems.
Here are Allen West’s comments on President Obama’s mendacity.
President Obama’s problems — and ours — transcend ObamaScare.
Although the ObamaScare mess is the domestic issue du jour, and while few voters are interested in foreign policy until it bites them painfully, there probably have been even more ObamaLies in the foreign policy realm than domestically.
Let’s look briefly at the problem of nukes, which Iran is well on the way to getting. President Obama’s principal motivation appears to be a concern that He absolutely has to get a deal — any deal will do — to regain at least some glory domestically and perhaps retain control of the Senate. It’s
turtles politics all the way down and the national interest and security of the United States have little if anything to do with it.
To that end, Secretary Kerry (unwisely) “misled” Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu about the deal that was coming up for signature in Geneva.
The Netanyahu government is “in a crisis of faith” with the Obama administration over the possible deal, Israel’s Channel 1 News further reported, in part because it apparently differs in content from the terms that Kerry had previously described to Netanyahu. Other Israeli reports said Netanyahu felt he had been “misled” by the US over the terms of the deal. [Emphasis added.]
Netanyahu, who blasted the possible accord as the “deal of the century” for Iran, believes it would enable the Islamic Republic to become a “nuclear breakout state,” the TV reports said — since Iran would retain its nuclear enrichment capabilities, and would thus be capable of racing to a bomb at short notice at a time of its choosing.
Israel, the TV reports said, also believes the US has been negotiating with Iran in a secret channel, without disclosing the content of those discussions to Israel. [Emphasis added.]
The details have not been made public, but here’s how the mess is seen in Israel.
Senior political sources said that the deal that has been sitting on the negotiations table since the weekend is “very bad.” It calls on Iran to stop enriching uranium to the 20 percent level, but allows them to continue enriching uranium to 3.5% at all of its enrichment sites. In addition it fails to place a limitation on the number of centrifuges in Tehran’s possession, estimated to number 19,000.
Under the proposed deal, “Iran won’t really be paying a significant price,” a source added.
“To our understanding, they’re receiving a significant easing of sanctions,” he added.
Rewards to Iran include the unfreezing of $3 billion of fuel funds, an easing of sanctions on the petrochemical and gold sectors, an easing of sanctions on replacement parts for planes and a loosening of restrictions on the Iranian car industry.
If such a deal goes ahead, “We might head down a lane that will lead to a collapse of the sanctions regime. This is very grave,” the source continued. “This won’t really stop the [nuclear] project. It will give the Iranians breathing space.”
Israel’s position is that as long as Iran continues, sanctions must not be lifted, and should even be tightened.
If Iran freezes its nuclear program, holding off on new sanctions would be acceptable from an Israeli perspective, but easing them would be a major error.
Israel received updates on the talks from the US on Wednesday, as well as from others, and believed that the deal taking shape would be limited to unfreezing $3b. of Iranian assets in Western bank accounts. Even at that stage, Israel objected to the plan, due to its assessment that the moment a crack in the door appears, and sanctions are eased, the door can then be torn down by international companies from countries such as China, Italy and Germany who are thirsty for business with Iran.
Once major international transactions begin, a dynamic will kick in that will lead to a collapse of sanctions, according to this evaluation.
But over the weekend, Israel learned that the deal on the table is far worse than the one presented to it on Wednesday, and included four clauses for the easing of sanctions rather than just one. Israeli officials said they became furious when the details of the actual deal reached them, describing it as an “enormous mistake.” [Emphasis added.]
“[US Secretary of State John] Kerry left with food for thought after a tough conversation with [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu,” the political source said.
The Obama administration began softening sanctions on Iran after the election of Iran’s new president in June, months before the current round of nuclear talks in Geneva or the historic phone call between the two leaders in September. [Emphasis added.]
While those negotiations now appear on the verge of a breakthrough the key condition for Iran—relief from crippling sanctions—began quietly and modestly five months ago.
Here’s a video of PM Netanyahu on CNN talking about sanctions.
Reduction of sanctions will help Iran’s affiliate Hezbollah, and it now appears that Hezbollah is among the few ObamaAdministration “allies” as to Iran.
On Wednesday, Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah announced (from a secret location) that the P5 + 1 group’s failure to reach an agreement with the Islamic Republic on sanctions will result in a regional war. Clearly, Nasrallah wants and, in fact, needs a deal. Sanctions have already cost Iran 130 billion dollars. That amount not only puts a serious dent into Iran’s economy, sowing discontent among the masses, it adversely affects Iran’s ability to wage war via its proxies, Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas. A cash infusion, the byproduct of sanctions relief, will enable Iran and Hezbollah to carry on with their pillaging.[Emphasis added.]
Strangely, Nasrallah’s “anti-war,” pro-deal stance puts him in the same corner as the Obama administration. Administration officials have even adopted Nasrallah’s rhetoric, claiming that the imposition of stiffer sanctions on Iran, as contemplated by congress, would lead to war. [Emphasis added.]
Reeling from record low favorability ratings, the healthcare fiasco and various foreign policy failures, the administration is desperate for a deal, any deal. According to published reports, however, the French nixed a prospective deal on sanctions for not being tough enough, placing the current state of world affairs clearly within the depths of Twilight Zone territory.
Meanwhile, Israel is said to be working with Saudi Arabia on a military option for Iran.
Israel is working on coordinating plans for a possible military strike with Saudi Arabia, with Riyadh prepared to provide tactical support to Jerusalem, a British newspaper reported early Sunday. [Emphasis added.]
The two countries have both united in worry that the West may come to terms with Iran, easing sanctions and allowing the Islamic Republic to continue its nuclear program.
According to the Sunday Times, Riyadh has agreed to let Israel use its airspace in a military strike on Iran and cooperate over the use of rescue helicopters, tanker planes and drones. [Emphasis added.]
“The Saudis are furious and are willing to give Israel all the help it needs,” an unnamed diplomatic source told the paper. [Emphasis added.]
The report comes as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in the midst of a blitz to lobby against a deal and cobble together an international alliance opposed to an agreement that allows Iran to continue enriching uranium.
. . . .
Should a deal be reached, according to the diplomatic source, a military option would be back on the table. Saudi tactical support, in lieu of backup from the Pentagon, would be vital for a long-range mission targeting Iran’s nuclear program. [Emphasis added.]
Saudi Arabia, a Sunni Muslim country across the Persian Gulf from Iran has long been at odds with Tehran, and fears a nuclear weapon would threaten Riyadh and set off a nuclear arms race in the region.
PM Netanyahu met with French President Hollande on November 17th. Next, he “will head to Moscow on Wednesday to meet with President Vladimir Putin and lobby against the deal.”
It is far from certain that President Putin will offer much help for Israel, but the Obama Administration has abandoned any significant role for the United States in the Middle East beyond seeking a deal — any deal — for a domestic political boost. Hence, President Putin is the “go-to-guy” to get anything accomplished there.
Despite the Sunni world’s great frustration over the American dialogue with Iran, Arab countries’ courtship of Russia is still surprising, in light of its consistent support for Bashar Assad‘s regime since the start of the revolution in Syria. Russia has provided consistent support for a regime responsible for the death of 120,000 Arab Syrians.
Russia, which was the most hated country in the Sunni world at the start of the revolution in Syria, is gaining growing popularity in the Arab world. A series of mistakes by the American government led to the Russians’ return to the Middle East. How serious will the results of the Russian comeback be? [Emphasis added.]
The negotiations between the United States and Iran have yet to yield a thing, but their sub-scores in the meantime are disastrous for America and its democratic vision in the Middle East. The series of mistakes by the US included its agreement not to attack the Syrian regime in return for its (alleged) complete elimination of chemical weapons, its willingness to negotiate with the Iranian regime on the nuclear issue, and cutting aid to the Egyptian regime while it fights the Muslim Brotherhood. The consequences could generate a strategic upheaval in the region.
Up until now, the Middle East was divided as follows: The Shiite world, led by Iran, was supported by Russia; and the Sunni world, led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, was supported by the US. But the latest American steps are seen as a serious betrayal by the Sunni axis.
. . . .
The arrival of the Russian foreign and defense ministers in Egypt for talks last week was an unprecedented historical event since the countries severed ties in 1979.
. . . .
Russia and Egypt are expected to sign long-term military agreements soon, which will open a new chapter in the relations between the two countries. A report in one of the Russian newspapers even stated that the future agreements include the establishment of a Russian civilian nuclear reactor in Egypt off the Mediterranean Sea.[Emphasis added.]
The appetite for nukes has not skipped over Jordan, which officially declared about two weeks ago that it is building a nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes. This reactor, which will be utilizable in 2021, was acquired from a Russian company at the approval of the Russian government. The declared goal is to produce energy and reduce the price of electricity. The Russian funding of the project, which amounts to 49%, proves just how important it is for the Russians to build the reactor. [Emphasis added.]
The reactors are allegedly meant to solve the energy problem in the Middle East, especially in countries in distress like Egypt and Jordan. The nuclear energy is supposed to prepare rich countries like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates to an era in which they will run out of oil reserves. But the nuclear race, both for peaceful purposes and for purposes of war, will eventually lead to the nuclearization of the Middle East. [Emphasis added.]
There is no limit to the dangers this new situation could create in the future. The Jordanian reactor will be built too close to the Great Rift Valley, and its maintenance will be problematic for the poor kingdom. The reactor built in the south of the kingdom, which will need the Red Sea water to cool the centrifuges, will serve as a constant threat on the entire area. The reactors expected to pop up like mushrooms in Saudi Arabia and perhaps in Egypt too later on, could violate Israel‘s strategic advantage over the Arab world.
In the Middle Eastern game of chess between the US and Russia, the former enjoyed a longer advantage of several decades. But one wrong move of sacrificing safe pieces in order to reach vague achievements, changed the situation on the board.
The US is facing a new and unexpected challenge: It must get the Sunni axis back on its side and regain its trust. The more the US takes its time in doing so, the more Russia will deepen its ties in the region.
The crisis created should have brought two old enemies closer, Saudi Arabia and Israel, as they are both frustrated by the US policy and both want to prevent the Iranian bomb at any cost. If the leaders of the two countries are wise enough to realize the power concealed in cooperating with each other, it will be “the start of a beautiful friendship.”
ObamaScare is an abomination and may well be in a death spiral. Increasing numbers of Americans think, and hope, so. As bad as ObamaScare is, however, its signifcance pales in comparison to the ObamaAdministration’s domestic-politics-based foreign policy which is — at best — incompetent.
Israel and Saudi Arabia may intervene, militarily if necessary, to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. If so, there will be cries of anguish from much of Europe, the United Nations, much of the Middle East and the United States. The blame will be placed on Israel and, to a lesser extent on Saudi Arabia, for taking action which the ObamaAdministration’s politics-based foreign policy and detachment from reality made necessary.
Putin’s Russia is circling the Middle East like a buzzard looking for a carcas upon which to feast. When it finds one courtesy of the ObamaAdministration, it lands and dines. It has found several and will likely find more. Buzzards are patient scavengers.
Even if we want the United States to be isolated from foreign affairs, that is no longer possible because our oceans no longer isolate us from the rest of the world. The United States are an integral part of the global economy, Russian and Chinese military advances will threaten our national security increasingly and our intentionally leaky borders — which promote increasing unlawful immigration — put us further at risk as well. In such circumstances, it’s best to have at least a modicum of control over matters that affect our national interests. Viewed in the long term, these matters (like our national debt and our galloping welfare-based society) are even more important than when viewed in the short term with with domestic politics is principally concerned.
Here is a link to a comparison of British Prime Minister Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” position vis a vis Nazi Germany and Czechoslovakia with President Obama’s position vis a vis Israel and Iranian nukes. It begins,
Although Chamberlain threatened that if Czechoslovakia didn’t give the Sudetendland to Hitler, WWII would start, the sad truth is that giving it over is what enabled the war to start. Obama is going down the same path.[Emphasis in original.]
As Obama hints that Israel will cause WWIII if Iran is not allowed to slip out of the sanctions that have slowed its pursuit of a nuclear arsenal, one need only remember back 75 years. In 1938, the world also teetered on the precipice of World War II.
In 1938, the quintessential appeaser, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, excoriated the embattled Czech Prime Minister Benes as the cause of a world war if Benes did not accede to Hitler’s demands and agree to expose his country to occupation by Nazi Germany.
Chamberlain “blackmailed” the self-defensible Benes into becoming an indefensible victim. Chamberlain morphed genocidal war-maker Hitler into a smiling ‘peace-maker.’ Chamberlain intoned the same false ‘logic’ that Obama uses today: Agree to the murderer’s terms, or he will occupy and murder more of you.
Please read the whole thing. It’s well worth the effort.
UPDATE, November 18th
Demonstrating, again, that “it’s
turtles lies all the way down,” here’s a link to an article by Bryan Preston at PJ Tatler showing that it was known as early as June 17, 2010 that most group health plans would have to be cancelled. The article notes,
“If you like your healthcare, you can keep your healthcare” was always a lie. The Obama administrationcampaign made that promise repeatedly but knew it wasn’t going to be fulfilled the entire time. If a majority of Americans, both on the individual and in the employer-based healthcare markets, were losing our insurance prior to the 2012 election, Obama would have been defeated in a landslide. [Emphasis added.]
So they lawlessly delayed the mandate. Obamacare was such a great plan that Barack Obama had to essentially exempt himself from it to get re-elected.
What a surprise! I am shocked that “our” wonderful truth-teller would do anything like that for crass political purposes.
Shirley Surely, there must be a mistake.