Famed Anti-Communist Blasts Obama as a ‘Dangerous’ Failure

One of the most famous fighters of Cold War communism still in the land of the living, Polish leader and liberty icon Lech Walesa, is not too keen on the “failure” that is Barack Obama. In fact, Obama has been down right “dangerous” for the world Walesa says.

In a new interview, Walesa decries Obama as having failed to advance peace and freedom across the world with his failed foreign policies.

Welsa lamented that when Obama was elected in 2008 there was “hope in the world” that “Obama would reclaim moral leadership for America,” but Obama “failed.”

Walesa will be forever noted as one of the world’s greatest champions of democracy, liberty, and freedom for being one of the few who faced down the massive, oppressive communists of the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

He led the “Solidarity” movement that brought power to oppressed workers in Soviet controlled Poland in the 80s and then went on to become president of that country.

But Walesa doesn’t feel Obama has followed in the footsteps of heros like himself and Ronald Reagan.

“We have to do everything that we can to recreate, to reclaim America’s role, and it seems that Obama would manage that, but he didn’t accomplish that,” Walesa said sadly. “America did not regain its leadership status. We’re just lucky that there were no bigger conflicts in the world, because if it had bigger conflicts, then the world would be helpless.”

Walesa only has the half of it, there. Obama’s failure are far worse than that, as we all know. What do you know?

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 3, 2014.
Filed under Barack Obama, Big government, corruption, Culture, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Foreign Affairs, Liberals, Media.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Brucehenry

    Walesa ain’t too specific, is he?

    • jim_m

      Really? You’re going to contest the assertion that obama’s foreign policy has sucked? Keep on drinking that kool aid.

      I’m going to go buy Kraft food stock. It’s gonna take a lot of kool aid to keep the left happy for the next 3 years.

    • 914

      The false messiah has fallen from socialist grace.

      • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

        Amen! This makes my day!

    • jim_m

      You want a specific? How about 3 out of every 4 soldiers killed in Afghanistan have died under obama and his failed leadership. As always the only good soldier to the dems is a dead soldier.

      Of course I am sure that you and Chico blame Bush for these deaths. What ever happened to obama’s promise to get out of there? I suppose he had to ensure that the absolute worst outcome was had before he could do that.

      And that doesn’t even get us to telling the Poles on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland that he was backing out of the ABM defense agreement we had with them. Nor does it start with the idiotic handling of Syria, of Benghazi, of the infamously mistranslated “reset” button or any of a host of asinine foreign policy moves that just about anyone whose world view had matured beyond the 6th grade would have avoided.

      • Brucehenry

        Oh, I know why YOU and your ilk think Obama’s foreign policy has failed — because we haven’t bombed or sent troops to Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Bumfuckegypt or anywhere and everywhere else that your masters tell you to be pissed off at. Chickenhawks.

        And I know why the extreme left and the Paulites think it has failed — because Obama hasn’t dismantled the military and either used the money to give everyone free healthcare on the one hand, or balance the budget on the other.

        But this clip doesn’t show why Walesa thinks it has failed, beyond vague assertions of a “failure of moral leadership.” What, specifically, does Walesa think illustrates this alleged failure? The clip doesn’t tell us.

        Your laughable list of Obama’s “missteps” — not really missteps but Talk Radio talking points — are not examples, to sane people, of a failure of leadership. Most Americans are OK with the fact we’re not at war with Russia, Iran, North Korea, or the Islamist extremists in Libya or the pariah government of Syria.

        • jim_m

          No. I think obama’s foreign policy is a failure because it has projected a position of weakness, ignorance and desperate desire to appease any enemy. His foreign policy is a failure because he has alienated our allies and encouraged our enemies.

          The very notion that success means that we are not at war is childish in the extreme. Countries are looking to China and Russia for leadership. Rather than looking to the US for direction they are falling into the orbit of our enemies. While we are not at war currently, obama has dramatically increased the likelihood of war.

          Go ahead and believe that all the conflict in the middle east can be contained. obama has worked hard to ensure that the most radical islamic government could come to power, only in Egypt has this been turned around and he opposed that.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh sure because Obama hasn’t swaggered through the Middle East swinging the armed forces around like his personal Big Dick, he has “projected a position of weakness.” Classic wingnut meansnothingism from Jim.

            In any case you still haven’t addressed what WALESA means by alleging “moral failure of leadership” or whatever. That’s because the clip doesn’t tell us. For all you know Walesa means the US would only be a “moral leader” if Obama repudiated all the neocon Bushie bullshit he hasn’t repudiated.

            You just want to hear Obama being run down. It doesn’t matter to you why, from whom, or from what point of view. Hope you’re happy.

          • jim_m

            And I will be hearing a lot of it from here on out because everyone is seeing that he is an incompetent ideologue that has no idea what he is doing or how to accomplish anything.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes all the kids are saying he’s a real poopyhead.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Is it possible to swagger and bow at the same time? Maybe thats why Obama needed that extra flexibility that came with winning the election?

          • Brucehenry

            Reading is fundamental.

            I said he HASN’T swaggered. You guys claim he has bowed when he should have Stood Tall, or something.

          • jim_m

            All you have is snark to defend you fallen messiah. Pretty sad. I’d pity you if you hadn’t helped to destroy a once great nation.

          • Brucehenry

            And all you have is tired talking points and talk radio rabblerousing.

          • jim_m

            Point to a single victory that wasn’t an effort of appeasement which will eventually become a disaster.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh no in Wingnut World every year of a Democratic presidency is 1938 and every diplomatic solution is Munich, I get it.

          • jim_m

            Point out on foreign policy victory. I have asked you to do so repeatedly. You come back with snark. You’re a blinkered ideologue.

            Wait, I know, when he went to Copenhagen to get the Olympics for Chicago and he so offended everyone with his arrogance that Chicago was the first city rejected. Oh wait, that’s another failure. Never mind.

          • Brucehenry

            The Syrian government is getting rid of its chemical weapons.

            Oh, I know you and your fellow wingnuts think Putin made Obama look foolish, or something, on this subject, but the fact is we were about to be dragged into another desert quagmire and Obama and his team found a way out of it while reducing the risk of the use of chemical weapons in the future.

            Serious, non-Neocon observers think Obama done good. Bolton-type war mongers and chickenhawks disagree.

          • jim_m

            Wrong. They are not getting rid of their weapons. They have said that they would place them under the control of their patron, Russia. There has been universal acknowledgement that the afgreement that obama accepted meant nothing with regard to Syria’s WMD capability.

          • Brucehenry
          • jim_m

            He was forced to recognize the legitimacy of Assad’s government, undermining his foreign policy position at the time. There is a “framework” for disposing of those weapons but no actual assurance that it will ever happen and few controls to ensure that it does.

            It was not much of a success and it was considered an embarrassment in many corners (ie by many foreign governments. While the left at home may think this was brilliant, what counts is the reaction of foreign leaders and this was seen as a surrender by obama after he had painted himself into a corner).

          • Brucehenry

            Assad’s government is widely recognized as legitimate as was his father’s before him. WTF are you even talking about?

          • jim_m

            At the time obama’s policy was built on delegitimizing Assad and promoting the rebels. I suppose that with your weak position having a poor memory is useful.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s true that Obama had stated that “Assad must go.” That doesn’t mean that the Assad regime, in power over 40 years, was not considered a legitimate government.

            What did you want from Obama anyway with Syria? You wanted him to punish Assad but didn’t want him to support the “Al Qaeda-backed” rebels.

            Whatever Obama did or did not do regarding Syria wingnuts would attack him, as they did in Libya (see Gingrich, Newt).

            No wonder nobody takes guys like Bolton seriously. You, and he, have only one foreign policy position: whatever Obama does is bad for America. You guys are laughable.

          • jim_m

            For starters, not taking over a year to react to the situation would have been good. In a similar vein he took over 6 months before finally meeting with Petreaus about Afghanistan. Likewise he waited some 8 months before acting on Bin Laden and still hesitated another 16 hours with the mission plan in place before giving the go ahead.

            He has demonstrated over and over again that he cannot make a decision under pressure. It is a well known weakness and other nations are taking advantage of it.

          • Brucehenry

            Limbaugh’s bullshit.

          • jim_m

            That’s nice. I don’t listen to him. Try again.

            Since all you have is bullshit there is no point in engaging you. Have a nice life asshole.

          • Brucehenry

            You don’t have to listen to Limbaugh’s show to hear his bullshit, as you know. He just repeats it until Hannity (therefore FOX) picks it up, and presto it’s in the mainstream media.

            You know how this crap works you just want to be dishonest about it.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Reading is fundamental.

            Liberalism is willful ignorance.

          • Brucehenry

            Careful, Jim is busily proving that snark is not worth having, or something. Try to keep up.

          • jim_m

            Snark is all you’ve got. You have yet to deliver a single shred of evidence that obama has had the glorious foreign policy triumph that you say he has.

          • Brucehenry

            Please point out my quote that included the word “triumph” or any synonym for it.

          • Brucehenry

            Seriously, quote me.

          • jim_m

            Listen, loser. You claim that wee are wrong with our criticism of your messiah’s foreign policy. So if we are wrong you must therefore be saying that he has been triumphant since the only alternative to failure is success.

            You have yet to deliver on a single success story and you are reduced to claiming that his failures really aren’t that bad and that the rest of the world hasn’t noticed.

          • Brucehenry

            “Loser,” huh?

            No, you are the one alleging “dangerous failure.” One doesn’t, in any endeavor, have to have a record of glorious triumph in order to NOT be a “dangerous failure.”

            Only in the Apocalyptese English that wingnuts speak is keeping an equilibrium, threading a course among the various competing forces that America must contend with in a multifaceted foreign policy, “dangerous failure.”

          • jim_m

            Watch and see. The world has gotten more dangerous, not less due to his incompetence.

          • Brucehenry

            OK. Because, due partly to the fact that American voters considered Obama more trustworthy to handle America’s role in the world than his GOP opponents in 2008 and 2012, we will all watch and see.

            See, voters didn’t buy all the hair-on-fire nonsense the GOP was selling about how Obama was gonna project such weakness and had insulted the Queen and Ghost Churchill and the Poles and was gonna get pushed around by Putin (and not look deep into his eyes and his soul) and yada yada.

            So yeah, we’ll all watch and see. Sorry about your acid reflux.

          • jim_m

            Drop dead Bruce. Voters elected him because he promised some left wing vision of a utopian foreign policy that would have the world at our feet because he was so enlightened. This was boosted by his getting the Peace Prize for basically nothing.

            Andrather than coming through on this he has increased the use of drones to assassinate US citizens abroad. He has supported radical islamic governments. He has dithered and stalled when the world was seeking leadership on the Syrian civil war and elsewhere.

            He has failed to lead and you have failed to supply a single reason to believe that if obama had the need to summon a military coalition for any reason that he could attract a single nation to follow him.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh I’m pretty sure if we needed the Republic of the Maldives to send us some typists and Honduras to send some agricultural experts to some Shiteholeistan we probably still could. But thanks to someone other than Obama we won’t easily be persuading a NATO country to join us in a military adventure in the greater Middle East, that is true.

            If it makes you feel any better to think that Obama couldn’t form a military coalition to deal with a Mideast crisis go ahead. It makes me feel better that he hasn’t cooked one up, as his predecessor did.

          • jim_m

            You’re right. obama would never defend our nation’s interests. the only thing he is interested in defending is his polling numbers. I see he is doing a great job at that too.

          • Brucehenry

            And what better way to defend them than by selling America out, right?

            Ladies and gentlemen, your wingnut logic.

          • jim_m

            His socialist ideology and his unwillingness to compromise or negotiate has lead him to this pass. Take obamacare for example – He refused to negotiate and passed a strictly ideological bill via a one party vote, all GOP concerns were ignored and few were even allowed to be voted upon and those that did lost on strict party lines.

            He is selling out America but he is doing so in the name of a socialist utopian ideal that he thinks he can create in its place.

          • Brucehenry

            Shorter Jim: But…but…Obamacare aaauuuuggghhhh!!!

          • jim_m

            You asked for examples asshole. Don’t be a total jag off when I give you one.

          • Brucehenry

            No I didn’t. I simply ridiculed your other examples, examples long debunked, like the Queen stuff, the Churchill bust stuff, the Polish Butthurt stuff.

          • jim_m

            Examples I did not raise for the most part. Nice use of a straw man, jerk.

            Let me know when you want to actually start responding to what I write. Until then you can F off.

          • Brucehenry

            Used them plenty of times before, though. Do you not stand by them?

          • jim_m

            I stand by them. They contribute to the fact that no one wants to deal with the prima dona in chief.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Jim is proving that all YOU have is snark. I on the other hand, also have a plaid onesie.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    When Carter looks good by comparison you know things are pretty f’n bleak.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Nice, concise, accurate – brevity is far more effective than walls’o’text.

      And, sadly, you’re right.

  • 914

    “Reclaim moral leadership for America”

    How? Has the morals of a sewer rat..

    • jim_m

      I have no evidence that sewer rats are completely amoral.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    It’ll take years to fix the mess he’s made of this country. The world’s on its own for awhile.

  • GarandFan

    Obama is a failure. Given his past track record as a ‘community organizer’, state legislator and US Senator – at least he’s been consistent.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Lech will change his tune once his obamacare exemption comes thru.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

    “We’re just lucky that there were no bigger conflicts in the world,
    because if it had bigger conflicts, then the world would be helpless.”

    Nah! Obama woulda just drawn a few more lines in the sand! That’ll show ‘em!

  • 914

    Funny how these idiots can now see what we already knew forever. A failure doesn’t change its stripes. Just lies even more until it is removed.

    • jim_m

      They can’t see it. Even Bruce is still denying it.

  • ackwired

    Sounds like Walesa would have us continue to try to be the lone superpower, policing the world. Unfortunately, we can no longer afford it. We are no longer the sole manufacturing power in the world that we were after WWII. None of this excuses Obama nor his foreign policy waffling. If he has a plan, it is not clear to anyone what it is (I know, some of you need to believe that it is to destroy America), and that is bound to frustrate our citizens and other countries who have come to depend on us to police the world.

    • jim_m

      It’s not just about affording the military presence. It’s about real leadership. obama doesn’t have it. He’s an appeaser and he does not grasp that other nations act in a way that is not found in his high school model UN based foreign policy. obama is big on snubbing our historic allies and has created an atmosphere of distrust with regard to US intentions and resolve. No one expects obama to follow through on his promises and everyone knows that his policy is focused on what will make him look good and not what is good for the US or its allies.

      • Brucehenry

        AND he has cooties

        • jim_m

          And you have yet to advance a single example of how he is not a complete and utter failure. There are multiple examples of how he has alienated our allies, how he has demonstrated gross incompetence in foreign policy and how virtually no one will follow his lead in international affairs.

          He has squandered 70 years of US prestige in under 4 years and all you can offer in his defense is snark.

          • Brucehenry

            The examples you keep citing of him “alienating our allies” are nothing but wingnut talking points. Poland is still our ally. Israel, while being led by the semi-madman Bibi, is still our ally. Britain, despite the egregious insults endured of having a bust of Churchill removed and some DVDs given to the Queen, is still our ally.

            No one has moved from “our orbit” into the “orbit” of China or Russia. About the closest example you can come to in that regard is Ukraine, which was never in “our orbit” but may still, if lucky, get to move into the “orbit” of the European Union soon.

            But go ahead and keep clinging to the blind hatred that makes you feel better. It becomes you.

          • jim_m

            I didn’t say that he turned our allies into enemies. You are claiming that. What I said was that he has alienated them. They do not trust the US as they once did. They cannot trust obama and they will not follow his lead.

            Evidence the fact of his embarrassing defeat with the Syrian issue. He was made to look a fool to the world. Everyone knows this. Even the left wing press in the US admitted this.

            When Bush needed a coalition to go into Iraq he found many nations to support him. I doubt that obama could get a single one. Not even the UK would follow obama into a war and for the simple reason that they know they cannot trust him.

          • Brucehenry

            And once it was clear that Iraq was a fool’s errand those same countries waited the shortest decent interval they could to get their asses out of Iraq.

            Liberals, including me, warned at the time that the Iraq adventure would make coalition building difficult for future presidents. That was one of the most oft-stated objections to the whole invasion fiasco, remember. So go ahead and blame Obama if you want for the potential difficulty he may have, potentially, in building a potential coalition for any potential challenges that could potentially arise.

            Luckily, his adroit handling of the diplomatic situations re Libya and Syria have precluded the need for such a military coalition.

          • jim_m

            RIght or wrong the point was that Bush could lead and obama cannot. It is no because of Bush’s efforts in Iraq that people will not follow obama. It is because of his disasters in Libya (where he could not make any decisions and left it to France to show leadership), and Syria (where Putin and Assad made him look like a fool) and his turning Iraq and Afghanistan from victories into failures (where 3 out of every 4 dead soldiers in Afghanistan have happened under obama) that they will not follow him. It is because he has betrayed our new eastern European allies on missile defense.

            I give you real reasons and you reply with lefty talking points and snark. You used to be a decent debater but not anymore. You are so beholden to your bankrupt ideology you hold onto obama’s failures as totems of his genius. Only a complete ass would think this. You used to have some semblance of integrity but I can see that you no longer do.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s funny when, after one of your long diatribes full of the same old long-debunked horseshit, wherein you spout every cliche about “disasters” that weren’t disasters, “victories” that weren’t victories, “betrayals” that weren’t betrayals, and “failures” that aren’t failures, you accuse OTHERS of being “beholden to bankrupt ideology.”

          • jim_m

            I at least give you examples. You give nothing but posturing.

          • Brucehenry

            Examples of the hot air under wingnut wings.

          • jim_m

            You dismiss them as hot air but the reality is that I am correct and obama has shredded his credibility and no foreign leader will follow him.

          • Brucehenry

            You are always correct jim. If I ever doubt that, I just ask you, and you reassure me.

  • jim_m

    Here you go Bruce: A list of the winners of 2013. Notice that 4 of the top 5 are America’s enemies.

    In developing our list of the world’s biggest winners and losers in 2013, AI didn’t make moral judgments. This is a realist calculation, looking at who gained power during the year and who lost.

    • Brucehenry

      Haha the only thing that makes the authors of this piece more authoritative in your mind than Taibbi, who I linked to on the other thread, is that these guys are saying what you want to hear.

      I did kind of agree with them, though, about climate skeptics and Saudi Arabia. Although the Saudi bit kind of conflicts in certain respects with the Jihadi bit.