By Their Fruits, You Shall Know Them.

What have the fruits of 0bama’s foreign policy been? Bitter, bordering on poisonous:



— Although worldwide peace levels were stable this year, the division between countries enjoying peace and those afflicted by conflict has increased, according to a report.

The annual Global Peace Index report produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace measures the state of peace in 162 countries by using 23 indicators that gauge the absence of violence or the fear of violence.

“The world is less peaceful today than it was in 2008,” according to the report. “The indicators that have deteriorated the most are the number of refugees and [internally displaced persons], the number of deaths from internal conflict and the impact of terrorism.”

“Last year alone it is estimated that 20,000 people were killed in terrorist attacks up from an average of 2,000 a year only 10 years ago,” the report added.

Time and past time to hit the reset button on 0bama’s foreign policy.

Remember the ObamaCare Website? It's Still Not Finished. Your Money & Personal Info Are at Risk
Formerly White NAACP President Wanted to Boycott a Movie Because a White Actor Played Moses
  • Walter_Cronanty

    Are these fruits the result of his “Leading from behind” foreign policy, or “Don’t do stupid stuff” foreign policy? I can never keep them straight.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Smart diplomacy. We have them right where they want us.

      • Walter_Cronanty
        • Commander_Chico

          So much of the federal government is now outsourced to contractors, the lowest bidder gets the contract.

          Not too different from Blackwater and Aegis shooting up Iraq on U.S. contracts, blowback to the troops.

          Of course giving Americans government jobs with benefits is now anathema to the oligarchy.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I tend to agree with you. If we don’t have some sort of national security regulation that the gov’t doesn’t outsource its IT to foreign countries, we should [yes, that’s me who says we are overregulated pushing for more regulation – but this just seems to be common sense].
            It seems to me that instead of trying to play to his base by telling the Coast Guard graduating class that global warming is the greatest threat to national security, Obama could get his head out of his ass and stop playing politics for at least a couple of minutes and do something that benefits this country. But, as jim m says below, when you’re trying to take this country down a peg or two, doing things to strengthen our country simply isn’t on the agenda

          • Commander_Chico

            The pervasive corruption in government contracting distorts policy.

            Enacting a regulation like the one you mention is reasonable and necessary, but it would cut into some contractor’s margin.

            Since there are so many contractors in government now, they stray over to making policy. Even the permanent employees know they can move back and forth. I’ve seen this in a couple of federal agencies.

            There are federal bureaux which are now wholly-owned subsidiaries of big contractors. The contractors have a lock on what the bureau does, and what the bureau does is determined by what is good for the contractor. It’s like those diseases where the parasite takes over the host. This influence goes all the way up to national policy. And it’s not new with Obama.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Yeah, I’ve heard the same thing about regulations governing the construction of new refineries.
            When you’ve got a huge, overwhelming government, there’s room for huge, overwhelming graft.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            No company is going to commit the capital to build a refinery in the United States and it is not because of “regulations”.

            It can take forty years to recoup the capital investment for a refinery and with falling domestic demand, which will only continue, it is simply not a good business decision.

            The large refinery built in India that was completed makes sense as that is where future growth is projected.

            Here in Detroit there was a major expansion of an existing refinery that began a few years ago and that is the more judicious business decision.

          • Jwb10001

            Walter you’re asking that the federal government be regulated that’s entirely different than the federal government over regulating it’s citizens. It should be the job of our representatives to regulate the government agencies that are intended to serve the public.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You’re right, of course. Regulating government is different than regulating the citizenry. I guess when I looked at what I typed in, I couldn’t get past the fact of my suggestion for additional regulations.

          • Retired military

            Shit I forot about the oligarchy. CHeeko hasnt used it for a while.
            It used to be option a but now I deem it to be Option F.

        • Fuck.

          • Commander_Chico

            Don’t worry. Military pensions will be among the last to go.

          • Retired military

            Ah yes. Cheeko goes with option D. The retired military guy.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I think that sums it up rather succinctly.

    • jim_m

      This is the great reset, where we go from a world at peace to a world at war.

      But seriously, if you think that this is not the intended consequence of obama’s policies you are deluded. This is about destroying the US’s position in the world and part of that requires military defeat.

    • Vagabond661

      Not to be confused with his “laser-like focus” on jobs.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        You know, maybe he was pivoting all this time.

    • One thing about we don’t want Obama leading from behind or anywhere else. He needs to be led out of America and take his Regime with him.

  • Unless you ask Obama, then he’ll give you his rosy scenario (read: delusional) view of the world since 2008!

    • Retired military

      But but you don’t understand Obama’s wisdom. Why would the enemy ever attack us when Obama is doing such a great job of destroying the US without their help. This way they don’t have to spend a dime and if they play their cards right Obama will give them US aid.

      • Unfortunately you have an excellent point.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Did you see that “picture” up above? I’m so proud of myself – and no swearing at the computer!

      • 0bama’s wisdom is foolishness incarnate.

  • Commander_Chico

    Yes, the Nobel Peace Prize was a joke and a travesty. The main difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama hasn’t started any new wars with American troops on the ground, and less American troops have been killed: Bush: 4852 Obama: 1999

    Obama’s interference in Libya, Syria and the Ukraine may end up being as bad or worse than Bush’s fuck-ups. The Ukraine interference is potentially especially consequential. Obama ended up being a neocon Manchurian Candidate, doing their beck and call.

    As I have said before, we needed Michael Corleone after 9/11, quietly and ruthlessly eliminating Al Qaeda without panicking. Instead, we got two Fredo Corleones in a row, flailing around noisily and creating more jihadists. We also have a few more blustering neocon idiots on deck – Hillary, Jeb, Rubio so far.

    • jim_m

      The idoicy and derangement of your thoughts is revealed fully at the end when you call Hillary a neocon.

    • Poor little Chico! You have no idea what the truth is, do you? The war with ISIS has American boots on the ground and ISIS didn’t exist until after the craven abandonment of Iraq by Obama.

      Your delusions about American troops would be even more comical if the results weren’t so tragic. In Afghanistan, the war candidate Obama said was the one we should be fighting, the numbers were:

      Fifty-five U.S. servicemen were killed in Afghanistan in 2014, bringing the total number of American fatalities in the 13-year war to 2,232…
      Of those 2,232 deaths, 1,663 – 74.5 percent – occurred since President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009. The deadliest years for U.S. personnel were 2010, when 495 were killed; 2011, when there were 404 casualties; and 2009 when the death toll was 306.”

      Obama was C-in-C for approximately half of the conflict in Afghanistan and under his pusillanimous “leadership” three times as many US military deaths occurred.

      That’s the main difference between Obama and Bush. Some casualties in war are unavoidable. The wholesale incompetence of the current C-in-C resulted in far too many avoidable casualties.

      If you want to defend this noob, at least get your facts straight.

      • Commander_Chico

        You can’t skew the numbers of KIA servicemen in favor of Bush by cutting out the whole Iraq war as if it didn’t happen, and only talking about Afghanistan KIA. That is the ultimate disrespect to those who died in Iraq.

        Americans in Iraq now are a continuation of what Bush foolishly started.

        • Americans in Iraq are there because the clueless noob whose political agenda did not include leaving a reasonably sized force there, stupidly walked away, as if no vacuum of power would draw out the worst of the vermin.

          BTW, Bill Clinton called for regime change in Iraq. Bush accomplished that by winning the war and Obama threw it all away by blowing the peace.

          • Commander_Chico

            The SFA Bush signed required the withdrawal of troops at the end of 2011. After that, in negotiations for a new agreement, Iraqis would not give American troops immunity from prosecution in the courts of Iraq, as they had seen several Americans get away with murder or be leniently punished in their view. The Blackwater massacre was one example at the time (several BW were later convicted).

            Iraqis were pretty sick of Americans by 2011.

            Of course any C in C who would submit American troops to the notoriously corrupt Iraqi courts would really be a traitor.

            Anyways, I dispute your idea that Americans had to continue dying in Iraq. Obama promised to withdraw the troops. Americans voted for him. It’s called democracy. It was one promise he kept.

            The U.S. military left Iraq in reasonable shape. If the Iraqis could not make the political compromises necessary, stop rampant corruption in their military, or have the balls to fight for their country, fuck them.

          • Iraq wanted the military to stay. Obama did not negotiate in good faith. He started with unrealistically low numbers and walked away without really trying. Or is Obama such an incompetent negotiator that the most powerful nation in the world could not come to some understanding with Iraq. Hell! Look at how he bends himself into a pretzel for years to try to appease Iran!

            Obama would not negotiate a rational force of arms agreement because, like closing Gitmo, it was what he campaigned on. Neville Chamberlain Obama got exactly the deal he was looking for, and his mindless followers (got a mirror, Chico?) still defend him.

          • Commander_Chico

            Where is your evidence “Iraq wanted the military to stay?” Maliki made many public statements in 2011 against American troops staying, not to mention other leaders in both the government and the opposition. Even Iyad Allawi said he was against it. You know nothing.

            This story lists a lot of quotes:


            Again, Mark Twain would be revolted by what you write under his picture.

          • Ah, Chico, if you ever did accidentally stumble over the truth, you wouldn’t know it. I could look up the reference for where Iraq wanted the troops to stay, but I’d rather use it as a test to see if you really care enough about the truth to look for it or if you want to continue to marinate in your ignorance.

            And you cannot believe how powerful your arguments become when you start nattering about my avatar. Good night, troll.

          • Commander_Chico

            I’ll take that as a fact-free admission of defeat.

          • You do that chuckles. It would be worthy of your broken toy avatar.

            (BTW, I’ve seen you comment here frequently and know your ignorance to be impenetrable. If I had time to play with you I could give you all sorts of facts you would ignore. This just eliminates the middle man.)

          • Commander_Chico

            “If I had time . . . .I could . . . ”

            If Kim Kardashian had a brain as big as her ass, she’d be Einstein.

          • “I think not” – a perfectly factual way for you to sign your missives, CC! If faulty thinking were valuable, you’d be the Koch brothers.

            Call me when you have a clue.

          • More the pity that since he thinks not he has failed to be not.

          • Since Chico is so obsessed with avatars, perhaps we could ask him exactly what he is “commander” of? Since one doubts he is even the ‘master of his domain’ in the Seinfeldian sense, one wonders what exactly he commands his tiny one-eyed soldier to do? (Probably can’t even stand at attention!)

          • Retired military

            Dont bother trying to answer CHeeko’s questions. Even when you do and provide proof he will never answer yours with anything that makes a lick of sense. CHeeko is known for using OPtion E; Oh Look a shiny if not downright refusing to answer your question at all.

          • jim_m provided CC with the information that he was too lazy, too intellectually incurious or too incompetent to look up for himself (or all three), and it did not abate his ignorance one bit, roving that honest, intellectual discussions are neither his forte nor his M.O.

          • Retired military

            Honest intellectual discussion is a fight with only one side having ammunition and Cheeko isnt that side.

          • jim_m

            Another lie from the delusional isiot.

            I posted this not more than two weeks ago:

            In an April story for The New Yorker, Dexter Filkins painted a more complicated picture. U.S. military commanders told Filkins that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki “said that he wanted to keep [U.S.] troops in Iraq,” but that “parliament would forbid the troops to stay unless they were subject to local law.” But “President Obama, too, was ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq”:

            For several months, American officials told me, they were unable to answer basic questions in meetings with Iraqis–like how many troops they wanted to leave behind–because the Administration had not decided. “We got no guidance from the White House,” [James] Jeffrey [the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad in 2011] told me. “We didn’t know where the President was. Maliki kept saying, ‘I don’t know what I have to sell.’ ” At one meeting, Maliki said that he was willing to sign an executive agreement granting the soldiers permission to stay, if he didn’t have to persuade the parliament to accept immunity. The Obama Administration quickly rejected the idea. “The American attitude was: Let’s get out of here as quickly as possible,” Sami al-Askari, [an] Iraqi member of parliament, said.

            In other words, Maliki wanted an executive agreement where he wouldn’t have to ask his parliament for something that they wouldn’t give, but he could get around them with that executive agreement, giving US troops immunity. obama refused because obama is an ideological ass. You, Chico, refuse to acknowledge this because you are the same way.

          • Commander_Chico

            The troops staying without immunity from Iraqi law was a non-starter.

            Sadr’s Mahdi army pledged to fight also.

          • jim_m

            I just posted that they could stay with immunity but obama refused.

          • Commander_Chico

            Without a law from the parliament there would be no immunity.

          • jim_m

            So you are now more of an authority on Iranian law that the Iranian President?

          • Commander_Chico

            Iran? Can’t tell the difference, like in that song?

          • Retired military

            I was having a discussion with a friend once on Catholicism. The discussion ended when I told him “well if you think you know more about Catholic doctrine than the Pope dont let me stand in your way”

          • Commander_Chico

            Well at least I know the difference between Iraq and Iran.

          • Arabic Bargaining:

            “We don’t want your troops in our country.”

            “We’d like to keep some troops in your country for security purposes.”

            “No, we don’t see that happening, unless you (put in completely ridiculous demand).”

            “That’s not going to work for us, how about (much less ridiculous offer)?”

            “Maybe we can strike a deal.” – and the bargaining continues.

            Obama Bargaining:

            “We don’t want your troops in our country.”

            “Okay. We’ll pull them all out. See ya.”

            “Wait… what? That’s not how you play the game!”

            “Obama promised he’d get the troops out. You just suggested it, we’ll go with what you’ve proposed. Just sign here… and here… and here…” Diplomat packs up and leaves. Iraqi leadership sits… stunned.

            “Ah.. Oh boy. That did NOT go as expected…”

        • jim_m

          Not true. Americans in Iraq are solely the responibility of obama. He claimed that this was one of his great acheivements. When obama took over military causiualties were in the sinel digits per month. Any military losses today are a direct result of his mistakes.

          Blaming a President 6 years out of office is a lie and shows extreme cowardice and dishonesty. Which, unfortunately, is exactly what we expect from you.

          • Commander_Chico

            So neither the American people nor the Iraqi people wanted American troops to stay in Iraq, but El Caudillo General Jim and the rest of the neocons say they should have stayed and kept dying there.

          • jim_m

            You’re just embarrassed that we have shown you to be full of crap and that regardless of what you say Obama was in a position to negotiate a SOFA that was acceptable to the US.

    • Go away.

    • Retired military

      And Cheeko goes with Option B.
      Obama is bad but XXXXX was worse.

  • Commander_Chico

    Excellent column by Judge Andrew Napolitano on Benghazi:

    Judge Napolitano: What if they are hiding the truth?

    This is what really happened at Benghazi. The bullshit spewed on this and other right-wing sites about Benghazi was a diversion from bigger crimes.

    • jim_m

      Idiot. No one on the righhbt is trying to divert from obama’s mistakes, corruption and abuse of power. That you even claim that shows how deliusional your thinking is.

      • Commander_Chico

        That’s not what Judge Napolitano suggested. The whole Issa committee was part of a coverup.

        • jim_m

          And since you are a conspiracy nutjob you see conspiracy everywhere.

        • Retired military

          Sponsered by the oligarchy no doubt.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Chico, it wasn’t bs. Libya was a lawless state. It was lawless because we led from behind and bombed the crap out of Khadafy’s forces for months. Many, including me, couldn’t believe that, given the circumstances, air power/armed forces couldn’t get there in time to at least save Woods and Doherty.

      When you look at the timeline [ ], the response was incredibly slow. 3:45 to take a 1:15 flight from Tripoli to Benghazi? 5 hours for authorization to deploy special forces? 8 hours between start of attack on embassy and start of attack on second facility, and we’re still not responding, except for a 6 man embassy security team that arrived well after embassy attack was over? Over 23 hours for a special forces team to arrive in Tripoli, which is an 1:15 flight from Benghazi – so it took over 24 hours for a special forces team to arrive in Benghazi to protect our embassy in a lawless state? OK, I’ll take your word for it – logistically we couldn’t do anything to save anybody from an attack on an embassy and related facility in a lawless state. That doesn’t give me much faith in our government.
      Now, add your theory, which I will gladly admit you posited well before Napolitano wrote the article you reference above. Ambassador Stevens was enmeshed in an illegal a plan to get arms to Al Qaida and or the group we now call ISIS, to fight Assad.
      So, we have an illegal gun running plan orchestrated by our Ambassador to, and residing in, a lawless state, to overthrow a client state of Iran, the leading country in sponsoring anti-American terrorism in the Middle East. Now look at the timeline again. It makes Hillary/Obama look even worse. Then, add Stevens request for more security and Hillary’s refusal. Incredibly incompetent.

      • Vagabond661

        Not to mention it makes Hillary/Obama look like clueless buffons to blame it on a video.

        • “The dog ate my homework! Really!”

          “But you don’t even HAVE a dog.”

          “We’re gonna get one! Honest! And he ate my homework!”

        • Walter_Cronanty

          I disagree. The video excuse makes them look like liars who were afraid that if the truth came out, they’d lose the election. So they did what they do best – lie to win elections.

          • Vagabond661

            So, they are either outright liars or buffoons. Sounds like Hillary’s resume with Bill.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            How about we agree on “lying buffoons?”

      • Commander_Chico

        How many special forces were in Tripoli? I don’t know, but the published reports suggest only a few.

        This report says eight, of which two went to Benghazi.

        After the two SOF and paramilitaries (Glen Doherty among them) came from Tripoli, Americans were rescued:

        In real life it takes time to round up people, find ground vehicles, preflight and fuel aircraft and fly. The whole Benghazi incident took less than ten hours.

        Unplanned missions against unknown forces are also a recipe for disaster.

        It’s not as if there are hundreds of capable SOF hanging around everywhere in the world, especially because there is a war in Afghanistan and missions elsewhere. They also go home and spend time with their families and do training.

  • yetanotherjohn

    I’m pretty sure the title of this post is a microaggression and thus banned under the new UC rules. They don’t specifically condemn that phrase, but they certainly condemn similar phrase with the same sentiment. Think about that. Whether you agree or disagree with Rodney’s ideas, you shouldn’t even discuss the ideas under the UC rules.
    When you take that sort of mindset of the left, how can the world help but become more dangerous? The real world isn’t so concerned about the feelings of others. If you grow up and are educated in an environment that tries to protect you from the slightest unpleasantness, how can you stand up to someone who really wants to take what you have? And once it becomes clear that taking what you have requires so much less effort than any other means, what is to prevent more and more aggression?

    • “If you grow up and are educated in an environment that tries to protect you from the slightest unpleasantness, how can you stand up to someone who really wants to take what you have?”

      It’s a case of being taught how they want you to react – because they, in turn, expect to be the ones that will be doing the taking. (That they may never personally be in that status doesn’t matter – it’s for the greater good that mindless obedience to elitist thought is pushed.)

      1960s: Question Authority.

      2010s: Don’t you DARE question authority!

      • Retired military

        No no no

        2006 We have the right to question and challenge any administration


  • Retired military

    Why bother hacking govt personnel systems when you have unfettered root access to the data? (rhetorical question)