Showing posts with label WASHINGTON POST. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WASHINGTON POST. Show all posts
Fw: THE WASHINGTON POST; Emptiness at West Point
FWD: Emptiness at West Point
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: May 29
It is fitting that on the day before President Obama was to give his grand West Point address defending the wisdom and prudence of his foreign policy, his government should be urging Americans to evacuate Libya.
Libya, of course, was once the model Obama intervention — the exquisitely calibrated military engagement wrapped in the rhetorical extravagance of a nationally televised address proclaiming his newest foreign policy doctrine (they change to fit the latest ad hoc decision): the responsibility to protect.
You don’t hear R2P bandied about much anymore. Not with more than 50,000 civilians having been slaughtered in Syria’s civil war, unprotected in any way by the United States. Nor for that matter do you hear much about Libya, now so dangerously chaotic and jihadi-infested that the State Department is telling Americans to get out.
And you didn’t hear much of anything in the West Point speech. It was a somber parade of straw men, as the president applauded himself for steering the nation on a nervy middle course between extreme isolationism and madcap interventionism. It was the rhetorical equivalent of that classic national security joke in which the presidential aide, devoted to policy option X, submits the following decision memo:
Option 1. All-out nuclear war.
Option 2. Unilateral surrender.
Option 3. Policy X.
The isolationism of Obama’s telling is a species not to be found anywhere. Not even Rand Paul would withdraw from everywhere. And even members of Congress’s dovish left have called for sending drones to Nigeria, for God’s sake.
As for Obama’s interventionists, they are grotesquely described as people “who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak” while Obama courageously refuses to believe that “every problem has a military solution.”
Name one person who does.
“Why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force?” Obama recently and plaintively asked about Ukraine. In reality, nobody is. What actual earthlings are eager for is sending military assistance to Ukraine’s woefully equipped forces.
That’s what the interim prime minister asked for when he visited here in March — and was denied. (He was even denied night-vision goggles and protective armor.) Two months later, military assistance was the first thing Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s newly elected president, said he wanted from the United States. Note: not boots on the ground.
Same for Syria. It was Obama, not his critics, who went to the brink of a military strike over the use of chemical weapons. From which he then flinched. Critics have been begging Obama to help train and equip the outmanned and outgunned rebels — a policy to which he now intimates he might finally be coming around.
Three years late. Qusair, Homs and major suburbs of Damascus have already been retaken by the government. The battle has by now so decisively tilted toward Assad — backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, while Obama dithered — that Assad is holding triumphal presidential elections next week.
Amid all this, Obama seems unaware of how far his country has fallen. He attributes claims of American decline to either misreading history or partisan politics. Problem is: Most of the complaints are coming from abroad, from U.S. allies with no stake whatsoever in U.S. partisan politics. Their concern is their own security as they watch this president undertake multiple abdications from Warsaw to Kabul.
What is the world to think when Obama makes the case for a residual force in Afghanistan — “after all the sacrifices we’ve made, we want to preserve the gains that you have helped to win” — and then announce a drawdown of American forces to 10,000, followed by total liquidation within two years on a fixed timetable regardless of circumstances?
The policy contradicts the premise. If you want not to forfeit our terribly hard-earned gains — as we forfeited all our gains in Iraq with the 2011 withdrawal — why not let conditions dictate the post-2014 drawdowns? Why go to zero — precisely by 2016?
For the same reason, perhaps, that the Afghan surge was ended precisely in 2012, in the middle of the fighting season — but before the November election. A 2016 Afghan end date might help Democrats electorally and, occurring with Obama still in office, provide a shiny new line to his résumé.
Is this how a great nation decides matters of war and peace — to help one party and polish the reputation of one man? As with the West Point speech itself, as with the president’s entire foreign policy of retreat, one can only marvel at the smallness of it all.
Read more from Charles Krauthammer’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
Read more on this issue: The Post’s View: At West Point, President Obama binds America’s hands on foreign affairs E.J. Dionne Jr.: Obama outlines a doctrine where restraint makes us stronger David Ignatius: Obama’s foreign policy repeats some avoidable mistakes The Post’s View: Pulling Libya back from the brink of civil war The Post’s View: President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy
Fwd: Democrats using insinuation and accusation to undermine Trump
Thomas: Democrats using insinuation and accusation to undermine Trump
“I’ll never lie to you.”
All politicians lie because they are human and all humans lie. The question before us is this: If President Donald Trump lied to former FBI Director James Comey, should that “lie,” lead to impeachment? Did he obstruct justice when he allegedly “hoped” Comey would not pursue an investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn? Many Democrats think so. Most Republicans do not.
Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee President Trump lied about him after his dismissal. The assertion was based on what the president said of him (“a real nut job”) and on his belief that Comey misled the public about the alleged lack of support among Comey’s FBI colleagues.
Trump’s newly hired attorney, Marc Kasowitz, returned fire. Speaking at the National Press Club, Kasowitz effectively accused Comey of lying about his recollection of a private dinner at which, according to Comey, Trump said, “I need loyalty.” Kasowitz accused Comey of “leaking” privileged communications to the media, which Comey admitted he did for the purpose of obtaining a special counsel to investigate Russian influence in the 2016 election.
Recordings of the Comey-Trump meetings would clear this up. The president has suggested they may exist and Comey said he would be happy to have them released.
They should be, but even if they corroborate Comey’s recollections, House Select Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said recently that he still believes there is no “credible evidence that there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.”
Everyone seems to agree that the Russians “attempted” to interfere, but no one claims that attempted interference affected the outcome. Hillary Clinton lost and so did Democrats – at all levels across the country. They need to get over it and figure out why.
The word “hypocrisy” was invented for such moments. The left is suddenly aghast about lying, but was fine with Barack Obama’s numerous lies, from “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” to Benghazi, “Fast and Furious,” the “red line” in Syria and the list goes on. Let’s not even get started with the Clintons. They’re serial liars.
Media reaction swiftly followed Comey’s testimony. The New York Times and Washington Post seemed to favor Comey. A Wall Street Journal editorial even said that Comey “should have resigned if he believes what he now says.”
Charles Hurt, editorial page editor of the conservative Washington Times, summarized his view of Comey’s testimony: “The only verified leaker exposed: Jim Comey. The only person we know is not and never was under investigation for ties to Russia: Donald Trump. The only person exposed for trying to influence an election: (Obama attorney general) Loretta Lynch.
The only paper accused of publishing fake news: The New York Times. The only person who attempted to obstruct justice: Loretta Lynch and probably Bill Clinton.”
Even the reliably liberal Chris Matthews of MSNBC said, “The assumption of the critics of the president, of his pursuers, you might say, is that somewhere along the line in the last year, the president had something to do with colluding with the Russians … to affect the election in some way. And yet what came apart this morning was that theory.”
Do I wish the president would conform just a little to the traditions most Americans expect of a White House occupant? I do.
But for me and many other conservatives, policy overcomes deportment. Last week, the president nominated 11 solid conservatives to federal benches. His policies on border security, repealing and replacing Obamacare, cutting taxes, reforming the tax code and strengthening the military, among others, are why he was elected.
Democrats have nothing other than more of the same failed policies, which have contributed to their recent election losses. They are banking on undermining the president by accusation and insinuation.
The major media – which Trump regards as the mother of all liars – are in bed with his Democratic critics, while dismissing the lies of Democrats past and present.
And that’s no lie.
Cal Thomas regularly writes nationally syndicated columns from Washington.
Fw: THE WASHINGTON POST; Emptiness at West Point
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:23 PM
Subject: Fw: THE WASHINGTON POST; Emptiness at West Point
To:
Emptiness at West Point
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: May 29
It is fitting that on the day before President Obama was to give his grand West Point address defending the wisdom and prudence of his foreign policy, his government should be urging Americans to evacuate Libya.
Libya, of course, was once the model Obama intervention — the exquisitely calibrated military engagement wrapped in the rhetorical extravagance of a nationally televised address proclaiming his newest foreign policy doctrine (they change to fit the latest ad hoc decision): the responsibility to protect.
You don’t hear R2P bandied about much anymore. Not with more than 50,000 civilians having been slaughtered in Syria’s civil war, unprotected in any way by the United States. Nor for that matter do you hear much about Libya, now so dangerously chaotic and jihadi-infested that the State Department is telling Americans to get out.
And you didn’t hear much of anything in the West Point speech. It was a somber parade of straw men, as the president applauded himself for steering the nation on a nervy middle course between extreme isolationism and madcap interventionism. It was the rhetorical equivalent of that classic national security joke in which the presidential aide, devoted to policy option X, submits the following decision memo:
Option 1. All-out nuclear war.
Option 2. Unilateral surrender.
Option 3. Policy X.
The isolationism of Obama’s telling is a species not to be found anywhere. Not even Rand Paul would withdraw from everywhere. And even members of Congress’s dovish left have called for sending drones to Nigeria, for God’s sake.
As for Obama’s interventionists, they are grotesquely described as people “who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak” while Obama courageously refuses to believe that “every problem has a military solution.”
Name one person who does.
“Why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force?” Obama recently and plaintively asked about Ukraine. In reality, nobody is. What actual earthlings are eager for is sending military assistance to Ukraine’s woefully equipped forces.
That’s what the interim prime minister asked for when he visited here in March — and was denied. (He was even denied night-vision goggles and protective armor.) Two months later, military assistance was the first thing Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s newly elected president, said he wanted from the United States. Note: not boots on the ground.
Same for Syria. It was Obama, not his critics, who went to the brink of a military strike over the use of chemical weapons. From which he then flinched. Critics have been begging Obama to help train and equip the outmanned and outgunned rebels — a policy to which he now intimates he might finally be coming around.
Three years late. Qusair, Homs and major suburbs of Damascus have already been retaken by the government. The battle has by now so decisively tilted toward Assad — backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, while Obama dithered — that Assad is holding triumphal presidential elections next week.
Amid all this, Obama seems unaware of how far his country has fallen. He attributes claims of American decline to either misreading history or partisan politics. Problem is: Most of the complaints are coming from abroad, from U.S. allies with no stake whatsoever in U.S. partisan politics. Their concern is their own security as they watch this president undertake multiple abdications from Warsaw to Kabul.
What is the world to think when Obama makes the case for a residual force in Afghanistan — “after all the sacrifices we’ve made, we want to preserve the gains that you have helped to win” — and then announce a drawdown of American forces to 10,000, followed by total liquidation within two years on a fixed timetable regardless of circumstances?
The policy contradicts the premise. If you want not to forfeit our terribly hard-earned gains — as we forfeited all our gains in Iraq with the 2011 withdrawal — why not let conditions dictate the post-2014 drawdowns? Why go to zero — precisely by 2016?
For the same reason, perhaps, that the Afghan surge was ended precisely in 2012, in the middle of the fighting season — but before the November election. A 2016 Afghan end date might help Democrats electorally and, occurring with Obama still in office, provide a shiny new line to his résumé.
Is this how a great nation decides matters of war and peace — to help one party and polish the reputation of one man? As with the West Point speech itself, as with the president’s entire foreign policy of retreat, one can only marvel at the smallness of it all.
Read more from Charles Krauthammer’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
Read more on this issue: The Post’s View: At West Point, President Obama binds America’s hands on foreign affairs E.J. Dionne Jr.: Obama outlines a doctrine where restraint makes us stronger David Ignatius: Obama’s foreign policy repeats some avoidable mistakes The Post’s View: Pulling Libya back from the brink of civil war The Post’s View: President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy
Fwd: Glaciers melting - seas are going to rise.
> Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 23:00:51 -0600
> From:
> To:
> Subject: Fwd: Glaciers melting - seas are going to rise.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I guess maybe Al Gore was right, after all - or was he? Did this report finally come out too late to save us? You decide.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Washington Post:
>
>
> The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway
>
> Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
>
>
> Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
>
>
> Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
>
> Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
>
> Oops, sorry. Inconvenient truth here. I neglected to mention that this was reported by the Associated Press on page 2 of the Washington Post on November 2, 1922, some 92 years ago.
>
>
>
> True - http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> To:
> Subject: Fwd: Glaciers melting - seas are going to rise.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I guess maybe Al Gore was right, after all - or was he? Did this report finally come out too late to save us? You decide.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Washington Post:
>
>
> The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway
>
> Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
>
>
> Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
>
>
> Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
>
> Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
>
> Oops, sorry. Inconvenient truth here. I neglected to mention that this was reported by the Associated Press on page 2 of the Washington Post on November 2, 1922, some 92 years ago.
>
>
>
> True - http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp
>
>
>
>
>
>
FW: Washington Post and Newsweek hit Obama - must read
Subject: FW: Washington Post and Newsweek hit Obama - must read
Subject: Washington Post and Newsweek hit Obama
THE WASHINGTON POST HITS OBAMA
Finally, the Washington Post and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, the Washington Post and Newsweek have a reputation
for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editors saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event,
and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by the liberal media.
___________________________
I Too Have Become Disillusioned.
By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack
Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a
baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the
Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of
professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could
manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful
military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life:
ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades
and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community
organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative
achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did
he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the
United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his
presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his
troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher
who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life,
actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political
sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all
and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be
sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken
hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist
like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama
was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have
hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if
they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama
was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of
his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history
matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself
had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance
to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of
racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the
Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of
course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all
affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily
to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about
themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools
for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the
inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't
around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem
resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes,
racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the
color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if
that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never
troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many
have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite
undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough
for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told
he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was
good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the
contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display
every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked
executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory
skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives
included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when
he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent
he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever
issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that
has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the
task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise
his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But
really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for
anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the
temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand
that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of
liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise
with such a man in the Oval Office.
Finally, the Washington Post and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, the Washington Post and Newsweek have a reputation
for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editors saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event,
and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by the liberal media.
___________________________
I Too Have Become Disillusioned.
By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack
Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a
baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the
Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of
professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could
manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful
military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life:
ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades
and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community
organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative
achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did
he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the
United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his
presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his
troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher
who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life,
actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political
sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all
and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be
sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken
hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist
like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama
was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have
hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if
they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama
was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of
his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history
matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself
had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance
to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of
racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the
Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of
course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all
affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily
to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about
themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools
for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the
inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't
around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem
resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes,
racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the
color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if
that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never
troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many
have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite
undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough
for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told
he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was
good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the
contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display
every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked
executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory
skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives
included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when
he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent
he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever
issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that
has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the
task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise
his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But
really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for
anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the
temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand
that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of
liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise
with such a man in the Oval Office.
Fw: Washington Post on Obama - FINALLY!!!!!!
Subject: Washington Post on Obama - FINALLY!!!!!!
But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly? In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office. |
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2180 / Virus Database: 2437/5084 - Release Date: 06/21/12
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2180 / Virus Database: 2437/5084 - Release Date: 06/21/12
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
