George W. Bush inadvisedly but successfully mustered a “coalition of the willing” at home and abroad to destroy Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Barack Obama’s uncertain kazoo call is scaring a “coalition of the kicking and screaming” abroad. In the United States the corrupt left that elected and reelected Barack Obama is also disintegrating into a “coalition of the kicking and screaming”.
Like faded “Hope and Change” posters advertising a long defunct circus Barack Obama is a tattered personality and politician even to his frat-house fan-boy liberal white base. These liberal left “creative class” loons stand aghast as they witness Messiah Obama – in of all places Iraq – wage war as a “unitary executive”. The “creative class” and the “coalition of the ascendant” are now the “coalition of the kicking and screaming” as they are dragged down to their fates by Barack Obama.
The Fairy Tale:
In 2008 Bill Clinton was denounced by Obama race-baiters as “racist” for saying that Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq was the biggest “fairy tale” he ever heard. Dat no gud debil Bill Clinton was immediately called a “racist” by race-baiting creeps like Jim Clyburn as well as the Chappaquiddick Chauffeur Ted Kennedy. But now Obama’s “coalition of the kicking and screaming” witness for themselves what Bill Clinton meant.
Bill Clinton with his “fairy tale” comment, as Andrew Breitbart later noted, referred solely to Obama’s position on the Iraq war and nothing else. But race-baiters such as Bob Herbert of the New York Times distorted the remark and race-baited Bill Clinton. Breitbart explained the role of Herbert and other pro-Obama race-baiters in this ugly episode:
“I could also sense how hard the Clinton camp was working to undermine Senator Obama’s main theme, that a campaign based on hope and healing could unify, rather than further polarize, the country.
So there was the former president chastising the press for the way it was covering the Obama campaign and saying of Mr. Obama’s effort: “The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
But – it wasn’t true. Watch Bill Clinton’s entire remarks and it’s 100% clear as to what he’s referring to as “the biggest fairy tale” and it’s not Obama’s candidacy. Nor is it the notion, as Herbert claims, that “a campaign based on hope and healing could unify.” No, the “fairy tale” is the idea that Obama was consistently opposed to the war in Iraq. Clinton points out speeches that Obama made and votes he cast as a Senator. His comments strike me as neither bizarre nor rambling, as the Times had claimed.
No matter. When Hillary Clinton appeared on Meet the Press just prior to the South Carolina primary, the late Tim Russert led with the race card attack against Clinton, including the quote from Herbert’s New York Times piece. Russert even plays a selectively edited clip of Clinton’s comments, where he cuts out every single part of what Clinton says leaving only ‘this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
Russert follows this butchered video clip with the quote from South Carolina Senator and Congressional Black Caucus member James Clyburn that had also appeared in the Times; “To call that dream a fairytale, which Bill Clinton seem to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us.” Hillary Clinton tries to point out that Russert is not playing the entire clip, but he shuts her down and plays a quote from Donna Brazil expressing disappointment in Bill Clinton and his “tone.” Russert continues to filibuster relentlessly for a couple of minutes, quoting the New York Times.”
Bill Clinton should have included Obama’s entire preposterous candidacy as a “fairy tale” back in 2008 as we did. It’s taken this long but most Americans now agree with us about the repellant and divisive Obama:
The most troubling number for President Obama in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll is this one: Americans say 55 percent to 38 percent that he is more of a divider than a uniter.
That’s a reversal from last year, when Americans said 47-45 that Obama had done more to unite the country than divide it.
Of course, Obama also has become significantly more unpopular over that span, so it’s not surprising to see his “uniter” rating drop (and in fact, both numbers have dropped equally over the past 16 months). But the uniter/divider number stings more than most other measures of Obama’s leadership.
Why? Because this was the thing that put Obama on the map.
The Obama fairy tale about “uniter not divider” is in the trash along with his “composite character” autobiographical garbage books. The fairy tale of Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war was used to sell Obama to the gullible low information and leftist dreamers is also in the trash as Obama prepares the Obama War In Iraq.
The Domestic Coalition Of The Kicking And Screaming:
The left? Those loons and totalitarians are shocked and awed into silence by their own hypocrisies:
But it still is a war, isn’t it, Mr. Secretary Kerry?
“I think that’s the wrong terminology,” he sniffed yesterday. “What we are engaging in is a very significant counterterrorism operation.”
Does that make it … a police action? Will we have to destroy the village in order to save it?
It’s all very confusing. When George W. Bush considered invading Iraq without a declaration of war, the Democrats wanted to try him for war crimes in The Hague. When Obama does the same thing … crickets.
Which raises another question: Where exactly is the anti-war movement?
Have you see a single “No Blood for Oil” sign in Cambridge?
To paraphrase the John Kerry of 2004: “Can I get me a candlelight vigil here?”
Whatever happened to Cindy Sheehan? Where is Code Pink? I haven’t seen an “EndLESS War” bumper sticker in years, since 2009 to be exact.
The anti-war movement is MIA as this war, er counterterrorism operation, begins. Back when Bush was waging war, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now it’s “racism.” If you speak truth to power in the Obama era, they call it hate speech. The IRS will audit you.
Maybe the left is silent because they are low information idiots? Consider them informed by this op-ed in the Obama love machine called the New York Times:
Obama’s Betrayal of the Constitution
PRESIDENT OBAMA’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.
Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written. [snip]
Mr. Obama may rightly be frustrated by gridlock in Washington, but his assault on the rule of law is a devastating setback for our constitutional order. His refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.
Since ISIS poses a new problem for the president, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires him to seek a new mandate from Congress. [snip]
But for now the president seems grimly determined to practice what Mr. Bush’s lawyers only preached. He is acting on the proposition that the president, in his capacity as commander in chief, has unilateral authority to declare war.
In taking this step, Mr. Obama is not only betraying the electoral majorities who twice voted him into office on his promise to end Bush-era abuses of executive authority. He is also betraying the Constitution he swore to uphold.
Obama Will Fight ISIS With George W. Bush’s Legal Theories
John Yoo: “Obama has adopted the same view of war powers as the Bush administration.” [snip]
Among those doubters is Obama himself, or at least the pre-presidential version.
In late 2007, as part of a candidate Q&A, Obama told Charlie Savage, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” And as Obama made clear in his Sunday appearance on Meet the Press, this is not the case in Iraq or Syria. “I want everybody to understand that we have not seen any immediate intelligence about threats to the homeland from ISIL. That’s not what this is about.”
This is about prevention and preemption, exactly the sort of thing that candidate Obama said presidents were not authorized to do without congressional approval. [snip]
Instead, whether out of expediency or outlook, he appears to have altered his views on constitutional power, and in doing so found himself relying on the same theories he once criticized. [snip]
“What is remarkable,” Yoo told BuzzFeed News, “is not that Obama eventually had to exercise the powers of his predecessors to protect American national security, but that his party in Congress, and his allies in the media and the universities, have remained so silent about it.”
It’s the silence of the lambs from what used to be wolves howling against the “unitary executive”. The left will pay for its hypocritical opportunism soon enough as even some of the juice vox boys are beginning to wail:
How Barack Obama is expanding presidential power — and what it means for the future [snip]]
Speaker John Boehner chided the Democrats: “Are you willing to let any president choose what laws to execute and what laws to change?” [snip]
“I taught constitutional law for 10 years,” Obama said in March 2008. “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.”
But interviews with academic, legal, and policy experts make clear Obama has done little to roll back Bush’s expansion of executive power — and that, instead, he’s added a few innovations of his own. [snip]
Many of Obama’s own controversial contributions cluster around one main theme: waiving, modifying, or refusing to enforce key provisions in laws dealing with domestic policy. And as he weighs a new executive action on immigration, he seems set to go further yet. In doing so, he’ll set new precedents that future presidents can cite for even more expansive action. [snip]
The problem for liberals is that there are many laws out there that conservative presidents dearly wish weren’t enforced. Indeed, the precedents Obama is setting “probably benefit conservative presidents who want to stop regulations and have a smaller agenda, to the extent it helps them gain control of the wider executive branch,” says Rudalevige, the Bowdoin professor.
So future Republican presidents will inevitably cite the new precedents Obama is setting to justify actions of their own. “I think Democrats are going to rue the day they did not push back against Obama on these things,” says Sollenberger, the University of Michigan professor. “Just as Republicans regretted the same thing when they didn’t push back against Bush.”
The response to all these warnings from the Obama left? One picture [HERE] tells the story.
Hillary Clinton and congressmen alike have called on Obama to arm Syria’s rebels. But the president fumed at lawmakers in a private meeting for suggesting he should’ve done more.
President Obama got angry at lawmakers who suggested in a private meeting that he should have armed the Syrian rebels, calling the criticism “horseshit.” [snip]
Top Democratic lawmakers agreed with Corker and Clinton that doing more to support the moderate rebels would have at least had a chance of averting or mitigating the current crisis, which has now spread to large parts of Iraq as ISIS expands its newly declared Caliphate.
“We may never know for sure if ISIS’s decisions were encouraged by Obama’s choices in Syria. What we know for sure is that ISIS metastasized in Syria and was not deterred because of anything Obama said or did so far.” [snip]
In a New York Times interview published Aug. 8, Obama said that the idea arming the rebels would have made a difference had “always been a fantasy.”
“This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards,” Obama said.
Clinton told The Atlantic in an interview published Aug. 10 that Obama’s “failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.”
In 2012, Clinton revealed that she and then-CIA Director David Petraeus had pushed a plan earlier that year to arm the Syrian rebels that was rejected by the White House. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey later said they supported the plan at that time. Many lawmakers, including Corker and Engel, still support that plan and they agree with Clinton that Obama’s policy left a vacuum that ISIS rushed to fill.
“[ISIS’s threat in Iraq] is definitely tied to Syria because when the uprising started against Bashar al Assad, it was a movement of people wanting freedom and democracy in Syria, it wasn’t a war involving jihadism at all,” Engel said. “They desperately needed our help, which we didn’t supply, and as a result ISIS got the upper hand. We are now paying the price of that.”
Back when there was a possibility of success or what passes for success in the Middle East Barack Obama did nothing. Then he said doing what most everyone suggested was “a fantasy”.
Now, that it very late Obama adopts the long lost strategy as his fantasy strategy. But it is horsesh*t.
The Foreign Coalition Of The Kicking And Screaming:
Turkey is out. Germany and maybe the U.K. are out. The Barack Obama ISIS “coalition of the kicking and screaming” is horsesh*t too. Qatar? Really? Qatar?
Bahrain, the UAE and Saudi Arabia earlier this year withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar over Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and beyond. [snip]
Qatar has also had a complicated relationship with the United States. Qatar hosts one of the most important U.S. military bases in the world, at the al Udeid Air Base. Additionally, the Sunni nation played a key role in negotiating the prisoner swap between the Taliban and the United States to free Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, as well as in the release of American hostage Peter Theo Curtis.
At the same time, Taliban officials live and work in Qatar, and the Sunni nation has control of the often anti-American television network al Jazeera. The U.S. has taken issue with its support for Hamas. Meanwhile, support for Syrian rebel groups coming out of Qatar and other Arab nations may have contributed to the rise of ISIS.
Qatar? Really? The enemy within that coalition. In America that enemy goes by the name of Obama.
The Cost of Horsesh*t And Fairy Tales:
Obama apologist Karen Tumulty does the honors even as she weeps watching her own Messiah Obama fantasies disappear:
Obama losing the confidence of key parts of the coalition that elected him
Kimberly Cole was part of the coalition that voted in 2008 to make Barack Obama the 44th president and in 2012 gave him another four years to deliver on his promises of hope and change.
Now, the 36-year-old mother of three young children in Valencia, Calif., is among the majority of Americans who have lost confidence in Obama’s leadership and the job he is doing as president.
“He’s been faced with a lot of challenges, and he’s lost his way,” Cole said in an interview. She worries that Obama lacks the resolve needed at a time when things at home and abroad are looking scarier.
On the other side of the country, Karlene Richardson, 44, once counted herself a “very strong supporter” of the president. But now she feels much the same as Cole does.
“Honestly, I just feel that what I bought into is not what I’m getting,” said Richardson, an author and motivational speaker who teaches health care administration at a community college in Queens. “I’m starting to wonder whether the world takes us seriously.”
Both Cole and Richardson were surveyed in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll and represent one of its most striking findings: the degree to which the president’s approval has slipped among key parts of the Obama coalition — the women, youth and Latino voters most responsible for putting him into office.
They’re kicking and screaming out ‘no we can’t – take it anymore’.
African-Americans? They’re still mostly sticking by skin color – 87% approve of Obama even as their communities and opportunities are decimated by Obama (although even there support is down from the 93% it used to be).
The coalition of the kicking and screaming here at home has many women:
Virginia Wilson, 60, of Charleston, W.Va., is another disillusioned Obama voter.
“I can’t blame it all on him,” she said, but added, “There was going to be a change, that we would see people coming together, instead of falling apart.” [snip]
And Richardson — interviewed before Obama gave a prime time speech Wednesday laying out plans to target Islamic State with airstrikes — said “he just made these promises that he doesn’t go through with” related to the terrorist group.
“There was going to be a change, that we would see people coming together, instead of falling apart.” Are you kidding? With Obama???? That was all in your head darling. It was a fantasy. It was horseshit.