The Speech—Is Barack Obama Smoking Pot Again?

1 09 2010

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

As Barack Obama wrote in his biography, “Dreams from My Father”:

Junkie.  Pothead.  That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.[2]

Is he using again . . . or is he simply pathetic and a bad joke?  In his televised speech to the American people, he announced that “all U.S. troops will leave [Iraq] by the end of next year.”[3] This artificial deadline may snatch defeat from the jaws of victory; and if so, the anti-war, far-Left Obama will be responsible personally.  Among other things, Iraq is still without a coalition government months after its election, and political compromise remains elusive.[4]

The Wall Street Journal was correct when it stated in an editorial prior to the speech:

The U.S. kept hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany for decades after World War II, and it still has tens of thousands in South Korea and Japan. It would be a tragedy if after seven years of sacrifice, the U.S. now failed to assist Iraqis as they try to build a federal, democratic state in an often hostile neighborhood.[5]

He is bringing our troops home to no jobs, or to poor jobs with little or no financial security once they leave the military.  Obama’s central responsibility as president—which is true of all presidents—is to protect the United States and the American people against our enemies.  It is not, as Obama stated, to put the millions who have lost their jobs back to work.  This is the task of private enterprise, not any “big brother” government.

International terrorism and other very real national security concerns still loom, which might produce flashpoints at any time. We have enemies who seek to destroy us—a fact that seems to escape Obama[6], and is sometimes forgotten by many Americans as 9/11 recedes in our memories. While it might be attractive for the president and the Democrats to take a “meat ax” to the Defense Department, it would be foolhardy to gut our military precisely when it has been performing magnificently and its continued strength is needed most.

America’s economic and military strength go hand in hand. Both are indispensable ingredients of our great nation’s future strength.  Obama is naïve and out of touch with reality—almost as much as Joe Biden, which is scary.  He spoke of “record deficits,” but failed to mention that he created them; and he is pandering to the American people (aka his far-Left constituency) in the hopes that the approaching political “blood bath” in November’s elections will not materialize.

At best, it is wishful thinking, devoid of attachments to reality, because a political tsunami is building that may engulf Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and their minions.  America and other nations are in uncharted waters; and their politicians may face backlashes from disillusioned and angry constituents that are unprecedented in modern times.

The facts are that we are in the midst of the “Great Depression II,” and there is nothing that Obama can do about it, except to make things worse.  It will run its course, probably toward the end of this decade—although it has been suggested that it might take a generation.  Between now and then, the carnage in America and worldwide will be mind-boggling.[7]

Also, Obama is caught in the “tar” of his Afghan war.[8] Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has noted that the full complement of additional troops ordered to Afghanistan by the president is only now arriving.[9] However, when President Obama announced the deployment of an additional 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan, he said the U.S. would begin pulling out by July of 2011—just before his reelection campaign might begin in earnest, which is a recipe for defeat.

It is a political decision, and tantamount to conceding the country to our enemies sometime next year.  Obama is apt to be a one-term president who is unable to run for reelection, like Lyndon Johnson in 1968.  No amount of flowery rhetoric or contrived puffery by the president will change these facts.

Throw in the Tea Party movement, as well as a majority of Americans who support the wholesale repeal of ObamaCare—and other crises to come—and the president is engaged in “Mission Impossible,” or certainly close to it.  He can give all of the speeches he wants, until the cows come home, but they are unlikely to make any appreciable difference.  His goose is cooked, and the following observation may prove to be prophetic:

Jimmy Carter may be heading to #2 on the [list of] all-time worst presidents in American history, thanks to “O.”[10]

This may be an understatement.  If our “victory” in Iraq is lost, Obama will be blamed.  If we “lose” in Afghanistan, Obama will be blamed.  If America’s economy does not return to robust health—which it will not during the balance of his presidency—he will be blamed.  The bloom is off the rose of his presidency.  It is long gone.  If November is a disaster for the Democrats and Obama, he may be perceived as a lame-duck president in short order.  Among other things, Hillary and Bill Clinton and their minions (e.g., James Carville) may be “gunning” for him.

What will be clear, crystal clear, is that Obama was the wrong man for the presidency.  He had feet of clay, which he and his handlers hid from the American people—before he was elected.  He was a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who will be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history.  His naïveté was matched by his overarching narcissism; and he was more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter.  In the final analysis, his presidency is likely to be considered a sad watershed in history.

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele

[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass), the first black senator since Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War.  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates (  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years.  See, e.g.,

[2] See Obama, “Dreams from My Father” (paperback “Revised Edition,” published by Three Rivers Press, 2004), p. 93; see also pp. 120, 270;

[3] See, e.g.,

[4] See, e.g.

[5] See

[6] See, e.g.

[7] See; see also and and’s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/

[8] See; see also

[9] See

[10] See



15 responses

1 09 2010
Smilin' Jack

He said it himself….”junkie,” but you said it better…”again ?” I’ll bet I would be right by saying …”still”! Don’t forget he said he “tried” cocaine….here we go again with that same old “is”……depends on what “is” means, from the old Clinton days.

Keep up with the excellent information, and perspective you give us in your blog, for without guys like you we would be “saluting” this “Chicago like gangster” president and his mob, fearful of his threats and reprisals.


1 09 2010
Frankie Pintdo

I’m not really a fan of Obama’s economic beliefs and policies, but I think you’re overlooking some critical facts here about the situation that we are in. Maybe added a couple facts too, like : “He spoke of ‘record deficits,’ but failed to mention that he created them”.

There is a lot of good stuff here but I feel that statements like that 1. Detract from the credibility of the article, and 2. Do not aid in persuading me that your accusations are valid. I’m not saying they’re not valid, It’s just hard to swallow that type of statement. So ‘m prompted to debate a few points here.

About those record deficits, did we not see the sharpest rise in our national deficit when we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan almost simultaneously? And why again did we attack Iraq? Because George W. Bush administration claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction and they had intentions of using them against the U.S., as I recall.

Now, I’m sure you’re familiar with something called “The Cold War” when Russia had nuclear weapons and threatened to use them against us many times. Why did we not then invade Russia in a “preemptive strategy.” I’ll tell you why: Because they had weapons of mass destruction. That creates a stalemate. Why haven’t we invade North Korea which is well documented as having an illegal nuclear weapons program and threatening to use it? Why not Iran?

“Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.” G.W. Bush

Yes this is likely true, but it is not consistent with our policies toward other countries. Was this not also true of North Korea at the time? When did our foreign policies change so that we are supposed to attack any country that is a threat to us? My point is that this has never been our policy and isn’t now, or we’d have started a nuclear war by now. Our government had to know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction or we would not have attacked them. And our government would not have tried so hard to make it seem like Iraq and the 9/11 attacks were somehow connected.

The economy was in trouble because of the most expensive lie in American history… And that’s not the only reason why it was in trouble.

The bailouts are a terrible idea. A communist policy, if you will. To take away from the productive and give to the needy, that’s communism. And I hate that Obama supported, and still supports it. But those bailouts were put in motion during the Bush Administration!!! Too bad we didn’t get that “change” we were promised.

America has behaved like a kindergarten class. There are two extreme opinions on how things should be handled. Bush wanted a dictatorship, but could never convince the class that he should be king. So he offered them money. “A $500 check from Uncle Sam if I’m elected.” He offered them “protection” much as a medieval king would have, and spoke a lot about how much fear we should be living in without him. We tried with Bush, and that failed miserably, like his previous business ventures. We came out broke, owing more money to China and involved in two wars and still looking for Osama Bin Laden, and taking large cuts to our education budget. And while you may not have been so disenchanted with Bush, the majority of the country was. No president has ever seen lower approval ratings. This president really wanted total control and wasn’t listening to the American people. We, as a majority were so disenchanted, that we were willing to consider options that we would not have otherwise considered. Which is why there was a better chance than ever that we were going to have the first female/black/name rhymes with Osama president. “Anything must be better than this.” Bush’s failures and abuse of trust made it possible for someone like Obama or (God forbid) Hillary to be elected.

Now let’s examine the other half of the Kindergarten classroom. Obama is the extreme opposite of Bush in many ways. He is charismatic, “smooth” if you will. He can say the word “nuclear”. He can be persuasive. He can really sell himself. His business ventures have been somewhat successful. He knows what to say to sell his policies. I’ve heard it said that his administration is “always running for office.” This administration is like Santa Claus. Give everybody everything they want. “There will be candy for lunch in this kindergarten class, just elect us.” Unlike Bush, he doesn’t promise to give you the candy, or even tell you where it’s going to come from. So some of ask “who’s buying the candy?” Some of us just take it and shove it in our mouths. “What do you want? I’ll give it to you.” That’s the magic of Santa Claus, I mean Obama. He is a Marxist, but he is not a dictator. He actually said in one of his early speeches “we need to get away from this ‘selfishness as a virtue’ mentality.” Which was a direct shot at Ayn Rand’s writings on capitalism and the evil’s of Marxism. I could give lots more supporting evidence that he is, in fact, a communist but I doubt that you will need much convincing.

So to me we went from having a Gotti President to having a Ghandi president, and the classroom is still a mess. I don’t think Obama will be re-elected. But I also think it would be a huge mistake for either party to choose another extremist as their presidential nominee. I won’t vote for another Bush (Palin). And I won’t vote for another Obama. Someone who is willing to make some compromises and unify this country and the policies of both sides. Someone who truly represents this country as a whole, and isn’t after some radical agenda.

In other words, I think old Jimmy Carter should be bumped down to third place.

As always I enjoy reading your blog and look forward to your response.


1 09 2010

Thank you, Frankie, for your articulate and thoughtful comments as always.

First, my articles are intended to be provocative. I want to elicit “soul searching” and challenges, and stimulate discussions and debates. This is what the blog is all about, and America is too. Many of your comments reflect my own views; others do not. This is great; no two people are exactly alike, or agree on everything. Healthy, positive debates are the “spice of life.” 🙂

Second, I am an Independent, and have been for about 20 years. I began as a Democrat, and then was a Republican (my parents’ party), and finally I decided that I was not comfortable with either party. Independents represent about 35 percent of American voters today, and they swing elections. They swung the last election to Obama and the Democrats, and it seems they will swing November’s elections back to the Republicans.

Some day, perhaps in the not-too-distant future, there may be an Independent elected to the presidency, which will be historic. However, most importantly, it will reflect the fact that a growing number of Americans are not enamored with either political party. On some issues, I am conservative. On other issues, I am liberal. On still other issues, I am a moderate. Most Americans are that way.

Third, with respect to “record deficits,” they have spiraled almost out of control under Obama. Yes, deficits were present under George W. Bush and other presidents, and two wars under Bush aggravated them, but Obama broke new ground and achieved new levels of government spending and deficits. Just do a Google search of articles on the subject, and you will find that this is true.

Fourth, I was against the war in Iraq, because I believed Saddam had WMDs that would be used against our military forces. After all, he had used them against Iran and the Kurds, so there was every reason to believe that he would use them again. American and foreign intelligence agencies believed that he had them. I worked in intelligence at the Pentagon, and have no reason to believe that they were lying.

The fact appears to be, in hindsight, that his generals were lying to him, and afraid to tell him that his weapons programs were a failure. My guess is that many books will be written about this single issue in the years to come. It is fascinating; and one of the great miscalculations in history. Lots of smart people got duped, and believed that he had the weapons and would not hesitate to use them. Obviously the consequences for our military might have been disastrous, which is why they trained with special chemical suits and the like.

Next, you ask why we didn’t invade Russia or North Korea, but we did so in Iraq instead? The answer is—or so I believe—that we could. It is as simple as that. Russia is a vast country that defeated Napoleon and Hitler, who were bogged down in brutal Russian winters. We fought North Korea before, to a standstill. Iraq was ours for the taking. Also, we were doing it to protect Israel, which is an often-obscured motive in the whole debate. The hue and cry now about “defanging” Iran springs from similar origins.

As you will recall, our military strategy in Iraq was brilliant. We were in Baghdad within days; and when Bush landed on the carrier and announced “Mission Accomplished,” many or most of us believed it. Who would have ever though that insurgent violence would become what it did. Who would have ever thought that al Qaeda had the presence in Iraq that it did, until it was rooted out.

Was there a connection between 9/11 and Iraq? I do not believe so; however, there was certainly a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. We spent ages trying to defeat them in Iraq, and essentially did. They are presently a minor factor in the country, and a minor factor along the Afghan-Pakistan border region too. There, we are fighting the Taliban, which is different than al Qaeda.

Fifth, with respect to the bailouts, I agree with you. I do not believe either GM or Chrysler should have been bailed out. Also, I do not believe Bush would have done it. Obama is beholden to the unions (e.g., UAW), and they benefited most from the bailouts. They elected him, in no small part.

Sixth, with respect to the popularity of Bush versus Obama, the fact is that recent polls are showing them tied, or Bush slightly ahead. I believe history will be kind to Bush in the years to come. Today’s Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that 41 percent of American voters Strongly Disapprove of the way that Obama is performing his role as president, while only 29 percent Strongly Approve, giving Obama a negative Presidential Approval Index rating of -12. I believe this will get worse, perhaps much worse.


Seventh, as my article above states, I believe Hillary and Bill and James Carville are “salivating” at Obama’s fall from Mount Olympus, and that they will step in and challenge him as 2012 approaches. It might be a replay of 2008, this time with Obama losing the nomination.

Eighth, I believe that a growing number of Americans do not relate to Obama, and feel he is an elitist and “out of touch.” His vacations (e.g., with elites on Martha’s Vineyard), and Michelle’s trip to Spain where she was labeled as “Marie Antoinette” all contribute to this perception. It is not a good one for a politician, and it is very tough if not impossible to shake once it occurs.

Lastly, I respectfully disagree that Jimmy Carter—whom I actually like, but did not vote for—will end up in third place. Second place after Obama, but not third place. 🙂

Thanks again, Frankie.


1 09 2010
Frankie Pintdo

Wow. That’s why I like your blog.

I too am a Democrat, turned Republican, turned Independent.

I agree that the Republicans are a good bet next election, but I really hope they pick a better nominee than Palin.

I am aware of Obama’s deficits and think his economic policies (even the ones that were passed) will have disastrous results. I just wanted to mention that the guy before him didn’t help.

With respect to the bailouts, I think Bush was doing it and Obama took the wheel and put the pedal down. But it’s really all speculation, and is not of much concern to me.

I am both fascinated and confused about the reasons for invading Iraq, which brings my to another issue I had with the Bush administration: opaqueness. So many conspiracy theories are created when there is a lack of FACTS available.

And on the final point, regarding vacations, I also agree that that image is very hard to shake. Bush also suffered a lot of criticism for his escapades at the ranch. I can’t be sure if this is myth or fact, but I remember hearing that he had spent less time in the White House than any other president in history since it was built.

Obama loves unions. They fight for the people (who can’t fend for themselves). Like Marxists. And, they are in need, so quick go help them.

I’m not going to check your stats on Obama’s approval. I can easily believe you. But, that just supports my theory that they both pretty much lost their audience with the American people.


1 09 2010
Frankie Pintdo

Oh and it just strikes me as so weird that Obama’s oppositon likes to try to convince people that he is a Muslim or a pothead, when it would be so much easier to convince people that he is a communist. But it’s just another example of extreme politics putting people’s religion before their policies.

Oh and I did not make clear that I totally agree that we are no where near ready to pull troops out of such unstable territory. What has been done has been done and we need to take care of the problems, whether we created them or not. Nor do I think it is an appropriate military strategy to announce a date that we plan to leave completely. I’m sure there are some bad people who marked that date on their calender. I have the most sympathy for the people in Iraq who supported a free nation, and whom we would be tossing back to the wolves.


1 09 2010

Thanks again, Frankie.

First, as to his use of illegal drugs, please read his book, “Dreams from My Father,” which is cited above. I have given the page numbers in a footnote. He is forthright enough to admit it; and my opening quote was taken from his book. At Occidental College in Los Angeles, and Columbia University in New York City, he was a “pothead” or worse, by his own admissions. It is all there in print.

Second, I neglected to challenge your statement: “His business ventures have been somewhat successful.” In fact, he has no business experience at all. As stated in an earlier article of mine, which discusses his book in great detail, the only business experience that he had at all involved working as a research assistant at a consulting house to multinational corporations, where he recalled feeling like “a spy behind enemy lines.”


In fact, he has not been successful at anything other than writing, speaking, campaigning, politics and getting elected—being a professional politician. For example, his book evidences few significant accomplishments as a “community organizer.”

Third, I discussed his religious beliefs, or lack of them, in the article cited immediately above. Specifically, I wrote:

What is perhaps most striking is that he never expounds on any religious beliefs or spirituality, much less a belief in God. However, the book spans so much of his life—and his formative years—and deals with almost every other subject imaginable that one could think or write about. Perhaps the closest he comes to dealing with the subject may be reflected in the following comments: “I remained a reluctant skeptic, doubtful of my own motives, wary of expedient conversion, having too many quarrels with God to accept a salvation too easily won.” Also, when he and his Kenyan half-sister Auma are on a safari, he listens to their Kikuyu driver sing a hymn at night while Obama is walking back to his tent, and he writes: “I felt I understood Francis’s plaintive song, imagining it transmitting upward, through the clear black night, directly to God.” One is left to wonder about his beliefs, and whether his attendance at churches in subsequent years may be for political reasons, and calculated, which is true of many politicians.

Nothing has changed my views on that subject. However, I must emphasize that religious beliefs are very personal; and thank God this great nation and its Constitution recognize and embrace freedom of religion.

Finally, I agree with your last paragraph completely. Well said. 🙂


1 09 2010
Frankie Pintdo

I have not yet read your other article so I apologize if you have already refuted any of the following.

Obama’s use of illicit drugs in his youth proves to me that he grew up in America, and experienced different walks of life. I frankly don’t care if he was headed down the wrong path at some point in his life and I respect the fact that he didn’t give some lame excuse or claim that he “didn’t inhale” or some other rubbish. He’s of the baby boomer generation, and an immigrant family, middle class. This is realistic and not very shocking to me. If he is to represent the majority of Americans, well unfortunately the shoe fits in this case. I noticed people talked much less about Obama’s statement than Bill Clinton’s on this issue.

I don’t think the drugs he did in his twenties are steering his policies today (though I see how one might consider that notion). It may have helped with his creative writing though :-). I’m just not worried about it. If he was some kind of recurring meth head or something he wouldn’t have come this far. Whether I like him or not, that is clear to me.

And you know what, I did give Obama a little too much credit there about business. But I still consider his book deals a lot better than Bush’s stadium deal, or anything else he did while working for Harken. Neither one has much to brag about there. Have you ever read about Rumsfeld’s involvement in “Nutrasweet” being FDA approved? Now there’s a shrewd businessman and a pretty interesting topic of discussion.

Obama obviously has an “addictive personality” and still uses nicotine, as far as I know. But again, that is not jaw-dropping news to the boomer generation. I mean how many presidents do you think have gotten intoxicated (drunk) in the oval office itself? I may be opening another debate here, but getting drunk in the White House is using a drug, and a very powerful drug at that. It’s just socially acceptable across a wide span of cultural backgrounds and generations, probably because yeast is in the air and that makes it the hardest substance in the world to control.

The research assistant position is, again of little concern, perhaps because of his “Smoothness” in coming forth and denouncing himself before anyone had the chance to point a finger. He must have studied Lincoln. He wasn’t really in charge of anything here, which doesn’t say anything for his business record, but shifts any blame for unscrupulous actions to his employers, to a degree. He’s clever and, you are absolutely correct when you say that he is professional politician.

I believe in God, but I do not go to church. I am good friends with a local priest and occasionally seek his counsel and try to support his church in other ways. I believe that people’s relationships with God can only be determined by their actions in life. As much as I disagree with this Obama on most political issues, I would not go so far as to call him evil, yet. I simply do not care if someone tells me that they are close to God; why should I believe them? My grandfather liked an old nautical saying that I will always remember: “The empty vessel makes the greatest sound.”

I feel much more comfortable with someone who is reserved about their spirituality than with someone who is a religious zealot.
I liked Bush’s Christian values. I even like a lot of things that he said about God. I just don’t think that someone who represents so much diversity politically, is wise to essentially share their personal religious experiences in political forums. They are wise be guided by them, but not to preach about them. Politics must be explained in terms of logic, regardless of religious influence. Logic follows ethics, and ethics go hand in hand with God. Political battles can quickly become religious battles, and for those there are rarely peaceful solutions.


1 09 2010

Well said, Frankie; and your grandfather was a wise man. 🙂

The title of this article—involving the implication of Obama’s pot smoking now—is “tongue-in-cheek” and again, intended to be provocative. While he apparently smokes cigarettes, I believe his illegal-drug-using days are behind him. However, one never knows for certain about a president until many years after he leaves the office, when the true facts come out and he is no longer “packaged” by his handlers (e.g., in the case of John F. Kennedy).


1 09 2010
Frankie Pintdo

Yeah I guess I knew that, but I’m always looking for a good discussion. And you successfully got one out of me. Thank you I needed that.


1 09 2010
Frankie Pintdo

So I was re-reading this and I have a question.

Do you think that people in this country are so backwards that accusing the president of having communist views would have less negative impact than accusing him of being a Muslim or an Atheist, or someone who used drugs?

I don’t even really want to answer that question. My answer is pretty scary, and a good argument for investing in educating our country. What do you think?


1 09 2010

Again, thank you, Frankie.

After the attacks of 9/11, and other attacks (e.g., on the USS Cole in Yemen), and two wars in the region, Americans are very sensitized to problems with the Arab world. This is among the reasons why the New York City mosque issue resonates across the country. Those reasons plus his education in Indonesia and his middle name fan flames of bigotry and Islamophobia, even among America’s elites.


1 09 2010
Frankie Pintdo

So I just read an article about the public opinion of Bush being on the rise, and the next article was that Obama met with Bush regarding Iraq. He is doing that Lincoln thing again. I gotta give it to him, he’s always right on top of these things. In my eyes this is a pretty meaningless political move, but it does support your prediction about Bush. We’ll see how far that goes though.


2 09 2010

“Obama Is Not A Muslim”

This is the title of Ann Coulter’s provocative new article about Barack Obama. I am not particularly a “fan” of Coulter, but enjoy and respect her opinions and writing, which are generally outspoken (as intended) and “suffer fools lightly.” 🙂



3 09 2010

Gates Is At Odds With Obama

The Wall Street Journal is reporting:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he envisions two or three more years of combat operations in Afghanistan before the U.S. transitions to an advisory role, a mission likely to last years more.

. . .

President Barack Obama announced a surge of 30,000 U.S. troops in December 2009, bringing the current American force to about 100,000 today. But Mr. Obama has pledged to begin drawing down the surge troops in July. The timeline outlined by Mr. Gates Friday appeared to be an attempt to set expectations that combat will continue in Afghanistan, without making it appear that he supports an endless war.


Gates’ remarks—which seem responsible and realistic—are at odds with the drivel from our “Community-Organizer-In-Chief.” He is on his way to Camp David for his next vacation, and is running for the hills from both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Unfortunately, Gates is apparently stepping down as Secretary of Defense next year. God only knows who Obama will appoint to the job as the elections of 2012 approach, and he tries desperately to appease and hold on to his anti-war, far-Left political base, which may be his only supporters remaining at that time.

. . .

Gates’ generally-positive and guardedly-optimistic assessment has reminded one of Washington’s foreign policy and national security “sages” of Dr. Émile Coué’s method of psychotherapy and self-improvement based on optimistic autosuggestion.

See, e.g,Émile_Coué (“Every day, in every way, I’m getting better and better”)


4 09 2010

Is Obama A Traitor . . . Who Should Be Removed From—Or Forced To Resign From—The Presidency?

The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer has an important article entitled, “Our distracted commander in chief,” in which he states:

Many have charged that President Obama’s decision to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan 10 months from now is hampering our war effort. But now it’s official. In a stunning statement last week, Marine Corps Commandant James Conway admitted that the July 2011 date is “probably giving our enemy sustenance.”

A remarkably bold charge for an active military officer. It stops just short of suggesting aiding and abetting the enemy. Yet the observation is obvious. . . .

. . .

“Our Afghan policy was focused as much as anything on domestic politics,” an Obama adviser told the New York Times’ Peter Baker. “He would not risk losing the moderate to centrist Democrats in the middle of health insurance reform and he viewed that legislation as the make-or-break legislation for his administration.”

If this is true, then Obama’s military leadership can only be called scandalous.

. . .

Obama sees his wartime duties as a threat to his domestic agenda. These wars are a distraction, unwanted interference with his true vocation—transforming America.

. . .

[He] wants out. Most emphatically from Iraq, where Obama has long made clear that his objective is simply ending combat operations by an arbitrary deadline—despite the fact that a new government has not been formed and all our hard-won success hangs in the balance—in order to address the more paramount concern: keeping a campaign promise. Time to “turn the page” and turn America elsewhere.

. . .

[W]hat follows the now-abolished Global War on Terror[?] Where does America stand on the spreading threats to stability, decency and U.S. interests from the Horn of Africa to the Hindu Kush?

On this, not a word. Instead, Obama made a strange and clumsy segue into a pep talk on the economy. Rebuilding it, he declared, “must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as president.” This in a speech ostensibly about the two wars he is directing. He could not have made more clear where his priorities lie, and how much he sees foreign policy—war policy—as subordinate to his domestic ambitions.

Unfortunately, what for Obama is a distraction is life or death for U.S. troops now on patrol in Kandahar province. Some presidents may not like being wartime leaders. But they don’t get to decide. History does. Obama needs to accept the role. It’s not just the U.S. military, as Baker reports, that is “worried he is not fully invested in the cause.” Our allies, too, are experiencing doubt. And our enemies are drawing sustenance.


Obama must be removed from the presidency—and this November’s elections are the beginning of that process.

. . .

Obama’s approval rating is at 42 percent—56 percent disapprove!

See; see also (Obama’s “Oval Office rug gets history wrong”)


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: