Barack Obama’s denialism puts us in greater jeopardy

By 42 Comments 2,047 views

obama-negotiate-taliban

Barack Obama is a liar. That we know- it’s a given. All of his statements have an expiration date and whatever he says, the opposite is true (DrJohn’s Law).

As his lies pile up, the ramifications are becoming dangerous to the US, especially with regard to foreign policy.

Yesterday the White House asserted that the Taliban was not a terrorist group.

The White House today said that the Taliban is not a terror group, but rather an “armed insurgency.”

Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz responded to a question about whether Jordan’s plan to make a prisoner trade with ISIS was similar to the U.S. swapping five Taliban members for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

First, Schultz said that the U.S. doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. Then he said, “I don’t think that the Taliban … the Taliban is an armed insurgency.”

To which Charles Krauthammer said:

“It slits throats, it attacks buses, it drives car bombs into markets, and it’s not a terrorist group. Look, you can’t parody this administration.”

Today it is reported that the Taliban killed three American contractors in a terrorist attack:

The Taliban have claimed responsibility for an attack at a military base at Kabul’s international airport that killed three Americans and one Afghan Thursday.

A U.S. official confirmed that the shooting occurred at about 6:40 p.m. local time Thursday. There was no further comment because the incident was under investigation.

The Taliban’s claim of responsibility came in a message from spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, who identified the attacker as a man named Hessanulla from Laghman province, just east of Kabul.

Mujahid said that the militant had infiltrated the ranks of Afghanistan’s forces to stage the attack and wore an Afghan police uniform. An Afghan official with the country’s Defense Ministry said the attacker was in an Afghan army uniform. According to The Washington Post, Mujahid added in a tweet that the terrorist had “opened fire on invaders” before he was “martyred by return fire.” It was not immediately clear if the Afghan confirmed dead was the gunman.

Despite the Obama administration’s denial that the Taliban is a terrorist group White House press Secretary Josh Earnest said the Taliban does “carry out tactics that are akin to terrorism, they do pursue terror attacks in an effort to try to advance their agenda.”

So according to Obama the Taliban is an “armed insurgency” that commits terrorist attacks but they’re not a terrorist organization. Got that?

Why the tap dancing? For a very important reason. Obama claims he won’t negotiate with terrorists, but he traded what Gen. Tom McInerney called “five four star generals” for one sergeant. Obama traded five terrorists for one deserter. Obama won’t call the Taliban a terrorist organization because it would be an embarrassment- a dent to his ego. And that is just not permissible.

This morning on Fox and Friends Dana Perino said that these idiotic conflicting statements come not from the press secretaries, but from the President himself.

By the way, one of the Taliban terrorists Obama released is seeking to return to jihad. But you can take comfort that although he might kill Americans in a method “akin” to terrorism, he isn’t a terrorist according to Obama.

This nonsensical parsing of nomenclature is asinine and Obama’s ego leaves us more vulnerable than ever.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

42 Responses to “Barack Obama’s denialism puts us in greater jeopardy”

  1. 1

    Common Sense

    President Obola has really lost all vision of who is our enemies and who are our allies!! He slaps Israel in the face and caudles Iran and the Taliban!! Treason comes to mind!!

  2. 2

    John

    Obama’s approval rating is three times that of the GOP controlled Congress
    The occupation of Afghanistan was a stupid idea and you just can’t fix stupid
    It currently costs about 1 million a year to put a pair of boots in Afghanistan
    Most people in Afghanistan would rather have the Taliban than the corrupt government we keep in power
    Anybody who thinks the USA should do more in Afghanistan is welcome to head on over and show us a better way
    Or not.
    The Taliban are rightwing radical religious fundamentalists who believe everyone should live according to their centuries old holy book

  3. 3

    Common Sense

    @John: Who gives a rat about Obama’s ratings vs Congress?? President Obola should NOT be negotiating with the Taliban!! May I remind you that the Dumbocrats and Slimy Harry have been in Control of the Senate until America rejected them and Obola’s losing policies in the last election cycle. Obola buys ratings by illegally granting amnesty to illegals!! Talk about can’t fix stupid!! The CBO just indicated that Obolacare will cost taxpayers billions when Obola told America it would not cost anything!m! He also told America that if you like your doctor and or Health Insurance you can keep them “period”. Yes stupid people did vote for this liar but now they realize what a loser he is!!

  4. 4

    Nanny

    We could see a video of how Obama’s ”friends” get along with one another, much less us.
    Watch it and realize, when Obama said, after the drubbing in this last election, that he spoke for all those Americans who did NOT vote, he actually believes he can speak for such a disparate group!
    But that’s what they are; a disparate group, brought together only for a time for an imagined purpose.
    In reality they can’t begin to get along with one another, much less press ”an agenda.”
    This video happens to be of some of those in Ferguson who thought they could create a police review board.
    They became so rowdy and then violent with one another that the police had to be called (rich irony, there!) to bring a semblance of order to the meeting place.
    Incredibly filthy language alert:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422579428&feature=player_embedded&v=r9_xCR-Zs9U&x-yt-cl=85114404

    But that video represents how ”terrorists” like al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezb’allah, etc., all get along with one another, too.
    In other words, they don’t.
    In ISIS people come from different places only to become cannon fodder for an organization that doesn’t want them at all. A Russian actor, husband and father of two just was used as a human bomb by ISIS after he went to help ISIS. French converts try to leave ISIS when their iPods run out of charge, UK converts try to leave ISIS because they can’t quit smoking.
    None of these people would even want to be in the same room together IF they sat down and talked.
    ISIS could be defeated by better communication of what their goals and means to those goals are.
    Leave it to Obama to allow the mystery of not knowing those things to perpetrate in the place of truth.
    Obama is part of the problem, as are his compliant lapdogs among the media.

  5. 5

    John

    Lol
    4 star generals ??? No wonder we failed the Taliban have so many mire 4 star generals than we do
    Actually these guys were mud to high level bureaucrats b the Taliban government
    Any armed networks they had are long gone
    But at least one has tried to reestablish ties to the Haaquani gang who please remember were the group that received most if the billions Reagan sent to fight the Russians

  6. 7

    Nanny

    Just a couple of days ago Obama organized a meeting between his top State Department officials and Egypt’s (out of power) Muslim Brotherhood.

    Just days after a delegation that included two top Brotherhood leaders was hosted at the State Department, the organization released an official statement calling on its supporters to “prepare” for jihad, according to an independent translation of the statement first posted on Tuesday.
    The actual quote: “It is incumbent upon everyone to be aware that we are in the process of a new phase, where we summon what is latent in our strength, where we recall the meanings of jihad and prepare ourselves, our wives, our sons, our daughters, and whoever marched on our path to a long, uncompromising jihad, and during this stage we ask for martyrdom.”

    Below the Arabic-language statement are crossed swords and the word, PREPARE!
    Then the Muslim Brotherhood attacked Egyptian civilians in the Sanai killing 25 people.

    All of the enemies the US has ever had look at Obama and see a WEAK HORSE (to quote Osama bin Laden) and they all realize this may change in 2 years after our next president takes office.
    They are all, even Russia and China and North Korea, on top of all these Islamists making hay while the sun shines.

  7. 9

    mike191

    Nanny , thank you for your post. The analysis of the Ferguson leaders to that of the “terrorists” factions was spot on.
    During the French Revolution, Danton remarked he could feel the will of the Community in his soul when issuing orders from the Committee of Public Safety. Alas, our Republic has been saddled with a modern day Danton and a cabal with only hate and misery to guide their collective actions.

  8. 11

    Nanny

    @mike191: OMG, I had not thought of Georges Danton in YEARS!
    But the parallel is uncanny.
    Danton made tons of money during the French Revolution and had no real explanation for it.
    According to most historians he made all that money by skimming, bribery and blackmail.
    None of it was proved.
    His ”trial” by the revolutionary tribunal was a pretaste of what that kangaroo court in Ferguson would do IF given any power, no witnesses in his defense then off with his head!

  9. 12

    Common Sense

    @Mully: I agree for the most part. Greggie always has a run to mommy argument when he gets totally pummeled by the truth he suddenly changes his approach and blames Bush and/or the Republicans!!

  10. 14

    Senior Citizen

    @Common Sense: No, Obama has not lost sight of who our enemies are. It is just that our enemies are not his enemies. That is obvious by the way he keetoes to OUR enemies and offends OUR friends.

  11. 15

    Nanny

    Jordan, long considered our modern and moderate ally, just doubled down on Middle Ages bloodthirsty with ISIS.
    IF ISIS cannot prove the Jordanian pilot is still alive, or IF proof is brought out that he’s dead, THEN Jordan will summarily execute ALL ISIS captives inside Jordan!

  12. 16

    Ronald J. Ward

    @DrJohn

    :Congressional approval ratings mean absolutely nothing. Not so for Presidential approval.

    Umkay, so what precisely does the recent huge spike in the Obama’s approval rating mean?

  13. 18

    retire05

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    Umkay, so what precisely does the recent huge spike in the Obama’s approval rating mean?

    Umkay, so his approval rating of today at 45.9% from his lowest point of 40% on December 6, 2013 is a recent huge spike? It took him over a year to climb five points, and he is still underwater and has been since June 10, 2013. Perhaps he should go on vacation more often, on the taxpayer’s dime, of course, as his poll numbers seem to go up when he is not in the news.

  14. 19

    John

    Anyone who thinks that the Taliban has anything like a unified command section probably also thinks that it was a great idea to occupy Afghanistan
    As for being drunk or stoned
    Nope at work delivering motorcycles in San Diego

  15. 20

    retire05

    As for being drunk or stoned
    Nope at work delivering motorcycles in San Diego

    Just what the world needs. Political opinion from the delivery boy.

  16. 22

    Randy

    @John: Gosh, if everyone thinks like you, then the JV team (ISIS) is not taking over parts of Iraq and Syria. No organization was “organized enough to take out the World Trade center. Only a bunch of people out for a walk one night decided to kill the US Ambassador in Benghazi. The USS Cole was attacked by surfers and the Ukraine was attacked by space invaders.

  17. 23

    Greg

    Terrorism is a tactic. An insurgency is an uprising against established authority.

    While the Taliban and ISIS have both been responsible for acts of terror, there’s an obvious difference between the two. Terrorism defines ISIS. It’s central to every move they make. They’re actively trying to spread their psychotic behavior internationally.

    Such distinctions matter, assuming you want a government that responds to various threats in the most appropriate and effective fashion.

  18. 24

    Bill

    Today it is reported that the Taliban killed three American contractors in a terrorist attack:

    It is not beyond the realm of possibility that this attack was launched solely to embarrass this embarrassing administration, launching a terror attack just after this administration declared them un-terrorists.

    @John: @Ronald J. Ward: So, there are those that are quite happy with the erosion of US prestige and influence, as well as national security, so long as Mr. President can wrangle popularity out of it? There’s some patriots for ya.

    @John:

    4 star generals ??? No wonder we failed the Taliban have so many mire 4 star generals than we do

    No, we failed because people who care nothing about America but only about their free goodies America gives them elected someone that intentionally allows the radical Islamists to flourish. We had succeeded, under a dedicated American, but failed under an anti-American racist.

    Obama appears to be accelerating his efforts to ruin American power and influence.

    @Greg: Gee, if only we could Webster’s a victory in the war on terror. However, as Obama proves (and his silly minions confirm) just changing the definitions of terms and declaring a war won isn’t very effective… unless the goal is to prove, beyond any doubt, how stupid you are.

  19. 25

    Greg

    @Bill, #24:

    Hey, it’s the right that’s playing political games with semantics. It’s f-ing FOX News that’s spinning the reply of a White House deputy press secretary into one of their treasured gotcha moments.

    In fact, the prisoner exchange with the Taliban to get an American soldier back is not the equivalent of giving into the demands of a terrorist organization such as ISIS. Only on Planet FOX are the two things equal, and there only for so long as it is convenient to their agenda.

  20. 27

    DrJohn

    author

    @Greg:

    Hey, it’s the right that’s playing political games with semantics. It’s f-ing FOX News that’s spinning the reply of a White House deputy press secretary into one of their treasured gotcha moments.

    The blather spit out by Earnest and Schultz comes straight from Obama, who still will not call the Taliban attack that killed three American contractors “terrorism.” Calling it an attack using “terrorist tactics” is simply idiotic.

  21. 28

    Mully

    @Ronald J. Ward:
    Lower gas prices. That is the reason for his approval uptick. Which he took credit for a the sotu address. However truth be told he prefers much higher gas prices.
    About the polls, from the 1990s in which a majority of Democrats favored repealing the Public Affairs Act of 1975 because Bill Clinton was said to recommended repeal, with the punch line being that there is no such thing as the Public Affairs Act of 1975. It was a contrivance of pollsters to check on public ignorance.

  22. 29

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Hey, it’s the right that’s playing political games with semantics. It’s f-ing FOX News that’s spinning the reply of a White House deputy press secretary into one of their treasured gotcha moments.

    FOX is playing games with semantics? How about Sgt Schults (I know NOTTINK!!) stuttering and stammering, doing all he can to follow his orders and not call the Taliban “terrorists”. Why? Because the administration is looking to them to dump more GITMO terror prisoners and, of course, we don’t negotiate with terrorists. So, the solution, to the purely political, ideological, dishonest, corrupt mind, is to simply redefine the Taliban as just a bunch of guys shooting guns at people.

    I wasn’t aware the left did not utilize the “gotcha”. I know you come onto the FA website; did you not see the story about Politico inventing their “gotcha” of Huckabee? How about how the left fabricated the “gotcha” of Romney stating the fact that 47% of Americans are on the benefit train? The left has no problem inventing one where one does not exist, so why do you have such heartache with using the ACTUAL, REAL WORDS to demonstrate the stupid position this administration has just taken up?

    No, trading five hardened terrorists for one deserter is not equivalent to giving into ISIS demands because no demand to trade Bergdahl had ever been made. The administration sought it out in order to solve a liberal problem that has no intelligent solution. I say a liberal problem because keeping terrorist prisoners at GITMO is not a real problem, only a liberal problem because they have created a false issue about GITMO and have no solution for it.

    However, dealing with the Taliban is the same as dealing with ISIS because they are both terrorist organizations. I give you points for trying, Greg, but you can see that the finest liberal minds in America cannot make logical sense of this administration’s positions which it likes to change to fit what it wants to do at any given moment; how do you think you can better explain it?

  23. 30

    Greg

    @Bill, #29:

    However, dealing with the Taliban is the same as dealing with ISIS because they are both terrorist organizations.

    So, you think it makes sense to deal with both organizations identically because they can arguably be placed in the same general category?

    This simply makes no sense. They are not the same, either in their objectives or in their tactics. You’ve got to understand the differences between them if you want to respond to each effectively. The Obama administration makes such a distinction.

    That’s not a concern of FOX News, of course. FOX News is concerned with political propaganda.

  24. 31

    Bill

    @Greg:

    So, you think it makes sense to deal with both organizations identically because they can arguably be placed in the same general category?

    Now you are actively trying to avoid the actual question. Do we negotiate with terrorist organizations and terrorists or do we not? We have had a policy of NOT dealing with terrorists and Obama cannot simply redefine what a terrorist is just because he has his own perverted reasons for wanting to deal with a terrorist organization.

  25. 32

    Common Sense

    @Greg: And you can keep your Health Insurance and/or Doctor “period” eh Greggie?? It will cost less to!! It’s called Radical Islam Terrorism Greggie, like it or NOT doesn’t matter it is what it is!!

  26. 33

    Greg

    We sometimes negotiate prisoner exchanges with enemies that are capable of rational negotiations. There’s a long history of that.

    By the way, a history pop quiz: Which administration agreed to sell missiles to Iran in order to facilitate the release of U.S. hostages? If you’re interested in the answer, you’ll have to do a Google search. It shouldn’t be hard. Just enter the words missiles and hostages.

  27. 34

    Ditto

    Greg just want’s to set up typical leftist expanding degrees argument, (this time on terrorism,) so he can argue on the Obama side that ISIS are bigger Terrorists with a capital “T”, but the Taliban are terrorists with a little “t”. He will likely then claim that since the Taliban are only “terrorist lite”, that the WH can rightfully redefine them as something other than terrorists.

    Greg is practicing leftist semantic weaseling to try to make the “evil bad persons” Obama is friendly to, seem maybe, not so bad, compared to this worse fellow. Its bull crap A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of the scale. Just as a cold blooded murderer who kills one person is still a murderer, as is a serial murderer who kills many a few at a time, and as is a mass murderer who kills many at a time.

  28. 35

    Bill

    @Greg:

    By the way, a history pop quiz: Which administration agreed to sell missiles to Iran in order to facilitate the release of U.S. hostages?

    Reagan. Now, just like Reagan agreed to go along with amnesty in hopes the Democrats would honor their word and secure the border, what have we learned from dealing with the fundamentalist Islamic Iranians and expecting them to become a partner in world issues?

    Another quiz: Of the three selections below, which are designated “terrorist organizations”?

    1. Iran

    2. ISIS

    3. Taliban

    That’s RIGHT!! Iran was not a terrorist organization, while the Taliban and ISIS ARE!!

  29. 36

    Greg

    I guess it’s OK to make distinctions when it’s useful to do so.

    The the sale of arms to Iran was forbidden by embargo. Even the sale of items that were not specifically military but could conceivably be used as such—dual-purpose products—was banned. The Reagan administration itself formally declared Iran to be a State Sponsor of International Terrorism.

    In spite of which the Reagan administration secretly sold some 1,500 offensive missiles—both anti-tank and anti-aircraft varieties—to the Iranians, and then used the proceeds of the sales to secretly funnel arms to Nicaraguan counter-revolutionaries. Providing arms to the Contras was also an illegal operation.

    How would the right react if Obama did anything that even remotely approached that level of Executive Office wrongdoing? You people are going nuts just because he exchanged prisoners to get a captive U.S. armed forces member back. The number of releases Obama has made doesn’t even begin to approach the number made by his immediate successor. Nor does the the number that have subsequently turned back up on the battlefield.

    Selective memory. I think that’s one term that applies here. Another is double standard.

  30. 37

    Bill

    @Greg: If you would bother to recall, once the arms for hostages deal was revealed, it was resoundingly and bipartisanly assailed. In addition, there were investigations and hearings. In the end, Reagan took personal responsibility for the entire episode.

    Obama has yet to take responsibility for anything he has done, caused or caused to fail.

    How would the right react if Obama did anything that even remotely approached that level of Executive Office wrongdoing?

    You mean like violating law and ignoring the responsibility to notify Congress before releasing 5 hardened terrorist leaders? Or coordinating a massive (yet stupid) lie to cover for the ineptitude and negligence that got a foreign station sacked and four Americans, including an Ambassador, murdered… on the anniversary of 9/11? Or using executive privilege to cover for his DOJ bungling an ill-advised scheme to give Mexican drug cartels thousands of weapons? Or unilaterally granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants? Those kinds of violations? Obama is such a poor, poor put upon choir boy, isn’t he?

    And who is it, today, that shuns our allies and favors Iran? Hmmm?

  31. 38

    Greg

    @Bill, #37:

    You mean like violating law and ignoring the responsibility to notify Congress before releasing 5 hardened terrorist leaders?

    Section 1035(d) of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act is not in compliance with the Constitution. The Legislative Branch cannot restrict the Constitutional authority of the Executive Branch simply by including a restrictive paragraph in an Annual Defense Authorization Act. The thought that they have suddenly acquired such power by presuming to exercise it is totally ridiculous. As Commander in Chief, a President has full authority to release a prisoner held under military jurisdiction.

    The Government Accounting Office is not empowered to made a judgement about the Constitutionality of a statute. If somebody wants to take issue with what Obama did, they’ll have to put the issue before a court. Until they do, and until they get a formal judgement supporting their contention, they’re just flapping their lips as they do with any number of other ridiculous claims of Executive Office wrongdoing—none of which have been proven to date, and not for want of trying.

    This whole line of argument is ludicrous, given the unthinking acceptance of the Bush administration’s prolonged demonstration of Unitary Executive Theory. The people advancing it must have memories that function about as well as that of a gnat—unless, of course, their sole purpose in doing so is nothing more than pushing out another propaganda talking point, and the word “consistency” is totally absent from their vocabulary.

  32. 39

    Common Sense

    @Greg: Greggie, sense you like asking which President I will do the same. Which President ran his second term asking Americans if they where better off now that they where four years ago. Then that same President carried 49 ot of 50 states in that election. Second question, which President ran on a platform on healthcare by promising that if you like your current insurance and/or doctor you can keep them “period”? Secondly which President historically lost the House in one election cycle and then the Senate during another because that same platform was a lie and cost his Party control of the Legislature?? No hints, you know the answer but do you have the guts to admit it??

  33. 41

    Nanny

    Obama is like the King in The Princess Bride when he tells her he will have ALL of the ships from his kingdom in the harbor for their wedding.
    She corrects him, all but the four you sent to look for my true love.
    He agrees, OOPS, little mistake but it gave away the game: he never sent even one ship because he had Wesley in chains.

    Obama said this to “Today” anchor Savannah Guthrie with regard our fight against ISIS: “anything that we could be doing, Savannah, we are doing.”
    That was the day before we learned the Jordanian pilot had been executed.
    Now Obama says this regarding our fight with ISIS:
    We will “redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of a global coalition.”

    OK.

    Which is it?

    You cannot ”redouble” efforts IF you are already doing EVERYTHING possible!
    Obama is a liar.
    He is making it more difficult for Jordan to fight ISIS.
    He has already caused one nation in the coalition (UAE) to back out of helping fight ISIS from the air.
    He is just like that king in The Princess Bride.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *