Tough guy obama draws a(nother) red line with Russia

Loading

obama-red-line

 

In an interview with NPR Obama put on his serious face and declared “We need to take action” in response to alleged Russian hacking:

President Obama vowed that the United States will “take action” in response to Russia’s believed interference in the presidential election.

“I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action and we will — at a time and place of our own choosing,” Obama said in an interview with NPR set to air in full on Friday.

“Some of it may be explicit and publicized, some of it may not be,” Obama added.

More tough talk from obama. Another red line. One wonders why he didn’t hold this interview on the fake news site The Daily Show. obama has long known about the Russians trying to hack the US.

The first news about the most recent attempts came in June.

Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.

The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC’s system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.

The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available.

By October the obama regime was ready to identify the assailant:

The Obama administration on Friday officially accused Russia of attempting to interfere in the 2016 elections, including by hacking the computers of the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations.

The denunciation, made by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security, came as pressure was growing from within the administration and some lawmakers to publicly name Moscow and hold it accountable for actions apparently aimed at sowing discord around the election.

And in October obama was weighing a “proportional response”:

“The president has talked before about the significant capabilities that the U.S. government has to both defend our systems in the United States but also carry out offensive operations in other countries,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, told reporters traveling with Mr. Obama on Air Force One to Greensboro, where he was holding a town hall-style meeting with students and campaigning for Hillary Clinton.

“There are a range of responses that are available to the president, and he will consider a response that is proportional,” Mr. Earnest said.

Thus realistically obama has known about this since at least June and has done nothing about it. This isn’t the first time the Russians have mischievous by a long shot. In 2014 the Russians took down the White House computer system for weeks:

REMEMBER WHEN THE RUSSIANS HACKED THE WHITE HOUSE’S COMPUTERS?
You probably don’t. We broke the story on Power Line in October 2014, writing about it here, here, here, here, here and here. The White House’s computers were down for weeks because of the intrusion by a “foreign power,” which the administration finally identified as Russia. It wasn’t just the White House, either; it was the entire Executive Office of the President, which comprises a good chunk of the executive branch. Nor was that all: the State Department’s computer system was hacked, too.

While we pounded away at the story, the White House refused to respond to our inquiries. The Washington press corps, which must have known that the White House’s computers were out of action, maintained a discreet silence, declining to write about the Russian hack, even though many D.C. reporters no doubt followed the story on Power Line. Why the coy silence? Because it was October 2014, weeks before the midterm elections, and the story reflected poorly on the Obama administration, which didn’t even discover the intrusion itself. It turned out that American officials were alerted to the Russian hack of the White House and State Department by an unidentified ally (I’m guessing Israel).

What was the response? We know now it was nothing. Apparently it was more of that obama being flexible for Putin thing. Why didn’t obama act? The cover story is that he didn’t want to seem to influence the election:

The Obama administration didn’t respond more forcefully to Russian hacking before the presidential election because they didn’t want to appear to be interfering in the election and they thought that Hillary Clinton was going to win and a potential cyber war with Russia wasn’t worth it, multiple high-level government officials told NBC News.

They thought she was going to win- THAT is the key part. The rest is bullsh*t. But now that she lost they need another chip to throw on the pile of “why hillary lost” excuses hoping that one of them will be a winner.

Attempts to hack the US one way or another are nothing new. obama had knowledge of the Russian attempts at mischief for at least seven months and chose to do nothing because he, like the legacy media, could not imagine that Trump could ever win. obama has always been risk averse internationally and it has lead to a diminished US stature overseas as he is constantly seen as being bullied successfully. He could not be more of an Iranian dupe than he is now.

Now obama rattles his golf club with sternness. Putin is no doubt less shaken than is his vodka martini. If obama didn’t take seriously the compromising of White House computers, this is not going make him lose any sleep either.

As you read about the Russians “hacking” the US election, keep a couple of things in mind. One, there has been no proof of Russian involvement offered as yet. Two, the CIA, which already has lied to Congress, is at odds with the FBI and the ODNI about the concreteness of the so-called evidence. Three, the CIA has refused to come and brief Congress. Four, the CIA has cooked intel about ISIS. Five, CIA Director John Brennan has a history of lying to Congress.

Then we have the problem of stupidity. democrats want to go to war with Russia,  but it wasn’t hacking that got Podesta’s emails. It was Podesta himself handing over his password willingly. Someone went phishing and they caught a flounder. No amount of cyber security or war will fix that.

obama is in idle now. The only thing he is concerning himself with at this moment is how many rounds he’ll get in in his last taxpayer Hawaiian extravaganza.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
31 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The obama is a paper tiger.

He is the last person on earth anyone with a brain would want to go to war with. He is the laughing stock of the globe.

Don’t worry. In less than 40 days your favorite Reality Television host will be installed in the White House. This was a very smart move—at least on the part of Vladimir Putin, who also has a popular Reality Television network that’s now available through all major U.S. cable carriers.

Why get your news from the leftist mainstream media when the truth is only one click away? Last night I was informed by RT that the people of Aleppo were dancing in the streets in celebration of their liberation by the forces of Assad, with a big assist from Russia’s air force. Meanwhile, on CNN, some republican tool was claiming this is all Obama’s fault, for failing to impose and enforce a no fly zone as any smart republican would have done, while some old fool on FOX News surrounded by the requisite number of smiling bimbos proclaimed there had been no hacking of voting machines—completely misrepresenting the nature of the Russian manipulation for an audience of morons.

Interesting that Russia hacked WH and Obama Admin computers for WEEKS w/o any response from Obama.
Compared to that, anyone (Russia or whoever) hacking (or leaking) from the DNC is peanuts.
Obama sent some of his best people (along with $350,000 taxpayer cash) to illegally try to influence Israel’s last election.
No comment?
Where’s the equivalence?
Where’s the admission of Obama’s own slimy influence on how foreign powers act on other countries’ elections?

Anyway, Obama couldn’t put up an iota of proof that Russia was involved.
And Julian Assange, who received the DNC info, said it came from an internal leaker, not a foreign hacker.
So, it’s all window dressing.

First the left tried to reverse the election by claiming that Hillary should be POTUS because she won the popular vote (the legally cast popular vote is open to debate) demonstrating how constitutionally illiterate they are. When that failed, they tried some bogus recount. That failed miserably as well. Now, without any evidence, they are telling us the Russians stole the election. They have called it a “form of warfare” and an “attack”. Time for them to put up or shut up. McCaskill, or one of the other accusers, need to present the indisputable evidence accompanied by a Declaration of War against Russia and it needs to happen before Obama leaves the WH. It’s kind of like their mamade global warming claims. Where is the funding request to begin evacuating our coastal areas to save the people from their impending doom?

Aside from debating whether or not the Russians actually hacked anything (I say investigate it fully, for if they did we should know), I am wondering what the actual effect was? What did the hacking do?

Most of us saw many of the hacked and released emails, from the DNC and Podesta, but the Democrat Force Field shielded most from any of that information. Did they hack voting machines? How? What did they influence or alter?

That’s not an argument; it is a request for information. HOW did they affect the election?

Putin’s a better man then Obama while putin rides horses and motorcycles obama rides a stupid bicycle while wearing pee pot helmet

Russian hacking FU prove it or STFU. Proof not whining losers repeating a lie, of course the GA state election board has proof of multiple hacks from our own DHS.
Who in their right mind watches and believes cable or PBS news anymore?

During Obama’s News Conference he admitted that Not a Single Vote was changed because of the info coming out of the DNC.
Who murdered Seth Rich?
3 bullets in the back but wallet, jewelry and cash left on him.
Also where is the CEO of the Clinton Foundation?
Eric Braverman is completely missing.
No proof he’s dead or alive.
Is all the “Russia hacked…” simply a diversion from that investigation?

Either man could have been the source of the DNC leak.

the CIA, which already has lied to Congress

DrJ, not a doubt that Obama has consistently lied for 8 years, and Brennan who has somehow been inside the CIA and is now running it, even though having actually supported/voted for a communist in the ’70s, will always pull the party line of his bosses Obama and Jarrett, . . . and he cannot be relied on.

@Nanny G: #3
Nanny G., and Obama sent his political operatives North of the 49th in the last Canadian national election to affect the election, in support of the Marxist Trudeau who’s as dumb as a rock, and never held a full time job.

Obama/Jarrett know no shame and yet look at the sycophants who have bought into the socialist/Marxist playbook.

@Greg: Uh… haven’t you given up yet? It was entertaining for awhile, but now you just look retarded.

Blah blah Russians rape Fox racist blah blah.

Go away.

@Nathan Blue:

It is like an unheard of comedian who bursts onto the scene. At first the shtick is new but after awhile the shtick does not change and no one listens anymore….

@Nathan Blue: Greg is on his 3rd case of Kleenex. Good thing his computer posts are not on paper, we would not be able to read them because of the tears. Do we read incomprehensive post?

@Nathan Blue: #11 just now? Our pet troll has if anything been consistent. What would we do without our adorable lil troll, become a twitter echo chamber with approved opinions only, sit here and agree with each other. We should begin a go fund me to cover the costs of our trolls tissues if he is listening to Moochelle the USA has no hope without the Obamas, they just shiver and sniffle in the basement curled up rocking back and forth, or throw a temper tantrum and destroy property.

why does the cia, fbi, doj and the terrorist pres always blame the Russians? it is of convenience, and simple for idiots. if one will recall, the best hacker is the North Koreans-super stars. weapons of mass destruction in the gulf war was a cia fake intelligence propaganda illustration.

Just finished watching the memorial service for Col. John Glenn—a hero for the ages—watching his story and the eulogies I was truly moved. SEMPER FI COLONEL You served your country well
Then came Trump on his “victory tour”—felt sickened–turned off the T.V. and had a beer.

@Rich Wheeler: Please just go to bed and spare us the theatrics.

The world is teetering on the brink of a level of chaos we haven’t seen since the Second World War. One only needs to look to see that.

Russian Ambassador to Turkey Is Assassinated in Ankara

I fear the complexities of the situation are far and away beyond the coming administration’s capacity for understanding, and for carefully measured responses. I don’t see any signs that Trump even grasps the degree of complexity that exists. Nor do his supporters. They’ve never really understood the complexity of what the Obama administration has generally been successfully holding in check, focusing entirely on the fact that he has never managed to checkmate it entirely and finally. They think there’s some obvious final winning move that he has missed, or has seen but neglected to take. Of course, it’s never explained what that winning move might be. That would be giving away the secret.

An unhappy revelation is coming for those who truly believe that claim: there is no such move. There is only a long-term approach—some variation on the checking strategy Obama has been trying to follow—with many opportunities for miscalculations along the way that could quickly make things far, far worse.

@Greg: Obama CREATED this mess. Obama’s genius creates ISIS, introduced the Russians into the Syrian situation and gave them the blank check. The mess Obama created has caused the flood of terrorist-infused refugees around the world; see the event in Berlin today.

Trump will select better diplomats than Obama did; exceeding Obama’s performance will be the easiest task in the world.

You’re replacing a captain who has successfully navigated very difficult and dangerous international waters with a man who, geopolitically speaking, doesn’t know his butt from a barn door. He’s so utterly devoid of relevant experience that he doesn’t even understand what terms like “success” and “failure” mean in such a context. His supporters obviously don’t get it either. Failure is when you’re sucked into a cataclysmic regional ground war that spreads over the entire Middle East and then expands into Europe, ultimately leaving all of Eastern Europe under Russian control; it’s when you wind up in a trade war with China that puts the U.S. economy into a tailspin, and then begets an actual war with China.

It will be interesting to see what bounces around the right wing echo chamber once everything is safely in the hands of President Trumper and a republican-controlled House and Senate. The opportunities for blame-shifting are going to be dramatically reduced. Most likely you’ll have to focus almost entirely on the imagined prevarications of the “left wing mainstream media,” which will drive you crazy with genuinely relevant questions and entirely truthful observations.

Trump will select better diplomats than Obama did; exceeding Obama’s performance will be the easiest task in the world.

Sure he will, as his choice of a right-wing loon for U.S. Ambassador to Israel indicates. David M. Friedman is considered an extremist by most Israelis.

@Greg: Obama is no captain. He was, is and always will be a community organizer. You are correct that Trump better have his A-game on, for Obama has left a horrific foreign and domestic mess for his successor. The only thing that would have made a Hillary victory palatable would have been watching her collapse under the weight of Obama’s legacy of failure.

@Greg: Yes Greg we are. Obama started this by leaving Iraq, starting civil war in Libya and Egypt and drawing a fake line in Syria. Obama was the person who is/was ” man who, geopolitically speaking, doesn’t know his butt from a barn door. He’s so utterly devoid of relevant experience that he doesn’t even understand what terms like “success” and “failure” mean in such a context. His supporters obviously don’t get it either”. Community organizers have no geopolitical experience while business men who have dealings all over the world where they put their lives and fortune at risk do. Have you run out of tissues yet?

Have you run out of tissues yet?

I’ll run out long before you exhaust the right’s supply of native stupidity.

@Greg: You are so pathetic. You can not even provide an original insult!

@Greg:
The trouble with liberals is they know so much that just isn’t so. I’ll also add a companion, they are not aware of what they are not aware.

4 Reasons To Rejoice Over The End Of Obama’s Myth-Based Foreign Policy

President Obama mismanaged two wars, oversaw the collapse of order across the Middle East, and left the United States and the world less safe.

This month President Barack Obama gave a valedictory on his foreign policy at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. It was a perfect synopsis of the myths he wove to justify his foreign policy legacy—a legacy that urgently needs demythologizing. Obama mismanaged two wars, oversaw the collapse of order across the Middle East, and left the United States and the world less safe.

To obscure this reality, Obama’s speech was replete with distortions, oversights, and exaggerations. Here are a few.

1. He Mismanaged the War in Afghanistan

“I believe that the United States military can achieve any mission,” Obama said last week, just a few paragraphs before saying “the United States cannot eliminate the Taliban or end violence in that country,” oblivious to the contradiction. If we can achieve any mission, surely we can defeat a two-bit insurgency.

Obama (and a good portion of columnists and talking heads) have consistently exaggerated the difficulties in Afghanistan to excuse America’s failures there: you can’t blame us if the mission was impossible from the start. Obama said, “War has been a part of life in Afghanistan for over 30 years,” implying it is some sort of natural phenomenon genetically and geographically ingrained in the Afghan people and invincible to the efforts of any human to change.

Whether this is ethnic essentialism or historical determinism, it is a condescending and shallow way to assess the challenges Afghanistan faces, and a dishonest way to excuse lackluster leadership in America’s longest war. Before pessimism about Afghanistan became chic, Senator Obama, then campaigning for president, sounded a much more optimistic and, frankly, presidential note. In July 2008 he said of the war in Afghanistan, “I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.”

Eight years later, The New York Times headlined a story: “Afghan Security Crisis Sets Stage for Terrorists’ Resurgence.” As I have written about extensively elsewhere, Obama’s failure in Afghanistan is a scandal of historic proportions and a major part of the legacy he leaves the world.

2. His Approach to Stability Operations Was Strategically Incoherent

Obama failed in Afghanistan (and Iraq) partly because of a strategic incoherence and a failure to understand the ultimate conditions of victory: stability in the societies that gave rise to jihadism.

In his MacDill speech Obama said, “I have also insisted that it is unwise and unsustainable to ask our military to build nations on the other side of the world, or resolve their internal conflicts,” echoing an increasingly fashionable critique of stability operations.

Obama is speaking from the same script that most politicians have been for the past five years. Everyone from Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to Donald Trump have given voice to the obligatory damnation of “nation building” since the withdrawal of U.S. troops from in Iraq in 2011. The only problem is that this is completely wrongheaded and strategically counterproductive. Someone put the counterargument extremely well:

Any long-term strategy to reduce the threat of terrorism depends on investments that strengthen some of these fragile societies. Our generals, our commanders understand this. This is not charity. It’s fundamental to our national security. A dollar spent on development is worth a lot more than a dollar spent fighting a war… Our military recognizes that these issues of governance and human dignity and development are vital to our security. It’s central to our plans in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Who said this? Surprisingly, it was Obama, in the exact same speech where he said we would not “build nations on the other side of the world.” So which is right? Should be avoid “building nations,” or should we make “investments that strengthen fragile societies” to improve “governance and human dignity”?

Obama was apparently completely unaware of the flagrant contradictions in his rhetoric, a contradiction that suggests an incoherence of strategic thought in his administration. I happen to think he was right to defend the importance of stability operations and wrong to condemn nation-building.

But when it came time to make decisions about budgets and deployments, there was no contradiction. Obama’s Defense Department said back in 2012—when Obama was on the second of his four secretaries of Defense—that “U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations.”

Foreign aid declined from $3.5 billion in 2009 to $2 billion in 2015. Obama eliminated funding for the State Department’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. And, despite Obama’s glowing account of how “We’ve helped Afghan girls go to school. We’ve supported investments in health care and electricity and education,” his administration actually cut civilian assistance to Afghanistan every year since 2010.

By his own logic, Obama underinvested in the long-term strategy necessary to achieve sustainable security and undermine the appeal of jihadism. Maybe that is why both Iraq and Afghanistan are worse off now than they were eight years ago, still in the throes of political violence, state weakness, corruption, and sectarianism.

3. He Contributed to the Collapse of Iraq and the Rise of ISIS

But Afghanistan practically looks like a success next to the unfolding apocalypse in the heart of the Middle East. Here is where Obama went for broke: the central myth of the Obama foreign policy legacy is that the rise of ISIS is Bush’s fault; that the planned withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011 was irrevocable; and that the withdrawal contributed nothing to ISIS’s rise.

Obama said in his speech: “There’s been a debate about ISIL that’s focused on whether a continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq back in 2011 could have stopped the threat of ISIL from growing.” He claimed it was impossible not to withdrawal from Iraq: “And as a practical matter, this was not an option. By 2011, Iraqis wanted our military presence to end, and they were unwilling to sign a new Status of Forces Agreement.”

This is simply false. Even the Obama administration wanted to negotiate some sort of stay-behind force of perhaps 10,000 troops in Iraq after 2011. There were active negotiations throughout 2011 to extend the Status of Forces Agreement. But the Obama administration was unwilling to spend political capital on an unpopular deployment that the president had campaigned against, so when negotiations got difficult he walked away.

But in Obama’s narrative, the withdrawal didn’t hurt Iraq or contribute to the collapse of order and the rise of ISIS over the next few years. “Maintaining American troops in Iraq at the time [2011] could not have reversed the forces that contributed to ISIL’s rise,” Obama said in his speech. Again, keep in mind that the U.S. military can “achieve any mission,”—just not, apparently, ones that Obama finds politically difficult to undertake.

No, according to Obama, a residual presence of U.S. troops could have done nothing to bolster Iraq’s security forces; keep al-Qaida in Iraq on the run; prevent their regrouping and rebranding as the Islamic State; stop them from seizing Fallujah in January 2014 or Mosul in June of the same year; or stop their campaign of genocidal violence against Christians, Yazidis, Shia, and Kurds.

But if U.S. troops could not have done anything in 2011, why has Obama ordered U.S. troops back to Iraq to fight ISIS now? What does Obama think U.S. troops can achieve today that they apparently could not have achieved at considerably less cost with an already existing deployment back in 2011? Obviously our troops can make a difference, and Obama knows it, or he would not have ordered them back to Iraq in 2014.

If Bush’s invasion is to blame for the rise of ISIS, Obama’s withdrawal is even more directly culpable.

But, for that matter, where does Obama think ISIS came from? Here, Obama’s mendacity comes fully to the fore. Explaining his decision to order airstrikes in 2014, Obama explained, “In shaping our response, we refused to repeat some of the mistakes of the 2003 invasion that have helped to give rise to the organization that became ISIL in the first place.” In other words: The invasion of Iraq and bungled occupation set off a chain of events that eventually led, down the line, to the conditions that enabled the rise of ISIS: ergo, blame Bush, not me.

This convenient narrative omits the fact that Obama, not Bush, was in charge and calling the shots during the final few links in that chain of events, the events most proximately involved in the actual rise of ISIS. If Obama is going to use the logic that U.S. actions inadvertently laid the groundwork that ISIS exploited, he should at least be honest about his own role. If Bush’s invasion is to blame for the rise of ISIS, Obama’s withdrawal is even more directly culpable.

Obama’s attempt to shift blame hinges on a blatant double standard: when bad history happens under Bush’s watch, blame Bush. When bad history happens under Obama watch, it can’t be helped and didn’t really hurt anything anyway.

Obama always said the United States should withdraw from Iraq as responsibly as it got into it irresponsibly. On that score, he utterly failed. No U.S. policymaker wanted to enable the rise of a global terrorist army, but here we are. There’s blame enough for everyone.

4. He Declared Mission Accomplished

After all these errors and missteps, Obama nonetheless declared victory in America’s war against jihadists. He said in his speech, “Today, by any measure, core al Qaeda — the organization that hit us on 9/11 — is a shadow of its former self… Its leadership has been decimated. Dozens of terrorist leaders have been killed.”

As for ISIS, it “has lost more than half its territory. ISIL has lost control of major population centers. Its morale is plummeting. Its recruitment is drying up.” He also claimed that “no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland” during his presidency.

By every measure, jihadist groups are more popular, more widespread, and more powerful now than in 2009.

Obama is aiming at goalposts best calculated to ensure he’s already in the end zone. He needs to claim as many touchdowns as possible, so he’s shifting the definition of victory to meet his political needs regardless of strategic considerations. But his criteria of success are largely irrelevant to American security.

Does anyone believe that the decimation of “core al-Qaeda” is a relevant way to measure success when a dozen other jihadist franchises have cropped up in recent years? Does the acreage of land under ISIS control really matter when they can inspire a couple of lunatics to murder 130 civilians in Paris? Does it matter if jihadists are technically “foreign” if they are still able to carry out attacks on the homeland, as they did in Boston, Orlando, Fort Hood, and San Bernardino? Is Obama aware that counting up the number of dead terrorists as a measure of success is startlingly similar to the military’s infamous, and misleading, body counts of dead Vietnamese?

According to a RAND Corporation report, the number of jihadist groups increased by 58 percent since 2010, the number of fighters more than doubled in the same time frame, and attacks increased nearly tenfold since 2008. By every measure, jihadist groups are more popular, more widespread, and more powerful now than in 2009. Because of the collapse of order in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and elsewhere, they have more safe haven and better recruiting grounds. This is not what victory in the war against jihadism looks like.

Obama first declared victory in 2011, when he said the “tide of war is receding.” This comforting analogy suggests war is like the tides: an impersonal force of nature beyond human control. Since the tide is going out, we can safely ignore it without fear of repercussions. The metaphor is wrong and deceptive. War is a human activity and thus responds to human decisions. As Trotsky famously said “You may not be interested in war, but war may be interested in you.”

That serves nicely as the epitaph of the Obama presidency. Obama was plainly not interested in war, but jihadists around the world remained interested in attacking the United States, regardless of what the American president believed about tides, or terrorism, or much else.

Paul D. Miller teaches public policy at The University of Texas at Austin. He is a research fellow at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He previously served on the National Security Council Staff from 2007 through 2009.

@Greg: Poor Greggie having a hard time dealing with reality I see!!

You might as well get it all out while you can. Your obsession with the evils of Obama and Clinton are soon going to be topically obsolete.

@Greg:

the evils of Obama and Clinton are soon going to be topically obsolete.

We will be dealing with the foreign and domestic policy failures of obama/clinton for generations to come. The extent of the damage inflicted upon this country are of a magnitude not seen before. The democrats with obama have done serious damage much will perhaps not be known.

The latest snub on Israel demonstrate how much of an anti semite the obama and the democrats are.

I am embarrassed of how this administration has treated our most important ME ally. It is disgraceful.

@Greg: They have both left a gigantic stain on our government and nation. It will take a while and a lot of effort to repair the damage done to race relations, the economy, the justice system, foreign policy and trust in government Obama and Hillary wrought.