He goes in all limp & comes out fighting . Who remembers the American Jobs Bill Tour ?

Cameron has to go to Parliament . Obama is C in C .& does what he likes because the military belongs to him & him alone .

“… They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.”

For Obama’s campaign opponents, the comments became an illustration of the idea that Obama was too inexperienced to be president — both for having the idea of acting without Pakistan’s permission, and for being green enough to tell people about it. </blockquote"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/flashback-2008-mccain-clinton-slam-obama-for-saying-he-d-go-get-bin-laden-in-pakistan-video

It came up in the debates later. Obama didn't care about Pakistan sovereignty then, nor about our soldiers being taken into their courts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze_pG6Q62HA

And rumors are Jarret was telling Obama not to go get bin Laden, but he finally had to relent, and make that "tough call".

Our military leaders said this sort of thing was possible, if not likely, should we pull all of our troops out before there was a stable government and properly trained army in place. Of course Obama told us those things WERE in place; so much for the wisdom of politicians with no practical experience in the world.

Did we really want to entrust the lives and freedom of American soldiers to a handshake agreement with a highly sectarian president in a country with no deep history of rule of law rather than rule of tyrant? If anything happened to Maliki, including a heart attack, would arrests and prosecutions begin, saying Maliki’s agreement was illegal?

Of course the counter-argument is to say no agreement would be necessary because US troops would go to war to protect their own from Iraq’s government if necessary. But one can see why it was preferable Iraq’s parliament ratify the deal, to ensure everyone’s fingerprints were on it.

But they balked, and so we have the current mess. And in fairness, Obama balked too, and the reports that he didn’t try very hard seem quite correct. But even Hillary who was pushing for troops to stay in some capacity thought the parliament ought to ratify. It’s just that mountains were not exactly moved to achieve that result.

Famous Actor Humiliates Obama With a Single Tweet… It’s Going Viral
August 8, 2014

Rob Lowe
Follow
Waiting to hear POTUS explain the disaster the world has become. Noticed what looks like an extra security barrier below his podium.

http://conservativetribune.com/actor-humiliates-obama-tweet/#!

They are not very original, and rarely have a new thought. They just stick with the old lies.

BREAKING! August 9th 2014

Leaked Democrat Memo Discusses How To Use Tragedies To Push Gun Control

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/leaked-democrat-memo-discusses-how-to-use-tragedies-to-push-gun-control/#UWDybOVWkiBw85sf.99

1) Lie your way in.
2) Lie your way out.

Yeeeup. PRETEND to give a damn when forced to that extremity.

Funny thing is, Pres. ScamWOW has been VERY strong on CERTAIN foreign policy.

He intervened in Honduras when their dictator was…well…getting dictatorial.

He made sure Brazil had U.S. money for development of its oil resources, while shutting down the Gulf.

He had no problem with the U.S. and NATO being the “Libyan rebel air force” when Qa-Daffy was a WHOLE lot nicer and less piratical than ISIS.

And he has NO problem leaning on Israel.

Odd…

Obama said the troops would not have been protected from prosecution, so he had no choice but to leave. He of course claims any other argument is bogus. Rove claims a simple agreement from the president is more standard, even though parliament is legally required. Apparently Obama cares about the Iraq constitution more than ours.

“Graham told the story of his personal role in the negotiations during the draw down of U.S. forces in Iraq. He said when he and Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) were in Iraq, Malik agreed to a “follow up force” being left in theater and it was the Obama administration’s intentional refusal to give the Iraqis a solid troop number that destroyed the deal.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/06/17/Senator-Graham-Obama-Administration-Lying-About-Iraq-Status-of-Forces-Agreement

Bush got parliament approval, but that vote was no longer going to pass. But now we have some boots on the ground, so something changed.

“We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast. The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/23/obama-does-a-u-turn-on-immunity-for-u-s-troops-in-iraq.html

If we can do pin pricks now, we could have done a major air assault on ISIS months ago, as they were exposed on the roads. We need to release the dogs of war, instead of being so restrictive and cautious on every engagement. Genocide of Christians IS occurring as Obama golfs, and Iraq could not get extradition of our pilots from the carriers. (though with Obama, who knows)

The easiest explanation is that Obama’s loyalty is to the Muslim Brotherhood first. That put his Christian killing tyrant in charge of Egypt, gets Kerry giving good deals to Hamas versus Israel, allowed the black flags to fly over Libya as ambassador Stevens was murdered, and pits Obama against Maliki.