David Sanger and William Broad, "Iran’s Nuclear Stockpile Grows, Complicating Negotiations": Does Obama Suffer From Dementia?

In a New York Times article entitled "Iran’s Nuclear Stockpile Grows, Complicating Negotiations," David E. Sanger and William J. Broad begin by informing us:

"With only one month left before a deadline to complete a nuclear deal with Iran, international inspectors have reported that Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations, partially undercutting the Obama administration’s contention that the Iranian program had been 'frozen' during that period.

But Western officials and experts cannot quite figure out why."

Yup, the Iranian nuclear weapons development program has purportedly been frozen, and the West purportedly has effective monitoring capabilities in place, but Western officials and experts cannot comprehend why Iranian stockpiles of nuclear fuel are growing? Apparently, Arnold, my 4-year-old Anatolian shepherd, is smarter than all of these officials and experts.

Sanger and Broad go on to say:

"The extent to which Iran’s stockpile has increased was documented in a report issued Friday by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations organization that monitors compliance with nuclear treaties. The agency’s inspectors, who have had almost daily access to most of Iran’s nuclear production facilities, reported finding no evidence that Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon, and said Tehran had halted work on facilities that could have given it bomb-making capabilities."

Not to worry: The feverish work toward bomb-making capabilities will come only after the sanctions are lifted and Iran is given its $50 billion bonus for signing an agreement with the P5+1.

More mendacity from Obama? Do you remember how Obama reassured Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that the US "won’t take any options off the table, including military action" to ensure that Khamenei does not obtain atomic weapons? Well, yesterday, in an interview with Israel's Channel 2 News, Obama removed the military option from the table. Who would have ever imagined?

You see, the forthcoming deal with Iran is all part of Obama's legacy. As reported today by The Times of Israel in an article entitled "Obama, musing on legacy, hopes he’ll be remembered ‘fondly’" by Jim Kuhnhenn, Obama, who has studiously avoided use of the L-word, let his guard down in a discussion with "young Southeast Asian leaders":

"Asked how he would want the world to remember him, he replied grinning, 'Fondly, I hope.'

At first he seemed ready to demur on the broader question, saying, 'I have a lot of work still to do before I start looking backward.'

But then he plunged forward. 'Obviously there are things that I’ve been proud of,' he said.

He first cited the economic crisis he faced upon assuming office in 2009. 'It was hard, but we ended up avoiding a terrible depression,' he said. And he credited US leadership, in part, for helping avoid a worse international economic crisis.

'That’s an important legacy for me,' he said.

He highlighted 'the work that I’ve done to provide health insurance' as one that was in line with his major governing principles.

But his most detailed view of his legacy was on foreign policy, arguing that the US has seen a reversal in its international standing. 'Today, the US is the most respected country on earth,' he said."

"Today, the US is the most respected country on earth"? Who told this to the president? Valerie Jarrett?

Okay, we've known for some time that Obama has a severe narcissistic personality disorder, but does he also suffer from dementia?

New York Times Editorial, "A Problem Beyond Mr. Hagel": Et Tu, Brute?

As reported by Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News in an article entitled "'Greatest Privilege of My Life': Chuck Hagel Resigns as Defense Secretary," the Obama administration has already begun to snipe at outgoing US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. As reported by the article, an anonymous "senior official" declared that Hagel "wasn’t up to the job." Well, as pointed out on numerous occasions in this blog, Hagel certainly wasn't one of the brighter lights in the Obama administration (I'm being kind), but this should have been apparent to anyone witnessing his confirmation hearings. On the other hand, Hagel faithfully carried out Obama's policy of implementing military budget cuts at a time when the US was facing heightened challenges from ISIS in the Middle East.

However, proven wrong in his assessment of the threat posed by ISIS (a "JV squad"), Obama, a narcissist, could not possibly acknowledge his mistake, and a scapegoat for this failure, i.e. Hagel, needed to be found.

Today, in an editorial entitled "A Problem Beyond Mr. Hagel," The New York Times actually suggests that Hagel is not responsible for the failure of US military policy over the past two years. Remarkably, the Times appears to lay the blame on Obama:

"[Hagel] was not the core of the Obama administration’s military problem. That lies with the president and a national security policy that has too often been incoherent and shifting at a time of mounting international challenges, especially in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

. . . .

Mr. Hagel was not well served by the fact that national security policy is tightly controlled by the White House, with Mr. Obama relying on a small group of aides, including Susan Rice, the national security adviser, for counsel. That process has often resulted in delayed and contradictory signals about Mr. Obama’s foreign policy agenda and the military strategies needed to carry it out.

. . . .

A more aggressive defense secretary who has Mr. Obama’s full confidence and ear may be able to better deal with chaos and war on these fronts. But, ultimately, it is Mr. Obama who will have to set the course with a more coherent strategy."

Ouch. Et tu, Brute?

Obama, the Procrastinator-in-Chief, "will have to set the course with a more coherent strategy"? When? Between rounds of golf?

Or will this new strategy be prepared by Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes and Valerie Jarrett? Not likely. "Senior officials" in the Obama administration are too busy undercutting those perceived as the president's enemies and former faithful servants, who, it is feared, could write additional uncomplimentary memoirs.

Maureen Dowd, "The Golf Address": Foley and Ferguson, Consecutive Double Bogeys

Bravo, Maureen.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Golf Address," a parody on Lincoln's Gettysberg Address, Dowd takes Obama to task for spending so much time on the Martha's Vineyard links, at a time when the country and the world are awash in crisis. Dowd begins:

"FORE! Score? And seven trillion rounds ago, our forecaddies brought forth on this continent a new playground, conceived by Robert Trent Jones, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal when it comes to spending as much time on the links as possible — even when it seems totally inappropriate, like moments after making a solemn statement condemning the grisly murder of a 40-year-old American journalist beheaded by ISIL."

Cute. Or not so cute for anyone who has seen the picture of James Foley's decapitated body.

But let's be honest: Is there anyone naive enough to believe that Obama really gives a damn about Foley? Obama suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder. He doesn't care about the feelings of others.

And even if he had cut his vacation short for the sake of optics, what would it have accomplished? If he had spent a day "brainstorming" with Valerie "the Night Stalker" Jarrett,  John "I didn't inject Botox" Kerry, and Chuck "Chowderhead" Hagel, might this foursome have emerged with a game plan? Not a chance.

But as long as we're on the subject on ISIL, you should be asking yourself how it came to pass that America's president recently approved an $11 billion arms deal with Qatar, the world's premier financier of terror, who make the Saudis appear like choirboys. The US will soon be supplying Qatar with 500 Javelin anti-tank missiles, which, I promise you, will soon find their way into the hands of ISIL, the al-Nusra Front, and Hamas.

Am I just growing grouchy with age, or has the world truly taken a turn for the worse?

Obama, Iran and the Evolution Of US Paper Tiger Diplomacy

Obama cheerleader David Ignatius has written another obsequious Washington Post opinion piece entitled "To reach Iran deal, secret diplomacy that worked" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-secret-diplomacy-that-worked/2013/11/25/5e2acdce-55f0-11e3-ba82-16ed03681809_story.html?hpid=z3), in which he praises "fearless leader" for his secret negotiations with Khamenei in Oman, which ultimately led to the agreement in Geneva. Ignatius writes:

"Obama began by authorizing carefully concealed meetings back in March, through Oman, the most opaque and discreet nation in the Persian Gulf. The president sent as his personal emissaries two low-key, quintessentially gray men, Bill Burns and Jake Sullivan, the deputy secretary of state and vice presidential adviser, respectively.

. . . .

It was a classic magic trick: While the eye was distracted by the show of the P5+1 talks, the real work was done elsewhere — and presented to the foreign ministers of Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany in Geneva two weeks ago almost as a fait accompli."

Indeed, Obama's deal with Khamenei in Oman, which failed to proscribe completion of Iran's heavy water reactor in Arak intended to produce sufficient plutonium for two atomic bombs each year (no mention of this by a prevaricating Ignatius), was indeed presented to America's P5+1 partners as a "fait accompli." Ignatius would have us know that France and Israel were "miffed" by this backroom deal, but were it not for French and Israeli objections, Obama would have handed Iran an atomic bomb on a silver platter.

In his opinion piece, Ignatius goes on to say:

"Iran and Syria illustrate the immense leverage the United States still has when it uses its diplomatic tools wisely and stealthily.

. . . .

Could the Iranians pocket the modest $7 billion they will receive in sanctions relief and then press ahead in six months toward bomb-making capability? That’s certainly possible. But they would make such a breakout with more chance of a U.S. military strike than before."

This, of course, is pure horse manure on the part of Ignatius. Syria illustrates America's "immense leverage"? In fact, it was Putin who enabled Obama to climb down from his tree and gracelessly abandon the "red line" he had set involving use by the Assad regime of chemical weapons against civilians.

"But they would make such a breakout with more chance of a U.S. military strike than before"? Oh really? In a blatant barb directed against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Obama stated yesterday in San Francisco:

"We cannot rule out peaceful solutions to the world’s problems. We cannot commit ourselves to an endless cycle of conflict. And tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it’s not the right thing for our security."

And so, Obama may have disastrously escalated American involvement in Afghanistan, but he is now signalling - to Assad, Khamenei and the rest of the world - that he is desperate to avoid any threat of conflict.

Obama doesn't care if Iran continues to threaten Israel with annihilation, to arm Hezbollah with tens of thousands of missiles, to send Hezbollah troops together with Republican Guard advisers to Syria to prop up the murderous Assad regime, and to commit barbarous acts of terror around the globe. He also doesn't care if Iran hangs homosexuals, stones to death women, murders Baha'is, oppresses Kurds, tyrannizes Sunnis and Christians, shuts down newspapers, and locks up opposition politicians in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison. After all, this know-it-all community organizer needed to reach an agreement, no matter what the price, which could be deemed part of his legacy.

But how are we to coax Iran back into the civilized world if not by means of diplomacy? This was the theme of Obama's cheerleader at The New York Times, Thomas Friedman, in his most recent op-ed entitled "Oh, Brother! Big Brother Is Back" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/friedman-oh-brother-big-brother-is-back.html), in which he likened Obama's deal with Khamenei to a "bet on evolutionary change." Of course, there was no mention by Friedman of the murder and torture by Iran of homosexuals, women, Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis and Christians.

Evolution? In fact, it is the US under Obama which is evolving into a paper tiger.

Similarly, in his most recent New York Times op-ed entitled "Israel's Iran Dilemma" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/opinion/cohen-israels-iran-dilemma.html?_r=0),  Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen tells us that "Obama and Kerry are ready to entertain Iran’s rehabilitation." Cohen is also careful not to mention the murder and torture by Iran of homosexuals, women, Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis and Christians."

Iran's rehabilitation"? In fact, it's more like giving a "get out of jail free" card to an international serial killer.

It is now being reported that the agreement with Iran bears the personal imprimatur of Obama, a man with no negotiating experience or knowledge of the Middle East (see: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Iran-nuclear-deal-bears-Obamas-personal-stamp-333035). Yes, I know, Valerie Jarrett advised him on this issue.

May God have mercy on all of us.

The Times of Israel, "Geneva Talks a Facade, US-Iran Worked Secretly on Deal for Past Year": True or False?

As reported by The Times of Israel in an article entitled ‘Geneva talks a facade, US-Iran worked secretly on deal for past year’ (http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-and-us-held-secret-talks-for-over-a-year/) by Stuart Winer, senior Israeli officials are saying that Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett has been leading secret negotiations with the Khamenei regime concerning Iran's nuclear weapons development program. The article states:

"According to [Israeli television] Channel 10, the secret channel marginalized [American Secretary of State] Kerry, and was overseen by the president. The idea had been for Kerry merely to fly to Geneva, as he did last Friday, to sign a deal in which he had been a bit player."

The article further tells us that "White House spokesman Bernadette Meehan was quoted by [the Israeli newspaper] Haaretz as saying that the report was 'absolutely, 100 percent false.'"

Okay, true or false, Jarrett, aka the "Night Stalker," has been leading such talks notwithstanding the White House denial?

Bear in mind that in October 2012, The New York Times reported learning from Obama administration officials of the intention to engage in one-on-one negotiations over Iran's nuclear program (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/world/iran-said-ready-to-talk-to-us-about-nuclear-program.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), although Jarrett's name was not mentioned at the time.

A mere suggestion: Yesterday, in a blog entry entitled "Iranian MP: Obama's Threat of Military Action Is Only Intended to Placate Israel" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/iranian-mp-obamas-threat-of-military.html), I observed that Iranian Member of Parliament Ali Motahari, brother-in-law of Ali Larijani, Iran's Chairman of Parliament, recently declared, regarding a US military option (http://www.yjc.ir/en/news/2559/obama-different-from-former-us-presidents-senior-lawmaker):

"After all he has to say something to please Israel, which is not important. The US is stuck between Israel and Iran. He talks to please both sides. It must not be taken seriously."

A different type of president who is seeking only to placate Israel? Kind words from an Iranian MP, linked by marriage to Larijani.

Again, just a mere suggestion. Think about it.

Ed Rogers, "The Insiders: Who’s in charge at The White House? The clear-eyed realists or the delusional Obamaphiles?": Certainly Not Obama Himself

"The Insiders: Who’s in charge at The White House? The clear-eyed realists or the delusional Obamaphiles?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/07/06/the-insiders-whos-in-charge-at-the-white-house-the-clear-eyed-realists-or-the-delusional-obamaphiles/?hpid=z3) was the title of Ed Rogers Washington Post opinion piece on Saturday. Rogers wrote:

"Maybe in the Sunday papers and on the Sunday shows we’ll find out what school of thought has the upper hand in the White House: The group that convinced the president that the implementation of Obamacare was collapsing and that he needed to buy some time to live to fight another day, or the camp that believes in the laughable talking points memo about Valerie Jarrett that was revealed this week in Mark Leibovich’s new book, 'This Town.'  The jaw-dropping, tone-deaf Jarrett memo was not written by a capable Washington suck-up, but by a delusional Obamaphile. It is so starry-eyed and pathetic it will make your toes curl. It is alarming to think that advisers to the president of the United States would actually think that memo was effective guidance for those speaking on the record.

So who is in charge? The clear thinkers who bailed out Obamacare this week or the delusional Obamaphiles who wrote the Jarrett memo? Hopefully by Monday we’ll have a better indication."

Well, here it is Monday, and we still don't know. Nor are we ever apt to know.

All we do know is that the president himself, who learns of events from the newspapers like the rest of us (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/19/obama-irs-targeting_n_3302449.html), is not in charge.

And this would not be a problem were it not for the fact that the economy and the world around us are collapsing.

How about another trip to Tanzania, Mr. President?

Valerie Jarrett Managing Secret US Negotiations With Iran? This Is the End

I was horrified when the Obama administration allowed Catherine Ashton, an imbecile with a BSc degree in sociology and a life-sized Dalek (a fictional race of extraterrestrial mutants from the British science fiction television series "Doctor Who") in her sitting room (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2009/12/catherine-ashton-hideous-baroness-of.html), to manage the P5+1 negotiations with Iran.

I was horrified when the Obama administration appointed Thomas Pickering, once listed as an "expert" by the Campaign for New American Policy on Iran, to "investigate" the Benghazi cover-up (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/10/thomas-pickering-is-heading-benghazi.html).

And now I am horrifed to learn that Valerie Jarrett was given the nod by Obama to conduct secret negotiations with Iran concerning its nuclear weapons development program (see: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4301368,00.html). Jarrett's qualifications? None, other than her intimate friendship with Barack and Michelle.

In the words of The Doors:

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end

Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again

Ross Douthat, "The Mystery of Benghazi": Ask Valerie Jarrett

In his New York Times op-ed entitled "The Mystery of Benghazi" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-mystery-of-benghazi.html), Ross Douthat ponders why the Obama administration persisted in presenting a false narrative concerning the deadly attack on the Benghazi consulate. Douthat writes:

"For days after the attack, as it became clearer that the Benghazi violence was a Qaeda operation rather than a protest, White House officials continued to stress the importance of the 'hateful' and 'disgusting' video, and its supposed role as a catalyst for what Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, insisted was a spontaneous attack.

This narrative was pushed on Sunday morning programs, on late-night talk shows and at news conferences, by everyone from Rice to Hillary Clinton to the president himself. When Obama spoke at the United Nations shortly after the attacks, the video was referenced six times in the text; Al Qaeda was referenced only once."

Douthat cites various theories for the failure of the Obama administration to embrace the truth:

• "[T]his White House can’t resist the urge to appease our enemies."
• "[T] his White House wants to be seen as tough on terrorism, it’s loath to acknowledge the possibility that it doesn’t have Al Qaeda completely on the run."
• This "was Al Qaeda striking in Libya, a country where the Obama White House launched a not-precisely-constitutional military intervention with a not-precisely-clear connection to the national interest."

In fact, the reason for the failure was far simpler than any of the above. This is an administration whose foreign policy has been characterized by procrastination, and in this particular instance, no one in particular assumed responsibility. Re-election for its own sake is the order of the day in the West Wing, and events took their own turn.

You don't believe me? Ask the Night Stalker, Valerie Jarrett, who is busy bucking up Obama, now preoccupied with fine-tuning sound bites for Tuesday concerning his rescue of the auto industry.

No mystery here at all.

Maureen Dowd, "Playing Now: Hail to Us Chiefs": Yup, She's Pissed at the President

Maureen Dowd is perhaps most alluring when vexed.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Playing Now: Hail to Us Chiefs" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/opinion/sunday/dowd-playing-now-hail-to-us-chiefs.html), Dowd bristles at the president's claim that "the election four years ago wasn't about me," and provides a laundry list of grievances involving Obama's first term failures which should now be attributed to those who elected him. Among Dowd's barbs:

• "We never should have let the Congressional Democrats run wild with their stimulus spending on pork that didn’t even create the right kinds of jobs."
• "We should have listened to Joe Biden instead of getting rolled by the generals on Afghanistan."
• "Maybe we relied too much on Valerie Jarrett, a k a the Night Stalker and Keeper of the Essence."

Stimulus spending? She's right. US debt has gone up by more than $5 trillion since Obama took office, and it now stands at over $16 trillion with no end in sight.

And don't tell me Obama saved the auto industry. GM is again facing bankruptcy.

What has Obama's stimulus brought us? As observed by The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-adds-96000-jobs-in-august-unemployment-rate-drops-to-81-percent/2012/09/07/30374bfa-f8e9-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html?hpid=z1):

"The unemployment rate declined in August to 8.1 percent, a drop that occurred largely because 368,000 people left the labor force. The Labor Department counts only those actively seeking a job as unemployed.

The percentage of people older than 16 in the workforce reached its lowest level since 1981, according to the Labor Department. Nearly 70 percent of men were working or looking for a job — the lowest percentage since the government began tracking the statistic in 1948."

The war in Afghanistan? Dowd is right again. Obama can only blame himself for escalating this tragic involvement, which has cost the lives of hundreds of American soldiers at a price of over $8 billion per month.

Valerie Jarrett? I find it terrifying that a person with so few qualifications, other than her ability to find favor with Barack and Michelle (both of whom are also without economic or foreign policy qualifications), has been entrusted with shaping the fate of the free world.

You want to know why Hillary decided to visit East Timor, population one million, rather than attend the convention? Ask Rahm Emanuel and William Daley. Obviously, Hillary is even angrier than Maureen.

[Jarrett is facetiously known as the "Night Stalker" owing to her habit of tailing after Obama on his way back from the West Wing to the White House residence. Yes, it's all about access to the king and the wielding of power. Winter is coming.]

New York Times Editorial, "Words Not Spoken": Indeed, the Democrats No Longer Recognize Israel As America's Strongest Middle East Ally

In an editorial entitled "Words Not Spoken" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/words-not-spoken.html), The New York Times complains that the Democratic Party's platform supports a ban on assault weapons, but Obama "never talks about it on the campaign trail and has done nothing to make it happen."

What a surprise. Were Obama to raise objection to the sale of assault rifles, this could cost him a handful of votes. Those who are familiar with this blog know that I have consistently advocated a ban on the sale of assault rifles.

But what isn't present in the Democratic Party platform this election year?

As observed by CNN, this year's Democratic Party platform no longer calls for recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, as in prior presidential election years, and also does not recognize Israel as America's strongest ally in the Middle East, also as in prior presidential election years. The reason for the absence of this language, according to the Democratic National Committee, is that they are "simply following what the Obama adminstration's policy is."

Charming. How comforting to know that the fate of the free world currently rests in the hands of Valerie Jarrett, David Plouffe and Samantha Power.

New York Times, "The Other Power in the West Wing": Observe Valerie Jarrett's Delusional Perception of US Foreign Policy

In a New York Times article entitled "The Other Power in the West Wing" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/us/politics/valerie-jarrett-is-the-other-power-in-the-west-wing.html?pagewanted=all), Jo Becker writes of Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to President Obama:

"A Chicagoan who helped Mr. Obama navigate his rise through that city’s aggressive politics, Ms. Jarrett came to Washington with no national experience. But her unmatched access to the Obamas has made her a driving force in some of the most significant domestic policy decisions of the president’s first term, her persuasive power only amplified by Mr. Obama’s insular management style.

From the first, her official job has been somewhat vague. But nearly four years on, with Mr. Obama poised to accept his party’s renomination this week, her standing is clear, to her many admirers and detractors alike. 'She is the single most influential person in the Obama White House,' said one former senior White House official, who like many would speak candidly only on condition of anonymity."

Jarrett is a driving force only with respect to "domestic policy decisions"? Consider how in early 2010 Jarrett claimed that "we are going to continue to put pressure on Iran," "we are seeing steady progress in terms of a world coalition that will put that pressure on Iran," and "Iran will back down." Jarrett emphasized that signing of the STAR (Strategic Arms Reduction) Treaty with Moscow would cause Russia to join the coalition which would bring an end to Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

Well, here we are two and a half years later in September 2012, and Obama's attempts to forge such an international coalition have met with devastating failure. As reported by The New York Times on Saturday (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/world/middleeast/iran-criticizes-egypts-mohamed-morsi-over-syria-comments.html):

"The 120-nation Nonaligned Movement handed its host Iran a diplomatic victory on Friday, unanimously decreeing support for the disputed Iranian nuclear energy program and criticizing the American-led attempt to isolate and punish Iran with unilateral economic sanctions."

Russia? Putin has categorically refused to place pressure on Iran and declared this past June (http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/98558-putin-says-iran-has-absolute-right-to-nuclear-energy):

"Russia has always defended the rights of the Iranian nation in all international organizations and considers peaceful use of nuclear energy as the absolute right of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Needless to say, ongoing Russian support of Iran and its ally, Syrian mass murderer Bashar al-Assad, did not prevent Obama from asking Dmitry Medvedev to tell Vladimir Putin, in the American president's infamous open microphone gaffe, that he would have more "flexibility" with respect to European missile defense after the election (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/03/obamas-open-mike-chat-with-medvedev-yes.html).

Bottom line: Although The New York Times and other national newspapers have recently contended that the Republicans are weak on foreign policy, the foreign policy of the Obama administration, overseen, inter alia, by Valerie Jarrett, has proven itself delusional and dangerous.