Skip to comments.President Surrender Monkey’s cunning plan
Posted on 09/27/2009 12:41:44 PM PDT by Nachum
The right is calling Obama weak, but his wily foreign policy is paying off
The spluttering of the American right and some European conservatives over Barack Obamas foreign policy reached a new level of vituperation last week. Is Obama naive? pondered Michael Ledeen at National Review. I dont think so. I think that he rather likes tyrants and dislikes America.
Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation wrote in The Daily Telegraph: [Obamas] appeasement of Iran, his bullying of Israel, his surrender to Moscow, his call for a nuclear-free world ... have all won him plaudits in the large number of UN member states where US foreign policy has traditionally been viewed with contempt. Simply put, Barack Obama is loved at the UN because he largely fails to advance real American leadership. Jennifer Rubin at the neoconservative publication Commentary declared Obamas speech was one of the more embarrassing and shameful displays by a US president before the UN. For Gardiner, Ledeen and Rubin the model for foreign policy is that represented by Dick Cheney. He projected strength and decisiveness and Americas enemies allegedly cowered. Obama or Obambi is, in their eyes, an arugula-eating surrender monkey.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Translation = he votes present
Foreign Policy advice from Andrew Sullivan is like marital advice from Elizabeth Taylor; lots of experience to draw from, none of it worth anything.
Is it only “the right” who sees that Hussein is either a) weak or b) a traitor.
Only Andy would consider a non-existant foreign policy as being “wily.” I guess in Andy’s way of thinking, getting your ass spanked, like Obama did last week, could be considered a payoff.
Looks like the Dear Liar’s foreign policy is working out just fine for him.
You can’t put lipstick on a pig.
Obama’s “wily” foreign policy is more Wiley E. Coyote than clever.
Now, if Carla were a boy, Michelle might have something to worry about!
Obama isn't smart enough to think through this stuff ~ his job in the junta is to look good, speak well, and attend parties frequently.
He’s a cunning runt!
President Surrender Monkeys cunning plan
Isn’t Surrender Monkey racist?
Obama testing out his half white side. Michelle is a jealous evil wo(man)
She looks like a woman guarding her man with extreme jealousy and that he appears to be taking a “liberty” with Mrs. Bruni probably earned him an ass kicking from the looks of it.
She is one hell of an angry woman and she sure as hell ain’t beautiful when she is.
Everything’s racist. Get over it.
Ain’t that the truth.
What a leftist tool Sullivan is. He’s probably right about Zeroman following more of a GHW Bush plan than GW Bush.
However, a more accurate statement would be that Obama is more closely following Jimmy Carter’s plan on foreign policy.
My Gosh, what a horrible face from our first lady!
The Times Online called Obama a monkey.
Yikes! Is that the evil eye or what?
PANTYWAIST SURRENDER MONKEY, or PSM.
I honestly tried to make sense of Andrew's argument, but even his examples are bogus. Does anyone believe that if it hadn't been for the Bush administration that we would have known about the terrorists’ plots? Even the GITMO example is odd. Bush shouldn't have put terrorists in GITMO, but see how smart Obama is for not keeping his word about closing GITMO. Andrew even credits Obama for the political demonstrations in Iran? Based upon what? Has any of the protesters in Iran cited Obama as the cause? I haven't heard of any.
He accuses the Neocons of being blind? What about his ideological blindness?
Michelle just hates. She doesn’t need a reason.
Obama isn't smart enough to think through this stuff ~ his job in the junta is to look good, speak well...A cunning linguist, eh?
Probably not racist ~ as we know and have been educated to believe for the last 8 years depictions of the President as an ape or a monkey are the height of patriotism and enlightenment.
Is “Surrender Monkey” not racist is Andy says it?
Rarely have I seen an article so replete with revisionist history and total lack of logic.