Skip to comments.WaPo's Ignatius: 'A Lot of Truth' To WSJ Condemnation of Obama's Fiddling While World Burns
Posted on 06/12/2014 6:39:46 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Q. How do you know that Barack Obama's weakness poses a serious threat to the security of the free world? A. When a leading foreign policy voice of the Washington Post agrees with a leading foreign policy voice of the Wall Street Journal that such is the case.
It happened on today's Morning Joe, when WaPo's highly-respected David Ignatius agreed with a WSJ op-ed by Daniel Henninger, "While Obama Fiddles," that darkly concludes: "past some point, the world's wildfires are going to consume the Obama legacy. And leave his successor a nightmare." Said Ignatius: "those are harsh words from the Wall Street Journal, but I think there's a lot of truth to them."
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
WSJ and WaPo agree: this guy’s a threat. Ping to Today show list.
The Washington Compost wins the NSS “Come Lately” award (No Sh** Sherlock). Congratulations!!!!
One question: Did or did not the WSJ support Obama’s occupation of the White House?
Obama is a POS.
It’s happening... people are starting to catch on ...
I wonder what it feels like to be America’s last black President?
More like golfing and watching sports on TV. Just an over grown adolescent affirmative action clown.
Of course they'll all be right back here in 2016 telling us how great a president Hillary will make.
Yep. Where has this media been since 2008? Those that knew who baraq was kept their mouths shut and the rest never looked into baraq’s temperament or attitudes.
It’s safe for them to start speaking out now, but you are right, they are already pulling for Hillary. Bet they don’t look into her past either.
> “past some point, the world’s
wildfires are going to consume the Obama legacy.
And leave his successor a nightmare.”
Which the Dhims will then blame on said successor.
I think it is very unlikely that the WSJ editorial board, with their conservative libertarian outlook, would have endorsed the antithesis of capitalism and freedom.
I did not know one way or the other. that is why I asked. Thanks for answering.
Their editorial board can be vexingly anti-conservative on such issues as amnesty, the Fed, "moderate" candidates vs. "flawed" Tea Party types...
But to my recollection they never backed candidate Obama to any extent and rarely offer a positive editorial word, except perhaps when something good happens by accident.
p.s. Their news pages are often just as conventionally liberal as any other rag.
Thanks again for answering. I did not kow, that was why I asked.
I gave up on the WSJ years ago.....could not take their open borders nonsense. Their love of open borders allows people like Obama to get elected.
Obama legacy. And leave his successor a nightmare.” Said Ignatius: “those are harsh words
This is precisely Bo’s goal. This maggot must be held accountable and punished for his contrived attack on the U.S. citizenry.
Its going to be a nightmare to his successor?
The only thing that will change the messes we are in, is when dopes like this guy realize its going to affect THEIR lives as well,no more columns or newspapers or country,and that means them and their families,this is no longer a game.
That goes for the Beverly Hills crowd as well,they will be the targets,the real 1 percenters