An ah ha moment on Obama

NOTE: This is an essay written by Bullright and published on his blog “Right Ring” on Oct. 10th. I liked it so much I’m cross-posting here for our readers to enjoy. See if you don’t agree.

Right Ring logo

In a recent conversation I had with Pepp on various topics, I came to a conclusion. I won’t speak for Pepp, she is very capable. It was surrounding Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran (and little Israel thrown in) and Obama’s foreign policy. All that matters is the conclusion which even stunned myself. I’m no fan of Obama or his foreign or domestic policies.

I suddenly realized that, in this volatile world with all that is going on, from Russia to the Middle East, I cannot foresee even the worst things happening in the world, where Obama could take any kind of action, that I could ever support anything big or small that he does using our military. That is a heck of a revelation.

The rule is usually in times of crisis you support the commander-in-chief. But I can’t think of a situation bad enough or simple enough that I could fully support. I am dead serious, though it was a matter of reasoning that out. Sometimes things come out in discussion with someone you wouldn’t realize outside of having that conversation.

There are a number of reasons. I’ll try to outline some of the majors:

A) He would not be trusted and would either throw our efforts or soldiers to the wolves, or under the bus in the situation.(for whatever motives)

B) He cleansed the ranks of many good career generals with experience, knowledge and backbone loyal to their oath.

C) He would not rely on best advice of the Pentagon or those in authority to know.

D) He would change the mission once engaged to some other purpose.

E) He would intentionally change the rules of engagement to suit his ideology.

F) His loyalty to the US cannot be counted on in any situation.

G) He is influenced or led by other interests outside USA’s interest.

H) He’s sided with others, opponents or enemies, while in direct military action.

I) He’s made deals with enemies to the US against our interests and security.

J) He would not be in it to win on behalf of US; other interests take priority.

K) He won’t stand up in the end for US interests or our security.

L) He would overrule or change the plans on a dime himself, for subverted reasons. Everything is fluid, he’s flexible to himself and his political interests.

M) He could and no doubt would undermine our military’s objectives for his own personal reasons, or others. (or his ideology)

O) He does not honor his oath or uphold the Constitution in the US as it is.

P) His words are meaningless anyway, and his credibility is zero.

There are probably more. That’s the point. I don’t know of a situation where he or his motives could be trusted to do the right thing if required, and if people depended on it.

So, there is my basic conclusion, tough as it is to think about. Maybe others have already gone through that process. At least some in our military should have walked through the possibilities already. Thus, it is not a matter of trusting our military to do the right thing or be successful. He intervenes in that process into the mission. Intentional failure?

When a lot of people see it the same way, that’s a problem. And when our allies and enemies read it the same way, it’s definitely a real problem

Now I can’t say it would be completely intentional, who can read the diseased mind, but I can say he just cannot be trusted. This, of course, means from the simplest of presidential actions of diplomacy, to treaties, to full-blown military action — anything. That’s mine.


I’m sorry to say that I agree completely with Bull. It’s taken close to seven long years of Barack Obama to finally convince me that I cannot trust our president and commander-in-chief to act in the best interests of our United States. As a timely example, I just read today that for the first time since 2007, we won’t have an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf. The USS Theodore Roosevelt was removed late Thursday, supposedly for “maintenance,” but no replacement was sent. Military officials had previously warned of the aircraft carrier’s removal and its negative impact on U.S. capabilities in the region.

Now, I’m no military expert, but it seems that the Middle East is more dangerous than I can ever remember and it doesn’t seem like it’s the right time for us to be weakening our presence. My perception is that for years, in every way, Barack Obama has been gradually weakening our military strength and ceding more and more parts of the world to our enemies.

Answer me this: what would he be doing differently if his agenda was to intentionally withdraw the U.S. from our previous position as the world’s preeminent superpower and relegating us to just another subservient member of the UN?

I’ve already arrived at my answer … what’s yours?



Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to An ah ha moment on Obama

  1. Buck says:

    I came to that conclusion a long time ago.

  2. Kathy says:

    Bull makes some excellent points, many of them we’ve talked about numerous times.

    He can’t be trusted but he’s in charge of our military, so does that mean we can’t trust them either?

    The only thing he hasn’t done is to literally wave the white flag at Iran.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Good question Kathy. I just received one of those emails that get passed around that listed what must have been hundreds of high-ranking generals, admirals, etc that have been fired or removed from their command by Obama. I haven’t forwarded it around or posted it because I haven’t been able to verify the names, but I do know that there have been a bunch of highly visible commanders that Obama has dumped for political reasons. Can we trust the replacement generals, etc.? I don’t know and that bothers me.

    • Bullright says:

      That question illustrates the severe nature of the issue. While I fully support the military without supporting Obama’s use of it, it causes angst. Obama demands we have transfer our support for the military to him, unquestionably, and any mission with it.(destructive as it is) That’s just another blank check to Barry.

  3. Uriel says:

    He has it nailed. I blogged many times over those years to dump him asap. I only got wait till 2016. BS. In 6 years he has run us into bankruptcy (calculated), reignited internal strife (calculated), used every executive branch to strong arm our citizens into compliance (calculated), overridden every constitutional law he wanted (calculated), and destroyed any influence we might have in the international setting (either calculated or just plain arrogant stupidity). Yet NO ONE in congress has made inroads into removing this cancer from office or charging him with treason. He has less than 2 years give or take in office. He will NOT stop until forced to. We got rid of other presidents for far less. Blind, deaf, and dumb is how I see our country and its fall is here if nothing is done.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Understand and agree Uriel. Based on the condition of the U.S. after Obama has had his way with her, anyone who voted for him should have their voting rights taken away. I know that won’t happen, but they are the cause of the evil he has wrought on the country.

      I wish I thought that we could impeach him, he certainly deserves it, but there’s not enough time and his sycophants would simply argue “racism” was at it’s core.

  4. Bullright says:

    Thanks for the repost and comments all. Though I guess it is stating the obvious.

  5. I.R. Wayright says:

    All I know is, IF something BIG is going to happen, it WILL happen before Obama is out of office.
    That is unless someone can execute a short cut that will change history.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Agreed I.R., now is the time for our enemies to take advantage of the coward and traitor at the helm – that’s what I’d do if I was running a country that wanted to do damage to the United States. If they wait, we may be lucky enough to elect a president with balls who will actually act in the best interests of the country.

      • I.R. Wayright says:

        I do not expect an external threat. I figure Obama can’t rely on the timing for such an attack. It will be generated in house. ~The White house.~

  6. Saltwater says:

    You mentioned the dangerous status in the Middle East. I see it as being the most unstable it has been in over forty years. I think back to the early 70’s, when Arab nations amassed large military forces to strike at Israel. Egypt and Syria were especially butt-hurt after the 1967 war, and wanted lost territories back.

    Anwar Sadat wanted to push the Israeli troops out of the Sinai, and regain control of the Suez Canal. Hafez al-Assad wanted to take back the Golan Heights, and “push the Jews into the sea.” (If that name sounds familiar, it should. Hafez was daddy to current Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad.)

    I was on a Med cruise at the time (long grey hull, not Lido Deck type). The unease was palpable throughout the area leading up to October 1973, and the Yom Kippur War. Then came the combined Egypt/Syria attack, and the tensest three weeks of my naval career – the USS Liberty incident was still a fresh memory for U.S. Navy personnel.

    • Garnet92 says:

      I don’t know what other assets are still deployed in the Gulf area, but bringing back the Teddy Roosevelt doesn’t sound very reassuring to me. With all of Obama’s pull-backs, we have to be weaker than any time in the past couple of decades. That’s like an invitation to do mischief from Russia, Iran, etc.

      UPDATE: Moments after writing this reply, I stopped on the Wall Street Journal site to read an article titled, “America’s Fading Footprint in the Middle East.” I guess that everyone around the world is noticing that we’ve voluntarily ceded the Middle East to everyone else and declared that we want no part in their decisions – that will come back to haunt us.

      • Bullright says:

        Word travels, uh? WH has good sign language. Obama also called Assad Putin’s only ally in the ME. He thinks people are stupid. (what about Iran?) My ears were ringing on that one.

  7. Garnet, thanks for reposting this excellent article by Bull.

  8. Bullright says:

    Garnet, excellent commentary too. I gave it some thought but I’m pretty sure I probably agree with your answer. That’s some troubling food for thought. Every action is troubling.

    True that we’ve talked about most of those things mentioned in my list. But then they have never been more critical than now, at the present and probably more tomorrow.

  9. Hardnox says:

    Kudos to the excellent essay Bullright, and for the excellent commentary Garnet. To me it’s been very clear whose side Batears has been on since March ’09 when he did his apology tour.