A Dangerous Time for an Obama Third Term

Susan Stamper Brown
|
Posted: Oct 25, 2016 12:00 AM
 A Dangerous Time for an Obama Third Term
While President Obama was busy last week telling Hillary supporters how "dangerous" he perceives Donald Trump, real danger quietly passed through the English Channel - when Russian warships made their way toward the quagmire that is the war in Syria.

About a half million deaths ago, Obama and Hillary might have prevented the Syrian crisis had they taken preemptive measures, says U.S. Naval War College and Harvard Extension School professor Tom Nichols, who wrote in the Federalist, "Syria looks as it does in 2016 because of the Obama administration's response to the use of chemical weapons was to outsource U.S. security management to Vladimir Putin."

Outsource they did. But now it's time to sound presidential, so during the final debate Hillary called for a "no-fly zone" over Syria to thwart the mess she helped create. A no-fly zone would threaten to start an air war over Syria between the United States and an ill-disciplined nuclear-armed Russia.

Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein thinks that's a bad idea and recently voiced she has serious reservations about Hillary's Syria plan saying, "Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly" and said "Hillary's policies are much scarier than Donald Trump, who does not want to go to war with Russia."

Thanks to Hillary's failed "Russian reset" which she once defended as a "brilliant stroke," Russia is now resurging as a world power. Obama's mockery of Mitt Romney in 2012 was juvenile in the extreme when he said: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the cold war's been over for 20 years."


Enter: Cold War 2.0.

Besides Syria, this not-so-dynamic duo have lost two wars, respectively in Iraq and Afghanistan and our embassy in Libya. Their foreign policy failures have even empowered the man-child over in North Korea.

Most dangerous, though, is the resurgence of Iran, thanks to a nuclear "deal" so one-sided it's ridiculous. Although in 2008, Hillary said it was "irresponsible and frankly naive" to talk to Tehran without preconditions, she admitted in her memoir, "Hard Choices," that she began closed door talks through the sultan of Oman.

It's a little hard to comprehend how everyday Americans benefit from a "deal" that helps a terrorist state perfect its intercontinental nuclear weapons which could reach our shores in the next fifteen years.

I know, at least they "got" Osama bin Laden. Well, sort of. Clinton and Obama happened to be at the right place at the right time, thanks to the astonishingly capable military they inherited from George W. Bush.Fact is, if Hillary's political housemate, Bill, was as interested in bin Laden as he was in blue dresses he could've taken him out and the Twin Towers would still be standing. The 9/11 report identifies nine opportune moments during Clinton's presidency where bin Laden might have been taken out if he made the right call.

Even actress Susan Sarandon understands that Hillary's record proves that a lifetime of political experience means absolutely nothing if you make poor decisions which costs lives. During an interview with The Young Turks, Sarandon said Hillary "is more dangerous" than Trump. "She did not learn from Iraq," said Sarandon, "and she is an interventionist, and she has done horrible things ---- and very callously. I don't know if she is overcompensating or what her trip is. That scares me. I think we'll be in Iran in two seconds."

Sarandon said voters were being "fed" a line that Trump is "dangerous."

Common sense tells you that understanding how government works means little to those who live above the law and think it's okay to cover their failures by deleting emails and evidence -- and lying about lying about their lies.

But Donald Trump is dangerous?