An apologist for Obama's appeasement babbles to himself

Nasty moonbat Andrew Belonsky has opened his big mouth again to claim that Obama is doing a fully convincing job in the war on terror, which I'm afraid is just exaggerated at best:

Republican presidential candidates shifted their focus from domestic affairs to foreign policy during the Republican Jewish Forum yesterday. And not surprisingly, almost all of them claimed President Obama has been too soft on Islamic militants overseas.

Rick Santorum said Obama’s approach has “has been nothing but appeasement,” while Mitt Romney claimed the president “emboldened Palestinian hard-liners who now are poised to form a unity government with terrorist Hamas and feel they can bypass Israel at the bargaining table.” He also used the word “appeasement” to describe Obama’s positions. And Michele Bachmann declared, boldly, “The Obama Administration de-legitimised Israel.” All warned that Obama allowed Iran to run free.

All of this talk about Israel, Iran and the rest of the embattled region led a member of press corp today to ask Obama what he thinks about all these “appeasement” allegations. The president had a ready-made response: “Ask Osama.”

“Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that,” Obama said, setting his supporters up for a collective “Oh, snap!”

The president then went on to defend his foreign policy, saying, “When we came into office, the world was divided; Iran was unified and moving aggressively on its own agenda. Today Iran is isolated, and the world is unified and applying the toughest sanctions that Iran’s ever experienced, and it’s having an impact inside of Iran.”

He also insisted, “This administration has done more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration.”

Do tell us about it. Obama's administration has ignored the atrocities of Hamas, and let's consider how they allow their front group CAIR to run around loose in the US too. They've also once again announced "disappointment in new Israeli settlements", which only encourages the Islamists to continue their hostility. And also underscores how they've continued to legitimize Fatah.

And courtesy of Caroline Glick, here's one Democrat whom Belonsky's failed to mention, who counters Obama's - and Belonsky's - claims perfectly: Sen. Robert Menendez:

Howzabout that: a Democrat speaks truth to power here. For more signs of how irresponsible Obama is, Daniel Pipes has what to read, and Caroline Glick's got more too.

Belonsky then pathetically goes on to say:

But Obama barely has to say anything at all: he knows that he has the Osama card in his pocket, and he’s already shown that he’s prepared to use it any way possible. No other president has had the benefit of such a big win, and if Obama plays this victory carefully, he can use it to prove he knows what he’s doing on the foreign stage. If he plays it too often, though, he’ll look bellicose or, worse, blood-thirsty, which may be worse than being called an accommodationist.

Sorry, but bin Laden's termination alone is not enough to win the war on Islamofascism. What about a card for Ahmedinejad, for example? Or for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists who could bring disaster upon Egypt? Or even the horrific dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, which is just as dangerous? Obama's ignorance of these regimes, and that includes the darkening situation in Egypt, which he's failed to address honestly, is just what the Republicans Belonsky hates so much are concerned about. Maybe that's why the site he's writing for doesn't really get much of an audience at all.

Update: another something Obama's administration is blundering on: they're still allowing arms shipments to continue into Egypt.