"[W]e've now had three-and-a-half years of Obama policy, and it looks an awful lot like, whether you're talking about the Mexico City speech in 2009, the Cairo speech in 2009, the extent to which he's been apologizing for America , he's abandoned some of our key allies, like Israel , Poland , Czechoslovakia , he's attempted to appease our enemies, the Iranians , for example, the Russians . He's now getting ready, as we watch these scenes unfold on the air, to slash our defense . And the defense sequestration includes over $120 billion for embassy security . And so the president himself's got a terrible record on national security ."
I annotated the paragraph because, well, there's just so many amazing tidbits in it. Let's take them one at a time, shall we?
 The president never apologized for America.
 Israel doesn't feel abandoned by the U.S.
 Poland doesn't feel abandoned by the U.S.
 Czechoslovakia doesn't exist. (In April, the Romney campaign forgot this pesky detail, too).
 Harsh sanctions are the opposite of appeasement.
 There's been no appeasement with Russia.
 The modest defense cuts proposed by the White House have been endorsed by the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs. It's Republicans who've proposed slashing defense.
 Actually, it's the Republican sequester plan that would cut funding at embassies.
 After killing bin Laden, decimating al Qaeda, and preventing terrorist attacks, it seems a little silly to characterize President Obama's record on national security as "terrible."
Incidentally, Cheney complained about "the Mexico City speech in 2009." I've read that speech and I haven't the foggiest idea why Cheney would find it objectionable. In fact, I can't even recall others on the right raising a fuss about it.