Words seem exceedingly inadequate right now.
And yet as a blogger, that’s what I do. Just in the last few days I’ve written drafts or short notes for about 50 new posts that I haven’t even gotten around to finishing and publishing, in addition to the ones I have published. It’s a kind of blogger-ADD brought on by the intensity of my rage at the tsunami, not only of bad news, but of bad news where the “leadership” we have seems to either be passive in the face of it or actively encouraging it.
Washington DC seems surprisingly quiet, the reaction from Republicans muted, despite the fact that three of the erupting crises involve national security. Does anyone think that the release of the Gitmo Five, the young people and gang members and even possible terrorists streaming across our border and receiving a welcome mat rather than deportation, and the murderous Islamists “worse than al Qaeda” taking over huge swaths of Iraq, won’t be directly dangerous to us sooner or later?
Oh, maybe Republicans have been talking up a storm, but the MSM won’t report it. But even if that’s happening, what good is talk? Obama and his aides do (or don’t do) as they wish.
And what of the Republican governors of Texas and Arizona, Perry and Brewer? I realize the feds have jurisdiction over border security, but something more than some strong-worded letters are required, some act of more overt defiance and/or taking the case to the people.
Go to blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and you’ll see conservatives sputtering with impotent rage at what’s happening. Why don’t you do something?” the comments scream. Why, indeed? Why does everyone seem like deer in the headlights, blinking in the glare? After all, it has been clear for a long time that Obama’s combination of malice, ideological leftism, Cloward-Priven strategy, and disengagement from dealing with Iraq at all (a disengagement that has been going on for his entire presidency) is a dangerous dangerous brew.
The are several reasons for the frozen reaction, I think. There is a general disconnect on the part of many in power from the concerns of ordinary people, and a habit of playing it safe. Also, way too many people on the right continue to see Obama as merely incompetent (the “fool” in the “fool or knave?” question), although events such as the release of the Gitmo Five are hard to fit into that narrative; no one is that incompetent. A small child could have figured out that this was a very bad move that compromises our security and that of Afghanistan. And so (as I said back in 2009 about Obama’s position on Honduras), there is simply no benign explanation for this move on Obama’s part.
Still another reason is the speed of it all. The fact that the crises at the border and in Iraq came right on the heels of the Bergdahl crisis (which of course followed other crises, such as the VA)—each one worse than the one before it, if such a thing be possible—is another problem for the Obama opposition, which is feeling stunned by the magnitude and rapidity of it all. And the only remedy—impeachment—seems politically impossible (not to mention slow even were it possible), because Democrat cooperation would be necessary and it just doesn’t exist at the moment, if ever.
I don’t think the framers ever envisioned anything quite like this—although perhaps they did; they were incredibly smart. Perhaps they just thought that if things were that far gone and yet the political will to impeach a president so destructive still could not be mustered, then the situation couldn’t be helped by any design they could have given us.
One more thing—I think we need to retire the old “fool or knave?” question. Now it’s down to “lunatic or traitor?” I know which one I choose.
While earlier generations of policy makers might confidently have said that the United States would defend Kuwait … or Bahrain … or Qatar … or Oman … or Saudi Arabia, with Obama it is impossible to say with any certainty that he will defend anything. The United States, and in consequence the West, has suffered a catastrophic collapse of credibility.
Any line that can by hypothetically drawn is at best a wild-ass-guess. For only one person can draw any line of consequence: Barack Hussein Obama. We are witnessing not only a collapse but a capitulation.
If I had to guess I would say Obama will do nothing to stop the events in Iraq from playing out (although alliance with Iran is certainly possible). Perhaps he desires the victory of bloodthirsty terrorists, perhaps he wants Iran in charge, or perhaps he just wants a debacle so he can blame Bush; at this point, who knows? I think he is incapable of making a decision to resume the Iraq War in any way whatsoever. It would be too big a denial of several of his central belief systems, including these two: that his greatest foreign policy achievement was to leave Iraq without American military support, and that "dialogue" plus his own personal charisma can solve all conflicts.
By the way, a commenter on that Fernandez thread has this to say: "The presidential goal for the American Embassy in Iraq is to ensure that as many American hostages are taken as possible. Once they are taken, Obama will trade them for any remaining Jihadi's we hold."
It's come to the point that such a thought no longer seems all that farfetched. But I don't think so. After all, why would Obama need hostages for the trade? He could release Gitmo detainees just because he feels like it. What would stop him?]