Obama’s Orwellian doublethink comes back to haunt him on Islamic State: A timeline

Republican v Democrat terrorism poll

Gallup released a poll on Sept. 11 that showed the Republican Party now has a commanding lead over Democrats when it comes to who the voters trust to protect them from terrorist groups and threats abroad.

The results spoke volumes about Americans’ opinion of the president’s “lead from behind” foreign policy, and his inability to comprehend the threat posed to the nation by radical Islam:

The Republican Party has expanded its historical edge over the Democratic Party in Americans’ minds as being better able to protect the U.S. from international terrorism and military threats. At this point, 55% of Americans choose the GOP on this dimension, while 32% choose the Democratic Party. This is the widest Republican advantage in Gallup’s history of asking this question since 2002.

The results were so bad that Meet the Press host Chuck Todd said the President Obama was on the verge of doing “Jimmy Carter-like damage” to the Democratic Party on matters of national security.

Where did it all go wrong? While an argument can been made that the predicament the U.S. (and the world) now finds itself in can be traced back to the president’s failure to secure a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq in December, 2011, that still doesn’t get to the root of the problem.

Mr. Obama’s problem is that he fundamentally does not understand who and what he is up against. The following timeline, while incomplete, does a decent job highlighting the president’s ideological blinders.

June 10, 2014, Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, falls to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

June 13, 2014, President Obama says during an interview with Amy Davidson of The New Yorker that the group that just took over Falluja — Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant — is the equivalent of a junior varsity basketball team: “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.”

June 30, 2014, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant becomes “Islamic State” and declares its territory covering Iraq and Syria to be origin of a new caliphate in the heart of the Middle East.

August 7, 2014, President Obama announces that the U.S. will begin conducting airstrikes in Iraq against Islamic State.

August 19, 2014, American journalist James Foley is executed by Islamic State. Video of the his gruesome death is posted online.

August 21, 2014, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says Islamic State is “beyond a terrorist group.”

August 23, 2014, Over in Libya, Islamic fighters seize control of Tripoli’s airport. News outlets report that the intelligence community believes multiple jets previously housed at the airport are now missing.

September 3, 2014, President Obama simultaneously says the U.S. will “destroy” Islamic State and reduce it to a “manageable problem.”

September 3, 2014, Vice President Joe Biden says the U.S. will follow Islamic State to “the gates of hell.”

September 4, 2014, President Obama says he “doesn’t have a strategy yet” when asked how he plans to deal with Islamic State’s increasing power and influence in Syria.

September 9, 2014, Multiple news outlets wonder if Libya, now at the mercy of various warring Islamic groups, can officially be called a failed state.

September 10, 2014, President Obama says the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is not Islamic in an address to the nation: “ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.” No one asks the president if he believes the Ottoman Empire was Islamic.

September 11, 2014, — 13 years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — John Kerry tells CNN the U.S. is not at war with Islamic State, adding “What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation. It’s going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it’s a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts.”

September 11, 2014, —  13 years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf says U.S. military operations against Islamic State are not a continuation of the war on terrorism, telling a reporter, “When we talk about how you degrade and defeat terrorist organizations, it’s not exactly I think how you’re probably using the term. And it’s not one that I’m using.”

September 11, 2014,  —  13 years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest flippantly responds to a reporter’s question about how the Obama administration defines “destroy” when it comes to Islamic State by saying, “I didn’t bring my Webster’s dictionary.”

September 12, 2014, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest decides the U.S. is at war with Islamic State, saying “The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way we are at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

September 12, 2014, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby says the U.S. is “at war” with Islamic State, but then goes on to downplay the military’s role in winning that war by stating “It’s about defeating [Islamic State’s] ideology.”

September 14, 2014, John Kerry reverses himself from his CNN interview just three days earlier and tells CBS host Bob Schieffer, “Yeah, we’re at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

The history shown above points to a man who stubbornly clings to his September 10, 2001 worldview.

Only a man who is in willful denial can say on national television that the group called Islamic State is not Islamic. Only a man who is in too deep can give the State Department orders to say the U.S. is not at war on a Thursday but that the U.S. is at war on a Friday, when absolutely nothing has changed. Only a man who has been swallowed whole by his own hubris can believe that his Orwellian doublethink wouldn’t come back to haunt him.

Western Civilization is in a culture clash, and yet the president will twist himself into as many intellectual pretzels as necessary to convince himself that he’s strictly dealing with a law enforcement issue. In order to prove how liberal he is, Mr. Obama destroys his credibility by shielding a largely illiberal culture from criticism.

The American people are once again giving the conservative worldview its due. When evil men are chopping off heads, conducting crucifixions, and slaughtering women and children, the guy who “doesn’t have a strategy yet” because he’s been busy “leading from behind” will collapse in the polls. Likewise, so will his political party.

All Americans should root for the president on matters of national security, no matter what letter is next to his name. Unfortunately, that is incredibly hard to do when the commander in chief tries to convince the American people that a giant army called Islamic State does not include practitioners of Islam.

Poland’s Sikorski takes heat for calling the U.S. a ‘worthless’ ally in 2014 (i.e., basically telling the truth)

Poland Kerry AP

A liberal friend recently asked me about Iraq’s implosion, as well as comments by Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski about America: 2014’s “worthless” ally.

My response via gmail June 24:

Poland knows that it does not have a reliable ally in the United States these days. It is under no illusion. They’re still smarting from president Obama’s NEW Start Treaty. He threw them under the bus pretty darn quick, so it’s no surprise they’re annoyed. Then our Polish friends had to watch as Crimea was gobbled up by Putin…and now eastern Ukraine while the U.S. just sort of mumbles “diplomacy…durrrm…durrrm..Putin…consequences…durrrm.” If I were Polish I’d be pretty livid with America right about now. They’ve been great friends to us and they’ve been dumped on quite handily since 2008.

While it is sad that Iraq didn’t have a George Washington to step up to the plate when the nation needed it, and much of the blame for losing the gains made during the surge does fall on them, the president also bears a huge chunk of responsibility. My most recent blog entries cover the reasons why and I’d be happy to talk about them at length in the comments section. We left troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea … but then yanked the rug out from Iraq. We gave them a bunch of weapons (that ISIL is now running around with) and said, “Good luck!” Probably not the best move.

Here is the key takeaway from his response June 26:

Your tantric screed is nothing less than misbegotten hindsight and nothing more than some failed pundit’s speculation. How disappointing. I cite here one of Santayana’s lesser remembered utterances: “Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”

As I’ve said before, the liberal obsession with playing Professor X with me never ends. Deep down I feel “powerless,” so I write an incendiary blog geared towards “career advancement,” which is really just a Hail Mary pass to make up for being a “failed pundit.” Genius!

As chance would have it, a new piece by Foreign Policy magazine showed up in my Facebook feed today.

Kori Schake (no doubt another “failed pundit”) writes:

The Obama administration has achieved a landmark heretofore considered impossible: they are making America’s allies homesick for the administration of George W. Bush. This week, news broke that Poland’s foreign minister was caught on tape earlier this year disparaging the United States. Radek Sikorski bitterly said Warsaw’s ties to Washington were “worthless,” …  The indiscretion will probably cost Sikorski his prospects for the job of EU foreign policy chief. But he’s not wrong about America. The United States has become an exasperating ally, and even countries that are inclined to support us are hedging against because of the Obama administration’s conduct. Neither our threats nor our assurances are believed. …

The president’s supreme indifference is among the foremost complaints of our friends; they no longer believe we care enough to help solve their problems. That was the heart of Sikorski’s complaint: that the United States was doing nothing about Russia’s growing threat, was in thrall to the idea of a pivot to Asia at the expense of long-time allies in Europe, and was leaving those countries that support American policies the most exposed. …

President Obama fundamentally misunderstands the nature of alliance relationships. He believes that weak, poor, war-torn societies emerging from repressive governments should be judged by the same standard as we are — that they should make brave choices and expansive political compromises. But that is not the nature of frightened people in dire circumstances: they go small, not big. Their societies are characterized by a lack of social trust and institutional constraint. If we want outcomes of brave choices and expansive political compromises, we need to stand by and steady the people making these decisions. We need to strengthen them with our involvement and help build a leadership capable of making tough choices. The administration instead threatens allies with abandonment: choose fast, because we are leaving. And the Obama White House completely misses the irony of this brittle president who can’t broker congressional deals but proselytizes about inclusive government.

Boom. Read the entire piece if you get a chance. It’s excellent.

The Obama administration has had no coherent foreign policy, unless by “foreign policy” you mean telling West Pointers they’ll be officers in the fight against Global Warming.

The U.S. supports the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt — except when it doesn’t. The U.S. will bomb Libya under Muammar Gaddafi for “humanitarian” reasons (a few thousand people died), but generally sit on its hands as Syria’s Bashar al-Assad oversees the death of over 150,000 individuals (just kill them with bullets, bombs and chlorine gas and no one will mind, Bashar).

I’ll let Ms. Schake take it away on Afghanistan:

So when the president says “Afghanistan is a sovereign country that is going to have to deal with its own security,” countries around the world hear the limits of our interest. All the more so when the White House hinted that another mangled election in Afghanistan would be cause for America to pull its troops from the country; then, when the election was held with a minimum of violence and fraud, he used it as the reason we could draw troops down further and faster than military commanders recommended. Countries reliant on U.S. power understand that they’re being played. It is a luxury of the strong to be ignorant — but weak states can’t afford to trust us when we’re this unreliable.

President Obama isn’t a statesmen — he’s a run-of-the-mill politician who was great at selling himself as the guy who would reverse the rise of the oceans. “Leading from behind” was supposed to garner us respect and yield diplomatic dividends. The verdict: Our allies call us “worthless,” and the the world has Islamic radicals calling a giant region of the Middle East under its control a new caliphate.

President Euphemism: Obama ‘concerned’ Russia’s ‘uncontested arrival’ to incite ‘man-caused disaster’

Ukraine Russia AP

President Barack Euphemism Obama now has ‘deep concern’ over Russia’s military power grab in Ukraine’s Crimea region. While his administration tried to go with the laughably Orwellian ‘uncontested arrival’ on Friday as the troops moved in, it has now turned into a “clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty.”

President Obama called Russian ruler Vladimir Putin Saturday afternoon and expressed “deep concern” over Russia’s move in Ukraine.

The White House called Russia’s recent aggression a “clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity” and a breach of international law.

The White House said the U.S. is suspending preparations for the upcoming Group of Eight summit in June in Sochi, Russia, in response to Russia’s actions.

You can imagine Vladimir Putin right now in a thick Russian accent: “Hey, comrade Dmitry, Obama says we can expect his presence at the upcoming Sochi summit to go kaput over our ‘uncontested arrival.’ Bwahahahaha!”

Uncontested Arrival Obama Ukraine

Perhaps no one called out the White House’s predilection to torture words and confuse Americans with Newspeak better than Iowahawk:

Iowahawk Uncontested Arrival

Bombing Libya became “kinetic military action.” Terrorist attacks by radical Islamic psychopaths became “man-caused disasters.” A Russian invasion is now an “uncontested arrival.”

Yes, it was “uncontested” because Ukraine — especially in its current state of chaos — didn’t have the means to fight back.

The New York Times reported:

KIEV, Ukraine — The new government of Ukraine called an emergency session of its national security council on Saturday in the face of the Russian military’s seizure of Crimea, but the leaders are facing a grim reality: Their armed forces are ill equipped to try to reconquer the region militarily. …

But the Ukrainian military has only a token force in the autonomous region — a lightly armed brigade of about 3,500 people, equipped with artillery and light weapons but none of the country’s advanced battle tanks, said Igor Sutyagin, a Russian military expert at the Royal United Services Institute in London. The forces also have only one air squadron of SU-27 fighters deployed at the air base near Belbek.

A senior NATO official said that Ukraine’s small naval fleet, which was originally part of the Black Sea Fleet, had been boxed in by Russian warships.

If China gives Japan the middle finger and its military moves in on the contested Senkakus or even the southern Ryukyu islands in the East China Sea, would Mr. Obama still call it an “uncontested arrival”? Since that euphemism hasn’t gone over well, he’d probably come up with something new. Regardless, Capt. James Fannell, the chief of intelligence of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, believes that China is training for a “short, sharp war” with Japan over the islands. If you were China, wouldn’t you look at what Putin has gotten away with and move in tomorrow? I would.

Perhaps the funniest thing about all of this is that the people who mocked Sarah Palin as a complete idiot now must wipe the egg off their face; she called a Ukraine invasion in 2008, saying that Obama’s strange detachment from foreign affairs would embolden men like Putin.

“After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence – the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next,” (Sarah Palin, October 21, 2008).

The same media culture that loves to sneer at anything that comes out of the former Alaska governor’s mouth is the same one that breeds “expert” analysis of the Christiane Amanpour variety — the CNN correspondent couldn’t even conceive of the Russians invading Ukraine as the armored personnel carriers and attack helicopters were fueling up Thursday night. It’s also the same culture that covers for men like Joe Biden, who former Defense Secretary Bob Gates believes “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

Get ready for a wild ride the next couple of years. The world’s worst actors know that President Obama is in too deep, and they will continue to take advantage of the situation.

Related: Russia calls Obama after sending troops into Ukraine: Mitt Romney is smarter than you

Related: Ukraine: Leaders lived like kings off the confiscated wealth of the people — as always

Palin
“I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as ‘an extremely far-fetched scenario’ by the ‘high-brow’ Foreign Policy magazine.” — Sarah Palin

Here’s Palin in 2008:

Fallujah falls to al Qaeda: Did American soldiers die in vain?

Fallujah. To anyone who closely followed the Iraq War, the name speaks volumes. No matter where you stand on U.S. foreign policy in a post 9/11 world, Fallujah holds all the stories you will ever need to make your case and defend the position. Now that the city has fallen into the hands of al Qaeda, the story becomes much sadder than it ever needed to be.

The Washington Post reports:

BEIRUT — A rejuvenated al-Qaeda-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq two years ago.

The capture of Fallujah came amid an explosion of violence across the western desert province of Anbar in which local tribes, Iraqi security forces and al-Qaeda-affiliated militants have been fighting one another for days in a confusingly chaotic three-way war.

Elsewhere in the province, local tribal militias claimed they were gaining ground against the al-Qaeda militants who surged into urban areas from their desert strongholds this week after clashes erupted between local residents and the Iraqi security forces.

In Fallujah, where Marines fought the bloodiest battle of the Iraq war in 2004, the militants appeared to have the upper hand, underscoring the extent to which the Iraqi security forces have struggled to sustain the gains made by U.S. troops before they withdrew in December 2011.

The upheaval also affirmed the soaring capabilities of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the rebranded version of the al-Qaeda in Iraq organization that was formed a decade ago to confront U.S. troops and expanded into Syria last year while escalating its activities in Iraq. Roughly a third of the 4,486 U.S. troops killed in Iraq died in Anbar trying to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq, nearly 100 of them in the November 2004 battle for control of Fallujah, the site of America’s bloodiest confrontation since the Vietnam War.

Events Friday suggested the fight may have been in vain.

“At the moment, there is no presence of the Iraqi state in Fallujah,” said a local journalist who asked not to be named because he fears for his safety. “The police and the army have abandoned the city, al-Qaeda has taken down all the Iraqi flags and burned them, and it has raised its own flag on all the buildings.”

Did U.S. Marines die in vain? It’s an excellent question. The tale is far from over.

In 2011, President Obama failed to secure a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government and, in many ways, attempted to wish away his responsibilities regarding the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Likewise, he disengaged from the world stage as Syria spun out of control. The result: tens-of-thousands of Syrian refugees (including foreign fighters linked with al Qaeda) have flooded into Iraq, overloading a government that could barely control its security situation to begin with. George W. Bush — for all his faults — stuck with “the surge” strategy despite enormous political pressure to raise the white flag of surrender. That opened the door for the al-Anbar Awakening and, when he left office, it appeared as though the U.S. had snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

Whether politicians agreed or disagreed with the Iraq War, it is their solemn obligation to ensure that the soldiers who willingly sacrificed themselves for the cause did not do so in vain. If there are no true statesmen left in the U.S. Congress, then Americans should admit it and become like people around the world who are just happy if someone can find them on a map.

Before any hasty decisions are made, it is best to revisit Fallujah:

Fallujah is sometimes called “the city of mosques”; and insurgents made heavy use of them as command posts, arms depots, and defensive positions. Inside the Saad Abi Bin Waqas Mosque in central Fallujah, Marines found small arms, artillery shells, and parts of missile systems. Marines and soldiers engaged insurgents emplaced in mosques, but always with great caution and often using Iraqi troops to finish off assaults. It took Company B, 1/8, fighting on foot, 16 hours of house-to-house combat to capture the Muhammadia Mosque, during which time they were attacked with everything from rocket-propelled grenades to suicide bombers.

The people who are in charge of Fallujah now use mosques as armories, staging areas for attacks, and as bunkers when necessary. They plot and plan from inside sacred walls, in part because Western politicians tend to let them do so with impunity. To ignore that this is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria across the Middle East and in Northern Africa is to invite disaster yet again on American shores.

In the Middle East, our adversaries think and act in terms of centuries. In the United States, the vast majority of politicians cannot think beyond the next election cycle.

In large swathes of the Middle East, words like ‘honor’ — to the family, to the tribe, and to the nation — are taken seriously. In large swathes of the United States, ‘honor’ is now an antiquated notion, and patriots are portrayed as backwoods hicks by the purveyors of popular culture.

In the Middle East, guys who spend years solely focused on memorizing the Koran are in a waiting game with a nation of ADD-suffering narcissists who think they’re geniuses because they’ve accumulated enough hours consuming science fiction masterworks that they can dazzle audiences with Star Wars improvisational skills. These days, Americans are only serious about being unserious — and it will come back to haunt us tenfold.

Fallujah is important because it highlights yet another momentous challenge before free nations, while exposing America’s intellectually underprepared and ill-equipped political class.

Fallujah is important because it demonstrates that while America’s entertainment-obsessed culture pretends as if it can exist within viral video YouTube bubbles, Xbox fantasy worlds and the studios of late night comics who never found a good man or a higher ideal that they couldn’t tear down, the reality is something starkly different.

At one time, vast oceans could be used to make a compelling case that an isolationist America was a safer America. As technology advances, collisions between cultures will speed up. What happens in the Middle East and Northern Africa matters here, and Americans who think that every four years is a good time for a debate on foreign policy are sorely mistaken. When top officials in Washington can make the case that obscure anti-Islam YouTube videos are the cause of terror attacks on U.S. consulates (whether you believe them or not), it’s a clear indicator that the paradigm has changed.

Did U.S. Marines die in vain in Fallujah? The answer is up to us. Political leaders and an informed public have a responsibility to make sure that the vision soldiers sacrificed their lives for — a safer world for future Americans — becomes a reality.

Libya hearing exposes White House shell game

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., revealed Tuesday that U.S. diplomats in Libya made repeated requests for increased security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi but were turned down by officials in Washington (Photo Credit AP).

At Wednesday’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Chairman Darrell Issa’s questioning made one thing certain: The Obama administration’s initial explanation — that the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were directly related to Islamic rage over a YouTube video — becomes more troubling with each passing day.

Before questioning began, Army Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, former head of a Special Forces site security team who was closely involved with operational planning for security in the region, testified to the increasing attacks on Western interests in the months preceding the Benghazi attack. He traveled to Benghazi after a successful attack on the British ambassador’s convoy, and was aware of online threats made against Mr. Stevens. And yet, months later, Stevens would die attempting to exit an escape hatch in a smoke-filled room. His would-be rescuers would then perish in a mortar barrage.

Referencing a July 9 cable from Mr. Stevens provided by State Department whistleblowers, Rep. Issa showed that Mr. Stevens requested additional security support but was denied by Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, ostensibly because it wasn’t a formal request. Ms. Lamb maintained Wednesday that the U.S. Consulate had the “correct” amount of security on the day of the attack, even though, as Mr. Issa pointed out, the compound was overrun within minutes.

Read the rest over at Times247.com

Obama’s ‘Finger Painting Foreign Policy’ makes a mess; media think he’s Jackson Pollock

Asked whether Egypt was an ally of the United States, the president wasn’t sure. He might have wanted to figure that one out before forking over $1.5 billion dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Mideast has been a basket case long before President Obama took office. It’s a place where you can still find women being stoned, executions of gay people, and bizarre meltdowns of large swathes of the population over cartoon drawings. It wasn’t too long ago that the Taliban brought women to soccer stadiums and blew off their head with semi-automatic rifles, and on a sunny Spring afternoon you could hear a child say, “It’s such a nice day outside. I’d fly a kite, but it’s against the law.”

Given that, I’m willing to cut any American president a little slack when it comes to dealing with irrational nut jobs with a deep-seated desire to remain in the stone age. However, that is no excuse for having a bad foreign policy, which is the case with Mr. Obama. At best, I consider it “Finger Painting Foreign Policy,” in which he takes a globular mess, rubs his hands in it, makes a bigger mess and then smiles with what he’s accomplished — while the media likens him to Jackson Pollock. An example of his thought processes might go something like this:

“I’ll use military might with this guy over here in Libya on “humanitarian grounds,” but not this guy over here in Syria who commits genocide while the United Nations watches with its thumb up its butt. I’ll support the ouster of this guy whose been our ally in Egypt for decades so we can replace him with … a bunch of guys who maybe, sorta could be good guys or maybe sorta could be really bad guys. I’m going to kill a whole lot of civilians with drones, but tell everyone I’m not killing a whole lot of civilians with drones.”

Don’t believe it? Let’s look at the President’s most recent interview with Telemundo, in which he said: “I don’t think that we would consider [Egypt] an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” When you elect a Lawyer in Chief or a Professor in Chief, those are the sorts of answers you get. Unfortunately, the United States needs a Commander in Chief, one who knows that defenseless ambassadors in an unstable Islamic country need Marines before they’re apparently raped and murdered — not after. The better answer (from a Democrat’s perspective), would have been to say, “Yes, Egypt is still an ally,” but to then acknowledge that there are elements within the new regime that are trying to undermine that status, and that the United States will do everything within its power to strengthen Egypt’s saner-heads coalition.

What President Obama did when asked to give an answer that was either ‘A’ or ‘B’ was to respond with ‘Z4.’ Those are the mixed signals that Mitt Romney talked about, and the mixed signals that produced one of the most uncomfortable State Department press conferences in a long, long time.

Even NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, has to shake his head and “sit down”:

“Yeah, I almost had to sit down when I heard that. For the last forty years, the United States has had two main allies in the Middle East — Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the other ally in the Middle East being Israel. For the President to come out and say, well, he’s not exactly sure if Egypt is an ally any more but it’s not an enemy, that is a significant change in the perspective of Washington toward this country, the biggest country in the Arab world. It makes one wonder, well, was it worth it? Was it worth supporting the Arab Spring, supporting the demonstrations here in Tahrir Square, when now in Tahrir Square there are clashes going on behind me right in front of the US embassy?”

President Obama is in over his head on foreign policy, and the nation is drowning in debt. But hey, he’s promised to add 100,000 teachers in his second term. (I’m not sure if that number includes the Chicago teachers who have been on strike or not.)

Like I said — finger painting.

No one will admit the obvious: We are at war with Iran

Stuxnet was a cyberweapon used against a regime that has attacked the civilized world for years. The problem is, no one has the courage to admit the truth: We are at war.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is on a five day trip throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Along the way he’s found time to state the obvious: Sanctions have done squat to change the Iranians’ desire for nukes. Let me repeat that again: Squat.

However, like most administrations, he then follows up the truth with an attempt to obscure it:

“What we all need to do is to continue the pressure on Iran, economically and diplomatically … to negotiate and to ultimately do what’s right in joining the international family,” [said Panetta].

After throwing up a little after the bit about joining the “international family” (How many families do you know that stone their women?) I was saddened because it’s obvious that this will all end militarily.Why? Because military operations have been going on for quite some time, even if media and politicians refuse to acknowledge that we’re at war.

What do you think Stuxnet was, my friends? That was a big, fat cyberweapon meant to slow down the creation of a big, fat nuclear weapon. It was an act of war perpetrated on a regime that has committed countless acts of war against free nations for decades with impunity — killing American servicemen on foreign soil by supplying weapons, training and cash to its proxy agents around the globe.

I’ve written before on how the world is living in its own little Christopher Nolan film, Memento, on the Iranian problem, but as the “oh crap, this is real” moment approaches, it’s worth repeating. The reason for writing this now is because three scenarios are likely to unfold:

  1. Israel strikes Iran with conventional weapons before the presidential election. Despite having a Nobel Peace Prize winner *cough* in office for just under four years, George W. Bush will be blamed for going into Iraq when he should have been focused on “diplomatic” efforts with Iran (as if that would have helped).
  2. Mitt Romney is elected president and he of course supports Israel (as any sane American president would) when they strike, and the anti-war movement — so mysteriously absent over the past few years during Obama’s Terror Tuesdays — rises from the dead to accuse President Romney of being a war monger of Bushian proportions.
  3. President Obama is re-elected and Israel attacks. Despite having a Nobel Peace Prize winner *cough* starting his second term in office, George W. Bush will be blamed for going into Iraq when he should have been focused on “diplomatic” efforts with Iran (as if that would have helped).

See how that works? No matter how all of this plays out, the blame for fighting Barack Obama could not quell will fall onto someone else’s shoulders. Think of it like Obama’s defenders, who also find interesting ways to explain away his feckless YouTube diplomacy, his failures at the United Nations over Syria, and the $40 million dollar fiber optic upgrades to Guantanamo Bay.

Here is the bottom line: We are at war. President Obama won’t tell you that and Leon Panetta won’t tell you that, but the pawns have been in play for quite some time. Stuxnet was a fancy set of moves that required digital knights and bishops to enter the fray, and no one denies it. The sooner we realize what’s happening, the sooner we can figure out how to get ourselves out of this mess. If you disagree, that’s fine. I truly hope I’m wrong about the how all of this will end … but I don’t believe that will be the case. Just remember this blog post when the bombs you traditionally associate with warfare start exploding on your television screen.

Annan admits U.N. useless, fails to indict Obama on Syria

Here we have President Obama, ever the professor, pondering why Syrian thugs continue to execute people despite his sheer awesomeness. Clearly, they didn’t get the memo that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Or, perhaps it’s all George Bush’s fault. Yeah, that’s the ticket. I think I’ll go with that one.

It was only three years ago that a bunch of Norwegians awarded President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for, apparently, being Barack Obama. The world was told that finally, here was a man who understood diplomacy. Here was a man who would get results. There would be no more “coalitions of the willing” because a community organizer of first class temperament was in the White House. Hollywood stars wept, believing that the  “dead” nation under George W. Bush was  “alive” again with the ascension of Obama.

Fast forward to today, where Bashar al-Assad’s archipelago of torture chambers are open around the clock, the Syrian regime slaughters thousands and then lobs mortar shells into Lebanon when it gets bored. Russia sends in the tech, because no hellish reign of terror can be complete until people are mowed down with a Hind (the Grey Poupon of helicopter gunships). China sits on its hands while 14,000 people are executed and says, “I admire your work, Bashar. You’re a murderer after our collective heart.” All this is going on, and yet no one says, “Dude. What happened to Barry?”

Instead, the United Nations takes the blame.

Special U.N. envoy Kofi Annan acknowledged in an interview published Saturday that the international community’s efforts to find a political solution to the escalating violence in Syria have failed. …

“The evidence shows that we have not succeeded,” he told the French daily Le Monde.

Kofi Annan failed because he is a failure (unless he’s getting kick-backs from a billion dollar oil-for-food scandal). The United Nations failed because it is a failure. And the United Nations takes the rap this time around because George W. Bush isn’t available to play the fall guy.

When a Republican is in the Oval Office, it is his fault that dictators and thugs and despots act like dictators and thugs and despots. When a liberal Democrat is in office, the blame is dispersed amongst the “international community” to shield him from criticism. Furthermore, liberals seek to obscure the fact that, often times, the only thing that ruthless regimes respond to is the very real threat of force.

The United Nations as it currently exists is useless. It does not act to forward freedom and liberty and human rights throughout the world because it is largely comprised of nations that oppress their own people. Governments that treat their own people like dirt were never going respond well to “hope and change,” but that’s not a message that can easily penetrate the mushy mind of the quixotic college kid.

Does anyone doubt that if George W. Bush was still in office that there would be “die ins” on college campuses across the country, blaming him — and not Assad or his Shabiha “ghost” militias — for the carnage?

You can argue that we should let the Syrians kill each other and not get involved. (There’s a convincing case to be made, since the Islamic “rebels” might actually be worse than Assad’s goons if given half a chance.) You can argue that a “coalition of the willing” should play referee with its own military hardware. You can argue for a number of other strategies. But what you can’t do is deny that if George Bush was in office, commentators would track the Syrian body count with stunning accuracy, and each death would be framed as a referendum on the “failed” Bush foreign policy.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to read a few more reports of Hillary Clinton demanding Russia and China “get off the sidelines.” I need a good laugh.