Obama and the left inject the political narrative, i.e. Maliki and the change in PM leadership. ISIL is not a problem with politics. It’s evil in the purest form. So what has politics got to do with it? But they need to inject it to focus attention somewhere else. That is another level of evil, diversion from the reality and truth.
Sure there is something to PM Maliki’s performance problems. But that would be an issue with or without the ISIS problem. Even if there was another PM in there ISIS would still be a problem in Iraq.
It so happens though that Maliki has been ringing the fire alarms for months. So this is just a smokescreen to cover for Obama’s unwillingness and abject failure to face the threat that it is. Actually it was Obama’s failure to take any action that invited this ISIS calamity. Blame actually points to Obama, and he can’t have that. That is all he really cares about, not the facts or what’s happening. If so, he would have done something months ago. Instead, he was waiting for it to get as bad as it would get. And we sure are there.
But as usual, in his so-called deliberative debate formula over response, he never weighs the cost of his own inaction. That is never a factor to him. One can only assume Valerie Jarrett instructed him, “don’t let anyone talk you into taking action, it would be a huge mistake.” So he ran his mouth, and called them JV, but made a decision for inaction long ago, when the decision was critical.
It is important to look at the time line: he called them JV (read not ready for prime time terrorists), I wonder who briefed him on that? They were his words. Or he was just egging them on, which is possible. We can add that to the cynicism about Obama. It wouldn’t be the first time he has done that.(impeachment, sequester, “shut down”) In this case, evil is the object in play — like that needs to be encouraged.
Now he has gotten the situation, what does he do? He promises a delayed response, then ticks off a list of ‘will nots’. I wish this guy would get that right where it matters. The Constitution is a list of negative law, laying out limitations on the government. Yet he tries to refashion everything under positive law.(with an all powerful, evolving government) Then he sees an imperial executive in it that constantly hordes more power to itself.
June 13th, Obama spewed (Friday – 13th if you’re keeping track):
Yesterday I convened a meeting with my National Security Council to discuss the situation there, and this morning I received an update from my team. Over the last several days, we’ve seen significant gains made by ISIL, a terrorist organization that operates in both Iraq and in Syria. In the face of a terrorist offensive, Iraqi security forces have proven unable to defend a number of cities, which has allowed the terrorists to overrun a part of Iraq’s territory. And this poses a danger to Iraq and its people, and given the nature of these terrorists, it could pose a threat eventually to American interests as well.
Now, this threat is not brand-new. Over the last year, we’ve been steadily ramping up our security assistance to the Iraqi government with increased training, equipping and intelligence. Now Iraq needs additional support to break the momentum of extremist groups and bolster the capabilities of Iraqi security forces.
He went on to add this key caveat:
So any action that we make take to provide assistance to Iraqi security forces has to be joined by a serious and sincere effort by Iraq’s leaders to set aside sectarian differences, to promote stability and account for the legitimate interests of all of Iraq’s communities, and to continue to build the capacity of an effective security force. We can’t do it for them. And in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action — including any assistance we might provide — won’t succeed.
What was he trying to say? Well, in Obama lingo politics comes first. Aside from that, he suggested if anything goes wrong and there is any blame it is on them, first of all. Then he built in a loophole for his own failure to act and blame that on Iraq’s politics and leadership. Did he have the same prerequisites on Libya? Remember, that was going to be a big success from the beginning. Qaddafi then was the excuse to go in there. They were going to side with Mo-Bro’s and other Islam groups, and everyone would live happily ever after.
Here, in Iraq, all he does is repeat his mantra about not going in there practically under any scenario. If you were a terrorist looking to set up shop, where would you head? Right, I’d agree. But he made that statement in the beginning of June. Had that been the date of taking responsive action, he could have headed off much of the damage, saving some lives and Christian natives in the area. But no, it was a stall and actually a speech why he was reluctant to take any action, unless certain political criteria were met. Keep in mind too that Iraq is a country that has been under a dictatorship until about ten years ago.
So he made the standard why not speech, saying they were monitoring the situation.(from the back nine) He announced he was having his people prepare plans. Remember? Yea that was a pregnant order with postulating malice of forethought.
Note his top-heavy emphasis on politics in a humanitarian crisis. (sound familiar?-border crisis) In 2002, then the Illinois present-voting state senator, Obama, said on Iraq:
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
But that does not apply to his regime or terrorist threats, I assume. Now ten years later he delegates political hacks like Valerie Jarret, Susan Rice, Ben Roades, Denis McDonough, and Tom Donilon to run roughshod over foreign policy decisions and national security. It’s his M/O. Talk about armchair political agendas? They put our national security at risk. Not that national security is their objective. Talk about contaminating this situation with politics. (Hello, Libya) He even toted fiction writer Ben Rhodes along on vacation.
Now after almost two months of deliberation about it, he takes his limited action about which NY Times wrote “Obama Allows Limited Airstrikes on ISIS”
So he made his pronouncement about allowing limited actions. I.e.: I really don’t want to do anything, and Valerie doesn’t want me to but I will allow just this much, that’s it. Then he closed saying:
And when many thousands of innocent civilians are faced with the danger of being wiped out, and we have the capacity to do something about it, we will take action. That is our responsibility as Americans. That’s a hallmark of American leadership. That’s who we are.
But that is not true, as it wasn’t true 2 months ago when it could have made a larger difference. And his JV statement in January was plain bullshit.
RightRing | Bullright