George W. Bush predicted the rise of ISIS in 2007, if we left Iraq

September 5, 2014

Okay, he didn’t mention ISIS/ISIL/the Islamic State specifically, but watch this clip from Megyn Kelly’s show on FOX and tell me this man, often derided as an idiot, wasn’t damn prescient:

So first Romney was proven right about Obama’s feckless foreign policy and the geopolitical threat posed by Russia, and now we see that W saw far better than his predecessor what would happen if we pulled out of Iraq too soon.

Time and again the Right has been… well, right about the state of the world, and the left-liberals and their “foreign policy by wishing it so” dangerously wrong.

There’s a lesson in there, for those willing to learn.

via Donald Douglas


In which President Obama channels King Ethelred the Unready

August 29, 2014
King Ethelred the Unready

King Ethelred the Unready

An archaeologist friend once told me that the nickname for King Ethelred II of England, “the Unready,” loosely translated from the original Old English as “Ethelred the Without a Clue.”

Yesterday President Obama, constitutionally charged with the conduct of our foreign affairs and responsible for dealing with threats our people, admitted in a question dealing with the threat posed by the Islamic State (ISIS) that he, too, was without a clue:

(via Moe Lane)

Here’s Obama’s full statement, provided by CBS journalist Mark Knoller:

QUESTION: Do you need Congress’s approval to go into Syria?

OBAMA: You know, I have consulted with Congress throughout this process. I am confident that as commander in chief I have the authorities to engage in the acts that we are conducting currently. As our strategy develops, we will continue to consult with Congress, and I do think that it’ll be important for Congress to weigh in and we’re — that our consultations with Congress continue to develop so that the American people are part of the debate.

But I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet. I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are. And I think that’s not just my assessment, but the assessment of our military, as well. We need to make sure that we’ve got clear plans, that we’re developing them. At that point, I will consult with Congress and make sure that their voices are heard.

But there’s no point in me asking for action on the part of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us to get the job done.

In other words,

“In my haste to bug out of Iraq before it was ready to stand on its own, so I could really get down to gutting America’s military capabilities, we never considered the possibility that this group we’ve known about for the last two years could actually become a threat. My administration was totally caught with its pants down and we’ve have no idea whatsoever of what to do. But I’ll blather a lot to make it look like we’re doing something. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m late for tee-time.”

Mr. President, sir… Dude, we need to have a talk.

To mangle a phrase, “You had two jobs!” The first is to see that the laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed. We already know you don’t like to do that. The other is to see to the United States’ foreign national security interests in your role as commander in chief. We all know you don’t like that one, either. (Believe me, it shows.) You’re rotten at both.

But you’re still the president until January, 2017, and you could at least not make things worse. In other words, sir… (clears throat)…

YOU DON’T TELL THE ENEMY THAT YOU HAVE NO EFFING IDEA WHAT TO DO!!!

Pardon me for yelling.

ISIS is the enemy. They, like their progenitors in al Qaeda, have declared war on us, and they are noting everything you do or say, because they know you could squash them like the bugs they are — if you ever decided to do so. They have to take a possible American reaction into account, and that cognizance of a threat from us might restrain them, if even only a little bit.

Instead, you have just told them they have a free pass because the only thing you can think of is to stand there and, in effect, say “I dunno. What do you want to do?”

You had months and even years to come up with some plan for dealing with a resurgent jihadism in Iraq, and yet you did nothing. We left, Syria fell apart, then Iraq fell apart, and then maniacs carved off the head of an American, and…

You did nothing. You did nothing except issue meaningless statements and declare red lines that were nothing more than mirages, and now you’ve admitted to the world –including our enemies– that you don’t take threats to our interests seriously enough to bother coming up with plans before those threats explode.

Well, sir, you’re president for the next two years and five months, and you had better get your head in the game, because our enemies are coming for ours, figuratively and literally.

At the very least, don’t open your mouth and remove all doubt that you’re “Barack the Unready.”

 


LOL! Obama’s Climate Plan Spooks U.S. Democrats

August 27, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

I wonder when Senate Democrats will finally get it through their thick, obsequious heads that Obama doesn’t give a tinker’s cuss if they get reelected? This climate accord is the latest example of how, in Obama’s mind, Congress is an option, not a requirement when writing laws issuing ukases.

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

Yesterday we mentioned Obama’s nuclear option event, and now the fallout begins. |

From Timothy Cama and Scott Wong, The Hill
keep-calm-and-run-for-your-life-66[1]President Obama’s election-year plan to win a new international climate change accord is making vulnerable Democrats nervous.

The administration is in talks at the United Nations about a deal that would seek to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by “naming and shaming” governments that fail to take significant action.

The State Department on Wednesday denied a report in The New York Times that the plan is to come up with a treaty that would not require Senate confirmation, but that appeared to provide cold comfort to Democrats worried the issue will revive GOP cries about an imperial Obama presidency.

One Democratic strategist said the proposal would put swing-state candidates who are critical to the party keeping its Senate majority “in front of the firing squad.”

“You’re … making it more difficult for…

View original 439 more words


Well, we tried to warn them…

August 24, 2014

NY Daily News Obama golf cover

We really did. In 2008 and 2012, we on the Right tried to tell America that Obama was an empty suit, a man unqualified for the presidency. Lulled by a largely fawning media, not enough of the nation listened at either time, but now the scales are finally starting to fall from the eyes of the MSM itself. To set the stage, here’s Michael Goodwin in the New York Post:

Sometimes a round of golf is just a round of golf. And sometimes it reveals the ­essence of a man.

President Obama’s decision to hit the links and yuk it up with pals immediately after speaking about the beheading of James ­Foley was no ordinary mistake. Nor was it a simple gaffe.

The decision continues to cause an uproar because, like an X-ray, there is no escaping the image. It shows there is no there there.

With even his media praetorian guard appalled, the golf outing is sparking a wider understanding that Obama is hollow, empty of the routine qualities Americans expect from their president.

Simple decency and respect for Foley’s horrified parents should have been enough to sober him. If that didn’t do it, the realization that the Islamic State had declared war on America in the most gruesome fashion imaginable should have sounded a call of duty in his head.

Instead, Obama continued with his vacation and was photographed looking as if he didn’t have a care in the world. Suddenly, that megawatt smile that often charmed voters wasn’t so charming. It was vacuous.

He looked like an empty-headed frat boy, numb to the world.

Maybe that’s not just an appearance. Maybe it’s the truth. Maybe that’s all there is.

While Goodwin was never an Obama “true believer,” as I recall, what he wrote seems to be representative of a revelation taking place for journalists on the left (which is most), if the reactions of the liberal New York Daily News  (via) and MSNBC’s tingly Chris Matthews are any indication. It’s a shame it took nearly five years for the truth to finally start sinking in, however shallowly.

We tried to tell them.

h/t Power Line

PS: Yeah, I know. Give it a few days and they’ll be back to playing “praetorian guard” for Obama. And soon they’ll  transfer their ardor to another devotional object, in all likelihood Senator Elizabeth Warren. They never learn.


#ISIS: presidential gravitas in action

August 20, 2014
Leadership

Leadership

Unbelievable. This is how seriously Obama takes an Amerrican citizen being beheaded by Isis.

Actually, it’s sadly quite believable.


Impeachment: the Democrats’ briar-patch strategy

August 13, 2014

briar patch

You can tell the Democrats are desperately worried about the upcoming elections. How, you ask? Well, instead of running on their “accomplishments” –you know, Obamacare, the economy, foreign affairs, and other stunning successes (1)– the Democrats and their flacks in the MSM have running around with their hair on fire screaming that those radical, knuckle-dragging RAAAAACIST!!! Republicans are going to impeach President Obama. In fact, they’ve been fundraising like crazy off the idea.

Anyway, the latest barker in this carnival sideshow has been Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC):

and

That last is the key: with only a lousy record to run on, the Democrats have to resort to scare tactics to get their base motivated. The generic congressional ballot, a poll that measures party preference between “any Republican” and “any Democrat,” just looks bad for them (2). And if their core voters don’t get motivated and instead stay home, “bad” could easily turn to “God-awful.”

Hence the cries of “OMG! Impeachment alert!”

Now, mind you, Obama deserves impeachment and removal from office. Not only is he dangerously incompetent, but his contempt for our constitutional settlement risks doing grave damage to our political system. Not since Nixon, perhaps even in the history of our Republic, has there been a president who so richly merited it. I dare say I’d be willing to put up with “President Biden” (3), if I thought we could carry it off. It would at least provide a good reminder to future presidents that there are indeed limits to what they can get away with.

But it won’t work, not with Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, and probably not even after the Republicans (likely) takeover of the Senate in 2015. There’s just no way that we could command the two-thirds of the Senate needed for removal, absent Obama declaring himself emperor. And perhaps even then, given the Democrats’ loyalty to their party and their donors over their duty to the Constitution.

Also, we’re lacking an element that’s key to a successful presidential impeachment: broad public consensus that it needs to be done. Former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy has written an important book, Faithless Execution, detailing both the strong constitutional grounds for impeaching Obama and the need for the electorate’s agreement before that can be done successfully. If you’re going to overturn an election and reelection, the nation has to be onboard. Forcing a trial before the political spade work has been done will only roil the nation to no end, likely end in an acquittal that would be interpreted as vindicating Obama in his abuses, and probably turn large segments of the uncommitted middle away from the Republicans, whom they would blame for the turmoil, thanks to Obama’s praetorian guard in the media.

This would not be good for us in the coming elections; thus, it is exactly what the Democrats want. They are Br’er Rabbit and they want us to throw them in that briar patch.

Let’s not do Jim Clyburn any favors.

via The Hill

PS: I’ve described my preferred strategy here.

Footnotes:
(1) Insert sarcasm as needed.
(2) Democrats typically have a decent lead in that poll. When Republicans are roughly tied or have a lead, it’s considered a Very Bad Omen for the Donkey Party’s fortunes.
(3) As long as he promised not to touch anything.


Why Obama will do nothing about the border crisis

July 15, 2014
"Y'all come!"

“Y’all come!”

Per Bryon York:

First, because Republicans want him to do something:

Who is pushing Obama to get tough? Mostly, it’s the Republicans whose wishes Obama has ignored for years. And now, since his well-publicized decision to abandon hopes of making a deal with GOP lawmakers on immigration, Obama needs them even less. It’s to his political benefit to oppose them, not to do their bidding.

Second, because Democrats back him:

…the Democrats, who don’t strongly oppose action on the border but want the president to go forward only if Republicans will agree to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Without a grand bargain, these Democrats are not terribly bothered by Obama’s handling of the crisis. While a few border state Democrats like Reps. Henry Cuellar and Ron Barber express reservations about Obama’s performance, most won’t give the president any trouble.

Third, because the progressive media is cheering him on:

Next is the liberal commentariat, which supports Obama so strongly in this matter that it is actually pushing back against the idea that the border crisis is a crisis at all. “The besieged border is a myth,” the New York Times editorial page declared on Sunday. “Republicans are … stoking panic about a border under assault.”

And, finally, because Obama himself is simpatico with immigration “activists:”

Finally, there are the immigration activists who don’t want Obama to do anything that involves returning the immigrants to their home countries. “We’re in the midst of a humanitarian crisis affecting kids fleeing gang violence, extortion and rape,” Frank Sharry, of the immigration group America’s Voice, said recently. It is Obama’s responsibility, Sherry added, to find a way to settle “thousands of child refugees.”

Obama recently met with a group of those advocates. One of them later told the Washington Post that the president said to them, “In another life, I’d be on the other side of the table.” By that Obama meant that in his old days as a community organizer, pressing for the “refugee” rights would be just the sort of thing he would do.

In other words, all the incentives encourage him to ignore national interests and instead be true to his nature. He doesn’t have to worry ever again about reelection, and, if the Democrats are going to take a drubbing in the midterms, anyway, why not make his Leftist base happy?

There are those who argue that Obama’s actions have to be the result of incompetence, that no one would willingly do something so obviously self-destructive to their political fortunes. See, for example, Andrew Klavan’s essay at PJM, “Is Obama just a hapless putz?”, in which he argues that Cloward-Piven is an “idiot’s strategy.”

Perhaps, but one can still be idiotic enough to try it, with all the harmful effects that would follow.

Having read extensively on Obama’s political background, especially Kurtz’s crucial work, “Radical in Chief,” I’m not at all convinced that he cares about the fortunes of the Democratic Party (let alone the nation, or, frankly, those kids on the border), that he isn’t indeed willing to take a political hit in order to achieve what he and his leftist allies hope will be irreversible change. As with Obamacare, so with immigration. Whether Obama and his administration intended for this crisis on the border to occur, they’re quite happy to take advantage of it.

From his point of view, all the incentives work that way.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,330 other followers