The View From 1776

While Obama Slept

Just as in England in the 1930s (cf. Winston Churchill and his 1938 While England Slept), we are faced with an implacable array of enemies in the Middle East at at time when Obama is steadily diminishing our nation’s ability to deter them.

For domestic political reasons, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain desperately hoped to forestall Hitler’s Continental aggressions by sacrificing Czechoslovakia.  War-weary England, Chamberlain was sure, wanted no new military engagement in Europe.

For domestic political reasons, President Obama desperately endeavors to divert attention away from his administration’s scandals and catastrophic incompetence.  He is prepared to accept a deal with Iran, any deal that sacrifices Israel’s defense capabilities and might superficially appear to forestall nuclear war and/or Iranian domination of the Middle East.

See Peter Wehner’s Ringing a Fire Bell in the Night on the Commentary website.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/13 at 09:28 PM
  1. Obama has made a little progress in cleaning up the middle east messes left to him by George W. Bush, but the whole are continues to be in tumult. Although Saddam was nobody's idea of an angel, let us not forget the there was no "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI) prior to the misbegotten invasion by Bush. Saddam kept the lid on the 900-year-old Sunni-Shite blood feud. With Saddam gone, that power struggle has re-erupted and has spread across Syria and other adjacent countries.

    At least we are seeing some progress on reducing the scope of the nuclear problem with Iran this week. We should be cautiously glad that negotiations are underway with Iran, rather than the bombing and invasions of Iran strongly recommended by some of the war hawks in Congress.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/14  at  10:48 AM
  2. J. Jay,

    What a complete and thorough humbug you are. If Obama managed to extinguish the sun (from a bungled attempt at stopping global warming), you’d claim he had ‘succeeded in cleaning up a mess’ left over from Bush. The Middle-east has rarely been a bigger mess than it is now. When Bush left office, there was at least some order and terrorism was on the wane. Now, it is highly disordered, fractious, dangerous, and terrorism has reasserted its ugly head. This is exactly what we (and many others) predicted would happen when Bush left because a) it was obvious (to any but a fool or ideologue) Barry distains fighting (or even challenging) an enemy and b) is so pro-Muslim he can’t bring himself to admit the danger even exists. Oh sure, Obama likes to talk tough, and he’s great at suppressing political dissent and harassing small fry, but is spineless before even tin-pot dictators we could easily crush. Plus, he is more concerned with burnishing his pacifist diplomat credentials than he is with his oath to defend and protect.

    You still believe the fairytales of “no al Qaeda in Iraq”, sectarian feuding checked by Saddam, progress against a nuclear Iran, well here are a few incontrovertible realities for you to ponder from mostly liberal sources:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/still-clueless-about-al-qaeda-iraq_576537.html - effective crushes the “no al Qaeda in Iraq” argument. It can be legitimately argued al Qaeda’s presence was less than suggested by Bush (who got it from Clinton), but that is not what you and the left have been claiming (and getting away with).

    http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm - this leftist source admits Saddam practiced genocide (Kurds), tortured political dissenters, and killed thousands of Iraqis (see http://www.ask.com/question/how-many-people-did-saddam-kill?ad=dirN&ap=ask.com&o=0 |). It should be noted, these articles only report those crimes for which there was indisputable proof and/or a criminal conviction; and it is probable they are only the tip of an iceberg time only will reveal. J. Jay commends Saddam for suppressing sectarian violence, but conveniently forgets what a monster he truly was. Additionally, Saddam exploited the war he launched against Iran to reduce his ‘Shiite problem’. He massacred thousands of Iranian (Shiite) refugees living along his eastern border with Iran under cover of purging a ‘fifth column’. He did much the same to Shiites during the 1982 Gulf War, revealing a sectarian streak to his barbarity despite his much touted ‘secularism’. His son, Uday, was a sadistic bastard who relished torturing and murdering victims and any who displeased him. He was also a serial rapist. His brother, Qusay, wasn’t much better (see http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/qusay-and-uday-hussein-killed |).

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/13/senate-support-grows-for-iran-sanctions-bill/4459207/ - reports Obama is now taking flak from his own party over the deal he made because it has no teeth. It also reports Iran is crowing over the deal they got and our allies’ anxiety level is off the charts. The deal not only made it nigh impossible for us to take action against Iran (should they violate terms and/or intent), Obama/Kerry effectively castrated Israel into the bargain. Iran is betting they will have a weapon before we can take effective action to stop it, but I am guessing this is more of a slam dunk than a gamble.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/28/kuhner-obamas-munich/ - Jeff Kuhner says the Iran deal has much in common with Munich (i.e., deal Chamberlain made with Hitler that led to WWII), and I agree except for the suggestion we’ll soon be at war with Iran (plus its allies: Russia, North Korea, & China) because of it. Still, the spineless, pointless and counter-rational aspects are all there.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/16  at  07:29 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.