As President Obama would say, let’s make something clear: what Barack Obama says is meaningless. For him, words are cheap. They serve his immediate ego needs and purposes, nothing more. Every word, including “a,” “the” and “and” have an expiration date determined by when it is convenient for him to ignore them, or deny he ever said them, even when voluminous video of him saying them exists to refute him.
President Obama is a pathological liar. He lies for no apparent reason. He lies when the truth would better serve him. Caught in lies, he lies about his lying, accusing others of saying and doing what he said or did or didn’t do. Even Democrats have come to notice, and even, upon occasion, admit it.
I’m tempted to think our President a sociopath, a person with no feelings, no caring about others, but that’s somewhat inaccurate. There is no question he is a malignant narcissist. He surely cares more than anything about himself. And from what the press tells us, such is Mr. Obama’s saintly devotion to his family he could have replaced Robert Young on Father Knows Best.
It’s his public persona that is so disturbing. Most politicians can manage a convincing simulation of genuine human emotional response in most circumstances. Barack Obama can’t—or won’t. What human being capable of feeling genuine empathy or sympathy lies to the survivors of Americans killed at Benghazi or in the Fast and Furious debacle about the cause of the death of their loved ones?
And so Mr. Obama stands before the nation to rhetorically paper over his assessment of ISIS as the JV team, and his feckless, but accidentally honest, admission that he hasn’t a clue what to do about ISIS. He feigns concern, sincerity and resolve and commitment to the values all Americans share, and he speaks of the core principle of his presidency—of course, his speech is full of references to himself, as always—which is that anyone that harms Americans will be ruthlessly, relentlessly hunted down–except the hundreds of terrorists that killed our people at Benghazi. Mr. Obama’s ruthless, relentless pursuit of his core principle, in two years, has resulted in a single arrest, rather than the military obliteration of the terrorists that slaughtered Americans. This would appear to be rather an insubstantial core.
Prediction: having spoken the words, Mr. Obama will kick this particular can down the road until he leaves office in 2017. He will not “destroy” ISIS. He will not build a meaningful, functional coalition. He will not fight a war, and ISIS will continue to grow in influence, power and brutality. Oh, he’ll lob the occasional missile or bomb at a pickup truck, a tent or a few terrorists, but that’s the status quo, his standard operating procedure.
Why can I be sure of this? Because Barack Obama remains an Islamist sympathizer and supporter. From his speech:
Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents. And the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.
An Islamic terrorist organization whose name is the “Islamist State In Syria” or “The Islamic State in the Levant” isn’t Islamist? An organization that flies an Islamist flag and kills in the name of Allah isn’t Islamist? They think they are. They have declared a caliphate, which is a primary goal of jihad, which is an exclusively Islamist doctrine. It doesn’t matter who recognizes it, the goal of all Islamists is world subjugation and domination in the name of Islam. Islam specifically enjoins its followers to murder innocents, particularly Jews, and Infidels, which is every non-Muslim. That’s one religion that condones the killing of innocents. Or perhaps Mr. Obama is simply engaging in what he imagines to be clever spin in that Islam doesn’t consider Jews and Infidels to be “innocent.”
One of the indisputable truths of Islam is that the Islamists that are killing “innocents” in the name of Islam are the people living the very clear and specific dictates of their “religion of peace” faith. The Muslims that are not, that are trying to live peacefully within western civilization—if they’re not engaging in such practices as wife-beating, the genital mutilation of girls and women and honor killing—are not living the commands of their faith.
If Barack Obama can’t understand this, how can he combat it? He can’t, nor does he want to.
Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt. They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing but an endless slavery to their empty vision, and the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior.
Muslims aren’t supposed to murder other Muslims, but one has to break a few eggs in the establishment of the worldwide caliphate omelet. Christians might consider some people to be apostates, but they don’t kill them. Millions of Muslims do, gladly, considering themselves great heroes of Islam.
Barack Obama would do well not to profess to speak for God. “They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West…” They may?! And what more evidence of this claim would Mr. Obama require? Would a mushroom cloud rising over an American metropolis serve to cause that realization to dawn on Mr. Obama, or would that merely be an occasion for greater understanding and outreach, lest some think the “religion of peace,” less than peaceful?
As bankrupt as the ideology of ISIS may be, they can point with unerring accuracy to specific passages of the Koran that not only justify, but mandate their actions. How does that reality comport with a bankrupt ideology? Oh yes, the terrorists are mean, nasty and do bad, uncivilized things, but where is the determination to wipe them from the face of the Earth? Where is a single, specific, clear goal that will result in their demise and the demise of their murderous ideology?
Instead, we know only, with clarity, what Mr. Obama absolutely will not do, and those things appear to be the actual means to prosecute and win a war.
What Barack Obama has offered, yet again, is feigned concern and resolve in the pursuit of the appearance of a rhetorical “policy” that will serve Mr. Obama’s transient political interests. I’ve little doubt, however, that Mr. Obama’s genuine annoyance, and then anger, will flourish as he and his fawning advisors come to realize they have to maintain this particular charade for at least the next two years.
There is no question that Mr. Obama genuinely hates conservatives, Republicans, Fox News, Israel and our other allies. He has no trouble correctly identifying those enemies of the state. Would that he had any actual hatred for our declared, fanatical, determined, suicidal, barbaric, murderous enemies. Would that he could actually identify them.
UPDATE, 09-11-14, 2130 CST: Well, this doesn’t help. From Hot Air:
America is not going to ‘war,’ per say, according to Secretary of State John Kerry and White House Press Sec. Josh Earnest. No, what they envision is merely another counter-terror operation. Just like the supposedly model operations ongoing in nearly imploding Yemen, or in Somalia, which has become synonymous for ‘basket case failed state.’
While traveling in the Middle East to shore up support for what everyone sure thought was going to be a war to ‘degrade and destroy’ ISIS, America’s chief diplomat took the opportunity to clarify the president’s thinking.
‘What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counter-terrorism operation,’ Kerry said. ‘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 counter-terrorism operation.’
‘I don’t think people need to get into a war fever on this,’ the secretary of state added.
Less than 24 hours after what the White House and its sycophants surely believed to be a muscular, testosterone-laden speech demonstrating Mr. Obama’s manly, terror warrior credentials, his spokesweenies are already walking it back, and in dramatic fashion. It’s rather hard to imagine how we’re going to “degrade and destroy” our non-Islamist non-enemy with an aggressive air campaign, if it’s only a “counter-terrorism” operation and not a war. Why would anyone think Mr. Obama wouldn’t follow his own precedent and over the next two years arrest one ISIS terrorist to prosecute in New York City?
Extra Credit Question: You are the leader of a Middle Eastern nation–choose one–worried about ISIS and anxious to remove the threat ISIS represents. Could you trust President Obama to be there when you need him most? Discuss.
“An Islamic terrorist organization whose name is the “Islamist State In Syria” or “The Islamic State in the Levant” isn’t Islamist? An organization that flies an Islamist flag and kills in the name of Allah isn’t Islamist? They think they are” —
Do you feel the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea is anything remotely resembling that?
Honest Tom’s used Car Lot, Mike. “Collection of Nutters that Kill Random People” doesn’t quite have the same curb appeal, know what I mean?
“Islamist states that kill other Islamists” is equally unattractive, which potentially might be the motive for Obama’s assessment.
” Christians might consider some people to be apostates, but they don’t kill them” — at least not regularly. I wouldn’t deal in absolutes on this one.
“Would a mushroom cloud rising over an American metropolis serve to cause that realization to dawn on Mr. Obama, or would that merely be an occasion for greater understanding and outreach, lest some think the “religion of peace,” less than peaceful?” — wasn’t that part of the justification for jumping in against Saddam? Geo-politically, that was a horrible move.
“Could you trust President Obama to be there when you need him most? ” — I will choose Iraq, and I will wonder why I kicked his troops out, rather than extend the SoFA. I needed him most pre 2011, I needed his resources well before ISIS was a threat, but I pulled the welcome mat out on him.
Our continued presence in Iraq would have earned us another enemy that rather than killing innocents, other Muslims of different belief, etc, would instead be dedicated to still trying to kill the great Satan.
Our presence should be bartered for. We -should- be present invoices for every bomb dropped and drop of fuel spent to actually GET something out of this. The people of the Mid East will never be free of people like this unless they themselves realize the problems radicalization cause, and choke it off. Us playing whack-a-mole with them does nothing.
@RuleofOrder, if it’s in our national interests, we should be there on our dime. If it’s not in our national interests, we’re nobody’s mercenaries. Bartering… really?
BTW, whom do you mean by “we”? Just curious.
So then what are our national interests by conducting military action half a globe away? What interests are served for us by trying to negotiate a way to continue a war on a concept (Terror!) if the host country for that war tossed us? We can’t win that fight. Its punching a tar baby, there will always be some other group, and we have chosen one of the most expensive ways to fight a cheap movement. Life is cheap, war isn’t. Those overseas heads that orchestrate their groups know this. We are dropping quarter million dollar ordinance on pickup trucks and men with soviet era weaponry.
Yes, bartering. If we beat down your oppressors for you, we should get something out of it. Why is that a bad concept? If government should be run like a business (as has been the platform of many conservatives I have run across), how would ‘breaking even’ on a venture overseas be a bad thing?
The same person you do when you say “our” dime. We, us, Americans as a whole.
Seems to me we have already had a cloud over a major American city, at the World Trade Center and a couple of major explosions. If my memory serves me correctly (and it does) explosions at the WTC on to different occasions, flying planes into them and exploding a rented truck in the underground parking garage. Both times by the people in question. But who knows maybe your right, maybe we should have shown up with a box with a red button on it and “reset” relations with them like Hillary C. did with Putin. Since the seem to be the type of people who would respond so well to the “lets have a conversation” about it.
P.S. It didn’t work so well with Putin. And he ridiculed her on world wide TV.
I do however agree with you that we were in Iraq way way to long, and not knowing what political undercurrents may have been involved with us being there ( I know WMD’s… ok) but keeping in mind that the Bush family are oil people and have been a political and financial dynasty since nearly the turn of the century, mostly behind the scenes, until H.W. came along I would say Afganistan MIGHT have been for people and country, Iraq was and is about the money. With people in thier echelon, I quess I always question thier motives.
Having said way more than I intended, I’ll leave with the words of the immortal warrior John Rambo………. “They drew first blood.. not us.
Mike McDaniel said:
Quite rights, and welcome to SMM.