Chaos, Anarchy, and Obama

Chaos, Anarchy, and Obama

 

Former United Nations ambassador John Bolton recently observed that because of our president’s leadership deficits,  “the world’s descending into chaos,” a chaos that could result in anarchy should America continue to retreat from its responsibilities.

Ambassador Bolton was referring to foreign affairs but his ominous warning could apply equally to the incipient, chaotic, domestic anarchy on America’s horizon attributable to the commander in chief.

My bride of 46 years believes that she would prefer not to live in interesting times, referring to the supposedly apocryphal, ancient Chinese curse which may be based on a Chinese saying that it’s “better to live as a dog in an era of peace than a man in times of trouble.” (Wikipedia)

Both interpretations amount to the same thing, namely that “interesting times” pretty much equates with the idea that even mongrels are better off living their lives in peace rather than human beings living amid conflict.

Apocryphal or not, the times Americans are currently living in and enduring are times that could certainly be characterized as “interesting” as well as unprecedented, a period in history during which most of us may not yet exactly be living like dogs, (which the Chinese eat, along with cats), but which can readily be categorized as troubling for anyone relatively conscious of the world we live in and liberal-leftists are easily the chief contributing factors to our disturbing, interesting times and our troubled minds.

When officials in the Obama administration and supposedly erudite pundits and other members of the intelligentsia pursue policies, make statements and allegations at variance with reason, should we blindly accept their obviously radical ideas and decisions? 

What if they are spewing opinions so far removed from the realm of truth, are we still expected to listen up and heed them?

I think not.  However, judge for yourself . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38201.)

A Retrospective on the First Irag War

A Retrospective on the First Iraq War

 

Now that it’s vividly clear that President Barack Hussein Obama has successfully snatched humiliating defeat from the jaws of tenuous victory in Iraq and that the United States will have to return to Iraq with some sort of military action, members of the Democrat Party and their stooges in Obama’s mainstream media are busily attempting to attach blame for that extremely regrettable situation and for its future consequences on former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and anyone else in the previous administration they can possibly scapegoat.

That pathetic effort is a reflection of how disgraceful–and forgetful–today’s liberal-leftist Democrats and their media lackeys have become.

That disgrace was highlighted by reports this week that the State Department has revealed that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) now occupies the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex housing sarin, mustard gas, and the nerve agent VX, situated less than 50 miles from Baghdad, weapons of mass destruction the Obama administration has dismissed since they were old, contaminated, difficult to move, and therefore constituted no  military value.
 
In view of the fact our ever-indecisive commander-in-chief has yet to decide exactly what future military action would entail, let’s set aside for the moment the probable consequences of America’s re-involvement in Iraq and the possible use by ISIS of those allegedly valueless WMDs. 

Instead, let’s focus for the nonce on how and why we went into that Mideast cesspool in the first place and the Democrat senatorial hypocrites who approved of our intervention.

In a nutshell, Saddam Hussein was a certifiably sadistic megalomaniac and his sons, Uday and Qusay, were potentially worse.

While Uday and Qusay rampaged and raped their way through Iraq, Saddam was committing his own atrocities: He boasted about his weapons of mass destruction which he wouldn’t hesitate to use.  He demonstrated his bloodthirst by invading, looting, and annexing neighboring Kuwait in 1990-91.  

His hitlerian ambitions were ultimately and soundly repulsed in Operation Desert Shield, a war waged by coalition forces from 34 nations led by the United States.  

He subsequently, repeatedly defied 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding, among other things, he destroy his WMDs and permit U.N. inspectors to verify their destruction.

In another nutshell, Saddam Hussein was a treacherous despot and represented not only a serious danger to the Mideast but to America and the world in general.  And, at the time, most Democrats concurred in that estimation as well as in the pressing need to take military action to remove him and the threat he posed with his devastating weaponry. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=37768.)