The Roots of Barack Obama's Selective Crises

The Roots of Barack Obama's Selective Crises

From the outset, when Barack Hussein Obama first announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States in 2007 and through Election Day, Americans of every political stripe have had serious, if often belated, misgivings regarding a candidate with minimal qualifications and experience with all of two years as a U.S. senator presumptuously vying for the highest office in the land and the position as leader of the Free World. 

Unfortunately and wrongly, those concerns were frequently dismissed as baseless reflections of racial prejudice against an African-American.

A few days before that election, liberal Charlie Rose made no reference to that canard but astoundingly admitted to liberal Tom Brokaw on national television that, “I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is.”  Brokaw responded, “No, I don’t either” and added that, “We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy” or the people advising him. 

In essence, two of Obama ‘s staunchest supporters were conceding that their chosen presidential candidate was a total enigma.  

In short order, although to my knowledge neither Rose nor Brokaw have ever reiterated their qualms, they and the American people have learned a great deal about Obama’s thinking on many issues and about his advisers and we are learning more and more every day about his thinking on both foreign and domestic affairs. 

Many of his ideologically-driven thoughts and actions have reinforced the view that Obama was woefully and dangerously unprepared for his office.  

For example, just recently, America’s commander in chief decided that the deadly Ebola virus currently confined mostly to west Africa represents a far greater threat to America and the world than any other problems including ISIS terrorists who have vowed to visit their murderous movement on our country and the rest of Western civilization.

There exists no reasonable doubt that Ebola represents a significant danger to Americans’ health and safety but the virus  hardly poses an imminent threat anywhere near comparable to ISIS.

In the unlikely event Obama is right in his comparative threat assessment of Ebola, which the UN Security Council has also called a danger to world peace–without singling out the virus as the most pressing world problem–he felt it merited dispatching at least 3,000 combat troops to Liberia to set up treatment centers in lieu of sending them to Iraq despite the fact they are trained for combat and not for construction missions.

Likewise, Obama has determined that in order to crush ISIS in the Mid East, “boots on the ground” are unnecessary and that America’s potent air power, in conjunction with assistance from our coalition allies, is sufficient to wipe out 32,000 ISIS terrorists.

The problems with his “strategy” are manifold, . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=39120.)

Obama's Complicity in the Beheading of James Foley

Obama's Complicity in the Beheading of James Foley

 

President Barack Hussein Obama interrupted his latest Martha’s Vineyard vacation to devote all of five minutes in condemning in no uncertain terms the grisly, videotaped beheading of American photojournalist James Foley and the Muslim perpetrators of that horrendous crime before hopping on his motorcade to tend to more important business, working on his golf game.

Well, he didn’t actually condemn adherents to the religion of peace but he defiantly did say, “One thing we can all agree on is a group like ISIL has no place in the 21st century.”

That alone, in his mind, would be more than sufficient to deter a threatened second beheading of an American should the U.S. continue bombing the barbaric, Islamic terrorists.

If not in name, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), al-Qaeda’s philosophical heirs, are virtually synonymous, especially in regard to their murderous jihadist practices and their quest for a worldwide caliphate based on Sharia law and the Koran. 

If successful, their movement would effectively turn back the world’s clock to the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s seventh century. 

From an expedient political point of view, it’s eminently comprehensible why Obama would abbreviate his statement on James Foley’s brutal decapitation. 

As with the assassination of U.S. Major General Harold Greene in Afghanistan on August 5th, the first killing of an American general in a war zone in 141 years, to draw excessive attention to either tragedy would only vividly highlight yet other failures of his policies so our commander in chief chose to skip Greene’s funeral and minimize his comments on Foley’s murder. 

With regard to the latter, Obama had an even greater incentive to go golfing instead of elaborating on the moral degradation of Islam–his direct complicity in Foley’s kidnapping and torture two years ago as well as his involvement in Foley's brutal decapitation. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38643.)

Eradicating Iraqi Christians

Eradicating Iraqi Christians

 

Thank goodness that, at least according to President Barack Hussein Obama, the war in Iraq is finally over. 

That was certainly the implication when our president fulfilled a campaign pledge by withdrawing most U.S. troops in 2009 thereby washing his hands of the conflict after six bloody years during which we lost 4,486 brave soldiers and 32,222 members of the military were wounded.

Surely, Obama would not have withdrawn our forces had hostilities not ceased.  That would have effectively declared our troops had wasted their time and blood, suffered tens of thousands injuries and given their lives for nothing, and that America had pissed away a trillion dollars of our national treasure on a useless effort.

Well, that’s exactly what our president did and what happened in Iraq subsequent to our bug-out has proven how disastrous fulfilling a campaign promise can be.  Considering that he has failed to come through on most of his hopey-changey pledges, it’s odd that prematurely pulling out of Iraq was so near the top of his priority list, no?

I guess the scholar Obama never studied Gen. Douglas MacArthur who wisely said it makes no sense to get involved in a war unless you were prepared to win it.

It’s not the purpose here to evaluate the merits of the Iraq War which, at this point, will probably go down in history as a defeat, along with our Korea and Viet Nam failures.

Suffice to say, many reports in 2003 had indicated Saddam Hussein still possessed the deadly weapons of mass destruction he had already  employed against his own people and it was widely felt, even by such venerable Democrats as Sen. Ted Kennedy, that he wouldn’t hesitate to use them again.  The fact those WMDs were never found is most likely not attributable to President George W. Bush’s evil designs as much as to Hussein having relocated them in anticipation of an invasion.

That said, following Obama’s bug-out, Iraq has gradually descended into utter chaos as Islamic Sunnis and Shiites reignited their age-old, never ending, fratricidal, civil war.  Many Iraqis have came to wonder whether their lives under the mad Saddam and his psychopathic sons, Uday and Qusay, may have been preferable to living under their corrupt Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Iraqi Christians, however, were much less ambivalent over their Sophie’s Choice than Sunnis and Shiites.  For the most part, they were treated no more brutally than Muslims under the Hussein clan.  That situation, that treatment, radically changed after America abandoned them. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38330.