Obama the coward? (Part I)
Ralph Peters has been furious at Obama for a long time.
I’ve seen him every now and then on TV during the last couple of years, and he seemed to be getting angrier and angrier, gritting his teeth in order to stay even marginally civil when he spoke of the president’s foreign policy.
So it’s no surprise that on Friday he went totally and completely non-PC during an interview with Stuart Varney. He must have considered it would be worth the two-week suspension he received to finally, finally say what he’d been thinking and holding in all this time.
I wouldn’t say it the same way. But I happen to agree with him, for the most part:
Forget the language for a moment. Otherwise, I actually don’t think Peters went far enough (although of course it’s the language that got him attention; otherwise his remarks would mostly be ignored). Why do I say that? Once I got past the word “pussy”—which in the current climate of what’s acceptable and what isn’t acceptable, language-wise, seems rather mild—I began to wonder whether Obama is acting as he does towards ISIS from cowardice. I concluded that, although he might also be a coward, he’s not acting as he does towards ISIS from cowardice. The wellsprings of his hands-off ISIS policy are deeper and both tactical and ideological, and that’s what I’m referring to when I say that Peters didn’t go far enough.
Consider this: if Obama weren’t a coward, would he be attacking ISIS more vigorously? Obama may or may not be a coward, but that’s not why he doesn’t do more against ISIS. His holding back on ISIS has to do with a combination of considerations: domestic politics (it would upset his base were he to respond by sending a significant number of ground troops, for example), a desire to differentiate himself from George Bush, and a perception that he (Obama) can ignore ISIS with impunity. On that last point, Obama has been widely criticized for calling ISIS (which he calls “ISIL”) the “jayvee,” but it seems he still thinks ISIS is the jayvee—that is, something we needn’t bother with except as a political opportunity for the president and the left to push gun control and talk about how mean Americans are to Muslims.
We are used to American presidents—Democrats and Republicans, whatever their other differences—taking seriously their duty to defend this country. Obama doesn’t seem especially worked up about it, although he pays lip service to it. At any rate, he does not think ISIS is a significant threat. You can see it in his demeanor and tone, his boredom and annoyance.
It may be a hard thing to accept and understand, but that lack of urgency about ISIS doesn’t stem from whatever cowardice Obama may or may not have, which is a separate issue. What it stems from are things beyond cowardice Among them are leftism and the desire to take the US down a peg or two and withdraw from a leadership role—except, that is, for the causes that seem to mean something to Obama, which are for the US to lead in empowering Iran in the region, to take the role of making the Western world take AGW seriously and react in a way he considers desirable, and to change the demographics of the US so that the left has a permanent majority. Obama sees ISIS as an opportunity to push gun control and the “America the bigoted” meme, but he also sees ISIS as a mere distraction from the other causes I just mentioned, such as AGW (which he has absurdly tried to link to ISIS in a similar way to gun control, although the AGW link hasn’t quite worked as well because it seems clearly absurd).
Obama’s refusal to take ISIS seriously and to do what any other president of the past would have done to combat it may seem like the result of a personal quirk of cowardice. But it’s not. That position has other and deeper ideological roots with Obama, and it’s not just Obama who thinks this way. Tomorrow in Part II I plan to take up that topic, which is a large one.
He is, of course, Muslim.
Obama is doing as little as possible against ISIS because he is all in with the Muslim Brotherhood which spawned ISIS. It’s also the umbrella organization for Hamas and Al Queda!
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/egyptian-govt-says-isis-came-muslim-brotherhood
He is doing as little as possible as a sop to domestic politics, not because he believes in military action against them. Remember that following the fall of Mubarak in Egypt, the MB won elections and took over. They promptly began persecuting the Coptic Christians, burning down their churches and murdering them. Obama said nothing (and neither did Hillary). When the military overthrew the MB, Obama promptly came out and condemned them going so far as to hold up military equipment purchased by Egypt.
Hillary is also sympathetic to the MB as evidenced by her second in command, Humma Abedin, daughter of an MB member and long time employee of an MB organization in the US. The State Department is apparently infested with MB personnel and CAIR gets to make decisions because of her.
No, he’s not a Muslim. I’ve started to get irritated when I see this. He IDENTIFIES with Muslims, but he doesn’t believe in anything but leftist ideology. He’s a progressive who passionately believes that people of color are always victims and always morally superior to people of pallor.
Its actually not that complicated.
Obama is waiting for the “New Man” to emerge from the rubble of the middle east. The New Man will be generous and kind, and his emergence will solve the middle east’s problems.
The only thing we have to do to bring for the New Man is to leave the place alone.
Karl Marx promised it. And Karl Marx can’t be wrong.
James:
Actually, that’s not so far off from what I’ll be writing in Part II.
Although it is more complicated.
I’m with mizpants on this, and I’ve written about that topic before. My position is that he’s not a religious person at all, but he has sympathies with Muslims and Islam.
But that’s not what’s behind his policy towards ISIS. After all, ISIS kills a lot of Muslims. And if Obama has leanings towards any Muslim country it’s definitely towards Iran, not ISIS.
NeoNeocon Says: I concluded that, although he might also be a coward, he’s not acting as he does towards ISIS from cowardice. The wellsprings of his hands-off ISIS policy are deeper and both tactical and ideological, and that’s what I’m referring to when I say that Peters didn’t go far enough.
Now the reality of it has to do with looking at the fine details the reporting kind of leaves out and so on, and then figuring out who is behind what and so what is serving what.
and i wont get into a long thing as its ridiculous to do so as most have not paid close attention, and so what is, and what they think are not the same thing. and since the place that is control and orchestrating is not believed to be doing any of that, let alone what one paying attention can figure out, well, i end up looking foolish to ignorati and thats that.
but note, since before the fall of the soviet union, russia has been steering islam taking over that job from their partner in WWII crimes, the reich
they still are, and history supports actions that people would claim proves the opposite (while forgetting that certain systems such things are the norm, not the proof of abnorm)
The whole isis thing: Cui Buono?
i mean really benefits, even if seeming sacrifices are made for appearances? even seeming enemies may appear that way to cover their cooperation, no?
well, russia benefits from the destabilization in oil. Turkey actually benefits from the killing of the pipelines that would have hit them hard by bypassing them to europe.
then there is the talk from Gaidar Jamal… who? well, if you dont know them, then you dont really know whats going on, eh? the other way to spell his name is: Geydar Dzhahidovich Dzhemal
[edited for length by n-n]
The simple fact, as others have pointed out, is that he has no emotional connection with or investment in the history, people, or heritage of this country and culture. For him, the US is a legal platform and material infrastructure from which he can leverage and work out an ideological and political agenda.
The actual American people, or a goodly percentage of them, are just in the way.
I believe that, for once in his life, Barry let the truth slip out — in one of his self-hagiographic books, he says that Rev. Wright was the greatest spiritual influence in his life. Everything The One believes can be found in “Reverend” Wright’s sermons: “God Damn America,” anti-Semitism, honoring Muslims (even fake Muslims, like Farrakhan), anti-white people. Want to know what Barry will say on any issue? Find what the “Rev” said and you’ll have it.
DNW: Amen.
I agree with Paul’s take on Obama. He is on the side of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and its brethren,
He’s also on the side of the Shiite Iranian regime. When the Iranian people rose up in their Green revolution, Obama sided with the mullahs, He followed that up with the worst deal in history.
If there is a conflict anywhere, Obama almost always sides with leftists and anti-Westerners.
Can we survive another year of Obama?
ok one more post as people are not reading what the people in the know are discussing outside the purview of the news, magazines, tv, etc.
before one suggests hillary and obama are in with the muslim brotherhood, one should realize that they are in with that which controls it, not it itself
Aleksandr Dugin had an interesting debate Olavo de Carvalho – not that the news would let you know, but the political theory and leaders pay attention to them.
de Carvalho claims that the Western financial elite has been working to establish its own worldwide socialist dictatorship, which is not to be confused with the dictatorship of Moscow or Beijing
that this socialism is created by the richest families in the west – ergo so many leaders of this stuff are from wealthy families you would think would oppose such a thing… however the point is that they are protecting what they have from the natural outcome over time of new people inventing things and taking their place. think of it as a form of economic political king of the hill
he points to Anthony Sutton and his work, of which here is a quote: In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all – perhaps 90-95 percent – came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities. This massive construction job has taken 50 years. Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance
his point was that the western powers were purposefully giving technology to russia and later china for the facilitation of conflict that would create opportunities for wealth and negation of competition in their own sphere.
“[Dugin’s] task is to recruit soldiers for the battle against the West and for the establishment of the universal Eurasian Empire. Mine is to attempt to understand the political situation of the world so that my readers and I are not reduced to the condition of blind men caught in the gunfire of the global combat….” – Carvalho
[edited for length by n-n]
The mannish boy is on the side of the mannish boy. When he looks in the mirror he sees god. He hates with a deep, dark passion Western Civilization. Anything that diminishes the West and elevates the ‘victims’ of the West earns his approval and support.
There are four ‘layers’ to Obama. At his core, Obama is a narcissistic sociopath (ala parker). Overlayed upon that is his racism and identification with Islam (ala mizpants). The third outward layer is a Marxist/Chomskyite world view. Finally we have the ‘Rev.’ Wright’s hate filled polemics (ala R. Saunders). It exactly tracks the “mannish” boy’s atrophied maturation.
What DNW said … He’s just not into us. I don’t think anyone outside of his own tight circle of friends are really real to him. Just little cardboard cutouts on a board, to be moved hither and yon.
DNW and Sgt. Mom:
I agree that he’s not into us. I would expand that further to say he’s not into people in general. Obama is a cold character. The only people he’s into are his disciples, and perhaps his kids.
But I wouldn’t say he’s just not into us. As I wrote at the end of this post, there are deeper policy issues involved that determine his course as well. I’ll write about that tomorrow.
If Obama isn’t a Muslim, then why does he wear a ring reading “There is no God but Allah” in Arabic?
Obama uses ISIL, because that’s the term Daesh used until they decided to use just IS, Islamic State.
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. A much larger region than Syria, and which, by the way, includes Israel.
Obama is always careful to flatter our enemies.
KBK:
He’s not just flattering them, he’s in league with them. Every single sign points in the same direction. It’s just so mind-boggling that most people, even patriots, have a hard time grasping it — the simple fact that we have a real-live Manchurian candidate in our White House.
ISIL, which Obama ALWAYS uses, is what the jihadis use to mean that Israel Does Not Exist, Must Not Exist — that the mohammedan mandate must run clear to the Mediterranean Sea. And all the Jews and Christians and any other non-Muslims must die.
It’s no accident that the jackass in the White House hates Bibi so much. Nor that his own “pastor,” Jeremiah Wright, has admitted that he didn’t convert Hussein from Islam to Christianity (“I wouldn’t go that far,” Wright said).
Why is it so hard to understand ?
Barry views ISIS as his proxy army to punish Assad.
That’s the ONLY explanation for the non-bombing of Raqqa all this time.
It was totally unsullied.
It took Hollande to drop the first few bombs.
Even Putin gave ISIS a pass — until the KGB// SVR pointed the blame for Russia’s aircraft murder.
Barry ONLY punished this or that ISIS assassin when they got too much media exposure, (Jihadi John) or when they were deemed a threat to the West.
This is SO obvious that every man on the street in the Middle East thinks it true.
Erdogan and Barry are arm-in-arm arming ISIS.
The USAF is — de facto — PROTECTING ISIS from Putin and Assad.
Haven’t you figured that much out ?
Putin has been using cruise missiles to attack ISIS — instead of his jets — because he needs to stay away from our F-22 fighter cover… which is impossible to see// detect.
The Russians simply have to assume that the Raptors are up all the time.
And, you’ll note that the cruise missiles came in the back door.
The Russians have even uploaded video to the WWW showing ISIS oil tankers queued up at the Turkish border — with OUR drone watching the proceedings from above — and the Russian drone higher yet still. !!!
Barry has done ZIP to stop the funding of ISIS — because its HIS proxy army.
He shares it with
Turkey
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
They are ALL involved up past their eyeballs.
ISIS oil sales are wholly insufficient to fund operations.
Erdogan is making a fortune skimming ISIS oil sales — and Kurdish oil sales. (KDP)
The Turkish economy is being held afloat by food exports to ISIS. ISIS would entirely fold up without Erdogan’s support.
Yes, Putin is ticked.
I’m with you, Neo. Not Far Enough.
I mostly like the Colonel: Tough-Smart-No Bullshit….
That said, I heard him do a Rant on “neocons” on Michael Medved’s radio show a few weeks ago(Michael, as is his way)was too polite and nonresponsive to the dissing of us neocons(“…spoiled Ivy League wimps who never served in the military..” etc, etc)as they were mostly talking the current ISIS situation. I sent a well composed, but obviously angry, post to Michael the same day. No reply, of course. But, worth noting, Medved is an Ivy League Neocon who(like me)didn’t serve. Like David Mamet bluntly stated for himself in,”The Secret Knowledge”, I’ve long felt a deserved amount of shame. But, it gives Ralphie No Superiority for having served and dissing our utterly valid opinions. He naturally mentioned the Evil One” Dick Cheney in the Neocon dissing which doubly pissed me off.