| Submit your comments on this article |
| --Tech & Moderator Notes |
| Champ and the Renouncing of American Power |
| 2014-01-09 |
| by Steve White In which I respond to Jennifer Rubin's column, "Renouncing American Power", yesterday at WaPo. Recently we've seen news in Iraq about a resurgent al-Qaeda -- you know, the terrorist organization that our President, Champ, had said was "on the run" during the 2012 election -- taking on the Iraqi army in Anbar Province, including the storied city of Falluja. Today's Burg has a story about the civilians who have fled that city and another editorial from Dawn (of all places!) that wonders when American resolve will set things in Iraq straight. Dream on. Ms. Rubin at 'Right Turn' -- she being, with George Will, the token conservatives at WaPo -- points out that Champ and our large-chinned Secretary of State, Jahwn Kerry, are preparing the ground for the U.S. to abandon Iraq. While we say we want Iraq to succeed, so says Kerry, and we'll even ship them a few drones and missiles (if the Iraqi government, led by Prime Minister al-Maliki, promises not to use them against civilians), we don't plan to intervene directly. Ms. Rubin quotes a former ambassador to Iraq, James Jeffrey, who points out in a WaPo op-ed piece that Kerry's recent statement that "this fight is not our but the Iraqis", undercuts all the 'good commitments' that have been made to Iraq. Of course it undercuts our commitments. That's precisely the point. Champ has no intention of stopping al-Qaeda in Iraq, and Jahwn Kerry's statements in the recent presser that "this fight is not our but the Iraqis" makes that perfectly clear. Kerry and Champ are simply laying the groundwork for a bout of handwringing and inaction. Expect one or both (or the numbskull Joe Biden) to tell us in the very near future about how our options are limited and how -- gasp! -- we don't want to put boots on the ground. Ms. Rubin lays out the sequence of events in more detail if you need the dots shoved very, very close together. Suffice to say that we're pretty far along. But there's more to this. This is not an isolated event for Champ and the administration; it's not war-weariness; and it's not just that we're drawing (yet another) red-line, this time to the Iraqis, telling them to shape up and solve their problems because we've already given at the office. You haven't heard a single word, phrase, speech or leak to deliver that message, because that isn't Champ's message. No, the message Champ has is simple: we're not renouncing American power in Iraq, we're renouncing American power. This is just another example for Champ to make clear to Russia, to China, to the Saudis, to the Syrians, and to the Europeans that he wants to withdraw American influence around the world in every way he can. Al-Qaeda can have Iraq, Iran can have nuclear weapons, Pencilneck can gas the people of Syria, Morsi can have power back in Egypt (and the bomb too if he pushes for it, Champ is generous that way), the Palestinians can have all the land between the Jordan and the Med, and the Chinese can do whatever they like in East and South Asia -- which is everything. Putin will get his too. There will be no advancement of American interests because Champ doesn't believe that we have any legitimate interests in the world. Instead we'll waste time, effort and diplomatic energy twisting the arms of the Israelis into giving up their country, which should seal a second Nobel peace prize. Champ doesn't care about foreign policy. He never has, it's an inconvenience to him that takes time away from his true goal of "transforming" America into a socialist state. He has no firm grasp of history, no true understanding despite his education in Indonesia and in proper left-wing academia of how the world works, no desire to wield power outside our borders, and has fixed himself to the most socialist, left-wing nonsense about America's place in the world. People keep missing the point which Champ keeps trying to make as clearly as he can: the biggest enemy in the world to him is the Tea Party, followed closely by the Republicans, then the Catholic Church, and after them the British. The world? Islamicism? Genocide? Thuggery? None of that registers. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #16 American Power means no one can attack, assault, kill, maim, destroy Americans without they, themselves being on the fatal end of a response. American Power means we are not having to put our children and our childrens children into extreme debt to other major countries around the world before they are old enough to get a job or before they are even born. American Power means majority rule by all the people, and not minority rule by a few people over many people without representation. American Power means being a good neighbor and being there when our friends need us when our friends are facing evil. American Power. Means all of the above is worth fighting and dying to preserve for our friends, neighbors, and family. |
| Posted by: Omavising Ebbemp9815 2014-01-09 19:34 |
| #15 Your right rjschwarz. Democrats have been calling Iraq 'another Vietnam' since aout the day after it was started. Slimy Reid (spit!) as much as declared 'the war is lost' on the senate floor. And they have been working overtime to make it (and Afghanistan) another pair of 'Vietnam' war ever since. Just so they can relive their 'Glory Days'. No matter how many American soldiers and Iraqi and Afghanistan civilian lives it may cost - in fact the more the merrier. I wonder if Kerry still watches the films he created while he 'served' in Vietnam like the pathetic old man who still watching his big high school football win to relive his glory days. As I recall didn't he (Kerry) used to go back to sites with a camera and 're-enact' certain actions. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2014-01-09 17:54 |
| #14 Give that man a cigar! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2014-01-09 16:14 |
| #13 The war in Vietnam was declared "unwinnable" by Cronkite while the Democrats were still leading the country. Nixon took over and basically won the war. Democrats could not accept that and starved the South Vietnamese of support and they eventually fell. The war in Iraq was declared unwinnable by virtually every member of the MSM. Bush doubled down with the surge and turned thing around and the war seemed to be won when the Democrats took over. Seems they would rather lose wars than have Republicans get credit. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2014-01-09 15:25 |
| #12 Concluding that Champ does not care about National Security is off the mark. He most certainly does, it's just that his threat assessment has determine the American People are the greatest danger to his administration. See: the FBI's new Mission Statement. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2014-01-09 11:16 |
| #11 |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-01-09 10:00 |
| #10 #8 Besoeker - Than you for the succinct presentation of American ME strategy... ; ) |
| Posted by: Uncle Phester 2014-01-09 09:55 |
| #9 ...maelstrom a' comes this way... |
| Posted by: Uncle Phester 2014-01-09 09:52 |
| #8 |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-01-09 08:51 |
| #7 Champ is nothing more than Buchanan with a wife. It's the American people who are the problem. They can be forgiven for electing him once. But twice, when it's clear what he was? There's only one reason he was re-elected. After what he's done with the power he got courtesy of them, I'd say we're even. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2014-01-09 08:31 |
| #6 History warns either you influence events or events influence you. As dirty as foreign affairs and involvement are, reducing yourself to only responding to outside 'stimuli' means giving the initiative to others who, by the record, are not concerned with your good will or well being. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-01-09 08:30 |
#5  SYMPOSIUM: IF I WANTED AMERICA TO FAIL … Socrates (470-399 B.C.) – a renowned Greek philosopher from Athens who taught Plato, and Plato taught Aristotle and Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. Socrates used a method of teaching by asking leading questions. The Greeks called this form dialectic – starting from a thesis or question, then discussing ideas and moving back and forth between points of view to determine how well ideas stand up to critical review with the ultimate principle of the Socratic dialectic being Veritas – Truth. Note: Above taken from the Ellis Washington Report, and there from a the video and column “If I wanted America to fail” by Ryan Houck, executive director of FreeMarketAmerica.org, a project of Americans for Limited Government. His work was inspired by Paul Harvey’s “If I were the Devil” published in 1964 and 1996. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-01-09 03:25 |
| #4 Excellent piece Doctor. Darth Bolton was interviewed yesterday and he mirrors your assessment on Champ's obvious lack of concern for our national security. I suspect Champ, now realizing he's approaching the "the back nine" of his term, is anxious to complete his domestic social justice, redistro plan. Defense is a nice big pot of money, and the military generally didn't vote for him anyway. He may have other things on his mind right now. That creamy Danish at the Mandela Memorial may have put FLOTUS over the top. Nothing like a little family scandal to occupy the press. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-01-09 02:37 |
| #3 That's not a dream - that's a nightmare! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2014-01-09 01:03 |
| #2 Hadda a dream the night before last. I was trapped in a hotel with Champ, and all the doors were locked -- except for the public area bathrooms. Champ didn't seem to care. |
| Posted by: Dopey Sinatra 2014-01-09 00:25 |
| #1 "Champ and ...Kerry ...are preparing the groundwork for the US to abandon Iraq" ... East Asia + 1/2 of Pacific, Hawaii = EASTPAC?, 1/2 of CONUS-NORAM for "living space", but hey who's measuring??? I hear Californey may break up into six new states, but clearly there is no common link wid the above .... Or is there??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2014-01-09 00:24 |