Not just President Coward, but President Coward with his REAL strategy: let’s call him by his REAL name, President Coward Cloward-Piven.
That’s Obama now, and probably always was — only now he’s out of the closet and into the golf cart, right back to his college days. Obama doesn’t appear to care, nor can one suppose there is fear under that carapace of sneering indifference. Perhaps his indifference lies in knowing that the secrets he holds are ones that would surely bring others down with him.
Does that sound paranoid? This administration has led me along paths of paranoia I hadn’t realized existed. Nor am I alone in this sad journey.
A comment dated yesterday, appended to that YouTube video of Mr. Whittle’s, said what I have been known to mutter on my bad days:
Bill needs to read a little more. All empires eventually collapse, generally after about one hundred to one hundred and fifty years, although some fail long before. The US ‘empire’ is almost one hundred years old and is approaching its end, as its craven and impotent political class shows. Don’t be frightened, there is life after empire, you just have to get used to playing second fiddle to a much more powerful competitor. Get used to it quickly and learn enough Chinese to apologise profusely when they threaten you with military retaliation because your government doesn’t follow their agenda.
No and no. To begin with, lots of empires lasted longer than he claims is their usual life-span. Also we were never an Empire On Purpose. George Washington warned us as he left office to keep out of foreign entanglements. But the well-traveled sophisticates Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson thought we should try foreign markets for the sake of our domestic economy. Unfortunately, foreign markets meant finding personnel to maintain a presence wherever we wanted to build commercial ties. A coming continent of untold resources and a citizenry free to innovate cried out for trade.
Our attempts at “empire” failed eventually, after egregious missteps by both former empires and by our own distracted, ever-incoherent “foreign” policy. Despite the cries of Manifest Destiny we suck at foreign policy, even as we keep trying, resembling ever more closely the cartoonish bumblers in old vaudeville routines. There is nothing graceful about our missteps and even less so our attempted cover-ups of mistakes.
You could compare our efforts to the ways China keeps trying to grow a market economy — ineptly and half-heartedly. China’s intellectual understanding has evolved enough to grasp that a demand economy works better in the long run than a command economy. However, the weight of history and habit — not to mention a conserving culture handed down from the old emperors — means that letting go and building transparency into the system will require trusting the Chinese people. That may be an innovation too far.
By the way, there’s another thing about China’s supposed menace: that large country is imploding on so many levels the idea of a Chinese empire will remain merely that: an idea. China is both too ancient and too young to attempt it yet. And Australia has to be more concerned about that than we do — Australia and India and the Philippines.
We may be coming to an interregnum period of No Empires. Will it be a vacuum? Will Russia rush to fill it? Or will Putin be satisfied with the security of locking in his own near-abroad and insuring a dependable energy supply which he can use for domestic purposes and to intimidate those who need those resources? Putin is mortal; Russia needs a post-Putin plan, too.
One sign of our ineptitude in foreign policy is our inability to teach it well. Our Georgetown graduates are looking to get ahead and get into sinecures provided by friends and relatives with enough clout to open the doors to a diplomatic career. Not merit but who you know — those are the “career” folk who move up the ranks to work hand-in-glove with the upper echelons of the finance sector. That is how we rigged the oligarchy which rules us now, to the point that elections truly don’t matter and we happily “vote” for the earnest empty suits they put up for our consideration. Meanwhile, politicians bide their time in a cloak of insider incumbency, waiting to take on a role in the permanent government bureaucracy when their attempts at gaining the office of president fail.
[I fear that some enterprising soul will invent “Empire in a Box” for would-be dictators. The directions will read a lot like the Chinglish explanations that come with products made in China which are designed to be assembled at home — i.e., furiously frustrating and unclear and the resulting equipment eventually dangerous and/or unworkable.]
No, America is in a melt-down for a myriad of reasons but not simply because our Imperial turn is up.
President Hope and Change changed his tune, singing instead about Blame, about Despair and Stuck-on-Stupid and a whole new boatload of corruption. Most of all he has invaded his own country with illegals who are taking on jobs while almost ten million people are out of work, including a sadly higher percentage of blacks than any other group — and I mean those young black men who followed the rules, stayed in school, and emerged with a heavy load of debt to find the marketplace empty.
Having left us in a mire of despondency, Obama retired to the golf course. He barely pretends to “work” at his own job. One of our tasks is figure out if all this mess would’ve happened irrespective of his lawless reign, or, on the other hand, if, despite him, it could have been avoided because America is bigger than a two-bit golf-obsessed Hamlet who ignores the Constitution, and has always ignored it. That document gives us directions for handling crises like those Obama has created, but we lack the will to do so. I, for one, want my black neighbors to see him finish out his term, however badly he does it, just so they won’t despair completely over the state of this nation.
Clare Lopez thinks Obama has gone over to the other side, an opinion many have held since before his first election:
…America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama. Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have said in private, but declined to say on-the-record.*
Ms. Lopez’ credentials?
Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy and Senior Fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and the Canadian Meighen Institute and formerly with The Clarion Project . Since 2013, she has served as a member of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi. Also Vice President of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006, and has served as a consultant, intelligence analyst, and researcher for a variety of defense firms. She was named a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute in 2011.
The Examiner based its report largely on Lopez’ recent interview with World Net Daily:
Lopez said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates. Lopez believes that the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government. One of the most outrageous of those appointments is Mohamed Elibiary, a senior member of the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council. According to a report by the Center for Security Policy, Elibiary supports brokering a U.S. partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group. Two months ago, a firestorm erupted online after Elibiary tweeted that a “Caliphate” is inevitable and compared it to the European Union.
Ms. Lopez also believes Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.” The former CIA operative’s perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint.
Lopez felt it was impossible to understand why the president and some of his top appointees, such as CIA Director John Brennan, who is believed to be a Muslim convert, “consistently seem to apologize for Islam, even in the face of such atrocities as the Foley beheading,” adding, they “take pains to assure the world they don’t think IS, (or the Islamic State, also called ISIS) or whichever perpetrator it was, has anything to do with Islam. How can they possibly believe that genuinely when everything these jihadis do tracks directly to the literal text of Quran, hadiths and Shariah?”
“In any case, and for whatever motivations, there is no doubt this administration switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror,” she said. [My emphasis]
* In my opinion, Ms. Lopez can walk in where angels fear to go because she has been kicked into the Land of Nothing Left to Lose. If you will recall, as a Fellow for Gatestone Institute, she wrote an essay — one whose subject I’ve forgotten now. En passant, she praised Diana West’s book, the by-now infamous American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character. Ms. Lopez is a busy woman and probably had no idea of the ruckus being manufactured about the book. I suspect the editor of Gatestone Institute had no idea of those treacherous waters either, since she put up the essay as part of the daily email stories from Gatestone.
When that group of essays arrived in our inbox, I scanned each and was so pleasantly surprised to see Diana’s book mentioned favorably that I immediately opened up a “compose” window to send her some good news for a change. But by then — mid-morning — Lopez essay and her URL had vanished. I searched the site, but Clare Lopez’ existence there on Gatestone was beginning to blur; the air-brushers were busy at work. But… but… I had that piece sitting right there in our inbox! How could this be?? I checked the time of arrival of G.I.’s mass email which included all of the day’s essays. It had come in about 5:00 a.m. So within five hours or so of publication Lopez’ report was already history. Were we in a Stalinesque time warp? My main reaction was to feel freaked — places I trusted were causing the foundations to quiver. Fortunately, other, wiser heads had screen-capped the evidence; thus we know that essay did exist at one point even though it had an amazingly brief life.
Clare Lopez’ existence on Gatestone was air-brushed out of its pages. Gatestone appeared to be not an “Institute” but a screen behind which the little men/women who doled out the money also had a hold on the puppet strings of its editors and writers.
Similar experiences were to be repeated through a long dreary time. Over the coming weeks and months we were to see craven repetitions in other venues as the clay feet of purported “conservatives-with-gravitas” melted in the rain, leaving them unable to move or speak out against a monumental injustice. Writers and politicians for whom I had formerly felt some philosophical allegiance were exposed — as much by their silence as their bombast against Diana West’s book. Just one little book, weighted down with its nine hundred sources for the back-up of its contentions. A book many of its detractors freely admitted they hadn’t read.
And how sad it was that Gates of Vienna, by default, became the source for those searching out the truth that Diana West sought to bring forth in her research and writing. Over and over the Baron had to beat back the falsehoods, the half-truths, and the sheer malice mounted against Diana West — and secondarily — her book. The mystery of this brutally personal Stalinesque cordon sanitaire was partly unveiled by common sense. It could only have been erected by those with some investment in maintaining the conservative “narrative” regarding Roosevelt and the hand-delivered consensus about post-war American political ‘truths’, which included the demonization of people and groups who fought against the consensus.
Thus, in speaking her mind about Obama’s turn to the dark side, was Ms. Lopez motivated at all by the limning experience in standing up for Diana West’s obligation to state the truth as she saw it? Was it a matter for Ms. Lopez of the freedom of having little left to lose? I suspect such may be the case. She is an experienced and knowledgeable expert. I think you will see more of her long-term swimming against the corrupt consensus as situations change. She has perhaps seen the moral corrosion of silence.
For me, things have changed fundamentally. Lt. Col. Allen West’s silence as a deep disappointment. He knew Diana and called her “friend”… but he said nothing; I find myself less interested in what he has to say now. Andrew McCarthy? He had been Diana West’s authorial colleague, collaborating on a book with her. There are many others — people not directly involved, who side-stepped because it was easier to do nothing.
Karma is a hard task master. Many will feel the burden eventually. Many people have already expressed their displeasure by simply withdrawing their attention. Mr. McCarthy would have sold more of his books if he’d had the cojones to stand by his friend. But maybe traveling in the orbits of the rich and famous was more compelling than evanescent book sales?
Meanwhile, for situations that don’t change and the example of Americans who were privy to what happened and are unwilling to let the lies stand, we have the story of Benghazi, a prime example of the fog of war. Dismissive condescension — e.g., “It was so long ago” — simply crashes to the ground under the weight of a determined reality. In the latest effort to get the truth out, Fox News is running a weekend of reports based on a book to be released next week. Last night’s report is over, but there are broadcasts planned for tonight and Sunday:
Fox News Reporting: 13 Hours in Benghazi
Friday, Sept. 5 at 10 p.m. ET
Saturday, Sept. 6 at [both] 5 p.m. & 9 p.m. ET
Sunday, Sept. 7 at [both] 8 p.m. & 11 p.m. ET
It has been nearly two years since the fatal attack in Libya. Now, hear for the first time from the men who fought that battle.
That is a total of five broadcast times. I plan to watch at least one replay provided our connectivity allows for it.
The book on which this report is based can be pre-ordered here: 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi
That page on Fox includes an interview with Brett Baier, done by Bill O’Reilly — truly one of the latter’s rudest and most hostile displays to date. Bill O’Reilly appears to have gotten worse with age. Brett Baier is a colleague and as such does not deserve to be interrupted or to be treated with sullen rudeness.
Is O’Reilly’s bullying demeanor the new normal for “pundits”? Or did his bosses tell him he had no choice, that this was a “have-to” so he attempted to scuttle their command with a passive-aggressive attack on his colleague? Does O’Reilly believe he has any ‘colleagues’ or is he above such petty considerations? Or perhaps… did Mr. O’Reilly perhaps overdose on that wretched English fellow whose obsession with America’s guns seemed every bit as soul-consuming as Obama’s love affair with golf?