Saturday, September 19, 2009


Why would a President of the United States allow an investigation into the CIA interrogations with all the risks attendant to it? We are a country with vicious enemies: Islamic Fascists, Al Quaeda, Iran, No. Korea, and Venezuela (Chavez), and Russia is not exactly our friend, nor is China.

Now look at our allies: Europe is powerless, overrrun with Muslims, Africa is corrupt, and Israel is fighting for its life. And what are we doing: undermining our CIA, our intelligence community, making it impossible for intelligence communities from allied nations to exchange information with us because we can't be trusted to safeguard the identity of their agents.

Why would anyone go to work for the CIA and put their lives in jeopardy for so little compensation and have the added risk of being outed by their very own government? Oh, and yet another danger, the possibility of being criminally prosecuted for doing their job from a prosecutor who has forgotten the 9-11 attack and what it did to our country?

And now, Obama removes missile defense from our allies, Poland and the Czhek Republic, and he does it on the day of the 1939 Nazi invasion of Poland. This was a real gift to Russia who wants desperately to reassemble the Soviet Union.

When the campaign was going on, I said, Obama, is a narcissistic neophyte, too inexperienced to govern this country. How right I was!!!

It begs the question: whose side is Obama on?


Skookumchuk said...

The foreign leaders were among the first to sense it. "Est-il faible?" Sarkozy is said to have asked of an aide at some post-Inaugural function. "Is he weak?"

Usually, a leader – whether a decent man or a monster – will telegraph a certain consistent set of messages that make the outlines of his behavior predictable. We may not like Putin, but we more or less know what he stands for and wishes to achieve. Same with Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, De Gaulle, Mao. But what if he doesn’t telegraph anything consistent? Is he weak, or just hiding his true agenda?

The implications of this uncertainty are discussed on many blogs, perhaps best by Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club:

Consider for a moment the problem of dealing with Barack Obama from the point of view of a Martian who understands nothing about earthlings but believes in rationality. And he is tasked with dealing with Barack Obama. He constructs this model of interests and implicitly assumes that President Obama “cares” about certain things and rationally keeps himself informed on these matters.
Now all students of the hoary old science of deterrence know that when a rational actor model cannot be assumed the variance of possible outcomes goes up rapidly. You are in a floating crap game. The problems are multiplied by the habit of appointing “czars” and (in the case of Carter) assigning racist values to criticisms. The entire policy debate becomes opaque. If nobody knows what the hell is going on, then a certain self-induced instability creeps into the system. Nobody wins that game. Not even the Martians.

Barbara LeBey said...

Interesting comment Skookumchuk. I will check out Belmont Club.

When you receive mixed signals, it's wise to look at his past history, his affiliations and his actions. To me it spells radical leftist who really doesn't have America's best interests at heart. The affiliations Obama maintained over so many years consist of people who hate our country. And he wrote two books that reveal a Muslim sympathizer. In this day in time, that should scare the hell out of every patriotic American.

Now tell me what you really think Obama is up to.

Skookumchuk said...

You are right about being a neophyte. And probably about the narcissism, too. Now who knows where the guy really lives, but two additional things come to mind, really just expanding on what you’ve already said.

First, he is basically a doctrinaire leftist. And such people always want to control information, public thoughts and behaviors. Because their beliefs extend well outside the cultural mainstream, they have to be careful about what they say, except in circumstances where they feel they are among their own kind, behind locked doors. Remember his description of unemployed Rust Belt people “clinging bitterly to their guns and religion” before that audience in San Francisco?

Think of Obama’s ideal America as a college campus with its speech codes, its mandated diversity and certain “tolerated” types of behavior and expression. Except that now this soft dictatorship would blanket the country and be backed by the full coercive apparatus of the nation state. So in the place of a university faculty that thinks broadly alike, you would now have a bureaucracy and a mainstream media, unions and some sectors of the corporate world that largely would think alike.

Second, such people see themselves primarily in opposition to the dominant culture. It defines them and that opposition tends to blot out acceptance of alternative points of view. They tend to see other societies, especially those traditionally thought of as antagonists, as being better somehow, or at most as morally equivalent to their own. I’m too lazy to Google it, but there is a famous story about George Orwell sitting in a movie theater in Britain at the outbreak of World War II, as Hitler was running in to Poland. Before the picture, the intellectuals around him refused to stand for God Save the King. They could see no difference between Hitler and their own leaders. In depicting this, Orwell said something like - they can only see enemies among their own kind. I think Obama and those around him are kind of the same way. This might be tragic for us.

If that vision does come true, the only upside (and it would be a long time coming) is that such systems are intrinsically static and highly resistant to change. It would be like the old Soviet Union, where according to Pravda things were always getting better and better, until one day they collapsed. We can think of many such things that eventually could cause such a collapse – a social welfare state with too few workers and too many dependents, a massive foreign debt we can’t ever repay, turning us into a deadbeat nation in the eyes of the world, a sort of Northern Hemisphere Argentina, or the prospect of emboldened dictators, sort of like Carter’s world in the 1970s.

It could come true. But I think with these latest revelations about ACORN and now the NEA, the cat may be out of the bag.

Barbara LeBey said...

Fascinating commentary. I do appreciate the ideas you've expressed. My greatest worry is the prospect of a media no longer willing to tell the truth. They are so invested in this president, they actively cover for him and have shown a total lack of journalistic integrity. If it weren't for Fox and Lou Dobbs, and a few blogs, we would never know what is actually happening behind the closed doors of this administration. If that continues, and if he also manages to raise the millions he raised on the Internet, and add voter fraud to the mix, I fear he could get re-elected. At that point, he would bring us to a disastrous end as a nation.

I know from friends in the media in London that he received start up money of approximately 47 million from the Saudis. They filtered and laundered the money through Mosques in London to Mosques here, then distributed it in untraceable small sums over the Internet. That's a story still waiting to be told, but the media is afraid to touch it because it would be difficult to prove without challenging tax exempt religious (Muslim) organizations.

Add to Technorati Favorites