Panetta’s out hawking his book about how Obama isn’t enough of a hawk. Of course, he is likely acting as a surrogate for Hillary Clinton, who appears to be advocating a more knee-jerk approach to foreign intervention. She and John McCain (and his various clones) really, really wanted that Syrian war, and now both seem to believe that the advent of ISIS is the result of our having failed to jump in ass first last year (essentially on ISIS’s side, it’s worth pointing out). Shades of Bush/Cheney – I guess it’s been long enough since the total disaster of the Iraq war for some people to yearn for the days of pre-emptive war, of “shock and awe”, of taking the gloves off. Included in that number is the putative front-runner of the Democratic field for President.
So, after six years of being compelled to drink the fragrant golden beverage of Obama’s national security policy – drones, bombs, domestic spying, whistleblower-persecution and all – we are now to be treated to even more acrid delicacies offered up by Clinton, the next generation. I guess this is an indication of bipartisan consensus on foreign policy, though it remains to be seen how the GOP will outflank the Democrats on the crazytown side. This is truly a race to the bottom. That’s the power of this lesser of two evils electoral philosophy.
I suppose I needn’t remind anyone of the process I and people like me went through during the last couple of presidential elections. In 2008, I was voting to avoid McCain, who most certainly would have gotten us into several wars before the end of his first hundred days, to say nothing of the Hoover-like response to the financial crisis he was planning (remember the spending freeze?). That was a close brush with true catastrophe, I’m pretty sure. 2012 was less dramatic, but still … Mitt Romney was a disaster in the making. He would have brought in a gaggle of Bush II retreads who are now waiting for the impending Cruz or Perry administration. He would have rewarded his rich friends with more riches. Not a huge difference from Obama, you understand, but enough to be worth a vote.
After years of drinking rancid urine, however, I have had it. Obama’s policy regarding Syria, Iran, Iraq, Ukraine, Palestine, Yemen, and other nations is disgusting. Attacking him from the right is inexcusable.
luv u,
jp
ISIS and related fighters have been shooting helicopters down. What happens when they hit one of our ships? Boots on the ground. You don’t have to be Kreskin (or Criswelll) to see that we may well be embroiled in a regional ground war within the next few months. This may make our previous conflicts look like a folk dance; the more we hit ISIS, the more people on the ground and from other countries flock to their side. Put yourself in the shoes of a Sunni citizen of Iraq. Who has contributed more to your misery over the past 25 years? You may dislike the ISIS fanatics, but you likely hate us with a rare passion. Not a formula for success.
The media, as always, is in the tank for this war. On the morning after bombing began in Syria, the first voice you heard on NPR’s 6:00 a.m. newscast was that of a retired general who had “crafted” America’s bombing campaign during the Gulf War – a man who thought we weren’t bombing Syria hard enough. That’s NPR, no surprise, but don’t expect any better from the liberal media. Rachel Maddow, while a war skeptic, gave a thumbnail recent history of the Iraqi Kurds and the Gulf War that might have been torn out of a Bush campaign media release. Our only role in that saga, according to this telling, was liberating freedom-loving Kuwait and helping the Kurds preserve evidence of Saddam’s pogrom against them.