It’s okay to ask: Whose side is Obama on?
I mean, I know we’re supposed to pretend that Obama is a great Dad, that he cares about the US in his own way — he just happens to think the founding and all the structural controls instituted as part of the Constitution’s framing are quaint, non-binding, and racist / sexist / xenophobic, et al., and so as an act of love, wants to fundamentally transform the country he so loves — and that just because he’s a liberal Democrat is no reason to question his patriotism. Doing so makes us no better than those who berated Bush for 8 years — mostly because all criticism is equal, and can’t we all just get along?
Okay. There, I’ve put out the perfunctory caveat. So now I’m free to proceed.
And the question at hand is, “whose side is Obama on?”
Now, before we get caught up in leftist semantics — “who says there are two sides? Why do you view complicated matters in black and white? HOW DARE YOU QUESTION OUR PATRIOTISM!, etc” — let me just say this: do shut up, progs. I don’t care what you have to say because it’s you and your type who are so bent on counter-revolution against the one place on earth where liberty has been, as a matter of its foundational social contract, both ensured and structurally insured, through both the Declaration of Independence and its insistence upon natural rights as the anchor of liberty and individual autonomy, and the Constitution, which sought new ways to protect those rights from men (and women) who would by nature look to circumvent them. It is you who wish to see us reduced to cogs in some group narrative, then “nudged” by bureaucrats and technocrats, crony capitalists and corporatists, social engineers and radical egalitarians, into subjecthood.
And I ain’t interested in any of that. So you first, assholes.
But back on topic: we know Obama is no fan of the Constitution. We know he doesn’t believe in or abide separation of powers. We know he doesn’t respect border security or national sovereignty, having refused to enforce federal immigration law and having noted — at a West Point commencement address — that he won’t stop rogue states from acting because the US has refused, in the past, to cede its sovereign powers to the UN, a bureaucratic body made up mostly of representatives of socialist or totalitarian states and a long-time heartthrob of the trasnational progressive movement. We know that he doesn’t value individual privacy, as the NSA scandal shows and as ObamaCare’s data collection requirements reinforce. We know he doesn’t much care for the military, having gutted it as best he could, having shut down its memorials during the partial government shut down, and having slept through an attack that left Americans to perish in some African hellhole. We know that he despises his political “enemies” moreso than he does any foreign actor — showing far more contempt for the “teabaggers” than for the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members are more welcome in the White House than is Israel’s head of state.
And now, we see that he may be actively replenishing the Taliban — and by proxy, al Qaeda — in a move that will put every future US soldier’s life in even greater peril. Andrew McCarthy explains:
President Obama finally completed the prisoner swap he has been pleading with the Taliban for years to accept. While the president draws down American forces in Afghanistan and hamstrings our remaining troops with unconscionable combat rules of engagement that make both offensive operations and self-defense extremely difficult, the Taliban get back five of their most experienced, most virulently anti-American commanders.
In return, thanks to the president’s negotiations with the terrorists, we receive U.S. Army sergeant Bowe Bergdahl — who, according to several of his fellow soldiers, walked off his post in 2009 before being captured by the Taliban. (For more on this, see Greg Pollowitz’s post at The Feed.) This was shortly after Sergeant Bergdahl reportedly e-mailed his parents that “the US army is the biggest joke the world has to laugh at,” that he was “ashamed to even be an American,” and that “the horror that is America is disgusting.”
Sergeant Bergdahl’s father, Robert, was by Mr. Obama’s side during Saturday’s Rose Garden press conference, at which the president announced Sergeant Bergdahl’s return but carefully avoiding mention of the jihadi-windfall the Taliban received in exchange. Mr. Bergdahl is an anti-war activist campaigning for the release of all jihadists detained at Guantanamo Bay. His Twitter account, @bobbergdahl, has apparently now deleted a tweet from four days ago, in which he said, in echoes of Islamic supremacist rhetoric, “@ABalkhi I am still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners. God will repay for the death of every Afghan child, ameen!”
We have been warning for years here that Obama was negotiating with the Taliban — even as he duplicitously bragged that the U.S. had “removed the Taliban government.” The president and his minions reportedly even turned for mediation help to Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi — the top Muslim Brotherhood sharia jurist who issued a fatwa in 2003 calling for violent jihad against American troops and support personnel in Iraq. (Indeed, the administration has hosted Qaradawi’s sidekick, Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah — who also signed the fatwa — at the White House for consultations . . . and the State Department was embarrassed to be caught touting bin Bayyah just a week ago.)
Nearly two years ago, I noted that Obama had just sweetened the pot on a longstanding offer to release the five Taliban leaders — beseeching the Taliban just to agree to participate in Afghan peace talks, not to make any actual concessions (other than freeing Sergeant Bergdahl).
As Reuters reported at the time:
The revised proposal, a concession from an earlier U.S. offer, would alter the sequence of the move of five senior Taliban figures held for years at the U.S. military prison to the Gulf state of Qatar, sources familiar with the issue said. U.S. officials have hoped the prisoner exchange, proposed as a good-faith move in initial discussions between U.S. negotiators and Taliban officials, would open the door to peace talks between militants and the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
The revised proposal would send all five Taliban prisoners to Qatar first, said sources who spoke on condition of anonymity. Only then would the Taliban be required to release Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the only U.S. prisoner of war. Previously, U.S. officials had proposed dividing the Taliban prisoners into two groups, and requiring Bergdahl’s release as a good-faith gesture to come before the second group of prisoners would be moved out of Guantanamo.
The Obama administration has never designated the Afghan Taliban as a terrorist organization. (The Bush State Department similarly failed to designate the Taliban, although President Bush did designate the group as a terrorist organization in an executive order that, pursuant to a congressional statute, criminalized the conducting of various financial transactions with it.) In 2012, the Obama White House made much of the fact that it had finally designated a close Taliban confederate, the Haqqani Network, as a terrorist organization. But as Eli Lake reported earlier this year, the administration refrained from using the designation to seize assets — which is the whole point.
Plain and simple, President Obama has never had any intention to confront and defeat the Taliban. As I observed back in 2009, General Stanley McChrystal, then the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, pronounced in a memo explaining U.S. strategy that the war in that country was the Afghans’ war, not ours. In his estimation, our troops’ primary reason for being there was not to defeat America’s enemies but to enable the Afghans to build a better life, and therefore “our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces; our objective must be the population” — meaning, to protect Afghans.
Obama’s overriding goal has been to end the war, not to win it — as if it were possible, by walking away, to end a war that the enemy started and continues to fight. […]
At The Weekly Standard, Tom Joscelyn profiles the five Taliban commanders Obama has released. They include Mullah Mohammed Fazl, perhaps the Taliban’s senior warrior (its “army chief of staff”) and a longtime al-Qaeda ally; Mullah Norullah Noori, a senior military commander who fought side-by-side with al-Qaeda; Abdul Haq Wasiq, a senior Taliban intelligence official who helped train al-Qaeda and fought with it against U.S. forces after 9/11; Khairullah Khairkhwa, a Taliban governor and al-Qaeda trainer who brokered an alliance with Iran to collaborate against American-led forces; and Mohammed Nabi, who worked with the Haqqani Nnetwork and al-Qaeda to coordinate attacks against American and coalition forces.
Meet the new Afghanistan, same as the old Afghanistan. In Obama’s America, “This is how wars end in the 21st century.”
To hammer home the point, and to square the circle with respect to my introduction in this post, Roger Kimball provides the necessary perspective. From “The Law Requires…”:
What a quaint phrase! Not quaint for you and me, of course. For us plebs, what the law requires is, well, what the law requires. To the letter, Kemo Sabe. But how about for our masters in Washington, especially for the master-in-chief, Barack Obama? What, exactly, does the law require of him? That he follow and (see Article II of the U.S. Constitution) “faithfully execute” the laws? Not hardly. Andrew McCarthy’s new book Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment (not officially published until Tuesday but available now on Amazon) provides a sort of catalogue or cornucopia of Obama’s lawlessness. I won’t rehearse that litany here except to mention these key words:
- Obamacare (“If you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan, period.”)
- et very much cetera (think Fast & Furious, Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, making recess appointments when Congress not in recess, Solyndra — really, read Faithless Execution)
When it comes to lawlessness, Obama is the gift that keeps on giving. If Congress passes a law that is Constitutional but that he happens not to like: no problem. He just won’t enforce it (ask the folks in Arizona about immigration laws). Perhaps Congress fails to pass a law about something that he does want done: that’s no problem, either, because he has learned that there is no cost to governing by decree. The latest instance of presidential lawlessness concerns the Taliban’s release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in Afghanistan in exchange for five high-level Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Naturally, one rejoices at the release of an American solider after nearly five years of captivity in the savage hell-hole of Afghanistan. But as Rep. Howard McKeon and Sen. James Inhofe observed yesterday, “America has maintained a prohibition on negotiating with terrorists for good reason. Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Bergdahl’s release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans.” Prediction: you’ll see many more Americans captured and held for ransom now that the Taliban knows our policy of not negotiating with terrorists implies that, if you push a little, we will happily negotiate with terrorists.
There’s also the little matter of how the transfer was arranged. As the Washington Post reports, “Lawmakers were not notified of the Guantanamo detainees’ transfer until after it occurred.” But, the report continues, “the law requires the defense secretary to notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days before making any transfers of prisoners, to explain the reason and to provide assurances that those released would not be in a position to reengage in activities that could threaten the United States or its interests.” “The law requires.” Ha, ha, ha. This is King Obama we’re talking about, not you or me. Apparently, he can do whatever he pleases, from calling on the IRS to harass his political opponents to selectively enforcing to law to imprisoning video makers who are convenient scapegoats. […]
Are you worried yet?
To which I say, some of us have been worried since way back before it was okay to show your worry, or to voice your indignation. We’ve been worried — and vocally so — about since back when Obama was still a Good Man, and our criticisms could conceivably been seen as racist, unhelpful, and on par with the criticisms the left launched against Bush (who, lest we forget, wasn’t raised by communist revolutionaries and suckled on the political teat of Weathermen, critical race theorist, Black Liberation Theology, and radical chic Palestinian anti-semitism. But still! Think of how the moderates will react!).
Obama is not only overwhelming our economic system with debt and dependency; he’s not only trying to drive up the price of electricity and, in so doing, of just about every consumer good and every measure of productivity; he’s not only seeking a social transformation from a society based around the sovereignty of the individual with one based upon the wishes of the collective as deciphered by the elect and the elite; but he is making our very existence as a country far more tenuous, having lit fires in the Middle East, the far east, Russia, and South America — all while weakening our defenses and providing further incentives to have illegals rush our borders (with the GOP and it’s beholden establishment bulls along happily for the ride, promising cheap labor to the cronies who fund them in exchange for that funding).
So if no one else is going to say it, I will: Obama is not on our side and he never was. He’s a fictional construct, someone sold to us as a post-racial, post-partisan academic pragmatist who, it turns out, is a race-baiting, hyperpartisan anti-intellectual autocrat and ideologue — one who was put forward to cynically play on our nation’s national shame over slavery and who is a creation of the New Left and its decades long strategy to take over the Democratic Party and install into office one of its own, a counter-revolutionary, an anti-American thug whose every move has been to show contempt for our way of life, our founding beliefs, and our history — all while pushing an agenda that is designed to grow a centralized government, institute the mechanisms for a command and control economy, weaken our reach diplomatically and militarily, and push the kind of radical egalitarianism that turns citizens into subjects and is enforced by a police power controlled by the ruling class, who of course aren’t required to accede to the new egalitarianism.
It has, with this President, always been thus. And our enemies have known it, even while we were told we were racist extremists for noticing — by mouthpieces for both parties.
That some people are finally starting to wake up to the fact is a good thing, I suppose — though it may be a bit too late. And hell, it may just be that, having stuck their fingers in the wind, they feel that this is the best way to draw eyes to their malleable political advice.
Welcome to the fight, fellas. Proceed to take it over as if it’s always been yours. We Hobbity Visigoths promise not to notice.
(h/t sdferr and geoff B)