Filed under: Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Islam, Middle East, National Security, Politics, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: General Jack Keane, National Security Strategy, President Barack Obama
Just 10 hours before the Paris attacks, President Obama went on ABC to say that we “have contained” ISIS. As ordinary fact, it wasn’t true, and asked that we should pretend that it was, when Isis has just brought down an airliner two weeks ago, and then there was Paris.
“We’ve gone through these episodes ourselves,” he said on Friday afternoon, explaining how the “heartbreaking” events were resonating with Americans. “Episode?” We had 9/11, and the Boston Marathon, we’ve had lone shooters, but we haven’t had “episodes” when a soccer stadium was bombed, a concert venue occupied and shot up, and three gathering places shot up — simultaneously.
Only a year ago, the president had promised to destroy ISIS. But that was then and this is now.
Now. Obama said in a press conference that “What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people and to protect the people in the region who are getting killed and to protect our allies and people like France,” Obama said. “I’m too busy for that.”
February 6, 2015, President Obama’s National Security Strategy as outlined by National Security Advisor Susan Rice: “Strong and Sustainable American Leadership. Just what has been completely absent.
The President seemed far more interested in fighting with Republicans than with Islamic terrorists. ISIS arose when Obama prematurely pulled the troops out of Iraq, failed to get an agreement on a sustaining force, and has been so consumed with his dreadful Iran Deal, that he has antagonized our other partners in the region like Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Iran, of course, is not interested in his “deal,” they are interested in building nuclear weapons to attack Israel and the United States, and everybody seems to know that but the President and John Kerry. Obama has signed the Deal. Iran has not. Their Parliament has issued 9 ‘conditions’. They will stall around until they get their money, then they will back out entirely, citing unmet conditions, or some other excuse.
Obama has said that he believes that Iran would never use a nuclear weapon. Why, nobody knows. ISIS has said that they already have many of their fighters in the United States. There have been reports of ISIS training camps just a few miles south of the border in Mexico. The Border Patrol has reported a number of times, finding prayer rugs left just south of the border.
We know that ISIS smuggled terrorists into Paris with the hordes of ‘refugees’ who are only partly Syrian, but from Afghanstan, Somalia, and states all around the Mediterannean and from Africa, even Russia. Obama was offended at over 20 governors’ statements that they would not accept Syrian refugees — calling it un-American.
Mr. Obama was especially harsh on those, like Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz, who say Christian refugees should be a priority. “When some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”
… Christians are under particular threat from Islamic State. If they aren’t killed for jihadist sport, they must convert to Islam or die. Their daughters are raped and forced into Muslim marriages. Their churches are blown up. The U.S. would have been right to accept and save more Jews from Nazi genocide in the 1930s and 1940s. Syrian Christians are no different today.
General Jack Keane, at the Wall Street Journal today, said that Obama’s frame of reference is always the large brigade forces of 150,000 troops or more — but nobody is suggesting that. Mr. Obama speaks of “strategic patience” and suggests that this will be a multi-year challenge. But it is not. We have been there for 15 months, and accomplished nothing, really. We need more advisers, a much better air campaign, and Obama must stop the severe restrictions on target selection. ISIS has the same territory, but they have included 9 other countries.
Obama managed to kill twice as many American troops in Afghanistan as were killed under Bush — with too-tight control over the rules of engagement. He is doing the same thing in Iraq with rules of engagement and tight control of target selection.
As the President has said, he is not interested in pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning. Michael Ledeen responded — “so he wants us to lose?”
- “What ISIS Really Wants” by Graeme Wood, The Atlantic
- “The jihadis’ master plan to break us” by Amir Taheri, The New York Post
- “A Lesson in Hate” by David Von Drehle, Smithsonian
- “Obama’s ‘patience” merely gave ISIS time to grow” Ralph Peters, New York Post
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Iraq, Islam, National Security, Politics, Russia, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: National Security Strategy, President Barack Obama, The Islamic State
During today’s press briefing, Fox News White House Correspondent Ed Henry inquired of Press Secretary Josh Earnest whether it was prudent for the president to spend the weekend fundraising for his party and golfing while terrorist acts are being committed against the United States. Obama has stated that his administration has no strategy for dealing with ISIS. Henry asked Earnest:
I wonder what you think about the optics of the president, from that podium yesterday, does not have a strategy to deal with ISIS in serious military, and then next day, without that strategy, goes out and raises campaign money?
Is he detached? Does he feel like the critics coming after him, it just doesn’t matter anymore?” Henry asked. “Why is he still raising campaign money, playing golf, when he’s acknowledging he doesn’t have a strategy to deal with this?
The job of any U.S. president is to be able to handle a lot of different responsibilities at the same time,” Earnest replied, in defense of Obama’s fundraising and golfing. The secretary added that Obama has a national security team, to whom he has outsourced the job of looking after America’s national security challenges.
“Outsourced.” There’s a remarkable lot hiding behind that word.
Filed under: Energy, Global Warming, Junk Science, National Security | Tags: Clean Energy Economy, Climate Change, National Security Strategy
President Barack Obama’s National Security Strategy of 2010 is a much longer document than George Bush’ 2006 edition, and that was longer than his 2002 edition. There are parts of it that are quite revealing about focus and priorities. The document says that:
Climate Change: The danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe. The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources; new suffering from drought and famine; catastrophic natural disasters; and the degradation of land across the globe. The United States will therefore confront climate change based upon clear guidance from the science, and in cooperation with all nations—for there is no effective solution to climate change that does not depend upon all nations taking responsibility for their own actions and for the planet we will leave behind.
Home: Our effort begins with the steps that we are taking at home. We will stimulate our energy economy at home, reinvigorate the U.S. domestic nuclear industry, increase our efficiency standards, invest in renewable energy, and provide the incentives that make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. This will allow us to make deep cuts in emissions—in the range of 17 percent by 2020 and more than 80 percent by 2050. This will depend in part upon comprehensive legislation and its effective implementation. (…)
Transform our Energy Economy: As long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, we need to ensure the security and free flow of global energy resources. But without significant and timely adjustments, our energy dependence will continue to undermine our security and prosperity. This will leave us vulnerable to energy supply disruptions and manipulation and to changes in the environment on an unprecedented scale.
The United States has a window of opportunity to lead in the development of clean energy technology. If successful, the United States will lead in this new Industrial Revolution in clean energy that will be a major contributor to our economic prosperity. If we do not develop the policies that encourage the private sector to seize the opportunity, the United States will fall behind and increasingly become an importer of these new energy technologies.
We have already made the largest investment in clean energy in history, but there is much more to do to build on this foundation. We must continue to transform our energy economy, leveraging private capital to accelerate deployment of clean energy technologies that will cut greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency, increase use of renewable and nuclear power, reduce the dependence of vehicles on oil, and diversify energy sources and suppliers. We will invest in research and next-generation technology, modernize the way we distribute electricity, and encourage the usage of transitional fuels, while moving towards clean energy produced at home.
This is the clearest and most complete statement that we have had from the Obama administration of their views on climate change, and it is frightening. In their world, ClimateGate never happened, contrary science does not intrude, the IPCC is not discredited, and evidence that global warming is a natural phenomenon is false. Robert Bryce, editor of the Energy Tribune and author of Gusher of Lies and Power Hungry says:
Energy independence is hogwash. From nearly any standpoint— economic, military, political, or environmental — energy independence makes no sense. Worse yet, the inane obsession with the idea of energy independence is preventing the US from having an honest and effective discussion about the energy challenges it now faces.
Mr. Bryce adds that:
[N]one of the alternative or renewable energy sources now being hyped — corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, wind power, solar power, coal-to-liquids, and so on — will free America from imported fuels. America’s appetite is simply too large and the global market is too sophisticated and too integrated for the U.S. to secede.
All of Obama’s policies are intended to force us to forego fossil fuels, and into forms of energy that simply will not work. Wind power must be backed up 24/7 with energy produced by fossil fuels because wind turbines produce energy only when the wind is blowing at the right speed, which happens less than 1/3 of the time. Solar energy is produced only when the sun shines , not at night, and not on cloudy days.
It may be worth some investment to search for alternates, but for the foreseeable future we are dependent on fossil fuels. Obama is so anxious to be the president who brings about the “clean energy economy” that in a recession, with deep unemployment, he is attempting to force it on an unwilling population in order to bring about his vision. But there will be no green energy jobs unless the government pays for them, and they will kill (according to Spain’s experience) 2.2 jobs in the regular economy for every green job, because of the higher cost of energy. It bankrupted Spain.