I have a very cool granddaughter - Dagny. Here she is making me cool by putting ice in my belly button. She thought that was fun.
Also Kevin and his girlfriend - Andy!
===
Obama and his 'dirty dozen' failures concerning America's alliance with Israel. (See 1 below.)
===
And now after 5 1/2 years we finally have the vapid Obama Doctrine. A quick summation would be: try and avoid being stupid. (See 2 below.)
===
Watch Hamas sweep the elections and, I predict, Obama will eventually support Hamas. The fact that they are a designated terrorist organization will not deter him because he needs the appearance of detente. (See 3 and 3a below.)
===
More evidence supporting my argument it will be the courts, not Republicans in Congress who will eventually save Assuming The Republic it is not beyond the prospect of being saved from the ravages of Obamaitis!
===
Everything Obama does signifies shoddy background work. Just more and more evidence demonstrating what a horrible executive he is and how driven by ideology which is totally out of sync with American values, American laws and a need to work with Congress. And then all the despicable lies! (See 4 and 4a below.)
===
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) 12 ways the US administration has failed its ally Israel
Washington’s rush to recognize the new Hamas-backed Palestinian government is only the latest in a dismal series of missteps, failures and betrayals.
BY DAVID HOROWITZ
Mere hours after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas swore in a government backed by the Islamic extremist Hamas group, the US State Department legitimized the arrangement, declaring that it would work with the new government because it “does not include members affiliated with Hamas.
What was saddest about Washington’s insistence on accepting Abbas’s paper-thin veneer over his government’s new nature — his “technocrat” ministers were all approved by Hamas — is that it represents only the Obama administration’s latest abrogation of leadership, logic and leverage at Israel’s expense. Rather than rushing to embrace a Palestinian government in which an unreformed Hamas is a central component, what was to stop the US conditioning its acceptance on a reform of Hamas? What was to stop Washington saying that it would be happy to work with Abbas’s new government, the moment its Hamas backers recognized Israel, accepted previous agreements and renounced terrorism? Not a particularly high bar. What was to stop the US making such a demand, one of tremendous importance to its ally Israel? Only its incomprehensible reluctance to do.
Unfortunately, however, such lapses and failures are not the exception when it comes to the US-Israel alliance of late. This administration has worked closely with Israel in ensuring the Jewish state maintains its vital military advantage in this treacherous neighborhood, partnering Israel in offensive and defensive initiatives, notably including missile defense. It has stood by Israel at diplomatic moments of truth. It has broadly demonstrated its friendship, as would be expected given America’s interest in promoting the well-being of the region’s sole, stable, dependable democracy. But the dash to recognize the Fatah-Hamas government was one more in a series of aberrations — words and deeds that would have been far better left unsaid or undone, misconceived strategies, minor betrayals.
1. So, yes, where Hamas is concerned, you’d think that an ally would not legitimize, as part of the Palestinian government, an organization bent on the destruction of Israel, an organization declaredly refusing to change that goal, an organization with a proven, mass-murdering track-record.
2. Going back to the start of the latest failed peace effort, you’d think an ally would listen to the advice of well-meaning experts warning that attempting to do the same thing that failed in the past in the belief that it will turn out differently — in this case, strong-arming two hostile, untrusting parties into an acutely sensitive and complex agreement in a very short period — is the definition of insanity. Rather than setting an impossible nine-month timeframe for negotiating a permanent accord, when all reasonable evidence and past experience showed that this would fail, it would have been better for the US and its international allies to start working systematically, investing time, money and leverage in, among other spheres, education and media, in order to create a climate conducive to progress. Peacemaking is going to require a gradual process, grass-roots change; there is no quick fix. Every credible, peace-supporting voice on the ground here told the Americans exactly this before they set out. And was ignored. And now we all have to brace for the dangerous consequences of the all-too-predictable failure.
3. While we’re talking about producing a more conducive climate, you’d think an ally would use its regional clout and leverage to work with partners in the region to rehouse Palestinian refugees, first of all in Gaza, where there is no Israeli military or civilian presence and no reason for the festering wound to be artificially maintained. This is humanitarian work of the highest order, to which no organization or individual genuinely committed to the well-being of the Palestinian people could object. It would be opposed only by those whose ostensible sympathy for the Palestinian plight is outweighed by their hostility to Israel.
4. You’d think an ally would have made plain to the Palestinians that their demand, as a precondition for renewing peace talks, that Israel set free terrorists who have killed large numbers of its innocent citizens was outrageous and unacceptable, certainly at the outset of negotiations. Perhaps such prisoner releases might have some justification as the concluding act of a successful process. By contrast, freezing the expansion of settlements in areas that Israel does not envisage retaining under a permanent accord is a win-win — beginning the needed process of spelling out to Israelis, to the region and to the international community Israel’s vital territorial red lines. But this, the Americans did not demand. In short, a smart and firm ally would have rejected Abbas’s demand for killers to go free rather than pressing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept it, and insisted on at least a partial settlement freeze. Think you need to save us from ourselves? That’s the place to start.
5. Elaborating, you’d think an ally would want to distinguish between isolated settlements in the heart of Palestinian territory and Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. By lumping all “settlements” together, and relentlessly criticizing all building, you alienate the Israeli middle ground, which supports the retention of Jewish neighborhoods built over the pre-1967 lines in Jerusalem, on the one hand, and would relinquish most West Bank settlements in the cause of a viable peace treaty, on the other. So the lack of subtlety and nuance on the settlement issue winds up complicating America’s own efforts to broker progress.
6. Trapped in the inevitable deadlock, with that nine-month deadline fast approaching, you would think that an allied president would eschew giving an interview to the American media essentially accusing the prime minister of leading Israel to disaster at the very hour that said prime minister was on his way to a meeting at the White House. For one thing, such withering public comments are hardly likely to bolster the prime minister’s faith in the president’s judgment and solidarity — and thus are likely to undermine efforts to build his trust. For another, it’s downright rude.
7. And when it all went conclusively pear-shaped, you’d think an ally would respect its own rules about not leaking the content of the negotiations. Secretary of State John Kerry repeatedly urged the two sides to keep the content of their talks confidential, yet it was his own special envoy, Martin Indyk, reportedly, who gave a lengthy briefing to Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea, a respected columnist but one who is hardly empathetic to Netanyahu, which yielded an article that unsurprisingly placed overwhelming and at least somewhat unwarranted and distorted blame for the collapse of the process on the prime minister.
8. You’d think an ally would man up about its own dismal role in the frictions and misunderstandings that doomed the talks at the end of March. “The prisoners were not released by Israel on the day they were supposed to be released, and then another day passed and another day, and then 700 units were approved in Jerusalem and then poof — that was sort of the moment,” Kerry told the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in early April, by way of explanation for the impasse. Actually, “the prisoners were not released on the day they were supposed to be released” because Israel opposed freeing Arab Israeli convicts, whose fate it reasonably considered not to be any of the Palestinian Authority’s business. That issue only became problematic because Kerry had earlier misled the Palestinians into thinking that Israel was prepared to set them free. Furthermore, the announcement of the reissuing of an old tender to build 700 homes in Gilo was not a critical factor in the collapse — “poof” — of the talks.
9. No matter how frustrated or defensive Kerry might have been feeling, you’d think a friend of Israel would know better than to lob the toxic term “apartheid” into the public debate over Israel’s future. Israel’s embattled democracy provides equal rights for its 25 percent non-Jewish minority, who enjoy freedom of religion, assembly and press. Arabic is an official language in this country. An Israeli Arab judge sent our president to jail. That’s only part of the story, of course: Ruling another people is already deeply corrosive; if we cannot separate from the Palestinians, if we annex the West Bank, still graver dangers await. Warning Israel privately of the threats posed to our democracy is the duty of a concerned friend. But publicly invoking the spectacularly loaded term “apartheid” in critiquing Israel is the lowest of blows — a gift to enemies who can be counted on to seize upon such comments to distort Israel’s reality and delegtimize its very existence.
10. Further afield, you’d think an ally would maintain an empathetic silence rather than repeatedly tell the world that Israel has struck weapons shipments in Syria en route to Hezbollah. This when Israel was deliberately avoiding acknowledging responsibility for such actions because of concern that President Bashar Assad would be provoked into counterattacks at Israel.
11. To the south, you’d think an ally would avoid rushing to support Islamic extremists (see a pattern here?) when they come to power in a neighboring state. The fact that the Israel-Egypt peace treaty survived the Muslim Brotherhood’s brief period of misrule in Cairo is a critical and inadequately appreciated success, achieved despite Washington’s foolish embrace of the short-lived Morsi government.
12. And finally, you’d think a powerful ally would insist that a state that calls for, and works toward, the destruction of Israel be denied the capacity to achieve that goal. There is simply no justification for allowing Tehran a uranium enrichment capability. It lied to the international community about its nuclear program. It built secret facilities to advance towards the bomb. It has no “right” to enrichment. It can receive nuclear fuel, like well over a dozen nations worldwide, from legitimate nuclear powers for its ostensibly peaceful nuclear program. The central goal of US policy in this regard should not be merely denying Iran nuclear weapons but denying Iran the capacity to build nuclear weapons. Iran can be relied upon to abuse any leniency in this regard, with immense consequent threat to Israel and others in the region. The Obama administration’s curious disinclination to use its economic leverage to achieve a deal that dismantles Iran’s nuclear program leaves Israel in real danger, undermines the security of other US interests in the region, and risks sparking a Middle East nuclear arms race — the very opposite of the president’s cherished vision of eventual nuclear disarmament.
You might think the above list is the least that Israel might reasonably expect from the US administration. But no. The peace process has collapsed and Israel is getting a disproportionate amount of the blame. Hamas, committed under its own charter to the obliteration of Israel, is now part of an internationally recognized Palestinian government. And the P5+1 nations, led by the US, are working toward a deal that will enshrine Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities. Israel may not be a perfect ally, but we deserve better than this
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Obama’s global war on straw men
By Michael Gerson
After 5½ years, President Obama finally has a foreign policy doctrine all his own, which White House aides summarize as: “Don’t do stupid s--- .”
FDR had his Four Freedoms. Harry Truman would stand against the further expansion of communism in Europe. Ronald Reagan would attempt to roll back communism by providing assistance to freedom fighters. Jimmy Carter would use military force, if necessary, to defend U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf. George W. Bush would support the growth of democratic movements and institutions as an antidote to radicalism.
Obama doesn’t do “stupid [stuff].”
Like any good foreign policy doctrine, it has a number of corollaries. “Don’t do stupid [stuff],” except calling for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad to step down, then doing almost nothing to make it happen — encouraging the creation of a chaotic terrorist haven at the heart of the Middle East. Except drawing a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons, then rewarding Assad with engagement and legitimacy when he actually used them. Except launching a war for regime change in Libya and then failing to do postwar reconstruction, leading to the creation of another terrorist haven. Except failing, after a pathetic attempt, to conclude a status-of-forces agreement with the Iraqi government that might have helped stabilize a key country in a key region. Except needlessly alienating our Canadian ally by refusing to approve the Keystone XL pipeline for political reasons. Except initially poisoning our relations with Israel by demanding a settlement freeze. Except surging troops to Afghanistan while announcing a drawdown date that has encouraged the resistance and patience of the enemy.
The Obama Doctrine has the virtue of simplicity, but it defies the rhetorician’s art. “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we don’t do stupid s---.” It is hard to carve the insipid into marble, or to inspire a nation with shrunken ambitions.
The natural result of this foreign policy theory is a speech such as the one Obama recently delivered at West Point. For the most part, the president does not inspire. He does not persuade. He justifies himself. The world he depicts is a choice between foolhardy extremes. The proper response is not primarily an assertion of American values or the defense of U.S. interests; it is a trust in Obama’s own balancing judgment.
America will not, as some people hope, invade and occupy every country on earth to impose our imperial will. And we will not, as others urge, enter nuclear bunkers and live as mole people. We will instead act with reason and moderation, employing force only with universal agreement, while morally posturing about Syrian refugees.
America will lead the global war against straw men; on all other matters, let’s not get carried away. It is a message that a foreign policy seminar of academic realists might have hooahed. It was an odd choice for delivery to newly minted Army officers serving in a military currently at war: Put none but the risk-averse on guard tonight.
This purely negative doctrine — America will not assume “every problem has a military solution” or “rush into military adventures” or attack people “to avoid looking weak” — is, above all, a method of political self-justification through the caricaturing of critics. The president’s argument can be summarized: Those who think I’m weak want war. If you accept the premise, Obama is beyond criticism. This approach is also a rhetorical distraction from other, more positive but failed foreign policy enterprises. Obama, for understandable reasons, does not want to talk about the “new beginning” in the Middle East, or the “reset” with Russia, or the “pivot” to Asia (as China exposes its emptiness).
The West Point argument, in a narrow political way, works for the president. It also exposes the unctuousness of some of the Obama’s foreign policy supporters. A doctrine of risk aversion can be justified only by minimizing the seriousness of global challenges and miniaturizing the role of presidential leadership. Was serial risk-aversion effective in the Syrian crisis? Will it effectively deter Russian adventurism? Will it be sufficient in dealing with the rise of China?
And this is the Obama Doctrine’s most serious problem: Its vapidity is evident to leaders around the world, who are even less inclined to trust or fear the United States when determining their own actions. Which is where the doctrine hits the fan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Fatah Leaders: Abbas Is A Dictator
by Khaled Abu Toameh r
Hamas's chances of winning elections do not seem to be bad at all. Eight
years after the last parliamentary election, Fatah is likely to be defeated
at the ballot box once again.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has finally made peace with
Hamas. But will he able to extinguish the fire that has erupted in his own
backyard?
Earlier this week, Abbas decided to expel five "unruly" officials from
Fatah, plunging the faction into turmoil and triggering calls for a revolt
against the Palestinian Authority [PA] president.
The five men - Majed Abu Shamala, Sufyan Abu Zaida, Rashid Abu Shbak, Nasser
Juma'a and Abdel Hamid Masri - were expelled because of their close links to
ousted Fatah strongman Mohammed Dahlan.
Dahlan was expelled from Fatah three years ago after falling out with Abbas
and his two sons, Yasser and Tarek. Since then, Dahlan, a former security
commander of the Gaza Strip and an elected member of the Palestinian
Legislative Council, has been living in the United Arab Emirates.
In the context of the ugly dispute between the two, Abbas has accused Dahlan
of being responsible for the murder of six Palestinians and involvement in
the "poisoning" of former PLO leader Yasser Arafat.
Abbas's decision to expel the five Fatah officials came on the eve of the
inauguration of the new Palestinian unity government with Hamas. Some
Palestinians believe the decision is aimed at sending a message of warning
to Fatah members against opposing the unity government with Hamas.
Others, however, believe that the expulsion of the five men is connected to
preparations for holding Fatah's seventh general conference, where the
faction's leaders are selected. The conference is expected to take place in
August.
Abbas's move is seen in the context of his efforts to "cleanse" Fatah of
"unruly" officials who pose a direct challenge to his autocratic leadership.
Obviously, the 79-year-old Palestinian Authority president has no plans to
retire or pave the way for the emergence of new and younger leaders.
But judging from the strong reactions of the ousted Fatah officials and
their supporters, it's clear that Fatah is facing one of its worst crises in
years - one that is likely to lead to a split in the faction. This, of
course, will play into the hands of Hamas and improve its chances of winning
the presidential and parliamentary elections, when and if they are held in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The expulsion of the five officials saw Fatah activists take to the streets
in some parts of the Gaza Strip, where they condemned Abbas as a "dictator."
Responding to Abbas's move, Dahlan told the PA president that he can "go to
hell," adding: "Fatah will never become the private fiefdom of Abbas and his
sons, Yasser and Tarek." Dahlan went on to accuse Abbas and his sons of
steering Fatah toward "national and moral deviation."
Referring to the ousted officials, Dahlan said: "These leaders did not come
to Fatah from five-star hotels; rather, they come from the school of
struggle and Israeli prisons. These are men who put their lives at stake
while Abbas and his family were enjoying the money of Fatah and the people
in Syria, Lebanon and Tunisia. We won't allow Mahmoud [Abbas] and Tarek and
Yasser to steal Fatah from us."
Sami Mashharawi, a Fatah leader closely associated with Dahlan, also lashed
out at Abbas. "Mahmoud Abbas has decided, in his capacity as Chief Executive
Officer, to fire those who he believes work for his royal family. Abbas's
trivial decision shows that the man is full of hatred."
Mashharawi also denounced Abbas for having brought "disgrace" to Fatah and
all Palestinians.
Commenting on his expulsion from Fatah, Abu Zaida denounced the decision as
illegal. "My relationship with Fatah and its members and cadres cannot be
canceled through an illegal decision," he said. "Apparently, this is the
fate of anyone who dares to express his opinion or believes that we live in
a democratic society that respects freedom of expression."
The unprecedented verbal attacks on Abbas reflect the deepening crisis in
Fatah. Dahlan and the five senior Fatah officials who were expelled by Abbas
enjoy widespread support among Palestinians, particularly in the Gaza Strip.
And it is obvious that Dahlan and his loyalists do not intend this time to
let Abbas get away with his controversial decision.
The renewed tensions in Fatah came as Abbas announced that he has instructed
the new unity government to prepare for long overdue presidential and
parliamentary elections. He said he is hoping that the elections will be
held within six months and that he wants Hamas to participate in the vote,
as was the situation in January 2006.
In the wake of the infighting in Fatah, Hamas's chances of winning the
elections, when and if they are held, do not seem to be bad at all. In 2006,
Fatah lost the parliamentary election due to internal squabbling and
tensions, as well as financial and administrative corruption. Eight years
later, Fatah appears to be suffering from the same problems and is likely to
be defeated once again at the ballot box.
3a) Netanyahu tells AP he is 'troubled' by US decision
By JOSEF FEDERMAN
Israel's prime minister said Tuesday he is "deeply troubled" by the United States' decision to maintain relations with the new Palestinian unity government, urging Washington to tell the Palestinian
president that his alliance with the Hamas militant group is unacceptable.
The blunt language used by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reflected the
Israeli government's disappointment and frustration over the international
community's embrace of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' new unity
government.
Netanyahu has urged the world to shun the government because it is backed by
Hamas, an Islamic group that has killed hundreds of Israelis in attacks over
the past two decades. But late Tuesday, both the U.S. and European Union
said they would give Abbas a chance.
"I'm deeply troubled by the announcement that the United States will work
with the Palestinian government backed by Hamas," Netanyahu told The
Associated Press, saying the group has murdered "countless innocent
civilians."
"All those who genuinely seek peace must reject President Abbas' embrace of
Hamas, and most especially, I think the United States must make it
absolutely clear to the Palestinian president that his pact with Hamas, a
terrorist organization that seeks Israel's liquidation, is simply
unacceptable," he said.
Israel and the West have branded Hamas a terrorist group. But Israel's
allies in Washington and Europe have said they will maintain ties to the new
government - and continue sending hundreds of millions of dollars in aid -
as long as it renounces violence and recognizes Israel's right to exist.
Abbas says the new Cabinet is committed to these principles. It is made up
of apolitical technocrats who have no ties to Hamas.
Hamas, which remains sworn to Israel's destruction, has agreed to support
the government from the outside.
Abbas' Fatah movement and Hamas formed the new government Monday in a major
step toward ending a seven-year rift that left the Palestinians divided
between two governments. Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip from Abbas'
forces in June 2007, leaving him only in control of autonomous areas of the
West Bank. The division is considered a major obstacle to any future peace
agreement.
Netanyahu's comments were the latest salvo in a competition between Israel
and the Palestinians to win over international opinion following the
collapse of Mideast peace talks in late April. Each side has been eager to
portray the other as the intransigent party that led to the failure.
Abbas' prime minister, Rami Hamdallah, told reporters Tuesday that the
government is committed to all agreements previously reached with Israel and
would continue the president's "programs of peace," aimed at establishing an
independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.
"We call on the international community to immediately recognize the
government and continue to support the Palestinian political leadership
efforts to enable the government to face all political challenges,
especially the Israeli policies that hinder the political and economic
stability in the region," Hamdallah said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Report: US Intel Officials Worry Bergdahl Became 'Active Collaborator With the Enemy'
By Guy Benson
An astonishing scoop last night from Fox News' James Rosen -- whose access to sources has, ahem, attracted the Obama administration's intense scrutiny in the not-so-distant past. Whoa:
The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes is also out with a searing piece in which soldiers from Bergdahl's former platoon forcefully reject Susan Rice's description of the former hostage as having served the US with "honor and distinction:"
More evidence pointing to desertion continues to emerge, including this account from NBC News, which has been echoed elsewhere:
4a)Obama's Bergdahl plan blows up in his face
Bryan Fischer
- See more at: http://onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2014/06/03/obamas-bergdahl-plan-blows-up-in-his-face#sthash.af2aEvkg.dpuf
Obama's motive for the urgent swap of deserter Bowe Bergdahl for the Taliban Dream Team is simple: he wanted desperately to get America's attention off the disastrous VA scandal. Boy, did he.
The problem, of course, is that nothing about this latest hubristic act of stupendously misguided illegality has worked out as Obama planned. For one, he's not being allowed to skate on the statutory requirement that he give Congress 30 days' notice for such exchanges. Even wingerleft legal types like Jeffrey Toobin and Jonathan Turley have condemned his actions as flagrantly unlawful rather than praising them as innovative and humanitarian.
Bowe Bergdahl is not a hero. He is a deserter who deserves a court martial rather than a parade. The outrage directed against Mr. Obama for this foolish and juvenile stunt has been swift, loud and long. The American people know that the president has only exchanged one enemy of the United States for five.
Six soldiers lost their lives trying to "rescue" Bergdahl, and their families are naturally furious that the president is treating Bergdahl and his family as political royalty while their ultimate sacrifice goes unnoticed and unrewarded.
Bergdahl is now in a "reintegration" program in Germany, where I expect he will remain for a long, long time, out of sight until he is out of mind. Obama will be able to use the excuse that his suffering at the hands of the Taliban was much more extensive than thought, therapy will be extensive, and we don't want to thrust him into society until we are convinced he's healthy, etc. Bergdahl is about to find out just how long a compassionate reintegration program can last.
Obama likely had a second motive: a clumsy, left-footed attempt to snag some of Ronald Reagan's glory through a pale imitation of one of his triumphs, the return of 52 American hostages from 444 days of Iranian captivity on the day of his inauguration.
This was to be Obama's Reaganesque, foreign policy moment, where he demonstrated his skill and awe-inspiring leadership by bringing an American out of captivity and returning him to freedom.
But we now know that not only was Bergdahl a deserter, he was also a traitor who taught bomb-making and ambush skills to his "captors" after converting to Islam and taking on the name Abdullah.
So rather than this moment reminding Americans of Reagan liberating the Iranian hostages, it looks more like Barney Fife rescuing Benedict Arnold.
And while we are on the subject of not leaving any American behind, how about not leaving Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmoressi behind? How about a swap to set him free from the hellhole of a Mexican prison where he has been languishing for months? As long as we're in the business of swapping bad actors for Americans, how about swapping five illegal alien criminals – we have at least 36,000 to spare – for a patriotic Marine instead of a man who sold out his country?
Andy McCarthy made the point yesterday that the president's release of the five Guantanamo Bay bad guys is an impeachable offense all by itself, and Jonathan Turley observed that this act is just another in a long and sordid list of illegal acts by this president, added to the top of what Turley calls an already existing "pile" of unlawful deeds.
Now what do we call a man who has a "pile" of illegal deeds on his rap sheet? We call him a criminal.
At some point, perhaps sooner than later, the American people may reach their threshold of tolerance for unlawful behavior from our chief executive and simply insist that the constitutional remedy of impeachment be pursued. It can't happen a moment too soon.
Bryan Fischer is director of issues an
2)
Obama's Bergdahl plan blows up in his face
Bryan Fischer
- See more at: http://onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2014/06/03/obamas-bergdahl-plan-blows-up-in-his-face#sthash.af2aEvkg.dpuf
Obama's motive for the urgent swap of deserter Bowe Bergdahl for the Taliban Dream Team is simple: he wanted desperately to get America's attention off the disastrous VA scandal. Boy, did he.
The problem, of course, is that nothing about this latest hubristic act of stupendously misguided illegality has worked out as Obama planned. For one, he's not being allowed to skate on the statutory requirement that he give Congress 30 days' notice for such exchanges. Even wingerleft legal types like Jeffrey Toobin and Jonathan Turley have condemned his actions as flagrantly unlawful rather than praising them as innovative and humanitarian.
Bowe Bergdahl is not a hero. He is a deserter who deserves a court martial rather than a parade. The outrage directed against Mr. Obama for this foolish and juvenile stunt has been swift, loud and long. The American people know that the president has only exchanged one enemy of the United States for five.
Six soldiers lost their lives trying to "rescue" Bergdahl, and their families are naturally furious that the president is treating Bergdahl and his family as political royalty while their ultimate sacrifice goes unnoticed and unrewarded.
Bergdahl is now in a "reintegration" program in Germany, where I expect he will remain for a long, long time, out of sight until he is out of mind. Obama will be able to use the excuse that his suffering at the hands of the Taliban was much more extensive than thought, therapy will be extensive, and we don't want to thrust him into society until we are convinced he's healthy, etc. Bergdahl is about to find out just how long a compassionate reintegration program can last.
Obama likely had a second motive: a clumsy, left-footed attempt to snag some of Ronald Reagan's glory through a pale imitation of one of his triumphs, the return of 52 American hostages from 444 days of Iranian captivity on the day of his inauguration.
This was to be Obama's Reaganesque, foreign policy moment, where he demonstrated his skill and awe-inspiring leadership by bringing an American out of captivity and returning him to freedom.
But we now know that not only was Bergdahl a deserter, he was also a traitor who taught bomb-making and ambush skills to his "captors" after converting to Islam and taking on the name Abdullah.
So rather than this moment reminding Americans of Reagan liberating the Iranian hostages, it looks more like Barney Fife rescuing Benedict Arnold.
And while we are on the subject of not leaving any American behind, how about not leaving Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmoressi behind? How about a swap to set him free from the hellhole of a Mexican prison where he has been languishing for months? As long as we're in the business of swapping bad actors for Americans, how about swapping five illegal alien criminals – we have at least 36,000 to spare – for a patriotic Marine instead of a man who sold out his country?
Andy McCarthy made the point yesterday that the president's release of the five Guantanamo Bay bad guys is an impeachable offense all by itself, and Jonathan Turley observed that this act is just another in a long and sordid list of illegal acts by this president, added to the top of what Turley calls an already existing "pile" of unlawful deeds.
Now what do we call a man who has a "pile" of illegal deeds on his rap sheet? We call him a criminal.
At some point, perhaps sooner than later, the American people may reach their threshold of tolerance for unlawful behavior from our chief executive and simply insist that the constitutional remedy of impeachment be pursued. It can't happen a moment too soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment