Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
What is the moral, intellectual, and policy terrain on which Barack Obama will decide whether we turn over Iraq to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? Is it the national interest of the United States? The potential consequences of Iraq’s collapse? The stability (or lack thereof) of our allies in the region? Existential threats to Israel? Fundamental human rights concerns over the bloody fate guaranteed apostates, unbelievers, and women? The answer is as shallow, disappointing, and vile as you can possibly imagine. Barack Obama’s only concern is his political legacy, which is why he’ll do just enough in Iraq to fail.
History will record that the 44th president was informed by a far left-wing ideology, but motivated entirely by his personal pathologies.
Perfectly put.
Excellent post. My nominee for Ricochet sentence of the week: “If you thought the slobbering, tween-girl media squeefest that has characterized his media coverage for the last six years was insufferable, just wait.”
I have never before encountered “squeefest” but just the sound of the word captures it, doesn’t it?
Dick Cheney has predicted another 9/11 event in the coming decade, only worse. I concur. Please God I’m wrong, but I believe the time after the 2014 election, and especially the space between the 2016 election and the new president taking office will be particularly dangerous. The terrorists know Obama is in completely over his head and would be capable of doing nothing more than voting present.
Both G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush insisted that we had to keep Iraq “whole”. We could not let it break into separate states (i.e. a Sunni sate, a Shiite state and a Kurdish state.) We spent tons of time and effort trying to prevent that from happening and yet here we are with something like that in the offing.
Let’s compare: Czechoslovakia broke into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Seems to have worked. Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro are living at relative peace with each other at least for now. Why can’t Iraq rearrange itself? Yes, there will be a lot of them killing each other. That’s been going on for 1000 + years.
If the U.S. were to support the Kurds (who seem to like us and who seem to be willing and able to fight for themselves unlike the Iraqi army we built), wouldn’t we be better off? We could have another ally in the area.
This is probably simplistic and naive but maybe we should let it break up.
Happy to be of service on the portmanteau front.
The OP reminds me of something I had pushed to the back of my mind. If you thought the media’s coverage of the Obama presidency was servile and lickspittle while it was happening, just wait until he leaves office. I can barely begin to contemplate the full horror of the next half century in which the “Obama Era” is portrayed as the crowning glory of American civilisation.
It will be a New Camelot, a golden age of promise and wonder. The land flowed with milk and honey, the world basked in the radiance of the Lightbringer’s wonder and majesty.
Sure, Bush 43 handed him a bag of [expletive].
But that didn’t mean Obama had to light it on fire, then step on it.