If you're in the "Obama is in over his head" camp, you argue that he's more concerned about the public embarrassment he'll "suffer" by having to admit the failure of his Middle East policy by responding to its disastrous results by evacuating our Baghdad embassy or redeploying American ground troops to Iraq than he is the genocidal enemies his Middle East policy has unleashed on the people of Iraq, the region, and in the very near future, American civilians, as ISIS has already promised.
If you're in the "Obama is a revolutionary" camp, your argument is much simpler: He wants another Benghazi, only this time orders of magnitude bigger. He wants it for the further damage it will do to America's tattered global image, the additional infidel "Crusader" lives it will liquidate, and the cudgel he thinks it will give him for blaming the onrushing massacre on George W. Bush, and by extension, the GOP.
Protecting his fragile ego and/or taking the Obama Doctrine another giant leap "forward". Either way, or both ways, gallons more American blood is about to be spilled, and it'll all be on President Gutsy Call's hands:
The United States is beefing up security at its large, palatial embassy in Baghdad and will move workers from behind its massive blast walls and out of the Iraqi capital, the U.S. State Department said Sunday.
Expanded military support for security at the embassy will include fewer than 100 soldiers, a U.S. official told Reuters on Sunday. The enhanced security personnel will include Marines and other soldiers, a U.S. military official said on condition of anonymity.
Wait a minute, that actually sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
But wait for it....wait for it....
Actually, the other shoe is in the very next 'graph:
A substantial number of the more than 5,500 embassy workers will be included in the evacuation, the New York Times reported.
A "substantial number". Not the entire embassy staff; just "a substantial number". Which probably corresponds to the ones who donated to any of Barack Obama's presidential campaigns.
Thing is, I vividly recall that the Iranians only held fifty-three U.S. embassy personnel hostage in Tehran thirty-five years ago, and that turned out to be a pretty damn big deal. Which is why I'm guessing that O is assuming, and hoping, that ISIS "personnel" will simply murder them all and spare him the PR embarrassment.
At any rate, they aren't disclosing what that "substantial number" is, and their rhetoric doesn't hint at that number being all that substantial:
The State Department said the Baghdad embassy was reviewing staffing requirements but that a "substantial majority" of the embassy presence in Iraq would remain in place.
"Some additional U.S. government security personnel will be added to the staff in Baghdad; other staff will be temporarily relocated – both to our Consulate Generals in Basra and Arbil and to the Iraq Support Unit in Amman," the State Department said.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that much of the U.S. embassy staff will stay in place even as parts of the country experience instability and violence, The Associated Press reported. She did not specify the number of personnel affected by the shift....
"Overall, a substantial majority of the U.S. Embassy presence in Iraq will remain in place and the embassy will be fully equipped to carry out its national security mission," Psaki said.
Can any of you reconcile "a substantial number of embassy personnel will be evacuated" with "a substantial majority of the U.S. embassy presence in Iraq will remain"? I realize I'm probably not up to speed on the New Obamunist Semantics, but these two phrases seem more than a little contradictory to me.
Y'know, I wouldn't mind that all that much if this "substantial majority of the U.S. embassy presence" that will remain were all heavily armed Marines setting a massive ambush for ISIS forces, but somehow I just don't see that option as being too terribly likely.
And so we are left with the horrifying reality that either (1) Barack Obama wants hundreds or thousands more Americans to die at the hands of our - but not his - enemies; or (2) he would rather sacrifice hundreds or thousands more American lives in a plaintive attempt to save his own vanity than admit that he was wrong about the Middle East, wrong about the War On Terror, wrong about the true nature of our Islamic Fundamentalist foes, and George W. Bush was right.
Or both.
Exit question for Tea Partiers: Do you still think "purifying" the Republican Party is more important than defeating Democrats?
No comments:
Post a Comment