|
WHERE’S THE F-WORD? |
|
|
|
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
|
|
Thursday, 25 October 2012 |
Conservatives
quite rightly denounce our culture's continual descent into degradation. Nowhere is this more evident than in the
crudity of public discourse. The
omnipresence of four-letter words in music, movies, books, magazines, websites,
cable television, and every other form of public and private discourse is
inescapable.
Today, we
learned that our current President of the United States has sunk to such a
level of
complete
lack of class that he not only described his opponent, Mitt Romney, with
gutter language, he put it in the mouth of a six-year old girl.
We'll have a
president with class soon, for whom gutter language is anathema.
Note that the New
York Times pokes fun at this, and dreams of dragging Mr. Romney "linguistically
into the 21st century." No, sorry, libs,
Romney is going to drag America's culture back into decency.
However, there
is a four-letter word that Mitt refused to utter in his debates with Zero, and
it is a real shame he didn't, especially in the third debate last Monday (10/22)
when it would have been particularly apt.
It is the F-word as it applies to Zero's presidency in general and his
foreign policy specifically. That word
is... Fail.
Fail
is the word
that epitomizes the Zero White House. It
certainly epitomizes the diplomacy of his Secretary of State. No matter where you look in the world,
America is less secure and less respected than it was four years ago.
Fail
is the word
that encapsulates the massive and growing scandal of Benghazi-gate. This wasn't a burglary at the Watergate
Hotel. This was the
murder of a US Ambassador and three other Americans by Moslem terrorists while
the President and his aides watched in real time and did nothing, then lied
through his teeth about it from the get-go and continues to lie as you are
reading this.
CNN's
Jack Cafferty
(a big media guy and no right-winger) is asking (10/24): Why is the President lying about Benghazi?
He asks his readers for the answer. Let's
give it to him. The answer explains far
more than failure in Benghazi. It
explains failure of US policy in Syria, and failure of US policy across the
global board under Zero.
It's too
facile to say it's because he, along with Democrats in general, are on the
other side, as if he and they are engaging conscious treason.
It's that their leftist ideology prevents
them from taking America's side without apology. Their actions and policies towards Libya and
Syria and the entire Middle East perfectly expresses this.
What is not
facile is to point out the obvious:
that
Zero, the Democrat Party, and the State Department (as a whole for there are
many individual exceptions) is on the
other side when it comes to Israel. I
leave it to the self-hating Jews among them to explain this. But the bottom line is that our State
Department has been far more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel for decades. Zero is just following their lead.
This
pro-Moslem anti-Israel bias explains why
Zero
and his State Department are doing everything they can to support the Moslem
Brotherhood in Libya, in Egypt, in Syria, and everywhere in the Middle East.
Here's an
example.
Gulf states like Kuwait and the
UAE (United Arab Emirates - while the capital is Abu Dhabi, more famous is its
business center of Dubai) want to support non-radical forces among the Syrian insurgents,
such as the Syrian Democracy Coalition. Instead, Hillary and her diplos are insisting
they support the Syrian National
Council, which is 100% radical Moslem Brotherhood.
So Kuwait and
the UAE are withholding support from anyone in Syria - while the Saudis are
happy to send oodles of money and arms to the Brotherhood and every other bunch
of Moslem crazies in Syria.
Why? To prolong the conflict.
The Saudis are
not stupid.
The last thing they want is
for Assad to defeat the rebels, which would immensely strengthen their main
enemy right across the Gulf, Iran. But
the other last thing they want is for the Moslem Brotherhood to defeat Assad,
which would immensely strengthen it, as it would now run both Egypt and Syria,
quickly overrun Lebanon, and move to take over Jordan.
The
Brotherhood -
Iqwan - would then
paint a bullseye on the Saudi Kingdom itself.
Thus the Saudi goal in Syria is
for no one to win, to create chaos and prolong the conflict into exhaustion for
everyone.
Zero, his
diplos from Hillary on down, his guys on the NSC, are clueless on this.
The cluelessness that we can cut a bargain
with evil has a venerable history in US diplomacy - back to FDR proudly
announcing at Yalta that "good old Joe" Stalin was a man he "could do business with."
This inertia
of cluelessness, of bottomless State Department naïveté, especially when
combined with its ancient animus towards Israel, has a momentum that will be
very hard for Romney to overcome.
That
he could not bring himself to utter the F-word - Fail - in the debates is evidence that it's hard for him already.
What's really
worrying is what I learned today while trying to get an explanation for this
from friends at Team Romney:
James
Baker, Reagan's and Bush I's chief squish, the biggest anti-Semite in the
Republican Party after Pat Buchanan, is advising Romney on foreign policy.
Folks, we
cannot have a squish as Romney's Secretary of State, hand-vetted by the Jim Baker-Brent
Scowcroft crowd, the GOP diplo-establishment.
We need someone who will stand up for America with No Apology (the title
of Romney's
book).
So this is a
call to action for all Tea Partyers.
We
need every Tea Partyer, every patriot, to start loudly and incessantly clamor
for a No Apology Secretary of State.
Email or call your Congressman and Senator (if they're Pubs) and ask
them to do the same. The choice of who
Romney's No Apology Secretary of State should be is clear: John
Bolton.
Time for
carpe diem, to start being proactive on
the outcome of a Nobama Future. We'll
never have an F-word foreign policy with John Bolton. Let's get to work to ensure it.
|
Discuss this item on the forums. (28 posts)
|
|
