My Fellow Bobble Heads
ISIL and Obama
My Fellow Bobble-Heads
In a “Stand and Deliver” interview, the Fourth Estate fulfills a journalistic ideal. The people's need to know is satisfied when public servants are made to fess up.
This was something else.
It was August 8th. The “guest” and “host” was President Obama. The interviewer was Tom Friedman. It was a New York Times production, and the show ran about an hour. It was called “Obama on the World”.
Just one day before, the President had ordered bombing in Iraq. This action ended our policy of restraint and also hopefully, from a political point of view, ended the charges against the President, partisan and otherwise, of being a do-nothing ditherer. Striking while this iron was still hot, the hastily arranged program sought to expand on the picture of the President as an action figure.
The atmosphere was collegial. The President supplied smooth well thought out responses on the subjects on which he evidently had received an advance briefing. Mr. Friedman listened and nodded his head in encouragement. In fact, Mr. Friedman, a top op-ed celebrity, was so friendly he went so far as to offer the President improvements in vocabulary and assured Mr. Obama that the President's views on foreign policy accorded with his own.
That's how it went for the first forty-three minutes- the President holding forth and Mr. Friedman bobbling his head. After the forty-three minute mark, the President simply informed Mr. Friedman that the Q & A segment was over and launched into a speech.
Yawn, right?
Not exactly.
You see, although Mr. Friedman took no note, around the nineteenth minute, President Obama unloaded a bomb. It seems, rather than being a do-nothing, the President has actually been quite busy. He has been nurturing, through benign neglect, ISIL. Because Mr. Nouri al Maliki does not know what is best for his own country, and Barack Obama does, it has been a prime policy objective of this administration to get rid of our old pal Nouri. With the ouster of al Maliki imminent, and the achievement of a major objective in hand, the President could now boast of how he had used ISIL. These are some of the words he used:
The reason, the president added, “that we did not just start taking a bunch of airstrikes all across Iraq as soon as ISIL came in was because that would have taken the pressure off of [Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.”
Fantastic eh? Comment extroardinaire!
Just so there is no misunderstanding, yes, this is the same ISIL/ISIS/ISLAMIC STATE that has now been declared the number one global menace. Now, yesterday's useful tool has become the most diabolical, evil, and barbaric pack of mad dogs on this planet.
Saturday night and Sunday morning.
Even though, normally, a puff-piece like this New York Times show would not merit comment, I was confident that on the morrow, based on the President's boast, every propeller on every beanie would be spinning madly and every light on every switch-board would be blinking brightly.
Not to be. In fact, there was nothing then, nothing later, and nothing now. Mucho nada.
It seems, once again, I have gone down a different rabbit hole than everyone else. They all seem to be viewing this issue through a different looking glass than mine. Since there seems to be little interest in the fact that an American president was actually hoping ISIL would become a greater menace, there isn't much of a discussion to join is there? Therefore, in the hope that someday in the future somebody might find this historic and disturbing policy worth discussing, I will briefly outline three basic questions that might be taken up if the smoke ever clears.
First, how many of you actually believe President Obama really did this? Perhaps he just got carried away trying to impress Tom Friedman? So, kiddies, by a show of hands, how many of you actually think Barack Obama consciously played ISIL into a force that could topple a regime he didn't like?
Second, if we are believers, was the price in blood worth the political payoff? How can we describe this maneuver? Would Niccolo Machiavelli consider another chapter in “The Prince”? Perhaps under the heading of cunning expediency fair or foul? Was this the greatest betrayal of an Arab ally since Sykes-Picot? Or, will this go down in history as a brilliant stratagem that achieved major policy objectives without spending one thin dime of taxpayer money or losing one (American) life?
Third, why has there been a total blackout on this blockbuster claim? As I have already said, I can't figure it out (even the pathological Obama-bashers missed it). What is obvious though is that Mr. Friedman is not the only bobble-head that has made it to the top of the global media pyramid. What is also suggested, is that an insensate blackout this widespread cannot occur simply as a failure within the press. In this day and age the public, the Fifth Estate, is also guilty of being MIA.
Public?
Or should I say “My Fellow Bobble-heads?”
intelligent comments to swantsays@gmail.com
San Antonio, fall equinox, 2014