Wednesday, June 4, 2014

"Trading Private Bergdahl"

President Obama has not been having a very good few months. It looks as though he has completely lost his mojo. 

More and more of his former supporters-- that is, flacks-- are seeing that the man is, if not completely incompetent, impervious to the consequences of his actions. If he or his advisers imagined that he would be treated as a conquering hero for negotiating the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, they have been sorely disappointed. 

Apparently, the release of a deserter who was ashamed of his country did not enhance Obama's reputation as a great leader. And... a Rose Garden ceremony in which Bob Bergdahl spoke Pashtoon and thanked Allah seemed more like surrender than victory. People are starting to ask which side President Obama is really on.

It's gotten so bad that even Mad Magazine has seen through the illusion. Witness this:

Source: Mad Magazine


Kim said...

One has to question who among those close to Obama want to see him fail so badly? In what universe was this event NOT going to be an utter disaster? I'm not a fan of Obama but with advisement like that who needs treachery?

Sam L. said...

I would say none, Kim. They are the ObamaBorg, all of one mind, only one viewpoint, until they are under the bus or off the bus.

A-Bax said...

Soetoro provided material aid to the enemy in the form of releasing high-level jihadists, while simultaneously rewarding a deserter (and possible traitor) to the US Army.

Soetoro admits that, and is blasé about, the possibility (near surety) that the released jihadists will continue to wage war on us.

Soetoro continues to let rot the soldier being held in Mexico, handcuffed to his bed, over a wrong-war turn.

By his actions we shall know him. And by his actions, Soetoro is not on our side.

A-Bax said...

Sorry, "wrong-way" turn.

Lastango said...

Kim (above) is wondering how Team Obama ever thought this swap could be politically successful.

It might have been intended to work on two levels:

Domestic -- part of emptying Gitmo to remove a political liability while claiming something like, "George Bush started these wars, and we finished them".

International -- part of a long-term program of using support and appeasement to build bridges to Islamists. Here, it should be viewed as an extension of the Obama administration's efforts to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt and to topple Gaddafi in Libya so Islamists could take power there.

So, how did Team Obama overlook the disastrous optics of this swap? Two possible reasons.

First, let's note that neither of the domestic or international objective has anything to do with Bowe Bergdahl per se. He was simply the means-of-the-moment to larger ends.

In sports, there is something called "target fixation". Suppose you are riding your mountain bike and up ahead you see a big rock in the trail. If you stare at it you will be mesmerized by it and hit it. The correct technique is to look where you want to go, not at what you want to avoid.

Here, I suspect the Obamaites were riveted by the grandness of their own domestic and international political vision. They are so much smarter than everyone else, so much more enlightened (a common Leftist conceit) that they thought only of what they want to accomplish for themselves. So they stared hard at that rock, and never thought about anything else.

Second, they didn't think they needed to take consequences into account. I'm reminded of one of Clinton's press people who told a reporter that the Clinton administration was so powerful that it creates its own reality, in the same way that a mountain makes its own weather. The Administration does what it wants, and the rest of the world adjusts to that. (As U.S. Steel vice-Chairman Thomas Graham famously put that thought about criticism o his own, then-Titanic industry, "If Big Steel can't get along with the world, let the world get along with Big Steel".

And why wouldn't the Obama Administration think they lead a consequence-free existence? Enabled by their getaway drivers in the media and a long list of state-dependent, bought-and-paid-for friends, they have skated blissfully through a long list of fiascoes.

Need they fear their opponents? Let's keep in mind the spectacle of Romney giving Obama a pass on Benghazi during the "debates", and the Republicans who are at this moment discovering a nuanced approach to Obamacare, talking about tweaking details instead of repeal. At this rate, Hillary will be running against a another warmed-over RINO. As McCain and Romney showed, ya can't beat something with nothing. And the Administration's opponents got plenty of nuthin', and plenty more where that came from.

Larry Sheldon said...

A-Bax said...
'Sorry, "wrong-way" turn.'

Ya' know, while that does seem to be and "auto correct" typo, I have to ask: Is it, really?"

What if the machine sees the situation with greater clarity?

Recruiting Animal said...

Stu, I suspect that you support Bibi and how many prisoner were exchanged for Gilad Shalit who wasn't a deserter but apparently wasn't a good soldier either.

You might not agree that this trade was worthwhile but does it really prove that Obama is an incompetent know-nothing?

Also, the dad with the beard speaking Pashtun was confusing for us but when I thought about it I wondered if maybe with his son in the hands of Pashtun-speaking religious fanatics he wasn't trying to play up to that audience in order to have them treat his son a little better.

But you're a knee-jerk Obama hater so he can't make any mistakes without being totally bad.