As the reincarnation of Meyer Lansky once said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
Well, wadda ya know, the Duplicitous Despot just happens to be a man badly in need of a serious crisis, and the Middle East just happens to be on fire. But surely Obama couldn’t have created the turmoil in Arab countries all by himself, could he?
No, but he certainly has done everything within his power to fan the flames of discontent throughout the region, such as playing up the infamous, anti-Muslim YouTube video as the cause of the “spontaneous” Islamic protests.
While it’s true that Muslims are simply doing what they’ve been doing for more than 14 centuries – looking for excuses to cause death and destruction – they have been increasingly emboldened by Barack Obama’s overt support of radical Islam worldwide.
Contrary to what many naïve Republicans would like to believe, it is not Obama’s incompetence or lack of understanding of the Middle East that are behind his curious attitude toward the ongoing chaos in the region.
Obama knows exactly what he’s doing, and it is his totally consistent actions – and lack of actions (e.g., barely managing a yawn in response to the murder of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three embassy staff members in Libya on Sept. 11 and refusing to give pro-American protesters in Iran and Syria so much as an encouraging word) – that have brought bad endings to such Arab dictators as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, Yemen’s Ali Saleh and Tunisia’s Ben Ali, all of whom, to one extent or another, were U.S. allies.
So if this is the crisis Obama has been hoping for to allow him to continue moving forward with the dreams of his father, how will he go about capitalizing on it? One possibility is military intervention, which is a euphemism for war, because for a devious political leader, one of war’s most useful purposes is that it’s a great attention diverter.
Had World War II not come along, FDR would have continued to prolong the Great Depression through his never-ending, economy-draining government works programs and draconian taxation on producers. It took people’s minds off their economic misery and refocused them on patriotism – on feeling good about America once more.
Of course, FDR was not the only Democratic president to take us to war. One of the many liberal myths that have been ingrained in the minds of the general public for decades is that conservatives are the party of war, while Democrats are the party of peace. But the facts clearly show that for at least the past hundred years, Democrats have been just as willing to go to war as Republicans.
In addition to FDR, Woodrow Wilson led the U.S. into World War I in 1917, and in 1950, after practically blowing Japan off the map in 1945, Harry Truman committed U.S. troops to fight against the North Koreans – the first in a string of no-win wars.
And, of course, let us not forget that John F. Kennedy clumsily got the U.S. into a “police action” in a country no one had ever heard of before (to help the French, no less!), a little police action that became a national nightmare – a losing national nightmare – the Vietnam War.
Which brings us to today and the first totally unvetted president in U.S. history. The Dean of Duplicity could use the radical uprisings in the Middle East, which he has clearly inflamed since the appearance of the infamous Arab Spring, to show voters how strong he is by starting yet another war in the Middle East. This, however, is a bit tricky for him, because he would run the risk of angering the anti-war crowd. But never underestimate Obama’s ability to dish out smooth-as-silk doublespeak.
A second possibility as to how Obama might take advantage of the chaos in the Middle East is to do the exact opposite of war – make nice to Muslim radicals who now control these countries and thereby appear to be a strong and wise leader possessing unmatched powers of diplomacy. If he could calm things down a week or so before the election, Homer Simpson voters (aka “undecideds”) might see him as a persuasive, influential player on the world stage and reward him with their votes.
But the third possibility is the one that worries me the most. Since Obama beat Mush McCain in 2008, I’ve been warning about the possibility of his declaring a phony state of emergency as an excuse to “postpone” the 2012 elections. In that vein, doesn’t it seem a bit too convenient that Iran has picked this particular time to raise the stakes with regard to its nuclear threat against Israel?
The far left, of course, would love a state of emergency and suspension of the November elections, and the right would be rendered impotent while frantically searching for their microscopic gonads. As Obama has already discovered, there are no consequences to his violating the Constitution with reckless abandon.
Of course, if Obama could continue to mesmerize enough Homer Simpsons to give him a commanding lead in the polls going into October, he might be willing to gamble on leaving his fate in the hands of the voters. But if he’s behind in the polls in October – or the race is too close to call – don’t discount the possibility of his declaring a trumped-up state of emergency to suspend the elections.
Let me emphasize that I am by no means 100 percent certain this will happen, but I am 100 percent certain that Obama and his Obamafia would do such a thing if they thought they could get away with it. Maybe it’s just my paranoia, but something doesn’t smell right about the timing of the unusually high level of Mideast madness.