The redefinition of reality by the liberal Democrats is now a mass delusion. This morning, I read numerous articles discussing how president Obama is holding the line against the "alarmist rhetoric" coming from the GOP. According to these stories, the positions of the GOP candidates calling for a change to the American strategy against ISIS or calling for a pause in the arrival of Syrian refugees until a better system of vetting is put in place are nothing by unfounded rhetoric designed unnecessarily to upset and alarm the American people. According to these liberal mainstream media pundits and reporters, Obama's current policy is working just fine.
One has to wonder if the pundits voicing these views actually believe them or if these are simply the talking points put out by the White House on some new version of the journo-list which it formerly used to coordinate supposedly independent media coverage. There could always be one or two with this view, but to have so many simultaneously spout such nonsense requires so measure of coordination.
If you just take a quick glance at what these fellow travelers are saying about the subject, it quickly becomes clear that they have no concept of reality. Here are a few examples:
1. The pundits label calls for America not to admit inadequately vetted Syrian refugees as alarmist and bigoted. They portray Obama as bravely standing up to those calls. The actual facts are that ISIS has announced that it will use the flow of refugees to infiltrate its terrorists into the West. This has already happened with the recent Paris attacks. No sane person would say that admitting people who cannot be properly vetted is without major risk to the safety of Americans. Nevertheless, calls for the reasonable response are called alarmist.
2. It's cute that the pundits think that Obama actually has a strategy for defeating ISIS. It's delusional for them to argue that the nonexistent strategy is working. In the last month, ISIS has hit terror targets in at least seven countries on three continents. There may be other attacks for which the perpetrators have not been identified. The reach of ISIS is growing, not shrinking. Obama's claim of containment is a joke. Indeed, that claim of containment was so wrong that the media redefined it immediately after the Paris attacks to have been a claim of containment only with regard to Syria and Iraq. Thank heavens for video recording. I've seen the entire interview in which Obama made the statement. There was no limitation to Iraq and Syria in the question, the answer or any other part of the interview. Even with the redefinition of Obama's statement, however, it is wrong. In Syria, ISIS is expanding mainly against the Sunni rebels who are under nearly constant bombardment by the Russians. Indeed, the Russian strategy seems clearly to be the elimination of all of the non-ISIS rebels fighting Assad, so that the world is presented with a choice between keeping Assad or watching ISIS control all of Syria. And Obama's response has been to welcome Russia to the fight against ISIS, a fight Russia has not joined.
Against this background, the pundits say that calls for a change in strategy (or more precisely the adoption of a coherent and rational strategy that promotes a result in America's interests) is alarmist rhetoric. It's delusional or intentionally misleading.
It's sad that we live in a country where so much of the media has decided that politics is more important than reality and the safety and interests of America.
One has to wonder if the pundits voicing these views actually believe them or if these are simply the talking points put out by the White House on some new version of the journo-list which it formerly used to coordinate supposedly independent media coverage. There could always be one or two with this view, but to have so many simultaneously spout such nonsense requires so measure of coordination.
If you just take a quick glance at what these fellow travelers are saying about the subject, it quickly becomes clear that they have no concept of reality. Here are a few examples:
1. The pundits label calls for America not to admit inadequately vetted Syrian refugees as alarmist and bigoted. They portray Obama as bravely standing up to those calls. The actual facts are that ISIS has announced that it will use the flow of refugees to infiltrate its terrorists into the West. This has already happened with the recent Paris attacks. No sane person would say that admitting people who cannot be properly vetted is without major risk to the safety of Americans. Nevertheless, calls for the reasonable response are called alarmist.
2. It's cute that the pundits think that Obama actually has a strategy for defeating ISIS. It's delusional for them to argue that the nonexistent strategy is working. In the last month, ISIS has hit terror targets in at least seven countries on three continents. There may be other attacks for which the perpetrators have not been identified. The reach of ISIS is growing, not shrinking. Obama's claim of containment is a joke. Indeed, that claim of containment was so wrong that the media redefined it immediately after the Paris attacks to have been a claim of containment only with regard to Syria and Iraq. Thank heavens for video recording. I've seen the entire interview in which Obama made the statement. There was no limitation to Iraq and Syria in the question, the answer or any other part of the interview. Even with the redefinition of Obama's statement, however, it is wrong. In Syria, ISIS is expanding mainly against the Sunni rebels who are under nearly constant bombardment by the Russians. Indeed, the Russian strategy seems clearly to be the elimination of all of the non-ISIS rebels fighting Assad, so that the world is presented with a choice between keeping Assad or watching ISIS control all of Syria. And Obama's response has been to welcome Russia to the fight against ISIS, a fight Russia has not joined.
Against this background, the pundits say that calls for a change in strategy (or more precisely the adoption of a coherent and rational strategy that promotes a result in America's interests) is alarmist rhetoric. It's delusional or intentionally misleading.
It's sad that we live in a country where so much of the media has decided that politics is more important than reality and the safety and interests of America.
No comments:
Post a Comment