A glass that is half-full added to a glass that is half-full
can conceivably make a glass that is full. And while two normal heads may be
better than one, the same cannot be said about the heads of two half-wits. That
is the conclusion we reach from reading the Charles Hurt article which came
under the title: “Obama's half answers bolster mullahs,” published on September
8, 2015 in The Washington Times.
Comparing the approach to world diplomacy adopted by
President Obama with that of W. Bush and Dick Cheney before him, Charles Hurt
observes that while “Mr. Obama … simply doesn't care,” Bush and Cheney had
“that unshakable commitment to their own world vision and America's role in
it.” And based on that observation, the writer concludes that “they did not do
things halfway” whereas Mr. Obama does so.
To elaborate on those views, he gives examples of what
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have accomplished. He says they encouraged
uprisings and didn't pretend they had nothing to do with them. They inspired
insurrections across several continents and didn't waltz away from them. They
deposed Saddam Hussein “then deployed the most ferocious military campaign …
conquer[ing] the country and find[ing] Hussein who was then hanged.”
And that's not all, he says, because “they spent massive
amounts more rebuilding the country they had just annihilated [and] threw more
and more troops against it.” Given that record, he admires them because, in his
view “they never gave up. Never quit.” He surmises with a sense of nostalgia
that “if they were still in power, they would still be fighting that war.” He
says all that while acknowledging that “it won't be easy for the voters and for
the soldiers and their families.” But all that is okay with him, he says,
because it is admirable.
As to the attitude of President Obama who inherited a world
so beautifully configured by the Bush-Cheney administration, Charles Hurt says
“he [Obama] doesn't care about the Middle East, about Israel, about the Islamofascist
networks spreading around the world … the most charitable view possible is that
Mr. Obama wants to hand the entire squalid mess to the mullahs of Iran.” Well,
at least he now calls the Bush-Cheney handicraft a squalid mess, having said he
admired its creators.
But what would the mullahs do with the Bush-Cheney squalid
mess? “They will sort it all out,” says Charles Hurt. Their approach will be
that they will “once and for all deal with Israel ,
Syria , the Islamic State,
the slaughtering of Christians and women in North Africa ,
with the child murderers and rapists.”
But on what basis does he say these things? He answers: “Mr.
Obama wants America to
recede from the world stage and allow the vacuum to be filled by Iran .” He goes
on to explain: “That is the MOST charitable explanation for this [nuclear] deal
with the regime.” Whoa! Can you believe this? Hurt says that Obama negotiating
a deal with Iran
explains in a full and in a comprehensive manner what the entire Obama agenda
is.
Having figured out all that, he now wonders about three
things. (1) “Why would a president trade away America 's hard-won influence around
the world?” (2) “Why would a president care so little about protecting the
country against enemies who want to destroy us?” (3) “Why would a world leader
give up hope on the rest of the world?” Attempting to answer those questions,
he asks more questions: “Is the man dumb? Is he evil? Or is he so in love with
himself he cannot see the madness he wreaks?”
So you ask: What American influence around the world is Hurt
talking about? Encouraging uprisings? Inspiring insurrections across several
continents? Deposing Saddam? Deploying the most ferocious military campaign?
Conquering Iraq
and finding Saddam? Spending massive amounts rebuilding the country that Bush
and Cheney annihilated? Throwing more and more troops against it?
Whom must we consider to be the dumb and evil in all of
this? Is it Obama or is it the Bush-Cheney team? And who is incapable of seeing
the madness thus wreaked on the world? Is it Obama who kept America safe
with its soldiers coming home on their two feet instead of body bags? Or is it
Charles Hurt who is so confused; he needs some serious psychological
counseling?
Till he receives that counseling, he will continue to reflect
what goes on in the venues of a murderous nation filled with sufferers of
mental problems. Thus, he will continue to believe that a full answer to every
international problem is to throw money, military hardware and soldiers at it.
He will also consider that to seek a peaceful and negotiated solution is a
half-answer to any problem. To him, this is like building a half-bridge over a
perilous sea – a highway to sure suicide.
What we have here are Cheney and the W., two half-wits who,
together, do not rise to the level of a normal. Their only saving grace – if
you can call it that – is that they are admired by a witless individual that's
equipped with half a brain incapable of grasping that madness leads to the
destruction of nations, whereas sanity restores what was destroyed, relying on
patience and the goodness of the human race.
Human beings building bridges to other human beings may at
times be a hazardous exercise. But without taking that risk, we have no
alternative but to swim the perilous waters of a murderous sea where the end
will always be the way to sure suicide.