How Obama Can Dodge All Responsibility for the Islamic State

by Dave Blount | October 2, 2014 2:35 pm

Despite over 4,000 American lives recently having been sacrificed to liberate Iraq, the view from the capital city is not cheerful:

Vicar of Baghdad Canon Andrew White [Monday] posted an SOS on Facebook, saying, “The Islamic State are on the verge of entering Baghdad. All the military airstrikes are doing nothing. If we ever needed your prayer, it is now.”

Vicar White notes that “People are fearful of what is going to happen.”

Being a prominent Christian, White may well be dead within a week or two, either beheaded or crucified by the fiends Obama allowed to fill the power vacuum after prematurely withdrawing troops from Iraq for sophomoric political reasons.

This has forced the Obama Administration to confront a pressing problem: How to avoid blame for the horrific and still escalating bloodbath Obama’s policies have caused?

The “I didn’t know nothing, the intelligence community failed me” defense has not been standing up. It has been established that Obama had accurate intelligence regarding the Islamic State before the 2012 election. It didn’t fit the delusional hard left narrative regarding the evils of neocolonialism and the peacefulness of Islam, so he chose to ignore it.

Our supposed Commander in Chief has reduced himself to the position of implausibly denying that he implausibly denied responsibility for letting ISIS take over Iraq:

President Obama wasn’t passing the buck by saying intelligence officials underestimated the threat from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the White House said Monday.

However, buck-passing is what Obama is now best known for. Not even the slobbering Obamaphiles at MSNBC can help but notice it:

As NBC foreign affairs correspondent Richard Engel said on MSNBC Monday: “It’s surprising that the president said that U.S. intelligence missed this one, because it seems that U.S. intelligence was the only group that missed this one. Everyone knew that Islamic extremists were on the rise in Syria and in Iraq; it was well documented. The extremists were publicizing their activities online—they were bragging about it. Journalists, including us, were interviewing foreign fighters. This was no state secret.”

Obama’s erstwhile amen corner at the New York Times also sees through his shameful attempt to blame his irresponsibility on the intelligence community:

By late last year, classified American intelligence reports painted an increasingly ominous picture of a growing threat from Sunni extremists in Syria, according to senior intelligence and military officials. Just as worrisome, they said, were reports of deteriorating readiness and morale among troops next door in Iraq.

But the reports, they said, generated little attention in a White House consumed with multiple brush fires and reluctant to be drawn back into Iraq. “Some of us were pushing the reporting, but the White House just didn’t pay attention to it,” said a senior American intelligence official. “They were preoccupied with other crises,” the official added. “This just wasn’t a big priority.”

But then the highly public beheadings of Americans took a toll on his approval ratings.

Clearly Obama needs a strategy — not for defeating ISIS (there is zero chance of that under this president), but for evading the blame for the inevitable massive bloodbath when Baghdad falls.

His liberal media friends are failing him, choosing to shore up their own disintegrating credibility rather than back him slavishly to the end. But his devotees in academia won’t let him down. Unlike the media, they aren’t the least bit answerable to the public; they can ride the Hopey Changey crazy train all the way off the rails.

Sure enough, a pair of academics have come through for the Moonbat Messiah:

Charles Strozier, Professor of History and the founding Director of the John Jay College Center on Terrorism and Kelly Berkell, research assistant at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, wrote a blog piece in the Huffington Post called “How Climate Change Helped ISIS,” where they argue that a four-year drought in Syria, from 2006 through 2010, “devastated the livelihoods of 800,000 farmers and herders; and knocked two to three million people into extreme poverty.”

This presumably produced the Islamic State.

Global warming is at fault for the mess in Afghanistan too:

“If more Americans knew how glacial melt contributes to catastrophic weather in Afghanistan—potentially strengthening the Taliban and imperiling Afghan girls who want to attend school—would we drive more hybrids and use millions fewer plastic bags?”

Obama will be more than happy to take credit for this ingenious solution. He can simply proclaim the Islamic State to be a product of global warming, and then proceed to solve the problem by wasting still more money on electric car subsidies and banning plastic bags.

Obviously this will have no effect whatsoever on ice near the poles (which has actually been expanding), much less the Islamic State, but Obama will have shown that his heart is in the right place and he tried. That’s good enough for a gold star in any public school.

Anyone who disagrees with the new policy can be denounced as a denier, a warmonger, and an Islamophobe.

Nonexistent global warming is responsible.

On tips from DinaRehn, Bill T, and Petterssonp. Hat tips: Power Line, Weasel Zippers. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Source URL: