@layman,
Good grief man this is old news. The MSM has been screaming about this for days now. Oh...wait a minute, its Trump's nasty treatment of Angela Merkel that they've been screaming about.
The unfortunate and very dirty aspect of the Great Game is those who play to win inevitably face the possibility of doing deals with devils in order to either defeat more devilish demons or simply just stay close to the lead.
It's easy to condemn these amoral alliances and I don't suggest the doing so is unwarranted but hypocrisy is usually present whenever such condemnation is heard. I doubt FDR and Churchill thought that Uncle Joe Stalin was a cuddly Russian teddy bear when they forged an alliance with him against Hitler, and immediately after winning that war, the Allies all scrambled to scoop up German scientists regardless of whether or not they were Nazis or their work in Germany resulted in the deaths of thousands of Allied troops.
JFK helped prop up thoroughly corrupt strongmen in Vietnam, Carter, that living monument to morality, was so accepting of the brutal Shah of Iran that he agreed to Roslyn's request that they visit Tehran when he offered her the opportunity to select the site of the next State visit. Reagan danced with people who directed Central American death squads and we all know that Al Qaida grew in power in Afghanistan in large measure due to the support provided by the US on the theory that the enemy of my enemy is a useful tool if not a friend. It wasn't just our leaders who embraced the Islamists blowing Russian helicopters out of the sky with US provided Stingers, and whose women folk delighted in torturing any captured Russian soldier, the MSM at the time often ran admiring accounts of the brave struggle of the mujahadeen
freedom fighters...our proxy David struggling against the Soviet Goliath.
It is clearly hypocritical to accept any of these alliances of necessity but condemn any and all others. That the hypocrisy is nearly always a function of partisan tribalism is, of course, not surprising.
A not unreasonable argument can be made that what is gained by doing these deals is not worth the taint, and that, if necessary, the US should scale back it's ambitions and reach rather than pursue any that require unholy alliances. Of course this argument is similar to the one that suggests war is never an acceptable tool of foreign policy and, indeed, violence is never an acceptable response to any situation faced by nations or individuals. In order to take these arguments to their logical conclusion and satisfy the absolutism that compels them, those making them need to be willing to accept the slaughter of loved ones or themselves as a possible outcome of following their conscience. Perhaps the US and UK could have defeated Germany and Japan without the help of Stalinist Russia, but it's highly questionable and certainly would have involved a lot more dead Americans and Brits. The reality is that virtually no leader who thinks this way is going to lead as virtually none of the led will allow him or her to do so.
If the Obama administration concluded that Assad's Syria was a greater threat to US interests than the budding ISIS, and therefore decided to they were a useful tool to be employed (particularly since using US forces to accomplish the same ends wasn't even in the same room as the table) I may question the wisdom of that decision but I can't condemn it on moral grounds without doing so as respects every other unholy alliance in which this country has engaged.
Real politik is a very nasty business, but you can't get on and off the bus depending on the party affiliation of the occupant of the White House and maintain anything close to intellectual honesty.
However...
This report suggests that the Obama Administration continued dancing with these devils even after the true nature of their dance partners became clear to them (something the report also suggests they knew all along) and, more importantly, after they realized that they were unable to exercise any sort of control over the devils and that any support provided would, if possible, be used against US interests and even to the extent of murdering US citizens.
Up to now the general consensus has been that Obama sought to downplay ISIS as JV terrorists because he a) Wanted to to tout himself as the president who defeated
the terrorists, al-Qaida, (Remember, this was the man who saved GM and killed Osama bin Laden!) and b) Was very keen on downplaying anything that might have suggested that his order to withdraw from Iraq was premature or pressure him to send US troops back to the region.
Now we see that the lies and obfuscation that was a hallmark of the Obama Administration when it came to ISIS may have also been due to his wanting to minimize the threat that he not only helped to unleash but was continuing to support.
This is a major revelation and while there may be much more to the story that would cast a less damning light on the Obama Administration, it certainly is one that should be pursued by investigative reporters and not only an organization like Judicial Watch.
I get news updates via e-mail from a number of MSM outlets. They arrive in my inbox throughout the day. Sometimes I just scan the headline bullets because I can't stomach reading 12 anti-Trump polemics, all saying the same thing, on a daily basis. I have yet to see this story in a headline, and I'm doubting I will.
Now we can sit back and wait for our liberal friends to tell us why the matter is entirely irrelevant and that your raising it is a symptom of ODS.
(I don't think though that we'll have to wait long for camlok to tell us what hypocritical, lying cowards we are
)
