by William Skink
The debate about whether to accept Syrian refugees into America is a bullshit partisan distraction that ignores the root cause, which is American foreign policy. Pete Talbot takes the bait and writes that Montana should take refugees. Great, let’s take refugees. Who cares that we can’t even take care of the homeless already in our community. If it makes liberals happy to think they’re saving the people who are fleeing the region their “elected” Commander-in-Chief has decimated, they’re going to advocate for it, regardless of what the reality on the ground dictates.
The Cowgirl has an even more ridiculously partisan post about scapegoating the victims, ascribing the refugee crisis to the Iraq invasion, completely ignoring what has happened in Libya and Syria:
And finally, don’t lose sight of the fact that Zinke, Daines, and Gianforte no doubt thought that the Iraq war–which largely caused the current state of affairs in the Middle East–was a great idea. They viewed the manchild president, George W. Bush, as a visionary foreign policy maker who surely must be followed, since he was clearly such a wise man. And they followed his vision, criticized all who opposed it, and now that we have the mess, naturally none of them want to participate in the cleanup.
What a bunch of crap. It’s like the last 7 years of Obama’s foreign policy, executed in part by the sociopath presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, didn’t exist. This is dangerously ignorant partisanship meant to keep the Democrat herd properly focused on Bush and not Obama or Clinton.
In the background this morning I’m listening to NPR and they’re talking about French airstrikes on Syria. What targets exist today that didn’t warrant airstrikes before the Paris attacks? Along that vein, Moon of Alabama has a very interesting post about Russia shaming Obama into actually targeting ISIS, which previously the administration hasn’t been serious about actually doing. From the link:
The U.S. claims it wants to hit the Islamic State but in one year of bombing it never really touched one of its biggest sources of income. Hundreds of oil tanker trucks are waiting every day at IS distribution points to smuggle oil to Turkey and elsewhere. Only one such distribution point was ever bombed and that attack was by the Iraqi air force.
Now the Russian President Putin played some “name and shame” at the G-20 meeting in Turkey and, lo and behold, the problem gets solved.
The Obama administration recently claimed it would increase attacks on the most expensive Syrian oil infrastructure which is owned by the Syrian government but under IS control. But it said it would still not hit the large truck gatherings.
And why was the Obama administration reluctant to bomb the trucks that smugglers use to sell oil, providing ISIS with millions in oil revenue? Because of the fear of civilian casualties:
While the American-led air campaign has conducted periodic airstrikes against oil refineries and other production facilities in eastern Syria that the group controls, the organization’s engineers have been able to quickly repair damage, and keep the oil flowing, American officials said. The Obama administration has also balked at attacking the Islamic State’s fleet of tanker trucks — its main distribution network — fearing civilian casualties.
Civilian casualties is absolutely NOT the reason the Obama administration has balked at degrading the oil revenue ISIS depends on. If our president was concerned about civilian casualties, he’d stop the drone terrorism he’s perpetrated across the globe.
So if that’s not the reason, what is? The answer to that question is not something the American public can wrap their heads around because it implies that ISIS is a geopolitical tool of the west. That may go against the propaganda Americans have been spoon-fed for years, but it’s the truth.
So just keep focusing on those bad Republican Governors pandering to their xenophobic base, Democrats, and pretend like these refugees are a product of Bush’s foreign policy. Putting Hillary in the White House is more important than acknowledging the utter failure of Obama’s foreign policy, right?