Speaking of Obama as Bush 44

Speaking of Obama as Bush 44 June 18, 2013

One point of continuity between Bush and Obama is the habit of backing regimes that slaughter Christians. .Christopher Hitchens, the Purest Neocon, once praised Bush with these words: “George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled.”  He meant the damage inflicted on Muslims.  But Hitchens is now dead and it is Christianity, not radical Islam, that has largely been the recipient of the slaughter.  And, like so many other misbegotten policies of the Bush years, Obama has managed to seize on the worst and most destructive ideas and expand on them.  So, for instance, how does he deal with the problem of Al-Quaeda in Syria?

Why, by arming them, of course!

The one, absolutely consistent, result of our foreign policy under Bush and Obama has been the systematic extermination of the Church in lands where Christians have lived for 2000 years.

"You, and Tom, and the very host of this blog are all avoiding my question. ..."

Some Reflections on the Crucifixion for ..."
"as I'm fond of saying, the Church and the truths she teaches belong to Christ, ..."

Rod Bennett on his new book ..."
"Thank you, Mark. The attitude of some Catholics about the good old days makes me ..."

Rod Bennett on his new book ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • The Deuce

    It’s even worse than that. In Bush’s case, we at least fought against Al Qaeda, but we went about our business in an incompetent way that destabilized the region and indirectly gave them and radical elements that supported them more power, and then we set up absurd politically-correct rules of engagement that prevented us from clamping down on their attempts to exploit the power vacuum we’d left (which included driving out the Coptic Christians) in a hopeless bid to “win their hearts and minds.”

    Now all pretenses are gone. We’re just flat-out aiding and abetting “rebel” groups that we know are mostly Al Qaeda, to bring down regimes that are less of a threat than they are, even though they “rewarded” our assistance by murdering our ambassador less than a year ago, and destroyed the WTC only bit over a decade ago. It’s just completely insane. You couldn’t write military fiction where this happened, because the reader would expect a believable and coherent motive for our actions, and there isn’t one.

    • chezami

      Sure there is. A general rule of thumb is to always assume that a nation is responding to its own history and obsessions. In our case, our history of racism warps our foreign policy into casting our interference abroad as the exportation of freedom and causes us to assume that, at bottom, the issue is race, not religion. We strive to be aggressively secular and pretend that what obviously animates the Muslim world is not Islam, but anger about white colonialism. We feel guilty about that, so we act as though that’s the issue and keep being surprised when it isn’t. And with a President who has been steeped in that tradition occupies the throne, he keeps acting that way no matter what.

      • John Schaefer

        I think you may be applying a moral value to a decision that is more strategic. I don’t think we are exporting “freedom”, per se. Our policy in that part of the world was to prop up the Saddam’s, Ghadafy’s and Assad’s – among others – as it suited our strategic economic needs (oil). I don’t think any president is thinking about using our country’s “history of racism” the reason for our foreign policy by bringing Democracy to them. That is the cover which they use to execute the true policy. In this case – a proxy war with Iran and its allies for control over the Middle East Region.

        The problem with the strategy of giving guns to the rebels, is that once we do it – we own it. Trying to determine who is less bad (some of the rebels or Assad) is impossible.

  • John Schaefer

    This, for a fan of Star Trek, is the Kobayashi Maru scenario.

    1. Iran understands that they need to keep this going to keep the heat off of them.

    2. The Russians and the Chinese don’t want us to (feel like we) control the whole Middle East Region.

    3. The Zionists in Israel want to control everything, and keep the Iranians in check.

    4. We are trying to be perceived as supporting democracy and healthy regimes, while trying to control an area a half a world away, AND not be hated by a huge global population of Muslims.

    5. The Rebels aren’t pure of heart, and are supported by AQ.

    So, do you give weapons to the lesser of two bad guys? Who is the lesser of two bad guys? I just don’t think it’s as easy as we’re giving weapons to AQ…

    Sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend…

    • For a fan of Star Trek, this is yet more real-world demonstration of the wisdom embodied in the Prime Directive.

      • John Schaefer

        Didn’t the Enterprise have to go into a situation where a Star Fleet Captain got in the middle of a civil war on an uncivilized planet? Star Trek: TOS. I can’t remember how that ended!

        • The episode was “A Private Little War.” The Klingons are giving flintlocks to one side of the primitive planet’s civil war, so in the very last scene, Kirk orders Scotty to manufacture and beam down some flintlocks for the other side, referring to the flintlocks as “Serpents for the Garden of Eden.”

          The episode was intended as a Vietnam allegory from the beginning. Gene Rodenberry rewrote the original script in a direction that made intervention seem like a tragic necessity rather than the mistake that it was depicted as in the original draft by Don Ingalls. Ingalls was so mad about the changes that he insisted on being credited under the nom de plume “Jud Crucis,” his riff on the phrase “Christ Crucified.”

          As a Catholic, I think I ought to side with “Christ Crucified” over the “Serpent in the Garden of Eden”!

    • Kathleen Lundquist

      …and sometimes the enemy of my enemy – isn’t friendly at all.

      • D.T. McCameron

        Maxim 29. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more. No less.

  • Stu

    I’m find it ironic that the justification for involvement is the Syrian use of WMDs on their own people. Saddam did the same thing.

    • John Schaefer

      It’s a handy, catch-all excuse.

  • Dan Li

    And so the ancient Church in Syria, one of the cradles of the faith since the earliest days… is being slowly killed or banished.

    • Guest

      It’s a handy catch-all excuse.

  • Will

    I would like to see an immediate pullout from Afghanstan and closure of many overseas bases. We should use quick strikes and better intelligence. I would like to see a tougher, more fair, trade policy. Some will not be happy without an isolationist policy while others want us involved in every situation.

  • Pavel Chichikov


    My uncle came back
    from the war

    With a Japanese
    samurai sword

    A Lugar in a leather

    And a fifty caliber

    A combat surgeon
    told me

    The damage is simply

    When a fifty caliber

    Passes through human

    War is our

    But how happy he
    looked when I saw him

    Coming home clean
    from the war

    In his pressed new

    How happy we are to

    To be living here as
    we are

    At home at last and

    As long as a home

    But some day there
    may be

    No home to be found

    And those who come home
    from the war

    Will find it everywhere


    18, 2013

    • Stephen Sparrow

      True. We won’t be satisfied until we have avenged every smallest puch thrown. Thanks Pavel

  • Unconstitutional war in Libya, and now Syrian war and NSA spying need to be a wake-up call for Catholics like me who have hoped that Obama would partially compensate for his zeal for abortion by at least repudiating Bush-era foreign policy. I’ve often heard Catholics worry that one party was the party of abortion, and the other that of unjust war. Now that both parties support unjust war, things are clarified considerably.

    Most of the drumbeat for intervention in the Syrian Civil War comes from those who care only about boosting the Sunni states led by Wahhabi Salafist Saudi Arabia and increasingly Islamist Turkey against the Shia crescent of Iran, Iraq (as re-created by us as an Iranian ally), Alawite Syria, and Hezbollah (a Shia militia) in Lebanon. Humanitarian interventionists like Susan Rice and Samantha Power, with their Clintonian insistence on seeing Bosnian or Syrian Sunnis as oppressed colonials, are just tools in the hands of the real Beltway consensus: the “democracy”-exporting, so-called “neo-conservative” but really Jacobin anti-conservative, blood-thirsty warmongering of the heirs of Hitchens’ neo-Trotskyism. Very Serious People in Washington want war with the Iranian threat to U.S.-Sunni hegemony in the Middle East, and they couldn’t care less if we fund Christian-killing, heart-devouring, al Qaeda fanatics to drum up that war. Ironically given the Hitchens reference, the closest analogue to our idiocy in Syria is the Carter-Reagan era disaster of arming al Qaeda to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. For the VSPs in DC, all that matters is sticking it to the USSR, Iran, or whomever the current threat to our hegemony is. Arming terrorists who yearn to attack America is acceptable collateral damage for them in their thirst for empire.

    Farcically, the last bid for such hegemony handed Iraq to Iran on a platter. This one will push us closer to a general Middle Eastern war with Iran and its allies at just the moment when Iran has elected a (somewhat) more conciliatory president. Quoth Talleyrand, it’s worse than a crime, it’s a blunder.

    • CathyLouise

      “Now that both parties support unjust war, things are clarified considerably.” Yup.

  • Pavel Chichikov

    Thanks, Stephen.

  • Joseph

    Yep… I’ve been piping this tune since the mass exodus/ethnic cleansing of the Chaldeans in Iraq… but… nobody listens… and I’m a conspiracy theorist. Nothing to see here… keep moving…

  • bob

    Mel Brooks has a rough decision. Does he write “Springtime for As-ad and Syria” or “Springtime for Is-lam and Is-lamists” ? Maybe both? It’s only winter for Christians.