Ed Driscoll

'Amid Crises, Obama Declares War — on Arizona'

Byron York writes:

The Obama administration has a lot of fights on its hands. Putting aside real wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there’s the battle against leaking oil in the Gulf, the struggle against 9.7 percent unemployment across the country, and clashes over the president’s agenda on Capitol Hill. Despite all that, the White House has found time to issue a new declaration of war, this time against an unlikely enemy: the state of Arizona.

The Justice Department is preparing to sue Arizona over its new immigration law. The president has stiffed Gov. Jan Brewer’s call for meaningful assistance in efforts to secure the border. And the White House has accused Arizona’s junior senator, Republican Jon Kyl, of lying about an Oval Office discussion with the president over comprehensive immigration reform. Put them all together, and you have an ugly state of affairs that’s getting uglier by the day.

But then, the Obama administration’s modus operandi has always been to attack domestically. The above Photoshop dates from the fall of last year; in June of 2009, I wrote, “Roll Over Von Clausewitz, And Tell Clemenceau The News:”

A few months ago, President Obama was quoted as telling a Democratic congressman who was against the president’s “stimulus” plan, “Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.”

Coming from the president of the United States, and aimed at a member of his own party, that’s threatening stuff. But from remarks such as that to his repeated verbal attacks on Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and businesses in general, President Obama has demonstrated that he’s always eager to view American politics as the continuation of warfare by other means, to flip Von Clausewitz’s axiom on its head. Certainly class and culture warfare at least. It’s the Chicago way, after all.  And last year on the campaign trail, Obama more than once referred to “civilians” when discussing opponents whom he thought should not be publicly attacked in the legacy media political battlefield — but would tacitly leave to his surrogates to demonize.

As David Horowitz noted back then, he wasn’t surprised to see such tactics — it’s not just the Chicago way, it’s the Alinsky way: gotta declare war on somebody domestically — that is, when you’re not feeling bored with the job, hitting the links, or longing for Paul McCartney to stop by to tell you how fabulous you are.

Related: Back in the realm of traditional warfare, Ed Morrissey describes General Stanley McChrystal thusly:

Via Chris Cillizza on Twitter, Politico has the PDF of the Rolling Stone article [update: RS article up now at this link] that has created a firestorm for General Stanley McChrystal — and it’s at least as bad as advertised.  Michael Hastings paints a damning picture of a military leader who seems to have built a toadying entourage, whose disdain and contempt for the political leadership of the country drips from every page, and who doesn’t seem to mind who knows it — until it hits the presses.

A toadying entourage?  Disdain and contempt for the country? Doesn’t seem to mind who knows it — until it hits the presses?

Our current civilian Commander-in-Chief finally has his counterpart at the Pentagon.