After Brussels attack, it’s advantage Trump
By Michael Goodwin
March 23, 2016 | 12:28am
More than half the states have voted and the presidential candidates are entering the home stretch of the nominating gantlet. But up to now, they have been ignoring a mighty special interest: events.
Events have a vote, as the terrorist attacks that rocked Brussels reminded us. The bloody strike at the heart of Europe, not far from the headquarters of the European Union and NATO, delivered a powerful punch that could reshape the race for the White House.
In the instant aftermath, there is little doubt that Republicans in general, and Donald Trump in particular, will get a boost. After all, Trump has been the most aggressive of all the surviving candidates, calling for a temporary ban on Muslims, tougher border controls and stepped-up interrogation techniques for enemy detainees. In January, he actually singled out Brussels as a potential problem, calling it a “hellhole” because of the large number of unassimilated Muslims.
He was ridiculed, of course, but events now make him look prophetic while Democrats are stuck defending a failed status quo. Hillary Clinton’s comments yesterday reflected the trap, as she tried to talk tough without actually saying anything that would challenge current White House policies: “Today’s attacks will only strengthen our resolve to stand together as allies and defeat terrorism and radical jihadism around the world.”
She might have added, “Blah blah blah.”
As for President Obama, imagine if he were seeking re-election instead of a legacy. In that case, he would have raced home from Cuba as soon as he understood the scope of the European horror to assume the image of an engaged commander-in-chief and assure his countrymen that their government was on guard.
Instead, safe from voters for the rest of his life, he was content to mouth a few platitudes about sympathy and solidarity with Brussels, then stick to his script in Cuba as if nothing had happened. His boast that “I have come to bury the last remnant of the Cold War” seemed especially hollow, given the gory images of mangled bodies emerging from the scene.
In light of a revived Russian bear on the march in Europe and a hot war with Islamic terrorism spreading around the world, Obama’s self-aggrandizing claim painted him as frighteningly out of step with events.
His callous indifference is not new. Back in August 2014, Obama briefly interrupted a Martha’s Vineyard vacation to express horror at the video beheading of American journalist James Foley. Within hours, the president was on the golf course, yukking it up with friends.
As I wrote at the time, “Simple decency and respect for Foley’s horrified parents should have been enough to sober him. If that didn’t do it, the realization that the Islamic State had declared war on America in the most gruesome fashion imaginable should have sounded a call of duty in his head.”
But, much as he played golf then, Obama continued on his glory tour of Cuba Tuesday. In neither case, or in any case ever, has he dared call Islamic terror what it is. For him, it is always just “terrorism” or “extremism.” Blood and facts have not softened his resolve to never speak the religious truth about the barbarians.
Unfortunately, reality is not cooperating with his fantasy. The Islamic State, which Obama infamously derided as the “jayvee team,” is a terrorist army controlling a broad swath of land in Iraq and Syria it calls a caliphate. Its reach is spreading, as proven by the attacks from Paris to San Bernardino, and now Brussels.
No less than a former member of Obama’s team, Michael Morell, who twice served as acting CIA director, told CBS that the group now controls “more territory today around the world than they did at any time.”
“So I would say they’re winning, right? They’re winning,” Morell said.
Obama’s mantra has been that America was war-weary, and he would be rewarded for shrinking the nation’s military footprint. While there was some truth to his idea, I have always believed most Americans are not so much war-weary as they are tired of losing wars. And they certainly are tired of living in fear.
If true, then the next president will likely be the candidate who can convince the most voters that he or she can make the nation safe and a winner again. Think of it as a national-security primary, with events in Brussels offering a clear contrast of the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses.
So far, it’s advantage Trump. |
