Your point about the kleptocracy in which we evidently live is well taken — the rule of law has been eroded over time. That said, it has accelerated greatly under Obama. I would also argue that we can easily distinguish the tremendous weakening of our national security under Obama relative to Bush. Let us count just some of the ways:
* Obama has stiffed our allies like the Brits, Poles, Egyptians, etc., with often serious consequences for our and their national security.
* Obama has deliberately fomented the ‘Arab Spring’ and the emergence of a new wave of Islamofascist regimes in the Arab world.
* The Obama administration has prohibited discussions of the threat of Islamist extremism from us in DOJ and DOD training materials.
* Obama has criticized our troops for handling of defaced Korans, etc., even though the procedures were within both religious and militaryguidelines.
* The demoralization of our troops extends to repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, planned cuts in troop levels, substantial increases in healthcare premiums for military and their families, etc.
* Obama has weakened border security and has opposed states like Arizona that sought to enforce federal law against illegal aliens. There is evidence that Arab terrorists are massing in Latin America and that some have illegally crossed into the US under Obama.
* Obama is seeking to reduce unilaterally our nuclear arsenal.
* Obama shockingly pledged to provide our Russian adversaries with “more flexibility” on missile defense and other issues after the election. This is not the negotiating tactic I would expect from someone who was concerned about national security — at least ours.
Bush was far from perfect. In particular, the Patriot Act was created on his watch. I also thought he did a very poor job of motivating and defending the Iraq war. That said, the pace of weakening of our national defenses has rapidly accelerated under Obama. One might wonder: on which side is the current administration?
* Eliminated Kaddafi
* Eliminated Mubarack
* Is in the process of removing Assad
* Has kept up pressure on Iran
* Has wound down our Iraq presence while maintaining in Afghanistan
* Has been tough with Pakistan, trying to pry them away from China
* Likewise Myanmar
* Has rightly tilted toward India, Vietnam and the Philippines
* Has at least contained Chavez, whose days may be numbered
All of these items relate to the Big Kahuna: China, which we are continuing to progressively isolate and deny client state relations. Keeping Putin on the fence is part of that.
Don't get me wrong. I think Obama himself, like Bush and Clinton before him, amounts to little more than a cardboard cutout tasked with making some speeches and shaking the hands of dignitaries. The heavy lifting on policy and implementation remains with the "permanent government." His influence is mainly around the fringes: "style vs substance," as I said. The best thing about the man is that he has not made any colossal f**kups, which I attribute to his handlers and lots of time playing golf.
Bottom line: From the standpoint of the permanent national security establishment, Obama ain't been so bad and has worked out passably well, putting the appropriate and well-spoken international ethnic face on what remains a rather iron-fisted US imperial foreign policy.
It's like he was perfectly groomed and styled for the job. And maybe he was!