KVNUFTP

Taking bets…h/t: David James

Kill Grandma or Terrorists Win
The latest argument for ObamaCare.
By JAMES TARANTO
Remember when George W. Bush was pushing his plan for partial privatization of Social Security, and he warned that if Congress didn’t pass it, it would weaken his presidency, with dire results for the war on terror?

Neither do we. He never said any such thing. As best we remember, no one thought to make such a ludicrous argument. Add that to the list of things that have changed in the age of Obama.

The other day Trudy Rubin, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, penned a column called “Taliban’s Unwitting Assistants.” Her subject was ObamaCare:

Are some Democratic legislators who are squabbling over health care secret supporters of the Taliban? Are some Republican legislators in cahoots with Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
I’m dead serious when I ask those questions, as we pass another anniversary of 9/11. President Obama must make critical decisions this fall about policies toward Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran–decisions forced on him early in his term because of wrongheaded policies by the previous administration. . . .
A U.S. president who fails on his signature issue–health care–won’t have the strength and public support to deal with new challenges by Islamists. He will be seen at home and abroad as seriously weakened. Yet neither party seems much bothered by this threat. . . .
Legislators on both sides of the aisle should start thinking beyond their narrow self-interest. If Democrats fail to find a health-care compromise they may doom their president’s foreign policy, and their own reelection chances. They will certainly be helping the Taliban, by undercutting Obama’s ability to craft a policy that could save Afghanistan.
If Republicans adopt the South Carolina approach–don’t fight on policy, fight to destroy Obama–they’ll undercut national security. Shouting “You lie”–the words of South Carolinian Joe Wilson–is easy and cheap. But do Republicans really want to give Ahmadinejad a boost?
The truth, as we have argued, is precisely the opposite. It is Obama who is endangering national security by failing to prioritize it.

To begin with, contrary to Rubin’s assertion, no decision about foreign policy has been “forced on him.” Obama sought the presidency and won it, thereby assuming the responsibilities that go with the office. Dealing with the threats posed by America’s enemies is part of the job description.

Attempting to seize control of one-sixth of the nation’s economy, by contrast, is not. ObamaCare is a “war of choice”–though this analogy goes only so far, since it is a domestic “war” in which the “enemy” consists of fellow Americans. Rubin argues that Americans must surrender to Obama’s risky scheme for nationalizing health care in order to create an appearance that he is strong so that he can deal with foreign-policy crises when he gets around to it. This is so perverse in so many different ways, it hurts our brain to think about it.

There isn’t even any good reason to think that a domestically weakened Obama would in turn weaken the country’s international standing. This did not happen after Bill Clinton’s health-care fiasco. He, like Obama, started his presidency with a blasé approach to foreign policy (albeit at a time when the dangers of doing so were less frighteningly clear than they are today). But he eventually got his act together at least somewhat.

What would happen if Obama won a health-care “victory”? Consider this Reuters headline: “Cap-and-Trade Depends on Obama’s Health Care Success.” This seems right to us: If Congress accepts some variation of ObamaCare, there’s little doubt the president will push for Cap’n Trade and other atrocious policies. There is a great deal of doubt that he’ll give national security the attention it needs.

On the other hand, it’s at least plausible to hope that ObamaCare’s decisive defeat would teach the president a lesson about the dangers of overreach and give him an incentive to focus on his real responsibilities. And at the very least, a defeat for ObamaCare would save us from ObamaCare.