Obama tries to avoid being “shamed and humiliated” by his own policies. (Predictably) Fails.

In fairness to the President, he kicked off his second term running away from his own proposals before he even won reelection. During the final debate before the election, President Obama responded to Mitt Romneys criticism of looming budget cuts known as the sequestration by claiming “the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen.” It was later revealed that the President had in fact proposed the sequester and, contrary to Obama’s pre-election promise, he allowed it to happen within months of his 2nd term.

Now the President who was elected under a staunch anti-war position and bombed Libya after winning a Nobel Peace Prize, is dealing with a mess over first having asked Congress for permission to bomb Syria but then retracting as the United States’ greates geopolitical foe, Russia, stands in the way.

Obama’s ‘unbelievably small’ presidency:

We’re conducting foreign policy by faux pas. This entire episode has been driven not by deliberate strategy but by slips of the tongue. Obama’s declaration of a “red line” on chemical weapons was a slip of the tongue. So was Secretary of State John Kerry’s offer to have Syria give up its chemical weapons. There is no plan, no coherence to anything this administration is doing on Syria.

More embarrassing still, Obama is actually claiming that the diplomatic “breakthrough” is the result of his administration’s show of strength.

Excuse me?

Was it a show of strength when Obama went to the world’s nations and asked them to join him in enforcing “their” red line — finding only one country (France) ready to do so? Or when the British parliament rejected military action for the first time since the 1700s? Or when a U.S. official told the Los Angeles Times that any U.S. strike would be “just muscular enough not to get mocked”? Or when Kerry declared that any strike would be “unbelievably small” and would not really constitute “war”? Or when Obama used his prime-time, nationally televised address to call on Congress to do . . . nothing?

That’s not a show of strength. That’s an embarrassment.

Obama’s Farce:

I wish it were not true, but there is scant evidence that the world, led by the U.S., went to war in the past over the use of weapons of mass destruction — whether by Gamel Nasser in Yemen or by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds and the Iranians. Understandably, the current West’s reaction, including Obama’s, to possible Syrian WMD use is calibrated mostly on the dangers of intervention, not the use of WMD per se. Thus Obama is now focusing on Syria in a way he is not, at least overtly, on Iran, the far greater WMD threat, because he believes the former could be handled with two days’ worth of Tomahawks and the latter could not. That would be understandable pragmatism if it were not dressed up in the current humanitarian bluster about red lines and the “international community.”

Obama, I think, is inadvertently doing the terrible arithmetic that the last 1,000 Syrians killed by the Assad regime pose a humanitarian crisis that demands his intervention in a way that the first 99,000 did not — on the theory that WMD represent an existential threat. (In fact, from the trenches of World War I to Hiroshima, WMD have never killed more than contemporary horrific conventional weaponry has.) So far Obama has not made that case. We can only wonder whether the forgotten hundreds of thousands butchered from Rwanda to Darfur — without so much as one Tomahawk or Hellfire launched on their behalf — might have been saved had only their killers begun their devilry with sarin gas.

Speaking on the Bill Press Show, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said that if she could vote in Congress to take military action in Syria, she would do so simply to keep President Barack Obama from being “shamed and humiliated on the national stage.”

Rep Justin Amash on ABC’s This Week stated that he was “doing the President a favor” by delaying Obamacare:

Well, we have to have compromise. The president himself is arguing that we’re not willing to compromise. We’re willing to compromise. And part of that compromise means when you want to borrow more money, we’re going to have to have some cuts in government. And that’s all Republicans are asking for. And we’re not talking about “draconian cuts” … We’re talking about delaying Obamacare for a year, which is something the president has asked for with the employer mandate. So, let’s delay it for everyone. I think we’re doing the president a favor if we delay it. The program is not ready to be implemented. If anything the president should be asking us to delay it because it’s better for him politically.


Leave a Reply

Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>