by Mike McCune –
President Obama wrote an autobiography The Audacity of Hope. Maybe he should have read the book with a critical review.
Even though he’s been President of the United States for 4 years and nearly nine months, he still talks like hope is the end-all for his tenure and not real results. That policy is getting America in trouble internationally.
On Sunday, on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”, the President had a candid interview with another friendly press face who tossed some slow-pitch softballs to the President. He not only didn’t hit any home runs but worse he seemed to strike out as he said some things that simply should never have been said. The Rant culled a transcript of the interview.
Stephanopoulos turned to Obama with “And on the eve of the deal [between Russia and Syria] we went inside the White House to speak with the president. He was confident, convinced that America is in a better position now than when he was poised to order military action just two weeks ago.”
Obama: “Well, we are certainly in a better position…my entire goal throughout this exercise is to make sure what happened on August 21st [gas attack] does not happen again…that is a violation of international law and is a violation of common decency.”
Superb! He wanted to get involved in a civil war where 400 children were gassed. If this was a violation of international law then why was there no outrage when more than 310,000 children were killed in the Iraq-Iran War and both sides used gas weapons? That crossed national boundaries, yet the world let out one big collective yawn. But Obama was ready to take up the battle cry for 400. There’s a flaw in his original argument because he interjected himself into the Syrian mess more than a year ago when he warned Bashar al-Assad against using chemical weapons.
But Obama really sticks his foot in his mouth when he rolls on. “Think about where we were [then]. The event happened and the initial response is the Syrians act as if they don’t know anything about it.”
Hm-m? Wasn’t that the response of his administration when Benghazi happened? Wasn’t that his administration’s response when the IRS scandal broke? Wasn’t that the results of all the privacy problems the NSA has been accused of with its internal spying? Why should Syria act any different? Al-Assad has obviously been watching the master tap-dancer in action.
But the lack-of-teleprompter disease didn’t stop there. Obama continued to ramble about new developments on Syria.
The question was: Does that tell you Putin is willing to lie to protect Assad?
Obama: Nobody around the world takes seriously the idea that the rebels perpetrated this attack. Now what is true is there are radical elements in the opposition, including folks who are affiliated with al-Qaeda who, if they got their hands on chemical weapons would have no compunction using them in or outside Syria. And the reason we’ve been so concerned about this (sic) chemical weapons is because we don’t want those folks getting chemical weapons.”
Let’s get the record straight here. That is a complete contradiction of the actual situation.
The Obama Administration is arming the rebels in Syria–which is undoubtedly the real reason for the assault in Benghazi as the weapons went to Libya then to Turkey where the rebels picked them up in the safe zones and turned them on al-Assad’s forces in Syria–but those fighting ranks contain people who are not only sworn enemies of the United States but are actively at war with us every chance they get. And Obama thinks eroding Assad’s ability to kill these U.S. enemies is good? But his whole answer doesn’t answer the question of why the CIA is smuggling weaponry to the rebels in the first place. It is like the rest of the government is executing a policy that is alien to Obama’s picture.
Here’s a different view: As long as the U.S. enemy, al-Qaeda, is engaged in Syria, the less resources they have to direct at us. If Assad wanted to he could gas the entire rebel-held portions of Syria. Wouldn’t that make him a de facto ally of Obama’s instead of a target?
The “This Week” topic switched to Iran after several minutes more Obama musings on Syria where Obama, just like his book, “holds out hope” (twice) that Iran will “understand is that the nuclear weapon issue is a far larger issue for us than chemical weapons. And so it is my suspicion that the Iranians recognize they shouldn’t draw a lesson that we haven’t struck to think we won’t strike Iran. On the other hand, what is…what they should draw from this lesson is that there is the potential of resolving these issues diplomatically. And, I think they recognize, in part, because of the extraordinary sanctions that we placed upon them, that the world community is united when it comes to wanting to prevent a nuclear arms race in the region…And I hold out that hope.”
Overlooking the President’s obvious lack of specificity to fact, Obama’s lone nugget of achievement in the Middle East is to “hold out hope.”
Obama, however, didn’t stop his inane commentary on the next subject either. Asked about the abundance of armchair criticism for his foreign policy that cropped up the last two weeks, Obama stated: “Well, you know, I think that lots of folks here in Washington like to grade on style. Had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and linear they would have graded it well even if it was a disastrous policy. We know because that was how they graded the Iraq War until it ended up blowing up in our faces. I’m much less concerned about style points than getting the policy right.”
But it was his own “red-line” comment that established policy a year before a problem existed. He created a situation that didn’t have to be crated.
Why didn’t he obtain the aid of the Russians a year-ago to defuse the situation before it exploded? And based on his track record of disregarding facts he doesn’t agree with or that contradict his policy stance, this appears to be one more instance of a dysfunctional Administration. His eyes may be open but his mind is already closed to much of the world around him because he knows best.
If this is his version of getting it right–knocking yards of international respect from America’s crumbling base over a teapot tempest–we ought not to sleep with one eye open. Where this man is taking us to means we shouldn’t sleep at all because he thinks we, American citizens, are more of a threat than the “folk” who have declared war on us whom he is willing to furnish aid to.
The President has hope. Too bad that’s all he has.
“I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”–Thomas Jefferson