When you’ve lost the Washington Post….
I do not, as a rule, follow Washington Post, so this editorial slap-down of President Obama might be the norm. I suspect that it’s the exception.
Either way, it’s devastating.
The Post is editorializing about the news conference where Obama declared that he had no strategy for dealing with ISIS.
The Post points out that several other senior administration officials, including cabinet secretaries have been sounding the alarm in the strongest terms.
The Post explains:
The discrepancies raise the question of whether Mr. Obama controls his own administration, but that’s not the most disturbing element.
What would be the most disturbing element?
The Post writes:
When Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge the reality, allies naturally wonder whether he will also refuse to respond to it.
One fears that allies already know the answer to that question.
The Post continues:
Throughout his presidency, he has excelled at explaining what the United States cannot do and cannot afford, and his remarks Thursday were no exception. “Ukraine is not a member of NATO,” he said. “We don’t have those treaty obligations with Ukraine.” If Iraq doesn’t form an acceptable government, it’s “unrealistic” to think the United States can defeat the Islamic State….
… none of the basic challenges to world order can be met without U.S. leadership: not Russia’s aggression, not the Islamic State’s expansion, not Iran’s nuclear ambition nor China’s territorial bullying. Each demands a different policy response, with military action and deterrence only two tools in a basket that includes diplomatic and economic measures. It’s time Mr. Obama started emphasizing what the United States can do instead of what it cannot.