Posts
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.
5 comments:
Is it wrong to hope that a member of ISIS drives a large truck filled with explosives into the Washington Post newsroom?
Just to give them something timely to report on?
What caused the Washington Post to wake up to Obama's incompetence? The reality and gravity of the situation? Obama supporters chided their opponents for naming evil for what evil was, and what evil still is. Simplistic notions and ideas? Only if one believes the world is hopelessly complex, in which case he will shirk from any responsibility because certainty is unclear. Especially if he has no background in an executive role, or faculties to lead a team. Obama is famous for wanting to do things alone, in between appointments with celebrities. His profession is politics, but he doesn't like the relationship maneuvering required to be an effective politician within the American system. This would be forgivable if he were effective in his bearing and choice not to engage, yet this is not the case in the foreign policy realm, either. ISIS is on the rise, Russia is invading a sovereign nation, and these events are occurring in addition to all the perennial bad actors we've faced for so long. Meanwhile, President Obama leaves our southern border unattended at the very moment radical Islamists have eyes on getting into America and bring their terror to our soil. Why does Obama do this? Because he is interested in creating a permanent demographic majority for his political party. Are these the actions of a true American patriot acting as Commander-in-Chief, he who is responsible for the security of the American people? No, they are not. I am afraid something terrible is going to happen. What is Obama doing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI
This is something we need to think about. ISIS didn't come out of nowhere.
Obama and McCain both aided and abetted the destabilization of the Middle East by supporting extreme fanatics.
WaPo has recently allowed some (not a lot) derogation of Obama in its pages. I see the NYT's MoDo seems to have been moved to write derogatory columns of late.
Post a Comment