Dave Smith wrote:
> tree rats dig up the bulbs
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/19/barack-obama-worst-president-ever/
I still remember a lot of people telling me in 2006 that George W. Bush
was the “worst president ever.”
They had no idea what they were talking about. This is what the “worst
president ever” looks like. In his response to the attacks in Paris,
Barack Obama has shown us a leader who is not just inadequate to his
core responsibilities, but contemptuous of them.
It started Friday night with his first statement about the attacks. He
was perfunctory, devoid of content, and utterly listless. His delivery
was flat and without affect — expressing neither outrage nor sorrow —
giving the impression that he had no desire to be in front of the
cameras or to make any comment at all.
The administration’s reaction has only gotten worse as it has had more
days to respond. On Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry let out the
howler that the terrorist attack in France earlier this year — wiping
out the headquarters of a satirical magazine that had offended radical
Muslims — was kind of understandable.
There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and
I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized
focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of—not a legitimacy, but a
rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay,
they’re really angry because of this and that. This Friday was
absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of
wrong. It was to terrorize people.
To be sure, this sentiment didn’t come from Obama himself. But he hired
Kerry, who has a record of making horribly insensitive statements. He is
the same guy who thought a James Taylor song was an appropriate response
to the Charlie Hebdo massacre — and Obama apparently agreed that this
would make up for skipping out on an international unity rally in
support of France. So maybe we know now why the administration couldn’t
really get mobilized to show support for Charlie Hebdo: deep down, they
thought the magazine had it coming.
Obama’s administration can’t even get the easy, symbolic stuff right.
But the real problem is the substance of his response.
Obama can’t even get the easy, symbolic stuff right.
That brings us to Obama’s petty, peevish press conference on Monday.
This is the president who infamously dismissed the Islamic State as the
junior varsity squad and described it as “contained” just hours before
the attacks in Paris. So naturally, he faced a flurry of questions
challenging him on that. At which point, as Politico put it, “he
appeared to lose patience with repeated questions about whether he
underestimated the threat of the terror network.”
Even Democrats are concerned that “at times he was patronizing, at other
times he seemed annoyed and almost dismissive.” Nothing was more
dismissive than this comment:
If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they
would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their
advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and
the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we
can have that debate. But what I’m not interested in doing is posing or
pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or
whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to
what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to
protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our
allies and people like France. I’m too busy for that.
This was supposed to show that he doesn’t give a damn what his critics
think, but it just shows that he doesn’t give a damn. This is the point
inadvertently made by a blogger who praised him and put the issue in no
uncertain terms, though I have bowdlerized it a bit to make it
publishable on a family website.
We’ve kinda suspected it before, but President Obama genuinely gives no
[damns] at this point. He is [damn] devoid. [Damn] deficient. [Damn]
deprived. [Damn] destitute. His cupboard of [damns] is barren; his tank
of [damns] has been depleted. You know how, on cloudy nights, you might
look up into the vast and endless sky and not find any stars? The same
thing would happen if you looked at Obama and searched for [damns]. And
this, this total absence of [damns], is where pop off came from.”
This is supposed to make Obama “cool,” I guess, because it shows that he
is defying the “haters” — those “haters” being his critics back home,
not the guys shooting people on the streets of Paris. But it actually
shows contempt for pretty much everybody. It’s contemptuous of some of
his political allies, like Dianne Feinstein, who are concerned that the
Islamic State is “not contained.” It’s contemptuous of the reporters who
are asking him good, tough questions. And it’s contemptuous of the
American people, who are suddenly concerned that attacks like the one in
Paris are going to start happening in our own cities and who want some
kind of reassurance that the president of the United States is on the
job. They don’t want to be told that they are just “popping off,” or
that the president isn’t taking their concerns seriously.
When Obama thinks of empty slogans, he thinks of ‘America winning.’
What they really want to hear is that America is leading and America is
going to win. And Obama told us that he is above such petty concerns.
Sure, he phrases it as opposition to empty sloganeering, but it’s
revealing that when he thinks of empty slogans, he thinks of “America
winning.”
So was this also empty sloganeering?
You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land
and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give
us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the
dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask,
what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all
costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard
the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
Because that’s the sort of thing we need our president to say — and not
just to say it, but to mean it.
We’ve had presidents before who made big mistakes. I remember George W.
Bush, who messed up the occupation of Iraq (but fought like hell to
recover). We’ve had presidents who were incompetent and inadequate. I
remember Jimmy Carter and Desert One, his bungled response to the Iran
hostage crisis. But I don’t know that we’ve ever had a president who
didn’t really care about America winning — and who announced it to the
public.
To realize how seriously he takes this, consider the detail with which
he describes his basic discomfort with the core responsibility of the
commander-in-chief. In response to suggestions (which, in his typical
style, he exaggerated) to increase our efforts against the Islamic
State, he responded:
Let’s assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria. What happens
when there’s a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send
more troops into there? Or Libya, perhaps? Or if there’s a terrorist
network that’s operating anywhere else—in North Africa, or in Southeast
Asia?
If I were Obama, by the way, I wouldn’t mention the idea of not sending
troops to respond to a terrorist attack in Libya. Because he already did
that, in Benghazi, and our ambassador and three other Americans died.
But the general point is a fair one. We can’t send troops everywhere.
Does that mean we send them nowhere? Isn’t it his job to make those
strategic allocations, to decide which threats are the most serious and
require the most resources? And shouldn’t he consider that the threat
from the Islamic State is getting a lot more serious? But he sees only
the costs of action, not the costs of inaction, and he is paralyzed by it.
[E]very few months I go to Walter Reed, and I see a 25-year-old kid
who’s paralyzed or has lost his limbs, and some of those are people I’ve
ordered into battle. And so I can’t afford to play some of the political
games that others may.
This is patronizing to our service members, who signed up for the job
of killing terrorists, not just to sit around on base. But in case we
didn’t get the point, he added:
[T]here are costs to the other side. I just want to remind people, this
is not an abstraction. When we send troops in, those troops get injured,
they get killed; they’re away from their families; our country spends
hundreds of billions of dollars.
Obama’s outlook on national security is profoundly defeatist. He sees
only the costs of action and regards victory as an illusion. Vox’s Matt
Yglesias offers an essential explanation, from a sympathetic source, of
how things look to Obama administration insiders.
Many senior administration officials at this point are part of the
permanent national security apparatus, but the core group of real ‘Obama
people’ has a surprisingly dovish self-conception, where they see
themselves operating in a world in which demands for military
intervention are constant and endless—from the media, from congressional
Republicans, from foreign governments and their allies in Washington,
and from the permanent security bureaucracy itself—but America’s actual
ability to engage in non-counterproductive interventions is quite limited.