Climbdown!

vanity | August 31, 2013 | Nathan Bedford

[nathanbedford]

We have just witnessed one of the most stunning and humiliating climb downs of any president in the history of the United States. Obama's humiliation is entirely of his own making.

He unilaterally threatened to wage war, however limited he said it would be, for no clear purpose, with no clear strategy and with no clear outcome. He did so thoughtlessly by proclaiming a "red line" and thus backing himself through inadvertence and, more important, his country into an untenable position. He pushed the country out onto a limb only to find he was alone, without allies, without Congress, even without his own party. He bumbled and dithered away is friends and allies and in the process squandered the prestige of the United States of America.

His humiliation is not, alas, his alone but it is the mile marker for a journey of fecklessness and incoherence in American foreign policy which has resulted in an Islamicist threat running from China to the North African shores. He has made our country look weak in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, and in Egypt. Most important, he has made us look impotent with respect to Iran and it is Iran, not Egypt, which is the fulcrum of the Middle East. Who can now believe that the United States under President Barack Obama will actually "do what it takes" to stop Iran getting the bomb? No conservative has believed that for years but now the nations of the Middle East which line the Persian Gulf and the Arab Peninsula must be afraid, very afraid. Iran will, of course, be emboldened. The Russians and the Chinese are smirking. Our allies in Europe are beginning to wonder if they should cut their own deals with the threat of Islam because they cannot rely on the United States.

So before we conservatives rejoice over the personal humiliation of Barack Obama, let us consider as patriots the harm to our country. The irony is that no one will now hear us say, "we told you so;" it is human nature not to want to hear that kind of truth. We conservatives are always being shot as messengers.

Short-term it is obvious that the entire campaign to sting Syria for the use of weapons of mass destruction will now be allowed to simply wither away. By the time Congress returns many new headlines will have diverted the attention of the nation. The Congress will not sustain a strike. Obama will somehow change the subject.

Our leaders in the House and the Senate are paid not to let Obama off his own petard.

The question for conservatives is how to use this situation for domestic political advantage. We have an objective to prevent any kind of immigration bill being passed by the House and sent to conference committee where conservatives will be sabotaged and outvoted by Rinos and Democrats when the bill is returned. The result will be amnesty and it is therefore vital that no bill at all be passed by the House. This is Boehner's chance to wiggle out of his dilemma and use the breathtaking mismanagement of the president to consume Congress and prevent the house from taking up immigration. That, of course, assumes that Boehner is smart enough to take that way out instead of rupturing the party by passing amnesty, as seems to be his plan.

Boehner has also got to handle both the campaign to defund Obamacare and the overall extension of the debt. Boehner should recognize that the president has been weakened as well as humiliated, but one would have to recklessly rely on hope rather than experience in nurturing that kind of optimism.

If we had decent Republican leaders in the House or the Senate, we could see this as a real turning point. I am not holding my breath.

[nathanbedford]

My argument is not with the climbdown but with the breathtaking incompetence that pushed Obama first up the pole and then down again. I quite agree that to strike Syria was not just ill-conceived but undoubtedly counterproductive and certainly dangerous with 1 billion Muslims, 1 billion Chinese and and a lot of Russians lining up against us.

A larger view, which I think you probably share, is that Obama's foreign policy has been a muddle for the last five years which has been extremely dangerous but because he is superficially nonconfrontational it has not appeared to be so. Where he should have been aggressive, with Iran when the people were on the streets and just about any other time to stop them getting the bomb, he has been pusillanimous.

I have a vanity going back some years arguing that it is a mistake to conceive of Obama as another Jimmy Carter. Obama is a radical ideologue who sees foreign policy myopically through that filter. History shows that leftists from Trotsky to Pol Pot have been bloodthirsty in the extreme when it comes to advancing or protecting their ideological agenda.

That is why there does not seem to be any identifiable connection between Obama's foreign policy and America's national interests-Obamas interests are ideological.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Like Carter, the damage this man will cause will plague us for a hundred years... if we’re lucky.

[qman]

What really upsets me is every time he mentions the use of military he says my, not our military. What kind of self involved arrogance must a man have to think he’s a king and not an executive with a board of directors.

[Mr. K]

I wonder if Assad’s son will laugh at him on Facebook

[Orange1998]

Boehner nothing but crickets. Now he is forced to come clean. WHERE’S Boehner.

[tennmountainman]

Yep. Where in the world is Waldo Boehner?

[Errant]

Obamas interests are ideological

Or perhaps that of the puppet masters.

[Yosemitest]

The United States and Syria?:

Behold,
Damascus is taken away from being a city,
and it shall be a ruinous heap.
The cities of Aroer are forsaken:
they shall be for flocks,
which shall lie down,
and none shall make them afraid.
The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus,
and the remnant of Syria:
they shall be as the glory of the children of Israel,
saith the LORD of hosts.
And in that day it shall come to pass,
that the glory of Jacob shall be made thin,
and the fatness of his flesh shall wax lean.
And it shall be
as when the harvestman gathereth the corn,
and reapeth the ears with his arm;
and it shall be
as he that gathereth ears in the valley of Rephaim.
Yet gleaning grapes shall be left in it,
as the shaking of an olive tree,
two or three berries in the top of the uppermost bough,
four or five in the outmost fruitful branches thereof,
saith the LORD God of Israel.
At that day
shall a man look to his Maker,
and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel.
And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands,
neither shall respect that which his fingers have made,
either the groves, or the images.
In that day shall his strong cities be as a forsaken bough,
and an uppermost branch, which they left because of the children of Israel:
and there shall be desolation.
Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation,
and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength,
therefore shalt thou plant pleasant plants,
and shalt set it with strange slips:
In the day shalt thou make thy plant to grow,
and in the morning shalt thou make thy seed to flourish:
but the harvest shall be a heap
in the day of grief and of desperate sorrow.
Woe to the multitude of many people,
which make a noise like the noise of the seas;
and to the rushing of nations,
that make a rushing like the rushing of mighty waters!
The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters:
but God shall rebuke them,
and they shall flee far off,
and shall be chased
as the chaff of the mountains before the wind,
and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind.
And behold at eveningtide
trouble;
and before the morning
he is not.
This is the portion of them that spoil us,
and the lot of them that rob us. "

[Owl558]

“So before we conservatives rejoice over the personal humiliation of Barack Obama, let us consider as patriots the harm to our country.”

General Forrest, is it ok for me to revel in Obama’s humiliation AND consider the possible harm to the country? I can do both.

Our weakling president talked tough and ultimately passed the buck to Congress. We should recognize that he actually did the proper Constitutional thing here, if for the wrong reasons. Jimmy Carter teaches us that the humiliation to the nation will be ongoing.

But I get to call my liberal relatives war-mongers, chicken-hawks, and tools of military - government - industrial complex. The irony here is richer than the best cheesecake.

[dfwgator]

The harm was already done in 2008. This is just the end result.

[Olog-hai]

I’d be shocked if Obama has the fortitude to attack Syria in that manner. But either way, that fate is coming on Damascus indeed.

[Yosemitest]

So it was written, so shall it be!

[M. Dodge Thomas]

I have yet to decide if this man is a naif, or a sophisticated Machiavellian operator.

For example, back when he was teaching constitutional law, and then when he first entered the Senate, Obama made quite a point of his conviction that Presidential war-making powers needed to be dramatically trimmed back, especially in the case of military interventions not explicitly authorized by Congress.

Assuming he actually believed it, and was looking for a way to establish a such precedent, what better way to do it than to announce an unpopular intervention, let Congress get all riled up about it - with members on both the left and right demanding a say in the matter - and that once Congress was irrevocably committed in this way, announce that though he believed he had a unilateral right to order such action, he *also* believed that as a practical matter the president ought to put the matter to the legislative branch for a vote?

Or take the example of his budget negotiations with Congress:

Is he a naïve and inept negotiator who gets regularly hoodwinked by the Republicans (This is the dominate complaint on the left).

Or is he an extraordinarily devious politician?

One who knows that the way to establish his credentials with “moderate” and “independent” voters is to appear to be flexible and even willing to alienate the left.

While the same time knowing that he will not have to make substantial concessions because the Republicans will block any compromise was does not substantially achieve *all* of their objectives... all the while knowing that “gridlock” actually allows his programs to move forward?

IMO, before deciding who’s been playing the fool, look at who has *actually* been getting the results they seek.

[Orange1998]

My guess he is out buying Kleenex.

[elkfersupper]

I would like to think that he has realized his limits, but I doubt it.

[tennmountainman]

LOL. He and a bunch of other RINO’s support this nonsense but did not
want to share responsibility by voting. Guess what, they will have to put
their vote on record now.
Let’s see how they vote. My prediction. The RINO’s will head for the tall
grass and vote no.

[tennmountainman]

Right on!

[stormhill]

I understand all the arguments about politics stopping at the water’s edge, etc. but NOBODY will rob me of the pleasure of gloating at Obama’s humiliation.

[RKBA Democrat]

“A larger view, which I think you probably share, is that Obama’s foreign policy has been a muddle for the last five years..”

I would agree that our foreign policy has been a muddle since January of 1989.

“...which has been extremely dangerous but because he is superficially nonconfrontational it has not appeared to be so. Where he should have been aggressive, with Iran when the people were on the streets and just about any other time to stop them getting the bomb, he has been pusillanimous.”

I’m no fan of our involvement in the middle east at all. We should have left years ago and let the shia and sunni kill each other off as they’ve been doing for the last 1,000 years. We have nothing to win there and plenty of American lives and treasure to lose. At best, our long term involvement will keep Israel going. But at what point does Israel have to more or less stand on it’s own? The biggest threat to Israel in the long term is not it’s neighbors, rather the threat is it’s own internal demographics. Jews are slowly becoming a minority in Israel. We can’t resolve that problem for Israel unless, of course, we’re going to make it our policy to send Americans there to live to help stave off Israel’s demographic suicide. I just see the whole area as a major cluster that a wise nation should avoid. And more to the point, we simply can’t afford it anymore.

To paraphrase Geo. Washington: honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

“Obama is a radical ideologue who sees foreign policy myopically through that filter.”

Of course he is. It’s unfortunate that there is no counterweight within Congress. But as I’ve pointed out countless times on this website, what we have is a one party system mimicking a two party system. The rhetoric differs somewhat, but the policies don’t. Until that dynamic changes, if it ever does, then we will be doomed to endure successive kakistocracies until the American experiment sees it’s official, and quite final, end.

[Stentor]

Emperor Bokasa is only a few years away from his big payday. I suspect he has negotiated for gold. Time to not embarrass his bosses by pushing for the collapse too quickly. I’m sure that the possible response of the guy with the babes and the miniature giraffe were part of the decision.