Yes, He does. Lead from behind in whatever direction His ideology points and don’t get held accountable for anything bad that results.
President Obama’s “foreign policy,” like his domestic policy, has become clear and “transparent.” His policy in both areas, largely implemented by His administration to keep His hands as clean as possible, is substantially the same and has four basic elements:
♦ Do whatever seems politically expedient,
♥ Encourage His admirers to continue admiring Him,
♠ Distort the “news” to make it as favorable as possible and
♣ Disconnect Him, and Distract attention, from any “bad” news that slips by.
President Obama’s proclivity for staying aloof from foreign affairs seems to work well for Him. Working well for Him is crucial and what it does to the United States does not matter as long as He and His colleagues are able to distort and distract attention from it and to disconnect Him from any adverse consequences. And His administration is, of course, the most “transparent” in history. It must be, because He says it is.
An August twenty-third article at The Times – Daily Beast is titled At the Obama White House: Transparency Transhmareny. Well worth reading, the article suggests that even some members of the “legitimate media” — the Washington Post and New York Times for example — may be catching on. They are a tad late, but every journey of a thousand miles begins with a tank of EPA mandated fuel, or something.
Perhaps others are beginning to be less enchanted with the Obama Administration’s “foreign policy.” Here is a link to an August twenty-third article at Commentary Daily titled Americans Rejoin the World. It begins,
There exists a bedeviling paradox for foreign-policy realists: When America determines to mind its own business it invites the kind of atrocities Americans find hard to ignore. And so Barack Obama’s flight from global stewardship comes to ground with an apparent nerve-gas massacre of innocents outside Damascus. The Bush-weary intelligentsia that twice voted for the man who promised disengagement from troubled regions is now disturbed. “[T]he United States and other major powers will almost certainly have to respond much more aggressively than they have so far,” reads a New York Times editorial from Thursday. And American reproach goes beyond events in Syria. The Kremlin’s anti-gay crackdown has inspired activist Americans to focus their energies on bringing change to a foreign land. The “who are we to say?” outrage at Bush-style interventionism is giving way to “how can we just stand here?” frustration over Obama-style aloofness. [Emphasis added.]
Red lines? What are those? Where?
Oh. That red line. Leading from behind is less troublesome than leading from the front.
In the case of President Obama, it is also the most suitable location from which to “lead.” Although His aloofness from foreign affairs is off-putting, it is ultimately better for the United States than were He to try to take a commanding role: then He would screw things up even more than He has thus far.
Here’s a Trifecta video dealing with President Obama’s “foreign policy.”
Here’s part two on the Obama Administration “foreign policy”:
Pandering to “moderate Islamists” damages rather than repairs our national security, so that’s what He and His minions do and seem proud of doing.
This article by Israel Hayom at Joseph Wouk’s site includes several stories that illustrate the “foreign policy” difficulties of the Obama Administration. Here’s my favorite:
It was after the rebels in Libya had murdered the American ambassador and several additional diplomats there that then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stood before the cameras and said that she could not understand why the rebels had done so — after all, the Americans had helped them so much.
Clinton has since arrived at the conclusion that it is essential to understand other people’s cultures. She could have avoided this embarrassing mishap had she only learned the lesson of an earlier event, which took place in Washington.
An American man went to visit his Japanese-born neighbor in hospital after a car accident. He saw the patient lying in a hospital bed with his eyes closed, tubes coming out of him and hooked up to all sorts of machines. Suddenly, the patient muttered some words in Japanese that the American did not understand: “Sakuro auta nakami anioba sotzi machuta.” Immediately afterward, he passed away. His shocked neighbor committed the foreign words to memory.
On the day of the funeral, he went to the cemetery and met his deceased neighbor’s family. “You know, I was with him when he died,” he told the family.
They did know, and asked him if he remembered the deceased’s last words.
“Of course I remember,” the man replied. “I just don’t have any idea what the words mean. He said, ‘Sakuro auta nakami anioba sotzi machuta.’ Could you, perhaps, translate what it means?”
The widow looked at her neighbor and said slowly, “It means, ‘You’re stepping on my oxygen tube, you idiot.’”
President Obama and His “foreign policy” gurus seem not to understand how or why– or even that — they consistently expand rather than diminish problems. Getting better? Of course not. Nor will it until He leaves office, and whether it might get better even then depends on who replaces Him. Hillary Clinton? Even worse, if possible. One of “our” brave RINOs? A tad better if we are fortunate.
We are very likely stuck with Him and them for another three plus years. But what if He leaves office via impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate — with two thirds of the members of the Senate present voting to convict, as required? Would His likely replacement, Vice President Biden, be an improvement? Perhaps and it’s amusing to fantasize about it. It’s also amusing to fantasize about what one would do with a tax free gift of one million dollars from the Good Fairy. That is about as likely to happen as President Obama’s impeachment and conviction.
During the time we have left before November of 2016 we should give very serious thought to the acceptable alternatives to replace Him and how to get them nominated and elected.
Pingback: Dennis Rodman to be U.S. ambassador to Iran | danmillerinpanama
Pingback: Extremists! Stand! Police State? Accommodate? Bikers! Policy? | Freedom Is Just Another Word...
Obama being impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate would be the worst thing that could happen. The would leave Joe Biden in the White House, and then he would most likely run for election in 2016 and, as the incumbent, would probably win.
However, what happened to Clinton would be somewhat delicious — impeachment by the House, acquittal by the Senate. Then Obama would leave office in 2016 as only the third president in history to be impeached.
Can we get a “2 fer”?
Obama and, Biden impeached? Wait. Trouble comes in threes. That leaves Boehner.
Can we get a “Party Pack”?