Putin is not a clown. He was just mocking one while having a bit of fun rubbing the noses of libruls in their own fecal matter.
The librul dismay that a mere rodeo clown would stoop to even thinking of mocking our Glorious President was loud and shrill. Now that President Putin — without so much as bothering to dress in a clown costume — has mocked Him in more subtle fashion the libruls are aghast. An article by Roger Kimball at PJ Media titled Putin’s Horrifying Mirror begins,
What was it about Vladimir Putin’s extraordinary op-ed in The New York Times last week that so infuriated the Washington establishment? Oh, how they hated it! The whole lot of them: the White House stammered that it was “irrelevant.” Intermittent conservative John Boehner said he was “insulted” by it. Speaking from the other side of the aisle, Robert Menendez told CNN that it made him “almost want to vomit.” And the great Nowhere Man, Col. Gaddafi’s good buddy, the Madcap Maverick himself, John McCain said that the op-ed was “an insult to the intelligence of every American.”
. . . .
What was it about Putin’s op-ed that so inflamed establishment opinion? In a word, it is the fact that it was a perfectly accurate mirror. The Washington nomenklatura and their liberal enablers looked into Putin’s op-ed and they saw a most hideous sight: their own rancid clichés repeated back to them in mocking, church-like tones. “A Plea for Caution From Russia” — how dare he say to us what we have been saying to troglodytic conservatives for decades? And in our paper, the New York Times. (That was Putin’s final act of genius, to publish his column in the liberals’ own Bible, where his high-horse moralistic tones — right down to his concluding invocation of God and equality — would be sure to echo most forcefully.) That pulpit had been hitherto reserved for liberal demagogues: how dare a renegade like Putin don the cassock and deliver our own sermon to us? What gall! What effrontery!
President Putin put a big one over on President Obama, the alleged leader of what’s left of the free world, by seeming (only seeming) to have brought Peace in our Time to Syria. Is he excessively proud and gleeful about his success? Or is he just having fun? Beats me. Scott Johnson at Power Line writes,
Putin has eaten Obama’s lunch. Now he wants to rub it in. He wants to let us know that he feels free to express his utter contempt for Obama. He’s taking his shirt off and baring his chest in a manner that is calculated to make an impression outside Russia.
I get the message. Margaret Wente gets the message. Everything Obama and Kerry have said and done since the publication of Putin’s column confirms Putin’s opinion of Obama. Does Obama get the message, or John Kerry?
Probably not, or at least they aren’t talking about it. But what difference does it make now, because President Obama is still a
feckless great little President.
And a little
child dog shall lead him. Or is that Putin in disguise?
Aside from the Middle East, all is well!
Wrong. In Latin America, Iran is
recruiting an “invisible army” of revolutionary sympathizers . . . . to infiltrate the U.S. through the “soft belly” of the southern border, U.S. officials and national security experts told TheBlaze. And they’re using one website in particular to do it.
The Iranian regime’s conversion efforts are becoming increasingly aggressive, especially over the Internet, with the goal of conducting operations against United States interests in the Western Hemisphere, according to U.S. government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the nature of their work in the region.
Islamoriente.com, which focuses on religion and politics, is one of Iran’s main recruitment and conversion websites for Latin America on the Internet, TheBlaze has learned. The site, which launched in 2008, includes links to Iranian television for Spanish speakers, anti-American news stories, essays on reasons to convert to Islam, chat rooms and a personal message from the Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran.
Even as President Barack Obama waits for Congress to make a decision on Syria, the Iranian website wastes no time and has no shortage of stories ridiculing the U.S. administration for threatening to strike President Bashar Assad’s regime, a staunch ally of Iran.
The United States of Obama will, of course, welcome Islamists from Latin America with goodies.
Elsewhere, China has warned the United States not to support Japan’s efforts to defeat China’s claims to islands in the East China Sea and not to permit Japan to do as it wishes there.
Ties between the world’s second- and third-biggest economies have been strained over the uninhabited islands, controlled by Japan but claimed by both countries. The isles are known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China. . . . . Aircraft and ships from the two countries have played cat-and-mouse in the vicinity of the islands ever since, raising fears of conflict, perhaps sparked by an accident. Wang Guanzhong, Deputy Chief of General Staff of China’s People’s Liberation Army, said during scheduled talks with U.S. counterparts in Beijing that China was determined to defend its territory, but had all along exercised restraint. “This issue should not become a problem between China and the United States, and China hopes that the United States does not become a third party in this issue,” the Defence Ministry quoted Wang as telling U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller.
The Obama Administration is allegedly focused
like a laser on a “pivot to Asia” and is disturbed by China’s aggressiveness in the East China Sea. Having yielded to Russia, will America yield to China? Why not bow to China as well?
America’s place in the “community of nations.”
Putin’s Russia relishes opportunities to put America in what is deemed to be her proper lowly place and is a good friend of Iran, with which the Obama Administration appears to consider negotiations on nuclear weapons likely to be fruitful. After all, Iran has a new “moderate” President. However,
Iran’s new envoy to the UN atomic agency said on Thursday that Tehran had a “strong political will” to engage with the international community over its nuclear program, reported AFP.
But, speaking at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Reza Najafi said diplomacy was a two-way street and that Iran would never give up its nuclear “rights”, echoing new President Hassan Rouhani. [Emphasis added.]
But what difference could that make now?
Russia under Putin is gaining increased power and prestige throughout the world and Obama’s America is yielding both, massively. This “peace process,” evidently designed to give the coup de grace to Pax Americana, seems likely to continue at least until January of 2017. Then, even with a strong President — one who says what he means and means what he says — the difficulties of regaining either or both will be great.
While we may get a “stronger” President in 2017, it may be Hillary Clinton. According to a September fifteenth article at The Daily
Pest Beast, titled How Obama is Setting the Stage for Hillary in 2016,
President Obama has been found wanting by many liberals and progressives. He’ s just not a tribal guy! Since he emerged on the national scene back in 2004, Barack Obama’s big guiding idea has been the unreality of American political divisions: “There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.” Campaigning against Hillary Clinton in 2008, Obama again and again denounced the “old politics” practiced by certain unnamed Democratic politicians, promising instead a new era of consensus and progress. “We can be a party that tries to beat the other side by practicing the same do-anything, say-anything, divisive politics that has stood in the way of progress; or we can be a party that puts an end to it.” He warned against “nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us” and urged instead that Democrats choose “one who can unite this country around a movement for change” – i.e., him.
That plan went pretty spectacularly wrong. Different people will have different explanations of how it happened, but nobody will gainsay that in this fifth year of the Obama presidency, American politics are more radically polarized than ever. And as Democratic liberals and progressives see it, their unifying president has reacted to polarization by a long series of concessions, compromises, and retreats. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has jeered at Obama as “President Pushover.” “If Hillary Clinton gave Obama one of her balls,” quipped James Carville, “he’d have two.” “Wimpy and wussy,” despaired HBO host Bill Maher. Robert Reich has complained of Obama’s “unwise, unnecessary concessions.” Examples could be multiplied by the hundreds.
The article strikes me as grossly overstating President Obama’s alleged concessions to Republicans while minimizing Republican concessions to President Obama.
The article is not about Russia’s Syrian ploy but — since its thrust is that President Obama is weak, indecisive and prone to making unwarranted concessions — Obama’s forfeiting of America’s international power and prestige to Russia could have been a better fit. It would not, however, have done much to advance the thesis of the article. Hillary Clinton would indeed be an historic President, just as President Obama has been. Unfortunately, she would be, as He has been, an historically bad and dangerous President.
Having begun this post with some quotations from Roger Kimball, it seems appropriate to end it with one from an article posted today titled Obama Then and Now: The Rashomon Effect.
There was a time when everything Obama said was given the benefit of the doubt, when a presumption of good will and competence bathed everyone in an exculpatory light. Those days are long past. The atmospherics now are decidedly less cordial, less forgiving, and the problems, foreign as well as domestic, that Obama’s ineptitude has compounded become ever more pressing and exigent. For an observer safely ensconced on shore, a dramatic show is in the offing. Alas, the man from nowhere, the chap nobody knew, whose college records we still cannot see, whose exiguous political record was a masterpiece of nonentity (“Present”), and whose political mentors (Bill Ayres, Rev. Wright) subsist on the furthest fringes of anti-American hatred, this helmsman of the American dream compasses us all in the impending storm-tossed voyage. Hold on. It’s likely to be a rocky ride.
It will indeed be a rocky ride, and I hope when (if ever) we decide how and with whom to replace the current helmsman we will not be “a day late and a dollar short.”
According to this article,
President Obama on Sunday dismissed the notion that he mishandled his response to the Syria crisis, saying Washington is more concerned with style than substance.
“Folks here in Washington like to grade on style,” he said during an interview with ABC’s “This Week.” “Had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and linear they would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy. … We know that because that’s exactly how they graded the Iraq War until it ended up blowing [up] in our face.”
The problem is not merely with the “folks here in Washington.” Not only is it world wide, both style and substance are important. President Obama flunked on both style and substances and enhanced the status of the United States of Obama as a laughing stock. Or maybe as a laughin’ place.
There seem to be some for whom the embed does not work. Here is a link.