“One does not sharpen the axes after the right time; after the time they are needed.” — Russian Proverb
The late Ukrainian violinist Mischa Elman is considered one of the greatest of all time, but he has nothing on Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has played the Obama administration better than any musician. (Cal Thomas)
A murderous enemy of democratic freedom such as Vladimir Putin gets a New York Times platform to lecture Americans. Why not? He just proved he has more international clout than our own president.
Ed Asner didn’t mince words when he told the Hollywood Reporter that celebrities won’t be mobilizing against any Obama wars: “A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama.” People in Tinseltown watch a little too much MSNBC.
Asner sounded very cynical. “It will be a done deal before Hollywood is mobilized. This country will either bomb the hell out of Syria or not before Hollywood gets off its ass.” He doesn’t even think clogging the town square in protest accomplishes anything any more: “We had a million people in the streets, for Christ’s sake, protesting Iraq, which was about as illegal as you could find. Did it matter? Is George Bush being tried in the high courts of justice?”
Even hard core kiss-ass Liberals aren’t happy with the Amateur hour displayed by Mr. Lead from Behind Community Organizer:
While many in the media are actually crediting Barack Obama for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposed Syrian chemical weapons “solution,” TIME magazine’s Joe Klein isn’t one of them.
Far from it, Klein penned a scathing rebuke of Obama’s handling of Syria Wednesday calling it “one of the more stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever witnessed…The consequences of Obama’s amateur display ripple out across the world.”
“He willingly jumped into a bear trap of his own creation. In the process, he has damaged his presidency and weakened the nation’s standing in the world,” Klein wrote.
“As it stands,” he continued, “no one will be surprised if [Putin’s] offer is a ruse, but the Administration is now trapped into seeing it through and gambling that it will be easier to get a congressional vote if it fails.”
Klein addressed changes in the Middle East that will continue to occur in the coming decades including “the formation of new countries, like Kurdistan, along ethnic and sectarian lines, and the process will undoubtedly be bloody.”
But our involvement in such matters in the recent past has proven unsuccessful in Klein’s view, and Obama’s buggling has left America in a weaker position to have any positive impact on world events.
“He has now damaged his ability to get his way with the Chinese, the Iranians and even the Israelis.”
“The question now is whether Obama’s inability to make his military threat in Syria real—and the American people’s clear distaste for more military action—will empower the hard-liners in the [Iranian] Revolutionary Guards Corps to give no quarter in the negotiations,” Klein wrote.
“The Chinese, who have been covetous of the South China Sea oil fields, may not be as restrained as they have been in the past,” he continued. “The Japanese may feel the need to revive their military, or even go nuclear, now that the promise of American protection seems less reliable. The consequences of Obama’s amateur display ripple out across the world.”
But Obama’s incompetence doesn’t just have an international impact in Klein’s view. There are domestic consequences as well.
“[A]fter Syria,” Klein warned, “it will be difficult for any member of Congress to believe that this President will stick to his guns or provide protection.”
I’m not sure Syria was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Republicans, but if a liberal such as Klein has these kinds of concerns, that certainly might be the case for Democrats. (NB)
By my count he used the words “I,” “me” and “my” 30 times in his 15-minute address. He personalizes everything, but delivers little, except uncertainty in his foreign policy. The world is becoming increasingly dangerous because we have a president who either does not know how to lead, or doesn’t want to lead in foreign affairs.
That House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would credit the president with a diplomatic triumph because of a pledge from two men whose promises aren’t worth the paper on which they have yet to be written, is funnier than the monologues of late-night comedians.
Shortly after Putin’s “diplomatic triumph,” which might have been expected given Syria’s puppet status with Russia, ABC News Online reported that Putin plans to meet Friday with Iranian President Hassan Rowhani to renew Russia’s offer of S-300 air defense missiles to Iran. Putin knows how to stir the pot to America’s detriment.
Iran, with or without its proxy war in Syria and its arming of Hezbollah, remains the major threat in the region. President Obama, who once said he would consider negotiating with Iran because America had become too “arrogant,” shows that, too, was a meaningless policy proposal. You can’t negotiate with evil. Evil must be defeated.
By assuming the role of a bad character on the world stage, Russia is a threat to peace.
During last year’s presidential campaign, Mitt Romney said Russia is “our number one geopolitical foe; they fight for every cause for the world’s worst actors.”
Who sounds more presidential: a tentative Barack Obama, who speaks loudly and too often, but carries a small stick, or Mitt Romney, who clearly understood that for threats to be diminished or deterred a president must have credibility? (Cal Thomas)
Oh, right, I’m just an ignorant “bagger” and I can’t possibly be critical of The Annoited One who’s so far above me in everything that I am but a knat… 🙂