So, let me get this straight:
1) Obama is not asking the country to “go to war”
2) And he “did not set a red line” on Syria and chemical weapons, despite saying last year, “[chemical weapons] would change my calculus, or equation”. Note the first person, singular.
(Apparently that line was “unscripted”. So it didn’t count!)
3) Despite the admissions of Chris Matthews and Eleanor Holmes Norton who both say Democrats may vote for this thing for no other reason than to close ranks and save the president’s credibility, Obama says his credibility is not on the line.
I like Ed Morrissey’s question: If Obama strikes Syria without even bothering to ask the UN for support, then how can he rely on the UN’s “red line” as justification?
(Sorry, Mr. President, but even the New York Times says your credibility is on the line.)
5) Apparently we’re going to go to war (not a “real” war in the “classic sense”; not “war war” although “boots on the ground” is a contingency) in order to save that credibility, which is not at risk.
6) Today, the American President gave a presser on foreign soil in which he essentially tried to throw the American Congress under the bus, along with all allies of goodwill (such as remain) who are not rushing to validate the red line that he “didn’t draw.”
Because nothing is ever his doing or his responsibility, except the win.
Undertand, I am fully cognizant of the fact that I have repeatedly (hell, vociferously) said there is not a person in the current leadership — within either party — that I admire or respect.
But there really is a line. It’s not a red one, either.
At the risk of being corny, it’s a red-white-and-blue line, and it’s the line at which a president, or a congresswoman, or a senator crosses the border into another country and then publicly points a finger of blame or correction at the other branch of government. Whether the diss is done verbally or by action — whether it’s done for political expediency or the coverage of one’s own posterior — that is simply a step too far.
A politician who does that is not worthy of his or her office.
The president likes to pretend the Congress won’t work with him because they’re feckless (possibly) or obliged to Rush Limbaugh (some, perhaps) or racist (meh, overplayed already). Occam’s Razor might suggest that the simplest reason Congress doesn’t like the president is because he demonstrably does not like or respect them, and hasn’t from the start. This is the “uniter” president who turned to the Republican members on first meeting and opened with, “I won,” and then shut them out of contributing to any part of the stimulus bill. The “accessible” president who has treated Congressional members of his own Democrat party with disinterest and not even the pretense of engagement or regard.
Israeli sources say “this is not how a superpower acts!”. We know, we know…it’s not how a President is supposed to act, either.
You know what? I miss George W. Bush. I miss Bill Clinton. For all their imperfections they understood that the first job of any American President is to look out for America’s interests, even before his own.
But I don’t entirely blame Barack Obama for his refusal to ever take responsibility for anything. The sycophantic press has told him, these 6 years or so, that he needn’t. They’ll always be there for him, to spin away the heat and keep him comfy.
I blame the press for a great deal that is wrong with this presidency, because — for whatever reason — they refuse to jawbone or challenge this president as they have every other in my memory.
Susan Rice: Congress will approve. Yes, they will. They really don’t have a choice.
Pope Francis: renews his appeal for peace: