Today, Al Wafd, the popular and widely read Egyptian newspaper, published the above picture
Turns Out You Would Like Me When I’m Angry
By Stephen Green
Austin Bay:
Expanded intervention in Syria’s civil war? The promised “red line” punitive strike? An equivocal pause for congressional rumination? Ambiguous postponement? Or… a “Saturday Night Live” Emily Litella “never mind” skit on the world stage — farcical incompetence an obscene response to obscene tragedy?
The five preceding sentence fragments framed as questions sketch five potential near-term futures, each either created by or now operationally constrained by President Barack Obama’s Aug. 20, 2012 “red line” declaration. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they could all occur. Near-simultaneity would be difficult, but given this past week’s combination of Keystone Kops and kabuki, don’t say it can’t happen.
Speaking of simultaneous actions — or in my case, reactions —
I’ve been torn between amused dismay at the president’s strategery, and
a sort of resigned shock, if such a thing is possible, at what’s going
on in Syria. But then I skipped over to Drudge and saw what he has going
on above the banner.
And here’s the quote from Professor Ditherton Wiggleroom himself:
“First of all, I didn’t set a red line,” said Obama. “The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudible] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for. So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it.”
So a made-up percentage of people said something inaudible which
demanded — nay, required! — that Ditherton Wiggleroom make an
off-the-cuff pronouncement so full of strategic ambiguities I thought
maybe it was something my seven-year-old son might have said after
getting caught with his little brother’s toys in his pants. If you don’t
recall, here’s what Wiggleroom said last year:
We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.
Congress made him say that. Treaties made him say that. And 98% of
the whole wide world forced Professor Wiggleroom to explicitly state
that he might have to reassign some math homework if some bad stuff
happened or appeared to be maybe about to happen. Or something.
To which I ask, “Professor Wiggleroom, where is that 98% of the world?”
We have France, sort of. The United States military, if the order is
given. And nobody else, including the American people, really seems to
give a rat’s ass what happens in Syria. Maybe they would, if Wiggleroom
had — oh, I dunno — actually led on this issue a year ago. Gone
to the UN, gone to Congress, hit the bully pulpit, built a coalition.
Little things, like that Cowboy Diplomatist did during his 14-month
“rush to war” in Iraq. Instead, Wiggleroom finds himself in the
uncomfortable and unaccustomed position of having to lead from the front
— and there’s nobody behind him but France, looking nervously for the
exit. The president who loves to talk has talked himself into a war —
and almost nobody else.
It’s clear from his “red-line-not-red-line” statement from last year
that Wiggleroom didn’t want a war. It’s also clear that he doesn’t want
to look like a total ass on the world stage. But he already has the
latter, and he’s probably going to get the former in his increasingly
desperate attempts to deny the obvious truth of the latter. What we have
here isn’t a rush to war, so much as a stumbling into war.
Red line, schmed line. Did say it, didn’t say it, might have meant
it, might not have meant it. It’s 3AM. The phone is ringing. And there’s
nobody there to answer it, nobody at all.
What I feel now isn’t amusement and it isn’t shock. It’s shame. It’s red-faced, staring-down-at-the-floor shame for my country that an irresponsible man-child such as this should lead it.
Now Wiggleroom is trying to shift the blame on the GOP half of
Congress for approving a war (even though they may not), to pin the
blame on treaties for requiring a war (even though they don’t), and to
place the blame on world opinion for demanding a war (even though nobody
is). But the blame, the responsibility rests solely on the shoulders of
a president who would order better men to their deaths for the noble
cause of removing his foot from his mouth.
SoRo: Yeah, you and I aren't surprised, but most of the world is. Says more about them than us.
http://tinyurl.com/kgnq9wq
2 comments:
...seems like just a few scant years ago that America has "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" towards its allies.
Like the guy said in your linked article "Obama is a living, breathing credibility gap."
...."What a maroon!" B. Bunny....
شركة تسليك مجاري بالاحساء
شركة تسليك مجاري بالدمام
شركة تسليك مجارى بالقطيف
Post a Comment