The Vacancy Light is on at the White House

4est_4est_Gump

Run Forrest! RUN!
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Posts
89,007
The Vacant Presidency
The world is aflame and our leader is on the 14th green.
Charles Krauthammer, NRO

The president’s demeanor is worrying a lot of people. From the immigration crisis on the Mexican border to the Islamic State rising in Mesopotamia, Barack Obama seems totally detached. When he does interrupt his endless rounds of golf, fundraising, and photo ops, it’s for some affectless, mechanical, almost forced public statement.

Regarding Ukraine, his detachment — the rote, impassive voice — borders on dissociation. His U.N. ambassador, Samantha Power, delivers an impassioned denunciation of Russia. Obama cautions that we not “get out ahead of the facts,” as if the facts of this case — Vladimir Putin’s proxies’ shooting down a civilian airliner — are in doubt.

The preferred explanation for the president’s detachment is psychological. He’s checked out. Given up. Let down and disappointed by the world, he is in withdrawal.

Perhaps. But I’d propose an alternate theory that gives him more credit: Obama’s passivity stems from an idea. When Obama says Putin has placed himself on the wrong side of history in Ukraine, he actually believes it. He disdains realpolitik because he believes that, in the end, such primitive 19th-century notions as conquest are self-defeating. History sees to their defeat.

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” is one of Obama’s favorite sayings. Ultimately, injustice and aggression don’t pay. The Soviets saw their 20th-century empire dissolve. More proximally, U.S. gains in Iraq and Afghanistan were, in time, liquidated. Ozymandias lies forever buried and forgotten in desert sands.

Remember when, at the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, Obama tried to construct for Putin “an off-ramp” from Crimea? Absurd as this idea was, I think Obama was sincere. He actually imagined that he’d be saving Putin from himself, that Crimea could only redound against Russia in the long run.

If you really believe this, then there is no need for forceful, potentially risky U.S. counteractions. Which explains everything since: Obama’s pinprick sanctions; his failure to rally a craven Europe; his refusal to supply Ukraine with the weapons it has been begging for.

The shooting down of a civilian airliner seemed to validate Obama’s passivity. “Violence and conflict inevitably lead to unforeseen consequences,” explained Obama. See. You play with fire, it will blow up in your face. Just as I warned. Now world opinion will turn against Putin.

To which I say: So what? World opinion, by itself, is useless: malleable, ephemeral and, unless mobilized by leadership, powerless. History doesn’t act autonomously. It needs agency.

Germany’s Angela Merkel still doesn’t want to jeopardize trade with Russia. France’s François Hollande will proceed with delivery of a Mistral-class helicopter carrier to Russia. And Obama speaks of future “costs” if Russia persists — a broken record since Crimea, carrying zero credibility.

Or did Obama think Putin would be shamed into regret and restraint by the blood of 298 innocents? On the contrary. Putin’s response has been brazen defiance: denying everything and unleashing a massive campaign of lies, fabrications, and conspiracy theories blaming Ukraine and the U.S.

Putin doesn’t give a damn about world opinion. He cares about domestic opinion, which has soared to more than 80 percent approval since Crimea. If anything, he’s been emboldened. On Wednesday, his proxies shot down two more jets — a finger to the world and a declaration that his campaign continues.

A real U.S. president would give Kiev the weapons it needs, impose devastating sectoral sanctions on Moscow, reinstate our Central European missile-defense system, and make a Reaganesque speech explaining why.

Obama has done none of these things. Why should he? He’s on the right side of history.

Of course, in the long run nothing lasts. But history is lived in the here and now. The Soviets had only 70 years, Hitler a mere twelve. Yet it was enough to murder millions and rain ruin on entire continents. Bashar Assad, too, will one day go. But not before having killed at least 100,000 people.

All domination must end. But after how much devastation? And if you leave it to the forces of history to repel aggression and redeem injustice, what’s the point of politics, of leadership, in the first place?

The world is aflame and our leader is on the 14th green. The arc of history may indeed bend toward justice, Mr. President. But, as you say, the arc is long. The job of a leader is to shorten it, to intervene on behalf of “the fierce urgency of now.” Otherwise, why do we need a president? And why did you seek to become ours?
 
Maybe a $50 dollar fee per proviso...

:eek:

I hear they're paying $8K to the coyotes; they can afford it.
 
Another mindless cut-and-paste.

"My mission is to turn Literotica into "Stormfront with Tits". I'm going to teach Laurel a lesson! Disagree with me? That bitch will learn that her actions have consequences" - 4est_4est_Gump (nee Andra_Jenny), 1999
 
The man in the white house has shown no real leadership on the world stage since he has been in office. I don't see why anybody would think that will change anytime soon. It is obvious that he is either incapable of dealing with the world, or he is relying on real bad advice from those around him.
 
The man in the white house has shown no real leadership on the world stage since he has been in office. I don't see why anybody would think that will change anytime soon. It is obvious that he is either incapable of dealing with the world, or he is relying on real bad advice from those around him.

He has surrounded himself with a comfort zone of people conditioned to only tell him what he wants to hear, so he never considers anything outside of his comfort zone and never has to actually stop and think about differing points of view.

There is nobody to tell him, Mr. President, you really need to change your schedule.
 
At least she knows it.


B'rack sez, "I'm through with Vladimir,
treats me like a rag-doll."
She hides the teleprompter,
sez, "I don't owe him nothin'."


It's an addiction, doncha know?
 
Jane's Addiction?

;)

Well, got to run. Time to pick up the Queen's new car.

It's not your father's Oldsmobile. It's a Buick.

For old people or low-profile tire types.
 
You're oh-for-2 on the purchases lately, Chief.


You're still pining over the horse that they made surrender.


I know.


Yes, Jane is addicted to horse, too. ;)
 
Someone told me long ago that a good manager surrounds himself with "A players.' Unfortunately The Fraud has surrounded himself with "D players:" rank amateurs, political hacks, and arrogant lifelong bureaucrats. Losers, just like him.

The man has no leadership skills and has been a complete disaster as President, regardless of the Obama Youth who believe his lies and have pledged their lives to him.

Oh, and Throb, shut the fuck up.
 
You're oh-for-2 on the purchases lately, Chief.


You're still pining over the horse that they made surrender.


I know.


Yes, Jane is addicted to horse, too. ;)

I had no input on the decision and Princess to found out that her opinion was not that highly valued. She hated it. I do too.

;)

The Queen was pinching her Benjamins.
 
Another mindless cut-and-paste.

"My mission is to turn Literotica into "Stormfront with Tits". I'm going to teach Laurel a lesson! Disagree with me? That bitch will learn that her actions have consequences" - 4est_4est_Gump (nee Andra_Jenny), 1999

If we're going to do bad cut and paste jobs...

But Krauthammer has paid the unavoidable price for composing too many 1,000-word essays for Time, 800-word columns for The Washington Post and 20-second sound bites for Fox News. There is very little intellectual tension, dialectical drama or sense of discovery in his arguments, and very little rhythm, color or finesse to his prose. He floats like a vulture, stings like a jellyfish.

Occasionally, Krauthammer is interestingly and usefully wrong. More often, though, he is tiresomely and mischievously wrong. His misconceptions begin with the Cold War. “Where would Europe be,” he demands, “had America not saved it from the Soviet colossus?” In fact, after World War II, the Soviet Union desperately sought a demilitarized Germany, having twice in three decades nearly been annihilated by that country. It offered to withdraw and allow free elections in a unified Germany in exchange for a guarantee that Germany would not be part of a hostile military alliance and that the Soviets would have a veto power over major foreign-policy decisions in the Eastern European countries—a kind of Soviet Monroe Doctrine. The United States, then enjoying a monopoly on atomic weapons, refused. Germany remained divided and the Red Army remained in Eastern Europe.
 
Back
Top