#Ukraine Red Dawn: Why Barack Obama Is Still Not Qualified To Be President

Update II: Who best represents a clown but another clown? Who best as spokesman for a clown not qualified to be president than a clown not qualified to be a spokesman? Exhibit A comes from today’s press briefing on Ukraine by clown Carney: Why no, Obama does not regret being dismissive of Mitt Romney on Russia. Take a look at the embarrassment:



Weep America, weep. The Russians have a strong leader. We have clowns.

——————————————————————————————————-

Update: Why did Barack Obama stage a briefing just now? There were no questions. The little news provided could have been transmitted in a Twitter tweet. So why did Obama make an on-camera announcement? Is it just the usual Barack Obama publicity stunt staged for his daily fix of celebrity? More likely this announcement means: V-A-C-A-T-I-O-N. As usual before he goes on vacation Barack Obama does some very public pretend work at the departure point and the destination point then it is snooze, snooze, snooze. This will be the third Obama vacation this year. It’s early March. One vacation a month. The message is sent to all the world about what Obama considers important. Strong leader Vladimir Putin is busy at work.

——————————————————————————————————-

Barack Obama is not qualified to be president. We began writing that in 2007. In 2009, in an article that should be read in its entirety because it is especially relevant these days, we summarized the many reasons and focused on an especially important one to demonstrate why Barack Obama is not qualified to be president:

Barack Obama is not qualified to be President because he does not have a world-view which is congruent with reality.

Winston Churchill was in the political wilderness for many years. Churchill’s world view was not viewed positively and few wanted to have much to do with the cigar chomping Winny. Churchill thought that Germany, at the heart of Europe and with many resources and people was a threat to Great Britain, and the peace of Europe. Many labeled Churchill a warmonger and shunned him. Churchill however stood firm. His knowledge of history and geography informed him that Germany was indeed a threat and he held fast to that understanding even though many ostracized him for it. The appeasement of other British leaders and the military actions of Germany eventually forced the world to acknowledge that Winston Churchill’s world view was the one most consistent with reality. Churchill became Prime Minister, then led the Western democracies and Christian civilization itself, from the abyss of despair into victory.

To be an American president means having a world view. Hillary Clinton has a world-view. Hillary Clinton mocked Obama in her insightful “celestial choirs” speech. Hillary Clinton mocked Obama about his foolish “no preconditions, in the first year, anywhere, anytime” meetings with America’s enemies. Hillary Clinton mocked Obama as “naive”. Hillary Clinton was saying that Obama did not know or understand how the world works. Hillary Clinton was saying that Obama’s world view was not congruent with reality. Hillary Clinton has been proved right.

Today, Leslie Gelb begins a very polite and gentle narrative, saying pretty much that Obama better get a reality based world-view, quickly or we all face continued disaster with a boob in charge.”

Years after we wrote that Barack Obama still has no world view that is congruent with reality. Either that or Barack Obama’s world view is destructive to America.

[As to our Hillary references in that 2009 article, we’ll explain and we’ll address Hillary Clinton’s opening moves to distance herself from Obama foreign policy and ObamaCare very very soon but for now we will only state that she is saying what Barack Obama won’t say which is what we think needs to be said about Ukraine. Yes, she mentioned “Hitler”. It would be powerful and help Hillary Clinton 2016 if she would do as we suggest and travel to Europe and rally the West against totalitarianism. But for now we will have to content ourselves with her comments placing Putin’s actions in historical context. ]

It’s taken years but more and more voices are now joining in agreement with what we wrote in 2009. One person who won’t learn is Bill O’Reilly who blames everyone (in this case NATO) but Obama and shifts the blame away from Obama almost as adroitly as Obama himself. Bill O’Reilly has persisted in his defense of Obama as a good man with good intentions despite all evidence to the contrary. Fortunately Charles Krauthammer has been aware of the malevolence of Barack Obama’s actions. On Tuesday night, O’Reilly discussed Obama Boobery in Ukraine with Krauthammer and Krauthammer schooled O”Reilly on Obama:

“Putin knows the west is weak and that Obama likely will not be able to rally Europe against Russia. O’Reilly said that NATO — which is supposed to be the bulwark against Russian oppression — is powerless because Europe does not confront illegal international behavior.

“I hate to use the cliché, but the Ukraine situation – same old, same old. And Putin knows it,” he said.

Charles Krauthammer was on “The Factor” to respond to O’Reilly’s Talking Points Memo.

Obama’s a little bit late at rallying anybody against anybody,” Krauthammer said. He explained that the first thing Obama did when he took office was that he announced the “reset,” reversing sanctions against Russia for its 2008 invasion of Georgia. Then, Krauthammer said Obama canceled a missile defense agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic.

“Putin looks at this guy and says, ‘I’m dealing with an adolescent,’” Krauthammer said of Obama.”

A malevolent adolescent.

Victor David Hanson has more:

“Each step to the present Ukrainian predicament was in and of itself hardly earth-shattering and was sort of framed by Obama’s open-mic assurance to Medvedev to tell Vladimir that he would more flexible after the election.

Indeed, Obama, as is his wont, always had mellifluous and sophistic arguments for why we had to take every soldier out of Iraq after the successful surge; why we needed to drop missile defense with the Poles and Czechs; why we needed both a surge and simultaneous deadline to end the surge in Afghanistan; why we first issued serial deadlines to Iran to ask them to please stop proliferation, then just quit the sanctions altogether just as they started to work; why we needed to “lead from behind” in Libya; why the Muslim Brotherhood was largely secular and legitimate and then later not so much so; why we issued redlines and bragged about Putin’s “help” to eliminate WMD in Syria, and were going to bomb and then not bomb and then maybe bomb; why we kept pressuring Israel; why we cozied up to an increasingly dictatorial Turkey; why we reached out to Cuba and Venezuela; and why we sometimes embarrassed old allies like Britain, Canada, and Israel.

Amid such a landscape of deadlines begetting redlines begetting step-over lines always came the unfortunate pontificating — the Cairo mytho-history speech, the adolescent so-called apology tour, the sermon about “exceptionalism” — and also the dressing down delivered to a mute Obama by a pompous Daniel Ortega, the bows and hugs, and Obama’s constant apologies for past American sins. Again all this was trivial — and yet in aggregate not so trivial for the lidless eye of a Putin.

Amid both the deeds and the facts came the serial $1 trillion annual deficits, the surge in borrowing for redistributionist payouts, the monetary expansion and zero-interest rates, and finally the vast cuts in the military budget, all of which fleshed out the caricature of a newly isolationist and self-indulgent America, eager to talk, bluster, or threaten its way out of its traditional postwar leadership role.”

In short: when you act like a doormat, don’t be surprised when people walk all over you. When you re-elect a boob, expect more boobery.

The West and its values are in peril. From Obama and our foreign policy elites there is distilled, pure, stupidity. After Vladimir Putin spoke from a chair as if it was a throne Barack Obama “brains” proved how brain-dead they are. These dolts thought Putin had “blinked”. Yup, they thought Putin had blinked. That is how stupid Barack Obama and his sycophants are:



“CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: This is astonishing. On the one hand they’re unable to — our people, our leaders — to muster anything that the Europeans will join that will hurt Putin. And on the other hand, you’re telling us that they are thinking that Putin thinks he made a mistake, did make a mistake and is looking for an off-ramp. And our real job is not to slap on sanctions or to push him out of Crimea, but to allow him some kind of diplomatic exit that will save face.

It’s in tandem with what he said about it being a sign of weakness on the part of the Russians.

BRET BAIER: But are they interpreting his news conference as some kind of blink, as something like saying, I didn’t send forces, and he’s sending the signal that he’s stepping back?

KRAUTHAMMER: That’s not a blink; that’s a KGB agent lying through his teeth, which is what they train to do for all of their lives. I mean, when Hitler went into Sudetenland, he claimed it was in response to a desire on the part of the population. This is what all dictators do. The idea that somehow it’s a blink because he’s waiting to see if he wants to take the rest of Ukraine, and that’s a sign of weakness, I think is delusional.”

Delusional? Weak? Or Malevolent? It all adds up to the same thing: Barack Obama is not qualified to be president.

We’ve made the Sudetenland argument previously. Today Hillary Clinton doubled down on her critique from yesterday. It seems we are all in agreement.

Obama however, does not see the obvious. At the New Republic, now owned by a billionaire Obama campaign worker, the contempt for Obama is bubbling up:

Enough With the Cliches Already
The Obama administration’s rhetoric on Russia is accomplishing nothing

Everyone’s giving President Obama advice about how to handle Vladimir Putin’s adventure into the Crimea. But I want to issue a broader critique, because there’s something that he and his people will need to do to be more effective in this case and in future foreign policy crises: They’ll need to change their rhetoric.

In talking about Putin, as when trying to express disapproval towards other world leaders in the past, administration officials have resorted to language that comes across as either patronizing or out of touch. Let’s examine a couple of the administration’s favorite rhetorical tropes.

1. They are not acting in their own interest. They are only harming themselves.

Secretary of State John Kerry was all over the airwaves this weekend with versions of this line. “He is not going to gain by this,” Kerry told David Gregory on “Meet the Press.” “Russia is going to lose. The Russian people are going to lose.”

Over the years, Obama and his aides have offered similar versions of this line in talking about other foreign leaders who had done or were about to do something of which the administration disapproved: in Syria, for example, or Egypt or Qaddafi’s Libya. And guess what? It’s a useless line of attack. Putin makes his own calculations of what is in his interest. [snip]

2. They’re displaying nineteenth century behavior. They need to join the twenty-first century.

The administration loves to brand actions it doesn’t like as relics of the past. “It’s really nineteenth century behavior in the twenty-first century,” Kerry said of Putin’s Crimean gambit. A senior administration official who sounded like either National Security Advisor Susan Rice or Ben Rhodes told reporters on background, “What we see here are distinctly nineteenth- and twenty-first century decisions made by President Putin to address problems.”

Well, to start with, by definition Putin’s decisions are taking place in the twenty-first century. The administration here seems to be using the centuries like a teacher handing out a grade: twenty-first century is an A, twentieth century is a C, nineteenth century is an F. More importantly, talking this way raises an uncomfortable question: Does the reality of the twenty-first century conform to what Obama administration officials think it is? [snip]

3. They need to understand ideas like interdependence and win-win solutions. This is not a zero-sum game.

The same senior official told reporters that Putin “needs to understand that, in terms of his economy, he lives in … an interdependent world.” This is one of the core concepts in the worldview of the Obamians, dating back to the earliest days of the 2008 presidential campaign, when Rice and Rhodes were trying to put words on what Obama believed as opposed to, say, Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush or John McCain. Then and ever since, the Obama team has repeatedly invoked the concept of interdependence – and, in a related fashion, has claimed that it is outmoded to believe that in modern-day foreign policy conflicts, there can be winners and losers.

The main problem is that “interdependence” is just a buzzword, not a prescription for policy. Putin understands the concept of interdependence as well as anyone in Washington—he’s just applying the facts in a different way. He knows, for example, that Ukraine and much of Western Europe are dependent on natural gas from Russia, and that this fact impinges on their calculations.

It would much be so much better for the Obama administration to leave the grand rhetoric aside. Instead, it should invoke democratic ideals, condemn what Putin has done, then shut up. Silence has its own strategic power, and the actions of America and its allies can speak for themselves.

To summarize James Mann: Obama’s world view is not congruent with reality.

To summarize James Mann with a bit of spice thrown in, cue Ben Shapiro:

“As Russian President Vladimir Putin deploys his military forces to Ukraine, the Obama administration continues to wonder just what the benighted dictator is thinking. Understanding that the best strategy for countering military action is undoubtedly faculty lounge-style condescension, the Obama administration has responded with its full array of resources: scorn, sneering, and bemusement.

On Monday, President Obama announced that Russia was “on the wrong side of history,” adding that the actions of the Kremlin violate international law. His Secretary of State, John Kerry, stated on Sunday, “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country.” National Security Advisor Susan Rice stated, “It’s in nobody’s interest to see violence return and the situation escalate.” When questioned by NBC’s David Gregory whether Putin might in fact see the global situation in a “Cold War context,” Rice shot back, “He may, but if he does, that’s a pretty dated perspective.” To prove just how dated that perspective was, the United States announced on Monday that it would not be sending a presidential delegation to the Paralympics in Sochi, a move that will undoubtedly give Putin the chills.

Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign promises of “no preconditions” have come home to roost. Barack Obama followed his “no preconditions” naivete with apology tours and surrender to the Russians on a Czech Republica and Poland missile shield. Then came weak bended knee kow-tows to North Korea, any and all Muslim radical regime, and any rogue who rattled a sabre. After reelection, while in of all places Berlin, Barack Obama chose to UNILATERALLY, with NO PRECONDITIONS, no negotiations cut American nuclear weapons:

President Barack Obama this week ordered new limits on the use of U.S. nuclear weapons and called for sharp warhead cuts in a speech in Berlin aimed at what he called achieving “peace with justice.”

Peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world without nuclear weapons, no matter how distant that dream may be,” Obama said on the eastern Berlin side of the Brandenburg Gate.

“And so as president, I’ve strengthened our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce the number and role of America’s nuclear weapons.”

Obama announced that, after reviewing U.S. nuclear doctrine, “I’ve determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third.”

The Ukraine can see Barack Obama’s “peace with justice” at work. UN envoys can see Obama’s “peace with justice” at work.

Putin did not even need to ask Obama. Obama surrendered, without any negotiations, without getting anything in return, exactly what Putin wanted. In that same rainy day Berlin speech Barack Obama proclaimed climate change as “the global threat of our time”. Putin, a strong Russian leader who will fight for his nation’s interests, fully aware of Russian cheating on nuclear agreements, must have laughed and laughed. Putin saw Obama did not give a damn about America. Putin saw Obama is only interested in his own cruddy “brand”.

On that rainy Berlin day, Vladimir Putin knew Obama was not qualified to be president. We knew that a long time ago.

Share