{"id":22194,"date":"2013-09-04T21:52:32","date_gmt":"2013-09-05T01:52:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=22194"},"modified":"2013-09-04T21:52:42","modified_gmt":"2013-09-05T01:52:42","slug":"the-daily-gouge-thursday-september-5th-2013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=22194","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge, Thursday, September 5th, 2013"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Thursday, September 5th, 2013…and here’s The Gouge!<\/strong><\/p>\n

We’re going to keep today’s edition short and sweet; ‘cuz that’s all the time needed to expose this duplicitous, dissumulating deceiver for what he is.<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up, in the “Joe Wilson was RIGHT<\/em><\/span>!” segment, James Taranto presents People’s Exhibit “A”:
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Buck Stops Here <\/span><\/h1>\n

Obama goes Galt.<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"cb090413dAPR20130904114525\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“First of all, I didn’t set a red line,” Barack Obama said today at a press conference in Stockholm. “The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are [sic] abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war.”<\/p>\n

Well, here’s what Obama said at an Aug.\u00a020, 2012, White House press conference<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/span> in response to a reporter’s question about Syria:<\/p>\n

I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people. <\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We<\/span> have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us<\/span> is we<\/span> start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my<\/span> calculus.<\/span> That would change my<\/span> equation.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The context makes clear that when Obama refers to “a red line for us,” the antecedent is not<\/span><\/em> the world but the U.S. or the administration<\/span><\/em> (which are interchangeable for the purpose of a discussion of executive action).<\/span><\/strong> He said the use of chemical weapons would change “my calculus” and “my equation,” not the world’s.<\/p>\n

As The Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper notes, the president’s denial that he set a red line contradicts previous statements from his own subordinates.<\/strong><\/span> “We go on to reaffirm that the President has set a clear red line as it relates to the United States that the use of chemical weapons .\u00a0.\u00a0. is a red line that is not acceptable to us, nor should it be to the international community,” an unnamed “White House official” said during introductory remarks in an April\u00a025, 2013 conference call with reporters.<\/p>\n

Lest there be any question, the official went on to say in response to a question: “The people in Syria and the Assad regime should know that the President<\/span> means what he<\/span> says when he set that red line<\/span><\/em>.<\/span> And keep in mind, he is the one who laid down that marker<\/em><\/span>.”<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"s-CLIMATE-FAIL-large300\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It’s as if somebody in November 1973 had gone back and discovered a transcript from a few months earlier in which a White House official said: “And keep in mind, the president is a crook.”<\/p>\n

Setting a red line isn’t the only thing Obama denied.<\/strong><\/span> As the BBC reports: “Mr Obama said he did not believe he had risked his credibility by asking Congress to vote–something he was not constitutionally obliged to do. ‘My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line,’ he said. ‘America and Congress’s credibility is on the line, because we give lip-service to the notion that these international norms are important.’\u00a0“<\/p>\n

Where to begin with this muddle? How about with “lip service”? That idiom means words not backed up by deeds. If one is giving lip service, one has no credibility.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

And who are the “we” who “give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important”?<\/span> Why, “America and Congress.” All of us!<\/span> Well, except him<\/span>, of course<\/em>.<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong>Or maybe especially him. After all, if he is acknowledging that his words are mere lip service, then his credibility is not on the line. It’s shot<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

So Obama evidently agrees with the conservative interventionist argument in favor of authorizing military force: that the president’s inconstancy has destroyed his credibility<\/em><\/span>, and therefore Congress must shore up America’s credibility by giving its assent (even though he claims he does not need it) to him, so that he will back up his words with actions.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"obama-no-flies1-550x373\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This column does not disagree with that argument, but we do have some difficulty wrapping our mind around it. The basic problem is the idea of credibility. At its most concrete, it is a personal attribute. To oversimplify a bit, a man’s credibility depends on the congruence between his words and his actions.<\/p>\n

We speak of institutional credibility too, which depends on the congruence between an institution’s “words” (policies) and its “actions”–i.e., actions undertaken by individuals acting on the institution’s behalf.<\/p>\n

Institutional credibility and personal credibility are related, but a credible institution need not be populated entirely by credible individuals. The importance of an individual’s credibility depends on his role in the institution. A paperboy who is a pathological liar has no influence on the credibility of the newspaper (except maybe its circulation department).<\/span> A reporter who is a pathological liar does.<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0(Which of course encompasses the vast majority of today’s MSM.)<\/span><\/strong> An institution can maintain and even enhance its credibility by dealing with threats from within swiftly and forthrightly, as when a reporter is discovered to have fabricated stories and the newspaper immediately terminates his employment and retracts his work.<\/p>\n

Institutional credibility depends above all on the credibility of its leaders and decision-makers. The American political system distributes decision-making authority among three branches of government, only one<\/em><\/span> of which has a clear leader.<\/span> That, of course, would be the president.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Does it make sense to speak of preserving “America’s credibility” if the president, who is not expected to leave office for quite some time (three years, four months, two weeks and two days, to be exact) has no credibility and, if we take him at his word, no interest in developing any?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"181204_10151559411346731_265652513_n\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Yes, but it’s counterintuitive to say the least. America is greater than the man who is president at any given time, and the president’s decision-making authority is not absolute. Thus what Congress does and does not do will have some effect on America’s credibility, both now and in 2017 and thereafter.<\/p>\n

But Congress’s capacity in this regard is marginal. The president is the most<\/span> visible symbol of the American body politic<\/em>.<\/span> The president’s determination to shirk the responsibility of his position cannot help but corrode America’s credibility, even if other leaders make the maximal possible effort to limit the damage.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In her 2013 book, “Men on Strike,” psychologist Helen Smith observes “There is a term for bailing out of the mainstream of society .\u00a0.\u00a0. called ‘going John Galt’ or ‘going Galt’ for short”:<\/p>\n

Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? .\u00a0.\u00a0. In Ayn Rand’s book, the basic theme is that John Galt and his allies take actions that include withdrawing their talents and “stopping the motor of the world” while leading the “strikers” (those who refuse to be exploited) against the “looters” (the exploiters, backed by government). One interesting fact about Atlas Shrugged is that the original title was The Strike, but Rand changed it at her husband’s suggestion. The original title of Rand’s book seems fitting for what is happening with today’s twenty-first-century man.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the olden days, they used to call the president “the leader of the free world.” Today the president disavowed responsibility for his own policies and told a reporter to take it up with “the world<\/em><\/span>.”<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Obama shrugged.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"blog-obama-shrug\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Of course we could be wrong. Maybe Obama really didn’t set a red line. It could have been a case of mistaken identity. Perhaps on Aug.\u00a020, 2012, the world sneaked into the White House, donned an Obama mask, strode into the press room and took questions.<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong>If so, the world did a bad thing and will need to be punished. But we hope that whoever has authority over such matters will have a little compassion for the world’s predicament.<\/span> It isn’t easy carrying the weight of Barack Obama on your shoulders.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

As Brit Hume so perfectly puts it:<\/strong><\/p>\n