{"id":22227,"date":"2013-09-05T21:43:00","date_gmt":"2013-09-06T01:43:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=22227"},"modified":"2013-09-05T21:43:00","modified_gmt":"2013-09-06T01:43:00","slug":"the-daily-gouge-friday-september-6th-2013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=22227","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge, Friday, September 6th, 2013"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Friday, September 6th, 2013…and here’s The Gouge!<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up, Michael Barone details an undeniable truth Liberals refuse to recognize:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Obama’s miscues on Syria diminish America’s standing in the world<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Obama’s version of the Three Stooges<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Blunder after blunder. That\u2019s been the story of Barack Obama\u2019s policy toward Syria. In April 2011, Obama said dictator Bashar Assad \u201chad to go.\u201d But he did little or nothing<\/em><\/span> to speed him on his way.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

At an Aug. 20, 2012, press conference, in campaign season, he was asked about Syria\u2019s chemical weapons and said \u201ca red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.\u201d On Aug. 21, 2013, a year and a day afterwards, chemical weapons were used in large quantities in the Damascus suburbs a 20-minute drive from United Nations inspectors.<\/p>\n

Last week all signs \u2014 strong statements by Secretary of State John Kerry, leaks of detailed military plans \u2014 indicated that Obama would soon order what he described as \u201ca shot across the bow.\u201d But on Saturday, Aug. 31, he announced that he would ask Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the use of military force \u2014 even though he believed he had authority to do it unilaterally.<\/strong> That means delay until Congress assembles Sept. 9 \u2014 time for Assad to put his military assets out of harm\u2019s way.<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

There are strong arguments for voting against a resolution, the exact wording of which is not established at this writing. Obama\u2019s \u201climited, tailored\u201d approach seems certain not to destroy Assad\u2019s chemical weapons and may well not deter him from using them.<\/span> And we have the president\u2019s word that he is not seeking \u201cregime change.\u201d<\/strong><\/span> And in the unlikely event that air strikes do<\/em><\/span> undermine the Assad regime, we have no assurance<\/em><\/span> that an alternative would be preferable<\/em><\/span><\/strong>.<\/strong><\/span> Al Qaeda sympathizers may gain the upper hand.<\/p>\n

\"5413369c-f567-11df-99d6-00144feab49a.img\"<\/a><\/p>\n

At the same time, there are strong arguments against a vote against a resolution. Undermining the power of even a feckless American president risks undermining the power of the presidency \u2014 and of America \u2014 for years. Crossing a president\u2019s \u201cred line,\u201d however improvidently drawn, should carry consequences, however limited.<\/p>\n

Many in Congress, and not just Republicans, surely resent being called upon to authorize an action which public opinion polls indicate is widely unpopular, particularly among the Independent voters who can determine election outcomes in many states and congressional districts. If a vote were taken this week, the resolution would be rejected \u2014 just as a similar resolution was, unexpectedly, rejected in the British House of Commons on Aug. 29.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Some Democrats want the resolution to strictly limit the president, while Republicans like Sen. John McCain want a broader permit that would allow for regime change. Presidents usually prevail on issues like this, where they can argue that national security is at stake, and the administration can probably round up enough votes in the Democratic-majority Senate. That will be much harder in the Republican-majority House. Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have both endorsed a resolution.<\/p>\n

But Boehner and Democrat Chris Van Hollen have both called this a conscience vote and said their parties will not whip the issue. The White House will have to do the hard work of rounding up the votes. At midweek the Washington Post listed only 17 House members favoring military action and 130 opposed or leaning against.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"6a00d8341c630a53ef012875a01896970c-300wi\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Most House Democrats voted against the Iraq war resolution in October 2002, when most voters favored it. Their party has dovish instincts going back to the Vietnam War and has been largely ignored by the administration since it lost its House majority in 2010.<\/p>\n

House Republicans, the object of Obama\u2019s continued denunciations and disdain, are not inclined to trust him at all.<\/strong><\/span> Many surely believe they\u2019re being set up as fall guys for a president whose chief political goal is regaining the House majority for Democrats in 2014.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

That suspicion was surely enhanced in Sweden on Wednesday when Obama said, \u201cI didn\u2019t set a red line. The world set a red line.\u201d<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong>But the world is not clamoring to enforce it. The only nation contemplating joining the United States in military action is France. That\u2019s 38 fewer allies than joined the United States after the supposed unilateralist George W. Bush, with congressional authorization, ordered troops into Iraq.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Former Bush administration official Elliott Abrams has argued that Obama\u2019s foreign policy is designed to restrain and reduce America\u2019s power in the world. The twists and turns of his policy toward Syria certainly seem to be having that effect.<\/p>\n

In a related item courtesy of George Lawlor, <\/strong>Commentary Magazine<\/em>‘s Peter Wehner suggests, quite accurately in our opinion, attempting to obfuscate his massive Syrian missteps have finally pushed The Great Prevaricator off the deep end:
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Stockholm, Obama Loses Touch with Reality<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

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

Most presidents, having presided over the Syrian debacle, would be chastened. But not the Great and Mighty Obama. He\u2019s decided to begin to rewrite history so that he emerges as the hero.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Consider what Mr. Obama, in Stockholm earlier today, said in response to a question about Syria:<\/p>\n

\n

First of all, I didn\u2019t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world\u2019s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent 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\u2019s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn\u2019t something I just kind of made up. I didn\u2019t pluck it out of thin air. There\u2019s a reason for it.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The president added this:<\/p>\n

\n

My credibility is not on the line. The international community\u2019s credibility is on the line and America and Congress\u2019s credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

So literally everyone else in the world is to blame except the president<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"aria_c11199120130905120100\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Mr. Obama appears to be suffering from a variation of what psychiatrists refer to as dissociation, which is characterized by everything from mild to severe detachment from reality and one\u2019s immediate surroundings.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In this particular case, the president seems to have dissociative amnesia, apparently having forgotten that a year ago last month he did, in fact, draw a red line.<\/strong> <\/span>(Note the use of the first-person pronouns by the president \u2014 \u201cThat\u00a0would change my calculus. That\u00a0would change my\u00a0equation.\u201d) The president may have forgotten, too, that he promised that crossing this red line would be a \u201cgame changer\u201d (it was not). That Assad had to go (Assad is still in power, stronger than before). That he promised to arm Syrian rebels (he hasn\u2019t). That his \u201ccoalition of the willing\u201d may include, if we\u2019re lucky, one other country besides America. And that on the matter of the Use of Force Resolution he was against going to Congress before he was for going to Congress.<\/p>\n

\"obama-smoked-marijuana-in-high-school\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The cause of Mr. Obama\u2019s dissociation appears to be the psychological trauma induced by his multi-year fiasco in Syria. And in order to cope, we are seeing signs of anger, petulance, and hero syndrome and, as is always the case with this president, blame shifting.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

On a slightly more serious note, Mr. Obama\u2019s presidency is being wrecked by reality. He\u2019s being exposed at every turn<\/em><\/span>, and in every crisis<\/em><\/span>, as inept<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> He can\u2019t handle that truth so he\u2019s trying to distort it<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span> There\u2019s something poignant and painful in watching Obama\u2019s presidency collapse and seeing what it\u2019s doing to the man who promised to repair the world and slow the rise of the oceans.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Not to mention immensely<\/em><\/span> satisfying.<\/strong><\/p>\n

As Conn Carroll notes in his Morning Examiner<\/em>…<\/strong><\/p>\n

…Who drew the red line is not<\/em><\/span> some esoteric question. It goes to the heart<\/span> of the Syria debate<\/em>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span> Are the interests of the United States served by bombing Syria, or is the real<\/em><\/span> purpose in bombing Syria to rehabilitate Obama’s credibility in the world?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

If a limited mission as Obama proposes somehow advanced legitimate U.S. national interests overseas, then it might be worth it. But the only thing to be accomplished by Obama’s approach is to help restore his tattered credibility.<\/span> And Obama’s credibility is not<\/span> synonymous with that of the United States<\/em>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Obama will not be president forever. America’s standing in the world suffered when Jimmy Carter was president. But Carter eventually left office.<\/span> So will Obama<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, remember those rebels Lurch and Tweedledumb…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"large\"<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

…continue to assure America are “moderates”?\u00a0 Howz this<\/em><\/span>…
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n