There are some days when writing on what the Muslim in Chief does or says is like winning Wily Wonka’s golden ticket. Like, Obama says something obviously ludicrous that it’s like swimming in that rover of chocolate, you’re just surrounded by rich, overflowing, hilarity thanks to good ‘ol Barry. Then, I remember that “good ‘ol Barry” is the elected President of the United States and whatever he says is pretty much immediately official policy and will be acted upon.
Thus endith the hilarity.
Never more have I felt that intellectual whiplash then reading Obama’s doubling down on his defense of Islam instead of leading the support against it in the wake of Paris. As Jihadwatch.org reported, on Monday, Obama was given a golden opportunity to save himself (and America’s reputation) from the repercussions of his initial “please consider the poor Muslims” comments just minutes after ISIS laid waste to the City of Lights. Needless to say, America’s First Diplomat decided to elaborate on his wisdom rather than course correct.
“Some of [my critics] seen to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that it would make a difference… What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever slogans they come up with that has no relationship….[to protecting] the American people and to protecting people in the region.”
That Presidential comment was in response to a question about if refusing to lead in meaningful military action makes America look weak. Do you seen what I mean about his comments being simultaneously hysterical and depressing? If this were someone whose ideas didn’t shape and guide U.S. policy this article would be self-writing comedy. Instead, it’s a sharp kick in the gonads of every liberty-loving human in the world. First off, let’s not forget the fact that nothing in Obama’s response is a direct response to the question, unless he’s making a circuitous admission that military action equals protecting Americans. His last line shouldn’t escape anyone’s attention either. It begs explanation as to why the safety of “people in the region”, presumably Muslim migrants, deserve the same level of oversight from an American President that the American people do. A certain man holding the same office dropped two Atomic bombs to defeat a threatening enemy and saved tens of thousands of America – and Allie- lives by doing so.
Essentially, the President is beyond such non-Utopian concepts like “leadership” and “winning”. Give him credit for using a great “Words With Friends” term to throw such “bellicose” Neanderthals under the bus. On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh asked the $64,000 question, “If America winning doesn’t have any relationship to what’s gonna work, then what the hell are we working on? What’s the Point?”
A new America that borrows only old America’s name and nothing else, Mr. Limbaugh. That’s the point. The President all but acknowledged that military action would defeat the threat of Islamic terrorists when he chose to respond to why America isn’t loading up by admitting he isn’t interested in notions of winning. Hell, even CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour, not the most right-wing source, wondered why the President dismissed military action- “the only strategy that’s working”.
The only answer that fits is that the President has a strangely different definition of winning than the American people.