The Wall Street Journal published an editorial this morning entitled "The Nuclear Illusionist." It ran this Mary Poppins style picture I show here.
"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."
"So declared President Obama Sunday in Prague regarding North Korea's missile launch, which America's U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice added was a direct violation of U.N. resolutions. At which point, the Security Council spent hours debating its nonresponse, thus proving to nuclear proliferators everywhere that rules aren't binding, violations won't be punished, and words of warning mean nothing." (WSJ)
__________________________________________________
What is going on? We get the eloquent straight-forward rhetoric on the one hand and the facts on the other hand. The two could not be more contradictory.
This is a clear example of the rule that I've come to follow in relation to Obama:
If Obama says A, it means non-A.
So why does he speak one way and do another? Is he just a carefree child in a Mary Poppins world who plays with words like supercalifragilisticexpialidocious to see how they, and thus he, can create an effect? Are they "just words" for which he has no purpose for them in reality to which they refer? Or does he intend to create an effect and think we will be so taken with his theater that we will never hold him to account for the actual results?
Or is their something sinister behind lil' ol' innocent Barock?
Except for gaining the Presidency, which he did masterfully if you consider it an isolated phenomenon, the only other thing he has used his political offices for is the destruction of existing legal structures, institutions or people. I don't see that he cares whether his programs work. Apparently, never has he cared about his results which are strewn as wreckage behind him.
His mind is completely anti-conceptual and I'm persuaded he doesn't even have a Self. Were it not for adulation, he would evaporate into the ether. If there is a there there, where is it?
And what does this say about those that still think he cares about them or the country? Would a man of self esteem, the head of the greatest country on earth in terms of its vision for political life that sought to free all men to live the life they could envision bow to another leader or would he stand proudly for who he is and who he represents?
1 comment:
He means it...if it works. If it doesn't work, well then he was taken out of context.
The problem here is that he is backing himself into a corner where he has to take unilateral action or appear weak. The Chinese won't help. They're mad about the declining dollar that they are so heavily invested in...and they may even get mad if Obama acts unilaterally.
And if he does act unilaterally, isn't he guilty of a "go it alone" strategy for which he criticized Bush? Isn't he being arrogant and dismissive of the world community? I thought he was the guy who was not going to do anything without support from them. Where is the world community now?
If he acts unilaterally, will the media say he is courageous or that he lied during the election? Depends on which media you are talking about. The "Camelot" crowd will praise his pragmatism to high heaven and his courage and strategic acumen; while the Fox News crowd will wonder about the contradiction.
Post a Comment