Free Markets, Free People

Arrogance, ignorance, incompetence and narcissism all in one package … lucky us

And I bet you don’t even have to guess about whom I am talking:

David Petraeus testified last month to the Senate Armed Services Committee on U.S. policy in the Middle East. Regarding Syria, the former general and CIA director urged a credible threat to destroy Bashar Assad’s air force if it continues to bomb its own people. He also recommended “the establishment of enclaves in Syria protected by coalition air power, where a moderate Sunni force could be supported and where additional forces could be trained, internally displaced persons could find refuge, and the Syrian opposition could organize.”

But Barack Obama does not agree. At his Friday press conference, the president described such views as “mumbo-jumbo,” “half-baked ideas,” “as-if” solutions, a willful effort to “downplay the challenges involved in the situation.” He says the critics have no answers to the questions of “what exactly would you do and how would you fund it and how would you sustain it.”

America’s greatest living general might as well have been testifying to his shower drain for all the difference his views are going to make in this administration.

Exactly right – because, you know, ‘smartest man in the room’ and don’t you forget it.  Anyone who champions actual, practical and doable solutions is, well, “downplaying the challenges” of the situation.

Really?  Seems to me that Petraeus addressed them specifically and offered solutions.

One problem.  They would actually mean Obama would have to get off his duff and actually DO something.


It’s not enough for him to stake and defend his positions. He wants you to know that he thinks deeper, sees further, knows better, operates from a purer motive. His preferred method for dealing with disagreement is denigration. If Republicans want a tougher line in Syria, they’re warmongers. If Hillary Clinton thinks a no-fly zone is a good idea, she’s playing politics: “There is obviously a difference,” the president tut-tutted about his former secretary of state’s position, “between running for president and being president.”

You can interpret that jab as a sign Mr. Obama is urging Joe Biden to run. It’s also a reminder that Mr. Obama believes his Syria policy—the one that did nothing as 250,000 people were murdered; the one that did nothing as his own red lines were crossed; the one that allowed ISIS to flourish; the one that has created the greatest refugee crisis of the 21st century; the one currently being exploited by Russia and Iran for geopolitical advantage—is a success.

No kidding.  And the arrogant look he has for those who disagree is simply the bomb.  He, and I don’t know how else to describe this, ignorantly and arrogantly thinks he’s doing the right thing and actually succeeding.  Either that or he is indeed the smartest man in the room only when the room is empty of everyone else.

For instance, the Petraeus recommendations are not only good, they’re backed by experience and a good outcome:

As for what a serious Syria policy might look like, the U.S. proved it was capable of creating safe havens and enforcing no-fly zones in 1991 with Operation Provide Comfort, which stopped Saddam Hussein from massacring Kurds in northern Iraq the way he had butchered Shiites in southern Iraq.

Remember that?

And what has President Dither done?  Well, certainly nothing that could be conceivably considered a coherent policy by anyone but a sycophant. In fact, unless you consider doing nothing a “policy”, well, he’s done nothing.

But he knows best, because “there’s a difference” between “running for President and being President.”

In terms of this Presidency, I fail to see the difference.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

14 Responses to Arrogance, ignorance, incompetence and narcissism all in one package … lucky us

  • For Petraeus’s policies to work we’d have to have a President who’d already previously a heart to heart with Putin and let him know we wouldn’t tolerate any (x) or any more (x) from Russia, instead of one that assured him he’d have more flexibility in his last term in office.

    As it is now while we are easily capable of blowing the Syrian Air Force out of the sky, we can’t blow the Syrian Air Force out of the sky because….Russia.
    No fly zones and all that work when we’re not squaring off against another nuclear armed opponent who’s decided to take a direct hand in the proxy war on the side opposite ours.
    We can’t establish no fly zones as of last week, unless we want to play some very hard ball with Russia and there is no way that President Precious is going to do that.

    For years I’ve been saying our battleship diplomacy has worked because when we rolled up and blasted tents, goats and camels with our big guns there wasn’t much the 3rd worlders could do right off the bat to stop us.
    Obama has ensured through (pick from the list of everything true about him itemized above, and they’re ALL true…) – that the Russians are going to pee in his Cheerios, at the table, in front of the world and they expect Obama and his coterie will proclaim that the Russians fell into our clever trap even as he spoons the yellow milk up to his lips.

    They’re not afraid of him, or anything he might do. He’s the paper tiger that Mao used to talk about, made out of tissue paper.

  • As I said before, you can’t blame Obama because he did nothing

    • Sometimes doing nothing is the best option. Maybe not a good option, but the lesser of evils.

      • See “refugee” problem now plaguing Europe and soon to find its way here. The wages of doing “nothing”.

        And, the no-fly zone isn’t something new … like pointed out in the article, its been done very successfully before. That’s how the Kurds were able to gather their strength and resist Saddam’s adventures in their area. Same point about Syria and the opposition we were supposedly trying to train.

        • The Russians have set out a very unmistakable “no-fly” zone in Syria. Their sophisticated air-defense systems are not for ISIS. They are for US.

          • Well then I doubt they’ll ever have to use them.

            I expect our over-flights will be short lived as Secretary Unbelievably Small brilliantly negotiates a cooperative plan with the Russians and gives Russia the go-ahead to air strike and ground attack ‘rebels’ in Syria east of Latakia while we are tasked with destroying all ISIS forces to the west of it.

            They’re already shadowing our Predators with manned aircraft though.

            Part of the deal will be to give him and the President nice new Ushanka good luck hats at Christmas.

        • The European refugee problem is a problem created by the Europeans. Had they not decided to open their borders and welfare rolls to all comers there would be no problem. War, oppression, and poverty in the Middle East is not a problem exclusive to the Obama era. What *is* recent is the option for the people affected to move en masse to and within Europe.

          • Particularly “to”. Their lofty idealist overloads in the EU have created this mess for Europe and probably pride themselves on it since they are great people and someone else handles the mess. Likely will help facilitate the EU’s end.

  • I hate to day it, but I lean towards what the article says is Obama’s positions.

    First of all,
    “There is obviously a difference,” the president tut-tutted about his former secretary of state’s position, “between running for president and being president.”

    Obama is not the first person or President to say that, and it is still true even if Obama says it.

    Next, why should we care if Assad bombs his own people? North Korea does worse, yet no one is seeking to interfere there. What is Petraeus’s position on that?

    “..a moderate Sunni force could be supported and where additional forces could be trained, i…”

    Is Petraeus seriously recommending that we take sides in the Shia vs. Sunni feud? Who is going to protect these areas? Air power alone? He cannot actually believe they can protect themselves. How is all that training and equipping and air striking working in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    • Additional problem – the defending side has to have a basic desire to defend itself, as the Kurds do.
      People, and by this I mean the hoards of suitably aged young men fleeing to Europe, have to see a reason to defend their homes.
      These guys have no particular desire to defend the s*holes they live in on behalf of Bashar Assad.

      • You could have omitted the last five words, since many if not most of the migrants come from Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

        • In this case I should have said I was specifically thinking of the Syrian males fleeing Syria rather than the overall problem Europe has being the terminus for the great Islamic refugee ‘crusade’.

          All s*holes are still s*holes but that has as much to do with the people fleeing from the s*holes as it does their governments.
          After all, they ARE the ones who get the government they elect to keep.
          That’s why it’s so great to have all these refugees and ‘immigrants’ from all over so they can come to places that aren’t s*holes yet, and bring their customs and cultures with them and spread the s*holiness to the 1st world.

          I’m tired of our biggest problems being that we can’t get the latest iPhone the day it’s released instead of having to worry about contracting diseases we’d thought we conquered. Or learning and accepting cultures and customs that are just slightly newer than ones familiar to Thomas Aquinas.
          I look forward to the inevitable collision between progressives and the third world hells their liberal open mindedness will create right here for us at home.

  • More from our humble, self-effacing president
    “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.” (an interview with The New Yorker in November 2008.)

    And, after his first election, when the GOP came to talk with him, he replied “I won” and left. Not “We won”.