Aug 30 2013

Why Some Lame Ducks Are Dangerous

Published by at 11:18 am under All General Discussions

Update: Ed Morrissey catches a sad historic note on all this: Obama’s inexperience and an off-the-cuff comments seem to have the leader of the free world stuck on dangerous. Sorry, but the President should be able to fix a misstatement without going to war – end update

A lot of second term US President begin look to their legacy and what last gasps they can get past the normal headwinds that are generated when a President wins a second term. The challenge is to find something big to accomplish, before you become a lame duck.

But then there are times when you get a perfect storm, as we see with this President who has been lamed since 2010 when he lost Congress in a historic route.

Combined with this President’s inexperience, naivete and arrogance we have a dangerous mix converging with events brewing in the Middle East. President Obama is about to take a military action with no Congressional, Popular or International support. Think about that for a moment.

Is this really a Republic or a Democracy anymore? Or is it all about Obama?

Here is some background from the NY Times, and it does not bode well for our reckless Commander-in-Chief:

The negative vote in Britain’s Parliament was a heavy blow to Prime Minister David Cameron, who had pledged his support to Mr. Obama and called on lawmakers to endorse Britain’s involvement in a brief operation to punish the government of President Bashar al-Assad for apparently launching a deadly chemical weapons attack last week that killed hundreds.

The vote was also a setback for Mr. Obama, who, having given up hope of getting United Nations Security Council authorization for the strike, is struggling to assemble a coalition of allies against Syria.

But administration officials made clear that the eroding support would not deter Mr. Obama in deciding to go ahead with a strike.

And a new poll out indicates America is in no mood for Obama’s bullying arrogance:

In this new NBC poll, 50 percent of respondents oppose the United States taking military action in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, compared with 42 percent who support it.

However, those numbers flip when the military action is defined to mean launching cruise missiles from naval warships – 50 percent favor it, while 44 percent oppose it.

And 58 percent agree with the statement that the use of chemical weapons by any country violates a “red line” that requires a significant U.S. response, including the possibility of U.S. action.

Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.

H/T Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. The left (not surprisingly) is sinking into shock over Obama’s intentions to bomb Syrians:

When Barack Obama took office, the era of “dead or alive” foreign policy rhetoric was over. Even George W. Bush agreed this was a good idea.

Obama was going to be the polar opposite. He didn’t pop off.  He was measured in his mind, and his words would be, too. He told us as much in an early press conference. Ed Henry, then with CNN, wanted to know why the president was slow to get exercised about abuses at insurance giant AIG. The president snapped (by his standards): “It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.”

But on the eve of the U.S. attack on Syria, President Obama is hemmed in by his own rhetoric in a way that many, back in 2008, would have associated with Bush rather than the man who won the Nobel Peace Prize based mostly on the quality of his words rather than his accomplishments.

Obama’s ‘peace’ can be seen in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is keeping America’s drone industry running at top capacity the way he shoots them off.

I am not surprised at all at this turn of events. Obama is the epitome of the elite political class who divides the world into the masses and themselves. With themselves playing the role of error-free White Knight, wise beyond the ages.

It is a common mental sickness inside the beltway, one which has grown more sever over the 5 decades I have lived right next to the DC looney bin. And the result is always the same: recklessness backed up by stubborn arrogance.

There are flashing lights popping up everywhere concerning Libya, yet the President and his team keep running head on – apparently frustrated anyone still dares to question is wisdom. Israel and the Arab Middle East could easily implode if the right match is struck. The place is a cauldron of Napalm and Obama is planning on lighting a match to see what happens.

Obama is just beginning to succumb to the mental illness of Lame Duck desperation and impatience. It will get worse, with his panic deepening as his legacy lays in tatters and his time runs out.

While a cornered animal can be dangerous, the most powerful man on the planet who is running out of time – and who is incapable of leading coalitions to historic successes – is probably the most dangerous of human conditions. Obama has the potential to slip into dictatorial fits.  And Syria may be his tipping point.

5 responses so far

5 Responses to “Why Some Lame Ducks Are Dangerous”

  1. Redteam says:

    Very good assessment AJ. Obama is delirious and frantic and searching for the leadership Glory that Bush got for his coalition. He’ll never get it. He is desperate.

  2. Rick C says:

    Obama just considers himself so much more intelligent than ordinary mortals that he thinks he can appoint mediocre advisors and then ignore their advice. This is a continuing crisis of arrogance. He is a beta male trying to appear alpha.

  3. WWS says:

    They told me if I voted for John McCain, I’d have a president who bombed countries on shaky evidence without any coalition behind him or any authorization from Congress, all to appease his medieval sense of masculine honor, and they were right!

  4. WWS says:

    The reason people carry concealed weapons:

    “The game was called “point ’em out, knock ’em out,” and it was as random as it was brutal.

    The object: Target an innocent victim for no other reason than they are there, then sucker punch him or her.

    But on this day in Lansing, there would be no punch. The teen-age attacker had a stun gun. He did not know his would-be victim was carrying a legally concealed pistol.

    The teen lost the game.”

    (fyi, the teen wannabe gangsta didn’t die, but he did get a slug through the buttocks)

  5. AJStrata says:

    WWS, Your McCain comment is just too funny!