Of "The One" and his Straw Men

I noted in Humorous Picture/Caption of the Week that the DiploMad had returned from hiatus.  Also seldom seen of late, though not as thoroughly invisible, was Beldar.

Beldar seems to have taken inspiration from the President’s adventure in Libya, and has had quite a lot to say of late.  Most recently he has taken to the demolition of the President’s favorite rhetorical crutch: the straw man argument.

Regarding our POTUS, and the portion of the American public which
absolutely insists that we “go it alone” and “bear all the burden

My eye keeps being drawn back to one particularly gutless, dishonest sentence in Obama’s speech from last night:

Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not
simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden

Leave aside that both Bush-41 and Bush-43 assembled broader
international coalitions in 1990-1991, 2001, and 2003. Tell us, Mr.
President, who these people are! Who exactly are the “some” who “claim” that American leadership is
“a matter of going it alone and bearing all the burden ourselves”?
Point to one such person, so we can join you in mocking him or her, and
thank you properly for saving us from such misguided views!

But it is effectively a null set: There is no such “some.”

I am something of a unilateralist when it comes to the Foreign Policy, and especially the military aspects of Foreign Policy, of the United States myself.  But there is a considerable difference between a willingness to go it alone if that is what it takes to accomplish our Foreign Policy goals, and an active desire to eschew such assistance as can be found in a “coalition of the willing.”

Oddly (or not) enough, when the United States does express a firm and credible resolve to address such an issue, a lot of countries will join us in achieving resolution for such issues.

What I am absolutely opposed to is giving well known global bad actors and former great powers with delusions of competence an effective veto power over our use of Armed Force as required in the furtherance of our vital National Interests,

Our POTUS fabricates imaginary straw-men as reflexively as
he breathes — not just when speaking off the cuff or on the stump, but
in prepared, polished speeches with the entire world as his audience.
The only way he can seem reasonable or competent is in comparison to fictional fiends who do not exist, so he makes them up.

He does this over and over again, and no reporter has the guts to say
to his face: “Would you please name one person, Mr. President, who’s
claimed that we should, quote, ‘go it alone,’ unquote? Or who’s claimed
that we should, quote ‘bear the entire burden,’ unquote?” How are those
possibly not legitimate questions? Jake Tapper? Anyone?

Indeed not, but then again the MSM has gone all in with their “journalistic credibility” as regards the Obama campaign and the Obama Administration.

Barack Obama simply is not an honest man, even by the loose standards to which we unfortunately tend to hold our politicians.

And water will surely wet us, and fire will surely burn us.

Someone please tell me what the Obama Doctrine is as regards the Foreign Policy of the United States.  Someone please explain to me the Vital National Interests which Obama will defend.  He sure as hell has not done so.

Beldar has a lot more to say, and I commend it to you.

UPDATE: Charlie Martin of the PJ Tatler has the answer to my question above:

Finally, a clear statement of the Obama doctrine:

Two rules:

  1. No matter what happens, Obama can’t be blamed.
  2. If something good happens, Obama can take the credit.

I wish I didn’t believe that to be an accurate summation of the Obama Doctine…


Bryan Preston, also of the PJ Tatler disagrees:

The Obama Doctrine is…

that there is no Obama Doctrine.

“I think it’s important not to take this particular
situation and then try to project some sort of ‘Obama doctrine’ that
we’re going to apply in a cookie-cutter fashion across the board.”

That may be the clearest sentence we’ve gotten out of this president since he took office.

I’ve just had an epiphany. Barack Obama has spent so many years being
cagey about what he really believes, trying to appear moderate to one
crowd and at the same time signaling to his lefty community organizer
allies that he’s really one of them, that he’s no longer able to tell a
straight, simple truth about what he actually thinks. He never wants to
say anything that would allow anyone in any faction to box him in
definitively. That makes it easy to play to different segments of the
voting public, but it makes for one seriously confusing commander. Which
is what we’re getting in Libya.

Which may not be in conflict with Charlie and I after all…

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bill Maher's obsession with Sarah Palin reaches new low
Great Style, Little Substance