By war-footing, I mean – he’s desperately making phone calls to members of congress pushing his Syrian war plans while propping his bony foot up on the Resolute Desk.
Republicans are used to seeing this combative president on war footing – unfortunately, the usual targets of his blistering attacks are they themselves – not any foreign enemies. Obama, in fact, started out this year with an agenda to destroy the GOP as a national party. Now all of a sudden, he needs them to help him out of the corner he painted himself in. Yes indeed. The next couple of weeks should be interesting,.
“Check out Drudge Report pic of the President with his foot on the desk”, wrote Lou Dobbs on Twitter. “The White House released it mistakenly thinking it’s a cool image.”
Nick Searcy also weighed in:
When a lib/prog sees this picture, he/she thinks about how manly and forceful Obama looks. JUST THINK ABOUT THAT. pic.twitter.com/7dalLNbknT
— Yes, Nick Searcy! (@yesnicksearcy) September 1, 2013
Lot’s of people are offended by Obama constantly putting his feet on the White House furniture.
Yes, yes – I know other presidents did it, too.
But perhaps not as much as this current one.
VDH, PJ Media: Obama Indicts Obama:
One of the problems that Barack Obama has in mounting an attack against the Assad regime is that the gambit violates every argument Barack Obama used against the Bush administration to establish his own anti-war candidacy.The hypocrisy is so stunning that it infuriates his critics and stuns his supporters.
Deriding the Iraq war was Obama’s signature selling point. He used it to great effect against both Hillary Clinton (who voted for the war) in the Democratic primaries and John McCain in the general election. For the last five years, disparagement of “Iraq” and “Bush” has seemed to intrude into almost every sentence the president utters.
And now? His sudden pro-war stance makes a number of hypocritical assumptions. First, the U.S. president can attack a sovereign nation without authorization from Congress (unlike the Iraq war when George W. Bush obtained authorization from both houses of Congress). Even if Obama gets a no vote, he said that he reserves the right to strike.
Second, Obama assumes that the U.S. must go it alone and attack unilaterally (unlike the coalition of the willing of some 40 nations that joined us in Iraq).
Third, it is unnecessary even to approach the UN (unlike Iraq when the Bush administration desperately sought UN support).
Fourth, the U.S. president must make a judgment call on the likelihood of WMD use, which is grounds ipso facto to go to war (unlike Iraq when the vast majority of the 23 congressionally authorized writs had nothing to do with WMD [e.g., genocide of the Marsh Arabs and Kurds, bounties to suicide bombers, harboring of international terrorists, violations of UN agreements, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, etc.]).
So review for a moment the Old Obama case against the New Obama.
Keep reading at the link.
Zero Hedge: And Now, It’s Golfing Time (Or Putin +1, Obama 0):
After bringing the world to the edge of WWIII and nearly giving the first order to launch the ironically named Patriot missile, then dramatically punting in the very last second whether to invade Syria to Congress, something he should have done from the every beginning, Obama went on to do what he does best.
Politico explains:Right after shipping responsibility for authorizing an attack on Syria, President Barack Obama returned to his comfort zone: The golf course.
Obama’s motorcade left the White House at 2:30 p.m., about 30 minutes after completing his statement.
Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are playing at Fort Belvoir, Va., along with White House trip director Marvin Nicholson and Walter Nicholson, according to the White House.
And so after last month’s Snowden humiliation, Russia’s Putin just schooled the US golfer-in-chief again. Although, was there ever any doubt?
What is being reported in Germany – Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten: Historical disgrace: the U.S. military mutiny forced Obama to retreat:
The Washington Post reported that up to a simple soldier could hardly recognize the benefits promoted by the Obama military action of the four-star generals.
The Post reports that the soldiers especially lacking a clear strategy, because what would happen after the planned military strikes. Many U.S. soldiers have had bad experiences with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. First of them heroic goals were promised. But no sooner were the interventions in transition, the troops were sent into always new adventures. In both cases there was no exit strategy. The announcements to withdraw from the battle zones were contradictory and retreated to the length.
In the case of Syria, it is not Obama managed to convince the military sense of a military operation.
So far, the U.S. military has always publicly silent and obey the orders of the military-political leadership. The basis for most applications, it was the president managed to convince the soldiers believe that the particular use of “national security” serve.
Even in the case of Syria, Obama tried this term.
But his own soldiers did not believe him.
Even more embarrassing for Obama: Most of the officers and soldiers have a much clearer view of reality as its president and commander in chief.