maddogs hideaway

When it comes to President Obama’s prowess as commander in chief, “leading  from behind,” at this point, would be a step up.

Some believe that the United States should engage in military action in  foreign countries when America’s national interests or those of our allies are  at stake. Some believe we should rarely do so, perhaps only when we are under  attack. Some think we should actively export democracy to other nations, whether  or not our national security interests are currently on the line. And some, like  President Obama, are literally all over the map, a quagmire of incoherency.

In withdrawing their support for the war, wholly for political reasons,  Democrats made the preposterous claim that Bush, a man whose intellect they  accorded the respect of a medieval serf, had deceived them into supporting the  Iraq War resolution by false or hyped claims about weapons of mass  destruction.

It didn’t matter to them that investigations showed that Bush clearly hadn’t  manufactured, doctored or misrepresented the intelligence about WMD in Iraq or  that most of the world’s important intelligence agencies came to the same  conclusions as ours had. Nor did it matter that they had reviewed virtually the  same intelligence reports Bush had when they decided to support the war  resolution and that we mustered the support of much of the international  community.

When it was in their perceived political interests to support the war effort  and apparently too much time hadn’t passed since Sept. 11 to give them the  required cover, they supported it. But when they needed to undermine Bush’s  clout as a war president, they shamelessly changed their tune.

They started clamoring about the indispensability of an international  consensus before going to war. They were impervious to claims that Saddam  Hussein had brutalized his own people, including with the use of chemical  weapons. They went out of their way to deny any link between Saddam and the war  on terror and our enemies in that war. They were unmoved by Saddam’s violation  of countless United Nations resolutions.

Democrats trampled one another on the way to the podium to assert that  President Bush was a militaristic ogre who lied to get us into war. They  manufactured and broadcast wildly exaggerated and spuriously deceitful claims  about the deaths and damage America had inflicted in Iraq.

When he was running for president in 2008, Barack Obama strongly emphasized  these same criticisms of Bush and the Republicans. Under their leadership, the  world had lost its respect for us. Obama promised to change all this and make  America beloved in the world.

Based on their statements, we must conclude that Obama and his Democrats  abhor doublespeak from America’s commanders in chief and military interventions  that are not supported by the international community and are based on dubious  intelligence about weapons of mass destruction.

Yet after Obama’s disgraceful double talk concerning a “red line,” the  Democrats almost unanimously support Obama’s apparent decision to strike Syria  with or without congressional approval – despite there being a conspicuous  absence of any understandable foreign policy objective, no discernible national  interest at stake, unequivocal disapproval from the American people, little  support from the international community, questionable intelligence about the  chemical weapons and a substantial risk that the intervention could ignite major  disruption in the region, empower Islamic radicals hostile to the United States,  which seems to be the common denominator driving all his interventions, and  otherwise jeopardize America’s interests and those of our ally Israel.

The only reason anyone can figure for Obama’s deciding to bomb Syria is that  he believes he must do so to save face and credibility for having drawn a “red  line” against the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, a line he now says he  didn’t draw – as if he’ll enhance his credibility by denying he made a claim we  witnessed him making in no uncertain terms. He is now demeaning the very  international community he libelously accused Bush of alienating for not joining  us in this ill-considered action.

The left is all about opposing military interventions – when Republicans are  in power and our proposed intervention is truly in our national security  interests. Leftists are all about enlisting the support of the international  community when it suits their interests – and ignoring it when it doesn’t.  They’re adamant about the necessity of being 100 percent certain about our  intelligence data before acting militarily, except when they’re in charge. And  they’re all about plain-spoken words from the commander in chief, unless they  hold the presidency.

I could have sworn that President Obama and his party decried so-called  unilateralism when they falsely claimed Bush had engaged in it. But now they  enthusiastically embrace it when Obama is preparing to actually do it – acting  unilaterally with respect to both the legislative branch and the international  community.

Whether or not the entire international community loved President George W.  Bush, they respected him – to the extent that world leaders knew he meant what  he said. Obama has neither their love nor their respect.

It’s obvious he hasn’t a clue what he’s doing, but it’s just as obvious he’s  hellbent on doing it. What a pathetic mess.