Putin vs. Obama: no contest
Go to Drudge today and you’ll see plenty of links that cover Putin’s actions in Syria. Or go to Memeorandum, paying particular attention to this article:
…Putin sees a necessity in humiliating the United States. That’s business. And yet, despite Putin’s obviousness, the White House team and its acolytes publicly scratch their heads and other body parts, saying, “We’re not certain what the Russians intend.”
So let’s help them. Here are Putin’s clear strategic goals:
In the short term, rescue the failing regime of Russia’s ally, Syria’s blood-drenched President Bashar al-Assad. And in doing so, eliminate all opposition groups except ISIS, leaving the United States, Europe and the world with the stark choice of “Assad or Islamic State?”
In the mid-term, create a fait accompli, irreversible circumstances, on the ground in the Middle East (and in Ukraine) that will defeat the next US president even before he takes office.
We come back to the old “fool vs. knave” debate, in the sense of asking this question: is Obama really humiliated? Or, rather does he acquiesce in his own humiliation and consider it a small price to pay to achieve the goal of humiliating—and disempowering—the United States?
I think the latter, although the particular public form it is taking right now confers a bit more personal humiliation than he bargained for. As for his lackeys—such as Kerry—I’m not even sure they’re aware that they’re being humiliated.
But there’s this:
The attacks came despite President Barack Obama sitting down with Russia’s Vladimir Putin on Monday at the United Nations for 90 minutes of what both camps called “business-like” talks.
One week ago, Kerry — despite being in frequent contact with Lavrov — told reporters that Russia’s deployment of war planes was consistent with their only defending their own base.
And just hours before the strikes began he appeared on CNN to say that Russia’s involvement could be an “opportunity” to persuade them to apply pressure on Assad to moderate his behavior.
[NOTE: All those conservatives who refused to vote for Romney in 2012—happy now?]
[ADDENDUM: More here on Putin and Obama in Syria.]
My bet is that BHO is way past his personal humiliation threshold.
So I wouldn’t bet on Barry meeting Putin, personally, from this point forward. Kerry will have to roll that dung.
BTW, ALL of the anti-Assad forces are connected to al Qaeda.
The MSM is hiding this obvious fact by pulling a Winston Smith.
ISIS split off from al Nusrah a few years back. The split was brokered by Dr. Zawahiri — in the role of marriage counsellor. His missives fell on hard hearts.
The real reason that al Nusrah is not attacking ISIS is because D. Zawahiri has long brokered a mutual respect pact.
The MSM is (actively) hiding BHO’s strategic policy of enabling al Qaeda in Syria. For no media entity could be stupid enough to be blind by accident.
You can thumb through the split by scrolling threw the record at the Long War Journal.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/
Al Qaeda brigade claims attack on Russian forces in Syria
US-backed rebels handed over equipment to al Qaeda in Syria
And so forth.
There is absolutely no-one for the West to support in Syria — even now. Putin knows this, and has been going batty looking at the bizarro strategy of boy Barry.
The USAF bombing campaign against ISIS has been a hen pecking affair – from the first – without serious intent.
blert:
I agree that there are nothing but bad choices in Syria.
I wrote as much at the beginning of the conflict, and I still see it that way now. I’ve said it right along.
That said, though, Obama has handled it about as badly as possible. Fake bluster. Fake diplomacy.
How do we know that Obama didn’t tell Putin on Monday to go right ahead? If the idea is to bring down the US, then they are both working towards the same goal. After all, he did tel the Russian ambassador that he would have much more flexibility in the second term.
“Obama has handled it about as badly as possible. Fake bluster. Fake diplomacy.”
That sums up the Obama international policy as succinctly as it can be done. The only thing I would add is two names: Hillary and Kerry. They are complicit, either through ignorance or incompetence. Or political machination. Those three are destroying America. I look forward to the moment when enough Democrat Congress people come to this realization that they will agree to impeach and convict all three.
physicsguy:
That’s what I was implying when I wrote this sentence: “Or, rather does he acquiesce in his own humiliation and consider it a small price to pay to achieve the goal of humiliating–and disempowering–the United States?”
F:
For Hillary, it was personal ambition; she thought the SOS job would burnish her resume, and that cooperating with Obama was worth it. Whether or not she always agreed with what he was doing (and I don’t think she ALWAYS did), she was willing to do it for the years she worked at that job.
For Kerry it’s different. He’s been on the same page as Obama since his youth and jump to fame in the early 70s. He’s been ridng the “America stinks and she must pay” horse for a long, long time. He’s a very willing participant. And of course, personal ambition is a huge mover for him, too. But there is no conflict between his conscience and his ambition in becoming Obama’s tool for all of this.
Let me add that it will be a long, long wait (perhaps forever) before Democrats would acquiesce in doing what you suggest to them.
Neo and physicsguy:
The question, often repeated, “What would Obama do differently if he wanted to bring America down?”, has always had a clear answer for me. Nothing. I’m still amazed at the number of conservatives (especially in the media) that think this President loves America.
A new UN classic:
Netanyahu glares at U.N. for 45 seconds after berating its silence on Iran threat to Israel
Nice theatrics ….
The citizenry failed to humiliate bho with a landslide loss in 2012. Nothing else could humiliate the supreme narcissist. His policy with regard to the JV jihadists is not serious and probably absorbs very little of his attention. He is far more interested in shackling our economy with climate change regulations and making sure bruce/caitlyn has a safe place to pee.
Dear leader could invite the MSM into the White House to show them his collection of aborted baby body parts, and the response would be talking heads marveling at his fascinating hobby. And, he knows this is true.
Maybe Barack or Susan Rice could answer some questions.
I would note, Neo, that solely due to your persuasive arguments and posts at the time, I did come ’round to support Romney in ’12 lol. I ended up admiring him on the personal level.
But …he lost. That is not a ringing endorsement for him to consider running again.
davisbr:
I’m glad you did. You did what you could to prevent this from happening.
You may or may not have noticed that I wrote, back when it was reported that Romney was thinking of running again this time, that I did not think he should enter the race in 2016. I still think that.
And I still think he would have made an excellent president. Revisiting that “the 80s are calling” moment from the third debate in 2012 is poignant and painful, increasingly so.
Sounds like a re-make of the Vichy government; well we allowed the Nazi’s to take Paris because they were going to do it anyway.
As to Mitt Romney running, I can’t help but think that “I told you so!” and “So far, I’ve been right about everything!” would be convincing campaign slogans.
Kerry and Power did not attend Netanyahu’s speech at the UN. What are they busy doing that they couldn’t find the time? Shameless, awful people.
AMartel:
They are busy snubbing him, that’s what they’re busy doing.
Although I must say they probably really DO have their hands full with the fruits of this administration’s efforts and their own cooperation in bringing about said fruits.
Levin just said that President “Let No Innocent Person Escape” Hussein had Nothing on his WH schedule for today: a mid-morning briefing with Plagiarizin’ Joe Biden and some meeting in the mid-afternoon. Because it’s not like there’s anything Serious going on in the world.
So he had all kinds of time to work on attacking American citizens’ civil rights in his gonzo address to the nation this evening. What a ______ [your epithet here].
Well that’s a good point to consider, but one has to wonder why bother with public humiliation at all?
He could accomplish all of the things he’s accomplished in diminishing the USA’s influence without all of fanfare. A simple and quiet withdrawal from the ME, allowing whoever to fill in the vacuum would have been just as effective, except he wouldn’t have had to make fool of himself by drawing redlines in the sand, backing and celebrating the wrong regimes that end up getting overthrown, and so forth.
I don’t deny B.O.’s utter contempt for the US, or that he tried to take the US down a few notches, but I don’t accept his narcissism wasn’t also behind his humiliation. I believe he attempted to orchestrate HIS version of wrecking US influence and power, and it blew up in his face. However , his bungling about accomplished the same goal – and he may be ok with the outcome, but I don’t accept he’s happy about the public beatdown to his ego, or that he looks like a dunce on the world stage, or that Putin has played him like a fiddle.
Furthermore, I doubt history will remember him for his role in reeling in the terrible US, but they will remember him as the person who watched as the ME descended into anarchy while promoting the Muslim Brotherhood and other dubious organizations who massaged his sophomoric world view.
starlord:
No one is suggesting he’s happy about the blow to his ego. In fact, I suggested it may be more humiliation than he bargained for, but that he has wanted the US humiliated rather than himself.
The greatest danger to America and the world is Obama. If Putin brings him down a peg, the whole word will be better off.
This is what happens when you elect an America-hating ideologue who never worked in his life to be president. Twice.
There is hell to pay and it is being paid.
“All those conservatives…”
Again, Obama’s second term HAD TO HAPPEN. That was the only way his IDEOLOGY and SUPPORTERS could be discredited.
Obama will be gone in 18 months, but we will have to live with his moronic, sycophantic supporters for a good deal longer. It would be nice if they were chastened for a while.
Not that we’re counting but its 15 months.
Perhaps the longest 15 months in American history.
I’m still amazed at the number of conservatives (especially in the media) that think this President loves America.
There’s a name for those kind of people now, cuckservatives.
Mike,
Obama is not being brought down a peg. The Office of the President he occupies and the nation he guides is losing, but Obama the activist is winning in a runaway.
Obama the individual man is not the “greatest danger”. He’s neither center of gravity nor head of snake. Obama is merely avatar and agent of a social cultural/political movement. Inasmuch he is a head, he’s a head of a hydra.
Interpreting events as a scoreboard for Obama is an error. The greater social cultural/political movement of which Obama is part must be defeated. That movement, fed and exploited by Putin, is winning.
Activists are system thinkers. They draw their ego gratification from reprogramming the culture and rewiring the community. Pursuant the movement, Obama set about remaking US foreign policy and irreversibly breaking US-led world order. He knows the alternatives. What may look like personal humiliation for Obama is merely an acceptable cost of business. As much as the cost is borne by the Office of the President rather than Obama the activist, there’s a chance it’s not considered a cost to him at all.
Matt_SE,
The genuine ‘Scoop Jackson‘ Democrats – the “loyal opposition” – have been purged, contained, and/or marginalized by the Left. The current leading Democrats aren’t necessarily each and every one a zealous Left activist, but they are at least pragmatic conformists who only need and want a narrative to rationalize and belong. They’re not chastened.
Ymarsakar,
The ideas and ideologies of mainstream conservatives, derided now as cuckservatives, are fine and, generally speaking, good for the nation.
Their fundamental flaw is their shortfall in actually competing to establish social dominance of their preferred culture and politics.
Participatory politics are more than electoral politics. Yet “mainstream” conservatives doggedly refuse to expand beyond their comfort zone in order to collectively do what’s necessary to compete in the activist game. If they don’t evolve to compete for real as activists, their movement such as it is will be replaced by willing and hungry activists in the social evolutionary arena.
davisbr: “But …he lost.”
The 2012 defeat wasn’t primarily Romney’s fault nor even the GOP’s fault.
Republicans can compete with Democrats within the confines of electoral politics. Republicans cannot compete with the Left on the greater activist plane. Only the Right can counter the Left.
Yet the Right insists on assigning their greater responsibility to counter the Left on the activist plane to the GOP that’s limited to the electoral subset, then blames the GOP for the foreseeable consequences, such as Romney’s defeat in 2012, of the Right shirking their responsibility on the greater activist plane.
I wonder how many foreign propagandists who promoted American defeat in the global arena to partisan Americans in terms of anti-Bush are now promoting American defeat to other partisan Americans in terms of anti-Obama.
Eric…
Of course those three witches are still stirring, ever stirring, their agitprop.