Frisco sentiment by Bob Patterson
Democrats seem poised to embrace a San Francisco sentiment.
Americans are being duped by the cable experts into making two extremely dangerous assumptions. First they are expected to believe that the launching of Cruise missiles will be achieved with sucker punch efficiency and second that Syria will disregard any opportunity to use their "stand your ground" philosophy to foil the attack. Among all the hypotheticals, no one addresses the possibility that Syria may have access to weapons which could sink the American ships, the moment the first Cruise missile is launched. If that were to occur, the idea of an iron clad guarantee for preventing boots on the ground scenarios would immediately be rendered irrelevant and invalid. That, in turn, will lead the world to a nostalgic revival of the Bush era "no one could possibly have foreseen" line of reasoning, which always did seem a tad disingenuous.
After thirteen years and approximately a half a million words of criticism of George W. Bush's foreign policy, President Obama made it apparent that our efforts have been irrelevant and ridiculous because he will, if he continues with his plant to attack Syria, soon compel all Americans, not just good Bushies, to adhere to the Bush axiom that folks are either with the Bush Dynasty or they are with the Terrorists which could be deemed patriotism via blackmail.
President Obama seems poised to either: A. become a Bush clone or B. foil a neocon plan to resume the Bush master plan (which includes a new war in Syria) by some clever passive aggressive moves that will put the Republican Congress in a position where they must choose between ignoring public sentiment or giving Obama a chance to get off the hook by denying him a macho path to use American troops to save face. If they choose to let Obama off the hook, some Conservative analysts might interpret that as being an example of a humiliating vote of non confidence
If Obama is determined to become a Bush clone we will support whatever course the country is compelled to take, but, simultaneously, we will use our right to free speech to express disapproval and scorn for Obama the man in future columns. If, conversely, he is indulging in some high level game playing to let Congress take responsibility for making an attack or preventing the President from making such a move, we will endorse whatever the country does, but we will also use our right to free speech to blame Obama for maneuvering the country into a position of extreme vulnerability for being run by a man who will be scorned and ridiculed by Muslim culture countries which revere macho conduct and a patriarchal form of governance. Several columns may be needed to express our disapproval of such a poor foreign policy stance.
We submit to all readers both Republican and Democrats that President Obama should resign if he is repudiated by the vote in Congress. If he gets authority to attack Syria and uses it, he owes his supporters, campaign donors, and especially the people who voted for the man who offered an alternative to the Bush program a resignation for fraud and dishonorable conduct. The concept of conduct unbecoming for a politician is an oxymoron but it expresses the depth of his deception.
When we heard that President Obama was going to follow the Constitution and ask Congress for authority to deliver some of the old ultra-violence via some Cruise missiles, we hastily pulled out our 1965 copy of "Death in the Afternoon," and prepared to write a column comparing the Obama move to that of a bullfighter who fools the bull, but then as the new week began to unfold in Washington, we wondered if it was the Democrats who were going to experience the moment of truth. Later in the week, it seemed as if Obama might be the one to experience the moment of truth.
How will the Peaceniks in Berkeley, who were ebullient when Obama became the first American President of Pan-African heritage, respond to an invitation to attend a Support the Troops and Obama rally rather than any new anti-war protests?
Theoretically, by having a Democratic President take up the standard of the Bush Cheney foreign policy, it should mean that the last few holdouts to enthusiastic support of the Bush policy are compelled to make the change and unite the entire United States in the Bush camp, but there are some pragmatic considerations that might cause some problems.
Online some photos have been posted purporting to show American Troops objecting to providing support for Muslim rebels in Syria. Is this stealth racism? Would the troops be more enthusiastic if the Commander-in-Chief was a fellow named Bush?
If President Obama is sincere in his intention to lob some Cruise missiles into Syria and if he expects the World's Laziest Journalist to recant and renounce previous columns that had a cynical tone regarding the need for an invasion of Iraq, we will be glad to provide some very enthusiastic propaganda but only if we get some very impressively large paychecks. Otherwise, we will continue in our efforts to enjoy the right to free speech and voice some objections to the various gaps in Obama's logic that we notice.
The Obama move to get Congressional approval for an attack on Syria has restored our faith in cynicism.
When he appears before Congress to Testify, should Secretary of State John Kerry, make a subtle appeal to patriotism by wearing his military medals?
Some journalists have suggested that the Saudis might subsidize the costs of a missile strike against Syria. Could we have some lawyers look at the text of that vague verbal agreement to see if their offer covers any residual costs such as hospital care for wounded personnel or not? Will patriotic Republicans have some objections to turning the American Military into a de facto mercenary force?
Some Administration folks have made the absurd assertion that the use of missiles against Syria is not war. Didn't a famous Democratic President make the argument that when an attack was made on Pearl Harbor, a state of war existed?
Has any of President Obama's recent statements reminded his supporters of the dilemma faced by Captain Queeg's crew?
1 | 2