(Image by theplebrevolt.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/occupy-protestors-want-rich-americans-to-pay-for-obamas-drone-bombers/) Details DMCA
If dramatic reversal matters, Obama's legacy headline as our first minority president is fast fading. Not when this one-time peacenik, alleged war skeptic, and Nobel Prize Winner in his second term turns moralistic warmonger with a vengeance. By what drone-assassination illogic does Obama propose to deter lawless, poison gas attacks with what fellow-hawk, John McCain, dismisses as a "pinprick" strike? What top foreign policy pro worth his yellowcake wouldn't rail against this triumph of empty symbolism over strategy? With or without reams of warning shots.
In a revealing act of pathos and descent to the dark side, Obama now entreats McCain -- among our most discredited washouts, who never met a war he didn't like -- for political, if not military advice. By what reason does Obama the drone master turn crusading, high-risk bombardier? Is McCain, or Speaker Boehner, the redemptive venue by which Obama escapes his own rash mouthiness about "red lines" on poison gas?
Let me get this: our wariest, pragmatist-in-chief, the cautious-to-a-fault "devout non-ideologue," singles out Syria as the moral hill he wants to die. Then, displaying real class when pushed to win Congressional support, he declares in advance no commander-in-chief is beholden to representative government. Is the Obama bubble so thick no White House staffer dares mention the implicit and explicit, massive moral contradictions?
How can a poll-driven politician halfway to lame duckery, despite months of noise-making on Syria, start another war without having corralled backup? After all, only vast throngs of Americans refuse to touch Syria with an aluminum tube. Perhaps like Nixon, Obama has a secret, anti-gassing peace plan so undercover it's not yet born. At this rate Obama places Dubya's throne as reigning national nincompoop in some jeopardy.
Obombardier in Action
Further, there's a matching logical contradiction when "surgically" attacking an installed government the U.S. declares its enemy (without influencing the winner of the civil war). This enters the Bush-Cheney zone of audacity and delusion married to hypocrisy. How could this politician not realize that picking the wrong fight with the wrong tools turns any claimed moral high-ground into quick sand -- indeed, so loose even Britain won't come to our rescue?
Where was this sensitive moralist when judging not one demonstrable Bush-Cheney violation of law, if not the Constitutional, worthy of investigation to establish facts, let alone liability? Where was today's principled sage when caving to that half a loaf on decent medical care reform? Or the war critic not bothered by the morality of war or the violence of militarism, just unwinnable, "dumb wars" like Iraq? Where was Obama the righteous for years on gay marriage, way behind public opinion, legal decisions, and respect for minority rights? When did noble Obama advance minorities rights, for his immigration "morality" surpasses Dubya's by revving up deportations?
On gun control, Obama talked action but his trifling fixes are countless dollars short and infinite murders too late. On financial reform, this moralist scorned Main Street while defending criminal Wall Street bankers and mortgage hustlers. I don't berate this president for being no more moral than a fistful of predecessors (excepting Carter, looking better every month). But why does a seemingly amoral pragmatist comes out of his hard, non-ideological shell to moralize idiotically on Syria, compounded by bad timing and badly misreading the electorate?