You really wish you had the credentials and clearance to attend a White House press conference, indoors or in the Rose Garden, and have the chance to pose this question to President Barack Obama: "Sir: Why don’t you just go on an extended golfing tour for the rest of your term, and leave the country alone? And, the world, too. You might be able to improve your par."
Barring that, one could just toss a rotten egg at him. Or an over-ripe tomato. If you couldn't get the egg or the tomato passed security, you could sacrifice one of your shoes. I don’t think the White House Press Corps shows up barefooted, leaving their footwear in a TSA-style Secret Service bin. You would look silly hobbling out of the press conference in handcuffs, but you will have asked your question, or made your point one way or another.
Whatever you threw at him – the question, the egg, the tomato, or the shoe – Obama just might get the point. Or he may not. Chances are that he wouldn't get it, because he is truth-proof. Reality is optional for him. It is whatever he wishes it to be, and we mustn't corner him with inconvenient questions, or shower him with expiration-dated foodstuffs.
Let's take Syria, and President Bashar Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons. Obama has a "high confidence" that Assad used them. Translated, "high confidence" means a percentile of certainty, and not absolute certainty, based on circumstantial evidence that someone used chemical weapons, because there are bodies to prove it. However, a "high confidence," in colloquial terms, simply means a "hunch" that Assad used them and not Syrian "rebels" using captured chemical weapons from Iraq. Or from Benghazi. Or from a Mexican drug cartel. Not evidence.
It would be easy to claim that Obama errs. Obama does not "err." He is not handicapped by an epistemological cataract that prevents him from seeing the truth or that blurs it in a murky mist. The truth is irrelevant to him when it contradicts his wishes. He wishes it to be true that Assad used chemical weapons on Syrians. This will justify his ordering military action against Assad.
His behavior over Syria has been Obama's characteristic leitmotif throughout his entire presidential tenure. His eyes are wide open and he knows what he is doing. On his side are the news media to help him put the falsehoods across as truths. Against him is the truth.
Contradictions clash in men's minds when the transgendered falsehoods collide with what many only sense may be the truth, and fervor for The One consequently diminishes to tepid support and even abandonment. Obama, like Woodrow Wilson, posed for a long time as "anti-war." But he has proven to be a wannabe warlord, and when his personalized warfighting backfires as it did in Libya and Egypt, he has a shovel-ready machinery in place among his appointees and in the new media to help him bury the disasters and to sprinkle the corpses with generous spadefuls of lime. In that arduous effort, he had the assistance of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
After all, the Al Qada-linked Syrian "rebels" are blameless, trustworthy truth-tellers, don’t you know? We mustn't impugn their character by implying that they used chemical weapons on fellow Muslims in order to impugn the character of Bashar Assad. Allah forbid.
Assad is a dictator, and a pox on his house, as well. But you will have noticed that Obama isn't accusing Assad of being a dictator, only that he did a bad thing. Well, a "bad thing" according to international consensus, when many, many thousands more people have died in the interminable battle between Assad and the Syrian "rebels."
Obama has a weakness for dictators and strong-arm leaders. He envies them their power. He bows and scrapes before kings and kingpins such as King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Russia's Vladimir Putin, trades high-fives with monsters such as Hugo Chavez and has tea with Chinese Party chiefs. And hires Muslims by the bushel-load to manage his administration. This is aside from his having supported Morsi and his ousted Muslim Brotherhood Sharia-governed régime.
The nature of Obama's perception of the world comes from his own mouth. Andy Borowitz of The New Yorker on August 29th ran a satirical piece on the workings of his mind:
“Let me be clear,” he said in an interview on CNN. “Our goal will not be to effect régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave.”
“I want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal,” he said. “This is consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past.”
Sending in U.S. warships to blast Assad's military infrastructure will have no purpose? No goal? No intention of altering the balance of power in Syria or anywhere else? What, then, is the point of any intervention at all? Obama is treating his own military action as though it would be as prankish as a college fraternity panty-raid, and regards our own military, which he despises, as his personal playpen toys. His concession to Congressional authorization has the character of patronizing a body he'd just rather not have to deal with. Listening to him in the Rose Garden, I almost expected him to smirk in contempt for the law and the right of Congress to sanction his executive war powers, or not.
As many commentators have noted, it is beginning to be hard to distinguish between Obama's reality and reality itself. It's hard to identify satire from Obama's policies and actions.
No wonder no one can take him seriously. Not even Europeans who want to like him, but can't do anything but laugh behind his back and even in his face, or give him the polite brush-off.
Obama's Charley McCarthy ventriloquist dummy, Jay Carney, per The New Yorker satirical piece, confirmed his boss's bizarre pronouncements after our "allies" did a double-take on the proposed time frame of a Syrian intervention:
That criticism led White House spokesman Jay Carney to brief reporters later in the day, arguing that the President was willing to scale down the U.S. mission to “twenty-four hours, thirty-six tops.”
“It may take twenty-four hours, but it could also take twelve,” Mr. Carney said.
“Maybe we get in there, take a look around, and get out right away. But however long it takes, one thing will not change: this mission will have no point. The President is resolute about that.”
Obama's resolution has the strength of overcooked spaghetti.
Obama said that he will go ahead with a Syrian intervention even if Congress does not authorize it. That is the attitude of a spoiled demagogue. In terms of chronological age, he is a spoiled brat. In terms of a character assessment, he is a power-lusting creature.
And, what is Syria to Obama? It is a place where he can experiment with that country as he unsuccessfully experimented with Egypt. No one came to Morsi's aid when he was trounced. But Russia's Putin is also sending warships to the Syrian coast in support of Assad. Have we the ingredients of another world war cooking in the Mediterranean?
Over what? The power plays between one brutal régime, Assad's, and a Muslim Brotherhood alliance of Islamic supremacists, who have proven to be equally brutal.
Whose side is Obama really on? The Syrian people, "yearning for democracy"? Or Al-Qada's, yearning for power? As Abigail Esman put it in her IPT column of August 30th:
Equally incredible is the fact that, in taking military action in Syria, America would effectively be standing on the same side as al-Qaeda affiliate groups who also support them. As counterterrorism consultants Flashpoint Partners recently reported, "the lion's share of foreign fighters who are dying in Syria are fighting with the most hardline organization involved in the uprising: Jabhat al-Nusra. The leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, Abu Mohammed al-Joulani, has recently publicly sworn allegiance to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and the group has been blacklisted as a branch of Al Qaeda in Iraq by the United States Government."
Imagine the corrupted moral and epistemological mentality of a president who would intentionally, consciously take the side of this country's enemies, in this instance, Al-Qada.
It's time for Americans and Congress to take seriously the idea now floating around the Internet that Obama is a ripe candidate for impeachment, and for graver executive felonies than Bill Clinton ever committed.
It's time to stop Obama in his tracks. It's time to hold him accountable for every destructive action he has ever taken since his first day in office in January 2009.