Delusions of grandeur at times afflict us all. Most often they happen in our youth.
Growing up, we learn to temper expectation with reality. Occasionally one may have a relapse in adulthood, but generally we learn to approach the world as it is – not as we wish it to be. What is startling is that the opposite appears to be true for the Commander-in-Chief.
In fact, the delusions of Barack Obama happen at an alarming rate.
On August 18, 2011, President Obama demanded that Bashar al-Assad vacate his post and resign as President of Syria. That same day Obama administration officials confidently said Assad’s days were numbered.
Apparently, like most everyone else on earth, Assad’s days are numbered in years.
Over a year later on August 20, 2012, the President made his now infamous red-line proclamation. That line was crossed and nothing happened – aside from Obama denying his red line, blaming others and threatening war.
Given Obama’s past statements, and their propensity for severe error, an interesting exercise must lay in examining what he envisions will occur going forward. If they’re anything, like his NCAA bracket, those prognostications are sure to get busted.
So it is that early Sunday morning This Week with George Stephanopoulos aired an exclusive, sit-down interview with Barack Obama. Given off prompter, the president spoke eloquently and seemed to have great command. That is until you understand what it is exactly he said.
For many this is a rather difficult enterprise given the President’s unique ability to turn off listener’s brains while he speaks.
Regardless of your views on Syria or Barack Obama, the interview conducted by Stephanopoulos provides a fascinating glimpse into the psyche of President Obama.
Obama began with the newest spun narrative that his credible threat of force against Syria, in fact did produce positive movement. To prove his point, he used as evidence the deal brokered with Russia on the issue of Syria and chemical weapons. So now we’re to believe that Putin and Assad cowed because of an “unbelievably small” strike?
After extolling the virtues of his potential success on the latest deal with Russia regarding Syrian chemical weapons, Obama went further saying:
“We may also have a foundation, to begin what has to be an international process, in which Assad’s sponsors, primarily Iran and Russia, recognize that this [civil war] is terrible for the Syrian people, and they are willing to come in a serious way, to arrive at some sort of political settlement that would deal with the underlying terrible conflict that’s taking place.”
Uh, pardon any inquisitiveness, but does the president not know that Iran and Russia are supplying Syria with weapons to put down the rebels? Does he really think that Russia and Iran care about the Syrian people or the “terrible conflict that’s taking place”? Does he think they care about a “political settlement?” Is he this naive, or is it delusion?
Later, in a Mr. Obvious-like statement, Barack Obama smartly blathered, “I don’t think that Mr. Putin has the same values that we do.”
Nawww – say it ain’t so!
For anyone paying attention during the last century, and not reared in Indonesia, they don’t need to “think” about it. Nor do they need to attend a Presidential Daily Brief from the CIA to figure that one out. Not that Obama regularly attends the PDB. In fact, more often than not, he skips the most important daily briefing on national security.
Perhaps that’s why reality so often escapes him.
Later Obama said, “It is hard to envision how Mr. Assad regains any kind of legitimacy after he has gassed, or his military has gassed, innocent civilians or children.”
Does Barack not know that Assad’s father, Hafez, slaughtered his own people? Has no one briefed him on Hafez’s exploits in Syria during the 1982 Hama massacre?
Hafez al-Assad’s bloody reign aside, since when has genocide ever been a disqualifying factor for a dictator? When has a dictator ever been concerned about his own legitimacy, or the opinions or welfare of his people? Did Stalin or Mao ever stay up late wondering how their people felt? Or how the people suffered?
Seconds later the president went on to say, “We will not intervene militarily to bring that transition [Assad leaving power] about.”
Okay? Sounds good.
Except that earlier Obama said, “The situation in Syria right now is untenable. As long as Mr. Assad is in power there is gonna be some sort of conflict there.”
That is unless Assad puts down the rebellion.
But if the U.S. doesn’t act, according to Obama, Assad will stay in power. Got it?
So we’re not acting. The U.S. is not going into Syria. Okay?
Yet earlier, Obama said, “If Russia wants to have some influence in Syria post Assad – that doesn’t hurt our interests.”
So Barack Obama, in a professorial tone, speaks of a “post Assad” Syria knowing full well that the U.S. is not going into Syria. Yet somehow he convinces himself that Assad is not going to consolidate power and crush the opposition. Rather it is all going to work out. Does he honestly think that absent U.S. military intervention, somehow, Assad is magically going to be deposed?
Given that the two major powers in the region, Russia and Iran, are both pouring weapons and aid into Syria, what tints the president’s glasses rose colored?
What Barack Obama demonstrates is the ability to orate incessantly without remembering the position he last took. It is why once off prompter he falls apart.