It takes someone like George Melloan – a former Wall Street
Journal columnist who used to do what Bret Stephens is doing now – to show how
cheap talk can be when the intent of someone is to spin a situation in such a way
as to show it being the opposite of what it is. He wrote an article under the
title: “Obama's Foreign-Policy Failures Go Far beyond Iraq ” and the subtitle: “Retreat abroad and
bigger government at home has made the U.S. weaker.” It was published on
June 27, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.
He begins by declaring that the U.S. (meaning the administration of
Barack Obama) has, by a willful act, failed to exert a positive influence over
world events. And the consequence of this has been the disintegration of Iraq and the new assertive attitude of Russia , he goes
on to say. He adds that both of these outcomes – which he calls disasters –
could have been avoided if the President had exercised a more muscular
diplomacy abroad, and a better management of policy at home.
He does not elaborate right away on this declaration for a
reason that becomes clear a little later on. This is when he tells what it is
that was so willful about Mr. Obama's act. In his words: “President Obama has
followed a deliberate policy of disengagement from the world's quarrels.” But
before he got to this point, he would have asserted that the U.S. : “is still
militarily powerful and has a world-wide apparatus of trained professionals
executing its policies overt and covert.” The trouble is that to say the
President was willfully disengaged, and then say he was able to maintain an
apparatus of this size and this importance is beyond comprehension.
As to the economic prowess of the United States – something
that directly influences the direction of domestic policy – Melloan says this:
“It [America] has a preponderance of multinational corporations … it is still
looked to for leadership in thwarting the designs of thugs like Russia's
Vladimir Putin, Syria's Bashar Assad and Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei.” That's
pretty healthy to say the least.
So you want to know what did the President do or fail to do
that can be rebuked? And he says this: “Obama cites polls showing that
Americans are war weary.” You recoil and promptly ask: Is it bad for a President
to listen to his people? “Well,” says Melloan “probably what the polls really
reflect is something else entirely.” Oh yeah! And what would that be, Mr.
Know-it-all? And he says: “dismay at the wasted blood and treasure that
resulted from Mr. Obama's unilateral declaration of defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan .” What? Say that again.
Are you saying that American blood and treasure were wasted not because George
W. Bush got America
involved in two disastrous wars but because Obama ended the involvement? With
all due respect, George Melloan, there is one word that people use to describe
someone of your mentality; they call you an asshole.
Having established his credentials – perhaps with pride or
perhaps not – the author of the article now lectures the President on the
standard advice given by the Jewish lobby. He tells Mr. Obama he “should
understand his historical role,” and goes on to elaborate: “An effective
president would call a halt to U.S.
disarmament.” This is Jewish euphemism which means that if your people are
ready to tolerate war, it is your duty to listen to them. If they are not ready
for war, it is your duty to indoctrinate them on the need to go to war and stay
in it for ever or if not, as long as possible.
But that's not all that the author says because an important
component of the Jewish pitch is the role that barking plays in world
diplomacy. Melloan explains it this way: “an effective president would say to
the world that the American politico-economic system still works.” But the world
already knows it because they all saw Mr. Obama rescue America and the
world from the economic collapse he inherited from George W. Bush. He has
proven over a six year period that he can catch an economy in free fall and
make it viable again. So why waste words describing something that speaks for
itself? It would be useless barking; not more useful than the kind of futile
journalism that some publications do practice.
And now Melloan does something that is truly revealing.
Sensing that he defeated himself trying to pin on President Obama things which
are patently false, he turns his attention toward someone else and throws his
accusations at them. This is what he says: “The American image has been
tarnished by the progressives who took control of the U.S. government
in 2009.” He goes on to list a number of sins they are supposed to have
committed but does not explain them, let alone elaborate on any of them.