The editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) came up with an
editorial they wrote under the title: “Leading From Behind Congress” and the
subtitle: “Obama reckless gambles with American credibility.” They published it
on September 2, 2013. This piece is vintage WSJ in the sense that if you
consider absurdity to be an upside-down logic, it follows that this piece of
writing is a true manifestation of the Journal's absurdity.
The point of the editorial is expressed in the subtitle
mainly that Mr. Obama is hurting America 's credibility because he is
not being credible himself. In trying to find out how they have arrived at this
conclusion, you go through the article and discover this passage: “Since he
began running for President, Mr. Obama has told Americans that he wants to
retreat from the Middle East, that the U.S. has little strategic interest
there, that any differences with our enemies can be settled with his personal
diplomacy, that our priority must be 'nation-building at home.'”
Aha, you say to yourself. That must be it. Here is the heart
of their logic. They are saying the man promised to govern by peaceful means
but now is doing an about face – talking war instead. Is that it? Is that what
they are saying? Not really. Unfortunately, they are saying something else. But
let's put off our judgment of them till we complete our judgment of him. And we
do this not based on our view of Mr. Obama but what they are saying about him.
Look at this passage: “Mr. Obama can read the polls, which show that most of
the public opposes intervention in Syria . Around the world he has so
far mobilized mainly a coalition of the unwilling, even the British parliament
refusing to follow the lead.”
What does that mean? It means that not only President Obama
is a peaceful man by nature, but most of humanity is naturally a peaceful race
of human beings – even the British Parliament proved to be in lockstep with
humanity. So then, what happened that got Mr. Obama to switch his view and his
stance with regard to Syria ?
It is the apparent use of chemical weapons. So what? Is this such a small thing
that he looks fickle for switching his stance? Oh no, not that, say the editors
of the Journal. In fact, they say this: “The real surprise, not to say miracle,
is that so many Americans will support military action in response to Syria 's use of
chemical weapons – 50% in the latest WSJ-NBC poll.”
There you are, the President has again proved to be as
logical and methodical as his people and the rest of humanity. He wants peace
but when something or someone goes beyond the bounds of what is acceptable, he
reacts appropriately, and seeks the approval of his people through their
representatives before taking the nation to war. And according to the editors
of the WSJ, their own poll show that the approval of the people is there.”
What's the problem, then? Why are these editors whining? That's why: “A defeat
in Congress would signal that the U.S. has retired as the enforcer of
any kind of world order.” And this is why they started their argument like
this: “This will go down as one of the stranger gambles, if not abdications, in
Commander in Chief history.”
What this reveals is that from the start, the editors of the
Journal thought not that Mr. Obama will do something reckless but that the
Congress will do something reckless. They thought it will go against the will of
the people it is supposed to represent just to oppose the President it has been
opposing since he was elected. And they called him reckless instead of calling
the Congress reckless. Does that mean they are reckless too? No. What that
means is that they are sick. They are mental cases, which is why their
editorials have been so absurd during all these years.
So now they use this same sick mentality to tell the
President and the Congress what to do. Here is the part for the President: “The
problem with the intervention that Mr. Obama is proposing is that it … is a
bombing gesture detached from a larger strategy. This is why we have urged a broader
campaign to destroy Assad's air force...” And here is the part for the
Congress: “The draft language for authorizing force that Mr. Obama has sent to
Congress is too narrowly drawn. Congress should broaden it to give the
President more ability to respond to reprisals, support the Syrian opposition
and assist our allies if they are attacked.” Doing this, they say will “rescue
American credibility and strategic interests from this most feckless of
Presidents.”
What they are not saying – because they cannot see it – is
that America
desperately needs to be free of the kind of absurdities they have been
spreading for years.