Five Things Politico Didn't Tell You in 'Dove' Attack Against GOP
Politico, one of President Obama's strongest allies in the mainstream media, tore into Republicans Monday for not supporting the president's unilateral war against Syria. The left-wing outlet not only accused the GOP of turning "dovish," but cherry-picked 2002 Iraq quotes from Republican lawmakers as a way to declare them politically-motivated hypocrites on Syria.
Politico does pay a little lip service to Republican concerns about Obama's lack of an international coalition and how we learned through Afghanistan and Iraq that nothing is easy in the Middle East. But as is usually the case when Politico is flaking for Obama, the main thrust of the article is, to be blunt, an audacious lie -- a lie of omission in what Politico chose not to tell its readers.
Politico mainly wants its readers to believe that…
…politics is also unquestionably at play. The GOP’s resistance has to do not just with the proposed mission but who’s leading the charge. Having Obama making the case instead of Bush, makes a difference.
The main concerns those of us on the right have about Obama's Syrian adventure, however, are completely ignored by Politico. So since Politico is refusing to lay them out, here they are:
1. Obama's Middle East Foreign Policy Has Been a Disaster
Like they have with Vietnam, the left and their media allies will never stop demeaning the war in Iraq to ensure it goes down in history as an unmitigated military debacle. This is why left-wing outlets like Politico continue to blame Iraq for any opposition to Obama's unilateral war against Syria when the truth is much more inconvenient to Obama's fans at Politico.
The truth is that after nearly five years as commander-in-chief, Obama has only proved himself an incompetent when it comes to foreign policy. Everything he has touched in the Middle East has gone to hell. Obama completely bungled Egypt and Libya, and now both countries have imploded into sectarian disaster-areas, and breeding grounds for al Qaeda and their various franchises.
Meanwhile, while Obama was backing the wrong people in Libya and Egypt, he let an opposition movement America could do business with in Iran swing in the wind.
Republicans, Independents, and sensible Democrats simply have no confidence in President Obama's competence when it comes to foreign policy matters -- much less a unilateral war.
2. Obama's Mishandling and Dishonesty About Benghazi
Despite repeated pleas, the president and his administration not only lacked the competence and concern to provide our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, with the necessary security against a growing threat; they also spent two weeks lying about what really happened after four American died due to administration incompetence.
Incompetency mixed with dishonesty are not the character traits of a president you want to back in his unilateral wars.
3. Obama Administration Bungled Argument for War with Syria
From David Axelrod's hyper-political tweet on August 31 to Secretary of State John Kerry's "unbelievably small" comment today, nothing the Obama Administration has done to make the case for unilateral war has inspired confidence in their competence. If you have ever wondered how the Keystone Cops might handle politics, all you need do is rerun the actions of the Obama administration over the past ten days.
Contradictions, outright falsehoods, overselling (to say the least), mixed messaging… If the White House can't mobilize a smart, unified argument for war, how can anyone expect them to handle the actual war any better?
4. Obama Has Not Made a Case For a Positive Outcome
A chemical weapons attack is horrific, and one against innocent women and children is an abomination. No one doubts that Assad is a monster who did a monstrous thing.
But that is not enough of a rationale to launch a unilateral war.
What Obama and The Gang Who Can't Shoot Straight cannot explain is what good will come out of military action.
Say what you want about Afghanistan and Iraq, something Bush did very well was to explain how the world and America would be better off with regime change. This is why he was able to do what Obama cannot -- patiently build an international coalition and backing from the United Nations.
All we are getting from the Obama administration is "chemical weapons are evil." But from what we have so far heard, the administration has absolutely no goal or plan they can articulate that explains how Syria, the Middle East, and America will be better off after Obama goes to war.
Without a clear goal with an improved outcome in mind, the administration's talk about "American credibility" and "deterrence" is just that -- talk. Because both will be damaged if military action is feckless or bungled.
5. This Really Is Obama's Red Line
Because of items 1 through 4 above (especially 4), Obama currently looks like a hapless president who went off-teleprompter with his "red line" comment and now has to save face in front of the world by launching a unilateral war.
The treaty against the use of chemical weapons (that Syria did not sign) has no red line that requires military action should the treaty be violated.
That was President Obama's red line.
That red line is wholly owned by Obama and Obama alone. And until the president can articulate what good will come out of his unilateral war, the war itself and the torturous exercise in attempting to gain congressional cover, all looks like a face-saving attempt by an inarticulate, incompetent president who should've listened to his teleprompter.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC