Preserving Obama’s Precious Peace Prize
September 4, 2013 by John Myers
President Barack Obama spoke Saturday from the Rose Garden at the White House, advocating military action against Syria. He also said he is abstaining from such action as he awaits Congressional approval. In typical fashion, Obama wants to have his cake and eat it, too. Under such orchestration, he can blame Congress if his attacks against Syria have a calamitous outcome. Of greatest importance to the President is his legacy.
Nearly four years after he won the Nobel Peace Prize (for exactly what, nobody seems to know), Obama has acted more like a war criminal than a humanitarian. Yet the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which handed him the award, said it was “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” When he accepted it, the President said he was “surprised” and “deeply humbled.”
Certainly, he was surprised. His biggest contribution to world peace at the time had been as a Chicago community organizer. That Obama was deeply humbled verges on impossible. He is a man without a scintilla of humility. If the President has his way, he will accept all of the credit or none of the blame regarding Syria.
Yet we shouldn’t have been surprised that Obama was bestowed his prize by socialists in Oslo, Norway. In 1919, the dubious award was presented to President Woodrow Wilson. He was commander in chief during World War I. During the war, 100,000 Americans were killed (if you count disease and accidents) and another 320,000 were wounded. It was also Wilson’s regressive peace plan that led to Adolph Hitler.
According to the Cato Institute, Obama has already spent more than $400 billion in the past five years on waging foreign wars or what the Defense Department prefers to call “overseas contingency operations.”
In January, Dave Lindorff wrote the following in a blog post entitled “Hey, Hey, Barack! What Do You Say? How Many Kids Have You Killed Today?”:
The result of this policy of state terrorism has been a wretched, criminal slaughter of children — a slaughter that has been hidden from view, and denied wholesale by the Pentagon and the president. Over 3000 [sic] people have been killed, the vast majority of them non-combatant “collateral damage” deaths. Over 172 of these have reportedly been children.
Obama Is Plumb Out Of Friends
It turns out Obama, who treasures his image as a peacemaker, is not a friend-maker. The lack of international support for Obama’s military intervention against Syria is astonishing.
- Canada is no friend of Obama’s: His incessant delay on the Keystone XL pipeline has infuriated the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and angered Canadians. Most Canadians believe that Obama will refuse the pipeline and that he is simply jerking around Canada so it cannot make commitments to other oil importers.
- Great Britain is no friend of Obama’s: Last Thursday, the British Parliament rejected Prime Minister David Cameron’s proposal to join the United States in a joint action against Syria, despite Cameron’s pleas. Many British are angry that Obama is not backing the country’s claims on the Falkland Islands, which are again threatened by Argentina. Since the Suez Crisis in 1956, Britain has been America’s staunchest ally. Obama never seems to see any relationship as a two-way street.
- Russia is no friend of Obama’s: Russian President Vladimir Putin is not one to let bygones be bygones. He and Obama have had several disagreements. The conflict came to a head last month over Russia’s granting asylum to National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden. Because of that incident, Obama said “nyet” to a personal summit in Moscow with Putin this month. Now, Moscow defends Syrian President Bashar Assad.
And it goes beyond nations. In his book The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, Edward Klein claims that Obama has few to no personal friends in part because he is always eager to shift blame of failed policies to others.
Even Hermene Hartman, the publisher of N’DIGO, Chicago’s leading black magazine, and the past president of the Alliance of Business Leaders and Entrepreneurs, a powerful group of blacks in Chicago, has said: “Barack is not necessarily known for his loyalty.”
The Networks’ Weapons Of Mass Distortion
The good news for Obama is that TV anchors and analysts revere him, at least when it comes to a good war — or, if necessary, a bad war.
MSNBC, CNN and FOX News have been showing why war is unavoidable with videos of dead and dying Syrian children. Given beforehand is the perfunctory: “Warning! The images we are about to show you may be disturbing.” That always gets people’s attention. I haven’t seen such compelling TV since 22 years ago, when newscasts were showing empty Kuwaiti incubators after Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard had reportedly ripped babies from them. Only later was it reported that no such thing happened — that and the fact that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Liberals Have A Krystal Ball
The hardest part of my job is watching MSNBC. It’s good to know what the not-so-loyal opposition is thinking, which is mostly nothing. Case in point was last Thursday. On “The Cycle,” Krystal Ball (that really is her name) opined that America “owes it to Syria” to intervene. Ball added that the reason President Ronald Reagan pulled out of Lebanon in 1983 after 241 Marines were killed in their barracks by a suicide bomber was because at that time “America lacked the moral courage” to do the right thing.
That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is that Reagan was unwilling to waste the lives of America’s young people in a religious conflict where U.S. intervention could only make matters worse and could start a global war.
For Ball, it’s as though the Iraq war never happened. It’s as if 4,500 American troops did not die there.
Obama Is Driven By What Is Best For Obama
The situation in Syria is grim. Children are dying, and chemicals are probably being used. Do the dead care if they were killed by chemicals or by lead? Let us not forget it was grim in the 1970s when the Khmer Rouge killed more than 2 million people in Cambodia. It was grim during the Rwanda genocide that killed more than 1 million people. If we didn’t intervene then when the Nation could afford it and we were not facing an Islamic backlash, why are we intervening now? It can’t be WMDs. The only foreign WMDs that are a clear and present danger to our national security are the nuclear warheads being stacked high in North Korea and unstable Pakistan.
Obama doesn’t seem to care about such threats, in part because the only advice he values comes from his all-powerful troika: first lady Michelle Obama, Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and Attorney General Eric Holder. They are determined that Obama’s initiatives promote Obama’s legacy. Anything else is unimportant.
Yours in good times and bad,