OBAMA...THEN AND NOW…

I'm sure those us who were paying even the slightest bit of attention back then will have little or no trouble recalling how it was that then-candidate Barry "Almighty", focused solely on getting himself elected, proudly championed restraint and global cooperation when faced with security threats. My my, how things seem to have changed. Because now, as commander in chief, albeit a rather piss poor excuse for one, of a, used-to-be, world superpower, his rhetoric of the past is now coming into conflict with the reality of today as he now presses Congress to allow the United States to launch a military strike against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Despite the objections coming from most major U.S. allies.

Barry's current posture is one that stands in stark contrast when compared to those positions that he took as a senator, a presidential candidate and a first-term president, as he has always cast himself as being something of a counterweight to the more aggressive approach to national security embodied by his Republican predecessor, President George W. Bush. Barry has long advocated a whimpy style of foreign policy, one that prioritizes negotiation over confrontation, humility over diplomatic bravado and communal action over unilateralism. Those positions are now being questioned as Barry seeks the approval of Congress back home as he meets with skeptical world leaders abroad while at the G-20 summit in Russia.

So let us now take a brief stroll down memory lane in order to remind ourselves of just a few of Barry's more simplistic, and dare I say foolish, comments from the past so that we can then compare them to what we're hearing from him today, regarding the use of what's left of America's military might:

ON CONGRESS

THEN: "In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch." — Response to candidate questionnaire from The Boston Globe, December 2007.
 
NOW: "As commander in chief, I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America's national security. I do not believe that I was required to take this to Congress. But I did not take this to Congress just because it's an empty exercise. I think it's important to have Congress' support on it." — News conference in Stockholm, Sept. 4, 2013.

ON ACTING ALONE

THEN: "In a world in which threats are more diffuse and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace." — Speech accepting Nobel Peace Prize, December 2009.

NOW: "I'm comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable." — Remarks in the White House Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013.

ON APPETITE FOR WAR

THEN: "It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward, to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path." — Speech in Cairo, June 2009.

NOW: "The American people, understandably, want us to be focused on the business of rebuilding our economy here and putting people back to work. And I assure you, nobody ends up being more war-weary than me. But what I also believe is that part of our obligation as a leader in the world is making sure that when you have a regime that is willing to use weapons that are prohibited by international norms on their own people, including children, that they are held to account." — Remarks at meeting with Baltic leaders, Aug. 30, 2013.

ON JUSTIFICATION

THEN: "We may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake. If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in? ... And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible." — Presidential debate, October 2008.

NOW: "This kind of attack is a challenge to the world. We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale. This kind of attack threatens our national security interests by violating well-established international norms against the use of chemical weapons. ... If we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, 'Stop doing this,' that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term." — Remarks at meeting with Baltic leaders, Aug. 30, 2013.

As I have said here before, and on a number of previous occasions, Democrats, more often than not, make for pretty lousy commanders-in-chief. And Barry has proven himself to be far worse than most of his Democrat predecessors. Because as much as we would all like it if all of the inhabitants of the world were able to get along, the reality of it is, to think that that's actually possible would take wishful thinking to a whole new level. Unfortunately, the world is not like that old John Lennon song, "Imagine." And like it or not the world works a whole better when the strongest kid on the block is the good old U.S. of A. But thanks to Barry, this country has already forfeited far too much of it's hard-earned credibility.

And the fact that we have to put up with this clown for another three years, does not bode well for our being able to remain as that strongest kid. And while national security is job one of the federal government, with Barry at the helm, job one has, instead, become getting as many people as possible addicted to government handouts, with national security having now been relegated to being nothing more than an after thought. Except of course, when Barry wishes to use our troops as nothing more than a way to distract the attention of the American people away from his many ongoing scandals. Then, it's full steam ahead, creating a need for our involvement where none currently exist. Yes, Barry is quite pathetic.