John Ekdahl Blasts Media For Failing to Note Obama Has Lost the US' Eternal Ally, Great Britain, In His "Lonely" March Towards War

Remember how Barack Obama was going to unite the world and build coalitions and finally respect the authority of the UN?

Remember how going it alone in matters of war used to be a bad thing, even when you went it alone in a coalition of 40 countries?

Yeah the media doesn't.

As I predicted (and look, this was obvious, I know, but I want to point out how predictable they are) in the podcast, Obama's decision to fight a war unilaterally (maybe the French will serve as cheerleaders) will be portrayed by the media as tough and heroic -- a weary sentinel keeping a lonely vigil on the ramparts of liberty.

And so it has come to pass.

Meanwhile, Obama claims he hasn't made a decision but also calls Syria's alleged gas attack a "challenge" to the world himself.

Let me suggest that when someone creates and propagates the paradigm, himself, that if he doesn't bomb a country then he has been successfully "challenged," he's decided to bomb that country.

Obama adds that he is thinking about a "limited, narrow act." Again, a purely cosmetic action to save face.

Which is not a good reason to

DROP

BOMBS

on countries which haven't attacked us.

He's broadcasting his plan to conduct a bombing campaign which is designed to be ineffectual. Its ineffectuality is its chief recommendation, he says.

They told me if I voted for John McCain, I'd have a president who bombed countries on shaky evidence without any coalition behind him or any authorization from Congress, all to appease his medieval sense of masculine honor, and they were right!

The Lines Have Become Blurred: So say administration people about the "red lines" which have become "Blurred Lines" which must be unblurred.

They think in pop-song thought-balloons.

(Suggested by EC.)

posted by Ace at 02:54 PM

| Access Comments