Here’s a riddle for you: How is Obama like Eisenhower?
My answer would be: they both love[d] to play golf.
David Ignatius sees a great many more similarities. Seriously, he does.
I repeat: he is serious.
After I wrote the beginning of this post, I noticed that Scott Johnson at Powerline mentions the Eisenhower article, and then points us to this piece by Barry Rubin about Obama’s “noxious nominations.”
Here’s Rubin speaking of the “four horsemen” of Obama, Kerry, Hagel, and Brennan:
Their ideas and views are horrible. This is especially so on Middle Eastern issues but how good are they on anything else? True, they are all hostile to Israel but this isn’t the first time people who think that way held high office. Far worse is that they are pro-Islamist as well as being dim-witted about U.S. interests in a way no foreign policy team has been in the century since America walked onto the world stage.
Brennan is no less than the father of the pro-Islamist policy. What Obama is saying is this: My policy of backing Islamists has worked so well, including in Egypt, that we need to do even more! All those analogies to 1930s’ appeasement are an understatement. Nobody in the British leadership said, “I have a great idea. Let’s help fascist regimes take power and then they’ll be our friends and become more moderate! That’s the equivalent of what Brennan does.
–They are all stupid people. Some friends said I shouldn’t write this because it is a subjective judgment and sounds mean-spirited. But honest, it’s true. Nobody would ever say that their predecessors—Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, and David Petraeus—were not intelligent and accomplished. But these guys are simply not in that category. Smart people can make bad judgments; regular people with common sense often make bad judgments less often. But stupid, arrogant people with terrible ideas are a disaster.
What do I have to say about that? I note that it is certainly no surprise. None whatsoever. Nor should it be a surprise to anyone. And most Americans aren’t paying attention anyway; the reason Obama was elected was that Romney was going to take away women’s right to abortion or birth control or tampons or that he wasn’t the kind of guy you’d want to have a beer with or that he looked down on the 47% or that he wasn’t conservative enough or some combination of those things.
The reason that Obama chose these particular people over all the other possibilities is threefold:
(1) He agrees with them on foreign policy, and they agree with him.
(2) They are basically non-entities in their own right (Kerry is the one who’s most his own man, and the only thing he’s ever really done, besides run a lackluster presidential campaign, was to throw away his medals and testify that American forces in Vietnam operated “in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan”). They are virtually certain to be Obama’s willing handmaidens and not threaten him in any way.
(3) As a side benefit, these nominations will outrage the right.
Even if somehow a Republican—or at least someone to the right of Obama on foreign policy—were to be elected in 2016, the damage these four people can and probably will have done is likely to be severe. And people the world over will have realized (in fact, they already do realize) that American foreign policy is more mutable than it used to be, that the range of possibilities and fluctuations has widened, and that America’s word cannot be relied on.
What a guy.
Just like Ike.