"Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that," the president said during a news conference.
Well yippee ki-yah, indeed. Cowboy much?
We'll see if the president has a conversation with Boy Assad like this:
I know what you're thinking. "Did he get five P5 votes on the Security Council or only four?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a UN Security Council Chapter VII resolution, the most powerful authorization to use force in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
I don't think "appeasement" is the proper charge against this administration. Appeasement assumes a foe that has limited goals that can be met and so avoid war with them.
And, as I wrote recently, there is even an argument for appeasement under certain circumstances (which wouldn't apply to our current situation, I hasten to add).
However weak and unrealistic President Obama has been on a number of foreign policy and defense issues, I don't think that even the president's administration believes that giving ground to our enemies will satisfy our enemies.
And the president hasn't been all bad on foreign policy. As I've admitted. If it isn't too much bother, he's fine with people being killed.
But our allies think we are at war with them and our enemies think we are too weak to resist them. That's not nuance. It's just muddled.
I know I don't trust our president's judgment (because he is a left wing, American-born, Christian, I'd like to add--not for any other nonsense reason).
