It’s Thursday, September 5th, 2013…and here’s The Gouge!

We’re going to keep today’s edition short and sweet; ‘cuz that’s all the time needed to expose this duplicitous, dissumulating deceiver for what he is.

First up, in the “Joe Wilson was RIGHT!” segment, James Taranto presents People’s Exhibit “A”:

The Buck Stops Here

Obama goes Galt.

“First of all, I didn’t set a red line,” Barack Obama said today at a press conference in Stockholm. “The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are [sic] abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war.”

Well, here’s what Obama said at an Aug. 20, 2012, White House press conference in response to a reporter’s question about Syria:

I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

The context makes clear that when Obama refers to “a red line for us,” the antecedent is not the world but the U.S. or the administration (which are interchangeable for the purpose of a discussion of executive action). He said the use of chemical weapons would change “my calculus” and “my equation,” not the world’s.

As The Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper notes, the president’s denial that he set a red line contradicts previous statements from his own subordinates. “We go on to reaffirm that the President has set a clear red line as it relates to the United States that the use of chemical weapons . . . is a red line that is not acceptable to us, nor should it be to the international community,” an unnamed “White House official” said during introductory remarks in an April 25, 2013 conference call with reporters.

Lest there be any question, the official went on to say in response to a question: “The people in Syria and the Assad regime should know that the President means what he says when he set that red line. And keep in mind, he is the one who laid down that marker.”

It’s as if somebody in November 1973 had gone back and discovered a transcript from a few months earlier in which a White House official said: “And keep in mind, the president is a crook.”

Setting a red line isn’t the only thing Obama denied. As the BBC reports: “Mr Obama said he did not believe he had risked his credibility by asking Congress to vote–something he was not constitutionally obliged to do. ‘My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line,’ he said. ‘America and Congress’s credibility is on the line, because we give lip-service to the notion that these international norms are important.’ “

Where to begin with this muddle? How about with “lip service”? That idiom means words not backed up by deeds. If one is giving lip service, one has no credibility.

And who are the “we” who “give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important”? Why, “America and Congress.” All of us! Well, except him, of course. Or maybe especially him. After all, if he is acknowledging that his words are mere lip service, then his credibility is not on the line. It’s shot.

So Obama evidently agrees with the conservative interventionist argument in favor of authorizing military force: that the president’s inconstancy has destroyed his credibility, and therefore Congress must shore up America’s credibility by giving its assent (even though he claims he does not need it) to him, so that he will back up his words with actions.

This column does not disagree with that argument, but we do have some difficulty wrapping our mind around it. The basic problem is the idea of credibility. At its most concrete, it is a personal attribute. To oversimplify a bit, a man’s credibility depends on the congruence between his words and his actions.

We speak of institutional credibility too, which depends on the congruence between an institution’s “words” (policies) and its “actions”–i.e., actions undertaken by individuals acting on the institution’s behalf.

Institutional credibility and personal credibility are related, but a credible institution need not be populated entirely by credible individuals. The importance of an individual’s credibility depends on his role in the institution. A paperboy who is a pathological liar has no influence on the credibility of the newspaper (except maybe its circulation department). A reporter who is a pathological liar does. (Which of course encompasses the vast majority of today’s MSM.) An institution can maintain and even enhance its credibility by dealing with threats from within swiftly and forthrightly, as when a reporter is discovered to have fabricated stories and the newspaper immediately terminates his employment and retracts his work.

Institutional credibility depends above all on the credibility of its leaders and decision-makers. The American political system distributes decision-making authority among three branches of government, only one of which has a clear leader. That, of course, would be the president.

Does it make sense to speak of preserving “America’s credibility” if the president, who is not expected to leave office for quite some time (three years, four months, two weeks and two days, to be exact) has no credibility and, if we take him at his word, no interest in developing any?

Yes, but it’s counterintuitive to say the least. America is greater than the man who is president at any given time, and the president’s decision-making authority is not absolute. Thus what Congress does and does not do will have some effect on America’s credibility, both now and in 2017 and thereafter.

But Congress’s capacity in this regard is marginal. The president is the most visible symbol of the American body politic. The president’s determination to shirk the responsibility of his position cannot help but corrode America’s credibility, even if other leaders make the maximal possible effort to limit the damage.

In her 2013 book, “Men on Strike,” psychologist Helen Smith observes “There is a term for bailing out of the mainstream of society . . . called ‘going John Galt’ or ‘going Galt’ for short”:

Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? . . . In Ayn Rand’s book, the basic theme is that John Galt and his allies take actions that include withdrawing their talents and “stopping the motor of the world” while leading the “strikers” (those who refuse to be exploited) against the “looters” (the exploiters, backed by government). One interesting fact about Atlas Shrugged is that the original title was The Strike, but Rand changed it at her husband’s suggestion. The original title of Rand’s book seems fitting for what is happening with today’s twenty-first-century man.

In the olden days, they used to call the president “the leader of the free world.” Today the president disavowed responsibility for his own policies and told a reporter to take it up with “the world.”

Obama shrugged.

Of course we could be wrong. Maybe Obama really didn’t set a red line. It could have been a case of mistaken identity. Perhaps on Aug. 20, 2012, the world sneaked into the White House, donned an Obama mask, strode into the press room and took questions. If so, the world did a bad thing and will need to be punished. But we hope that whoever has authority over such matters will have a little compassion for the world’s predicament. It isn’t easy carrying the weight of Barack Obama on your shoulders.

As Brit Hume so perfectly puts it:

You’d literally have to be a perfect ass not to recognize the patent prevarication this pretender’s peddling.

Speaking of perfect asses, one’s the subject of the latest offering from Best of the Web:

‘Masterful’

John Colbert of Chicago has the following letter to the editor in today’s New York Times:

President Obama’s decision to seek Congressional approval of an attack on Syria is masterful. It forces Congress to put up or shut up (incidentally giving credit to the Constitution, which gives that body the power to make war). It forces the Syrian government to stay on its toes, never certain when the missiles might arrive, creating tension that enables behind-the-scenes pressure on its leader to resign.

It forces a public debate that could allow or shame other countries into joining the effort to hold the Syrian government responsible. It asserts that certain actions–a government’s reported use of chemical weapons on its own women and children–are beyond the pale of a civilized world, and bad actors must be accountable.

Mr. Obama shows his skill, character, fortitude, patience, wisdom and conscience by this decision. If only a similar process had been undertaken by President Bush before he invaded Iraq.

Yeah, if only Bush had asked Congress to–hey, wait a minute. Please tell us this is a put-on and people in Chicago aren’t really that ignorant.

There’s dumb…there’s stupid…and then there’s John Colbert of Chicago.

Since we’re on the subject of what comes after stupid, what’s the guy who once considered himself qualified to lead The Gang That Still Can’t Shoot Straight doing while John Kerry’s exposing himself as America’s Village Idiot?

Yes, that’s right: playing video poker on his smart phone.  That is, when he isn’t otherwise engaged comparing Muslims shouting “Alluhu Akhbar!” while missiles strike Syrian government office buildings to Christians crying “Thank God!”.  Yeah, John; like…back when the Crusaders were catapulting rocks into the walls of Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, a little east of Syria…

For more on incomprehensible ineptitude of America’s “leaders”, we turn to Commentary Magazine‘s Peter Wehner. who describes what he terms…

Barack Obama’s Staggering Incompetence

It’s reported that President Obama was ready to order a military strike against Syria, with or without Congress’s blessing, but “on Friday night, he suddenly changed his mind.” According to the Huffington Post:

Senior administration officials describing Obama’s about-face Saturday offered a portrait of a president who began to wrestle with his own decision – at first internally, then confiding his views to his chief of staff, and finally summoning his aides for an evening session in the Oval Office to say he’d had a change of heart.

In light of all this, it’s worth posing a few questions:

1. Why didn’t the president seek congressional authority before the administration began to beat the war drums this past week? Did the idea not occur to him? It’s not as if this is an obscure issue. When you’re in the White House and preparing to launch military force against a sovereign nation, whether or not to seek the approval of Congress is usually somewhere near the top of the to-do list.

And why has the urgency to act that we saw from the administration during the last week–when Assad’s use of chemical weapons was referred to by the secretary of state as a “moral obscenity”–given way to an air of casualness, with Obama not even calling Congress back into session to debate his military strike against Syria?

2. The president didn’t seek congressional approval for his military strike in Libya. Why does he believe he needs it in Syria?

3. Mr. Obama, in his Rose Garden statement on Saturday, still insisted he has the authority to strike Syria without congressional approval. So what happens if Congress votes down a use-of-force resolution? Does the president strike Syria anyway? If so, will it be an evanescent bombing, intended to be limited in scope and duration, while doing nothing to change the war’s balance of power? Or does the president completely back down? Does he even know? Has he thought through in advance anything related to Syria? Or is this a case of Obama simply making it up as he goes along?

This latest volte-face by the president is evidence of a man who is completely overmatched by events, weak and confused, and deeply ambivalent about using force. Yet he’s also desperate to get out of the corner he painted himself into by declaring that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would constitute a “red line.” As a result he’s gone all Hamlet on us. Not surprisingly, Obama’s actions are being mocked by America’s enemies and sowing doubt among our allies. (Read this New York Times story for more.)

What explains this debacle? It’s impossible for us to know all the reasons, but one explanation appears to be a CYA operation.

According to Politico, “At the very least, Obama clearly wants lawmakers to co-own a decision that he can’t back away from after having declared last year that Assad would cross a ‘red line’ if he used chemical weapons against his own people.” And the Washington Post reports:

Obama’s proposal to invite Congress dominated the Friday discussion in the Oval Office. He had consulted almost no one about his idea. In the end, the president made clear he wanted Congress to share in the responsibility for what happens in Syria. As one aide put it, “We don’t want them to have their cake and eat it, too.” (“Them”: not the Syrians; Congressional Republicans!)

Get it? The president of the United States is preparing in advance to shift the blame if his strike on Syria proves to be unpopular and ineffective. He’s furious about the box he’s placed himself in, he hates the ridicule he’s (rightly) incurring, but he doesn’t see any way out.

What he does see is a political (and geopolitical) disaster in the making. And so what is emerging is what comes most naturally to Mr. Obama: Blame shifting and blame sharing. Remember: the president doesn’t believe he needs congressional authorization to act. He’s ignored it before. He wants it now. For reasons of political survival. To put it another way: He wants the fingerprints of others on the failure in Syria.

Rarely has an American president joined so much cynicism with so much ineptitude.

And from the MSM?  Nary a peep!

On the Lighter Side…

Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with the Entertainment Section, as we say good-bye to a screen legend:

Hollywood Legend Jack Nicholson Retires From Acting

…Hollywood legend Jack Nicholson has quietly retired from the movie business, RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned. The 76-year-old icon has no plans to appear in films again after a career spanning five decades. “Jack has — without fanfare — retired,” a well-placed Hollywood film insider confirmed to Radar.

“There is a simple reason behind his decision — it’s memory loss. Quite frankly, at 76, Jack has memory issues and can no longer remember the lines being asked of him. “His memory isn’t what it used to be.” The three-time Academy Award winner has not worked since How Do You Know in 2010 starring Reese Witherspoon, Paul Rudd and Owen Wilson.

Tellingly, producers for the forthcoming film Nebraska had wanted him to play the key role of an aging, booze-addled father….

We’ll miss him.  Then again, when Jack can’t play the role of an aging, booze-addled anything, retirement’s probably the right call.

Magoo