The Washington Post Uses Obama-As-Peacenik Gambit to Fool Conservatives On Obama’s Foreign Policy

The editorial board of the Washington Post is not a group that any conservative should trust, but this is especially true when they attack President Obama. It begins thus:

FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past. Secretary of State John F. Kerry displayed this mindset on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday when he said, of Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine, “It’s a 19th century act in the 21st century.”

The headline for this piece is, “President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy,” but it is the editorial that is based on fantasy. This man who “won” the Nobel Peace Prize before he had done anything in office was all along a bait and switch. The Washington Post editors are hoping you will forget about the switch so that they can get you to accept the bait again.

The editorial is an absolutely delusional piece that pretends Obama has not been aggressing on steroids, in Libya, in Syria, with drones, in Africa, deliberately and openly attempting to encircle China, and pushing into Ukraine. The blowback was inevitable and, obviously, desirable to try to re-instate the Dem v. GOP myth so that a Republican savior can sweep into office and press another eight years of destabilizing and unsupportable hyper aggression, until the squeezed and impoverished Americans cry out for another “nobel peace prize winner” to stop the wars and who gets the credit while doing nothing of the kind. Perhaps the Washington Post editors are hoping Hillary can be the savior this time, but either way we are being played. I can’t call this a conspiracy. It is all executed before our eyes, and we still want to believe the myth.

Toto shredded the curtain years ago, and we all agreed to ignore the little man at the control panel and tremble before the Great and Powerful Oz of the national security state.

Obama has been great at running his mouth and sounding like the candidate that Liberals would want on foreign policy. But that was all just talk. The man who backed indefinite detention and pioneered murdering U.S. citizens was never anything but a warmonger. The man who now accuses Russia of violating Ukraine’s national sovereignty had no problem doing the same to Libya with far less justification.

Of course, Obama was not doing anything special as an American president, beyond providing his unique PR garbage to cover the ongoing attempt to dominate the world even further. Stephen Kinzer gives us a far more accurate editorial in the Boston Globe:

FROM THE moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.

“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” warned George Kennan, the renowned diplomat and Russia-watcher, as NATO began expanding eastward. “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it will affect their policies.”

Russia’s dispatch of troops in recent days to Crimea — a verdant peninsula on the Black Sea that is part of Ukraine but, partly as a result of Stalin-era ethnic cleansing, has a mainly Russian population — was the latest fulfillment of Kennan’s prediction.

Some policy makers in Washington have been congratulating each other for a successful American-aided regime change operation in Ukraine. Three factors converged to produce the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych. First was his own autocratic instinct and utter lack of political skill, which led him to think he could ignore protesters. Second was the brave determination of the protesters themselves. Third was intervention by the United States and other Western countries — often spearheaded by diplomats and quasi-covert operatives who have been working for years on “democracy promotion” projects in Ukraine.

Yes, Obama’s policy, whether foreign or domestic, is always based on fantasy. But don’t allow the Washington Post to make you trade one fantasy for another. Embrace reality.