We should have been aware some seven years ago of the obvious ambivalence of President Barack Obama. Because when he was in the state Legislature in Illinois, his most constant response when a vote was called for was to state, “Present.”This would indicate that he has never had any firm conviction one way or the other. By not taking a side in crucial matters, he demonstrated early on a lack of purposefulness.
Early in his first presidential campaign, he was famous for stating that he had only been in Washington a short time, but that he knew that Washington would have to “change.”In fact, he ran his first campaign on the slogan of “hope and change”. When he was victorious in his initial quest for the White House, he stated that he would fundamentally change the way Washington works. True to his word, when he took command he was able to start dividing the country politically, racially, economically and spiritually.
As soon as he took office, he conducted a worldwide Apology Tour in which he essentially blamed the omnipotent United States for creating many ills around the globe. Unbeknownst to him, he signaled to the powerful leaders of the nations most opposed to the U.S. that they had a major weakling in the White House. They immediately started flexing their muscles and began the chaos that has erupted in all corners of the globe.
His infamous red line in Syria was apparently drawn with invisible ink as he had to rely upon one of his archenemies, Vladimir Putin, to pull his chestnuts out of the fire.
Currently his foreign policy in the Middle East has him impaled on the horns of a dilemma. He was first hoisted on his own petard when he stated firmly several years ago that Syrian dictator Bashar Assad had to go. Now he is involved in a situation that sees him arming Syrian rebels while Assad, with Russia’s help, is aiding in Obama’s fight against ISIS. The latest information is that Russia is building a huge airbase in Syria that will handle the largest Russian bombers. Along with this, new information has been leaked in Washington that the intelligence reports on the American fight against ISIS have been seriously altered before they reach the American high command and the president’s desk. If this is true, the strategy for the conflict is based on a faulty premise.
The most contentious strategy that Obama has pursued to date involves the nuclear deal with Iran. While he has repeatedly stated in speeches supporting the deal that the issue is supported by 90 percent of the American people, independent surveys show that two-thirds of the electorate disapprove of the deal. The loudest voice against the deal has come from Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, supposedly our strongest ally in the region.
This, once again, demonstrates the ambivalence of Obama’s thinking. On the one hand he says to Israel, “We have your back,” while on the other hand he says, “But we are giving your most vociferous enemy the means to obliterate you and the Jewish nation.”