0-for-4 Obama Underdog in War Against…Syria?

Posted: Sep 05, 2013 12:01 AM
0-for-4 Obama Underdog in War Against…Syria?

The culprit always returns to the scene of the crime.

That’s why Obama headed to Sweden to um, well…I guess it’s kind of a cross between a layover and a wartime pep-rally for him.

“President Obama is in Sweden on Wednesday,” reports USAToday, “preparing for a global summit and seeking support for a military strike on Syria…. The Sweden trip is a late addition to the president's schedule. The president had planned to fly to Moscow for a one-on-one meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but canceled that meeting after a string of disputes between the two nations that has included Syria.”

And of course like everyone else does, I blame Sweden for this Syrian mess.

"Sweden doesn't want a military attack... I don't believe that is the solution to the conflict," Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt told Swedish public broadcaster SVT in an interview over the weekend according to CNN.

Then why the heck did you give Obama the Nobel Peace Prize?

That was just begging for trouble.

Obama’s taken military action against more sovereign states on the back of that Nobel prize than Stalin did on the back of a triumphant Red Army-- in all of 1945.

This is kind of like when the Bronco’s GM John Elway complained that QB Tim Tebow was his starter.

Um, you put him there, John.

Okay, so technically Sweden didn’t actually award Obama a peace prize.

The peace prize is actually the work of a five-person committee appointed by the legislature in Norway.

But come on: Norway, Sweden, Denmark? That’s like differentiating between Wisconsin, Minnesota and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

What happened to the good old days when the Norsemen were expected to pillage and rob?

A Scandinavian War Prize would make a lot of sense.

But of course if they gave one of those to Obama they’d be wrong there too.

So far Obama’s gone oh-for-three in wars. 0-for-4 if you count Pakistan, which of course I do.

95 percent of Pakistanis think that U.S. drone strikes on Pakistani territory are “a bad or very bad thing. In addition,” writes the liberal Brookings Institution, “69 percent of these respondents disagree that drone strikes are necessary to defend Pakistan from extremist groups, and 91 percent agree with the statement that they kill too many innocent people.”

That’s called losing Pakistan the hard way.

So, let’s put it this way, Obama’s had more success passing budgets here at home than he has winning wars at home or abroad.

He might be the only U.S. commander-in-chief this side of the 19th century that’s going into a war as an underdog…against Syria, mind you.

He blew the save in Afghanistan, he turned a win into a loss in Iraq, and he got trounced in Libya. He might even lose Syria before even getting his gun off.

It’s interesting that Obama’s credibility is always on the line until he loses, then he does the touchdown dance and lets the winners continue to fight it out.

What? Me worry?

"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," the president said, last year…on August 20th, 2012. "That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

Fortunately, Obama and I see eye to eye on this at least: He blames Sweden too. And Wisconsin and Norway and Latvia and the Greater Minneapolis-Twin Cities area, to include Eagan, Bemidji and St Cloud. 

“I didn’t set a red line,” Mr. Obama told a news conference in Stockholm on September 4th, 2013 reports the New York Times. “The world set a red line.” He added, “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility’s on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility’s on the line.”

Yeah. This has nothing to do with Obama.

It’s all Sweden’s fault.

And the rich. Let’s not forget their part in this too.