It is necessary to annotate the BHO-interview cited yesterday, for it revealed how very wrongheaded

he has been, is, and promises to be; this is whyeven after he dropped two 500-pound bombs on a
tank used by the IShis mindset continues to prompt people to worry if America will survive until
1/20/2015. Simply IDing his deft blame-game approach would ordinarily suffice, but it is also
possible to x-ruff his comments regarding his thinking in one theater to illustrate his faults in others;
he also commits numerous revelatory unforced errors that presume the listener/reader harbors no
independent knowledge-base. One must conclude that he assumes his departure on vacation will
somehow blunt reaction to his posturing, but thats why its vital to disseminate awareness of his
ideologically-driven misconceptions, for he can run, but he cannot hide from truth-tellers; if he has
begun to let adults in the room guide actions in Erbil, then hope-springs eternal that he will
entertain the urgent need to contravene everything he has been saying/doing in foreign policy [and,
ultimately, domestic policy as comparable proof of its preconceived fallacies and abject corruption
emerge] by whatever mechanisms, shrouded within whatever rationalizations [since 1/20/2009].

He refused to accept a premise that good can vanquish, instead dramatizing the rift
with BB that initially had been vigorously denied by his acolytes [friends can disagree]
but that continues haunting those who fear for Israels survival; further, he ignored
Putins aggressiveness, instead intransigently ascribing current problems to the actions
of others he was, alas, helpless to affect [starkly manifesting The Limbaugh Theorem,
namely, that hes a D.C. spectator and, thus, cannot be tagged by flawed outcomes].
These quotes recall explanations by his Press-Flack [Josh Earnest] that, for example,
claim his having again been surprised by the IS-blitzkrieg was due to faulty intelligence;
that he defends the people [Brennan and Crapper] and the policies [deleting from the
lexicon both Islamism and Islamic terrorism] portends ongoing adherence to the
prior errors that led to the current crises [causing people to become unnerved with the
prospect of the creation of a base from which a worldwide caliphate can be sought].

BHO revealed himself to be dangerous, ignoring American Exceptionalism to such a radical degree
that he would choose to risk its demise [along with the countrys] rather than challenge the veracity of
his ideology; one wonders if he plans to leverage any future domestic violence [such as @ malls] as an
opportunity to declare Martial Law [perhaps serving as this years imperialist October Surprise].

President Obamas hair is definitely grayer these days, and no doubt trying to manage foreign policy in a
world of increasing disorder accounts for at least half of those gray hairs. (The Tea Party can claim the
other half.) But having had a chance to spend an hour touring the horizon with him in the White House
Map Room late Friday afternoon, its clear that the president has a take on the world, born of many
lessons over the last six years, and he has feisty answers for all his foreign policy critics.

Perhaps the absence of humility despite so many unambiguous setbacks should be the
takeaway message; it seems hell continue to base his policies on disproven paradigms.

Obama made clear that he is only going to involve America more deeply in places like the Middle East to
the extent that the different communities there agree to an inclusive politics of no victor/no
vanquished. The United States is not going to be the air force of Iraqi Shiites or any other faction.
Despite Western sanctions, he cautioned, President Vladimir Putin of Russia could invade Ukraine at
any time, and, if he does, trying to find our way back to a cooperative functioning relationship with
Russia during the remainder of my term will be much more difficult. Intervening in Libya to prevent a
massacre was the right thing to do, Obama argued, but doing it without sufficient follow-up on the
ground to manage Libyas transition to more democratic politics is probably his biggest foreign policy
regret.

BHO refuses to accept the premise [validated inter alia when the Nazis were defeated]
that good must seek victory by vanquishing evil; his egalitarian approach thereby
relegates the Iraqi government to the status of a faction, trashing the blood/treasure
of Americans [initiated under Bush-43] and blinding himself to formulating an outcome
that may deviate from his adamantly held belief-system. Such posturing prompts him to
forget [conveniently] that Putin has ALREADY invaded [and annexed part of] the Ukraine
[the Crimean Peninsula], so that prospect of dire consequences he avers [no business-
as-usual during the rest of his term] should long ago have been implemented; in the
process, he evades stating what he might do to PRECLUDE such an unjustifiable invasion
[e.g., endorsing NATO membership or instituting the Czech/Polish anti-missile system].
When he confesses not to have followed-up the removal of Gaddafi, he contradicts his
fervent attack on Bush-43 regarding nation-building; he apparently feels compelled to
act-out his abhorrence of the GOP [forgetting he was left stability in Iraq/Afghanistan],
thereby presaging another throwing-up-ones-arms reaction if/when Kabul falls.

At the end of the day, the president mused, the biggest threat to America the only force that can
really weaken us is us. We have so many things going for us right now as a country from new
energy resources to innovation to a growing economy but, he said, we will never realize our full
potential unless our two parties adopt the same outlook that were asking of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds
or Israelis and Palestinians: No victor, no vanquished and work together.

He satirizes his I have a pen and a telephone absolutist posturing [ignoring the GOP]
when claiming its necessary for domestic cooperation to antedate achieving a positive
foreign policy; this exemplifies why the two are not mutually exclusive and, thus, why
global-failure reflects domestic-failure [for both are based upon a flawed mindset].
Culpability is not shared by the GOP, proven by recalling that Rush was vilified by Rs in
1/2009 when he expressed the hope that BHO wouldnt succeed; that ObamaDontCare
contains none of the GOPs ideas [remembering how BHO beat-up the Rs who were @
a daylong square-table discussion, when he muttered to McCain elections have
consequences]; and that mainstream Rs STILL give him the benefit-of-the-doubt
[recalling how Boehner has been and is constantly criticized for capitulating to BHO].

Our politics are dysfunctional, said the president, and we should heed the terrible divisions in the
Middle East as a warning to us: societies dont work if political factions take maximalist positions. And
the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions.

He projects upon others the major fault in his behavior, recalling his promise to heal.

While he blamed the rise of the Republican far right for extinguishing so many potential compromises,
Obama also acknowledged that gerrymandering, the Balkanization of the news media and uncontrolled
money in politics the guts of our political system today are sapping our ability to face big
challenges together, more than any foreign enemy. Increasingly politicians are rewarded for taking the
most extreme maximalist positions, he said, and sooner or later, that catches up with you.

He squelched compromise [and any effort to ID common ground] and, fortunately,
now suffers the results of redistricting born of the state-level gains by the GOP in 10.
Furthermore, media are split because of the growth of alternatives to those who would
parrot libs [who, as regularly documented, behave aberrantly constantly because they
would confess the end justifies the means]. He again predicts what many hope will
become his personal fate, for he essentially laments inability to unify post-divisiveness.
Of course, its all the fault of the Republicans, sez he, as he avoids dealing with big issues
[while golfing]; he assiduously followed from behind throughout the past 5 years.

I began by asking whether if former Secretary of State Dean Acheson was present at the creation of
the post-World War II order, as he once wrote, did Obama feel present at the disintegration?

This serves as an overall indictment of BHOs worldview, for the global conflagrations
were avoidable; one sincerely hopes that he didnt wish these problems upon America,
recalling his anti-colonialism [as thoroughly documented inter alia by Dinesh DSouza].

First of all, I think you cant generalize across the globe because there are a bunch of places where
good news keeps coming. Look at Asia, he said, countries like Indonesia, and many countries in Latin
America, like Chile. But I do believe, he added, that what were seeing in the Middle East and parts of
North Africa is an order that dates back to World War I starting to buckle.

Perhaps the absence of humility despite so many unambiguous setbacks should be the
takeaway message; it seems hell continue to base his policies on disproven paradigms.

But wouldnt things be better had we armed the secular Syrian rebels early or kept U.S. troops in Iraq?
The fact is, said the president, in Iraq a residual U.S. troop presence would never have been needed had
the Shiite majority there not squandered an opportunity to share power with Sunnis and Kurds. Had
the Shia majority seized the opportunity to reach out to the Sunnis and the Kurds in a more effective
way, [and not] passed legislation like de-Baathification, no outside troops would have been necessary.
Absent their will to do that, our troops sooner or later would have been caught in the crossfire, he
argued.

This sense of inevitability is countered by noting South Korea; there was no reason for a
hasty withdrawal, for it takes time for people to learn how to function democratically;
also, he witnessed what he decried [Iraq not reaching-out] without reacting accordingly,
for he must have recognized the fact that Iran was filling the vacuum hed left in Iraq.
Again, the Limbaugh Theory is manifest, for he externalizes his culpability by trying to
engage in punditry; he lost sway over al-Malaki after he withdrew all American troops.
{This point was made on CNN to Fareed Zakariawithout discussion of its importas
he spoke with experts @ 9 a.m. today during his Global Public Square pontification.}

With respect to Syria, said the president, the notion that arming the rebels would have made a
difference has always been a fantasy. This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more
sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers,
pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but
also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in
the cards.

Again, retroactive projection of negativity is to supplant any notion that he had a plan;
if indeed he saw this as the state-of-affairs, he remained inert for years rather than
attempting to ameliorate the humanitarian crisis. All along, he proclaimed he was
lending support to the rebels [even, allegedly, by relocating Libyan arms @ Benghazi],
thereby behaviorally having undermined what he now claims to have been his views.
The opposition obviously needed help, and the proper opposition [Kurds] STILL lacks
American support; this concept was screamed from the mountaintops by myself [and
others] during the past five-plus years, but Dr. Sherkoh Abbas reported our exhortations
fell upon deaf ears in D.C. Remember, this is the guy who predicted Assad wouldnt
survive this war [amplified by comparable projections by Hillary], and BHO is the guy
who created and then ignored a red line regarding WMD [ceding control to Putin].

Even now, the president said, the administration has difficulty finding, training and arming a sufficient
cadre of secular Syrian rebels: Theres not as much capacity as you would hope.

If this be the case, then he has yet to explain [because he wasnt asked by lib-Tom] why
he continues to ignore the profound needs of the Kurds; even if they dont comply with
his desire for obeisance to Baghdad [justifiably, he would be forced to admit], he does
not want them to be independent [as manifest by his not having given them arms
directly, either in Iraq or in Syria]. This constitutes still another retroactive admission
that he had no clue as to what should be done during past years of strive/turmoil.

The broader point we need to stay focused on, he added, is what we have is a disaffected Sunni
minority in the case of Iraq, a majority in the case of Syria, stretching from essentially Baghdad to
Damascus. ... Unless we can give them a formula that speaks to the aspirations of that population, we
are inevitably going to have problems. ... Unfortunately, there was a period of time where the Shia
majority in Iraq didnt fully understand that. Theyre starting to understand it now. Unfortunately, we
still have ISIL [the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant], which has, I think, very little appeal to ordinary
Sunnis. But theyre filling a vacuum, and the question for us has to be not simply how we counteract
them militarily but how are we going to speak to a Sunni majority in that area ... that, right now, is
detached from the global economy.

Even if he has framed the key-question correctly, he neglects to provide an approach
towards answering it; again, hes a commentator rather than a leader [devoid of a
strategy] who cannot admit who created the vacuum he now laments. Actually, he has
validated the need for a military reaction [albeit not in isolation], but neglects to
articulate a cogent plan [with goals, exit strategies, etc.] as he accused Bush-43 of
having failed to do [despite the fact that his predecessor did so, even with regard to the
surge, and accomplished precisely what he had wanted to do [until 1/20/2009].

Is Iran being helpful? I think what the Iranians have done, said the president, is to finally realize that a
maximalist position by the Shias inside of Iraq is, over the long term, going to fail. And thats, by the way,
a broader lesson for every country: You want 100 percent, and the notion that the winner really does
take all, all the spoils. Sooner or later that governments going to break down.

He is so incorrect, for he ignores recognizing the fact that Iran has gained hegemony
over Iraq and, thus, has sway to function in whatever fashion its military desires [both in
Iraq and in Syria]; its absolutism may very well emerge dominant in the region, and his
dire sooner or later prediction will prove as correct as have its predecessors regarding
Assad and Ahmadinejad]; he cant even acknowledge Irans opposition to ISIS/ISIL/IS is
[for the moment] shared by America [assuming it is, which itself is belied by his acts].

The only states doing well, like Tunisia, Ive argued, have done so because their factions adopted the
principle of no victor, no vanquished. Once they did, they didnt need outside help.

This new principle of no victor, no vanquished contradicts all of history and any view
of American Exceptionalism; more than squelching Americas history of rescuing others
[modeling worldwide goodness], he attempts to be egalitarian when facing abject evil.

We cannot do for them what they are unwilling to do for themselves, said the president of the
factions in Iraq. Our military is so capable, that if we put everything we have into it, we can keep a lid
on a problem for a time. But for a society to function long term, the people themselves have to make
decisions about how they are going to live together, how they are going to accommodate each others
interests, how they are going to compromise. When it comes to things like corruption, the people and
their leaders have to hold themselves accountable for changing those cultures....We can help them and
partner with them every step of the way. But we cant do it for them.

We should only hope that the society can reach a long-term status; again, this sense
of negative-inevitability is manifest, precluding the ability to have prophylaxed when
facing such genocide as IS is promulgating. He covertly blames Iraqi corruption for the
fate befalling the country, again, neglecting to cite his complicity in allowing it to have
developed [to whatever degree it actually matters when noting the IS-led brutality].

So, I asked, explain your decision to use military force to protect the refugees from ISIL (which is also
known as ISIS) and Kurdistan, which is an island of real decency in Iraq?

This is the wrong question, for lib-Tom didnt ask him why he continued to withhold any
armaments from the Kurds [remembering that, as of Friday-p.m., none had been given];
also, he failed to inquire when did the realization finally set-in that Kurdistan was such a
positive force in the region, or is BHO still reticent to admit this [and, thereby, undercut
his prior stand-off-ish-ness]. And he failed to ask why BHO hadnt bombed columns of
IS-terrorists as they conducted their blitzkrieg across Iraq during recent months.

When you have a unique circumstance in which genocide is threatened, and a country is willing to have
us in there, you have a strong international consensus that these people need to be protected and we
have a capacity to do so, then we have an obligation to do so, said the president. But given the island of
decency the Kurds have built, we also have to ask, he added, not just how do we push back on ISIL, but
also how do we preserve the space for the best impulses inside of Iraq, that very much is on my mind,
that has been on my mind throughout.

Instead of creating a rescue-corridor for Yazidis, he should have aspired to help them
return to their homesby military force, if necessary; its grossly insufficient to claim
that such concerns are on my mind when he continues pondering [fiddling] while the
region [Rome] erupts [burns]. He should be pushing-back on the IS until it is defeated,
for a subsequent determination can be made as to whether/how Iraq survives. [Thus,
his call for Baghdad reform should not be maintained as the antecedent for support,
posturing that he has maintained and Zakarias expert-guest has endorsed.]

I do think the Kurds used that time that was given by our troop sacrifices in Iraq, Obama added. They
used that time well, and the Kurdish region is functional the way we would like to see. It is tolerant of
other sects and other religions in a way that we would like to see elsewhere. So we do think its
important to make sure that that space is protected, but, more broadly, what Ive indicated is that I
dont want to be in the business of being the Iraqi air force. I dont want to get in the business for that
matter of being the Kurdish air force, in the absence of a commitment of the people on the ground to
get their act together and do whats necessary politically to start protecting themselves and to push
back against ISIL.

After just having acknowledged that the Kurds have indeed met his prerequisite that
there be a commitment on the ground, he STILL hasnt helped the Kurds; remember
that the Kurds hadnt asked him to function as their Air Force because the basic need
for armaments [and not just food-rations, as BHO graciously gave the Ukrainians] was
obviously transcendent. And if hes solely talking to Baghdad, then he stubbornly is
adhering to a policy that precludes supporting an entity that he has just praised.

The reason, the president added, that we did not just start taking a bunch of airstrikes all across Iraq as
soon as ISIL came in was because that would have taken the pressure off of [Prime Minister Nuri Kamal]
al-Maliki. That only would have encouraged, he said, Maliki and other Shiites to think: " We dont
actually have to make compromises. We dont have to make any decisions. We dont have to go through
the difficult process of figuring out what weve done wrong in the past. All we have to do is let the
Americans bail us out again. And we can go about business as usual.

His private frustrations have undermined the need to do what was correct; again, noting
that he had been responsible for decreasing American influence over Baghdad, he was
now lamenting the inability of Baghdad to do what he wanted [regardless of whatever
Iran was dictatingan effort supported by what Baghdad needed militarily].

The president said that what he is telling every faction in Iraq is: We will be your partners, but we are
not going to do it for you. Were not sending a bunch of U.S. troops back on the ground to keep a lid on
things. Youre going to have to show us that you are willing and ready to try and maintain a unified Iraqi
government that is based on compromise. That you are willing to continue to build a nonsectarian,
functional security force that is answerable to a civilian government. ... We do have a strategic interest
in pushing back ISIL. Were not going to let them create some caliphate through Syria and Iraq, but we
can only do that if we know that weve got partners on the ground who are capable of filling the void. So
if were going to reach out to Sunni tribes, if were going to reach out to local governors and leaders,
theyve got to have some sense that theyre fighting for something. Otherwise, Obama said, We can
run [ISIL] off for a certain period of time, but as soon as our planes are gone, theyre coming right back
in.

After having drawn another red-line [Were not going to let them create some
caliphate through Syria and Iraq], he then qualifies it [and, thus, punctures its impact]
by inserting a proviso he had previously acknowledged hadnt been met [we can only
do that if we know that weve got partners on the ground who are capable of filling the
void]. He allows for creation of the dreaded Caliphate that he said he doesnt want.
And he closes with the same self-fulfilling [negative] prophesy, without recognizing the
ability of a long-term presence to sap energy from the enemy he claims to oppose.

I asked the president whether he was worried about Israel.

Again, hes not asked whether hes worried about the Palestinian Arabs [Hamas, etc.].

It is amazing to see what Israel has become over the last several decades, he answered. To have
scratched out of rock this incredibly vibrant, incredibly successful, wealthy and powerful country is a
testament to the ingenuity, energy and vision of the Jewish people. And because Israel is so capable
militarily, I dont worry about Israels survival. ... I think the question really is how does Israel survive.
And how can you create a State of Israel that maintains its democratic and civic traditions. How can you
preserve a Jewish state that is also reflective of the best values of those who founded Israel. And, in
order to do that, it has consistently been my belief that you have to find a way to live side by side in
peace with Palestinians. ... You have to recognize that they have legitimate claims, and this is their land
and neighborhood as well.

He demonstrates the canyon between his views and those of BB; most Israelis and Jews
are concerned about Israels survival. Instead, hes judgmental and uses this opportunity
to plug the [recently discredited] two-state solution; indeed, BB has already adhered to
this desire, albeit to no avail because the PA [partners allegedly] has yet to agree that
Israel [as a Jewish state] has any right to exist. Thus, again, he bashes Israel instead of
providing even a gesture of recognition of the cost of this Gazan campaign; he does not
feel it necessary to recognize the need for millions of Israelis to huddle in bomb-shelters
and the loss of ~64 lives and the revelation of the plan for a Rosh Hashanah massacre
and the indiscriminate shelling of Israel and the use of civilians as human shields.

Asked whether he should be more vigorous in pressing Israels prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and
the Palestinian Authoritys president, Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, to reach a land-for-
peace deal, the president said, it has to start with them. Prime Minister Netanyahus poll numbers are a
lot higher than mine and were greatly boosted by the war in Gaza, Obama said. And so if he doesnt
feel some internal pressure, then its hard to see him being able to make some very difficult
compromises, including taking on the settler movement. Thats a tough thing to do. With respect to Abu
Mazen, its a slightly different problem. In some ways, Bibi is too strong [and] in some ways Abu Mazen
is too weak to bring them together and make the kinds of bold decisions that Sadat or Begin or Rabin
were willing to make. Its going to require leadership among both the Palestinians and the Israelis to
look beyond tomorrow. ... And thats the hardest thing for politicians to do is to take the long view on
things.

This is the most revelatory quote [along with the no-victory vow] in this interview; BHO
laments the fact that BB has felt insufficient internal pressure, as if the failure of
Kerrys gambit rests even partially upon BB [when it is clearper Martin Indykthat it
was Abbas who abandoned the effort after his trip to D.C. and return to Ramalah. Then,
he recalls the settle-movement with disdain, failing to note that it has been frozen since
the Oslo Accords were enacted two decades ago. Next, he laments his view that BB is
too strong and Abbas is too weak as if he would wish these statuses reversed.
Ultimately, he again blames BB for not demonstrating leadership, as he has himself
failed to exhibit in multiple worldwide arenas; such projection is pathological.

Clearly, a lot of the presidents attitudes on Iraq grow out the turmoil unleashed in Libya by NATOs
decision to topple Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, but not organize any sufficient international follow-on
assistance on the ground to help them build institutions. Whether it is getting back into Iraq or newly
into Syria, the question that Obama keeps coming back to is: Do I have the partners local and/or
international to make any improvements we engineer self-sustaining?

Any time someone writes clearly, it aint so clear; here BHOs attitude regarding Iraq is
predicated on abhorring any suggestion that he emulate anything done by Bush-43.
Indeed, he is forced to admit that he failed to follow-through in Libya, precisely the
charge BHO leveled [unfairly, incorrectly] @ Bush-43 [for not having an exit-plan].
Amazingly, he uses a phrase that is identical to his core-condemnation of the nation
building by Bush-43 [assistance on the ground to help them build institutions].

Ill give you an example of a lesson I had to learn that still has ramifications to this day, said Obama.
And that is our participation in the coalition that overthrew Qaddafi in Libya. I absolutely believed that
it was the right thing to do. ... Had we not intervened, its likely that Libya would be Syria. ... And so
there would be more death, more disruption, more destruction. But what is also true is that I think we
[and] our European partners underestimated the need to come in full force if youre going to do this.
Then its the day after Qaddafi is gone, when everybody is feeling good and everybody is holding up
posters saying, Thank you, America. At that moment, there has to be a much more aggressive effort to
rebuild societies that didnt have any civic traditions. ... So thats a lesson that I now apply every time I
ask the question, Should we intervene, militarily? Do we have an answer [for] the day after?

The logic of this posture is too-easily punctured; he justifies intervening in Libya to avoid
its becoming Syria, but he has yet to intervene in Syria. Again, hes engaged in what
might be termed on-the-job-training, as if he suddenly discovered the need to have a
cogent plan to rebuild societies after he has bombed them for - year.

{The man is a walking/talking disaster, indicted by his own self-serving self-assessment.}