On the September 4th Special Report, Brit Hume’s commentary used the possible military strike against Syria as an excuse to strike against President Obama – by suggesting that if he only he believed more in American “exceptionalism,” we would never have gotten into this position to begin with.
Hume said:
The predicament now facing President Obama on Syria can be traced to two notions that shaped his foreign policy from the start. One is his evident belief that America and its foreign interventions are a big part of what was wrong with the world. The other was or is his apparent view that his mere presence in office would change the attitude of the world, and especially the Muslim world, toward the US.
Neither of these ideas has proved out, but the President, who’s thought a bright fellow, has been slow to learn that. Unfortunately though, he was quick to pick up on another notion, that Congress could and should be bypassed when it suited him on issues ranging from recess appointments to immigration laws to the employer mandate in his health care reform law. Now, he finds himself going hat in hand to Congress to obtain authority he said he doesn’t need to engage in the kind of unilateral intervention he once decried. And in a Middle Eastern country whose leader has shown no regard for Mr. Obama himself or his red line warnings.
It would be comforting to think that Syria is proving a lesson to the President about the US and its exceptional place in the world. But it seems the President is prepared to act only to vindicate his own spurned warnings on chemical weapons. In other words, once again, it’s all about him.
Whether you agree with Obama's policy toward Syria or not, to say a president is going to take military action because of his vanity and/or ego is appalling.
Those and, “The Klingon’s words are hollow and we do not hear them.”. Dr. “Bones” McCoy
Yeah. How dare Obama? Who the hell does he think he is? Dubya?
Maybe someone should check Brit Hume’s record from late 2002 when Dubya was ramping up his war plans for Iraq. Somehow, I don’t think he was there attacking Dubya’s plans because of Dubya’s vanity and ego. (And speaking of “vanity/ego,” someone might want to remind Mr Hume of Dubya’s little “mission accomplished” stunt. Not just the “flight suit” landing but the very fact that the ship was forced to turn back from shore so Dubya’s landing would be more impressive. To use Mr Hume’s own words: “In other words, once again, it’s all about him.”)
Fact check: No one in the media treated Bush like this during the run-up. Even his harsher critics gave him a lot of passes because they were afraid of being labeled traitors for so much as asking too hard a question.
You know when the ones who wanted to be tough about this unloaded? When he already had his war, and he was being callous about both the loss of life, and the WMDs not being found.
