David Brooks: Obama Has A Manhood Problem In The Middle East
I predict David Brooks will be forced to give some sort of grovelling apology by the end of the day, possibly before noon, especially when liberals start race-baiting him. The NY Times columnist appeared on Meet The Press, answering a question on the Ukraine situation
(Mediaite) “Basically, since Yalta, we’ve had an assumption that borders are basically going to be borders,” Brooks said about whether the U.S.’s actions on the Russia/Ukraine crisis could impact other territorial disputes. “And once that comes into question, if in Ukraine or Crimea or anywhere else, then all over the world–”
“All bets are off,” Chuck Todd said.
“And let’s face it, Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have a – I’ll say it crudely, but a manhood problem in the Middle East,” Brooks said. “Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad or Putin? A lot of the rap is unfair, but certainly in the Middle East, there’s an assumption he’s not tough.”
“Internally they fear this,” Todd said. “It’s not just Bob Corker saying it, questioning whether the president is being alpha male – that’s essentially what he’s saying, he’s not alpha dog enough, his rhetoric isn’t tough enough. They agree with the policy decisions, but it’s the rhetoric. Internally, this is a question.”
Far be it for me to defend Brooks, the NY Times’ toke conservative, who is anything but conservative, but he meant manhood rhetorically, in the sense that Obama is entirely too squishy when it comes to things happening in the Middle East. Sure, he loves ordering drone strikes, but one must be tough when it comes to diplomacy, not set red lines than run away. That he needs to lead.
And, really, this applies to most of Obama’s dealings. He projects no strength. Hence one of the reasons he has decreased the standing of the U.S. around the world.
George Soros funded Think Progress hasn’t hit the “raaaaacism” button yet, but they go with
What Brooks and Todd are essentially saying is that Obama isn’t more willing to use or talk about the military option as a foreign policy tool, as much as, perhaps, his predecessor was. The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol – who championed the war in Iraq and has been calling for one in Iran – is also a proponent of this kind of “manhood” in foreign policy construct. “Real action” in Iran, he said earlier this year, is not using diplomacy to solve the nuclear crisis, it’s a military attack.
What is Obama willing to talk about? Russia is walking all over Obama. Syria’s Basher Assad is walking all over Obama. Obama did threaten “consequences” if the red lines were crossed. He’s threatened consequences regarding Crimea and Ukraine. No one is listening, because no one takes Obama seriously.
It’s a perception of strength. Obama does not have it. He never earned it as POTUS.