Nobody could have seriously expected President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to be pushed to explain their record of foreign policy failures in their joint interview on “60 Minutes” last night. With presidential sycophant Steve Kroft asking the questions there was little probing other than about their personal interrelations and the obligatory question about 2016 (which reminded us that the only real loser in the interview was Vice President Joe Biden who, despite being the adult in the White House when it comes to getting things passed through Congress, was sent the clear message that he is still an also-ran as far as the president is concerned). But there was one real nugget of information about the future of American foreign policy that the president let slip, and it actually deserves more attention than the titillating details about the Obama-Clinton alliance.
The real headline out of the interview ought to center on the following remark by the president in response to a rather soft question about his “lead from behind” strategy in the Middle East:
President Obama: Well, Muammar Qaddafi probably does not agree with that assessment, or at least if he was around, he wouldn’t agree with that assessment. Obviously, you know, we helped to put together and lay the groundwork for liberating Libya. You know, when it comes to Egypt, I think, had it not been for the leadership we showed, you might have seen a different outcome there.
Let me get this straight. President Obama is not merely bragging about a conflict in Libya that led to chaos not only in that country that produced the murders of four Americans including our ambassador. He is also saying that he thinks he positively impacted the outcome of the power struggle in Egypt over the last two years and actually thinks his “leadership” helped create a situation about which we are happy. So what he’s telling us is that he’s not merely pleased with what he did or didn’t do, but that he thinks the current situation in Cairo in which the most populous Arab country is now run by a Muslim Brotherhood government led by a raving anti-Semite is a good thing about which he can brag on national TV.
Let me specify that I think many on the right give the president too much credit for what happened in Egypt. Sclerotic dictator Hosni Mubarak was going to fall no matter how much the U.S. tried to prop him up, so pinning the blame for the longtime U.S. ally’s collapse solely on Obama’s decision to cut him loose is to give that factor more importance than it deserves.
But Obama and Clinton do deserve serious blame for not continuing the Bush administration’s attempt to aid genuine Egyptian liberals prior to Mubarak’s fall. More importantly, they played a not unimportant role in helping to undermine the Egyptian military in its effort to prevent the country from sliding into the grip of the Muslim Brotherhood over the last year. Rather than back the military, the administration clearly signaled via threats of aid cutoffs that they should stand down and let the Brotherhood complete their power grab.
It would be one thing for the administration to approach the question of Egypt by saying that the creation of an Islamist government in Cairo with few, if any, checks on their power, endangering religious minorities, the peace with Israel and spouting hate wasn’t their fault. But for the president to actually brag about how his “leadership” played a key role in allowing Islamist Mohamed Morsi to achieve exactly the sort of power that we deplored when it was held by America’s friend Mubarak on the same weekend when tens of thousands of Egyptians returning to Tahrir Square this weekend to protest the Brotherhood putsch speaks volumes about his foreign policy agenda.
This is not merely an administration that doesn’t have a steady hand on the rudder, as its clueless approach to Syria demonstrates, but one that thinks having a hatemonger like Morsi and his Islamist crew achieving hegemony in Cairo is something they can brag about as a triumph for American foreign policy. It’s little wonder that Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah are so confident that they need not fear the impact of American “leadership” in the next four years.
As long as his narrative is unchallenged, Obama's perception of reality becomes fixed in the body politic. Obama's "greatness" is as a propagandist. The sooner we the opposition wake up to this fact and do all within our power to negate the propaganda, the less permanent the damage will be. I am now reading Max Boot's book, "Invisible Armies" which clearly describes the tremendous impact that propaganda has had on successful insurgencies, particularly in the 20th and 21st centuries. We and the Israelis are particularly asleep at the wheel on the need to launch an effective counter propaganda machine/
Well, Jonathan, now that Hussein Obama has claimed credit for the openly anti-Semitic Islamist regime of Mursi I suppose that you understand that you must drop the pretence of attributing his disastrous foreign policy to simple ignorance, fecklessness or incompetence. Rather Hussein has chosen sides, and it is the side of his Muslim ancestors.
I guess they would like to take credit for a disaster, It doesn't make very much sense.
Amazing, isn't it how someone could think that putting an end to dictatorships in Libya and Egypt might be a good thing.
Libya's beating to death of Qaddaffi was followed by chaos, anarchy, and Al Qaeda affiliates the government can't control. Not such a great thing. Well, for the Islamist militias who now have lots of toys, a very good thing.
nothing is great in Egypt or Libya and no one should expect that it would be after 40 + years of dictatorship on top of all the past history. n nbut things had to change, didn't they? n n
ah. different question, but why take credit as if the change was an unblemished success? n nwe can't "liberate" societies from their own centrifugal impulses–coming a few short months after the consulate was burned to the ground these slogans are inadequate–*not* that Obama should have led from the front or sideways but why defensively spike the football? Mubarak's dream of cementing a family monarchal succession onto a family-dominated oligarchy … in hindsight over reach. No answers from this corner…
actually, besht, we can and have….. Japan comes to mind.
With Morsi just declaring state of emergency is should be obvious, even to a thinking challenged liberal, that in Egypt Obama's stupidity helped replace a secular, military dictatorship, with a far worse, for Egyptians and Americans, islamofascist, ideological dictatorship. nIn Libya a dictatorship was replaced by tribal/islamist anarchy that is exporting weapons and terrorism to the entire neighborhood. nBut I guess connecting the dots there would require thinking on the part of both, you, and the idiot, so-called "president".
While we're at it, even someone who is no fan of the emperors of China should be able to admit that Mao was a bloody mass murderer and a disaster for freedom and human rights. What part of this is so hard to understand?
nothing is hard to understand about that….is it hard to understand that dictatorships are not good for us and our interests. n nthey have to go or our folks shoulda remained in bondage in Egypt.
Yeah, so was putting an end to the brutal and corrupt rule of the Tsar. And the Diem government. And the Shah. Can any sane individual believe that the result in each case was not far worse than the original regime?
yes. the short-term result ain't the result. n n n
Wow. So people (let along the Jews) were better off under the Soviets yemach shmam than under the Tsar yemach shmo. That simply boggles the mind.
my grandfather fought against the Tsar and said that he had no regrets about doing it, despite his having to flee when the Bolsheviks seized power
Maybe he just likes to brag. The implications of the high-five to self may not be all that important.
Last night's show and Hillary's charade of an appearance at last week's Senate hearings were nothing more than the beginning of the 2016 campaign. Hillary "officially" took the mantle as Obama's political heir. The Obama-compliant media will be equally as compliant for Hillary. n nLet's face it, only a very small slice of the electorate gives a damn about what happens outside our borders unless and until we are attacked directly (9/11; Pearl Harbor). Only a precious few of those who pay attention actually will have foreign affairs impact their votes in a meaningful way, and that does not count the many of my co-religionists who are swayed by simple platitudes from the Democrat candidate of the moment about our shared values with Israel. n nObama and Clinton know this and know, therefore, that they can call in one of their media lapdogs, lie through their teeth, and worry not at all about the consequences. n n"What difference does it make" indeed.
too bad he did not take credit for SyriaToday. n nbut a few of us noticed that Burma's war against their 'stateless Rohyinga muslims" was re-branded into Burma's war against an "insurgency", after Obama's official visit.
He's bragging because he knows the liberal press won't call him on it.