Thursday, June 5, 2014

Obama-bashing 101

Those who think that the uproar over the release of American POW Bowe Bergdahl demonstrates blatant hypocrisy or inconsistency on the part of the Obama administration's critics just don't appreciate their logic. Allow me to explain just how the minds of the Obama-bashers work. Until last week, President Obama was wrong for not doing enough to bring Sergeant Bergdahl home. Now he is wrong for doing what was necessary to get Bergdahl home. If you think that is inconsistent, you are missing the crucial point that in both cases, it is President Obama doing the wrong thing. There is no inconsistency whatsoever. In fact, the President's critics show nothing if not a breathtakingly beautiful consistency that can be summed up in a simple Rule Number 1 for Obama's detractors: no matter what President Obama does, he is ALWAYS wrong. Now occasionally following Rule Number 1 requires the president's critics to change their own minds about what the president should do or have done. They're only following Rule Number 1 when they do that. And of course the only person to blame for this flip-flopping must be President Obama. When Obama wasn't doing enough, that must have been Obama's fault. When he accomplished what the critics wanted last week, he must be wrong to do that also. To admit otherwise, the president's critics would have to give up Rule Number 1. And they would rather tie themselves into pretzels than do that.

Once you let Rule Number 1 sink in, just think about the futility of comparing President Obama's actions to those of any of his predecessors. Those who wonder how President Obama can possibly be criticized for releasing Guantanamo detainees or for negotiating with the Taliban, given that President Bush released way more detainees, or that President Reagan negotiated with way more terrorists and practically created the Taliban, have not really understood the lesson I am trying to impart here. Do I have to spell it out? Those were Presidents Bush and Reagan doing those things. They obviously had justification. In this case, we are talking about President Obama. Completely different situation. Get it? On the one hand, you have President Bush or President Reagan. On the other, you have President Obama. How can anyone even make a comparison? If you're still confused, read Rule Number 1 again.



The final thing that President Obama's defenders don't seem to understand is that even if President Obama sometimes does the right thing, he always does it the wrong way. Let's call that Rule Number 2. In other words, maybe President Obama was supposed to try and get Bowe Bergdahl back, but he wasn't supposed to negotiate for Bergdahl's release. Instead he should have sent Chuck Norris and Sylvester Stallone over to Afghanistan to shoot their way out or something. Or even if was ok to negotiate, Obama should have gotten a better deal. Or even if we made a fair deal, Obama shouldn't have allowed Bergdahl's parents to go on television. Following Rule Number 2, it is easy to understand how Senator McCain, for example, is able to explain how he could have approved only a few weeks ago of making a deal for Bergdahl's release, but now he can be completely opposed to the deal that was made. McCain never said Obama should make THIS deal. He should have made some other deal. Following Rule Number 2, it is easy to see how this deal was the wrong kind of deal. What's wrong with it? Well, all kinds of things are wrong with it, but the main thing that is wrong is that it was made by President Obama.

Any questions?

1 comment:

  1. There are only two rules to dishonorable conservative hypocrite fight club...

    ReplyDelete