• April 2007: Nancy Pelosi meets with Bashar Assad in Damascus in a deliberate attempt to undermine President George W. Bush's Middle East policy. She declares that, "The road to Damascus is the road to peace."
• John Kerry meets with Bashar Assad repeatedly between 2007-2011, stating that Assad is a "very generous" man.
• In 2011, Priest-King states that "Assad must go."
• On 20 August 2012, during a press conference, Priest-King states that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would constitute a "red line," implying that strong U.S. military action would result. This comment followed press leaks regarding the Osama bin Laden raid, the Flame virus used to cripple the Iranian nuclear program and aggressive Predator drone strikes to kill terrorists abroad, all designed to burnish Priest-King's reputation as a strong defender of U.S. national security during the Presidential election campaign.
• On 19 March 2013, chemical weapons were used against a rebel-held district in Aleppo, Syria. At Russia's urging, Syria asks the UN to investigate the attack, then Russia delays the investigation for a month until Great Britain and the United States confirm that sarin gas was used to kill 25 people and injure 86 others. Although his "red line" has been crossed, Priest-King does nothing.
• On 21 August 2013, chemical weapons were used against a rebel-held district in Damascus, killing over 1400 people including 400 children, in the middle of the night. Although it appears that the Syrian regime carried out the attack, Priest-King does nothing. The same day, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, sends a letter to Congressman Eliot Engel stating that American military intervention in the Syrian civil war would help rebel forces that do not support U.S. interests. It is estimated that foreign fighters linked to AI Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood constitute as much as one-third of the rebel force trying to overthrow the Bashar Assad regime, thus arming the rebels would also arm America's sworn enemies.
• On 30 August 2013, the British House of Commons sternly rejects a resolution on the use of force against the Assad regime for the chemical weapons attack on the 21st. With that setback in mind, Priest-King states that he has the authority to order an attack against Syria without Congressional approval and orders Navy warships to the eastern Mediterranean, but reverses himself the next day, announcing that he would request Congressional authorization for any military action. Public opinion trends heavily against any strike as the American people are exhausted after twelve years of war, a fact that Priest-King leveraged when he ordered the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq and Afghanistan the previous year, and support in Congress is tepid.
• While in Stockholm for the G-20 summit on 05 September, Priest-King states, "I didn't set a red line" concerning Syria's chemical weapons, contradicting his statement of the previous year and the emphasis he had placed on Congressional authorization, and confirmed that if Congress rejected the resolution on the use of force, he could still order an attack on his own authority. This was apparently an attempt to shift responsibility for any action - or inaction - to the Congress and the international community at large while still appearing assertive.
• 09 September 2013: As an overwhelming defeat of the Congressional resolution appears imminent, John Kerry states that Syria can avoid an attack by relinquishing control of its chemical weapons stockpile to the international community within a week, apparently as an offhand remark, but adds, "It can't be done." Within hours, Russia prompts Syria's foreign minister to accept Kerry's offer, forestalling the threatened u.s. strike, yet Priest-King still sends his senior national security staff to Capitol Hill to press for Congressional authorization anyway. The following evening, Priest-King addresses the nation, urging the public and Congress to support a military strike against Syria but announces that he was asking for a postponement of a vote on his resolution and that such a strike was also being postponed in favor of negotiations regarding the Russian plan.
In technical terms, this is called a Mongolian goatrope. It is an absolutely gorgeous train wreck, a confused, twisted, incoherent mess that laughably passes for foreign policy. No consistency, no plan, no single person in charge, nobody knows really what the objective is, not even the President. We embrace Assad, we demand his ouster; we toss out bluffs and throwaway lines that turn into policy, then follow them or ignore them as the wind blows; we do nothing, we threaten massive reprisal, we threaten "unbelievably small" reprisal, we do nothing again; we'll go it alone, we'll ask for Congress' authorization, we'll go it alone even if Congress declines authorization, we'll ask Congress to postpone a vote on authorization; we refuse to arm the Syrian rebels because many of them are Al Qaeda terrorists then threaten to attack the regime they are fighting to overthrow. And let's not forget that all this confusion is piled on top of hesitation to support the overthrow of the Tunisian government during the Arab Spring, followed by air strikes in support of the Al Qaeda-backed Libyan rebels (without Congressional authorization), followed by more hesitation regarding the protests in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, followed by full recognition of the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government in Egypt, followed by confirmation of U.S. recognition of the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government in Egypt as it was being overthrown by a popular revolt against their imposition of sharia law, followed by refusal to call the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government in Egypt a coup.
Nobody, absolutely nobody knows what's going on and the result is a drifting, unmanned ship of state at a time and in a situation that demands firm, resolute American leadership, but the question we have to ask is, what is behind this Chinese fire drill? Why can't the American people have a firm, clear, consistent foreign policy? Well ...
1) Priest-King's focus has always been reshaping America into a socialist commune with foreign policy, to the extent he is interested at all, limited to diminishing the United States internationally. If the United States behaves less like a superpower and more like a big, amiable neighbor willing to loan a million cups of sugar, deferring all problems to the United Nations, goes his childlike logic, then other countries will stop acting so aggressively and settle down.
2) With that naivete in mind, Priest-King, like most post-Vietnam radicals, detests the U.S. military and the unilateral use of force to further American national interests. The thought of using the military to punish another country, even a thug like Bashar Assad and even to reinforce American credibility, disgusts him and he does everything possible to avoid it.
3) ...but thugs respect force and failing to follow up on a threat invites disrespect. If we know anything about Priest-King, it is that his ego is boundless and the idea that another leader disrespects him is unacceptable, thus ordering a military attack became more palatable. (Note: I am sure that Priest-King intended his "red line" remark as a bluff and believed he would never have to enforce it. His words alone, as Nobel laureate, Emperor of the Americas and Keeper of the Secret Flame, should have been enough for the dictator of
Damascus.)
4) Trying to reconcile points 2 and 3 is impossible for many of Priest-King's allies. They share his disgust for using the military for our own interests yet they want to remain loyal to the nation's first black President, thus they splinter: Dianne Feinstein allies herself with Ted Cruz, Dick Durbin sides with Jeff Flake, and for poor Ed Markey, voting "Present" in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was all he could muster.
5) Priest-King vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq when Saddam Hussein had gassed 5000 of his own people to death in Halabja in 1988 and had gassed tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers during Iraq's war with Iran in the Eighties, and when Congress had expressly authorized such invasion. Yet he bombed Libya on his own authority in 2011 when Muammar Ghaddafi had used chemical weapons on nobody, so it seems that Priest-King's transient political interest is the governing principle where chems are concerned.
6) Having deliberately lowered American prestige and power abroad during his first term, having vacillated on Syria and having "reset" relations with the Russians (withdrawing missile defense radars in Poland and the Czech Republic, shifting the focus of American strategy from Europe to Asia, promising more "flexibility" regarding missile defense after his reelection), Priest-King should not be surprised that the Russians would quickly step in. Minus strong American leadership, that was bound to happen and Priest-King should have seen it coming. The plain fact is that the Russians want to win. Vladimir Putin could care less about international opinion or how badly Priest-King wants his approval but he cares intensely about winning and increasing Russian influence in the Middle East. He punked Priest-King at their summit a few months ago, he gave Edward Snowden asylum over our objections, he lectures us in The New York Times and holds Priest-King in contempt. He seized on John Kerry's stupid remark as manna from Heaven and ran with it, boxing Priest-King in and seizing the initiative. I'm glad that the likelihood of American soldiers dying in Syria has been diminished and I'm glad that we will likely not be dragged into yet another Middle East war, but the reality that Russia is controlling the agenda in Syria and not the United States should scare the bejabbers out of anyone.
7) Priest-King's "national security team" is staffed with the greatest cast of incompetents assembled since It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. Samantha Power as our U.N. Ambassador, who sees the American military as a sort of Peace Corps with guns? Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary, who vigorously opposed the surge in Iraq in 2007 but wouldn't acknowledge its success, who publicly embarrassed himself so thoroughly during his confirmation hearings he has yet to recover? John Kerry as Secretary of State, who was for the $87 billion in supplemental funding for Iraq before he was against it, who flipped-flopped on trade, on the Israeli security fence, on the Patriot Act, on the death penalty for terrorists, on everything, who
invented the "global test" for American military action? Susan Rice as National Security Advisor, who brazenly and repeatedly lied to the American people over the terrorist attack in Benghazi last year that killed four diplomats including the U.S. Ambassador? It's a surprise that these people even know how to get out of bed, so trusting them with the security of the United States is like giving a shotgun to a muskrat.
This is mediocrity masquerading as statesmanship. Priest-King doesn't know what he's doing. He can't make up his mind what to do because he can't reconcile his leftist principles with the strategic interests of the United States. His philosophy is being exploded right in front of his eyes and he has no clue how to proceed, he's being completely outclassed and humiliated by Vladimir Putin, he's been played for a sucker and he's always two steps behind. His advisors are idiots. We are witnessing an inept, weak, inexperienced, bush league excuse of a President fail on the global stage and if we emerge from this crisis without going to war with Russia, or Syria, or Iran, we should fall down and praise God for His mercy in sparing us. That's the good news. The bad news is that we have three more years of this nonsense to go.
