Here's the way to look at this Obama gaffe (though the White House doubtless considers it a towering example of profundity and courage): Vladimir Putin wrestles polar bears, and Barack Obama worships them:
Or, if you prefer Allahpundit's version, "This is like being down 28-0 at halftime of the Super Bowl and having your QB tell a reporter that baseball’s actually his best sport."
Eeyore goes on to make my point for me:
My definition of leadership is maximizing your side’s advantage by making smart executive decisions in a high-risk atmosphere. Who’s done a better job of that lately in Syria? Obama notes that Putin’s only involved now because his previous strategy, of supplying Assad and his Iranian patrons and hoping they’d succeed on the battlefield, didn’t work. But our strategy, to the extent that we’ve ever had anything one might reasonably call a “strategy” in Syria, hasn’t worked either. We’ve supplied some of the Sunni rebels [i.e. ISIS] with weapons but they haven’t managed to overcome the Assad/Hezbollah/Iran/Russia axis. We tried to train our own "rebel" "army" [all fifty-four of them] before the project ended in total humiliation, with the White House whining that they never wanted to do it in the first place. When Putin’s strategy didn’t work, he adapted by agreeing to put Russian military assets in the field to turn the tide of war towards Assad — and that strategy is working. When Obama’s strategy didn’t work, he … made a concession to the other side, mollifying Iran and Russia by agreeing that there’s no rush for Assad to leave so long as he agrees to leave "at some point" as part of an eventual political settlement [that will be dictated by....Russia and Iran, which means that "political settlement" won't remove Assad]. Putin changed the facts on the ground to maximize his leverage at the bargaining table. Obama reacted to those changed facts by trying to accommodate him. Which sounds more like leadership?
That's such a rhetorical question that I don't need to bother addressing it. What I will point out is that Red Barry is being remarkably....consistent. He's said before on many an occasion that he considers "climate change" (i.e. the communization of the U.S. economy] a much bigger threat than ACTUAL threats like ISIS, North Korea, Iran, Russia, and Red China. And as we've documented before, he has no problem with Czar Vlad rebuilding the old Evil Empire, or he wouldn't be allowing him to overrun Ukraine, threaten NATO, and replace the U.S. as the dominant world power in the Middle East. He undoubtedly agrees with Putin that the fall of the Soviet Union was the "greatest tragedy of the twentieth century," just as the central tenet of his foreign policy is that it is America that has been the "focus of evil in the modern world," and only by "reducing America to the level of the rest of the world" will "global justice" be restored. And thanks to his defense policies, we no longer have the military capability of deterring or stopping the Russians anywhere on the planet.
"Climate change" may be an obsessive fetish of O's - indeed, it is - but it is one of the few things about which he is scrupulously honest.
And if Vladimir Putin was POTUS, you know what? He'd be pushing the exact same thing, for the exact same reason. No wonder the man and the whatever get along so well.
UPDATE: Oh, yes, "climate change" is MUCH worse than this effective terrorism:
The European Union’s aviation regulator warned airlines of the potential danger of flying over Iran, Iraq and the Caspian Sea after Russia fired cruise missiles against [ISIS] targets [in Syria].
The European Aviation Safety Agency noted the launches of missiles from warships in the Caspian Sea, though it didn’t recommend that airlines avoid flying there, according to a safety bulletin Friday on its website.
The warning came as Dutch safety investigators plan to release a report Tuesday into the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine last year that killed the 298 people on board.
This from a (ruthless) leader that is repeatedly invading Turkish airspace as an opportunistic perk of having occupied Syria.
But a leader who understands all too well how the world of geopolitics works, has always worked, and always will work. Meanwhile, our "leader" is too busy sucking off polar bears.
Exit question: Does The One ever even get a bottle of Coke for his strenuous efforts?