As President Obama heads to the Middle East this week, including his first visit to Israel, the White House is downplaying expectations, saying the president hopes only to help leaders come together to bring peace and democracy to the region.
The president arrives Wednesday in Jerusalem, where he will try to improve his relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on the heels of a newly installed Israeli government....
“President Obama looks forward to working closely with the prime minister and the new government to address the many challenges we face and advance our shared interest in peace and security,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Saturday.
Kinda deep and fragrant, isn't it? But wait: there's more!
Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, said last week the president feels he has already been clear about the Iran situation: He prefers to resolve the issue peacefully but has established a so-called “red line” -- not allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.
That would be one hell of a lot more believable if the "red line" would just...stop...moving!
In any event, the mass of already accumulated evidence is entirely against Obama. His affection for the Muslim world has been displayed far too many times. His flaccidity at the time of the Iranian uprisings, and during the Benghazi atrocity as well, should make it clear that Obama will never act against a Muslim state or mass movement. His recent gift of arms and money to the Islamist government of Egypt is another important point on the graph. Had he been president at the time of 9/11/2001, the United States would never have gone to war in Afghanistan. Neither has he troubled to conceal his antipathy for Israel. Consider the "I'm going to dinner with my wife; you get to wait here" episode when Benjamin Netanyahu came to the White House.
Anyone who trusts Obama to say what he really means -- on any subject -- is a fool and worse. Which speaks volumes about the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, doesn't it?