Obama Paradox

I think we all agree on something that history did happen when the president told his countrymen and the world that he was putting on hold the much anticipated US attack against Syria. Besides, why would no one be looking at Barrack Obama in the first place? Anyway, it was just Barrack Obama weak stance to defend his own debacle to have had miserably failed to gain support from his allies from across the Atlantic that had propelled him to say that “he hadn't changed his mind about the need and justification for punishing the Syrian government for its probable use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.” If he really had said he hadn't changed his mind about the need and justification for punishing the Syrian government, he sure wouldn’t have put on hold the much anticipated yet belated US attack against Syria in the first place because we all know that Barrack Obama should have attacked Syria long time ago (that is if he really has any b@lls left naturally. It is just a c*ck and bull story if America finally decides to “"go it alone" in punishing Bashar al-Assad's regime for its bad behaviour” because the main reason why he’s been asking for approval of Congress in the first place was because he has found out that Britain had already voted against the intervention in Syria and there had been strong resistance from French people at large to oppose any decision to tag along in the intervention. Believe me when i say that Barrack Obama sure wouldn’t have asked for approval of Congress, had his allies Britain and France decided to be on board toward the intervention plan. Besides, America sure thinks that it would simply be a suicidal mission to strike Syria if America ever decides to go on stand-alone mode because america didn’t even take part in the air-bombing campaign in a weaker state of Libya. Like I have said before that asking for approval of Congress is nothing more than just Barrack Obama way of telling that he buckles under pressure to know that his allies have dumped him. To put it simply, Barrack Obama needs the approval to stall for more time. And for the so-called liberal law professor, who absolutely had no qualms to surge American boots in Afghanistan, who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing, Barrack Obama has utterly flunked the test of warmongering and pugnacity. Perhaps he is the problem because he simply isn’t ready to be as impulsive, reckless and ruthless as Bush is. Moreover, we all know that it’s been a major blow for America to be left alone by its staunch allies, Britain, to intervene solo in Syria. Last year, The New York Times interviewed around three dozens of Barrack Obama’s former and current advisers and they all said that Barrack Obama was a leader of full paradox when his so-called “Kill List” program had gone public and the following are some excerpts from the article “Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises but his family is with him it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation. Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary and the president’s own deep reserve.” “In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda. They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands. When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.””Barrack Obama, the liberal law professor, who both campaigned against the Iraq war and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list” and shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing, is still a paradoxical leader now. However, this so-called type of paradox has quite changed from the way it used to be because his paradox now has been nothing but a true embodiment of a man without clear consciousness due to his own awkward, desperate utterance “President insists US should launch limited strike to "deter" Assad, but says he will seek approval of Congress first.” Just what on earth is that thing? President insists US should launch limited strike to "deter" Assad, but says he will seek approval of Congress first? If he wants to play his cards right, he should seek approval of the Security Council first because this so-called intervention is still illegal without the approval of the Security Council and then approval of Congress. Or Is he going to follow the same path UK has already taken? Barrack Obama couldn’t even make UK believe that intervention was supposed to be healthy for their warmongering minds. In summary, the current type of Obama paradox “President insists US should launch limited strike to "deter" Assad, but says he will seek approval of Congress first” is nothing but Barrack Obama’s way of concocting cheap excuses to stall for more time because the simple fact is that Barrack Obama and America simply buckle under the constant terrifying thought to have to confront those mighty Hezbollah, Iranian, and Syrian warriors in the first place. I remember when Leon Panetta said to president Karzai that he should be grateful instead of criticizing America, “We've lost over 2,000 men and women, ISAF has lost forces there and the Afghans have lost a large number of their forces in battle. Those lives were lost fighting the right enemy, not the wrong enemy. I think it would be helpful if the President [Karzai] every once in a while expressed his thanks for the sacrifices that have been made by those who have fought and died for Afghanistan, rather than criticising."In the meantime, one of the Elders, Jimmy Carter, whose so-called Carter Doctrine was intended to employ any means necessary to prevent a hostile power from gaining control of the Persian Gulf, was neither able to implement his so-called doctrine in Iran following the Iranian revolution in 1979 to free the American hostages there nor did it enable Jimmy Carter to topple the Khameini until Carter’s final term in office. Many decades later, Barrack Obama so-called doctrine to ask for approval of Congress is nothing more than his way of stalling for more time so that he has enough time to choose which one is better to strike or not to strike. That is the question.