President Barack Obama gave his heralded speech to the cannon fodder at West Point yesterday and the neocons went batshit in that the emperor failed to give a full-throated endorsement of their insane ideology of global conquest. By the time that the last words were ticking off of the teleprompter the neocon propaganda flagship at the Washington Post had already published a blistering screed by their morally bereft, warmongering editorial board denouncing what was in actuality a support of continued American interventionism by the Commander in Chief.
The editorial board screed, "At West Point, President Obama binds America’s hands on foreign affairs" is nothing more or less than the standard chickenhawk, spread "democracy" at gunpoint malarkey that roils one's stomach to even read it. I excerpt from this wretched, whining jeremiad as follows:
In his address Wednesday to the graduating cadets at West Point , Mr. Obama marshaled a virtual corps of straw men, dismissing those who “say that every problem has a military solution,” who “think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak,” who favor putting “American troops into the middle of [Syria’s] increasingly sectarian civil war,” who propose “invading every country that harbors terrorist networks” and who think that “working through international institutions . . . or respecting international law is a sign of weakness.”
Few, if any, of those who question the president’s record hold such views. Instead, they are asking why an arbitrary date should be set for withdrawing all forces from Afghanistan, especially given the baleful results of the “zero option” in Iraq. They are suggesting that military steps short of the deployment of U.S. ground troops could stop the murderous air and chemical attacks by the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. They are arguing that the United States should not be constrained by Cyprus or Bulgaria in responding to Russia’s invasion and annexation of parts of Ukraine.
To those doubters, the president’s address offered scant comfort. Reiterating and further tightening a doctrine he laid out in a speech to the United Nations last fall, Mr. Obama said the United States should act unilaterally only in defense of a narrow set of “core interests,” such as the free flow of trade. When “crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction,” he said, “we should not go it alone.”
This binding of U.S. power places Mr. Obama at odds with every U.S. president since World War II. In effect, he ruled out interventions to stop genocide or reverse aggression absent a direct threat to the U.S. homeland or a multilateral initiative. Those terms would exclude missions by previous administrations in places such as Somalia and Haiti and Mr. Obama’s own proposal to strike Syria last year — but not the war in Iraq, which was a multilateral campaign.
Mr. Obama made one new practical proposal: to set up a $5 billion fund to “train, build capacity and facilitate partner countries on the front lines” of fighting terrorism. The initiative is worthy of support as a way of checking emerging threats in places such as Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Mali. But just as a U.S. invasion is not needed for every terrorist haven, not all can be eliminated by training other countries’ forces.
Mr. Obama also pledged to “ramp up support” for the Syrian opposition. But he made the same promise last year and failed to follow through. Those U.S. allies who worry about Mr. Obama’s foreign policy retreat — and those who have exploited it — will be impressed by a change in U.S. behavior, not the president’s rhetoric.
More whining about Syria - given that the neocons are such ardent supporters of extremist right-wing Israel it is more than a bit mind boggling that advocacy of supporting extremist Islamist elements in Syria - including flesh eating cannibals who actually boast about their actions - but the same traffickers of outrage also hypocritically line up behind the neo-Nazis that are being backed in Ukraine despite the devastation wreaked upon the Jewish people by Hitler and his real Nazis.
Tellingly, the "army of straw men" applause line also appeared in another WaPo Editorial but Iran-Contra criminal and deeply embedded arch-neocon Elliott Abrams who went on his own tirade over Obama's 'failure' to execute the Project for the New American Century plan. Abrams should have long ago been thrown into one of the darkest and dankest holes of a US federal prison for his crimes, instead he landed a gig with the Bush II administration and continues to be a key player within the Deep State.
As for Obama's speech, it really is nothing more but the same imperialist horseshit all wrapped up in a red, white and blue package - more of the same warmongering abroad and more tyranny and revocation of liberties, nullification of the US Constitution and repression at home.
It falls short of what the neocons desire though but even Hitler himself would have problems satisfying their insanity.