Daddy Issues
Here’s a helpful tip to any aspiring writer. If you start out an essay with the following sentence:
Look, I’m a sensitive New Age guy — I cook, I do laundry, I choke up at movies (well, Gladiator, anyway).
you should probably rethink and start over. It’s the equivalent of “I don’t mean to be rude” followed by rude statement. Why do people thinks this works? Anyway, once again, conservatives show us their daddy issues. This time it’s about Libya, or more specifically, about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (it’s a twofer!)
One of the reasons Khrushchev gambled on missiles in Cuba is that he perceived JFK as a weak man when they met in Vienna. Conversely, one of the reasons Khomeini released the hostages just as Reagan was taking the oath of office was his “Ronnie Ray-guns” reputation (something the air traffic controllers ignored — which itself became another lesson for our enemies). Do you think Putin and A-jad and Chavez and the ChiComs are more afraid of Obama now? It was obvious to most of us that Hillary has more, uh, stones than Obama, but to have it confirmed so publicly for less-attentive foreign goons means they’re that much more likely to try to push us and see how The One responds.
Before you send me any burning bras, the problem is not with women leaders — the enemies of the Virgin Queen and the Iron Lady can attest to that. The problem is not even with the president having strong female subordinates. Rather, Obama’s pusillanimity has been hugely magnified by the contrast with the women directing his foreign policy and the fact that they nagged him to attack Libya until he gave in. Maybe it’s unfair and there shouldn’t be any difference from having a male secretary of state do the same thing, but there is.
Krikorian is glad we have strong women in government but he thinks it’s kinda icky too. It must be really confusing that the white male Republican Secretary of Defense was the most skeptical about an intervention in Libya.
Tags: Mark Krikorian, National Review, NRO
He solved the wingnut conundrum of how to criticize a President for dropping bombs, when bombs are the best thing EVER!
Nagged?
That’s quite a code word. All he’s missing from this essay are the words “hysterical” and “bitch.”
Apparently Pat Buchanan was on MSNBC this morning and said the Libyan intervention was an emotional response. I’m just surprised he didn’t say it was hormonal.
I get sick and tired of the Republican lie that Iranians gave up the American hostages because they were afraid of Reagan. The release of the hostages was negotiated with the Carter administration.
Hillary is teh awesome. Anybody who can get the Arab nations on board with attacking an Arab dictator, and get the French to lead the way no less, is a pretty good statesman. All without making apocalyptic public pronouncements about mushroom clouds. Her negotiating skill leaves Condi in the dust.
The Republicans are just jealous, because they think any time the bombs fly, it should be Republicans to push the button.
Obama attacking an Arab dictator blows up their whole narrative about unpatriotic DFH defeat-ocrats who hate everything military. Not to mention their Muslim president narrative. So they are scrambling for anything they can say to maintain some sort of opposition. Any crazy statement or rationalization criticizing Obama will do, because the alternative would be to support Obama and rally around the President, and that is unpossible.
Just think what they’d be saying if Obama didn’t intervene.
So somehow the fact that President Obama has surrounded himself with smart and strong women who are actually doing their jobs (and not taking marching orders from Karl Rove)is supposed to demonstrate some unmanliness on Obama’s part? These guys are a basketcase.
There is much to pay attention to in this business, and whether or not American foreign policy is somehow feminized surely ain’t it.