Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

Is Barack Obama the Worst and Most Incompetent President Ever?

September 1st, 2013 - 3:45 pm

A case can now be firmly made that Barack Obama is the most incompetent and dangerous chief executive our country has ever had. While historians of the future will undoubtedly rate him very high — because he is the first African-American president and they support Obama Care, which they will say is a major accomplishment for his administration — they will overlook his glaring faults. Moreover, they will understand that if they rate him anything other than the highest level, they will be accused of being racists.

Yet in the past few days this has become so apparent that I do not believe anyone, including those who partake in the game of presidential ratings, can ignore the truth. Obama has shown the world that no one can or should take him seriously. After saying since over a year ago that “Assad must go” and then saying that the use of chemical weapons is a red line that Assad cannot cross, he has undercut John Kerry’s speech on Friday by withholding any action until Congress reconvenes in a week.

In effect, President Obama has learned the wrong lessons from Prime Minister Cameron’s shocking defeat in Parliament. Cameron was publicly humiliated; Labor betrayed him by first assuring him of their support and then, at the last minute, deciding that the unpopularity of a strike on Syria would give them political clout. Hence at the last minute they changed their position and gave the orders for their backbenchers to vote against any UK involvement.

Secretary Kerry said in his impassioned speech on Friday that Assad was a “thug” and a monster, and that his action could not go unpunished. The president then not only embarrassed Kerry by postponing action before even conferring with him, but put on hold all in his administration who were getting ready to gather support for a strike, which, as the president said, did not require any vote by Congress. Yet he has now asked for a vote, one in which he has no assurance that he can win. He has opponents on both the Republican and Democratic side of the aisle, and they might very well have enough votes to go against his stated desire that a strike against Syria be taken.

The result, should he lose, will not only be further humiliation, but a damaging setback for the reputation and word of the United States. Our enemies throughout the world will be waiting in anticipation for such a failure. Already, the reports are arriving from the orchestrated celebrations in Syria, which has declared that the regime has already won. By delaying any action for what could be two weeks or more, Obama has given Assad even more time to assure that if a strike comes, it will not harm any of his troops, their weapons, or their strategic military capability.

President Obama, if he had read the Cameron defeat correctly, would have decided to act without consulting Congress, as John Yoo and others have argued is constitutional. Indeed, President Clinton ordered bombing strikes in Kosovo as Congress was deliberating and without waiting for the results of a vote. Eventually he got an endorsement, but he acted first. President Obama now says he is going to Congress even though he knows he does not have to. Do we really believe that if the vote in Congress goes against him, he will then act on his own? I doubt it. What he will do is precisely what Cameron did in Britain — throw in the towel and decide the U.S. really does not have to do anything.

Some would argue that President Obama favors a negative vote. That will give him the option to bow out by saying he is listening to the American people.  We know that he has announced what in effect is the kind of strike that will be only symbolic; one that will not harm Assad in any meaningful manner. That is why ardent hawks like Lindsey Graham and John McCain are contemplating voting no; they think Obama’s planned strike will not accomplish anything. He could, of course — short of regime change, which he will not support — take out Assad’s air force and strategic capability, allowing the regime’s opposition to have a chance. Moreover, such a move would at least stop Assad from killing thousands of more civilians, which the dictator has shown he is capable of doing without using poison gas.

But one thing President Barack Obama is not is a leader. He has the title of commander-in-chief, but he continues to lead from behind and to command nothing. John Kerry, who I argued earlier should have resigned after being so humiliated, has buckled down for his president and had the task of going on all the Sunday talk shows to rationalize and support Obama’s decision to wait for Congress to return and go into session. Obama did not even decide to call Congress back into session on Labor Day or Tuesday, preferring to wait till the scheduled date of resumption.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The only "authority" Barrack Obama ever had was the authority given to him because of his race. The left knew this way back when. They found a malleable, self-centered, somewhat glib African American whom they groomed for years until the right moment came when they could get him elected president. He's simply an ideological robot whose parts are wearing out.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Actually the damage is already done. The U.S.' enemies are already emboldened, Obama's 5-years of negotiating with no results have already given Iran the green light to work harder and faster to obtain a working nuclear arsenal, and they've already reached the conclusion that the word of an American president means little (remember the Iranian elections of 2009? the so-called Green revolution? remember Obama's diffidence to the Iranian people?).

Pumping a half-dozen cruise missiles into the Syrian Desert won't do anything except cost the U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars. Ron, when you write about the Soviet and PRC realities, you are without peer. But on this topic you have not realized how much damage Obama's crew has already done.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
People like me have definitely been vindicated. I was appalled that well meaning people were treating the top elected job in the United States similar to the president of one's high school class. Obama was obviously way over his head. He was ready to be no more than another Illinois state senator.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (108)
All Comments   (108)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"Is Barack Obama the Worst and Most Incompetent President Ever?"
===
Worst, YES. Incompetent, NO. Obama knows exactly what he is doing. Jimmy Carter is still the most incompetent president.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yes.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Assad should go and so should Obama.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The answer is yes absolutely!!!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I know hyperbole is nice, but honestly? Worse than Buchannan? Clinton? We are looking at all of American history, are we not?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I am trying to figure out why the title of this article is presented in the form of a question. I would have done it in the affirmative, with capital letters, and a few exclamation signs.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Of course he is the worst and most incompetent president ever.
He feels utter contempt for half the country (conservatives and people who believe in professional merit, economic responsibility and/or fiscal reality), and has many citizens preparing for catastrophe. We didn't need Syria to see this. When he was re-elected last year, sales of firearms, ammo and disaster preparedness supplies increased sharply. Obozo has no sense of self-dimension either. He really believes his sycophantic press. Some comments on this article seem to suggest that there will be a quiet transition to new leadership, either Hillary, or the corrupt Republicans. He's not going to quietly lounge in Hawaii somewhere. He's had a taste of power, and he's not going to exit quietly.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Is Barack Obama the Worst and Most Incompetent President Ever?"
===
So far, yes. However Hillary looms ahead.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I like Hilary better because she is thorughly dishonest and thus more likely to compromise.

Isn't it amazing how now of her past scandals are even brought up? Do you imagine of she were a Republican she would be able to hold her head up?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Did anyone really expect anything different from our first Affirmative Action President? A community organizer, a rabble rouser at best, a state senator and u.s. senator who voted present most of the time. Never owned a business, never signed a payroll, never hired anyone, never fired anyone, never worked in the private sector, no military background, no nothing, a blank slate as his minions used to like to say. Now we know for sure that not only is his slate blank, it's also empty of any new ideas, any way to motivate our citizens, any method of negotiating with our enemies, any prospect of talking to our friends and allies. And we still have three years of this.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The short answer: yes. the long answer: yes. Finis.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All