One wonders at times how supposedly intelligent people who gain elective office can make such unearthly mistakes in both judgment and action. President Obama, after making himself look silly when he opined that Cambridge policemen acted stupidly a while back has now at least intimated that Sanford, Fla., policemen act accordingly regarding the Trevon Martin shooting. In both cases, he delivered himself of opinions without knowing the facts surrounding the instances precipitating his responses.
Without a clue as to the circumstances accruing to the Martin killing, he reckoned that if he had a son the boy would look just like Martin, the statement itself stretching one’s credulity as to the president’s state of mind (or mindlessness), unless Obama figures that anyone with two ears and one nose would look okay enough to be his son. He would have been better off if he had just said that the Sanford policemen acted stupidly, since the other statement (similar son) was so utterly foolish and had no bearing whatever on the matter. Apparently, he wanted to make sure that the black voters hadn’t forgotten his blackness, especially since Obama is half-white.
Okay…that was bad enough, but far worse was the president’s unspeakable gaffe when he was unaware of being on a “hot” mike when making unbelievable statements to the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev , during his latest clambake and photo-opportunity-gig in South Korea.
Obama: "This is my last election … After my election, I have more flexibility.” Medvedev replied in English, according to ABC News: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin, recently reelected president]."
The Obama White House has been in full damage-control since this mess occurred, the story being that this remark applied only to the matter of missile-defense, as if it made any difference what matter was under discussion. The president placed himself squarely on the record as purposely being deceitful vis-à-vis the U.S. citizenry with respect to anything he plans to do once he’s reelected.
More to the point, he described himself in no uncertain terms with regard to his dealings with not only Russia or the U.S. but with any entity, individual or collective, domestic or international. This is the definition of “flexible” [Merriam-Webster Collegiate, 11th Edition]: “Capable of being flexed: PLIANT; yielding to influence: TRACTABLE; characterized by a ready capability to adapt to new, different, or changing requirements: ‘a flexible foreign policy’.”
The president has already given evidence of his “flexibility.” In 2008, he made it plain that marriage is between a man and a woman, just as federal law requires, as well as state laws and constitutions. Now, his stance is “evolving.” In other words, flexibility means that he will recant the 2008 position when he is inaugurated in 2013, not losing any of the homosexual vote or neglecting payback. A normal man or woman will not change his/her mind on this matter, so empirically decided and not just biologically though that’s enough.
The prez promised to close Gitmo by January 2010 but became “flexible” and Gitmo remains, not that anyone actually expected him to do that. He was all for trying Khalid the butcher in a U.S. mainland court but became “flexible” and the big bad K, former U.S. university student and planner of 9/11, remains at Gitmo.
So…the prez is “capable of being flexed: PLIANT.” This is another way of saying he’s capable of being used, just as he was used by the likes of Al Sharpton and the New Black Panthers in his silly statement concerning Martin and son-ship. He probably thought he was being eloquent but he obviously should not have spoken without his teleprompter, presumably prepared by someone who would have known better than to have him make such an obviously racist statement.
When the president reached over and patted Medvedev’s hand, was he “yielding to influence” and being “TRACTABLE?” Who knows? He stopped the missile-defense system planned for eastern Europe in its tracks, much to the dismay of the folks close to Russia and wondering about the viability of U.S. commitments (especially NATO) and a potential new Soviet Union, not to mention possible action courtesy of Iran, much closer to Europe than the U.S.
Is the president susceptible to the third definition of “flexible:”…“characterized by a ready capability to adapt to new, different, or changing requirements: ‘a flexible foreign policy’?” Even the dictionary definition of “flexible” mentions foreign policy. Obama declared war on Libya a year ago and initiated the destruction of that benighted country by a simple executive order, with not so much as a by-your-leave from the Congress.
Instead, Obama went to the United Nations for some kind of resolution structured by the “women’s mafia” of the White House – Clinton, Rice, and Powers, and then later to NATO. That’s a definitive departure from U.S. policy, which is to tend to its own affairs and not let any other entity dictate what that means, and certainly not to allow a president to start his own little wars. Obama’s foreign policy is obviously “flexible” enough to crown him as some sort of king when it comes to whatever he wants, the elected legislators be damned.
Yeah…the prez is “flexible,” and chances are that “we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.”