Presidential Fulminations

Our president is in full hue and cry over Russia doing something that has heretofore been the sole prerogative of the United States, namely the use of its armed forces in foreign countries to impose its will. He sent John Kerry to Kiev to tell the Russians that “You don’t just invade another country on trumped up charges to serve your own interests.” Why he could not have told them that from Washington is unclear, but perhaps he thought it would sound less hypocritical if he said it in Kiev. He was mistaken.

Obama told the world that, “The proposed referendum on the future of Crimea would violate the Ukrainian constitution and violate international law,” which reveals his attitude about laws. He did not think that partition would violate international law when the US sponsored the partition of Sudan, nor when we lent military assistance for the partition of Yugoslavia, which Russia opposed, by the way. Obama views laws through the lens of his personal objectives.

He also said that the situation in Ukraine and Russia’s actions "constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States” which, even for him, is a bit bizarre. Obama’s responses to those actions might present a very real threat to our national security, but short of Obama doing something really stupid the situation is no threat to us at all. And what is a “threat to our foreign policy,” precisely? Even George W. Bush didn’t exacerbate international tension by fulminating about “threats to our foreign policy.”

“We took these steps in close coordination with our European allies,” Obama told us, with respect to the sanctions issue. “I'm pleased that our international unity is on display at this important moment.” He must not have been listening when our European allies were coordinating with him, because all of them have said they are not on board with any sanctions.
Of course for America "coordination" consists of us telling them what to do. That didn't start with Obama; we've been that way for decades.

He also said that “any discussion about the future of Ukraine must include the legitimate government of Ukraine.” He doesn’t specify what he means by “legitimate government,” but the current government of Ukraine is the armed mob that took over by means of a violent overthrow of the elected government. So, which government does he propose to include in his proposed (and ultimely imaginary) discussion?

At least he’s not waving a yellow and blue flag like John McCain is.