It’s the kind of article that comes out of Washington all the time, full of scene-setting descriptions from anonymous “senior officials” purporting to give the inside scoop of government at work. This one, in The Wall Street Journal last week, told of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s efforts to establish a bond with Egypt’s top military man.
It revealed a “two-hour-plus lunch in Cairo” in April and recounted phone calls before and after the military coup. It was peppered with unnamed “associates” making the case that Hagel “Mans Hot Line to Cairo,” as the headline put it.
The article was interesting, but the message I took away was not the intended one. Not once does it cite any involvement by the president of the United States. In fact, it never mentions his name.
National Security Adviser Susan Rice makes an appearance, as does Secretary of State John Kerry. Other officials are credited with shaping Hagel’s messages and analyzing the Egyptian’s comments.
But nowhere is Barack Obama seen or heard.
His absence during an international crisis is both shocking and, increasingly, not surprising. Recall his comments during the height of the disclosures by rogue NSA analyst Edward Snowden, who went from hiding in Hong Kong to Russia.
Obama said he had not spoken to the leaders of either country because “I shouldn’t have to.”
He said he wasn’t interested in “wheeling and dealing and trading and a whole host of other issues, simply to get a guy extradited so he can face the justice system here.”
For emphasis, he said, “I’m not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker.”
That “hacker” had been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of espionage. Other officials call it the most serious breach of classified intelligence programs in memory.
Yet Obama has said nothing on the case since, even as Snowden leaks new information and seeks asylum among our adversaries.
Obama’s refusal to engage publicly with top issues has become startlingly obvious in his second term. But the assumption that he is privately engaged with them now also seems in doubt.
Of the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups, the president said in the middle of May that “I will not tolerate it,” but has lately gone silent. There is no sign of action on his promise “to figure out exactly what happened, who was involved, what went wrong.”
The decision to postpone the employer’s mandate in ObamaCare was announced by a mid-level bureaucrat on the Treasury Department’s blog — just before the July Fourth holiday. The president made no comment.
Even while our consular outpost was under attack in Benghazi last Sept. 11th, Obama told aides to make all necessary decisions and disappeared for the rest of the night while four Americans were murdered.
The president’s listless conduct has revived comparisons to Jimmy Carter, widely regarded as the worst president in modern times. “Obama is actually far worse than Carter,” a veteran Democrat insisted to me last week.
I tend to agree because Obama’s lack of interest in critical issues is dangerous in a time of growing global disorder. Only the president can fully commit American power and prestige, and unless the president is “all in,” no important policy can really succeed.
Take the case of Snowden. Attitudes on him are shifting sharply, with a new poll showing that 55 percent of Americans now see him as a whistleblower while only 34 percent call him a traitor.
The Quinnipiac survey also showed that 45 percent say our anti-terrorism policies infringe too much on civil liberties, a huge jump from the 25 percent who said that three years ago.
The findings frighten intelligence officials because if the programs lose public support, they eventually will be ended. That increases the odds of a successful terror attack.
Yet the president’s silence is ceding the field to Snowden and his allies. Obama’s failure to argue for the programs he used and expanded, even after he said he welcomed a debate, is making it a one-sided debate. The bully pulpit stands mute.
Because presidential leadership is indispensable, the only thing worse than a bad president is an absent one. Unfortunately, with Obama, we have both.
Now Scott’s screwed by Client No. 9
It sucks to be Scott Stringer. The Manhattan borough president thought he could win the mayor’s race, but early polls showed him at the back of the pack.
So he did what any realistic pol would do — he dropped down the food chain to run for comptroller. When others quit, Stringer faced no serious primary opponent and a likely cakewalk in the general election.
Then he got steamrolled. It started last Sunday night when news broke that mad dog Eliot Spitzer was jumping into the race. A week later, Spitzer’s decision is Stringer’s nightmare.
A snap poll showed Client No. 9 with a 9-point lead among Democrats. Then came the death of Stringer’s plan to try to knock Spitzer off the ballot.
Facing a hurdle of getting 3,750 petition signatures in four days, Spitzer pulled out his fat wallet and lined up enough workers to get 27,000 signatures. The odds are tiny that fewer than 3,750 were valid, so Stringer decided not to challenge them.
His sudden underdog status throws open a window on modern morality. The affable Stringer and his wife recently celebrated the birth of their second child, while Spitzer is notorious for his arrogance and getting caught patronizing prostitutes. Whether he is a changed man and whether he and his wife still share a bed is unclear.
Throw in Anthony Weiner’s decent shot at being the Democratic nominee for mayor despite his own sex scandal, and the lesson is clear: Sex sells, even in politics.
Voters will have the final say, of course, but the early support for Weiner and Spitzer proves it’s not always good to get the government we deserve.
Too many cooks in Christine’s kitchen
The high price of “reform” strikes again. Accusing restaurant inspectors of leveling excessive fines to pump up city coffers, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and members pledged to roll back the revenue to $30 million from this year’s $50 million.
If only they had stopped there. But proving they can’t just get government out of the way, Quinn & Co. announced a raft of changes that will actually increase the role of bureaucrats. They include a new ombudsman for restaurants, a code-of-conduct pamphlet and an advisory board to make the whole thing run smoothly.
Ah, yes, fixing broken government by making it bigger. That always works.
Hill blather$ on
The Times reports that Hillary Rodham Clinton gets big bucks for speeches to industry groups where she offers such pithy bon mots as, “Leadership is a team sport,” reminisces about her dead mother and praises daughter Chelsea.
For this, she gets $200,000 a pop.
P.T. Barnum was right: A sucker is born every minute.