Direct link to article... [littlegreenfootballs.com]
With Republicans falling over themselves to hug Putin while aiding Assad in his messaging, and Putin following Republicans lead to take digs at "American exceptionalism" when Obama says it, it's hard to know who the "bad guys" are these days.So we get this from the New York Times: "Obama: Weak or the anti-Bush?"
Republicans et al are elevating Putin in order to tend their bitter Obama wounds; thus, because Putin had an op-ed on the NYT in which he swaggered a lot (remarkably like another "dictator", Bush -- an accusation made by constitutional lawyers), Obama is "weak". This is the conclusion of his usual detractors, and since many Republicans are saying it, it's also become the takeaway and the trickle down beltway auto-looping narrative of the day.
It's as if there is no more time. It's all done now. The weapons are turned over and Putin delivered on his promise and we have proof that even though Obama was talking to him, this was really all Putin's idea (even though Putin hasn't exactly proven to be such a long term thinker).
Or, reality: This is the BEGINNING of very tense negotiations that may or may not even work, and Putin did what he had to do because it turns out that President Obama is not someone to cross when it really matters. See, Obama is not the fantasy liberal pacifist the right thinks he is, nor is he the war-monger the far left thinks he is. People can't see that Obama's opponents are often very loud, but rarely victorious. This is not a "weak" person. That is one of the more ignorant arguments I've ever heard lobbed at Obama.
And of course, presidents, no matter how well intentioned, can't control events. They can only control their reaction to events.
More: Republicans Unite Behind Putin the Dictator in Order to Diss Obama