Now he’s not leading at all. He never was really, but in his sit-down with Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” this past Sunday, the “leader of the free world” made it clear that he has no idea what leadership means, especially in these fractious times.
When Kroft presented the president with the harsh realities on the ground in Syria — specifically with Vladimir Putin’s movement of troops into that country, challenging Obama’s leadership — Obama said:
Well Steve, I got to tell you, if you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we’ve got a different definition of leadership. My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change, an international accord that potentially we’ll get in Paris. My definition of leadership is mobilizing the entire world community to make sure that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon. And with respect to the Middle East, we’ve got a 60-country coalition that isn’t suddenly lining up around Russia’s strategy. To the contrary, they are arguing that, in fact, that strategy will not work.
Self-delusion this dramatic is no laughing matter, but that didn’t stop the Twittersphere from lighting up with taunts. Here, via Twitchy, are several:
Obama's definition of leadership for Putin is leading on climate change? WTF? Putin plays chess, Obama plays Candyland…alone. #60Minutes
— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) October 11, 2015
— Obama NSC- Archived (@NSC44) October 11, 2015
Mr. POTUS, if climate change is the most important issue the LOTFL should be focused on, Putin wins again.
— Dennis Ross (@RepDennisRoss) October 12, 2015
Even if climate change were the existential threat Obama seems to believe it is, does he not see Russia’s incursion into the Middle East a priority?
Also, what in the world is the “world community”? Is that the United Nations, which has been a non-entity for at least a century, if not more?