Presidential veracity, &c.

Lately, I’ve been reading about President Obama’s Iran deal. For a long time, he swore that any deal would have to “dismantle” Iran’s nuclear program. But the program will remain very much mantled, so to speak.

Obama’s previous statements and swearings? They are to be ignored, apparently. They have been superseded. We must forget them.

The president now says that sanctions on Iran, which were laborious to organize, can be “snapped back” anytime. Does anyone in the administration believe that? Does anyone in the public believe that?

Which is to say, does anyone believe Obama on this issue?

I think back to health care, Obamacare. Obama must have said a thousand times, “If you like your plan, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep him.” He also said that insurance premiums for the average family of four would fall by $2,500. He said that with every other breath he drew.

Look, Richard Nixon is known as a liar. He’ll be known as that for all time, I suppose. This same reputation has not attached to Obama. Reagan was known as the “Teflon president,” because nothing stuck to him. This frustrated the hell out of the Democrats and the media (same thing). They came up with that name, “Teflon.”

Too little sticks to Obama, in my opinion.

‐A story is told about Earl Long. Immediately after he was elected governor, he broke some campaign promise. The press was after his press secretary: They wanted an answer. The hapless man said to his boss, “What’ll I tell ’em?” Earl said, “Tell ’em I lied.”

‐For months now, I have said that there is one main question about Obama: volition. In other words, is he doing it on purpose or is it simply an accident?

What do I mean by “it”? I’m talking about Obama’s various moves on the national and global stages, and the effects those moves have. Take the foreign front: Obama has emboldened our enemies and demoralized our friends.

It’s all an accident, right? It’s just incompetence, blundering. It can’t be intentional — right?

I was interested to see, in a talk last week, that Victor Davis Hanson put his finger on exactly that question. If I’m thinking along the lines of VDH, I’m thinking pretty well.

This question — “Is he doing it on purpose?” — is terribly insulting to Democrats, not to mention Obama himself. It is also unanswerable — absent some grand or cackling confession in a future O memoir . . .

‐Here is a specific question: Does our president want to stop Iran from acquiring the Bomb? Really and truly? In his heart of hearts, does he want to stop them? I want to say, “Yes, of course, don’t be ridiculous. What, do you think our president is some frickin’ sleeper agent?” Honestly, I don’t know what Obama wants. Concerning Iran and some other matters.

My guess is something like the following: Obama thinks it would be nice if Iran didn’t acquire the Bomb. But he is not willing to extend himself to stop them. And he thinks, “Well, Israel has the Bomb, and is that fair?” (I know such people.)

I may well be wrong. And I certainly hope I am.

‐Like everyone else, I have disagreed with presidents and leaders in the past. But I was always pretty sure I knew what their aims were. I might have thought their policies misguided, or disastrous, but I knew what their aims were. I just thought they were hopeless in achieving them.

I am genuinely unclear as to what O’s aims are.

‐At the recent Latin American summit in Panama City, Raúl Castro went on a tirade against the United States — our conduct of the Cold War, in particular. Castro then apologized to Obama. “President Obama has no responsibility for this,” he said. And, “in my opinion, President Obama is an honest man.”

Did Obama defend our country — Eisenhower, Kennedy, and all the rest? Did he defend liberal democracy against Communist tyranny? Did he defend those wishing to liberate people from this tyranny? No, he said, “The Cold War has been over for a long time. And I’m not interested in having battles frankly that started before I was born.”

Daniel Ortega did the same thing at the 2009 summit. He went on a tirade against America. He had particular scorn for our operation at the Bay of Pigs. But he noted that Obama had no responsibility for that operation.

To which our guy said, “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.”

I’m reminded a little of the 1996 vice-presidential debate — which sorely disappointed Republicans like me. Al Gore said, in effect, “Jack Kemp is a decent person, unlike his party at large, which is racist.” Our guy thanked him for it.

Great.

In 2009, I jotted down what I called a “fantasy response” to Ortega. I will reprint it here. This is what the American president would have said, if I had had my way:

“Well, the Bay of Pigs was terribly executed. But it was a noble cause: the overthrow of a heinous dictatorship. One that denies an entire people their natural, God-given rights. Had that operation succeeded, Cuba would have been infinitely better off, and the world would have been better off. And many good and brave men died in that operation. If we are to be sorry for anything, it’s that the operation did not succeed, not that it occurred.”

For a statement like that, you need a different kind of president. Not Barack Obama. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio? They could make such a statement, and want to. But not O, not O ever.

‐Take a look at the photo accompanying this article. Do you see Obama beaming at Castro? Can you imagine him lighting up like this at Benjamin Netanyahu, Mitch McConnell, or some other democrat? I’m not sure he gives so delighted and loving a look even to Michelle.

‐This article on Monday was headed “NY’s Cuomo becomes 1st US governor to visit Cuba post-détente.” I don’t think I’ve seen that word “détente,” except in a historical context, in 30 years. Interesting.

And here’s the first sentence of the article: “Cuban officials and New York business executives are exploring ways for companies to do business on the communist-run island despite the longstanding U.S. embargo that makes most trade and investment illegal …”

That is an accurate and instructive sentence. Free World business executives meet with “Cuban officials,” i.e., the Communist party. You cannot do business with Cuban businessmen. You must do business with the Party, the dictatorship. You pay the dictatorship and therefore sustain its life.

Europeans, Canadians, Mexicans, and other people have been doing this for many years. And now we will. Ain’t we proud?

‐I have a zillion more items for you, but I’ve gone on long enough. Obama got me hot and bothered (not for the first time). This has been an exceedingly gloomy Impromptus, too. Let me do an item on the Holocaust.

Yesterday, I saw the headline “Auschwitz guard goes on trial, says he shares moral guilt.” (Article here.) I realized I’ve been reading these stories my entire life. And, in a few years, we’ll read them no more.

‐Can’t end on that! Some music? For a review of a new Cav ’n’ Pag at the Met — a new production of the double bill consisting of Cavalleria rusticana, by Mascagni, and Pagliacci, by Leoncavallo, at the Metropolitan Opera — go here.

‐One more? Okay. The latest book of the great Shelby Steele is the masterly Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country. For my review of it, go here.

This is just a tiny matter — basically an irrelevancy — but Steele refers to Leonard Bernstein as “the great Broadway composer.” I got a smile imagining his reaction.

“Th-thanks, but . . . what about my classical music? And my conducting? And my piano playing? And my lectures? And my . . .”

Heh. See you!