Instapundit Glenn Reynolds Will Now Dumbsplain Why Barack Obama Is Like A Black Neville Chamberlain

If there is one thing for which we can always count on the Ole Perfesser, Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds, it is his propensity for churning out columns of such rank stupidity and willful ignorance that we wonder if all his former students might have an easily winnable class action lawsuit against him for stealing all their tuition monies in exchange for whatever “education” he pretended to impart to them. Also he’s kind of a schmuck.

So let us dive into whatever this tripe is that the screeching poo-flingers of the rightwing monkey house were passing around the Intertubes yesterday, and bang our heads against our desks in a concordant symphony, for freedom:

Remember that dumb cowboy George W. Bush, who alienated all our allies and dragged us into wars of choice in the Mideast? And remember that goofball Mitt Romney, whom Joe Biden a year ago accused of wanting to go to war in Syria?

Both of them must be having a big laugh over the way things are going for Obama now.

First of all, it is well established that Mitt Romney does not laugh. He might let out the occasional strained chuckle, perhaps force a syllable that sounds vaguely like “ha” from his clenched jaw, but laughter is well beyond his processing capacity. Second, we do remember that dumb cowboy George W. Bush sending a couple of hundred thousand of our countrymen to invade Iraq for totally made-up reasons. Syria is a slightly different calculus. For one thing, unlike Iraq in 2003, it is coming apart at the seams thanks to an atrocious civil war that we have actually stayed the hell away from for over two years now and that evidence suggests may have done something pretty awful. We’re not going after it like a schoolyard bully going after a weaker kid on a playground. For another thing, there is a notable difference between lobbing some cruise missiles at Damascus and a full-scale invasion. We assume that even America’s enemies would recognize that fact.

At least Hollywood is still behind the president -- or, anyway, is mostly keeping quiet about its opposition because, as old-line Hollywood liberal Ed Asner reports, they "don't want to feel anti-black." So it's come to this -- while George W. Bush was savaged for "bombing brown people," now if you're against bombing brown people you're "anti-black."

Ed Asner? What, was Dabney Coleman too busy to give an opinion? We understand Asner is some sort of progressive activist, but honestly, we have lived in Hollywood for over fifteen years and this may be the first time we have ever heard his name mentioned in any context outside of someone occasionally asking, “Hey, is Ed Asner is still alive?” Congrats Instaputz, you found one grouchy 83-year-old white guy who said something dumb that confirms your self-pitying world view (“No one can criticize Obama without being called a racist!”) and made it into a blanket charge about why Hollywood has been quiet so far on the Syria question, while missing the point of the Hollywood Reporter story that you linked to, which states that the lack of opposition may be due more to lack of organization than lack of will. Nice cherry-picking, ‘Putz. At least we know under what circumstances you cons will care about what Hollywood liberals think about a thing.

Obama was elected after he and his party sowed distrust of U.S. military endeavors, mocked "intelligence estimates" about "weapons of mass destruction,”…

Because those intelligence estimates about WMD were actually lies "supported" by made-up evidence. Whatever else we think about the possibility of bombing Syria, so far the evidence seems pretty compelling thatsomeoneis gassing civilians over there.

…and suggested that anything the United States did in the region was probably somehow a scheme to benefit oil companies. Now Obama and his administration are shocked to find that when they go on about intelligence estimates and weapons of mass destruction, people don't take them seriously.

We submit that people aren’t taking the government seriously on this not because Obama opposed the Iraq War in 2004, but because the bullshit sandwich Bush and his neocon cronies shoved down their throats a decade ago destroyed for the next few generations whatever tiny shreds of credibility government claims had even back then. As for the oil company charge, we don’t recall all the Democrats who voted in favor of invading Iraq saying that. There were plenty on the left who said it at the time but were roundly ignored (for the record, we don’t put much truck in that charge, on the theory that the oil companies have a vested interest in a stable pro-oil drilling environment in the Middle East, not an unstable one, and a war with unknown outcomes in that part of the world is actually bad for business.)

Likewise, Obama has repeatedly shown his disdain for Congress and his willingness to act without congressional approval in all sorts of areas, from ObamaCare implementation to gun control.

Damn that Obama, wanting to implement a law that Congress passed and he signed. And gun control? Don’t make us laugh.

Our diplomacy is a joke, our president is a laughing stock, our enemies are emboldened, and we've still got over three years of this to go.

Our enemies are so emboldened that Syria, which has long denied it even possessed chemical weapons, is now at least saying it will sign the Chemical Weapons Ban and turn its stockpiles over to Russia. Whatever we may think about the process that got us to this point, there is no denying that this outcome, should it happen, is a pretty darn good one, and we didn’t have to bomb anyone to achieve it. We would also remind the ‘Putz that, among his recent activities that showed Assad he is serious, Obama dispatched half the Sixth Fleet to the eastern Mediterranean. If that made the Syrian president or anyone else feel somehow emboldened, he’s dumber than we thought.

[ USA Today ]