The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Psychoanalyzing Obama: Krauthammer explains president’s passivity on domestic and foreign policy

President Barack Obama has been taking a lot of heat for partaking in leisure activities while major world events unfold — whether it’s playing golf, throwing parties or filling out his NCAA tournament bracket.

So what gives? Syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer, who was once a practicing psychiatrist, says Obama’s stance on two issues – the federal budget process and the turmoil in Libya – is strategic and doesn’t come from a desire to be “naturally passive.”

In the webcast of Fox News Channel’s “Special Report Online” Wednesday night, Krauthammer said the president’s moves (or lack thereof) on the budget process were strategic and not a result of his personality.

“I don’t believe that it is a matter of personality and that he’s naturally passive,” Krauthammer explained. “I mean, you can argue that he voted present dozens of times when he was younger in Illinois. When it comes to domestic policy, I think he’s got the passivity as a logic. The reason I think he’s passive on the budget is his strategy is to win reelection by having the Republicans walk the plank and make the proposal for cuts which he will now demagogue all the way to Election Day. It’s an active strategy, but it starts by being rope-a-dope and letting the Republicans act first. It isn’t that he’s being passive out of some sort of laziness or a personality flaw.”

Based on past speeches, it is apparent Obama wants to deviate from the “colonial way” of the West’s past, Krauthammer said.

“But on Libya and the rest of the Middle East, I think it’s ideological,” he said. “This is a guy, from all the speeches he made early on — when he made them in Turkey, when he made the speeches in Cairo — this is a guy with the mentality that the West has acted in a colonial way. He said this incidentally in his speech at the U.N., and thus it has to be extra careful in not intruding itself. Remember, the most egregious example of how passive he was — was during the Iranian revolt of 2009. And that was an example where the values of the United States and the strategic interests were entirely parallel and coincidentally he did nothing. In fact he actually acted in actuality as somebody who was helping to give legitimacy to this horrible regime.”

Watch:

YouTube Preview Image

Krauthammer alluded specifically to remarks Obama made about the 1953 Iranian coup and how that gave rise to a more radical theocratic regime 25 years later.

“Why is that? He actually said so at one point,” Krauthammer said. “Because of our intervention 58 years ago with the coup in Iran. In other words – always reacting to a sense that as a member, a leader of the West, they should be extremely circumspect and passive in dealing with the third world because of guilt and all the bad stuff the West had done. And that’s where it comes from.”

  • kingfish

    Krauthammer is one of four major pro-zionist spokesmen for the Israelis, along with Bill Kristol. So his statement about Obama being “passive”, and it’s being “egredious” that Israel’s private army (the U.S. military) didn’t INVADE Iran during its revolt, is understandable.

    I think Mr. Krauthammer needs to pschoanalyze why Israel doesn’t FUND and FIGHT its own wars instead of having the Mossad murder U.S. troops in Iraq and dance in the streets of NY while filming 911. GOOGLE: “Dancing Israelis”

    MOSSAD/CIA MURDERED U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ
    http://www.federaljack.com/?p=19311

  • sunnyr

    Frankly, Scarlett……………… I can’t wait to vote this narcissistic BOZO out of office in less than 2 years! After all the hype by the Lame Stream Media Lapdogs, it turns out that Comrade Obozo is not what he was cracked up to be. He can’t govern, he can’t LEAD, hell, he can’t even tell the truth half the time. He is ONE AND DONE! Move over Jimmy Carter.

  • Sproing

    I have a lot of admiration and respect for Mr. Krauthammer, as much for what he’s accomplished as for what he has to say. I try to never miss a column and he is, quite frankly, the main reason I watch the FOX News “Special Report with Brett Baer” almost every night. In this instance I think it’s possible that Mr. Krauthammer is being overly soft on the President. While President Obama appears to be a generally likable individual I don’t think that any of us really has a solid grasp of just what he may really be like in person.

    My take on his professional life since he rose to national prominence is that much of what he has achieved to date has been manufactured by a willing and compliant media. However, despite the medias well proven track record of being able to unearth vast quantities of data from seemingly the world’s securest organizations they have been completely left out in the cold about most of President Obama’s life and educational background aside from the most superficial information. AS the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet I think we deserve much more from our media. We are quadrennially required to elect a person to LEAD us through the next four years and I think it’s absolutely necessary fore the media to give us as complete a picture of all the potential candidates as is humanly possible. In Mr. Obama’s case we were told almost nothing. That is very disturbing given the potential consequences.

    In any case what can be garnered is what appears to be a lifelong aversion to being really out in front of anybody on any subject of note. Yes, you could argue his early and oft announced position on the Iraqi war but that has become almost a given position for members of the left since the late 60′s. That’s no show of courage. Given his prosecution of the various Bush policies since taking office it is, in fact, difficult to differentiate the two in that area. Aside from that position just what has Obama exhibited any real leadership on? Deficit reduction, tax reform, health-care reform, foreign policy initiatives vis-a-vis the Near and Middle East, in fact any east or west near middle or far? No, an emphatic NO ! He has allowed either the House under Nancy Pelosi or the Senate under Reid to dictate virtually every legislative product turned out by the Democrats over his first two years. Even now he is putting the burden upon the Republican leadership in just the House to initiate the rules of engagement on our looming budget crisis. Even on as important a topic as our long term economic future (the economic future of our children & grandchildren I might add)he prefers to place politics (his political future) over his paramount duty to the American people first and foremost. He exhibits not one of the character traits that we historically see in people with true leadership abilities. He plays a purely defensive brand of leadership that minimizes any fall-out that might taint him personally while leaving it to others less capable of actually doing something to advance the best interests of the country. That may all play well in and era of peace and prosperity for all but that bears no resemblance to the current era of Geo-political and economic reality.

    When the dust settles in the Middle East over the next 18-24 months we can rest assured that it will be politically vastly different then it is today. Given the immense importance that region plays not only in our economic health but that of all Western economies I am loath to leave the leadership to the militarily, economically and somewhat politically bankrupt European nations and the leadership of their bureaucratic European Union. I’m sorry but that just reeks of capitulation and defeat of just the type that set us all up for two major world wars that directly caused the death of millions of people. If that should befall us I’d at least like to be able to say that we had a leadership role as opposed to being led like sheep to the slaughter. Despite the naysayers America still has political and economic power available to us if we are only not so scared to use it for fear we won’t win re-election or perhaps a second Noble Prize.

    Lead, follow, or get out of the way President Obama. To be perceived as weak is to actually be weak.

    • LibertySupreme

      I logged in and joined the site just to respond to this article. I have tremendous respect for Krauthammer, but this is one of the few times I have disagreed with him.

      Your post basically said what I was going to say, except that I would highly doubt many people who were not considered “elite” that would find Obama likeable.

      Anyhow…Obama isn’t NOT taking a position because, or at least JUST because of his idealogy. Mr. Obama is two things: 1) A narcistic, and 2) Below average. They don’t mix well. Obama does not CARE about what’s going on in the world. He ran for Prom King and got it–he doesn’t really care what the score is at the end of the first quarter, and he will only participate in the half-time show if he is the FOCUS of it, then he will go back the bleachers to BS, which is all he can do, and even though, only to a politically-correct, liberal audience.

      Obama may be doing a LOT of what he does out of alleged core beliefs, but I susect MOST of what he DOES or DOESN’T do is that he simply doesn’t care about much, and he doesn’t like to be criticized (or cannot accept it I should say). He’s gone his whole life BEING the “anti-black guy” black guy–with fawning admirers, saying little, producing little, leading nothing. He’s now in a position where he is more objectively measured and he simply doesn’t have the tools to correct, or improve–he never developed them. From his privileged upbringing, to his paid-for school, faux “Editor-in-Chief” position at the Harvard Law Review (where he never published anything) to his election, to his Nobel Prize–the man has never earned or worked for anything.

      Taking a position is WORK and can lead to the risk of criticism.

      • clw

        I agree. I think that at night when he goes to sleep that it DOES gnaw at him that he knows deep, deep, deep down inside that he was voted in solely because of his race, and not his competence. That’s a hollow victory that would not sit well weith anyone, but his ego allows him to push it to the back of his mind and continue on with the charade, because in his view, he made history, and that’s all that matters (to him).

    • goldbeachbiker

      Your writing style and content is extraordinary; it needs to be published somewhere for all to see.

  • Jeugenen

    ANTI-JEW UPRISINGS – HISTORICALLY POPULAR IN EUROPE
    Spontaneous popular anti-Jew uprisings, like wildfires, occur intermittently throughout European history. There is no nation in Europe, including Britain, where economically and politically powerful populations of Jews have not eventually been massacred and violently expelled by popular demand – often repeatedly. Presently, consistent with their notorious historic reputation for nationally ruinous political and economic conspiracy, collusion, and corruption are their instigative roles in causing the catastrophically destructive illegal Iraq War and fraudulent international banking crisis; and their 60 years of robbing and massacring the Palestinian People.

  • opedanderson

    All of this psycho babble is necessary (and is probably true) because of the bottom line reality that we elected a totaly UNKNOWN as President.

  • oceana

    The Universe revolves around Obama.
    How dare anything or anyone get in his way…annoying gnats, like the BP Oil Spill, the Economy or Mid-East ?
    His words & record prove, he’s all about redistributing wealth, power & “finally, getting some justice” !
    Doesn’t matter, if he’s white, black, red, yellow or polka-dotted…
    he’s a PUNK of a President. surely, the most arrogant, impotent, pathetic of all !

  • pihto999

    I disagree. Remember how Obama jumped on Honduras to support their Chavez wannabe president and defeat Honduran democracy? And it happened virtually during the very same days when Iranian protests were going on.

    So he is not always passive. His passivity and activity bursts are dictated by his rigid left ideology.

    • Babylonandon

      Actually pihto, you misunderstand.

      Part of Obama’s anti-colonialism means that he has to either explicitly or implicitly support ANYONE who is willing to violently oppose the United States at every level whether they are a part of a horrific tyranny or the overthrow of one.

      Mubarak and the Tunisian guy ONLY got it because they had the poor taste to befriend the U.S.

      It is not about Democracy with Obama … the nations of the world must oppose and actively work to destroy the U.S. as a global focus. Qaddafi opposes the US, he’s killed hundreds of Americans AND he has achieved the truly MOST noble status of having a member of his own family killed by Reagan which motivated the Lockerbie bombing. The Mullah’s in Tehran chant “Death To America” with their morning coffee – butchering protesters of a stolen election is irrelevant.

      Barrack’s entire reason for being in office is to end America (white oppression personified). This is what he meant by “CHANGE”.

  • oldguy5

    Anyone ever get the feeling that all these psychiatrists and psychologists are a lot psycho themselves?

    I really do hate the “supposedly” educated with an opinion they feel everyone else should buy.