It’s rarely news when the Wall Street Journal opines against President Barack Obama’s policies. But when the Journal’s opinion writers are joined in the condemnation of the latest Obama speech by the editorial boards of the Washington Post and New York Times, then you have a story.
Such is the case this morning, after the President tried to define his foreign policy as something other than a mess. His normal cheering section at the Times wrote, “The address did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left.” The Post piled on, suggesting that Obama is simply not up to the task of being the Commander in Chief in such dangerous times: “President Obama has retrenched U.S. global engagement in a way that has shaken the confidence of many U.S. allies and encouraged some adversaries.”
But leave it to the Journal to best define Obama’s foreign policy approach with an old pop culture reference: “listening to Mr. Obama trying to assemble a coherent foreign policy agenda from the record of the past five years was like watching Tom Hanks trying to survive in ‘Cast Away’: Whatever’s left from the wreckage will have to do.”