As U.S. jet fighters return to Iraq's airspace, political pundits carpet-bomb American foreign policy and President Obama putters around Martha's Vineyard, the nation's malaise grows increasingly palpable.
This worsening mood crosses ideological divides. Collectively, it amounts to “a country that feels ‘everything is terrible,'” according to one analyst.
Even the president's media allies who support his “hope and change” regardless of how hopeless his policies turn out are turning against him. The latest “straw” (but probably not the last) is U.S. airstrikes to restore order (was there ever any?) in Iraq.
“I've been trying to figure out this man's doctrine now for six years,” NBC reporter Chuck Todd said on Sunday's “Meet the Press.” “He doesn't have one … .”
In fairness, the long-standing mess in Iraq predates Mr. Obama's tenure. What made situations worse, there and elsewhere, is the projection of U.S. weakness — meaningless “red lines,” an ineffectual response to Russian belligerence and, most recently, the U.S. tucking tail in Libya. Indecision and weakness have opened wide the door for ISIS, a brand of Islamofascists worse than al-Qaida.
For this, Americans have reason to feel frustrated, even angry. But malaise must not translate into inaction on Election Day. Restoring America's spirit begins by rejecting those in Congress whose profound failure has been to allow Barack Obama to walk over them.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Saving RadioShack: Innovation vs. focus
- A chilly reception
- The truth about the VA: Rank dereliction of duty
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Chicken Littles can’t cluck away climate facts
- Saturday essay: Awaiting the peat
- Education & entertainment
- The Scottish vote: Defeat as victory
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- The medical device tax: An abject failure