If there's one thing we all know about President Obama, it's that he's a tough guy. Give him a list of names and drone and, as he famously told his aides, he's "
really good at killing people." So why in the world would anyone - let alone a New York Times columnist - question his obvious rock-em-sock-em bona fides?
I don't understand it, so I'll let NYT columnist David Brooks explain it.
“Basically, we’ve also had an assumption that borders are basically going to be borders,” Brooks said on Meet the Press. “And once that comes into question — as in Ukraine, Crimea or anywhere else, then all bets are off. And let’s face it. Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have a - I’ll say it crudely, but a manhood problem in the Middle East. Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad, somebody like Putin?”
Brooks added that he thought the perception was unfair, “But certainly in the Middle East, the assumption is he’s not tough enough.”
Maybe more interesting was Chuck Todd's response. According to the NBC reporter, this perception exists even within the Obama administration.
"By the way," Todd said. "Internally this is sort of.. they fear this. It's not just Bob Corker saying it OK? - questioning whether the President is being 'Alpha male.' That's essentially what he's saying. He's not alpha dog enough. His rhetoric isn't tough enough. They agree with the policy decisions they're making, but it is sort of... internally this is a question."
Honestly, I don't know what these NBC guys expect.
Obama has already demonstrated that he can point, scowl, and issue warnings about imminent further warnings. What else are they looking for?
