Josh Earnest reduced to blather as Jon Karl destroys Obama's foreign policy record

ABC's Jon Karl really only gives us a partial list here of all the global chaos happening on Obama's watch. He doesn't get into the march of ISIS into Iraq, nor does he mention the swift movement of Iran toward nuclear status or the continuing unrest and oppression in Venezuela. But it's enough that you get the idea. The world can be described as anything but tranquil, and when asked whether the Obama foreign policy bears any responsibility for all this, the response of Press Secretary Josh Earnest is, er, well . . . you try to make sense of it:

---

The most pathetic thing about Earnest's answer (and that's saying something) is his reflexive comment about the Wall Street Journal not being an objective source. In addition to being petulant - as if any report from a media source not known for licking Obama's boots can be dismissed out of hand - Earnest should know if his job is to deal with the press that there is a big difference between the WSJ's news pages and its editorial pages. Indeed, the ideological tension between the two is legendary. Here is the WSJ story Karl referenced, by the way. Judge for yourself if it's a piece of right-wing propaganda or a serious look at the state of global affairs. (By the way, the reference to Assad's chemical weapons is pretty hilarious in light of what's actually happening there.) Beyond that, though, who can make even the slightest sense of Earnest's general reaction? Yeah, we know, Obama's first consideration in making foreign policy decisions (or so they claim) is the best interests of the United States. That's at least theoretically every president's first priority so it's hardly remarkable that Earnest would cite it here. That's not what Karl was getting at the with the question, though. He was talking about results, and asking whether Obama's policies are leading to the turbulent and undesirable situations we see across the globe. The only way to make sense of Earnest's answer is if you interpret it to mean that Obama doesn't care about any of this because it's not America's problem. If we really don't care about Ukraine being overrun by the Russians, or about the Israel-Hamas violence, or about China's belligerence, because hey, they're not on our shores, then perhaps Obama should declare that for the public to understand. I don't think he would make that assertion, though, because it's one thing to embrace the theory that tensions around the world are none of our business. It's another thing to stand by and do nothing when real events spiral out of control. And in truth, it's not that we do nothing. The problem is that nothing we do matters because everyone recognizes that Obama's global stance is based on fundamental weakness. He has no will to act, and because of that, anyone who might feel restrained by the ever-present specter of U.S. power feels free to pretty much go nuts. So yes, insofar as a resolved United States gives global bad actors something to think about, Obama's lack of resolve absolutely helps lead to this type of chaos. And when asked about it, all they can do is stammer incoherently, unless they want to admit the truth: They have no will to stand up to anyone.