Pattern: Obama warns of consequences; there are none

Please make a note the next time you think about voting for a presidential candidate because you like the way his speeches sound. Politicians who have a gift for saying things well don't necessarily have a gift for doing those same things well, or at all, and that becomes a pretty serious problem when the politician becomes president and his words put him in a box from which he is not prepared to extricate himself with action.

So when Barack Obama warns Vladimir Putin that there will be consequences for the invasion of Ukraine, why exactly should Putin believe that? Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal looks at some recent Obama statements about supposed consequences bad actors would face, and recalls that the action with which he followd up was . . . non-existent:

Is there any reason for Russia to think Mr. Obama means business? What were the costs to Russia for harboring Edward Snowden? When the Kremlin was considering in June what to do with the fugitive NSA contractor living in a Moscow transit lounge, Mr. Kerry warned that there would be "consequences" for giving him asylum. He got asylum; there were no consequences. Two months later, Mr. Obama was happy to accept Russian mediation for a face-saving deal on Syria's chemical weapons rather than impose the consequences he had promised if Bashar Assad used them. A few months after that, the administration quietly eased its enforcement of the Magnitsky Act sanctioning corrupt Russian officials.

---

You can take it way beyond that. What price has Iran paid for continuing to pursue its nuclear ambitions? None. How is North Korea being held accountable for its continued misbehavior? Not at all. What does the socialist regime in Venezuela fear from the United States - an important trading partner - for the oppression it is imposing on its people? Nothing whatsoever. Obama will make serious-sounding statements about American resolve, but they mean nothing because everyone has figured out by now that if Obama thinks words sound good coming out of his mouth, Obama will speak those words. The notion that these words would necessarily be related to any sort of real action is pretty fanciful. That's the problem with a president who has that much confidence in his own oratorical prowess, even as its pretty well lost its luster for just about everyone else. He thinks that people still take things he says serious. It's as if Obama entire presidency is one big bluff. Just believe the words I say and act accordingly. Don't make me act! (Because I wont.) He doesn't have the slightest understanding that bad actors on the world stage will act in their own best interests - at least as they perceive them - and not according to the notions of the world embraced by Barack Obama. The Washington Post, which endorsed Obama for president twice, unleashed a pretty brutal editorial about this the other day. Their own headline: "President Obama's foreign policy is based on fantasy" A choice excerpt:

FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which"the tide of war is receding" and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past. Secretary of State John F. Kerry displayed this mindset on ABC's "This Week" Sunday when he said, of Russia's invasion of neighboring Ukraine, "It's a 19th century act in the 21st century." That's a nice thought, and we all know what he means. A country's standing is no longer measured in throw-weight or battalions. The world is too interconnected to break into blocs. A small country that plugs into cyberspace can deliver more prosperity to its people (think Singapore or Estonia) than a giant with natural resources and standing armies. Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not received the memo on 21st-century behavior. Neither has China's president, Xi Jinping, who is engaging in gunboat diplomacy against Japan and the weaker nations of Southeast Asia. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is waging a very 20th-century war against his own people, sending helicopters to drop exploding barrels full of screws, nails and other shrapnel onto apartment buildings where families cower in basements. These men will not be deterred by the disapproval of their peers, the weight of world opinion or even disinvestment by Silicon Valley companies. They are concerned primarily with maintaining their holds on power.

Obama simply makes declarations that would make a difference if the world operated as he imagines it should. When they don't, he figures it's not his fault because his vision is lovely and all these bad people who aren't doing things his way are the problem. Actually imposing consequences is far too difficult and complicated, and Obama backs away every single time. And yet, you can tell what's in a person's heart by what he does, and there are enemies Obama is willing to punish. Republicans. Businesses. Tea Party groups. He'll go after them with everything he's got, even if he has to abuse the powers of the IRS and the FEC to do it. So you might face consequences if you stand in the way of Obama's vision for a socialist United States. But you won't face consequences if you misbehave on the world stage, because Obama doesn't really have the stomach for dealing with you there. And he doesn't really want to. Besides, shouldn't his speeches and declarations be enough? He sure hopes so, because that's all he's got.