From a White House briefing transcript:
Q Broader question on foreign policy -- this Wall Street Journal story that sort of puts together all of the crises that are going on -- Iranian talks in addition to the violence in Gaza you’ve been asked about today, the ongoing civil war in Syria. Obviously, nobody can say that these are all the President’s fault, but he is dealing with all of them, and the story basically says right at the top that U.S. global power seems increasingly tenuous to deal with all of these challenges. So my question is, how does the White House react to the notion that the President is a bystander to all these crises?
MR. EARNEST: I think that there have been a number of situations in which you’ve seen this administration intervene in a meaningful way that has substantially furthered American interests and substantially improved the tranquility of the global community.Sorry, Josh. No one's buying your tale of some era of global tranquility ushered in by Obama.
Global structure and order does appear in rapid decline (and, like the WSJ, I'm not laying full blame on Obama).
The more outrageous the spin coming out of DC, the more likely those in charge are increasingly panicked about how things are going.
How much longer can their facade of normalcy last?