Foreign policy, articulated by butt-hurt adolescents:
On August 11, 2010, Obama continued with the lies when celebrating Ramadan in the White House:
These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam's role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality. And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country. And today, I want to extend my best wishes to the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world---and your families and friends---as you welcome the beginning of Ramadan.
Imagine Kim Jong-il, Hugo Chávez, or any other tinpot tyrant reading these speeches. Perhaps the Somali pirates are waiting for American subsidized health care. Is this a man who strikes panic into the hearts of those who would mess with Uncle Sam?
There is nothing to contradict this personal wimpiness. To exaggerate only slightly, if Obama really gets angry, he may dispatch his failed political rival Secretary of State (or worse, the fearsome Joe Biden) to warn the bad guys that unless they stop hurting Uncle Sam, they're going to get stockings of coal next season (Christmas or holidays obviously constitute impermissible offensiveness).
What would Teddy Roosevelt say?
Foreign policy, articulated by grown-ups:
As President Obama and his advisers measured their response to the mass killing in Libya over the past week, they were mindful of one particular scene unfolding thousands of miles away.
The U.S. Embassy and other diplomatic posts in Tripoli, reopened only five years ago, comprise a series of lightly protected compounds and trailers. The guards there were Libyan, not the U.S. Marines posted outside most embassies. And an armed and angry Libyan opposition was approaching the city from the east, as hundreds of Americans awaited evacuation across rough seas.
Administration officials said the diplomats in Tripoli told them that, in the words of one official, "certain kinds of messaging from the American government could endanger the security of American citizens." There were fears that Americans could be taken hostage.
"Overruling that kind of advice would be a very difficult and dangerous thing to do," said Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.
"That was the debate, and frankly we erred on the side of caution, for certain, and at the cost of some criticism," he continued. "But when you're sitting in government and you're told that ignoring that advice could endanger American citizens, that's a line you don't feel very comfortable crossing."
Of course, a hostage crisis would have been the preferred conservative outcome in Libya, just as it was with Iran in 1980. What's more important, anyway: protecting the lives of American citizens, or ginning up an international incident that you can exploit at the polls in 2012?
---
Vitelius
