In case you didn’t catch it, more than 40 world leaders joined the start of a Paris march for unity against terrorism and for freedom of speech, linking arms in a demonstration of solidarity. Even Netanyahu and Abbas were there! The Paris march may have included more than 1.6 million marchers before it was done, reportedly the largest demonstration ever. More than three million have now marched across France in response to the deaths of 17 resulting from extremist attacks in Paris last week, beginning with the executions of the staff of the satirical newspaper, “Charlie Hebdo.”
You would expect, and I am sure that the world expected, that the United States of America, reputedly the leader of the free world and the nation that most symbolizes the human right of free speech, would have participated in the event with enthusiasm, conviction, and prominence. But no. President Barack Obama did not come to Paris to join with his fellow world leaders. He did not send Vice President Biden either. Though Attorney General Holder was in Paris, he was not directed to attend the march, and did not. The United States was only represented by its ambassador, who is not a world leader, and whose job it is to attend routine functions large and small.
Initially the criticism of the obviously intentional snub was muted, with the toadying mainstream news media, as has been its standard operating procedure since 2008, acting and speaking as if there was nothing amiss. Fox News, also as usual, was the exception, but since that network is isolated and pigeon-holed as a reflexive Obama critic “no matter what he does,” this was initially ignored as more right-wing carping. Then, to his great credit, CNN’s Jake Tapper took to Twitter to say that he was “a little disappointed personally” at the lack of a strong U.S. presence, and in a later statement, escalating to saying that he “was ashamed.” He then wrote in an opinion piece…
“I find it hard to believe that collectively President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Attorney General Eric Holder — who was actually in France that day for a conference on counterterrorism — just had no time in their schedules on Sunday. Holder had time to do the Sunday shows via satellite but not to show the world that he stood with the people of France?
There was higher-level Obama administration representation on this season’s episodes of “The Good Wife” on CBS.”
Good for Jake Tapper, one of the few relatively objective broadcast journalists who is worthy of public attention and trust.
Shortly thereafter the dam burst. “You let the world down,” reads Monday’s New York Daily News headline. Its editorial refers to Obama’s absence from the unity march as an “abdication of leadership.” On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” the Washington Post’s David Ignatius said “it would have been better” if there were a higher ranking U.S. official present in Paris and added that it was a “missed opportunity.” (That’s about as vociferous Obama criticism as you will ever hear on MSNBC.) Drudge headlined “Obama Finally Invisible.”
The defenses being offered by the administration are unusually lame. An unnamed official told CNN that sending Obama or Vice President Joe Biden to an event such as Sunday’s march might have been “distracting” because of the security requirements. Another official sputtered, “As far as public signs of French solidarity from the U.S. — don’t forget several public statements from the president, his call to Hollande and a condolence stop to the French embassy.”
What’s going on here?
1. When this happened, I was taking a deep breath and preparing to write a long post tentatively titled: “Why President Obama Drives Me Crazy.” I had been seriously aggravated by two posters—it may have been the same one—who called me an unethical, typical “right-winger” following the heavy representation from the administration on my “Worst of Ethics 2014” awards. Putting me in a position where I am attacked on that basis is one of the reasons Obama drives me crazy. My assessment of him has absolutely nothing to do with politics—nothing at all. I wanted him to succeed. I thought, and wrote, that Rush Limbaugh saying that he wanted a President of the United States to fail was beneath contempt. As Obama quickly demonstrated that he had nary a clue what Presidential leadership was, I hoped—indeed, I assumed—that he would learn and improve, as almost every other White House occupant has. He didn’t: hence my repeated “flat learning curve” posts. If he could not be competent, I at least wanted him to be honest, and he has not been that, either, or transparent, as he promised. He has avoided accountability; he has not been diligent; and his attitude has been arrogant, petulant and petty. The failure of the Obama Administration, which I have designated an ongoing ethics train wreck, is ultimately a failure of this President’s character. I may still write the post. This episode, however exemplifies the problem starkly.
2. There was nothing listed on the President’s schedule over the weekend, nor President Biden’s, for that matter. The Paris snub was either intentional, or astoundingly stupid. This dichotomy comes up so frequently in assessing Obama’s performance of his duties that I now hesitate to guess which has the upper hand. Still, neither explanation reflects well on him. I tend to think that whatever his intellectual capabilities, the President is so crippled by a narcissistic personality disorder that he behaves self-destructively (harming the nation as well), but I find it hard to believe that any conscious President could not see how this decision would be received.
3. The primary ethical outrage is this: Obama made one of his core themes while running for President in 2008 that he would heal the breach, as he described it, between the United States and the rest of the world. We would not be arrogant; we would not insist on taking on global challenges alone. We would show humility and respect. We would reach out to all. Yet this action is the epitome of everything Obama accused the Bush administration of being, and worse. Holding oneself aloof is arrogance as well as a statement of superiority. It screams “I can’t be bothered, but enjoy your little march.” At least Obama didn’t hit the links; maybe he is learning after all.
4. I have read various theories, mostly from conservatives, about why Obama stayed away. Some argue that having denied that there is a war on terror from the U.S.’s perspective, he refused to appear in a setting that made his pronouncement look as naive as it was. Others claim that he objected to having to stand up for “hate speech.” Boy, I hope that’s not the reason. Others say that this is just one more manifestation of the peevish attitude Obama was displaying this summer—“I don’t have to stand for election again, so I’ll do whatever I damn please”—now metastasized by the epic mid-term rejection of his party. This would be infantile and irresponsible conduct unprecedented in Presidential history, even considering past leaders like John Adams and Nixon, who often allowed their judgment to be swallowed by their resentment. As incredible as it seems that any President would be so self-absorbed and dismissive of his nation’s interests, I lean to this explanation. If you have a better one, let me know.
5. I will always remember the photograph of the world leaders marching in a line for President Kennedy’s funeral in 1963, with Charles de Gaulle, glorious as always in his uniform and cucumber nose, towering above the rest. I remember that the image made me feel secure, that with all the tensions of the Cold War and the constant threat of nuclear annihilation, that the world was united in humanity and values, and despite so many differences, could come together in symbolic unity. That the President of the United States would intentionally reject an opportunity to be part of a similar demonstration today, as terrorism threatens civilization, is a disgrace.
Like Jake Tapper, I am ashamed.
__________________________
Sources: CNN, Politico 1, 2, BBC, The Hill,
Ethics Alarms 
I understand your feelings but we should not be ashamed we should be mad as hell and not let him rest until he apologizes for his behavior or complete lack of presidential leadership.
Her found plenty of time to fly around the country promising more handouts to avoid the real responsibility of his office.
The President may actually have a reason for an apology tour…
The *next* President.
Shame and anger. But also cynicism of just wanting to weather the chaos of the next 2 years in hopes that the grownups can be elected in 2016.
When I heard of this, yes shame and anger, but mostly I thought, “well no kidding. This is Obama we’re talking about.”
You know what? I am constantly surprised and amazed, and thus disappointed and outraged. I’m an idiot. I have hope.
I have never, ever seen anything like this, and the fact that one is supposed to be a right wing ideologue to recognize the conduct for being as awful as it is also stuns me. Still. Yes, I am an idiot.
Yes, that is especially irritating, and to think the guy who made the accusation claimed to be a right winger also. That one flew over me. But yes, it falls into the meme that Obama’s mistakes are really just right wing inventions or Bush’s fault and not actually mistakes from an objective analysis.
I didn’t believe that. I don’t see how a moderate, or a rational liberal, can object to diagnosing MSNBC as unethical, or claim such a verdict is based on anything but common sense.
Not an idiot! It’s, if anything, just a little naïve to believe that the leader of our country and our representative to the world should act in our country’s best interest. I know, I’m also suffering from that same mindset. I was taught (in school, as well as at home) to have a fundamental pride in my country. Its accomplishments, the good intentions of its leaders, the ability to learn from its history and its mistakes as well. These last several years should have taught me to be much more cynical, but, I too find myself too often shocked at how far just one man has allowed us to fall.
I imagine that this is tangled up with everything from the Fort Hood shootings to the delegation dispatched to the Michael Brown funeral.
A US president is a distraction at times like this, but this is one of the things ex-Presidents are good for. Let the French government take their pick of which one they wanted to represent.
Why is a US president a distraction when there are 40 other world leaders there? If Netanyahu and Abbas can be there in a group linked arm-to-arm, why would President Obama be a distraction? Can’t he play well with others? I would think his absence would be more distracting than his presence for something like this.
The distraction excuse is so obnoxious that it made me retch. Why is Obama more of a distraction than any other leader? He didn’t worry about being a distraction when he flew overseas to plug Chicago for the Olympics. Ugh. But I know I’m a crazy right-winger to be annoyed by this…
The most amusing excuse so far is that Paris doesn’t have any good golf courses.
Here’s where the dark comedy will begin. After enough backlash has built up, what empty gesture will be concocted for Obama to take part in so he can say “I stood with Paris also”
He’ll offer to send aid.
Nah. We’ve solved the problem John “Speak from the Hip to create Foreign Policy because the President doesn’t” Kerry is on the way!
Obama would be a distraction when he says he would be and indispensable when he says he would be. Of course he didn’t worry about being a distraction when he plugged Chicago for the Olympics, that was a “soft issue” that you don’t normally bring out the president on, and he was totally safe from criticism and could just bask in the still-new adulation of Europe, which had bought all his rhetoric about healing breaches and given him a Nobel Prize simply for not being GWB.
You compared him to John Adams and Richard Nixon, and those are valid comparisons as Presidents who let their personal anger get in the way of their judgment, but I will continue to compare him to the incompetent Jimmy Carter and most of all to Woodrow Wilson, who went from leader of the allied world to the man everyone wanted to run from in a year.
Without repeating too much that I already posted, I think what you are seeing now is not just peevishness but the collapse of leadership that goes with a leader’s realization that he has been believing his own press releases, and he’s neither successful nor popular anymore. Wilson also lost Congress, partly due to his own partisanship, which didn’t fly well with the voters, saw his great initiatives stall, senior subordinates quit, and was told in confidence, by one of the people who he knew would tell him the unvarnished truth, that he had very few friends left. In his case it may also have helped cause his physical collapse. In this case I think it’s just brought about a collapse of the desire to keep doing.
I will cop to being a righty, but even if I wasn’t, there’s no dancing around these facts – Obama came into office on the promise that the US would end its wars abroad and there would be peace, that there would be a realignment of the social compact that would bring about greater prosperity for all, and that, as a post-racial president, there would be an end to strife between groups at home. Six years later Iraq has reignited and Afghanistan is still no closer to peace, the grand policy initiative that was Obamacare has failed miserably, and it’s clear that relations in American really haven’t come as far in fifty years as we thought they had. Even Obama himself can’t privately ignore this, as much as he may refuse to acknowledge it publicly. Now his statement that there was no war on terror has been shown to be a lie, in fact terror is more widespread than ever it was and it can shut down a major nation with fewer than a half-dozen men. If he had gone and marched he would be acknowledging that fact, and I just don’t think he can bring himself to do that in the context of everything else. I think that inability to acknowledge is why, even if he might not have felt up to going himself, he didn’t send Biden or at least Kerry.
Perhaps he cynically hoped that the media would just ignore this and by the end of February it would all blow over. Unfortunately the President is too conspicuous by his absence to be ignored, and journalists aren’t as likely to just let this go, since these assassinations struck directly at their ability to follow their calling.
What we have here is a president who has simply lost the passion to do the job and who is hoping to duck, cover, and blame the other party for two more years. That’s not doing the job, and if he can’t do the job, then it’s time for him to go.
P.S. Kerry IS going this week in a clear act of damage control.
“At least Obama didn’t hit the links; maybe he is learning after all.”
Well, let us not forget that it WAS the NFL Divisional Playoff weekend….
My guess…he didn’t go because he was afraid one of the terrorists we are not at war with would have shot him. And, after all, he, Barrack Hussein Obama is FAR more valuable than the other 47 world leaders. Ask him, he’ll tell you.
Of all his blunders, and all of them are AWFUL and horrendous. This one is probably the most gut wrenching.
Every geopolitical decision is typically a utilitarian formula weighed by cost and benefit. To a rational American, the cost of attending this demonstration is next to 0. The benefit is obvious.
What Cost in Obama’s mind outweighed the benefit?
What cost indeed?
Hurting the feelings of Muslims? Sorry, I don’t see it, and to make the justification that is the reasoning would require connections I don’t want to believe the President of the United States would make.
I do eagerly await deery’s inevitable proof that Obama’s decision was the undeniably correct one. I really do.
And where is Finnegan?. He could be relied upon to justify Obama’s decision here.
This where I miss Barry most. “Liberal Dan” would have risen to the bait—I think he got too badly beaten up last time. A shame. The threads on this online are jaw-dropping:
Here’s one bitter-ender on Politico responding to an accusation that Obama is “gutless”:
Marvelous.
But even that “defense” doesn’t defend Obama’s decision. It just starts an argument on an unrelated topic. It’s a diversion. That’s what ampersand would do here. I want a lefty who really believes Obama made the right call and will defend that choice with no sidestepping.
Lefty, Righty, libertarian, switch-hitter, close relative, anybody. I think I’ll check the Daily Kos…
I just did. Hilarious, the cowards. Today’s posts mention the march, but don’t mention Obama’s snub!
And neither, apparently, did NPR!!!! Nah, its not biased. Crazy right-wing whining. They tell it like it is on NPR. Just neglected to mention the little matter that even the networks were featuring.
I can’t keep up with all the ethics dunces…
Yeesh. The one day train wreck. Is there a recipe for Instant Trainwreck?
Of course there is.
Ingredients:
1 racially charge situation*
1 president obama.
* – can substitute any policitally charged issue.
Just mix the ingredients, and within minutes you will generate an ethics trainwreck!
Politically… I swear, I normally spell better than that.
Well, it look my Google search less than 2 seconds to pull up pieces from Politico, Time, and USNews criticizing the President for not going. And NPR is covering it in some detail as well.
I linked to Politico in the post. NPR is covering it on line, but waited a day to get into it. Before Tapper broke the embargo, online pundits were mocking Fox for criticizing the President’s absence. The first instinct of what Gelnn Reynolds calls the state run media is to defend and protect. That’s not their job.
Now…
I want a lefty who really believes Obama made the right call and will defend that choice with no sidestepping.
********
On CNN at lunchtime, Sock Puppet Carney said the security would have been a distraction….and if not, then it was a scheduling issue, but…he can’t be sure because he’s “not there anymore”.
Bwahaha
At least when I read here I find other people who are as appalled as I am.
I suspect that Obama just wanted, for once, to look more bad-assed than Putin. I said “look.”
This is truly astonishing. How can this Administration be so tone deaf? The Administration dispatched 4 representatives to the Michael Brown funeral, and sent ten times that many FBI agents to dig for racial and/or racist motivations behind the 18 year old’s death, but it couldn’t muster enough interest to attend this march? He could have sent Vice President Biden to represent the Administration and the US (if, assuming his presence would be a distraction from the march itself). Even “The Good Wife”, that bastion of non-partisan television, understood the optics and politics of having the state’s highest ranking elected official attend the rallies calling for peace and justice after a Ferguson-style case exploded! Our country’s leaders should have been there.
Our country should have been there because the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and the Jewish market were not just about someone publishing offensive cartoons about Mohammed. These attacks struck at the core of western values of liberty and independent thought. Freedom of the press and the right to free expression (and yes, even, if not especially, thoughts or expression that offend our concepts of decency or good taste) are crucial to western culture and its survival. In her op-ed to the Wall Street Journal on January 7, 2015, Ayaan Hirsi Ali flatly stated, “[a]fter the horrific massacre Wednesday at the French weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, perhaps the West will finally put away its legion of useless tropes trying to deny the relationship between violence and radical Islam. This was not an attack by a mentally deranged, lone-wolf gunman. This was not an “un-Islamic” attack by a bunch of thugs—the perpetrators could be heard shouting that they were avenging the Prophet Muhammad. Nor was it spontaneous. It was planned to inflict maximum damage, during a staff meeting, with automatic weapons and a getaway plan. It was designed to sow terror, and in that it has worked.” See, ww.wsj.com/articles/ayaan-hirsi-ali-how-to-answer-the-paris-terror-attack-1420672114. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s New Year’s Day call for a “religious revolution” in Islam to combat violent extremism went largely unreported.
Not all cultures and societies are the same. Not all cultures and societies value this same things. Boko Haram kidnapped 300 school girls, whose whereabouts are unknown, and the hashtag protests had absolutely no impact on the situation. Not to be outdone, Boko Haram caused the deaths of 2,000 people in a series of attacks. Those are not the actions of societies that value liberty. Ajhem Choudary, often referred to as a ‘radical’ Islamic cleric, wrote an op-ed last week declaring that “Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.” http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461. It seems that that is the position of mainstream Islamic thought and not the exception.
It has been fascinating watching the news media fall over themselves to distance this barbarous action from Islam. Western journals, press, and other news sources refuse to publish the cartoons. Shortly after the brutal, militaristic attack on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish market became news and the carnage broadcast, liberals and mainstream media sources immediately started the ‘Not all Muslims are terrorists” and “Islam in a religion of peace” rhetoric, starting with Howard Dean’s mind-numbingly idiotic ramblings on MSNBC. They began decrying the possible responses of ‘hate’ groups attacking peace-loving Muslims all over the world: “This will be used to justify oppressing Muslims!”
The champion of the Left is the press and journalists are considered sacrosanct, immune from targeting. However, when Charlie Hebdo publishes caricatures ridiculing Islam and their artists and editors are massacred, the Left can’t come to terms with it; they aren’t sure if insulting Islam brought about what happened so they got what they deserved, or if it is simply an isolated incident of some deranged lone wolf.. They refer to the killers as militant Muslims or Islamic radical extremists. Yet, when someone claiming to act on behalf of Christianity (e.g., Westboro Baptist Church or some deranged individual blows up an abortion clinic) they don’t offer the same limiters or exclusions; the entire religion is accused of breeding the mindset behind the action.
jvb
I am almost positive President Obama doesn’t understand what being president means. He has always focused on what HE wants to do. We have the disaster of ACA because that is what HE thought was important. Is healthcare affordability a problem? Yes. Was it our most pressing problem? Definitely not. Did ACA hijack the political system for years and leave pressing issues on the back burner because that is what President Obama wanted to do? Yes. Cambridge, Trayvon Martin, Fergurson, were things a president should stay out of. Why did Obama get involved? He wanted to. He has been accused of acting like a monarch and in this regard he acts like an irresponsible one. He acts on things that interest him and that he wants to act on. He doesn’t act based on what the country needs.
Obama seems to think the Presidency is all about him (and the press has bought into this). What he doesn’t understand is that the Presidency is supposed to be about the country.
Why didn’t Obama act on the terrorist act in France? I don’t think it interested him. At least, the role he would have to play would not have interested him. This event wasn’t about him and his positions don’t put him in good standing, so there was nothing in it for him. I would like to think he was too embarrassed to attend, but I don’t think that level of self-awareness exists in his circles. He didn’t understand that he needed to be there for the country. That just seems to be beyond his comprehension.
Belgium’s King Philippe and Queen Mathilde threw nuts to the public during the 70th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, in Bastogne, Belgium. The tradition dates from when the Germans asked for the US surrender in Bastogne, to which General Anthony McAuliffe answered: ‘Nuts!’ Winston Churchill hailed the ultimate result as “an ever-famous American victory” which came at a high cost: 80,987 US casualties, including 10,276 dead, 47,493 wounded and 23,218 missing, according to the US army’s official history. Among the missing at this very moving commemoration was any high-level member of the U.S. Administration. The U.S. was represented by Brad R. Carson, Under Secretary of the U.S. Army, as well as (comme d’habitude) the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium. Not the President, not the Vice President, not the Secretary of Defense, not the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The King and Queen of Belgium were so grateful to the Americans that they met and talked to each one of the veterans who attended; this, in spite of the fact that the beloved former Queen had just died. They didn’t beg off on those grounds — they came and the veterans deeply appreciated it. We were there with a 93-year old veteran of the battle, and I really don’t think the vets deeply appreciated having a perfunctory note from President Obama read to them by the Under Secretary. My hand is on my heart for the King and Queen of Belgium and, most of all, those who fought in the frozen hell that was the Ardennes. As for the veterans who attended the anniversary, I’ve never forget their quiet dignity and universal humility. I salute them, the Belgian people saluted them, and I just wish our President had as well.
I also assume that on of y’all is a Texas Aggie. The Aggies were well represented at the anniversary, with exhibits dedicated to the Aggies who were in that battle. The Aggie speeches were heartfelt and moving — and, having attended U.TEX law school, that tribute doesn’t come lightly. So, whoever texagg04 is, you have reason to be proud of A&M’s representatives at the anniversary.
You can notice in the cultural history of Texas A&M (being a school of such heavy military background although less and less these days), a clear mythic stature applied to the WW2 generation, definitely amongst the Corps of Cadets.
Look, even if I believe that security was an issue, there is still no reason why
#1 Biden , #2 Kerry or #3 either Clinton couldn’t attend.
The fact that there were that many options and still no one attended, well…that is simply pathetic and it speaks volumes.
Kerry even claims to be a fluent French speaker, he could have doubled as a translator.
Biden would have been safe because even a terrorist doesn’t want his name showing up on their kill list.
On another note, I have to admit, I’m a bit sad that International Badboy Putin wasn’t marching. Or riding a horse. Shirtless.
Update: The White House decided on “Oosie!” as its explanation.
My guess is that the conversation went like this:
Aides: Mr. President, we’re getting hammered on this march thing.
Obama: So what? Screw ’em. Racists. I told Holder to stay away too.
Aides: People are really angry. They say you’re disengaged and that this is national embarrassment.
Obama: Fuck ’em. It’s all Fox’s fault. They think I’m a Muslim anyway. I don’t have to cater to their whims any more.
Aides: We’re thinking we should say that it was a miscalculation.
Obama: Fine. Whatever. Now leave me alone.
Optics? Maybe Obama didn’t want to be seen as taking sides in what could be seen in his mind as taking the side of Israel over the “freedom fighters”.
The President and the VP should have gone — end of story. It was amateur hour at the White House apparently.
Note that none of the World leaders went to Pakistan to protest the school shooting where Islamist terrorists butchered over 100 students just a month ago. But a dozen journalists (in a country that doesn’t even honor true freedom of speech and freedom of religion) gets such worldwide condemnation? Girls are being abducted regularly in parts of Africa and all we get is #bringbackourgirls?
I think a little perspective is in order. What happened in France is a tragedy, but France has gotten off pretty easy compared to other countries, including the US. It sickens me that the media, Hollywood, and the world political arena only seems to get truly riled up if it’s Western lives being hurt. But, at least Americans are liking France again, so there is that.
100% spot on.
Except that it’s always amateur hour at this White House, and it would be nice—as well as a benefit to Obama, who is deluded—if everyone, including those inclined to be excessively charitable, admitted it. The kid-gloves approach isn’t working. The White House said that the President wasn’t involved in the decision! What does that tell us?
Mostly right. The reason it took this to rile up those you speak of is that there’s an attitude in most of the west that “it can’t happen here” (except it did in 2001 and 2004, and 2007 and last year, oh how quickly we forget), but barbarism in the Islamic world (the ME, north Africa, and south Asia) or sub-Saharan Africa is par for the course. You mark my words, the West will shake in its boots and proclaim something needs to be done for a few more months, then this will fall off the front pages and we’ll all slip back to business as usual until the 2016 elections kick into high gear.
1) Barbarism happens in places like Pakistan and Nigeria on an endemic basis. Barbarism happens in France almost never. This implies that places like France have their act generally together and places like Pakistan and Nigeria are quantifiably less civilized. So when a nation that seems to be closer to the ideal of civilization gets hammered there is a notable feeling of sympathy on behalf of that particular nation. When a nation that gets hammered like this on a monthly basis or more often, it’s harder to rally to them as there seems to be an indictment on their entire cultural framework. It’s hard to feel sorry for cultures that seems programmed for chaos. As gut wrenching as it is to see parents mourning their dead children and as much sympathy as we have for those individuals, we can’t march in “solidarity” with them if we don’t think their cultures haven’t contributed to the chaos that led to the loss.
Sucks.
2) On a practical side, because things like this happen so little in France, that would imply a much more secure venue for 40+ national leaders to gather in mass outdoors. With the security situations in Pakistan and the nations you bemoan being unreliable at best, you won’t find an open air gathering of 40+ national leaders. That is too juicy a target for any group that would likely get away with an attack they wouldn’t get away with in France.
3) So no they aren’t getting “truly riled up” simply because it is western lives lost. They are making valid geopolitical calculations in what statements are made.
4) We aren’t suddenly liking France more. We are showing a natural human sympathy towards them. Remember back in Winter 2001 when we thought the world liked us again? They didn’t. They were merely showing honest sympathy, but they still despised us. Don’t worry… we still don’t “like” France* in whatever sense you meant the word.
*Personally, it’s the Parisians that ruin American’s opinion of France. Every French person we met outside of Paris was warm, inviting, and friendly. It was only in Paris that we encountered the jerks. Before you say, “well that’s just the difference between big town and small town”, that’s not a good enough explanation, because the Parisians were exceptionally jerkish, even more so than other big city counterparts.
We don’t have to have a rally in Pakistan, but we could (and should) have organized mass demonstrations in the West protesting these types of actions.
As for the rest of your analysis about why we seem hardened against violence in other parts of the world, you’re right, except that it should terrify us that we are willing to accept it. And we should have an organized and thoughtful response about what to do about it.
(I love Paris and never met a nasty Parisian. I also speak passable French, so I am sure that helps.)
“And we should have an organized and thoughtful response about what to do about it. “
Don’t you lefties hate interventionism?
Those are libertarians. Lefties like “smart and proportional” interventionism.
Also known as “ineffective and feel good” interventionism.
I keep forgetting about all the effective Conservative interventionism since WWII ….
Is the topic conservative interventionism? Because you’ll find no disagreement with me there. Nice try however.
The only interventionism I support is 100% wreck shop, crush the offending regime AND IT’S CIVILIAN CULTURAL CORE, occupy for 2-3 generations with American teachers & administrators, then slowly wean them off of us. It worked in the Phillipines, it worked in Germany & Japan (although we didn’t need to administer for several generations), it sort of worked in the South (although not administered long enough).
Oh, and I am a Libertarian. Libertarian foreign policy is half as logical as a football bat.
And to be clear I haven’t made a distinction between “lefty” or “conservative” interventionism…you did that.
I’ve never been able to get the idea behind a “proportional response”. The idea behind ANY response to inappropriate, violent behavior is to make dead certain it doesn’t happen again. Seems to me like burying the perp is a remarkably effective way to accomplish that.
Yeah but then lefties somehow have convinced themselves when America does that then we are bullies and mean and it hurts our widdle feewings. That or it scares them that we might be doing good by destroying the bad guy.
I have to confess: every time I read “lefties,” all I can think of is Whitey Ford, Steve Carlton, Mickey Lolich, C.C. Sabathia, Tom Glavine and Lefty Grove. Well, Bill Lee too, but that’s a personal obsession.
Would it be better if I called them Collectivists/Statists/Socialists/Leftists/etc?
I can’t stand using the term Liberal because of it’s hijacked origins. See, liberalism is actually good… It’s just too bad the term has been stolen to label a decidedly non-liberal ideology.
CSSL would be useful, sort of like LGBT…and would have the added benefit of not making me think of Warren Spahn…
To the best of my knowledge, we didn’t start with “proportional responses” until Korea. We haven’t unequivocally won a war since. We (the military) provided a military victory to Viet-Nam, but it was pissed away at the negotiating table by that well-known German, Henry Kissinger.
Hell, we won the “War” in Iraq minus the key phase of absolutey crushing the civilian core support of the offending regime… That is the Sunni triangle whence Saddam derived his power. Then after the “war” was won (mostly), we lost the rebuilding because we left it up to the iraqis. A plan that didn’t mirror our successes in the South, the Philippines, Germany and Japan…
Precisely my point. Not the first time a military victory was pissed away.
See, my definition of proportional response is we respond with a 100:1 proportion.
I LIKE that, but are you sure you didn’t drop a zero, there?
Maybe a few.
“(I love Paris and never met a nasty Parisian. I also speak passable French, so I am sure that helps.)”
We had a guy who could speak French well enough that the only clue he wasn’t French was the accent. Every shop we went to was pissed that he “butchered” their “beautiful” language. We were even thrown out of one shop because he couldn’t pronounce perfectly the sentence “could we buy some avocados”. Screw the Parisians.
To clarify “thrown out” is hyperbole…we were merely denied service.
1a) To be clear, it wasn’t even 40 world leaders. The published list has 39 “world leaders”. 3 of those are leaders in the various European alliances/unions, 1 is a 2nd representative of Israel, 1 is the leader of a non-nation, 1 is the leader of NATO and 1 was Eric Holder (who actually wasn’t in attendence). Even though the leader of a non-nation, I begrudgingly will include Mahmoud Abbas in this analysis. This leaves 33 nations in attendance:
Albania – Western
Algeria
Austria – Western
Belgium -Western
Benin
Britain – Western
Bulgaria -Western
Canada -Western
Croatia -Western
Czech Republic – Western
Denmark – Western
Gabon
Georgia – Westernish
Germany – Western
Greece – Western
Hungary – Western
Israel – Western
Italy – Western
Jordan
Latvia – Western
Mali
Niger
Palestinian territories
Portugal – Western
Romania – Western
Russia – Westernish
Spain – Western
Switzerland – Western
The Netherlands – Western
Tunisia
Turkey – Westernish
United Arab Emirates
Ukraine – Western
That’s 24 out of 33 nations that are Western, responding to an outrage against Western Civilization, with a large remainder having had solid western influences for years. I don’t see a ton of non-western nations giving a hoot. So your outrage seems a little out of place – as the “march of solidarity” seems exactly to be expected.
You don’t get it. The West is the bastion for free (or at least “freer”) speech that the rest of the World, so of course it is up to the West to lead the way. We can protest when kids are shot down in their schools or abducted to become sex slaves — citizens in those countries cannot. We need to be outraged when it happens anywhere, not just here.
Actually, I do get it, 1a) is further explanation for the effect described in 1).
You don’t get it.
For me, explaining and excusing are two different concepts. You seem to be conflating the two.
Strawman.
(certainly a diversion)
Scratch that.
“White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles”
http://news.yahoo.com/video/white-house-obama-fight-media-124405904.html
As a sidebar, an interesting analysis would be the particular motivations of the world leaders. Some sincere, some not so-
I highly suspect Mahmoud Abbas marched to build support for a “Palestinian state”.
Apparantly Netanyahu was partially motivated by electioneering, as his main rivals planned to march and he was specifically asked NOT TO MARCH by the French who typically side with Palestinians…
Actually Jack, here, in order of most ethical to least are Obama’s options for attending the march –
1) The President
2) Anyone else (not including those listed below)
3) Nobody
4) The Vice President
5) John Kerry
God knows his alternates (and plenty of world leaders sent their seconds and thirds) are all feckless boobs apt to do more harm than good.
So if he wasn’t going to go, then the most ethical option would have been to send nobody.
I think the Veep, because of the office and because the rest of the world doesn’t realize that he’s disabled, would be above nobody. Ditto Kerry, though it pains me to say so. What would have been really, really smart would be to have sent McConnell, or Boehner, or John Roberts. Michelle would have been a legit choice, even.
“I think the Veep, because of the office and because the rest of the world doesn’t realize that he’s disabled, would be above nobody.”
I’m reminded of the adage – “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
Could the VP be sent with a gag order? Who would handle him?
Of course my original comment was half-humor.
As for Kerry, can he be sent with orders not to speak or with a pre-made set of permissible comments?
Remember the last time he spoke at a serious international meeting he spoke flippantly and then suddenly policy was born…
Can we compromise and promote John Kerry just one above the VP on my list?
Oooh, that’s a tough one for me. If I had to choose between Kerry and Biden as President, I think I’d opt for Niagara and a barrel.
Biden has his moments: he was the highlight of the first assassinated cop’s funeral in NYC, for example.
But that’s the problem with a loose cannon…you never know if it is about to wreck the ship or not…
By the way, I laughed at the phrase “because the rest of the world doesn’t realize that he’s disabled”…
Is that wrong of me?
Well, here it is, a rationale for why Obama’s Paris snub was a good thing…from an Arab, who believes that the US shouldn’t aggravate young Muslims by standing up for the ideal of free expression…why even the Pope says that speech criticizing religion is wrong. NO—the Pope is wrong, Obama is wrong, and this clown is wrong.
I’m going to guess that the article is a fairly common response from the Arab Muslim world, living, as it does in roughly the 6th century. In order to actually see Muslim behavior as “bad”, one must have at least a nodding acquaintance with civilization and civilized values, which I frankly have not seen much of from either Arabs, or this administration. Both seem to feel that it is either their way or the hiway.