"But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because, you know, in a lot of these places the one organizing principle has been Islam." -- President Obama in an interview with "60 Minutes."
"These are not bumps in the road, these are human lives…” – Mitt Romney, 9/24/2012
“The murder of our Ambassador and two former Navy SEALs is more than a “bump in the road,” it is a global catastrophe where America is seen as being weak and vulnerable by our enemies.” – Ryan Zinke, former Navy Seal
“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.”
“These aren’t the droids we’re looking for. Move along” –
“Pretty much sums up the Obama campaign…” - Atlas Shrugged Today, 9/25/2012
As what happens under every wishy-washy (i.e. Democrat) president, the administration’s foreign policy has descended into chaos. Not being content with comparisons to Jimmy Carter’s economic policies, President Obama has now immersed himself into a Carter-esque approach to the world. This entails confusing our allies and amusing our enemies.
A Democrat president with a feckless foreign policy is nothing new. In 1946, Winston Churchill had warned the world about the descending Iron Curtain of Soviet Communism. In 1977, Carter warned Americans about having an “inordinate fear of communism”. In 31 years, common sense among world leaders had regressed from Churchill (who faced down global totalitarianism) to Carter (who, ala Monty Python and the Holy Grail, nearly wet himself facing down a vicious, swimming rabbit). To add insult to injury, Carter had something not afforded to Churchill: the gift of hindsight.
Obama’s comment regarding the “bumps in the road” being attributed to the reality that “the one organizing principle has been Islam” flies in the face of his past statements placating to Islam and sounds suspiciously lacking in the extreme political correctness that has historically represented his approach to foreign affairs and national security – the very political correctness that clear thinking people understand has no role when dealing with a murderous and fascist ideology.
Obama the president doesn’t share that understanding even if Obama the campaigner pretends to.
It’s one thing for an administration to have a roving foreign policy when engaging one regime to the next. When Iranians began protesting en masse to their 2009 elections (Ahmadinejad, by the way, is opposed to voter ID laws), Obama moved away from George W. Bush’s “as you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you” to ‘it’s not our problem and not in our interests to take sides'.
Fast forward to 2011/2012 where, after waiting for the Arab Spring domino’s to fall, the Obama Administration finally came out against Egypt’s President Mubarak despite the rising influence of radicals like the Muslim Brotherhood. In Libya, the United States took an active role in ousting Muammar Gaddafi. Gadaffi was surely a tyrant but he was also, for the first time in decades, clearly interested in working with the United States against Islamic terrorism, the very terrorism that brutally murdered a US Ambassador and his security detail. In Honduras, the Obama Administration showed rare emotion over the ouster of a corrupt communist leader. In Tunisia, the administration again refused to “take sides” as a coalition of Islamic radicals and leftists sought to exploit the situation and move into power.
As if using the Carter Administration as a blueprint, Obama has essentially adopted the same approach when dealing with regimes: a perfect enemy is preferred over an imperfect ally. (To his credit, Carter never referred to the Ayatollah’s or the 1979 embassy hostages as “bumps in the road”).
To be fair, the Obama Administration seems to avoid taking a firm stance on any situation until the dust is settling and then they buddy-up to those with the momentum. (This is what Mitt Romney means when he accuses Obama of following world events rather than leading them.)
The 9/11 anniversary attacks have essentially taken the fickle Obama foreign policy from a global scale and applied them to a singular event. What is the administration’s take on what happened in Benghazi? After two weeks, does anyone know? Obama is still making the rounds in interviews and on entertainment programs with the claim (despite the evidence to the contrary) that these were almost organic protests sprung from a YouTube video that no one at that point had seen or heard of. Meanwhile, his administration, including Hillary Clinton, is riding the line between that observation and the apparent reality: the attacks were a premeditated strike.
If the Obama Administration can’t even secure a point of view on something this obvious, how is that every American is not terrified of what he is doing globally? Bush may have been aggressive but usually we knew where he stood and just as important, leaders around the world knew where he stood.
And what is the result of this approach? There is still anger and unrest fermenting in the aftermath of last week’s fiasco’s. And why is this? Because the president and select members of the Administration are essentially promoting the video that they keep insisting is angering entire peoples in the Muslim world. If they hammer the video long enough, the video indeed becomes the problem. It's as if the administration is working to retroactively create the very basket that they initially put all of their eggs into.
One would think that Obama could learn something from his Hollywood pals: the best way to draw attention to a movie (especially a non-existent movie) is to stir up controversy around it. If only a handful of people knew of this movie prior to 9/11/2012, the administration saw to it that everyone knew about it within days of the attacks - even when this initial motive has been proved highly doubtful.
I’m never one to accuse Democrats of hating America (ahem!) but it saddens me to observe that the administration’s initial approach was essentially to explain to the Muslim world that their anger was justified in the face of intolerant Americans expressing their free speech and consequently invite more of the anger.
This isn’t the first time Obama attributed his failures to being “bumps in the road”. (Is it really a good idea to continue relying on the association of governments to bad roads?)
I’m increasingly scared of where this road leads...we must vote this bump out of office.