Questions were good. Serious, broad in scope.
Obama answer style was petty.
To President Obama, the entire grave matter of foreign relations seemed nothing more than a late-night talk show in which he had chosen to be rude to the host’s other guest.
In choosing to go small, the president dropped opportunities to prove to us all that he has a vision of foreign policy we could rally behind. He left the larger questions on the floor. Example: Obama missed the opportunity to seriously consider the role Russia plays as spoiler of the peace. Supplying Syria’s dictator with weaponry would be one example.
President Obama’s trying to pick an argument over which world threat is the largest was likewise petty. The question was a serious question, posed in a serious time, calling for a serious answer from a mature, sober candidate. In choosing merely to be a smart ass to Governor Romney, President Obama revealed something troubling: not only does President Obama fail to see the resurgent Russia problem, he apparently sees al Qaeda as the nation’s top threat. Al Qaeda is a nuisance; a nuclear -armed Iran carrying the flag for Islamic world conquest is a threat. If President Obama comprehends the compound danger of the Russia-Iran alliance, he failed to show us. Instead, the president seems to think he can dismissively wave away the threat of Iranian nuclear missiles with a frowning statement. After the last four years of weakness toward Iran, and his silence when Iran’s liberty-loving people looked to the United States for encouragement, his insistence that somehow he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, leaves me eyeing him skeptically. It did not help that in the “world threat” discussion, he went small bragging about al Qaeda instead; it took Mitt Romney to warn us about Iran—encouraged in evil deeds by Russia. I would like to have seen my president address the question seriously.
Finally, consider this: our country still lacks a coherent foreign policy. You Democrats react and disagree? Then, voice for me what is The Obama Doctrine. What is it? Monroe. Reagan. Bush. They had doctrines, that they proclaimed to our enemies, and carried out in the world. We need our president to state principles that we then apply consistently in our relations with other countries. Well, President Obama sort of did. The president got mad when accused of his infamous apology tour, but just as with the economy, he is of record. He did go mewling into the world, apologizing for America. Indeed, in his glee over complaining about how George Bush handled things, he made the apology the centerpiece of his foreign policy—even while continuing President Bush’s plans. Strange. And, consider this: How about Russia resets? How about the countries of the Islamic world hunt down their own radical murderers, drive them out, turn them in, and exert their own power to civilize their nations? How about Muslims worldwide take a somber look within their peoples and apologize for tolerating the homicide-suicide brigades among them? How about an apology? How about one more apology from the countries of Europe who either slaughtered their Jews, or collaborated, or looked the other way? After all, have we forgotten why Israel was set aside in the twentieth century, for the return of the Jews to the Promised Land?
Spoken not to the American people, but to people who already do not like us: The Obama Doctrine seems to be, “I am sorry for what America has done to you. I’ll bankrupt the country, so it can never be mean to you again.”
The Iranian bomb will not happen! Sort of like sequestration will not happen. It takes more than mean looks, and arrogant boasts to make things happen in the world.
