This is a strange piece, so self-contradictory it's hard to know where to
begin. Would a big-voiced leader have acted with Obama's restraint? Is it a
loud or a soft voice that opts to give diplomacy another chance? Does a
restrained, collaborative voice necessarily lead to a loss of influence? As Dan
points out (in highly charged Freudian terms), we still have the "biggest
stick in the world" and everyone knows it--that fact in itself ensures your
influence. It seems to me Obama is doing exactly what Teddy Roosevelt advocated.
(Of course, if you're Dan L, it's your weekly duty to point out that
Obama can do nothing right.)
Again I must ask: Why, why, why, why, why, why why is Deseret News constantly
publishing op eds from Liljenquist?
No real suggestions here. Just an odd heap of blather attempting to compare
Obama to TR, whose been gone a hundred years now. Throw in the obligatory scare
("losing our influence!") and you end up with something that may somehow
promote Mr. L., but otherwise just takes a few minutes from the rest of your
"So why does it seem like we are losing influence? "Open
question to anyone... did anybody seriously believe 2 weeks ago that we could
get Syrian chemical weapons without having to fire a single shot? Now we might
just get that so wouldn't that be a sign of greater than expected
Obama is doing a great job of talking... there's no doubt about that.I hope the talking works, because he was always so adamant that Bush
should have been able to just just sit down with the terrorists and talk his way
out of any situation when HE was President.I think he's
learning quickly how tough it is to be President and have to be the one to make
the tough decisions (especially when the opposition party feels morally
obligated to criticize EVERYTHING you do).Learning on the job is
tough... but I think he's learning quickly.
Oh wow. Imagine that.Dan, just a week ago wanted peace.
Now, he wants war.In other words, a Republican can never ever ever
agree with Obama, no matter what. Dan must speak ill of the President, no matter
what happens.sighThat's not something we see every
single day or anything... Why do we keep publishing this nonsense?
I'm amused at all the trolls who emerge from under the bridge whenever a
restrained, reasoned, intelligent comment is put forth. President Obama's
speech was full of chest-puffing braggadocio. Statements like, "The United
States military doesn’t do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a
message to Assad that no other nation can deliver," "for nearly seven
decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has
meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing
them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place
because we have borne them," "That’s what makes America different.
That’s what makes us exceptional," are not "speaking softly".
In fact, they feed the Ugly American image of a country throwing it's
weight around. The President's propensity for speaking in the first person,
as though it were he, and he alone, who is the power involved is also
telling.The better approach, recommended by TR, is to observe and
learn (a la Tom Cruise's Jack Reacher) and when action is required do so
quickly and surgically. If for no other reason, why telegraph your moves?
Dan is correct. Obama has blustered for five years.What would
happen if you or I or anyone else ran out into the street and started shooting
because someone had robbed our house? Yet, that is exactly what Obama wants to
do. He wants to bomb Syria because somebody broke the rules. He doesn't
knwo who broke the rules. He doesn't know who had control of the chemical
weapons. He doesn't know where those weapons came from. He doesn't
know who is behind anything, so his solution is to make a lot of noise, destroy
a lot of property and if innocent people die, then that's just too bad
because he is upset that Syria didn't listen to him.What makes
Obama think that he can shoot first and ask questions later? Who gave him that
right? Who told him that innocent people are fodder for his anger?
Re Mike RichardsFor one time I agree with you.I also
agree with Dan Liljenquist that "The American people are war weary with the
middle east"The American military is not a "Rent a
Military" to do other countries bidding.If we continually go
around punishing other countries with our military it is bound to come back and
haunt us sometime.
Well I'll keep voting for a democrat president just to see how long
republicans can pretend to be anti-war. I say Canada can take care
of it. Anybody else but the US.
I'd like to see Obama on an aircraft carrier just to hear republicans
") and when action is required do so quickly and surgically. If for no other
reason, why telegraph your moves?". Because now we have a chance for a
different outcome. The second Asaad or at least his government used those
weapons they made trouble for Russia, a problem the Russian could have dealt
with privately, but the second reinforced his threat that option was off the
table for Russia, and Obama had an opening for a peaceful solution. A little long winded I know but that's why threats are sometimes
telegraphed. Sometimes they're part of a larger solution. Sometimes
they're not part of something larger and then they're not telegraphed
, ask Osama about that one.
I question the value in having as a major qualification for political office a
single-minded focus to delegitimize the President. What have political
luminaries here in the land of the far-right such as Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz,
Dan Liljenquist and Mia Love actually accomplished other than to preach
obstructionism to nearly every presidential effort to confront the pressing
issues of our times?Mike, Jason, Dan and Mia, which would you
prefer: a single marshmallow now backing the excesses of the far right or
several later on as an advocate of moderation and statesmanship?
Questioni of the daySpeaking of speaking softly and carrying a big stick,
who said "Bring them on."
With Kerry and Obama doing the negotiating for US what could go wrong....
Liljenquist seems to be cast in the mold of Mike Lee. In other words, I
don't believe he has an unbiased and objective view of anything that Obama
does. It wouldn't matter what Obama said or did, he'd find some reason
to show the president as weak or ineffectual. I'm sure Liljenquist and Lee
may feel they are "as one speaking in the wilderness" and are committed
to their views with religious fervor unwilling to compromise because they are
doing the Lord's bidding, but, if you took Obama out their rhetoric, their
ideas are shallow and won't work.
As usual, Dan nailed it again. For those of you condemning the
"obstructionist" approach to Obama, please name ONE thing Obama has
promoted that SHOULDN'T be obstructed. It never happens, because every
single concept he has promoted while in office has been designed to push our
country in a bad direction. Without exception. Better to be right than to sell
out your principles. Keep it up Dan. Your articles are always a pleasure to
read. It lets us know that at least someone with influence understands right and