"Obama, having embraced in extremis the radical idea that “the United States of America is different,” having taken a shot at nations that “may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries” (the rising powers — Brazil, Russia, India, China — all abstained on the Libya vote) must now deliver on his honed interpretation of American exceptionalism."
Roger Cohen, "Libyan Closure" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08iht-edcohen08.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), March 7, 2011, prior to Obama's decision to intervene in Libya, when the administration was sending signals that it would not participate in a no-fly zone:
"There are many reasons I oppose a Western military intervention in Libya: the bitter experience of Iraq; the importance of these Arab liberation movements being homegrown; the ease of going in and difficulty of getting out; the accusations of Western pursuit of oil that will poison the terrain; the fact that two Western wars in Muslim countries are enough.
But the deepest reason is the moral bankruptcy of the West with respect to the Arab world."
So which is it, American "exceptionalism" or American "moral bankruptcy"?
Forgive me, Roger, but you've left me quite confused. Has your memory failed you? Or is it a sycophantic need to fall glibly into line with prevailing Obama administration policy?