Obama's response to the savage slaughter? Silence. As suggested by Scott Wilson in a Washington Post article entitled "On foreign policy, Obama focuses on economic issues, not on Syrian turmoil" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-foreign-policy-obama-focuses-on-economic-issues-not-on-syrian-turmoil/2012/06/02/gJQAVrSX9U_story.html), Obama apparently doesn't want events in Syria to interfere with his reelection effort:
"The reticence from a president who has made repairing America’s moral leadership in the region a central premise of his administration, and who delivered a speech from the heart of the Arab world three years ago designed to do just that, has disturbed those pressing for stronger international response to the crisis.
. . . .
Any incumbent president hopes for a quiet world during campaign season to avoid the distractions that can upset a successful reelection effort. That is especially true for Obama, who is making his case for a second term in part on the argument that he has been an effective steward of America abroad, concluding its long wars and rejuvenating its alliances."
Then, too, Obama has been seeking to "restart" America's relationship with Russia, a key supplier of weapons to Assad that has adamantly opposed international intervention in Syria.
Sorry, but this is not a time for silence, election or no election. Rather, morality demands vociferously acting to end this carnage.
I'm asking myself how such a politician can be so focused on his own sphere,with world events as they are.
ReplyDelete....I think that I just answered my own question.
I just hope he loses so we have a president who realizes the place of the US in the world defending freedom an human right.I am ashamed of this president pathetic silence on Syria.I am telling you readers,mark my words Obama will lose in November elections.
ReplyDeleteThe lay-preacher now shows that he can also be an ostrich.
ReplyDeleteHe must be so morally disturbed by what's going on in Syria - that he has decided to consult with the sand.