Posted on 09/07/2009 7:59:39 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Barry Rubin describes the latest example of the Obama administration's hard-wired inability to take the side of an ally if it means offending a bloodthirsty enemy. In this instance the parties are Iraq, for whose stability we have sacrificed hundreds of lives, and Syria, which has harbored and supported the terrorists who have taken many of those lives.
The current disputes stem from a visit to Syria by President Maliki in mid-August. Malikii reportedly offered his Syrian counterpart Bashar Assad economic concessions in exchange for expelling 271 Iraqi exiles involved in organizing terrorist attacks against their country. Assad refused and Maliki returned to Iraq.
The next day, Baghdad was hit by large-scale bombings that targeted the Foreign and Finance Ministries. More than 100 Iraqis were killed. The Iraqi government blamed Syria. The two countries recalled their ambassadors, and the Iraqis are calling for an international tribunal to investigate.
A few days later, the U.S., through State Department spokesman Ian Kelly, had this to say about the matter:
We understand that there has been sort of mutual recall of the ambassadors. We consider that an internal matter. We believe that, as a general principle, that diplomatic dialogue is the best means to address the concerns of both parties. We are working with the Iraqis to determine who perpetrated these horrible acts of violence... We hope this doesn't hinder dialogue between the two countries.
-SNIP-
Furthermore, regardless of who was responsible for these particular acts, it is beyond dispute that (a) Syria has supported terrorism in Iraq for years and (b) refused to expel the 271 Iraqi exiles that were the subject of Maliki's request. Under these circumstances, it is beyond craven for the U.S. to be neutral in this dispute.
-SNIP-
How, then, can the Obama administration posit an equivalency between Iraq and Syria in this matter? And in so doing so, how can he command the respect of the leaders of either nation?
Obama portrays himself as a visionary, able to view the petty disputes that preoccupy the rest of the world from a higher plane, divorced from anything as banal as America's interest. That posture is offensive enough. But what if, like so many extreme leftists who came before him, he's just a man without a moral compass that points anywhere other than in direction of sharing the wealth and increasing government power?
Obama does have a moral compass. The problem is that it always points to him.
Ping
Okay, maybe he does...but it's off 180 degrees.
Not always. Sometimes it points toward Mecca.
What does the author mean by "What if"? We here on FR have known for over two years that he's a cold-hearted bastard set upon the destruction of the United States as we know it and centralizing all power in the government. He has no compassion for the little people and disdains America's friends and allies.
Exactly Good One!
points to him and there is nothing moral about him
No, but without his teleprompter, he's an "oral dumba$$".
Oh, yes. He does indeed have a Moral Compass.
It simply doesn’t point in the same direction for the same purpose ours do.
LOL
I kinda thought it pointed straight to hell.
I don’t think he has a pocket compass - or would know how to use it.
Yes, he has a moral compass.
But it always points to the South.
(Does our president have a moral compass?)
Obama?
Sure.It points straight to hell.
One word — NO
Compass may point to Mecca.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.