Skip to comments.Obama's Personal Diplomats?
Posted on 05/21/2013 4:26:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
Count me as irritable on the subject, but President Obama's imperious habit of suggesting that American diplomats work for him is offensive to democratic sensibilities.
In the second presidential debate last fall, when the Benghazi matter came up, the president responded: "Well, let me ... talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation [sic]. And these aren't just representatives of the United States; they're my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm's way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody's more concerned about their safety and security than I am." (I wish Candy Crowley had asked what the names of the four dead Americans were. But, as we discovered, she had other plans that night.)
Last week during a press conference, the president again described the murdered Americans as "people I sent into the field." White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer, emphasizing the president's deep concern, noted, "This is a horrible tragedy, people that he sent abroad whose lives are at risk, people who work for him."
No. Ambassadors and other officers of the Foreign Service represent the United States of America. They are not the personal envoys of Barack H. Obama. British ambassadors technically represent the Queen of England. The Saudi ambassador to the U.S. is the personal representative of the King. Memo to the White House: We are not a monarchy.
The president invites us to conclude that his "my diplomats" language is proof of his passionate concern for their welfare. But there's more than a whiff of protesting too much in the president's comments and those of his spokesman. Pfeiffer went so far as to label questions about what the president did on the night of Sept. 11, 2012 as "offensive." Bristling at a question from Chris Wallace about whether the president was in the Situation Room that night, Pfeiffer huffed, "The assertions from Republicans that the president didn't take action is offensive."
When Wallace persisted with "I'm simply asking a question: Where was he? What did he do? How did he respond?" Pfeiffer could say only, "The president was in the White House that day, kept up to date by his national security team, spoke to the Joint Chiefs of Staff earlier, secretary of state and as events unfolded he was kept up to date."
Taking offense, or pretending to, is a favorite tactic of this White House, but let's understand it for what it is -- a combination of bullying and evading responsibility.
President Obama has showered us with virtually minute-by-minute descriptions of his activities on the night Osama bin Laden was killed. We've been vouchsafed photos of the national security team watching events in real time. The president used the word "I," "me" or "my" 13 times in a 1,300-word speech. But to ask how the president conducted himself on the night of Sept. 11 crosses a line?
According to testimony from Leon Panetta, following a previously scheduled 5 p.m. meeting at which Benghazi was mentioned, the president did not speak again to his Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the attacks on the consulate and then later the annex unfolded. The following morning, the president jetted off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas.
Pfeiffer asserts that it's false and offensive to say that the president took no action, but the Secretary of Defense acknowledged as much. In October 2012, Leon Panetta explained that while "we quickly deployed" ships, FAST teams and forces to the region as soon as the attack was reported and were "prepared to respond to any contingency," they did not act because there was a principle at stake: "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on." (This explanation was later contradicted.)
Is that really a U.S. military principle? It's one thing to say that, in the absence of hostilities, initiating military action should be undertaken only after a full evaluation of all options. But when Americans are under attack, shouldn't the cavalry come over the hill if they possibly can?
Certainly that's how Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty saw things. Completely outnumbered and out-gunned, they nonetheless ran to the consulate and annex to man whatever guns they could lay hands on and attempt to defend their fellow Americans. They gave their lives doing so. The Obama administration gave nothing -- not even the truth.
he is an imperious idiot
“Taking offense, or pretending to, is a favorite tactic of this White House”
this is a favorite tactic of certain people who don’t want to be held to any objective standard other than their own
‘I’m offended” or “that’s offensive” tough toenails, deal with the truth
They certainly have the “righteous indignation” thing down.
real turn off for me
Thank you for posting this. It bothers me too when the Regime says these things.
>>President Obama has showered us with virtually minute-by-minute descriptions of his activities on the night Osama bin Laden was killed. We’ve been vouchsafed photos of the national security team watching events in real time. The president used the word “I,” “me” or “my” 13 times in a 1,300-word speech. But to ask how the president conducted himself on the night of Sept. 11 crosses a line?
One major difference between the two events is that the bin Laden raid was planned in advance. There was time to plan the “public face” - the speeches, the photo-ops, etc. Time to get Zippy in off the golf course in order to have his picture taken in the situation room, then later read a canned speech from the teleprompter.
Benghazi took them by surprise. I strongly suspect the operation was planned in advance. But it did not unfold the way it was expected to. They had to cancel the prepared speech and scramble to cover up and explain what happened.
He surrounds himself with henchmen called "Czars" paid off the books and answering directly to him without controls of either Congress or Courts. He acts like he represents only the democrat party, the unions, and the less fortunate.
He does not want a free press. He believes government agencies like IRS are legitimate organizations to punish criticism and those who disagree.
He takes money from anti-American sources. He refuses to recognize the value of the TWO PARTY SYSTEM. He personally allies himself with America's enemies and gives them money and weapons to use against America. He believes that business exploits the people, while only he and government can save them.
He does not believe in legislated law; he believes if he cannot get congress to do what he wants, he can give executive orders that create his own laws.
He believes that government creates wealth while actually it consumes national wealth as it gets bigger and bigger. He reuses to believe that taxes suck wealth out of the economy and only get you more unemployment, and bigger government at a greater cost. He believes that states with democrat leadership are there to work for him and republican officials should be destroyed. He is a true Communist - where no party other than the state should be allowed. Obama is at the core a dictator both actually and philosophically. BEWARE THIS MAN. He is here to destroy the America you know in your heart and history.
Your post was possibly the best, most concise statement about this POTUS that I’ve ever read.
I could not have said it any better
Obama's job is not governance. He has three assigned objectives:
(a)Focusing our attention on him rather than exactly who is doing what to further the Social Revolution,
(b)By behaving like a Mac Daddy in the 'hood, solidifying the "Base," and
That's what he is designed to do, and he does it well. In fact, he's perfect at it. From his masters' point of view, there is always the danger that their creation perhaps appears to have started believing the legend they have created for him. His rather brazen behavior, particularly in regard to the Reggie Love Affair, is very liable to blow their deal.
Also if a bill doesn’t get passed, he immediately has it remade and immediately tries to shove it down the throats of Americans again.
No, means yes to a rapist.
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.