Obama at the U.N.: More explanations
More a rehash of failed policies than a warning after the attacks on America's embassies, President Obama's address to the United Nations this week offered explanations where outrage was due.
In his 30-minute speech, Mr. Obama made repeated references to Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was slain with three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, by terrorists. But he did so in a U.N. context: “The attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America. They are also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded.”
Except those so-called “ideals” have been long abandoned by what's become a world haven for hate-mongers — the very same who gave Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a podium from which to threaten Israel.
Obama went into great explanation of America's cherished right to free speech, which is inconsequential to terrorists who don't need an excuse to hate and attack America.
With regard to a nuclear-armed Iran, Obama offered the same warning that he delivered the year before. And we've seen what a game-changer that's been.
Additionally, Obama said he won't relent from his support of democratic freedoms in the Muslim world, which over the past year has elevated some of the worst elements of Islamofascism.
Mr. Obama's failure is his blind faith in all things Turtle Bay. And that's dangerously misplaced.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.