Should Obama denounce Libya.
John Podhoretz is upset that President Obama didn't thunderously denounce Muammar Gaddafi:
After days of silence, the president of the United States took to the microphone and, in a statement of almost unbelievable pointlessness, said as little as he could. He condemned the violence, said he was sending Hillary Clinton to Europe, said he had instructed his team to look at all options, and said that the â??most basic aspirationâ? of people was (and here he quoted a Libyan) â??to be able to live like human beings.â? Crises either elevate leaders or make them look shrunken and unequal to the task history has assigned them. I think thereâ??s little question which of these two categories describes Barack Obama right now.
Daniel Larison offers some needed context, highlighting how the U.S. was unable to get Libya's permission to fly U.S. citizens out of the country:
Itâ??s almost as if the U.S. government has a greater responsibility to its citizens than it does to condemning the activities of a foreign government. In fact, it would be a remarkable display of arrogance and folly to start denouncing Gaddafiâ??s crimes when U.S. citizens could immediately be exposed to violent reprisals or arrest. It doesnâ??t seem to cross the minds of interventionists in this case that our government could imperil fellow Americans by following their advice. If official condemnations have to wait a few days or weeks until U.S. citizens in Libya are safely out of the country, that is what a responsible government should do.
