Their argument will certainly be to look at the larger point - reducing the number of conflicts in the world is in America's best interest because we always end up being involved. That still doesn't explain the, "whether we like it or not" comment. When you couple that with Obama's actions, which seem to be more indicative of him NOT liking the U.S. being a dominant military power, it takes on added importance.
Moreover, In writing about the Summit, the AP - unwittingly or otherwise - seemed to encapsulate another problem consistent with Barack Obama's reality paradigm. Note the very first paragraph:
In full accord on a global threat, world leaders Tuesday endorsed President Barack Obama's call for securing all nuclear materials around the globe within four years to keep them out of the grasp of terrorists. They offered few specifics for achieving that goal, but Obama declared "the American people will be safer and the world will be more secure" as a result.Few specifics, indeed. That tends to happen when academics are leading the discussion, one of which - Obama - seems to be chastising his own country for being too strong when nefarious nations not at the Summit - Iran and North Korea - are on the brink of obtaining nuclear weapons.
h/t to Free Republic
No comments:
Post a Comment