Charles Krauthammer joins the panoply of conservatives saying they are just outraged, outraged at Obama’s response to the Brussels terrorist attacks:
The split screen told the story: on one side, images of the terror bombing in Brussels; on the other, Barack Obama doing the wave with Raúl Castro at a baseball game in Havana.
Many have criticized Obama for not immediately cancelling his Cuba trip and using his superpowers to fly directly to Brussels and laser-blast any remaining ISIS members.
When Brussels intervened, some argued that Obama should have cut short his trip and come back home. I disagree. You don’t let three suicide bombers control the itinerary of the American president.
Oh. Okay. Erm, well. So what’s the problem, exactly?
Nonetheless, Obama could have done without the baseball. What kind of message does it send to be yukking it up with Raúl even as Belgian authorities are picking body parts off the floor of the Brussels airport?
There it is. The baseball game. I wish Krauthammer would tell us what kind of message it sends, as well as telling us what kind of message it sends to our ally Turkey when we devote this much media time to the attack in Brussels while only briefly mentioning the suicide bombings in Istanbul and Ankara.
All the complaints about Obama’s reactions to the attacks strike me as odd. What exactly should he do? Abstractions such as ‘be tough’ or ‘show support’ don’t really cut it. Besides giving a statement condemning the attacks and pledging our aid, what more do these people want?
To Krauthammer, though, these are problems of the way he presents himself, the imagery of it:
Remember his reaction to the beheading of the American journalist James Foley? Obama made a statement expressing his sympathies — and then jumped onto his golf cart for a round of 18.
Right. Remember George Bush’s reaction to suicide bombings in Israel? Bush made a strong statement condemning terror—and then…
Krauthammer was one of the neoconservatives who helped spearhead the movement, giving us such lovely terminology as ‘unipolarity‘—that the United States is not only the supreme power in the world militarily and economically, but that we are obligated to make moves to ensure that stays the case. So when he says that the world is ‘on fire,’ he doesn’t mean that the fire can be extinguished. It is incompatible with his ideology that all ‘threats’ be neutralized, because then neoconservatism will have run its course and the need for interventions no longer existent. Rest assured Krauthammer will never admit that moment has come.