Eh. It's only the White House press secretary. And he's stepping on John Kerry's message:
This is sort of quibbling a little bit in the sense that our assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was there and marched, our ambassador was there and marched, many people from the embassy were there and marched.But: "The Wall Street Journal reported that Nuland actually marched in Washington, D.C." And: "The Associated Press reports that Kerry said he was going to France on Thursday, to reaffirm U.S. solidarity with its oldest ally." And this garbler of messages is our chief diplomat!
And what about Eric Holder, who was in Paris at the time? The Justice Department got out the message that he had "changed his schedule to travel to Paris this weekend to personally express his solidarity with the people of France," but "he had to return to Washington Sunday afternoon." It doesn't say why could could change his schedule but not the part where where "he had to return."
Not impressed.
Posts
106 comments:
I have two words for everyone: Occam's Razor.
Historians are going to have a lot of fun with the Obama administration.
I've been reading the French press all morning on this subject.
The center and center-left papers that I looked at are critical of President Obama for not showing up, though mostly in the guise of "President Obama is being criticized in the American press for not showing up." They're quoting Newt Gingrich and Fareed Zakaria.
The right-leaning ones that I looked at are tending to ignore him completely -- publishing an exhaustive list of the heads of state who marched, but not saying one word about the US. One of those had incorrectly reported a day or two earlier that Eric Holder would be at the march.
I'm not a big fan of symbolism. But there are times when it's useful. Did anyone think Washington would accept a crown as King of the United States? Nope - but it's good it was offered and declined. Did Bush need to throw out a pitch at the Yankees World Series Game after 9/11? Nope, but I'm glad he did and I'm glad he located his fastball for a strike. It also matters when it's inappropriate. Everyone on the planet cringes at Mission Accomplished, even Bush. So now we have this missed opportunity to show solidarity for free speech - the foundation of our republic.
Or is Obama just not willing to keep up the pretense any longer that he gives a shit?!
A little French lesson for Secretary Kerry and the Administration:
"Quelle dommage, c'est encore 1940; les Americaines ont plus tard..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6uZFSj_ueM
I guess he is taking back his UN speech then?
Not to mention stepping on garage and ARM's message.
Kerry was quite clear that he would travel to France as soon as he felt like it. What more do you people want?
The French were "plus tard" in the thirties, when they had the treaty authority and military power to stop Hitler.
I realize this is just symbolic, but it does seem like the administration has gotten even more incompetent as the years go by. Do they just not care anymore?
No more second-term presidents!
And we were busy watching "Gold Diggers of 1935" while FDR played Monopoly with our banks and dreamed of worker's villages where no American earned over $25,000 a year...
Meanwhile, the French at least honored their commitments to Poland, which is more than we've done with Georgia, Poland and Ukraine lately...
740 days.
We get the president of Egypt making passionate denunciations of radical islam hijacking the religion. And we get our president playing golf and saying "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and making an attack on our embassy be about a You Tube video.
And then yet again, when militant islam rears its ugly head again, he's nowhere to be found.
How easy it would be to send someone to profess that you care. Yet he can't even manage that.
For that matter, it was more than we did for Jewish refugees we turned away from the US, even though they had US entry visas...
It feels like a deliberate slight.
Then again, this administration has no freakin' clue about optics.
Diplomacy is the actions and speeches to show a country is on the side of one group or the other group in a conflict, or is neutral.
On Obama's watch the man who won the war in Iraq is being prosecuted by the man who lost Iraq. The Man who stands with secular and Coptic Egyptians to stop the Muslim Brotherhood Jihad is being punished by Obama and Kerrey. And the leader of Israel's defense is continually being targeted for political revenge from Obama and Kerrey.
That is not even a neutral position. Obama must be a deep cover Muslim Jihadist.
This isn't being entirely fair to President Obama. No, he wasn't there, but I'm sure he's going to be mad as hell when he find out about it reading it in the newspaper.
--Bobby
Just think, Obama is saving you $228,288 per hour by not flying to France for a picture. The fiscal conservatives should be showering Obama with praise.
Kerry is supposed to arrive Thursday or Friday. Maybe he can toss Obama's Nobel medal over a fence or something.
If Obama isn't going to be the keynote speaker or center of attention, he won't go.
Annnnnnnnd: BOBBY (1:45) for Comment Of The Day!
So it was so important that Obama wanted to be there, but the 36 hour timeline wasn't enough for the proper security protocols for his visit. But it wasn't so important that Biden, Kerry, Holder or any other official who would have needed a lesser security protocol could bother to attend. Again, mixed message - so important but for the lack of time, but the lack of time didn't necessitate analyzing a more important official to send.
These people are idiots.
Selfies related to pathologies
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/287757.php
Are we sure Biden is not in charge?
One of three possibilities:
i) he thinks they deserved it,
ii) he couldn't be bothered,
iii) he was caught by surprise (i.e. he's a fucking idiot).
iv.) Looking after the hard working taxpayers.
A fourth possibility is that they guy who put a filmmaker in jail for "slandering" Islam is offended by the whole display of "unity."
Looking to screw again the hard working taxpayers.
FIFY
"iv.) Looking after the hard working taxpayers."
Is that the excuse circulating on lefty sites?
Poor old Josh Earnest. The White Huose sends a boy to do a man's job (although that job mainly consists of lying through his teeth, and trying to put a pretty face on just another Obama train wreck.]
Now I know that there are some jobs that have to be done that are not pleasant. For example, somebody needs to clean the grids at the municipal sewage treatment plant for example. But a fellow can do that with some pride in his work; it was a nasty job; it needed to be done; and it benefitted the community.
In contrast, let's take Josh Earnest--and what he does. If he's a practicing Catholic (I have no idea, nor do I much care what his religion is) well I think he's going to have to spend a lot of time in the confessional, seeking absolution for his sins at work.
"Meanwhile, the French at least honored their commitments to Poland, which is more than we've done with Georgia, Poland and Ukraine lately..."
The French and British honored no such thing. They had no intention of taking actual military action in support of Poland, and took none. Thus the ensuing "phony war."
The French at least fought once the war began in earnest. To attribute their defeat to cowardice, at least at the level of the fighting man, is a disservice. The French were simply out-generaled. They actually took quite a high number of combat deaths in WW II. About 200,000 according to Wikipedia. Add in the civilian deaths and France suffered greater losses than the United States.
Is that the excuse circulating on lefty sites?
Why don't you take a look and find out for yourself?
Obama nowhere to be found? HA! It's now been confirmed he spent all day watching the NFL playoffs..
"Why don't you take a look and find out for yourself?"
I wouldn't know how. You'd have to provide me the links.
Meanwhile, the French at least honored their commitments to Poland, which is more than we've done with Georgia, Poland and Ukraine lately...
We don't *have* any commitments to Georgia or Ukraine. They aren't allies in any sense of the word.
Given the figure they both cut, I consider it a plus neither the President nor the Secretary of State attended. That Kerry is now pathetically trying to cover it with a stop this week makes me even more convinced I was right to be pleased by their absence.
Just think, Obama is saving you $228,288 per hour by not flying to France for a picture. The fiscal conservatives should be showering Obama with praise.
So, how much did holder save skipping out on it when he was already in town?
It is one thing not to come. to be there and still skip out is another thing entirely.
Sending the ambassador to France suffices.
With all the valid criticisms of Obama and his administration, it is silly to expect the President, Vice-President, or Secretary of State to fly to France for this march?
I didn't expect Sarkozy or Merkel to fly to Texas after Ft. Hood and hold hands in solidarity.
Tragedies abound in the world. We should hope our leaders understand this and don't rearrange their schedule to participate in Western European theater.
Victoria Nuland was in DC, not Paris. I know John Kerry only attended Yale, but I expect him to know geography.
From the Twitter account of the French Ambassador to the U.S.:
@GerardAraud
Thank you to Victoria Nuland, assistant secretary at the DoS, who has represented the U.S. Authorities at the demonstration in DC. A friend.
Kerry sort of reminds me of the time, when he was Senator for Massachusetts when he finally and ruefully paid the Mass tax on his multi-million dollar yacht that he was keeping in Martha's Vinyard, Mass but had registered in Rhode Island as a tax dodge.
He was so resentful at being called on it.
"The French at least fought once the war began in earnest. To attribute their defeat to cowardice, at least at the level of the fighting man, is a disservice. The French were simply out-generaled. They actually took quite a high number of combat deaths in WW II. About 200,000 according to Wikipedia. Add in the civilian deaths and France suffered greater losses than the United States."
I don't think the French were cowards in WWII, but there was certainly some type of morale rot infecting their officer and civilian commander class at the onset of the war. They were too spooked by the horors of WWI (which they suffered grieviously) that made them want to put their faith in fixed border defenses and not go on the attack once Poland was invaded. There were some key strategic mistakes--thinking the Ardennes was impassable for the German army, not using their tanks effectively, and not retaining a maneuverable rear guard to plug holes once the Germans broke through. But it was clear both in France and Britain that they weren't mentally able to accept that they were at war until the Germans started rolling over them.
While their malaise was understandable, what's interesting is that the Germans (who suffered worse from WWI) were far more revenge-minded and not nearly as war-averse.
What Meade said (1:47 pm)!
I am not a robot.
"While their malaise was understandable, what's interesting is that the Germans (who suffered worse from WWI) were far more revenge-minded and not nearly as war-averse."
That's really the crux of modern warfare. The side that is not as war averse can win the wars against those that are. Unless other countries step in that take the fight to those not averse to waging war and fight them hard enough so that they are.
For the dems/libs/and some libertarians they are always spooked by past wars. In this case Vietnam (at least for the left) which really is their only frame of reference for wars, and where they feel the movement had its greatest flowering.
I agree with mccullough. It looks like with the exception is Israel and the PLO (who reportedly turned up uninvited) that it was pretty much an EU leader thing rather than a “world leader” event. The French ambassador was the appropriate person to send.
Also at the risk of being called heartless, the image of heads of state linking arms and walking for their photo op really didn’t do anything for me. In fact I think they just sent a message “don’t murder our people or else we’ll . . . do nothing” while at the same time giving the murderers a level of notoriety that they wouldn’t otherwise receive. We’ve talked before about whether media attention actually encourages actions like this – if that’s the case, how many more would-be jihadists are going to plan an attack because they know they can make heads of state jump at their whim?
The first crises the next President of the United States has, he needs to stand behind his podium at the press conference and confidently proclaim with a sly grin, "It's Bush's fault!"
garage mahal said...
Is that the excuse circulating on lefty sites?
"Why don't you take a look and find out for yourself?"
I just did and this is one thing I learned: "Many of the world leaders in the rally would have at the least jailed the Charlie Hebdo if they had been operating in those countries"
Similar to Obama jailing Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for producing the YouTube film Innocence of Muslims, the film Susan Rice purported caused our embassy in Benghazi to be attacked. (Not that, at this point, it makes any difference.)
So points to Obama for not making a big hypocritical show of solidarity with all the other hypocritical showoffs in Paris yesterday.
When even Piers Morgan is going after the president, you realize how out of the loop his administration is.
This will probably be the only time I link to a piers morgan article and am not deriding his conclusions. But he's spot on here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906879/PIERS-MORGAN-Fifty-world-leaders-marched-freedom-yesterday-leader-free-world-Watching-football-dropping-ball.html
"And frankly, when you’re the ‘leader of the free world’ and this happens to one of your greatest allies, then you damn well get on the world’s most luxurious plane and go march with everyone else.
Let me explain what ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ actually means, Mr President.
It’s not just offering support to a friend in a military or political sense, or making the odd phone call of condolence.
It means you sometimes have to literally rub shoulders with those friends to speak as one voice.
These moments don’t happen very often, but when they do – you go.
What’s most extraordinary about this is that Obama wasn’t even doing anything yesterday.
His official White House schedule was clear.
He was literally sitting at home.
In fact, according to various well-sourced reports, the president was watching an NFL game.
Think about that; the No1 world leader, the single most important player in the global war on terror, preferred to watch football than fly to Paris.
His wife, FLOTUS, was at home with him too.
As for the vice president, Joe Biden was back at HIS home in Wilmington, Delaware. Probably watching the football too."
Presidential aide: Mr President, there is going to be a gathering of world leaders to side with France over the attacks they just went through. Shall we get air force one ready?
Obama: Fuck it, todays football. You want me to leave when there's a game on?
The "unity march" in Paris do not impress me much, and to that extent I agree with Thorley Winston above, but the commenters remarking on the "optics" of the occasion are also right. This administration is truly tone-deaf in politics, and I think it starts with the top guy. In any case, that is who the buck stops with.
They should have sent Valerie Jarrett.
In contrast, let's take Josh Earnest--and what he does. If he's a practicing Catholic (I have no idea, nor do I much care what his religion is) well I think he's going to have to spend a lot of time in the confessional, seeking absolution for his sins at work.
The theology of that sacrament requires a firm purpose of amendment - a resolution to try to avoid sin in the future - in order for the absolution to be effective. If you lie about repentance, the confessional won't help. Pseudopenitance won't work.
@Meade
As I said in an earlier thread, the Obama admin has a plan to prevent this sort of thing.
Declare speech that "insults" Islam to be hate speech and jail its creators. Thus there is no need for killing those who create such speech.
Problem solved.
Those cartoons were illegal in France. So Imam Choudray's question concerning why the French government didn't do anything about them is, from his point of view, quite pertinent.
My guess, the French are still very proud of their civilization, which, since the revolution, has been very secular,thus the bans on wearing scarves and such in public buildings. They want to preserve their society and have no desire to change it to conform to mores introduced by immigrants.
Anyone can be French, as long as the assimilate into the culture.
Mccullough & Thorley Winston - I disagree. There were heads of state from Malia, Tunisia, Jordan, Russia, Turkey etc. The attendees from Muslim countries are particularly significant, as were the representatives in the crowd from French Muslim groups. This was billed as a day of unity, and it said something.
But even if only European leaders had been there, the US is involved in the NATO alliance, and a higher-level representative of the US should have been there.
That security concerns precluded Obama from attendance I can accept - but we should have had someone there above the ambassador level, precisely because so many high-level persons were there - but even more so, because this was explicitly intended as a people's rebuke.
Hollande did a superb job with this, because he interposed a positive idea and message (which is in fact deeply attractive to most Muslims) on top of the divisive intent of those claiming the "credit".
If the president couldn't be there then he could have attended some function set up in DC to participate in the effort.
And no anti-terrorism conference can possibly be as effective as the creation of a positive message such as the solidarity rally, which proclaimed a dedication to humanism that crosses all barriers and asserted that this is as much the heritage and rightful property of Muslims as it is of anyone else. It is very difficult for Muslims and Islamic leaders to be just "anti" - they have to be able to assert a positive emblem that includes Islam to their peoples in combatting the extremists.
Like it or not, the leadership of the free world just left President Obama's shoulders.
Did anyone think Washington would accept a crown as King of the United States? Nope - but it's good it was offered and declined.
He was never offered a crown. This story comes from a letter written to Washington by an officer named Nicola who had no power to offer anything.
Just sayin' :)
Right-wing attacks Obama!
Obama on Colin Cowherd show:
"I spend most of my time watching ESPN in the morning," President Obama said. "I get so much politics I don't want to be inundated with a bunch of chatter about politics during the day."
Obama to Baba Wawa:
Barbara Walters, ABC News: "What's the trait you most deplore in yourself, and the trait you most deplore in others?"
President Obama: "Laziness."
Walters: "You're lazy?"
Obama: "You know, it's interesting. There is a deep down, underneath all the work that I do, I think there's a laziness in me. It's probably from, you know, growing up in Hawaii and it's sunny outside, and sitting on the beach.
I doubt that any of this was deliberate, its just incompetence.
The administration has not bothered with the actual job of the executive very much, it has focused mainly on internal politics.
And moreover it has had only about 50% of a cabinet as only a few of these guys seem to have been permitted to run their departments as they should. In particular it seems that there is no-one in charge at the Department of State, both Sec's so far seem to have been limited to figurehead duties.
I suspect this has been deliberate on the part of the White House, but they haven't stepped up to provide any leadership.
Interestingly the current Dept of State's Chief of Protocol, Pete Selfridge, was a White House appointee, not by the Sec State, who has no background in diplomacy. He was a campaign operative for Kerry and Obama and apparently Obama's golf partner.
The previous one was Hillary's social secretary.
It seems to me that this is a job for a career diplomatic pro.
So points to Obama for not making a big hypocritical show of solidarity with all the other hypocritical showoffs in Paris yesterday.
My point all along. We know why he didn't go. He wrote about it in is book, saying that whenever the political winds blew against the Muslims, he would stand with them, and he said it in his famous UN speech about "those who slander the prophets of Islam."
I personally think that maybe he should stand with the vast majority of Muslims, and not with the radical fringe, but he seems to have a thing for the radical fringe.
Those cartoons were illegal in France.
French courts found otherwise.
And I will be honest with you all, I spent the weekend watching football too. With a little golf thrown in.
Ralph Hyatt - those cartoons were not illegal in France. The highest French court reviewed the question and ruled that political satire was not hate speech.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6479673.stm
The French - or Italians, or whoever - will fight as well as anybody when they think they have a government worth fighting for.
The French also have had the experience of flip-flopping governments ever since the Bourbon monarchy died, which have led to a tradition that if you just obeyed the government in power at the time, you should not be prosecuted by the next one.
Which is why Mr. Churchill felt it necessary to sink the French Mediterranean fleet in order to keep it from falling into the hands of the Germans. He understood that; the French admiral did not.
Likewise the first American casualties in "the European war" died in North Africa fighting the French, not the Germans.
Moochelle was worried that Barry was going to hook-up with Denmark's PM Helle Thorning Schmidt.
@everyone who corrected me
My bad. I read that France had hate speech laws and thought that the cartoons would have fallen under them.
Good for France.
The French collapse of 1940 is a fascinating subject.
There is an extensive literature on it.
There is every sort of theory, political, psychological, operational, technical, to explain all of it or this part or that.
What I find interesting is comparing the performance of the French army as an organization during the crisis of August 1914 and May 1940.
If you drill down to cases, it becomes apparent over and over that French units that were heavily defeated in 1914 tended to reorganize overnight, even if they had suffered 50% casualties, such as many in Lorraine, the Ardennes, and in Lanrezac's 5th Army. They were effective for defensive functions within a day or two. The French army had its problems, but the institution was resilient.
In 1940 many French units that were similarly shattered very often just collapsed into streams of refugees, and could not be rallied for days or weeks, or never. Some argue that this happened because the Germans were much more effective in pursuit and exploitation, giving no opportunity to reorganize, but this is a hard case to make, as the German attack was on a very narrow front and most French units retreated away from the axis of attack.
It seems clear to me that the French military was critically deficient at every level, compared to its 1914 incarnation.
French upper leadership was certainly deficient in 1940, and perhaps it is the case of rotting from the top down. The French Air Force was scandalously badly run, for one thing.
Since I brought up the whole French coming to WWII late, what I was referring to was their refusal to intervene when Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland, in breech of the Treaty Of Versailles.
Maybe it was a tough row to hoe to ask them to do it, but seriously, the French had a chance to prevent the whole thing.
And as for that Treaty, Thanks a lot Europe! So I am not sure the whole "we got there late" holds much water this side of the pond.
The security concern was bogus. It was a target-rich buffet. He could have flown in under the radar.
Lyle Smith said...
Historians are going to have a lot of fun with the Obama administration.
Probably not for a generation or two. The current crop of academic historians (as with the vast majority of American academics) have their heads so far up Obama's ass that if he farted, he'd blow out all of their eardrums.
Some historians have claimed that Lloyd George and Clemenceau were looking to President Wilson to tell them how it was going to be, so that they could tell their respective revenge minded countrymen that they could not help it, the Americans made them do it!, but
that did not happen.
Kind of like the stunts President Obama has pulled in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At that Obama and Wilson have some traits in common, don't they?
Some historians have claimed that Lloyd George and Clemenceau were looking to President Wilson to tell them how it was going to be, so that they could tell their respective revenge minded countrymen that they could not help it, the Americans made them do it!, but
that did not happen.
It is one more American failure, but of course!
"And I will be honest with you all, I spent the weekend watching football too. With a little golf thrown in."
And when did you run for president?
" Maybe he can toss Obama's Nobel medal over a fence or something."
Good idea !
Obama has other priorities, such as establishing an alliance with Iran.
"But they hate us and call us 'the great Satan' !"
He'll take care of that. Trust Obama !
Are you seriously telling me that Air Force One doesn't have satellite TV?
OK maybe he shouldn't have gone, maybe he had a good reason not to. Maybe he was saving money, maybe he was watching football with his side men in the man cave.
Probably he didn't care on way or the other
richard mcenroe sez: "the French at least honored their commitments to Poland"
Ha!
The French sat behind the Maginot Line and did practically nothing.
Hitler had stripped the Siegfried Line of tanks and sent them eastward to support the Polish invasion. The French army could have punched right through the Siegfried Line and canceled Hitler's ticket right there.
But they didn't.
Google for the term "Phony War" to describe the situation in the West from the invasion of Poland up to the invasion of Belgium and Holland.
@Brando: "hey were too spooked by the horors of WWI (which they suffered grieviously) that made them want to put their faith in fixed border defenses and not go on the attack once Poland was invaded."
The French had no intention of conducting a defensive campaign--of sitting on the defense to halt and repel a German invasion. Their plan was to advance with their best forces, including three French armies (with well-trained and magnificently equipped armor and mechanized formations) plus the excellent British Expeditionary Force, into Belgium to the Dyle River line where they would meet enemy forces on what was anticipated to be the main axis of the German advance. The purpose of the Maginot Line was to discourage German offensive action against the fortified zone and thus canalize the movement of Wehrmacht forces onto the northern axis through Belgium. The Maginot Line fullfilled this purpose quite effectively and successully. Meantime on 12-13 May 1940 the bulk of French armored forces drove forward, meeting and thrashing the elite German 3rd and 4th Panzer Divisions in the Battle of Hannut-Gembloux.
This was the largest tank battle in history up to that date, involving upwards of 2,000 AFVs and other vehicles, and its outcome was a matter of grave concern for the senior German leadership, including the fuehrer himself. It is important to grasp that prior to the war France possessed what was generally acknowledged to be, both on paper and in fact, the world’s most powerful and technologically advanced army. In fact this was as well the majority opinion among German military leaders and many were deeply concerned about Germany’s prospects for defeating France. They went to war in May 1940 with much trepidation and were prepared at any moment, should things go badly for them in the field, to slow the pace of operations or halt it altogether and settle into a protracted campaign of attrition, World War I-style. The German generals recognized that this would have resulted in catastrophe for the Wehrmacht (not to mention Germany entire) hence there talk in certain quarters about “eliminating” Hitler before he could commit them to what they feared would be a disastrous course. Their fears seemed to be confirmed at least in the early stages of the invasion’s unfolding with the defeat of their panzers. But after 14 May, events took a dramatically different turn, and the Allied forces were swiftly overwhelmed.
As a postscript I would add that in April 1940, French and British troops landed in Norway to counter the German invasion of that country; the last Allied troops were withdrawn from Norway at the end of May.
Not so much an "American failure," Tim, but a failure of political leadership all around. None of these guys were as great as they have been cracked up to be.
I'm sure Ann that the Administration's decisions on issues like this are made with an eye on impressing you..
And perhaps they realized the "march" those leaders were "leading" was entirely faked.
Obama should of went
And perhaps they realized the "march" those leaders were "leading" was entirely faked.
Are you a holocaust denier too?
Re: "The French sat behind the Maginot Line and did practically nothing."
They didn't "sit" behind the Maginot Line, they prepared for battle in the spring, during the campaigning season. The main feature of that effort was to be the aforementioned (see preceding entry) advance into Belgium to the Dyle River where they expected and planned to fight a decisive battle against the bulk of the German army.
The German invasion of Poland came late in the year and the French doctrine of "Methodical Battle" necessarily precluded sudden and overly precipitous action in favor of a purposeful mobilization and buildup of forces and the logistics required to fight a modern, mechanized war.
However, throughout the winter of 1939-40, and while all eyes were riveted on the war in Finland, French and German fighter aircraft were engaging in frequent combat in the skies over the Franco-German frontier. French pilots, many flying American-made Hawk 75 fighters, acquitted themselves in these aerial battles, proving themselves the equal of their Luftwaffe counterparts.
Obama should of went
No, he should just be honest and give his famous stemwinder "The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam" speech again. You know, be himself, be honest.
And I am not sure how many people in 1919 realized that the 20th century would be "The American Century," as clearly as later historians could see it.
Looking at the list of leaders attending the march (from a previous thread), do you who were missing?
Obama (US), Saudi, Yemeni, Qatar, Pakistani.. so which side is Obama on?
How about using this opportunity to formulate an international strategy to twist the arms of those countries to stop sponsoring bad guys? US is on the wrong side and the wrong side of history on this global threat.
Cut Obama some slack. He probably didn't know about the march until he read about it in the paper.
I can see why Obama shouldn't have gone. Too hard to do the security and a big imposition on everyone else.
But someone significant -- either Biden or Kerry -- should have gone. And it's absurd that Holder, being there, did not go.
I would have gone. Seriously. All they had to do was let me know someone (anyone) was needed -- and pay the air fare. I'd have gone coach.
I know it was dangerous, but danger is my business.
@roughcoat/
French Military performance was based mainly on bad doctrine and morale hangover from WW I (already mentioned here) The French AF had more fighters than did the Germans, with equally skilled pilots and their ac were only slightly inferior. The French also had more tanks than the Germans and they were more heavily armed and armoured as well. The problem lay in tactics. The French scattered their tanks amongst the infrantry eschewing massed tank formations, while the Germans, under tactics developed by Heinz Guderian combined mass tank formations with dive bombers (The Blitzkrieg) Ironically, Guderian got the concept from a WW I French tank commander Colonel who published his ideas post WW I but were rejected by the French General Staff. The name of that French Colonel? One Charles de Gaulle by name..the ironies..
(BTW, There is a very good Ballantine paperback about Guderian and his creation of the Panzer Corps published circa late 50s entitled Panzer Leader)
PS: Amazon has only 16 of the paperbacks left@ $13.00!
(They were 35 cents when I bought my orig copy in the 50s, lol!)
The Blitzkrieg idea was a product of its time with a very short shelf-life.
The Allied armies, Patton notwithstanding, followed a very "French" approach June 1944-May 1945, including having most of the tanks assigned to infantry support. And US artillery (the US primary weapon) doctrine was taken direct from the French.
They also managed to stop a blitzkrieg in its tracks, not far from the first one.
The French Air Force was very badly run. They had the men and the planes, but they were in the wrong places, mostly, and those that were where they were supposed to be managed a fraction of the sortie rate. Not much point in having lots of planes if they aren't used.
Only a racist would suggest obama made a mistake in not sending a higher profile administration official to the Paris event.
Probably an islamophobe as well.
Re: "The French scattered their tanks amongst the infrantry eschewing massed tank formations..."
The French, as told, employed massed armor in the twin battles battles of Hannut-Gembloux Gap (12-15 May. The French OB in these clashes included the Corps de Cavalerie commanded by the very capable General René-Jacques-Adolphe Prioux and comprising two powerful armored divisions, the 2nd and 3rd DLM (Divisions Legeres Mecaniques)totaling over 600 tanks and AFVs.
In those battles French tactics proved more than adquate, enabling French to maul the elite and experienced 3rd and 4th Panzer Divisions. It is true that the French dispersed other armored units to support infantry formations, but at Hannut-Gembloux their armor was massed and in a straight-up fight with the panzers French skill, courage, and tactics carried the day. The problem with the French army was not on the tactical level but on the operational level: they eschewed both the concept and employment of operational maneuver groups comprising mobile forces of tanks and motorized or mechanized infantry. The French did not develop a mature operational art because their doctrine of methodical battle was not conducive to operational-level mobile warfare.
This combined with a terribly flawed strategic plan doomed their efforts, and rendered their victory at Hannut-Gembloux irrelevant. In fairness to the French (and British), the strategy of advancing into Belgium to fight a decisive battle was altogether reasonable given what they knew, or thought they knew, about the Wehrmacht. They did not think that mass armor could maneuver through the Ardennes. Many German generals shared their doubts, right up to and through the breakthrough at Sedan.
The security claim is embarrassing.
Everyone in Paris who went out on the streets the night of the massacre did so knowing the terrorists were still out there and could strike the large gathering if they wanted to make a statement. The whole point of the solidarity walk was for people to put out the message that if everyone stands together, they are more safe than if they hide.
Everyone out on that street took a risk with his or her own life, which- let's face it- is more important to each person than the life of any a leader.
They were being brave, so I don't want to hear we were too scared to send our president.
As for Guderian's memoir: it's an interesting artifact, but highly problematic in terms of its historiographic reliability. You can't trust him. At critical points in his account he lies outright or fudges the truth in order to enhance or maintain his reputation. In particular he lies about his Panzergruppe 2's operations in the vicinity of Smolensk during the July-August battles of Operation Barbarossa, Red Army forces stalled the invasion.
Admitting error is better than the alternative, but it's still an error.
Given the importance of the US-France relationship and how many other heads of state were present, I think you have to send Obama, Biden, or Kerry. Anything less, and you are doing conspicuously less than everyone else. And that is going to be noticed, so unless you are trying to make a point by doing less, you have to send one of those three.
Obviously the US was not trying to make that point, or else why scramble Kerry there now?
I have no doubt that actual diplomats in the State Department can do this very simple reasoning. The reason nobody went is because nobody at a high enough level was engaged enough to do the obvious thing.
Reasons not to go:
Photo-op with odious hypocrits.
possible terror cells at large in Paris.
The Secret Service sucks.
Reasons to go:
?
The idea that an ambassador is the appropriate level of representation is just ridiculous. The ambassador is already in Paris. He's a campaign contributor, and he has no personal relationship with Obama.
Sending the ambassador is saying that solidarity with France is not worth the price of a plane ticket. You might as well send an email.
How can President Perfectly Wonderful Lightbringer show up if he's not what the band Hole would term "the girl with the most cake?"
He wants to be the girl with the most cake, understandably enough.
Hey Brent Moss called Obama, he wants his foreign policy back.
As far as crack is foreign and a policy that is.
They were being brave, so I don't want to hear we were too scared to send our president.
Our president, Barack Hussein Poulet.
The French were European colonists. One of Obama's deepest felt views is anti-colonialism, of the White European kind. As with the Brits, he will take every opportunity to insult them.
That seems to be the elephant in the room.
Folks, it's perfectly simply why Pres. Obama didn't go to Paris.
It was a collection of world leaders.
If it had been a group of world elected officials he'd have been there in a heartbeat.
Security issues? Please. Netanyahu of Israel was there. What, no one wants to kill him? Hell, there were people he was marching with who want to kill him.
You fucks, sun up su down, don't yet get it.
Joni Ernst.
Josh Earnest talking about Joni Ernst is as clear as philosophy ever could most unscottsmanlike ascertain regards decency and credulity.
War on women yo.
"Just think, Obama is saving you $228,288 per hour by not flying to France for a picture. The fiscal conservatives should be showering Obama with praise."
This is the rhetorical equivalent of reaching first base by lowering your head into the strike zone and getting hit by the pitch.
If lack of adequate security on short notice was such an issue, they could always have sent Biden--symbolic visits and funerals are what VPs are for, and security concerns aren't as great for VPs because they're not as juicy a target.
I don't think this was some sinister "show that you're really on the side of the violent fanatics" move by Obama--you'd really have to see him as truly evil to think that. This is much better explained by incompetence--the man admits that his biggest fault is laziness. It just never occurred to anyone close to him that this would have been a big event and would have made good optics (which is still an important part of being president). They're just not trying anymore.
Leading from behind may mean not getting stuck with our neck out as much, but in terms of morale it also tells our allies and friendlies that they're on their own.
"Sending the ambassador is saying that solidarity with France is not worth the price of a plane ticket. You might as well send an email."
It's more the equivalent of a "like" on Facebook. An e-mail shows more thought!
Victoria Nuland? She's the one who famously said, "Fuck the EU!"
Naturellement, the administration would send her to march in Paris!
I know this thread is long over, but it seems like the best place to quote something Peggy Noonan wrote:
"But you cannot lead unless you show up ..."
Post a Comment