Emperor Barry declined to go to the huge Paris march against terrorism in the wake of the deadly terrorist strike on the offices of French satirical weekly that left 12 dead last week. Not only did he decline to attend, he didn't bother to send anyone else. He stayed home and watched the NFL playoffs. While I can fully understand that, I think the president probably should sent someone to a march against something our country has been battling for years, especially when that march comes in the wake of a terrorist attack that kills 12, the march draws more than a million people, and more than 40 other world leaders attend:
More than 40 heads of state came together in Paris to denounce a wave of terrorism that defiled the City of Light last week — yet there was one glaring exception: The U.S. sent only a low-level official.Barry? Nah. He was watching football, and Vice President Joe Biden was either washing the Camaro or hitting on young girls:
French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron and dozens of other world leaders all took part in the powerful denunciation of last week’s terror attacks that left 17 innocents dead.
Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas set aside their differences to march together on Boulevard Voltaire.
While Secretary of State John Kerry was in India on a long-scheduled trip, Attorney General Eric Holden was actually in Paris and couldn't find the time to attend the march, although he did manage to find the time to do satellite appearances as several U.S. Sunday morning news shows.
Even the White House admitted it was stupid not to send someone to the march:
Amid criticism, the White House admitted fault by not sending President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden or other top-ranking official to the unity rally in Paris on Sunday where more than 40 heads of state marched through Paris.The question is, why would the administration ignore such a central event? This isn't some far-removed dust-up that we have no interest in -- the U.S. has been a central figure in the fight against Islamist terror since Sept. 11, 2001. Sure, that was too late, but we're in it now. How can you ignore something like this, when so many nations did not?
"It is fair to say we should have sent someone with a higher profile," spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Monday. The only noted American official in attendance was the U.S ambassador to France.
The answer is more specific than the Obama administration’s general inattention to national security and foreign policy–though there is something to that: after all, this is the man who learned about the Benghazi terror attacks as they began, did little to respond, and flew to a Las Vegas fundraiser the next day. The answer also goes beyond Obama’s odd desire to be seen as a mediator between the West and the Islamic world, rather than the leader of the free world against radicalism.I really don't know what other explanation there is. Emperor Barry really only cared about foreign policy to the extent is was a political plus for him. It hasn't been for a while, so he just doesn't care. Is that it? I don't know. All I know is the administration blew off something you would have to consider important in the war on Islamist terror. Is it a reluctance to call Islamist terror what it is? I don't know. But the disconnect makes me nervous.
No -- the answer almost certainly has to do with the fact that Obama–and Holder–have avoided all of the major so-called “civil rights” marches of the past several months. And they have taken heat for it from their political base: rapper Puff Daddy drew attention in August when he scolded Obama for his absence from Ferguson, Missouri, where black teenager Michael Brown was killed: “Obama, get on a plane–it’s serious. These are your people, baby. These are your people.” Holder did go to Ferguson–not to march but to speak with activists and officials behind the scenes, and try to broker an uneasy peace.