Obama’s West Point speech criticized by three major newspaper editorials

Posted by: ST on May 29, 2014 at 9:35 am

Obama arrogance

And you’ll never believe why.  Via The Politico (hat tip):

Editorial boards at three major U.S. newspapers are criticizing President Barack Obama’s foreign policy speech at West Point as incomplete and failing to recognize America’s international standing.

The New York Times editorial board, often supportive of the White House, wrote that his “address did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left.”

Obama “provided little new insight into how he plans to lead in the next two years,” the Times wrote, “and many still doubt that he fully appreciates the leverage the United States has even in a changing world.”

[...]

The Washington Post editorial said the president’s “binding of U.S. power places Mr. Obama at odds with every U.S. president since World War II.”

“President Obama has retrenched U.S. global engagement in a way that has shaken the confidence of many U.S. allies and encouraged some adversaries,” the board said, attacking the president for resorting to rhetoric instead of adjusting policy.

The Post also said that Obama provided “scant comfort” to those concerned about his policies on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine.

You read that correctly.  The New York Times and the Washington Post, two of the top news publications in the country – and two of Obama’s biggest supporters and defenders - are criticizing his lack of emphasis on American exceptionalism, a major problem conservatives pointed out about him well before he was elected.  Yes, I do believe hell may have actually frozen over.

The other paper, by the way, was the Wall Street Journal editorial page – frequent critics of the President on both the foreign and domestic front.  You can read the President’s full West Point speech here.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 Responses to “Obama’s West Point speech criticized by three major newspaper editorials”

Comments

  1. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    No doubt the NYT and the WP are upset that Obama did not turn over complete control of the United States government to our moral and intellectual betters like Boko Haran and the Muslim Brotherhood. That is what they really mean by “showing vision in a changing world”.

    But, hey! – there is always hope with Hillary Clinton in 2016!

  2. Carlos says:

    Obama understands “U.S. exceptionalism” as “Every nation has the right to be free except the U.S.”, or “Every nation has the right to sovereignty except the U.S.”, or “Every nation has the right to protect its borders except the U.S.”

    I could probably spend most of the day with other examples of how the world is in relation to the U.S. according to him, but the points are 1) he doesn’t believe in what we all understand as “exceptionalism,” and 2) he doesn’t understand the relationship between “except” and “exceptionalism.”

  3. The reason Obhammud gave no insight on how he intends to lead is that he is not going to. The first prerequisite is knowing how.

    “In enterprise of martial kind,
    When there was any fighting,
    He led his regiment from behind,
    He found it less exciting.”–W. S. Gilbert: The Gondoliers, I, 1889