Debating the president’s impact on such events
In what I still consider to be a very divided country, 50 percent of the population who voted for President Obama also endorsed his foreign policy; he said so himself. The rest of us feel that his policies, with regard to Muslim countries especially, are too appeasing.
We think he has shown a great deal of naiveté. Please remember that this is the president who did not listen to his own advisers on Syria. That is now a worldwide crisis.
This is the president who covered up the events in Benghazi, Libya, and who cannot bring himself to use “Muslim” and “terrorist” in the same sentence. We have to work with these countries as best we can, but we don’t have to trade in our national security for the sake of not wanting to offend anyone.
We now have this terrible tragedy in Boston. I am not blaming President Obama or anyone else (except the perpetrators) for that horrendous act of terrorism.
I do think, however, that many people feel that America has shown weakness in its quest to not be the “bully” of the world. Those in the world who hate us will continue to do so whether we appease or draw lines in the sand. I think this is just the beginning of this type of terrorism.
I will continue to live my life as always, but my sense of security — and any faith that this president will change course on his idealistic view of the world — is out the window. The honeymoon is over.
Mary McIntosh Linnihan, Minneapolis
• • •
Charles Krauthammer should have begun and ended his April 20 column (“Will the president mince words if Boston is decidedly terrorism?”) with his final sentence: “If it turns out that the Tsarnaev brothers were acting in the name of jihad, will the president forthrightly say so to the American people?”
Apparently Krauthammer felt the need to fill column space with a supercilious education about our evolving definition of the word “terrorism,” or he was in the mood to entertain himself with a spirited chase of his own linguistic tail. But he does the country no good as a well-known commentator by insisting that the president know the end of the story upfront.
This relentless search for petty reasons to discredit Obama should cease. We are spending an inordinate amount of time dangerously dividing ourselves, when we ought to be recognizing our good fortune in having a president who leads thoughtfully, intelligently and compassionately in an era of complex challenges.
After the Boston bombing tragedy has been studied and the dots have been connected, there will time enough to decide whether it’s useful to charge the president of the United States with linguistic fraud.
Shawn Gilbert, Bloomington
* * *
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.