Today I read the same illogic being applied to physical safety. In the aftermath of the airstrike in Libya, there was an attack on UN offices by a mob.
The attack by NATO killed Gaddafi's son and three grandchildren, but he is being taken to task for not protecting UN property.
"UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said Libyan ambassador Omar Jelban was "persona non grata" and had been given 24 hours to leave the country.
He added: "The attacks against diplomatic missions will not weaken our resolve to protect the civilian population in Libya."
The Italian foreign ministry has condemned the "acts of vandalism" on its embassy, describing them as "grave and vile"."
The first casualty in war remains the truth.
I am no fan of what Gaddafi is doing, but this posturing is absurd. We have decided to kill him, but he is expected to protect our people at the same time? Who is the more crazy?
If can we assassinate the leader of a foreign country, which is against our own laws, then how do we define terrorism? Obama the Black may be as vile in foreign policy as any of the previous chapters in American history. The cynic in me believes he released his birth certificate to draw attention away from the strange appointment of Petraeus to the CIA and Panetta to the Pentagon. Donald Trump makes a good straw man for the public attention, and he is too big of a buffoon to resist.
Will Petraeus spy on other military like McChrystal who betrayed the trust to obey and not question authority? Is this an act of desperation or paranoia by Obama? Is he ahead of the curve or behind it? Is America in danger of a military or corporate coup? A financial meltdown brings out the craziness, and that seems to be where we are headed with all this needless overhead for pointless war.
I think Obama's heart and his head are in conflict. He seems to have fallen victim to all the typical vices of the office: a faith in his own infallibility. The neo-cons are back as neo-dems.