Robinson -- Pundit or Fool?

One of the media people currently most deserving of the name "useful idiots" is Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. Useful idiot is a term first used to describe western opinion makers sympathetic to the old Soviet Union. These idiots downplayed the true nature of Communism and acted as disseminators of phony propaganda (whether intentional or not).

Robinson assumed that role today (okay, he has had it for a while) in connection with the change of leadership in North Korea. Robinson is incensed at the statement made by Mitt Romney about that transfer of power upon the death of Kim Jong Il. Here is what Romney said:

"Kim Jong Il was a ruthless tyrant who lived a life of luxury while the North Korean people starved. He recklessly pursued nuclear weapons, sold nuclear and missile technology to other rogue regimes, and committed acts of military aggression against our ally South Korea. He will not be missed.... His death represents an opportunity for America to work with our friends to turn North Korea off the treacherous course it is on and ensure security in the region. America must show leadership at this time. The North Korean people are suffering through a long and brutal national nightmare. I hope the death of Kim Jong Il hastens its end."


No sane person would argue that Romney's description of Kim Jong Il was wrong in any way. Kim was a loony sadist who cared not at all for the North Korean people. His only interest was himself and his personal power.

To Robinson, however, Romney's actions are "unpresidential". America needs a president who knows how to act when a foreign despot dies: we need a low key, almost non-existant response. We have to study the situation and consult with our allies. We have to wait to say anything until the situation has clarified in a month or two or maybe longer. In other words, Robinson wants the president to hide and do nothing until the situation has settled in North Korea.

A good example of this kind of conduct came when the uprising in Libya first started. After two or three days, nearly the entire country of Libya was in the hands of the rebels. At that point, a well placed shove from the USA against Gaddafi would have toppled that despot from his throne and brought a new government to Libya without any real bloodshed at all. Obama, however, was "presidential" in the way that Robinson wants. Obama spent weeks, indeed a month, consulting with allies, meeting at the UN and studying the situation. By the time Obama decided what America ought to do, Gaddafi had been able to steady his situation and then go on the offensive. Indeed, by the time Obama acted, hundreds and thousands of Libyan civilians were being killed by strikes from the Libyan air force. Cities were being destroyed. Fighting was raging across the country. Of course, Obama then committed US forces to the struggle (something that might have been avoided had Obama acted promptly in the first place.) But prompt action wouldn't have been presidential in Robinson's opinion.

I wonder what Robinson thinks about Franklin Roosevelt who asked for a declaration of war the day after Pearl Harbor. Did FDR act too fast and without full knowledge? How unpresidential! Maybe there was a faction in Tokyo with whom the USA could have tried to negotiate.

The real truth is that the USA needs a leader who is not afraid to lead. We have had three years of leading from behind, leading from way behind and failing to lead at all. Events that occur around the world will not wait to allow the president of the USA study time and Robinson truly is a useful idiot for thinking anything else.