mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
It Begins

The fallout from President Obama’s indiscreet remarks in Jeffrey Goldberg’s landmark Atlantic article has begun. One day after the article dropped, reports of the President dissing major world leaders and close allies fill the London papers, which highlight Obama’s belittling of David Cameron. The Times of London‘s headline blares, “Obama Lays Blame for Libya Mess on Cameron,” and continues:

In highly unusual criticism of a serving British prime minister from his American ally, Mr Obama claimed that Mr Cameron stopped paying attention soon after the 2011 military operation because he was “distracted by a range of other things”.

Mr Obama also made clear that he forced Mr Cameron to sign up to Nato’s benchmark of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence. “Free riders aggravate me,” he told The Atlantic magazine, which reported that he instructed Mr Cameron “to pay your fair share” during a G7 summit last year.

The Financial Times (“Obama Criticizes ‘Free Riding’ Allies in 2011 Libya Campaign”) notes that the French came in for a beating too:

Mr Obama said that British prime minister David Cameron was “distracted” in the months after the death of Mr Gaddafi and suggested that then French president Nicolas Sarkozy was more interested in trying to “trumpet” his country’s involvement in air strikes in Libya than ensuring a peaceful transition to a new government.[..]

In an interview in which the president already appeared to be letting down his guard with 10 months still left in office, some of Mr Obama’s most pointed comments were directed at Mr Cameron.[..]

On the French role in the Libyan campaign, Mr Obama said that “Sarkozy wanted to trumpet the flights he was taking in the air campaign, despite the fact that we had wiped out all the air defences and essentially set up the entire infrastructure” for the intervention.

Expect more shoes to drop—and the anger in London and Paris will be less damaging than the fallout in other parts of the world. For instance, the Iranians are starting to weigh in:

The Iranian trumpeting of Obama’s position will almost certainly not be warmly received in Riyadh, Dubai, and Amman.

This sets up an odd duality: the President in the interview is reflective, thoughtful, making a strong case for why he is wiser and more far seeing than other people. But on the other hand, running your mouth and being openly contemptuous and dismissive of fellow leaders to a journalist is the mark of a careless and clumsy amateur. As so often is the case with this President, there’s a wide gap between the cerebral processes and the ill-considered actions. This would be somewhat explicable in the rookie year of a presidency, but it’s very hard to understand in the final year of an Administration.

Features Icon
show comments
  • S M

    Actually no. It is more understandable in the last year of Presidency, as the President is a free man. I’m not saying what Obama said is true or right, just that he feels liberated from the chains of diplomacy. And to be honest, I share his critique of Europeans and Arabs free riding on US blood and treasure for over 70 years.

    • CosmotKat

      That may be so, but there is nothing in his actions that would suggest anything beyond pure arrogance on his part for a job done badly and then to point the finger at others. That is and has been his M.O. Never has there been a bigger pr*ck to hold the highest office in the land. Period.

    • Episteme

      The problem is, to quote Rubio today to MSNBC on Trump and Obama both, “words have consequences, particularly for a President or someone running for President. He was talking about the issue of persuading angry supporters that reprisals and violent protests were appropriate in a modern democracy, but it’s also very appropriate in this context. The same language or targeted discourse in reminiscences that’s fully appropriate a few years later when doing memoirs is not appropriate when a President active “not only head of government, but as head of state, as so representing the United States of America on the world stage in what he says” – a slip of phrasing here and there is one thing versus the sort of extended commentary that this Atlantic interview offers against other in-offic (or running to return to office) heads of state and/or heads of government, and so marks effectively the airing of dirty laundry between the United States and close allies in a manner that can only be countered by more further remarks that shouldn’t be made at this point.

      I’m still curious about the release of this piece – and I say that not from any political angle (although I’m a center-right Republican and have been deeply critical of Obama (particularly on many of his international and defense decisions – where I thought that his selection of staff suggested something more akin to Bush 41), but as someone in the history field. If this had come out in December during the transition or the beginning of next year to define the post-Obama era, I could understand. However, there are the questions of how these accusations (I call them such because there’s no good way to respond to them and no real ‘court’ in which to adequately do so without furthering the problem) will impact our already-compromised relations with many of our allies; likewise, no one knows how the next eleven months will turn out – we’ve seen the turnaround suddenly in the use of Special Forces against ISIS (something I attribute heavily to Ash Carter supplanting John Kerry as the irreplaceable man from the Administration in the region, and rightly so – he remains the Grownup In The Room in the White House) and we don’t know how any decision on the genocide issue may play out (the Knights of Columbus report with its fullness of documentation of atrocities, comparable to information we only had of the Shoah after WWII, should be an interesting variable) nor how any of these issues will domino to the decision-making of players like Russia, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. The change in the Carter Doctrine in the last year of his presidency involved far fewer variables (here, I’ve only mentioned the Middle East, but there are the issues of the China Sea and even the ever-forgotten deadlines of our long-term work in Colombia in integrating FARC into the political system where the next few months are the test of whether a “Good Friday” agreement there can exist).

      With just the tensions going on in domestic politics and the President’s tendency to get involved in questionable ways and in highly-specifically partisan manners, despite his status as head of state, effectively creating similar tensions internationally (even literally in the case of trying to influence the Brexit decision in the same manner than his operatives got involved previously in Israel’s domestic elections) just exacerbates complex matters to the possibility of some breaking points. As I noted, this was – even as a fascinating piece and an interview that I was excited to read from a historian’s perspective – not an interview and article that needed to be released in this form and scale at this time when it could have been produced in a few months to a year’s time (is there some particular issue at stake that requires us to fully understand the Obama Doctrine in March of 2016 that I’m completely missing?). Indeed, presenting it as a piece defining history-being-set interview as he leaves would both solve many issues with it and deal with the real question of how much of what he says here is going to be rendered itself historical by changing conditions within the next few months…

  • WigWag

    David Frum’s take on the Obama/Goldberg saga is well worth a look.

    • Anthony

      “Of all the paradoxes, maybe the most important will be this: A president who came to office so deeply uneasy about American leadership has – over almost eight years of not providing it – reminded the rest of the world that leadership is so badly needed.” Agreed, but its (leadership) never easy WigWag even with the most extensive background.

      • Nate Whilk

        STILL making excuses for the Lightworker, I see.

        • Anthony

          How you see is @ question generally.

          • Nate Whilk

            More excuses.

          • Anthony

            Cognitive scientists have offered that there are two very different kinds of cognitive processes at work when we make judgments and solve problems: “seeing-that”(pattern matching) and “reasoning why” (how I judged). More excuses response is similar to the “Muller-Lyer illusion.

          • Nate Whilk

            Excuses masquerading as science.

          • Anthony

            “I have striven not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, not to hate them (misrepresent them), but to understand them. (Baruch Spinoza)

    • Neo

      Obama wistfully says, “All I need in the Middle East is a few smart
      autocrats.” “Smart” here is shorthand for “conforming to Obama’s

      It must be truly painful to be so right and everybody else is so wrong. Understanding must be that “next speech” away.

      You have to ask what kind of grade this man got in elementary school for things like “plays well with others”

  • Anthony

    “This sets up an odd duality: the President in the interview is reflective, thoughtful, making a strong case…But on the other hand….” There is no duality unless one is influenced perhaps by both partisanship and personal disdain. The article, no matter where one stands on President Obama, provides Americans interested in contours of our Foreign Policy a semblance of the Matrix.

  • jeburke

    Obama is just working on his “legacy.” The disintegration of Libya doesn’t look good for “smart power,” so it’s necessary to begin laying out the case that it was Britain’s and France’s fault,.

    • Albert8184

      Obama is trying to help Hillary get elected, by putting out the word that it wasn’t her fault that Libya ended up another casualty of the Arab Spring he started. Obama KNOWS she’s going to be facing those questions. The Democrats as a whole are facing those questions.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “This would be somewhat explicable in the rookie year of a presidency, but it’s very hard to understand in the final year of an Administration.”

    You have to take responsibility for a mistake, before you can learn from it. As we can see here, Obama NEVER takes responsibility for his own mistakes, ALWAYS blaming someone (Bush, Cameron, Sarkozy, etc.) or something else. Because of this fact, Obama rather than growing into the Office of President, has continued to be the worst and most incompetent President in American History.

    • Kevin

      “You have to take responsibility for a mistake, before you can learn from it.”

      I expected the next few lines to be about those who voted for this egomaniacal incompetent when there was zero evidence he would be successful in office.

      • PoohBear57

        In fact, when there was quite a bit of evidence that he would be a failure, if elected.

        • Albert8184

          Obama isn’t a failure. He’s a smashing success. That’s the problem with so many of us conservatives. We just cannot get our minds around the concept of a Manchurian candidate.

          • PoohBear57

            Unfortunately, it wasn’t so hard – even before the election. But enough people weren’t paying attention. All you needed to hear about were his relationships with Bill Ayers, “the Rev” Jeremiah Wright and Frank Marshall Davis, and you’d know he’d been ‘programmed’ against the usual expectations of the typical American.

      • BIGtimSullivan

        And how about those that re-voted for him after 4 years of complete failure? Unfortunately, we get the government WE deserve. Our electorate is more or less ignorant at this point and things will only get worse once all the uneducated illegal aliens are allowed to vote. Derb said it best: “We’re Doomed”.

    • Albert8184

      It’s not hard to understand at all. This isn’t a mistake. This is Obama with only 10 months left to go. He’s gonna’ let it all hang out and do as much damage to our relationships with traditional key allies as possible. That’s what he’s doing in the Oval Office after all. Running down America relentlessly.

    • adk

      Even before taking responsibility for a mistake, one has to recognize that he made it. But, but– Obama never makes mistakes! According to him, his only mistakes were not communicating the depth of his thinking to the “folks” (not that the rubes would understand it anyway) and not being sufficiently attentive to the primitive reactions such of the populace, such as fear. That’s it.

      Ans he’s actually proud of first establishing a red line for Assad’s use of chemical weapons and then erasing it. A lonely guy standing up to the conventional expectations in Washington and foreign-policy tank thinking (but they live off Arab and Jewi…, er, Israeli money anyway.)

      • Jim__L

        This is probably the classic Obama quote from that article…

        “We averted large-scale civilian casualties, we prevented what almost
        surely would have been a prolonged and bloody civil conflict. And
        despite all that, Libya is a mess.”

        Doesn’t the current mess in Libya include large-scale civilian casualties and a prolonged / bloody civil conflict? Is this how his supporters call him a success, by counting his failures as successes?

        In other news, Ghaddafi was an autocrat. A “smart autocrat”, like Obama says he needs more of? Well, considering how long he stayed in power until Obama stepped in, you could call him “smart”. Saddam was an autocrat too, and “smart” in the way of autocrats. So are the Saudis.

        Foreign policy-wise, Obama’s a beggar who wants to be a chooser.

        • adk

          According to the same interview, his closest advisers from the National Security team, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Ben Rhodes, and Antony Blinken “lobbied hard to protect Benghazi, and prevailed.”

          You put these two quotes together, and here’s what emerges: Obama was reluctantly taken along for the ride by his NSC people who overruled his objections. Then, for a brief moment, he became proud that “we prevented what almost surely would have been a prolonged and bloody civil conflict.”

          Then Libyans let him down. Bitter disappointment follows and gets duly recorded by the court stenographer.

          On to the next “They let me down, again and again!” issue.


    can you say legacy? Obama is a one trick pony.

    • PoohBear57

      Nope. A no-trick pony.

  • Beauceron

    As someone who is not a fan of Obama in any sense of the word, I find little to complain about in those remarks.

    To be sure, they were indiscreet and could have been couched in more diplomatic language.

    But it’s hard to fault an American president for pointing out that Europe does a lot of what TAI has called “coat holding,” where they expect, even demand, that the US to do the heavy lifting– the fighting and bleeding and paying– while Europe does little except gripe.

    • Stephen W. Houghton

      Some what true, but the president misses two things. If you are going rile up your friends, you should ask for something, like more defense spending by France and the UK. Second the real problem that made Libya sure to be a loss was that intervening was not in our vital interest and we broke our word to that tin pot dictator that if he gave up is WMD program we would leave him alone. As Fredrick the Great said, “One should not break ones word unless it very greatly to ones advantage and for those circumstances to occur, one must have reputation for very great probity.”

    • Moneyrunner

      So you’re agreeing with Obama that the Europeans are not military powerhouses. You know, I knew that just from reading the news. I don’t have access to the CIA or the DOD. So why would a wise, or even half-witted American president believe any different? There are three choices: 1)he’s stupid, 2)he’s someone’s tool, letting himself get talked into making mistakes, or 3) he wanted the results he got. These are not exclusive choices.

      • sukietawdry

        Someone remarked it was like he didn’t know the 67-year history of NATO.

      • f1b0nacc1

        Embrace the healing power of “and”

  • PierrePendre

    Sarkozy bounced Cameron into the intervention in Libya and the pair of them then bounced Obama. Via Hillary Clinton, secretary of state at the time. The whole enterprise was a geopolitical and humanitarian disaster that should put all four of them in the dock at The Hague.

    But Obama couldn’t care less about Cameron, an inconsequential lightweight, or Sarkozy who is already a yesterday’s man and likely to remain so despite his come back ambitions to regain the French presidency.

    Obama’s real mission in his remarks to Goldberg is to exculpate himself from responsibility for the disastrous Libyan adventure which has transformed an authoritarian but governable country into a failed state, which it is now impossible to deny.

    Impossible for everyone except Hillary Clinton who, despite the evidence of the world’s eyes to the contrary, still proclaims the Libyan intervention as an example of the exercise of American smart power.

    Obama also lets it be known that Clinton talked him into attacking Ghaddafi against his better judgment.

    That makes two serious strikes against Clinton’s claim to have foreign policy credentials that no would-be Republican contender can match from a guy who’s supposed to be on her side.

    • Jim__L

      So… the one time Hillary is anything other than invisible or indifferent as SoS, and it’s a disaster?

      And the Democrats want her to be President?

  • ddh

    President Obama is so disappointed in the way other national leaders have let him down.

    • If Cameron was such an obvious liability it was an unforced error to rely on him over US forces which, we can guess, were not employed so O could ‘lead from behind’.

  • Leland Hutchinson

    Obama came into office not knowing much, and he is not a quick learner. Once again, everyone else has let him down. Why can’t they be as wise and effective as he thinks they should be? Why don’t they see that he is always right and that he never lies?

    The answers, of course, are obvious. He is neither wise nor effective. He may or may not be right from time to time, but never as often as he thinks he is. He often lies. This strange, empty man is completely deluded about himself, his insights, and his capabilities.

  • Free riders? It’s free riders all the way down.

  • mikekelley10

    These clowns cover for Obama even when they are forced to admit he’s an idiot.

  • massjim

    For someone who is praised as being “brilliant” and a “great” speaker and who self identifies as knowing more about foreign affairs than his advisors Obama spends an awful lot of time with his foot in his mouth.

  • gearbox123

    It makes absolutely perfect sense once you realize that Obama hates America and wants to see it destroyed.

  • lgeubank

    So there’s “a wide gap between the cerebral processes and the ill-considered actions”? What cerebral processes? He acts stupid because he IS stupid– and conceited. A common syndrome.

  • Dantes

    “the President in the interview is reflective, thoughtful, making a strong case for why he is wiser and more far seeing than other people.”

    He isn’t making a strong case that he is wise at all. Quite the opposite. A legend in his own mind.

    • adk

      Yeah, what kind of idiot would write that phrase in which all the words other than “the President” and “the interview” are obvious lies?

  • GlobalTrvlr

    A petulant child

  • LastNameFirstNameLast✓ᴬᶰᵍʳʸ

    The Democrat Party of the United States has two jackasses for mascots now.

    • PoohBear57

      No, three. Don’t forget theBern…

  • MumuBobby

    Same as always. Not His Fault. Everything sux but Not His Fault. Profiles in Courage it’s not.

  • Terenc Blakely

    “This… behavior… would be somewhat explicable in the rookie year of a presidency, but it’s very hard to understand in the final year of an Administration.”

    It’s because he doesn’t give a damn and never has. His ego never takes a back seat to anyone or for anything. If you view him as a narcissistic sociopath, then his befuddling behavior makes sense.

  • adk

    Here’s the short version and the longer (albeit incomplete) list of various villains and humanity flaws responsible for sometimes less than brilliant results of Obama’s foreign policy and His great many disappointments. The short one: Obama is disappointed and frustrated by everybody and everything, everywhere. It’s actually much easier to note who clears his high bar of being far-sighted, reasonable and strategic — Himself.

    The longer list of frustrations and other people’s failures, in the order of appearance:
    — the war-monger Churchill (Churchillian rhetoric and,more to the point, Churchillian habits of thought, helped bring his predecessor, George W. Bush, to ruinous war in Iraq.)
    — annoying Samantha Power who “argued early for arming Syria’s rebels.” (“Samantha, enough, I’ve already read your book,” he once snapped.)
    — Hillary Clinton (Clinton’s assessment that “great nations need organizing principles, and‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle, ” Obama became “rip-shit angry,” …Clinton quickly apologized to Obama for her comments…)
    — the Washington foreign-policy establishment (which he secretly disdains…)
    — conventional expectations (he president had come to believe that he was walking into a trap—one laid both by allies and by adversaries, and by conventional expectations of what an American president is supposed to do.)
    — his advisors (Many of his advisers did not grasp the depth of the president’s misgivings…)
    — Washington at large (He was tired of watching Washington unthinkingly drift toward war in Muslim countries.)
    — Pentagon (Four years earlier, the president believed, the Pentagon had “jammed” him on a troop surge for Afghanistan.)
    — The Saudis (he had, long before he became president, referred to them as a “socalled ally ” of the U.S.)
    — Congress (Congress’s clear ambivalence [about authorizing US strike on Syria] convinced Biden that Obama was correct to fear the slippery slope.)
    — the “Washington playbook”(that presidents are supposed to follow. It’s a playbook that comes out of the foreign-policy establishment. And the playbook prescribes responses to different events, and these responses tend to be militarized responses.)
    — America’s Middle East allies (frustrating, high-maintenance allies in the Middle East—countries, he complains privately to friends and advisers, that seek to exploit American “muscle” for their own narrow and sectarian ends.)
    — US military leaders and the foreign-policy think-tanks (He resented military leaders who believed they could fix any problem if the commander in chief would simply give them what they wanted, and he resented the foreign-policy think-tank complex.A widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. )
    — America’s ability to direct global events (Obama as a president who has grown steadily more fatalistic about the constraints on America’s ability to direct global events)
    — small men (who rule large countries in ways contrary to their own best interests)
    — primary human emotions (the persistence of fear as a governing human emotion—frequently conspire against the best of America’s intentions.)
    — the world at large (the world is a tough,complicated, messy, mean place, and full of hardship and tragedy)
    — America’s free riders, esp. Britain(“Free riders aggravate me, ” he told me. Recently, Obama warned that Great Britain would no longer be able to claim a “special relationship” with the United States if it did not commit to spending at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense.)
    — American self-righteousness. (“We have history,” he said. “We have history in Iran, we have history in Indonesia and Central America. So we have to be mindful of our history when we start talking about intervening, and understand the source of other people’s suspicions.”)
    — traditional U.S. foreign-policy thinking (to a remarkable degree, he is willing to question why America’s enemies are its enemies, or why some of its friends are its friends.)
    — Pakistan (which he believes is a disastrously dysfunctional country, [why] should be considered an ally of the U.S. at all.)
    — Israel (he has questioned why the U.S. should maintain Israel’s so-called qualitative military edge, which grants it access to more sophisticated weapons systems than America’s Arab allies receive)
    — US Arab allies ( [he] also questioned, often harshly, the role that America’s Sunni Arab allies play in fomenting anti-American terrorism.)
    — ME Muslims (he said that he had been trying—unsuccessfully, he acknowledged—to persuade Muslims to more closely examine the roots of their unhappiness.)
    — the Arab Spring (…as the Arab Spring gave up its early promise, and brutality and dysfunction overwhelmed the Middle East, the president grew disillusioned.)
    — Netanyahu (Some of his deepest disappointments concern Middle Eastern leaders themselves. Benjamin Netanyahu is in his own category: Obama has long believed that Netanyahu could bring about a two-state solution that would protect Israel’s status as a Jewish-majority democracy,but is too fearful and politically paralyzed to do so.)
    — other Middle Eastern leaders (Obama has also not had much patience for Netanyahu and other Middle Eastern leaders who question his understanding of the region…Other leaders also frustrate him immensely.)
    — Erdoğan (Obama now considers him a failure and an authoritarian, one who refuses to use his enormous army to bring stability to Syria.)
    — King Abdullah II of Jordan (Obama said he had heard that Abdullah had complained to friends in the U.S. Congress about his leadership, and told the king that if he had complaints, he should raise them directly.)
    — Middle East at large (“The president recognized during the course of the Arab Spring that the Middle East was consuming us,” John Brennan … told me recently.)
    — bad faction within [his] national-security team…Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, …Samantha Power, Ben Rhodes, and Antony Blinken who pushed him to intervene in Libya (…lobbied hard to protect Benghazi, and prevailed.)
    — Libya (he calls Libya a “shit show…for reasons that had less to do with American incompetence than with the passivity of America’s allies and with the obdurate power of tribalism.)
    — EU types, Cameron and Sarkozy in particular ( “I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up,” he said.)
    — General Lloyd Austin, then the commander of Central Command (told the White House that the Islamic State was “a flash in the pan.” This analysis led Obama, in an interview with The New Yorker, to describe the constellation of jihadist groups in Iraq and Syria as terrorism’s “jayvee team.” )
    — U.S. intelligence (But by late spring of 2014 …he came to believe that U.S. intelligence had failed to appreciate the severity of the threat and the inadequacies of the Iraqi army)
    — the Islamic State (The rise of the Islamic State deepened Obama’s conviction that the Middle East could not be fixed—not on his watch, and not for a generation to come.)
    — Republican governors and presidential candidates ([who] had suddenly taken to demanding that the United States block Syrian refugees from coming to America…This rhetoric appeared to frustrate Obama immensely.)
    — fearful American society (in the words of one official, that “everyone back home had lost their minds.”…Obama frequently reminds his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do. Several years ago, he expressed to me his admiration for Israelis’ “resilience” in the face of constant terrorism, and it is clear that he would like to see resilience replace panic in American society..he believes that a misplaced word, or a frightened look, or an ill-considered hyperbolic claim, could tip the country into panic. The sort of panic he worries about most is the type that would manifest itself in anti-Muslim xenophobia or in a challenge to American openness and to the constitutional order)
    — terrorism (The president also gets frustrated that terrorism keeps swamping his larger agenda)
    — modern Islam (n private encounters with other world leaders, Obama has argued that there will be no comprehensive solution to Islamist terrorism until Islam reconciles itself to modernity and undergoes some of the reforms that have changed Christianity. )
    — ME tribalism (One of the most destructive forces in the Middle East, Obama believes, is tribalism—a force no president can neutralize. )
    — climate change (As I survey the next 20 years, climate change worries me profoundly because of the effects that it has on all the other problems that we face)

    • Amadeus27

      There is an old joke that the working title of every Washington memoir is “If Only They Had Listened To Me.” Apparently Obama has decided to embrace that approach for all retrospectives on time in office…even while he remains in office.
      He really is one of a kind.

      • adk

        But why would assorted “they” listen to him, he was just a mere president of the US?

    • BIGtimSullivan

      Incredible synopsis of King Barry’s international disappointments list, adk. Thanks for this. The Atlantic article is really remarkable, it truly lays bare Obama and his malignant character.
      The one over-arching point I read into the article, best exemplified in the Syrian Red Line situation, is that once Barack Obama and all his childish gibberish is carefully distilled you are left with a lonely coward: hardly a man.

      • adk

        You are welcome. I was really struck by that “vast worldwide conspiracy” of Netanyahu, Europeans, Arabs, Netanyahu, Israelis, Republicans, Pentagon, Netanyahu, CIA, American people, tribalism, small-mindedness, Islam, human nature etc., etc. to thwart Obama’s noble selfless efforts to cure all of the world’s ills.

        I guess we just don’t deserve Him.

        • BIGtimSullivan

          LOL. I guess we need to laugh otherwise cry. Cheers.

  • WORSEKarma

    Here, let me see if I can clarify it for you: Malignant Narcissist.

  • sukietawdry

    Perhaps the gap between his cerebral processes and the ill-considered actions isn’t as wide as you would have it. Maybe you’re projecting.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service