Dan Liljenquist: Obama didn’t ‘speak softly’ while carrying stick

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Matno Pelham, NY
    Sept. 18, 2013 3:18 p.m.

    As usual, Dan nailed it again. For those of you condemning the "obstructionist" approach to Obama, please name ONE thing Obama has promoted that SHOULDN'T be obstructed. It never happens, because every single concept he has promoted while in office has been designed to push our country in a bad direction. Without exception. Better to be right than to sell out your principles. Keep it up Dan. Your articles are always a pleasure to read. It lets us know that at least someone with influence understands right and wrong. Thanks!

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    Liljenquist seems to be cast in the mold of Mike Lee. In other words, I don't believe he has an unbiased and objective view of anything that Obama does. It wouldn't matter what Obama said or did, he'd find some reason to show the president as weak or ineffectual. I'm sure Liljenquist and Lee may feel they are "as one speaking in the wilderness" and are committed to their views with religious fervor unwilling to compromise because they are doing the Lord's bidding, but, if you took Obama out their rhetoric, their ideas are shallow and won't work.

  • Swiss Price, Utah
    Sept. 13, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    With Kerry and Obama doing the negotiating for US what could go wrong....

  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    Questioni of the day
    Speaking of speaking softly and carrying a big stick, who said "Bring them on."

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    Sept. 13, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    I question the value in having as a major qualification for political office a single-minded focus to delegitimize the President. What have political luminaries here in the land of the far-right such as Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz, Dan Liljenquist and Mia Love actually accomplished other than to preach obstructionism to nearly every presidential effort to confront the pressing issues of our times?

    Mike, Jason, Dan and Mia, which would you prefer: a single marshmallow now backing the excesses of the far right or several later on as an advocate of moderation and statesmanship?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 13, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    ") and when action is required do so quickly and surgically. If for no other reason, why telegraph your moves?". Because now we have a chance for a different outcome. The second Asaad or at least his government used those weapons they made trouble for Russia, a problem the Russian could have dealt with privately, but the second reinforced his threat that option was off the table for Russia, and Obama had an opening for a peaceful solution.

    A little long winded I know but that's why threats are sometimes telegraphed. Sometimes they're part of a larger solution. Sometimes they're not part of something larger and then they're not telegraphed , ask Osama about that one.

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Sept. 13, 2013 12:21 a.m.

    I'd like to see Obama on an aircraft carrier just to hear republicans condem it.

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Sept. 12, 2013 11:35 p.m.

    Well I'll keep voting for a democrat president just to see how long republicans can pretend to be anti-war.

    I say Canada can take care of it. Anybody else but the US.

  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 10:54 p.m.

    Re Mike Richards

    For one time I agree with you.

    I also agree with Dan Liljenquist that "The American people are war weary with the middle east"

    The American military is not a "Rent a Military" to do other countries bidding.

    If we continually go around punishing other countries with our military it is bound to come back and haunt us sometime.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 12, 2013 6:21 p.m.

    Dan is correct. Obama has blustered for five years.

    What would happen if you or I or anyone else ran out into the street and started shooting because someone had robbed our house? Yet, that is exactly what Obama wants to do. He wants to bomb Syria because somebody broke the rules. He doesn't knwo who broke the rules. He doesn't know who had control of the chemical weapons. He doesn't know where those weapons came from. He doesn't know who is behind anything, so his solution is to make a lot of noise, destroy a lot of property and if innocent people die, then that's just too bad because he is upset that Syria didn't listen to him.

    What makes Obama think that he can shoot first and ask questions later? Who gave him that right? Who told him that innocent people are fodder for his anger?

  • aceroinox Farmington, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 12:49 p.m.

    I'm amused at all the trolls who emerge from under the bridge whenever a restrained, reasoned, intelligent comment is put forth. President Obama's speech was full of chest-puffing braggadocio. Statements like, "The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver," "for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them," "That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional," are not "speaking softly". In fact, they feed the Ugly American image of a country throwing it's weight around. The President's propensity for speaking in the first person, as though it were he, and he alone, who is the power involved is also telling.

    The better approach, recommended by TR, is to observe and learn (a la Tom Cruise's Jack Reacher) and when action is required do so quickly and surgically. If for no other reason, why telegraph your moves?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    Oh wow.

    Imagine that.

    Dan, just a week ago wanted peace. Now, he wants war.

    In other words, a Republican can never ever ever agree with Obama, no matter what. Dan must speak ill of the President, no matter what happens.


    That's not something we see every single day or anything...

    Why do we keep publishing this nonsense?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    Obama is doing a great job of talking... there's no doubt about that.

    I hope the talking works, because he was always so adamant that Bush should have been able to just just sit down with the terrorists and talk his way out of any situation when HE was President.

    I think he's learning quickly how tough it is to be President and have to be the one to make the tough decisions (especially when the opposition party feels morally obligated to criticize EVERYTHING you do).

    Learning on the job is tough... but I think he's learning quickly.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    "So why does it seem like we are losing influence? "

    Open question to anyone... did anybody seriously believe 2 weeks ago that we could get Syrian chemical weapons without having to fire a single shot? Now we might just get that so wouldn't that be a sign of greater than expected influence?

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Sept. 12, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    No real suggestions here. Just an odd heap of blather attempting to compare Obama to TR, whose been gone a hundred years now. Throw in the obligatory scare ("losing our influence!") and you end up with something that may somehow promote Mr. L., but otherwise just takes a few minutes from the rest of your life.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    Again I must ask: Why, why, why, why, why, why why is Deseret News constantly publishing op eds from Liljenquist?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Sept. 12, 2013 7:59 a.m.

    This is a strange piece, so self-contradictory it's hard to know where to begin. Would a big-voiced leader have acted with Obama's restraint? Is it a loud or a soft voice that opts to give diplomacy another chance? Does a restrained, collaborative voice necessarily lead to a loss of influence? As Dan points out (in highly charged Freudian terms), we still have the "biggest stick in the world" and everyone knows it--that fact in itself ensures your influence. It seems to me Obama is doing exactly what Teddy Roosevelt advocated. (Of course, if you're Dan L, it's your weekly duty to point out that Obama can do nothing right.)