Was sequestration really the best time for the Obama administration to send new Secretary of State John Kerry overseas to announce $250 million in assistance to Egypt and $60 million in assistance to the Syrian rebels?

Because I’m sure we’ll hear about American firehouses shutting down because of the sequester… and in 2004, one of the biggest applause lines in Kerry’s acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in Boston was, “We shouldn’t be opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America.”

Because each time the administration points to some allegedly horrific cut, taxpayers can legitimately wonder, “why was that less of a priority than a Muslim Brotherhood-run Egypt or the Syrian rebels?”

A senior State Department official, briefing reporters about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s meeting with Egyptian President Morsi: “It began with the Secretary thanking the President for the security that was provided to our Embassy. We all understand that in the first hours, as the Egyptians themselves have said, it may have been a little slow, but indeed quite quickly Egypt provided to our Embassy and has continued to provide to our Embassy quite professional and quite effective security.”

Ah, those diplomatic euphemisms. This is what “a little slow” looks like:

Yes, we offer you effusive gratitude, President Morsi, for eventually meeting your basic obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Allow me to deviate slightly from the emerging consensus that President Obama stepped in it mightily when he said that “I don’t think we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.”

How would you characterize a regime where the security forces are unable or unwilling to protect U.S. soil, where the locals storm the embassy, trash it, remove and destroy the U.S. flag, and replace it with a black Islamist flag reading, “There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet”? Does that seem like the actions of an “ally”? How do you characterize a regime that takes a day to issue any statement responding to such an attack, one whose denunciation is tepid, one that urges its embassy to attempt to take legal action in the U.S. to restrict the rights of an American to criticize Islam?

I don’t doubt that the declaration that the U.S. no longer considers the Egyptian government to be an ally will have considerable reverberations in Cairo and U.S. diplomatic circles — but those reverberations ought to pale in comparison to the storming of an embassy on 9/11, and a series of attacks on U.S. soil and personnel in the region.

Obama’s mistake is much bigger than the “ally” comment; it is his vision and approach, which we’ve seen for years. His mistake has been viewing Prime Minister Morsi, the government headed by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the entire Arab Spring with rose-colored glasses.

Is the security around our embassies and consulates lax because we underestimate the anti-American currents in the driving philosophies of the Arab Spring? Can anyone argue that the Obama administration has had a realistic sense of anti-American attitudes in the region, and the dangers they present?

The Washington Post’s foreign-affairs columnist, David Ignatius, had a fascinating throwaway line in his column today:

The Salafists’ assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi at first appeared to be a “copycat” attack like the one in Cairo, but U.S. officials said it may have been planned by extremists linked to al-Qaeda. They were augmented by a well-armed Islamic militia. Their anger, again, is mixed between a baseline anti-Americanism (sadly, always a draw in the region) and a challenge to Prime Minister Abdurraheem el-Keib and the secularist parties that are the backbone of the new Libyan government.

A key goal of U.S. policy ought to be fighting, refuting, and discrediting this “baseline anti-Americanism.” The people of the United States have been the go-to scapegoat for every two-bit demagogue from Algiers, Algeria, to Lahore, Pakistan. With almost metronomic regularity, somebody with aspirations of political or religious power decides that easiest way to build up a following is to declare that the economic, political, or moral problems of their neighborhood are the fault of Americans. They and all of their buddies choose to lash out with a demonstration at the U.S. diplomatic post. On a quiet day, it’s just banners and chanting; on a bad day, good Americans get killed, just for showing up to work.

We have leverage with these regimes, none more so than Egypt, which receives enormous sums of foreign aid and is seeking billions in debt relief. If these regimes want to be considered allies, and want those wonderful American dollars to keep coming, they have to push back against knee-jerk anti-Americanism. We cannot be the all-purpose bogeyman in the political rhetoric of states that claim to want to be our friends, a convenient caricature for regime spokesmen to trot out when they need to distract from their own failures.

The demonization of America is so pervasive in Egyptian media it even percolated freely in the English-language press under Mubarak. No one’s asking foreign governments to shut down voices critical of America; just to refute the lies and stand up for our reputations, to stop letting us be the perpetual villain in all of their political discussions.

Obama’s problem isn’t one stray comment. Our problem is the policy he has pursued from Day One.

There was nothing inappropriate about Mitt Romney’s statement on the Libyan attacks this morning. If anything, his remarks were strikingly limited in scope. (The inane, narrative-obsessed, and apparently coordinated questions from the press didn’t help generate a substantive discussion.)

The events of the past 24 hours spotlight at least three major policy decisions by the Obama administration that are deserving of scrutiny in this election season:

1) So the Obama administration disavowed the statement released by the U.S. embassy in Cairo declaring that the embassy “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” That’s fine, but the boilerplate responses of the administration continue to suggest that the federal government believes that statements or expressions that offend certain religions are not acceptable, and that our policy is that they should somehow be not permitted or not aired in the public square.

From Obama’s initial statement: “The United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

From Obama’s Rose Garden statement: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

No we don’t! No one in the U.S. government rejects Bill Maher’s documentary Religulous, or the Broadway musical mocking the Mormon faith, or Dana Carvey’s “Church Lady” character. Denigrating the religious beliefs of others, whether popular or unpopular, is protected speech under the First Amendment, and there is a long history of this in American life.

You only see U.S. lawmakers denouncing mockery or criticism of a religion when the religion in question is Islam, and the primary cause of that is that Muslims in certain countries tend to lash out against perceived blasphemy by attacking Westerners, foreigners, and U.S. troops and diplomatic personnel. Large swaths of the Muslim world insist that the American interpretation of the First Amendment must adapt to conform with their faith’s blasphemy definitions and punishments.

The right to speak freely is non-negotiable, but the vague comments of the administration appear to be suggesting that we think some unspecified limitations on speech critical of Islam is compatible with our laws, Constitution, and traditions.

2) Why were the security measures for our embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi so insufficient? Did this administration underestimate the risk to our personnel in these cities and in other cities around the Middle East? Did the administration’s belief that the “Arab Spring” is good for our interests lead them to complacency about anti-American sentiment and the potential for violence in these cities?

3) Perhaps most importantly, when the Egyptian government, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, has refused to denounce the attacks, why are we even considering forgiving $1 billion of their debt? The administration’s proposal for forgiving $1 billion in debt must be dead on arrival on Capitol Hill, and it is a prime example of the administration being naïve, far too generous, and far too trusting in its dealings with the Egyptian government.

The lead item in the Morning Jolt is outrage-inducing . . .

Libyans Kill U.S. Ambassador, Other Americans; Egyptians Storm U.S. Embassy, Burn Flag

Enraging news out of Libya this morning:

The U.S. ambassador to Libya died as Libya militants stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

The death of Christopher Stevens, 52, on Tuesday came as two American State Department employees were also killed in Benghazi as an 20 gun-wielding attackers stormed the U.S. consulate, angry about an American made film that depicts Prophet Mohammad as a fraud and womanizer.

Stevens, who was a career member of the Senior Foreign Service and served two tours of duty in Libya, was nominated by President Obama to be ambassador to Libya early this year. His term of appointment as ambassador to Libya began on May 22.

Our ambassador’s body was carried through the streets by the mob. “Reminiscent of Somalia,” says Toby Harnden.

As I’m sending off the Jolt, there are unconfirmed reports that two U.S. Marines are among the dead.

Before the awful news out of Libya, the worst news appeared to be from Egypt – you know, the showcase nation of the Arab Spring, where the Muslim Brotherhood is now calling the shots . . .

Dear Egyptian crowds: You decide to hold large-scale protests, storm our embassy’s walls, tear down the American flag and replace it with an Islamic one . . . and you do it on September 11? To hell with you guys.

Reuters relays what happened in Cairo Tuesday:

Egyptian protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy on Tuesday, tore down the American flag and burned it during a protest over what they said was a film being produced in the United States that insulted Prophet Mohammad.

In place of the U.S. flag, the protesters tried to raise a black flag with the words “There is no God but God, and Mohammad is his messenger,” a Reuters witness said.

Once the U.S. flag was hauled down, some protesters tore it up and showed off pieces to television cameras. Others burned the remains outside the fortress-like embassy building in central Cairo. But some protesters objected to the flag burning.

That last sentence is subtle, huh? BREAKING: NOT ALL EGYPTIANS SUPPORT BURNING THE AMERICAN FLAG. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM HATE CRIMES, YOU UNWASHED XENOPHOBIC AMERICANS. THANK YOU.

But the good news is, we really came down on that violent mob like a ton of bricks. Check out the statement from our Embassy:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

. . . Er, wait, what?

We’re condemning the folks who offended the Egyptians, not the Egyptians storming our soil – yes, all embassies are the sovereign soil of the country they represent, not that the Iranians ever cared – and burning our flag? Why is the U.S. Embassy in Cairo determining what constitutes an “abuse” of the “universal right of free speech”? I’m pretty sure there’s something in the Constitution about the federal government regulating freedom of expression. To quote Jon Stewart, “Not sure which amendment covers that, but it’s probably in the top one.”

Bryan Preston: “The fact that the US embassy in Cairo would issue such a statement to Islamists, on 9-11 of all days, is a deep low point in American history.”

Well, at least we’re getting tough with the Egyptian government for failing to control the crowd or meet its duty to protect our embassy. Oh, wait:

The Obama administration hopes to go to Congress soon with a plan for using $1 billion in debt relief to help Egypt stabilize its economy and expand its private sector, a senior U.S. State Department official said on Friday.

“My hope would be is that we would go to the Congress very shortly with a framework of how we recommend that this money be allocated,” U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides told reporters during a conference call to discuss goals for a U.S. business delegation headed to Egypt this weekend.

President Barack Obama promised in May 2011 to relieve Egypt of up to $1 billion of the $3.2 billion debt it owes the United States, and to guarantee another $1 billion in loans for infrastructure and job creation programs.

Following Egypt’s first free elections, which brought Islamist president Mohamed Mursi to power in June, the United States has started detailed discussions with Egyptian officials on how the money would be used.

“We’re still in those discussions. I think we’re getting close to finalizing it. Obviously the Congress has to approve what we’re doing and we’re consulting with both Republicans and Democrats and there’s really, quite frankly, bipartisan support for this,” Nides said.

Not bipartisan support anymore, I’d bet.

New rule: You burn our embassy’s flag on 9/11, you get jack squat in foreign aid for the next five years.

Via Twitter, Rep. Allen West of Florida joins the ranks of Republicans critical of Obama’s response to Egypt: “Obama shouldn’t demand the departure of Mubarak without knowing who fills void. No Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, or Reagan in Egypt.”

Two weekends ago, I was at a wedding, and another guest mentioned that he was being “good,” and honoring his wife’s request that he not check his Blackberry or Twitter feed. Knowing that the Ravens-Steelers NFL Playoff game was underway, I asked him if he wanted to check it because he cared about Baltimore or Pittsburgh.

“Neither. Tunisia.”

“You have Tunisia in your fantasy league?”

This guest, a Middle East policy wonk at think tank, told me that his friends at the State Department were running around trying to get up to speed on the sudden changes in Tunisia; he chuckled and said he had told them that today they were desperately trying to understand Tunisia, tomorrow they would be taking credit for what happened, and within a short time, most of them and most of Washington will have forgotten about Tunisia.

Here we are, two weeks later, we’ve transfixed by a sudden uprising in another North African country. U.S. influence over events in Tunisia was negligible, and probably on par with the amount of U.S. interest in the long-term outlook for Tunisian politics. Obviously, U.S. influence over what happens in Egypt is limited, but it includes the roughly $1 billion in annual aid and a traditionally close – perhaps too close – relationship with a regime that suppresses dissent, controls the media, and does not hold free and fair elections.

The position of the government of the United States of America should never be to say to the side that’s using batons on demonstrators, “attaboy.”

The folks in the streets in Egypt include plenty of backers of the Muslim Brotherhood, aspiring Islamists, and garden-variety bad folk. But reports indicate the crowds include a large number of previously apolitical Egyptians who are fed up with three decades of governance that were not merely oppressive, but incompetent.  The Egyptian economy has never thrived; you know the usual figures – 40 percent get by on less than $2 per day. But when you pile rising wheat prices on an impoverished country, ordinary folks find the usual poor governance untenable. They have to eat, and have to believe there’s some small possibility of their lives getting better someday. Hosni Mubarak and his regime have worn out a decades-long benefit of the doubt from a people who historically were inclined to have tea, complain, and shrug rather than burn cars and take on riot police.

If you support the right of American Tea Partiers to gather together and protest their government, I don’t quite understand why you would deny the average Egyptian the same right. It’s not like angry Egyptians can write a letter to the editor or vote out their representatives to get better results. Even if the protesters are anti-Israeli, want a more Islamist government, and can repeat every bit of anti-American propaganda they’ve ever heard, who are we to say to them, “You deserve no better than Mubarak”?

As of this writing, the Mubarak regime appears to be tottering. He’s 82 years old and has had health problems. Even if he survives this challenge to his power. Mubarak will be gone someday; even if we preserve the status quo, we can’t preserve it for too much longer. And the status quo isn’t that great for American interests (when we’re the perpetual scapegoat in Egypt’s media).

It was shameful for Obama to hesitate and dawdle before endorsing the Iranian protesters, and it creates the awkward precedent for the Obama administration speaking sooner, and more positively, about protests against the government of an ally. But in the end, why would an American president tout the virtues of a regime that shoots unarmed protesters? Let Mubarak fall. He’s had his chance, and he has failed the Egyptian people.