Pete, I have little to add to your exhaustive analysis of the problem with employing non-stop apology as the principal instrument of national security. I would only observe that your take is not just the conclusion of many conservatives; it seems to be the emerging and surprising consensus across ideological lines. As noted earlier Eugene Robinson is greatly discomforted. Now Gloria Borger pipes up:

But there is a problem, and it’s not about photo ops. It’s about finding the appropriate tonal response to leaders who say outrageous things about us and about our allies.

It’s one thing to shake hands and speak of a willingness to engage; that’s all good. No one wants to turn a tyrant’s tirade into an obstacle to sitting down at a table to end the nuclear threat. No one wants to create a rhetorical cycle that escalates — and ends any chance of constructive engagement.

At some point, however, looking away becomes a statement itself. Especially when outrage is completely justified — and even preferable.

[. . .]

But at some point, this turning-the-other-cheek policy can slap us in the face. By not responding, we can look tone-deaf.

Granted her main concern is that Obama has handed a weapon to the Republicans (What about our country’s foes, Ms. Borger?), but she shares your view and, grudgingly, that of Newt Gingrich. With Gingrich, Romney, Robinson, Borger, Wehner, and Rubin all in agreement we certainly have an extraordinary and possibly unprecedented  foreign policy consensus. Obama is bringing us all together.