How Bad Is Obama’s Foreign Policy? Let Us Count the Ways
When even the pages of the Huffington Post are excoriating Barack Obama’s foreign policy, you know the commander in chief is in some pretty serious trouble.
Writing for the HuffPo, Ken Blackwell, a fellow at the National Academy of Public Administration and the Family Research Council, pulls no punches:
It would be hard to say which specific foreign policy of the Obama administration is worst. Iran sanctions? Russian relations? Attacks on Israel for Jewish settlements in Jerusalem? Trashing the special relationship with Britain? Insulting the Canadians in their own capital? Failure to secure the border with Mexico? We have an entire menu of foreign policy disasters to consider.
Blackwell points out that despite Obama’s claim to the contrary, there is no sign that Russia will assist the West in imposing sanctions on Iran. Just the opposite, in fact. Russia has just announced a massive new offensive weapons arms deal with Syria, a country that serves as a direct pipeline to the Hezbollah terrorists who are also favored by Iran.
If that’s what the august pages of the Huffington Post are saying, it isn’t hard to imagine how the right is starting to see Obama’s craven conduct. But for those who remain unclear, former Bushie David Kramer, now with the German Marshall Fund of the United States, spelled it out in no uncertain terms in the Washington Post.
Focusing on another festival of Obamanian failure, Kramer blasts Obama for selling out our Eastern European and Central Asian allies in order to get the Iran deal that never was. He believes the administration has signaled that Russia has a free hand to gobble up Georgia: “The administration is essentially abandoning the Georgians and giving Russia a green light to continue to engage in provocative behavior along its borders.” He continues:
Obama and other senior U.S. officials have repeatedly said they do not recognize a Russian “sphere of influence,” but actions, or non-actions, speak louder than those words. Through its neglect of countries in the region except for Russia, the administration is ceding to Moscow exactly such a sphere.
As Professor Ethan Burger of Georgetown University argued recently on my blog La Russophobe, yet another sign of Obama’s capitulation to Russia is his willingness to allow Russia into the World Trade Organization without first embracing any of the core principles that support the WTO. Why should Russia think it needs to make any fundamental changes if it can get what it wants without making any?
In the past seven months, four high-profile Democrats have gone down to defeat despite active campaigning on their behalf by President Obama. Senior Obama advisor David Axelrod is running scared. He told the Associated Press: “At some point, you feel like we’ve done what we can do. We do have other stuff going on.”
You sure do, Mr. Axelrod. You have this country’s foreign policy to conduct. Ironically, though, it’s precisely because you are butchering that work so badly that your man is unable to help your candidates win reelection.
The country is slowly awakening to the reality that it has another “Jimmah” to contend with in the White House, a man whose palpable weakness and inexperience are encouraging America’s worst enemies to think they can take advantage.
While candidate John McCain proposed sanctioning Russia, and increasing American influence, by booting Russia out of the G-8 (yet another organization to which Russia belongs while repudiating all its core values), Obama is seeking to reward Russia and dilute American influence by expanding the G-8.
Americans see Russian nuclear bombers buzzing their coastline. They see American values under siege in Putin’s Russia. They see the creation of a neo-Soviet state. They see American promises being broken in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and as a result they see rising Russian aggression and imperialism.
With all this, they are displeased. They want America to be what it has always been: a beacon of freedom and democracy. Liberals are stunned to see a president who was supposedly dedicated to liberalism ignoring violent racism, homophobia, censorship, and dictatorship on the rise in Russia. Conservatives are equally shocked to watch Obama encourage Russia to foment anti-American hatred in the Middle East (which has the side benefit of roiling the oil markets and lining Russia’s pockets) and to draw down a new Iron Curtain across Europe.
It seems there is one thing all Americans can agree on: Barack Obama is a truly awful president.
What about -
Obama’s support for Zelaya of Honduras? Zelaya was violating their constitution and attempting to get another term in office. Both their supreme court and their legislature rejected this attempt but Obama actually supported Zelaya.
And Obama’s indifference to the demonstrators for democracy in Iran. Obama said nothing in their support – thus siding with the brutal repression of these demonstrators by the Iranian govt.
Then, there’s Obama’s refusal to recognize the reality of Islamic fascism and its terrorist agenda. He’s rejected this as a reality by calling these attacks ‘man-made disasters’ and ‘overseas contingency operations’. He’s chastized Americans for even thinking that the attacks in the US were connected to Islamic terrorism, trying to divert them to ‘lone extremism’ when they were, in fact, Islamic terrorism.
How about his insults to the leaders of the UK – eg, no press time for Brown, and Obama gave him as an official gift, a set of unusable DVDs of American films. He gave the Queen of England a set of his own speeches – how’s that for narcissism!
He’s effectively allowed Iran to become a nuclear power by his sanctions-as-rhetoric-only…where he threatens sanctions by such and such deadline, and then, goes silent when the deadline passes and the sanctions disappear.
His apologies for America – a nation whose technological innovations over the last centuries are unparelleled in history – and whose focus on democracy is equally unparalleled – are insulted to all of American history. Essentially, Obama is denying the value of America..Before Obama.
His refusal to deal with Mexican illegal immigration and secure the US borders is a dereliction of duty.
Obama, a pathological narcissist, and his Obama Gang, are disastrous for the US and Americans.
Ms. Zigfeld didn’t even hazard a wild guess at the possibilities that the rest of Obama’s first term might bring. The rate of increased chaos and destruction accumulated into what has already occurred is worse for our nation than any cancer that can invade a human’s body.
Then sadly, it is not true that all Americans can agree that Barack Obama is a truly awful president. In spite of the clearly expressed anger by voters, there has been zero declared intent about dumping Obama headed into the 2012 election cycle. At least there were a few Democrats that spoke out against Jimmy Carter long before he was tossed into the street.
In fact there is serious reason to doubt that the Republicans can mount a successful challenge against Obama before they self-vaporize. A few more Scott Browns, big cheese chiefs and no Indians will put the cherry on top of Obama’s second inauguration.
How does the Russians giving Iran nuclear bombs and saying, “Here go wipe out Israel and take out a few dozen American cities” sound to everyone for renewed Hope and Change?
Who will stop them??
In 1936 Winston Churchill was in the midst of conducting his campaign against the British government (and his own party) over their inability to face up to the growing German threat. During one famous parliamentary debate a government minister said that “all options were being examined” and that the situation was “fluid.” Churchill then pounced…”This government simply cannot make up its mind….So they [the Government] go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.”
It would be hard to find a better description of the Obama foreign policy establishment. They are resolved to be irresolute since foreign policy bores them and does not translate into Democratic votes at home. George Bush was regularly caricatured for his “cowboy mentality” and insularism. Yet could anything be more “insular” and less “worldly” than this group of Chicago machine ward-heelers who make every decision based on how it will resonate at the polls? What passes for foreign policy can be summarized as alienating our friends and ineffectively (and pathetically) sucking up to everyone else. Ironically the Bush strategy in both Iraq and Afghanistan is being continued with the single added feature of more drone attacks.
Ms. Zigfeld concludes by saying that “(Americans) want America to be what it has always been: a beacon of freedom and democracy.” This may be true but it is not a goal of the Obama administration. This administration is so imbued with post-modernist moral relativism and a “blame America first” mentality that it cannot possibly see the United States in that light. In their view only the most ignorant of bummpkins could envision America as a beacon of freedom and we all know that these are the smartest guys around.
ETAB, you forgot the Cairo speech which stabbed Arabs liberals in the back. Also the failure to congratulate the Iraqis on a successful election.
speaking of Zelaya…
…The comments from U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens mark the first time U.S. officials have so directly criticized former President Manuel Zelaya for his pre-coup actions…
During his speech, Llorens said the U.S. took a principled position in opposition to the coup, halting financial aid to Honduras, avoiding official recognition of de facto president Roberto Micheletti, and suspending U.S. visas for some of Micheletti’s staffers and allies.
American University professor Adrienne Pine, an expert on Honduras-U.S. relations, took issue with Llorens’ assessment. She said both opposing Zelaya’s overthrow and criticizing his actions is anything but principled.
“Their gall is really quite astounding,” she said. “If Llorens is chastising Zelaya for trying to return to the post that he was violently and illegally ousted from, then Llorens is basically saying to the entire Honduran nation that it does not deserve democracy.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jAkMGKIUDg_ngUiZboxQbYj5_DPwD9FDMRQ81
I don’t accept that Zelaya’s ouster was a coup nor was he ‘violently and illegally ousted’. Zelaya was trying, in opposition to the Honduran constitution, set himself up for a second term.
To do this, he was trying to have a referendum – but such referendums are under the mandate of the legislature not the president. Forbidden to do this, Zelaya went ahead anyway, getting the ballots printed up in Venezuala. The supreme court and the legislature then voted to remove him, for both his agenda and his refusal to abide by the laws of the nation.
Their interim president, who would not be running for the presidency, was installed only as short-term, for elections were to be held in November. These were duly held – and ‘that was that’.
Honduras did everything – every action – legally and correctly. Why the Obama gang supported a thug like Zelaya, who was violating the constitution and the legislature AND the supreme court – is bizarre.
Humorous cartoon at http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/category/politics/ showing how the tag-team of Obama and Calderon body-slammed America over immigration. If you ever wanted to see Obama as a professional wrestler–here is your chance. My guess is that he would perform poorly in that profession as well.
Seeing Obamas welcome for the Mexican President said it all. It was a grand welcome, formal with a formal dinner, special guests and a chastisement of Arizona. On the other hand when Netanyahu came to visit, it was ayeee N*****Jew in the back door, and wait in a back room till I’m ready for you.
Come on you guys; don’t you know we are the appeasers we’ve been waiting for?
Whoever the Republicans run in 2012, I think one central plank needs to be promoting an American foreign policy that advances American interests. There are only so many times that we can tinkle on our friend’s legs until they eventually go and stand somewhere else. While accurate comparisons to Jimmy Carter’s 4 year long train wreck of a presidency abound, we can only hope that we have another Reagan waiting in the wings. Unfortunately, some foreign policy mistakes remain long after their owners have vacated the White House. Carter’s helping hand to the Mullahs not only helped enslave a generation of Iranians, the same regime is one of the most serious threats to America’s strategic interests in the region today.
Americans shallow adulation of Hollywood glam has brought Obama and his peter pan troupe to power. Only this lot cannot defy gravity nor wave a wand to fix the havoc they have gifted the free world. Many hundreds of thousands (mostly non Americans)will pay the price in blood for the Obama admins. immature “student politics” world view.
Shame on the Democrats, a party that deserves to be severley savaged in the next elections.
Obama is not just “a truly awful president”. He is an enemy within who occupies the highest position in the US government. Nothing can be more dangerous for the USA.
Obama has won Russian approval for sanctions against Iran (maybe) by allowing Russia itself to violate the sanctions (if they are enacted) and in fact generally to resume support for terror (especially support of America-hating terror) for commercial gain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/world/22sanctions.html
It’s an unusual foreign policy methodology, to say the least.
Has anyone noticed how the first name of some notorious traitors of this country begin with the letter B? For instance, Benedict Arnold. If you go against your country in everything, would that make you a traitor? If so, then BOH falls in that category, and his first name begins with a B.
Russia is supporting not only Hezbollah, via Syria, but also Hamas:
http://halldor2.blogspot.com/2010/05/putin-chechnya-and-hamas.html
It does so even despite Israel’s unqualified support for Russia against Chechen terror.
Obama is a “truly awful president”? Jimmy Carter was a truly awful president, and so was Bill Clinton (thankfully a GOP-controlled Congress could keep him in check). Obama is an enemy of democracy, an enemy of capitalism, and ultimately an enemy of this country. Obama’s “change” is now known to mean “into a socialist state”. Obama goes way, way beyond truly awful.
dmgold fantastic line “student politics” world view, exactly! I’ll add: Faculty lounge policies .
Remember no nation is better than another, this guy eats moral relativism with his bran flakes every morning.A nation is not defined by it’s borders. Just look at the reasoning behind the new FGM sharia practice now allowed in America. It’s part of their culture to mutilate girls , all cultures are equal.Liberals can justify anything. In Obamas sick libtard mind there is a reason Daniel Pearl was beheaded.
Obama is simply doing what he said he would do. He is fundamentally changing America from a Constitutional Republic into a communist dictatorship. Brewer in Arizona has the correct approach to counter this man, ridicule his actions, speech and appearance at every opportunity.
Russia will gobble up Georgia my ass. In a world of paranoid fantasy, perhaps. Certainly they’ll continue to make life hard for Saakashvili & they won’t give him back Abkhazia or North Ossetia but that’s as far as it goes. But then, nobody in N. O. or Abkhaz desires to live by borders that were drawn by Stalin. And so on, and so on. None of which doesn’t mean Obama’s foreign policy isn’t an embarrassment. But you’re peddling Cold War fantasies over Russia.
Firstly, they were drawn by LENIN and the local Bolshevik admin.
And secondly, it is easy to lecture us for being alarmist when you are safe where you are. Move to Georgia, and then critique us.
And thirdly, do you have any inside information about the Kremlin that they will in fact not do this for certain?
Obama is bad for Israeli foreign policy of the ‘Greater Israel/Israel Uber Alles’ kind, but he is pretty good on American foreign policy.
He followed through on Iraq and Afghanistan – those were the two that mattered. He sees there is no need for war against Iran – that’s a big relief.
As for Iran, it’s good be reminded about John McCain. He was a good candidate in many ways, but his paranoid stance on Iran totally ruled him put as a valid presidential candidate. America doesn’t need to go to war with the enemies of Israel – Israel should be working to make peace with her enemies instead. After all, they’re only enemies because of Israel’s own outrageous aggression.
Bomb the Arabs, kill the Arabs, crush the Arabs under foot – this is the Israeli solution to any political problem, internal or external. These are ends in themselves to Israel and the Jewish lobby: got a problem? let’s go hurt some Arabs.
How marvellous for a US president who is completely independent of the Jewish lobby. If Obama can put a leash on the Israeli mad dog, he might go down in history as a great president like the George W Bush.
“chris w” you guys are soooo funny, so transparent. there you are popping up like you always do marching around on the web with a crapload in your pants or is that just how moslems smell. see, it isn’t even a question.
#18 Chris W – “The Jewish Lobby”? What Jewish lobby. Give us a couple of names in this Jewish Lobby. Aren’t you kinda sorta conveniently forgetting that about 70 or so percent of American Jews voted for Obambi. “Put a leash on the Israeli mad dog”? Ask yourself this; if the Arabs put down their arms, stopped lobbing rocket, bombs and mortars at Israel, stopped trying to kill Israeli civilians and kidnap Israeli soldiers would the result be peace or war? On the other hand if the Israeli’s stopped defending their country and laid down their arms how long do you suppose it would be before the Arab armies crossed the border into Israel with the express intent of killing the Jews and/or driving them into the sea. Puh leeze…the “Jewish Lobby”. Next you’ll be explaining how the newspapers are all owned by those darned Jews, how television is dominated by those darned Jews, how Hollywood is controlled by those darned Jews, how banking is manipulated by those darned Jews. I’m exhausted just thinking about how busy those darned Jews must be. Why, they must have got together and formed some sort of evil cabal, you know, sort of like an organization that meets secretly, in some cemetery somewhere every 100 years or so, to check on their progress in taking over the world. You’d think someone would write a book about that…oh wait, someone did. It’s called “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. Listen up, Chris W. Learn some history. Check some facts. Stop getting all your talking point from the Hufpo or the NYT. Maybe go outside once in awhile and get some fresh air. It’s unhealthy to stay in the basement all day and night dreaming up conspiracies that don’t exist.
Both Russia and China support sanctions against Iran, once items regarding freezing of assets in the petroleum sector were removed from the text. That makes perfect sense, considering both countries have large energy investments in Iran. You can read it here in the Jerusalem Post, if any other source would be too liberal for you tinfoil-hat nutjobs.
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=175933
More or less everything about this post is comical; from the pretzelated attempts of the author to make Syria and Iran the same country, to the hysterical, gobbling acceptance of this crackpot worldview by the brain-damaged bobbleheads who come here to get their Obama-hate fix. Military sales to Syria have absolutely zip to do with Iran and Hezbollah, unless you hide under your bed at night worrying about Hezbollah getting its own air force. And more Israelis die in traffic accidents every year than the combined total killed by Palestinian rockets fired into Israel.
But David, you stepped over the line that divides potentially-dangerous craziness and clownlike embarrassment. Your insightful analysis of “names that begin with B” and their connection to traitors to the United States represents a whole new level of unhingedness that transcends parody. Here’s a few people who’d like to talk to you about it; Bill O’Reilly – oh, and Bob Bennett, Bob Corker, Bill Young, Bill Posey, Brett Guthrie, Bill Cassidy, Bob Goodlatte, Bob Inglis, Bill Shuster, Bob Latta and Blaine Luetkemeyer, all loyal Republicans of the 111th Congress. Unfortunately, Benjamin Franklin passed on some time ago, or he’d likely want to have a look at your brain (hey!! that begins with “b”!!). Now might have been a good time, too, because there may not be much left of it after Brooks Orpik, Brian Rafalski and Bobby Ryan – all from your 2010 Olympic hockey team – get finished with you out in the parking lot. You’ll recognize Rafalski; at 190 lbs, he’s the little guy. I could go on, but why?
You pasty-faced, Paul-Revere-hat-wearing musket-toting teabagger straitjacket mannequins are more to be pitied than laughed at, but I just can’t help myself. Sorry.
I want to see him tried for treason and, at the very least, put in prison for the rest of his life.
Obama’s Logic When Extrapolated Appears Deeply Flawed.
Obama’s position not to retaliate with nuclear weapons against countries that attack the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons—could encourage banana republics like Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela to development those lethal weapons, even distribute them to terrorists. Because of the size of large nuclear bombs and their large accompanying delivery systems (missiles) they are discoverable by U.S. Intelligence in other countries. That would not be the case for example, if Eastern nations shifted from wanting nuclear bombs to developing biological/chemical weapons that could kill U.S. Citizens. Currently the U.S. can track and shoot down a limited number of nuclear missiles if launched e.g., by Iran. However biological and small nuclear weapons too easily can be delivered across our Mexican Border or via commercial air vehicles or ships that might be detonated in our harbors causing devastating numbers of deaths, dependent on where the wind blows and potency of the nuke, chemicals and shelf life of a deployed biological agent. It is ridiculously apparent Obama’s position not to retaliate with nuclear weapons against countries that attack the U.S. with chemical or biological weapons—will result globally to exasperate the threat of (biological/chemical weapons); Obama’s position will encourage small countries to develop those weapons. The U.S. could have difficulty locating and aborting biological/chemical weapons in transit to America. Perhaps just as worrisome, historically when a country’s President has been perceived as weak, its enemies have attacked.