Nor did he dither when asked how would he describe the consequences if the Taliban prevail in Afghanistan. “Catastrophic,” was his answer – catastrophic for Afghanistan, Pakistan and all South Asia.
On Iran? He didn’t call Tehran’s fling with fissile materials merely a “nuclear” program. He spelled out: “We don’t support the nuclear weapons ambitions of Iran.”
Asked to compare China’s economic growth with India’s, he pointed out that India’s democracy, with its respect for human rights, may ultimately prove the more stable achiever of the two.
On climate matters, it’s hard to tell what Singh really makes of the politicized “science” with which the United Nations is trying to herd the economies of the developed world over a cliff – but his comments suggest he’s no fool. He’s unwilling to sacrifice India’s development to the climate change crowd, though if wealthier nations want to serve up financial aid and technology to India, he’ll take it.
Not to make too much of this. India has plenty of problems — not least, as Singh noted, its creaking infrastructure. Nor is Singh the Ronald Reagan of Delhi. But I remember interviewing him 17 years ago in New Delhi, where he was then the finance minister, embarked on efforts to unshackle India’s bureaucratically choked command-and control economy — efforts which have since paid off with real rising wealth and progress.
So, what does this veteran Indian politician really make of the U.S. president’s push for command-and-control policies at home, combined with apologies for America and dithering over “overseas contingency operations” conducted against “violent extremists” involved in “man-caused disasters”…? Singh in his remarks Tuesday was impeccably polite toward Obama. But I’m not sure we should confuse diplomatic good manners with respect. I came away from Singh’s appearance at the Council with the odd sense that the White House needs someone like that, and not just as a one-night dinner guest.
We need a multinational alliance of democratic nations world wide: Japan, South Korea, India, Israel, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Czech Republic and Columbia to counter China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba and the new Central/south American devotees of Chavez. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq are key fronts in this conflict as Columbia continues to be along with world wide anti terror coordination with India, our NATO allies and Israel against Al Qaeda, Hizbullah and Hamas. Third piece is our nuclear capacity which involves offensive and defense and space capabilities; all of which the administration is gutting or allowing to flounder. Russia and China King and Queen on the chessboard of our adversaries are moving forward with long range nuclear development and space exploration. Time is running out.
1. Lawrence Kohn:
Nuclear proliferation is not the answer.
India has major problems feeding its population, bringing the masses to the 21st century ideas and solving many health issues.
Indian elites are doing well, but they are a minority.
To listen and heed the words of someone like India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, would be an oddity/rarity/imposibiliy for Obama. He does not appear to be interested in clarity, reason, America.
The issues raised by Singh refer to foreign relations.
Obama’s focus on foreign policy is bereft of policies and strategies and has only one agenda; to obtain their admiration for Him. The Nobel Award was a perfect example of this; admiration for Him despite having done nothing.
With regard to terrorism, Obama refuses to acknowledge its reality, changing the name of’war on terror’ to ‘overseas contingency operations’ and the term ‘terrorist’ to ‘insugent’.
He ignores the root cause of Islamic terrorism; namely, the repressive tribal dictatorships of the Middle East, the lack of a civic political frame enabling a middle class to devolop with economic and political power.
Obama refuses to acknowledge Islamic terrorism as a reality, whether in Afghanistan or Ft. Hood or 9/11. His insistence that the 9/11 Gang be tried in a civilian trial is evidence of this, for his agenda is to Bash Bush in an election year rather than confront Islamic terrorism.
With regard to Iran, he is ignoring its nuclear weapons agenda – such behavior was criticized by a furious Sarkozy – who said tha Obama’s refusal to acknowledge this showed he was living in a ‘virtual world’ of unreality and was so egotistic that he refused to learn.
Obama ignores the democratic aspirations of the Iranian demonstrators; supported the Honduran Zelaya’s violation of the constitution; alienated all US allies with insults.
So, what is Obama’s agenda on his foreign trips? Astonishingly, it seems to have nothing to do with the well-being of America. Nothing. It’s all about Himself.
He repeats his mantra of the Before-Obama Era, for which he graciously apologizes, and attempts to charm them with His Arrival in power. What Obama is using is a key tactic that he has used all his life to manipulate and control people. He’s used his ‘race’ to instil guilt IF they reject any of his requests.
This strategy obviously worked with his mother and grandmother, with the affimative action bureaucrats at Harvard etc, and with the US electorate. They have all fallen over themselves admitting, passing, agreeing to his wishes without checking, approving marks and assesssing work produced.
But it won’t work for a single foreign leader or people. Why not? Well,they can’t be made to feel guilty for the US era of slavery. But this is Obama’s key strategy that he uses in dealing with Other people.
Yes, he misinforms and provides false data; yes, he manipulates people with emotional charm and ‘shout outs’. These are his domestic tactics. But a key strategy that Obama uses with Authorities..is always the racist card. And it won’t work with non-Americans.
He tries to use it: he reminds them that he’s the ‘first black president’; that he’s the ‘first Pacific president’; that he had a dreadful, harassed racist-bashing upbringing in Chicago; that he, as black, is better than those ‘white imperialist Americans who came before Him’.
And it doesn’t work. They aren’t charmed. They think he’s an empty suit; an egotist,a fool.
Obama’s success, therefore, on the world stage, has been an absolute zero. And he’s harming the USA by his denigration of it and his insistence that attention should be on His Uniqueness rather than on America and Americans.
Ms. Rosett: It’s become all to clear by now that Obambi doesn’t listen to anyone but Obambi. For a guy with absolutely no executive experience, leadership experience, economic knowledge, military experience, business acumen or medical experience he apparently thinks he knows more then anyone else ever has known about EVERYTHING. So why in the world would he listen to someone from India? Whose probably not even a Moslem.
Hopefully this visit will raise awareness that not all turbaned and dark skinned people are followers of the prophet.
Maybe not.
Anyway, Obama’s greatest blessing is that his opponents and obstacles self-destruct, paving the path for his rise. Very curious. I know at least 7 people who switched their votes to Obama at the last minute, because of Palin. Though personally I voted for McCain, and probably will vote for Obama if Palin wins the republican nomination. Its not that people don’t admire her for her grit and great personality. But shes even less qualified than O. This is not for mayor or governor of some second tier state…but the PRESIDENCY
I’ll probably get flamed for this, thus proving theres no room for any semblance of moderation in the republican party. Palin will probably win the nomination and will probably be defeated in 2012. You can not run a presidential campaign nowadays -counting only on white protestant votes , and there arent enough numbers.
Perhaps you can get some swarthy non-anglo foreigners (like Tancredo) to vote for Palin, who knows. I’ll be rooting for Romney. Or Condi. My first choice is not very practical: Cheney.
Number 6. ETAB Thank you for putting my thoughts into a great comment!!
Excellent piece. Excellent posts @ #6 and #8.
Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents
The federal government spent $3.5 trillion during President Obama’s first year in office. This far exceeds the spending for any other first-year president.
President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents — spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.
In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion — $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush’s term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama’s.
That price tag came with a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush’s for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.
Click here to read FOXBusiness.com’s Elizabeth MacDonald describe what the interest on the debt can buy.
That’s a big increase. But compared with other presidents’ first years in office, Obama is running circles around them.
Bush spent $1.8 trillion in 2001, according to government budget figures that have been adjusted for inflation based on 2000 dollars. Using the same formula, former President Bill Clinton spent $1.6 trillion in 1993.
The last president to clock in under $1 trillion was Gerald Ford, who logged a $982 billion budget in 1975. Post-war Dwight Eisenhower even brought Uncle Sam’s tab down to $556 billion in his first year, 1953.
Obama’s first-year budget, adjusted for inflation, is about five times that. His 2009 budget is also close to 21 percent of that for Clinton’s eight years in office — Clinton’s spending added up to $13.5 trillion over his two full terms. Bush spent $16.8 trillion from 2001-2008.
Number 8. Ronald Reagan also lacked Presidential experience but unlike the current POTUS he surrounded himself with some of the brightest minds in our country. Can’t say the same for BHO.