Many comments along the lines of naive, embarrasing, and "he likes tyrants and dislikes America".
Contrast Obama's speech w/ Bibi's today. Not even close.
Krauthammer:
On President Obama’s speech toyesterday the U.N. General Assembly :
This speech hovered somewhere between embarrassing and dangerous. You had a president of the United States actually saying: “No [one] nation can or should try to dominate another.”
I will buy the "should try to" as kind of adolescent wishful thinking. But “no [one] nation can dominate another”? What planet is he living on? It is the story of man. What does he think Russia is doing to Georgia?
But the alarming part is what he said in the same paragraph where he said that it makes no sense anymore "the alignments of nations that are rooted in the cleavages of the Cold War."
Well, NATO is rooted in the cleavage of the Cold War. The European Union is rooted in the cleavage of the Cold War. Our alliances with Japan and Korea and the Philippines, our guarantees to Taiwan and Eastern Europe are all rooted in the cleavage of the Cold War. (Interesting noun, incidentally.)
So he is saying that is all now irrelevant. What does he think our allies are going to think who hear this?
Obama's speech is alarming because it says the United States has no more moral right to act or to influence world history than Bangladesh or Sierra Leone.
It diminishes the United States deliberately and wants to say that we should be one nation among others, and not defend the alliance of democracies that we have in NATO, for example, or to say — as [did] every president who goes before Obama — that we stand for something good and unique in the world.
And it [NATO] is not the equivalent, for example, of the alignment of Chavez with Ecuador and Bolivia and Nicaragua and Russia and Cuba and Iran…..
This one was worse: When he [Obama] boasted about how he had reversed the course of America, and those who doubt our character should look at our actions, among the actions he cited was our joining the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is led by the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is an Orwellian, farcical organization. The idea that we should be on it is regrettable, but the idea that we should be boasting about it as an American achievement is a scandal.
Is Obama Naïve? [Michael Ledeen]
I don't think so. I think that he rather likes tyrants and dislikes America. I think he'd like to be more powerful, I think he is trying to get control over as much of our lives as he can, so that he can put an end to the annoying tumult of our public life. As when he said (about health care) to the Congress, "Okay, you've talked enough, now it's time to do the right thing (my thing)." And he's trying to end American power in the outside world. He's saying "I'm going to stop us, before we kill again."
There is nothing unusual about elitist hatred of freedom. Back in the 18th century, when book publishing really got going, British authors were infuriated that they had to submit to the judgment of a marketplace. They didn't want to be judged by people who were obviously inferior to them, and there was a great rage among the intelligentsia, including some very famous men. And in modern times, we can all name famous intellectuals who fawned all over Mussolini, Stalin, Fidel, and even Hitler.
American politics are very fractious, and always have been. Leaders are constantly frustrated, and some of them come to yearn for an end to our freedom. They think they know best, they just want to tell us what to do and have us shut up and do it. I think Obama is one of them. He's not naïve. It's different. He doesn't like the way things work here, he thinks he can do much better, and he's possessed of the belief that America has done a lot of terrible things in the world, and should be prevented from doing such things ever again. The two convictions mesh perfectly. It's The Best and the Brightest run amok.
Democratic leaders' envy of tyrants' power can be understood. But it can't be forgiven.
Obama Likes Tyrants and Dislikes America . . . and Here's More Proof [Andy McCarthy]
Michael hits the nail on the head . . . and then comes this: The Obama administration has notified Congress of the State Department's intention to contribute $400,000 to foundations run by Muammar Qaddafi's two children — $200,000 each for daughter Aisha and son Saif. Saif, you may recall, is the son who escorted the Lockerbie terrorist Abdel Baset al-Megrahi home to a hero's welcome in Libya after President Obama sternly "warned" Qaddafi that there was to be no hero's welcome.
Illinois Republican congressman Mark Steven Kirk (House Appropriations Subcommittee on State/Foreign Operations) has sent Obama a letter asking him to rescind the funding.
Could somebody please tell this president that this is not just Annenberg Foundation cash he's passing out to his personal terrorist pals like Bill Ayers but American taxpayer dollars he's doling out to the terrorist tyrant behind the murder — in just that one incident — of 270 people, including 189 Americans.
Just 40 months to go. God help us.
Bitter Harvests to Come [Victor Davis Hanson]
If one were to sum up the Obama speech, it is the same old, same old formula: "I am a uniquely post-American fresh start; the era of Bush and our dreadful past is over; and because this is our moment, you, the world, owe me attention and support for my redefining America more to your tastes."
The problem with all this is endless: (1) most existing problems predated Bush and transcended him, as Obama is discovering with Iran, radical Islam in America, North Korea, Russia, etc.;
(2) By separating himself from the past, Obama sends the implicit message to allies (like Israel, India, Columbia, the Maliki government, eastern Europe, Sarkozy, Merkel, etc) that there must have been something wrong with them to have allied themselves with the U.S. during the Bush years — and to enemies and belligerents that their anti-Americanism is perhaps understandable given a shared antipathy for the Bush regime;
(3) By staking out the messianic, prophetic ground, and his strident anti-Bush credentials, observers are going to note his serial hypocrisies, such as keeping the Patriot Act, rendition, tribunals, Predator attacks, the Petraeus plan in Iraq, wiretaps, intercepts, etc., and in fact anything that smacks of a transnationalist protecting U.S. interests first, and global ones, second.
(4) By throat-clearing every speech with "Bush did it" and his own historic ascension to the presidency, Obama has given hope to unsavory characters — as the likes of everyone from a supportive Chávez to Castro have enthusiastically noted — that the United States has now "flipped," moving away from a Britain or Israel and more closely aligning itself with revolutionary figures on the West Bank or the exiled Zelaya, and thereby giving the impression that the prior regional order was flawed, and necessary change either will not, or cannot, be stopped by the U.S. — and indeed may be silently encouraged by America. In hopes of sowing short-term good will to Obama himself, the president is sowing long-term problems ahead for his country, the United States. There are lots of areas — Iran and its environs, the free former Soviet Republics, Taiwan, the 38th Parallel, Venezuela/Colombia, the borders of Israel, Cyprus, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, etc. — where tensions are scarcely restrained, and major aggressive players could easily try to change the existing order, if any thought the United States either did not care to intervene, could not intevene, or supported their efforts.
The key question is at what point will the American people sense that the Obama feel-good magic comes at the expense of long-term American interests — and that making some unsavory characters like our president now, will mean only trouble ahead for the country itself and its friends abroad.
What Was Worst About Obama's Speech Yesterday? [Rich Lowry]
Hard to say, but when Obama said this “For those who question the character and cause of my nation”. . . I sort of expected him to follow up with something like, look at the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg address, this nation's contribution to winning WWI, WWII, the Cold War, etc. Instead, he said this: "I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." He really imagines himself — to borrow the title of Allen Guelzo's fine Lincoln biography — the redeemer president. Here's my NY Post column on it today.
Re: The Redeemer President [Jonah Goldberg]
Rich — I agree. What strikes me about that line is how thoroughly Wilsonian it is. Wilson's love for and promotion of democracy has always been exaggerated. His view was far more Hegelian. He believed that every people should have a State that authentically represented the Nation (a point made by Qadaffi yesterday!). Democracy was one means of achieving this. But self-determination wasn't necessarily about democracy. It was about legitimacy and great Leaders. Anyway, it didn't seem to occur to Obama that the character and cause of the nation are not synonymous with the actions of his administration.
A Runner-Up [Jonah Goldberg]
I think the second-worst passage might have been this:
In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.
There's a lot of silliness and untruth in there. No nation "can" dominate another? (He said the same thing in Cairo, I believe). Really? Better throw out nearly every history book ever written. No balance of power will hold? That doesn't sound like good news to me.
And worst of all: Alignments of nations rooted in the Cold War make no sense now? Really? I guess it's time to disband NATO and our commitments to South Korea, Japan, et al. I mean, do these speeches get vetted for what they actually mean? Or is just all about how they sound?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Netanyahu at the UN ... Awesome
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahus-un-speechbut-to-those-who-gave-this-holocaustdenier-a-hea.html
Quite the contrast from thugs like Chavez, Ahmedinijad and the nutbag Khadafi.
Also quite the contrast from the weak, naive, soporific Obama.
Quite the contrast from thugs like Chavez, Ahmedinijad and the nutbag Khadafi.
Also quite the contrast from the weak, naive, soporific Obama.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Obama's UN Speech Panned ... "Naive" and worse
NRO: "Obama’s Most Naïve Speech Ever?’
Nile Gardiner on the president’s address to the United Nations.
Just One of the Obtuse Lines from Obama's Speech to the U.N. [Peter Kirsanow]
"And I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights — for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; the oppressed who yearns to be equal." Except, of course, if they happen to be Iranian dissidents.
Galactic obliviousness
Bolton: ‘A Post-American Speech By Our First Post-American President’ [Robert Costa]
Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton tells NRO that President Obama’s address to the U.N. was “a post-American speech by our first post-American president. It was a speech high on the personality of Barack Obama and high on multilateralism, but very short in advocating American interests.”
“It was a very naïve, Wilsonian speech, and very revealing of Obama’s foreign policy,” says Bolton. “Overall, it was so apologetic for the actions of prior administrations, in an effort to distance Obama from them, that it became yet another symbol of American weakness in the wake of the president’s decision to abandon missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his recent manifest hesitation over what to do in Afghanistan.”
“The most significant point of the speech was how the president put Israel on the chopping block in a variety of references, from calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegitimate to talking about ending ‘the occupation that began in 1967.’ That implies that he supports going back to 1967 borders,” says Bolton. “Obama has a very tough road ahead. He is frequently taking the side of the Palestinians, who don’t have a competent leader who can make hard decisions and compromises in the future.”
Also noteworthy, Bolton says, was how Obama highlighted “just how much of American foreign policy that he wants to run through the U.N.”
“Usually presidential speeches at the U.N. are ‘state of the world’ addresses. Obama’s speech was filled with talk about U.N. bodies, U.N. treaties, and sending Secretary of State Clinton to a conference on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which would be an incredible waste of time for her. The president’s speech showed a fascination with U.N.-centric issues. Obama talked about getting past ‘balance of power’ politics. He talked about the interests that unite us rather than divide us.”
Bolton’s conclusion: “It was all extremely naïve. The president did everything he could to say: ‘Can’t we all just get along?’”
Staggering Naïveté [Brett D. Schaefer]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGFlOTlkMjdlZmI5MDUyYjk1ZTIwNjZjMzJkYjFlNDE=
Pres. Barack Obama’s first address to the United Nations was, as expected, warmly received. The contrast between this reaction and the hostility that generally greeted Pres. George W. Bush was stark. At its core, the difference is based on how each president challenged the U.N.
President Bush famously asked, “Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?” He challenged the U.N. to address the misconduct of its member states and to actually follow through on its founding principles — promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms, confronting threats to international peace and security with action, and promoting economic prosperity and social progress. Bush also pointed out where the U.N. has fallen short, and challenged member states to fix the body.
These are tough issues for the U.N. because they go to the heart of differences between the U.S. and most U.N. member states, and they would require those member states to confront the aberrant actors among their colleagues.
In contrast to President Bush, President Obama clearly sees the U.S. as the source of U.S.–U.N. friction. He may have intended his speech to come across as earnest and humble, but it instead came across as if he were trying to justify America’s worthiness to be a member of the U.N. Giving the impression that the U.S. should aspire to be worthy of acceptance by the likes of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, China, Cuba, and other repressive regimes is appalling.
Obama’s willingness to accommodate anti-American views at the U.N. was offensive. It was particularly rich to hear him say:
This body has often become a forum for sowing discord instead of forging common ground; a venue for playing politics and exploiting grievances rather than solving problems. After all, it is easy to walk up to this podium and to point fingers and stoke division. Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles, and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anyone can do that.
This, just minutes after pointing his finger squarely at the previous administration:
I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.
He noted that his administration has spent the months since his inauguration weakening or reversing U.S. policies that have traditionally caused heartburn at the U.N. He went on to list the steps he has taken to correct the actions that might lead people to “question the character and cause” of America: prohibiting torture, closing Guantanamo, ending the war in Iraq, putting American support behind “a world without nuclear weapons,” supporting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, addressing global warming, working cooperatively with other nations, joining the Human Rights Council, signing the Disabilities Convention, supporting the Millennium Development Goals, ending America’s “selective” support of democracy, and paying America’s arrears to the U.N.
Such changes are no great sacrifice to him. After all, American liberals generally opposed the Bush administration on these policies. But Susan Rice, Obama’s ambassador to the U.N., expressed the thought behind this strategy: “Others will likely shoulder a greater share of the global burden if the U.S. leads by example, acknowledges mistakes, corrects course when necessary, forges strategies in partnership and treats others with respect.” The Obama administration clearly believes that throwing the Bush administration under the bus will yield a harvest of pro-Americanism that will result in support for its policies.
But what did Obama ask of other nations?
*Support for initiatives that his administration wants to pursue anyway — such as global warming and disarmament — in a forum virtually guaranteed to put the U.S. on the defensive.
*Support for human rights, but with the full knowledge that U.N. member states that violate human rights face little repercussion in the U.N. for their actions.
*Opposition to terrorism, but without a demand that the U.N. define what terrorism is (the lack of such a definition makes it very difficult for the world body to address terrorism effectively).
*Support for development, even though Obama realizes this will simply result in the U.N.’s hectoring developed countries to provide more assistance.The other U.N. member states must be beside themselves with glee. President Obama gave them virtually everything they could ask for without demanding anything in return that was not already on the agenda (and which they are prepared to twist to their advantage). He did not even ask them to support more accountability, transparency, or efficiency in the U.N.
The Obama administration probably thinks that its actions and this speech have purchased it the goodwill that will translate into support for U.S. policies. The administration is setting itself up for disappointment.
The political nature of the U.N. is combative and tough. Most member states consider these concessions their due. They will pocket them and stand firm to defend their interests. Cooperation will be on their terms, on issues they wish to pursue. The naïveté of the speech was staggering
.— Brett D. Schaefer is the Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at the Heritage Foundation and editor of ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives.
Israel on the Chopping Block [Andy McCarthy]
John Bolton is obviously right in his observations about our post-American president's shameful U.N. speech today. I wish only to note again that, on the reference to Israel's "occupation that began in 1967," Obama's path to this execrable description was cleared by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Typical of her nauseating rheteoric on the subject is this, reported by Haaretz in 2007:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that Palestinians deserve to live under better conditions than they are subjected to and be "free of the humiliation of occupation" in a state of their own. "I promise you my personal commitment to that goal," Rice said at a dinner marking the third anniversary of the American Task Force on Palestine. "There could be no greater legacy for America," Rice told the group, which describes itself as nonpartisan and supportive of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. "The Palestinian people deserve a better life ... free of the humiliation of occupation," she said
Bayefsky's U.N. Update [Robert Costa]
Frequent NRO contributor Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute and executive director of Human Rights Voices, just gave us a call from the United Nations to relay her take on President Obama’s speech. “The president played to his audience, which was largely an undemocratic one,” says Bayefsky. “In that way, he succeeded.”
Bayefsky notes that the president received a big round of applause for suggesting that Israel should return to 1967 borders, “without the slightest concern that Israel cannot return to indefensible borders — at least if there is to be any hope of real peace.” Obama, she says, also made “a unilateral policy statement about what is supposed to be subject to bilateral negotiations, as if Israel were his vassal state. That made a terrific impression with the folks at the U.N., but it has nothing to do with a global agenda that advances international peace and security.
“President Obama also engaged in another round of moral equivalency,” says Bayefsky, “which he made infamous in his Cairo speech. He compared those who live in terror in Israel with those who are still waiting for clean water and a state of their own: a statement which ignores history and the facts on the ground. The Palestinian people in Gaza, who elected a government sworn to Israel’s destruction, are not a country of their own because their elected representatives in Gaza have declared their permanent opposition to living side by side with any Jewish state. The President’s continuing failure to recognize the difference between the victims of terror and the perpetrators bodes ill for any prospect for peace in the Middle East.”
Bayefsky adds that one interesting feature of Obama’s speech was the number of times that he apologized for America. “He essentially said to the world that ‘I’m embarrassed at America's record’ and that their understanding of America prior to his ascendance to the country's highest office was correct.”
“He also got a big round of applause when he pledged to stop torturing people,” says Bayefsky. “The president set up a straw man — a false statement disputing this country's constant denunciation of torture — to make himself look attractive to the outside world. Such words should diminish his credibility as commander-in-chief, as a man supposed to be defending our values abroad unapologetically.
“President Obama had the audacity to speak at length about [how] he will always stand with the oppressed, while, at the U.N., hundreds of protesters from Iran were outside calling him out [about] what is clearly false,” says Bayefsky. “While the protesters’ counterparts disappear in Iranian jails, President Obama has offered an outstretched hand to the man who is responsible for the fate of Iranian dissidents. President Obama is not standing with the oppressed of Iran. Thankfully, every Iranian forced to stay outside the U.N. today said loud and clear that they believe President Obama’s policy on Iran is an outrageous abandonment of democratic values.”
President Obama, Bayefsky says, also said that he will no longer tolerate those on the wrong side of history. “It is becoming very plain that this president is on the wrong side of history. He stood before a crowd of largely undemocratic leaders and said he was on their side. Instead of leading, the president sounded confused and relativistic, saying that there is no one form of democracy and that everybody has their own take on what democracy means. Everyone inside the U.N. knows that those words are exactly how the Cubans and Chinese speak within these walls. The president’s lack of clarity and his deliberate ambiguity on the nature of democracy and American values were well received at the U.N., but it did nothing to enhance America’s moral stature or significance in the world today.”
On a final note, Bayefsky says that on Iran, the president said that “if” the country chooses to ignore nuclear standards, then it would have a problem. “If? We already know exactly what Iran has been doing,” she says. “Using the word ‘if’ suggests that President Obama is simply refusing to come to terms with the reality of Iran’s nuclear program and that he has an extraordinary blind spot that isn’t going away any time soon.
This speech ought to send shockwaves through not only the United States but among our European allies,” concludes Bayefsky. “They are now fully apprised that they have the weakest president in modern times ensconced in Washington, a man who will run away from saying what has to be said, if it doesn’t appeal to an audience with so many demagogues.”
Michelle Malkin:
"The We Suck '09 Tour"
"The Great Appeaser"
"He doesn't like America very much"
Nile Gardiner on the president’s address to the United Nations.
Just One of the Obtuse Lines from Obama's Speech to the U.N. [Peter Kirsanow]
"And I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights — for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; the oppressed who yearns to be equal." Except, of course, if they happen to be Iranian dissidents.
Galactic obliviousness
Bolton: ‘A Post-American Speech By Our First Post-American President’ [Robert Costa]
Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton tells NRO that President Obama’s address to the U.N. was “a post-American speech by our first post-American president. It was a speech high on the personality of Barack Obama and high on multilateralism, but very short in advocating American interests.”
“It was a very naïve, Wilsonian speech, and very revealing of Obama’s foreign policy,” says Bolton. “Overall, it was so apologetic for the actions of prior administrations, in an effort to distance Obama from them, that it became yet another symbol of American weakness in the wake of the president’s decision to abandon missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his recent manifest hesitation over what to do in Afghanistan.”
“The most significant point of the speech was how the president put Israel on the chopping block in a variety of references, from calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegitimate to talking about ending ‘the occupation that began in 1967.’ That implies that he supports going back to 1967 borders,” says Bolton. “Obama has a very tough road ahead. He is frequently taking the side of the Palestinians, who don’t have a competent leader who can make hard decisions and compromises in the future.”
Also noteworthy, Bolton says, was how Obama highlighted “just how much of American foreign policy that he wants to run through the U.N.”
“Usually presidential speeches at the U.N. are ‘state of the world’ addresses. Obama’s speech was filled with talk about U.N. bodies, U.N. treaties, and sending Secretary of State Clinton to a conference on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which would be an incredible waste of time for her. The president’s speech showed a fascination with U.N.-centric issues. Obama talked about getting past ‘balance of power’ politics. He talked about the interests that unite us rather than divide us.”
Bolton’s conclusion: “It was all extremely naïve. The president did everything he could to say: ‘Can’t we all just get along?’”
Staggering Naïveté [Brett D. Schaefer]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGFlOTlkMjdlZmI5MDUyYjk1ZTIwNjZjMzJkYjFlNDE=
Pres. Barack Obama’s first address to the United Nations was, as expected, warmly received. The contrast between this reaction and the hostility that generally greeted Pres. George W. Bush was stark. At its core, the difference is based on how each president challenged the U.N.
President Bush famously asked, “Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?” He challenged the U.N. to address the misconduct of its member states and to actually follow through on its founding principles — promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms, confronting threats to international peace and security with action, and promoting economic prosperity and social progress. Bush also pointed out where the U.N. has fallen short, and challenged member states to fix the body.
These are tough issues for the U.N. because they go to the heart of differences between the U.S. and most U.N. member states, and they would require those member states to confront the aberrant actors among their colleagues.
In contrast to President Bush, President Obama clearly sees the U.S. as the source of U.S.–U.N. friction. He may have intended his speech to come across as earnest and humble, but it instead came across as if he were trying to justify America’s worthiness to be a member of the U.N. Giving the impression that the U.S. should aspire to be worthy of acceptance by the likes of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, China, Cuba, and other repressive regimes is appalling.
Obama’s willingness to accommodate anti-American views at the U.N. was offensive. It was particularly rich to hear him say:
This body has often become a forum for sowing discord instead of forging common ground; a venue for playing politics and exploiting grievances rather than solving problems. After all, it is easy to walk up to this podium and to point fingers and stoke division. Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles, and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anyone can do that.
This, just minutes after pointing his finger squarely at the previous administration:
I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.
He noted that his administration has spent the months since his inauguration weakening or reversing U.S. policies that have traditionally caused heartburn at the U.N. He went on to list the steps he has taken to correct the actions that might lead people to “question the character and cause” of America: prohibiting torture, closing Guantanamo, ending the war in Iraq, putting American support behind “a world without nuclear weapons,” supporting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, addressing global warming, working cooperatively with other nations, joining the Human Rights Council, signing the Disabilities Convention, supporting the Millennium Development Goals, ending America’s “selective” support of democracy, and paying America’s arrears to the U.N.
Such changes are no great sacrifice to him. After all, American liberals generally opposed the Bush administration on these policies. But Susan Rice, Obama’s ambassador to the U.N., expressed the thought behind this strategy: “Others will likely shoulder a greater share of the global burden if the U.S. leads by example, acknowledges mistakes, corrects course when necessary, forges strategies in partnership and treats others with respect.” The Obama administration clearly believes that throwing the Bush administration under the bus will yield a harvest of pro-Americanism that will result in support for its policies.
But what did Obama ask of other nations?
*Support for initiatives that his administration wants to pursue anyway — such as global warming and disarmament — in a forum virtually guaranteed to put the U.S. on the defensive.
*Support for human rights, but with the full knowledge that U.N. member states that violate human rights face little repercussion in the U.N. for their actions.
*Opposition to terrorism, but without a demand that the U.N. define what terrorism is (the lack of such a definition makes it very difficult for the world body to address terrorism effectively).
*Support for development, even though Obama realizes this will simply result in the U.N.’s hectoring developed countries to provide more assistance.The other U.N. member states must be beside themselves with glee. President Obama gave them virtually everything they could ask for without demanding anything in return that was not already on the agenda (and which they are prepared to twist to their advantage). He did not even ask them to support more accountability, transparency, or efficiency in the U.N.
The Obama administration probably thinks that its actions and this speech have purchased it the goodwill that will translate into support for U.S. policies. The administration is setting itself up for disappointment.
The political nature of the U.N. is combative and tough. Most member states consider these concessions their due. They will pocket them and stand firm to defend their interests. Cooperation will be on their terms, on issues they wish to pursue. The naïveté of the speech was staggering
.— Brett D. Schaefer is the Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at the Heritage Foundation and editor of ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives.
Israel on the Chopping Block [Andy McCarthy]
John Bolton is obviously right in his observations about our post-American president's shameful U.N. speech today. I wish only to note again that, on the reference to Israel's "occupation that began in 1967," Obama's path to this execrable description was cleared by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Typical of her nauseating rheteoric on the subject is this, reported by Haaretz in 2007:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that Palestinians deserve to live under better conditions than they are subjected to and be "free of the humiliation of occupation" in a state of their own. "I promise you my personal commitment to that goal," Rice said at a dinner marking the third anniversary of the American Task Force on Palestine. "There could be no greater legacy for America," Rice told the group, which describes itself as nonpartisan and supportive of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. "The Palestinian people deserve a better life ... free of the humiliation of occupation," she said
Bayefsky's U.N. Update [Robert Costa]
Frequent NRO contributor Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute and executive director of Human Rights Voices, just gave us a call from the United Nations to relay her take on President Obama’s speech. “The president played to his audience, which was largely an undemocratic one,” says Bayefsky. “In that way, he succeeded.”
Bayefsky notes that the president received a big round of applause for suggesting that Israel should return to 1967 borders, “without the slightest concern that Israel cannot return to indefensible borders — at least if there is to be any hope of real peace.” Obama, she says, also made “a unilateral policy statement about what is supposed to be subject to bilateral negotiations, as if Israel were his vassal state. That made a terrific impression with the folks at the U.N., but it has nothing to do with a global agenda that advances international peace and security.
“President Obama also engaged in another round of moral equivalency,” says Bayefsky, “which he made infamous in his Cairo speech. He compared those who live in terror in Israel with those who are still waiting for clean water and a state of their own: a statement which ignores history and the facts on the ground. The Palestinian people in Gaza, who elected a government sworn to Israel’s destruction, are not a country of their own because their elected representatives in Gaza have declared their permanent opposition to living side by side with any Jewish state. The President’s continuing failure to recognize the difference between the victims of terror and the perpetrators bodes ill for any prospect for peace in the Middle East.”
Bayefsky adds that one interesting feature of Obama’s speech was the number of times that he apologized for America. “He essentially said to the world that ‘I’m embarrassed at America's record’ and that their understanding of America prior to his ascendance to the country's highest office was correct.”
“He also got a big round of applause when he pledged to stop torturing people,” says Bayefsky. “The president set up a straw man — a false statement disputing this country's constant denunciation of torture — to make himself look attractive to the outside world. Such words should diminish his credibility as commander-in-chief, as a man supposed to be defending our values abroad unapologetically.
“President Obama had the audacity to speak at length about [how] he will always stand with the oppressed, while, at the U.N., hundreds of protesters from Iran were outside calling him out [about] what is clearly false,” says Bayefsky. “While the protesters’ counterparts disappear in Iranian jails, President Obama has offered an outstretched hand to the man who is responsible for the fate of Iranian dissidents. President Obama is not standing with the oppressed of Iran. Thankfully, every Iranian forced to stay outside the U.N. today said loud and clear that they believe President Obama’s policy on Iran is an outrageous abandonment of democratic values.”
President Obama, Bayefsky says, also said that he will no longer tolerate those on the wrong side of history. “It is becoming very plain that this president is on the wrong side of history. He stood before a crowd of largely undemocratic leaders and said he was on their side. Instead of leading, the president sounded confused and relativistic, saying that there is no one form of democracy and that everybody has their own take on what democracy means. Everyone inside the U.N. knows that those words are exactly how the Cubans and Chinese speak within these walls. The president’s lack of clarity and his deliberate ambiguity on the nature of democracy and American values were well received at the U.N., but it did nothing to enhance America’s moral stature or significance in the world today.”
On a final note, Bayefsky says that on Iran, the president said that “if” the country chooses to ignore nuclear standards, then it would have a problem. “If? We already know exactly what Iran has been doing,” she says. “Using the word ‘if’ suggests that President Obama is simply refusing to come to terms with the reality of Iran’s nuclear program and that he has an extraordinary blind spot that isn’t going away any time soon.
This speech ought to send shockwaves through not only the United States but among our European allies,” concludes Bayefsky. “They are now fully apprised that they have the weakest president in modern times ensconced in Washington, a man who will run away from saying what has to be said, if it doesn’t appeal to an audience with so many demagogues.”
Michelle Malkin:
"The We Suck '09 Tour"
"The Great Appeaser"
"He doesn't like America very much"
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Honduras, the UN, & Obama
The writer below has a great point. Obama continues to interfere in Honduras on behalf of a deposed would be Chavez like dictator; yet he has little to say about real dictators and troublemakers such as Khadafi, Ahmedinijad, Chavez, etc.
Giving Honduras the Cold Shoulder [Trey Hicks]
Late Sunday night, the United Nations issued its Monday Journal, which lists the heads of state who are addressing the opening of the 64th U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday. Tucked in between Colombia and Russia is Honduras — but the legitimate president of Honduras will not be speaking. The U.N., a majority of whose member states are not “fully free” (according to Freedom House), has invited the ousted would-be dictator of Honduras, disgraced former president Manuel Zelaya, to deliver the address.
This is an outrageous decision, but don’t expect President Obama to stand up for justice and the rule of law. As NR’s Jay Nordlinger recently pointed out, Obama has decided to revoke the visa of Honduran president Roberto Micheletti, preventing his entry into the United States. Obama apparently feels more comfortable sharing a cappuccino in the U.N. Delegates Lounge with a deposed Chávez acolyte than with its authentic, constitutionally legitimate president.Why is the leader of the free world choosing to “take a stand” against the democratic, pro-American Honduran government? And why doesn’t he have the moral courage to take stands against the world’s most oppressive regimes, such as those in Iran, North Korea, and Burma? Shouldn’t Obama be denying visas to the real enemies of Lady Liberty?
— Trey Hicks is a researcher at the Hudson Institute.
Giving Honduras the Cold Shoulder [Trey Hicks]
Late Sunday night, the United Nations issued its Monday Journal, which lists the heads of state who are addressing the opening of the 64th U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday. Tucked in between Colombia and Russia is Honduras — but the legitimate president of Honduras will not be speaking. The U.N., a majority of whose member states are not “fully free” (according to Freedom House), has invited the ousted would-be dictator of Honduras, disgraced former president Manuel Zelaya, to deliver the address.
This is an outrageous decision, but don’t expect President Obama to stand up for justice and the rule of law. As NR’s Jay Nordlinger recently pointed out, Obama has decided to revoke the visa of Honduran president Roberto Micheletti, preventing his entry into the United States. Obama apparently feels more comfortable sharing a cappuccino in the U.N. Delegates Lounge with a deposed Chávez acolyte than with its authentic, constitutionally legitimate president.Why is the leader of the free world choosing to “take a stand” against the democratic, pro-American Honduran government? And why doesn’t he have the moral courage to take stands against the world’s most oppressive regimes, such as those in Iran, North Korea, and Burma? Shouldn’t Obama be denying visas to the real enemies of Lady Liberty?
— Trey Hicks is a researcher at the Hudson Institute.
Obama smacked down as he dithers on Afghanistan
Krauthammer says:
On the political consequences of Obama’s indecisiveness:
I'm not sure it's a political problem. I think it's a problem of what it does to the morale of the military and of the commanders in the field.
You are in the middle of a war and you have an urgent request — this is not just a general but an urgent request. And the logic here — it is all spelled out in a sentence or two; it is not a difficult proposition — the logic is we're in a downward spiral. The enemy is gaining. We can stop them with American troops.
Once they are stopped and the spiral is reversed, as happened in Iraq as a result of the surge, then the Afghan army can, in principle, at least, take over, as happened in Iraq. That's the idea.
You either can act on that or not. It's not a complicated idea. Obama is not stalling because he's studying all this. Obama is stalling because a) he doesn't know and b) he doesn't want to go politically against his own party.
That's when the McChrystal report was sent to Washington. That is three weeks ago. Obama has had a single meeting [onI'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan."without a strategy. that report] since then.
He says he hasn't reached a conclusion — I suppose because he is spending all his time preparing for Letterman and speeches to schoolchildren — to focus on a war in which our soldiers are in the field getting shot at and, as the president himself is saying, without a strategy.
Now, the other date is the 27th of March, when Obama gave a speech in the White House flanked by his Secretaries of Defense and State, in which he said, and I will read you this, because it is as if it never happened, "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan."
So we for six months have been living under the new Obama strategy, of which he says today we have none. And his next sentence is, again in March, "This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review" — not the beginning, the end of the policy review.
So it has been his policy, and now he tells us we don't have a cart and we don't have a horse.
What's happening here is he announced the strategy of counterinsurgency in March. He said at the time that we “cannot afford” an “Afghanistan that slides [back] into chaos.”
He said "My message to the terrorists who oppose us — We will defeat you," And now he's not sure he wants to defeat them.
On the political consequences of Obama’s indecisiveness:
I'm not sure it's a political problem. I think it's a problem of what it does to the morale of the military and of the commanders in the field.
You are in the middle of a war and you have an urgent request — this is not just a general but an urgent request. And the logic here — it is all spelled out in a sentence or two; it is not a difficult proposition — the logic is we're in a downward spiral. The enemy is gaining. We can stop them with American troops.
Once they are stopped and the spiral is reversed, as happened in Iraq as a result of the surge, then the Afghan army can, in principle, at least, take over, as happened in Iraq. That's the idea.
You either can act on that or not. It's not a complicated idea. Obama is not stalling because he's studying all this. Obama is stalling because a) he doesn't know and b) he doesn't want to go politically against his own party.
'He will destroy the Democratic party' [Rich Lowry]
This Washington Post story captures the stark divide over Afghanistan, with a unified military command on the one side — including McChrystal, Mullen, and Petraeus — and a president who is not sure he wants to follow through on "the counterinsurgency strategy he set in motion six months ago" on the other. There's this anonymous quote from one observer: "He can send more troops and it will be a disaster and he will destroy the Democratic party. Or he can send no more troops and it will be a disaster and the Republicans will say he lost the war."
Isn't this extraordinary?
Obama will roil the Democratic party by sending more troops to fight the war that Democrats have said for years is the "necessary war" (in Obama's words), the central war in the fight against terror, etc., etc. It's hard to imagine a starker demonstration of bad faith on an important issue of national security. I write about this today in my column. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton yesterday said Obama is getting "the exact opposite" advice from McChrystal than from other counterinsurgency experts. She doesn't say who these people are. The Post story says Obama is also getting "assessments from the State Department, the intelligence community, and his White House advisers." Are those people — the White House politicos in particular are very down on additional troops — going to trump the commanding general on the ground? We're going to find out.
On the political consequences of Obama’s indecisiveness:
I'm not sure it's a political problem. I think it's a problem of what it does to the morale of the military and of the commanders in the field.
You are in the middle of a war and you have an urgent request — this is not just a general but an urgent request. And the logic here — it is all spelled out in a sentence or two; it is not a difficult proposition — the logic is we're in a downward spiral. The enemy is gaining. We can stop them with American troops.
Once they are stopped and the spiral is reversed, as happened in Iraq as a result of the surge, then the Afghan army can, in principle, at least, take over, as happened in Iraq. That's the idea.
You either can act on that or not. It's not a complicated idea. Obama is not stalling because he's studying all this. Obama is stalling because a) he doesn't know and b) he doesn't want to go politically against his own party.
That's when the McChrystal report was sent to Washington. That is three weeks ago. Obama has had a single meeting [onI'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan."without a strategy. that report] since then.
He says he hasn't reached a conclusion — I suppose because he is spending all his time preparing for Letterman and speeches to schoolchildren — to focus on a war in which our soldiers are in the field getting shot at and, as the president himself is saying, without a strategy.
Now, the other date is the 27th of March, when Obama gave a speech in the White House flanked by his Secretaries of Defense and State, in which he said, and I will read you this, because it is as if it never happened, "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan."
So we for six months have been living under the new Obama strategy, of which he says today we have none. And his next sentence is, again in March, "This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review" — not the beginning, the end of the policy review.
So it has been his policy, and now he tells us we don't have a cart and we don't have a horse.
What's happening here is he announced the strategy of counterinsurgency in March. He said at the time that we “cannot afford” an “Afghanistan that slides [back] into chaos.”
He said "My message to the terrorists who oppose us — We will defeat you," And now he's not sure he wants to defeat them.
On the political consequences of Obama’s indecisiveness:
I'm not sure it's a political problem. I think it's a problem of what it does to the morale of the military and of the commanders in the field.
You are in the middle of a war and you have an urgent request — this is not just a general but an urgent request. And the logic here — it is all spelled out in a sentence or two; it is not a difficult proposition — the logic is we're in a downward spiral. The enemy is gaining. We can stop them with American troops.
Once they are stopped and the spiral is reversed, as happened in Iraq as a result of the surge, then the Afghan army can, in principle, at least, take over, as happened in Iraq. That's the idea.
You either can act on that or not. It's not a complicated idea. Obama is not stalling because he's studying all this. Obama is stalling because a) he doesn't know and b) he doesn't want to go politically against his own party.
'He will destroy the Democratic party' [Rich Lowry]
This Washington Post story captures the stark divide over Afghanistan, with a unified military command on the one side — including McChrystal, Mullen, and Petraeus — and a president who is not sure he wants to follow through on "the counterinsurgency strategy he set in motion six months ago" on the other. There's this anonymous quote from one observer: "He can send more troops and it will be a disaster and he will destroy the Democratic party. Or he can send no more troops and it will be a disaster and the Republicans will say he lost the war."
Isn't this extraordinary?
Obama will roil the Democratic party by sending more troops to fight the war that Democrats have said for years is the "necessary war" (in Obama's words), the central war in the fight against terror, etc., etc. It's hard to imagine a starker demonstration of bad faith on an important issue of national security. I write about this today in my column. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton yesterday said Obama is getting "the exact opposite" advice from McChrystal than from other counterinsurgency experts. She doesn't say who these people are. The Post story says Obama is also getting "assessments from the State Department, the intelligence community, and his White House advisers." Are those people — the White House politicos in particular are very down on additional troops — going to trump the commanding general on the ground? We're going to find out.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Today in ObamaNation - Acorn, Honduras, Zbiggy, Afghanistan
You really, really, really have to wonder about Obama ...
Honduras: Obama & State throw Honduras under the bus ! http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/chavez-backed-zelaya-back-in-honduras.html
ACORN: Obama sees no evil, hears no evil - its just not important !
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/reprioritizing-the-acorn-president.html
Afghanistan:
'A Serious Frustration' [Rich Lowry]
The key quote from the Washington Post coverage of the McChrystal memo today comes at the end of this story:
But Obama's deliberative pace — he has held only one meeting of his top national security advisers to discuss McChrystal's report so far — is a source of growing consternation within the military. "Either accept the assessment or correct it, or let's have a discussion," one Pentagon official said. "Will you read it and tell us what you think?" Within the military, this official said, "there is a frustration. A significant frustration. A serious frustration."
The military thinks the White House might want to throw McChrystal under the bus; the White House thinks the military is pushing Obama too hard on troop levels. The next few weeks will be a fraught period for civil-military relations.
Zbiggy: Wants to shoot down Israeli airplanes if they go after Iran (another reason not to miss Worst President Ever Jimmy Carter)
Ah, Liberal Realism [Jonah Goldberg]
Zbig Brezinski thinks we might have to shoot down Israeli planes.
Daily Beast: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?
Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?
DB: What if they fly over anyway?
Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.
More at the Standard and Hot Air.
Honduras: Obama & State throw Honduras under the bus ! http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/chavez-backed-zelaya-back-in-honduras.html
ACORN: Obama sees no evil, hears no evil - its just not important !
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/reprioritizing-the-acorn-president.html
Afghanistan:
'A Serious Frustration' [Rich Lowry]
The key quote from the Washington Post coverage of the McChrystal memo today comes at the end of this story:
But Obama's deliberative pace — he has held only one meeting of his top national security advisers to discuss McChrystal's report so far — is a source of growing consternation within the military. "Either accept the assessment or correct it, or let's have a discussion," one Pentagon official said. "Will you read it and tell us what you think?" Within the military, this official said, "there is a frustration. A significant frustration. A serious frustration."
The military thinks the White House might want to throw McChrystal under the bus; the White House thinks the military is pushing Obama too hard on troop levels. The next few weeks will be a fraught period for civil-military relations.
Zbiggy: Wants to shoot down Israeli airplanes if they go after Iran (another reason not to miss Worst President Ever Jimmy Carter)
Ah, Liberal Realism [Jonah Goldberg]
Zbig Brezinski thinks we might have to shoot down Israeli planes.
Daily Beast: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?
Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?
DB: What if they fly over anyway?
Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.
More at the Standard and Hot Air.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Obama & ACORN -- claims "not to be following it"
Obama's comments today are so stunningly disingenous, you have to ask: "Is He Lying" ?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/09/obama-on-acorn-not-something-ive-followed-closely.html
Now this is a guy who represented ACORN as a lawyer; someone whose campaign for president paid ACORN $800,000 for "get out the vote" efforts (translation: find some dead people, Mickey Mouse, illegals, and other fraudulent voters).
But don't bother Obama about ACORN, whose budget was filled w/ all sorts of financial goodies for ACORN, because "this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to."
Stunning.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/09/obama-on-acorn-not-something-ive-followed-closely.html
Now this is a guy who represented ACORN as a lawyer; someone whose campaign for president paid ACORN $800,000 for "get out the vote" efforts (translation: find some dead people, Mickey Mouse, illegals, and other fraudulent voters).
But don't bother Obama about ACORN, whose budget was filled w/ all sorts of financial goodies for ACORN, because "this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to."
Stunning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
