Gay Patriot Header Image

Putin v. Obama: the old gray lady edition

On Wednesday, Vladimir Putin published his op-ed piece in The New York Times urging “caution from Russia” with respect to U.S. policy in Syria.  The piece is worth reading if you haven’t already, and it is an impressive piece of political theatre.  Although the left is up-in-arms over what they are calling Putin’s hypocrisy, that is completely beside the point.  Few with any wits about them should consider Putin to be anything but a power-hungry Machiavellian, though that is also what makes this performance so noteworthy.  The Op-ed piece is a complete and utter smackdown of Obama and Obama’s failed foreign policy in a very public sphere, and that is what has the political establishment in Washington, DC so hopping mad about it.   Bob Menendez (D-NJ), John McCain and John Boehner were all quoted expressing their displeasure in an article that appeared on Yahoo yesterday.  One wonders which heavy weights will express their dismay next: Harry Reid, perhaps, or Nancy Pelosi, or maybe even Lindsay Graham.  I’m sure Putin is feeling very afraid.

If you haven’t yet read the Putin piece, I urge you to do so, simply to observe the way Putin cleverly throws Obama’s and the left’s rhetoric back at them and calls them dangerous hypocrites and warmongers.  I’d quote the whole thing, but for the purpose of illustrating my point, the last paragraph will more than suffice.  Putin writes:

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Some conservatives I know are angry with thuggish Putin for saying that America is not exceptional.  But that is beside the point.  In fact, that completely misses the point.

Putin is simply echoing a point Obama made at a NATO meeting back in April 2009:

I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.

Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we’ve got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we’re not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.

And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can’t solve these problems alone.

As Jim Yardley observes in the article from which I have culled the Obama passage above: “These words of the President are fairly typical of what has passed as thoughtful analysis from the current occupant of the White House.  They are words that would be right at home in the faculty lounge in Chicago or Cambridge, Massachusetts.”  So to return to our present context: Putin has cleverly turned Obama’s words against him for all to see, and in the context of the situation with Syria, he has revealed Obama to be an arrogant, narcissistic, posturing fraud.

Yesterday when I was in the car, I heard a very insightful interview about the Putin op-ed on the Tom Sullivan radio show.  I didn’t recognize the speaker’s voice, but I was impressed with all he had to say about how Putin’s strategy in Syria was all about making Russia and not the United States the dominant power in the Middle East.  He talked about the Reagan years and the fact that, aside from the arms buildup, one way Reagan was able to win the cold war was by keeping oil prices low.   He pointed out that to keep the Russian economy afloat, Putin has an interest in keeping oil prices high.  Likewise, for the sake of energy, Putin has an interesting in forming strong allegiances with as many Middle-Eastern oil producing states as it can.

It turned out the speaker being interviewed was none other than Col. Oliver North.  He called the Putin op-ed piece “brilliant” and said that with that clever op-ed piece, Putin had effectively changed the dynamics in the Middle East by very publicly embarrassing Obama in a way that let the nations of the Middle East see that Obama is weak, vain, and unreliable as a potential ally.  I haven’t been able to embed either the video or the audio here, but if you care to know more about what the future of the Middle East may look like as a result of Obama’s failed policies and posturing, you really owe it to yourself to listen to the whole interview.

What ARE the aims of Obama’s foreign policy?

Victor Davis Hanson published a memorable piece in the National Review last week entitled “America as Pill Bug.”  The pill bug or the roly-poly bug is one that turns itself into a ball when it feels threatened.  Hanson writes:

That roly-poly bug can serve as a fair symbol of present-day U.S. foreign policy, especially in our understandable weariness over Iraq, Afghanistan, and the scandals that are overwhelming the Obama administration.

On August 4, U.S. embassies across the Middle East simply closed on the basis of intelligence reports of planned al-Qaeda violence. The shutdown of 21 diplomatic facilities was the most extensive in recent American history.

Yet we still have over a month to go before the twelfth anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001, an iconic date for radical Islamists.

Such preemptive measures are no doubt sober and judicious. Yet if we shut down our entire public profile in the Middle East on the threat of terrorism, what will we do when more anti-American violence arises? Should we close more embassies for more days, or return home altogether?

Hanson makes an excellent point about the way the Obama administration’s closure of embassies is likely to be viewed in the Arab world and around the globe.  Although, as Jeff pointed out in a post last week, the administration may have ulterior motives–by trying to create a distraction–by closing the embassies in this manner, the reality is that the interpretation of the administration’s actions by our international foes is likely to proceed in a manner similar to that Hanson envisions in his article.

Hanson looks at the example of Libya and Syria to illustrate that the administration’s “lead from behind” strategy is not working, and that it appears to be counterproductive:

Instead, the terrorists are getting their second wind, as they interpret our loud magnanimity as weakness — or, more likely, simple confusion. They increasingly do not seem to fear U.S. retaliation for any planned assaults. Instead, al-Qaeda franchises expect Americans to adopt their new pill-bug mode of curling up until danger passes.

Our enemies have grounds for such cockiness. President Obama promised swift punishment for those who attacked U.S. installations in Benghazi and killed four Americans. So far the killers roam free. Rumors abound that they have been seen publicly in Libya.

Instead of blaming radical Islamist killers for that attack, the Obama reelection campaign team fobbed the assault off as the reaction to a supposedly right-wing, Islamophobic videomaker. That yarn was untrue and was greeted as politically correct appeasement in the Middle East.

All these Libyan developments took place against a backdrop of “lead from behind.” Was it wise for American officials to brag that the world’s largest military had taken a subordinate role in removing Moammar Qaddafi — in a military operation contingent on approval from the United Nations and the Arab League but not the U.S. Congress?

No one knows what to do about the mess in Syria. But when you do not know what to do, it is imprudent to periodically lay down “red lines.” Yet the administration has done just that to the Bashar al-Assad regime over the last two years.

Hanson sees the Obama administration’s foreign policy as a disastrous replay of the Carter doctrine, once again illustrating Glenn Reynolds’ frequent observation that a replay of Jimmy Carter is simply the “best-case scenario” for Obama.

While I believe Hanson is right in his characterization of the big picture and the likely consequences of Obama foreign policy, I’d differ from him in seeing Obama as being as feckless and weak as Carter.  I’d maintain that Carter’s foreign policy was guided by a number of naive precepts about the nature of the world.  At least during the years of his presidency, I’d contend that Carter “meant well” in the way the phrase is commonly used to describe a hopelessly incompetent bumbler who seems incapable of recognizing his own shortcomings.  Likewise, early in the Obama administration, Tammy Bruce started referring to Obama as Urkel, the nerdy, awkward, inept kid from the TV show “Family Matters” who had an uncanny ability to mess up almost everything he touched.  That certainly is one narrative for what Obama is doing in the world of foreign policy, but I’m not sure it is the right one.

As I contemplate Obama foreign policy, though, particularly in the Middle East, I find myself thinking more and more that although incompetence might be the simplest explanation, it might not be the best or the right one.  I see no good intentions in the administration’s domestic policy, so why should its foreign policy be exempt from charges that it is motivated more by malevolence to the United States and its role in history than by a supposed set of “liberal” ideals?

This is an administration that seems bent on alienating all of our historical allies as quickly as possible, while taking it easy on our geopolitical foes.  Obama seems to want our allies to view us as unreliable and untrustworthy while making sure our enemies view us as weak, indecisive, and either unable or unwilling to use force to protect our interests or to enforce our stated policy goals.  If there is a better explanation of the administration’s ultimate foreign policy goals, I’d sure like to know what it might be.

 

BIN LADEN IS DEAD

I’m on the west coast on business and last night at about 8pm Pacific time, I was getting frantic texts from home: “Obama will be giving a major national security speech from the solemnness of The White House at 10:30pm. Very weird, especially for this President who prefers cheering audiences as much as his TelePrompTer.

And then came the words I had longed to hear for nearly 10 years: Osama bin Laden is dead.

I began to cry as I thought of the thousands incinerated, slaughtered, and fell to their deaths on Sept. 11, 2001.

My heart goes to the family of our close friend — Joe Ferguson — who died when Flight 77 slammed into the side of the Pentagon that bright blue September morning. I hope they will have some sense of closure. The War isn’t over, but the AQ Commander In Chief has been defeated in battle.

My hearty thanks goes to our intelligence and defense communities. A big thanks to President Obama, CIA Director Panetta and SecDef Robert Gates for what appears to be a rare coordinated intel/military ops that worked flawlessly.

Finally, nothing can express my grief and sadness toward the families of 9/11 victims and to those families who gave our nation their sons and daughters in the first round of the Global War on Islamic Terror.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!

Times Square Bomb:
Pattern of Terror in Obama Era Continues

There is no denying this fact:  After 9/11/2001 up until the day President George W. Bush left office, there was no successful effort or attempt to attack the United States homeland by Islamic terrorists.  Yet since Jan. 20, 2009 — there have been MULTIPLE successful Islamic terror attacks. 

Here they are — the ones we know of:

6/1/2009 Little Rock, AR: A Muslim with ‘religious motives’ shoots a local soldier to death inside a recruiting center. (1 killed, 1 injured)

11/5/2009 Ft. Hood, TX: A Muslim psychiatrist and Army captain guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while yelling praises to Allah. (13 killed, 31 injured)

12/25/2009 Detriot, MI: An Nigerian Muslim man attempted to ignite an explosive device on a Northwest Airlines Flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. The would-be terrorist was subdued by passengers and crew. (No death, minor injuries)

It is critical to note, that the Ft. Hood and Christmas Day bombings are linked through Al-Qaeda in Yemen and through Anwar Awalkai, an Islamic cleric and spiritual advisor to a number of the 9/11 plotters.

Today, the White House admitted that the weekend near disaster in Times Square is another part of the post-Bush terror pattern.

The failed car bombing in Times Square increasingly appears to have been coordinated by more than one person in a plot with international links, Obama administration officials said Tuesday.  Another U.S. official, recounting a conversation with intelligence officials, said: “Don’t be surprised if you find a foreign nexus. . . . They’re looking at some telltale signs and they’re saying it’s pointing in that direction.”

If you think strategically (as you should) and realize that Afghanistan and Iraq are part of the Global War on Islamic Terror, then 2009-10 are not good ones for President Obama on those fronts.  US casualties are up in both war zones since President Bush left office and AQ has become increasingly brazen in their attacks on civilians and military targets alike in both countries.

Now the question is “why”?  The answer is obvious.  Our enemies (not just Al Qaeda) see President Obama as weak and they are trying to test him repeatedly to see how (or if) he responds.  So far, his response is eerily similar to the quid pro quo missile attacks of the Clinton era.  We know what that led to.

The more scary thought is how Obama’s weakness is being exploited by rogue nations.  Iran has become increasingly defiant.  And now the FOREIGN media has reported this gem over the past few days (Katie Couric, where are youuuuu?)

A grim report circulating in the Kremlin today written by Russia’s Northern Fleet is reporting that the United States has ordered a complete media blackout over North Korea’s torpedoing of the giant Deepwater Horizon oil platform owned by the World’s largest offshore drilling contractor Transocean that was built and financed by South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., that has caused great loss of life, untold billions in economic damage to the South Korean economy, and an environmental catastrophe to the United States.

This definitely feels like a much dangerous world since Bush and VP Cheney left Washington.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

National Review Reader: “You Know We’re In Trouble When…”

…the president of France makes more sense on national security than the president of the United States.

Why this comment on The Corner?  Because of this statement of reason by French President Sarkozy today.

WASHINGTON – France will not give up nuclear weapons because doing so would “jeopardise” its security, President Nicolas Sarkozy said this morning as global leaders gathered for a summit on nuclear security.

“I cannot jeopardise the security and safety of my country,” Sarkozy told CBS News here hours before US President Barack Obama opened the landmark summit of 47 nations in Washington.

The French leader said he could not abandon his nation’s nuclear weapons programme “on a unilateral basis in a world as dangerous as the one in which we live today”.

The Corner reader added to Jonah Goldberg that, “Sarkozy’s announcement on nukes demonstrates that we’ve crossed some sort of line, and not a good one.”

Obama is no Reagan.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

President Bowing Obama Is At It Again [BUMPED]

UPDATE: Obama rudely points his finger at Canada’s PM, but bows to ChiComs.  What’s wrong with this guy?  Does our President have any understanding at all of history or any sense of loyalty or protocol?  Does Obama, as Roger L. Simon has suggested lately, have some mental health issues?

Oh wait… bowing to Communists — maybe Obama DOES have a sense of loyalty…

=========

Why does Obama hate being the American President so much?

Survey: Democrats Seen As Hurting US Security

So much for Obama’s Apology Tour and bowing before world leaders.  Americans aren’t buying it.  He has become Jimmy Carter II.  (PS – This is JAMES CARVILLE’s polling firm.)

A new Democracy Corps-Third Way survey provides a wake-up call for President Obama, his party, and progressives on national security.

The national mood continues to sour, with the share who see the country headed in the wrong direction moving up 4 points since mid-January, up to 62 percent, the highest mark in a year. The survey also shows concerns about the economy continuing to grow. And even though the Republican brand remains badly damaged, with no improvement in favorable ratings for their party, the GOP continues to gain ground in a named congressional ballot, with the Democratic House candidate now narrowly lagging by 47 to 44 percent. The movement away from Democrats is especially strong among independents, and independent women in particular.

Whereas a majority of the public approves of the job President Obama is doing in most aspects of national security, a 51 to 44 percent majority of likely voters disapproves of his efforts on the “prosecution and interrogation of terrorism suspects.”

[W]e see that the public once again has real and rising doubts about the Democrats’ handling of national security issues, as compared to their faith in Republicans. This security gap, which has roots stretching back to Vietnam, was as wide as 29 points earlier in the decade. The deficit began to close in 2006, with the Bush administration’s catastrophic mismanagement of Iraq and other national security challenges. As public hopes about the Obama presidency rose and peaked, the gap all but vanished. Last May, Democracy Corps found Democrats essentially tied with Republicans (41 to 43 percent) on the question of which party would do a better job on national security.

But now the gap shows signs of re-opening, with Democrats trailing by 17 points, 33 to 50 percent on which party likely voters think would do the better job on national security. The erosion since May is especially strong among women, and among independents, who now favor Republicans on this question by a 56 to 20 percent margin.

Hey, I hate to say this.  But we told you so.  Welcome back to reality, America.  Let’s hope our majority perception of Obama Democrats’ security weakness doesn’t translate into a real threat being ignored by Holder & Gestapo Janet.  The nation is truly run by September 10th’ers.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Do You Feel Safer Than You Did A Year Ago?

I think it was John (AverageGayJoe) who asked that question in the comments a few days ago.  The Hill took that question to a variety of political pundit-types.

I agree with Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch:

The Obama administration’s anti-terrorism policies have made the United States less safe.

Obama’s decision to end the use of the enhanced interrogation techniques prevents us from gaining intelligence that can save lives and prevent terrorist attacks (like the recent attempt to blow up the Detroit-bound airliner).

Obama’s decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists in civilian court is a public relations victory for Al Qaeda that will lead, among other deadly dangers, to the release of intelligence data that will help terrorists.

Obama’s decision to prosecute the recent airline bomber Abdulmutallab in the civilian system prevents our defense and intelligence agencies from gaining access to timely information that might prevent future terrorist attacks.  And it will encourage more terrorism by suggesting leniency can be had by terrorists in plea bargain negotiations with civilian prosecuters.

Obama’s decision to close Gitmo will result in terrorists being brought to the United States, with all the attendant risks to the homeland – which include the outright release of terrorists in the United States.

Obama’s decision to release terrorists from Gitmo and elsewhere will lead to more terrorism from recidivist terrorists. [GP Ed. Note -- Released Gitmo terrorists (under Bush) already have returned to the battlefield.]

But the real question is…. what do you think?  What do your neighbors think?  What do the majority of Americans think?  Is America Less Safe Under Obama?

I’d like to see Gallup ask that question.  The best part of this whole conversation is that Dick Cheney began the discussion with that very point.  Hooah.

UPDATE: A related thought from Marc Thiessen at National Review:

Thanks to Obama, the terrorists know they have nothing to fear — and thus have no incentive to talk. And even if they did face some enhanced techniques, the techniques would no longer work — because the terrorist would know from the memos that there are limits to what they would face. The effect of the techniques is psychological, not physical. They trick the terrorists into thinking what they are enduring is worse than it really is.

It’s like the show Magic’s Biggest Secrets Revealed — once you know how the magician saws the woman in half, you’re not fooled. The same goes for enhanced interrogation.

Obama’s policies themselves are making our nation less safe.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Athena’s Insight: Why Obama’s Bow Matters

In our media age, if a politician does not recognize the importance of his image, he’s either never going to get the seat to which he aspires or will lose it soon after he does.  John McCain probably lost as many votes last fall from his erratic behavior at the time of the financial crisis as he did for his failure to craft and communicate a coherent message on the economy.   By contrast, Obama’s coolness at the same time may have sealed the deal for many wavering voters, wanting to vote for the party out of power, but having doubts about its 2008 presidential nominee.

By the same token, Peggy Noonan thinks that President Obama’s repeating bowing to the crowned heads of Asia could hurt him more for the image they convey than for the protocol they breach:

In a presidency, a picture or photograph becomes iconic only when it seems to express something people already think. When Gerald Ford was spoofed for being physically clumsy, it took off. The picture of Ford losing his footing and tumbling as he came down the steps of Air Force One became a symbol. There was a reason, and it wasn’t that he was physically clumsy. He was not only coordinated but graceful. He’d been a football star at the University of Michigan and was offered contracts by the Detroit Lions and Green Bay Packers.

But the picture took off because it expressed the growing public view that Ford’s policies were bumbling and stumbling. The picture was iconic of a growing political perception.

The Obama bowing pictures are becoming iconic, and they would not be if they weren’t playing off a growing perception. If the pictures had been accompanied by headlines from Asia saying “Tough Talks Yield Big Progress” or “Obama Shows Muscle in China,” the bowing pictures might be understood this way: “He Stoops to Conquer: Canny Obama shows elaborate deference while he subtly, toughly, quietly advances his nation’s interests.”

Instead we’re getting headlines indicating that he didn’t get much, if anything, from his trip to Asia.  It becomes thus an image of his failure to show confidence on the world stage much, much as his coolness in the fall campaign suggested a confidence to handle tough crises without breaking a sweat. (more…)

Obama’s Foreign Policy Summarized

It is amateurishness, wrapped in naivete, inside credulity.

Charles Krauthammer

Obama’s America-Bashing Tour Update!

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 10:46 pm - October 2, 2009.
Filed under: Obama's America-Bashing World Tour

obamatrashtour20091002

I don’t feel the need to pile-on, and there are certainly better-expressed opinions than mine about Obama’s embarrassment in Copenhagen this week (most notably at NRO’s The Corner).

AND, after reading his remarks to the IOC, I was prepared to give the president what I thought was well-deserved credit for having (for the first time in his term representing all of us as our head of state) traveled to a foreign country and not bashing us.

Unfortunately, there’s this, the president’s response to a question of, of all innocuous topics, crowd control that he had to jump in and turn into yet another opportunity to admit how horrible America is (or at least used to be before we were all so wise as to choose him to save us from ourselves):

MR. RYAN: The next question relates to — comes from Mr. Ali, and thank you for the question. How do we intend to deal with all of the millions of people who will enter?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that over the last several years sometimes that fundamental truth [our diversity as a nation] about the United States has been lost. And one of the legacies, I think, of this Olympics Games in Chicago would be a restoration of that understanding of what the United States is all about, and the United States’ recognition of how we are linked to the world.

Last year, America elected a president with an obvious and personal dislike for the nation itself. When you think about it, why would the IOC bestow upon such a country the honor of hosting the enitre world?

And so now the list grows yet again, and Obama’s up to a full dozen:

Canada
Great Britain
France
Saudi Arabia
Mexico
Trinidad and Tobago
Egypt
Germany
Turkey
Russia
Ghana
Denmark

So, America Only Began to Be Good Under Obama’s Watch?

Sometimes when you’re reading a speech, you miss something which strikes you only when you see it in isolation.   And so it was when, in these posts, I caught this line from the President’s speech Wednesday to the United Nations:

For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.

Instead of referencing this nation’s achievements in the 232 1/2 years prior to his inauguration, Mr. Obama tells us what he has done since he took office.

He may talk about “responsibly ending a war” in Iraq, but he doesn’t mention the word, victory, nor the tyrant we overthrew, a tyrant who, by the way, had repeatedly snubbed his nose at the United Nations, you know, the institution he was addressing.

He does not mention how we helped liberate a continent from fascist tyranny.  And the only time he mentions the President who led us to that great victory (a word absent from his discourse) was to reference his “vision for this institution” (i.e., the United Nations).

Nor did mention how Presidents of both parties stood strong against communism and for freedom, waging and subsequently winning the Cold War, bringing down the Iron Curtain and bringing freedom and economic growth to the long-suffering peoples of central and eastern Europe.  Well, he did reference the Cold War, just once, reminding us that it was “long-gone.”  Does he even appreciate how American policies made that so? (more…)

Obama at the UN: Since I’m not George W. Bush, I can make everything right (but it will take a little work)

After having read the President’s address yesterday to the United Nations, I fear that the next three-and-one-half years will not only be difficult for the United States, but also for the world.  And while Mr. Obama may claim he is looking forward, he sounded like he was doing his utmost to looking back in order to distinguish himself from his predecessor.  Indeed, at times, that seemed the animating theme of the speech.

In order to make sure he distinguished himself adequately from George W. Bush, his rhetoric seemed at cross purposes.  At one point, he reminds us that the “Assembly’s Charter” reaffirms

. . . the freedom to speak your mind and worship as you please. . . ; the ability of citizens to have a say in how you are governed, and to have confidence in the administration of justice.  For just as no nation should be forced to accept the tyranny of another nation, no individual should be forced to accept the tyranny of their own people.

And while he opposes the tyranny of their own people, he wants to make clear he’s not promoting democracy as did his predecessor:

Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect.  Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people and in its past traditions.  And I admit that America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy.  But that does not weaken our commitment; it only reinforces it.  There are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self-evident — and the United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.

This paragraph reads like a mishmash of empty rhetoric, noble notions and anti-Bush broadsides (only semi-cleverly concealed Bush-bashing).  So, how does a people go about determining its destiny if it suffers under the tyranny of its own people?  Is there a means other than fee elections?  He didn’t say nor did he include self-determination in his four pillars of U.S. foreign policy (and left out security, though one could say that was implied under the pillar of peace).

It seemed he thought that if we just ended the “misperceptions and misinformation about my country,” well, then the United States would be a force for a good.  He just doesn’t  understand that some nations further such misperceptions and generate such misinformation to further their own ends.  Extending an olive branch to Iran has done nothing to soften their hostility to the United States (nor their repression of their own people).   The leaders of that regime believe they need the ideology of the “Great Satan” to survive.

No wonder Nile Gardiner wonders if this speech were Obama’s most naïve ever. (more…)

Obama’s America-Bashing Tour Update! (finally)

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 11:51 am - July 18, 2009.
Filed under: Obama's America-Bashing World Tour

obamatrashtour20090717

President Obama returned from the latest leg of his America-Bashing tour quite a while ago, so my apologies right off the bat for taking so long to get this map updated. Also, the site I usually use to make the map is flaky for some reason, so I’m back to this more boring map till I figure out what’s up with that. I’m sure by the time Obama next travels overseas, it’ll be up and running.

First off, Turkey. Yes, I know you’ll say he didn’t go to Turkey on this trip. But a commentor noted on my most recent post that I’d left that off from his trip back in April. Your diligent blogger, I went back and checked out his speech to the Turkish Parliament, and found this passage:

The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods. Facing the Washington monument that I spoke of is a memorial to Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. And our country still struggles with the legacy of our past treatment of Native Americans.

With that housekeeping taken care of, on to his Russia/Italy/Ghana trip:

In Russia, The One had this to say about the end of the Cold War:

Make no mistake: this change did not come from any one nation alone. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.

While not exactly a bash of the US, when combined with his oft-repeated trope that “[b]y no means is America perfect”, it’s simply another unnecessarily self-deprecating cowtow. It counts in my book.

As for Italy, all I could find was this press conference he held in L’Aquila. While he does air some dirty laundry in response to a question about our current health-care debate, I didn’t find anything that rises to actual bashing of America. If somebody knows of something, please let me know via the comments section. But as for now, he gets a pass for that nation.

In Africa, the president visited the nation of Ghana where he said in a speech in Accra:

Yes, a colonial map that made little sense bred conflict, and the West has often approached Africa as a patron, rather than a partner.*

Here he faults not only the US, but the entire civilized world, apparently. And:

In my country, African-Americans — including so many recent immigrants — have thrived in every sector of society. We have done so despite a difficult past, and we have drawn strength from our African heritage.

…because you cannot speak of America in Africa without mentioning our ugly past. Give the president some slack, of course, because what’s he supposed to say, huh? Obviously, Ghana goes on the list.

Which brings our total (pending something I missed in Italy) to a whopping 11 nations (excluding his “alleged” ;-) own) from which the president has shown his contempt for the United States:

Canada
Great Britain
France
Saudi Arabia
Mexico
Trinidad and Tobago
Egypt
Germany
Turkey
Russia
Ghana

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)
*I’ll have more to say about this and other things in this speech in an upcoming post.

The Train Keeps Rolling

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 7:45 pm - June 5, 2009.
Filed under: Obama's America-Bashing World Tour

obamatrashtour20090605

Apologies for taking so long to update you on the second leg of the Obama America-Bashing World Tour ’09. I’ve been preparing for some travel myself (alas, on my own dime…don’t have taxpayers to foot my bill), so haven’t had the time to see if he’s keeping it up.

Well, he IS!

From his Thursday speech in Cairo:

9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals.

That makes his new total SEVEN nations to which he has traveled in order to bash us since being inaugurated as president of this awful place. As a refresher, in chronological order, they are:

Canada
Great Britain
France
Saudi Arabia
Mexico
Trinidad and Tobago
And now, Egypt!

Next stop, Dresden!

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from HQ

UPDATE: More apologies…I really should have read the president’s press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel from today before posting:

They should have been processed and tried and convicted. If they weren’t convicted, then they should not have been languishing in a facility like that, that became a symbol for many around the world of us not sticking to our ideals and our traditions and rule of law.

But it was done. And that’s the past. And now we have to move forward.

I’ve updated the map to include Germany now as well. Tomorrow will bring no news as the president has already expressed his contempt for America there.

April Deadliest Month For US In Iraq Since….

Let’s see, April turns out to be the deadliest month for US troops since November 2008.

The U.S. death toll for April rose to 18, the military said Friday, making it the deadliest in seven months for American forces in Iraq. The sharp increase from the previous month came as a series of bombings also pushed Iraqi deaths to their highest level this year.

In the latest violence, a suicide bomber blew himself up at a restaurant on the reservoir of Iraq’s largest dam near the northern city of Mosul. At least five people were killed and 10 wounded, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.

The spike in attacks has raised concerns that insurgents are stepping up their efforts to re-ignite sectarian bloodshed as well as questions about the readiness of the Iraqis to take over responsibility for their own security as U.S. troops begin to withdraw.

Something different has happened in the past seven months.  I can’t quite put my finger on it….. I know it will come to me.  *tapping foot*  What…is…it….that…happened…in November 2008?

Hmmm, maybe my intelligent readers will be able to help me remember what may have changed in the past seven months to make things more dangerous in Iraq?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The Unintended Utility of The Straw Man Argument

One of the most ubiquitous (and my most favorite to pick apart) argumentative fallacies is that of the Straw Man. The Straw Man Fallacy is a cop-out in a debate wherein if an arguer has no (or insufficient) defense of his own position, he’ll simply argue against a point that nobody is making. In doing so, he can claim victory without ever having to face an actual intellectual challenge.

A favorite example of this from the Left is that of questioning someone’s patriotism. Although we hear from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joe Biden about how patriotic it is to pay higher taxes, never have I heard a prominant Republican raise the issue of anybody else’s patriotism. Never. Nonetheless, it is a constant theme of the Left when the efficacy of their policies are questioned to resort to the Straw Man argument that their opponent is “questioning the patriotism” of said Leftist politician.

But then something curious usually happens: in so defending himself, ironically, the Leftist in question actually does raise the question of his own patriotism where otherwise it wouldn’t even be a thought in a voter’s mind. I remember first hearing this bizarre line of accusation during a presidential election several cycles ago and thinking to myself, “Yea, well nobody’s questioning your patriotism. But come to think of it, isn’t it a good idea that we elect someone president who is patriotic? That’s not asking too much, is it? To have a president who’s patriotic? Maybe we should ask candidates about their patriotism. I’d kinda like to have a president who loves America.”

Comes along Barack Obama (who, in spite of his constant drumbeat of anti-American rhetoric as he tours the world, I believe really does love America after all), who’s turned straw man-building into a way of political life. His latest is brought to us from (once again) foreign soil. Not content to simply diss us as “disengaged” and selfish, now we’re bullies.

The quote from The One was: “We’re not simply going to lecture you, but we’re rather going to show through how we operate the benefits of these values and ideals.” The straw man here is obvious. Who, Mr. President, has been lecturing? And who suggested we should?

More importantly, this kind of raises the question: Perhaps Americans don’t want a president who “lecture”s other nations or their leaders about liberty and freedom. But is it asking too much for a president to embrace these ideals at least? To advocate them? We have a president whose reply to those who feel he’s gone too far toward nationalizing the banking system and the automotive industry, who feel his forrays into nationalizing a private health industry, whose profligate spending and borrowing will only further weaken an already hobbled US (and world) economy, is “we won”.

Lecture,” Mr. Obama? No. We wouldn’t expect you (nor even consider asking you, with the track record you have) to “lecture” other nations or their leaders. But how about if you showed us you believe in American principles in the first place?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from Undisclosed Alternate HQ

Obama’s America-Bashing World Tour Count Stands at Six Nations

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 8:57 pm - April 18, 2009.
Filed under: Obama's America-Bashing World Tour


Well, he didn’t take long to prove me right. Today in his opening remarks to the Summit of the Americas, President Obama was quick to point out that we as a nation have been “disengaged” and obstinate.

This makes the total six countries to which he’s traveled to bad-mouth or otherwise denigrate the country of which his wife only recently became proud for the first time in her adult life. You’d think at least for her sake he’d go a little easy on the US. Perhaps he’s just trying to bring her back down to earth?

For those keeping track, the six, in chronological order are:

Canada
Great Britain
France
Saudi Arabia
Mexico
Trinidad and Tobago

(It’s seven if you include the US.) That’s a lot for only 89 days.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from Undisclosed Alternate HQ