In the UN speech earlier today, President Obama once again succumbed to what has become almost a clinical addiction: criticizing the United States in front of an international audience.
In the latest stop on his American Apology Tour, Obama aimed his fire at America on the issue of global warming (the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over) and democracy (in the past America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy). And Obama, after humbly declaring at the outset of his speech that I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world . . . they are also rooted in hopethe hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change, went on to say this:
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.
Where oh where to begin? How about by pointing out that America did not act unilaterally in Iraq or anywhere else during the Bush presidency. For example, and for the record, more than 35 countries gave crucial supportfrom the use of naval and air bases to help with intelligence and logistics to the deployment of combat units. President Bush answered the unilateral charge in his 2004 State of the Union address:
Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices.
Second, the United States actually did have in mind the interests of othersbeginning with 25 million Iraqiswhen it acted. The Iraq war, whatever you think about its wisdom and execution, was in part a war of liberation, undertaken for noble purposes: to liberate a captive people and to depose an aggressive dictator. We know about the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein; it was one of the most brutal and malevolent in modern history. The fact that we believed the Iraq war advanced Americas national interests doesnt mean it was a war waged without regard for the interests of others. And for Obama to allow this misperception of America to go unchallengedindeed, to give such a false and malicious charge legitimacyis disturbing.
Third, in his speech the President said, I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights. Oh really? If so, then why was he so reluctant to speak out for the brave Iranians who rose up against the brutal rule of President Ahmadinejad? Because of his fear not to offend the Iranian regime, he essentially put America on its side rather than on the side of the Iranians who stood up for their dignity and rights. In addition, Obama and his secretary of state are purposefully downplaying human rights in their dealings with Chinaincluding refusing to meet with the Dalai Lama. It is no secret that Obamain an effort to distance himself from his predecessorhas very few words, and none memorable, to say on behalf of basic human rights. He will from time to time mouth empty slogans so he can check off the human-rights box, but he does not give any evidence that he feels these values deep in his bones.
There is more to be said about the Obama speechincluding the presidents tiresome pretense that he and he alone will lead the world out of its cul-de-sac, where we bicker about outdated grievances. But I cannot escape a depressing thought, one I hope is proved to be wrong over time: that Barack Obama, even though he is the leader of America, is constantly placing himself above it. His criticisms of our country are now part of a troubling routine, so much so that Obama is now winning the applause of people who genuinely hate America (like Fidel Castro, who complimented Obama for his brave gesture and courage in criticizing the United States at the UN).
Obama not only fails to strongly defend the United States; he is actually adding brush strokes to a portrait of our country that diminishes its achievements and standing. He seems unable or unwilling to speak outin a heartfelt and passionate wayon its behalf. He is, of course, too clever not to ever say a word of praise for America; no, this sophisticated wordsmith and smooth politician, this cool customer ever in search of The Golden Mean, can speak in both text and subtext. He says just enough to deny the charge that he is not a strong defender of the country he leads. But by now were on to the game.
No one believes Americas history is pristine; we are all familiar with the catalogue of our own sins, beginning with slavery. Other presidents have recognized them, and a few have given voice to them. But it was done in the context of a reverence for Americafor what it has been and stands for, for what it is and can be. Think of the words of George Washington, who said of America, I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love. That is a noble sentiment from a man whose love of country knew no bounds. They are also words that I cannot imagine President Obama saying, at least with conviction. That doesnt mean he doesnt like his country or admire things about it; it means that he has yet to really speak out for it. And it means that he has shown, so far at least, that he is more interested in advancing his interests than in speaking on behalf of the nation that elected him. There are enough critics of America in the world; we dont need to add Americas president to that list.
Perhaps Mr. Obama will come to understand that there is a problem when the president of the United Statesan inestimable jewel, Lincoln called herhas harsher things to say about his own country than he does about many of the worst regimes on Earth.
It is all quite disturbing, and to have to say this about an American president almost makes me sick.
#1
It would be worth it if in exchange the US let the world feed and heal itself or settled their own wars in any way they saw fit. Let America take care of ourselves and absolutely destroy those who attack us.
Posted by: ed ||
09/24/2009 8:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Say what you will about John McCain as a presidential candidate (on 2nd thought, don't!), at least you got the impression that he liked America.
#1
Rush has been catching the slings and arrows for a couple of decades. Glenn Beck is relatively new. If he continues to prove effective in moving people to action, though, he'll get the Demonization Gun with both barrels before too long.
#2
Sounds like time for Beck to ridicule a second time the socia1ists, marxists, communists and racists who run this country. Almost makes me want to get cable to see what this guy is about.
Posted by: ed ||
09/24/2009 8:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I read a lot of the comments wrt this article at the link, good lord, not a very intelligent group.
#5
Beck's call (hey I could make some neat phrasing out of those two words) is a "curse on both houses". He is especially burning up the typical inside the beltway country club republican who doesn't like the fact that someone is resonating with middle America and it isn't them. McCain comes to mind as well as those pieces of fake shit, Frum, Brooks and Buckley.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/24/2009 12:21 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"Post-modern Conservative" is an oxymoron and certainly does not describe Glenn Beck. If anything he's a libertarian populist.
It's always a bad sign when a US president gets several rounds of heavy applause at the UN General Assembly, as Barack Obama did this morning in New York. Needless to say, the loudest cheers from the gathering of world leaders came when he condemned the actions of a close US ally, Israel, in continuing to build settlements in the West Bank. You can always rely on attacks on the Israelis to generate the biggest roars of approval at any meeting of the United Nations, and Obama dutifully obliged.
The Assembly also mightily cheered Obama's boast that the United States no longer condones "torture" (as if it ever did), a blatantly political swipe at the interrogation techniques of the previous government, which most Americans happen to back. The president's decision to rejoin the UN Human Rights Council, a basket case of an organization that includes some of the world's worst tyrannies, was also greeted warmly.
Needless to say, when the president briefly brought up the need for greater international cooperation over Afghanistan, or spoke about the threat posed by al-Qaeda -- or "violent extremists" as he calls them -- there was stony silence.
Overall this was a staggeringly naïve speech by President Obama, with Woodstock-style utterances like "I will not waver in my pursuit of peace" or "the interests of peoples and nations are shared." All that was missing was a conga of hippies dancing through the aisles with a rousing rendition of "Kumbaya".
The big catchphrase of the morning was "new era of engagement", with Obama outlining the four big international pillars of his presidency: ridding the world of nuclear weapons, the pursuit of peace, preserving the planet, and supporting "a global economy that advances opportunity for all people".
There was only brief mention in the president's speech of the Iranian or North Korean nuclear threat, and no attempt to outline what measures would be taken against Tehran and Pyongyang if they continued to defy the UN Security Council.
Obama said not a word about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's continuing threats to wipe Israel off the map, or the aspirations of the Iranian people for free and fair elections.
In fact human rights issues were strikingly downplayed in Obama's address, which is not surprising since it is rarely on the radar screen of this administration. Nor did the words liberty or freedom feature prominently. This was a speech designed to appease opinion in a world body in which full democracies make up only a minority of its members.
Was this though Obama's most naïve speech ever? It is a very strong candidate, but I think there is intense competition for that accolade. The president's speeches in Cairo, Strasbourg and Prague would all vie for that title. Still, his address today will go down in history as one of the weakest major addresses by a US president on foreign policy in a generation, by a leader who seems embarrassed, even ashamed, by the power and greatness of his own country.
This was an exceedingly dull, poor speech that overwhelmingly failed to advance US interests on the world stage, or project American values and principles onto the rest of the globe. As Barack Obama will eventually discover, soft power will only get you so far when you have to confront and defeat brutal enemies that seek America's destruction.
AoS at 0700 CDT: link fixed.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bad linky - replace the unicode apostrophe with a regular ascii one. Who the hell uses an apostrophe in a url?
#3
ION PAYVAND > WILL ISRAEL FALL IN FIVE YEARS [Year 2015 r.o.]. CIA Report quietly doubts Israel's ability to survive o'er the next two decades [approxi 2010-2030] - 00,000's of Israeli Jews including newly arrived immigrants are keeping US PASSPORTS at the ready for a "just-in-case" contingency = escape to the USA.
DEPSTATE + US PASSPORT AGENCY CAN COUNT ON CONTIN GOOD BIZZ IN ISRAEL, ALA US PASSPORT SALES.
YEAR 2015 > POST-2012 NUCLEAR IRAN, + NUCLEAR ISLAMISM-TERRORISM.
[Asharq al-Aswat] For years we have been reading about a group affiliated to Al Qaeda that fled Kandahar for Iran following the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan. This story was not credible for one important reason: Al Qaeda is a militant Sunni organization that considers the Shia non-believers, whilst [on the other hand] the Iranian regime is a militant Shia regime. However two years later a bombing took place in Riyadh, and wire-tapping evidence revealed that instructions for this attack were given by none other than Saif al-Adel, an Al Qaeda commander rumoured to have fled to Iran. This call was also shown to have originated from Iran.
According to information released at the time, Iran did not deny that members of Al Qaeda were present on its soil, but it said that these members were being detained, and the regime claimed that it had no knowledge of how they were able to implement this operation from afar.
During the following years, the story has been clarified as a result of cooperation between Iran and Al Qaeda, despite the fact that the leaders of the militant Sunni [Al Qaeda] organization continue to incite against the Shia, and despite Iran expressing a hostile attitude towards Al Qaeda, particularly during the most recent bloody events in Iraq. Intermediary parties have concrete evidence of cooperation between the Iranian regime and the militant [Al Qaeda] organization. The reason [behind this cooperation] is logical as both parties share Arab and Western enemies.
The secrecy surrounding the Al Qaeda organization means that all the rumours about it are potentially true; that it is an organization being used by the intelligence apparatus, or a front through which operations are conducted, or a political tool, or a pretext for enmity, aggression, and hatred, and so on.
However Al Qaeda is a real and present organization and its crimes are spreading not just in the West, but also throughout the Islamic world, from Indonesia to Morocco. However the accumulation of [new] information necessitates the re-studying of history, even prior to the events of 11 September. Al Qaeda now seems to resemble those left-wing organizations in the seventies, which were like storefronts rented out by other [larger] organizations in the region for their own purposes. Abu Nidal was a commander who worked towards his own goals, whereas his fighters were loyal to the movement's doctrine, but ultimately unaware of the truth.
The story of Saif al-Adel fleeing Kandahar for Iran, with 13 members of his brother-in-law Abu al-Walid's family, along with Saad Bin Laden and a number of other fighters is an important chapter that requires a re-writing of the [accepted] history of Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda has become, or perhaps was originally nothing more than an organization founded by the Iranians, or at the very least they [the Iranians] contributed to it later. This clarifies many ambiguities, particularly with regards to the readiness of the organization, and its planning and operational capabilities. The only dilemma is that many people find it difficult to believe that Sunni extremists can work with Shia extremists. For purely sectarian reasons, it would be practically impossible for Al Qaeda's fighters to accept Iranian involvement in their activities had they been aware of this, however many of these activities took place via intermediaries, such as when Al Qaeda fighters were being sent over to Iraq to fight [against the US forces] over a period of five years.
There are many stories now that attest to the ignorance of these young men [who were sent to fight in Iraq] and who were unaware that those who received them and sent them to Iraq were intelligence officers pretending to be Al Qaeda commanders, and who ran such activities on behalf of the [Al Qaeda] organization.
The picture seems clearer, Al Qaeda is a real organization but with mixed leadership, and it is carrying out operations that serve two sides, but particularly the Iranian side which is experienced in managing several wings within Arab organizations and militias such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. The new chapter [in Al Qaeda's history] is the battle in Yemen, and this is currently taking place on two fronts, a battle with the Iran-affiliated Houthi rebellion, and a battle with Al Qaeda whose fighters also admit they are being managed from Iran.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
NEWSMAX > IRAN WOULD GIVE TERROR A NUCLEAR UMBRELLA [a capability beyond all imagination].
#2
Why yes it must be so. It couldn't possibly be Sunni muslim, like the editors at Asharq al-Aswat.
Posted by: ed ||
09/24/2009 8:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Again, IIRC FREEREPUBLIC > RUSSIA AND AL QAEDA: THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE.
NUTSHELL > "PIRATES OF THE BLACK-CASPIAN SEAS" > JOHNNY DEPP = Yaar, Mateys, there be COMMIES-SOVIETS BENEATH OR BEHIND DEM BURQUAS???
* Lest we fergit, my POTENT FASCIST KILLER GUAM BOONIE DOGS are secretly controlled by my family's WAS-PROB-A-COMMIE-AIRBORNE-COMMANDO MOTHERLY MOTHER CAT.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
In the UN speech earlier today, President Obama once again succumbed to what has become almost a clinical addiction: criticizing the United States in front of an international audience.
It's always a bad sign when a US president gets several rounds of heavy applause at the UN General Assembly, as Barack Obama did this morning in New York. Needless to say, the loudest cheers from the gathering of world leaders came when he condemned the actions of a close US ally, Israel, in continuing to build settlements in the West Bank. You can always rely on attacks on the Israelis to generate the biggest roars of approval at any meeting of the United Nations, and Obama dutifully obliged.
