Just last week I applauded President Obama for taking action against three Somali pirates. I even mentioned that my confidence in his foreign policy was strengthened a bit. Well, now I have to take that back.
To be honest, I don’t get what he’s doing. The Obama Doctrine is slowly becoming known as one of apology. Which begs the question: What do we as Americans have to apologize for?
This nation – through the sacrifice of blood and treasure – is responsible for advancing human-kind more than any nation in world history. Every human being that lives free does so in one way or another because of American sacrifice and support. Granted, there will be times when other nations disagree with our actions, but that does not warrant an apology nor should one be given.
First, our alleged ill-attitude towards Muslims. Instead of apologizing to the Muslim world, I think Obama should have given them all a brief history lesson. The US has supported Muslim efforts in Chechnya, Serbia, and Kuwait. We have supported the Kurds in northern Iraq and, oh yeah, freed an entire nation of Muslims in Iraq. These are examples of Americans fighting for Muslims, examples of American sacrifice to liberate Muslim people from tyranny. So if a few Muslims world-wide are angry at us for whatever reason – it’s not our fault. The record speaks for itself. We stand for freedom for all mankind and don’t discriminate based on religion. We have supported Muslims in this quest as well as Jews, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists. And if some Muslims are angry because we’ve targeted a few tyrannical extremists who happen to be Muslim extremists, then that’s not our problem. Instead of apologizing to these people, Obama should have defended us a bit. I think this would have been appropriate:
“I realize that many Muslims are angry at America because of perceptions that we are somehow anti-Muslim. Those perceptions are unfortunate and inaccurate and I think it is appropriate to remind those people that many Muslims live in freedom because of American sacrifice; and if we fight some extremists it’s because we want more Muslims to live in freedom.” How simple would that have been?
Then there’s the banana republic dictators of Latin America. You know, I understand that a President must be diplomatic to a certain point. This means that you may have to shake hands with nasty people. So I don’t necessarily mind the handshake with Chavez. And I don’t mind that Obama took the anti-American propagandist book that Chavez offered him. To be fair, Obama was clearly taken off-guard by Chavez’s action and likely didn’t realize what he’d just been given. But afterward, Obama should have said:
“I appreciate the gesture from President Chavez. I enjoy reading. However, it has come to my attention that this book is a distortion of the facts, and somehow places the blame for the failures of Latin American leaders at the feet of the United States. I don’t believe such dialogue is accurate, nor do I believe that it is constructive. So I will respectfully return the gift in the hopes that President Chavez will understand that America seeks peace and prosperity for all people in this hemisphere, and that antagonistic accusations have no role in achieving such objectives. I am not going to waste my time with such language and neither should he.”
Finally, Daniel Ortega. This guy is quite a character and really epitomizes the stereotypical banana republic dictator. Obama sat there while Ortega ripped the US during a diatribe that lasted over 50 minutes. Afterward, Obama said that he was “glad that [Ortega] didn’t blame me for things that occurred when I was three months old.” Hillary Clinton said the “cultural performance was fascinating.”
That’s it? That’s all you too have to say? This man consumes an hour eviscerating the US and you have no more to say? Unbelievable.
Now, I don’t think Obama should have gotten up and left the room. He still has to appear presidential and such action would not be appropriate. However, afterward he should have hit back hard:
“Mr. Ortega has failed his citizens. The people of Nicaragua have endured nothing but poverty and hunger under his regime and yet he refuses to accept any responsibility for that. Instead, he consumes 50 minutes with a delusional attack on America, somehow blaming the United States for his failures. That is an unfortunate thing and it makes me sad for the people of Nicaragua who most definitely deserve better.”
Why wouldn’t Obama say these things? I think it’s reasonable for Americans to expect their President to defend our country whenever it is unfairly attacked. Obama has failed at that so far and it’s quite disappointing.
Obama is naïve. There is simply no other way to put it. I appreciate that he wants to be respectful and “change the tone” from America, but that’s not how these people are interpreting it. They see it as weakness and nothing more. They see him as a man who will be VERY hesitant to use any force to stop their ambitions. And that perception – real or not – in the head of a madman is a dangerous thing.
Brutal tyrants respect only one thing…power. They don’t respect polite politicking. They don’t respect cordial demeanor. And they certainly don’t respect apologies. Instead, they view apologies as an opportunity for aggression, an opportunity to take, an opportunity to demand concessions. They only respect power and I’m afraid this may be a difficult lesson for Obama to learn.
6 comments:
NUTS! Obama's four-day hesitation
damn near cost that merchant ship captain's life!
The 'Rules of Engagement' ROE must always be the responsibility of field commanders on the ground, and ship captains on the open sea.
Trust our professional military people where correct & immediate decisions count. reb
OBAMA'S WORDS...
July, 2008 - The Neighborhood Organizer-In-Chief said:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a 'civilian national security force' that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Q. Would that be Acorn & LaRaza, sir?
Then he added, "People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve!"
>
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/
obamas_civilian_national_secur.html
________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com - 4/23/09
reb,
Don't be stupid. The President was not micro managing the situation. He gave orders and let the people on the scene handle the situation. I cannot think of any president in my lifetimw who not have done the same.
John,
Whereas I garee w/ you assessment of the Hugio Chavez et al, I do not agree w/ giving your suggested responses although I certainly agree with the content of those responses.
The question is, who is the audience? Apparently Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and the rest of the socialists in South and Central America did not get the memo when the USSR went out of business. Hugo Chavez is busy flushing his country's economy down the toilet. The spike in oil prices last year has merely delayed the inevitable.
Telling these guys the truth to their faces is unlikely to produce a positive results.
I am glad we are making overtures to other countries in our hemisphere which will place us in a better position to pick up the pieces when their socialist fantasies self destruct. Better us than the Chinese.
TLGK
John,
You said, "Obama is naïve. There is simply no other way to put it. I appreciate that he wants to be respectful and 'change the tone' from America, but that’s not how these people are interpreting it. They see it as weakness and nothing more. They see him as a man who will be VERY hesitant to use any force to stop their ambitions. And that perception – real or not – in the head of a madman is a dangerous thing".
When and why should Obama use any force to "stop the ambitions" of third world megalomaniacs? They are ambitious madmen who listen to nothing or nobody anytime or anywhere, and got into power because of their ruthlessness. If he tried to harangue them back, they would walk out on him.
Obama can't come down to the level of these haranguers who talk non-stop for hours in their countries and try to monopolize international meetings and only to vent their feelings about the US. Let them look like the asses they are before the whole world. They will bring their countries to ruin like Hitler did. He was another megalomaniac haranguer.
You know, at a meeting where the King of Spain was at where Chavez kept interrupting, the King got so angry he told Chavez in Spanish, "why don't you shut up already!?" and the King walked out. Our President can't do that. The King didn't lose any dignity or credibility doing that, but our President would. He would just be stoking their flames, and lowering himself to their level. Then he would look weak. He can't harangue them back. He'd look like an ass.
Besides, the reason for the harangues about the US is that they KNOW what power the "leader of the free world" has. Didn't Obama say that he had nothing to worry about from Chavez, because Chavez' military force is only one six hundredth of the US'. He knows to walk softly and carry a big stick. He has the power and everybody in the world knows it and some resent it. So what else is new? I'm sure by now Chavez knows that Obama would unleash his power on him if the need arose.
I think Hillary was right on to call Ortega's harangue a "cultural performance", and Obama was right on when he said he was glad Ortega hadn't blamed him for something that happened when he was 3 months old. Those two statements told it all in a nutshell, the proper response as to how the harangues against the US are just a waste of time. I bet Hillary and Obama had to stifle their laughter until they were out of sight.
About the book that Chavez gave Obama. He gave him the Spanish language version; how stupid is that? Obama doesn't speak any foreign languages like his wife does. Maybe she will read it, but I doubt it. There are more important things to do. Obama has heard of such things before, and doesn't need to be given any primers on pillaging. Does Chavez think Obama doesn't know about the colonialism in Africa and India, about the pillage of lands and resources by the Spaniards and Portuguese and others in South America, about the genocide of native peoples?
These banana republic dictators are no better than those they criticize as having pillaged a continent. They just use the US as a scapegoat and smokescreen to mask their own corruption. Their poor subjects don't know who their real enemy is.
Emilie
Port Orchard, WA
Em,
I never said should have walked out or launched into Chavez/Ortega. But a response afterward, something defending America, would have been nice. The dictators would still look like asses and at least the President would told us all that he realized that as well. Say something, don't just sit there and take it without some kind of response, even if it is after the fact. He's new to the scene and Americans need confidence that he won't back down from these maniacs.
So far, I don't have that confidence. A measured response afterward would have helped in that regard.
reb sez,
Loop Garoo-sum, If you'd like to debate a military situation, like the recent Somali Pirate situation in the Indian Ocean, fine.
Referring to any view that's contrary to your own, and on another's public forum, as "stupid" is both unbecoming, and beneath the dignity of a seasoned trial lawyer...
This is especially true, when you don't know what you're talking about!
>
You really should leave the bitterness, arrogance and name-calling for the "wing-nut loony-bird progressives" that are now in the majority in Colorado.
>
Did you run into a tree, or bump yer head on a ski-slope this winter, Tony?
reb
________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
Post a Comment