Tuesday, July 22, 2014

"So What's Next?" Is the Question the World Is Asking

RUSSIAN President Vladimir Putin
has been named the most powerful
person in the world by Forbes, toppling
US President Barack Obama
It seems that I have been right concerning Obama's amateurism. Around the world, people are asking (particularly our allies) "Who is this guy and what on earth is he up to?"

We have this from  The National Post:
The world’s governments no longer worry as much as they once did about what Washington wants, partly because Washington doesn't know what it wants. U.S. policy has become erratic and half-hearted, subject to arbitrary change without notice.
Barack Obama, who apparently distrusts American power, personifies this approach. He moves capriciously from subject to subject. One week he’s furious about Syria and announces that Bashar al-Assad has to go. When Assad doesn't go, Obama loses interest. He seems always to be making a fresh start. When he’s not doing that, he’s “pivoting,” shifting his interest from one continent to another. He seems detached much of the time, then committed, then detached again.
On Libya, for instance, Obama opposed taking part in the UN strike to oust Muammar Gaddafi. Then suddenly he decided to join the French and other participants. The American bombs he sent became the key to destroying Gaddafi and his reign, but Obama claimed America had played only a peripheral role.
An Obama adviser famously described Libya as a new model for American intervention, “leading from behind.” Whatever it was, the allies didn't follow through and Libya was left in chaos. Terrorists gratefully inherited a huge cache of weapons.
On Iran, the United States has taken several large steps backward. When Israel publicly considered bombing Iranian nuclear sites, the Americans discouraged the Israelis and adopted Iran’s bomb as their own problem. Soon they announced, portentously, that all “options are on the table,” including not just sanctions but also force.
The idea of an attack was soon abandoned, however, and last autumn a new approach was taken: negotiation. The United States led the UN Security Council and Germany in the effort to persuade Iran to give up its dreams of a nuclear bomb in return for the lifting of economic sanctions.
In November, the Washington Post echoed the government with a triumphant headline: “Iran, world powers reach historic nuclear deal.” But in fact they had merely made a deal to hold some meetings about making a deal that might be historic.
After half a year of talking, Iran’s view can now be summarized: No, we are not building a nuclear bomb and No, you can’t come and inspect us.

Then there is this from The Daily Mail:
That the Parliament of our closest ally, Great Britain, rejected an air campaign first gave Mr Obama an additional reason for inactivity. The flailing seemed to end when Russian President Vladimir Putin opened the door to a negotiated deal with Syria. But it was not the end; it was the beginning.
For as the administration rushed to that door, all over the world those who depended on America when in harrowing circumstances were asking themselves: How reliable is America now? How strong now?
Also asking was Mr Putin. He noted the contrast between Mr Obama’s bold talk and timid response. As the former head of a friendly government said in a small meeting I attended not long ago: ‘Putin is cautious. He will probe. If he encounters resistance, he will pull back.’
The US failure to follow through in Syria gave the Russian president confidence that he could move with impunity.
SOON he was picking a fight with Ukraine. Like the scene in The Godfather – when, at his child’s baptism, Michael Corleone renounces the devil as the camera cuts back and forth to his men eliminating rival gangsters – Putin, before global television cameras, watched the opening ceremonies of the Sochi Olympics as Russian troops began movements preparatory to seizing Crimea.
This week, in the skies over Ukraine, we saw the consequences of the recklessness that the Russian godfather’s probing has unleashed.
Putin was not the only one to detect opportunity in American indecision. China stepped up its probes in the East and South China Seas. In the Middle East, with the US military presence drawn down nearly to zero in Iraq and soon Afghanistan, an army of ruthless fanatics gestating unnoticed in Syria’s east saw the chance to break out of national boundaries and within a few weeks occupied much of western and central Iraq.
Why has so much of the global order come apart so fast?
For the same reason that, as a friend reports, on the streets of San Salvador those who will smuggle your child to the Rio Grande have been securing an unprecedented volume of sign-ups. When asked about the chances of the child staying in America once the border is crossed, they tell parents: ‘It has never been easier.’
Now the word on weakness is everywhere, even the poorest barrios of Central America.
The Scary Part is that Americans, especially liberals, support President BO (the amateur president)'s

The context for the change in America’s international role was provided by a Pew Research Center poll in December. It determined that more than half of Americans now think the United States should mind its own business and let other countries “get along the best they can on their own” — the highest number since Pew began raising that issue 40 years ago. Robert Kagan, the author of The World America Made, believes Americans feel an uneasy desire to shed the burdens that their country assumed from 1941 to the end of the Cold War. Many Americans imagine they would be happier in a “normal” kind of America, a nation more attuned to its own needs, less to those of the wider world.

Obama’s policies may have evolved in response to this public view, or perhaps his ideas influenced the public. The uncomfortable truth, however, is that the United States is the only great power in this generation. And power always brings responsibilities.

In spite of the liberal left's insistence that PBO (tap) is a good president, he is not so regarded by the rest of the world. That he was elected twice is a testament to the gullibility of the left.


Shaw Kenawe said...

Nice of you to quote only conservative sources. This is interesting about "The National Post:"

"On May 19, 2006, the newspaper ran two pieces alleging that the Iranian parliament had passed a law requiring religious minorities to wear special identifying badges. One piece was a front page news item titled "IRAN EYES BADGES FOR JEWS" accompanied by a 1935 picture of two Jews bearing Nazi-ordered yellow badges. Later on the same day, experts began coming forward to deny the accuracy of the Post story. The story proved to be false, but not before it had been picked up by a variety of other news media and generated comment from world leaders. Comments on the story by the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper caused Iran to summon Canada's ambassador to Tehran, Gordon E. Venner, for an explanation.

On May 24, 2006, the editor-in-chief of the newspaper, Doug Kelly, published an apology for the story on Page 2, admitting that it was false and the National Post had not exercised enough caution or checked enough sources."

Great source for accurate reporting, Joe. LOL!

Joe said...

SK: The source neither determines nor alters the facts. Those same facts were reported in myriad other places. They report Obama losing face and support from most other countries and the reasons why are listed.

This source just managed to place them in order.

Remember, always blame the messenger, not the message! After all, that's your style.

Shaw Kenawe said...

In this case both the messenger AND the message are wrong and deserve to be refuted with the facts (y'know, those stubborn things):

U.S., Obama’s Image Remains Positive Worldwide
by Jim Lobe (Washington)Monday, July 14, 2014

Inter Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jul 14 (IPS) - While Republicans and other right-wingers claim that President Barack Obama has inflicted unprecedented damage on Washington's global reputation, a major new global survey suggests that the image of the U.S. remains generally positive.

The survey, which was based on nearly 50,000 interviews of respondents in 44 countries, found that the U.S. remains substantially more popular than China, widely considered Washington nearest geopolitical rival, in every major region except the Middle East.

A global median of 65 percent respondents said they held a positive view about the U.S., with majorities in 30 of 43 nations (not including the U.S. itself) expressing a favourable opinion.

By contrast, a median of 49 percent said they felt positively about China, while 55 percent said they had an unfavourable view of the Asian giant. The most negative opinions were expressed in Europe and among some of Asia's closest neighbours, particularly those which are contesting Beijing's increasingly assertive territorial claims.

As for Obama himself, the first U.S. African-American president remains broadly popular, with a median approval rating of 56 percent – about 15 percentage points higher than in the U.S. itself -- with half or more of the public in 28 of the 44 countries expressing confidence that he will "do the right thing" in world affairs."


If you read the whole report, you'll see Mr. Obama is not at all popular with Arab countries.

Surprising, since you people believe he's a secret "Muslin." It's such a "secret" that his compadres don't even know it.

Lisa said...

If you read the whole report, you'll see Mr. Obama is not at all popular with Arab countries.

They probably view him as a traitor

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Obama is NOT the first "African-American" president. He is only half black, yet liberals praise him as being black, which is extreme racism by denigrating his white half.

And even if he WAS 100% black, he still isn't "African-American." There is no such place as "Africa America."

Shaw Kenawe said...

To Glenn E. Chatfield,

If Mr. Obama had lived in any Jim Crow southern state in the 1940s or '50s, you can bet your last white hood that he would most certainly have been considered black. And don't think for one delusional minute that any lily white club or community in the south or anywhere else would have welcomed him into their arms as white.

It is America, not Mr. Obama who sees him as a black man.

Mr. Obama is African-American because his father was an African citizen and his mother was an American citizen.

He is of African and American parentage.

Twisting facts to fit your prejudices is dishonest. And wrong.

Xavier Onassis said...

S.K. - G.E.C. doesn't like hyphens. He is positively hyphenphobic.

But you are right, given Obama's mixed parentage, I can't think of anyone who is more entitled to the African-American designation.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Just because some people many years ago considered people black if they had “one drop of Negro blood” that doesn’t make them black. Facts aren’t changed by opinions. The FACT is that Obama is as much white as he is black, and to negate the white half is 100% racism, which is what liberals like you are constantly guilty of.

Only LIBERALS in America see Obama as a “black man.” The rest of us see him as a man - period. We don’t focus on the “race” of a person the way you liberals do. The only way Obama got the Presidency was due to the color of his skin; he had no qualifications for the job other than skin color.

And they don’t call him the first “African American” president because of his parentage - they do it based on his skin color. After all, everyone in the USA with black skin is considered “African American” because they want to see themselves as a separate group rather than being just “American.”

Shaw Kenawe said...

Glenn, you're apparently oblivious to the fact that it is conservative pols, pundits, bloggers, and general public who have passed around racist emails about the president and his family since he won the presidency in 2008. I have documented links to instances all over this country where conservatives have made all manner of racist jokes and remarks about our first family.

Those are not liberals sending emails around with photo shopped pictures of the Obamas as apes, with photo shopped pictures of watermelons growing on the White House lawns, of photo shopped pictures of President Obama with a bone through his nose, with photo shopped pictures of President Obama hanging from a noose.

That you would call liberals racists because we acknowledge Mr. Obama as African-American when it is HE who made that decision when he was a young man shows that you are dishonest and willfully ignorant about how individuals choose to acknowledge which race they belong to.

This country has been making its citizens name which "race" they belong to on almost all official documents. It is Mr. Obama who chose to be considered an African-American and not white. Not what you ignorantly call "racist liberals."

Your claims are bogus and not based on anything approaching factual.

Shaw Kenawe said...

And here's the link to show you that it is Mr. Obama who chose his ethnicity, not "liberals."

If you don't want to bother with the link, here's what it says:

WASHINGTON — He may be the world's foremost mixed-race leader, but when it came to the official government head count, President Barack Obama gave only one answer to the question about his ethnic background: African-American.

The White House confirmed on Friday that Obama did not check multiple boxes on his U.S. Census form, or choose the option that allows him to elaborate on his racial heritage. He ticked the box that says "Black, African Am., or Negro."

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


All you've demonstrated is that SOME losers who claim to be conservatives are racists. We all know neo-Nazis and skin-heads, etc, all claim to be conservative, but they don't know the meaning of the word.

You've also demonstrated that Obama is the racist-in-chief since he denigrates his own white heritage!

As for documents calling for "race," those became necessary based on a racist governmental system which requires bean-counting. I always enter "human race." After all, there is only one race of mankind.

Joe said...

SK: Jim Lobe has never written a correct post in his life with IPS.

GEC: "There is no such place as 'Africa America.'"

That's a great line. I fully intend to abscond with it.

SK: "Mr. Obama is African-American because his father was an African citizen and his mother was an American citizen."

"He ticked the box that says 'Black, African Am., or Negro.'"

So...is he Black, African American or Negro?

XO: Although my heritage is Irish, Norwegian and Russian, I am NOT an Irish-Norwegian-Russian-American. They didn't have a box for that one (discrimination?)I'm an American, pure and simple.