The Obama Doctrine - Be a Dictator to Be My Friend; be Democratic and Earn My Wrath
A pattern has begun to emerge from Obama's foreign policy decisions, observes Lauri B. Regan in "Obama's Attraction to Human Rights Violators," June 30th 2009 American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obamas_attraction_to_human_rig.html).
Between democratically-elected and governing Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and dictatorial strongman Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority -- Obama sides with Abbas, and demands that Netanyahu not even expand the existing settlements on the West Bank.
When faced with Red China's oppression of her own people -- Obama's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explains that economic considerations are more important, and sides with the Chinese dictatorship.
Obama was handed a golden opportunity to take back the role of leader of the free world when Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs stole the election in Iran. Yet, Obama continued to look and play the fool with all of his make nice policies and statements rather than voice a strong decisive (presidential?) statement in support of democracy.
A cost-free statement, please note. Iran is already making war on America and Iraq, as Obama must know now after almost half a year in the White House.
After suggesting that he would continue "negotiations" with whomever held the title of President, the opinion polls forced him to finally make a weak statement, drawing the ire of Ahmadinejad (who was taken by surprise since he has gotten used to Obama's can't we just be friends foreign policy).
I have to admit that I laughed a lot when Ahmadinejad condemned Obama for daring to criticize him. It's obvious from the Iranian diumvir's reaction that he regards Obama as a total coward, whose own anger is not to be feared in the least.
But, when Honduras expelled its President, who had under that country's own Constitution already forfeited the office, Obama turned on the Honduran people for lese majeste, demanding that they violate their own laws and return the would-be dictator Zelaya to power.
Sadly, the Obama presidency keeps getting "curiouser and curiouser." According to Obama, Israel's settlement building is illegal, the Iranian elections are legitimate, and the Honduran military's respect for the rule of law is "not legal." In other words, it is fine for the Obama administration to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign ally, it has no interest in defending a popular uprising in which people are dying in the name of freedom, and it will support the Chavez-cloned dictator in the face of a democratic struggle.
And, I could add to this, Obama has repeatedly snubbed democratic allies such as Britain and Brazil. It seems that if you are the democratically-elected leader of a nation which is not making trouble in the world, Obama has neither respect nor time for you; if you are a bloodthirsty tyrant or want to be one, Obama is ready to extend the hand of friendship.
Many have suggested that due to the voter fraud pervasive during his campaign, Obama is not troubled by a similar occurrence in the Iranian and Honduran elections.
This has occurred to me too.
Yet this is the same man that made human rights a benchmark of his campaign speeches.
Yet another Obama campaign promise broken. Is anyone still keeping count, or should we just take it as granted that there is absolutely NO connection between anything Obama promises to do and what he actually does?
This is a bigger problem than it sounds. America's enemies are also noticing Obama's tendency to make and break promises. Consider that deterrence is essentially based on a "promise to punish," and you'll see why this puts our country at risk from outside as well as from within.
And how does one rationalize his completely irrational responses to the various events taking place across the globe as citizens of repressed nations attempt to achieve freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world persists on choosing the wrong side of the fight.
Can, indeed, anyone point to an instance in which Obama has sided with democracy against tyranny?
The only discernable pattern to Obama's foreign policy decisions since taking office seems to reflect an attraction by Obama to dictatorial governments and disdain for freedom loving democracies. How else can one rationalize the disparity between his silence and weak response to the protests and bloodshed in Iran and his powerful and demanding response to the coup in Honduras? America's President is consistently supportive of tyrants at the expense of oppressed citizens who bear a terrible price for his policies.
Precisely.
And this begs the question: "Why?" Obama is not courting popularity by doing this. He is in fact behaving against the expectations of the role of an American President. He's not helping himself, and he's not helping the country, since he's alienating our allies and finding no new friends (as the dictators he courts despise him and spit in his face when he does this).
Is he stupid? Naive? Self-destructive? Anti-American?
What is Obama hoping to accomplish?
I seriously don't know. Which is bad, because that means that other world leaders don't know either.
America, the strongest nation on Earth, is steaming through the global seas completely at random -- save that its captain seems to have a preference for ramming friendly shipping.
Bad.
Between democratically-elected and governing Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and dictatorial strongman Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority -- Obama sides with Abbas, and demands that Netanyahu not even expand the existing settlements on the West Bank.
When faced with Red China's oppression of her own people -- Obama's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explains that economic considerations are more important, and sides with the Chinese dictatorship.
Obama was handed a golden opportunity to take back the role of leader of the free world when Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs stole the election in Iran. Yet, Obama continued to look and play the fool with all of his make nice policies and statements rather than voice a strong decisive (presidential?) statement in support of democracy.
A cost-free statement, please note. Iran is already making war on America and Iraq, as Obama must know now after almost half a year in the White House.
After suggesting that he would continue "negotiations" with whomever held the title of President, the opinion polls forced him to finally make a weak statement, drawing the ire of Ahmadinejad (who was taken by surprise since he has gotten used to Obama's can't we just be friends foreign policy).
I have to admit that I laughed a lot when Ahmadinejad condemned Obama for daring to criticize him. It's obvious from the Iranian diumvir's reaction that he regards Obama as a total coward, whose own anger is not to be feared in the least.
But, when Honduras expelled its President, who had under that country's own Constitution already forfeited the office, Obama turned on the Honduran people for lese majeste, demanding that they violate their own laws and return the would-be dictator Zelaya to power.
Sadly, the Obama presidency keeps getting "curiouser and curiouser." According to Obama, Israel's settlement building is illegal, the Iranian elections are legitimate, and the Honduran military's respect for the rule of law is "not legal." In other words, it is fine for the Obama administration to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign ally, it has no interest in defending a popular uprising in which people are dying in the name of freedom, and it will support the Chavez-cloned dictator in the face of a democratic struggle.
And, I could add to this, Obama has repeatedly snubbed democratic allies such as Britain and Brazil. It seems that if you are the democratically-elected leader of a nation which is not making trouble in the world, Obama has neither respect nor time for you; if you are a bloodthirsty tyrant or want to be one, Obama is ready to extend the hand of friendship.
Many have suggested that due to the voter fraud pervasive during his campaign, Obama is not troubled by a similar occurrence in the Iranian and Honduran elections.
This has occurred to me too.
Yet this is the same man that made human rights a benchmark of his campaign speeches.
Yet another Obama campaign promise broken. Is anyone still keeping count, or should we just take it as granted that there is absolutely NO connection between anything Obama promises to do and what he actually does?
This is a bigger problem than it sounds. America's enemies are also noticing Obama's tendency to make and break promises. Consider that deterrence is essentially based on a "promise to punish," and you'll see why this puts our country at risk from outside as well as from within.
And how does one rationalize his completely irrational responses to the various events taking place across the globe as citizens of repressed nations attempt to achieve freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world persists on choosing the wrong side of the fight.
Can, indeed, anyone point to an instance in which Obama has sided with democracy against tyranny?
The only discernable pattern to Obama's foreign policy decisions since taking office seems to reflect an attraction by Obama to dictatorial governments and disdain for freedom loving democracies. How else can one rationalize the disparity between his silence and weak response to the protests and bloodshed in Iran and his powerful and demanding response to the coup in Honduras? America's President is consistently supportive of tyrants at the expense of oppressed citizens who bear a terrible price for his policies.
Precisely.
And this begs the question: "Why?" Obama is not courting popularity by doing this. He is in fact behaving against the expectations of the role of an American President. He's not helping himself, and he's not helping the country, since he's alienating our allies and finding no new friends (as the dictators he courts despise him and spit in his face when he does this).
Is he stupid? Naive? Self-destructive? Anti-American?
What is Obama hoping to accomplish?
I seriously don't know. Which is bad, because that means that other world leaders don't know either.
America, the strongest nation on Earth, is steaming through the global seas completely at random -- save that its captain seems to have a preference for ramming friendly shipping.
Bad.