The Obama Watch
Passive Unaggressive
Community organizing won’t take you far in the making of a foreign policy that befits a great power.
The impression the Obama Administration gives is that of a hesitant traveler tip-toeing around the world seeking to avoid dark corners while at the same time searching for respect and, ultimately, advantage. This would be a workable image if the traveler weren’t the world’s most powerful — and armed to the teeth.
Attempting to convince the rest of the world that the United States is a kindly, gentle giant may appeal to some who fear American involvement in any and all political military conflict, but it hardly equates with reality. Whether the U.S. likes it or not, since World War II this country has inherited the role of world leader.
This position requires that whoever inhabits the White House must assume the responsibility of forthright decision-making expected of any leader of the self-proclaimed “greatest nation on earth.” The luxury of clever but unclear positions that pass for sophisticated foreign policy with other nations is just not available to Washington. The situation in Iran requires the President of the United States to set forth an unambiguous position in support of the yearning for democracy of the Iranian people.
This was the basis for the “sitrep” on Iran outlined to Barack Obama the morning of June 20 by his national security advisory team. President Obama agreed to the release of a stronger statement than that of the previous day calling for the Iranian Government “to stop all violent and unjust acts against its own people.” He lectured, “The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.” He then took his daughters off to get some ice cream.
It is obvious that President Obama is thinking like the law lecturer he once was. “Don’t insult the opposing counsel. You might want to come to an agreement with them on a later occasion.” For some peculiar reason Obama still believes he can talk Ayatollah Khamenei and his snarling pit bull, Ahmadinejad, into agreeing to halt their nuclear weapon development. The president of the United States is acting as if he were negotiating a deal with a southside community group.
While that analogy might hold if one were to add a collection of dope-dealing, motor-cycling gang bangers, its doubtful if Barry Obama ever dirtied his hands with that sort. Well. Mr. President, that’s the real world you are facing in Tehran and throughout Iran today. The students and ordinary folks in the streets have to face down these thugs in the form of Basiji — Ahmadinejad’s old outfit.
Whether he likes it or not, any chance President Obama may have had to play nice-nice with Ahmadinejad exploded beyond repair by the statement of the Supreme Leader to the effect that the U.S. and the West is behind the people’s uprising. Does President Obama really think he can ignore the crushing of hundreds of thousands of unarmed Iranian freedom fighters by the Nazi-like government of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad?
Barack Obama may want to be perceived as the “Great Conciliator,” but time, blood, and Persian political ruthlessness toward its own have made such jejune expectations null and void.
There is a route open for Obama as a “world traveler.” He can and should show that he leads what is still “the greatest nation on the face of this earth” and denounce the leadership of Iran in perhaps a special meeting of the United Nations — just to show once again where America stands. He should charge the Iranian government with crimes against its own people and demand new free and fair elections with international monitors.
And then just to show we mean business, he should declare that any continuance of nuclear weapon development will be considered an act in preparation for war and will be dealt with accordingly: first by heavy economic sanctions and subsequently with military action if necessary. Most likely the UN will be frozen by inaction, but America and its friends will be able to hold their heads high in support of the disenfranchised on the Iranian streets.
Legitimate toughness is the only language understood by the Persian pseudo-Islamic leadership. If President Obama and his left-liberal backers do not want to take on the dictator bad guys of the world, why have we and the West been fighting totalitarianism for the last seventy years?
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (136) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/22/passive-unaggressive
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
drudge ette obama| 6.22.09 @ 7:36AM
Too little, too late Obama. I noted a couple of days ago that Obama has missed the biggest opportunity of his presidency. Not an opportunity like a narcissistic person might view it, but an opportunity to promote the struggle for freedom and weaken/eliminate an adverse enemy in Iran.
The problem is that in real life, unlike law school world which people are indoctrinated into concepts like "Getting to Yes," requires those who travel in adverse circles be willing to go the mattresses, play chicken, have nerves of steel, and make the first agressive move. Obama doesn't have that instinct, unless Axelrod tells him to pretend, Barry.
Leadership is not reconciliation or conciliation. It is something inside that guides you, suppported by a belief system and, in the case of President of the United States, requires a steady and passionate love of the United States. Does this sound like Obama? Of course not.
Anything those Iranian protestors accomplish now will be on their own nickel and their own blood. Obama should go on another Date Night.
Mattled| 6.22.09 @ 8:27AM
Interesting (not!) watching the so-called news media on the Sunday shows talking about how diligent they have been in covering the Obama Diktat.
All good people need to come together and turn off the TV sets and cancel their subscriptions.
Start this week with the info-mercial from ABC television. I will be calling the General Manager of my local ABC Affiliate to let him know I will not be watching his local news any time soon because of the love-Obam-fest happening nightly on ABC and in the mornings. I encourage everyone to do the same.
Sorry Mr. General Manager, I know it's not your fault, but ABC lives in their Manhattan Cocoon and could care less about us as evidenced by Donaldson and Co. on Sunday Morning.
So why don't you pick up the phone as local news viewers leave you by the thousands until we see some cajones in dealing with ABC----you pay for the programming and we pay the tab for Obam's sick policies?
Time for the media to take off the knee-pads (that means you too Jennifer Loven).
This guys a joke and there is so much material, you could make a career out of covering his misdeeds, criminal activity and missteps.
I guess Woodward and Bernstein only exist in Republican Presidency's.
JP| 6.22.09 @ 8:42AM
Funny how things can change in a hurry. The current uprising can be partially attributed to the fact that Iraq is now a democratic nation. People there hold democratic elections, can publish editorials, hold meetings, and form political groups without the police crashing thier doors down. Iraq and Iran share a large border. It was only a matter of time before the Iranians demanded the same freedoms.
Three years ago, while Iraqi civilians were being slaughtered by AQ terrorists, the leadership of the Democratic Party was demanding that we announce defeat and retreat out of Iraq. Despite being called every vile name in the book as well as being threatened with war crime trials both here and abroad, President Bush refused to abandon the Iraqis. And in 2007, when Obama, Reid, Pelosi and HRC announced that the Surge was a dismal failure, Bush persisted. A person can say what they will about Bush, but no one can he say he cut and ran. The Dems, on the other hand, showed that they put politics first, and to any would be people seeking freedom, the Dems would be the last people to turn to.
Obama is in the driver seat now, and surprise, he and his party are aligning themselves to murderous thugs.
Red Phillips | 6.22.09 @ 9:14AM
"Attempting to convince the rest of the world that the United States is a kindly, gentle giant may appeal to some who fear American involvement in any and all political military conflict, but it hardly equates with reality."
Perhaps there are people who don't "fear" US involvement. They just think it is unwise. You know, people like George Washington and John Q. Adams.
This article is just another in a long series of apologias for the US as revolutionary Jacobin state. This nonsense is so patently not conservative that it is laughable anyone would consider it to be so. A sad indictment of how far the "right" has fallen.
Mike| 6.22.09 @ 9:23AM
Ah, yes Mr. Wittman. You advocate the return to the successful foreign policy prescription of the Bush years: first, show that you have little or no understanding of the internal politics of your adversary, then shoot off your mouth with macho cowboy talk, for good measure threaten sanctions before you have commitments from any other nations, and by all means foment another war. After all we are only involved in two that are costing us millions of dollars at a time we have few resources and, finally, show that you are clueless about the possible consequences of any of your actions. You, sir, are an idiot.
TennesseeVolunteer| 6.22.09 @ 9:38AM
Real leaders make it crystal clear where they stand. You are either for freedom or you are not. When people know how you stand, they deal more forthrightly with you. When you equivocate, people waste your time, try to work around you and think you can be manipulated.
The vast majority of Americans believe America stands for personal and national freedom. Unfortunately, our present government believes you should hide your true intentions while letting the other side, or the people, think you agree with them when you don't. It is folly and doomed.
Unfortunately, these brave and courageous Iranians are getting code words from our government, not truth with honor.
Alan Brooks| 6.22.09 @ 9:41AM
nah,Obama is just biding his time; you're underestimating him as you did Clinton.
there's still rope enough, and time, in Iran.
Ellis Wyatt| 6.22.09 @ 9:56AM
Right now the events in Iran are highlighting Obama's biggest weakness - his arrogance and pride. He finds himself in a no-win political situation, which for a politician who craves power the way he does is not a good thing. He can either side with the pro-democracy movement in Iran and vindicate George W. Bush's foreign policy or he can side with the mullahs in order to push his own political agenda of showing that talking with totalitarians is best. Either way he looks as bad. Let's hope he can put his pride aside and do what is best for this country and support freedom and democracy.
Siegfried X| 6.22.09 @ 9:58AM
then shoot off your mouth with macho cowboy talk
Yes, I can't understand why anyone thinks that the Iraqi government can be overthrown with nothing more than talk about freedom.
Do these people think that world war II was unnecessary because we could have knocked Hitler out of power just by talking about freedom?
Mike| 6.22.09 @ 9:59AM
TennesseVolunteer,
Did you bother to listen to or read the President's speech in Cairo or were you too busy with Fox News? I think he made himself clear on where we stand viz a viz freedom.
IMKessel| 6.22.09 @ 9:59AM
Those who advocate isolationism like to point to our Founding Fathers, “Perhaps there are people who don't "fear" US involvement. They just think it is unwise. You know, people like George Washington and John Q. Adams,” though for some reason they don’t mention President Monroe, who most strongly advocated for a live and let live foreign policy.
Our Founding Fathers had good reason not to intervene in world affairs: they lacked the means to project power. Puppies don’t generally make great guard dogs, but given the proper training, diet and exercise, a pup can become a fantastic guardian. Similarly, with time and guidance, America became a powerful nation; today we stand as the single superpower. In the homey words (no less true for being spoken by a comic book character) Uncle Ben (Parker), “With great power comes great responsibility.” We are a superpower, but under the current administration we do not behave as such.
To balance our military might, so that we do not act in haste, prudence is warranted. President Obama can begin laying groundwork by making strong public statements (and what a refreshing change that would be). At the same time, Secretary (3:00 a.m.) Clinton, can get the Foggy Bottom crew working overtime to lay the foundation for sanctions; Madam Secretary can make her case for said sanctions both in private and public forums, covertly meeting heads of state and making policy statements to the General Assembly of the U.N. if further, and stronger action is needed, the groundwork for alliances can also be made.
Those who advocate slow but sure progression against Iran make many a good point. Our military is stretched and a unilateral strike against Iran would have a high likelihood of causing great pains for Americans. This does not mean American power cannot be projected, but preparation for said projection needs careful planning.
The One has shown little spine or heart as president, but in the words of Shakespeare, “Some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them". Maybe history will demand greatness of Obama. Maybe he will surprise many and respond with greatness. Our future may depend on this shock.
Mattled| 6.22.09 @ 10:07AM
Trolls.
What a bunch of Hope and Change suckers.
Mattled| 6.22.09 @ 10:13AM
I always thought that Obamaodinga was Carter II.
Not only has he proved me right, but he has enlisted the former-ASpologist in-Chief to "negotiate" with Hamas.
Way to go Barry---proving Conservatives right one policy at a time.
Siegfried X| 6.22.09 @ 10:16AM
No one can doubt Obama's courage and ability to lead.
Obama - man of action
Barack Obama has already proven himself to be a great commander-in-chief. It's because he's a man of action.
Case #1 is Pakistan. George Bush never had the courage to do anything about it, so Al Qaeda, the ones who launched 9/11, sat there year after year laughing at us, facing nothing more than drone missile strikes.
But the first thing President Obama did when he took office was to publicly say that if Pakistan didn't remove the terrorists, that we would. Faced with a man of action, the Pakistani government has taken action. Hundreds of terrorists who were safe during the Bush Administration are dead. Others are trying to flee overseas.
Case #2 is North Korea. For 16 years the Clinton and Bush administration appeased NK, wrongly assuming that with the correct package they would give up their nukes. Obama realized that was a mistake. He has said no more negotiations and has shifted to military action, boarding and searching North Korean ships.
Siegfried X| 6.22.09 @ 10:20AM
The neo-cons have already lost this one. Obama has said that we won't attack Iran. He will avoid the slippery slope that some here have talked about, where talk about freedom and taking the demonstrator's side leads to more involvement and more involvement and then eventually war with Iran.
Neo-cons want our troops to fight wars for the benefit of foreign middle eastern countries, or to kill Muslims for Jesus. Obama has rejected that and said that we will only fight to defend the United States.
His Only Greatness will be...| 6.22.09 @ 10:36AM
....how great it will be when he is gone.
Go get another yogurt cone Barry. Waffle of course.
Hey I got an idea---why don't we offer a nuclear reactor---better yet---two!
Look how well that worked in N. Korea!
I liked a previous poster's sig---Dope and Chains.
jpkoch1962@yahoo.com| 6.22.09 @ 10:45AM
"Case #2 is North Korea. For 16 years the Clinton and Bush administration appeased NK, wrongly assuming that with the correct package they would give up their nukes. Obama realized that was a mistake. He has said no more negotiations and has shifted to military action, boarding and searching North Korean ships. "
We have not boarded any ships. Currently the McCain is tailing a Korean ship a few miles astern. And speaking of Korea, since Jan 2009, they have tested 2 nukes, test fired 2 missles, have announced the weaponziation of thier remaining plutonium and have kidnapped 2 American citizens, who were in China. They don't appear too afraid of Obama.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, the only action Obama is interested in is firing unmaned drones into villages, and bombing a few camps. The Taliban since Jan have increased thier territory in Pakistan by 10%.
Kent Lyon| 6.22.09 @ 10:48AM
Obama is aiding and abetting the mullahs, and has the blood of innocents on his hands.
Appleby| 6.22.09 @ 11:08AM
I was home for three weeks between jobs and I noticed that every single day, King Zero was on the teevee doing a photo-op of some kind vis-a-vis phony announcements of "action" that involved hiring cronies as "Czars." (Somebody clue the media that the feminine of Czar is Czarina, not Czaress. Thank you.) And seeing him doing the Ice Cream Photo Op on a split screen while freedom-fighting young people were being shot, clubbed and sprayed with boiling water from helicopters makes me wonder just what this fraud would have been doing during the Civil Rights Movement. Not what the rest of us were doing, I bet.
Ed| 6.22.09 @ 11:13AM
Obama is both a wuss and a bully. He is a bully to American citizens, but a wuss to our enemies. What a combo!!
Peter McGrath| 6.22.09 @ 11:16AM
The United States needs to be making every diplomatic and military effort to bolster the revolution now underway in Iran. The overthrow of the Mullahs will spell the beginning of the end for radicalized Islam, and pave the way toward pacification of murderous terrorist cells worldwide. One would assume, under principled leadership, that the United States - right now - is supplying logistical support (such as communications, special ops, etc) to the revolutionaries. At minimum, the United States should be providing technical assistance to allow for worldwide reporting of the rebellion.
Unfortunately, we have a moral coward in the Oval Office, whose DNA simply cannot conscience muscular assertion of American power in a circumstance such as this. Wittman is right - Obama's minimal experience in community organizing, race baiting, and rigging elections, leaves him totally unprepared to vindicate American interests in this critical situation. We have elected a fool and a coward to the seat of power in America who will most assuredly refuse to exercise that power in the most crucial moment in Mideast history in 30 years.
If the rebellion is crushed, expect violent repraisals by the current ruling murderers - certainly in Iran, and in Israel, Lebanon, and anywhere else their proxies operate. Negotiations with such an injured rattlesnake would be foolhardy in the extreme. Yet, count on Obama to expect thanks and a handshake from the surviving regime for being so "modulated" in his fey, feckless response to Iranian people's pitiful cry for freedom.
SAE| 6.22.09 @ 11:17AM
"Mike| 6.22.09 @ 9:59AM
TennesseVolunteer,
Did you bother to listen to or read the President's speech in Cairo or were you too busy with Fox News? I think he made himself clear on where we stand viz a viz freedom. "
Yes Mike, his Cairo speech made it very clear that he does not support the Jews or Democracy in Muslim countries.
Jeff R| 6.22.09 @ 11:17AM
Ah, regrettably, it is likely that President Obama will allow the chance for influencing events in Iran to slip through his fingers.
Backing the mass of protestors with a declaration similar to the one suggested by Mr. Wittman would go a long way to lending moral suppoort and stiffening resolve.
Additionally, this is, indeed, a moment of weakness for the mullahs. As Mr. Wittman again advises, it is time to pressure the mullahs with an embargo if they don't come to the table to eliminate their nuclear program.
Siegfried X| 6.22.09 @ 11:39AM
Does President Obama really think he can ignore the crushing of hundreds of thousands of unarmed Iranian freedom fighters by the Nazi-like government of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad?
Those "unarmed" protesters throw rocks the size of footballs at police. Their leader supports the current mullah Islamic Republic system.
janet| 6.22.09 @ 11:48AM
Siegfried,
Here's a bit of advice: no matter how many times you repeat your stupid posts verbatim from previous posts, nobody is going to give them any credence. They are among the worst "insights" I have ever witnessed.
Yellow Pages Illinois | 6.22.09 @ 11:55AM
I can see that you are putting a lot of time and effort into your blog and detailed articles! I am deeply in love with every single piece of information you post here. Will be back often to read more updates! Please come visit my site I would love some feedback on my site when you got time.
Indiana business address | 6.22.09 @ 11:57AM
You do have a point here :) I admire the stuff you post and the quality information you offer in your blog! Keep up the good work dude. Please come visit my site Indiana address directory when you got time.
Peter McGrath| 6.22.09 @ 12:01PM
Dear Siegfried -
Please announce to everyone on this blog that you are not equating throwing large "rocks" to water cannons, tear gas, batons, and (the inevitable) vollies of bullets, execution squads, mass detentions, interrogations, imprisonment, torture, and murder of protesters. Whatever the "leader" of this protest movement may "support" also cannot be equated with the evil aspirations of the current cabal.
Destabilization and overthrow of the current regime would be a gift to the world.
Are you an apologist for the Mullahs? If so, please identify a single laudable achievement of this regime, either in Iran or elsewhere.
ds80| 6.22.09 @ 12:21PM
I understand that Obama has ordered "The Cairo Speech" be enshrined next to the Declaration of Independence.
Such a self-centered, arrogant, hubristic dolt.
Hey Mr Boy President ... how's that international sweet-talking working out for ya? North Korean nukes. Iranian nukes. Al Qaeda/Pakistani nukes.
Hey, on your next trip to the opera with The First Mama, just ignore those mushroom clouds.
Charlene| 6.22.09 @ 12:50PM
janet| 6.22.09 @ 11:48AM
Siegfried,
Here's a bit of advice: no matter how many times you repeat your stupid posts verbatim from previous posts, nobody is going to give them any credence. They are among the worst "insights" I have ever witnessed.
I would only add that they are also nauseating.
Everly Waverly| 6.22.09 @ 1:01PM
Somewhere along the way Obama is going to be shocked into some form of reluctant leftist acknowledgment, as was Carter when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, that his "community organizing" , urban thug, business extortion racket won't work on the rest of the world. Does anyone else believe, as I do Obama is pretending to be President, just going through the motions of what he's seen the others before him do? He has no real core beliefs when it comes to how to deal with world problems, due to his lack of experience at much of anything. "Community organizing" should not be the soul qualification of a President.
Red Phillips | 6.22.09 @ 1:22PM
"Real leaders make it crystal clear where they stand. You are either for freedom or you are not."
No Tennessee Volunteer, good leaders acknowledge that the real world is complicated and not easily divisible into black and white and good and evil. That the world is complex and not all simple blacks and whites is a fundamental CONSERVATIVE insight.
Y'all really don't have the slightest clue what it means to be a conservative. Again, you are Jacobin Revolutionaries and America by your reckoning is a Jacobin state.
S.L. Toddard| 6.22.09 @ 1:39PM
“Attempting to convince the rest of the world that the United States is a kindly, gentle giant may appeal to some who fear American involvement in any and all political military conflict, but it hardly equates with reality”
That's true, but it needn't be. Kindness, like humility, is a virtue with which the United States would do well to reacquaint itself.
“Whether the U.S. likes it or not, since World War II this country has inherited the role of world leader.”
Easy enough to abdicate a position one seized for oneself. True, it would have been easier to abdicate under the previous president, when we were nearly universally reviled, but still.
“This position requires that whoever inhabits the White House must assume the responsibility of forthright decision-making expected of any leader of the self-proclaimed "greatest nation on earth."
Emphasis on “self proclaimed”. Again, easy enough – abandon that silly title. Give it to Spain, or Papua New Guinea. It’s a make-believe title which comes with no responsibilities whatsoever, .
ds80| 6.22.09 @ 1:46PM
I'll take Jacobin purity over sniffly elite, "sophisticated", nuanced touchy-feely, any day.
ds80| 6.22.09 @ 1:53PM
Kindness, like humility, is a virtue that is appropriately ascribed to individuals of free will, not to nations.
Red Phillips | 6.22.09 @ 1:56PM
"I'll take Jacobin purity over sniffly elite, "sophisticated", nuanced touchy-feely, any day."
No doubt you would, but if you think it is elites calling for non-intervention you are very mistaken. The American elites take internationalism and interventionism for granted. It is just a matter of what kind of interventionism, bellicose unilateral neocon interventionism or multilateral liberal interventionism.
The sad thing is you think one is the opposite of the other. The thoughtful interventionists know it is actually non-intervention that is the opposite. That is why both sides hate us more than they do the other.
ds80| 6.22.09 @ 2:44PM
"The sad thing is you think one is the opposite of the other"
Sad? Peculiar adjective you used. Moreover, it's pretty amazing that you can so completely deconstruct another's thoughts based on one sentence only
"The thoughtful interventionists know it is actually non-intervention that is the opposite. "
That sentence is an example of the "sophisticated nuance" to which I referred.
Please explain it to us mere mortals.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.22.09 @ 2:46PM
Could it be that Barack Obama's tepid behavior is a signal to the repressive regime in Iran that he stands with them against the unruly masses calling for democracy? Since being passive and unaggresive wins support from the left and a very small minority on the right could his lack of empathy for the people of Iran's desire for greater freedom be a cynical expression of crass domestic politics? Whatever the case we can expect the vaginal foreign policy of the Obama administration to continue supporting tyranny and repression in the "finest" Democrat tradition.
Siegfried X| 6.22.09 @ 2:54PM
[Obama should] denounce the leadership of Iran in perhaps a special meeting of the United Nations... He should charge the Iranian government with crimes against its own people and demand new free and fair elections with international monitors.
That's one of the craziest things I ever heard. The UN is chartered to resolve conflicts between countries, not to over rule a country's government.
Conservatives don't want one world government. The author of this is either liberal or neo-con.
Todd| 6.22.09 @ 3:10PM
Apparently Red Phillips is the only real conservative on this site according to his "logic". So anyone that believes in having a strong foreign policy and be willing to take on enemies that seek our destruction is a Jacobin Revolutionary whatever that means. IMKessel put in very well in making the case against isolationism which Red had no rebuttal against. Let me remind you that Red believes the founder of the Republican Party Abe Lincoln to be a war criminal. I am guessing you feel the need to post here since nobody gives a damn what you think in the real world.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.22.09 @ 3:11PM
Siegfried the stone throwers in Iran are in some ways reminiscent of stone throwers in 1770 Boston and look at how that eventually turned out with the help of European "interventionists" or allies (France, Spain and the Dutch Republic) .
jerryofva| 6.22.09 @ 3:33PM
Obama identifies with the “oppressed” of the world and desires that the US become aligned with the third world, particularly the African and the Islamic states. I think he is driven by his need to seek approval from his long dead absentee father. Third world dictators are really father figures to him and he wants their approval. The unwritten rule among African and Islamic political leaders is “thou shall not criticize your peers.” There was only one leader who didn’t sign up for this…the great Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya.
Obama is all about the narrative that America and Israel are the cause of all the worlds problems. If only America would side with the third world and Israel ceases to exist then harmony would prevail throughout the Mideast and the world. The political crisis in Iran has exposed this as a false narrative yet Obama remains in denial. He will push forward with his project to appease the Mullahs and give tacit support to their program for annihilation of Israel.
Siegfried X| 6.22.09 @ 3:36PM
The protesters in Iran are just asking for a new election. They haven't signed a declaration of independence like our founding fathers did. They are just one more mullah faction in the Islamic government.
We didn't throw rocks at our own police officers during the American Revolution. The battles in our revolution were by colonist military and army against uniformed British soldiers.
Mike| 6.22.09 @ 3:41PM
SAE (sleep and eat?)
You are wrong.
S.L. Toddard| 6.22.09 @ 3:51PM
"Siegfried the stone throwers in Iran are in some ways reminiscent of stone throwers in 1770 Boston and look at how that eventually turned out with the help of European "interventionists" or allies"
How'd that work out for the French gov't that intervened?
S.L. Toddard| 6.22.09 @ 3:54PM
"Whatever the case we can expect the vaginal foreign policy of the Obama administration to continue supporting tyranny and repression in the "finest" Democrat tradition."
What sort of "man", I wonder, views the female sexual organ with such horror and distaste that he considers it the worst insult in his arsenal?
More of a "Man's Man" are you, Mike?
jerryofva| 6.22.09 @ 3:56PM
Siegried:
Your knowledge of history is deficient. The Boston Massacre was about rocks and snowballs and at the time the redcoats were our soldiers.
What makes you think the the protesters support the mullocracy? You cannot discern the true intent of the population in a dictatorship. Opposition has to work within the framework and Mousavi was a symbol of opposition. Do not assume that because they voted for a mullah approved candidate that they support the goals of the Islamic Republic. You are probably to young to remember the election that ousted the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. All the polls showed the Sandinistas winning big but when the votes were counted it was a landslide for the opposition. Subjects of dictatorships do no broadcast their real political views.
Siegfried X| 6.22.09 @ 4:01PM
[Obama called] "for the Iranian Government "to stop all violent and unjust acts against its own people." He lectured, "The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights."
That is a very weak statement. It's weak because it is none of our business, so saying it makes us loose the high moral ground.
It's also weak unless we are willing to back it up, and the only way to do it would be sanctions or a war, as Wittman admits. Iran can go right ahead with "violent acts against its own people" and preventing "free speech". Then they could say that they beat the United States.
S.L. Toddard| 6.22.09 @ 4:04PM
"Passive Unaggressive"
That's the chief neoconservative complaint - our foreign policy lacks "aggression". We really need to get out there and mix it up more. Invade some countries. Bomb some weddings. Send a few soldier's into the old meatgrinder.
And they wonder why they've become an international punchline.
S.L. Toddard| 6.22.09 @ 4:05PM
"soldier's"
Oof.
jerryofva| 6.22.09 @ 4:07PM
Mr. Toddard:
I bet you opposed President Reagan's support for Solidarity during the 1981 marshal law crisis.
Siegfried X| 6.22.09 @ 4:10PM
[Neo-cons say] We really need to get out there and mix it up more.
That reminds me of a rule one of the neo-cons made up:
Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business
Red Phillips | 6.22.09 @ 4:30PM
"Please explain it to us mere mortals."
The current opposition to Obama's policies are based on pure partisanship and emotion. Obama hasn't changed anything. He hasn't pulled troops out of Iraq. He has increased troops in Afghanistan. And the idea that he is somehow anti-Israel is absurd. Half his cabinet including his Jewish Chief-of-Staff are very pro-Israel. The idea that he is somehow siding with the Muslims is preposterous. Throw in a little armchair psychoanalysis as some are doing, and it is even more ridiculous. At most, Obama has changed the rhetorical style and leans more toward diplomacy. That's it. Obama is an interventionist. He is simply a different kind of interventionist.
Your head would explode if someone actually started following a non-interventionist policy. Withdrawing our troops from the Middle East and elsewhere. Cutting off foreign aid. Getting out of NATO, etc.
That is what I mean by non-intervention being the real enemy of your saber rattling interventionism. Obama is merely a shade of grey.
Pete| 6.22.09 @ 4:46PM
"He can and should show that he leads what is still "the greatest nation on the face of this earth"
This is precisely the problem. The Messiah does not believe the statement above.
Red Phillips | 6.22.09 @ 4:47PM
"Since being passive and unaggresive wins support from the left and a very small minority on the right could his lack of empathy for the people of Iran's desire for greater freedom be a cynical expression of crass domestic politics? Whatever the case we can expect the vaginal foreign policy of the Obama administration to continue supporting tyranny and repression in the "finest" Democrat tradition."
Thanks MT for admitting that it is all about aggression or at least the appearance of a willingness to use aggression. Foreign policy by bluster so MT can think he's a man. Is this really what the mainstream "right" has been reduced to?
BTW Todd, Lincoln did not "found" the Republican Party. Has anyone ever even suggested that? He wasn't even their first Presidential nominee. But in 1860, the Democrat Party, especially the Southern element, was the conservative party. The Republican party in 1860 was a radical party. The parties have in many respects switched places. Some of us like to call this history. You should look into it.
jerryofva| 6.22.09 @ 4:49PM
Siegried and other haters of "Neocons"
You guys and James von Brunn are cut from the same cloth. People who talk about the nerfarious "neocons" are nothing more then neo-Nazis whether they be white supremcists or Progressives.
A hearty Seig Heil to you!
Red Phillips | 6.22.09 @ 5:12PM
"People who talk about the nerfarious "neocons" are nothing more then neo-Nazis whether they be white supremcists or Progressives."
Toddard, you just knew that was coming sooner or later didn't you. The last refuge of a neocon scoundrel (or first in many cases), call those to your right racists. Good going jerry. Way to go to that Cultural Marxist playbook.
Mike| 6.22.09 @ 5:13PM
jerryofva,
We are still paying for and cleaning up the mess the neo-cons, Republicans and right wing nuts left us. Time for this crowd to STFU.
Bill Pearce| 6.22.09 @ 5:23PM
Gentlemen, Gentlemen, Gentlemen
I think you are missing a small svelte but important point about the Obama administration.
But first a bit of history. During the transition from the Bush 41 to the Clinton governments
there was a on-going uprising of the Shia in Iraq. The Shia requested the arms and help promised by the outgoing Bush administration. The Clinton administration publicly refused. The Clinton officials stated there was a more forceful response than solders, guns and money. The Clinton officials stated they would rally world opinion and “ Bear witness “ against the Saddam's Iraq government. As a result of Clinton policies the Shia were slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands. It took a full scale invasion of Iraq by Bush 43 to uncover the mass murders. “ Bearing witness in the court of world opinion “ is just the lefts cover for doing nothing. The Clinton administration allowed Shia to die then, The Obama administration is using the same rhetoric now.
The point is not what the Obama administration is going to do. It will do nothing. The point is the Obama government is a continuation of the Clinton government.
Interestingly the co-president of the Clinton administration is now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Strange is it not that seems to be Hillary has fallen into Dick Cheney's bunker and can't get out. She must have found the secret levers of power or maybe the controls to Obama's teleprompter. Personally I think Hillary is trying to emulate Waldo without the classic clothing.
jerryofva| 6.22.09 @ 5:35PM
I see that I hit a nerve with James von Brunn comparison. You will find all of the ideas expressed by our neocon bashers posts in quick persual of his writings.
I actually respect von Brunn because he wasn't afraid to tell as he saw it. You guys are gutless cowards who would have the von Brunns do your dirty work for you.
You don't deserve a hearty Sieg Heil.
ds80| 6.22.09 @ 5:37PM
Red - please, please reveal: "what it means to be a conservative"
Peter McGrath| 6.22.09 @ 6:04PM
The United States needs to be making every diplomatic and military effort to bolster the revolution now underway in Iran. The overthrow of the Mullahs will spell the beginning of the end for radicalized Islam, and pave the way toward pacification of murderous terrorist cells worldwide. One would assume, under principled leadership, that the United States - right now - is supplying logistical support (such as communications, special ops, etc) to the revolutionaries. At minimum, the United States should be providing technical assistance to allow for worldwide reporting of the rebellion.
Unfortunately, we have a moral coward in the Oval Office, whose DNA simply cannot conscience muscular assertion of American power in a circumstance such as this. Wittman is right - Obama's minimal experience in community organizing, race baiting, and rigging elections, leaves him totally unprepared to vindicate American interests in this critical situation. We have elected a fool and a coward to the seat of power in America who will most assuredly refuse to exercise that power in the most crucial moment in Mideast history in 30 years.
If the rebellion is crushed, expect violent repraisals by the current ruling murderers - certainly in Iran, and in Iraq, the Gaza, Israel, Lebanon, and anywhere else their proxies operate. Negotiations with such an injured rattlesnake would be foolhardy in the extreme. Yet, count on Obama to expect thanks and a handshake from the surviving regime for being so "modulated" in his fey, feckless response to Iranian people's pitiful cry for freedom.
Red Phillips | 6.22.09 @ 6:08PM
jerry, "hit a nerve?" I simply called you out for your resort to the liberal playbook. You are aware of the long history of neocons calling those to their right racists aren't you? You do know what it means to be a Cultural Marxist don't you?
"Red - please, please reveal: "what it means to be a conservative""
Gladly. At base conservatism is about conserving things. Go figure. People, place, traditions, institutions, etc. It is not quite that simple because today real conservatives who want to restore the Republic are really some of the most radical because we have drifted so far from it, but conservatism is not about a programmatic agenda. And it is certainly not about commitment to ideological abstractions.
War is conservative only if you are repelling invasion. War in far off lands against people who don't and can't threaten us is never conservative. It is destructive and gets people killed. And as Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state." Modern "conservatives" pay lip service to small government and then want to police the world and cry like a baby when someone suggests cutting defense. This is cognitive dissonance or else willful ignorance. Good luck shrinking government when you are trying to police the world.
A foreign policy based on America as the redeemer nation whose meddling is essential to keep the world spinning and based on an ideology of liberation by force is so absurdly unconservative it is laughable. It is self-evidently not conservative. People only mistake it for conservative because our language has been corrupted and movement cons have been catechized into believing this nonsense.
At least the leading lights of neoconservatism, unlike their foot soldiers in the mainstream right, recognize the truly revolutionary nature of what they are peddling. Kagan praised "creative destruction." If creative destruction is conservatism then I'm the Queen of England.
Jim O'Brien| 6.22.09 @ 6:13PM
"We have tried since the birth of our nation to promote our love of peace by a display of weakness. This course has failed us utterly." - General George C. Marshall, 1945
Siegfried X| 6.22.09 @ 6:16PM
the revolution now underway in Iran. The overthrow of the Mullahs will spell the beginning of the end for radicalized Islam
There is no revolution going on in Iran, and no attempt to overthrow the Mullahs is underway.
What happened is that one Mullah thinks he got cheated in the election so he wants another election.
The challenger and protesters haven't proven themselves. They haven't shown that it is in our interest to support them.
Siegfried X| 6.22.09 @ 6:19PM
I am LMAO at John McCain talking about human rights, just like Jimmy Carter.
Red Phillips | 6.22.09 @ 6:32PM
"The United States needs to be making every diplomatic and military effort to bolster the revolution now underway in Iran. The overthrow of the Mullahs will spell the beginning of the end for radicalized Islam, and pave the way toward pacification of murderous terrorist cells worldwide."
So, if America is seen as responsible for the overthrow of the Mullahs, especially militarily, that is going to make terrorist cells less inclined to attack us? Hmmm... Interesting theory. What would this assessment be based on? And wishful thinking doesn’t count.
Siegfried X| 6.22.09 @ 7:16PM
Oh, the irony. Those neo-cons who accused Barack HUSSEIN Obama of being a closet Muslim, those same neo-cons now wildly supporting Islamic Iranian protesters who shout "Allahu Akbar".
Last year this could have happened only in a Saturday Night Live skit.
jerryofva| 6.22.09 @ 8:17PM
Red:
Of course I hit a nerve. Why don't you just come out and say Jew instead of neocon. Coward.
Now for a History lesson for the three stooges. I guess red is Curly. Someone, was it you, suggested that Washington and John Adams, no not John Quincy, were isolationist like you. Your ignorance is showing here because the American Jacobins, led by Thomas Jefferson were also opposed to the US getting involved in the affairs of Europe. How successful were they?
Under John Adams, American shipping was attacked by French privateers as they went about their business. France, at this time was ruled by the Revolutionary Directory, was at war with Europe. The US ended up fighting an undeclared war with France.
The Jefferson administration tried its best not to get involved in foreign wars. However, with the Royal Navy preoccupied with Napoleon the Barbary Pirates were free to attack US merchantmen in the Mediterranean. This let to Jefferson's war against the Barbary Pirates.
At the same time the British began impressing American seaman into the Royal Navy because they needed men to man their ships during the Napoleonic Wars. This led to the War of 1812 which ignorant fools like you assume was just just a British-American conflict. It was really a sideshow of the Napoleonic Wars. So during the era of the "wise" founding Fathers we had three wars involving the US and Europe.
If the United States could not remain uninvolved with foreign wars in the age of sail why do think that the we can now do so in the age of ballistic missiles?
Red Phillips | 6.22.09 @ 8:52PM
"Of course I hit a nerve. Why don't you just come out and say Jew instead of neocon. Coward."
Jerry, you really don't want to get in an argument with me about the meaning of the term neocon. I am very familiar with the word. Most of the original neocons were Jewish. Most of the modern leading lights of neoconservatism are Jewish. But the term is not synonymous with Jew and you saying that is an attempt to thought stop. Another move straight from the Cultural Marxist playbook. Good job lib.
Neoconservatism is distinguished by a particular philosophical ideological view. Most mainstream conservatives do not consider themselves neocons but they spout pure unadulterated neocon dogma of which all these threads on Iran are proof. The mainstream has been neoconized.
And yes I do mean John Quincy Adams you ignorant boob, because JQA was the one who said this: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
S.L. Toddard| 6.22.09 @ 9:16PM
"Toddard, you just knew that was coming sooner or later didn't you"
The charge of "anti-semite": the last refuge for a man who has run out of argument.
Fortunately that particular race-card has been played so many times that it's as credible as the one Al Sharpton plays.
S.L. Toddard| 6.22.09 @ 9:21PM
"Modern "conservatives" pay lip service to small government and then want to police the world and cry like a baby when someone suggests cutting defense. This is cognitive dissonance or else willful ignorance. Good luck shrinking government when you are trying to police the world.
A foreign policy based on America as the redeemer nation whose meddling is essential to keep the world spinning and based on an ideology of liberation by force is so absurdly unconservative it is laughable. It is self-evidently not conservative. People only mistake it for conservative because our language has been corrupted and movement cons have been catechized into believing this nonsense. "
Very, very well said. They see no disconnect there though - no contradiction. They believe they support a small-gov't, closed borders, fiscally responsible party. That the GOP consistently increases the size and scope of the federal government, actively maintains an open border and spends money like a drunk sailor on shore leave never strikes them as odd.
Siegfried X| 6.22.09 @ 9:23PM
Dick Cheney and John McCain are Christian neo-conservatives.
jerryofva| 6.22.09 @ 10:12PM
Red:
The neo-conservative movement began in the 1960s and had was based on a rejection of anti-anti-communism and liberal social policy by former liberals. The movement was as much Catholic as it was Jewish. The neo-Conservative movement culminated in the election of Ronald Reagan and effectively ended with fall of the Soviet Union. When Francis Fukayama wrote the End of History and the Last Man you could say that neo-conservatism was done. Except for the surviving members of the original movement there are no more neo-Conservatives.
Pat Buchanan redefined neo-conservative in the late 1990s as anybody who is not a Democrat and is Jewish and those conservatives who support the State of Israel. Over the years Pat Buchanan has become quite an apologist for Nazi Germany. Bill Buckley read him out of the Conservative movement for this and for his overt anti-Semitism Bill Buckley was the final arbiter of who is in the American Conservative movement. You are not a Conservative. You are a just a Buchananite neo-Nazi.
SAE| 6.23.09 @ 1:27AM
Mike, you state that I am wrong. Well, I got some expect opinion to back me up. See especially the last sentence. So, I think it is you who is wrong on this issue.
For you others this article is at Newsmax.com It is an excellent article on Obama's anti-Semitism.
Jewish Leader: Obama May Be 'Most Hostile President to Israel’
Monday, June 22, 2009 11:53 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
Newsmax.com
President Barack Obama’s refusal to take a stand on protests in Iran stands in sharp contrast to demands he has made on Israel, Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, says in a Newsmax interview.
“I think he should take a strong stand to support the protesters in Iran who want to transform that society into one that promotes democracy and human rights,” Klein says. ”But while meddling in Israel’s affairs and making specific demands, he explicitly states he refuses to meddle in Iran’s policies and has said almost nothing.”
Klein says leaders of Jewish organizations are rethinking their support of Obama in light of his attitude toward Israel.
“There are many leaders in the organized Jewish world who have privately discussed this issue with me, and say they are deeply concerned about Obama’s actions and policies toward Israel, and now they’re rethinking their support for Obama during the campaign and the election,” says Klein, whose organization of 30,000 members is the oldest pro-Israel group in the country.
Based on the president’s speech in Cairo on June 4 and many of his foreign policy appointments, Klein thinks Obama “may become the most hostile president to Israel ever.”
Woodrow Wilson| 6.23.09 @ 1:50AM
People-
If you've been wondering what Obama is all about, then check this out. WOW- it explains everything- EVERYTHING ! It's a bit long, but once you start reading it you won't be able to stop. Alert everyone you know to this- it is important !
Obama’s Long-range Master Plan Revealed
As Barack Obama and his closest staff raced through the first several months of his new administration goading Congress into adopting bills hundreds of pages long without reading them and approving trillions of dollars of new spending and debt, long-time Washington insiders scratched their heads profusely as they attempted to decipher the specter and rationale of it all. Aside from the astonishing spending and associated risk, politicos marveled at the ability of the new President to move his agenda with apparent little regard for the constitutionality of such measures as moving the census operations into the White House and appointing hoards of “czars” with staffs of thousands, budgets of billions, and no apparent accountability to anyone but the President.
In the meantime, the new President remained on the campaign trail, giving speeches, making appearances, and posturing as if the Presidential election had not already occurred. The long time Washington observers puzzled over this odd behavior. After all, wasn’t the election over? Hadn’t he already won? Why was he still traveling all over the globe and not sitting at his desk in the White House Oval Office attending to business?
Was there any real method to this madness, or was it just plain madness? Turns out there is, indeed, very specific rationale and logic behind this President’s mad rush to acquire as much authority and control as possible over the nation and its subjects.
After some detailed probing and pursuit of the subject, sources connected to one of the administration’s key cabinet members and a key Obama aide have leaked out elements of Obama’s secret (until now) long-range master plan. What we find is that Barack Obama, still just in his late 40’s, has much greater ambitions than just serving two terms as President of the United States. Barack Obama is positioning himself to become the next Secretary General of the United Nations, a post with no statutory limit of terms, and control of the only organization with widespread authority over all points of the globe.
Researchers contemplating Obama’s long-range master plan find that all the necessary elements are in place, or soon will be, to give Obama the opportunity to literally rule the world- possibly for as long as he wants. A brief review of the United Nations charter and history provides the eye-opening details.
UN Secretary General
The United Nations Charter establishes the Secretary General as the head of the Secretariat, and, as such, as the chief administrative officer of the United Nations. The position of UN Secretary General is a five-year term recommended by the UN Security Council and appointed by the UN General Assembly. The Secretary General position is generally rotated by geographic region and is traditionally (but not constitutionally) limited to two consecutive five-year terms. Since the founding of the UN in 1945, the only exception to this was in 1996 when American President Bill Clinton’s administration exercised its authority as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to veto the re-appointment of Egyptian diplomat Boutros Boutros-Ghali to a second term as Secretary General. As he was from Africa, the UN then selected another African representative, Kofi Annan, of Ghana, to replace him.
Annan served his two terms as Secretary General, completing his service Dec. 31, 2006. Under the UN’s rotational system, the Security Council then looked to Asia for the next Secretary General, and nominated Ban Ki-moon of South Korea. The General Assembly quickly approved him as the new Secretary General. And here’s where it gets interesting.
The first term of Ban Ki-moon expires Dec. 31, 2011 and, according to UN tradition, he will almost certainly be re-appointed to a second term, which will expire Dec. 31, 2016, three weeks prior to the end of Barack Obama’s presumed second term as President of the United States. Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, only two geographic regions of the world have not had a representative serve as UN Secretary General: Oceana…. and North America. Barack Obama intends to be the first from North America.
The aforementioned sources confirm that this is, indeed, Obama’s long-range master plan. This, of course, would explain virtually everything about his otherwise-unconventional behavior and his aggressiveness in acquiring as much control, authority and international goodwill as possible. The sources state that the basic goals of the Obama Presidency are to weaken the United States as an international force in order to lessen its ability to exert influence and control over international affairs, while at the same time seek to subjugate the U.S. as much as possible to international agreements and UN control, authority, regulation and laws. This will curry favor with the international community, thus enhancing Obama’s chances at ascension to the Secretary General throne, and make the U.S. less significant vis-a-vis the UN in international affairs, so that he, as life-long UN Secretary General, will have unquestioned and unchallenged authority over the worldwide community and its affairs.
The procedural steps
To achieve these ends, during his time as President, the Obama administration will pursue policies that weaken American strength, power and influence in every conceivable political, economic and social way possible. For example, many economists have pointed out that the Obama economic plan, loaded with unsustainable spending and debt, may not only not resolve the recession, but will, in fact, prolong and deepen it, perhaps into a long-term depression. No problem- if his plan does happen to somehow work, fine, but the Obama economic plan is not designed to heal the economy- in accordance with Obama’s long-range master plan, it’s designed to weaken the economy, and the nation. And how does the on-going Obama international “blame America / apology tour” strengthen America’s foreign policy? It doesn’t- it’s not supposed to- it’s designed to weaken the nation’s role in international affairs. Further, Obama’s judicial appointments and nominations will be people infused with a strident anti-traditional and anti-constitutional ethos, because that will nudge America further toward an eventual submission to “international” ethics, laws and constraints.
The more that Obama will be able to enact this agenda and master plan now, the easier it will be for him to later wield unquestioned power as UN Secretary General, because the United States will have been severely weakened and unable to exert significant influence on international (or even some domestic) affairs.
Now, you ask, why wouldn’t future U.S. Presidents challenge Obama’s UN rule and seek to restore America’s strength and influence? Because another element and goal of the Obama Presidency is to basically turn America into a one-party state ruled by the Democrat Party. Obama has the full support and encouragement of the American mainstream news media in this effort, he has shadowy front groups like ACORN involved in the 2010 U.S. census and voter registration, and the Democrat Party leaders are more than willing to follow along because they will then assure themselves of unchallenged power and authority over the nation.
Possible scenarios
This is where the insider information trail begins to thin out, and speculators are envisioning several alternative scenarios that could develop over the next few years. For example, one option being bantered about is that Obama’s unbridled ambition will not allow him to wait until Ban Ki-moon completes a second term as UN Secretary General. Mr. Ban’s first term will conclude Dec. 31, 2011, one year and three weeks prior to the end of Obama’s first term as President, and one popular scenario envisions that, if Obama feels he has sufficiently accomplished enough of his plan by then, he will resign as President and seek to replace Mr. Ban in January of 2012. After all, why wait another four years and risk something going awry in the meantime that could pre-empt an Obama second Presidential term or even the larger Obama long-range master plan itself?
Under that scenario, it is thought that Vice President Joe Biden’s subsequent ascendancy to the White House in January of 2012 would assure a continued passive and subordinate American role in UN and international affairs while Obama then promotes his UN Secretary General agenda, and, at the same time, assure election of Biden as President later that November. However, some feel that this scenario would be too outrageously ambitious for even Obama. Their thought is that Obama would prefer to complete the second term as President and then move on to the UN. On the other hand, this scenario would explain the “mad rush” to enact as much of Obama’s agenda as soon as possible in his first term. And it would also explain why he was so insistent on running for President in 2008, rather than allowing Hillary to have her shot at the job in ’08 and running after her two terms.
Many Democrat leaders felt that Hillary had earned her shot at an open office in the 2008 Presidential election, as George Bush would be completing his second term. After all, even after two Hillary terms as President, Obama would still only be 55 in 2016 and, presumably, bolstered with another eight years of service and experience as a U.S. Senator. With such additional maturity and experience, Obama in 2016 would have formidable credentials to then become the first black American President.
All very logical, except for one very revealing factor. As previously mentioned, a new UN Secretary General will be scheduled for appointment in 2016, and eligible for two five-year terms. If Obama would let that opportunity pass by and allow someone else to become UN Secretary General, that would mean that Obama’s next best shot at the UN Secretary General position may not occur until 2026. At that point Obama would be 65 years old, with far less time to rule the United Nations. And, in addition, that would leave far too much time for something unforeseen to disrupt Obama’s long-term master plan. No, it was felt that it was a far better approach to push Obama for the Presidency in 2008 even if that meant risking the wrath of Hillary and her Democrat Party operatives. With an Obama victory in the 2008 Presidential election, his plan of ascending to the open UN Secretary General seat in 2016 was assured, and he could serve as many as four five-year terms as UN Secretary General before finally retiring at a still robust 75, or possibly even serving beyond that. That would provide Obama with a full twenty years or more of ruling the world- a heady opportunity indeed, one that would be very difficult for an intense narcissist to let pass by.
Another variant of that scenario involves the secret pact made between the Clintons and Obama when Hillary decided not to challenge Obama at the 2008 Democrat convention and, instead, endorse Obama for President. Insiders have said that the negotiations between the Clinton and Obama camps concluded with some major concessions to the Clintons, beginning with Hillary’s nomination and subsequent appointment as Secretary of State. Some have said that the Clinton-Obama deal also includes (among others) nomination of Bill Clinton to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Obama’s endorsement of Hillary for the Democrat Presidential nomination in 2016.
This Clinton scenario goes a long way toward explaining Hillary’s sudden submission to a weakened and relatively unimportant Secretary of State office, as well as Bill’s relative silence and prudent behavior. And Hillary’s part of that deal would include acquiescence with UN Secretary General supremacy in the international arena during her Presidency.
Regardless, it is clear that the position of UN Secretary General will be open for appointment just as Obama’s presumed second term is about to expire. The Secretary General serves a five-year term and is traditionally (but not constitutionally) limited to two consecutive terms. But Barack Obama clearly sees himself as a being above and beyond traditional (if not even constitutional) constraint, and there is no provision in the UN Charter that would prevent him from seeking as many terms as he desired. By ingratiating himself to the international community during his service as American President, he could assure himself of indefinite service later as UN Secretary General. The only constraint to prevent Obama from additional terms as Secretary General would be a veto by one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. But the Obama team has very effectively considered that element as well. The five permanent Security Council members are the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. The U.S. is already (figuratively and literally) indebted to China, Russia is clearly pleased with Obama’s weakening of the U.S., and Obama has profusely sidled up to the European powers in his on-going “blame America / apology” tours. This should greatly diminish the prospects of one of those other four permanent Security Council nations vetoing additional Obama terms as Secretary General beyond his second term. And, with a submissive America ruled by the Democrat Party, the chances of a U.S. veto are virtually nil.
Following his act as the first black President of the United States, the Obama campaign for UN Secretary General would focus on the historic nature of him becoming the first person from North America to serve in that capacity. And, as a result of his weaken-America policies as President, the members of the United Nations would feel much more comfortable bestowing upon him the honor of serving as the first North American Secretary General. For his part, naturally, this would fit very nicely into Obama’s narcissistic persona. And, boy, the mainstream American and international media would play it to the hilt. Obama’s ascendancy to the throne of United Nations Secretary General would be virtually a coronation, not a selection or an election.
Now that the basic goals of Obama’s long-range master plan have been leaked out, his motivations and intentions are much easier to decipher. Clearly, the structure of the Obama Presidency is not about what is good for America or Americans- it’s all about Obama. It’s all about what advances Obama’s personal agenda and objectives. If it appears that Obama is still campaigning, it’s because he is still campaigning. Obama viewed the 2008 American Presidential election as just another primary election in his broader campaign to become the UN Secretary General. During his Presidency, Obama’s policies will be designed to control, not cure. The economy, the banking system, the auto industry, the health care system- the Obama administration’s energies will be directed toward seizing control over all those sectors, not “curing” any real or perceived problems in them. The more that Obama can make America subservient, compliant and subordinate, the easier it will be for him to rule later as the unchallenged United Nations Secretary General.
This fascinating insight gives us the opportunity to view Obama and his administration in a much different light, and sources indicate that he is furious that this has leaked out. Other such alternative scenarios are being actively debated, and the closest insiders are very tight-lipped on the actual elements of that. But one thing is very clear: the increasingly strange and unconventional behavior of Barack Obama and his administration and policies can now be seen through a much clearer lens, and it’s quite obvious that there is, indeed, a very specific method to the madness.
Siegfried X| 6.23.09 @ 6:49AM
Neo-conservatives are extremely militaristic Republicans who are liberal on most other issues. The original neo-cons wanted to use the military to fight communism. Today's second-generation neo-cons favor using the military to fight Islam.
John "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain is the most visible neo-conservative.
Red Phillips | 6.23.09 @ 7:14AM
"Except for the surviving members of the original movement there are no more neo-Conservatives."
I wish. What about their progeny, Bill Kristol and Pod the Lesser among others? There is some truth to what you say. The neocons were ex-Democrats and Social Democrats who drifted to the Republican Party due to foreign policy and an unease with the counter-culture of the New Left. But neoconservatism is more than that. It is a well circumscribed ideology. Mentioning Francis Fukayama is appropriate. (He has now distanced himself from the neocons, BTW.) The hubristic pronouncement that we are at the end of history and "liberal democracy" has won is typical of the neocons.
Pronouncing the movement dead, as some necons have done when it no longer served them to be so denominated, does not make the pronouncement true. (Ironically, they originally embraced the term because they wanted to be distinguished from "regular" conservatives who they considered icky and below them.) Like I said, the mainstream "conservative" movement has been neoconized. Hannity for example preaches the true gospel of neoconservatism. America as revolutionary nation, America as the "indispensable nation," exporting democracy, etc. It's all there. Unfortunately neoconservatism is alive and well.
And despite your attempts to invest him with magical powers, Pat Buchanan is not single-handedly responsible for redefining neoconservatism.
And still with the Cultural Marxist name calling.
Pingback| 6.23.09 @ 8:04AM
News of the Day! | FortPatriot.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
jerryofva| 6.23.09 @ 8:57AM
Red:
I see that you are still flailing this morning.
You might be surprised to learn that the surviving neo-conservatives came out against nation building after the Cold War was over. They were heavily influenced by Fukayama's book and believed that the world would come around to embracing the universal values of representative government and free markets by the example set by the West. The “End of History” thesis fit their world view quite nicely. But then 9-11 happened and they discovered that History rolled on without them. Like Presidents Adams, Jefferson and Madison, the old neocons discovered that the United States is in the world and we would have to deal with it and shape it to our advantage.
After the Cold War Pat Buchanan let his neo-Nazi mask slip and set about redefining neo-conservatism as Jews and supporters of Israel in the Republican Party. You could see that happening in 1990-91 over Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. He saw in Saddam a man who finish Hitler’s project and through his support behind him. At the same time Buchanan began articulating other non conservative views like opposition to an open economy and support for corrupt unions like the UAW. Buchanan is not a conservative as William Buckley pointed out but a combination of an old fashion Know-Nothing (ironic since the Know-Nothings hated the Irish) and a reactionary statist.
You are right about one thing. Buchanan wasn’t the only perpetrator of the neocon myth. He had plenty of help from the anti-Semitic new neo-Nazis in the Progressive movement. But Buchanan started it all.
But one thing you are vaguely right about but you are just a little premature. There will be a classic neo-Conservative revival in the years ahead as people become disillusioned with the failures of Obama’s social experiment. Liberals are once again being set up to be mugged.
I am greatly amused by your continued reference to liberalism and cultural Marxism. I was a member in good standing of Young Americans for Freedom and disciple of von Hayek and Friedman. I still am.
bobc| 6.23.09 @ 9:33AM
I'm sorry, but I do not believe one should go around the world preaching democracy and freedom to speak, when here, they are forcing the "Fairness Doctrine" and trying to zone the Oceans, while spending us into oblivion.
Note to world, we no longer can protect you and can no longer send you money each and every year...we are broke here!
S.L. Toddard| 6.23.09 @ 9:51AM
"You might be surprised to learn that the surviving neo-conservatives came out against nation building after the Cold War was over"
Were/are they against nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Jennie Maroney| 6.23.09 @ 10:05AM
What else can we expect from a man who voted "present" 130 times when he was a Senator. Courage is not his strong point. We should have elected John McCain. At least we know he's been tested and bravery is not unfamiliar to him. No longer can we call America the "home of the brave," not as long as we have the lawyer-in-chief heading up our country.
Siegfried X| 6.23.09 @ 10:20AM
Anyone can "win" an argument by defining terms. However in the real world, there are neo-cons, and John McCain, a Christian, is one of them.
Siegfried X| 6.23.09 @ 10:34AM
A non-interventionist doesn't want his country's army to fight for any nation besides his own. All other nations are treated equally.
Yet when he says we shouldn't fight on behalf of a Jewish country, he is called an anti-semite. When he says we shouldn't fight on behalf of Moslem countries, he is said to be prejudiced against Islam. When he doesn't want to fight on behalf of a country of people of a different color, he is called a racist.
Any non-interventionist quickly learns not to be manipulated by name-calling. The lives of the troops in his country depend on it.
mmw| 6.23.09 @ 12:38PM
Human rights, anyone? Where the hell is noted historian/political scientist/climatologist,,,um, Bono? Where is the outrage? A government is killing and torturing its own citizens and the good, kind, tolerant, "raising awareness," amnesty-international-sticker-on-the-volvo npr junkies are oddly silent.
S.L. Toddard| 6.23.09 @ 2:56PM
"A government is killing and torturing its own citizens and the good, kind, tolerant, "raising awareness," amnesty-international-sticker-on-the-volvo npr junkies are oddly silent"
That's not true. They are still demanding accountability for the US torture regime and gulag system.
Siegfried X| 6.23.09 @ 3:11PM
Human rights is a liberal idea, something championed by Jimmy Carter. All the outrage in the world wouldn't stop a criminal from hurting his victims; it takes action.
ds80| 6.23.09 @ 6:38PM
Red, you mentioned a few characteristics of what you think is NOT conservatism, but you did not define conservatism.
If you would, please contrast for us neo-con and con.
jerryofva| 6.23.09 @ 6:42PM
Siegfried:
I thought about trying to actually answer your post but then I realized that anybody who thinks John McCain fits the definition of neo-Conservative doesn't have the IQ of a grapefruit.
Here is test question for you and I won't play stump the chump.
Is Joe Lieberman a neo-Conservative?
(Hint: His voting record is to the left of Hillary Clinton)
S.L. Toddard| 6.23.09 @ 6:44PM
Just so we're on the same page here: What you people are pouting about is a lack of empty talk and grandstanding from the president, correct? How would empty talk and grandstanding benefit U.S. international relations, and how (on earth) *could* it benefit the protesters?
It's fairly clear that it's about nothing more than your desire for a dramatic, empty gesture to wave your flag over.
mmv| 6.23.09 @ 8:24PM
Hey S.L., I'm talking about Iran. Stick to the subject, hippie.
Richard Baker| 6.25.09 @ 2:29AM
Obama must not have been much of a Constitutional scholar if he vehemently disagrees with so much of it. Remember, during the campaign he said that the Constitution was "too limiting". Really? And he doesn't know that it was designed that way to thwart potential tyrants? This is a "scholar"?
Andrew Pall| 12.30.09 @ 8:45AM
Thanks for sharing this.
Buy Thesis
Courseworks
Andrew Paul| 12.30.09 @ 8:50AM
Keep up the good work.
writing assignment | Essays
Andrew Pall| 12.30.09 @ 8:51AM
online writing
miksterb| 5.25.11 @ 3:21PM
Remember, during the campaign he said that the Constitution was "too limiting"
coach backpack
miksterb| 5.25.11 @ 3:22PM
Remember, during the campaign he said that the Constitution was "too limiting"
coach backpack
michaljiran| 7.12.11 @ 8:34AM
nuclear weapons are not issue of Iran only. more country needs strictly action from US because nuclear weapons thread of terrorist specially Asia.university essays
Pink Limousines | 11.12.11 @ 4:26AM
Pink Limousines
Hi George. If I were America, it would be an honor to be considered as a world leader. Knowing many other countries are looking through your footsteps and following after you. Though it's a huge responsibility, America has everything it takes. Thanks for posting this here.
hair care product | 11.22.11 @ 10:19AM
Hair Care Product
Hi author, You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to be really something that I think I would never understand. It seems too complicated and extremely broad for me.