Obama's Foreign-Policy Reversals

Obama's foreign-policy reversals involve at lot more than his statement about returning Israel to pre-1967 borders:

What Obama Believes?

I was looking through some magazines that had piled up and found this essay by Fareed Zakaria in Time. From "When Terror Loses Its Grip":

...There are, of course, many differences between Hitler and bin Laden. But one great similarity holds. Hitler's death marked the end of the Nazi challenge from Germany. And bin Laden's death will mark the end of the global threat of al-Qaeda.

[...]

[Al Qaeda's] founding rationale has been shattered by the Arab Spring of this year. Al-Qaeda believed that the only way to topple the dictatorships of the Arab world was through violence, that participation in secular political processes was heretical and that people wanted and would cheer an Islamic regime. Over the past few months, millions in the Arab world have toppled regimes relatively peacefully, and what they have sought was not a caliphate, not a theocracy, but a modern democracy.

[...]

Along the way, the efforts at nation building have tarnished the image of the American military. The world's greatest fighting force was shown to be unable to deliver stability to Iraq and Afghanistan, had to deal with scandals like the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and saw its soldiers losing their once high morale. May 1 changed all that. The image of a smart, wise and supremely competent U.S. has flashed across the globe. The lesson should be clear. An America that uses its military power less promiscuously, more intelligently and in a targeted and focused manner might once again gain the world's respect and fear, if not affection. And an America that can provide a compelling picture of a modern, open society will be a far more attractive model for Arabs than Osama bin Laden's vision of a backward medieval caliphate.

Apparently, Fareed Zakaria, to some extent, advises Obama with regard to foreign policy:


Newsbusters has more information, including a backpedaling statement from Zakaria.

But here's my point: If you read the article in Time Magazine, you will note similarities between what Zakaria has written and Obama's foreign policy.

Also note Zakaria's reaction to Obama's speech of May 19:

It was his role as educator in chief that came out today. He provided a kind of world view, almost a historical interpretation of the causes and consequences of the Arab Spring. He began in the beginning with Tunisia and moved forward. And he tried to present a way in which he saw America's interests and values as squarely aligned with this Arab revolution.

He touched on the places that we don't like - the regimes we don't like that are having trouble dealing with people, Tehran and Damascus. He also talked about Bahrain and Yemen. But you are right, of course, he didn't talk about the 800-pound gorilla that is Saudi Arabia.

But he also then went on to talk about ways to consolidate these revolutions; he talked about the Arab-Israeli peace process. He was tougher on Syria than he's been. He was more explicit in his - in his support for two states, Israel and Palestine on 1967 borders, plus mutually agreeable land swaps, so very comprehensive.

So, I thought he was quite even-handed while calling for a Palestinian state on '67 borders, plus or minor land swaps. He also recognized Israel's legitimate security needs, so I'd be surprised if there is too much criticism out of Tel Aviv tonight....

Please take time to watch the video of Zakaria's statement:


Ace of Spades on Zakaria and Obama:

Zakaria has the worst conflict of interest possible -- ego. If an egotistical, ambitious "reporter" thinks his opinions are being considered by the president (and no, I don't believe this was just the White House telling Zakaria stuff; I think they flattered him by asking advice), then he's flattered, and he thinks he's on the team, and therefore he is invested in His Team's success (or perception of such).

[...]

Gee, no wonder Zakaria thinks that every move of Obama's is brilliant. Obama's got him thinking he's implementing the Zakaria Agenda for Success. Of course Zakaria approves of Zakaria.

Should we care what Zakaria says? Yes, insofar as Zakaria is often read by those leaning left. After all, in many circles, Zakaria is a respected journalist and does exert at least some influence on the American electorate.

And if Zakaria is advising Obama to any extent whatsoever, we should care very much what Zakaria believes.

Hamas Dissatisfied

Graphic - Israel and the surrounding area:
On May 19, 2011, Obama delivered his second outreach speech to the Islamic world. In his speech, Obama proposed that Israel return to pre-1967 borders as a gesture of peace to the Pseudostinians and to further the two-state solution.

Predictably, instead of a willingness to negotiate with Israel, Hamas has dubbed Obama's speech as "total failure." From this source:

President Barack Obama's Mideast policy speech Thursday was a "total failure," Hamas said Thursday evening.

"The (Arab) nation does not need a lesson on democracy from Obama," said Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, Sami Abu-Zuhri. "Rather, Obama is the one who needs the lesson given his absolute endorsement of Israel's crimes and his refusal to condemn Israel's occupation."

"We will not recognize the Israeli occupation under any circumstances," the Hamas spokesman said, while adding: "We object to intervention in our internal affairs.

Congressman Allen West's press release yesterday explains what a return to pre-1967 borders would mean for the nation of Israel:

"Today's endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.

From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City, controlled by Jordan's Arab army.

The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world's Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism...."

Read the rest of Congressman West's statement HERE.

Surely, Obama has read The Charter of Hamas! In part, that charter, the mission statement of Hamas, reads as follows in Article 28:

...The Arab states surrounding Israel are required to open their borders to the Jihad fighters, the sons of the Arab and Islamic peoples, to enable them to play their role and to join their efforts to those of their brothers among the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The other Arab and Islamic states are required, at the very least, to facilitate the movement of the Jihad fighters from and to them. We cannot fail to remind every Muslim that when the Jews occupied Holy Jerusalem in 1967 and stood at the doorstep of the Blessed Aqsa Mosque, they shouted with joy: “Muhammad is dead, he left daughters behind.” Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims....

According to Dore Gold, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations:

"Frankly, the 1967 lines are not defensible. Israel today is 45 miles wide, you put us back to the 1967 lines, we are 8 miles wide. The state of Israel can’t be defended with those dimensions."

Why in the world did Obama propose that Israel return to pre-1967 borders? What are his motives in making such a statement?

Additional reading: Silverfiddles's essay "Is Obama Stupid, an Israel Hater, or Both?"

Chicago-Style Politics All The Way

From the Daily Caller:

Nearly 20 percent of new Obamacare waivers are gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Nancy Pelosi’s district

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers....

Wikipedia's definition of Chicago-style politics:

Chicago-style politics is a byword used to designate a set of characteristics associated to the less commendable aspects of the recent political history of the American city of Chicago, Illinois, (i.e., corruption, patronage, nepotism, authoritarianism) which is often cited as an example of blatant corruption.

Will enough Americans see the Obama administration for what it is to vote him and his fellow Democrats out of office in 2012? Or will Obama succeed in handing out enough special favors so as to regain the Oval Office in 2012? The Chicago Political Machine was quite successful at holding power.

Obama's Dissatisfaction

Caught on an open microphone on April 14, Obama said the following:

...Obama [...] weighed in on the performance of rank-and-file federal employees, saying it is “striking ... how generally smart and dedicated” federal workers are, according to Knoller.

But Obama added that some government workers “are slugs and not trying to do their job.”

Sounding like a teeny bopper, Obama also complained about another matter while caught on that open mic:

"I always thought I was gonna have like really cool phones and stuff," he said during a Q&A session with contributors to his re-election campaign.

"We can't get our phones to work." Acting out his exasperation, he said: "Come on, guys. I'm the president of the United States! Where's the fancy buttons and stuff and the big screen comes up?..."

Obama also expressed dissatisfaction when asked questions he didn't like or expect, or when an interviewer corrected Obama's misstatements.

Furthermore, Obama apparently wasn't satisfied with the early versions of the story of the killing of Osama bin Laden. As a result, there appeared changed and divergent versions of that account as well as specially-posed photographs to publicize the death of Osama bin Laden and, most importantly, to portray Obama as Presidential. Is Obama satisfied now? Not likely as he hasn't really sprouted a halo.

The Obama administration might as well discard "Hail to the Chief" and use the following as the official theme song:


Possibly, Obama can get some satisfaction by losing the election in 2012 and, thus, go back to anonymity.

Additional reading: "Obama's Likability Gap."

More Fakery From The Obama Administration

With thanks to Will, from this article by Andrew Malcolm in the LA Times:

P.S. Turns out now, those photos of Obama giving his 'I caught Bin Laden' speech were faked

Could the Obama White House communications folks have found anything else to step in over the presentation this week of their boss and the dramatic recounting and re-recounting of the execution and really rapid remains disposal of Osama bin Laden?

It turns out now that all of the non-White House still photographs of the president's dramatic entrance down the hall into the East Room and the late Sunday evening speech itself were faked.

They were not taken during the actual event, which was photographed only by official White House photographer Pete Souza during the live TV broadcast.

The widely distributed press photographs were, in fact, shot during a reenactment of the entrance, the firm presidential strides down the carpeted hall and the speaking by the president right after the real event...

These staged news photos were immediately flashed around the world for millions to see with varying captions about the president reading his statement for photographers, distinctions that may well have been lost in translations and publications.

It is a minor matter unless truth is a concern....

Read the rest HERE.

Perhaps staging photos is not of great significance. But why would the Obama administration bother doing so? And why can't the Obama administration be less concerned with burnishing Obama's image and more concerned with governing?

The faking of these photographs serves only to contribute to the growing conspiracy theories related to the death of Osama bin Laden.

Additional reading: Does America even know what courage is anymore? and worth your time.

Hat tip to Z for the graphic to close this post: