More about the Obama-Medvedev open-mic moment

March 27, 2012

Yesterday, while writing about the president’s inadvertent moment of transparency during his talks with Russian President Medvedev, in which Obama offered that he could be more flexible regarding missile defense after his reelection, I wondered the following:

Or maybe it’s the interests of others? This should make all those former possessions of the Soviet empire feel real secure.

Turns out we didn’t have to wait long to find out the truth in that. A headline in a major Polish tabloid read (translated)

“Were they trading Poland? Puzzling Obama talk with Medvedev about the missile shield.”

You can see the original at Buzzfeed, via Hot Air.

Poland has an unfortunate history of being the meat on the carving board whenever other great powers deal with Russia; Obama’s 2009 sellout over missile defense was only the most recent example. Now with Obama asking for “space” so he can be more flexible later, I don’t blame the Poles nor anyone else in Russia’s “near abroad” for being nervous. I’d be looking for a target on my back, too.

Meanwhile, with yesterday’s “nothing to see here, move along” statements apparently not convincing many people, Obama himself stepped before the cameras (this time knowing the mic was on) to insist he wasn’t hiding anything:

A defensive President Obama said Tuesday he wasn’t guilty of “hiding the ball” when an open microphone caught him pleading with the president of Russia to delay missile shield talks until after this year’s elections.

“The only way I get this stuff done is If I’m consulting with the Pentagon, with Congress, if I’ve got bipartisan support and frankly, the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a nuclear security summit here. “This is not a matter of hiding the ball.”

(…)

“What I said yesterday … is something that I think everyone in this room understands,” the president said. “Arms control is extraordinarily complex, very technical, and the only way it gets done is if you can consult and build a strong understanding, both between countries and within countries.”

Shorter Obama: “Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying ears?”

Like I wrote yesterday, I understand political difficulties in an election year. But consulting Congress and the Pentagon isn’t what Obama was talking about in his tete-a-tete with Medvedev. He was specifically asking for “space” with the promise that he himself could be more flexible next year regarding Kremlin demands, when he would no longer be accountable to the voters. It wasn’t a simple “let’s wait until next year when US politics are calmer to talk about these things,” it was a plea for Russian help for Obama’s reelection effort. As Andrew Malcom of IBD put it, it was “backstage conniving.”

And lest anyone say this is just Right-wing panic over nothing, consider the president’s record with Russia: the embarrassing reset moment; the horrible deal in 2010 in the latest START treaty; the appeasement over missile defense in 2009 at the cost of betraying allies; and the flaccid reaction to Russian arms sales to Hugo Chavez, an avowed American enemy; the willingness to give up British nuclear secrets. I’m sure there are other moments of Smart Power that illustrate the same point: far from having a clear vision of America’s national interests, Obama is intellectually trapped in an outdated worldview that sees a dominant United States as part of the problem, not the best hope for a peaceful, prosperous world. His foreign policy is dangerous because it is dangerously naive.

That’s why critics don’t trust his whispered sidebar conversations with our traditional enemies: a leftist ideology married to alarming naivete is a recipe for disaster.

And that’s one big reason he has to go in November.

UPDATE: It figures. Democrats are just fine with Obama’s whispered words and approvingly cite President Medvedev (!) to bash Mitt Romney.  But they’ll scream bloody murder when we question their patriotism because of it.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


I’ve never believed the “Obama is a secret Muslim” nonsense, but…

August 11, 2011

He is either appallingly naive about the religion or is doing his usual “say anything they need to hear to like me” act. Regardless, the kind of meaningless pabulum he served at the White House Iftar dinner last night is just jaw-dropping:

Welcoming guests at the annual White House Iftaar party, US President Barack Obama said, Islam has always been part of the American family and Muslim Americans have long contributed to the strength and character of our country in all walks of life.

Attended by some 100 special invited guests including ambassadors of mostly Muslim countries and eminent Muslim academicians and community leaders, Akram Syed of the National Association of Indian Muslims was among the few Indian-Americans to attend the high-profile annual event at the White House.

Other special guests included families of Muslim victims of the 9/11 attacks, as well as Muslim members of the US Armed Services.

Obama said the annual Ramadan dinner, a tradition that President Clinton began and President George W Bush continued, is quintessentially American.

“No matter who we are or how we pray, we’re all children of a loving God,” he said.

Tell that to the Copts in Egypt, Mr. President. And that’s just one example of the nearly 1,400-year legacy of Islam’s jihad against everyone else.

That quote is just the start. For more, and for a detailed deconstruction of the President’s blather, visit Jihad Watch.

PS: To clarify, I am not questioning the loyalty of Americans who practice Islam but who don’t seek to impose Sharia law here or wage jihad against the United States, and I especially do not question the loyalty and honor of the many Muslims who have served and do serve in the military. It is with Islam itself and its doctrines of (to name a few) jihad, Jew-hatred, female inferiority, enmity toward the outsider, and the supremacy of Sharia that I have deep problems.

PPS: Regarding Obama’s religious beliefs, if he has any, in my opinion he is most attracted to the Black Liberation Theology preached by James Cone, Cornel West, and Jeremiah Wright. (Although I’m not above believing that his time in Wright’s church was wholly cynical, and that Obama’s only real “religion” is himself.)

via Weasel Zippers, which has video.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The most naive president in US History

April 12, 2010

The Telegraph’s Nile Gardiner give ten reasons why he believes Barack Obama surpasses even Jimmy Carter and Woodrow Wilson as the most naive American president, ever. Here’s the first:

1. Obama believes unilateral disarmament will achieve a nuclear-free world

The Obama administration may dream of a day when the world is free of nuclear weapons, but its lofty vision bears no relation to the realities of the modern world. Even the president of France believes that President Obama needs to live in the real world, not a virtual one, which is a rather damning indictment of US leadership. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Washington’s decision to cut its nuclear arsenal will encourage the likes of Iran and North Korea to disarm, and history has shown that a unilateral policy of disarmament will not prompt tyrannical regimes to change their behaviour.

Far from it. Self-abasement will only encourage international thugs.

Have a look at the rest. I find it hard to disagree with any of them.


The Left’s rude awakening

December 23, 2009

David Freddoso on naive liberals being hit with a clue-bat over ObamaCare:

Principled, respectable liberals are hopelessly naive about government and its inherent shortcomings. When they see government money wasted and large corporations buying influence, they earnestly call for more rules — Transparency! Reform! Campaign finance regulations! — as though no one will find away around the new rules. As though the ongoing game of government plunder in Washington is any less damaging to our nation when we’re able to watch it happen in high definition.

That explains the Left’s rude awakening on Obamacare. In the legislative process, liberals have seen their juicy steaks devoured by savage beasts. They fail to appreciate that they caused this problem by placing their precious cattle in the middle of a wolf pack.


Quote of the day

October 16, 2009

Charles Krauthammer on the Obama Administration’s pathetic conduct of foreign affairs:

Henry Kissinger once said that the main job of Anatoly Dobrynin, the perennial Soviet ambassador to Washington, was to tell the Kremlin leadership that whenever they received a proposal from the United States that appeared disadvantageous to the United States, not to assume it was a trick.

No need for a Dobrynin today. The Russian leadership, hardly believing its luck, needs no interpreter to understand that when the Obama team clownishly rushes in bearing gifts and “reset” buttons, there is nothing ulterior, diabolical, clever or even serious behind it. It is amateurishness, wrapped in naivete, inside credulity. In short, the very stuff of Nobels.

It’s a stinging indictment based on the revelation during Secretary of State Clinton’s trip to Moscow this week that the Administration truly got nothing from Moscow in return for backstabbing Eastern Europe over missile defense – nothing, that is, other than a humiliating slap in the face.

And why anyone seriously thinks Hillary is more qualified than Obama is beyond me, particularly when it comes to foreign affairs. During the campaign, she looked accomplished only by comparison to the utter naif who eventually beat her to the nomination. Considered on her own… Well, her performance since taking office says all that’s needed.

Our nation’s foreign policy is in the hands of New Left, neo-McGovernite incompetents who would make Henry Wallace proud. It’s going to be a long few years until 2012, and I only hope disaster doesn’t strike in the meantime.

Nailbiting