Under Obama, World Sees America Toothless As An Enemy, Treacherous As A Friend

AmericanPowerBlog has an article entitled “Barack Obama’s European Apology Tour” that does a fine job of cataloging the sheer number of times Barry Hussein sought to point out what a horrible country we’ve been. I have my own offering focusing on the irony of Obama going to France of all possible places to apologize for American arrogance.

At the same event in which Obama took it upon himself to announce to the famously humble French how profoundly sorry he was for America’s past arrogance, Barack Obama also shared his vision for “a world without nuclear weapons.”

This would possibly be a relatively innocuous thing for an American president to say (does anyone really dream of a world filled to the brim with nuclear weapons?), except for the fact that even as Obama makes this proclamation, Iran – the terrorist state which already has enough material to build fifty nuclear bombs – is busy at work developing a nuclear weapons capability, while North Korea in defiance to the United States and the United Nations tests ballistic missile technology to one day send a nuclear device hurtling through the heavens to launch the third and final world war.

Given these events, Obama’s vision of a world without nukes sounds as bizarre, naive, and deluded as the housewife’s dream of a beautiful and clean home while her husband is having an affair, her son is becoming addicted to heroin, and her daughter is having sex with every boy in school singly and in groups. Note to Obama: please wake up and smell reality!

And with all the apologies to the world on behalf of America’s abject depravity (all committed before Obama, of course), and with all of his sharing of his vision to beat American swords into plowshares even as he guts the US defense budget to make more room for his social spending programs, the question is: how do the terrorists and tyrants of the world view this?

The answer, in a single word, is “weak.”

I can’t help but recall Joe Biden’s prediction that the world would test Obama with “a generated (international) crisis to test the mettle of this guy.”

Biden – who during the Democratic campaign had declared of Obama that “I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training” (and who stood by the remark when confronted by it) – went on to say of the “generated crisis”:

I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.”“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision’.”

Given Obama’s incredibly weak presentation abroad, with all of his apologies and with all of his dreams of a de-weaponized world while our worst enemies arm themselves to the teeth, we can pretty well guarantee that there will be many more “tests.” If YOU were a tyrant or terrorist, would YOU fear Obama’s response?

Let us contrast Obama’s apology tour with a moment during the presidency of George Bush as related by Mark Steyn:

George W. Bush gave a speech about Iraq last week, and in the middle of it he did something long overdue: He attempted to appropriate the left’s most treasured all-purpose historical analogy. Indeed, Vietnam is so ubiquitous in the fulminations of politicians, academics and pundits that we could really use anti-trust legislation to protect us from shopworn historical precedents. But, in the absence thereof, the president has determined that we might at least learn the real “lessons of Vietnam.”

“Then as now, people argued the real problem was America’s presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end,” Bush told the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention Aug. 22. “Many argued that if we pulled out there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people … . A columnist for the New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: ‘It’s difficult to imagine,’ he said, ‘how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.’ A headline on that story, dateline Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: ‘Indochina Without Americans: For Most a Better Life.’ The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be.”

I don’t know about “the world,” but apparently a big chunk of America still believes in these “misimpressions.” As the New York Times put it, “In urging Americans to stay the course in Iraq, Mr. Bush is challenging the historical memory that the pullout from Vietnam had few negative repercussions for the United States and its allies.”

Well, it had a “few negative repercussions” for America’s allies in South Vietnam, who were promptly overrun by the North. And it had a “negative repercussion” for former Cambodian Prime Minister Sirik Matak, to whom the U.S. ambassador sportingly offered asylum. “I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion,” Matak told him. “I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty … . I have committed this mistake of believing in you, the Americans.” So Sirik Matak stayed in Phnom Penh and a month later was killed by the Khmer Rouge, along with about 2 million other people. If it’s hard for individual names to linger in the New York Times’ “historical memory,” you’d think the general mound of corpses would resonate.

America’s critics in Vietnam continue to attack America for the war in Vietnam; but they never once owned up to the millions of deaths that resulted from their demand for an American withdrawal and abandonment of its commitment to South Vietnam.

President Bush didn’t “apologize” for Vietnam, a war that a Democrat started, and a Republican ended. He stood up for his country and explained why American actions had been necessary. Bush explained how America’s critics had not only been wrong, but tragically wrong. But as we all witnessed this past weak – I mean week – that just aint how Obama rolls.

On March 19 a senior-level Israeli general got the ice-cold treatment when he went to Washington to have preplanned scheduled meetings with various American officials. The only way he could have been more insulted was if he had been slapped in the face:

WASHINGTON — Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi cut short his visit to Washington after getting an extraordinarily cool reception from the new U.S. administration.

Last year, Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi had no problem setting up meetings with top officials in the U.S. government.

On his current trip to Washington, Ashkenazi sought to meet the administration of President Barack Obama, but most officials were unavailable. A statement to WorldTribune.com by the Israel Defense Forces spokesman attempted to downplay the snubs.

Let me ask you a serious question: do you seriously think this unforgivable reception of a senior-level Israeli general didn’t have anything to do with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement a couple weeks later on April 1?

In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and quickly — or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself. “The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.”

The liberal Atlantic entitled its story, “Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran – Or I will.”

Let me assure you of one thing: if Israel attacks Iran, the fact that the Obama administration snidely gave Israel a cold shoulder will be a significant factor in Israel’s decision to attack. It won’t just be because Israel doesn’t think that Obama will deal with Israel; it will be because Obama sent the message that the United States was no longer a friend of Israel, and that Israel could not count on its relationship with the United States. And if Israel attacks Iran, the world will see an “international crisis” such has never been seen.

If Israel attacks Iran, don’t blame Israel; blame Barack Hussein. That cold-shouldered, pointless snubbing of General Ashkenazi may well go down as the most utterly stupid act in world history.

Israel has no reason to trust the United States with Barack Hussein as its president. With the singular exception of Britain, no country has enjoyed a closer relationship with the United States than Israel. But no longer.

So don’t think that I’m not already saying – to quote Vice President Biden – “‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision.”

Just over a year ago, Democrats were ripping Bush for claiming that Iran was building nuclear weapons which posed a threat to the world. Now we know how truly wrong they were, as Iran has recently been revealed to have enough material to build fifty nuclear bombs. Is Israel now supposed to trust one of those Democrats – who also tried to undermine the American surge strategy that brought about victory in Iraq – for its national survival?

And Israel is by no means the only ally and friend that Barack Obama has left twisting in the wind. After courageously standing up against a Russia which recently invaded one of its former republics for having the audacity to oppose Russian hegemony in the region (a goal Obama would share if he was wise), Poland has now placed itself in Russia’s gun sights by aligning itself with the United States. And now Barack Obama is considering reneging on an American commitment to an ally.

Mark Steyn, citing Vietnam and the lesson learned by our enemies as an example, writes:

But if you lived in Damascus and Moscow and Havana, the Vietnam war was about America: American credibility, American purpose, American will. For our enemies today, it still is. Osama bin Laden made a bet – that, notwithstanding the T-shirt slogan, “These Colors Do Run”: They ran from Vietnam, and they ran from the helicopters in the desert, and from Lebanon and Somalia – and they will run from Iraq and Afghanistan, because that is the nature of a soft, plump ersatz-superpower that coils up in the fetal position if you prick its toe. Even Republicans like Sen. John Warner seem peculiarly anxious to confirm the bin Laden characterization.

Osama bin Laden was emboldened by his understanding of America’s lack of credibility, of purpose, of will, to issue his “Declaration of War Against the Americans” in 1996. Obama cited the American retreat from Somalia and said:

“You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear,” he said. “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.

We have seen in the last decade the decline of American power and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars, but unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut in 1983 when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia (in 1993).”

Bin Laden also went on American television to say of the Somalia debacle and retreat, “This proves the U.S. is a paper tiger.”

And the same liberal mentality that decried and sought to abandon the American commitment to Vietnam; the same liberal mentality that slunk away from Somalia in 1993, is now in power again.

While Russia and China escalate their military spending, Obama is dramatically reducing ours:

“For all of his lavish new spending plans, President Obama is making one major exception: defense. His fiscal 2010 budget telegraphs that Pentagon spending is going to be under pressure in the years going forward…

More ominously, Mr. Obama’s budget has overall defense spending falling sharply starting in future years…”

Think about it: our most powerful threats in the world are increasing their military budgets; we are currently fighting two wars; Iran has enough materiel to build fifty nukes, and is determined to finally have the capability to turn Israel into atomic ashes; Israel is demanding that Obama deal with Iran’s nuclear threat or they will; North Korea is sending ballistic missiles into the sky in open defiance of the US and the world: and Barack Hussein Obama is making enormous cuts in the military budget!!!

To quote Mark Steyn again, “Professor Bernard Lewis’ dictum would be self-evident: ‘America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.'”

At least it certainly appears to be shaping up as such under the presidency of Barack Obama.

2 Responses to “Under Obama, World Sees America Toothless As An Enemy, Treacherous As A Friend”

  1. ian bragg Says:


  2. Michael Eden Says:

    I mock you liberals, who have absolutely nothing to offer but the sheer determination to rely upon ad hominem. That’s all you’ve got. You’d be ashamed, if you had the capacity for shame.

    Let me quote a doctrinaire and highly successful liberal and see if my title is “idiotic” or not:
    Mortimer Zuckerman (and see his bio here):

    Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”

    I pity you, Ian. God created you a human being; but you preferred to be a cockroach instead.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: