The world just loves that Barack Obama, the lamestream media keeps telling us, and they love America because of Obama.
Other than the fact that they don’t.
Source: Global Times
December 29 2009]French President Nicolas Sarkozy has gone cold on his US counterpart Barack Obama, the Financial Times (FT) reported Monday.
Sarkozy, whose pro-Washington stance has seen him nicknamed “Sarko the American,” stressed that France and the US were “the same family” during his first face-to-face meeting with Obama in April since the US elections last year.
But the French president has clashed since then with his US counterpart on a series of issues, raising the question of whether Sarkozy is reverting to the anti-US posture of his predecessor, Jacques Chirac.
“He has now shifted from a pro-Bush position to an anti-Obama position,” the FT quoted Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, international affairs spokesman for the opposition Socialists, as saying.
Obama’s irritation with his French counterpart began when Sarkozy tried to grab the limelight at the G20 summit in London in April and talked condescendingly of the US President in private.
Sarkozy told colleagues that he found Obama to be inexperienced and unbriefed, especially on climate change, according to The Times of London.
In September, the French president expressed his frustration over how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the priority that Obama attaches to the long-term goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.
The French government also refused a US request to send more troops to Afghanistan, while several other European allies are planning to do so.
The French press often publishes Sarkozy’s unflattering comments about Obama’s lack of prior government experience, his alleged difficulty in reaching decisions or his domestic electoral setbacks.
“The paradox of the situation is that in terms of the relationship with the US, he can do a Chirac in that he can criticize the Americans but he can do it from a position that is 180 degrees different from Chirac,” the FT quoted François Heisbourg, an adviser to the Foundation for Strategic Research, a Paris-based think tank, as saying.
“He can play to a habitual anti-American standpoint but not from a position that is fundamentally anti-American,” he added.
Agencies – Global Times
“Pro-Bush position”? “Anti-Obama position”? Blasphemy!!! “Objective” journalists across the nation tear their robes at this crime against He-Who-Makes-Their-Legs-Quiver.
This “anti-Obama position” didn’t just happen overnight. It began with Obama’s reckless spending plan also known as the stimulus. Many leaders of European countries that had already seen the socialist road to hell did not want to go over it again, as Obama demanded:
But it is not just Canada where the unemployed are faring better. Other countries, too, decided against a massive stimulus plan. In March, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel nodding in agreement at his side, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared: “the problem is not about spending more.” Later that month, the president of the European Union, Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek of the Czech Republic, castigated the Obama administration’s deficit spending and bank bailouts as “a road to hell.” The Washington Post wrote that there was a “fundamental divide that persists between the United States and many European countries over the best way to respond to the global financial crisis.”
The unemployment rate in the European Union was higher than in the United States to begin with even before the Obama administration’s spending. By January, the EU unemployment rate stood at 8.5 percent — almost a whole percentage point higher than ours. So what has happened since the big U.S. stimulus spending spree was passed? We more than caught up with the EU’s high unemployment rate. By August, the last month data is available for the EU, the U.S.’s unemployment rate slightly exceeded the EU’s — 9.7 versus 9.6 percent.
And of course the leaders of Europe were right, and Obama is an inexperienced, unqualified, and incompetent socialist nincompoop. And watching your fellow leader on the other side of the pond fail doesn’t inspire either confidence or camaraderie.
Another issue has been the unrelenting march of Iran toward nuclear weapons while Obama dithered, pontificated, and showed his weakness while many European leaders are after years FINALLY beginning to understand the threat of a nuclear Iran. From an article I wrote months ago:
And Obama is displaying his steely resolve…
Western diplomats had initially said the international powers would not accept any attempt to drag out the negotiations beyond Friday.
However, the United States said that it was now prepared to wait for Iran’s reply.
… by showing even less resolve than France. In answer to the question, “Why Is a World Leader Distancing Himself From President Obama?”:
One major sticking point has been President Obama’s softer stance on Iran, while President Sarkozy prefers a more hawkish approach. Sarkozy said last month: “I support America’s outstretched hand. But what has the international community gained from these offers of dialogue? Nothing but more enriched uranium and centrifuges.”
This on top of other remarks Sarkozy has made about Obama’s naivete and weakness:
Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”
Even pantywaist Europe is calling Obama a pantywaist. And that is the definition of “pathetic.”
Our enemies have been smelling a weakling in the White House since Obama won the election. Obama talked tough when he had to to win the election, but that tough talk was always a lie.
And of course Obama’s “deadline” for Iran to suspend its nuclear program has now come and gone without so much as a whimper from Obama.
With such profound differences on how to rebuild their economies and take care of their people (or not), and on how to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and protect their people (or not), you can see why the honeymoon might be over. Just because a thrill goes up Chris Matthews leg doesn’t mean that one goes up Nicholas Sarkozy’s.
Well, at least the terrorists don’t dare attack us under the beloved Obama.
Oops, wait a second. I guess we’ve had a dozen attempted terrorist attacks in 2009, including two that were completely undetected on Obama’s watch. Versus years of being safe under George Bush after he took measures (which Obama dismantled) to keep the country safe.
Not to mention two successful domestic jihadist terrorist attacks in 2009 that resulted in the deaths of Americans.
Obama vowed to completely and fundamentally change the way the world views the United States, and inspire global cooperation. But when it comes to Europe, Obama gets to talk to the hand. Obama wants Europe to massively tighten its security. But it appears he’s fixating on the splinter in Europe’s eye rather than the gigantic log in his own:
NEWARK (CBS) ― It’s a tale of shocking ineptitude: CBS 2 has learned a series of missteps unnecessarily added to the mayhem at Newark Liberty International Airport on Sunday. The six-hour delay stranded thousands of people, creating extreme crowding and chaos.
The mistakes made at the airport give new meaning to the term “domino effect.” It was a cascading series of missteps that cry out for action.
The sign at the Transportation Security Administration screening post at Newark read: “Premises Under Constant Video Surveillance.”
What it should add is: “If We’re Lucky.”
The Post and Courier has this to say about Dear Leader Obama’s handling of the war on terror – oops – make that the “overseas contingency operation” (sans the “overseas” part):
President Obama replaced the top intelligence professionals installed by President Bush on the grounds that they were tainted by what he considered the unethical practices of the last administration in fighting the war on terror. He damaged morale in the intelligence community by reopening a closed investigation of allegations of detainee mistreatment. President Obama has shunned the very concept of a war and has shown a preference for treating terrorist attacks as criminal acts.
Whether the president’s actions gave terrorists an advantage isn’t obvious, but this year for the first time in eight years there have been two undetected terrorist attacks on the United States. The first came on Nov. 5 at Fort Hood, Texas, when Army Maj. Malik Hassan killed 13 and wounded 30 in an attack apparently inspired by radical Muslim views. Hassan was known by U.S. intelligence to be in frequent contact with Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, the same man said to have counseled the unsuccessful Christmas Day bomber.
How’s that “the world loves us now because Obama is president” thing working for you?
I remember the words of Janet Napolitano as she changed “terrorist attack” to “man-caused disaster”:
“In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear…”
There’s still time to use replace “man-caused disasters” with the phrase, “bury-our-heads-in-the-sand-and-hope-it-all-goes-away.”
Maybe “the politics of fear” had the virtue of bearing at least some resemblance to reality.
Hmmm:
Or…
Start Thinking Right 