Archive for the ‘Obama Foreign Policy’ Category

GLOBE AND MAIL: We are now in the 84th day of the bombing campaign that the United Nations Security Council authorized to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya in a bid to protect civilians from Moammar Gadhafi’s forces. In a bizarre development, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has said it will extend the campaign for 90 days, surely a first in the history of war when one side “extends the contract” for a set period. This presumably occurred because NATO’s strategy is still based on the flimsy hope that Colonel Gadhafi will see the error of his ways and capitulate before his surroundings and his supporters are bombed back to the Stone Age.

Read more here >>>

WASHINGTON TIMES: Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.

In two votes — on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures of Mr. Obama — Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether he ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.

The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off.

Read more here >>>

BEN SAYS: Reagan never used force to bring democracy to the Middle East, and showed no interest in that quest. Reagan certainly was not for toppling U.S. allies and turning entire countries over to our enemies, as Obama did in Egypt. Reagan won the Cold War against the expansionist Soviet Union, which was about the long-term survival of freedom and democracy here in America. Mr. Obama, read the book WITNESS by Whittaker Chambers to find out what the Cold War was all about.

What a fatuous fool Obama is. No wonder Obama is such a lousy President. He has no knowledge of history.

USA TODAY: President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron kick off two days of diplomacy this morning by pledging to work against repressive regimes in the Middle East — by force if necessary.

In a sternly worded column in The Times of London, the two leaders liken the effort to free Arab people from authoritarianism to the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall in the 1980s.

They liken their personal efforts to two leaders who came before them: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

Read more here >>>

NILE GARDINER-U.K. TELEGRAPH:

1. Siding with Argentina over the Falklands

For sheer offensiveness it’s hard to beat the Obama administration’s brazen support for Argentina’s call for UN-brokered negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, despite the fact that 255 British servicemen laid down their lives to restore British rule over the Islands after they were brutally invaded in 1982. In a March 2010 press conference in Buenos Aires with President Cristina Kirchner, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Argentina a huge propaganda coup by emphatically backing the position of the Péronist regime.

In June last year, Mrs. Clinton slapped Britain in face again by signing on to an Organisation of American States (OAS) resolution calling for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, a position which is completely unacceptable to Great Britain. To add insult to injury, the Obama administration has insisted on using the Argentine term “Malvinas” to describe the Islands in yet another sop to Buenos Aires.

2. Calling France America’s strongest ally

In January this year, President Obama held a joint press conference at the White House with his French counterpart, literally gushing with praise for Washington’s new-found Gallic friends, declaring: “We don’t have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people.” As I noted at the time:

Quite what the French have done to merit this kind of high praise from the US president is difficult to fathom, and if the White House means what it says this represents an extraordinary sea change in US foreign policy. Nicolas Sarkozy is a distinctly more pro-American president than any of his predecessors, and has been an important ally over issues such as Iran and the War on Terror. But to suggest that Paris and not London is Washington’s strongest partner is simply ludicrous.

These kinds of presidential statements matter. No US president in modern times has described France as America’s closest ally, and such a remark is not only factually wrong but also insulting to Britain, not least coming just a few years after the French famously knifed Washington in the back over the war in Iraq.

3. Downgrading the Special Relationship

Barack Obama very rarely refers to the Special Relationship, and has hardly even mentioned Britain in a major policy speech, either before or since taking office. The Anglo-American alliance is barely a blip on Obama’s teleprompter screen, and he acts as though it simply does not exist. The Special Relationship has also been largely erased from the official lexicon of the State Department, and is barely used by US officials in London. Despite being America’s only major reliable ally when the chips are down, London is now treated in Washington as though it were the same as any other European power, albeit less charitably than either Paris or Berlin.

4. Supporting a federal Europe and undercutting British sovereignty

The Obama administration’s relentless and wrongheaded support for the creation of a federal Europe, from backing the Treaty of Lisbon to the European Security and Defence Policy, is a slap in the face for the principle of national sovereignty in Europe. British sovereignty is non-negotiable, and Obama’s willingness to undermine it is both insulting to Britain and self-defeating for the United States.

While the Bush Administration was divided over Europe, the Obama team is ardently euro-federalist. Hillary Clinton described the Lisbon Treaty as“a major milestone in our world’s history”, and in an interview with The Irish Times in 2009 stated: “I believe [political integration is] in Europe’s interest and I believe that is in the United States’ interest because we want a strong Europe.” And in May last year, Vice President Joe Biden described Brussels as the “capital of the free world.”

And the US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman, has warned Britainthat “all key issues must run through Europe.” According to a report by The Parliament.com, in a private meeting with British MEPs at an event in the European Parliament in January, Susman called for a stronger British commitment to the EU, emphatically warning against British withdrawal:

I want to stress that the UK needs to remain in the EU. The US does not want to see Britain’s role in the EU diminished in any way. The message I want to convey today is that we want to see a stronger EU, but also a stronger British participation within the EU. This is crucial if, together, we are going to meet all the global challenges facing us, including climate change and security.

5. Betraying Britain to appease Moscow over the New START Treaty

In February, The Daily Telegraph broke a major story with damaging implications for the Special Relationship, revealing that Washington “secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty.” According toThe Telegraph report:

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week. Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal. Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

6. Placing a “boot on the throat” of BP

The Obama administration’s relentless campaign against Britain’s largest company in the wake of Gulf oil spill was one of the most damaging episodes in US-UK relations in recent years, with 64 percent of Britonsagreeing that the president’s handling of the issue had harmed the partnership between the two countries according to a YouGov poll. The White House’s aggressive trashing of BP, including a threat to put a “boot on the throat” of the oil giant, helped wipe out about half its share value, directly impacting the pensions of 18 million Britons. This led to a furious backlash in the British press, with even London mayor and long-time Obama admirer Boris Johnson demanding an end to “anti-British rhetoric, buck-passing and name-calling”.

7. Throwing Churchill out of the Oval Office

It is hard to think of a more derogatory message to send to the British people within days of taking office than to fling a bust of Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office and send it packing back to the British Embassy – not least as it was a loaned gift from Britain to the United States as a powerful display of solidarity in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Obviously, public diplomacy is not a concept that carries much weight in the current White House, and nor apparently is common sense.

8. DVDs for the Prime Minister

Readers of this blog will know I’m no fan of Gordon Brown, but whatever one thinks of his third-rate premiership, Brown traveled abroad not as a private individual but as the leader of America’s closest ally. He represented 61 million Britons including the Armed Forces, as well as a huge amount of British trade and investment with the United States. He was however treated shabbily when he visited the White House in March 2009, and denied a Rose Garden press conference as well as a dinner. To cap it all, the decision to send him home with an assortment of 25 DVDs ranging from Toy Story to The Wizard of Oz – which couldn’t even be played in the UK – was a breathtaking display of diplomatic ineptitude that would have shamed the protocol office of an impoverished Third World country.

Read more here >>>

ABC NEWS: In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition’s efforts.”

Read more here >>>

ASSOCIATED PRESS: The U.S. and NATO will continue military operations in Libya as long as Moammar Gadhafi keeps attacking his people, the White House said Friday as top U.S. officials met in Washington with leaders of the Libyan opposition.

President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Tom Donilon, met at the White House with a delegation from the Libyan Transitional National Council, including top representative Mahmoud Jibril. While the U.S. stopped short of recognizing the Council as Libya’s legitimate government, as France and Italy have done, the White House said in a statement following the meeting that the Council is a “credible interlocutor of the Libyan people.”
Obama did not meet with the opposition leaders.

Read more here >>>

WALL STREET JOURNAL: Osama bin Laden was killed by Americans, based on intelligence developed by Americans. That should bring great satisfaction to our citizens and elicit praise for our intelligence community. Seized along with bin Laden’s corpse was a trove of documents and electronic devices that should yield intelligence that could help us capture or kill other terrorists and further degrade the capabilities of those who remain at large.

But policies put in place by the very administration that presided over this splendid success promise fewer such successes in the future. Those policies make it unlikely that we’ll be able to get information from those whose identities are disclosed by the material seized from bin Laden. The administration also hounds our intelligence gatherers in ways that can only demoralize them.

Consider how the intelligence that led to bin Laden came to hand. It began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information—including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.

Read more here >>>

VICTOR DAVIS HANSEN-NATIONAL REVIEW: Here are a few excerpts from President Obama’s speech on Sunday night about the killing of Osama bin Laden.

“Tonight, I can report . . . And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta . . . I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . . I’vemade clear . . . Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear . . . Tonight, Icalled President Zardari . . . and my team has also spoken. . .These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief . . . Finally, let me say to the families . . . I know that it has, at times, frayed. . . .”

Most of these first-person pronouns could have been replaced by either the first-person plural (our, we) or proper nouns (the United States, America). But they reflect a now well-known Obama trait of personalizing the presidency.

The problem of first-personalizing national security is twofold. One, it is not consistent. Good news is reported by Obama in terms of “I”; bad news is delivered as “reset,” “the previous administration,” “in the past”: All good things abroad are due to Obama himself; all bad things are still the blowback from George W. Bush.

Two, there is the small matter of hypocrisy. The protocols for taking out Osama bin Laden were all established by President Bush and all opposed by Senator and then candidate Obama. Yet President Obama never seeks to explain that disconnect; indeed, he emphasizes it by the overuse of the first person. When the president reminds us this week of what “over the years I’ve repeatedly made clear,” does he include his opposition to what he now has institutionalized?

Guantanamo proves to have been important for gathering intelligence; Barack Obama derided it as “a tremendous recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.”

Some key intelligence was found by interrogating prisoners abroad; Barack Obama wished to end that practice: “This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of law.” “That will be my position as president. That includes renditions.” Renditions have not ended under Obama, but expanded.

Read more here >>>

Obama reversed course and did the right thing because reality slapped him upside the head. Code Pink and Michael Moore not happy.

By Ben Hart

We have to give President Obama a certain amount of credit for the killing of Obama bin Laden.

He did it by keeping in place virtually all of George W. Bush’s “War on Terror” policies.

For example, much of the intelligence required to kill bin Laden was gathered from those “enhanced interrogations” at secret CIA prisons for capture terrorists in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

Here’s Obama signing the order to close Gitmo to much fanfare and applause — an order he then rescinded once reality slapped him upside the head.

Here’s what the Obama Administration now admits, in the words of the Associated Press:

Officials say CIA interrogators in secret overseas prisons developed the first strands of information that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden’s most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information Mohammed’s successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.

Quite the turnaround.

President Obama, in his speech last night, and in his usual full narcissistic fashion, took full credit for killing bin Laden.

Listening to Obama, you’d think he planned the attack on bin Laden on his own and carried out the attack on his own. There was a passing mention of the Navy SEALs and intelligence operatives who made it happen. But mostly Obama’s speech was all about Obama.

Naturally, he neglected to thank George W. Bush for the wisdom of Bush’s tough “War on Terror” strategy, and lighting the way for Obama.

Let’s review what George W. Bush had to say at Ground Zero right after the 9-11-2001 attack:

Let’s also review President Bush’s speech to the nation from the Oval Office after the 9-11 attack

Obama won the Presidency in 2011, in part, by attacking President Bush’s “War on Terror” polices.

Obama’s most memorable promise was that he would shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison for terrorists captured overseas.

He would shut down the secret CIA prisons.

He told us over and over again that these methods of fighting bin Laden and al Qaeda just are not in keeping with “our values.”

But there’s not a single Bush policy in the War on Terror or even on Iraq that Obama has discontinued.

If anything, he’s stepped up the “War on Terror.”

We still have more than 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

And Obama’s not batting an eye when one of our predator drones misfires and kills innocent civilians.

We hear no more references to these activities being not in keeping with “our values.”

Obama is now using the “War on Terror” label. He’s even calling these terrorists evil.

Gone are phrases like “man made disasters” and “overseas contingency operations” to describe terrorist attacks.

A brand new tune is being played by Obama. And it sounds very much like George W. Bush’s tune.

Wouldn’t Obama gain in stature if he just admitted George W. Bush actually had it right?

Wouldn’t Obama actually gain stature by admitting he was naive early in his Presidency and that Bush and Cheney understood some things about how to deal with this enemy that Obama overlooked?

Wouldn’t he gain an instant 10 points in the polls if he did exactly this — give credit to George W. Bush?

Some have said that the definition of a neoconservative is “a liberal who has been mugged by reality.”

This may have happened to Obama.

It’s unclear whether his shift toward the Bush Doctrine in the War on Terror is the result of a genuine change of mind, or whether it’s a shift brought on by the reality of the 2012 Election.

Perhaps it’s a combination of both.

He’s even saying “God bless America” now at the end of his speeches . . . a stark contrast to his old habit of omitting God when misquoting America’s Declaration of Independence.

It’s fun to see what happens when an Ivy League liberal meets reality . . . or faces an election.

Rodney King’s “Can’t we all just get along?” question is a nice sentiment, but doesn’t work so well when confronting al Qaeda, Kim Jong Il, or Iran.

Actually, one of two things happen to liberal Presidents. They fail, like Jimmy Carter.  Or they adjust their policies to succeed, as Bill Clinton did.

Obama appears to want success, at least when it comes to the War on Terror.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if he also does a similar 180 degree spin-around on economic policy, admits the errors of his ways, adopts Paul Ryan’s budget, repudiates socialism, and calls for the repeal of ObamaCare?

Silly thought.  But he would gain at least another 10 points in the polls if he did exactly that.

Americans love it when someone admits they were wrong . . . because it shows they can learn.

And isn’t that what we really want in a leader?

REUTERS: Too little is known about Libya’s rebels and they remain too fragmented for the United States to get seriously involved in organizing or training them, let alone arming them, U.S. and European officials say.

U.S. and allied intelligence agencies believe NATO’s no-fly zone and air strikes will be effective in stopping Muammar Gaddafi’s forces from killing civilians and dislodging rebels from strongholds like Benghazi, the officials say.

But the more the intelligence agencies learn about rebel forces, the more they appear to be hopelessly disorganized and incapable of coalescing in the foreseeable future.

U.S. government experts believe the state of the opposition is so grave that it could take years to organize, arm and train them into a fighting force strong enough to drive Gaddafi from power and set up a working government.

Read more here >>>