Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Obama’s foreign policy a contradiction

By Doug Thompson
March 21, 2011

President Barack Obama: A walking contradiction

The contradictions that have marked Barack Obama‘s Presidency also mark his approach to foreign policy.

And his travels in South America show just how different those approaches can be. As he practices what the Associated Press calls “lead by example diplomacy” in his own hemisphere he orders cruise missiles and American fighter planes to pound Libya into submission.

This two-sided approach to foreign policy is typical Obama — an approach that confuses world view of America, infuriates even members of his own party and confounds both critics and supporters.

While one hand supports a friendly approach the other unleashes the largest — if over-extended war machine on the planet to impose U.S. will on nations who don’t believe that America’s way is the only way.

Reports Jum Kuhnhenn of The Associated Press:

As he heads for Chile on Monday after two days in Brazil, Obama has been a model in split-screen leadership. While he extended friendship to an increasingly influential Latin American neighbor, he also ducked into meetings and placed secure phone calls to approve missile attacks on Libya’s air defenses.

He’s not likely to escape the awkward, if not incongruous, contrasts during his stay in Santiago.

During a press conference with Chilean President Sebastian Pinera (pee-NAY’-rah) he will take questions for the first time since allied forces began enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya with jets and warships. Then he will deliver a speech, meant to address the entire Latin American world, praising the democratic transitions in the Americas and holding them up as models for the world.

It certainly wasn’t planned that way.

“The world obviously is a complex place, with a lot of things going on at once, but it’s precisely that — a lot of things going on at once,” said White House national security aide Daniel Restrepo.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

15 Responses to Obama’s foreign policy a contradiction

  1. Fivebyfives

    March 21, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    Doug,excuse me, but WHAT foreign policy? There is consistency in Obama’s contradictions, and it all boils down to “what have you done for me lately?” it is, of course, a little more nuanced in using foreign policy to fill campaign coffers, but that is all it boils down to.

    I cannot recall who said, ‘Nations don’t have friends; they have interests,” but with our current president there is neither and there is both. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is the first time in my memory when a president has ordered men and women into harm’s way without sitting down and explaining things to the American people. He’s apparently decided to “delegate” such things to underlings.

    At this point I believe Barack Obama has an adding machine in place of a heart, and that machine is only designed to calculate electoral votes.

    • Almandine

      March 21, 2011 at 9:50 pm

      The contradiction is actually believing this man is fulfilling his oath to protect and defend our country and Constitution, when all his actions have been exactly the opposite.

  2. griff

    March 21, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    That’s our Nobel Peace Prize winner in action. Making the world safe for autocratic global hegemony.

    Just remember folks, they hate us for our freedom.

    Repeat after me…

    They hate us for our freedom.
    They hate us for our freedom.
    They hate us for our freedom.

  3. woody188

    March 21, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    Obama’s foreign policy appears to follow Bush Doctrine of “Preemption, rather than reaction.”. Weren’t we told we could get some change in foreign policy?

    Of course, Junior said he wouldn’t go about nation building as well, that we ought to work within the International Community versus using military force. I’d like to say it was September 11th that changed that point of view, but evidence suggests they had designs for the Middle East long before September 11, 2001. See Cheney’s secretive Energy Task Force and what they were discussing in March of 2001.

    • griff

      March 21, 2011 at 4:39 pm

      I remember an overriding theme leading up to Iraq was the idea that we were going to get our hands on all that oil! Cheap oil! Cheap oil!

      Oil was $23 – $32 per barrel pre-Iraq.

      Bottom line, folks…They are not doing this for us. They’re not doing this to lift the masses from poverty or tyranny. They’re not doing this because they care about the poor Libyans or the poor Iraqis.

      They’re not doing this for lower prices at the pump (which should be obvious by now) or to keep us safe from the evil-doers. They’re not doing this for global peace and harmony.

      They’re doing this for themselves. They’re doing this to consolidate and control the world’s resources – not for the benefit of mankind, but to enslave it.

      World Domination. History shows time and again the aim of empire is to dominate the world for the benefit of the few. From Rome to Macedonia to Nazi Germany to Soviet Russia, the goal has always been the same.

      How are we different? We’re not.

      • woody188

        March 21, 2011 at 5:18 pm

        I thought the tragedy in Japan would have lowered oil prices, as they won’t be accepting much oil from Alaska for some time. But that has not played out like I expected as of yet. That should more than make up for any US loss of supply from Libya.

        I still think they will run up the price through summer, but there will be a crash in the price per barrel this fall as supply continues to rise and the market is finally forced into a correction.

        • griff

          March 21, 2011 at 11:15 pm

          Supply and demand has nothing to do with gas prices. Free market principles have nothing to do with it.

          Libya is a drop in the bucket in terms of production. Other producers have picked up the slack. We are dumb. Plain and simple. We are dumb.

  4. NightWisp

    March 21, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    According to the “birth certificate” that Obama has acknowledged as his real Birth certificate instead of a COB and the place of birth as Hawaii , it also shows that his father was a British Citizen. This means Obama is NOT a NATURAL BORN citizen. Further, he cannot be President of the United States.

    Pelosi knew it when she fudged two different vetting letters to the states. Congress Knew it.. And the Supreme Court knows it. But do nothing about it..
    They discredit those who have sense and who challenge it. thinking that it will go away in 2012. Even soldiers have been illegally thrown into prison challenging it. Millions have been spent burying it.

    What about all the illegal laws he signed. All the illegal EOs.?what about Obama care and other crap? What about the fraud -in -chief and his illegal wars?
    If they think they cannot cut it off now by exposing the FRAUDSTER, do they intend to sweep it under the rug and let him vanish in the night by not confronting his illegalities? Are they just going to hold their noses and let it pass by? Do they think we are just going to shut up and not challenge ?

    The point being. An unqualified Obama who has done nothing but vote present all his life does not know his rear from a hole in the ground.

    God forbid he is re-elected in 2012.

    • griff

      March 21, 2011 at 11:20 pm

      One thing I think people should realize is that the presidential election, and most every other election, is fruitless, to say the least.

      The same goes for the next one.

  5. NightWisp

    March 21, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    WND/WENZEL POLL
    Only 9% believe Obama has documented eligibility
    Scientific tally shows 2 of 3 like state legislation to require proof

    Read more: Only 9% believe Obama has documented eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=276865#ixzz1HHtFjObk

  6. Almandine

    March 21, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    There is really no contradiction in the Big Zero’s (thanks Nightwisp) foreign policy… just righteous consternation coupled with political squeeze.

    His avowed view of the US as a neo-colonialist power, and the need to put it in its place, is what we have seen from before day one of his Presidency, as embodied in his embrace of the Rev and his Weathermen buddies, and then after when the bust of old Winston (an original colonialist) was banished from the White House and sent packing to Britain.

    Read his books and listen to his speeches… especially those given in Africa and the Middle East, and it becomes clear that his mission is to humble America before the world, especially its past protectorates. Bowing to and buttering-up those African and Middle Eastern potentates was just the beginning – to arouse the crowds. None of the current uprisings would have been predicted before Zero took office, but with every word and every gesture, the opportunity for – dare I say democratic – revolt has been thrust upon the collective consciousness. Yemen, Tunisia, Egypt, et al, were all but preludes to this current crisis, and the successes there were born of peoples working against much lesser strength. Gaddafi, however, was the invincible strongman… a true ruler… thus the lack of “popular” success. Oh shyte.

    The allegiance of the revolutionaries, be they downtrodden outcasts, democratic comrades in arms, or the Muslim Brotherhood… was never a factor, as Zero’s “foreign policy” is to liberate the masses from neo-colonialism, so that Michelle, for one, could be proud. The thought of foreign policy as a national concern denotes a recognition of national sovereignty and the need to engage other nation states, which of course has no legitimate basis for those fleeing from such userous clutches. Viva la revolution!

    The squeeze drew too close, however, with the cacophony of criticism – not just from political foes, but from the inner circle… yes, those who do not fully share the Non-neo-colonialist urge to repent and reparate… those who would, indeed, focus on what such foreign upheaval would portend, especially regarding the best interests of our sovereign nation. At some point, it seems, someone said the right thing…. made the right pitch… invoked the real stakes of not acting… even as an apparent neo-colonialist. The HEAT was on.

    So another international coalition was coerced… under the auspices of the international community (read UN)… to take this Gaddafi barbarian down. (Note that 5 strong members of the Security Council voted NO.) The agnostic French are conveniently in the lead… God help the rest… no matter the relative number and amount of military resources applied… hell, even Sweden is bombing the scoundrel’s minions. Talk about distributed responsibility…

    Whew! Cognitive dissonance averted… sense of self worth intact…but if you really look close enough, when both of Zero’s arms are raised as in victory, with dual piece signs flashed at the crowd, and a smile that will calm and reassure you… on his lips you will see the “tricky” reincarnation of a well-worn analogy:

    “I AM NOT A NEO-COLONIALIST!”

    • Almandine

      March 21, 2011 at 9:44 pm

      The fact that engaging Libya militarily was NOT in our best interests goes against the judgment of both Zero and his “wisest” neo-colonial advisors.

  7. Almandine

    March 22, 2011 at 8:41 am

  8. DejaVuAllOver

    March 22, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    Griff, you da’ man. Carry on, brother. Almandine, I think you’ve come on board with us true progressives, whether or not. you choose to call yourself one. Either way, nice work.

    • Almandine

      March 22, 2011 at 10:57 pm

      Thanks for the high-five, but perhaps it’s my analysis that has matured… in your eyes. I’m just calling it as it comes.