DESERTED BY OBAMA
Published:
March 17, 2011 at 1:34pm
The leading article in The Times (London) today is headed ‘Deserted by Obama’. Its thesis is that in failing to support Arab campaigners for liberty, the US administration “diminishes US authority and dismays its allies”.
21 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Obama is a total disappointment, on all levels.
I never like him one bit for he always seemed contrived. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt but he fell short every time. I have been following him closely ever since he burst on the scene in 2004.
Much as I tried to see him as the ‘Messiah’ everyone was painting him to be, I couldn’t go past his superficiality and ‘Hollywood’ treatment. He can’t put his money where is mouth is!
I don’t know what the Nobel Committee was thinking when it awarded him with the most undeserved Peace Prize.
Really, we shouldn’t be surprised that Obama seems so shallow and unable to take the bull by the horns and make some sort of decision, for in all his time in the Senate, not once did he vote one way or the other. He always abstained, even on the most crucial issues.
I hope that he will be booted out of office next time.
No wonder Hillary Clinton declared that she doesn’t want to be Obama’s Secretary of State if he is elected next time. I am sure she is totally frustrated by the US government’s inaction.
PAX AMERICANA HAS ENDED
Meanwhile read what Magdi Allam (a Muslim who converted to Catholicism and writes for the Italian newspaperCorriere della Sera) said about Obama way back in June 2009. Allam is also an Italian MEP elected for North-West Italy within the UdC list (Unione di Centro).
Il discorso di Obama
Il discorso di Obama è stata una vera e propria “captatio benevolentiae” rivolta sia al mondo islamico, presentato come ineguagliabile faro di civiltà, tolleranza e progresso per l’umanità intera, sia ai poteri forti dell’economia, della finanza e della politica, da troppi decenni disposti ad assecondare la penetrazione islamica in Occidente in cambio della conclusioni di lucrosi (per loro) affari e dell’immunità da attentati che insanguinano periodicamente altre parti del mondo.
Il crepuscolo della cristianità (ammesso che sia ancora possibile definirla così) occidentale è ben rappresentato da quest’uomo, che in nome del dialogo, della democrazia, della libertà di scelta (con tanti saluti agli embrioni, i primi ad aver beneficiato della cura-Obama subito dopo il suo insediamento, forse perché ritenuti indirettamente responsabili della grave crisi che attanaglia l’economia globale…), riscuote dappertutto consensi ed ammirazione, nonostante le sue affermazioni fatichino a reggere il confronto con la realtà storica.
In realtà, il nuovo Presidente degli USA:
– legittima definitivamente la corsa dell’Iran al nucleare civile (che però presenta il non trascurabile svantaggio di essere facilmente convertibile a scopi bellici…), tanto che Ahmadinejad, dopo la sua (contestatissima) rielezione, a precisa domanda risponde di ritenere la questione ormai chiusa;
– agli occhi dell’opinione pubblica, attua una sorta di “dissociazione preventiva” da Israele, a valere sin d’ora nel caso lo Stato ebraico decida di intervenire militarmente prima che gli ayatollah abbiano a disposizione la bomba atomica;
– mira a tranquillizzare il mondo islamico, che potrà continuare indistubrato, se non addirittura rinfrancato, la sua opera di lenta conquista dei Paesi di antica cristianità;
– fa proprie, nella sostanza, le tesi jihadiste (pur abilmente diluendole all’interno di un discorso che apparentemente invita al dialogo ed alla comprensione reciproci), secondo cui gli attentanti terroristici andrebbero letti non come sintomo di una strategia di aggressione fomentata dall’ideologia, ma piuttosto come reazione alla colonizzazione occidentale ed israeliana;
– prende le distanze dall’intera tradizione della civiltà occidentale, che sempre aveva pensato se stessa come alternativa ed antitetica all’islam (e proprio per questo era riuscita ad intavolare con esso rapporti a volte anche proficui), ponendo se stesso come l’iniziatore di una nuova era dei rapporti internazionali contrassegnata da rispetto reciproco, pace e benessere.
Senator John McCain was interviewed at length on Sky some minutes ago. He gave a very polished performance.
He described the behaviour of the US administration, in the face of the current turmoil in North Africa, as “disgraceful”.
A very strong word indeed coming from a politician of his stature who can also boast of an impeccable military pedigree.
He laughed while saying that Gaddafi is not going to heed any calls for a ceasefire. McCain said that the only language that Gaddafi understands is that of ‘blood and steel’.
“As Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s forces bombarded Tobruk with artillery fire yesterday”… has their been any corroboration on this? The Sky news correspondent based in Tobruk has not mentioned anything about artillery strikes. Knowing the road they have to take, it would be days before any land forces would be in a position to begin besieging Tobruk.
I thought that the days when a usurper waged war against his very own subjects to force them into submission were long gone.
Seems I was mistaken.
The days when American rebels begged for help from abroad, including French, to be free seem to have been forgotten by Mr Obama, president of the land of the free.
“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it’ – John Adams, second president of the United States of America.
Clearly, Mr Obama does not think that such rights should be extended to the Libyan people.
When Obama won the presidency, Gaddafi congratulated him and said this is a good president. Maybe now this ‘African American’ president is somehow showing his gratitude.
and crypto-Muslim?
Obama’s real problem is that he is a leftie in a suit, who stills thinks the Graffiti way.
During the election campaign two years ago, Obama made the point of telling the people that Bush’s foreign policies made American less liked in the world. Kept hammering that America needs to change as the previous foreign policies were hurting America’s image in the world.
To his credit he did change the direction as he is indifferent to foreign policies. His solution, look the other way, treat international problems like dandruff and let tyrants commit genocides. For him it is not our problem. Let other world leaders deal with the Libyan atrocities.
I have a feeling in time the world will be kinder to Bush. I am not so sure about Obama. History tells us that evil tyrants will emerge when pacifists are in charge.
We should not try to look for ‘hidden agendas’ when discussing American lack of interest in world affairs. It’s actually a rather traditional foreign policy for that country and was followed by many presidents. Even Bush the Younger would have followed this path had his hand not been forced by 9/11.
You can’t see everything as a conspiracy theory, that’s true.
American interest in world affairs began in the Second World War, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, not so much because they wanted to help the British fight that war. Then they got dragged into the whole thing and it just carried on from there.
When, some years ago, I spoke against the ‘vision’ of Obama, on this website – and not against America as such – everyone mocked me. Never mind, that’s part of the game.
I think that the USA and the ‘West’ in general have neither the legitimacy (because of Iraq and Afghanistan) and frankly nor the duty to interfere in other regions’ internal issues. Believing that the West should interfere implies that the Arabs need the ‘superior’ West to protect them from themselves.
Why weren’t there any calls on Arab states to impose the no-fly zone themselves? Are they ‘exempt’ from this call for duty because they are considered to be incapable to carry out such military operations? If this is the case, isn’t this a form of superiority complex.
If the North African and Middle Eastern countries want liberty and democracy they should seek and achieve them themselves as has happened in Egypt and Tunisia. I find this talk of the West abandoning the rebels annoying.
There was clearly no agreement between Libyans themselves as to what kind of military help the West should provide. Besides, the West’s interference in this fight for freedom would have ‘westernised’ (as a Libyan expert on Al Jazeera put it) this spontaneous and perfectly justified uprising against an Arab tyrant – not an ideal turn of events in the eyes of many Arabs.
If Gaddafi was installed there by the West as is the case in a few countries, then yes, the West would have to be blamed for this bloodshed and would have been morally obliged to protect the population. I am sure that I will now be accused of possessing the Sicilian mountains mentality, preferring expediency over principles, but have international relations ever been carried out differently.
Obama has just been given the all-important nudge from upstairs to support a no-fly zone against Libya.
He’ll have to go through the same process for Bahrain and Saudi Arabia soon, but Daphne hasn’t been covering that region so it might take some time yet.
Kevvy, Saint Patrick was just as twisted as you in his early years. You say you do such good research, look it up. Happy St. Pat’s Day, twit.
Gaddafi’s new motto for winning back power in Libya: Yes we can.
The total American disapproval percentage for Obama’s policies is currently at 55%.
That puts him in a position which is not much better than Gaddafi’s popularity at home.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
The rumour in the US is that Obama is already bored at his job. He never stayed longer than two years in any job throughout his career. The media are also keeping tab on the number of golf games he plays, especially during each and every crisis during the last two years.
He wanted to make history by becoming the first African American to become President and now wants to move on and cash in his experience – unlike Latin countries, in the Anglo Saxon countries most politicians make their money after retiring from politics. Probably he plans to move on in the international lecture / conference circles, like Bill Clinton. He could earn around $300,000 – $450,000 per speech. He is an excellent orator.
Obama lived on the fringes of American society. He grew up fatherless in Hawaii, moved to Indonesia, and does not seem to make any effort to interact with other people. Given his solitary upbringing, he does not seem to be bothered by all the critics.
Obama gets it right
Obama’s seeming inaction over the protests sweeping the Middle East is exactly what he needs to do – that is, nothing.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011310143920573136.html