Bad Press

President Obama, speaking at the Summit of the Americas last month, made a couple of intriguing statements.

Perhaps President Correa has more confidence than I do in distinguishing between bad press and good press.  There are a whole bunch of press that I think is bad, mainly because it criticizes me, but they continue to speak out in the United States because I don’t have confidence in a system in which one person is making that determination.

All About Him

As usual, it’s all about him. Notice that he doesn’t focus on press critical of the United States as “bad press,” when describing it to these other national leaders, but press criticizing Obama himself. Also, he tucks in the notion that “they continue to speak out” because of Obama’s decision to let them. He immediately tries to cover for this, referencing “democracy” (but not, interestingly, the Constitution):

I think that if we believe in democracy it means that everybody has the chance to speak out and offer their opinions, and stand up for what they believe is right, and express their conscience, and pray as they would, and organize and assemble as they believe is appropriate — as long as they’re not operating violently.

He was much less confident that this freedom is appropriate last week, after the Texas attack. The administration seems to think that drawing cartoons is tantamount to “operating violently.” In Panama, Obama continued:

The Cold War has been over for a long time.  And I’m not interested in having battles that, frankly, started before I was born.

What strikes me about this is two-fold: First, once again, the focus is on him. The issue is uninteresting to him because it was before he personally was born.  (Similarly, the Monroe Doctrine to protect the Americas from interference by foreign powers, a doctrine in place about two centuries, was just abandoned by him at the time that Russia and China are actively moving military assets into the hemisphere. It predated Obama, so out it went.)

Cold War Conflict

Another troubling aspect of his announcement is his apparent utter ignorance of the fact that Cold War tensions are rapidly escalating, because of his own actions and lack of action. He is not interested in having battles, as he says, so the way he is going about defusing these tensions is:

  1. Give Iran everything it wants.
  2. Let Russia take anything it wants.
  3. Let China take anything it wants.

This avoids conflict, of course; surrender does that (or as the jihadists would say, submission). But to make that really true, one must not include the resulting subjugation, oppression, and slaughter as being “conflict.”

The Communique

I am picturing a scenario set about a year from now. A communique comes from Iran, perhaps along these lines:

Greetings, infidels. We have placed nuclear weapons within New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and, oh yes, Washington DC and two other cities which we will not name. We also have one placed where your leader Obama will go to hide. You have 72 hours to issue a decree (one of your “executive orders”) that immediately implements Shariah law across the nation to bring your sinful country under the will of Allah the Merciful and Most Kind. And we do not wish to seem ungrateful, so thank you kaffir Obama for your help to us in acquiring our nuclear weapon capability.

Any military action will cause us to detonate these devices immediately. You must choose wisely and follow the shining path of Allah the Beneficent. Allahu Akbar!

How many would die or be injured fleeing the cities? And how long would it take for Obama to completely collapse, and issue the executive order as requested? He has no big problem with Shariah law anyway; he would rationalize this appeasement like the others, including the deal that gave them the power.

What’s the Deal?

Among the problems with the treat we are now doing enabling Iran to pursue their weapons ambition:

  • We have already effectively released much of the sanctions, last year, at which point Iran (having nothing to lose) immediately became recalcitrant. We give them money, every month, hoping to buy cooperation. They see us as weak, as a result.
  • The new deal does not touch their pursuit of weapons. Not does it allow us to inspect their progress.
  • The new deal does not release US hostages, nor interfere with Iran’s continued material, leadership, and financial support of terrorism against the US.
  • The new deal does not touch Iran’s horrific human rights abuses, whether against gays, women, or political prisoners.
  • And the new deal means that, if we ever find Iran’s behavior in these other areas so objectionable that we would sanction them, we no longer can. The deal cuts off that possibility.

Obama never did try to work out compromises with Republicans, he simply imposed his will when he could, or folded when he could not. He has no evident skill at negotiating, and this is now placing the United States at risk. And in his mind, he’s an excellent negotiator.

Ah, but the Republicans can hardly be described as much improvement. The new bipartisan bill put forward about the approval process for the impending surrender treaty completely reverses the Constitutional role of the Senate. Instead of a two-thirds vote to pass the treaty, they’ve just agreed that it will take a two-thirds vote against it to stop it. Which they would not get, of course, but this maneuver allows them to fig-leaf the Constitutionally mandated power and role they have abandoned. What’s worse, the negative vote is only about sanctions, not the treaty itself. They’ve given up on that.


===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle