Midknight Review -- new and revised: After nearly 5 years in office, Obama's "reset" policy has left us, literally, without any friends in this world, unless you want to count France. We compare Bush to Obama and the end of the matter is not good for H Obama.

Let’s compare George Bush to Barack Obama as to their ability to build alliances in developing the role of the United States as a world leader.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Bush waited for more than 14, while the UN debated and passed 17 resolutions condemning Iraq, including the final resolution (November of 2002, UN resolution 1441)), a unanimous vote in the Security Council. While the UN stood firm against a preemptive strike, it supported the Bush Administration’s claims against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Before the invasion, Bush was able to secure approval from a Democrat Senate (77-23) and a GOP controlled House (296-133) and organize a 39 member international alliance, the alliance of 12 of the 25 members of the European Union, 16 members of NATO, Great Britain, Australia, Japan and South Korea (and more). In the end, the Bush Coalition was one of the largest in human history.

By contrast, Obama only has France, a nation that does not believe in war for any reason. In fact, Obama was rebuffed by Britian’s House of Commons, this past week, the first time since the 1700’s a sitting Prime Minister was unable to secure a supporting vote for a war request. While Obama blamed the Prime Minister for this defeat, the fact of the matter the fault lies with the ineptness of Obama, himself.

Among the reasons for this startling difference in world opinion as to the leadership of the United States, is the reality of Obama’s feckless duplicity, diplomatically, as demonstrated in his "talking out of both sides of his mouth," often at the same time. His opinions on the Israel/Palestinian conflict is a perfect example. More than once, Obama has praised both sides and criticized both sides within a 12 hour period. He has refused photo-shoots with Israeli leaders, threatened to reveal Israeli nuclear secrets, and denounced Israel as an "occupier." To be fair, he has been critical, at times, of Jihad, when he was not busy running for re-election and has maintained a "death by drone" war against Taliban leadership. Again, the point is his frustrating duplicity on virtually all issues of import.

Obama’s rejection of traditional alliances is at the center of this foreign policy disaster. Naming France as our "most important ally" while downplaying the friendships of Israel and Great Britain have played no small role as to the present diplomatic distress. Couple this with his determination at giving Islam a greater position of prominence as to the management of world affairs, and you have a Middle East that is wildly out of control, from a Western perspective, and an United States that cannot command the respect of friend or foe.

Even Obama’s singular (?) effort at profundity, a declaration of his intent to “lead from behind,” has proven to be dangerously more than laughable and his refusal to consistently oppose the murdering hordes within Islam (those that claim Jihad as their purpose for world domination, both at home and in the world) has lost him the support of nearly all within the international Islamic community (i.e. popular opinion within Egypt).

In terms of coalitions, under Obama, the United States no longer has any friends in this world.

Add to this international failing, Obama’s decision to over-ride Congress on every turn and to ignore the will of the people, and you have a failed presidency that goes beyond the imaginations of his harshest critics.

Obama is a defeated president, and this latest international situation is proof of this stark reality.

It could not have happened to a nicer guy, we might add.
_________________

Sources for this post:

Midknight Review's own archives. Text is original with this blog's editor.

Dailymail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-142230/Bush-wins-Congress-backing-war-Iraq.html

Wikipedia re:UN Resolution #1441 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1441) Reader caution: Wikipedia is under the constant editorial eye of anonymous Progressive scrutiny. While it is a good place to begin one's research, it is not a safe place to remain, as to historically accurate conclusions.

Also, read the WSJ's crtical review of Obama's Syrian policy and the debacle it has become, here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323324904579045341829506778.html

The Stated Nonsense from the Left now includes these Progressive goals:

July 2, 2008, Obama had this to say: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

MICHELLE OBAMA: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."

“ . . . . . . they have become a generation of activists possessed with that most American of ideas – that people who love their country can change it.” -- Obama the Radical

On September 30, Van Jones told MSNBC "I think everybody should hold onto your seats. October is going to be the turning point when it comes to the progressive fight back."

Midknight Review -- new and revised

After nearly 5 years in office, Obama's "reset" policy has left us, literally, without any friends in this world, unless you want to count France. We compare Bush to Obama and the end of the matter is not good for H Obama.

No comments:

Post a Comment

copyright policy of the original Midknight Review