Granted safe passage out of the country by newly elected Honduran president Porfirio Lobo, Zelaya went into exile in the Dominican Republic.43 In the end, Honduran democracy proved strong enough to resist anti-democratic pressure from most of the international community, including, shamefully, the United States.
THE INSPECTOR CLOUSEAU OF FOREIGN POLICY
Obama’s foreign policy failures have not been limited to his inability to convert jihadists into America-lovers. They’ve been much broader than that. The Left assured us Obama would restore class and dignity to the Oval Office after they had to endure eight years of embarrassment with Cowboy George. Finally, America could hold its head high again. The trouble is, like most everything else from this pseudo messiah, the reality didn’t quite square with the hype. Obama managed to offend leader after leader through awkward, insensitive, clueless, and sometimes rude and boorish behavior—as if oblivious to proper protocol.
Obama promised he would “repair” our relations with Europe, but he’s succeeded only in alienating the continent. When British prime minister Gordon Brown visited Washington in March 2009, Obama so blatantly disrespected him that British newspapers decried Obama’s “rudeness” and “appalling” behavior. Removing a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office was Obama’s initial misstep. Then, he gave embarrassingly trite gifts to the Brown family. Brown had given Obama a penholder made from the timbers of the nineteenth-century British warship HMS President. (The Oval Office desk is made from the wood of its sister ship, HMS Resolute.) Obama reciprocated with twenty-five DVDs of Hollywood movies, prompting one Daily Telegraph staffer to remark, “Oh, give me strength. We do have television and DVD stores on this side of the Atlantic.” The Times of London found Michelle Obama’s “solipsistic” and “inherently dismissive” gifts to the Browns’ two little boys—toy models of Marine One, the president’s helicopter—just as insulting.44
Beyond the gifts, which many Brits interpreted as a calculated snub, the world noticed Obama acted distinctly indifferent toward the leader of our closest ally. Not even bothering to deny the slight, the administration casually passed off Obama’s rudeness on his being “too tired” to give Brown a proper welcome because of his focus on the economic crisis. Obama was reportedly so busy with domestic issues that he had little time to deal with international matters, “let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship,” according to the Sunday Telegraph. One source told the Telegraph he was concerned that Obama had failed to “even fake an interest in foreign policy.”45 Obama also offended our ally yet again by turning down five requests from the Brits in September 2009 to hold a bilateral meeting, either at the UN building in New York or at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh.46
Obama’s distaste for Britain was also evident in his West Point speech on Afghanistan, of which Nile Gardiner wrote, “One subject was conspicuous by its total absence ... there wasn’t a single mention of America’s main ally in the region, Britain. Never mind that we have 10,000 troops on active service there—far more than any other of America’s so-called allies—and never mind that 237 of our brave soldiers have already lost their lives there, Great Britain wasn’t even a footnote.” Condemning what he called “the most extraordinary and insulting oversight,” Gardiner noted this wasn’t just a one-time occurrence, which “might have been overlooked as a careless mistake,” but in all of Obama’s speeches “neither Britain nor the special relationship have merited a single mention”—a relationship, said Gardiner, that is “certainly dying.”47
But nothing has alienated Brits from America as much as Obama’s relentless bullying of BP over the Gulf Oil spill. At one point in June 2010, Obama’s public trashing of BP had helped to erase nearly half the market value of BP stock—a serious problem for Britain’s elderly, since almost every pension fund in the UK owns BP shares. The Financial Times suggested Obama’s “attack on BP” and “increasingly aggressive rhetoric” could damage transatlantic relations.48
Summing up the state of U.S.-British relations, the London Daily Telegraph’s Alex Singleton wrote, “Let me be clear: I’m not normally in favour of boycotts, and I love the American people. I holiday in their country regularly, and hate the tedious snobby sneers against the United States. But the American people chose to elect an idiot who seems hell bent on insulting their allies, and something must be done to stop Obama’s reckless foreign policy, before he does the dirty on his allies on every single issue.”49 So much for recasting America’s global image—with Britain, anyway.
Aside from the Brits, Obama miffed the Europeans when he promised the Russians to cancel a planned anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic. This unsettled Eastern Europe, given its history under Russian domination, but more than that, it signaled to these nations and others that under Obama, the United States cannot be relied on to honor its commitments. In the naïve, false hope that Russia would cast aside its security, nuclear, economic, and military interests in Iran and repay us by helping us thwart Iran’s nuclear program, Obama effectively threw under the bus two emphatically pro-American allies who had supported the anti-missile system in the face of thinly veiled threats from Russia.
Nor has French president Nicholas Sarkozy been spared Obama’s insolence. When Sarkozy met with Obama in April, he told Obama France and the United States were “the same family.” He had been strongly pro-America during the Bush presidency, even being nicknamed at one point “Sarko the American.” But as time passed Sarkozy began to lose respect for Obama. When the Obamas went to Paris in June 2009 for the sixty-fifth D-Day anniversary, they embarrassed the Sarkozys by declining their dinner invitation. Nor was it particularly beneficial to their relationship when the French media mocked Sarkozy over Obama’s “coolness” toward him.
Perhaps Obama was getting back at Sarkozy for what the Times of London characterized as his grabbing “the limelight at the G20 summit in April” and talking “condescendingly” of Obama in private. Mr. Sarkozy reportedly had told colleagues he found Obama to be inexperienced and uninformed, particularly on climate change.50 He also reportedly said Obama was naïve in his call for a world free of nuclear weapons.51 Though doubtless of little consolation to Sarkozy, Obama proved to be an equal opportunity snubber when he avoided Berlin during his trip to Germany—a sign of disrespect for German chancellor Angela Merkel.52
The Sarkozy-Obama freeze continued as Sarkozy appeared to have little patience for what one writer aptly described as Obama’s “apology tour of weakness.”53 After Obama outlined his childlike ideas on international cooperation in an address to the UN, Sarkozy came close to mocking him, saying, “We live in a real world not a virtual world. And the real world expects us to make decisions. President Obama dreams of a world without weapons ... but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.” Sarkozy was referring to Iran and North Korea—countries whose nuclear proliferation programs are advancing despite Obama’s urgent pleas for them to stop.
Sarkozy hit Obama in a particularly sensitive spot when he indicted his engagement policy. Sarkozy said, “I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map.”54 It is doubtful that Obama’s snubs were the only reason for Sarkozy’s disrespect, for during the presidential campaign Israeli sources reported that Sarkozy viewed Obama as “arrogant” and his stance on Iran as “utterly immature” and comprised of “formulations empty of all content.”55
Obama has even managed to turn altruistic offers of assistance from our allies into sources of contention and distrust. Three days after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded off the Louisiana coast, the Dutch offered, free of charge, to send ships to help suck up the polluted water. Although each ship had more cleanup capacity than all the ships combined that the U.S. then had in the Gulf, the Obama administration refused the offer—and similar offers of assistance fr
om twelve other nations—claiming the Dutch ships’ operations violated environmental regulations. After they realized the monumental stupidity of this decision, the administration partly relented. However, they delayed the operation to cater to labor unions—instead of simply allowing the Dutch ships to come and help, they insisted the Dutch equipment be retrofitted onto U.S. ships and that U.S. crews be trained to operate it.
Similarly, although the Dutch offered to build sand berms to protect coastal areas—a task they can accomplish twice as fast as U.S. firms can—Obama once again put his union pals first, insisting, as the oil slick spread every day, that the Dutch burn valuable time training U.S. workers to do the job. A spokesman for the Dutch embassy in Washington observed, “Given the fact that there is so much oil on a daily basis coming in, you do not have that much time to protect the marshlands.” According to the Financial Post, the spokesman was “perplexed that the U.S. government could be so focused on side issues with the entire Gulf Coast hanging in the balance.”56
As it turns out, resentment of Obama’s high-handedness is quite widespread in international circles. The New Delhi Sunday Pioneer called Obama “arrogant,” in a headline no less, because he “alienates friends,” i.e., Israel, with his “abrasive style of diplomacy, which has become the signature tune of the Obama administration.” The Pioneer noted it might have been understandable had Obama’s abrasiveness been directed toward Iran and Venezuela, who always “take swipes at the U.S.” But instead, “Obama appears to have reserved his acid tongue for those who are considered close allies of the US.”
Then came the zinger, the crowning judgment on Obama’s brand of diplomacy: “How Obama chooses to turn his machismo into political advantage in his battle with the Republicans is a matter best left to the American voters. It is of academic concern to India. But when his combativeness is transferred to the global stage and, furthermore, is accompanied by gratuitous discourtesy, it is time for a country like India to consider diplomatic alternatives to over-dependence on the U.S. The experiences of Netanyahu and Karzai are clear writings on the wall.”57
It would be hard to devise a more concise indictment of Obama’s foreign policy: his treatment of U.S. allies is so feckless that nobody wants to become one anymore. Less than halfway into Obama’s term, one thing is clear about his foreign policy: for all his talk about rehabilitating America’s image in the world and “resetting” our relationships with other nations—which he never proved were as strained as he said they were—Obama is visibly failing throughout the globe, from France, Britain, and Germany to Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea. He is finding—or more accurately, Americans are finding—that talking has its limitations, and talking about talking even more so.
Chapter Fourteen
BETRAYING ISRAEL
CRIMES AGAINST AMERICA’S ALLY
During the presidential campaign, many feared Obama had an anti-Israel bias because of his Muslim family roots, his reported ties to pro-Palestinian groups, and his overall leftist orientation. The mainstream media dutifully ignored any and all suspicious Obama ties, including a reported connection to Islamic extremist Khalid Al Mansour, which the Obama campaign denied.
But the media went the extra mile in covering up his relationship with Rashid Khalidi. Having served as a PLO operative at a time when the group was a designated terrorist organization, Khalidi is a virulent critic of Israel who, just days after the 9/11 attacks, denounced the media’s “hysteria about suicide bombers.”1
The Los Angeles Times reportedly was in possession of a damning video of Obama effusively toasting Khalidi at a dinner. Despite acknowledging thousands of phone calls and e-mails requesting the release of the video, they refused. Responding to demands from the McCain campaign to release it, the Times said it was ethically bound to honor a promise to a confidential source not to share the video. Reportedly, the dinner featured heavy Israel bashing, including one young woman who accused the Israeli government of committing terrorism. Obama reportedly “adopted a different tone and called for finding common ground,” yet the Times wouldn’t release the video to verify his statement.2
Apart from the video, however, Times staff writer Peter Wallsten had already written about Obama’s ties to Khalidi and the mysterious dinner toast. According to Wallsten, Obama, “Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion,” gave a “special tribute” to Khalidi at a send off dinner when Khalidi was about to leave Chicago for New York. Wallsten said Obama “reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.” Obama said the talks were “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases.”
Despite Obama’s claims during his presidential campaign that he was a strong supporter of Israel, according to Wallsten, some Palestinian-American leaders believed he was “more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say,” based on his “warm embrace” of Khalidi and his dinner toast. Wallsten wrote, “Their belief is not drawn from Obama’s speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community” in Chicago, “including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.” Wallsten obviously wasn’t referring to Reverend Wright’s Trinity Church there.3
Speaking of Obama’s long-time church, WorldNetDaily reported that in its newsletter Pastor’s Page, the Trinity United Church of Christ published a terror manifesto by Hamas “that defended terrorism as a legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group’s official charter—which calls for the murder of Jews—to America’s Declaration of Independence.” Hamas, of course, is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.4 Similarly, Trinity’s Trumpet newsletter reportedly expressed the church’s strong support of the terrorist group Hezbollah during Israel’s incursion into Lebanon in 2006.5
OMINOUS SIGNS
Some Israel supporters were also troubled that candidate Obama assembled a group of foreign policy advisers who signaled that, as president, “Obama would likely have an approach towards Israel radically at odds with those of previous presidents” of both parties. A group of experts cited by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz deemed Obama to be the candidate least likely to support Israel, and that he was the one most favored by the Arab-American community.6
In June 2008, someone purporting to represent Socialists for Obama published an article on Organizing for America, Obama’s official campaign website, titled, “How the Jewish Lobby Works.” The article was later removed, but NewsBusters posted some of the content, which included shockingly anti-Semitic language, such as the following:NO LOBBY IS FEARED MORE or catered to by politicians than the Jewish Lobby. If a politician does not play ball with the Jewish Lobby, he will not get elected, or re-elected, and he will either be smeared or ignored by the Jewish-owned major media.
All Jewish lobbies and organizations are interconnected and there are hundreds upon hundreds of them. The leaders of the numerous Jewish Lobby Groups go to the same synagogues, country clubs, and share the same Jewish investment bankers. And this inter-connectedness extends to the Jews who run the Federal Reserve Bank, US Homeland Security, and the US State Department.
In other words, “Jews stick together.” Americans must know how extremely powerful the Jewish Lobby is and how it operates to undermine America’s interests both at home and abroad. At home—by corrupting America’s political system, and abroad—by dictating American Foreign Policy against America’s best interests.7
This was no one-off event; NewsBusters provided links to other anti-Jewish posts on the website.8 While some may be reluctant to hold Obama responsible for what others posted on his website, one wonders how these apparent anti-Semites got posting privileges, assuming Obama’s own people didn’t write these missives themselves. The MSM, unsurprisingly, declined to investigate the question; Obama always gets a presumptive pass, whet
her for Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, or anti-Semitic contributors to his website.
“CAN ISRAEL STILL CALL THE UNITED STATES ITS BEST INTERNATIONAL FRIEND?”
After winning the presidential election, Obama made moves even before he assumed office that cast doubt on his campaign pose as a friend of Israel. In December 2008 he appointed as his national security adviser James Jones, a man, according to reports, who is “not known as a friend of the Jewish State.” In his new position, Jones lived up to his reputation, assembling Brent Scowcroft and Carter-era anti-Israel stalwart Zbigniew Brzezinski to meet with Obama and urge him to impose a solution on Israel. Furthermore, in a keynote speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Jones kicked off his remarks with a joke invoking stereotypes about greedy Jewish merchants. As Red State’s Jeff Dunetz pointed out, the White House tried to whitewash the joke by omitting it from the transcript it sent to reporters.9
From its inception, the Obama administration treated Israel not as a sovereign nation and an ally, but as a pawn to be ordered around in pursuit of their vision of a Middle East peace agreement. In his first week in office, Obama signaled his Palestinian sympathies by authorizing $20 million in aid to help the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip recover from damage caused in an Israeli offensive provoked by Hamas rocket fire into Israel.10 In his second week, Palestinian Authority officials, after meeting with Obama’s Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, said they believed that under Obama the Palestinians could extract from Israel much bigger concessions than under previous administrations, and that Obama wanted to see Israel withdraw from nearly the entire West Bank.11
Crimes Against Liberty Page 35
