What Passes For "Conservative" At HuffPo

Leftists are interesting creatures. They are immune to reality. Logic and truth are foreign concepts to them. They are seething with hate. They love to put their ignorance on display. And sometimes, they pretend to be conservatives. Take, for example, Eric Margolis, who rants at Huffpo on occasion. Eric claims to be moderately conservative, defining himself as an “Eisenhower Republican.” You can tell me in the comments if you buy into that laugher.

To properly get a sense of who Eric is, let’s look at two pieces that he ran over at Huffpo about Afghanistan and Iraq. But first, some background: Eric is a fool with no understanding of history, no grasp on reality and an indifference to facts. He believes that “America has become addicted to debt and war,” and he seems to despise the American military, which he describes derisively as “professional soldiers” (in the Roman context) and “mercenaries.” He also thinks that using modern weapons in a place like Afghanistan is “cowardly”:

“In my view, as an old soldier and war correspondent, using heavy bombers to attack tribal levies or employing gunships and drones against tribal compounds is cowardly.”

Note the assertion that “America’s professional soldiers” are waging a war against civilians.

You may also note that Eric mentions that he is a former solider. In fact, he reminds us of this over and over because he thinks this means something. Perhaps he’s forgetting that Lee Harvey Oswald, Hitler and Alan Alda also were soldiers, and they were all less paranoid than Eric.

And speaking of soldiers, Eric has no love for “fire-breathing Gen. Stanley McChrystal” or our “Special Forces ‘mafia’.” He also hates Fox News, Republicans and the American people, as he was just sure that those morons would make McChrystal into a hero, and thereby the Republicans would “again sadly demonstrate they have become the party of America's dim and ignorant.” He also hates the Tea Party because it appeals to the “fears and prejudices” of its followers, and he rejects the Republican Party because it is influenced by the evil Tea Party.

Oh, and speaking of evil, in a 2009 essay titled “Don’t Blame Hitler Alone for World War II,” Eric claims that it was wrong to give Hitler full blame for World War II, because this was a “preventive war” forced on Hitler by the Soviets.

Ok, so that’s conservative Eric. Now let’s take a quick look at what he just wrote about Iraq and Afghanistan. Here are some highlights.

The Taliban are resisting “western occupation” of Afghanistan. . . forget that the Taliban were there long before the West arrived.

And why would we occupy Afghanistan you ask? Well, first he rants something about the US wanting to control the biggest exporter of heroin. But then he changes his mind mid-rant to alert us that the US wants Afghanistan to control its “oil”. . . which doesn’t exist.

But his real hatred is aimed at our being in Iraq. See if you can follow this:

He starts by saying that we only went into Iraq because the “Seven Sisters” have been squeezed out of their oil fields in places like Iran, and they needed Iraq’s oil wealth to get back into the game. The “Seven Sisters,” by the way, was the name given to the big seven American oil firms in the 1950s. Only four still exist and only two remain American.

But then he suddenly realizes that people might not buy the idea that we need Iraq’s oil because. . . well, we don’t. So he says that the real reason we wanted their oil fields was to gain influence over people like Japan who need the oil. Apparently, occupying Japan doesn’t give us enough influence. His proof? Well, “as the old saying goes, America’s trinity is ‘God, guns and gasoline.’” Wow, now that’s definitive!

Then he gets a little crazy. . . er:

1. He notes that “American ‘liberation’ left Iraq politically, economically and socially shattered, ‘killed’ in the words of former foreign minister, Tariq Aziz.” To back this up, he claims that “reputable studies estimate Iraq’s death toll at mid-hundreds of thousands to one million, not counting claims by UN observers that 500,000 Iraqi children died of disease as a result of the US-led embargo before 2003.” Of course, there are no reputable studies that say this, there are only a couple of far left guesses. Even the AP only puts the death toll at 100,000.

2. He goes on: “four million Sunni Iraqis remain refugees.” FYI, that’s more Sunnis than exist.

3. He says the “surge” only worked because Iran ordered the Shia Mahdi Army militia “to temporarily end resistance” and because of “deft bribery” by the Americans who spent “untold millions bribing Sunni fighters.”

4. Then he takes a quick side trip to warn us that Washington is building new “fortified embassies” in Kabul, Islamabad and Baghdad? These “may hold 1,000 ‘diplomats.’ Osama bin Laden calls them, ‘Crusader Fortresses.’” You see people. . . it’s all there in black and white!

5. And what about the “50,000 US troops left until 2011 . . . to ‘advise and assist”? Well, “to this old war correspondent and military historian, that sounds an awful lot like the British Empires employment of native troops under white officers.” Military historian? Yeah, sure.

6. Of course, he couldn’t leave the Jews out of this because no paranoid rant is complete without a little anti-Semitism. So, did you know that “Large numbers of Iraqis doctors and scientists have been murdered”? And guess who did it? Well, Eric doesn’t want to say definitively because there’s no “hard evidence,” but he lets us know that a lot of people are saying they were killed “by Israel’s Mossad.”

That’s probably enough for you to get the point. Eric is an anti-Semitic, anti-American nutjob with paranoid delusions of American schemes to conquer the world. He fits right in at Huffpo. And he is anything but a “conservative.”

I guess it’s become the vogue thing for leftists to masquerade as “conservatives.”


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Weekly Bidenism

With Dodger Joe Biden headed to Canada to woo vital Canadian voters for the Democratic Party, and his motorcade having their fourth accident in a year (why do they let him drive?), you’d think we wouldn’t have anything to write about. . . you’d be wrong. Because like rust, Joe’s mouth never sleeps, and this week, his mouth was talking about Iraq. Get ready for. . . The Weekly Bidenism.

This week, Prognosticator Joe went on Larry King to explain why things will look good for the Democrats in November. Apparently Joe thinks Obama’s “greatest achievement” will see them through. What is Obama’s greatest achievement? Iraq.

"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. . . I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

That’s Obama’s “greatest achievement”? Ok, let’s look at the two things Biden says he’s achieved. First, bringing home the troops. As with the Nobel Prize, this isn’t an achievement yet, it’s a promise of an achievement. Those don’t count. Moreover, despite the claim that these troops would be home by the end of the summer, Joe later downgraded this certainty to “likely” on Sunday’s Meet the Press.

Also, we would be remiss if we didn’t point out that this will leave around 60,000 troops in Iraq. Compare that to Obama’s original promise that he would remove ALL troops from Iraq by August 2010, and this “achievement” starts to sound a little fake. But hey, what’s 60,000 troops among friends!

At least Joe is right that Iraqis have put down their guns and are using the political process to settle their differences. Unless you count the daily bombings that continue to kill hundreds of Iraqis each month, including, for example, twin blasts on February 5 that killed 40 pilgrims, or the three explosions at Shiite shrines yesterday, or the fact that December was the deadliest month in Iraq in almost a year (on the worst day, December 8, 121 people were killed in a series of car bombs). But perhaps we are being too critical, after all, daily bombings are just part of the political process in every country, right?

What’s more interesting, is that Joe went on to claim that the Iraq war hasn’t been worth “it’s horrible price,” which he blames on the war being “mishandled from the outset” and on the United States taking “its eye off the ball” by invading Iraq instead of finishing the fight in Afghanistan. Does Joe have a point? I don’t know, let’s ask an expert:

The year was 1998 when Sen. Joe Biden first called for an invasion of Iraq. Said ChickenHawk Biden when U.N. inspectors told him they had no evidence that Saddam had WMDs:

"As long as Saddam’s at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction."

"The only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone."

But the evil President Clinton wouldn’t listen to Joe’s bellicose dreams. No, Joe would have to wait until after September 11, 2001 for his hopes to be fulfilled. With the run up to the war just starting, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden again called for war:

"One thing is clear: These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from power."

When others cautioned Joe that there was no actual proof that these “weapons” existed, Joe fired back:

"If we wait for the danger from Saddam to become clear, it could be too late."

Added Joe about Saddam Hussein:

"[He is] a long term threat and a short term threat to our nation security [and an] extreme danger to the world."

When Joe was asked as late as 2007 if he stood by those comments, he said he did: “That’s right, and I was correct about that.”

Bellicose Joe then warned us that we must be prepared for the long term:

"I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur. We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after."

He then shepherded the war resolution through the Senate.

But that was before it became more popular to oppose the war. Soon, he and Obama were calling the war immoral, and they insisted that we never should have invaded in the first place. When others suggested the surge, Biden screamed that we should cut the country into three parts and run away. Indeed, Biden not only insisted that the surge “would fail,” he vehemently opposed it, assuring us the surge will “worsen sectarian violence.”

Of course, the surge worked, and Obama won the election. Suddenly, Biden was the surge’s biggest fan. And now he’s claiming that the effects of the 2007 surge are somehow Obama’s greatest achievement. Think about that. . . Obama’s greatest achievement was something Bush did in 2007.

You know what? Maybe for once, Biden’s right?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

SOTU: Why Obama Is Doomed

Last night, Obama gave the single worst State of the Union speech I’ve ever heard and the worst speech of his career. There was nothing inspiring or memorable. His canned applause lines stunk, his “off the cuff” jokes were poorly scripted, and the rest of the speech can be summed up thusly: anger, accusation, blame shifting, political payoffs to interest groups and “admissions” that everyone else has served him poorly. This speech was meant to hit the reset button. . . it missed. It also tells us that he is doomed to failure.

Obama has a serious problem. Unlike other presidents whose approval ratings have risen and fallen with events, Obama’s have been on a steady downward course. This indicates a man who has lost the public. Thus, his objective last night was to reconnect with the public, to pull a mea culpa, to assure the public he will change, and to convince the public to give him a second chance. He failed. Instead, last night just highlighted why he lost the public in the first place.

Technical Problems: Lack of Inspiration

Obama is a poor speaker and his speech writers stink. He has yet to give a memorable speech, and last night was no exception. There were no memorable quotes, no incredible moments of truth, no compelling arguments, and no moment where he made a genuine call for all of us to come together. Instead, his speech was bland, with angry emphasis substituting for passion, half-hearted praise for America substituting for inspiration, an abundance of “too-perfect-to-be-true” letters from widows and orphans that felt like blatant manipulation, and “I” substituting liberally for “we.” He was snide, unpleasant, insulting and combative. He read poorly. His self-deprecating jokes were all backhanded slaps at his opponents, and he just wasn’t presidential at any point.

The contrast with Virginia Governor McDonnell could not have been starker.

Obama’s failure, by the way, was obvious in two facts from last night. First, the leftists hired by CNN to act as analysts were amazingly subdued. “He did what he had to do” was about the highest praise they could muster (even David Axelrod was subdued). They questioned his priorities (or lack thereof) and even scoffed at some of what he said. Not one person suggested this was a great speech or a memorable speech or that he’d “hit a homerun.” When your own PR people can’t praise your speech, something is wrong. Secondly, CNN’s instant poll showed a 20% drop in the number of people who gave this speech high marks compared to last year. Given that this poll would likely include a higher proportion of Democrats than last year’s, this was a horrible result for Obama.

Political Payoff Smorgasbord

Aside from poor writing and delivery, the main reason Obama’s speech will not resonate with the public is that it ultimately was not meant for the public, it was aimed at his special interest. As I’ve said before, the Democratic Party is no longer a party, it has become an alliance of tribes, each of whom want their share. Last night, emphasized that:

• Unions: Obama promised a second stimulus, aimed at putting “America” back to work. . . targeted at unionized jobs. Further, while he seemed to talk about free trade last night with South Korea, Panama and Columbia, he never said he would push the free trade deals already negotiated with those countries that are languishing in Congress. Instead, he talked about “enforcement,” which is the same anti-free trade garbage his side has been spewing about imposing environmental and labor regulations on our trading partners.

• Environmentalists: Obama promised to get a carbon tax, i.e. cap and trade, even if he had to bribe a handful of Republicans (like Lindsey Graham) to get it, by offering to include subsidies for nuclear power and limited off-shore drilling.

• Gays: He promised to end “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and he promised “increased” civil rights office enforcement, i.e. more lawsuits.

• Feminists: He promised to fight for the feminist panacea “equal pay.”

• Blacks: He promised a national hate crimes law.

The middle class? You get to pay for these promises, and he repeated the silly plan I discussed the other day -- though he shifted the blame on that one to Biden. (FYI, that plan is actually aimed at feminists and college students and the poor, not the middle class.)

To cover his giveaways, he paid lip service to the public’s complaints. For example,

• Obama’s Deficits: He acknowledged the deficit problem, by blaming it on Bush. He then promised a “total spending freeze.” What he did not say was that this would only cover 17% of spending and that Pelosi has already said it won’t get through the House. He then tried to make this sound impressive by talking about the savings this would generate over the next TWO decades. Wally from Dilbert tried this once, claiming his plan would save the company one million dollars. . . over a million years.

• Job Destruction: Obama acknowledged that people remain unemployed, a problem he blamed on Bush. First, he tried to lump the 6.3 million jobs that vanished under his policies on Bush by claiming that the economy had lost seven million jobs in the past two years. Then he blamed lobbyists (which made no sense). Then he bragged about his stimulus bill creating two million jobs -- a well documented lie. (See here and here.)

Now he’s promising targeted tax cuts for small business “for job creation.” No one has any idea what he’s talking about here -- he probably doesn’t even know himself -- but if this is nothing more than a “one time tax cut for hiring” (a new favorite among Democrats) then this is doomed to fail.

• Terrorism: Obama acknowledged that terrorism exists, a big step for him. But he blamed the failure to stop it on Bush, and he specifically blamed the Detroit near-bombing on policies put in place by Bush. Yet, while he acknowledged Bush’s failures he offered no plan to address terrorism other than more of the same. He then, amazingly, made the childish claim that he had “killed more terrorists” than Bush did in 2008. This brought near eye-rolls from the Joint Chiefs.

• Health Care: Obama also whined about the opposition to his health care bill, which he blamed on obstructionist Republicans, corrupt lobbyists, and cowardly Democrats who are worried about elections, i.e. public opinion. Then he said, “I’m no quitter” (another demonstrable falsehood). He then reformulated his plan as “health insurance reform” because no one likes insurance companies, and he challenged anyone who would oppose him to come up with their own plan -- something many have done, though he wouldn’t know that because he refuses to listen. But he waited 27 minutes into his speech to raise this issue, leading one CNN pundit to declare: “he won’t give up on health care, but he’s signaled that he won’t fight for it either.”

• Iran: He acknowledged that Iran hadn’t been fixed yet, which he blamed on the Iranians and prior administrations, i.e. Bush. He then swore that there would be real consequences if they didn’t comply this time. Of course, he couldn’t think of any consequence to mention, nor did he say who would bear them.

• Iraq: He promised again to bring home all of the (combat) troops from Iraq at some point in time, it’s just taking longer than expected because the “three” (formerly “two”) wars Bush left him were such disasters.

• Corruption: Recognizing that most polls put corruption at the top of the public’s concerns about his administration, he (1) promised “to fight corruption”. . . in Afghanistan, (2) he demonized lobbyists and claimed to have kicked them out of his administration -- another lie, (3) he talked about undoing the Supreme Court’s decision that allows corporations to donate money to causes, something recent polls show the public considers a matter of free speech, and (4) swore he would highlighting earmarks to the public. . . as compared to his campaign promise to stop them. He made no mention of his awarding a no-bid contract to a supporter (something he once called “corrupt”) or of the massive amounts of corruption in his administration and in Congress (see here, here and here).

In other words, he paid lip service to the public’s concerns, and he showed that he refuses to accept any responsibility for the public’s concerns and he doesn’t intend to actually address them except with more lip service.

Angry Obama Gives Way To Nasty Obama

Finally, we come to Obama’s biggest problem: his paranoid hatred of “those who oppose.” In a nod to Rodney King’s “can’t we all just get along,” Obama mentioned the word bipartisanship and he spoke of the need to change the tenor in Washington. But then, like a petulant child, he set about settling scores.

He attacked the Republicans over and over, using any falsehood he thought would help him. He tried to blame them for his own failures and then, like a cartoon villain, he incredibly warned them that they would be held responsible for any further failure on his part. He called his own party cowards for trying to hear the message of the people. He blamed Bush for every single one of his faults and failures. And, as noted before, he petulantly tried to sound tough by claiming that he killed more terrorists than Bush did in 2008.

He demonized bankers and lobbyists, in ways not heard since the 1930s -- all the while ignoring the fact that they are his biggest contributors, that they are his closest advisors, and that he appointed them to serve in his cabinet and to run his treasury department.

He even tried to play the self-pity, phony-acceptance-of-responsibility game by taking “my share of the blame” only to twist that into accepting the blame for being stopped by the self-interested and politically motivated acts of others.

Incredibly, he made a highly inappropriate attack on the Supreme Court, in their presence. It is not that he criticized a court decision, but that he attacked the court personally, when he angrily accused the court of destroying “a century of settled law” in favor of special interests (impugning their motives). This caused Justice Alito to mouth the words “not true”. . . giving Obama a second “you lie” moment in as many trips to Congress. And, indeed, it was not true. By the way, as an active attorney, his attack on the Court is an ethics violation and he should be sanctioned.

Finally, he thanked no one for anything.

This man is a child. He knows nothing, and it shows. He out hates Nixon as a paranoid gatherer of enemies and a serial assigner of blame. He out wimps Carter as an effete warrior. He makes the obviously stupid Bush II look like Einstein, and the smarmy insider Bush I look like a zealous reformer. And he makes the dishonest and dishonorable Bill Clinton look like George Washington.

Obama is finished. Not because he doesn’t have time to change, but because he’s not willing or able to change.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Barack Doctrine: Status Quo, Status Quo Ante

Teddy Roosevelt walked softly and carried a big stick. James Monroe declared that the United States would not interfere in Europe, and warned Europe to stay out of the Americas. Harry Truman believed in containment, Jimmy Carter in human rights, and Ronald Reagan in engagement. . . trust but verify.

Is there a Barack Doctrine? Indeed there is. President Obama has shown repeatedly that he desires to vote “present” in foreign policy, and that his administration will toss aside all of their principles to maintain the status quo (as things are) or, where the status quo has been shattered, to return to the status quo ante (as things were).

Status Quo

During the campaign, candidate Obama spoke of engaging the world in dialog. He promised to improve America’s image and to defend human rights. He criticized modern soft-dictators like Chavez, who were elected as democrats, but ruled as tyrants, and he talked of breaking with the past. But that was then.
Observe that in each of the following instances, Obama subsumed his principles to maintain the status quo. . .

• China. . .

The first test for the young administration was China. Candidate Obama criticized China for its human rights, for their failure to fight intellectual piracy, for their suppression of Tibet, for the safety of their products, and for their currency manipulation. He swore he would hold their feet to the fire and might even ban some of their products.

But President Obama wants China to buy his debt. So his first official act was to send Hillary Clinton to bow and scrape and to assure China that he would never pressure them. When this was not enough, and China threatened to stop buying U.S. debt, Obama sent Tim Geithner to plead for the status quo.

• Russia. . .

Next came the Russians, who had invaded Georgia, cut off natural gas supplies to Europe, worked tirelessly to help Iran develop nuclear power, and threatened several NATO allies. Candidate Obama boldly proclaimed that he wouldn’t “shy away from pushing democracy, transparency, and accountability.”

His efforts to date? Obama sent Hillary Clinton with a gag gift (a reset button) and otherwise refrained from any actions that might upset Russia. End result: status quo maintained.

• India. . .

George Bush was roundly criticized by the left for allowing India to make a mockery of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under that Treaty, all signatories must withhold civilian nuclear technology from any regime that has not ratified the Treaty. Even though India refuses to sign the Treaty, Bush negotiated a deal with India, whereby the United States would transfer nuclear technology to India. Obama’s party called this despicable and said that it sends the wrong message to countries like Iran and North Korean.

President Obama claims that non-proliferation is a primary focus of his foreign policy. Yet, not only did he publicly state that he is “fully committed” to implementing the Bush deal, but Hillary Clinton even voiced the hope that this arrangement (which violates the Treaty) can “serve as the foundation of a productive partnership on non-proliferation.” Again, the status quo is preserved.

• North Korea . . .

Candidate Obama promised “sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy” to handle North Korea. He called for the strengthening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the imposition of “strong international sanctions” against North Korea for any violation of United Nations resolutions. He even stated his belief that the United States needs a missile defense system to counter North Korea’s threat.

President Obama has warned that North Korea is a “grave threat” and said that he would “not tolerate” North Korea’s strategy of extracting rewards with belligerent behavior.

But beyond that, no amount of nuclear tests, missile tests, threats to rain a “fire shower of nuclear retaliation” on South Korea, or seized journalists has resulted in anything approaching a “strong sanction” or “sustained, direct, or aggressive diplomacy.” Again, Obama avoids disturbing the status quo.

• The Arab World. . .

The Arab world is a mess. The “good” countries are run by tyrannical dictators. The poorly run ones are run by the theologically insane. They support terrorism world wide and hate America for things we have never done and never will, and they use their hatred of America and claims of victimhood at our hands as a crutch to justify their own failures.

Candidate Obama told us that he was uniquely suited to travel to the Arab world and change this. Unlike honkus maximus, he could gain Arab sympathy. He was a fresh start, and that would let him set the record straight -- America has no interest in a crusade, he would proclaim, and all would be good.

President Obama traveled to Egypt, birth place of the Muslim Brotherhood (an old guard member of the terrorism fraternity) and home to a repressive Egyptian regime, and from his mouth did come the words: (and I paraphrase) “it’s not you. . . it’s us. We need to change. Give us time. Don’t do anything until I get back to you.” And thus, the status quo was preserved.

• Guantanamo Bay. . .

Candidate Obama promised to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and restore habeas corpus for the detainees before his rear hit the Oval chair. When President Obama learned this would cause problems, he opted for the status quo.

• Iraq. . .

Candidate Obama promised to “responsibly end the war in Iraq,” and to remove all U.S. troops by the end of 2009. President Obama plans to remove only “combat” troops, by the end of August 2010, though this will leave “30,000-50,000 troops in advisory roles.” Once again, he opts for the status quo.

Status Quo Ante

But what will Obama do when the genie has left the bottle and shattered the status quo? In that event, Obama’s policy becomes one of status quo ante -- the quest for the peace before. Thus, if you want to know which party Obama will support in any conflict, do not look for his stated principles, look to see who caused the issue to become of international interest, he will oppose that party.

• Iran. . .

Candidate Obama promised “tough, direct presidential diplomacy” with the Iranian regime to solve the misunderstanding that had vexed Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. He extended his open hand, and Iran spit in it. Obama quietly slunk off.
Then in 2009, after a rigged election, the people of Iran flooded their streets in a budding revolution akin to those that crushed the tyrants of Eastern Europe. Obama, the human rights candidate, the man who thought he could solve everything with words, found himself strangely silent. Indeed, he barely raised a peep as the regime shielded the eyes of the outside world and crushed their own people.

Why did he not even speak out for the protection of these people? After all of his talk about human rights and supporting democracy around the world, would it not seem to make sense that he would support the people of Iran? I would, except that it was the people attempting to overturn their government that were disturbing the status quo. It was their actions, not the rigged elections, which brought this issue to a head as an international issues, rather than just an intranational issue. Thus, he remained silent in the hopes of restoring the comfort of the status quo ante.

• Honduras. . .

The final piece of the puzzle came last week. Obama sided with the repressive regimes in China and Iran, so giving a quick nod to a “military junta” should be no big deal. But it was. Why? What was different? This “junta” was disrupting the status quo.

By arresting Zelaya and throwing him out of the country, the Honduras Supreme Court and military elevated their dispute with President Zelaya from an intranational issue to an international issue. It did not matter that Zelaya acted illegally or that he provoked the incident, or that the Honduran government acted in accordance with the rule of law. . . they forced the issue to rise to the level where Obama had to become involved. Thus, he chose the side of Zelaya, in the hopes of restoring the status quo ante, so that he could return to ignoring the country.

Whether you call Obama’s policy supporting the current world order or the policy of hope for no change, it is clearly guided by a strong desire to avoid anything that disrupts the status quo. And as this becomes more and more obvious, look for foreign governments to learn that they can exploit his desire to vote present to extract amazing concessions.

Indeed, this week, India and Russia both proposed ending the dollar’s status as a reserve currency. Neither country is likely serious because the effects would be disastrous on the vast reserves of dollars they hold, but it will get concessions from Obama.

Russia is demanding the scrapping of the Eastern Europe missile defense system and the abandonment by NATO of Georgia and the Ukraine. North Korea wants money. And everybody else is getting their wish lists ready. [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...