Tag Archives: foreign policy

You Already Have, Ace

Posted on by
Reply

Egyptian Prime Minister Mohamed Morsi had this to say on the third day of rioting, vandalism, desecration, and protests in and around the American Embassy in Cairo:

We will not permit any such event, any such occurrence against the embassies present in our territories.  The Egyptian people reject any such unlawful act.

You already have permitted such events.  For days.  And apparently, for days, the Egyptian people reject no such thing.

Morsi added this, too, in all seriousness:

We count on the US administration and the US people to take serious steps to put an end to that [anti-Islamic movie], because this is considered a crime against humanity and a crime against Muslims[.]

No unutterable arrogance here.  Free speech is a crime against humanity?  Free speech is a crime against Muslims?  According to whom, exactly, and by what authority?

Speaking of crimes, where is Muslim respect for our beliefs, for our free speech?

Oh, and Morsi had some boilerplate, too:

But at the same time we firmly say that this cannot be taken as a justification to assault consulates or embassies and cannot be taken also as a justification for killing innocent people.

Sure.

Who Has Israel’s Back?

Posted on by
Reply

Not the Obama administration.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lately pressed Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama to make clear what—if anything—would trigger a concrete response to Iranian efforts to obtain nuclear weapons—an effort that is very near to success.  Netanyahu also said that the Obama administration and other Western “allies,” by failing to draw a bright red line, lack the moral authority to press Israel not to preemptively attack Iran.

If Iran knows that there’s no deadline, what will it do?  Exactly what it’s doing: it’s continuing without any interference towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability and from there nuclear bombs[.]

Obama insists that concrete measures are unnecessary: a campaign of financial pressure and diplomacy are sufficient.  Never mind that he’s waived key parts of the sanctions for 20 of Iran’s primary trading partners—including Russia and the People’s Republic of China.  Indeed, Obama flatly refuses to set red lines.  He doesn’t want to be committed to actual action.

Netanyahu has asked to meet with Obama on the matter while in New York, or in DC, were that more convenient to Obama.  Obama, though, refused the meeting.  No, the candidate would rather be out campaigning than doing the foreign policy part of his job.

Israeli officials confirmed to Fox News that the White House had rejected their request.  A White House spokesman also confirmed that Obama is not expected to meet with Netanyahu anywhere, citing “scheduling conflicts.”  Further, according to the spokesman,

They’re simply not in the city at the same time.

Never mind the offer to be in a city at the same time.  And more weasel-words from the candidate, through his surrogates: Tuesday, they released a statement denying that any formal offer was made for a meeting in the capital—without saying whether an offer was made for a meeting elsewhere, like New York.

Contrary to reports in the press, there was never a request for Prime Minister Netanyahu to meet with President Obama in Washington, nor was a request for a meeting ever denied[.]

No formal request.  And no denial that the informal, impromptu request was made and rejected.

Further, the statement said that while the guy who occasionally sits in the President’s chair will be addressing the UN General Assembly and the Clinton Global Initiative, he will not be having one-on-one meetings with world leaders; this should not be seen as a snub of Netanyahu.

Sure.  The leader of a nation whose very existence is threatened from a nuclear assault is just one among many leaders.  No big deal.

Sounds like excuse-making to me.  Obamatalk.

Former Ambassador John Bolton has a slightly different take:

I don’t see it so much as a snub as a horrible, substantive mistake in American foreign policy.

After four years, this guy still isn’t ready for the big leagues?  And he said what about Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney’s foreign policy readiness?

Tolerance and Timidity

Posted on by
Reply

In response to the assaults on our embassy in Egypt and our consulate in Libya, in the latter of which, the thugs cold-bloodedly murdered our envoy, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and some of his staff, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama had this to say through his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.  The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.  But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

Notice that: “Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”  But with the Obama administration, tolerance only goes one way: there’s no hint of any expectation that others respect our religious beliefs or our rights.

This isn’t tolerance.  It’s timidity.

Politics and Israeli Security

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington Examiner‘s Philip Klein reported last Monday that Democratic National Committee Chairwoman and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D, FL) said to a training session for Jewish Democrats just before the Democratic Party Convention,

We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.  They’re undermining Israel’s security….

Wasserman Schultz denied this, saying her remarks were “deliberately” misrepresented.  She insisted, through an unnamed spokesman, that what she really said was this:

What jeopardizes Israel’s security is the suggestion, for partisan political gain, that the election of either political party would weaken the long-standing relationship of the United States and Israel….

(In response to her denial, Klein posted the audio of Wasserman Schultz’ remark.)

Then we have the 2012 Democratic Party Platform saying this about Israel: no mention of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which is a radical change from 2008 where the DNC acknowledged Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.  And party’s 2012 platform says this about Iran:

President Obama believes that a diplomatic outcome remains the best and most enduring solution.

At the same time, he has also made clear that the window for diplomacy will not remain open indefinitely and that all options—including military force—remain on the table[.]

This is another radical walk-back from their 2008 platform, which said

The world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

When questioned about these changes, Wasserman Schultz’ DNC said this in its responding statement:

This is just another attempt by the Romney campaign to turn our support for Israel—which has always been bipartisan—into a partisan wedge issue by playing politics. This is both cynical and counter-productive to Israel’s security.

Hmm….

The Progressives once again ask us to choose between them and our lying eyes.

Update:  On Wednesday, in response to an enormous public outcry over this abandonment of Israel by the Democratic Party, the Democrats altered their rules for their platform content, and they reinserted language averring Jerusalem to be the Israeli capital.  Language concerning a nuclear Iran remains missing.

This is naked vote pandering.  The Democrats told the truth about themselves the first time.

Hmm….

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama had a lot of rhetoric in his acceptance speech last night.  He also had this, ostensibly referring to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney:

You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally.

Was Obama really talking about himself, though?  After all, he’s the one who insulted Great Britain by sending back to them the bust of Churchill that had sat in the oval office for years, a gift from our closest ally.  And then doubled down on the mess by giving an iPod full of Obamatalk to Queen Elizabeth. He’s the one who travelled to Copenhagen to make a personal plea (“I’m the President,” he said then, and in his speech last night) for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics, only to see them go with Rio de Janeiro without any further consideration of Chicago’s bid.

How’d he do in Beijing last week, then?

Meanwhile, the People’s Republic of China has laid claim to the entire South China Sea, nearly to the shores of the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia.  Without any opposition from anyone, other than helpless protests from those victimized nations—and idle chit-chat from the pivoted-toward-Asia United States.