Happily!****

** **

B****

** **

*This administration is not just a lame duck, but a comatose one.*

** **

*Obama Loses His Chances on Foreign Policy With the Collapse of His Second
Term*****

*By CONRAD BLACK <http://www.nysun.com/authors/Conrad+Black>, Special to
the Sun | June 26, 2013*****

*
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/obama-loses-his-chances-on-foreign-policy-with/88330/
*****

Several months ago in this space, on slight twinklings of accelerated
economic growth, confirmation of the path to energy self-sufficiency,
conciliatory noises to the Republicans, and (prayerfully hopeful) signs
that the president’s irrational preoccupation with arms control might cause
him to do something about the Iranian nuclear program, I dared to
write<http://www.nysun.com/foreign/obamas-middle-east-tour-offers-a-hopeful-sign/88255/>that
he could be the first president since James Monroe whose second term
would be better than his first.****

That was not a very high bar, as I am unable to find any positive
accomplishments of his administration in its first term. Despite my
frequent expressions of under-appreciation of this administration, I always
hope the president of the United States does well, and am eager to seize
any plausible pretext to be positive.****

But it is really an insuperable challenge to put any positive face on the
events of the past few weeks. As I wrote here last
week<http://www.nationalreview.com/article/351307/syria-mess-conrad-black>,
it is impossible to imagine what the president thinks he is doing in Syria.
And the brush-off he received at the G-8 meeting in Northern Ireland last
week from Vladimir Putin, the head of the Russian thugdom that by fraud and
force rules the shriveled remnant of the country that imploded after 45
years of trying to rival America, appears to be a new nadir in the
self-abasement of the U.S. presidency.****

Unfortunately, it was the merest prelude to the oratorical self-immolation
Mr. Obama went on to conduct in Berlin. Like an anti-Vietnam college
demonstrator in a time warp, the president genuflected to the
moral-relativist fiction that terrorism is the result of “instability and
intolerance.” He inflicted on his German audience his enthusiasm to fight
global warming, even though there is no global warming: no movement in 16
years and one centigrade degree in 30 years. There is some climate change,
but no evidence that human behavior has anything to do with it.****

This is the president who padded around the most inane conference in modern
world history in Copenhagen in 2009, unsuccessfully seeking an interview
with the Chinese prime minister and trying to assemble a $100 billion
annual payoff to the most bloodstained despotisms in the world as the
penance of the advanced countries for the evil of a carbon imprint
generated by successful economies. Four years on, he is still babbling the
same nonsense, more publicly and with a reduced possibility of anyone
taking it seriously except the Mugabes and similar tyrants, still plying
their rounds with cupped hands and shrieks of environmental victimhood.****

Even more astonishing is his continuing preoccupation with arms control.
The entire arms-control regime has been exposed by the Iranian theocracy,
in its only service to the civilized world. It was always, almost from
Hiroshima on, a club whose membership was gained by a succession of
countries that declared they were adequately important and responsible to
make and deploy such weapons. The Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France,
China, India, Pakistan, and, discreetly, Israel and South Africa (which has
since renounced these weapons) joined the nuclear club uninvited, while
most countries signed the Non-Proliferation Agreement, which pledges the
growing ranks of the nuclear powers to seek world disarmament.****

This was always an impossible and undesirable objective; only the presence
of deliverable nuclear weapons in the hands of some of the main Western
powers, especially the United States, has saved the world from a
devastating general war these 65 years. It was a matter of time before one
or more completely unacceptable countries tried to acquire these weapons to
exploit the potential they conferred for blackmailing others. Stalin could
claim that the Soviets needed an atomic bomb to avoid intimidation from the
United States (i.e., intimidation into honoring their commitments at the
Yalta Conference in 1945 to a free and democratic Eastern Europe).****

The British, even under the Labor party, could claim justification because
they had been co-developers of atomic weapons with the U.S. and wished a
deterrent to the USSR indigenous to Western Europe. France would have these
weapons if the British and Russians did, China if the Americans and
Russians did, India if China did, and Pakistan if India did.****

China could be tolerated even though Mao Tse-tung used to claim that China
could endure a nuclear war. There has always been a fear that Pakistan,
because of its chronic instability and poverty, could be seized by
extremist elements who would then flaunt the country’s nuclear arsenal,
though this fear has been mitigated by the Pakistani army’s frequently
demonstrated propensity to intervene in civil affairs and dismiss the
government and rule for more than a decade at a time.****

But Iran is a step into uncharted waters; it is a country led by people who
praise martyrdom (however implausibly) and frequently speak of the
destruction of Israel. It would be one thing if the Obama administration
had been blasé all along about Iran’s nuclear capacity, and relied on
massive retaliation and anti-missile defenses for deterrence.****

But instead it has intermittently maintained that force is an option, and
promised, in Hillary Clinton’s expression, “crippling sanctions” as a prior
form of dissuasion. In fact, the U.S. has waffled and apparently caved like
a soufflé, and is regarded as a paper tiger, having plunged into
Afghanistan and Iraq and squandered its credibility, the lives of thousands
of soldiers, the cohesion of the Western Alliance, and trillions of dollars
in apparently fruitless nation-building.****

This administration has allowed Russia to maintain its first-strike
capacity against Western Europe by downsizing the U.S.’s promised
anti-missile defenses there, sending a regrettable message to the Czechs
and Poles, while it seems to be handing Iran a satellite-dominance of
Syria. There is no rationale at all to official American policy toward Iran.
****

It is neither strength nor appeasement, but stern promises that are not
followed up by action: the worst of all worlds, and the technique best
assured of inciting the most undesirable behavior by the power it is
attempting to influence. It is simply mad, an almost indescribable lapse of
judgment, for President Obama to show up in Berlin warbling about nuclear
disarmament. There is no reason for the United States to disarm further.****

This is all against the backdrop of a crumbling decay of the
administration’s moral authority at home. The National Security Agency
controversy is a sideshow. Everyone knew that there were habitual gross
liberties taken at the expense of the privacy of the citizens. Fifty years
after Bobby Kennedy was tapping Martin Luther King’s telephone, and 45
years after Lyndon Johnson tapped the phone of his own vice president,
Hubert Humphrey, no one — given 9/11 and other excuses for massive upward
redefinition of the federal government’s right to monitor its citizens —
should be surprised at the invasion of citizens’ privacy, unjustifiable and
reprehensible though it is.****

And the indictment of the revealer of these secrets, Edward Snowden, under
the Espionage Act, is nonsense. He is a thief, not a traitor, and has in
some respects performed a useful service. The pathetic spectacle of the
outgoing director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, testifying before a
congressional committee about the IRS affair illustrates the
administration’s determination to fumble and dissemble its way through that
outrage, which has caused Mr. Obama’s honesty to be discredited. (The new
director of the FBI, James Comey, is one of the worst possible choices: He
is steeped to the eyeballs in the skulduggery of the American
prosecutocracy, and the persecutor of Martha Stewart and Frank Quattrone,
though he did resist some of the excesses of the Patriot Act.)****

The Benghazi affair — crowned by Hillary Clinton’s address to the Muslim
world assuring it of America’s high regard for Islam, to support the
administration’s canard that an Islamophobic kook provoked the assault on
the consulate in which the ambassador to Libya was murdered — is the most
profound depth, to date, this regime has plumbed. A political concern that
the country would realize the falsity of the president’s claim that the War
on Terror had effectively been won was never a cause worth the sacrifice of
the life of an ambassador.****

The combination of all these events and the president’s terminally
detached, robotic adherence to a decades-old, long-discredited playbook, as
he somnambulates through an apparently endless sequence of blunders and
fiascos, leaves America and the world impatient for another election. *This
administration is not just a lame duck, but a comatose one.*

 ****


__._,_.___






__,_._,___

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to