Obama Sells Out the Brits

Every time I think Obama can't shock me anymore, BAM!

The new Wikileaks drop and today's Telegraph revelation that Obama agreed to throw the U.K. under the bus to get his START treaty is giving me flashbacks to Clinton's ChinaGate.  It's not exactly the same thing, but exactly what diplomatic advantage is gained by giving our enemies defense secrets?  Ours or anyone else's?

According to the Telegraph report:

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week. Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Ace suggests we give this one 24 hours and keep in mind:

One thing: WikiLeaks doesn't have all the diplomatic cables. It might be the case (in fact, I'd bet hope it is the case) that the US and UK had a side-deal where the UK blessed this exchange.

Even if that's the case, it seems to me that any allies we have left might be reluctant to trust us in the future.  That is assuming that they still do, which is questionable.

Nice Deb suggests that this might also violate Article 3 of the NATO treaty.

I'm waiting for the spin to begin so we can sift through and find the real story.  Surely this can't be IT.  But if it is, hearings should begin immediately and as Ed Morrissey says:

Regardless of what Obama thinks of American nuclear deterrents and policy, he has no right to undermine the policies of our closest ally and stalwart friend, especially as they fight with us in Afghanistan.  Congress should immediately investigate this, and if possible the Senate should revoke its ratification of START.

What a disgrace.  Again.

(H/T:  Memeorandum)

What Did Obama Know and When Did He Know It?

Since Day One the Obama administration has done its dead level best to alienate our great ally Great Britain. It seems to be working. The Daily Mail is reporting that Team Obama was informed "every step of the way" about the negotiations and the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.

‘The US was kept fully in touch about everything that was going on with regard to Britain’s discussions with Libya in recent years and about Megrahi,’ said the Whitehall aide.

‘We would never do anything about Lockerbie without discussing it with the US. It is disingenuous of them to act as though Megrahi’s return was out of the blue.

'They knew about our prisoner transfer agreement with Libya and they knew that the Scots were considering Megrahi’s case.’

At home, of course, we heard Obama say Megrahi's release was "a mistake," Eric Holder called it "regrettable," and Hillary Clinton called it "absolutely wrong."

The fine point is did he sign off on it? Obama defenders will say that maybe Obama did in fact know about the negotiations and release, but that doesn't mean he signed off on it. So as David Frum asked last week, how vocally did Team Obama protest?

"Exactly how vigorously did the Obama administration protest? Why did those protests produce so little result? Do British/Scots feel so little regard for the new Obama administration that they ignore its strong complaints? Or were complaints possibly less than strong? After all, a complaint in the form, “We don’t want you to do X, but if you must do X, we prefer that you do it in the following way…” does not constitute a very resounding warning."

No matter what the answer it is yet another sign that Obama is soft of terrorists. At least, terrorists will see it that way. And that's what really matters.

(H/T: Memeorandum and Hot Air)

The Surreal Presidency and the Bermuda Triangle

This whole detainee transfer business this week has been just surreal to me. In fact, lots of things have felt that way since November, but this one just has me, well, I was going to say speechless but that's not true because I've written about it a lot. I guess I'm just incredulous.

Go back to the campaign when Obama first promised to close Guantanamo. He said this in May 2007:

"We need to bring to a close this sad chapter in American history, and begin a chapter that passes the might of our military to the freedom of our diplomacy and the power of our alliances. And while we are at it, we can close down Guantanamo and we can restore habeas corpus and we can lead with our ideas and our values."

In June 2007 he said:

"While we're at it," he said, "we're going to close Guantanamo. And we're going to restore habeas corpus. ... We're going to lead by example _ by not just word but by deed. That's our vision for the future."

Okay so January 22 he signs the Executive Order that closes Gitmo. The Order says it is "consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice."

The Executive Order also says:

"In view of the significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo and closure of the facilities in which they are detained would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice. Merely closing the facilities without promptly determining the appropriate disposition of the individuals detained would not adequately serve those interests. To the extent practicable, the prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals detained at Guantánamo should precede the closure of the detention facilities at Guantánamo."

Stop there for a minute. There's no plan as to what we're going to do with these enemy combatants; there never was. What he's saying here is that there are "concerns" about these detentions both here and abroad and that closure of Gitmo will "further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States..."

How's that working out for you today, Mr. Obama?

So far over 100 countries have refused to take these enemy combatants off your hands, specifically the Uighurs.

How do we solve that problem? We pay Palau $200 million to take 13 of them and we dump four off in Bermuda. Oh, but there's a problem there, too. Our United States government LIED to Britain about that. We purposely deceived them for their own good. A senior U.S. official "told the BBC that Washington was attempting to shield the UK from Chinese anger." China considers the Uighurs terrorists and would like to have them back. We were just trying to help the UK by lying to them.

With friends like that, you don't need enemies. I've discussed ad nauseum why the Uighurs are terrorists as has Thomas Joselyn at The Weekly Standard, among others. I'm not going back into that in this post. It's not even a negotiable topic. They are trained terrorists. Period.

The point here is that Obama has lied not just to the UK, but to the American people. The White House put out the story that this was a nice, happy deal. The premier of Bermuda put out a nice statement about what good friends we all are. When the flaming bag of poo hit the fan, Ed Morrissey rightly points out that "the White House tried to spin it by claiming they thought Bermuda’s premier had included the UK in their end of the discussions. "

First of all, the White House should have handled that and not farmed it out to Bermuda. That's pure incompetence, unless of course, we weren't planning on telling the UK in the first place.

If we are going to "lead with our ideas and our values" as Campaign Obama stated, is this what we can expect for the duration of his reign? Lies? Deception? Is that what our values are, now? If he's lying to the UK don't you think he's lying to us, too? Let's talk about the health care lie - or not. We'll save that one for another post. But he's lying to you.

Do not throw that argument at me that Bush lied. It's tired. It's been done. And resolved. And it detracts from this particular issue. Bush wasn't perfect and nobody says he was. But he kept us safe. And a lie from Bush does not excuse one from Obama.

The biggest thing I had against Candidate Obama was his stance on national security and while he has retained many of the policies of the Bush administration, I believe that his position on Gitmo and terrorist release is a poor one. He's turning it all back into a law enforcement problem (Mirandizing enemy combatants on the battlefield for crying out loud!) which is exactly, undeniably what led us to 9/11. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this is a bad plan. It didn't work before and Americans died. Why is Obama choosing to take us down this path again?

This is where I get that surreal feeling. I will have people tell me that I need "to support our president!" and "let him do his job!" "It's wonderful that he gave these men their freedom!" Refer to the paragraph about terrorists. Rephrase that sentence to "It's wonderful that he gave these terrorists their freedom!" and see how surreal that is.

All politicians lie, of course. But this one goes further because it alienates our ally Britain. Talk about making us look poorly in the eyes of the world - he thought Gitmo did, but what will other countries think about being lied to? This Bermuda Triangle puts the UK in China's crosshairs because they want the Uighurs.

Meanwhile, we're shipping the rest of the Uighurs, along with a lot of cash, to Palau. We're turning murderers over to the Saudis. And we've brought one to Manhatten, who incidentally could theoretically get a "not guilty" verdict and walk free.

It seems to me that the new Gitmo plan is unlock the doors. Alienate our allies. Suck up to terrorist dictators and ignore their actions that promise to endanger the world.

Do you feel safer now?

More on the iPod

We've got another day of testing at school today so hang with me; I'll be back to frequent posting soon!

It's not that the testing part is so time consuming, really. There's nothing very difficult about proctoring a test. But after the test, the second half of the day, my sophomores seem to think that they should have "free day" and not have to do classwork. Plus, we are still about 10 or 12 days away from spring break, and we are all ready for that. Trust me, I haven't planned anything so rigorous in the afternoon that they should worry. But neither should they expect to just sit there like rocks for a 40 minute class period. So, that was what took all my energy yesterday afternoon.

"What do you mean we have to work?! Why can't we have a free day?"

At any rate, I'm trying to keep up with the news while all of this is going on. I posted (like almost everyone else) about the iPod thing. The issue with the iPod, it seems to me, is this. It comes on the heels of the gift-gaffe with the Prime Minister (the DVD idea was weak and then they weren't even the right format for European players), and the return of the Winston Churchill bust. But this is the Queen of England. How about we give her something uniquely American? Professor William Jacobson raises China issue, as well. A valid point, to be sure.

I'll give credit where credit is due - the rare songbook was lovely. But why pile the arrogance on top of that with an iPod loaded with BHO speeches? Yes, it also had video of her visits to the US. And the Queen already has an iPod (couldn't his internet savvy people have picked up on that?). I go back to what I said last night. Tacky. But, it was a little better thought out than the Brown gift (by virtue of the songbook), so I'll rein in - a little.

On another note, Michael G. Franc has an article at NRO this morning comparing Obama to Huey P. Long. Here's a sample:

"Long’s critique of the Depression-era status quo strikes familiar chords: The wealthiest 2 percent of Americans owned 60 percent of the nation’s wealth, he argued. Equity dictated that these riches be spread far and wide, so that it might be spent by the poor (thereby stimulating the economy) rather than hoarded by the rich. Sound familiar?"

It's worth reading.

Meanwhile, I'll be holding the fort with my sophomores. Wish me luck.

Gift Gaffe

Okay I know every other blog in town has the iPod gaffe but I just can't help it. In case you've missed it:

Barack Obama met the Queen at Buckingham Palace today and gave her a gift of an iPod loaded with video footage and photographs of her 2007 visit to the United States. In return, the Queen gave the President a silver framed photograph of herself - apparently a standard present for visiting dignitaries.

The Queen already has an iPod, a 6GB silver Mini version she bought in 2005 at the suggestion of Prince Andrew.

Is it just me or is it TACKY to give the Queen of England something from Best Buy?

Tacky Gifts

Tacky.

Tack·y

adj. tack·i·er, tack·i·est Informal

1. Neglected and in a state of disrepair: a tacky old cabin in the woods.

2.

a. Lacking style or good taste; tawdry: tacky clothes.

b. Distasteful or offensive; tasteless: a tacky remark.

Prime minister Brown and his wife came to America bearing gifts. And like good hosts, the Obamas had gifts to give in return.

Sarah Brown brought gifts selected with thought and care; she gave Michelle Obama dresses with matching necklaces for Malia and Sasha and a collection of books by British authors.

Michelle gave the Brown children models of Marine One (probably picked up at the White House gift shop!)

Tacky.

Obama gave the Prime Minister 25 DVDs of "classic American movies."

Brown gave Obama "a first edition of Sir Martin Gilbert’s authorized biography of Churchill, all seven volumes of it, so a bit of the Churchill touch endures in the White House on British insistence. There was a framed commissioning paper for HMS Resolute, rescued by an American whaler in 1856; part of HMS Resolute was later made into the desk presented by Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880, and used by American presidents to this day."

And there was another gift for BHO: a pen holder fashioned from the timber of HMS Gannet, a sister ship of the Resolute that also served for a time on anti-slavery missions off Africa.

The Heritage Foundation offers some history of the HMS Gannet:

"But HMS Gannet was not, as a casual reader might guess, employed against the trade of slaves from Africa to the New World, and since it was built in 1878, it has nothing to do with Lincoln or slavery in the United States. It sailed the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, patrolling against Islamist slavers. In the Red Sea, the Africans it saved would have come, among other places, from Kenya. Obama has made mention of his grandfather’s antipathy to Britain, stemming from his experiences in colonial Kenya. It is quite possible that grandfather’s ancestors would, had it not been for the Royal Navy, have been carried away to slavery in Arabia."

Not tacky. Thoughtful. Ironic. Classy.

And If THIS Doesn't Bring a Tear To Your Eye...

Changing of the Guard, Buckingham Palace, 9/11/2001



Even Steve shed a tear on this one.