Venezuela is Just a Tiny Little Country, Right?

With regard to Hugo Chavez it seems that once again Obama misses the point. When reporters pointed out that he was being criticized for shaking hands with Chavez, Obama replied:

"Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States’. They own Citgo. It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States. I don’t think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela."

Obama remains locked into his narrow focus of the world. It's not so much that we are worried about the "defense budget" of Venezuela, even though that in itself is debatable because of its allies. The larger issue here seems to be that Obama is providing legitimacy to this thuggish terrorist by his "polite conversation" and "shaking hands."

Granted, in some situations it would be worse to rudely pull back and refuse to shake an offered hand, but in this case it was reported that Obama "sought out" Mr. Chavez, crossing the crowded room to get to him. Was that really necessary?

Chavez uses his government to protect FARC terrorists. Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), is one of the deadliest and largest terrorist organizations in the world. In 2005, The Weekly Standard described FARC this way:

"Founded as the armed wing of the Colombian Communist party, this 16,000-strong terrorist force recruits children and funds its activities with billions of dollars collected as taxes on the cocaine trade. The group's explicit objective is to take Colombia by force. In pursuing its mission, FARC terrorists have kidnapped, extorted, and executed thousands of innocent civilians, bombed buildings, assassinated hundreds of political leaders, and, with two other local terrorist organizations, have turned Colombia into one of the most violent and dangerous countries in the world. All in all, FARC has caused the deaths of more than 100,000 people.

"The prominent FARC leader Olga Marin, for example, spoke on the floor of Venezuela's National Assembly in the summer of 2000, praising Hugo Chavez as a hero of the rebel movement and thanking the Venezuelan government for its "support."

After the 9/11 attacks, Chavez said,' "The United States brought the attacks upon itself, for their arrogant imperialist foreign policy.' Chavez also described the U.S. military response to bin Laden as 'terrorism,' claiming that he saw no difference between the invasion of Afghanistan and the September 11 terrorist attacks. "

Chavez considered himself a "brother" and "partner" of Saddam Hussein. He maintains close ties with Libya and Iran.

In 2003, Thor Halvorssen, writing for The Weekly Standard, said in response to a complaint by 16 congressmen, including Barney Frank and John Conyers, who complained that the United States was not adequately supporting Chavez against opposition:

"It is unthinkable that congressmen who enjoy access to detailed intelligence reports are willing so blithely to disregard the Chavez government's track record on matters that directly affect the national security of the United States. "

Indeed. It is equally unthinkable that the United States would legitimize or recognize a terrorist regime such as that of Chavez. It is even more unthinkable that Obama would not recognize that error. It again goes to show Obama's narrow view of history which is quite dangerous.

(H/T: The Plum Line and Memeorandum)

Thanks Prof. Jacobson for the Post of the Day spot!

The Obama Doctrine

There's been a lively debate on this blog of late regarding the release of the torture memos. (I've linked it on the top of the sidebar if you want to participate without scrolling down and searching for it).

One side (mine) believes that the release of the torture memos was a bad idea; yes, much, but not all, of the information was already out, however, now our enemies know our limits. This is new information. For more on that, see this IBDEditorial.

The other side, and pardon me if I'm oversimplifying it, seems to think that the release was a good thing because now we are kinder and more benevolent and Big Bad Bush is gone and the world will love us. The US was evil in the past, we're "better than that" and now that we don't torture anymore (i.e. bother to gather intelligence), the terrorists will think twice about killing us.

On the talk shows yesterday, Michael Hayden reaffirmed his WSJ piece by saying:

Michael Hayden, who served as former President Bush's last CIA director from 2006 to 2009, said releasing the memos outlining terror interrogation methods emboldened terrorist groups such as al Qaeda.

"What we have described for our enemies in the midst of a war are the outer limits that any American would ever go to in terms of interrogating an al Qaeda terrorist. That's very valuable information," Hayden said during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday."

"By taking [certain] techniques off the table, we have made it more difficult -- in a whole host of circumstances I can imagine -- for CIA officers to defend the nation," he said.

An article by Con Coughlin of the Telegraph recognzies the release of the memos for what it is:

"But a change of leadership at the White House does not mean the world has suddenly become a safer place. Al-Qaeda is still devising plots, the Taliban continues to murder coalition forces and rogue states such as North Korea, Syria and Iran persist with efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction while supporting Islamist terror groups.

So Mr Obama must take care when he attempts to score cheap political points on national security issues, as he did last week with his unnecessary decision to release previously classified details of the legal opinions authorising the use of the extreme interrogation techniques – torture, to you and me – that were drawn up by the Bush administration."
Then this from Brietbart:

But Obama is outpacing even Gorbachev. After just three months in power, the new American leader has, among many other things:

—Admitted to Europeans that America deserves at least part of the blame for the world's financial crisis because it did not regulate high-flying and greedy Wall Street gamblers.

—Told the Russians he wants to reset relations that fell to Cold War-style levels under his predecessor, George W. Bush

—Asked NATO for more help in the fight in Afghanistan, and, not getting much, did not castigate alliance partners.

—Lifted some restrictions on Cuban Americans' travel to their communist homeland and eased rules on sending wages back to families there.

—Shook hands with, more than once, and accepted a book from Hugo Chavez the virulently anti-American leader of oil-rich Venezuela

—Said America's appetite for illegal drugs and its lax control of the flow of guns and cash to Mexico were partly to blame for the drug-lord-inspired violence that is rattling the southern U.S. neighbor.

I guess the Obama Doctrine is shaping up.

History Begins....When?

As the Summit of the Americas winds down today, reviews of Obama's performance are coming in, both positive and negative, depending on who you read.

Professor William Jacobson pointed to a Bloomberg piece which I had missed. All the fuss right now is over Obama's receipt of the Chavez book and over his fist-bump-sort of handshake with Chavez. I'm not sure how he could have graciously refused the book, and I can't fault him for that. Now, if he posts a five-star Amazon review of the book, we might have problems. But since Obama can't read Spanish, it's not likely.

No, the Bloomberg article quoted Obama, after Ortega's denunciation of the United States, as saying “You can’t blame the U.S. for every problem in this hemisphere,” Obama said. “I am very grateful that President Ortega didn’t blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.”

Jacobson, Althouse, and others, myself included, recognize this line as a rehash of his excuse for his friendship with Bill Ayers. Remember when he said, "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."

Jacobson makes this valid point:

"There is something truly bizarre about this reasoning. If something happened when Obama was not of a certain age (we know it is at least eight years old, although we don't know where the line is drawn) then he accepts no responsibility. That is fine if one is talking about personal responsibility only. Obama is no more responsible on a personal level for what others did, be it yesterday or 30 years ago, than anyone else. But Obama no longer is "anyone else."Obama is the President and bears the burden of dealing with accusations and attacks on this country related to events which did not take place on his watch."

In Obamaland, history began when he says it does. It's a totally narcissistic view of the world and should not shock us when he invokes this world view. This is a man who wrote his autobiography while still in law school, when he was still nobody. Nothing is more important to him than the subject of himself.

Maybe that's harsh, but consider the fact that he has never, so far as we know, lifted one finger to help his brother-in-the-hut, or the latest half-brother we've just learned about, or even his immigration-challenged aunt. These people can't help him. They are no benefit to him.

Maybe I'm too presumptive in analyzing his family tree. But there is no question that he has expressed disdain and offered apologies for America ever since he's been elected.

I'm no psychologist and don't want to get into pop analysis of his narcissism. I'll leave that to this guy who has written about narcissism as it relates to Obama.

Jacobson makes the point that Obama's view is "cowardly" and I might suggest also that it is dangerous. To ignore or discount what happened before you were born is dangerous, but when you become the President of the United States you OWN American History and it is his duty to defend us, not to blithely tolerate fifty minute harangues of our faults or shake hands with or appease dictators.

If Obama is such a master with words, why couldn't he come up with a better defense of Amercia after Ortega's speech, than that it all happened on somebody else's watch? We were rotten then, but now we aren't.

He's got to do better than that.

Update: John Hinderaker at Power Line nails it: "Does Obama really not understand that hostile foreign leaders are making a fool of him and of the country he purports to lead? Apparently not. I don't think Barack Obama is a stupid man, but he is in so far over his head that every time he ventures onto the international stage he not only embarrasses himself--and us--he damages, if ever so slightly, our national security."

And for a counter-view: Don Surber agrees with Obama.

(Thanks for the link, Professor!)

Obama's Apology Tour

It's almost too much to ask - to expect red-blooded, patriotic, hard-working American citizens to stomach much more of this apology tour.

It's not like we should be surprised, though. The back story was there.

We have Obama's twenty years sitting in Jeremiah Wright's church listening to Wright denigrate the United States.

We had Michelle's comment: “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback" [emphasis mine]. She's right about one thing: it's definitely a different kind of politics.

We had the associations with Bill Ayers and with ACORN and all the others.

Then he insults our British allies by returning the Winston Churchill bust and slighting the Prime Minister when he visited America. Obama gives the Queen an iPod (albeit AND a lovely book).

While disenfranchising our allies, he sucks up to terrorist sponsors and dictators. The "lets make nice" video to Iran was embarrassing. Iran was so impressed they've convicted and imprisoned an American citizen for eight years in a Tehran jail. One more time: these people HATE us!

And so as Americans, how were we supposed to feel as Obama traipsed through Europe apologizing for America at every turn?

I never thought I'd see an American president bow to a Saudi king. Ever. Wrong on every level.

In Strasbourg Obama said, "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." He said that Americans don't appreciate Europe's "leading role."

Charles Krauthammer had some things to say about that "leading role" comment:

"Maybe that's because when there was a civil war in Europe's doorstep in the Balkans and genocide, it didn't lift a finger until America led. Maybe it's because there was an invasion in Kuwait, it didn't lift a finger until America led. Maybe it's because with America spending over half a trillion a year keeping open the sea lanes and defending the world, Europe is spending pennies on defense.

It's hard to appreciate an entity's leading role in the world when it's been sucking on your tit for 60 years as Europe has with regard to the United States..."

I'd like to speak to, or hear from, some World War II veterans about what they think about this constant apologizing.

The overall effect of it all is that one should be embarrassed to live in America - we're such an awful, arrogant country. We should suck up to and shake hands with dictators and terrorist sponsors so we can be friends with them, but meanwhile, lets piss off our European allies. Let's tell Israel they are on their own now. WTF?

And now this, from Obama's most recent speech to Latiin American leaders:

"I know that promises of partnership have gone unfulfilled in the past, and that trust has to be earned over time. While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership.

There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations; there is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values. So I'm here to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained throughout my administration."

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air said it best:

"Obama’s apologizing for being dictatorial … to Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and the Castros. As for “dictat[ing] our terms,” we used to call that defending American interests. When negotiating, people try to get the best terms for themselves."

I cannot imagine Reagan, for example, going out into the world and denigrating America as this president is doing. It enrages me. Hope and Change? It's change, for sure.

The next president will have much apologizing to do, himself.

Update: A reader/commenter recommended this book - I've just ordered it.