The emasculation of America by its 44th President

Melanie Phillips, at the UK Spectator, writes about the weakening of American and the sucking up to America’s enemies and the throwing of America’s friends under the bus by the current administration:

“Terrific blog post at the Telegraph by Nile Gardner who absolutely gets the point about Obama’s catastrophic strategy of sucking up to America’s enemies while kicking its friends in the teeth:

In the past month we’ve seen ample evidence of this with the State Department’s appalling decision to openly side with Argentina against Great Britain over the Falklands, and the White House’s bullying of Israel. Meanwhile, the Obama team swiftly issued a groveling apology to terrorist sponsor Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, for earlier casting aspersions over the Butcher of Tripoli’s call for a jihad against Switzerland. A barbaric Islamist tyrant with American blood on his hands is, incredibly, treated better than the leaders of both Britain and Israel.

…In the space of just over a year, Barack Obama has managed to significantly damage relations with America’s two closest friends, while currying favour with practically every monstrous dictatorship on the face of the earth. The doctrine of “smart power” has evolved into the shameless appeasement of America’s enemies at the expense of existing alliances. There is nothing clever about this approach – it will ultimately weaken US global power and strengthen the hand of America’s enemies, who have become significantly emboldened and empowered by Barack Obama’s naïve approach since he took office.

The Obama presidency is causing immense damage to America’s standing in the free world, while projecting an image of weakness in front of hostile regimes. Its treatment of both Israel and Britain is an insult and a disgrace, and a grim reflection of an unbelievably crass and insensitive foreign policy that significantly undermines the US national interest.

As a result, the world’s tyrannies are now looking upon the nation that is supposedly the protector of the free world with undisguised contempt at its self-induced weakness. As Jennifer Rubin notes at Commentary, while Hillary Clinton and the Obamites went ballistic at the ‘insult’ to the US of Israel’s housing policy, Clinton herself was subjected to a public and humiliating dressing down by none other than Vladimir Putin. Rubin observes:

Putin has figured out that there is no risk — so long as you aren’t a small democratic ally of the U.S. — of incurring the wrath of the Obami. No condemnations or even frowns will be forthcoming. This is, you see, what comes from throwing ourselves at our adversaries’ feet and scorning our allies. Adversaries learn to take advantage of us while friends learn not to trust us.

Weakening America and strengthening its enemies. Yup, that was all in the prospectus when Obama ran for power. And now we are beginning to see its mortal effects.”

Israel in Peril?

Caroline Glick, writing in the Jerusalem Post, talks about Obama’s advisors on the middle east:

US President-elect Barack Obama has properly sought to maintain a low profile in foreign affairs in this transition period ahead of his January inauguration. But while Obama has stipulated that the US can have only one president at a time, his aides and advisers are signaling that he intends to move US foreign policy in a sharply different direction from its current trajectory once he assumes office.

And they are signaling that this new direction will be applied most immediately and directly to US policy toward the Middle East.

Early in the Democratic Party’s primary season, the Obama campaign released a list of the now-president-elect’s foreign policy advisers to The Washington Post. The list raised a great deal of concern in policy circles, particularly among supporters of the US-Israel alliance. It included outspoken critics of Israel such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser under president Jimmy Carter, and Robert Malley, who served as a junior Middle East aide to president Bill Clinton. Both men are deeply hostile to Israel and both have called repeatedly for the US to end its strategic alliance with Israel.

In the months that followed the list’s publication, the Obama campaign sought to distance itself from both men as the president-elect’s advisers worked to position Obama as a centrist candidate.

Although he was a junior staffer in Clinton’s National Security Council, since 2000 Malley has used his Clinton administration credentials to pave his emergence as one of America’s most outspoken apologists for Palestinian terrorism against Israel. Immediately after the failed July 2000 Camp David peace summit, Malley invented the Palestinian “narrative” of the summit’s proceedings. While Clinton, then-prime minister Ehud Barak, and Ambassador Dennis Ross, who served as Clinton’s chief negotiator, have all concurred that Yasser Arafat torpedoed the prospects of peace when he refused Barak’s offer of Palestinian statehood, Malley claimed falsely that Israel was to blame for the failure of the talks.

In succeeding years, he has expanded his condemnation of Israel. He insists that not only Palestinian aggression, but Syrian, Lebanese and Iranian attacks against Israel are all Israel’s fault. The Obama campaign distanced itself from Malley in May after the Times of London reported that he was meeting regularly with Hamas terror leaders.

As the election drew closer, the Obama campaign expanded its efforts to present its candidate as a foreign policy moderate. Moderate foreign policy advisers such as Ross were paraded before reporters. Both Obama and his surrogates insisted that he supports a strong American alliance with Israel. Obama abandoned his earlier pledge to withdraw all US forces from Iraq by 2010. He attempted to temper and later deny his public pledge to hold direct negotiations with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions.

Glick goes on to explain that while Obama insists that he supports a strong Israel, the recent activities by his advisors indicate the opposite.

Two days after his election, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius gave a sense of the direction in which Obama will likely take US foreign policy. And, apparently directed by Obama’s campaign staff, Ignatius based much of his column on his belief that Obama’s foreign policy views have been shaped by his “informal” adviser, Brzezinski.

Based on what Brzezinski and Obama’s “official” campaign told him, Ignatius wrote that the two major issues where Obama’s foreign policy is likely to diverge from Bush’s right off the bat are Israel and Iran. Obama, he claimed, will want to push hard to force Israel to come to an agreement with the Palestinians as soon as he comes into office. As for Iran, Obama plans to move immediately to improve US relations with the nuclear-weapons-building ayatollahs.

As for Malley, an aide of his told Frontpage magazine this week that acting on Obama’s instructions, Malley traveled to Cairo and Damascus after Obama’s electoral victory to tell Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Assad that “the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests.”

In a related story, Hamas terror operative Ahmad Youssef told the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper that in the months leading up to his election, Obama’s advisers held steady contacts with the leaders of the terror group in Gaza, and had asked that Hamas keep the meetings secret in order not to harm Obama’s chances of being elected.

Both Obama’s transition team and Hamas leaders were quick to deny Youssef’s statements. Yet, together with the earlier Times of London story about Malley’s contacts with Hamas and the new revelations about Malley serving as Obama’s unofficial Middle East envoy, the Al-Hayat report has the ring of truth.

WHAT IS most alarming about Obama’s emerging foreign policy toward Iran and its proxies on the one hand and Israel on the other is that it will cause actual harm to the Jewish state.

By pressuring Israel to cede land to Syria and the Palestinians, Obama’s apparent foreign policy will provide Iran with still more territory from which to attack Israel both through its terror proxies and with its expanding ballistic missile arsenal. By embracing the Syrian regime in spite of its support for terrorism, its nuclear proliferation activities and its subversion of Lebanon, the incoming Obama administration will embolden Syria to increase its subversion of Lebanon and Iraq, while strengthening its ties to Iran still further.

As for direct talks with Iran itself, the question immediately arises, what could Obama offer Teheran in exchange for an end to its nuclear program that Bush hasn’t already offered?

What it can offer is Israel.

What she means by that is that Obama will attempt to get Iran to back off its nuclear ambitions by getting Israel to give up its nuclear capability.

Over the past few years, Obama’s top nuclear nonproliferation adviser, Joe Cirincione, has repeatedly advocated placing Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the negotiating table and offering it up in exchange for an Iranian pledge to end its nuclear program. Defense Secretary Robert Gates – whom Obama is considering retaining – insinuated in his 2006 confirmation hearings that Iran is only building nuclear weapons to defend itself against Israel. Gates, it should be recalled, has been instrumental in convincing Bush not only not to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, but not to support an Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear installations.

What is profoundly distressing about statements by men like Cirincione and Gates is what they tell us about the strategic reasoning informing the incoming Obama administration. Their views echo those voiced by advocates of American abandonment of Israel such as Professors Steve Walt and John Mearshimer. Walt and Mearshimer argue that Iran is not a threat to US interests or to global security because in the event that the mullahs acquire nuclear weapons, they are likely to view them merely as a deterrent against Iran’s enemies. And as a result, Iran will respond as the Soviet Union did to a deterrent model based on mutually assured destruction.

This view is contradicted by Iran’s open advocacy of Israel’s destruction, and its declared willingness to absorb a nuclear attack in return for destroying Israel. But assuming that this how the Obama team views Iran, they should be the last ones advocating Israeli disarmament. Because if this is their view, then by their own reasoning, Israel’s presumed nuclear arsenal is necessary to deter Teheran from attacking. And if as Cirincione advocates, Obama intends to place Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the negotiating table, he will effectively be giving Iran a green light to attack Israel with nuclear weapons.

All of the Obama team’s post-election/pre-inaugural foreign policy signals place Israel’s next government – which will only be elected on February 10 – in an extraordinarily difficult position.

It is not just that their positions make clear that the Obama administration will do nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The Obama team’s pre-inaugural signals indicate strongly that Israel’s next government will need to strike Iran’s nuclear installations before two rapidly approaching deadlines.

The strike will have to occur before the mullahs enrich sufficient quantities of highly enriched uranium to produce nuclear bombs. And Israel will need to neutralize Iran’s nuclear program before the Obama administration begins implementing America’s new foreign policy.

I have a feeling that many Jews who supported Obama are going to find that they did not elect someone who has the best interest of the Jewish state in his policy program. While Americans support Israel because it is the only democracy in the middle east (with the exception now of Iraq), and because it is the only country in the middle east that supports freedom, democracy, and the United States, that support will now dissipate, it seems, under an Obama administration.

Technorati Tags: ,,,

The movement to censure Jimmy Carter

The movement to censure Jimmy Carter

Move America Forward, led my Melanie Morgan, a conservative radio talk show host, has formed a movement to censure Jimmy Carter for creating the conditions during his presidency that led to the formation of Islamofacism, and for his support of anti-American regimes around the world. In her essay in World Net Daily, Morgan writes:

There’s a raging battle going on right now for the future of the Middle East and one man is doing his dead-level best to undermine our security needs and objectives in this volatile region.

What is most scary of all is that man will cost American lives as a result of his foolish and dangerous actions.

Yes, that one man is Jimmy Carter, and it’s time to stop him.

Specifically, the Congress of the United States (as the people’s representative) must issue a resolution of censure against Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter, by abandoning the support of the Shah of Iran when Islamic radicals were rioting in the streets, allowed Ayotoallah Khomeini and his Islamic extremists take over Iran.

As Morgan states:

Who can forget Jimmy Carter’s true legacy: The impotent do-nothing policy in response to the Islamic fundamentalist crisis in Iran that led directly to waves of revolutionary fervor and ended in a 444-day hostage crisis.

Henry Precht, the State Department’s country director for Iran during the Iranian crisis admits that the failures in Iran by the Carter administration allowed for Islamofacism to reach new heights.

“There had never been an Islamic revolution” prior to the Iranian situation, Precht acknowledged to the Middle East Journal.

When Jimmy Carter piously backed away from the Shah’s regime in Iran, as Islamic revolutionaries were rioting in the streets, he sentenced the world to a pandemic of Islamic extremist violence for decades to come.

The Iranian military officials who were loyal to the shah (and anti-communist and opposed to the religious extremism of Khomeini) were working to quell the uprising by the Islamic revolutionaries. However, Jimmy Carter used his presidential authority, instructing the Iranian military officials to withdraw their support for the shah, and allowing Khomeini to seize power.

We are all now condemned to suffering the consequences of Carter’s miserable failure in Iran.

She continues:

When Palestinian terrorist groups were setting off suicide bombs in Israel to slaughter innocent civilians, Carter’s response was to go to the Middle East and condemn not the terrorists, but the Israeli government for not playing nice with the terrorists.

When Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, announced he would pay the families of Palestinian terrorists $25,000 for each suicide bombing committed against Israeli citizens, Carter responded by defending Hussein and fighting to lift the U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq.

Carter went so far as to welcome Iraqi intelligence agent, Samir Vincent, into Carter’s Atlanta area home and treated him to a night on the town. Samir Vincent even became a business associate of Jimmy Carter’s friends in a business venture called “A World of Friends.”

In the most recent elections in the Palestinian territory, Carter rushed to the team to serve as an election observer, hoping to get a little more time in the limelight from the liberal media that loves to promote his “Blame America First” mentality.

Just as he had praised the electoral process that Hugo Chavez had manipulated to achieve power in Venezuela, Carter heralded the Palestinian elections that brought to power the terrorist group, Hamas, as a model for others to follow.

Hamas has called for a nuclear strike against Israel that would wipe it off the map. Despite the fact that they are the most violent and deadly of the Palestinian terrorist groups, they nonetheless have no greater ally or spokesperson in the United States than Jimmy Carter.

Read the whole article.

If you are interested in supporting the Censure Jimmy Carter movement, go here and read more.