What Difference Does It Make?

With that inane response to questioning at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Hillary Clinton put forth the far left’s attitude about every hypocritical position they take and about anything that proves them wrong. Nothing matters to one self-righteously convinced of being right. Facts are useless and reality doesn’t exist.

To keep a proper perspective and context, Hillary’s response was: “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.” Interestingly, she contradicts herself with this arrogant and flippant remark.

“Figuring out what happened”, as she agreed “our job” was, actually does depend on the difference she sneeringly dismissed. That’s why the hearing was taking place. Of course, Hillary came to this hearing fully intent upon an offensive approach. Her tactic was to take the high road, aghast at the very idea of her competence, experience, professionalism or politics being questioned. In other words, she came as a hardcore liberal.

Sadly but unsurprisingly, the liberal media loved her for being obstinately aggressive and unforthcoming. A terrorist attack on a US embassy resulting in the murder of four American citizens doesn’t matter as much as toeing the political line. That line includes protecting a possible future presidential candidate from having to take responsibility for actions or inactions that contributed to the debacle.

No one died or was injured in the Watergate scandal, but Nixon was held to the fire and forced to resign. Bill Clinton’s lying under oath brought the same “What difference does it make” attitude espoused by Hillary. Could there be two different and hypocritical standards working here? You be the judge.

David J. Hentosh

Obama’s Foreign Policy Farce Exposed

Reminiscent of a Baghdad Bob performance, White House press secretary Jay Carney told the press on Friday that the violence occurring around the world at US embassies is “…in response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration or the American people, but it is in response to a video”.

This, of course, has to be the White House position because Obama told us he was “uniquely qualified” to bring stability to America’s relationships in the Muslim world. Many voters were fooled into believing that his charisma, alone, was enough to calm down Muslim fanatics and that his foreign policy of “throw away the stick and speak softly” was the answer. Worse than that, Obama fooled himself into believing it.

After one term of Obama’s foreign policy, the US has not only lost respect around the world, it has lost influence, credibility, and allies. In the Middle East, fear of US reprisal is no longer a concern for violence-prone fanatics who respect nothing but strength. Obama’s willingness to throw Israel, once a strong ally, under the bus is welcomed by most Middle East Arabs, but it is also a sign of weakness. That weakness is blood in the water for terrorist sharks, as is appeasement.

Iran has certainly taken advantage of Obama’s weakness and is fast approaching a viable nuclear weapon. Having arrogantly announced his intent of wiping Israel off the map, Armajinedad openly sneers at Obama and the UN, knowing there is nothing to fear from continuing his efforts. Without the “stick” of the US, the UN is even more useless than it has been. Israel, abandoned by Obama’s foreign policy, fully understands the danger and is on the verge of a military attack which will explode the Middle East.

Obama’s foreign policy farce is now being exposed, as were his other failed policies. He has nothing but to campaign on contraceptives, taxing rich people, abortion rights, gay marriage, and issues that prey on emotions. It would be very dangerous for voters to be fooled again.

David J. Hentosh

Obama International Failure Worse than UN Failure

The total failure of the UN concerning Iran, terrorism, and human rights issues is glaringly evident. The UN has been useless for years, internationally accepted as being little more than a stage for blustery rhetoric and hollow threats. Obama’s failure, however, has emboldened aggressive nation’s leaders, making it much more dangerous.

Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has benefited the most from Obama’s failure, bringing his nuclear weapons program to near fruition with impunity. Obama’s “multi-lateral approach” has failed to enforce US sanctions against Iran and, instead, has granted exemptions from those sanctions to all of Iran’s oil-trading partners.

Speaking at Tehran University, Ahmadinejad arrogantly proclaimed: “The existence of the Zionist regime is an insult to all humanity” and confronting Israel is an effort to “protect the dignity of all human beings”. Israel is on the brink of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities to prevent an Iranian nuclear attack, but Ahmadinejad seems confident Israel will not get needed support from Obama to do that. Obama’s weakness is responsible for Ahmadinejad’s confidence and increasing aggression.

Not so coincidently, Saudi cleric Salman Al-Odeh declared on an Arab TV station that the Holocaust is an “exaggeration” and that Jewish people consume the blood of children. He elaborated seriously on this despicable Arab-propagated myth, deliberately stirring up hatred. This comes from a cleric in a supposedly US-friendly nation, preparing followers for active aggression against Israel. No US response is expected.

Obama’s failure to act during the Arab Spring takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood has doomed that country. There are now reports that radical Muslims in Egypt are actually crucifying opponents of their president, Mohammed Morsi, on trees outside the presidential palace. There is no fear of reprisal from Obama.

Obama was weaned on a far-left agenda treating all cultures and nations with moral equivalence, except the United States, which is judged to be malevolent. Obama’s international failure is a direct result of that agenda. Heavily invested in Obama, the liberal media has tried to hide that failure, but the consequences are now too evident.

We are on the brink of a Middle East explosion, and Obama helped light the fuse. The UN’s incompetency pales in comparison.

David J. Hentosh

Obama is Fooled Again

While unconditional Obama backers fall all over themselves praising the latest idealistic attempt at diplomacy with North Korea, Michael Austin over at NRO rains on their parade by exposing the reality of the deal. Obama’s foreign policies continue to make him look foolishly naïve and endanger the world in the process.

From Michael Austin at NRO

After appearing to rush into an agreement just two weeks ago, the rug has been pulled out from under the White House by Pyongyang’s announcement that it will launch a “satellite” into orbit on April 15, the 100th anniversary of the birth of Great Leader Kim Il Sung. Of course, this satellite will be mounted on top of an intercontinental ballistic missile, and is thus a disguised missile test. This promises to scupper the food-for-nuke-freeze pact whereby the North would cease production at just one of its nuclear sites and forgo missile tests, in exchange for about 240,000 tons of food.

What was just a fortnight ago being hailed as a diplomatic coup for President Obama now is revealed for the sucker play it was…Either he (Obama) has to accept a de facto missile test, in contravention of his own agreement and numerous U.N. resolutions banning such activity, or he has to admit he got played…it doesn’t bode well for dealing with the North over the next couple of years…

Read it here: Ping-Pyong

DJH

Obama Administration Failure on Iran

The Obama administration has either been blind to Iran’s continuing escalation in aggression or still considers its original (campaign) policy of talking Iran out of stated intentions to be valid. Unable to focus on more than one problem at a time (and even doing that belatedly), the administration’s neglect has allowed Ahmadinejad to strut on the international stage like a serious world leader rather than the thug that he most certainly is.

Intelligence specialist Fred Fleitz writes in the Wall Street Journal that “U.S. intelligence leaders are mired in denial about Iran’s program to develop and build nuclear weapons… (and) unwilling to conduct a proper assessment of the Iranian nuclear issue”. The International Atomic Energy Agency has new information pointing to Iran’s military intentions of its nuclear program. This comes on the heels of Iran’s announcement of plans to build advanced centrifuge machines.

The French Foreign Ministry recently spoke out claiming that the Iranian nuclear program had “no credible civilian application. It also acknowledged that “This is a new violation of six security council resolutions and 10 resolutions by the council of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency”. (France taking a harder line than the US on Iran should keep all awake at night.) The impotency of international efforts to thwart Iran makes it imperative for the US to lead. That has not happened, and Iran now has the advantage.

Iran announced plans to expand its naval warships into the Atlantic as it has already done into the Mediterranean Sea. These warships will be equipped with cruise missiles having a range of 125 miles. Rockets fired at our troops in Iraq have now been shown to be coming from Iran, confirming long-held suspicions about Iran’s involvement with the Iraqi Shiite insurgents. Iran is also claiming to have successfully shot down US drones over its nuclear facilities. The saber is rattling louder and louder.

As the Obama administration focuses on re-election political issues, Iran continues to solidify its threats. Unfortunately, Iran’s intentions are much clearer than Obama’s and we are all in more danger.

David J. Hentosh

Obama Lost U.S. World Leadership Role

When Obama was elected, those enamored with his rhetoric convinced themselves that he was going to bring a new respect to America through his “wise” foreign policy, even though that policy was never delineated. The results, after just two years, are that the US has lost its world leadership role, insulted its allies, and has become a nation of inaction, indecision, and internal squabbling.

Afghanistan, “Obama’s War”, is a result of an election campaign based on anything that was not Bush. There was no policy with “superior intelligence” involved in going into Afghanistan and, essentially, trying to use successful military tactics from the Iraq (Bush’s) War. It was a mere fulfillment of a campaign pledge, and an obviously distasteful one for Obama. Media silence on that war has been a deafening assurance that all is not going well with “Obama’s War”.

US loss of leadership has been blatantly obvious in response, or lack of, to the current crisis in Libya. The Obama administration’s inability or unwillingness to act and to lead has been noticed around the world. In the UK, it is being expressed in the media that “…the only thing President Obama seems decisive about is his indecision”.

That indecision was reaffirmed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, meeting with foreign ministers in Paris about Libya, when she repeated the administration’s position that all options are on the table without endorsing any particular step. When pressed by French President Sarkozy to come out more forcefully, Hillary repeatedly responded “there are difficulties” and offered little else. As a result, European countries baffled by the US position on Libya are looking towards the UN for leadership, a desperate act in the absence of US leadership.

Obama’s inaction during Iran’s uprising was rationalized as a politically wise decision. It is true that, sometimes, doing nothing can actually be a productive strategy, but when it is the only strategy it becomes a very dangerous weakness. The US is becoming weak in the eyes of the world and enemies such as Ahmajinedad, Chavez, and Khadafi are exploiting that weakness. We need to reassert our leadership role now. A lot more damage can occur in the remaining two years.

David J. Hentosh

UN Impotency Highlighted by Libya Crisis

The UN Security Council has condemned the Libyan authorities for using force against protesters. That’s it. That’s the action taken so far by the UN against Libya’s citizens being slaughtered by madman KhaDaffy Duck.

The UN Human Rights Council is concerned enough to convene a special session on Friday to “discuss” the situation in Libya. This is the UN’s top human rights body which saw fit to elect Libya as a member last year. They, too, will end up issuing a carefully worded, and guarded, statement against “alleged” human rights atrocities in Libya. Odds are that they will find a reason to condemn the US, too.

Reports of Libyan military aircraft firing on protesters, confirmed by two Libyan Air Force pilots seeking political asylum in Malta, brought consternation, but not enough to have the UN impose a no-fly zone to protect Libyan citizens. That will have to be debated and voted on and then, most probably, vetoed by Russia and China. There are enough NATO bases nearby to quickly impose a no-fly zone, but “quick” is not in the UN’s vocabulary.

So far, Obama has remained silent and done nothing. He is caught between a rock and a hard place on this issue because of hatred of US involvement in the Middle East – hatred that seems to temporarily dissipate when help or aid is needed. Some are now wondering why the US military has not stepped in to stop the slaughter. That’s a strange turnaround, even for the Middle East.

In any event, Obama’s lack of action dovetails nicely with the UN’s inability or unwillingness to act. Together, they make a great rhetorical partnership, but sadly lack decisiveness. The US is responsible for approximately one quarter of the UN’s entire budget, but gets no bang for the buck – or even respect. The UN’s continued impotency is a good reason for it to become a cost-cutting opportunity for the Federal Government.

Maybe that budget should be put to a vote at the UN. I’ll bet they would act quickly on that.

David J. Hentosh

Obama Frustrated by International Failures

Obama’s Asian tour was not the highly successful endeavor he would have liked, or maybe even that he expected. The trade deals with India he took credit for were already in the works and the 50,000 jobs he boasted about were being “supported” by those deals, not created. The spin was on to make it look like he achieved much more than he did.

On his stopover in Korea, he failed to get the free trade agreement he expected. This was quickly followed by failure to get other countries to pressure China on its manipulation of currency. The White House vehemently denies that these were failures, but Obama’s frustrated reaction to questions indicated otherwise.

When asked by Sheryl Stolberg of The NY Times if his relations with other foreign leaders were a bit rocky now compared with previous summits, Obama shot back: “That’s not how I remember it”. When asked about complaints from foreign leaders, he was quick to retort: “What about compliments?”

There is a lot of frustration in those terse answers, indicating that the seams of the Anointed One’s cloak are coming apart. He is not used to the media asking tough questions, let alone questioning his actions. This is a “new world order” that he is not prepared for and he is showing his displeasure with flashes of anger.

One can easily get the idea that international failures are more disconcerting to Obama than domestic ones. He has always given the impression of wanting to be an international citizen more than just an American one. His desire to “transform” the United States points to a dissatisfaction with this country that he doesn’t seem to have with foreign nations. The media tried to make him king of the world, but that fairy tale has ended.

Combined with failure to talk Iran out of its nuke program, failure to talk Russia into following his lead, and failure to lead the world in energy policies, these latest setbacks show that Obama’s international influence has been terribly inflated by the press – much like his ego.

David J. Hentosh

Cuba Elected VP of UN Human Rights Council

One of Obama’s first foreign policy moves after being elected was to reverse Bush’s refusal to join the UN Human Rights Council. Thinking that the US could reform the corrupt Council from within, the Obama administration has done nothing but add legitimacy to an organization that has been proven to be a total sham.

Cuba has just been elected Vice President of the UN Human Rights Council. According to Cuba, this “…recognizes the exemplary work of the Cuban Revolution in favor of the human rights of its people and the world” (Cuban News Agency). Perhaps many of Hollywood’s political illiterates would agree, but this is an example of the Council’s complete lack of credibility. One should ask the many political prisoners in Cuban cells how they feel about Cuba’s “exemplary” human rights work.

In April, the UN Council elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women which is dedicated to the advancement of equality for women. This coincided with Iran’s announcement of a new policy of arresting suntanned women to enforce its strict Islamic dress code. The irony was surely lost on the Council’s members, but it exemplifies the ignorance that abounds.

The Council has also proven itself to be obsessed with condemning Israel. Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights, tells us that “There are more Council resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all other U.N. states combined…The Council is now sponsoring three simultaneous investigations of Israel…and 181 states are deemed not worth investigating at all.”

The US has silently allowed this farce to continue and its very presence has given the Council credence in the eyes of the world. Obama’s ideological decision to join this council has produced one other outcome worth noting: US taxpayers now pay 22% of the Council’s costs.

David J. Hentosh

Obama’s Foreign Policy Under Siege

Obama told the cadets at the U.S. Military Academy that his defense policy will be based on “global cooperation” and “stronger international standards and institutions”, leaving all to understand that military might will be devalued under his administration (
http://tinyurl.com/3agxahg
). His approach has already been shown to be ineffective.

North Korea’s deliberate sinking of a South Korean vessel is, no pun intended, another testing of the waters by an aggressive nation sensing weakness from Obama. While most analysts believe that North Korea does not want, and cannot win, an all-out war with South Korea and the US, it seems that doubts concerning Obama’s will to respond militarily are motivating North Korea to push the envelope to see how far they can go.

The administration issued warnings to North Korea and is trying to get China to pressure North Korea on the matter, but China is avoiding taking sides. There is little motivation for China to align itself with an administration that has been globally apologizing rather than showing strength and leadership. China has veto power in the UN, causing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to avoid answering questions on whether Washington would support additional U.N. sanctions. “Global cooperation” is floundering.

Iran has already shown the world that Obama’s approach is not only a poor deterrent; it is an opportunity to be taken advantage of. Iran’s nuclear program has been continuing under the stalled policy of gathering international support while Russia, instead of supporting the US, has been aiding Iran in its attempt to build nuclear facilities for “peaceful” purposes. Russia also poked the US in the other eye by offering Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez aid in developing nuclear energy. Russia’s cards are on the table and Obama’s hand is weak.

It is doubtful that Obama can change world opinion of his weakness without resorting to military might. It may come to that and Obama may be up to the task. However, a much stronger stance on the world stage should have been in play all along and Obama’s speech to the US Military Academy shows that he still doesn’t get it. Until he does, his foreign policy will remain under siege.