Of all the bizarre fictions that the media have spread about Barack Obama, the strangest is that’s he non-ideological. The supreme purveyor of this fantasy is Obama himself. During his trip to Tobago to meet with Latin American leaders, the president claimed "we can make progress when we're willing to break free from some of the stale debates and old ideologies." That’s a pretty funny sentence when your foreign policy reeks of Jimmy Carter, fermented since 1977.
In a room stuffed with Marxist crackpots like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, Obama came not to lecture, but to charm. America’s just one country among many, and he was "inclined to listen and not just talk." There were no "junior partners" in the Americas, just partners. He came not to defend America, but to calmly hear it trashed, and win people over with his charisma. Obama believes in his charisma far more than he believes in America.
"I didn’t come here to debate the past," Obama declared. "I came here to deal with the future." Obama explicitly claimed his own biracial skin displayed a new openness on America’s part: "As has already been noted, and I think my presence here indicates, the United States has changed over time."
Now there’s a powerful defense of your country, President Obama.
Obama’s so egotistical he thinks America has two historical eras, Before Obama and the Glorious Now. After sitting through a 50-minute diatribe from that communist thug Daniel Ortega, who ranted that America had unleashed a century of expansionist aggression, Obama’s response wasn’t national, just personal: "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old."
Apparently, that sorry act of aggression was John F. Kennedy’s failed Bay of Pigs attempt to rid Cuba of Fidel Castro. Few corrected Obama’s mistake – that lost battle occurred a few months before the world was transformed by his birth. Obama was asked later what he thought about Ortega's speech, and he only said "It was 50 minutes long. That's what I thought."
There’s another powerful way to defend your country, President Obama.
Obama was just as non-confrontational with that other thug Chavez, who pressed Obama with a copy of a book-length anti-American diatribe called "The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of Pillage of a Continent." Its author, Eduardo Galeano, typically described America under President Bush as a terrorist war machine in a 2006 Pacifica Radio interview: "This $2,600 million spent each day to kill other people, this machine of killing peoples, devouring the world resources, eating the world resources each day. So this is a terrorist structure indeed, and we are in danger, so President Bush is right, I think. We are suffering a terrorist menace."
But when Chavez handed him Galeano’s thirty-year-old communist diatribe, Obama could only say "I think it was, it was a nice gesture to give me a book. I'm a reader." Being obsessed with himself, Obama also said he should have given Chavez his books. Obama added that Chavez’s harsh rhetoric didn’t mean they couldn’t engage in civil dialogue. There’s only one thing wrong with that sentiment: it’s not civil dialogue for Chavez to demand that Obama read about how his country is bleeding the Americas to death.
Yet one more powerful – oh, never mind.
American reporters saw this as a glorious moment. Time’s Tim Padgett said the hate-America gift was appropriate, because Obama "proved at the Trinidad summit to be the first U.S. President to get it." Obama "gets" the America-haters. But how would Obama respond to the charge that Franklin Roosevelt’s "Good Neighbor Policy" or John Kennedy’s "Alliance for Progress" was just more imperialistic aggression? Is it simply inappropriate to defend American presidents, even when they’re Democrats? The "evil empire" narrative must always be listened to with respect – and without rebuttal?
Only Obama deserves respect, apparently. Padgett thought the Latin leftists should show respect by reading the president’s own masterful books in order to admire his "common-sense, post-ideological political philosophy."
To glimpse at the warped worldview of our media elite, look no further than a news "analysis" by Steven Hurst of the Associated Press, who compared Obama favorably to....Mikhail Gorbachev. Apparently, like Gorbachev, Obama presides over a corrupt and crumbling empire: "During his short – by Soviet standards – tenure, he scrambled incessantly to shed the ideological entanglements that were leading the communist empire toward ruin. But Obama is outpacing even Gorbachev."
The leftist media look at Obama and see themselves. There are no "ideological entanglements." They’re just out to make the world a better place, insisting that America needs to shrink itself into a smaller, quieter, less "judgmental" partner, and do so while the Western hemisphere goes off a left-wing cliff.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Of course he welcomes it
April 22, 2009 - 09:42 ET by EugeniaHe lived in Muslim-drenched Indonesia throughout his childhood. And he and Michelle have been America-bashing since their college days. He's not hearing anything he hasn't heard before, and worse, he's not hearing anything he disagrees with. We have our first militant anti-Americans in the White House. Who should be surprised that he doesn't defend this great country to these tyrants?
Obama welcomes
April 22, 2009 - 09:50 ET by CT PatriotObama welcomes America-bashing--
But America doesn't welcome Obama-bashing.
What the hell has happened to us?
Tax man
April 22, 2009 - 09:53 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsHmmm, Obama wants to tax Americans to death but told Castro to NOT tax any dollars sent his people's way by Americans. Gee, why does this guy want to punish us so?
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
2009 AB after 2008 BB
April 22, 2009 - 10:00 ET by GeneralAlSince theTeleprompter Obamessiah has come, I think it is now proper to mark time on him. Hence 2008 BO [Before Obama] and 2009 AO [After Obama]. After all, hes the Obamessiah!
This guy is in the most powerful office in the world. His ascension to this office is the equivalent of the stock room person at Wal-Mart being elevated to the board chairman after three months on the job.
He displays a lack of gonads when dealing with the rest of the world.
obama is an anti-American
April 22, 2009 - 10:14 ET by pitter43obama is an anti-American bigot, what else could he be expected to do except bash America?
Mitt Romney said this in an
April 22, 2009 - 10:15 ET by motherbeltMitt Romney said this in an NRO article:
Vice President Biden was right that the new president would be tested
early in his administration. What the world learned was not good news
for freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world has been a
timid advocate of freedom at best. And bold action to blunt the
advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking.
Read the whole thing
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Ahmadinejad can act with
April 22, 2009 - 10:43 ET by SeashellAhmadinejad can act with confidence that the forceful options once on our proverbial table have been shelved.
To me this is the most scary thing about the Obama adminstration. These thugs know they can do whatever and Obama won't touch them in any way.
BTW-Thanks for the link.
Europe now making noise about wanting to prosecute on 'torture'
April 22, 2009 - 10:35 ET by krendlerWay to go, Barry.
Amateur Hour continues in the nation's capital.
Europe now wants to prosecute U.S. government officials as a result of documents released by Obama on confined spaces, insects, water-boarding etc.
Obama is turning out to be a flat out disaster, both from an economic standpoint and foreign policy. It's all about making himself look good and he seems to think the best way to do that is by constantly squawking about things he "inherited" and how much the U.S. has been "damaged during the past 8 years".
What a great unifier/healer he's turned out to be.
The guy's still campaigning.
Obama's bad, really bad-----
April 22, 2009 - 11:20 ET by Roscoe MendagoAre Obama voters too embarrassed to admit they voted for the wrong guy? My guess is yes. There will come a day when no one will admit to voting for the Marxist goon.
How can people, seeing what this guy is doing by ignoring America's goodwill around the world and creating ill will from America's past peccadilloes, not figure out Obama is a self serving schmuck trying to absolve "himself" of all guilt and blame. There's no defense of his country, just "I didn't do it". Yeah, and while he is doing this he's destroying America's economy, FLAT-OUT DESTROYING IT!!
All the while this phony "Ally Oop" inspired goon walks around the world on a self promotion tour bad mouthing America. There couldn't have been a worst choice for CiC.
This guy is going to get us all killed!!!!
Not ALL of us...
April 22, 2009 - 11:51 ET by Doc_NavyI have been saying since Nov 4th, 2008 that I expect another major terrorist attack (NOT "Human caused disaster") inside the United States within the first 2 1/2 years of the Obama Administration. Seriously. I honestly think it will happen. Why? Obama is doing EXACTLY what I figured a narcissistic, America-hating, Black liberationist, liberal socialist would do.
Nothing is his fault.
Everyone must love him.
America must always be wrong in the eyes of the world. (Therefore they will love the messenger, Obama.)
Our economy must be wrecked so that the Fed. Govt. can swoop in to "Save" us. (TARP, Prokulus, Cap-n-Trade, Etc...)
He'll be more worried about enemies from inside America than outside. Why? Because the "Insiders" have the ability to remove him from power.
Because of 5, our intelligence organizations will be ordered to turn their attention inward instead of outward. (Ex: DHS looking at all conservatives and military Vets as "potential terrorists" or the FBI's scrutiny of the Tea Party movement. Or the personal attacks by the Obama administration against a PRIVATE Citizen, Rush Limbaugh.)
Because of 6, our borders will become even easier to cross, and external enemies that SHOULD have been watched won't be, because the intelligence industry is too busy looking for the next McVeigh, or Waco.
Because of 7, terrorists will have a MUCH easier time entering the US.
Boom!
It's all Bush's fault. (See #1.)
Doc
I have 2 things ...
April 22, 2009 - 11:57 ET by SentryDanI have 2 things to say. First, Obama will not defend any American who didn't or doesn't have the same philosophy that he has. I believe that most knowledgeable people feel that "the one" wants to turn the United States into a marxist-socialist country. (IMO)
Second, Obama ISN'T an honorable man. His actions since he has been elected and sworn-in speak volumes.
Remember folks, Freedom isn't Free. It was bought with the blood and sacrifice of the men and women who are serving and who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces.
For those who fought for it, Freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know.
Also remember folks, that the way to SUPPORT THE TROOPS is to support their mission. Anyone who says that they support the troops but don't support their mission is lying about supporting the troops. And if you want to know, yes I do have a dog in the fight, he is a United States Marine.
Ideology
April 22, 2009 - 12:52 ET by KC MulvilleIdeology gets a bad name. An ideology is simply an attempt to form a coherent theory about what's happening, and a hierarchy of values that guides you how to deal with the future.
So, we all know that any claim of being "ideology-free" is just deceptive rhetoric. It's what you tell someone when you don't want to them know what you're really doing.
None dare call it treason
April 22, 2009 - 13:19 ET by dvtazIn the old days anyone consorting with the enemy was called a traitor. This must be the new administration's policy of groveling before your enemies to beg for forgiveness for being too arrogent.
Whose President
April 22, 2009 - 20:17 ET by usinkoreaI've been reading the conservative blogs and commenting about this over at Commentary magazine's site since the torture memos came up, and I've been saying I think the critics of Obama are missing the boat --- they might be on the docks, but apparently there is some fog and they can't quiet see the gangway. I think this post comes closer than others.
I've had a hard time articulating it myself or putting my finger on it sufficiently too - because we still haven't seen much policy action by Obama, just glimmers of where he's heading.
The best I've been able to come up with to get at it quickly is this: Imagine if Bill Ayers were president:
what would our interpretation of his moves be if he did exactly the same things we've seen Obama do - from the apology tours to showing warmth to Chavez to releasing memos that will demoralize and cripple the CIA?
I don't think we'd be talking about Ayers is trying to win the thugs of the world over to America's point of view.
We'd make more sense if we thought his gestures were meant to bring the thuggish US of A. over to their point of view.
Ayers has gone down to meet and endorse Chavez. Rev. Wright went to Kadafi. Far Left America bashers in our own society have a habit of publically going to meet the biggest thugs on the planet as a way to say, "These people have long been demonized by the ignorant US government - who is actually itself worse in how it brazenly treats the rest of the world, and that is something I hope to help change by showing some in America what is really going on in Venezuela/Cuba/Vietnam/the Soviet Union and telling Americas what evils the US has done abroad..."
We have to wait to see what concrete foreign policies Obama comes out with and how he handles the next major foreign policy crisis --- but what we have seen from him so far, and what we know about his previous associations and what kind of literature and social movements inspired him in his youth --- it seems to me there is a whole lot more going on here than a naive president trying to superficially making the thugs like us more than thus more amenable to standard American policy ideas.
And maybe also remember, Obama's talk about Change has never been about changing the world - as it has been for other presidents like under Wilson --- but about changing America.
Hating America
April 22, 2009 - 21:18 ET by ghblogJohn Gibson is going to have to write another book about hating America. He totally left out those south of our border and many U.S citizens (I have a hard time allowing myself to call them Americans) who hate us.
Read my review of Gibson's book:
http://www.framingthedialogue.com/archives/hating-america/
If the Shoe Fits
April 22, 2009 - 21:20 ET by rightwingidiotSometime ago, I think between the election and the inauguration, there was a PBS special on Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. The program showed how Chavez publicaly impuned and belittled his department heads when they didn't perform up to his expectations.
He also attacked a British reporter during one of this public meetings. The attack was aimed more at the press in general and not specifically at the reporter, but he used the event and the reporter as fodder for his rant.
As I watched the program I couldn't help but think of Obeyme and how much I thought that him and Chavez were so much alike.
I remembered how Obeyme treated Joe the plumber after he (Obeyme) stuck both his feet in his massive piehole with the "spread the wealth" comment. He didn't just impune Joe, he veraciously attacked him and made him the butt of many derogatory comments in speeches thereafter.
I think that Obeyme is more like Chavez and other dictators than he's different. He hates America, he hates what it stands for, and he's all too willing to reform it into something that we will not recognize and few of us will want to live in.
"If Liberals had to live in the world they champion for just one day, they would become Conservatives the next." - RWI
This is so true
April 23, 2009 - 06:19 ET by bknownstVery appropriate to say "Steven Hurst of the Associated Press, who compared Obama favorably to....Mikhail Gorbachev." Finally some one compares Comrade President Obama to another dispicable communist dictator.