You have to wonder if President Obama is reading the Jimmy Carter playbook on Iran in dealing with Egypt. Some eerie similarities exist and if President Obama isn't running the Carter playbook then he apparently is one of those condemned to repeat history. On the other hand, it's quite possible that the Obama administration actually has helped foster the unrest and is seeking to reap what it has sewn.
Showing posts with label Obama = Carter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama = Carter. Show all posts
February 5, 2011
August 7, 2009
Clinton, North Korea, issues
Earlier this week I wrote about President Bill Clinton doing an 'impersonation' of Jesse Jackson by going to North Korea to get hostages released. I meant to hit on a couple of other bigger points than what I mentioned in that post.
(1) Why were the detainees/hostages released?
(2) How did Bill Clinton physically get there? [If I'm not missing something here, then there could be a Department of State issue]
The answer to the first question should be fairly obvious. Why were the journalists released to Bill Clinton? He did have a better relationship with Kim Jong-Il than did George W. Bush. But other countries have a history, Jesse Jackson being a prime example, of releasing hostages/detainees to prominent Democrats and not to Republicans. Why is that? Democrats seem to have an eternal get out of jail free card for use in these situations, and it makes sense. When you look at the tinpots who typically are at the other end of these 'negotiations' they are not part of friendly nations. They are adversarial in nature. What do they have to gain by releasing people they might otherwise use as bargaining chips? Either those detainees have already been used as a bargaining chip, OR the tinpot dictators realize they get some PR by releasing hostages. But the PR isn't for them - it's for the Democrats in the United States.
They care about that. If they want to run amok who would they rather see in the White House - a conservative hawk or a weak liberal? Of course a weak liberal. So by making the Democrats look good, they buy themselves operational room because people in the US might perceive the Democrats as better positioned to get hostages release.
The alternative for the dictatorial regimes is to face a George Bush, or worse (for them) a Ronald Reagan. Remember the election of Ronald Reagan and the expedited release of the hostages in Iran? You can claim it was the Iran-Contra dealings but I guarantee you the Ayatollah was shaking in his boots and looking for a reason to get those hostages freed. Everyone thought Reagan would stomp them. Given that option or free reign to run amok, evil-doers will pick the latter option every time.
How did Bill Clinton get to go on this trip?
From the State Department's website page on North Korea.
Bill Clinton is not the Secretary of State. His wife is. Bill Clinton is technically a private citizen. There are no travel restrictions to the country for private citizens but two-entry visas must apparently be obtained from China. Bill Clinton did travel as a private citizen, even though it was clearly, though tacitly, choreographed by both governments. So how did he travel there, how did he get his visa(s) and were there any shortcuts around the travel and/or visa rules as outlined by the State Department.
I'm just asking, since the details aren't entirely transparent. Hey, if the left can try to stir up things on the right by making stuff up, we can do the same by asking questions about legality. If it's all above board great, just disclose it for us.
(1) Why were the detainees/hostages released?
(2) How did Bill Clinton physically get there? [If I'm not missing something here, then there could be a Department of State issue]
The answer to the first question should be fairly obvious. Why were the journalists released to Bill Clinton? He did have a better relationship with Kim Jong-Il than did George W. Bush. But other countries have a history, Jesse Jackson being a prime example, of releasing hostages/detainees to prominent Democrats and not to Republicans. Why is that? Democrats seem to have an eternal get out of jail free card for use in these situations, and it makes sense. When you look at the tinpots who typically are at the other end of these 'negotiations' they are not part of friendly nations. They are adversarial in nature. What do they have to gain by releasing people they might otherwise use as bargaining chips? Either those detainees have already been used as a bargaining chip, OR the tinpot dictators realize they get some PR by releasing hostages. But the PR isn't for them - it's for the Democrats in the United States.
They care about that. If they want to run amok who would they rather see in the White House - a conservative hawk or a weak liberal? Of course a weak liberal. So by making the Democrats look good, they buy themselves operational room because people in the US might perceive the Democrats as better positioned to get hostages release.
The alternative for the dictatorial regimes is to face a George Bush, or worse (for them) a Ronald Reagan. Remember the election of Ronald Reagan and the expedited release of the hostages in Iran? You can claim it was the Iran-Contra dealings but I guarantee you the Ayatollah was shaking in his boots and looking for a reason to get those hostages freed. Everyone thought Reagan would stomp them. Given that option or free reign to run amok, evil-doers will pick the latter option every time.
How did Bill Clinton get to go on this trip?
From the State Department's website page on North Korea.
ENTRY/EXIT REQUIREMENTS: North Korean visas are required for entry. The U.S. Government does not issue letters to private Americans seeking North Korean visas, even though in the past such letters have sometimes been requested by DPRK embassies. Prospective travelers entering and departing North Korea through China must also obtain a two-entry visa for China, as a valid Chinese visa is essential for departing North Korea at the conclusion of a visit or in an emergency. While the ROK Government is attempting to open direct travel routes to the DPRK, routine travel from the ROK to the DPRK is currently prohibited. Travel across the demilitarized zone (DMZ) is allowed only infrequently for official and government-authorized cultural and economic exchanges or aid shipments. There are no regularly operating direct commercial flights from South Korea to North Korea. U.S. citizens who arrive in North Korea without a valid U.S. passport and North Korean visa may be detained, arrested, fined or denied entry. Travelers to North Korea report that fees for local travel costs (taxi, tolls, permits and the cost for security personnel assigned to escort foreigner visitors) can be high and arbitrary.[Emphasis added]
Bill Clinton is not the Secretary of State. His wife is. Bill Clinton is technically a private citizen. There are no travel restrictions to the country for private citizens but two-entry visas must apparently be obtained from China. Bill Clinton did travel as a private citizen, even though it was clearly, though tacitly, choreographed by both governments. So how did he travel there, how did he get his visa(s) and were there any shortcuts around the travel and/or visa rules as outlined by the State Department.
I'm just asking, since the details aren't entirely transparent. Hey, if the left can try to stir up things on the right by making stuff up, we can do the same by asking questions about legality. If it's all above board great, just disclose it for us.
June 20, 2009
Darfur solved? Thanks Obama! Next Iran.
Jim Geraghty at Campaign Spot on National Review Online breaks the story President Obama has yet another notch in his belt of accomplishments. No more genocide in the Sudan. Apparently the administration has started referring to the situation in Sudan as 'the remnants of genocide'. Genocide over, just remnants left. Peachy.
Setting aside the fact that the phrase makes about as much sense as 'a little bit pregnant', clearly the Democrats are continuing with the modus operendi of style over substance. It's been working, so why not continue? The idea is that if you say something often enough it will become the conventional wisdom. Like global warming is a fact. Like Al Gore invented the Internet. Like President Bill Clinton balanced the budget not the Republican Congress in the 1990's.
The problem with that, is that it's just not true. It's deliberate deceit. We've come to expect that from the Democrats. But with the Obama administration, it's pathological. He's taken a page from the Hitler Germany fascist playbook - the page about the Big Lie. The idea is that the bigger the lie, the easier it will be to get people to believe it.
With Obama, it's not an art form, it's an obsessive compulsive disorder. With every new iteration of the unemployment figures in America, the figures that just keep on creeping upward, the administration ups the ante on the Big Lie. The rate of increase of unemployment is declining. Even better: We're saving more and more jobs. Saving jobs? It's a lie that can't be disproven. But it can't be proven either. Normally the onus would be on the White House to prove they saved 150,000 jobs. But with a compliant, drooling media, no one is asking the important questions.
Back to Darfur. Is genocide still happening? Yes.
[Emphasis added.]
The point here is to create a narrative that puts another notch on President Obama's belt. If they start saying in A.O. 2009 (Anno Obamani) the Great Caesar Obama solved yet another problem (the Sudan), they are hoping that by 2010 or 2012 it's become the conventional wisdom and keeps Democrat support up.
But there's a problem with or two with that. Firstly, the Big Lie is a flawed premise. Hitler's Big Lie was followed by a big fall. Now for the purpose of re-election, maybe they don't need to worry. The Big Lie is followed by a realization, a re-awakening. Witness the velvet revolution. Witness Tiannamen Square. The truth will eventually win out. But if it doesn't happen before 2012 it doesn't matter.
The bigger problem is how to tell the same tale about Iran. The lack of anything meaningful coming out of the White House on Iran is beyond incompetent. The silence is negligent and anti-Democratic. It's wrong, and it's bad. It gets worse. It turns out the actions being taken are actually anti-democratic.
So how does Obama take credit for solving Iran? He's left himself no room to spin this because he's acting like a little girl on this. Or worse, like Jimmy Carter.
The situation in Iran will far overshadow Sudan. That is reality. And it will be reflected in Obama's popularity ratings. No matter how much you spin, the truth is out there and it will descend upon the collective conscience eventually. The President's ratings are destined to fall, with all apologies to his success in bring peace and harmony to Darfur and the Sudan.
*loud cough*
Setting aside the fact that the phrase makes about as much sense as 'a little bit pregnant', clearly the Democrats are continuing with the modus operendi of style over substance. It's been working, so why not continue? The idea is that if you say something often enough it will become the conventional wisdom. Like global warming is a fact. Like Al Gore invented the Internet. Like President Bill Clinton balanced the budget not the Republican Congress in the 1990's.
The problem with that, is that it's just not true. It's deliberate deceit. We've come to expect that from the Democrats. But with the Obama administration, it's pathological. He's taken a page from the Hitler Germany fascist playbook - the page about the Big Lie. The idea is that the bigger the lie, the easier it will be to get people to believe it.
With Obama, it's not an art form, it's an obsessive compulsive disorder. With every new iteration of the unemployment figures in America, the figures that just keep on creeping upward, the administration ups the ante on the Big Lie. The rate of increase of unemployment is declining. Even better: We're saving more and more jobs. Saving jobs? It's a lie that can't be disproven. But it can't be proven either. Normally the onus would be on the White House to prove they saved 150,000 jobs. But with a compliant, drooling media, no one is asking the important questions.
Back to Darfur. Is genocide still happening? Yes.
Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration's comments yesterday that Darfur is experiencing only the "remnants of genocide," thus implying the troubled region's worst violence is in the past, have exposed a deep disagreement on the matter within the Obama administration.
Just two days earlier US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice described the situation as "genocide" and at a press conference in Germany earlier this month President Obama used the phrase "ongoing genocide."
[Emphasis added.]
The point here is to create a narrative that puts another notch on President Obama's belt. If they start saying in A.O. 2009 (Anno Obamani) the Great Caesar Obama solved yet another problem (the Sudan), they are hoping that by 2010 or 2012 it's become the conventional wisdom and keeps Democrat support up.
But there's a problem with or two with that. Firstly, the Big Lie is a flawed premise. Hitler's Big Lie was followed by a big fall. Now for the purpose of re-election, maybe they don't need to worry. The Big Lie is followed by a realization, a re-awakening. Witness the velvet revolution. Witness Tiannamen Square. The truth will eventually win out. But if it doesn't happen before 2012 it doesn't matter.
The bigger problem is how to tell the same tale about Iran. The lack of anything meaningful coming out of the White House on Iran is beyond incompetent. The silence is negligent and anti-Democratic. It's wrong, and it's bad. It gets worse. It turns out the actions being taken are actually anti-democratic.
So how does Obama take credit for solving Iran? He's left himself no room to spin this because he's acting like a little girl on this. Or worse, like Jimmy Carter.
The situation in Iran will far overshadow Sudan. That is reality. And it will be reflected in Obama's popularity ratings. No matter how much you spin, the truth is out there and it will descend upon the collective conscience eventually. The President's ratings are destined to fall, with all apologies to his success in bring peace and harmony to Darfur and the Sudan.
*loud cough*
May 10, 2009
Obama = Carter - Part II
Pre-election fears
meet post-election truths. On inflation.
On Iran, effete.
Meanwhile, reality continues to intrude;
His hypocrisy is astounding. Those who walked out were expressing their freedom of expression. He listened to the speech of the President and equates that to his own sick diatribes? All those countries walked out because of Ahmadinejad's arrogance and vile racism. But Obama will sit with him.
Weak. And racist. Just like this.
meet post-election truths. On inflation.
On Iran, effete.
Meanwhile, reality continues to intrude;
His hypocrisy is astounding. Those who walked out were expressing their freedom of expression. He listened to the speech of the President and equates that to his own sick diatribes? All those countries walked out because of Ahmadinejad's arrogance and vile racism. But Obama will sit with him.
Weak. And racist. Just like this.
Labels:
Ahmadinejad,
Bernanke,
Carter,
Iran,
Israel,
Obama,
Obama = Carter,
Schiff,
soft on Iran
May 4, 2009
Obama = Carter
Is Obama recycling the old Carter playbook? On some issues, such as energy it sure seems to be the case.
Most striking, in this quick comparison on the issue of energy policy is the fact that for 4 minutes, Carter didn't say much except that we've got a problem and he wants to fix it. Obama was able to do the same thing in in a 31 second commercial. They've gotten more efficient at pointing out a problem, and offering a straw man solution.
Claims are great when you don't have to back them up with facts or even offer details as to what your solution might possibly be.
Carter:
And Obama;
If you're old enough to remember Carter's admonishment to wear sweaters and turn down the thermostat, you might have the insight already to realize that Obama's urging people to inflate their tires equates to pretty much the same tripe.
The real question is whether President Obama is deliberately taking a mid-East crisis in Iran's nuclear program and trying to leverage it to destabilize the oil supply, and oil prices to further his green agenda, during a time of economic pain. He's a smart guy, he's got an agenda. The thought easily could have crossed his mind. I'm just throwing out ideas here, but it seems to me, these foreign policy gaffes, could either be a sign of incompetence or a sign of mad genius being used for a sinister purpose.
Most striking, in this quick comparison on the issue of energy policy is the fact that for 4 minutes, Carter didn't say much except that we've got a problem and he wants to fix it. Obama was able to do the same thing in in a 31 second commercial. They've gotten more efficient at pointing out a problem, and offering a straw man solution.
Claims are great when you don't have to back them up with facts or even offer details as to what your solution might possibly be.
Carter:
And Obama;
If you're old enough to remember Carter's admonishment to wear sweaters and turn down the thermostat, you might have the insight already to realize that Obama's urging people to inflate their tires equates to pretty much the same tripe.
The real question is whether President Obama is deliberately taking a mid-East crisis in Iran's nuclear program and trying to leverage it to destabilize the oil supply, and oil prices to further his green agenda, during a time of economic pain. He's a smart guy, he's got an agenda. The thought easily could have crossed his mind. I'm just throwing out ideas here, but it seems to me, these foreign policy gaffes, could either be a sign of incompetence or a sign of mad genius being used for a sinister purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
