Free Markets, Free People

Foreign Policy Is A Real Area Of Strength For Obama Administration

And yes, I’m being very facetious when use that title.

Again, the Obama administration has managed to PO our allies. This time, the entire EU:

President Obama’s decision to skip a United States-European Union summit meeting scheduled for Madrid in May has predictably upset European officials, who suggested on Tuesday that the summit itself will now be postponed, possibly to the autumn.

In addition to the palpable sense of insult among European officials, there was a growing concern that Europe is being taken for granted and losing importance in American eyes compared to the rise of a newly truculent China.

Jetting off to Europe to watch the UN’s global warming initiative fail is ok. And so is making an unscheduled trip to pitch the Olympics for Chicago.

But a US-EU summit? Phaa … it wasn’t even important enough to put on the schedule:

The White House explained the decision as a matter of scheduling, insisting that the May visit to Europe was never on the president’s agenda, so it could not be said to have been canceled.

Well there you go.

Speaking for Mr. Obama, Mr. Gordon told journalists in Washington on Monday that the trip to Spain “was never on his agenda.” The president had “traveled more to Europe in his first year probably than any president has ever done in the past, and he looks forward to continuing his engagement bilaterally with European allies and directly with the European Union.”

But that doesn’t include the US-EU Summit, which for some reason, the Europeans see as a very important.

The Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who is scheduled to arrive in Washington this week on a visit, was described as angry and embarrassed, and European officials said there was a set of high-level diplomatic exchanges overnight.

And, of course, with a PO’d Spanish PM, one of the goals of the administration is surely to be helped along:

But a senior American official said that Mr. Gordon and Mr. Burns emphasized to Spanish officials, when the summit was raised, that they “were not in a position to commit to one.” In fact, the official said, the Obama Administration has been “pursuing and getting a better relationship with Spain and the new E.U.,” with Mr. Zapatero visiting Washington twice.

Ummm … sure seems like it, doesn’t it?

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

30 Responses to Foreign Policy Is A Real Area Of Strength For Obama Administration

  • But wait, what about the “disarmament treaty about to be concluded with Russia” (per SOTU)?
    Oh, you say negotiations may be starting soon?
    What about the gallant efforts to restore Chavez clone Zevallos to the presidency of Honduras so he can continue his plans to eliminate the local congress and supreme court?
    Oh, you say they peacefully held their regularly-scheduled elections and voted for someone different?
    Well, looks like foreign policy is in hands just as capable as Zybrinski and Halfbright

  • Seeing what Jimmy Carter Obama is doing to foreign policy is truly, truly sad.

    The whole world is watching, and they are starting to say that they want George W. Bush back. The Clown™ is a rank, rank amateur.

  • Yet, if you watch them complain about it I would put money them blaming ‘typical America’ for this while still carrying on their adoration of Obama.

  • The serious damage is still over the horizon.

    His job will be to have the U.S. role over on its back so that the wolves can have at its belly.

    • Typo: “role” should be “roll.”

      • “Typo: “role” should be “roll.”

        Now, maybe that should have been “Esther Rolle.”

        Or perhaps “seeded roll”?

        I once saw a police report that said that “the roll of people to stop traffic in their neighborhood is to stay out of the way of fast-moving cars.”

        So if the police can eff up “role” and insert “roll,” you, too, are forgiven. :-)

  • Let’s hope he does better with the Russians, Chinese, French, British (oow), Israelis (oow), Indians, Pakistanis, and Iranians (oow) …

    The administration on Monday asked Congress for more than $7 billion for activities related to nuclear weapons in the budget of the National Nuclear Security Administration, an increase of $624 million from the 2010 fiscal year.
    NNSA Administrator Thomas D’Agostino defended putting more money into the programs, saying the U.S. needs the best nuclear weapons facilities, scientists, technicians and engineers as it moves toward eventual disarmament.
    “This budget is implementing the president’s nuclear vision,” he said.

    • So, we need more money to develop more facilities to disarm ourselves????  WTF???

      I see in the margins a link to another blog article:

      It’s Time To Face The Facts On Obama: He’s A Moron

      I hope so.  I really do.  Because the alternative is that he’s doing all this on purpose, which would make him the greatest menace to the United States since 1861.

  • As much as I have complained about Imeme’s “Apologizing for America ’09″ tour, I fear that the next president will have to have his own apology tour, spending his first several months in office traveling from capital to capital to try to patch things up.

    Once again, I’m wondering if all those lefties around the world who thought Imeme would be so gosh-darned wonderful are starting to realize just how wrong they were.  They complained about Bush’s “arrogance” and “cowboy diplomacy” because his policies weren’t in accord with their mushy-headed lefty hallucinations about how the world works, but at least he would show up when he was supposed to show up, follow protocols, and not generally come across as a vain, incompetent ass.

    José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who is scheduled to arrive in Washington this week on a visit, was described as angry and embarrassed…

    Wait’ll he gets the unassembled model of the USS Olympia and a paperback autobiography of George Dewey as a gift from the Obamas!  The buzz in DC is that Imeme chose these gifts instead of his original idea (VHS collection of classic Speedy Gonzales cartoons) when he found that he could only get the tapes “like new” from e-Bay; he didn’t want to give the Spanish PM a used set.  Big of him, eh?

  • Yeah, but at least he isn’t an “arrogant cowboy” , Like Bush, right?  Of course Bush managed to get a multi nation coalition together and got some meaningful trade agreements passed.  This buffoon alternates between bowing and scraping to foreign dignitaries, and deliberately insulting them like he repeatedly insulted Gordon Brown.

  • Surprising that people consider Bush’s foreign policy much better.
    We went from having support of all countries to fight with us to a place where they not only will not fight with us, they are reluctant to share information with us.
    Our president invaded a country on false pretenses (where are those weapons of mass destruction).
    No progress was made with North Korea.  They are a greater threat now then when Bush took office.
    Iran has facilities working to enrich uranium.  This all in Bush’s watch.
    I forgot, a Russian invasion.  Russia is obviously more of a problem now then when Bush took office.
    Not to mention, contrary to what Guliani would have you believe, there was a terrorist attack during his watch.  So tell me, what was good about his foreign policy.
    Now, we have Iran actually moving in the right direction.  Now, I don’t give credit to Obama for this as it is a movement Persians.  However, his decision to not take direct action after the election has shown to be very wise.
    I’m not going to claim that Obama’s greatest strength is foreign policy, but to try and make an argument that Bush was a foreign policy success is laughable at best.
     

    • Who argued anything about Bush’s foreign policy one way or the other? This post is about Obama’s foreign policy and his promise that it would be so much better than Bush’s.

      • Read the comments… it turned into we want Bush back, etc.
        “they want George W. Bush back”
        “Yeah, but at least he isn’t an “arrogant cowboy” , Like Bush, right? ” I think you can sense the sarcasm.

        • Oh, the comments, right – much more important than addressing the post. Pardon me for getting in the middle of the spitwad fight.

          • are the comments not representative of the blog itself?
            As for your article.  The premise seems to be that Obama is pissing off foreign leader, therefore it is bad foreign policy.  You do this by taking on a few quotes.
            However, it is hard to argue that we have don’t have a better standing in the world with foreign leaders now than we did just one year ago.  The premise of you article is to provide a few quotes that show he is annoying our allies.  However, with the exception of Britain, world leaders view us in a much more favorable light than they did just one year ago.  Note, I think the the citizens of Britain view us more favorably, but maybe not their leaders.  In that sense, his foreign policy in regards to this article is a success, not a failure as your premise would have us believe.
             

          • No, the comments aren’t necessarily representative of the blog. They’re open and free for anyone to use. As I see it, a representative comment section would be heavily moderated and only those comments which supported the blog’s position would be approved. That’s obviously not the case here.

            As for my premise, it is a continuation of a premise (you should read the blog more often) which pretty much supports the fact that he’s done a lot to piss off foreign leaders, including many of our allies (Poles, Czechs, Brits, etc). Now if that’s an example of “good” foreign policy, then you and I will have to agree to disagree.

            As for Britain’s people v. leaders. We don’t conduct foreign policy with Britain’s people. How they people feel about us is, in the foreign policy world, irrelevant. And that is the subject of the post – foreign policy.

          • I have no disagreement there on the British people.
            I’m not saying that every action taken by Obama is good foreign policy. I said so in a previous post.
            That said, our standing with foreign leaders is better today than it was 1 year ago.  Although the bar was low, that is a success.  Where will it stand in 3 more years?
            I will certainly read the blog more often.

          • That said, our standing with foreign leaders is better today than it was 1 year ago

            Is it? You’ll be hard pressed to find much out there to support your assertion. As I see it and have analyzed it, the world has pretty much reverted to its normal state – suppressed anti-Americanism in part of it and virulent anti-Americanism in the rest.

            I will certainly read the blog more often.

            Great. Thanks. We need more dissenting voices. Or let me put it another way, we need more intelligent dissenting voices. And I appreciate yours.

          • A good standing with foreign leaders is not really the end goal.  Wanting to be liked is a piss poor foreign policy, though the left seems to ‘think’ that’s the point.

        • Where did the comments turn into “we want Bush back”?  Please cite verbatim.

          While you’re thrashing desperately to find some factual underpining for your comment, I’d say that McQ‘s point is spot-on: the post and comments aren’t about “gee, Bush was great and we all just love him and pine for his return”: it’s about what a f*ck-up Imeme has been.  And please spare us the “but world leaders got Obama fe-vah!” If they do, it’s not translating into any solid policy achievements, is it?  You complain about all of Bush’s foul-ups, but what has Imeme done to improve the situation?  No-Ko and Iran are working hard on nukes and ballistic missiles.  No agreement with Russia.  No massive reinforcements to A-stan.  We’re still in Iraq.  So, please tell us what Imeme has done that’s soooo much better than Bush.

          Oh, other than, “But everybody else likes him!  ‘cuz I say so!”

          • Foreign policy takes time.  We have only moved backwards in regards to Iran and North Korea for years so it is quite hard to move forward.
            The good, Israel and Palestine are closing in on entering peace talks, probably closer than they’ve been since Clinton left office.  I’m still disappointed by statements about freezing settlements by Clinton, but all in all it is a step in the right direction.
            Iran is certainly headed in the right direction as people are not only questioning Khamenei, but so are other ayatollahs.  Furthermore recent protests have gone after Khamenei himself “Death to Khamenei.”  This is certainly progress which may not have happened if we interfered with the elections as prescribed by McCain.
            It also looks like China and Russia are closer to not  vetoing sanctions.
            Guantanamo so far is certainly a failure.
            Iraq was winding down before he took office.  Wouldn’t have been much different.
            Although I considered it a negative, Obama has been much more proactive on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border with drone attacks.  A lot of people have been killed and many hawks likely think this is a good thing.  Interesting that this isn’t discussed very much.

          • It takes more time with dumb moves like the one discussed in the post.

            Israel/Palestine talks are something they’ve been “entering into” for 4 decades. That, in and of itself, is not a “foreign policy win”. In the case of those two, results matter.

            Iran has learned to play the world like a violin. It is continuing to do so.

            Hypotheticals and conjecture like McCain prescriptions don’t interest me. He’s not in charge of foreign policy.

            Killing bad guys is good – not sure why it has to be discussed here in order for that to be our understood point of view. Seems to be a pretty common sense belief about war. That’s really not foreign policy though, is it? And that’s what this post discusses.

          • Yeah, whatever.  I notice that you ducked the issue of where anybody was pining for Bush’s return… because nobody here is.  Though, I must say, almost anything would be an improvement over Imeme.

            I can help you, though.  There is a popular phrase here for use when attempting to pass of unsubstantiated opinions as fact:

            “I decree it!”

    • What was good about Bush’s foreign policy? All other arguments about it aside, it was immeasurably better than Obama’s. For one thing it didn’t serially signal weakness, which is the last mistake a superpower should make, especially in a world where it is, despite all the usual complaints, the guarantor of strategic peace.

      Obama is implicitly a declinist. He is internally committed to apologizing for America and demeaning its accomplishments. He is, in his essence, an anti-American. He was bred and educated to that position, and it makes him a goddamn fool of a president.

    • Our president invaded a country on false pretenses (where are those weapons of mass destruction).

      You know damn good and well Bush went in Under the UN Resolution that made no mention of WMDs. Either your deliberatly a liar or ignorance on steroids.
      As for wher they are, I suggest Syria (recall the 200+ truck convoys?).
      Also, as that 20,000 metric tons of uranium they shipped to Canada just being used for kitty litter?

      No progress was made with North Korea.  They are a greater threat now then when Bush took office.

      Wait…you just said his invasion was for false premises…
      Try not talking our of both sides of your mouth and remember Bush was Prez, not King or Dictator.

  • I don’t know which frightens me more: the people who didn’t see through his duplicitous ruse (and are now just coming around); or the ones that STILL don’t see through it!

  • As far as supporting my assertion that we are in better standing, The Economist review of his first year, and in many previous articles, has made this claim numerous times.
    Also, if we are in better standing with the people of the country it makes it much easier for a democratically elected leader to work with our President.
    Here is a clip from McCain.  Although he is not our president, he was the alternative.  I think his response would have been on par with status quo and allows Khamenei and Ahmadinejad site American interference.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/video/item/mccain-on-obamas-response-to-iran/
    We’re 1 year in on Iran, and it seems Russia and even China are beginning to understand the dangers of Iran’s current policies.  That is the first step in imposing meaningful sanctions.
    In reference to drones, I didn’t mean discussed here, I just meant discussed in the media.  For those that consider Obama weak on terrorism he certainly stepped up on that front.  And, you’re right, it isn’t directly foreign policy.
    As for North Korea, I don’t think we’re moving forward.
    Isreal/Palestine – one can’t expect, nor necessarily do you expect a win in a year.  But, moving in the right direction is better than not moving at all.