Saturday, September 26, 2009

Obama Drops A Bomb

President Barack Obama is congratulated by his fellow UN peacemakers for ending the nuclear arms race, bringing love and brotherhood to the world, and starting the final dismantling of the weapons which previously threatened to destroy the planet. Presiding over the UN Security Council, Obama single-handedly brought about non-proliferation and the destruction of all existing nuclear devices. And you thought he wasn't the Messiah!

Don't take my word for it. Here's what the AP had to say about it: "With Obama presiding, the Security Council endorsed a sweeping strategy aimed at halting the spread of nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminating them, to usher in a world with undiminished security for all." See? I told you. The Los Angeles Times jumped in with: "The vote gave Obama an early, first step toward his ultimate goal of eliminating nuclear weapons after weeks and months of negotiations."

The resident news agency in the White House, ABC World News, said Obama returned to the United Nations today and spoke of his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, and the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution that aims toward that goal." "Imagine," as John Lennon said. CBS and NBC hopped on the bandwagon to point out that even Russia and China signed onto the resolution that slashes the arsenals of nations that have them, and stopping the spread to those who don't. NBC added: "The President is carving out a sweeping new foreign policy vision." Well, NBC, it's not really new, it's just the first time a President presided over the Security Council and pushed such a ridiculous and dangerous idea in the belief that any dictator was actually going to abide by it. Russia and China signed on, and we all know how trustworthy they are.

Hark! I think I just heard a discouraging word! The Washington Post was a bit more forthright writing about the reactions of some of the other permanent members of the Security Council. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that "the whole exercise is a charade, and a forceful reminder to the president that for all his grand ideas and plans, a difficult and dangerous world stands in the way." If the president really wanted to do anything practical toward reducing the danger of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, why did Obama personally see to it that the words specifically referring to North Korea and Iran were removed from the final draft of the resolution? You're not going to get very far in arms reduction and non-proliferation by being afraid of offending rogue states.

Bloomberg News says: "The text doesn't cite Iran [or North Korea] by name, an omission reflecting the difficulty [Obama] will have in achieving a similar consensus on pressuring Iran [and North Korea] to avoid creating or using nuclear weapons." But that doesn't stop the deaf, dumb and blind New York Times from gushing that Obama "moved Thursday to tighten the noose around Iran, North Korea and other nations that have exploited gaping loopholes in the patchwork of global nuclear regulations." By purposefully removing the names of the two rogue nations from the resolution? Liberal wisdom is truly strange. And Obama said nary a word about "tightening up regulations," let alone any kind of serious enforcement. I guess his good intentions will have to do.

Once again, Sarkozy laid it out rather well: "How, before the eyes of the world, could we justify meeting without tackling them (Iran and North Korea). We live in the real world. And the real world expects us to make decisions and enforce them." For all our carping about France, Sarkozy not only makes a good point, but has good reason to say it. America at least has major armed forces. France has only token forces--and the bomb (and effective ways to deliver it). Allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons by inaction and cowardice while expecting France to give hers up offends even a Francophobe like me.

The tone-deaf and outrageously arrogant Obama had attempted to prove how important he was when he said: "I called this summit to make sure that we have a clear path to non-proliferation and the elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide." What a twit! He didn't call any "summit." It was the regular opening day session of the Security Council. And all he had done was take the chair, after removing Iran [and North Korea] from the agenda so that it would be an airy-fairy meaningless resolution instead of a real attempt to stop Iran from going nuclear.

Meanwhile, Russia has been a stumbling block in the way of imposing meaningful sanctions against Iran. After the Security Council resolution was passed, neither Putin nor UN Ambassador Sergey Lavrov indicated any change in Russia's opposition to sanctions against Iran (it is well-known that those two are the real policy-makers, while Prime Minister Medvedev is just a happy-face nonentity in Russian affairs). So if you thought that this was the "secret trade-off" Obama would get for dumping our nuclear defense shield in Eastern Europe, you were sadly mistaken, and foolishly optimistic (much like Obama).

The US-drafted resolution called for "further efforts in the sphere of nuclear disarmament to achieve a world without nuclear weapons and urged all countries that have not signed the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty to do so." Of course, the resolution failed to include mandatory provisions that would have rquired nuclear weapons states to take concrete disarmament steps.

China is one of the signers of the grand resolution. So I guess everything's OK with them, right? Well here's what Chinese President Hu Jintao said after the resolution passed: "We will continue to keep our nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security, and make efforts to advance the international disarmament process." And perhaps Obama never heard what Barry Goldwater had to say about China before it went nuclear: "The idea of a billion Chinese armed only with their bare fists scares the hell out of me." Which basically explains the problem with the whole disarmament resolution. Assuming that all the nations actually did comply, and nukes disappeared from the face of the earth, America now becomes a beautiful country, loaded with industry and natural resources, just ripe for the People's Army to march on in. No nuclear wasteland to have to deal with, just pristine new territory for the People's Republic to take over by good old-fashioned invasion.

Even Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom expressed his dismay at the removal of Iran and North Korea from the specifics of the resolution. "If the President intended for this to be meaningful action, why remove the two nations at which it was originally aimed and eliminate the immediate possibility that this resolution will be a work of serious diplomacy instead of a great exposition on a world we will probably never see." Gee, we were asking ourselves the same question way back when Obama's mouthpiece at the UN, Susan Rice, announced that the rogue states were being removed from the wording of the original resolution.

The Great Peacemaker said "the United States refrained from naming countries in the resolution to avoid disagreements with Russia and China." It's a really bad day when England and France both take stronger stands on rogue nations than the United States. And his statement was not entirely true anyway. The resolution, as originally written before Obama got hold of it, did not "refrain from mentioning." Obama purposely and dangerously removed both named terrorist states from the final resolution that he presented to the Security Council.

By the way, Mr. Obama, you love the idea of getting every nation which hasn't signed on to the non-proliferation treaty to do so now. Well then, what about the fact that North Korea did, and then simply announced that it was withdrawing in 2003 when its nuclear development had come to fruition while it was supposedly not doing anything of the kind? Should the United States start dismantling its nuclear weapons on faith? Only to find out that the rogue states were "just kidding?" It doesn't happen, and it's the reason that the original resolution specifically targeted both Iran and North Korea.

And finally, there's the newly-revitalized Russia. Even after the downfall of the Soviet Union, and the spinoff of former satellite states as Russia tried to come back from the brink of total physical and emotional exhaustion, Mr. Putin's nuclear arsenal remains nearly as formidable as ever. The chart to the left shows the growth and diminution of the American-Russian nuclear weapons caches from the beginning of the cold war to today. It's not a comforting picture.

So let's get down to the real nitty-gritty. What exactly did Obama intend to get out of his grandiose plan and successful unanimous resolution? As the Washington Post puts it: "Obama departed New York on Thursday afternoon for the Group of 20 economic summit in Pittsburgh with reassurances of his global popularity. His address to the General Assembly on Wednesday was greeted with frequent applause; even long-time antagonists of the United States, includding Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, had kind words for him." In other words, he got just what he wanted. Absolutely nothing concrete, but now his worshippers have spread from little backwards America out to the entire world.

Addendum: After this article was written, more news came to the public attention regarding the nuclear nonproliferation efforts of the Security Council. They obviously don't work. Late afternoon (west coast time), Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarcozy called a special press conference during the G-20 conference to announce (surprise, surprise) that Iran is much farther along in its nuclear enrichment program than previously thought. The tipoff was an entire previously unknown and very sophisticated nuclear lab. Brown said that the U.N. Security Council needed to take immediate and meaningful action against Iran. Sarkozy also added that Iranian assets should be frozen in all banks throughout the world. Obama said "Looky, that isn't really good news."

Reacting to their comments on the discovery and proposed action, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad said "Obama will regret it." Do you get it yet, Mr. President? Your weakness and vacillation and dangerous acceptance of the word of dictators is greeted with nothing but contempt. Brown and Sarkozy propose immediate and serious action against Iran, and who does Ahmadenijad threaten? You. Wake up before it's too late. He knows the other two leaders won't cave in to threats, but he also knows you will do anything to avoid a confrontation that might make you unpopular in the Muslim world.

17 comments:

LL said...

Well written, LawHawk.

We're in for serious times ahead with Dear Leader at the helm.

Writer X said...

This is like watching a bad sit-com. Whenever I think the President can't be any more delusional than he already is, he dials it up another notch. And, so what if the President and Brown call a press conference at the G-20. The question is what are they going to do about Iran? The answer, absolutely nothing. Except call another worthless meeting. Pres. Obama lives in the land of meetings, pretty words, and photo-ops.

StanH said...

Barry is the creation of forty years of radical education, and ceaseless indoctrination. An ignorant true believer that doesn’t understand in a real negotiation, it requires good faith from both parties. In the mind of the witless egalitarian, theoretical moral equivalence arguments must be enacted to realize utopia, once again this requires good faith from all at the table. The Founders were indeed brilliant, and foresaw the possibility of a Barry. Thank God, we can begin to remedy this mistake in 2010, and 2012, and “We the People” mustn’t fall asleep again in our duty as the final check and balance, and vote the bums out, and “go forth and sin no more.”

AndrewPrice said...

Good article Lawhawk. I think this is just more proof that Obama doesn't get it. He's still that wet behind the ears guy who thinks that if he just says the magic word, somehow his personality will carry the day. He's afraid to offend and terrified to act.

As I said months ago in the Obama Doctrine article, he just wants everyone else to leave him alone overseas while he "concentrates" on domestic matters. And he'll pay a heavy price for that, because dictators sense fear and they exploit it.

LawHawkSF said...

LL: The ship of state has no rudder.

WriterX: The worst part is that Brown and Sarkozy are actually serious about doing something. A complete freeze on Iranian assets throughout the West would do enough serious damage that even the Chinese and Russians couldn't bail them out sufficiently to avoid plenty of unrest within Iran. It also seems that Merkel's government is going to increase its strength in the next election, making Germany another partner for America. At long last, three major European powers are actually willing to back strong American action, and we elect this spineless fool to run things.

LawHawkSF said...

StanH: You just capsulized the whole problem with the UN, and treaties with rogue states perfectly. Negotiation and contractual performance require good faith on both sides.

Andrew: I think you're basically right about Obama and his domestic agenda, but his pathological narcissism is now compelling him to get love and admiration from the entire world. And to get that, he'll surrender our sovereignty and cripple our ability to defend the country from foreign traditional powers and asymmetrical terrorism.

HamiltonsGhost said...

Lawhawk--The whole article demonstrates that Obama is the first president ever to decide that the UN isn't moving fast enough to destroy stability throughout the world, so it's time for America to lead the way to chaos.

Your prediction in your September 6 article came true in spades. By removing Iran and North Korea from the agenda by his own hand, Obama emboldened dictators everywhere. And now, as if on cue, before the seats were cold at the UN Security Council, Obama's naive weakness towards Iran has been proven to be extremely bad policy. A whole new nuclear enrichment facility is found while Obama bought their denials.

Joel Farnham said...

Nice Job LawHawk,

It took many years to actually appreciate just how bad Jimmy Carter was after he left office. My feeling is that we will find out just how bad Obama is while he is in office.

LawHawkSF said...

JoelFarnham: Well said. Carter was a weak-sister and an inveterate do-gooder. But unlike Obama, he wasn't actually out to turn America into a third world nation. Obama combines Carter's weakness with a view of America as an arrogant oppressor. Terrorists and dictators can sense weakness, and they're already circling. And the American people are waking up quickly to his game.

LawHawkSF said...

HamiltonsGhost: In his zeal to be the Unprecedented President, Obama will do anything to enhance his cult of personality. For his disciples, he has added "first President to preside over a Security Council meeting." To the majority of Americans, he will ultimately be "the first President to weaken an already weak international body."

I must admit that I would have been perfectly happy to be proven wrong about what the result of Obama chairing an historical meeting would be. But, sure enough, he made a typical namby-pamby "can't we all just get along?" speech in the General Assembly, then freed North Korea and Iran from any possible sanctions that the Security Council might have taken by removing their names from the original agenda. His reward? Within 24 hours it was revealed that Iran had a previously-unknown nuclear facility, and Imadinnerjacket insulted and threatened the President for daring to mention it.

CrispyRice said...

Good article, LawHawk, and scary as heck. I agree with WriterX, it's like a bad sitcom, only this is real life. And this is the kind of stuff that simply cannot end well.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people have a Pollyanna view of the world and insist that everyone will simply come around if we wish for it hard enough. Ugh!

patti said...

idiots. who do they think they are kidding?! they were surprised by iran?!(i-ran so far awaaaaaay!) were any of us? NO. these folks seek nothing other than wanting world domination. BOOM!

LawHawkSF said...

CrispyRice: I really do find it hard to believe that so many Americans live such a sheltered and unrealistic life that they think that patting a rabid dog will render the dog safe.

LawHawkSF said...

Patti: The spin is on. The administration now says it has known for months (even years) about this new nuclear facility. I really have my serious doubts that this administration knew, because it covers its ears when given information it doesn't like and yells "nyah, nyah, nyah" to silence the bad news.

However, if it did know, then this makes Obama look weaker and less willing to do what is necessary than before. If Obama really knew, why the hell did he specifically take sanctions against Iran off the table? This was a perfect "Cuban Missile Crisis Moment." The Security Council could have discussed non-proliferation, with Iran as the perfect example. Then when Iran denied (for the third time) that it was enriching uranium, a real President would have called them liars and brought out the proof.

Instead, Obama has given Iran another opportunity to recoup, and claim that the facilities were strictly for producing enriched uranium for peaceful purposes. What a complete tool this President is. Even the spineless IAEA has taken a stronger stand than Obama.

Tennessee Jed said...

The fawning AP makes me sick. This speech sounded like it was something said by Chauncey Gardiner from "Being There." NBC - "The president is carving out a sweeping new foreign policy vision." I haven't heard such propaganda drivel since the New Jersey School Kids Communist chant. (snap, snap, snap.)

The fact Sarkozy has more stones than the president has be back drink good southern Rhones again. Yes, Hawk you the nail squarely on the head when you call him an arrogant twit.

LawHawkSF said...

Tennessee: The slobbering press is so bad that it's almost impossible to maintain a level of civilized discourse about them. And the last time I saw that kind of mindless phraseology and praise for a leader, it was in the pages of Pravda.

LawHawkSF said...

Even the conservative Washington Times has seemingly fallen into the trap of believing that the revelation of Obama knowing about the nuclear facility, and having known about it since he took office somehow makes him a more insightful leader than previously thought. "But Mr. Obama's disclosure Friday that Iran had a secret nuclear facility and that he had known about it since taking office introduced a new way of looking at many of his decisions since January."

OK, I'm looking at it differently. Before, I thought he was merely a weak sister. Now I think he's worse--a weak sister who has known for months about a "secret" nuclear enrichment facility, kept it to himself, then took Iran sanctions off the Security Council agenda while knowing Iran was even more dangerous than previously revealed. He purposely waited until Iran was safe from further sanctions, then announced the facility only after he left the UN to go to the G-20 meetings. He's not just a coward, he's undermining America's national security and damaging Israel's ability to defend itself from an Iranian nuclear threat.

Post a Comment