« In the "Believe it or not" category | Main | Obama Confused About His Supporters & Critics »

July 8, 2009

Obama, chaos theory, and being on the wrong side of history

In previous posts (also here and here) we've pointed to articles addressing Barack Obama's nuclear illusions and long-standing naive and dangerous delusions about ridding the world of nuclear weapons, along with his propensity to come down on the wrong side of human rights and democracy. Today, Monica Crowley addresses these issues and puts them in perspective, and warns that America is the indispensable power in the world, but if the president is AWOL for freedom and is actively cheerleading anti-democratic forces (which he indeed is), chaos will beget more chaos -- and worse:

(The Washington Times, July 8, 2009) It must be comfortable over there on the wrong side of history, because President Obama seems to have settled in quite easily.

Whenever he must decide between democratic forces and those of dictatorship, he invariably sides with the world's collection of "supreme leaders," whose iron-fisted, brutally oppressive, leadership-for-life approach an American president should find uncool. But Mr. Obama doesn't just find it cool. He finds it worth affirming.

From 2002 to the end of his presidency, George W. Bush routinely was accused by the left of "creating chaos": chaos in Iraq, chaos in Afghanistan, chaos in the Muslim world, chaos among our allies.

It was a grossly unfair charge because Mr. Bush applied American strength to removing or neutralizing some of the world's worst tyrannies in order to encourage greater freedom, justice and stability. It's also an ironic charge, given that increasing chaos has been unleashed because of perceived American weakness since Mr. Obama took office.

When he's not overtly apologizing for the United States for past injustices, mistakes or evils, he's busy finding a new dictatorial maniac he can embrace in symbolic "America needs to be humbled" fraternity.

This week, Mr. Obama is in Moscow agreeing to unverifiable reductions in our nuclear arsenal. Russia's supreme leader, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, took time out of his busy schedule of conducting ominous war games in the Caucasus to wind up his toy president, Dmitry Medvedev, to meet with Mr. Obama. Mr. Putin can't believe his good luck: He is dealing with an American president who, as a college student, wrote a laughingly starry-eyed piece about ridding the world of nuclear weapons and still believes in that gauzy, naive and dangerous idea.

Having no problem looking into Mr. Obama's soul, Mr. Putin saw him coming from a mile away: the wide-eyed '60s radical with dreams of complete nuclear disarmament. Only one problem: Because the Russians have never had any intention of abiding by arms-control agreements, the disarmament will be unilateral. There goes your nuclear deterrent, America. Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted.

Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, continues to brutalize, torture and slaughter his own people, who still take to the streets demanding greater freedoms. After much lollygagging and moral equivocation, Mr. Obama gave a barely-there and monotonic statement about how "appalled and outraged" he was at the massacre of the Iranian people. This weekend, he and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. reaffirmed their love affair with the idea of "engagement" with these terrorists.

In North Korea, Dear Leader (who's also supreme) Kim Jong-il fired off seven ballistic missiles this weekend in direct defiance of three specific U.N. resolutions barring any kind of ballistic missile activity, leaving Japan and South Korea vulnerable to the North Korean madness flying overhead. The White House responded with more pabulum about its dedication to multilateral conflict resolution.

Monica Crowley's subtitle is, "Presidential leadership needed to advance freedom's cause." For some time now I've been scratching my head and asking myself, just whose side is this guy Barack Obama on, and what does he really stand for. So far, it's becoming clear that he's not on the side of freedom, democracy, and human rights, nor on the side of our Constitution. Although I believe Monica is right and that we do need our president to provide the leadership to advance freedom's cause (in all of it's applications including our Constitution), unfortunately, Americans need to face up to the fact that we're highly unlikely to get such leadership from Barack Obama.

Posted by Richard at July 8, 2009 6:29 AM

• Obama, chaos theory, and being on the wrong side of history - Jul 08, 2009