America disengages

The network news talking heads are breathless about Obama's sweeping new foreign policy announced to the world at the U.N. yesterday. I'm not sure if anyone on the left is getting how dangerous Obama's words were yesterday, let alone his continuing practice of embracing our enemies and snubbing our allies, but those of us on the right, to whom this "sweeping new foreign policy" comes as no surprise, are chilled to the bone.

I first suspected this was Obama's mindset when he was running for President. I elaborated on this policy in a post on July 9.

The hints and clues that were available to us before we put this narcissist in charge could be ignored until yesterday, Now there can be no doubt: Obama intends for America to abandon it's leadership position in the world. He will weaken our defenses in a pathetic attempt to sing kumbayah with the tin pot dictators and totalitarians of the world. America was a rogue country a mere ten months ago.

For those who question the character and cause of my nation I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.

On The Corner today, Michael Ledeen speculates that perhaps Obama's foreign policy is not as incredibly naive as it seems. Perhaps Obama actually likes tyrants:

I think that he rather likes tyrants and dislikes America. I think he'd like to be more powerful, I think he is trying to get control over as much of our lives as he can, so that he can put an end to the annoying tumult of our public life.

(...)

There is nothing unusual about elitist hatred of freedom. Back in the 18th century, when book publishing really got going, British authors were infuriated that they had to submit to the judgment of a marketplace. They didn't want to be judged by people who were obviously inferior to them, and there was a great rage among the intelligentsia, including some very famous men. And in modern times, we can all name famous intellectuals who fawned all over Mussolini, Stalin, Fidel, and even Hitler.

American politics are very fractious, and always have been. Leaders are constantly frustrated, and some of them come to yearn for an end to our freedom. They think they know best, they just want to tell us what to do and have us shut up and do it. I think Obama is one of them. He's not naïve. It's different. He doesn't like the way things work here, he thinks he can do much better, and he's possessed of the belief that America has done a lot of terrible things in the world, and should be prevented from doing such things ever again. The two convictions mesh perfectly. It's The Best and the Brightest run amok.

Andy McCarthy agrees:

The Obama administration has notified Congress of the State Department's intention to contribute $400,000 to foundations run by Muammar Qaddafi's two children — $200,000 each for daughter Aisha and son Saif. Saif, you may recall, is the son who escorted the Lockerbie terrorist Abdel Baset al-Megrahi home to a hero's welcome in Libya after President Obama sternly "warned" Qaddafi that there was to be no hero's welcome.

(...)

Could somebody please tell this president that this is not just Annenberg Foundation cash he's passing out to his personal terrorist pals like Bill Ayers but American taxpayer dollars he's doling out to the terrorist tyrant behind the murder — in just that one incident — of 270 people, including 189 Americans.

Interestingly, on the other side of the pond, the Brits are wondering why Obama is snubbing Gordon Brown (five requests for meeting; five blow offs) and some are speculating that it's because Obama is miffed that Brown freed the very same Abdel Baset al-Megahi on compassionate grounds. Maybe. But no matter what the reason, the Brits are pissed:

What are we to make of this? This country has proved, through the bravery of men like Acting Sgt Lockett, America’s staunchest ally in Afghanistan. In return, the American President treats the British Prime Minister with casual contempt. The President’s graceless behaviour is unforgivable. As most members of the Cabinet would confirm, it’s not a barrel of laughs having to sit down for a chat with Gordon Brown. But that’s not the point. Mr Obama owes this country a great deal for its unflinching commitment to the American-led war in Afghanistan but seems incapable of acknowledging the fact. You might have thought that after the shambles of Mr Brown’s first visit to the Obama White House - when there was no joint press conference and the President’s “gift” to the Prime Minister was a boxed DVD set - lessons would have been learned. Apparently not. Admittedly, part of the problem was Downing Street’s over-anxiety to secure a face-to-face meeting for domestic political purposes but the White House should still have been more obliging. Mr Obama’s churlishness is fresh evidence that the US/UK special relationship is a one-way street.

I think it's probably more accurate to say that Obama wants to be a tyrant--not one of those tin pot dictators, like his BFF's Chavez or Qaddafi, but a benevolent tyrant: someone wise who could tell everyone what's best. Because he knows what's best. I think his political philosophy is in line with a familiar character's:


Except Obama thinks that "that someone wise" is he.