World Opinion Used To Matter Under Bush; Not So Much Under Obama

Remember all the talk about how world opinion mattered under Bush? Apparently, it doesn't under President Obama.

Obama has come up short (nay, failed) on economic and foreign policy matters. I think, to any sober mind, this is evident by now.  Even the presses "the economy is recovering" for the last four years has become comical if not downright insulting.

But if Americans remain to partisan to come to terms with this, the world is a little more clear minded.

Germany:

"Since the beginning of his second term in January, Obama has not succeeded at all in foreign affairs. This world’s most powerful statesman’s impact on current events in this world faded at an impressive pace. This is not a positive development. It makes this world an even more dangerous place than it was before. "

 Ouch. All that's needed is to say this in rough, tough German.

In any event, I think I was one of the few blogs (toot that horn!) early in Obama's first term to detect a continuation of Bush policies. That became painfully clear. Bush 2.0 as I called it.

"Obama pursues Bush’s war in a different way — in a dirty, hidden and secret way. He sends unmanned air vehicles after terrorist suspects and accepts the death of innocent people. Only a couple of days ago drones were used again in Yemen."

But if you're innocent you've nothing to worry about!

About that Peace prize. I'll never let the Nobel committee live that one down.

"The NSA’s Internet surveillance takes place on a previously unimaginable scale. The digital search is limitless and global. The world’s population now only consists of suspects. One fact became obvious since Edward Snowden published the NSA’s activities: Paranoia has become the general guideline for American foreign and security policies — even under Obama and with his explicit endorsement. Snowden proved those who talk maliciously about the second term of George W. Obama right.

Obama’s failure has become even more evident since Vladimir Putin — gifted provocateur, but less talented democrat — decided to grant Snowden asylum in Russia. Instead of reacting in a poised way to the whistle-blower’s escape to Moscow, especially as it is now impossible to squash the reports about the NSA’s activities, Washington decided to be defiant. The president ostentatiously canceled a planned meeting with Putin in Moscow. "

But he's not interesting in spying on "ordinary people!"

Bah.

As for his reaction, should anyone be surprised?

In short, people see through the guy.

I absolutely agree with the conclusion of the article: Quit sulking (and blaming and spying) Mr. President and be a LEADER to your country.

Is it in you?

****

Egypt:

"...Compared with the state of disappointment and bitterness of American policy in the wake of the revolution in Egypt on June 30, this sample hints at a picture of the end. It indicates that we will go through a period of complete defeat for U.S. policies in the region. These are policies which former CIA Director David Petraeus unleashed through his partnership with Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia under the guise of what was called the “Arab Spring” to reorder the American Zionist hegemony upon our country. "

So much for that bumpy road to democracy.

I think they call this "credibility gap."

"...It has widely reached the point in all planning centers where an Atlantic invasion of Syria would be suicide for America and destructive to the West, as well as threaten the existence of Israel in the region as a result of the strength of the Syrian defense system."

Talk of military intervention in Syria and Iran is indeed foolish. But there they are, talking about it.

Never mind about the utter stupidity of arming terrorists. It was such a mind-boggling decision on an epic scale one can't but properly digest what the administration was thinking.

***

Saudi Arabia is talking about America spying on its own citizens.

Saudi. Fucking. Arabia.

Take a bow Obama on that one! Take. A. Bow!

***

Italy:

"..In the former case, the U.S. was neither able to protect its ambassador, nor react to the offense. In the latter case, however, the U.S. has even given up defending its diplomatic missions, instead closing them momentarily as a security measure. In reality, both episodes are two sides of the same political coin: The total lack of confidence that the U.S. shows in its own strength abroad. In the first case (Sept. 11, 2012), security was taken for granted because it had been entrusted to local forces in countries considered friendly. Washington did not count on its strong forces abroad, even in unstable places such as Benghazi. If the U.S. did not intervene with force — neither during nor after the assault at the consulate — it was because they did not want to antagonize a country that they had helped to liberate."

"...Since the beginning of time, however, a nation that is considered the most powerful in the world should be recognized by the power it projects abroad, for its ability to intimidate and/or have everybody’s respect without even firing a single shot. For its ability to win a battle with a single press release? Not yet."

Even the message of projecting power has been tarnished. Hard or soft power. The administration under Obama, Clinton and now Kerry are anything but effective.

Benghazi may be 'nothing to see here' to liberals, but there's plenty to see for the rest of us.