Vice president Joe Biden met behind closed doors on July 3 with Iraqi leaders and said in a public statement: “The president (Obama) and I appreciate that Iraq has traveled a great distance over the past year, but there is a hard road ahead if Iraq is going to find lasting peace and stability… It’s not over yet.”
He called on Iraqis to “use the political process to resolve their remaining differences and advance their national interest,” and added that the United States stands ready “if asked and if helpful, to help in that process.”
But in private comments, one official said that Biden warned that a failure to contain ethnic violence would hurt Iraq’s chances for continued American support because “one, the American people would have no interest in doing that, and as he put it, neither would he or the president.”
After huge US losses both in blood and treasure in Iraq, it is utterly irresponsible for the vice president to be strong-arming Iraq – even in private – because these comments can be leaked for political advantage. Biden should have been more diplomatic. Is this not what the Democrat party always is urging – kind words and concerted diplomacy?
Yet when it is the Democrat party’s hardball interests that are at stake, diplomacy goes out the window and reckless politics come into play. And that is the key here. Obama is threatening to undermine everything that George Bush accomplished in Iraq. If Iraq falls, the American media will cover up for Obama’s advantage. Obama started with the proposal to pull out troops by March 2008 and continues with Biden’s hardly-reassuring comments.
Drip, drip, drip…
Just imagine radical terrorist groups hearing Biden’s words. They would cheer them as the words of the vice president of the United States, not some low-level figure or accepted wisdom. This encourages the zealots, and the internet will be buzzing with fresh commentary, that all that the jihadists need do is to disrupt Iraq enough and it will be abandoned by the Americans, and then the terrorists can finally take over.
In another telling foreign-policy matter, the freely-elected leftist president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya – who had allied himself with Venezuela’s Chavez and Cuba’s Castro since taking office – tried to return to that nation on July 5 after he was escorted out of the country by the armed forces. They exiled him after he attempted to amend the Honduran constitution to lift term limits for the president.
Zelaya was elected in 2006 and was scheduled to leave office in 2010. His popularity had dipped to 30% in recent months and the Honduran Supreme Court instructed the army to remove him after the term-limits maneuver. The Honduran Congress voted in the acting president until elections are held in November.
The people of Honduras saw Zelaya’s move as a Venezuela-style tactic to incrementally move the country toward hard-line marxist rule that cannot be challenged, contrary to the Honduran constitution. It would be like Obama seeking to scuttle the 22nd Amendment (limiting US presidents to two terms) in order to stay in power longer than 8 years (assuming he was re-elected in 2012).
The difference is that America has a longer, deeper and stronger democratic footing on which to base a challenge to such a scheme, while several Latin American presidents, including Chavez and his allies in Ecuador and Bolivia have successfully eliminated term limits that were written into constitutions specifically to prevent exactly what has happened in those nations… a drift to dictatorship.
Obama should have sided with the aspirations of a free Honduras. But with the media calling the Honduran military action a “coup” rather than calling Zelaya’s move the slow-motion coup that it is, Obama & Co. are turning the issue inside out, favoring the marxists just as Democrats in the US Congress authored a famous and sympathetic ‘Dear Commandante’ letter to communist Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua in 1985 in order to undermine Ronald Reagan’s policies to rid the region of Soviet influence.
This is classic Democrat party strategy: Soft-soap the bad guys, while marginalizing the good guys who in the long run represent freedom and the rule of law. And anyone with an eye for history knows where Zelaya was headed.
Roberto Micheletti, who was named as caretaker president by Honduran lawmakers, said, “We have established a democratic government and we will not cede to pressure from anyone. We are a sovereign country.”
But the Obama administration has been lukewarm. It said: “We will wait until the (OAS) secretary-general has finished his diplomatic initiative and reports back … on July 6 before we take any further action in relationship to assistance.” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said, “We continue to monitor the situation and will respond accordingly as events transpire.”
Obama gave a crafty response:
“I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya. As the Organization of American States did on Friday, I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference.”
Notice Obama’s use of Zelaya’s nickname Mel, a manipulative endearment tactic. And notice that Obama makes no mention of the constitutional precept that Zelaya was attempting to undermine. Notice Obama calling the factions in Honduras “actors”, a heavy-handed slap at those supporting democracy in a part of the world fighting dearly for it. When Obama said “Free from outside interference” he failed to mention interference from Chavez and Castro attempting to disrupt a nation protecting its democracy. Chavez even threatened to invade Honduras!
Organization of American States secretary-general Jose Miguel Insulza delivered an ultimatum for Zelaya’s safe return. OAS said it vehemently condemned “the arbitrary detention and expulsion” of Zelaya.
Arbitrary? How about the rule of law?
In return, Honduras has threatened to quit OAS, which is like a mini-United Nations.
Good for Honduras! Freedom first!
Obama’s reaction to the situation in Honduras, and Biden’s careless talk in Baghdad, remind us of the Democrats’ persistent unwillingness to square with the good guys in the world. In 1978, members of the administration of president Jimmy Carter met with opposition leaders in Iran opposed to the rule of the pro-American Shah of Iran Reza Pahlevi. The Shah was an authoritarian, but vastly more benign than the alternatives that faced Iran in those dangerous times – communists and Islamic fundamentalists. He was modernizing the national economy, promoting education and advocating for women’s rights.
The Shah was undermined by Carter’s actions as well as by internal strife largely encouraged by communists inside Iran and, on the outside by the world media and EuroAmerican liberals.
Here is how rescueattempt.tripod.com described the events of the era:
In November 1978 then President Carter nominated George Ball as a member of the Trilateral Commission. The commission acted under the direct control of the National Security Council’s Zbigniew Brzezinski, an ardent opponent of the Shah of Iran. This commission cultivated a clandestine Iran task force. While serving on this commission, George Ball championed cessation of United States support for the Shah and clandestine support for Rubhullah Ayatollah Khomeini who, albeit in exile, led a proletariat Islamic opposition. Pursuant to this agenda George Ball sought to garner the support of Robert Bowie, who was at that time the Deputy Director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency.
The fall of the Shah, who fled Iran in 1979, led to the Islamic terrorist state that we see today. If the Shah had stayed in power, Iran would now be a democracy. But Democrats like Obama and Carter always work to undermine fledgling democracy when it can be replaced by something more severely anti-American like marxism in Honduras.
Carter ultimately got badly burned by the fundamentalists who commandeered the American embassy in Tehran, leading to the hostage standoff that ultimately played a big role in Carter’s downfall.
When Obama made some lukewarm comments supporting the protesters of Iran’s June 12 election, it was seen as acquiescence to yet another anti-American regime. Obama, like Carter, may live to regret his choices in the foreign policy world.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can print out for free my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.