Assad the reformer, Obama, and Hillary
Charles Krauthammer thinks Hillary’s statement about Assad of Syria may represent some sort of new low for the Obama administration:
Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.
”” Hillary Clinton on Bashar al-Assad, March 27Few things said by this administration in its two years can match this one for moral bankruptcy and strategic incomprehensibility.
However, later in his piece, he suggest a strategy that might be behind it:
This delicacy toward Assad is dismayingly reminiscent of President Obama’s response to the 2009 Iranian uprising during which he was scandalously reluctant to support the demonstrators, while repeatedly reaffirming the legitimacy of the brutal theocracy suppressing them.
Why? Because Obama wanted to remain “engaged” with the mullahs ”” so that he could talk them out of their nuclear weapons. We know how that went.
The same conceit animates his Syria policy ”” keep good relations with the regime so that Obama can sweet-talk it out of its alliance with Iran and sponsorship of Hezbollah.
Pretty funny.
It occurs to me that, if Hillary really has any notion of running in 2012, the opposition might consider running an ad featuring a clip of this particular quote.
I disagree with Krauthammer in one respect, though. I think there are many things the Obama administration has done has that have matched Hillary’s Assad remarks. This sort of moral and strategic bankruptcy—or perhaps a better word for it would be perversity—in foreign relations was demonstrated long ago, almost from the start of Obama’s presidency.
But it was Obama’s reaction to Honduras (beginning in late June of 2009) that indisputably revealed which way the wind was blowing, on both Obama’s and Hillary’s part. In fact, I wrote the following back in early July of 2009:
During her presidential campaign [Hillary] seemed to have a grip on the fact that the United States stood for something””for example, speaking out against tyrannies such as we’ve seen the last week or so in Iran, and speaking up for the rule of law in places such as Honduras against those such as Zelaya who would go against its constitution.
And she sold whatever was left of her self-respect so cheaply, too. Secretary of State, presiding over Obama’s muddled “I never met a dictator I didn’t like, or a human rights violation I couldn’t wink at” mentality? Who would want that job? Is it merely a stepping stone to something else, or an end in itself?
I still don’t have an answer to that last question.
I’ve been reminded, lately, several times, of our sordid behavior in Honduras. The USA acted as a bully … against a government which respected its constitution, which respected the USA, and which was righteously and constitutionally ridding itself of a potential Chavez type of dictator. In contrast, the Obama Administration acted with the wisdom and morality of a schoolyard bully. The Obama Administration demonstrated no respect for Honduran people’s desire to continue being free, no respect for constitutional government, and no fear of socialistic dictatorship. I can only assume the Obama Administration was wooing Chavez – just as we wooed the Iranian Mullahs, and just as we now woo Syria’s Assad.
If I were running for POTUS against Pres. Obama, I would speak about the brave Honduran people whom Pres. Obama tried to bury under a dictator’s boot. Reagan could have made hay with this example. I would have giant screens set up at campaign stops, with video photos of Honduran people scrolling. I would hammer home Pres. Obama’s lack of respect for constitutional democracy. I would transition from the Honduras example to domestic examples in the USA.
It’s odd more people do not remember the Honduran episode because it was here that Obama revealed his innermost political self. Call it Communist, left wing fascist, or anything else it is not what America has always stood for and very much what America has always stood against. It was indefensible period and Obama’s hagiographers have so far did a good job of hiding it.
I have a nightmare, suppose he ordered military action against Honduras (or any other democratic country for that matter) and our military caring more their careers than principles, obeyed these orders.
BTW the anti-Assad demonstrators must rank with those who stood against Stalin and Hitler when it comes to raw unfathomable courage considering what happens to the “reformers” critics.
Honduras showed how little was the current Republican backbone at the time.
May there careers fail and their stomachs rot!
Neo ponders,
“Who would want that job? Is it merely a stepping stone to something else, or an end in itself?”
Fortunately, I can’t read HRC’s mind and can only guess at her intentions; but I’ll go with the stepping stone explanation. HRC knows that if she can successfully challenge BHO and win the nomination the MSM will fall into line and ignore or gloss over the travesties and errors of the Obama foreign policies that she carried out.
Curtis says, “Honduras showed how little was the current Republican backbone at the time.”
Think about jello with marshmallows and fruit cocktail and you’ll have a realistic image of the strength of the backbones of most republicans. No heavy lifting allowed by doctor’s orders.
Hillary lives to accrue Power. Nothing else. Just look at her face. There’s a hard expression on it that freezes the marrow of your bones.
I think she has that even more than her “husband” does — Billy Jeff craves “love” as well as power. She just wants to be on the throne, and she’s not the least bit fastidious about how she’ll get there, as we have seen. Look at her acceptance of utter humiliation at the hands of her “husband”: by God, she was going to hang onto First Lady-hood (and her launching pad) no matter what.
He, of course, is a despicable blackguard. And Obongo is the enemy of the Republic. We have indeed nursed a viper to our bosom, to quote the old phrase.
From The Twelve Caesars, by Suetonius:
“Yet even in those days Caligula could not control his natural brutality. He loved watching tortures and executions; and, disguised in wig and robe, abandoned himself nightly to the pleasures of feasting and scandalous living.
“Tiberius was ready enough to indulge a passion which Caligula had for theatrical dancing and singing, on the ground that it might have a civilizing influence on him. With characteristic shrewdness, the old Emperor had exactly gauged the young man’s vicious inclinations, and would often remark that Caligula’s advent portended his own death and the ruin of everyone else.
“‘I am nursing a viper in Rome’s bosom,’ he once said. ‘I am educating a Phaethon who will mishandle the fiery sun-chariot and scorch the whole world.’ “
And everything old is new again. . . .