20 Jan 09: What the world wants from the new American president.

[a_majoor]

Before and after:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703465204575208100160425826.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

The Politics of 'Anything Goes'

"Even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us--the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of 'anything goes.' Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America--there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America--there's the United States of America."--state senator Barack Obama, Democratic National Convention, July 27, 2004


"In the video message to his supporters, [President] Obama said his administration's success depends on the outcome of this fall's elections and warned that if Republicans regain control of Congress, they could 'undo all that we have accomplished.' 'This year, the stakes are higher than ever,' he said, according to a transcript of his remarks provided by Democratic officials. 'It will be up to each of you to make sure that young people, African Americans, Latinos and women who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again. . . .' "--Washington Post, April 26, 2010

 

[a_majoor]

"A dream for some; A nightmare for others!" (Merlin speaking to Arthur in Excalubar):

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/  13 July 2010

“The Democratic party is the vehicle through which, after a populist interlude, the governing classes are proposing to take their country back. Obama is a restoration candidate but that doesn’t mean he has a plan. “ So wrote Christopher Caldwell in the last two sentences of his piece in The Spectator dated 29 October, 2008, Describing Obama as the restoration candidate for the governing classes may well capture a large part of the motivation behind a whole swath of people like Zuckerman.

Zuckerman, Bloomberg, and a very long list probably understood that Obama did not have enough experience. So much the better! Naturally, Obama would turn to the likes of them to help manage the country; except, it doesn’t look as if Obama and the people around him feel a great need for their help. If there is any shock to poor Mort, it’s that Obama, if only out of a sense of self-preservation, hasn’t recognized his need for the likes of him.

 

[a_majoor]

Irony:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Mosque-supporters-beg-George-W-Bush-to-come-to-Obamas-rescue-100977179.html

Mosque supporters beg George W. Bush to come to Obama's rescue
By: BYRON YORK
Chief Political Correspondent
08/18/10 10:02 AM EDT

There's a new argument emerging among supporters of the Ground Zero mosque. Distressed by President Obama's waffling on the issue, they're calling on former President George W. Bush to announce his support for the project, because in this case Bush understands better than Obama the connection between the war on terror and the larger question of America's relationship with Islam. It's an extraordinary change of position for commentators who long argued that Bush had done grievous harm to America's image in the Muslim world and that Obama represented a fresh start for the United States. Nevertheless, they are now seeing a different side of the former president.

"It's time for W. to weigh in," writes the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that "you can't have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam." Dowd finds it "odd" that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, "W. needs to get his bullhorn back out" -- a reference to Bush's famous "the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. "I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue," Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. "He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views."

And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. "Words I never thought I'd write: I pine for George W. Bush," Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. "Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion." Beinart longs for the days when Bush "used to say that the 'war on terror' was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…"

For the moment, with Obama failing to live up to expectations, Bush-bashing is over. It's all a little amusing -- and perhaps a little maddening -- for some members of the Bush circle. When I asked Karl Rove to comment, he responded that it means "redemption is always available for liberals and time causes even the most stubborn of ideologues to revisit mistaken judgments." But won't these Bush critics shortly return to criticizing Bush? "This Bush swoon by selected members of the left commentariat is temporary," Rove answered. "Their swamp fevers will return momentarily."

Bush himself has declined to comment on the mosque affair.

 

[a_majoor]

What the world gets:

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/03/17/%e2%80%9cwhere-are-the-americans%e2%80%9da-tale-of-two-tsunamis/

‘Where Are the Americans?’ A Tale of Two Tsunamis
Posted By Roger Kimball On March 17, 2011 @ 4:49 am In Uncategorized | 74 Comments

On December 26, 2004, an undersea megathrust earthquake precipitated one of the deadliest natural disasters [1] in recorded history. With a magnitude of between 9.1 and 9.3, it was the third largest quake ever recorded. The resulting tsunamis, moving walls of water up to 100 feet high, slammed ashore in some 14 countries bordering the Indian Ocean, killing some 230,000 people [2].

By December 29, President George W. Bush had outlined a huge relief effort [3]. He said it was an “international coalition,” but the vital center [4]of the coalition was the United States Navy:

The U.S. military responded quickly, sending ships, planes, and relief supplies to the region.  Coordinated by Joint Task Force 536, established at Utapao, Thailand, the Navy and the Marine Corps shifted assets from the Navy’s Pacific Command within days. The rapid response once again illustrated the flexibility of naval forces when forward deployed.

The Navy deployed four Patrol Squadron (VP) 4 P-3 Orion patrol aircraft from Kadena, Japan, to Utapao to fly reconnaissance flights in the region and five VP-8 P-3s began flying missions out of Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory. The Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) Carrier Strike Group [including Shoup (DDG 86), Shiloh (CG 67), Benfold (DDG 65) and USNS Ranier (T AOE 7)] and the Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) Expeditionary Strike Group [including Duluth (LPD 6), Milius (DDG 69), Rushmore (LSD 47), Thach (FFG 43), Pasadena (SSN 752) and USCG Munro (WHEC 724)] steamed to Indonesia from the Pacific Ocean. Marine Corps disaster relief assessment teams from Okinawa, Japan, flew in to Thailand, Sri Lanka and Indonesia, and were later joined by U.S. Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Units from Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.  Lastly, a total of eleven ships under the Military Sealift Command (MSC) proceeded to the region from Guam and Diego Garcia.

At the UN, meanwhile, Kofi Annan interrupted his holiday to go to New York where he held a “media availability [5]” on the crisis. Annan, who frequently registered his “horror” and sadness at the event, appealed to the “international community” [6] for aid. Annan talked. The United States Navy said little but carried out scores of rescue operations and aid deliveries.

On March 11, 2011, an undersea megathrust earthquake erupted off the east coast of Tohoku, Japan. With a magnitude of about 9, it was the worst earthquake ever to hit Japan [7]. It triggered a tsunami some 30 feet high which devastated coastal areas. As of this writing, 10,000 are reported dead (some reports estimate the final figure will climb to 100,000) and 500,000 have been displaced. Property damage is enormous. The disaster severely damaged several nuclear power stations in the prefecture of Fukushima. To date, engineers have been only partially successful in cooling the nuclear fuel and containing radiation.

Within hours of the disaster, President Barack Hussein Obama …  went golfing [8]. Later, he had dinner with admirers from the liberal media. The next day, he outlined his predictions about who would win this year’s men’s and women’s basketball tournaments.

At Powerline [9], John Hinderaker [10] — citing a story from the Daily Mail [11] — quotes an associate professor at Chiba University:

I think the death toll is going to be closer to 100,000 than 10,000. Where is the sense of urgency? We need somebody to take charge. We’ve had an earthquake followed by fire, then a tsunami, then radiation, and now snow. It’s everything. There is nothing left. The world needs to step in. Where are the Americans? The Japanese are too proud to ask, but we need help and we need it now.

“Where are the Americans?” That’s the sixty-four-dollar question. Chaos in Egypt: “Where are the Americans?” Gaddafi in Libya: “Where are the Americans?” Devastation in Japan: “Where are the Americans?” I am in London for a few days. At a dinner party last night, that was once again the question: “Where are the Americans?” On Tuesday, U.S. debt jumped $72 billion [12] — in one day. What are the Americans doing about it? President Obama’s secretary of the Treasury insisted that Congress raise the debt limit [13] so that the government could borrow more. “Where are the Americans?” President Obama has managed the impossible-seeming feat of making a president of France appear decisive and effective.  Nicolas Sarkozy was the first Western leader to recognize the Libyan opposition. “Where are the Americans?”

Many months ago, I wondered in this space whether Obama’s behavior betokened incompetence or malevolence [14](noting, however, that the “or” need not be exclusive: he might be both incompetent and malevolent). On the domestic front, Obama’s activity is marked by arrogance, self-absorption, and policies that increase the power of government at the expense of local or individual initiative. In foreign affairs, his behavior is marked by contempt for America and moral paralysis.

“Weakness, incoherence, drift, indecision,” observes John Hinderaker, are “the hallmarks of the Obama administration.” The community organizer and junior senator is simply out of his depth.

Obama had not been in office long before comparisons with Jimmy “misery index” Carter began cropping up. We now know that a reprise of that disastrous administration would be, as Glenn Reynolds has frequently observed, the best-case scenario [15]. “Where are the Americans?” Conrad Black had the best analogy [16]: looking for Obama is like the children’s game “Where’s Waldo?” The difference is that when your little one actually finds the dopey-looking fellow with the striped shirt, spectacles, and sock-like hat, he’s won the game. The philosopher Rudolf Carnap used to make fun of Heidegger for treating the word “nothing” as a transitive verb: “das Nichts nichtet (nothing noths),” he was fond of saying. “Nothing,” that is to say, begets vacancy. Carnap thought it was nonsense. Barack Obama shows that it is brute political reality.  Barack Obama: President Nothing.

Article printed from Roger’s Rules: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/03/17/%e2%80%9cwhere-are-the-americans%e2%80%9da-tale-of-two-tsunamis/

URLs in this post:

[1] deadliest natural disasters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll#Top_10_deadliest_natural_disasters
[2] some 230,000 people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami
[3] a huge relief effort: http://articles.cnn.com/2004-12-29/us/bush.quake_1_tsunami-relief-efforts-warning-system?_s=PM:US
[4] vital center : http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq130-4.htm
[5] media availability: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-772214221.html
[6] appealed to the “international community”: http://articles.cnn.com/2004-12-30/world/asia.quake_1_tsunami-death-toll-aceh?_s=PM:WORLD
[7] the worst earthquake ever to hit Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_earthquake
[8] went golfing: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/transcript/obama-finds-time-ncaa-bracket-golf-amid-global-turmoil
[9] Powerline: http://www.powerlineblog.com
[10] John Hinderaker: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028615.php
[11] Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366898/Japan-tsunami-earthquake-30-children-sit-silent-classroom-parents-vanish.html
[12] jumped $72 billion: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-jumped-72-billion-same-day-house-vo
[13] raise the debt limit: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/us-usa-treasury-geithner-debt-idUSTRE72F7WQ20110316
[14] incompetence or malevolence : http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2009/03/05/incompetence-malevolence-or-both-or-why-obamas-policies-are-pink-not-green-with-a-coda-on-my-new-favorite-section-of-the-us-constitution/
[15] best-case scenario: http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/116826/
[16] best analogy: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261666/state-obama-conrad-black

 

[a_majoor]

The Libyan adventure brings out the best in people  >:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2011/03/to-the-shores-of-tripoli-benghazi.html?cid=6a00d83451b2aa69e2014e86d40593970d#comment-6a00d83451b2aa69e2014e86d40593970d

BLOG COMMENT OF THE DAY: What I Like About Obama.

    Obviously, the biggest problem with Bush was sending the military into an Arab Muslim country that hadn’t even attacked us. Among the several things that made that offensive were
    * the rush to war – it was only several months after the possibility of military involvement was raised that combat operations began
    * lack of United Nations sanction – only 17 relevant resolutions were ever passed before they were enforced
    * lack of Congressional oversight – the President authorized the use of military force based on the flimsy pretext of a bill passed by Congress titled “Authorization of the Use of Military Force”, rather than seeking a document that had the words “declaration of war” in it; that’s every bit as bad as getting no Congressional approval at all
    * obvious financial motives – clearly no one approved of the murderous dictator or sought a normal working relationship with him besides the French; at the same time, one couldn’t help but be suspicious of the fact that the population we were ostensibly protecting was located conveniently near the oil fields
    * stretching our military – we were overburdened as it was, and our brave military despite its courage lacked the resources for yet another operation
    * inflating our military – the only way to keep the bloodthirsty Pentagon beast fed was to give it the hordes of jobless young men who had no prospects in an economy that saw unemployment skyrocket above 4% in most states
    * ignoring our generals – the decision to go to war was made by political hacks who had never worn a uniform
    * inflaming the Arab Street – despite some touchy-feely talk about Islam, it was impossible for the Muslim world not to notice how the President made repeated, insistent proclamations of his Christianity, how he only ever used the military against Muslim targets, and how at the time the war started he’d kept the concentration camp at Guantanamo open for over a year
    * wasting money – it was completely irresponsible to commit the military to an expensive mission when the President’s fiscal mismanagement had resulted in a budget deficit of over $150 billion in 2002

    But anyway, what I really like about Obama is that he’s gone 29-3 in his bracket picks over the first two days. You have to spend a lot of time watching college basketball to be that good.

 

[a_majoor]

Some people are not too pleased. Watch this epic rant

 

[Edward Campbell]

Maybe the thread title should be "What the world wants from an American president, again," and we might consider one of America's best but always overlooked presidents: Dwight Eisenhower. Ike is 'reviewed' in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/20/george-f-will-many-reasons-to-like-ike/

George F. Will: Many reasons to like Ike

George F. Will

Feb 20, 2012

Two coming developments, one dismal and one excellent, pertain to America’s memory of a great man. One of several oversight panels soon will consider a proposed memorial to Dwight Eisenhower. The proposal is an exhibitionistic triumph of theory over function — more a monument to its creator Frank Gehry, practitioner of architectural flamboyance, than to the most underrated president. Fortunately, on Tuesday comes Jean Edward Smith’s biography Eisenhower in War and Peace, which demonstrates why the man’s achievements merit a memorial better than the proposed one.

Filling four acres across Independence Avenue from the National Mall, the memorial will have a colonnade of huge limestone-clad columns from which will hang 80-foot stainless-steel mesh “tapestries” depicting images evocative of Eisenhower’s Kansas youth. And almost as an afterthought, there will be a statue of Eisenhower — as a boy.

Philip Kennicott, The Washington Post’s cultural critic, says the statue suggests Eisenhower “both innocent of and yet pregnant with whatever failings history ultimately attributes to his career.” Failings? A memorial is not an exhaustive assessment, it is a celebration of a preponderance of greatness.

Kennicott praises Gehry’s project because it allows visitors “space to form their own assessment of Eisenhower’s legacy.” But memorials are not seminars, they are reminders — that a person esteemed by the nation lived and is worth learning more about.

Kennicott says Gehry’s project acknowledges that “few great men are absolutely great, without flaws and failings.” Good grief. If Ike, with all his defects, was not great, cancel the memorial.

Kennicott celebrates the “relatively small representation of Eisenhower” because “there were other Eisenhowers right behind him, other men who could have done what he did, who would have risen to the occasion if they had been tapped.” How sweetly democratic: Greatness can be tapped hither and yon. But if greatness is so abundant and assured, it is hardly greatness, so cancel all memorials.

So far, the best remembrance of Eisenhower is Smith’s superb biography of one of three Americans (with Washington and Grant) who were world figures before becoming president. Eisenhower entered the White House having dealt with such demanding military men as John Pershing, Douglas MacArthur and George Marshall, then FDR, Churchill, Stalin (Eisenhower was the only foreigner ever to stand alongside Stalin atop Lenin’s tomb), de Gaulle and others in the excruciatingly complex task of conducting coalition warfare with the largest multinational force ever assembled.

Intellectuals and journalists, who are often the last to learn things, regarded Eisenhower as amiable and mediocre. He was neither. He was cold (see Smith on Eisenhower’s dismissal of his wartime companion Kay Summersby). He was steely (a three-to-four pack a day smoker, he quit when “I simply gave myself an order”). He was brutal (he used financial pressure to bring Britain to heel during the 1956 Suez crisis). He was subtle (he assisted de Gaulle’s seizure of power in France in 1944, contrary to FDR’s fervent wishes). He was audacious (he evaded Churchill by dealing directly with Stalin).

After Eisenhower quickly liquidated a stalemated war in Korea, no American died in combat during his presidency. Twice, concerning the French besieged at Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam and during the Formosa Strait crisis, he resisted — a president with less military confidence might not have — his most senior advisers advocating the use of nuclear weapons.

Smith is most mind-opening regarding Eisenhower on race. In February 1953, 15 months before Brown v. Board of Education, he vowed to use every power of his office to end segregation in the District of Columbia and the armed forces — two-thirds of Army units were still segregated five years after President Truman’s integration order. By October 1954, no more segregated units existed.

In 1957, he sent the 101st Airborne to integrate Little Rock’s Central High School. In 1958, he told the Red Cross to ignore a Louisiana law requiring that blood from black and white donors be segregated. This was in character: In 1942, when Australia desperately sought U.S. troops but said a law prohibited blacks from entering the country, Gen. Eisenhower said, “All right. No troops.” Australia quickly saw the light.

Smith, biographer of Lucius Clay, John Marshall, Grant and FDR, writes: “[Eisenhower] was buried in a government-issue, eighty-dollar pine coffin, wearing his famous Ike jacket with no medals or decorations other than his insignia of rank.” His memory should not be buried beneath a grandiose memorial that contributes only to the worsening clutter on and around the Mall.

Washington Post Writers Group

Both Democrats and Republicans might want to review their history and consider a time when we had "real men," not Madison Avenue made replicas like Gingrich, Obama and Santorum, in public life.

The decline started with JFK when style triumphed over substance.
 

 

[GAP]

By comparison.......PBS had a documentry on Clinton last night. It almost entirely focused on things he did wrong, rather than what he achieved.....Ah.....for an Ike today...........................

 

[a_majoor]

By comparison.......PBS had a documentry on Clinton last night. It almost entirely focused on things he did wrong, rather than what he achieved.....Ah.....for an Ike today...........................

Welfare reform? Bringing in balanced budgets? Sorry, that was the Republican House and Senate doing their "Contract with America" platform. President Clinton knew enough to go with the flow and claim credit for those, while dumping Hillarycare and redefining what "is" is...

 

[mariomike]

Update 02/17/17

Historians rank Obama 12th best president
https://www.google.ca/search?q=obama+12th&biw=1536&bih=723&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2%2F17%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A2%2F18%2F2017&tbm=




 

 

[kkwd]

Update 02/17/17

Historians rank Obama 12th best president
https://www.google.ca/search?q=obama+12th&biw=1536&bih=723&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2%2F17%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A2%2F18%2F2017&tbm=

They are all still teary eyed their precious idol had to leave. But I bet they are happy he is still in town so they can drop by to worship him.

 

[George Wallace]

They are all still teary eyed their precious idol had to leave. But I bet they are happy he is still in town so they can drop by to worship him.

Ummmmm?  Isn't he off gallivanting with Richard Branson?

 

[daftandbarmy]

They are all still teary eyed their precious idol had to leave. But I bet they are happy he is still in town so they can drop by to worship him.

Meanwhile, Pence warns Europe to hop off of the US 'NATO welfare' train.... and who can blame Uncle Sam?


Mike Pence widens US rift with Europe over Nato defence spending

On first visit to Europe since taking office, US vice-president tells Munich conference Nato allies must step up their contributions

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/18/mike-pence-widens-us-rift-with-europe-over-nato-defence-spending

 

[kkwd]

Ummmmm?  Isn't he off gallivanting with Richard Branson?

He was, he needs seed money to implement his Pinky And The Brian type plans. The twist is he doesn't want to take over the world, he wants the world to take over him and all that surrounds him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_mPrhwpZ-8

 

[George Wallace]

Meanwhile, Pence warns Europe to hop off of the US 'NATO welfare' train.... and who can blame Uncle Sam?


Mike Pence widens US rift with Europe over Nato defence spending

On first visit to Europe since taking office, US vice-president tells Munich conference Nato allies must step up their contributions

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/18/mike-pence-widens-us-rift-with-europe-over-nato-defence-spending

....and this is where I think that "Justin just doesn't get it.":

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/trudeau-merkel-differ-answering-trump-083003268.html

Ways to gauge Canada's commitment to NATO beyond just spending: Trudeau
The Canadian PressFebruary 17, 2017

BERLIN — Canada's indifference to the ever-present push for more NATO spending was laid bare Friday in Germany as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau all but shrugged off Donald Trump's push to squeeze alliance members for more money.

Standing alongside German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose country has already promised significant increases to its own NATO contributions, Trudeau suggested that when it comes to demonstrating Canada's commitment, money isn't everything.

He acknowledged the spending target agreed to in 2014 by the members of the 28-country transatlantic alliance — two per cent of GDP annually — but described Canada and Germany as principal NATO actors who do much of the "heavy lifting."

"There are many ways of evaluating one's contribution to NATO," Trudeau said.

Germany and Canada have "always been amongst the strongest actors in NATO," he said, citing Canada's leadership of a multinational NATO mission in Latvia aimed at strengthening its eastern flank against Russia.

He also said Canada is in the midst of "significant procurement projects" — fighter jets and shipbuilding, specifically — and working with NATO to ensure the alliance is being as effective as possible.

But Canada's position differs from the German message. Merkel said Germany answered the 2014 call by increasing its defence budget eight per cent over last year.

That will build on Germany's current 1.2 per cent of GDP, but there is no firm commitment that Canada's defence budget — which stands at 0.99 per cent of GDP — will receive a cash infusion any time soon.

Canadian government insiders feel they are winning the day in terms of persuading NATO allies that the Canadian contribution is more than the sum of its parts. They point to comments made by U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis after his meeting with Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, as well as language in the joint declaration from Trudeau and Trump after their meetings earlier this week.

"The United States values Canada's military contributions, including in the global coalition Against Daesh, and in Latvia," the statement reads, using one of the several names by which the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is known.

Notably, the statement makes no mention of any insufficiency in Canadian funds for NATO.

A Canadian government official who briefed journalists on the condition of anonymity prior to Trudeau's departure for Europe this week said Canada is "quite comfortable" with its current contribution to NATO.

Not so for Germany, said Merkel.

"This commitment hasn't changed to this day, so we intend to pursue this political course," she said through a translator. "Germany shows that it is ready and willing to acknowledge its responsibility in this respect."

Merkel did make a broader point about the importance of NATO's role in the world, regardless of who might be picking up the cheque.

Trump has called NATO obsolete, while U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis delivered an ultimatum this week, saying the U.S. expects its allies to start spending more on defence or else it will "moderate its commitment."

Mattis also called on NATO put a plan in place this year that lays out a timetable for governments to reach the two-per-cent target.

Trump is far from the first U.S. president to lean on its NATO allies, German ambassador Werner Wnendt noted.

"We have heard this from previous presidents of the United States ... that they said there must be a fair burden sharing," said Wnendt. "That's well accepted in the alliance, so we will deliver."

During a June 2016 speech to Parliament in Ottawa, U.S. President Barack Obama softened his request of Canada by saying he wanted to see more Canada in NATO.

Prior to that, the Canadian ambassadors for former president George W. Bush were far more blunt in calling on Canada to pull its weight on defence.

With the thrill-a-minute U.S. presidency very much top of mind in Europe and elsewhere around the world, Trudeau's political-celebrity status was on full display Friday on the front of at least two German newspapers: "the anti-Trump is here" and "Sexiest politician alive," read the headlines.

Trudeau was given the same anti-Trump label on his March 2016 trip to Washington during the fractious U.S. presidential election campaign. As he did then, the prime minister refused Friday to wear that banner in Berlin.

Avoiding the monetary commitment agreed to, only making token contributions of troops to various NATO deployments and Exercises, is not at all what the US is now demanding.  It is AVOIDING one's RESPONSIBILITY, not to mention RENEGING on an agreement and trust signed when becoming a member.


[edit]

See also:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/nato-commitment-goes-beyond-cash-pm-trudeau-1.3289597#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=Facebook&_gsc=Q6XUsdK&_giguuid=a83b0db8eb4041a4bb0f3fe89478b920

 

[Journeyman]

I received an article that...perhaps.... explains part of Trump's popularity that I just couldn't understand.

4chan: The Skeleton Key to the Rise of Trump
Trump’s younger supporters know he’s an incompetent joke; in fact, that’s why they support him.

...we can append a third category to the two classically understood division of Trump supporters:
1) Generally older people who naively believe Trump will “make America great again,” that is to say, return it to its 1950s ideal evoked by both Trump and Clinton.

2) The 1 percent, who know this promise is empty, but also know it will be beneficial to short term business interests.

3) Younger members of the 99 percent, like Anon, who also know this promise is empty, but who support Trump as a defiant expression of despair.

          LINK

It's a long article. Sorry.

I still have trouble accepting that people would embrace and proudly self-proclaim being "losers," but it's another chunk of the puzzle to ponder.
:dunno:

 

[Journeyman]

LINK

I included the article, since Foreign Policy usually requires a subscription, unless they're running their periodic 'free trials.'

Max Boot

The Worst and the Dimmest
The wheels are falling off Donald Trump’s foreign policy, and the adults aren’t at the wheel.

Foreign Policy
FEB 21, 2017


Back in 2001, during the “end of history” interregnum between the Cold War and 9/11, Henry Kissinger published a book called Does America Need a Foreign Policy? It was obviously a rhetorical question coming from a master of diplomacy. But now it is a very real issue, because the United States under President Donald Trump does not actually seem to have a foreign policy. Or, to be exact, it has several foreign policies — and it is not obvious whether anyone, including the president himself, speaks for the entire administration.

On Feb. 15, for example, Trump was asked, during a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whether he still supported a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. His insouciant reply? “So I’m looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like. I’m very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one.” This immediately prompted news coverage that, as a New York Times article had it, “President Trump jettisoned two decades of diplomatic orthodoxy on Wednesday by declaring that the United States would no longer insist on the creation of a Palestinian state as part of a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians.”

But had Trump meant to do that? His remarks sounded as if they were being improvised off the top of his head. Did they actually denote a change of policy? Sure enough, 24 hours later, Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, told reporters that “the two-state solution is what we support. Anybody that wants to say the United States does not support the two-state solution — that would be an error,” thus suggesting that the president was mistaken about his own administration’s policies. It soon emerged, thanks to Politico’s reporting, that the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, had not been consulted or even informed beforehand about what was, in theory at least, a momentous policy shift: “At the White House, there was little thought about notifying the nation’s top diplomat because, as one senior staffer put it, ‘everyone knows Jared [Kushner] is running point on the Israel stuff’.”

This was not, of course, an isolated incident. Trump’s recently fired national security advisor, Michael Flynn, apparently did consult with the Department of Defense prior to announcing, ominously, on Feb. 1 that Iran was being put “on notice,” whatever that means. But, according to a New Yorker profile of Flynn, the Pentagon’s attempts to soften some of his language and to take out criticism of the Barack Obama administration were simply ignored. And there clearly was no preparation at either the Defense Department or Central Command to back up this ultimatum that could result in war with Iran. “Planning is trying to keep up with the rhetoric,” a “senior defense official” told Nicholas Schmidle of the New Yorker.

So much for the hopes that Trump’s seasoned cabinet appointees — especially retired Gen. John Kelly at Homeland Security, retired Gen. James Mattis at Defense, and former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson at State — could direct administration policy on a more mainstream course. Perhaps they will exert a bigger influence down the road, especially now that they will have a valuable ally in the new national security advisor, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, but so far their impact has been decidedly limited. They have had to fight for influence with Steve Bannon, the white nationalist ideologue who has been inexplicably granted a place on the National Security Council’s top-level Principals Committee, and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law who has been granted nebulous authority over areas such as Mexico and Israel. Bannon has even created his own shadow NSC, called the Strategic Initiatives Group, staffed by people such as the anti-Muslim extremist Sebastian Gorka.

Bannon showed just how much power he wields when he vetoed Tillerson’s choice for deputy secretary of state — Elliott Abrams. One suspects that, from Bannon’s standpoint, Abrams had multiple strikes against him: Not only is he Jewish and a “neocon,” hence hostile to isolationism and nativism, but he has vast policymaking experience stretching back to the Ronald Reagan administration. Bannon, who has never served in government outside his time as a junior naval officer decades ago, must have known Abrams would be a formidable bureaucratic adversary — one who could make up for Tillerson’s own lack of policymaking background. So Bannon apparently sabotaged Abrams’s nomination by putting before Trump a single article that Abrams had written last year critical of him. That this is not just about loyalty to the president is obvious from the fact that Rick Perry, who once called Trump a “cancer on conservatism,” was appointed as energy secretary. But then nobody in the White House cares who runs the Energy Department or considers Perry any kind of threat. Abrams was different — and thus he could not be allowed to join the administration.

President Bannon’s insistence on maintaining control also appears to be behind the problems the administration is having in finding a new national security advisor to replace Flynn. The first choice — retired Vice Adm. Bob Harward — turned down the post after Trump made it clear that he would not be allowed to pick his own deputy (for some reason Harward did not think that K.T. McFarland was qualified despite her years of pithy Fox News commentary) or to get any guarantees of a clear chain of command that would exclude interference from Bannon and Kushner. This was, among other things, a message that Mattis, who is close to Harward and recommended him, does not exercise any more sway than Tillerson over key administration appointments.

Retired Gen. David Petraeus, another highly qualified pick, was said to have withdrawn from consideration next after he made similar demands. An anonymous official revealed the insular and arrogant White House mindset when he told the Wall Street Journal: “It is dumb to demand Flynn’s people go. Why are you creating embarrassment? If you make that a precondition, you are not a loyal soldier and you don’t deserve the job.” This is reminiscent of the misplaced self-confidence of the “best and brightest” of the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson administrations — only Trump and his circle are far from bright or the best at anything other than bamboozling those who credulously place faith in them.

Trump finally selected as his national security advisor H.R. McMaster, a serving officer who would have had difficulty in turning down the commander in chief, or conditioning his acceptance on certain conditions as Harward did. McMaster is one of the outstanding officers of his generation, a rare combination of soldier and scholar who has literally written the book — Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam — on the need for the military to speak truth to its political masters. It is hard to imagine a better choice for the post, yet even McMaster will have difficulty bringing any order to American foreign policy as long as Bannon and Kushner continue to pursue their own policies and as long as the president continues to make incendiary and ill-considered statements that needlessly aggravate friendly states — most recently Sweden — while calling into question basic American foreign-policy commitments. Trump may think the White House is a “fine-tuned machine,” but it is in fact a jalopy whose wheels are falling off while it’s going 60 mph, and it’s far from clear that even McMaster can perform the needed repairs en route.

Foreign officials watching this amazing and dispiriting spectacle are left in the uncomfortable position of not knowing who if anyone actually speaks for the United States. This became obvious over the weekend when Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of Defense Mattis, among others, traveled to the Munich Security Conference to offer reassurance that the United States would remain committed to NATO and opposed to Russia. But of course European officials are well aware that Trump has repeatedly expressed his own skepticism of NATO and admiration of Vladimir Putin and has spoken longingly of doing a “deal” with Russia. Indeed, Time magazine reported that Bannon’s Strategic Initiatives Group is generating “its own assessment of Russia-policy options,” including concessions such as “reducing or removing the U.S. anti-ballistic-missile footprint in Central and Eastern Europe, easing sanctions imposed for election meddling or the invasion of Ukraine, or softening language on the Crimean annexation” — all options far removed from the tough talk in Munich.

Thus Germany’s defense minister, Ursula von der Leyen, pointedly replied to Mattis’s pro-NATO speech by expressing appreciation for the “secretary of defense’s strong commitment to NATO.” Not America’s strong commitment or the Trump administration’s strong commitment. Because who the hell knows anymore who actually speaks for America?

This dangerous dysfunction at the top — bad enough now at a time of relative peace and stability — will cause America and the world considerable grief when the administration has to deal with its first serious foreign-policy challenge. Imagine a Cuban missile crisis in which McGeorge Bundy, Robert McNamara, Dean Rusk, and Robert F. Kennedy all pursued their own policies without any coordination, and you get an idea of the danger ahead.

Apparently, Trump's version of mindless nationalism is  the way ahead. 
I can only shake my head at this recent hate-on for truth, ethics, thinking, competence...  :not-again: