EDITORIAL: Obama disavows American power - Opinion

PRINT THIS Popular

Sep. 27, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Obama disavows American power

Turns on Israel, vows to eliminate all nuclear weapons

In his first address to the United Nations General Assembly, President Barack Obama Wednesday summoned world leaders to help him bring about a world free of nuclear weapons.

But drawing most immediate attention was his declaration that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" outside the embattled nation's fragile 1948 boundaries, which it has had to defend in desperate defensive wars against vastly more numerous enemies three times in the past 60 years.

Most Popular Stories

J.C. WATTS: Bad dog food for the Democrats

EDITORIAL: Leaving Las Vegas -- alone

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Exposing the 'secure our borders' lie

LETTERS: President delivers another blow to Las Vegas

THOMAS MITCHELL: The audacity of hypocrisy

LETTERS: Mayor doesn't deserve to be labeled a 'racist'

LETTERS: Death of Yucca Mountain not worth a news release?

LETTERS: Suspend sports, reorganize district to save money

EDITORIAL: Hiking permits

LETTERS: Yucca Mountain presents an opportunity

Mr. Obama just put Israel "on the chopping block," responded John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

The problem is that Mr. Obama does not speak in a vacuum before the international body, which has long served as a vessel for fiercely anti-Israeli libel and propaganda.

His criticism of Israel for allowing her citizens living near the capital of Jerusalem to add new rooms on their houses for their growing families (dubbed "expansion of the settlements") risked giving the appearance that he was making common cause with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who shortly thereafter rose to predictably accuse Israel of "inhuman policies."

"How can crimes of the occupiers against defenseless women and children and destruction of their homes, farms, hospitals and schools be supported unconditionally by certain governments?" Mr. Ahmadinejad asked, referring to Israel and, presumably, the pre-Obama United States -- though the question would better be asked of the Palestinians who subject Israeli civilians to indiscriminate deadly rocket attacks.

"If we are honest with ourselves," Mr. Obama told the opening session of the General Assembly, "we need to admit that we are not living up" to the shared responsibility to meet such challenges as "protracted conflicts that grind on and on; genocide; mass atrocities; more nations with nuclear weapons; melting ice caps and ravaged populations; persistent poverty and pandemic disease."

Mr. Obama said he's led by example by prohibiting torture of detainees -- a blatant political swipe in an inappropriate venue at the previous U.S. administration, which certainly didn't systematically "torture" captured saboteurs as that practice is understood in most of the world. He added that he is working to reach the goal of "a world without nuclear weapons."

He said the G-20 industrialized nations have spent $2 trillion to keep the world from the brink of economic collapse, and the United States has demonstrated its commitment to the world body by joining the Human Rights Council.

In his most encouraging statement, President Obama said "Wealthy nations must open their markets to more goods and extend a hand to those with less."

As ever, though, the question is whether Mr. Obama's rhetoric bears any relation to reality. Didn't his administration just slap a 30 percent punitive tariff on low-cost Chinese tires, launching a trade war during a recession? Is his administration about to defy the wishes of powerful American sugar, ethanol, cotton and peanut producers (for starters), by repealing quotas and tariffs and allowing Caribbean, African, and South American nations to freely export those commodities to this country at far lower prices than American consumers now pay? Not likely.

Central Europeans who hoped the U.S. would help defend them against a resurgent Russia are still reeling from Mr. Obama's announcement last week that he'll cancel a planned missile defense system there.

Since there has been no return to hard money or sound banking practices, it might be more appropriate for the president to have said the G-20 governments have spent $2 trillion they don't have to "paper over" the problems caused by their own unwise economic meddling, and have thus kept the world "on the brink of" economic collapse.

As for nuclear disarmament, no one wants nuclear war. But can Mr. Obama -- whose knowledge of history does appear somewhat fuzzy ((No, the transcontinental railroad was not completed during the Civil War, and it's not true that we "import more oil today than ever before") -- really not know that a perception of American weakness helped lead the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941; that the perceived weakness of the appeasement-prone Neville Chamberlain helped embolden Hitler to seize Poland in 1939; that Khrushchev's perception of John F. Kennedy's youth and inexperience encouraged the Russians to initiate what became the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962?

If sober-minded nations disarm, won't the balance of power rest with the first loony to build a new warhead?

As for "more nations with nuclear weapons; melting ice caps and ravaged populations; persistent poverty and pandemic disease": The ice caps are not melting; the war on disease was going quite well until the American DDT ban allowed malaria to return; the president failed to point out that the persistent answer to poverty down through the centuries has been shown to be the untrammeled free market -- and does anyone really believe Mr. Obama plans anything more than hollow talk to stop Iran and North Korea from going nuclear?

The members of the U.N.'s so-called "Human Rights Council" are among the worst and most cynical violators of their subjects' human rights. But Mr. Obama just stamped their hypocrisy with the American seal of approval by joining up.

Nile Gardiner, a Washington-based British foreign affairs analyst, commented Wednesday, "Overall this was a staggeringly naïve speech by President Obama. ... All that was missing was a conga of hippies dancing through the aisles with a rousing rendition of 'Kumbaya.' " Barack Obama, Mr. Gardiner comments, is "a leader who seems embarrassed, even ashamed, by the power and greatness of his own country."

Having forsworn the unilateral exercise of power, what useful guidance will Mr. Obama's idealistic pronouncements offer if a real crisis comes calling?

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	52 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. General Hossein Salami wrote on September 28, 2009 09:50 AM: "The ice caps are not melting; the war on disease was going quite well until the American DDT ban allowed malaria to return" You guys need to take your meds. I agree with the conclusions and major points here, but you're schizoid. Astra Zeneca may be able to help. Who actually wrote this piece? Sherm? Glenn Cook? Flush Rimjob? Nancy wrote on September 27, 2009 11:29 PM: I'm a Republican and I'm going to vote for Harry Reid this year. A vote for Harry Reid is a vote for Nevada. angry@sherm wrote on September 27, 2009 07:58 PM: I lost 30 IQ reading this POS article. Unbelievable tripe. Paul wrote on September 27, 2009 07:22 PM: John F: You wrote: "Since the notion of Palestinians didn't exist until the Jordanian, Syrian, and Egyptian governments abandoned their own people in the wake of the Six Day War, I don't know how anyone can say that Israel is occupying Palestinian land. ... Enough with this lie that Israel is the impediment to peace." The lies are those of the Zionists. I will note just one example. *** William James Martin Zionism for Dummies: In his 1923 book, The Iron Wall, Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder to the “Revisionists” wing of Zionism, wrote: "Any native people view their country as their national home, of which they will be the complete masters. They will never voluntarily allow a new master. So it is for the Arabs. Compromisers among us try to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked with hidden formulations of our basic goals. I flatly refuse to accept this view of the Palestinian Arabs. "The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope....it matters not what kind of words we use to explain our colonization. Colonization has its own integral and inescapable meaning understood by every Jew and every Arab. Colonization has only one goal. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible. It has been necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs and the same conditions exist now. *** Note the 1923 date and the use of the term "Palestinians." winston smith wrote on September 27, 2009 05:18 PM: As Carroll Quigley, globalist apologist and Bill Clinton's former professor at Georgetown University wrote in Tragedy and Hope: “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.” typical liberal wrote on September 27, 2009 05:07 PM: We won,we won,na na,na na. Now if only our illusrious leader can convince those muslim fanatics and crazy regime leaders like Kim and Amendittijohn to play nice,we could be somebody. Right now that darn messiah of ours is pissing everyone in our country off in his zeal to go socialist. We warned him to take it slow and sneaky,but he did'nt listen. Now they say the lunatic left is in charge and ruining our gameplan. Why won't you all fall in line like lttle p,Gas passer,dan,me and the rest of us reds,I mean libera? Do not try to fight us,give in to utopia.Just like the old movie Logans World,do you remember? Gas Passer wrote on September 27, 2009 04:47 PM: I agree wrote on September 27, 2009 08:31 AM: Sore losers, "Why can't wingnuts accept the smackdown that voters delivered in last two elections? Before the 2006 vote, wingnuts controlled the House, Senate and White House. Before the 2008 vote wingnugs held just the White House." and what a great economy and country we have had since! ====================================== Ha ha ha ha ha...oh my! My ribs are hurting! rmolnar, quit yer whinin' wrote on September 27, 2009 04:43 PM: rmolnar wrote on September 27, 2009 03:50 President Obama is nothing more than a hack politician from Cook County, Ill. Looks like that hack pol from Cook County is the most popular leader in the free world after putting a serious whippin' on your pathetic candidate, John McBush. rmolnar wrote on September 27, 2009 03:50 PM: President Obama is nothing more than a hack politician from Cook County, Ill. dan wrote on September 27, 2009 03:37 PM: EDITORIAL: Obama disavows American power And the LVRJ (Republican Journal) disavows any position except those their GOP masters dictate. Read All Comments