Obama Proves Peter Principle at NATO [Updates]
By SusanUnPC on April 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM in Current Affairs, NATO, President Barack Obama, Qualifications
Someone’s lack of qualifications and substantive experience is showing — SEE Ambassador Joseph Wilson in Update #2 — and someone is depicting us United States citizens as beggars grateful for insultingly thin gruel while someone (that’d be President Barack Obama [PBO]) is being “played” by leaders of fellow NATO nations who know they can get away with schmoozing this newbie, while giving him nothing:
Anchor Q: That which we know that Barack Obama went to the NATO meeting to get, did he get that? What did he get if not that?
Patrick Buchanan: Well, he said he got the NATO allies behind the strategy. Fine, this is an American-designed strategy. But he got very, very, very thin gruel out of the allies.
We were down to talking about 3,000 troops. He doesn’t even know if these are combat troops or replacement troops for the allies who are already there.
When you consider that 3,000 meager contribution, even if it is net, compare that to the 30,000 to 40,000 more American troops going in, the President was defensive. He said this is not a pledging conference. I think the president has got to be dissatisfied with the fact that he did not get more out of this summit. His first summit where he’s extraordinarily popular, and where if he’s going to get anything, he’s going to get it now. [Personally transcribed from MSNBC News Live, 11 a.m. ET, April 4, 2009.]
NOTE: There’s MORE BUCHANAN BELOW.
Once again, Obama is down-ranking the United States’ world standing as he behaved deferentially, slavishly grateful for that thin gruel: “Obama Praises NATO for Afghanistan Support.” This man has too little experience at this kind of meeting — you’ll recall that, as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations’ subcommittee on Europe and NATO, he failed to hold a single hearing or to visit any member of NATO, let alone NATO headquarters. After all, his seat in the Senate was merely a resume builder (as Nocturnal Warrior so smartly noted on his Tuesday night show — LISTEN). He did not WORK at his jobs; he used them as launching pads.
President Obama needed advisers by his side who had a clue: SecState Hillary Clinton, SecDef Robert Gates, NSA James Jones, envoy Richard Holbrooke. One of them! If you are merely a prop, you need people around you to help you stand up.
See also: “Obama Wants NATO Troop Support,” A.P./AOL, April 4, 2009:
[B]oth Merkel and Sarkozy stressed the need for Afghanistan’s government and security forces to shoulder an increasing share of the burden. They gave no sign they were prepared to send more troops. Both countries believe civilian aid and training for police are what is needed to stabilize Afghanistan. …
Of note: I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that, later in the hour, Buchanan said that Obama’s symbolism was meaningful. Another analyst said that the “my way or the highway” approach [clearly referring to Bush] was gone, which is true.
But, I also want a president who is sensibly tough. The word “sensibly” is an important qualifier because, if we look to Obama’s action last week in firing GM’s Rick Wagoner, that was a nonsensical but highly symbolic gesture. I quote Larry Johnson in his must-read “Obama’s Economy of Torture“:
The firing of Rick Wagoner was not made for any rational economic reason. This is pure politics, designed in part to portray Barack as a tough guy who is taking charge on the eve of his international debut at the G20 summit. Not a single person on the Obama economic team has ever run a business or met a payroll. Barack and his team of bozos could not find a Secretary of Treasury who felt it important to pay taxes and wanted to appoint Tom Daschle to run Health and Human Services even though he was a lobbyist taking freebies on the side. And these are the people who want us to believe that they know how to run a car company?
BELOW: You can view the VIDEO of Obama’s press conference today, and more news articles:
More detritus, via the A.P., from the NATO meeting:
British officials traveling to the summit with Prime Minister Gordon Brown told reporters aboard his plane that Brown will offer to send more troops to Afghanistan but that depended upon other NATO members being prepared to send additional forces, Britain’s Press Association reported.
Spain said ahead of the summit that it would add a small contingent to help train Afghan army officers. Belgium said it will add some 65 soldiers to a force of 500 and send two more F-16 jet fighters, bringing the total number it has sent to six. [WOW! BE STILL MY HEART!]
A senior U.S. official traveling with Obama said Saturday that the administration expects that pledges and commitments from other NATO nations would come in over the next several weeks.
[...]
Looking to the future, the leaders are expected to issue a declaration Saturday that formally launches the creation of a new “strategic concept” or road map to define NATO’s roles, missions and way of functioning.
It would be the first such revision of the alliance’s purpose and function since 1999.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
UPDATE #1: Pat Buchanan goes on, later in the hour on MSNBC:
They’re going to come home [from NATO meetings], and his guys are going to say to him — Gates and these other guys — “Mr. President, we didn’t get a thing on Afghanistan in terms of troops.” They got as many people in Western Europe under NATO as we’ve got here in the United States. We carry the hod in Iraq.
We carry the hod in Afghanistan. We’re putting in 40,000 guys. They’re giving us nothing. At that point Barack Obama is going to have to say, “Look, are we maybe going to have to go to the whip here as the #1 power here and tell these guys, ‘Look we had a nice summit here and now starting ponying up’.”
So I think they’re giving him a [inaudible], they’re lathering over there, but he’s got to wait until he gets home to find out what he’s gotten.
As for that IMF money, Peter, I don’t think you’re going to get it out of the United States Congress. …
Update 2: The prescient former ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote numerous op-eds WARNING voters about Obama’s failure to do his job as a senator and his utter lack of experience. If only voters had THOUGHT instead of FEELING. From “Obama’s illusions on foreign policy” written April 8, 2008:
[...]
In fact, Obama’s understanding of foreign policy is extraordinarily limited. He has had one job in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: chairman of the Europe and NATO subcommittee. He has not held a single policy hearing in that capacity because, as he said in a debate, he has been too busy running for president. He has not even taken a fact-finding trip or provided any other oversight.
As to Obama’s self-promoted “judgment,” which judgment would that be? Would it be to follow the path of Bush 41: tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action, as in the first gulf war? Would it be to ignore the rationale put forward by Colin Powell in the debate on the second gulf war? Would it be to vote exactly the same way Sen. Clinton did on war-related issues since he became a U.S. senator, which he has? Or is it simply to criticize from the sidelines with the benefit of never having had to face tough decisions with real consequences?
The next president will be presented with two difficult wars, U.S. moral authority at low ebb, and unprecedented complexity of our relations with the rest of the world. Obama has no record whatsoever, only his utter absence from his committee responsibility. His claim to be the one true heir to George H.W. Bush is a misguided illusion and no substitute for offering more about what foreign policies he would actually follow.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
U heard this reported on NPR and they gave the impression that this was a huge victory. From your assessment, doesn’t sound like it….
Oops — Meant “I” not “U”.
NPR is simply not a good source for information these days, and hasn’t been since the primaries. Their Rick Somebody compared Hillary to the Glenn Close character in “Fatal Attraction”. Gwen Ifill has beccome an AA first and a newsperson second… It’s pretty much 24/7 Obama (with the emphasis on the baaa).
I used to listen to NPR all the time – until the primaries. It’s one thing to be biased in favor of one party, but they made it the Obama party. They didn’t approach the primaries with a fairness to all the democratic candidates – it was all Obama, all the time. They weren’t fair to Hillary, at all.
I tuned out.
Well, of course he did. He knows full well that these G-20 leaders know the extent of our bankster fraud, and that Obama is engaged in a conspiracy to cover-up the damage that both Democrats and Republicans, Bush and now Obama, are continuing to commit while they cover up the extent of the implosion. He must bow and scrape and beg now. The United States is a debtor nation, a banana republic, a failed third world economy. We don’t have the money or the moral authority to demand anything anymore. We’re at the mercy of our allies, and our enemies. Get used to it. The US is now the junior partner to world affairs.
Susan: Lots of info to ponder in your report.
What is really striking is that adding more troops to Afghanistan does not help, it only puts more civilians at risk.
Yesterday, Oxfam’s story: “Troop surge in Afghanistan must not endanger civilians”
The full report can be downloaded here: http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/civilians-caught-in-the-conflict-afghanistan
$33 Billion was spent on military action in Afghanistan, and only $1.7 Billion for improvement of services and infrastructure. What a waste of money and innocent lives. It is not too late to change the course in Afghanistan, we just need the will to do so.
“British officials traveling to the summit with Prime Minister Gordon Brown told reporters aboard his plane that Brown will offer to send more troops to Afghanistan but that depended upon other NATO members being prepared to send additional forces, Britain’s Press Association reported.” Sounds like even the Brits aren’t too enthusiastic about participating…
I am a little ambivalent about this. In one way it felt nice to NOT hear George W’s arrogance and dismissiveness, which I believe was the heaviest contributor to anti-American sentiments. On the other hand, I did not like feeling like we had given up our dignity and what credibilty and honor the people of America deserve.
Tough call.
I agree with you Tricia. It seems we have had two extreme positions-one that was arrogant, followed by the one who is apolgetic. Hillary would have displayed strength minus the arrogance.
What does Belgium do with its F16 fighters? Are they ever actually used in combat?
I believe you’re thinking of The Netherlands.
BTW, got an email from the San Antonio Teaparty organizers, and it’s somewhat encouraging. I’m not sure if you all have heard, but Glenn Beck is coming here to the teaparty, so the response is becoming massive. (I think the fact that San Antonio had a way cool video helped: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXGrQ9uiLSo)
The organizers have been ADAMANT that this remain a non-partisan event. In the email today, they stressed that No sitting politician or people seeking political office will have the microphone at our rally. They’ve done a good job of insisting it’s about the voice of the people, and not letting the politicians glom onto it and hijack it to campaign for themselves.
Yes, it’s still mostly conservatives organizing, but a few of them state outright that they are pragmatists, who want neither huge unresponsive govt, nor for govt to disappear. Mostly they want BOTH parties to stop doing whatever the hell they want, and listen to us. I am hoping that despite the fact that I’m sure there will be nutjob extremists in abundance, they can keep the focus where it needs to be.
Well, about time is all I can say. Neither party is devoted to anything other than their own aggrandizement. Screw the parties and the agenda they rode in on.
All I have to say about these tea parties is “Where the hell were they when Dubya was spending us into the ground and the GOP Congress was rubber-stamping every single one of Dubya’s spending bills?”
It does seem like these events are being organized by “conservatives” who are more outraged that Obama was elected and they’re using these “protests” SOLELY to avoid being tagged as “racists” (which is, unfortunately, being used far too often to downplay criticism of The One, just as “traitor” and “unAmerican” or “anti-American” was used to offset criticism of Dubya and his cronies).
I’m incredibly disappointed that these “conservatives” didn’t organize the first of these tea parties when Dubya’s policies were destroying the economy, but not very surprised.
And to make a claim of being non-partisan when Glenn Beck is attending is undescribably absurd (almost smacking of a Disneyesque fantasy). Beck may not be a politician but he is, in no uncertain terms, incredibly partisan.
Notice the phrase, non-partisan. Perhaps they, too, have had enough of BOTH parties.
JosefAl, I agree about Beck. And I agree about the conservatives who did not care about Dubya’s spending. HOWEVER, there were some who did. And there were some conservatives who were upset over the war, and the patriot act, and fisa. They were mostly silent.
Why did they not protest? Because all the protests were organized by the Left. Because they dared not join hands on issues they AGREED with us on, for fear of appearing to “agree” with the entire agenda of the left. You know, the same way some liberals now won’t go to a teaparty because they might get republican cooties.
It was wrong and cowardly of them. It is just as wrong and cowardly, in my mind, to sneer at those now who are trying to make a difference.
If we do not get over this asinine “keeping score”, then we have no hope of EVER holding our politicians accountable for anything, because we will never wield our power as a people in any united way. We will wait for the other side to do it first, to admit all their wrongs, so we can do our “I told you so” dance, before we will join them in calling out abuses.
GROW THE FUCK UP, America.
You mean “tea bagging” party! Have fun!
So that’s how you use your spare time, huh, Julie? Wow, illiterate, a bot, and a deviant. You’re on a roll, toodles.
Sounds like a bunch of libertarians in the making
It will be very interesting to see how the MSM reports these events. If they ignore them like they did the first round, there will be even more public anger.
This is simply a continution of the Big Lie. We had mushroom clouds and “Mission Accomplished” from the Bush administration and now we have “Overseas Contingiency Operations = war and lame European support reported as a “rousing success.”
It’s same old, same old. The Obama folks knew going in that the G-20 leaders were not going to make concessions on these hair-brained economic plans. They’re trying to put a smiley face on it. Afghanistan has disaster written all over it. And where’s the money coming from, btw? Or was that what all the bowing and scraping was for?
The Big Lie never changes. Only the narrator is different.
Indeed. Different president, same crock of manure. Why does this country insist on electing morons?
Hey guys stop being so arrogant, Obama is in charge America is going to become the greatest socialist country in the world, just wait and see.
Welcome to USSA (United States of Socialist America)
It’s not socialism, it’s fascism. Fascism retains the illusion of free markets, but in fact the major corporations become an arm of the government. They are allowed to make HUGE profits on the back of the taxpayer, so long as they advance the government’s interests.
You’re correct. That One has managed to unite the opposite ends of the spectrum into one sordid singularity. We get the worst of both in the bargain.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/04/administration-seeking-to-circumvent.html
maybe 0bama can send his new private army to afghanistan. im sure all those acorn volunteers would love it.
I’m sure they will be going soon. Zer0 has plans for them for sure. I’m going to have to work on my grandson so that he knows not to sign up with the Organize for American sham..future army of Zer0.
Yeah, send all of those voluntary mandatory GIVE/ACORN folks to fight the wars and let the GIs on their 4th or 5th tour come home.
I’m all for that.
“Obama’s gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands.”
Mr. Joseph Wilson, a true patriot. Believes in honesty over popularity. He was willing to criticize a popular president (Bush II) and a popular media darling, then Sen. Obama.
America needs more Joe Wilsons.
Susan,
Your post is a little nieve. You expect Obama to get a larger commitment out of Nato? Given that he has been in power for a couple of months and he is still living with the Bush strategy, I think this is a very tall order at this time. A bit of a joke to try and blame Obama for the limited commitment of some NATO countries. The policy, strategy and ability to influence other countries with essentially a U.S. problem was broken a long time ago, in fact years ago, by the Bush adminstration. To expect Obama to work miricles in this short a period of time is complete BS. As usual “you” set a very high bar and then you crusify Obama if he does not pass “your” standard. In a very short period of time Obama has seemed to have created a much warmer relationship with the countries of Europe. At least they are listening to him and he is listening to them. I am sure the leaders of Europe could not stand Bush. And Bush’s go it alone policy has likely cost the U.S. significantly.
At what cost? He stood in front of these same leaders and trashed the US. He called Americans arrogant. If he’ll do that to his own country do you think they’ll trust him? I think not.
Well, That One does know a little bit about arrogance, though in this case he is projecting again. Time for another repair to the TelePrompTer.
for barky to call us arrogant is total horse manure.
lets see in the last 15years it was which country that took the leed in stopping genocide in the balkens.and oh ya you have to remeber all those great europeans that are buried overlooking the beaches of normandy.yes we must be grateful to the europeans for saving us for all of the tyrants of the last 100 years.oh what thats right it was the other way around the us cleaning up after their mistakes.
False generalization. The British are Europeans and they took day and night bombing from the Nazis for months and remained standing.
This is standard obot BS trying to disguise itself as intelligent comment.
Julie: It’s called a dictionary.
NAIVE ! NAIVE !
How did Bush’s policies “cost” the United States other than piss of the europeans that are already under socialistic rule? They were already pissed off about losing their freedoms. Misery loves company. Is that what you want, Julie? Less freedom?
Please enlighten us all and don’t forget to give your resources, Julie.
We really get the dumbazz trolls around here. Sigh.
Julie,
It was President Obama, not Susan, who raised expectations that NATO would provide more troops.
And, if he knew anything at all about the recent history of that organization, he would have known not to expect anything other than the response he got.
European countries are not undermining NATO because of opposition to President Bush. They are undermining it, at the behest of France, due to opposition to any American involvement at all – your leader does not matter.
France will not be content until NATO is disbanded, and ESDP takes it place. And don’t be fooled by Sarkozy’s meaningless promise to re-integrate France into NATO, either.
Why is NATO necessary? It hasn’t been for over 20 years. It is the costly equivalent and fraudulent stand-by of the Financing Industry–with billions of costly taxpayer-funded dollars yearly!
It should be dismantled as it serves the same purposes as Bushie’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. Fiction for the masses to justify military spending. Send hospital nursing staff, school supplies, women’s micromananging techniques, money to Afganistan/Iraq. They don’t need soldiers with guns! It’s hte equivalent of a husband beating the crap out of his wife to “make sure she does the right thing”. The last justified War was in the 40s…
D. Eisenhower was right when he said we must watch out for the expansion of the Military-Industrial Empire…
Obama’s Principles at NATO
Greant analysis, Susan!..
I just read Glenn Greenwald’s article (i think in Salon) on Larry Summers, Tim Geithner’s control of Washington.
Why did Larry Summers, the corrupt, incompetent misogynist jerk telephone in ‘98 Brooksley Born when she was head of CFTC to blackmail her into accepting that “there’s no Fraud in the markets..we don’t need your regulations”?
This now retired lady was the ONLY voice of reason and she is being praised by Samuel Johnson in his phenomenal May issue column in the ATLANTIC May issue. Ms. Brooksly BORN was the head of CFTC whose rebellion and insistence that the crooks sign on her recommendaitons for Regulation cost her her job! Ms Born was the first female Editor of Stanford Law REview in l964! A great mind….
THANK you MS. BROOKSLY BORN. Have a wonderful retirement if you are reading this.
Greant analysis, Susan!..
I just read Glenn Greenwald’s article (i think in Salon) on Larry Summers, Tim Geithner’s control of Washington.
Why did Larry Summers, the corrupt, incompetent misogynist jerk telephone in ‘98 Brooksley Born when she was head of CFTC to blackmail her into accepting that “there’s no Fraud in the markets..we don’t need your regulations”?
This now retired lady was the ONLY voice of reason and she is being praised by Samuel Johnson in his phenomenal May issue column in the ATLANTIC May issue. Ms. Brooksly BORN was the head of CFTC whose rebellion and insistence that the crooks sign on her recommendaitons for Regulation cost her her job! Ms Born was the first female Editor of Stanford Law REview in l964! A great mind….Clinton had her as A.G. shortlist
THANK you MS. BROOKSLY BORN. Have a wonderful retirement if you are reading this.