Amatuer Hour at the White House

With the Wizards of Washington now back in session, I was prepared to look at the mess being made of the health care debate- how Joe Wilson's impromptu "You lie!" comment draws an admonishment from the House (right on substance, wrong venue) while Obama's prepared remarks accusing his opponents of lying garners plaudits from the media peanut gallery- a particularly distasteful move, since he was a guest of Congress and should have displayed more tact. No one would react well to having someone enter their home and then level accusations at them. However, Obama's move to reverse a Bush-era decision to employ missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic took precedence. It's an amateurish move, one that only makes the world more dangerous, all the more so because after nine months on the job, Obama hasn't learned that there are some people who just can't be charmed.

In April of 1961, President Kennedy met with Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschchev, believing he could charm the man into some agreement. Kruschchev left the meeting thinking that the US leader was naive and the US weak. 18 months later, Kennedy had to deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis, a direct result of his naivete. At least Kennedy had learned his lesson from the ordeal. Obama has not. To date, the man who promised to enhance our standing around the world has offered a hand to autocrats and thugs while giving the back of his hand to our allies. On his first day in office, he returned a bust of Churchill to the Brits, a gift that was given after 9/11 as a reminder to be resolute. He then gave British Prime Minister Gordon Brown a set of 25 DVDs as a gift after their first meeting, compounded by the fact that they were formatted for North America and did not play when Brown returned home. For his first trip the the UK, he gave the Queen of England an iPod with video of his speeches loaded on to it (could one be more narcissistic?). However, these are merely tactless moves. It's the policy decisions that are most worrisome.

Since taking office, Obama posed for a photo with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and accepted an anti-American book as a gift. In June, former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya attempted a coup similar to the one Chavez pulled off in Venezeula. Both the Honduran courts and Congress rejected Zelaya's attempts to change the laws unconstitutional. Zelaya tried to forge ahead, using ballots from Venezuela (see a pattern here?). The military then ousted him on June 28th, and the Honduran Congress named Roberto Micheletti as his successor until elections could be held this fall. So, in recognition of its adherence to the rule of law and upholding its democracy, what reward did Obama have? Obama called for the restoration of Zelaya, and he had the State Departement revoke the US visas of Honduran officials and cut off all non-humanitarian aid to the Latin American democracy. And, in an unprecedented move, Mr. Micheletti will be barred from attending the upcoming opening session of the UN. So, while autocrats and dictators like the Castros, Iran's Ahmadinejad (a man who has called for the elimination of Jews and called the Holocaust a fraud and a lie), Hugo Chavez, and others with a history of human rights abuses and anti-democratic actions, a nation who stood up for democracy and defended the law is punished. All this while Obama has delayed trade treaties with both Columbia and South Korea, picked trade battles with Canada and Mexico, imposed tariffs on China, hounded Israel over West Bank settlements, and shut out Japan on dealings with North Korea. Meanwhile, he has tried cozying up to the likes of Burma, North Korea, Venezuela, and Russia, a nation backsliding away from democracy. It's this attitude that has led to his most egregious sin yet.

Yesterday, the Obama administration announced that it will not be employing missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic, no doubt signaling to Russian Premier Putin and President Medvedev the same weakness Kruschchev saw in 1961. Meanwhile, the reversal has upset the two former Eastern Bloc nations and signaled to US allies that we can't be counted on for defense and support. Doubt this? Read Czech legislator and a supporter of the defense agreement Jan Vadim's quote: "If the Administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it." . Sounds like we're making friends. The decision leaves both Prague and Warsaw in a vulnerable position to both Russia and to Iran's missiles, which already have the capability to reach Poland. The IAEA recently found that the Iranians have sufficient information to build an atomic bomb and that they will overcome their shortcomings in delivery systems. Obama claims that the move was made due to recent findings that Iran lacks the capabilities needed for long-range missiles. However, Obama signaled as early as February that he intended to scrap the Bush-era agreement, before he knew what Iran's capabilities were. Russia has benefited from having Iran pursue its nuclear ambitions, as it has given them a market to sell such technologies. Further, any instability created by Iran has a tendency to spike the oil markets, increasing the prices for Russian oil. Russia has a financial interest in having a nuclear Iran. Iran has been recalcitrant in ending its ambitions, and the Russians have obstructed tougher UN sanctions. So the reward for these two rogues is to leave our allies defenseless in the hopes one resistant government will get tough with another resistant regime. How this ends well, I don't know. The rationale for Bush's nuclear defense agreements was to offer protection from nuclear weapons so that other nations didn't feel the need to develop their own warheads. Now, Poland and the Czechs may have a sense of urgency to arm themselves. American credibility has taken a severe hit. American interests are at increased risk. All because we have a President who has yet again demonstrated he's not up to the job.

Critics of Obama have stated that he's more comfortable with dictators, anti-democrats, and socialists than he is with democrats and capitalists. His defenders have consistently rejected such thoughts. When looking at his first nine months, he's moved dramatically to the left on his domestic policy. The US government now owns two auto manufacturers. He's in the process of an attempt to socialize the health care industry. He hasn't given up on card check legislation, which would eliminate the secret ballot in union elections. And most troublesome, he has found himself more at ease with those who oppose America while shunning traditional allies. The claim that he is a capitalist and that he supports democracy is becoming a harder claim to make. His poll numbers have plummeted and it seems that more the American public is coming to this realization. The question is, do we fix the problem before it's too late?