From Rock Star to Stone Deaf

In 2008, Barack Obama wowed European crowds with his speeches and youthful energy. Everyone, including the media, got caught up in Obamamania. Some in the press even compared the candidate to a rock star.

Boy, what a difference 2+ years can make.

Obama's recent European trip has people scratching their heads over the President's bizarre lack of protocol. While some conservative commentators such as Glenn Beck take a semi-serious approach to the issue and its impact on American foreign policy, I tend to think of it more in terms of a fall from grace for the President.

When Obama was elected, people believed he would restore America to prominence in the world by taking a different approach to foreign policy than his predecessor, George W. Bush. Gone were the days of "cowboy diplomacy" and in came the era of smart diplomacy.

Then, Obama became President and we got to see his foreign policy shaping out to be...well, less than impressive. In trying to forge a new direction, Obama has successfully alienated two of our staunchest allies, Great Britain and Israel. Additionally, he's all but forgotten Germany, tried to buddy up with France (at Britain's expense, I might add), and taken sides in Egypt and Libya that are fraught with dangerous ties to groups that don't exactly dig our way of life.

One of the biggest problems I've seen with American foreign policy over the past few decades has been we almost seem ashamed to admit we're American. We're expected to sit there and take anything a tinpot dictator from a Third World country flings as us, truthful or otherwise. Then, we're expected to pick up the check whenever that same Third World country needs help from the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. And with Obama at the helm, that shame in America among our leaders has skyrocketed.

And that shame has translated into embarrassment for world leaders who have to deal with Obama's protocol breaches. Although some might disagree, I think this is also hurting Obama's image around the world because he doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes. All he does is make bigger, more public mistakes, leaving ally and enemy alike to mock Obama.

If Obama was a rock star in 2008, he's becoming a bad Vegas lounge act in 2011.

Then What?

In a major speech (or at least that's how it was portrayed in the media) yesterday, President Barack Obama advanced the notion Israel should return to its 1967 borders as a means to try to bring peace to the Middle East. Understandably, Israel and its allies are upset at such a notion, especially in light of the fact Obama said he would never allow Jerusalem to be split, which would happen if Israel went back to its 1967 borders.

Let's play a little game of "what if." What if Israel decides to go back to the 1967 borders? Then what? Here's what I think would happen.

1) The violence in the Middle East wouldn't stop. The hatred that's there now would still be there if Israel would go back to the 1967 borders.

2) Israel would become more concentrated. Although it would mean it would be easier for Israelis to dig in to defend themselves with less land mass to defend, it would also make it easier for Israel's enemies to do more damage with terrorist or even military strikes

3) Jerusalem would become like Berlin after World War II. One of the most tragic events after the fall of Nazi Germany was seeing Germany and Berlin in particular split, separated by a wall and an ideology. If Israel goes back to its 1967 borders, Jerusalem will be the second coming of a divided Berlin.

4) Palestinians will be further emboldened. Having Israel pushed further back would give Palestinians more of a reason to keep pushing to get more concessions. And with world opinion seemingly on their side, there will be more pressure on Israel to comply.

5) The Middle East problem will still be there.

What Obama and the people who think his idea is valid miss is the Middle East situation isn't about land. It was and is about the justification of hatred against one particular group. There is a lot of misinformation out there about the Middle East and who is the cause of the strife there. What isn't getting the attention it should is how Israel has accommodated Palestinians who want to live in peace, even being willing to scale back its previous land acquisitions to allow Palestinians a place to live. Yet, no matter how many olive branches Israel holds out, the Palestinians swat them away and hold onto their hate.

No, Mr. President, making Israel go back to its 1967 borders won't bring about Middle East peace. If anything, it will create more problems that will need to be dealt with for years to come.

The Devil We Don't Know

With the death of Osama Bin Laden and recent news of intelligence on al Qaeda from Bin Laden's computer records, it appears we've struck a major blow to international terrorism. Yet, when taken as part of the totality in the Middle East, we may be looking at a vastly different and much more dangerous landscape soon.

If what I've heard recently is true, al Qaeda may have split in half on religious grounds with a more radical faction ignoring Bin Laden's leadership. If so, this is consistent with what we've seen in Egypt and Libya, where more radical factions have pushed for the removal of less strident or weaker leaders. Even more radical Islamic regimes, such as Iran, could be moving in that direction.

Whether international terrorist groups are leading the charge or going with the flow is immaterial. The real issue is the further radicalization of the Middle East and its impact on the war on terrorism. Dealing a death blow to al Qaeda (or a portion of it) is good, but if we leave it at that, we're setting ourselves up for failure yet again, a failure that could dwarf 9/11.

So, what are we doing about it? From what I'm seeing, not much. President Barack Obama can do as many victory laps as he wants, but he's already come out supporting the forces in Egypt and Libya, both of whom have clear ties to radical Islam. Even former President George W. Bush took his eyes off the ball in the war on terrorism by not following through once Iraq and Afghanistan were more stabilized after our military interventions. Sure, waterboarding and Gitmo worked to nab Bin Laden, but we've wavered on those as well.

Also, doesn't it bother anyone else how quickly the Obama Administration sided with the more radical elements in Libya and Egypt? It's not like those elements have hidden their agenda or their hatred of America, either. Yet, we're content to let them do the dirty work in getting rid of leaders we no longer "need" in power. If they succeed, something will have to fill the vacuum, and I don't think it's going to be filled by Muslims who want to peacefully co-exist with the West.

Although we can breathe a sigh of relief at Osama Bin Laden's death, the war on terrorism isn't over by that one act. There is a bigger storm on the horizon, and if recent history and current events are any indication, we're not ready for it.

Quick Hits - Post-OBL Edition

Because I'm a Man of My Word: I congratulate President Obama for his efforts in the operation that brought Osama Bin Laden to final justice. There were a lot of factors involved in putting together the operation and I'm glad Obama, his team, and the military personnel involved were able to come together and accomplish a major goal in the war on terrorism. Good on you, sir.

Because I'm a Man of My Word II: The speech Obama gave to the nation, to the world really, about the death of Osama Bin Laden was more than a little disappointing. Instead of focusing on those who risked their lives or those who laid the groundwork for the assault, Obama chose to talk about...himself. In a situation like that, leaders tend to focus not on taking personal credit, but spreading it around. What could have been a great speech was cheapened by his back-patting.

An Inconvenient Truth: As much as I appreciate the sheer joy of Osama Bin Laden meeting his maker, I can't help but think about those who cheered our tragedy on 9/11 and wonder how much different we are from them. And the more I think about it, the fewer differences I see.

So, Who Gets Credit?: Is it George W. Bush? Is it Barack Obama? Is it Bill Clinton? At this point, there is enough credit (and blame) to go around. Leave it at that.

The Political Fall-Out: To many, killing Osama Bin Laden has all but ensured President Obama a second term. I'm not so sure. Time will tell.

The Biggest Mistake We Can Make Right Now: I get the feeling with the death of Osama Bin Laden, people will think we can deescalate the war on terrorism. That would be a huge mistake because the war on terrorism has never been and should never be about getting Bin Laden. Now that he's out of the picture, there are others who will step up and fill the void he left. If the situations in Egypt and Libya are any indication, we may be getting cozy with people as extreme as Bin Laden was, which means another 9/11 becomes that much more certain.

Burial at Sea?: This part has me puzzled. People involved with the burial of Osama Bin Laden said they gave him a proper burial at sea in accordance with the Muslim faith. Yet, Muslim clerics have said the burial wasn't in accordance with the Muslim faith and was actually an affront to it. You know, if I were in charge of that operation, I would make sure to take extra care not to offend the Muslims any more than I did by taking down Osama Bin Laden. That's kind of something you want to be sure to get right if at all possible. Just sayin'.

"Birther" of a Notion

Earlier this week, the news was focused around the White House finally releasing President Obama's birth certificate, ending years of speculation about his birthplace and citizenship. The media were among the loudest voices heard saying, "See? We told you he was born here and the 'birthers' were crazy!" Others were not as convinced, however. Even Donald Trump, the "birther du joir" as it were, said he wanted to check it out further.

Throughout this controversy, I've tried to keep an open mind. I've listened to both sides, weighed the evidence presented, and kept checking my premises when new data came in. So far, the "birthers" have presented the more convincing argument because they've at least brought forward information to be considered. The bulk of the "anti-birther" argument is thus: If you don't believe President Obama is a natural-born citizen, then you're a stupid, racist, conspiracy theory loving moron.

Wow. The Left's argument is hard to refute...without laughing.

Personally, I think there are enough questions to warrant a deeper investigation into Obama's citizenship, but it's not the only issue on which to question the President. Granted, I don't think there are that many people focused solely on the "birther" controversy, and not even the Republican candidates or presumed candidates are taking it up as a serious issue. (I am excluding Donald Trump from that list because a) he hasn't officially announced he's running as a Republican, and b) I don't think he's going to run. Those are points for a later blog.) Yet, the Left seems to think the "birther" issue is the only issue the GOP has, so if they eliminate it or diminish it, it kills the Republicans' chances in 2012.

Wishful thinking on their part, I'm afraid. Even their attempts to dispel the "birther" movement have backfired on them because they have been so lackluster. Even the attempt this week was half-hearted, but it was enough to make the media try to hammer and bully the "birthers" into submission. Just check out the video of Lawrence O'Donnell's "interview" with Orly Taitz and O'Donnell's demand for an "apology."

Regardless of where you stand on President Obama's citizenship, an honest assessment of the situation shows one side is attempting to present facts to support its point of view, while the other side resorts to name-calling and bullying tactics. Makes you wonder who the real kooks are, doesn't it?

Notes on Libya

To put it mildly, the Libyan situation is complex and more than a little perplexing to your humble blogger. Honestly, I'm not sure where I stand on our intervention in the region, but I do have some thoughts on some of the "smaller" issues surrounding it.

The Big Question: There's a question I haven't seen anyone but me ask since the start of hostilities in Libya: Do the Libyans want us involved? This is a vital question because a wrong answer can feed into the very perception of America we have been trying to overcome in the Middle East. The last time we got involved in a purely internal struggle was in Kosovo, and neither the Serbians nor the Albanians wanted our help. Yet, we "helped" the Albanians (and, surprise surprise, al Qaeda) to do...exactly what the Serbians were doing to them. Until we know for certain whether either side of the Libyan conflict really wants America's help, we could be making the same mistake we did in Kosovo.

Impeachment for Obama?: Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich recently raised some eyebrows when he said Obama should be impeached for launching missile attacks into Libya. He has since walked back his comments, saying impeachment would be a "non-starter." Personally, I don't think President Obama should be impeached for the missile attacks, as they were done under the auspices of the War Powers Act of 1973. The War Powers Act gives the President the ability to send troops into combat provided he gives Congress at least 48 hours notice. Since there were no troops actually engaged in the missile strikes, the President was acting in accordance with his duties as Commander In Chief, in my opinion. Thus, impeachment under Kucinich's notion would definitely be a non-starter.

However...: After Obama said there would be no ground troops involved in the Libyan conflict, it turns out there will be Marines going to Libya as ground troops. If Obama failed to give Congress notice, then a case for impeachment could be made under the War Powers Act. However, we would most likely see a similar situation to when Bill Clinton was impeached and nothing would be done. I hope no Republicans undertake an impeachment effort in this case because it wouldn't help.

A Follower, Not a Leader: I've long said Obama was more of a follower instead of a leader. The Libyan situation bears that out perfectly. Whether it was waiting for the United Nations to sign off on military action, allowing other NATO countries to spearhead the attacks while we provide the bulk of the military hardware, or his unwillingness to speak to the American people about our involvement in Libya, we are seeing a man whose actions speak louder than his words. And those actions (or lack thereof) do not speak well of his leadership.

The President's Speech: Many people on both sides of the aisle are urging President Obama to address the nation as to why we're involved in Libya. Democrat strategists, on the other hand, are saying the President doesn't need to make a speech because then the Libyan conflict would be his instead of the UN's. Granted, from a political standpoint, such a speech would be a clear indication of Obama's "ownership" of the conflict, but there is a greater dynamic at work here. Most Americans, myself included, really don't have a sense as to why we're there in the first place. If only to address those questions, the President owes it to the American people to give his rationale. And it sounds like he will on Monday.

What's In a Name?: Does anyone outside of the Administration and the press know what the name of the Libyan operation is? I had to do some digging because the name really isn't all that memorable or fear-inducing. It's Operation Odyssey Dawn. And we're not at war; we're in a "kinetic military action." Is it just me, or do neither one of these make any sense whatsoever?

I'm sure I'll have more thoughts on the Libyan war...I mean the Libyan kinetic military action...soon.

Political Suicide

The Left has accused Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker of many things, most of them untrue. Yet, no one but the Left could have cooked up this one.

It starts with the apparent suicide of Jeri-Lynn Betts, an early childhood teacher from the Watertown school district. She had a history of depression and was greatly distressed by the current budget situation, especially concerning what it would do to the teaching jobs in Wisconsin. After her death, people suggested...you guessed it, Scott Walker was to blame.

Seriously? That's your next big attack on Walker?

Depression and suicide are serious matters, folks. For anyone to even suggest Walker had anything to do with Betts' suicide is stretching the credibility of the anti-Walker crowd. Whatever good points you guys have made are going to be undercut by the people who think Walker had anything to do with the suicide. Unless you denounce these folks, like the TEA Party denounces racism in their ranks, you're going to be tainted by their statements.

And to anyone who really thinks Walker's actions had anything to do with Betts' suicide, you need to really think carefully about this. Put aside your partisanship and give an honest assessment of the situation. If you think about it and still believe Walker is responsible, so be it, but understand that kind of thinking is no different than Republicans and conservatives who blame everything bad in their lives on Barack Obama. Some things transcend politics. This is one of them. To try to make any kind of political hay out of it is beyond contemptible.