No. He was not talking about DIY.
He was talking about US foreign policy.
But haven't we heard this metaphor of hammers and nails regarding US foreign policy before?
YES!! General Wesley Clark used the exact same metaphor on 3rd October 2007 at the Commonwealth Club of California when he spoke of being told of the war plan after 9/11.
Although President Obama did not state that he was going to withdraw the US military from everywhere and become the isolationist America that caused The League of Nations to fail, Obama gave the impression that under his Presidency the USA was not going to rush into unnecessary wars unless there was a direct threat to the USA. But Obama stated that such a threat was very low, with the USA owning the most powerful military in the world.
So how has this gone down in the NATO media?
The following flagship NATO media newspapers are pretty pissed off:
The Guardian;
The Washington Post;
The New York Times.
The Guardian's editorial on this speech makes a plea for R2P.
The greatest failure so far of Mr Obama's foreign policy lies in Syria. His light touch has failed to stem the bloodshed. Over 160,000 people are dead, mostly at the hands of the regime, while radical jihadist groups have won territory at the expense of less well-armed moderates.
Humanitarian interventions aimed at preventing mass atrocities are among the toughest foreign policy calls a leader has to make. Intervening means being held accountable for everything that happens afterwards. That can present an ugly picture, as Libya is demonstrating. But those who stand on the sidelines cannot avoid accountability either. Many former US, British and French politicians are still haunted by the failure to act in Bosnia and Rwanda in the 90s. Bill Clinton has admitted that US intervention in Rwanda could have saved 300,000 lives. That is a lot to have on your conscience. In his West Point speech, Mr Obama showed that the Syrian dead are beginning to haunt him. The problem is: how to banish the ghosts.
[source : US foreign policy: principle and pragmatism, Editorial, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/28/us-foreign-policy-principle-and-pragmatism-barack-obama, 29th May 2014]
Of course, The Guardian makes no reference whatsoever to the aforementioned plan revealed to General Wesley Clark, or The Redirection reported by Seymour Hersh which was a response to the war fatigue in the NATO populations for that war plan.
The Washington Post, unsurprisingly, goes further than The Guardian, showing its displeasure by referring to President Obama as Mr Obama (as does The Guardian):
Mr. Obama also pledged to “ramp up support” for the Syrian opposition. But he made the same promise last year and failed to follow through. Those U.S. allies who worry about Mr. Obama’s foreign policy retreat — and those who have exploited it — will be impressed by a change in U.S. behavior, not the president’s rhetoric.
[source : At West Point, President Obama binds America’s hands on foreign affairs, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obama-in-his-west-point-speech-binds-americas-hands-on-foreign-affairs/2014/05/28/f3db48fe-e66d-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html, 29th May 2014]
The New York Times was far from impressed, despite praising Obama for not going to war on Syria last year:
President Obama and his aides heralded his commencement speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point on Wednesday as a big moment, when he would lay out his foreign policy vision for the remainder of his term and refute his critics. The address did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left.
...But he provided little new insight into how he plans to lead in the next two years, and many still doubt that he fully appreciates the leverage the United States has even in a changing world. Falling back on hackneyed phrases like America is the “indispensable nation” told us little.
...This was far from Mr. Obama’s big moment. But since he has no office left to run for, what matters ultimately is his record in the next two and a half years.
[source : President Obama Misses a Chance on Foreign Affairs, Editorial, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/opinion/president-obama-misses-a-chance-on-foreign-affairs.html?hp&rref=opinion, 29th May 2014]
But it say a lot when The Weekly Standard crew aren't impressed either!
I am just wondering what Bilderberg is cooking up...
Readers should by now understand:
1. Obama is not supposed to be in The White House. The self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe did 9/11 to kick off a series of wars, to at least grab natural resources in The Middle East but possibly to start WW3. The plan as revealed to General Wesley Clark is seriously behind schedule. Plan B of unleashing cutthroat Jihadis onto defenceless Syrian children was implemented due to this delay. Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is a pair of lead boots to their warmongering soldier. They wanted pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-fascism Romney in The White House;
2. Due to this they ran the Benghazi incident to Carterise Obama and sink his election bid. But Romney blew it. Then DCIA Petraeus was ousted in a scandal, along with a few others, and is now at the Bilderberg meeting in Copenhagen with his new employers, the ever present Kravis';
3. After his inauguration Obama was embroiled in a series of scandals and several attempts by world leaders, such as Netanyahu, Cameron and Erdogan, were made to trick Obama into bombing Syria.
4. Due to this refusal by Obama to attack Syria the Syrian rebels faced total collapse, so Bandar threatened Putin: dump Assad or Bandar would create hell on earth in Syria to embarsass Putin into dumping Assad. Putin refused. So something happened on 21st August to trick us into bombing Syria. If there is one thing I can guarantee it is that neither Assad or the Syrian Arab Army were behind that horrific event. All evidence, willingly, unprofessionally and criminally ignored by the NATO media and its gimps, points to the rebels as the culprits;
5. As part of this operation to get Obama to attack Syria, The Washington Post was publishing twice-weekly editorials last summer demanding war on Syria;
6. Obama refused to attack Syria. He has also sought a peaceful solution to the non-crisis of Iran's peaceful civil nuclear power program.
7. As a response Bill Kristol's latest Zionist organisation the Emergency Committee for Israel virtually declared war on President Obama.
Since last summer the Syrian rebels have been suffering defeat after defeat. The end is nigh for them. the Syrians among the rebels have realised they were taken for fools and have returned home, leaving the fighting to the foreigners, some of whom are British and I assume were inspired to go to Syria by the killer of Lee Rigby, Michael Adebalajo, who was allowed to preach his anti-Assad Jihad while under surveillance by
This puts yesterday's speech at West Point by President Obama into context.
No comments:
Post a Comment