Krauthammer on the problem with Obama’s foreign policy

Nobody says it like Charles Krauthammer does in Debacle in Moscow: Obama’s foreign policy is amateurishness, wrapped in naïveté, inside credulity:

About the only thing more comical than Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize was the reaction of those who deemed the award “premature,” as if the brilliance of Obama’s foreign policy is so self-evident and its success so assured that if only the Norway Five had waited a few years, his Nobel worthiness would have been universally acknowledged.
To believe this, you have to be a dreamy adolescent (preferably Scandinavian and a member of the Socialist International) or an indiscriminate imbiber of White House talking points. After all, this was precisely the spin on the president’s various apology tours through Europe and the Middle East: National self-denigration — excuse me, outreach and understanding — is not meant to yield immediate results; it simply plants the seeds of good feeling from which foreign-policy successes shall come.
Chauncey Gardiner could not have said it better…
Henry Kissinger once said that the main job of Anatoly Dobrynin, the perennial Soviet ambassador to Washington, was to tell the Kremlin leadership that whenever they received a proposal from the United States that appeared disadvantageous to the United States, not to assume it was a trick.
No need for a Dobrynin today. The Russian leadership, hardly believing its luck, needs no interpreter to understand that when the Obama team clownishly rushes in bearing gifts and “reset” buttons, there is nothing ulterior, diabolical, clever, or even serious behind it. It is amateurishness, wrapped in naïveté, inside credulity. In short, the very stuff of Nobels.

String of foreign policy posts can be found here.
ADDENDUM #1:
Meanwhile, Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, is on video here saying that Mao, a tyrant who killed tens of millions of people, is one of her heroes.
In other words, we have an administration that not only doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism and conducts a foreign policy based on denigrating America’s interests but has key staffers who consider a murderous communist thug as their hero.
Said another way:

…Later in Beck’s show (before he started crying…again) he suggested that Dunn may as well have cited Hitler as one of her favorite political philosophers. Usually Beck’s histrionics turn me off, but he’s got a point with that. How can any high-level American political official seriously cite Mao as a favorite political philosopher and not be driven from office immediate with jeers and derision?
Mao was a mass murder. A tyrant and a dictator whose teachings amount to a cruel ideology that murdered tens of millions and oppressed hundreds of millions more.
Obama needs to explain to us why someone like Dunn is serving in his administration.

Does anyone find this troubling?
ADDENDUM #2:
Andy McCarthy has more, responding to Hans von Spakovsky. McCarthy notes the presence of other communists in the Obama administration.
Openly unapologetic communists. And many people yawn out of disinterest.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
joe bernstein
joe bernstein
11 years ago

I think anyone here finds it troubling(well…almost anyone)while at kmareka and RIF they find it reassuring.Nothwithstanding they’d be the first ones to the wall in any Maoist type regime.

Monique
Editor
11 years ago

“Meanwhile, Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, is on video here saying that Mao, a tyrant who killed tens of millions of people, is one of her heroes.”
Ah, Donald. You take these things too seriously. Haven’t you heard? She was just being ironic.
Of course, her words and demeanor appear to be completely devoid of that quality. But presumably it was irony on such a high level, so subtle and sophisticated, that it was undetectable except by those who themselves are high … er, on an equally high and sophisticated intellectual level.
Therefore, I trust that you and all other paranoid right (and left) wing critics will immediately post a correction retracting your obviously baseless innuendo.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.