Posted on 06/01/2009 9:05:25 AM PDT by Reagan Man
Bahukutumbi Raman, writing in Forbes , asks the same question AT writers and readers have been asking for months. "Is Obama another Jimmy Carter?"
The defiant action of North Korea in testing a long-range missile with military applications last month, and its latest act of defiance in reportedly carrying out an underground nuclear test on May 25, can be attributed--at least partly, if not fully--to its conviction that it will have nothing to fear from the Obama administration for its acts of defiance. It is true that even when George Bush was the president, North Korea had carried out its first underground nuclear test in October 2006. The supposedly strong policy of the Bush administration did not deter it from carrying out its first test.
After Obama assumed office in January, whatever hesitation that existed in North Korea's policy-making circles regarding the likely response of U.S. administration has disappeared, and its leadership now feels it can defy the U.S. and the international community with impunity.
A series of actions taken by the Obama administration have created an impression in Iran, the "Af-Pak" region, China and North Korea that Obama does not have the political will to retaliate decisively to acts that are detrimental to U.S. interests, and to international peace and security.
Read the entire piece at the link. Raman has some choice words about Obama's AF-Pak policy that are spot on about India being the loser in how that policy is shaking out.
The real dig here by Raman is the application of what Obama calls "smart power" and what the rest of us are seeing as "soft power." This is the way Jimmy Carter viewed the world (and most liberals since) and it breaks down into 3 basic assumptions about the world that are so naive, so extraordinarily dangerous, that the only way America elected a liberal president prior to Obama was when they were sure the Russian bear was dead and buried and not able to harm us as a result of the stupidity of the Democrats.
Those assumptions are:
1. America's policy of protecting its own interests in the world is selfish and self-defeating. It is better to subsume those interests in the name of international comity and to reassure the world that we will never use our power to thwart those who seek to undermine those interests but rather go through "channels" by utilizing the UN and "consulting" with our allies.
2. We have no enemies, only diplomatic misunderstandings that can be alleviated if we apologize for our past sins and appease those who would do us harm by unilaterally giving them what they crave; international recognition through dialogue with the United States and an end to the threat that a smart bomb might find whatever bunker they are sleeping in at night. Guaranteeing the legitimacy of the Iranian, Chavez, and Kim regimes (and a few others) by foreswearing the use of military force to affect change in government is all our enemies need to walk all over us.
3. America is the source of most of the trouble in the world and therefore, acting "humbly" in international forums and recognizing the illegitimate gripes against us by thug regimes around the world will bring about "peaceful co-existence" with all.
By 2012, Kim will have a nuclear arsenal, the Iranians will either have the bomb or have been dealt with by Israel (with unknown but almost certainly troubling consequences), Chavez will have added more nations to his Marxist orbit in South America, Syria and their gangster regime (as well as Hezb'allah) will be stronger vis a vis Israel, Iraq may or may not be a failed state, ditto Pakistan, ditto Afganistan, and depending on how badly the Obama administration harms the world economy - as well as our own - the US position as a financial superpower may have been eroded beyond fixing.
All of this basically because of those three assumptions that undergirds the Obama foreign policy.
Jimmy Carter? I think a better presidential template would be James Buchanan's administration (1856-1860). If there was ever a chance to avoid Civil War in America, that opportunity was lost through a series of wrong headed, stupid, miscalculating moves by President Buchanan in the lead up to the election of 1860. The overarching problem with Buchanan was a sense of weakness that emboldened Southern states to secede in the aftermath of the election. Obama is repeating that weakness overseas (and at home with his inability to make the tough choices that would avoid catastrophic deficits) and the question we should all be asking is:
How much damage can Obama do to America in the 3 1/2 years he has left?
LOTS.
This is like comparing puke to snot.
Jimmah is dancing in the streets....after just a few months, he is no longer the worst president in US history.....
Jimmy Carter was an idiot but I don’t think he hated Americans.
I wish. Carter was incompetent but essentially honest. obama is imcompetent and at best indifferent to honesty.
Groaning like it’s 1976 again ...
How much damage can Obama do to America in the NEXT 3 1/2 years he has left? MONTHS, never mind years.....
He is worse, much worse.
>>”Is Obama another Jimmy Carter?”
No. Jimmy Carter was a good man, with no leadership abilities who couldn’t make the Washington political machine work for him. His behavior in the last decade or so has just been an attempt to regain some relevance after seeing how history has treated his presidency.
Obama is an evil man, with evil plans to break the US and remake it as something that it should never be, and civilization (not just in the US) will suffer for his actions for a long time. He has the same third-world mentality as every other African dictator. Seeing suffering makes him happy, as long as his enemies suffer more than his people.
B’rack 0bama has LESS experience than did Jimmy Carter when he assumed office in January ‘77, and Carter’s experience was severely limited, to put it nicely.
Jimmy Carter is the Skidmark in the panties of American history, 0bama is the yellow stain in the front.
The second Jimmy Carter term.
Obamaloon - Carter without balls.
I think they are both evil.
Obama/Democrats have painted targets on the backs of tens and tens of millions of Americans and are punishing these Americans. Obama/Democrats are creating racial divisions, some races are better than others.
Obama/Democrats are creating religious divisions: the pro-Gay marriage stuff will force churches into sanctioning gay marriages. The pro-abortion stuff combined with greater state control over medicine will force doctors, hospitals, pharmacists and Americans to conduct abortions and take other actions against their conscience.
To continue their current direction, the Obama/Democrats will by necessity have to crack down on free speech. They can't tolerate opposition. The new version of the 'fairness doctrine' will target talk radio. They've proposed an 'emergency' internet control bill already.
To continue in their current direction, they will by necessity, increase government coercion in the economy. Obama has already requested and the Democrats have already approved an additional 800 IRS agents. They've already implemented new regulations.
What are they going to do, when this stuff does not improve the economic situation? Back off? Or double down? Just asking answers the question. 2010 elections? Will they be fair or will the be Hugo Chavez-style? Can they implement their degree of control and maintain it to control the election?
We'll see.
I’d rejoice if he was only as bad as Carter... Carter never nationalized companies (GM, banks), never took over healthcare (coming this week), doubled the national debt, etc.
Carter was incompetent; that can be overcome. Obama is simply evil.
‘Is Obama another Jimmy Carter?’
Things I thought I would never say #23;
Carter is a genius compared to this guy.
I'm going to say something and before you start screaming at me... completely read my post first!
I think Obama is fully capable of being the bloodiest president we ever had... and this is all based on his belief that the government is the answer... which is similar to beliefs held by Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and so on...
If anything Obama is more dangerous because he doesn't know what he is doing and is fully capable of going overboard.
Now Jimmy Carter on the other end was in the military and seen what weapons can do. But Barack has no clue... he just has his "life experience" to guide him... which means squat.
Case in point... BO is STILL following President George Bush's policies in Afghanistan and Iraq... Jimmy Carter would have pulled out right away and left chaos in the wake.
That’s right. Jimmy Carter was just a bumbling idiot. Obama knows what he is doing and is doing it intentionally. He hates this country.
No. He’s much worse.
I have been predicting that the seeds for a second American Civil War have been planted already. It is just a matter of time.
OBAMA EQUALS CARTER
ABSOLUTLY YES!!!
Will there still be an America then?
I for one wake up every morning feeling like I’m back in the 70’s again (and it’s not fuzzy warm nostalgia either...)
His Excellency, King Baraq doesn’t hate all Americans, he only hates the white ones.
Expect history to repeat itself, a second American Civil War, the seeds have been planted and a bitter harvast will result.
Jamma’ Carter was well educated . . . smart . . . but a jerk.
Obama’s is well educated . . . stupid . . . and a moron who can’t think without a telepromter.
IMHO
"I knew Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was a friend of mine. You sir, are no Jimmy Carter."
Somebody had to do it. :-)
I wake up every morning wishing it was the 1970’s again. The music was happier, the women softer, and the communist governments were in someone else’s country.
You are so right...we'd be blessed to have Carter back (do you know how hard it is to say that?).
As I told my Mom last night when she defended the One’s little travel junket for the show in NYC last night...
“At least when Jimmy Carter told us we had to sacrifice he put on a sweater...”
You are correct...the One is an evil man who holds himself on a pedestal not meant for the common man.
Carter was a tropical storm.
There was a cleanup(Reagan) and some lasting damage(Iran) but the US survived.
Obama is a category 5 hurricane.
Think Katrina and Andrew combined.
No he is not. Jimmy Carter didnt do this much damage in such a short period of time.
Barry isn’t that good.
Certainly on track to out-Carter Carter.
“...First, I think you are correct. Obama/Democrat’s decisions are paving the way for civil war. I don’t think that is too extreme a statement.....”
No, that is not extreme but needs to be corrected from democrats to POLITICIANS! For the first time in my life I see very little difference in the two parties....one party is slightly more radical than the other...both care about themselves and little about the US citizen.
Carter was the CIC-comrade in charge, when i was serving our great country. He was a WUSS, a LIAR,and a WEASLE.He stuck it to us G.I.’s but good!!! And now I’m either having flashbacks from the “research” I did in the seventies, or history is repeating itself!???
HELP MR.WIZARD!!!!!
Today it is GM, but it's been one thing after another after another since the obama crime family's takeover and it all is hurting the America I love and am proud of.
Can the Republic survive this much damage? Will we recognize the America that results from obama? Why can't his followers and the state run media see what he's doing to us all?
There's no way my soul is saved thinking the things obama has inspired.
I was one of the first to say it if not THE first. I think he will be worse the Carter, because Carter was stopped. Who has the guts to stop the first Black President, even though he is a failure? Nobody in Washington DC, that’s for sure.
Yes, Obama is another Jimmy Carter, and probably worse.
But Moran's argument (quoted above) is ridiculous. The North Koreans weren't deterred by Bush, and thus they must have disregarded Obama entirely?
There is simply no logic to that conclusion. What we have here is a great example of the fallacy of assuming the consequent.
Obama is somewhere between Carter, FDR and Buchanan.
Carter = Incompetence.
FDR = New Deal, long term damage to US economy.
Buchanan = Polarize the US and start a civil war.
Very funny!
Good'un.
You and me both. The moral was horrible. Nearly everyone I knew could not wait till their hitch was up. Those re-upping were mocked with names like “lifer”. And F.T.N. was written in every bathroom stall. (I wont spell out what that meant). And as much as it pains me to say it, the Navy was scraping the bottom of the barrel on their recruits, which was about the only way they could meat quota.
I joined the Navy in 1977. This was during the time Qaddafi decided to extend the coastal claims of Libya to the waters where American naval maneuvers were conducted. The entire Gulf of Sidra, extended up to one hundred miles from Libya's coast, and it was proclaimed by Qaddafi to be Libyan water, off limits to our forces. The Carter government meekly rescheduled our maneuvers to stay outside disputed area, ordering us to not cross Qaddafi's line. True to form, Carter failed to confront Qaddafi over the issue even after a siege on the American embassy in Tripoli in 1979. Prior to the 1980 election an Admiral called all the sailors to the flight deck where he gave a speech on how important it was to vote for a President that would stand up for the military. I can't remember if he actually used Reagan's name, but we all knew he was not talking about the peanut farmer. I'm not sure he was supposed to do this, but I'm so glad he did, because I proudly voted for Ronald Reagan, and was the first in my family to vote for a Republican.
Within months after taking office, Ronald Reagan took a stand. He made it clear that American maneuvers in the Gulf of Sidra would proceed as they always had before Carter. Anticipating trouble, Reagan was asked by the Joint Chiefs what American pilots do if attacked? Would Reagan's orders allow for “hot pursuit”? Reagan's answer – “All the way into the hanger.” You know the rest of the story.
The moral improved greatly after that, and their seemed to be pride in uniform again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.