Why Everyone Is Saying No to Obama?

Everybody is saying no to the American president these days. And it's not just that they're saying no, it's also the way they're saying no.

US President Barack Obama (AP)

The Saudis twice said no to his request for normalization gestures towards Israel (at Barack Obama's meeting with King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, and in Washington at meetings with Hillary Clinton). Who says no to the American president twice? What must they think of Obama in the desert kingdom?

The North Koreans said no to repeated attempts at talks, by test-launching long-range missiles in April; Russia and China keep on saying no to tougher sanctions on Iran; the Iranians keep saying no to offers of talks by saying they're willing to talk about everything except a halt to uranium enrichment; Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is saying no by refusing to meet with Binyamin Netanyahu until Israel freezes all settlement construction; the Israelis said no by refusing to agree to a settlement freeze, or even a settlement moratorium until and unless the Arabs ante up their normalization gestures. Which brings us back to the original Saudi no.

The only thing Obama did manage to get Bibi and Abbas to say yes to is a photo-op at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in NY. Mazel tov.

RELATED POST: Editorial: Wobbling Washington

So why is everyone saying no to Obama?

It's the economy, stupid.

Everyone has worked it out by now: The great secret is out. America's economy has made Obama a weak president, and he will likely remain weak throughout his first term (and there may not be a second one). He has about two years to pull the American economy out of its free-fall before he begins his reelection campaign. If he can do it, and that's a big if, chances are good that he'll get reelected, and in his second term he can try to pull some geopolitical strings. But for the next three years, expect to see a world that says no to Obama. No meaningful and dramatic diplomatic initiative can come out of the White House in the next three years, as long as Obama remains weak.

And that's a real pity, because there are some serious and imminent issues that need to be addressed.

Pyongyang is getting more bellicose and not being punished. The North Koreans have violated every single international agreement and norm, and nothing tangible has happened to them.

In Iran, this registers. "Look at how bad they're being," the mullahs say, "and they're getting away with it." Even so, the Iranian government is weak internally and internationally following its election fiasco.

The US and EU could tighten sanctions against Iran without the support of Russia and China, but they would need political will for that. Sanctions, such as a ban on refined oil imports, barring Iranian flights to America and Europe etc., could have a serious impact on Iran and weaken the regime further. The US and EU can act now against Iran like the US and UK did against Libya several years ago when they persuaded Gaddafi to abandon his nuclear ambitions. Back then, though, the US was much stronger. Now, the American economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea have all weakened the US.

In retaliation for increased, unilateral sanctions, Iran could turn up the heat on US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will stymie Obama's plan to win and withdraw. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has the US president by the kishkes, in a manner of speaking. And so do the Taliban.

So, when a president with so many problems comes asking for a favor, everyone finds it easier to just say no

International JPost.com

Related Comments:

101. Koolaid
James - Iraq (09/22/2009 20:26)

100. It's not the economy--it's because the US people no longer support him
Cheryl B - USA (09/22/2009 20:24)

99. Bomber William Ayers
Colonel Rebel - (09/22/2009 20:22)

98. Um, did these same foreigners say yes to Bush?
mmt - USA (09/22/2009 20:19)

97. Weak
Scott - US (09/22/2009 20:18)

96. No to Obama - it's not the economy
Bob - USA (09/22/2009 20:16)

95. Come on now...
Britton - USA (09/22/2009 20:16)

94. Easy when the economy is good
AlEx - USA (09/22/2009 20:15)

93. Well, it's obvious the type of readers this page attracts...
DCResident - (09/22/2009 20:15)

92. Article: Analysis: Why everyone is saying no to Obama
John Jacobs - U.S.A (09/22/2009 20:14)

91. The world finally has the American doormat they've always wanted...
Kevin - USA (09/22/2009 20:01)

90. Why everyone is saying no to Obama?
TGambogi - USA (09/22/2009 20:01)

89. NObama!!!
Honesty - USA (09/22/2009 20:01)

88. Obama
BB - usa (09/22/2009 19:58)

87. Article: Analysis: Why everyone is saying no to Obama
John Jacobs - U.S.A. (09/22/2009 19:58)

86. Many Americans are saying "no" to Obama because...
John - (09/22/2009 19:54)

85. Obama No's the reason....
dan albert - USA (09/22/2009 19:53)

84. Because he is weak and is easily challenged
Gary Grace - USA (09/22/2009 19:52)

83. Obama Cannot Be Trusted
Maddox - United States (09/22/2009 19:48)

82. Very Wrong - Obama is an idiot with horrible policies
Nathan - USA (09/22/2009 19:45)

81. It's not the Economy, who's stupid now?
Not the Economy - USA (09/22/2009 19:41)

80. Israel is on its own now
Mike A - USA (09/22/2009 19:27)

79. Obama should not have been elected
Charles Schilli - USA (09/22/2009 19:23)

78. Welcome back Carter
Red Ruffansore - USA (09/22/2009 19:23)

77. Being respected vs. being liked
Chet Kolson - USA (09/22/2009 19:19)

76. Obama
Darrel - USA (09/22/2009 19:18)

75. Because Obama is a SPY
Vladimir Kropotkin - Russia (09/22/2009 19:09)

74. As an American I apologize
Concerned - USA (09/22/2009 19:14)

73. What was obvious about the man before the election is now becoming clear
Mark - USA (09/22/2009 19:13)

72. Why everyone is saying no to Obama.
Carl G - USA (09/22/2009 19:11)

Last week after Obama’s missile debacle Poland refused to take Secretar Clinton’s calls and it appears that Hillary and Obama are backing the wrong horse in Honduras; appears that deposed President Zelaya is best buddies with Venezuela’s Dictator: Hugo Chavez. The question there is… “A coincidence? Or just more of Obama’s radical friends and part of the overall plan??

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power & the Daily Thought Pad – Visit Both Daily for up to date and past information!!

Related Posts:

The Week in International Affairs Updated - (9/13 & 9/19 2009)

Is Obama Hiding Hillary?

Is a fractured elbow keeping Hillary out of the limelight, or are there more sinister forces at work?

Diplomatic hot spots are popping up everywhere, in spite of President Obama's "adopt an evil-doer" doctrine. We have real-live crises in Honduras, North Korea and Iran; things are dicey in Afghanistan, China is ever problematic and Mexico is a mess. Not to worry: the administration is on top of things. Joe Biden is trying to make Iraq's leaders play nice in their sandbox, President Obama is becoming the Russians' new BFF, Richard Holbrooke has been meeting with G8 foreign ministers in Trieste, and George Mitchell convened recently with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's last gig was...installing Jose Villarreal as the Commissioner for the 2010 Shanghai World Expo? Boy, has she been had.

Is a fractured elbow keeping Hillary out of the limelight, or are there more sinister forces at work? Could her virtual disappearance have anything to do with sky-high approval ratings -- ratings suggesting that Americans might favor Clinton over Obama in future scuffles?

Barack Obama, who campaigned as new to the whole partisan, "inside the Beltway" world of politics, is a fast learner. His cunning elimination of Hillary Clinton as a political threat will be a case study someday in the Handbook of Power Politics. Tapping her to be part of his administration was of course brilliant; she can't snipe from the sidelines, and she, moreover, will carry the president's baggage, at least in the realm of foreign policy. Placing in front of her several showy envoys to cover the big tasks was clever too. But recently, Obama has dug the hole even deeper.

Not only has Clinton been off center stage, some of her most visible moments of late have spotlighted her carrying out the world's most thankless assignment -- criticizing Israel. First she lectured our allies about treating Palestinians poorly and then she ramped up the pressure about its disputed settlements. Not one to mince words, she translated President Obama's gentle reproof into a harsh ultimatum, insisting he meant "not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions" -- in short NO settlements.

Think about delegating a New York State politician to chastise Israel and its leaders. Short of sending toddlers to undermine the siege of Moscow, it's hard to come up with a more daunting mission. If she continues as the heavy in this new relationship with Israel, Hillary Clinton can kiss goodbye to any future ambitions that rely on her raising money in the Jewish community -- or that is, almost any ambitions at all. Overcoming initial hostility due to her memorable smooching with the wife of Yassir Arafat, Clinton worked hard to woo the well-heeled Jewish vote. She succeeded. In the primaries, according to CBS News, she garnered 54% of the Jewish vote, compared to only 43% for Barack Obama. (Of course, it may have been the "Hussein" that threw Jewish voters off.) For President Obama, separating Hillary Clinton from the nipple of Jewish generosity is an insurance policy.

Why would Obama need to undermine Hillary Clinton? For starters, the public is beginning to warm to our Secretary of State as never before. In May, her polling topped Obama's. Clinton had a 71% approval rating, compared to 65% for the president. That's the kind of comparison that could furrow a brow or two.

Moreover, it is entirely conceivable that our ambitious young president could run into trouble. He has undertaken one gigantic initiative after another, potentially undermining the economic recovery. As investors have assessed soaring budget deficits, they have demanded higher returns on Treasuries. Rising interest rates have eliminated one powerful balm for consumers -- mortgage refinancing. Higher taxes are inevitable, and will further pressure any rebound in spending. Unemployment numbers are dreadful, businesses are apprehensive, unions are demanding payback for their support and our trading partners are grumpy about rising protectionism. It's not a pretty picture.

Though Obama has tried to make Congress the fall guy should healthcare prove disastrous or cap-and-trade disruptive, Americans are not so dumb. They know where this whirlwind of change is coming from, and they are increasingly uneasy. Should our Afghanistan adventures prove as punishing for our GIs as they have for every other power enticed into that miserable landscape, should GM come back to the people's feeding trough, should Chavez et al continue to make the president look foolish, Americans may seek relief -- and they may spell it HILLARY.

Reuters - by Liz Peek, financial columnist.

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

• The Incredible Shrinking Clintons

Coups, interference, and the shifting standards of Obama; Update: Coup or ‘military impeachment’?

It’s difficult to make sense out of the foreign policy coming out of the White House under Barack Obama. On the one hand, Obama insisted that he could not interfere with the internal politics of the “sovereign government of Iran,” refusing for days to even condemn Iran for its flagrantly violent repression of dissent. When Honduras’ military staged a coup, though, Obama apparently had no such reticence in involving the US on behalf of deposed President Manuel Zelaya — a close ally of Hugo Chavez:

In an unusual concurrence of views, the Obama administration and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said they still recognized Mr. Zelaya as Honduras’ president. The State Department called the events an “attempted coup” and urged Mr. Zelaya’s “return and restoration of democratic order.”

U.S. officials said they were engaged in multinational efforts to resolve the crisis, through the Organization of American States and European allies. At the same time, Washington wants a resolution “free from external influence and interference,” a senior official told reporters during a conference call organized by the State Department.

The official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named, said the U.S. Embassy in Honduras was “consistently and almost constantly engaged in the last several weeks working with partners” and that U.S. officials were “in contact with all Honduran institutions, including the military.” However, the military stopped taking the embassy’s calls since the coup attempt, the official said.

The Wall Street Journal also reports Obama’s eagerness to “interfere”:

The Obama administration and members of the Organization of American States had worked for weeks to try to avert any moves to overthrow President Zelaya, said senior U.S. officials. Washington’s ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, sought to facilitate a dialogue between the president’s office, the Honduran parliament and the military.

The efforts accelerated over the weekend, as Washington grew increasingly alarmed. “The players decided, in the end, not to listen to our message,” said one U.S. official involved in the diplomacy. On Sunday, the U.S. embassy here tried repeatedly to contact the Honduran military directly, but was rebuffed. Washington called the removal of President Zelaya a coup and said it wouldn’t recognize any other leader.

The U.S. stand was unpopular with Honduran deputies. One congressman, Toribio Aguilera, got prolonged applause from his colleagues when he urged the U.S. ambassador to reconsider. Mr. Aguilera said the U.S. didn’t understand the danger that Mr. Zelaya and his friendships with Mr. Chavez and Cuba’s Fidel Castro posed.

Zelaya was violating his country’s constitution with his referendum that would have, Chavez-style, repealed term limits on the presidency. The Honduras Supreme Court ruled the referendum illegal, and the military refused to distribute the ballots. Instead of backing down, Zelaya fired the head of the military, which precipitated the ouster.

Clearly, democracies cannot abide armed overthrow of elected governments, but that presumes that the government acts within the rule of law. Zelaya had no intention of doing so, and his flagrant violations and attempt to accrue personal power made that crystal clear. Zelaya had begun seizing dictatorial powers, and the military responded by arresting him. The military then handed power back to the legislature rather than keeping it for themselves, which makes this less of a coup and more of a military impeachment.

Why did Obama decide to intervene on behalf of a “president” obviously abusing his power and to prevent the military from removing him once he started acting like a dictator? He didn’t put nearly that much effort into assisting Iranians who have gone into the streets and died to protest the mullahcracy that oppresses them. Rick Moran thinks that’s a pretty good question as well:

Further, the military was acting under the orders of the Honduran Supreme Court although they apparently exceeded their authority by whisking him away to Venezuela. And finally, it was Zelaya’s actions in violating the constitution, ignoring a ruling by the Supreme Court that any referendum be put on would be illegal, and the universal belief in Congress, the military, and much of the populace that eventually, he would little more than a stand in for Chavez if he was allowed to carry out his illegal referendum that sealed Zelaya’s fate.

And yet our president, acting contrary to American interests, chose the route of least resistance and condemned what many Hondurans believe was a restoration of constitutional order. The president will find himself in familiar territory with this condemnation - Castro, Ortega, and other Latin American leftist thugs also condemned the coup. Maybe someone could look it up but when was the last time we were on the same side with Cuba on any international issue?

Way to go Barry. Like, we should listen to the Castros when they complain about democratic procedure not being followed? …

In fact, after swearing off “interferring” in Iran where demonstrators were getting shot, beaten, and axed to death, our clueless Chief Hypocrite worked frantically behind the scenes to save Honduran President Zelaya’s job, thus [interfering] on the wrong side while making himself out a liar on Iran.

We’re getting a close look at Obama’s priorities, and they’re hideously out of step with democracy and the rule of law.

Update: The controversy now is whether this is a coup or a lawful action on behalf of the Honduras legislature and courts. Fausta has gone on record saying it’s not a coup, as the military responded to a request from the legislature and courts to remove Zelaya. I tend to agree with Larisa Alexandrovna on this point, though:

As noted here (in Spanish), the Honduran Congress cited repeated violations of the Honduran Constitution by President Manuel Zelaya and voted for his removal. That said, as I noted earlier, he is both a bad guy and a good guy. This is a complex political environment in a very unstable part of the world.

The right sees this as a simple restoration of democracy. Yet the use of military personnel to detain, arrest, and transport a sitting president to another country against his will is not part of any democratic process that I am aware of. They do have courts in Honduras and a legal system. This is a coup, despite the passions of the right-wing. They also have law enforcement. Anytime the military becomes involved, it is not as simple as impeachment by Congressional edict through military force. Shorter=coup.

Had the military arrested and detained Zelaya in advance of an impeachment action and/or criminal prosecution, then I could go with the not-a-coup argument.

Dumping him outside of the country is not exactly a due-process removal — and I think that falls into the yes-it’s-a-coup territory. Perhaps necessary, perhaps very supportable, but it’s obviously an extralegal removal, which is the very definition of a coup.

BY ED MORRISSEY – HotAir.com - POSTED AT 11:28 AM ON JUNE 29, 2009

Trackback URL

• Was the Honduran Coup Warranted? : The American Pundit
• Bulletproof Diction
• Coups, Interference and the Shifting Standards of Obama « Count Us Out
• Hot Air » Blog Archive » Coups, interference, and the shifting … | Youth Political Blog
• » Dictators of the Western Hemisphere Unite! NoisyRoom.net: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the face of tyranny is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater
• Honduran Military Removes Despot From Power « Nice Deb
• Again, the President Has Chosen Poorly : The Sundries Shack
• Obama’s International World… Where You Want To Live?