The first paragraph of The New York Times’s account of President Obama’s meetings with foreign leaders really jumped out at me:
Over porterhouse steak and cherry pie at a desert estate in California earlier this month, President Obama delivered a stern lecture to President Xi Jinping about China’s disputes with its neighbors. If it is going to be a rising power, he scolded, it needs to behave like one.
Because scolding and lecturing has worked out so well in dealing with the members of Congress and the Supreme Court.
If it is going to be a rising power, he scolded, it needs to behave like one.
This all said while President Obama does all he can to dilute the power of the U.S. by his ‘leading from behind’ policies, along with his limp hand-shakes of follow through on promises to people here and abroad. Now, as rogue nations are amping up their nuclear capabilities, Obama is pushing for a third reduction of ours, even though military experts warn that reduction is not really the issue, it is the aging and lack of updating that is the underlying problems.
IMO, whoever is elected in 2016 is going to inherit a mess from this administration that will have far more reaching negative ramifications than the problems Obama has incessantly talked about ‘inheriting’ since he took office.
Over porterhouse steak and cherry pie at a desert estate in California earlier this month, President Obama delivered a stern lecture to President Xi Jinping about China’s disputes with its neighbors. If it is going to be a rising power, he scolded, it needs to behave like one.
The most amazing thing is that the Administration has made this public. As a commenter named Balfegor put it on Althouse: “I don’t think there’s any culture that will react well to that. But for historical reasons — the Opium Wars, the Unequal Treaties, the foreign concessions, etc. — it’s particularly inflammatory in the Chinese context.”
This has to be the most stupid foreign policy team in the history of the entire Universe.
“Now, as rogue nations are amping up their nuclear capabilities, Obama is pushing for a third reduction of ours, even though military experts warn that reduction is not really the issue, it is the aging and lack of updating that is the underlying problems.”
Ah, horseshit, Jan. You’re so fucking stupid sometimes. We’ve got more nuke capability on one Trident sub than North Korea and Iran could create, given their resources, in a thousand years. And see, Obama wants more funds to upgrade US atomic weapons arsenal. Idiot.
I don’t think it’s stupidity so much as seeing everything solely through the prism of domestic politics.
I think if you read through the rest of the peace, Putin seems to be similarly constrained.
“peace”? What idiot wrote that?
The Obama administration’s funding request for continued modernization of its atomic arsenal has reportedly been included in its 2014 federal budget proposal that was released on Wednesday, according to a report in US-based Foreign Policy magazine.
Sam, the article you linked was dated today, dealing with a release last Wednesday. Think about it — it’s kind of new news isn’t it?
Up until now, though, there have been repeated military concerns regarding our degrading nuclear arsenal. I’m glad that Obama is finally acknowledging it. As for you — your comments are self-inflicting, in describing an over reactive temperament, bent more on derision than discussion.
Really? April 11, 2013 is today? Well, that explains a lot.
As for you — your comments are self-inflicting…
No they’re not, they’re jan-inflicting, and deservedly so…
Sam,
My eye glanced at the date at the top left of the article, missing the April, of this year’s, publication date. Small victories in life seem to be of great importance to you. If so, then I’m glad I was wrong, just to make your day seem right.
I cant say that I would put much weight on reports about scolding and haranguing. Probably says more about the reporter than what really happened. China and Russia have their own interests. I don’t see that Bush being best buddies with Putin made any difference. The Europeans were probably hoping for someone more inclined towards a liberal/social democratic agenda and instead they got a a US centrist, still a conservative by their standards.
I do think they should take some criticism for betting on Medvdev. I thought it was pretty clear that he was just a placeholder for Putin. I also think Obama should get heavy criticism for the way he deals with Netanyahu. He should have told him to fu*k off and waited for him to crawl back.
Steve
I don’t think it’s stupidity so much as seeing everything solely through the prism of domestic politics.
That’s stupid, as it is called FOREIGN policy for a reason. And hectoring the Chinese President? That’s so fucking stupid that it beggars belief. What, is Obama catching Idiot Veep Joe’s dementia? Does he now know which century this is?
When I read the quoted passage I expected to click-through to an op-ed, but it’s supposedly a straight news piece. President Obama “scolded” the Chinese premier? No attribution is given so we don’t really know if that kind of dramatic characterization is really what happened.
Still, I think it has some “truthiness” about it simply because the President’s professorial style is well established and the foreign policy elite in this country do not shy away from paternalistic tendencies when dealing with foreign governments.
I think the pattern is that Obama’s people leak descriptions of these sorts of things to make him appear strong and resolute. I doubt anybody here is the intended audience for that sort of thing.
Agree with Dave and PD, this is entirely for domestic consumption.