The Obama Diaries

by Laura Ingraham

  Barack’s “bowing movement” has become a nasty habit that I have to clean up afterward. He’s curtsied to everybody from Japanese royals to Stevie Wonder to that Middle Eastern sheik wearing the bathrobe! (What the hell was his name—King Abraca-labra or something?) If I were the clean, articulate African-American that Barack is, the last thing I would do is prostate [sic] myself to a fella who looks like he just delivered a bowl of egg drop soup to the table—hold the MSG. But all joking aside, bowing like that makes him look weak. And I don’t consider it a diplomatic victory that the Chinese actually used the word sanctions for the first time. What the f#@k is this—Wheel of Fortune? Where’s Vanna White when you need her to turn the tiles that spell: DIPLOMATIC DISASTER!

  For Chrissakes, he’s supposed to be for “change”! Why doesn’t he stand upright for a change. He should just let me run this foreign policy thing. Truthfully, how much foreign experience could he have possibly picked up between his leafleting career and hanging around the Ivy League? I’m the guy who got in Milosevic’s face and called him a “damn war criminal.” I’m the guy who tried to stop the Bush adventure in Iraq. I was even chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for Pete’s sake. Barack’s got the heavyweight champion of foreign policy standing right next to him, and I’m spending my days giving pep talks at girls’ basketball games. My only official duty is barging into the Oval when he wants to end a meeting. I’ll tell you one thing, if old Joe were the top man, he wouldn’t be bowing to nobody. Aw, s*@t, the car is here. I’m speaking at a Girl Scout pin ceremony in Southeast tonight. I need a drink—a double.

  Bashing Our Friends

  President Obama doesn’t merely apologize for prior American policies—he also distances himself from those who seek to be our friends.

  Israel has long been our most important ally in the Middle East—a haven of pro-American sentiment in one of the most anti-American regions of the globe. In May 2009, President Obama repaid this support by denouncing Israeli settlements in the West Bank—placing Israel in the humiliating position of being publicly criticized by the country that is supposed to be its closest friend. Israelis quickly got the message. In a March 2010 poll, Smith Research found that 48 percent of Israeli Jews viewed President Obama as pro-Palestinian, while only 9 percent saw him as pro-Israel.

  Israel ignored President Obama’s demands—leading to more criticism from the Obama administration. By the spring of 2010, the rift over the settlements had led to a serious deterioration in U.S.-Israeli relations. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama on March 23, 2010, the Washington Post’s Glen Kessler described the two-hour exchange as occurring “under a virtual news blackout.” The president was clearly sending a message to the Muslim world that Israel, our friend, does not always get what it wants. Yet to many Jews here and abroad, this episode was insulting. Most political observers could not remember a time when an Israeli leader was treated in such a rude fashion.

  In June 2009, the Honduran Supreme Court ruled that President Manuel Zelaya had taken unconstitutional efforts to abolish term limits so that he could remain in power, and the Honduran military subsequently forced Zelaya from office. This move was supported by the Honduran Congress. These developments were good for the United States—Zelaya was backed by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, who has devoted himself to spreading anti-Americanism throughout Latin America. But the Obama administration condemned Zelaya’s ouster, and actually pressured the Hondurans to reinstate their law-breaking president. Fortunately for us, they didn’t listen.

  For years, leaders in Poland and the Czech Republic resisted pressure from Russia and cooperated with the United States on missile defense. These countries, like many others in Eastern Europe, understand all too well what it is like to be ordered around by Moscow. But as part of his effort to reach out to Putin & Co., President Obama threw the Poles and Czechs under the bus, announcing that he would scrap long-standing plans for missile interceptors in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic. In another masterstroke of Obama diplomacy, this announcement was made on September 17, 2009—the seventieth anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.

  And who can forget April 18, 2010, when the president cancelled his trip to attend the funeral of Polish president Lech Kaczynski and his wife because of a volcanic ash cloud and decided to go golfing instead? Nice image of concern and solidarity with the Poles, who were in mourning after a horrific plane crash near Smolensk, Russia, that wiped out nearly the entire Polish leadership.

  What is striking about these examples is how often they embody exactly the type of arrogant, dismissive attitude for which President Obama likes to apologize. If he’s so sensitive to the feelings of other nations, then why did we embarrass Poland by pulling the missile defense program on the seventieth anniversary of the Soviet invasion? Why were we so indifferent to the feelings of the Honduran people in their efforts to defend their constitution?

  IT’S NOT WORKING

  For the sake of argument, let’s grant the liberal assumption that we should never criticize anyone’s patriotism. Let’s further assume that President Obama’s apologies to our enemies (and insults to our allies) were not motivated by hostility toward American power, and that he actually viewed such tactics as a Machiavellian way to advance U.S. power by convincing the rest of the world to trust us and work with us. If we look at President Obama’s actions in that light, how effective has his approach been? Have other countries stepped up to the plate to help us out? Are we seen as stronger now than when President Obama took office?

  President Obama has certainly asked for help. On September 23, 2009, for example, he gave a major address to the United Nations General Assembly. After telling his audience: “I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust”—a mild apology by his standards. He assured them that there was a new sheriff in town and called upon the nations of the world to work with us going forward: “Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone. We have sought—in word and deed—a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

  So, what happened? Is the United States now safer or more prosperous because of our new humility?

  Well, it’s worked out pretty well for President Obama personally. On October 9, 2009, the Norwegian bureaucrats who give out the Nobel Peace Prize announced they would award it to none other than Barack Hussein Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

  THE DIARY OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

  THE WHITE HOUSE

  October 9, 2009

  Oh, so Mr. Senator from Illinois can only do domestic policy, huh? He’s in over his head, is he? I’ve got three words for you, Diary: NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. How do you like them apples?

  Here’s a complete list of all the American presidents who won the Nobel Peace Prize while in office (I’m not going to count Carter’s award for building houses): Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and me—Barack Hussein Obama. Pretty good company, if I do say so myself.

  I thought I would have a little fun, so I told the White House switchboard to call Clinton. “Hey, Bill,” I said. “I want your advice. I just won the Nobel Peace Prize. What do you think I should say?” I could hear him seething over the telephone. Priceless! If those Norwegians only knew how badly Bill and Hillary wanted that award. Just to rub it in, I should host a dinner for Carter and Gore, and then tell Clinton, “I’m sorry, Bill, only Nobel Peace Prize winners allowed.”

  I told you this foreign policy stuff isn’t that hard.

  THE DIARY OF PRESIDENT SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON

  WASHINGTON, D.C.

  October 9, 2009

  The Nobel Prize! The Nobel Prize! He just got here ten months ago and they g
ive him the Nobel Prize! How is that possible? What did Bill and I ever do to deserve this? All those years of cultivating relationships with those nitwits in Europe, and this is what we get? Gore and Obama? Hell, why not give one to Tipper—she’s done as much for America as those two. For that matter, that yappy dog Bo is really a force for international peace and harmony . . . give him one, too!

  Bill’s been calling me all day, and I know he wants to vent, but I just cannot deal with it right now. Let him grouse to one of his “friends.”

  Come on, Hillary—find your happy place . . . calm down, take it easy, relax . . .

  The Nobel Prize?!

  For the rest of us Americans, the benefits of the president’s new style of “leadership” are few and far between. Indeed, on issue after issue, President Obama’s pleas for cooperation have gone unheeded.

  Winning the war in Afghanistan was a focal point of President Obama’s 2008 campaign, and the president has made success in Afghanistan a major priority of his administration. But a call for 3, 200 additional NATO soldiers to help train the Afghan army was answered with commitments for only half that number. Indeed, by February 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was complaining that the dearth of helicopters, cargo planes, and spy aircraft caused by low military budgets in Europe was “directly impacting operations in Afghanistan.”

  In his speech to the United Nations, President Obama said, “If the governments of Iran and North Korea . . . put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people . . . then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.” But key countries (including Turkey and Brazil) refuse to support significant sanctions on Iran, even though that country is clearly moving closer to developing nuclear weapons. For all his charm, Barack Obama has had great difficulty in galvanizing his newfound “friends” in the world community—so much so that now Cold War–style containment of the belligerent mullahs may be the only option. While the administration took credit for getting Russia and China to agree to “sanctions” on Iran, it should be noted that Charles Krauthammer described the proposed Security Council resolution as “laughably weak.” Ralph Peters warned that China and Russia were actually working with Turkey, Brazil, and Iran to undermine U.S. influence around the world. And the administration admitted that the “sanctions” deal would not prevent Russia from selling Iran missiles to defend its nuclear facilities. Some deal. North Korea, meanwhile, continues to proceed with its own nuclear program—and the White House now fears that it may be providing nuclear-weapons-related technology to another rogue nation, Burma. In short, the world has not “stood together,” and Iran and North Korea have not been “held accountable.”

  One of the centerpieces of President Obama’s efforts to “reset” relations between the United States and Russia was his decision to scrap plans for missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic. But in December 2009, Vladimir Putin complained that President Obama’s alternative plan—putting sea-based interceptors in southern Europe—would fundamentally disrupt the balance of power in Europe and force Russia to develop new offensive weapons in response. So naturally, our president decided to reward Russia by signing a new START Treaty—how 1975! The treaty called for the reduction of the number of warheads in the former Soviet Union’s decrepit nuclear cache. Going into the signing ceremony, the Russians claimed that the treaty would constrain America’s missile defense efforts in Europe. No wonder Medvedev was smiling. Serious Russian analysts understand that the elites who actually run the former Soviet Union remain extremely suspicious of the United States, and see us as adversaries. So much for the reset button.

  THE DIARY OF RUSSIAN PREMIER VLADIMIR PUTIN

  MOSCOW, RUSSIA

  July 20, 2009

  Dmitry called me after his meeting with Obama. “Oh, he’s a real charmer, this one,” he insisted. “We should keep an eye on him.”

  Dolt. With geniuses like him running amok, it’s no wonder the Soviet Union collapsed.

  I had my own meeting with Obama and I thought it went very well. He is not the cowboy type, that one. He is just as I expected: a nice, pleasant American liberal who wants to do what he can to help his fellow neighbors. So naturally I berated him about the many injustices my great country has suffered. And he lapped it up. I had him eating out of my hand. He even said that he was impressed at the density and definition of my pectoral muscles. A very promising encounter, indeed.

  Afterward, I called up Merkel in Germany and teased her a bit. “Angela,” I said, “if we could have had this president back in the 1980s, the Warsaw Pact would still be going strong.” She laughed that nervous German laugh, but I knew she agreed.

  I can hardly wait to see the reaction of our former comrades in Eastern Europe when they realize that their fate lies in the hands of a man who cares more about pleasing me than about pleasing them.

  THE DIARY OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

  THE WHITE HOUSE

  July 20, 2009

  Met with Putin today. I am now convinced that he’s totally misunderstood in the West. He seemed sincere in his desire for friendship and cooperation between our two countries. Even though he didn’t exactly say that Russia wouldn’t sell missiles to Iran, I could tell by the way he commented on my rippled forearms and upright posture that it’s only a matter of time.

  President Obama hoped to win support from China on a number of key issues, including significant curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. But China has proved largely immune to his charm. (Maybe those speeches lose something in translation.) At a major climate change summit in Copenhagen in December 2009, China rejected calls from the West that it do more to restrain carbon emissions going forward—thereby causing those talks to fail.

  In addition, since President Obama was inaugurated, China has protested U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan, gotten into a feud with Google, attacked President Obama for his meeting with the Dalai Lama, and refused to help U.S. companies by allowing its currency to rise in accordance with market forces. By March 2010, it was clear that Sino-American relations were in trouble. President Obama was forced to send two high-ranking envoys to Beijing in an effort to repair a damaged relationship. But those efforts apparently failed, as China’s foreign minister announced further complaints about Taiwan and the Dalai Lama, blaming the United States for increased tensions.

  Soon afterward, on March 15, 2009, the Washington Post’s John Pomfret reported that “China’s government has embraced an increasingly anti-Western tone in recent months and is adopting policies across a wide spectrum that reflect a heightened fear of foreign influence.” One Chinese expert was quoted as saying that “[Chinese] people are now looking down on the West, from leadership circles to academia to everyday folk.”

  So how exactly has groveling on the world stage significantly improved America’s security? The notion that our foreign policy dilemmas were significantly affected by President Bush’s personal popularity (or unpopularity) is incredibly naïve. Many Europeans were certainly angry with Bush over the Iraq War, but they were also furious with Reagan for referring to the U.S.S.R. as the “Evil Empire,” and for pursuing an aggressive policy to win the Cold War. But because Reagan’s policies were obviously successful—and because the United States clearly grew in stature under his administration—European opposition to President Reagan has been largely forgotten. On the other hand, President Carter constantly talked about the importance of human rights, treated international organizations with great respect, and worked hard to bring peace to the Middle East. Like his friends Barack Obama and Al Gore, he also has a Nobel Peace Prize. And look at his sterling foreign policy record.

  YOU CAN’T TEACH THE WORLD TO SING IN PERFECT HARMONY

  The hard truth—a truth that President Obama is either unwilling or unable to understand—is this: foreign countries do not generally allow their person
al feelings toward the president of the United States to drive their policies toward the United States. Indeed, they would be foolish to do so. No foreign leader can afford to take actions favorable to the United States solely because he thinks President Obama is a nice guy. The job of a national leader is to adopt policies that improve his country’s standing in the world.

  Believe it or not, most world leaders are remarkably talented and successful politicians—that’s how they became world leaders in the first place. So they understand, for the most part, that their primary obligation is to satisfy their constituents—not to worry about their personal ties to President Obama. When European politicians are deciding whether to send troops to Afghanistan, or the Chinese are deciding whether to work with us on Iran, or the Russians are deciding whether to enter a new treaty on nuclear weapons, they are not going to be motivated by their personal opinions of Barack Obama, any more than they will be motivated by their feelings about blue-grass music, or Mark Twain, or any other aspect of American life. Instead they will examine the facts of the situation, and determine whether cooperating with the United States will make their countries stronger or weaker. If they will benefit from cooperation, they will cooperate. If not, they won’t; it’s that simple.

  We have so much wealth and power, and play such a huge role in global affairs, that almost anyone with an instinctive desire to support the underdog enjoys seeing the United States get its comeuppance. As long as the United States remains the world’s superpower, we will find it hard to win the world’s sympathy. This isn’t anyone’s fault; it’s simply human nature. The only way to solve this problem would be for the United States to lose its power—a situation in which the cure is far worse than the disease.