Obama sits through anti-American diatribe with a smile
How lovely:
President Obama endured a 50-minute diatribe from socialist Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega that lashed out at a century of what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America and included a rambling denunciation of the U.S.-imposed isolation of Cuba’s Communist government.
Obama sat mostly unmoved during the speech but at times jotted notes. The speech was part of the opening ceremonies at the fifth Summit of the Americas here.
To say that Obama is different than Bush and many other leaders America had in the last 50 years would be an understatement. I cannot imagine Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, or even Clinton (Carter I can of course) imagine listening to an idiotic, hatefilled diatribe from a socialist like Ortega.
Some will undoubtedly say that Obama believes that kindness and humility will help America more than it hurts. Perhaps. Like the guys at Power Line, I am not so sure it will, however. Not at all, even.
Instead, I get the distinct impression that Latin American leaders believe they can slap Obama around. Whether that is true or not – I am betting it is not – is of little consequence with regards to the actions they will take believing they can get away with anything.
Obama is treating these people with too much respect and kindness. When Ortega railed against the U.S. for 50 minutes, Obama should have stood up and walked out.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
“President Obama endured a 50-minute diatribe from socialist Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega that lashed out …”
Waaaaaait a second. Is this text slanted or something? I get this subtle sensation that it is.
“called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America”
Sounds about right. He forgot about South America and the coup in Iran though. Oh, and the US-situated training of a rebel leader in order to destabilize Sudan and allow Western interests to seize natural resources once he had taken over. Lest I forget, the training of torturers in GA that could deal with all the pesky human rights defenders that disputed the Shah in Iran. Et cetera.
“included a rambling denunciation of the U.S.-imposed isolation of Cuba’s Communist government.”
Not complete isolation – occasionally the US has sent in planes to spew poison and such on Cuban crops. And the people who happened to be near the crops. But hey, red scare and communists having no compassion and such. Tough actions have to be made, even if you end up acting with as much care for human life as the average KGB agent.
“I cannot imagine Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, or even Clinton (Carter I can of course) imagine listening to an idiotic, hatefilled diatribe from a socialist like Ortega.”
I cannot imagine Obama actually approving of Chavez by just sitting there. Unless you somehow think Obama is obliged to make a pro forma grumpy stonewalling of a controversial socialist leader even while the US remains an ally of Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. All or nothing in my book.
“Instead, I get the distinct impression that Latin American leaders believe they can slap Obama around.”
They can try. It hasn’t worked for his political opponents at home, has it?
“Whether that is true or not – I am betting it is not – is of little consequence with regards to the actions they will take believing they can get away with anything.”
The US got away with using force, either directly or by proxy, in order to prevent the people of South and Latin America from having democratic control of their own resources and economic models. This went on for decades. If the people there can receive implicit messages from American leaders and American actions, then they have already gotten the message – America is hypocritical, and putting ideology and self-interest before compassion and respect for other nations is A-OK.
ahh Garland, you never fail to make me laugh. Ignorant of history and facts – but funny none the less.
You may want to set aside your blindness to hypocrisy and do a little study on how populist govt’s have worked over the past decades for Latin America. Careful though – it’ll uncover self-inflicted wounds based on what the people of Latin America have voted for.
In this, it is mildly surprising that those leaders are not proud of Obama, one Populist leader for another as it were. I suppose they are caught up in the desire for another bailout and placement of blame.
“You may want to set aside your blindness to hypocrisy and do a little study on how populist govt’s have worked over the past decades for Latin America.”
I wasn’t saying that every left-wing government was democratically elected (at least, that’s not what I think), that every left-wing government upheld standards of human rights or that they respected other nations better than the US.
“In this, it is mildly surprising that those leaders are not proud of Obama, one Populist leader for another as it were.”
If Obama is a populist then his last two domestic opponents had soapboxes taped to their feet.