President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exceeded expectations at the Fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad/Tobago. There was much hand-wringing by the US corporate media with respect to what might happen if, God forbid, Venezuela’s nutty President, Hugo Chavez, and President Obama happened to bump into each other at the Summit. Well, they did and needless to say, the sky didn’t fall, the sun still set in the west, yadda, yadda yadda:
The State Department said Chavez had approached Clinton during summit sessions Saturday, and the two discussed returning ambassadors to their posts in Caracas and Washington.
“This is a positive development that will help advance U.S. interests, and the State Department will now work to further this shared goal,” State Department spokesman Robert Wood said.
Is Chavez a nutter? Probably a bit. But he has oil and he holds sway in Latin America and simply ignoring him is not a foreign policy strategy, it’s a cop-out. By interacting with Chavez, the US is not capitulating to socialism nor is it displaying weakness. Rather, it is recognizing the reality of the politics of Latin America.
Apparently Secretary Clinton had several informal interactions with President Chavez which culminated in Chavez offering to re-install a Venezuelan Ambassador to Washington.
Stumble It!
5 responses so far ↓
1 vwcat // Apr 19, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I find the whole not talking to and ignoring countries that we disapprove of the leaders to be childish and immature.
It’s not macho or strong but, more like a grade school reaction to someone we don’t like and that not only makes us look insecure and weak, but, childish and somewhat silly.
President Obama is approaching things like an adult and reaching out to all countries. A classy and grown up attitude makes for much in the way of respect.
Acting like an adult is not weak nor does it mean we agree or are going to suddenly turn ’socialist’. Those that make that charge most likely don’t even know what socialism is, anyway.
2 tehehehe // Apr 20, 2009 at 8:36 am
I have no problem with Obama, or Clinton, meeting with or talking to Chavez. He is a leader of his nation (as well as at least a tyrant, and possibly a dictator depending on your definition), but meeting with a foreign leader is what we expect of a President or a Sec State.
Often, in the past, criticisms have been leveled against an Administration that “meets” a foreign leader at a conference, or even talks with one, let alone trades with one. Some have charged that this amounts to “supporting dictators” or “condoning oppressive behavior” by those nations. That is far from reality. A dictator, or an oppresser, we still must have contact, and quite possibly trade.
As to “exceeding expectations”, I think that is HIGHLY suspect. I did not hear anyone expect Obama wouold “fail”. What was he “expected” to do that he “exceeded?. As far as I know, his only achievement was to attend. ‘Course, he did apologize on behalf of outr nationa and all its people, but I am not sure you would rank that as “exceeding expectations”. Ans as President. Obama can apologize to whomever he wants since he was elected to represent America. People knew Obama was critical of past US behavior and arrogance when we elected him, so critics haven’t got a lot of room to be “shocked”. Still, that’s not “exceeding expectations”. Most of us expected he would apologize (he did that in Europe, why not Latin America. Next up, undoubtedly, will be Asia and our reprenhsible interference in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam.).
Not, what can we expect from these nations in return for such an “adult” behavior? We will look to see how this improves the image of the US and enables us to fashion compromises and foreign agreements that advances the interests of the US. If it does not, then this might well be a “cleansing” exercise, but it won’t have actually accomplished much. In that instance, should it occur (and we won’t know at least for months, possibly a year or so), a failure to achieve meaningful progress will mean he will have “failed to meet expectations”.
A pat on the back from Chavez and being able to share a smoke with Castro won’t be indicative of “success” in any meaningful way. Both of these men deny civil rights to large numbers of citizens in their respective countries, a routinely jail opposition members.
3 tehehehe // Apr 20, 2009 at 10:56 am
Am I a “nutter”? I find it a bit “uinnerving” that Obama would choose to give a speech at Georgetwon, a private Chatolic University, but then ask to cover Jesus at the altar he chose to speak from, and then use a parable told by Jesus to justify his won economic spending program.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/18/obamateurism-of-the-day-23/
What point is Obama trying to make? Is it separation of church and state? (then why refer to the “sermon on the mount”? And why give a speech at a Ctholic University from the altar with Jesus image rather than in a courtyard?). Or is Obama merely paranoid about a comparison between him and the Messiah? (after all, Dems made such comparisons from the Congressional floor).
4 tehehehe // Apr 21, 2009 at 8:02 am
Why is the “left” so angry and vulgar?
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/20/trash-blogger-retracts-apology-to-miss-california-usa-invokes-the-c-word/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/17/AR2009041702639_pf.html
5 tehehehe // Apr 21, 2009 at 8:09 am
The “left” made a big deal about “lying” while Bush was in office. But they seem oblivious to the idea that examples of the left lying is anything at all that bad:
http://liveaction.org/
Why is Obama “bailing out” Planned Parenthood with tax dollars while it is breaking the law on a widespread basis?
Leave a Comment