Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Foreign Policy category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Foreign Policy’ Category

Predictably, President Trump’s critics are out in force today. On the Senate floor, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer focused on the Democrats’ talking points, saying that meeting with KJU gave him legitimacy that KJU will turn into favorable treatment from the community of nations. Saying that Sen. Schumer’s logic is more than flawed is understatement.

Further, if you accept Sen. Schumer’s logic as Gospel fact, then war or a nuclear North Korea is inevitable. That’s the definition of Democratic defeatism. We just had 8 years of that. The international community is worse off as a result of President Obama’s mishandling of foreign policy/national security.

Why listen to the idiots that screwed up Iran, Russia and Iraq? Why listen to the people who told us that ISIS was the JV team, then essentially told us we’d have to accept terrorism attacks as the new normal? Democrats keep telling us how to do things after they’ve created the mess. Here’s the video of Sen. Schumer’s speech:

The prestige that Kim Jung-Un supposedly got from the Summit can disappear in an instant. If Democrats are worried about that, they aren’t paying attention to what’s important. Despite the TV media’s obsession with what didn’t happen, they should consider the Trump administration’s strong negotiating position.

The military option is still a legitimate option. The UN sanctions haven’t been lifted. President Trump, Secretary Pompeo, Ambassador Haley and NSA Bolton have made it perfectly clear that the sanctions won’t get lifted until they see North Korea’s actions change. Further, if North Korea insists on continuing playing games, they can pay the price for that decision.

That’s before taking seriously the reality that President Trump won’t hesitate to use the military option if it comes to that. I remember Ambassador Crocker’s reply when asked what he thought of the Nimitz carrier group. He replied “That’s what 20,000 tons of diplomacy looks like. TRANSLATION: Little Rocket Man, the era of strategic patience is history.

It didn’t take long for Keith Ellison to admit that he’s running for the Minnesota Attorney General job to harass President Trump. Ellison said “It was attorneys general who led the fight against the Muslim ban. I want to be a part of that fight.”

What Rep. Ellison omits from his cheap shot statement is that a) it isn’t a Muslim ban and b) these attorneys general’s cases are flimsier than wet cardboard. The Supreme Court will rule that a) presidents have sole authority to set U.S. foreign policy and b) courts don’t have the intel or authority to set U.S. foreign policy.

What’s clear is that Ellison knows Republicans will maintain control of the U.S. House of Representatives for the foreseeable future and that he’s likely to not be able to impact policy anytime soon. Ellison is an agitator. Being unable to be influential in DC, Ellison left.

GOP endorsed candidate Doug Wardlow didn’t waste time before attacking Ellison:

“Keith Ellison supports open borders, meaning he does not support the laws America currently has in place. How can he be the state’s top law enforcement official if he is unwilling to enforce our immigration laws?”

The thought of Ellison being Minnesota’s chief law enforcement officer is laughable. Ellison is famous for selectively enforcing laws:

Ellison also spoke favorably of convicted cop killer Assata Shakur and expressed his opposition to any attempt to extradite her to the United States from Cuba, where she had fled after escaping prison. “I am praying that Castro does not get to the point where he has to really barter with these guys over here because they’re going to get Assata Shakur, they’re going to get a whole lot of other people,” Ellison said at the event, which also included a silent auction and speech by former Weather Underground leader Bernardine Dohrn. “I hope the Cuban people can stick to it, because the freedom of some good decent people depends on it.”

Isn’t that great? The man that wants to be our attorney general wants cop-killers protected. Seriously?

Here’s Assata Shakur, aka Joanne Chesimard, in her own words:

That’s who Rep. Ellison fought for. Electing Ellison to be Minnesota’s Attorney General would be spitting in the face of Minnesota’s law enforcement personnel. Ellison has been a defense attorney his entire legal life. Why would we think that he’s capable of enforcing laws, especially when he’s had a history of ignoring laws he doesn’t like?

Right before Mike Pompeo’s confirmation vote to be Secretary of State, I wrote a letter to my senator, Tina Smith. This afternoon, Sen. Smith’s letter finally arrived. Let’s remember that Secretary Pompeo was confirmed on April 26. Tina Smith’s arrived on May 30.

In addition to being tardy, it was filled with a bunch of BS. For instance, Sen. Smith wrote “The State Department shapes American foreign policy through diplomacy, advocacy, and engagement with the world. This work is essential to ensuring our national security, solving tough diplomatic issues, and maintaining relationships not just with our allies but also with those with whom we disagree. The Secretary of State is a different kind of job from any other position and it is crucially important that the person who holds this job represent America’s values to the world and know how to use diplomacy to build consensus. Mike Pompeo is not this person. He is a man who has a record of anti-Muslim statements, some of which he’s read from the House floor in Congress. He’s a man who referred to people who conducted waterboarding not as torturers but as ‘patriots.’ These are not the values that represent America and these are not the values our top diplomat should be espousing. In holding these beliefs, Mr. Pompeo will aggravate the damage being done to the United States around the world. And the risks to peace and stability in the world will increase dramatically.”

Here’s the full letter for your examination:

I highlighted a pair of sentences to illustrate the nonsense in Sen. Smith’s reply. First, Sen. Smith replied that “He’s a man who referred to people who conducted waterboarding not as torturers but as ‘patriots.'” I’d call them patriots, too. At the time the waterboarding happened, it was perfectly legal. It wasn’t until years later that Congress outlawed those tactics. Next, Sen. Smith stated “Mr. Pompeo will aggravate the damage being done to the United States around the world.”

Which damage is that? Bringing North Korea to the negotiating table to discuss the potential denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula? Perhaps, Sen. Smith is referring to the moving of the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem? Is Sen. Smith referring to the 3 American hostages brought home from North Korea after Secretary Pompeo’s second meeting with Kim Jung-Un? Pay particular attention to the former hostages’ reaction when they rejoin Secretary Pompeo:

It’s about 1:15 into the video.

How will U.S. foreign policy ever recover from such behavior? Seriously, this question must be asked. What the hell is Tina Smith yapping about? What she said is utter rubbish. Let’s speak plainly about this. Tina Smith is a partisan hack who isn’t qualified to be a U.S. senator. What type of competent U.S. senator thinks that doing everything legal to prevent a terrorist attack isn’t a patriot? What type of honest politician thinks that U.S. foreign policy is heading in the wrong direction?

Only a partisan hack thinks that President Trump and Mike Pompeo haven’t already done more to make the U.S. safe in 18 months and less than 2 months than President Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry did in 8 years. ISIS has been defeated. The ‘new normal’ terrorist attacks have dropped precipitously. North Korea is begging to get us to the bargaining table. Iran is experiencing unrest unlike it’s seen recently:

Again, I ask Sen. Smith this simple question: what the hell are you talking about? Rather than wait for another letter from her, I have a better idea. Let’s fire her and elect someone who’s actually qualified.

After reading Scott Johnson’s post, a contrarian thought popped into my head. In his post, Scott quoted Andrew McCarthy as saying that the “Obama administration decided to use its counterintelligence powers to spy on the Trump campaign, using at least one covert informant, electronic monitoring of communications, and other intelligence-gathering tactics.” He then quoted McCarthy as saying “It ignored the norm against deploying such tactics against political opponents, not based on evidence of a Trump-Russia criminal conspiracy, but on speculation about the Trump campaign’s Russia contacts and Russia sympathies. Speculation by a government, an administration, and a Democratic-party nominee with their own abysmal histories of Russia contacts and Russia sympathies.”

Anyone that’s paid a minute of attention to this case knows that the Clinton Slush Fund, aka the Clinton Foundation, had ties to some nasty Russian companies and oligarchs. My question for the legal eagles and people from the intelligence community is whether it’s plausible to think that the Obama administration used its intelligence capabilities to find out if Trump had discovered a connection between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian government or Russian oligarchs close to the Kremlin.

This morning, President Trump had the privilege of announcing the release of 3 North Korean hostages in this tweet. This is fantastic news for the hostages’ families and a victory for newly-installed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and President Trump.

It wasn’t that long ago that the Democrats and hard-left organizations like Indivisible were frantically predicting nuclear war with North Korea. Today, those Democrats and Indivisible are eating crow while people ask whether President Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize if he closes the deal that denuclearizes the Korean Peninsula.

Here’s Trump’s tweet announcing the release of the hostages:


Later, Mike ‘Pampeo‘ (Twitter ID of SecOfState70) tweeted this:


It’s still prudent to view the denuclearization deal with skepticism. Kim Jung-Un is still a shifty dictator. That being said, it’s possible that President Trump’s good cop-bad cop behavior might have Un worried that he’s dealing with a madman. History shows that dictators and autocrats make more concessions when they’re frightened by Republican presidents, especially if Democrats accuse that Republican president of wanting to start WWIII.

The truth is that everyone understands that the US is the world’s only superpower. In 1990, during the buildup to Operation Desert Storm, the media talked about the powerful Iraqi military, calling it a regional superpower. Within minutes of the start of the air war, the war was essentially over. The regional superpower was in shambles. The world superpower was proud of its first night accomplishments and hungry for more destruction to Iraq’s command-and-control capabilities.

The ‘conventional wisdom’ is that the US military has more to lose in a fight than Iran. That’s foolish thinking. I’m not saying the US should start a war with Iran. I’m saying that Iran would be decimated within moments if that confrontation started. Iran knows it, too.

That’s why I’m betting that, in the long run, Europe will side with the Trump administration in imposing new, tougher sanctions. When those sanctions hit Iran’s already-weak economy, Iran’s mullahs will pay a heavy political price.

North Korea already understands what it’s like to get pushed around by muscular US diplomats, aka President Trump and Mike Pompeo. Prior to the Trump administration, the North Koreans toyed with President Obama and John Kerry. Those days are over.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

After President Trump officially announced that he was pulling out of the JCPOA, President Obama criticized him, saying “today’s announcement is … misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals.” Actually, the JCPOA wasn’t negotiated by “our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals.” It was negotiated by dimwits like John Kerry, John Brennan and Susan Rice. I’d hardly call them the best and brightest of our diplomats. I’d call them the Three Stooges.

Included in President Obama criticism was the statement that “First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.” That’s precisely what it was. It wasn’t a treaty ratified by the Senate. If it had been a negotiated treaty, it would’ve been subjected to a humiliating bipartisan rejection of President Obama’s national security policy towards Iran.

John Brennan criticized President Trump in this barely lucid diatribe:


Again, this wasn’t US agreement. That status is only conferred with treaty ratification. Without the Senate’s advice and consent, the agreement is nothing except an agreement between an idiot masquerading as a commander-in-chief and a room full of Islamic theocrats.

Further, President Trump’s decision instructs the world’s despots that he won’t tolerate wink-and-a-nod deals that don’t protect the American people. Like Charles Krauthammer once said, “it isn’t that there’s a new sheriff in town. It’s that there’s a sheriff in town.” President Trump’s official announcement sends the strong message that he’s putting a higher priority on national security than on weak-kneed diplomacy.

This paragraph illustrates how big of a liar President Obama is:

Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust – it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.

The inspection regime was virtually nonexistent. Inspectors couldn’t go anywhere at any time. They had to get permission from the IRGC. Then there was a thirty-day waiting time. That isn’t the definition of “far-reaching inspections.” That’s the definition of wimpy inspections agreed to by a weak-kneed American president and his pathetic ‘national security team’.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Giving perhaps the strongest speech of his presidency, President Trump outlined Iran’s transgressions, highlighted the ways in which Iran causes trouble throughout the Middle East, supports terrorists while threatening our allies. Leftist pundits are already criticizing President Trump’s decision, with Juan Williams saying that “When the President spoke today, he didn’t say ‘Oh, yeah, here’s a major violation that proves these people are not to be trusted.”

Actually, included in President Trump’s speech was a paragraph where he said “Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie. Last week, Israel published intelligence documents long concealed by Iran, conclusively showing the Iranian regime and its history of pursuing nuclear weapons.”

Shortly thereafter, President Trump said “In the years since the deal was reached, Iran’s military budget has grown by almost 40 percent, while its economy is doing very badly. After the sanctions were lifted, the dictatorship used its new funds to build nuclear-capable missiles, support terrorism, and cause havoc throughout the Middle East and beyond.”

President Trump wasn’t gentle with the Obama administration or the Kerry State Department:

At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program.

With this speech, President Trump locked President Obama and John Kerry together in the history books as the people who agreed to and negotiated the worst foreign policy/national security deal in US history. Only desperate or foolish people negotiate a sweetheart deal like this with treacherous people who support terrorists and who want to destabilize the entire Middle East.

That’s right. The only man for a job like that is John Kerry, the only person who is more inept at negotiating important national security deals than Hillary Clinton.

Over the past few months, we have engaged extensively with our allies and partners around the world, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. We have also consulted with our friends from across the Middle East. We are unified in our understanding of the threat and in our conviction that Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon. After these consultations, it is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement.

The Iran deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen. In just a short period of time, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons. Therefore, I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.

President Obama has already criticized President Trump for pulling out of the deal:

There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.

The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working; that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest; it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish; its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes, with Iran, the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

Had John Kerry negotiated a worthwhile deal, President Obama could’ve sent that treaty to Congress for approval. The deal that Kerry negotiated was so terrible that Democrats rejected it. It was so bad that President Obama couldn’t have gotten it approved as a treaty if his life depended on it. As for our European allies urging us to stay in the deal, their motivation is simple. They want to do business with Iran. The more telling reaction is how the Saudis and Israelis reacted. First, here’s John Kerry’s reaction:

Let’s be clear about something. This isn’t the case of the United States backing out of one of its treaties. It’s a rare case of a president telling other nations that he isn’t bound to keep the personal promise that a previous president made.

Had President Obama tried to get the JCPOA approved as a treaty, it would’ve been rejected on a bipartisan basis. While President Obama is upset that another piece of his legacy just got thrown into history’s dumpster, President Trump won’t care because he knows a terrible deal when he sees it. Trump is intent on demolishing Obama’s legacy and getting the US back on the right track. Based on what he’s accomplished thus far, I’d say that he’s accomplishing his plan.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

While it’s still best to be cautiously optimistic about achieving a lasting peace between North Korea and South Korea, it’s indisputable that optimistic signals keep getting sent from the Korean Peninsula. This time, the signal comes in the form of “the South Korean government said on Sunday that North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, had told President Moon Jae-in that he would abandon his nuclear weapons if the United States agreed to formally end the Korean War and promise not to invade his country.”

It’s best not to get too giddy until this initiative gets fleshed out more. The devil is still in the details. Still, it’s another hopeful development in negotiations between North Korean President Kim Jung-Un and President Moon Jae-in of South Korea.

Further, “In Washington, Trump officials spoke cautiously about the chances of reaching a deal and laid out a plan for the dismantling of the North’s nuclear program, perhaps over a two-year period. That would be accompanied by a ‘full, complete, total disclosure of everything related to their nuclear program with a full international verification,’ said John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump’s new national security adviser.”

Pundits have questioned whether President Trump would get hoodwinked by Kim Jung-Un, possibly because they still don’t think he’s capable of being president. If there’s anything I trust about President Trump, it’s negotiating abilities. If that’s what the left is worried about, they don’t have to worry. The thing that they’re forgetting is the fact that Trump studied the deals past presidents have made. That’s led to a different negotiating style this time. That’s what’s led to this:

This is still the best protocol when negotiating life-changing treaties:

I trust that President Trump and National Security Adviser Bolton will verify that North Korea is living up to its obligations.

UPDATE: Moon Jae-In, South Korea’s president, thinks that President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize “for his role in talks to denuclearize the Korean peninsula and end the decades-long war between the North and South.”

If that happened, journalists’ heads would explode. Here’s hoping it happens.

Minutes ago, Rand Paul announced that he’s voting yes to confirm Mike Pompeo as President Trump’s next Secretary of State.

Several Monday conversations with President Donald Trump, a meeting with CIA Director Mike Pompeo, and reassurances about Afghanistan led Sen. Rand Paul to announce Monday evening that he would vote to support Pompeo as the next Secretary of State. Paul recounted his decision process on Twitter as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prepared to vote on the Pompeo confirmation. The senator spoke with President Trump several times during the day and met with Pompeo.

“After calling continuously for weeks for Director Pompeo to support President Trump’s belief that the Iraq war was a mistake, and that it is time to leave Afghanistan, today I received confirmation the Director Pompeo agrees with @realDonaldTrump,” wrote Paul.

That’s just part of the breaking news today:

Three Democrat senators declared their intention to break ranks with other Senate Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee, ahead of the vote. Red state Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin (WV), and Joe Donnelly (IN) each face November re-election fights in states that went for Trump in 2016.

It isn’t coincidental that they’re all red state Democrats in for the fight of their political lives. This means all of the Democrats voting against confirming Director Pompeo are exposed as putting their membership in #Resistance ahead of being patriots.

Until recently, I thought that most Democrats were just beholden to the Resist! movement. After reading this article, though, I’m positive that Democrats hate President Trump to the point that they’ll do anything to make his presidency a failure.

By any sensible person’s opinion, Mike Pompeo is eminently qualified to be our nation’s next Secretary of State. As I wrote earlier, Pompeo finished first in his class at West Point, then finished first in his class at Harvard Law School. Further, he was chosen by President Trump to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jung-Un during Easter weekend. That trip is being hailed as a success.

Despite all those facts, Democrats are thinking about pulling a high-risk stunt. According to the article, “Democrats are mulling an audacious plan to bottle up President Trump’s nominee to head the State Department in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — even though Mike Pompeo likely has enough votes to win confirmation on the Senate floor. The plan under consideration would involve Democrats on the panel refusing to vote to discharge Pompeo, who is currently the director of the CIA, from the committee with even an unfavorable recommendation.”

Whether the Democrats realize it or not, their actions and considerations are crossing a line. The American people will tolerate political differences on policies. What they won’t tolerate is whether a political party is willing to put politics ahead of keeping Americans safe. This is the equivalent of shutting down the government except in this respect — this is choosing to shut down the part of the government that protects people when they travel outside the nation. The Secretary of State negotiates important treaties, sits down with world leaders to discuss everything from nuclear weapons to how to keep rogue nations from hurting American business interests to stopping genocides of religious people to negotiating the release of political hostages from the world’s worst nations.

This is getting a little confusing. Thursday, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp announced that she’d vote to confirm Director Pompeo. Today, she stumbled through this interview:

In the interview, Sen. Heitkamp didn’t back away from that position. After that, however, Democrats hinted that they’d shut down the Foreign Relations Committee to prevent a confirmation vote on Director Pompeo. The fact that Democrats even thought about pulling a stunt like this proves a) that they hate President Trump and b) that they put politics ahead of the nation.

Couple this threat with the DNC’s frivolous lawsuit and you’ll see the outlines of a political party that’s searching for an identity and its soul. Right now, the DNC is a schizophrenic and its soul is, at best, in purgatory.