Smiles: The Latest, Greatest Threat To Global Survival

The fauxtrage of the day concerns Barack Obama doing this country the terrible dishonor and shame of shaking a foreign leader's hand. IMPEACH NOW

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich tore into President Barack Obama Monday for his friendly greeting of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, saying Obama is bolstering the "enemies of America."

Gingrich appeared on a number of morning talk shows comparing Obama to President Jimmy Carter for the smiling, hearty handshake he offered Chavez, one of the harshest critics of the United States, during the Summit of the Americas. [...]

Two Republican senators, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and John Ensign of Nevada, joined in the criticism Monday, with Ensign calling Obama's greeting of Chavez "irresponsible."

Worse, he was smiling! Smiling!!!1!!eleventy! How dare he sell out this nation with his facial expressions! Why, it's positively... well, Reaganesque.



Fortunately, the President was having none of this today.

Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States’. They own Citgo. It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States. I don’t think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela.

I think mockery remains the only option for dealing with these people. We have hard evidence of torture at the highest levels of government, we have a broken economy, we have a crisis in health care and climate change. And the Republicans, still acting like the normative goal of political parties are to win the news cycle, throw up a "Obama didn't wink the way I wanted him to wink" or "Obama bent his knee when you shouldn't bend your knee and as a result we're all going to be killed or forced into burqas" every day. I don't know that there's another, more reasonable response than pointing and laughing.

Also, the media actually doesn't have to follow this story. They deserve a lot of the blame as well. They don't have to answer Newt Gingrich's phone calls.

What Backtracking From Campaign Promises?

Though I appreciated the NYT's call for the impeachment of Jay Bybee today, their news pages have been consumed lately with trying to classify President Obama as offering little change from George Bush. Earlier in the week, Peter Baker characterized Obama's foreign policy as shifting "only a little" from George Bush's. And today, David Herszenhorn and Jackie Calmes they cite Obama's characteristic caution as evidence of him "taking softer stands."

It was inevitable that Mr. Obama’s lofty pledge to change the ways of Washington would crash into the realities of governing, including lawmakers anxious to protect their constituents and an army of special-interest lobbyists.

Mr. Obama has not conceded on any major priority. His advisers argue that the concessions to date — on budget items, for instance — are intended to help win the bigger policy fights ahead. But his early willingness to deal or fold has left pundits and prognosticators, and some loyal Democrats, wondering: where’s the fight?

I agree with Eric Boehlert that this misrepresents Obama's words on the campaign trail. With stars in their eyes, these reporters imagined Obama's soaring rhetoric to promise much more than he actually did. In both of these articles, there is little evidence to suggest that the President ever made such sweeping statements as a candidate or that he's shifted on any major issue (hence the "Mr. Obama has not conceded on any major priority"). For example, they cite Obama's reluctance to renew the assault weapons ban, when he pretty much didn't promise that during the campaign, and when he has not closed the door on the option.

With regard to foreign policy, I don't know how you can say that he hasn't followed through on his promises, even the ones I don't particularly support. He said he would withdraw from Iraq and move forces to Afghanistan. He said he would negotiate with enemies and work with allies. He said he would push for the eradication of nuclear weapons from this planet. And that's exactly what he's done. This speech would not come out of the mouth of George Bush.

There's been several remarks directed at the issue of the relationship between the United States and Cuba, so let me address this. The United States seeks a new beginning with Cuba. I know that there is a longer -- (applause) -- I know there's a longer journey that must be traveled to overcome decades of mistrust, but there are critical steps we can take toward a new day. I've already changed a Cuba policy that I believe has failed to advance liberty or opportunity for the Cuban people. We will now allow Cuban Americans to visit the islands whenever they choose and provide resources to their families -- the same way that so many people in my country send money back to their families in your countries to pay for everyday needs.

Over the past two years, I've indicated, and I repeat today, that I'm prepared to have my administration engage with the Cuban government on a wide range of issues -- from drugs, migration, and economic issues, to human rights, free speech, and democratic reform. Now, let me be clear, I'm not interested in talking just for the sake of talking. But I do believe that we can move U.S.-Cuban relations in a new direction.

As has already been noted, and I think my presence here indicates, the United States has changed over time. (Applause.) It has not always been easy, but it has changed. And so I think it's important to remind my fellow leaders that it's not just the United States that has to change. All of us have responsibilities to look towards the future. (Applause.)

I think it's important to recognize, given historic suspicions, that the United States' policy should not be interference in other countries, but that also means that we can't blame the United States for every problem that arises in the hemisphere. That's part of the bargain. (Applause.) That's part of the change that has to take place. That's the old way, and we need a new way.

You can argue whether Obama has gone far enough, and whether his policies are best for the country. I certainly have argued on those grounds. But you just cannot say that he's backed off his major campaign promises, because it's simply not true. Why the Times keeps going to this idea is beyond me.

And by the way, apparently Obama's handshake with Hugo Chavez has caused a tizzy on the right, as if no Republican has ever shook the hand of an adversarial world leader before. This act has gotten so stale. By the way, Chavez has restored his US envoy so there are already tangible steps toward resolution as a result of basically nothing but a handshake. The dirty secret here is that the neocons NEED enemies because they can only rule by fear.

Old Wars Get Me Bored

We've almost gone a whole term without any new invasions, which is just so ordinary. Finally, the Bush Administration has snapped out of it and decided to spice things up.

The U.S. launched an airstrike Monday on a Somali town held by Islamic extremists to go after a group of terrorist suspects, U.S. defense officials said.

Three missiles hit Dobley, a town four miles from the Kenyan border, destroying a home and seriously injured eight people, police and witnesses said. The remnants of an Islamic force that had once ruled much of southern Somalia took over Dobley last week.

"It was a deliberate, precise strike against a known terrorist and his associates," one U.S. military official said in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the record.

That's not entirely new, of course, since we ran a proxy war with Somalia last year, using the Ethiopian army, and have bombed suspected Al Qaeda targets on the Horn of Africa in the past. The fact that we're still having to provide ordnance after that war was supposed to be "over" suggests that the Islamists are still alive and well.

But the NEW war could be in South America, where Hugo Chavez has massed troops on the border with Colombia.

Venezuela and Ecuador ordered troops to their borders with Colombia, sharply raising tensions after Colombia killed a top rebel leader on Ecuadorean soil.

President Hugo Chavez on Sunday promised Venezuela would respond militarily if Colombia violates its border, where he ordered tanks as well as thousands of troops. He also ordered closed Venezuela's embassy in Bogota.

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa said he deployed troops to the border while also withdrawing his government's ambassador from Bogota and expelling Colombia's top diplomat.

''There is no justification,'' Correa said Sunday night, snubbing an earlier announcement from Colombia that it would apologize for the military incursion.

Seems like a clear case of Colombia violating Ecuador's border sovereignty. And this might just be posturing. But consider - The White House has wanted to depose Chavez for years. They even aided an attempted coup back in 2002. Colombia's major donor of military aid is the United States. Of course, most of that goes to fighting the useless Drug War. But the mix of a US-backed government in a threatened war with Venezuela is combustible. Watch to see if we send any "advisors" down there in the next few weeks.

Who's The Dictator?

So in common American parlance, Hugo Chavez is the devious dictator while Vladimir Putin is the establishing G8 leader. Yet yesterday, both of them held elections, and that alone is enough to upset that conventional wisdom. Even more so when you realize that Chavez' election was a legitimate balloting which he could lose, while Putin's election was grossly unfair.

Now, Chavez is barred from running for President again in 2012, but of course he can use similar means to Putin by trying to install a puppet government that he controls behind the scenes. The point is that he'll have to try. And his concession speech sounded almost humble.

Humbled by his first electoral defeat ever, President Hugo Chavez said Monday he may have been too ambitious in asking voters to let him stand indefinitely for re-election and endorse a huge leap to a socialist state.

"I understand and accept that the proposal I made was quite profound and intense," he said after voters narrowly rejected the sweeping constitutional reforms by 51 percent to 49 percent [...]

"I wouldn't have wanted that Pyrrhic victory," he said, suggesting a small margin wouldn't have been enough of a mandate.

I'm not trying to be a propagandist for Chavez, but the distinction between him and Putin here is stark. By contrast, the Russian dictator dismissed all charges of a stolen election:

But Putin and his allies praised the result as an overwhelming endorsement of his leadership and policies.

"Of course it's a sign of trust," Putin said in televised remarks. "Russians will never allow the nation to take a destructive path, as happened in some other ex-Soviet nations."

America might want to re-think the labels it puts on other world leaders.