We don't meddle, except when we do.
So let me get this straight.
Obama doesn't want to meddle in the internal politics of Iran. He doesn't want to support the duly elected President of that country and the pro-democracy activists because he doesn't want to give the impression of interfering in their internal politics.
At the same time, he has no problem with supporting a dictator in Honduras who made an illegal grab for power against the laws of his country and the determination of that country's Supreme Court, and who was evicted from power peacefully by that country's military. Administration of that country's government is in the hands of the duly elected government, not the military, and despite the attempted power grab, the transfer of power was accomplished relatively peacefully. But Obama supports the power grabbing dictator and is calling the peaceful transfer of power a "military coup", despite the fact that the military has handed power over to the elected civilian government. In fact, the government has sworn in President Micheletti to temporarily run things until the constitutional mess can be straightened out, who is a member of the same party a the prior President Zelaya, so it certainly isn't a power coup.
At the same time, Obama has no problem dictating internal policy to Israel, demanding land concessions for peace, demanding military pullouts that are against the security interests of Israel, demanding changes in Israeli policy, demanding the dismantling of cities of tens of thousands of Israelis. All of this despite the fact that Israel has an existential threat from its neighbors in Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza, has been under constant mortar and missile attack from Gaza for two years, and despite the fact that every prior attempt by Israel to make concessions for peace have failed miserably.
So what exactly is Obama's policy? Is it a policy of not meddling? If so, how do you explain his policies toward Israel and Honduras? How do you explain that Obama's policies seem to lack consistency.
Mark Levin said, and I am beginning to agree, that Obama's foreign policy is very simple and very consistent. Obama supports dictatorial regimes.
If Levin is right, then what seem to be contradictions are not contradictory at all. Obama supports Honduras' Zelaya because he attempted a dictatorial-style takeover modeled after the way Chavez took over Venezuela, and his comments about Zelaya being the rightful ruler of Honduras supports Zelaya. Obama supports the dictatorial regimes of Hamas and Hizbolah over the democratic regime of Israel, and so he is pressuring Israel to weaken itself so that Hamas and Hizbolah are strengthened. And Obama supports Ahmadinejad, and his silence on the issues in Iran aids Ahmadinejad's bid to retain power.
If looked at from this point of view, Obama's policies make perfect sense and are completely consistent.
So... we have two choices. Either Obama is poorly prepared and incapable of handling foreign affairs, which is resulting in inconsistent positions that make no sense. Or else Obama is a Machiavellian schemer who supports dictators. I'm not sure which it is, but I have my suspicions.
Either way, it ain't good for us and it ain't good for the rest of the world.
Elliot
