The Washington Post is hopelessly liberal on many social and economic issues, but on foreign policy its editorial board displays streaks of brilliance. Consider the June 4 editorial, “The West shows no willingness to defend freedom against Russia,” on how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues unabated.
Look at some of the charges leveled by the Post against Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other Western leaders:
- “The president and his European partners are going only so far as they perceive they can without unduly upsetting Mr. Putin.”
- Obama “sidestepped Poland’s request for permanent U.S. or NATO bases on its territory.”
- The new Ukrainian leader asked for weapons and training, but “got a promise from Mr. Obama of $5 million in non-lethal equipment, including radios and goggles. It would have been less insulting to have offered nothing.”
- Putin “has not given up his strategy of using force to undermine Ukraine’s stability and to compromise its independence. Given the West’s wobbly response, why would he?”
In a May 19 editorial, “Russia’s interference in Ukraine’s national election must carry consequences,” it said that “President Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other E.U. leaders must also confront the reality that the latest ‘red line’ they drew for Mr. Putin has been ignored. That must lead to the consequences they have promised: meaningful sanctions on the pillars that prop up the Russian economy.”
The “red line” has been crossed, but no additional sanctions have been forthcoming.
The Post, however, finds appeasement in other areas of the world.
In a May 29 editorial, “U.S. sanctions against Venezuelan officials may bring them to the table,” the paper urged Obama to apply sanctions against Marxist officials in Venezuela, in order to send a message protesting their crackdown on pro-freedom protesters. Obama has not acted against the regime.
In a May 27 editorial, “President Obama continues his retreat from Afghanistan,” the paper essentially said that Obama was going to abandon the country to the Taliban and al Qaeda. This, the editorial said, is on top of the following:
- Obama “reduced the U.S. military presence in Iraq to zero.”
- “After helping to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi in 2011, he made sure no U.S. forces would remain.”
- “He has steadfastly stayed aloof, except rhetorically, from the conflict in Syria.”
A May 3 editorial, “America’s global role deserves better support from Obama,” looked at the risks: “Understandable and predictable though this latest iteration of the United States’ perennial isolationist temptation might be, it must be resisted. Though less visible than the costs of U.S. efforts to maintain world order, the benefits, to Americans and to the world, are far greater: They include the huge financial advantages the United States reaps because of the preeminence of the dollar, a vast expansion in poverty-reducing world trade and—despite many contradictions in, and lapses of, U.S. policy—a net gain in individual freedom and national self-determination.”
But it would be a mistake to say that Obama’s foreign policy is isolationist. After all, the Accuracy in Media Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi has produced evidence that the massacre in Benghazi was the result of Obama “switching sides” in the war on terror, from opposing to supporting al Qaeda. It is this flip-flop that accounts for the release of five terrorists in exchange for Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl.
Obama’s foreign policy has been to put America on the side of Islamists and jihadists throughout the world. He has not avoided taking sides, which is isolationism. He has taken sides.
It is significant that the government of Qatar was the broker in the Bergdahl deal. Qatar was also a middle man for Obama’s pro-Muslim Brotherhood policy in Egypt. This policy backfired when the Muslim Brotherhood government was overthrown. As a result, the U.S. is today without influence in Egypt, and the Russians are moving in.
Indeed, the Russians seem to be moving in all around the world, taking advantage of Obama’s foreign policy to their own advantage. Is it just an accident?
The Post and other liberal media never took seriously the revelations over five years ago of Obama’s involvement in a communist network that included the President’s childhood mentor in Hawaii, pro-Soviet Communist Party operative Frank Marshall Davis. But Davis is the one who filled Obama’s young head full of notions about America’s evil influence in the world through colonialism and imperialism. It appears that Obama still holds these notions in his head.
Obama came into the Oval Office determined to reverse America’s gains in the world and put our once-great nation on the side of those he views as the forces of liberation.
The Russians are not the Soviets, but they seem to be close enough to satisfy Obama. That is what explains his abject failure to support the brave people of Ukraine as they struggle for freedom and independence.
As for German Chancellor Merkel, we cannot find any mention in the Post or other major media of the blockbuster book, The First Life of Angela M, which examines her secret life in East Germany as an ideologue for a communist youth group.
After a series of foreign policy decisions that, even according to The Washington Post, leave the forces of freedom on defense and in retreat, it is time to consider the unthinkable: leading Western governments, including the U.S. and Germany, have been infiltrated. These policies that benefit our enemies and adversaries are not accidental.
On a practical level, it is apparent that the same security clearance process that failed to detect Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden has failed us at the highest levels of government. In fact, many people may be surprised to learn that there is no security clearance process for the highest offices in this land.
The Post has carefully described our current peril. With the damage to the nation accelerating at almost every level, and across the world stage, does The Washington Post have a suggestion about how America can address this problem? If the answer is not impeachment, then what should or can we do to protect the nation?
We anxiously await an editorial on the subject.