Spin is Obama's only foreign policy success

President Obama has trumpeted his apology and abasement tour of Europe and now Latin America as having led to progress. Spin, not action is all he has to show for himself.

Obama has been unable to transform personal popularity for himself among benighted Europeans (who always look with favor on Americans who bash America) into any solid accomplishments that advance American interests. The Europeans will send very few troops to help us in Afghanistan, and they will operate in non-combat capacities, far from the scene of trouble. Furthermore, these "troops" will be there for only a few months-until the next round of Afghanistan elections. The Europeans refused to step on the gas pedal when it comes to stimulus-preferring that America do the heavy lifting while we run the risk of vast debts , inflation, and a debased currency.

However, we can always rely on the Obama spin machine, along with his supporters in the media, to somehow make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

The latest case in point is the administration's failure to deal with North Korea -- a nation that has violated numerous UN resolutions, including binding (and often fruitless) Security Council resolutions.

Yet somehow our Ambassador to the United Nations spins the futile and weak response to North Korea as a success. What is more worrisome is she seems to not even comprehend United Nations rules, as today's Wall Street Journal informs us:


It's strange enough that the Obama Administration is hyping last week's toothless statement by the United Nations Security Council condemning North Korea's recent rocket launch. Even more amazing, it says the U.N. move is "legally binding" on member states.

Those were the words used by Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., and repeated by a State Department spokesman. Ms. Rice is badly misinformed. As she ought to know, a "presidential statement" issued by the Security Council is legally binding on no one.

A presidential statement is agreed to by all 15 members of the Security Council and issued by the rotating president. Invented in 1994, such statements aren't even mentioned in the Security Council's procedural rules and impose zero obligations on members. They are a last resort when the Security Council can't summon the will or agreement to pass a resolution.

It would be nice if our Ambassador to the United Nation knew that body's rules. After all, Barack Obama chose her for her foreign policy expertise, right?

Apparently, a campaign that was based on image and not substance will also lead to a presidency based on image and not substance,

The "blame Bush" approach is wearing thin, as Jackson Diehl points out in his Washington Post column today "A World of Trouble for Obama"  
President Obama has trumpeted his apology and abasement tour of Europe and now Latin America as having led to progress. Spin, not action is all he has to show for himself.

Obama has been unable to transform personal popularity for himself among benighted Europeans (who always look with favor on Americans who bash America) into any solid accomplishments that advance American interests. The Europeans will send very few troops to help us in Afghanistan, and they will operate in non-combat capacities, far from the scene of trouble. Furthermore, these "troops" will be there for only a few months-until the next round of Afghanistan elections. The Europeans refused to step on the gas pedal when it comes to stimulus-preferring that America do the heavy lifting while we run the risk of vast debts , inflation, and a debased currency.

However, we can always rely on the Obama spin machine, along with his supporters in the media, to somehow make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

The latest case in point is the administration's failure to deal with North Korea -- a nation that has violated numerous UN resolutions, including binding (and often fruitless) Security Council resolutions.

Yet somehow our Ambassador to the United Nations spins the futile and weak response to North Korea as a success. What is more worrisome is she seems to not even comprehend United Nations rules, as today's Wall Street Journal informs us:


It's strange enough that the Obama Administration is hyping last week's toothless statement by the United Nations Security Council condemning North Korea's recent rocket launch. Even more amazing, it says the U.N. move is "legally binding" on member states.

Those were the words used by Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., and repeated by a State Department spokesman. Ms. Rice is badly misinformed. As she ought to know, a "presidential statement" issued by the Security Council is legally binding on no one.

A presidential statement is agreed to by all 15 members of the Security Council and issued by the rotating president. Invented in 1994, such statements aren't even mentioned in the Security Council's procedural rules and impose zero obligations on members. They are a last resort when the Security Council can't summon the will or agreement to pass a resolution.

It would be nice if our Ambassador to the United Nation knew that body's rules. After all, Barack Obama chose her for her foreign policy expertise, right?

Apparently, a campaign that was based on image and not substance will also lead to a presidency based on image and not substance,

The "blame Bush" approach is wearing thin, as Jackson Diehl points out in his Washington Post column today "A World of Trouble for Obama"