Obama's 'Experts' and Trump's Instincts

Why are people with foreign policy experience on North Korea and elsewhere referred to as "experts" when they so often fail to achieve their goals?  The media, Democrats, and supposed experts on North Korea are wringing their hands about President Trump's planned meeting with the North Korean dictator.

They say that Trump doesn't know what he is doing and that people at the State Department that have expertise are gone.

I always have trouble with all the people who are called experts because they have had so little success at what they supposedly are expert about.

For the last 25 years, Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have been toyed with by North Korea while the North Koreans continually built up their nuclear weapons, and the media go to the very people who let this happen for analysis on Trump.

In October 1994, via the New York Times:

President Clinton approved a plan today to arrange more than $4 billion in energy aid to North Korea during the next decade in return for a commitment from the country's hard-line Communist leadership to freeze and gradually dismantle its nuclear weapons development program.

"This agreement will help achieve a longstanding and vital American objective – an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula," Mr. Clinton said this afternoon, after his top foreign policy advisers described the details of an enormously complex agreement struck with North Korea late Monday.

"This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world," Mr. Clinton said in a brief appearance in the White House press room this afternoon. "It's a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community." 

Somehow, this piece of paper didn't make the world safer.  Instead, it allowed North Korea the money and time to develop the weapons.

When has appeasement ever worked?

Obama, Hillary, and Kerry, surrounded by experts (lifers), came up with the "smart" foreign policy of leading from behind, and we got policies that:

  • Had us pulling all of our troops out of Iraq, which allowed ISIS and Iran to build up their power in the region.
  • Had us pull out of our commitment to put missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic which certainly pleased Putin.
  • Had a gun-running operation to Mexico where we lost track of the guns. 
  • Had us watching North Korea as it expanded its weaponry – but we kept telling them to stop.  (It is a good thing we didn't use rough language on Rocket Man, because then he would have really gotten dangerous.)
  • Had us watch as Putin invaded Crimea and Ukraine, and our smart policy-makers told him to stop, but we wouldn't even give Ukraine defensive weapons, even though we are obligated to defend that nation.
  • Had our president promise Putin we would be more flexible if he was re-elected.
  • Had us leave our diplomats vulnerable to attack in Libya, and then pretended a video was responsible in order to protect the political power of Obama.
  • Had us allowing NATO countries to pay less than their treaty obligations.
  • Had us kowtowing to the U.N.
  • Had us negotiate secretly with Iran, the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world; give them hundreds of billions of dollars; and even pay them ransom.  They lied throughout the process and then signed a deal with the devil to pretend the world was now safer.  Now we have Iran, which continues to sponsor terrorism and continues to threaten death to America with more money, which continues to build more weapons.  The Iranians are also helping Assad in Syria.  Thank goodness for the "experts" Obama surrounded himself with to get this "smart" policy!
  • Had the U.S allowing  the terrorist group Hezb'allah to have a drug-running operation to appease the tyrants in Iran.
  • Had Obama's wife respond with a "Bring Back Our Girls" hashtag when 276 girls were kidnapped in Nigeria by terrorists.
  • Had us saying climate change is more dangerous than terrorism.  Some even told us the crisis caused by Syrian and other refugees escaping was because of a potential couple-of-degrees rise in temperature rather than because tyrants were killing and raping them.
  • Had the president draw a red line in Syria over chemical weapons use and, when Syria used chemical weapons, essentially did nothing.  He and Kerry did pretend Assad got rid of all his chemical weapons.
  • Had us sign the Paris Climate Accord, which would have cost trillions and slowed down the U.S. and world economies to pretend that government officials could adjust temperatures downward by one degree forever.  Does that sound smart or true?
  • Had the State Department spending taxpayer money to interfere in Israel's election.  Why didn't the media do an investigation of that if collusion in elections is so dangerous?  Where was Adam Schiff?
  • Had the president and agencies under his control refusing to enforce immigration laws Congress passed in violation of their oath of office and the Constitution.
  • Had a purported 17 out of 17 intelligence agencies blame Russians for the DNC computer hack, without ever examining the computer.  Is it smart to claim that you can analyze a computer based on a piece of paper from someone else?

Not once do I remember the media caring about any of the above disastrous and dangerous policies.  But now I am supposed to believe that things are more dangerous because Trump doesn't know what he is doing?

There were 15,708 terrorism deaths in 2008, the year before Obama, and 25,621 in 2016, the last year of his presidency.

When Bush was in office, George Clooney and the media complained a lot about inaction in the Congo and Darfur, so why did the concern all of a sudden disappear when Obama took office?

Why is it dangerous to meet Kim Jong-un but it was fine to make deals from the tyrants from Iran, Syria, and Cuba?  Didn't it elevate their status?

The way the media are treating Trump is the way they treated Reagan.

The media and other Democrats said Reagan was going to cause World War III because of his talk and actions.  Instead, he ended the Cold War and brought down the Berlin Wall.  Obama had Iran collapsing with sanctions, and instead of holding the mullahs down, he lifted them up.  Trump has North Korea at least temporarily stopping its testing of nuclear weapons since November.

When Trump talks to world leaders, he tells them he always considers the American people first and tells them they should always consider their people first.  That sounds extremely smart and balanced to me.

Obama, on the other hand, wanted America to lead from behind, one of the stupidest statements ever.  Leading from behind is following, not leading at all, and that is what he did his entire eight years.

Which of the above policies is smart, and which ones are stupid?  Why do the media and other Democrats continue to get it backward, and why are people called experts when they continue to screw up so much?

Why are people with foreign policy experience on North Korea and elsewhere referred to as "experts" when they so often fail to achieve their goals?  The media, Democrats, and supposed experts on North Korea are wringing their hands about President Trump's planned meeting with the North Korean dictator.

They say that Trump doesn't know what he is doing and that people at the State Department that have expertise are gone.

I always have trouble with all the people who are called experts because they have had so little success at what they supposedly are expert about.

For the last 25 years, Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have been toyed with by North Korea while the North Koreans continually built up their nuclear weapons, and the media go to the very people who let this happen for analysis on Trump.

In October 1994, via the New York Times:

President Clinton approved a plan today to arrange more than $4 billion in energy aid to North Korea during the next decade in return for a commitment from the country's hard-line Communist leadership to freeze and gradually dismantle its nuclear weapons development program.

"This agreement will help achieve a longstanding and vital American objective – an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula," Mr. Clinton said this afternoon, after his top foreign policy advisers described the details of an enormously complex agreement struck with North Korea late Monday.

"This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world," Mr. Clinton said in a brief appearance in the White House press room this afternoon. "It's a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community." 

Somehow, this piece of paper didn't make the world safer.  Instead, it allowed North Korea the money and time to develop the weapons.

When has appeasement ever worked?

Obama, Hillary, and Kerry, surrounded by experts (lifers), came up with the "smart" foreign policy of leading from behind, and we got policies that:

  • Had us pulling all of our troops out of Iraq, which allowed ISIS and Iran to build up their power in the region.
  • Had us pull out of our commitment to put missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic which certainly pleased Putin.
  • Had a gun-running operation to Mexico where we lost track of the guns. 
  • Had us watching North Korea as it expanded its weaponry – but we kept telling them to stop.  (It is a good thing we didn't use rough language on Rocket Man, because then he would have really gotten dangerous.)
  • Had us watch as Putin invaded Crimea and Ukraine, and our smart policy-makers told him to stop, but we wouldn't even give Ukraine defensive weapons, even though we are obligated to defend that nation.
  • Had our president promise Putin we would be more flexible if he was re-elected.
  • Had us leave our diplomats vulnerable to attack in Libya, and then pretended a video was responsible in order to protect the political power of Obama.
  • Had us allowing NATO countries to pay less than their treaty obligations.
  • Had us kowtowing to the U.N.
  • Had us negotiate secretly with Iran, the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world; give them hundreds of billions of dollars; and even pay them ransom.  They lied throughout the process and then signed a deal with the devil to pretend the world was now safer.  Now we have Iran, which continues to sponsor terrorism and continues to threaten death to America with more money, which continues to build more weapons.  The Iranians are also helping Assad in Syria.  Thank goodness for the "experts" Obama surrounded himself with to get this "smart" policy!
  • Had the U.S allowing  the terrorist group Hezb'allah to have a drug-running operation to appease the tyrants in Iran.
  • Had Obama's wife respond with a "Bring Back Our Girls" hashtag when 276 girls were kidnapped in Nigeria by terrorists.
  • Had us saying climate change is more dangerous than terrorism.  Some even told us the crisis caused by Syrian and other refugees escaping was because of a potential couple-of-degrees rise in temperature rather than because tyrants were killing and raping them.
  • Had the president draw a red line in Syria over chemical weapons use and, when Syria used chemical weapons, essentially did nothing.  He and Kerry did pretend Assad got rid of all his chemical weapons.
  • Had us sign the Paris Climate Accord, which would have cost trillions and slowed down the U.S. and world economies to pretend that government officials could adjust temperatures downward by one degree forever.  Does that sound smart or true?
  • Had the State Department spending taxpayer money to interfere in Israel's election.  Why didn't the media do an investigation of that if collusion in elections is so dangerous?  Where was Adam Schiff?
  • Had the president and agencies under his control refusing to enforce immigration laws Congress passed in violation of their oath of office and the Constitution.
  • Had a purported 17 out of 17 intelligence agencies blame Russians for the DNC computer hack, without ever examining the computer.  Is it smart to claim that you can analyze a computer based on a piece of paper from someone else?

Not once do I remember the media caring about any of the above disastrous and dangerous policies.  But now I am supposed to believe that things are more dangerous because Trump doesn't know what he is doing?

There were 15,708 terrorism deaths in 2008, the year before Obama, and 25,621 in 2016, the last year of his presidency.

When Bush was in office, George Clooney and the media complained a lot about inaction in the Congo and Darfur, so why did the concern all of a sudden disappear when Obama took office?

Why is it dangerous to meet Kim Jong-un but it was fine to make deals from the tyrants from Iran, Syria, and Cuba?  Didn't it elevate their status?

The way the media are treating Trump is the way they treated Reagan.

The media and other Democrats said Reagan was going to cause World War III because of his talk and actions.  Instead, he ended the Cold War and brought down the Berlin Wall.  Obama had Iran collapsing with sanctions, and instead of holding the mullahs down, he lifted them up.  Trump has North Korea at least temporarily stopping its testing of nuclear weapons since November.

When Trump talks to world leaders, he tells them he always considers the American people first and tells them they should always consider their people first.  That sounds extremely smart and balanced to me.

Obama, on the other hand, wanted America to lead from behind, one of the stupidest statements ever.  Leading from behind is following, not leading at all, and that is what he did his entire eight years.

Which of the above policies is smart, and which ones are stupid?  Why do the media and other Democrats continue to get it backward, and why are people called experts when they continue to screw up so much?