Cameron's Leadership on Libya is Humiliating for Obama and America

Cameron speaks, Obama just watches

In a typical Anglo-American relationship, Britain and America stand side by side in the face of international danger, but with America standing as the bigger brother.  Yet with the Obama/Clinton incompetence over the Libyan situation, David Cameron has had to take the lead and direct the international community to fulfill its moral responsibilities.

The lack of voice from the Obama administration has meant that in this version of the Anglo-American relationship, it is not enough to just say that Britain has changed to the role of bigger brother, and America has reverted to the role of smaller brother.  Instead, Obama has reduced America to a helpless child that needs to be carried around by adult, responsible Great Britain.  The world is noticing.

Do not get me wrong on this, I do not believe that America lacks either the will or the resources to be a world leader, and to act in a strong, bold way on the crisis in Libya - it is just that its current leaders have deliberately chosen not to.  Obama is an old school 1970's pacifist, and hates the idea of America being the leader in any international conflict, even if it is a multilateral intervention.  He does not want to spend any money on helping freedom prosper throughout the world - he is too busy inventing new welfare plans back home!

Other countries have the luxury of being quiet for a while on international affairs - America does not.  America is known for being both the home and the defender of freedom.  As much as trendy lefties like Obama hate this role for America, the fact is that most people in the world want America to act like this, especially those under the iron fist of tyranny.  America's silence on this crisis in Libya is deafening as a result.

Although we certainly cannot be expected to intervene in every issue of human rights abuses all over the world, the fall of Gaddafi would be an enormous victory for the West.  Not only would the fall be a coup for Britain and America, it is vital that a good, pro-Western leadership replaces him, and it is for that reason that the West needs to guide this revolution in a way that will suit our nations' interests.

This silence from the Obama Administration on this issue is contrasted by the strong voice of British leader David Cameron - not known for his hawkish attitude towards foreign policy.  For the first time since the outbreak of World War II, it is Britain, not America that is leading on an international crisis.  Yet this does not show the strength of Britain, for Britain has very limited defence resources at the moment.  Instead it shows the weakness of America under Obama, and this sends out very clear messages to both America's allies, and to its enemies.

This crisis represents the fall of America as the international leader, and what is so tragic is that this fall has nothing to do with the might, the power, or the will of the United States as a whole.  Instead, its fall is solely due to the moral cowardice, and the outdated leftism, of the Obama administration that is forcing the nation to abandon its principles, its allies, and its status as the leader of the free world.

The Left Have Slowed Down Gaddafi's Departure

First, apologies for not having blogged for a few days - I decided to take a week off to clear my head from politics, but I am back now!

It looks like the Gaddafi regime in Libya may finally be over.  Although he is clinging to power, it looks unlikely that Gaddafi will last the week in the face of enormous riots and protests at his tyrannical regime.  This is marvellous news.  Unlike Egypt, where the jury is still out on what the result is going to be, and whether it will be better or worse than Mubarak, in Libya it really can't be any worse than Gaddafi.  He is one of the most toxic and evil dictators in history, is extremely anti-Western (but pro-Obama!) and is responsible for the Lockerbie bombing - the worst terrorist attack in history on British soil.

Recent pro-democracy protests in the Middle East have not helped the left-wing, especially their argument of "Ohh, people in the Middle East don't want democracy, that's a Western concept!"  Recent events have shown this argument once again to be condescending, wrong-headed, and just plain incorrect.  However, the ousting of Gaddafi causes some other rather uncomfortable problems for the British left.

You see, before Obama there was Blair.  The American left should be aware that all this "let's all get along, even if you are a nutball dictator" is not a new Obama concept - it has been tried before.  This is especially the case in Britain where it has been tried from Chamberlain to Blair.

Just before he ceased to be Prime Minister, Tony Blair (in what was an effort to make his left-wing base more comfortable after going along with the invasion of Iraq - a surprisingly right-wing move) stretched out his hand to Gaddafi, kissed and made up about what went on in the past, secured the release of the Lockerbie bomber (unknown to the public at the time), and came back with some pretty hefty oil contracts.  The moral justification of this was that Gaddafi was set to be dictator for the long term future and that we should come to terms with it.  Instead of trying to oust Gaddafi, we should try to "dialogue" with him, which would moderate him and therefore be good for both countries.

So now Gaddafi has been proven to be oust-able, it makes Britain look like a collaborator in keeping him in power for as long as he has been.  International figures have already started to comment on this, the most notable being Louis Susman - the US ambassador to London - who has blamed the British policy for keeping Gaddafi in power and giving him international legitimacy.

Susman for once is absolutely right.  The silence from the Labour party on Libya over the last week is very telling - they know that their policy on this matter was wrong, and they have egg on their faces.  They took a gamble, both morally and economically, and it has failed.  Britain's moral standing has taken a hit, and the oil deals that have been gambled upon could fall through the floor.  Libyans who have seen Britain collaborate with their now hated leader will not forget their betrayal by what is supposed to be one of the leaders of the free world.  It will make any relations with Libya an a post-Gaddafi Libya very difficult indeed for Great Britain.

Once again, under the banner of "peace", "dialogue" and "realism", the left-wing have collaborated with evil tyrants and dictators, and this time it has backfired.  It will take a long time to undo the damage that has been done, both to Libya and to Britain, by the British left.

The British Left's Betrayal of America

Here is my latest article for The American Thinker, published late last week. It covers the Wikileaks revelations that reveal that Britain collaborated with Libya in order to get the Lockerbie Bomber released on compassionate grounds.  I am of course not happy at this news.  The article can be found in its entirety here.

Since then however, another story has come along and blown it out of the water - it appears that under the START treaty, President Obama has agreed to disclose British nuclear secrets to the Russians.  Again - shocking, but not surprising.  Obama has never hidden his hatred of Britain, and so for him to throw us Brits under the bus for political expediency should surprise no-one.

In many years to come, when people write the history of the Anglo-American relationship, surely they will look at this and see the lowest moment.  I cannot see how the UK-US relationship can sink any lower right about now.  With the most anti-British President in the White House, and an anti-American nut job as Deputy Prime Minister in Britain, those of us who care about the relationship between Britain and America can only look to the future and hope that things will get better in a couple of years.

Cameron shines!

Yesterday was a day to hold one's breath if you care about Anglo-American relations.  David Cameron went into the lion's den, not only having to face the most anti-British President in American history, but also having a whole bunch of Senators, such as the infamous Senator Schumer D-NY, baying for blood.

Cameron however, was excellent.  The main issue of the day seemed to be the release of the Lockerbie bomber, which Obama seems to have turned hardline on (despite continually sucking up to Libya himself and being informed of the situation throughout.)  Cameron had to form a balance.  He was one of the fiercest critics of the release of the bomber, and there was no reason why he should have to go and defend the indefensible.  However, he also had to make sure it didn't become an Obama-esque apology tour, where he grovelled before the President and the Senators asking for forgiveness.

Cameron hit the note perfectly.  I'm not always Cameron's biggest fan, but yesterday was a day in which he really shined.  He was clear in his condemnation of the decision, stating

"I don't need an inquiry to tell me what was a bad decision. It was a bad decision,"

On the same token, he would not be pushed into a grovelling apology by the President, or his loony bunch of anti-BP Senators, by making it quite clear that it was the Scottish Government that made the decision, and  that it was right for that decision to be made by them.  


This is important. There was definitely an attempt to make decisions for Britain by the authoritarian Dems, and Cameron pushed them back.  "I wish they had made a different decision, but it was still their decision to make, so back off" was the obvious message from Cameron - and it was the right message to send.

Cameron was at his best at the press conference.  Obama blathered on for ages and ages, looking stern-faced and tired as well as being very boring.  Cameron, on the other hand, lent casually against the podium while still looking like a statesman, continually called Obama "Barack" (I bet that didn't go down well!), and joked about how drinking some beer he had been given by the Americans was so good, he even cheered for the Germans in the World Cup!  With one of his trademark smiles, the gathered media was laughing away with him, while Obama stood there wishing he had Gordon Brown stood next to him instead of this cheeky new upstart!

This tour could be a massive PR coup for us Brits.  Obama is trying to stir-up an anti-British attitude, but Cameron is cutting through it like a knife through butter.  If he can get himself onto the mainstream news networks for an interview or two, it will repair a great deal of damage that has been done by the Obama administration.