The Other Obama Columbia Summit Debacle (w/ Argentina)

netwmd.com ^ | April 18, 2012 | netwmd Staff

[forty_years]

Does U.S. President Obama have a foreign policy or should we call it a "dangerous farcical policy." Is he even control of the White House? By now, most people have heard the story of how, "11 Secret Service agents" and "as many as 10 U.S. military personnel," hired prostitutes, drank alcohol, and possibly used illicit drugs -- all in "security preparation" for the president to attend the Summit of the Americas in Columbia. Besides the security debacle, Obama's diplomatic effort, "wasn't exactly smooth sailing." But there's a subtle clincher to Obama's ridiculous Columbia trip which belies his true incompetency, a clincher probably overshadowed by the security scandal:

President Obama erred during a speech at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, when attempting to call the disputed archipelago by its Spanish name. [Argentina claims the Falkland Islands which are in fact sovereign UK territory. - Ed. note.]

Instead of saying Malvinas, however, Mr Obama referred to the islands as the Maldives, a group of 26 atolls off that lie off the South coast of India.

The Maldives were a British protectorate from 1887 to 1965 and the site of a UK airbase for nearly 20 years.

Cristina Kirchner, the Argentine president, has renewed her country's sovereignty claim to the Falklands in the build-up to the 30th anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the islands, which triggered the Falklands War, on April 2. ...

Obama was certainly trying to sound "enlightened" or "international" by trying -- and not even coming close -- to use the Spanish name for the Falklands, but all he did was demonstrate his ignorance, insult one of the U.S.'s closest allies (the UK), and try to gain favor with a cheap, populist "leader" of a failed state, Argentina.

Imagine if British Prime Minister Cameron went to an international conference, referred to California as the "Viceroyalty of New Spain," and implied the state really belongs to Mexico? I doubt this would go over well with the majority of Americans. Why would Obama pander to the "leader" of Argentina, given what she's been up to recently?

"Argentinean president Cristina Fernandez Kirchner has reasserted her nation's claim to the Falkland Islands," which means she's considering another wag-the-dog war to "retake" the Falklands from the UK, thirty years after her "country" failed in its first bloody attempt at stealing the same British territory. The Brits first discovered the Falklands in 1690:

...The majority of the population of the Falkland Islands are British by birth or descent. ...

... The Falklands have been continuously, peacefully and effectively inhabited and administered by Britain since 1833. ...

Now, Kirchner is in the process of outright stealing a publicly-traded company. She's going to nationalize, "Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales [YPF], in which Repsol, a Spanish energy group, has a majority shareholding." A national leader planning to steal sovereign territory and actively stealing another country's money -- this is the type of person Obama feels comfortable dealing with? We're not talking about chump-change when it comes to YPF:

... Repsol was considering legal action against Buenos Aires, seeking $US10bn ($9.6bn) in compensation for its 57 per cent stake in YPF. It estimates the entire business is worth $US18bn and that it owns an extra $US13bn worth of oil and gas assets after a discovery in Argentina. ...

The U.S. president is well-known for trying to suck up to America's enemies, like Turkey, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Remember that during another recent summit, Obama, not knowing his microphone was still on, tried to make off-the-record (secret?) policy with the leader of Russia, a country not exactly on the best terms with the U.S. During that meeting in Seoul, Obama whispered to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that, "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney responded to Obama's gaffe, stating, "President Obama signalled that he's going to cave to Russia on missile defence, but the American people have a right to know where else he plans to be 'flexible' in a second term." Did Obama give the Russian Empire the green light to increase its harassment of its neighbors, or give a wink-and-a-nod to Emperor Vladimir Putin's blatant disregard for democracy?

I agree with Romney (at least on this one). Just what damage would Obama's foreign policy cause in a second term?

[Venturer]

Maybe if Obama stayed home once in a while and didn’t keep these men on the road continuously with his travels they would have time to have sex with their wives and wouldn’t have to hire prostitutes to haul their ash’s.

[Uncle Slayton]

Seems like the author could spell the name of the country correctly.

[freebilly]

The writer spells ColOmbia incorrectly. Why should anyone take him seriously...?

[11th Commandment]

I clicked to the original article and Colombia is spelled correctly...

[11th Commandment]

This is a good article. We know the president has failed miserabley in the Mideast. He has failed to understand which side to be on and has allowed Iran's influence to grow. Although Iran maybe on the verge on failing in its Shia crescent strategy, it may get the bomb and create a cold war in the ME for 30 years.

Same is true of his LATAM policy. Unofficially the Chavez Bolivar revolution has failed. Cuba is on the edge, Argentina is on the verge of economic disaster, Ecuador has chased off all foreign investment and Honduras remains a constitutional government. But that has not stopped Obama coziness with Chavez and his revolutionary minions in Honduras and Argentina. Then he ignores Brasil's concerns and leaves Colombia out in the cold. Our next president will have major repairs in LATAM.