Paul Krugman, "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate": How Does Trump Differ From Obama?

Tweet

In in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate," Paul Krugman says of Donald Trump:

"[W]e’re talking about a ludicrous, outrageous candidate. And the Trump campaign’s recent behavior has quite a few foreign policy experts wondering just what kind of hold Mr. Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that influence will continue if he wins.

I’m not talking about merely admiring Mr. Putin’s performance — being impressed by the de facto dictator’s “strength,” and wanting to emulate his actions. I am, instead, talking about indications that Mr. Trump would, in office, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the expense of America’s allies and her own self-interest."

A "ludicrous, outrageous candidate"? You've got that much right, Paul.

But what about Obama's foreign policy vis-à-vis Putin? As observed in a July 1, 2016 Washington Post editorial entitled "Obama retreats from Putin in Syria — again" (my emphasis in red):

"FOR SEVERAL years, the Obama administration’s Syria policy has been stuck in a cycle of failure. Secretary of State John F. Kerry negotiates deals with Russia to end the fighting or create a new government in Damascus, while warning that if they are not respected by Russian President Vladi­mir Putin or Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the United States will consider other options, such as stepping up support for Syrian rebels. In every case, the Russian and Syrian regimes have betrayed their commitments, continuing to bomb civilian areas, employ chemical weapons and deny aid to besieged communities. And no wonder: Each time the U.S. response has been to return to the Russians, offering more concessions and pleading for another deal."

Moreover, as reported by The Wall Street Journal yesterday in an article entitled "Russia Bombed Base in Syria Used by U.S." by Adam Entous and Gordon Lubold (my emphasis in red):

"The Russians weren’t bombarding a run-of-the-mill rebel outpost, according to U.S. officials. Their target was a secret base of operations for elite American and British forces. In fact, a contingent of about 20 British special forces had pulled out of the garrison 24 hours earlier. British officials declined to comment.

U.S. military and intelligence officials say the previously unreported close call for Western forces on June 16, and a subsequent Russian strike on a site linked to the Central Intelligence Agency, were part of a campaign by Moscow to pressure the Obama administration to agree to closer cooperation in the skies over Syria.

The risk that U.S. and British forces could have been killed at the border garrison hardened opposition at the Pentagon and the CIA to accommodating the Russians. But White House and State Department officials, wary of an escalation in U.S. military involvement in Syria, decided to pursue a compromise."

So how does Trump differ from Obama? One admires him, while the other kowtows to him. Both empower him.

And while we're at it, let's not forget Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's infamous "reset" of relations with Putin.

A sickening sign of the times.

By the way, Krugman also makes no reference to the nuclear standoff between Obama and Erdogan involving the encirclement of the Incirlik Airbase in southern Turkey, where the US stores nuclear weapons and from which NATO launches strikes against ISIS.

SEE: "David Brooks, "The Death of the Republican Party": Ignoring the Incirlik Nuclear Crisis."

Syria Kept Chemical Weapons: What Does This Say About Obama's Deal With Iran?

Tweet

"I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together."

- President Obama, Address to the Nation on Syria, September 10, 2013

You will recall Obama's "red line" concerning the use of chemical weapons by Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad. Obama turned to Congress for authorization to act against Syria, but then asked the leaders of Congress, in his aforementioned September 10, 2013 "Address to the Nation," "to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path." And indeed, a "deal" was struck with Assad to relinquish his chemical weapons stockpiles, pursuant to which Obama boasted at a press conference at Camp David just two months ago:

"Assad gave up his chemical weapons. And that’s not speculation on our part. That, in fact, has been confirmed by the organization internationally, that is charged with eliminating chemical weapons."

It now turns out, however, that Assad did not give up all his chemical weapons. As reported by The Wall Street Journal in an article entitled "Mission to Purge Syria of Chemical Weapons Comes Up Short" by Adam Entous and Naftali Bendavid:

"One year after the West celebrated the removal of Syria’s arsenal as a foreign-policy success, U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the regime didn’t give up all of the chemical weapons it was supposed to.

An examination of last year’s international effort to rid Syria of chemical weapons, based on interviews with many of the inspectors and U.S. and European officials who were involved, shows the extent to which the Syrian regime controlled where inspectors went, what they saw and, in turn, what they accomplished. That happened in large part because of the ground rules under which the inspectors were allowed into the country, according to the inspectors and officials.

. . . .

Under the terms of their deployment, the inspectors had access only to sites that the Assad regime had declared were part of its chemical-weapons program. The U.S. and other powers had the right to demand access to undeclared sites if they had evidence they were part of the chemical-weapons program. But that right was never exercised, in part, inspectors and Western officials say, because their governments didn’t want a standoff with the regime."

Well, Obama has just concluded a similar deal with Iran, Assad's patron, and Obama would have us believe that IAEA inspections and monitoring devices will prevent the mullahs from obtaining nuclear weapons. Only this time, Obama made an end run around Congress and first sought United Nations Security Council approval. "I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress"? Yeah, right.

As also reported today by The Times of Israel in an article entitled "US ducks response to claims Iran gets to self-inspect suspect nuke sites" by Rebecca Shimoni Stoil:

"The Obama administration ducked concerns Thursday raised by senators in a public hearing that Iran would be responsible for collecting its own soil samples to turn over to the International Atomic Energy Agency for inspection of suspected nuclear sites.

Officials would neither confirm or deny the claims, made twice during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, which heard testimony from Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew."

Trust Iran to monitor itself? It just doesn't get any more horrifying.