title: WHY OBAMA’S CORRUPT INNER CIRCLE Is Desperately Fighting To Protect His Failed Reputation
text:  History shows that we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea. Those words were written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice on Thursday in the New York Times, in arguing for appeasement towards Kim Jong-un.It was also the perfect symbol of everything that was wrong with Barack Obama s feckless foreign policy   and it explains why the world that President Donald Trump inherited is so dangerous and unstable.The Obama administration believed it was worth living in the shadow of terror and nuclear aggression as long as the U.S. could maintain a dignified posture that could not provoke anyone.  BreitbartNoah Rothman of Commentary Magazine wrote a brilliant article about the  death rattle of Obama s reputation . In his article, Rothman reminds us of the ineffective and dangerous path former President Barack Obama took our nation down, and why the successes of President Trump are forcing his corrupt inner circle to speak out against Trump in defense of Obama s failed legacy.The members of Barack Obama s administration in exile have become conspicuously noisy of late even more so than usual. Former CIA Director John Brennan accused Donald Trump and his administration of engaging in  outrageous,   narcissistic  behavior typical of  vengeful autocrats  by threatening proportionate retaliation against countries that voted to condemn the United States in the United Nations, as though that were unprecedented. It is not. James Clapper, Obama s director of national intelligence, all but alleged that the president is a Russian  asset.  Perhaps the most acerbic and incendiary series of accusations from the former Democratic president s foreign-policy professionals were placed in the New York Times by Obama s national security advisor, Susan Rice. In her estimation, America has abdicated its role as a  force for good. Rice s attacks on the Republican administration deserve the most attention, if only because they are the most apoplectic. Donald Trump s recently released national-security review paints a  dark,   almost dystopian  vision of the world, Rice contended. His world is full of  hostile states and lurking threats.  Rice claimed that there is  no common good  in Trump s worldview. What s more, there is no  international community  and no  universal values.  There are just  American values. Rice acknowledges that Moscow is a threat to regional stability and peace,  Western values,  and U.S. sovereignty. She implies that Trump is a menace because he declines to recognize that. In fact, it was Obama much more so than Trump who has failed to see the obvious.Barack Obama was inarguably the least Atlanticist president since the end of World War II. Within a year of Russia s brazen invasion and dismemberment of the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, Obama scrapped George W. Bush-era agreements to move radar and missile interceptor installations to Central Europe. In 2013, the last of America s armored combat units left Europe, ending a 69-year footprint on the Continent. By 2014, there were just two U.S. Army brigades stationed in Europe. The folly of this demobilization became abundantly clear when Vladimir Putin became the first Russian leader since Stalin to invade and annex territory in neighboring Ukraine.A year later, Putin intervened militarily in Syria, where U.S. forces were already operating, resulting in the most dangerous escalation of tensions between the two nuclear powers since the end of the Cold War. Putin s move in Syria should not have come as a surprise; Barack Obama outsourced the resolution of the Syrian conflict to Moscow in 2013, if only to avoid making good on his self-set  red line  for intervention in that conflict despite the norm-shattering use of WMDs on civilians. Even Rice s chief complaint about Trump, his failure to condemn Putin s brazen intervention in the 2016 election, didn t elicit a reaction from Barack Obama until the final month of his presidency.By contrast, and to the surprise of just about everyone, the Trump administration has been tough on Russia. Trump has ordered harsh sanctions on Moscow s Iranian allies for violating United Nations resolutions a course the Obama administration declined to take even if it allowed Hezbollah terrorists with direct links to Putin to operate with impunity. He ordered long overdue airstrikes on Putin s vassal regime in Syria, halting any further use of chemical weapons in the process. Trump not only declined to lift Obama-era sanctions on Moscow, as many feared he would, but expanded them. This administration closed Russian consulates and annexes in the United States. It has targeted Putin allies like Chechen strongman Ramzan Kadyrov under the Magnitsky Act the same act that Kremlin cutout Natalia Veselnitskaya lobbied the Trump campaign to scuttle. Trump has even gone so far as to open U.S. arms sales to Ukraine, representing a significant blow to Putin s ambitions in Europe. It is without a doubt that Trump now has a stronger record on Russia than Barack Obama ever did. No wonder Susan Rice is so angry.Rice further alleged that Trump recklessly accused China of being an  avowed opponent  of the U.S. rather than just a competitor, and then insisted that China has not  illegally occupied its neighbors.  Tell that to Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, or Taiwan, each of which lay claim to strategic territory in the South China Sea that the People s Republic seized and turned into forward air and naval bases. Rice suggested that Trump s  realists  decided to  lump  Beijing in with Moscow, not because it is a rising military and economic power, but because they wanted to  placate  American nationalists. Though this White House declined to defibrillate the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement back to life when it inherited its corpse, it has done a far more comprehensive job of working with Beijing to isolate Pyongyang than Obama did. As the North Korean nuclear crisis intensifies, China has backed fresh sanctions on North Korean financial institutions, cut off all access to Chinese iron, lead, and coal, and may even scale back petroleum deliveries to the Stalinist state by as much as 90 percent. And all in the space of one year.Rice contended that the document failed to itemize the discrete identities on whose behalf the U.S. should labor: LGBT people, people in poverty, people with AIDS, people under 30, et cetera. Rather, the document insists that all mankind, regardless of conditions or accidents of birth, are objects of U.S. interest. Rice complained that climate change is no longer viewed as a threat to national security. Good. Climate change is not itself a threat to American national security but a threat multiplier, as the weather has always been. Save for some valid concerns about the prospect of an overly restrictive immigration policy and the precariousness of U.S. free-trade obligations, Rice painted a picture not of a radical administration but one that is returning to a familiar status quo ante. In nearly all respects, it was Obama s White House, not Trump s, that adopted an ideological foreign policy and rendered the U.S. and the world less safe as a result.Even as early as March of 2017, it was clear that the Obama administration s foreign-policy professionals were quite insecure about how posterity would remember their stewardship of American interests abroad. They had every reason to be. For now, at least, the Trump administration has declined to govern as Trump campaigned; not as a populist firebrand but a conventional Republican. Susan Rice and her former White House colleagues have every reason to worry, but not for the United States. Their reputations, however, are another matter entirely.To read the entire article, click here. 