Middle East and Terrorism
The escalating Arab rioting today in
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Friday, March 19, 2010
The Obama intifada?
Middle East and Terrorism
Thursday, March 18, 2010
There Will Be Blood
On March 15, Robert Reich wrote in The Huffington Post, "Health care
Of course as we all know by now, the true intent of this bill is not to improve the quality of care or to make the current level of care cheaper. It is in fact a purposeful effort by Democrats to do the exact opposite in order to ultimately gain control over the citizenry.
This is what the truth is...If you are very old, we're not going to give you all of that technology and all of those drugs...to keep you alive. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die...(We're) going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government...to force drug companies and insurance
There will be blood. And it will be shooting out of conservative eyes.
President Obama's pitch: Fate of presidency on the line
Politico.com
President Barack Obama had exhausted most of his health care reform arguments with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus during a White House meeting last Thursday when he made a more personal pitch that resonated with many skeptics in the room.
One caucus member told POLITICO that Obama won him over by “essentially [saying] that the fate of his presidency” hinged on this week’s health reform vote in the House. The member, who requested anonymity, likened Obama’s remarks to an earlier meeting with progressives when the president said a victory was necessary to keep him “strong” for the next three years of his term.
Another caucus member, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.), said, “We went in there already knowing his presidency would be weakened if this thing went down, but the president clearly reinforced the impression the presidency would be damaged by a loss.”
Added Serrano: “He was subtle, but that was the underlying theme of the meeting — the importance of passing this for the health of the presidency.”
White House officials said Obama’s recent remarks aren’t intended to personalize the debate or rally undecided Democratic members with an egocentric, “win one for Barry” message. They said Obama’s point is to hammer home the idea that all Democrats would benefit from a health care win and that the party’s larger policy agenda would be damaged if the president were to lose.
Still, all told, it’s a little more drama than Democrats are used to getting from Obama. And while it’s not the only argument being made by Obama administration and pro-reform allies on the Hill, it’s an increasingly important one as Democrats seek to sway a handful of health care holdouts ahead of an anticipated vote this weekend.
Moreover, there’s an unmistakable sense that the health care debate is fast moving past a discussion of the bill’s merits, beyond the all-consuming anxieties of incumbents and into an existential battle to preserve Obama’s presidency.
“The White House is raising the stakes so high, they are basically telling [House Democrats] that failure is not an option unless you want to sink the president,” said health industry lobbyist Steve Elmendorf, a onetime adviser to Rep. Dick Gephardt, a former Democratic leader.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), one of Obama’s closest allies in the health reform push, was more than willing to lay out a post-health-care doomsday scenario for Democrats and Obama should they fail.
“The first risk [of a health care defeat] is that he loses the reelect,” she said. “I think the risk to Congress is that his approval rating goes so low, he does not have enough heft to lift other important things we want to work on. ... So this is a gut check. He’s got so much to lose by continuing to push for something that’s not going to be immediately popular. It’s not going to be popular by November; it’s not going to be popular by November of 2012. It’ll be popular 10 years from now.”
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has been telling Democratic fence sitters they are “deluding themselves” if they think Obama’s loss of prestige following a defeat won’t hurt them.
“There are serious implications of losing on President Obama’s ability to be effective for the rest of his three years in office,” Waxman told POLITICO. “That’s a message [undecided members] need to hear. If they don’t think that affects them if they are reelected, they are burying their heads in the sand.”
But many Democrats simply aren’t buying it after months of what they view as Obama’s disengagement from the health care battle.
“We’ve always known he’s a fourth-quarter player, and it’s great to see him on the field,” said an aide to a senior House Democrat. “So why did he sit on the sidelines for the last eight months?”
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), a firm “no” vote, has politely rebuffed feelers from Obama’s staff and rejects the idea that he can’t survive a defeat on health care.
“The White House calls me and says, ‘How are you doing?’” Lynch said. “I say, ‘I’m doing fine, but I’m not voting for this bill.’ ... I don’t buy the argument that he’s done if this doesn’t pass. He’s got three more years. He can recover.”
Republicans said that playing the Obama card is an intensely risky proposition, arguing that Democrats on the Hill will resent him even more if he talks them into jumping off a cliff.
“As a legislator, you don’t want to be forced to pick between your constituents and the president — that’s a false choice,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who opposes the reform bill but has been a willing negotiating partner with the administration on other issues.
“Every president does this; Bush did this to me,” Graham added.
“His people said, ‘This president’s credibility is on the line,’ and I said, ‘Well, my judgment’s on the line.’ You try to make people vote your way using whatever tactics you can think of on big issues. ... But unlike any other vote I have seen for a very long time, this one will define you; this becomes part of your legacy. You’ll be explaining this vote for a very, very long time — long after President Obama has been marginalized.”
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus, added, “This isn’t about the president; this is about 47 million people who don’t have health insurance. ... There’s no argument beyond the moral imperative.”
Still, the idea of Obama in peril seemed to play a part in the no-to-yes flip by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who told reporters Wednesday that his decision was influenced by four conversations with Obama and “a real sense of compassion” for the tough time the president is having pushing the bill through.
Obama hasn’t made himself the central closing argument with the majority of legislators — in part, because most Democrats are already keenly aware of his dilemma. In private talks with lawmakers, he’s largely focused on carefully tailored responses to each legislator’s policy concerns and articulating the moral argument for reform.
Part of his high-road approach is dictated by his personal style, but part is a result of GOP accusations that Democrats engaged in secret sweetheart deals like the “Louisiana Purchase” and the “Cornhusker Kickback.”
“I think the process that the president has been engaged in over the past several months has in many ways been to clean up where that process went wrong at the end of last year,” press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Tuesday.
But that doesn’t mean arms aren’t being twisted. Democratic donors are letting wavering Democratic incumbents know that their wallets will slam shut with a “no” vote. And big unions, like the AFL-CIO, AFSCME and Service Employees International Union, are shelling out $11 million to run ads and inundate battleground districts, letting Democrats know that they have as much to fear from labor as they do from Republicans.
In some cases, labor and associated organizations have taken it one step further — threatening to bankroll primary challengers against conservative Democratic incumbents, including New York Rep. Mike McMahon, a firm “no” vote, and Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln.
“It’s a stupid strategy,” said one conservative Democrat targeted by the unions. “They are hitting me from the left. I couldn’t say yes now if I wanted to. ... It would be seen as caving into their pressure.”
Trip delayed for expected Sunday vote
Politico
Trip is postponed to June; Gibbs says passing health care 'is of paramount importance.' | AP PhotoPresident Barack Obama again postponed his trip to Indonesia and Australia, this time putting it off until June so that he can be in Washington as Democrats in Congress try to pass a health care reform bill, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs announced Thursday.
Obama had already delayed his trip once and was planning to leave Sunday, but the House health care vote now is expected Sunday as well. Gibbs said the president didn't want to risk having to cancel at the last minute.
"Passage of health care reform is of paramount importance, and the president is determined to see this battle through," Gibbs said during the daily press briefing. "The president believes right now the place for him is to be in Washington to see this through."
Postponing a presidential trip overseas is a dramatic step, and the move — decided on by Obama at 9:45 a.m. Thursday, official said — speaks to the importance health reform has taken on for the president. A trip overseas at such a critical moment could have left him somewhat out of the picture at what could prove to be a signature moment of his presidency, if the House can pass reform this weekend as Democratic leaders expect.
Gibbs insisted that the delay in the trip didn’t mean trouble for the House passing reform. “The president still believes we will have the votes,” he said.
But House leaders say they’re still short of the 216 votes needed to pass reform in the House. That effort got a boost Thursday when the Congressional Budget Office said the bill, which will cost $940 billion over 10 years, would reduce the deficit over the next 10 and 20 years. After the House acts, the Senate also must act to pass a cleanup bill, probably sometime next week
Obama must sign the House-Senate bill into law before the Senate can pass the cleanup bill.
News about the trip postponement came just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was ending a news conference. As she left the room, she said: "I'm glad. I like having him here."
She suggested he was staying because the Senate will take up the bill next week.
"This is historical. I'm sure he wants to be here for the history," Pelosi said.
Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) also is happy the president is staying.
"He may have to twist some arms. He may have to talk to some people. His personal presence helps."
The Senate will take up the bill soon after House passage, probably Tuesday, aides said.
The overseas trip promises to be an emotional one. Obama was planning to visit Indonesia, where he lived for four years as a child. On Thursday, Obama called the leader of Indonesia and plans to soon call the Australian prime minister, Gibbs said.
"We greatly regret the delay in the trip," he said.
While pushing back an official overseas trip is a personal first for Obama, it is hardly new to the presidency. President George W. Bush pushed back to July 2003 a major Africa trip the White House had scheduled for January 2003 due to a variety of considerations, according to CBS's Mark Knoller, who keeps a meticulous tally of presidential statistics.
Bush also postponed a trip to Canada in the spring of 2003, in run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. President Bill Clinton also pushed back international trips. He sent Vice President Al Gore in his place to an APEC Summit in Malaysia.
President Ronald Reagan once cancelled a trip to Indonesia citing the need to remain in Washington to deal with the budget and other issues. President George H.W. Bush postponed a trip to Australia amid criticism of his international travel while Americans suffered in a down economy.
Gibbs said the delay was unavoidable. Unless the president left "extremely early" Sunday afternoon, the trip would not have been feasible and putting it off further seemed the best option when staff reviewed his schedule Wednesday night, Gibbs said..
“It just at that point seemed obvious to us that the best course of business was to reschedule,” he said.
The White House is not concerned about possible diplomatic repercussions.
"Each of these two countries understands what the president has been working on, what he's involved in and the importance of him seeing it through," Gibbs said.
.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
URGENT-MUST READ: Is General Petraeus Behind Obama’s Dressing Down of Israel?
Commnetarymagazine.com
Contentions
- 03.16.2010 - 9:00 PM
What’s behind the administration’s new get-tough policy with Israel? If you believe Mark Perry, a former Arafat adviser and author of Talking to Terrorists: Why America Must Engage with Its Enemies, it’s the doing of General David Petraeus. In a rather imaginative post at Foreign Policy’s web site, he claims that on Jan. 16,
a team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command (responsible for overseeing American security interests in the Middle East), arrived at the Pentagon to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The team had been dispatched by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at the lack of progress in resolving the issue. The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM’s mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) “too old, too slow … and too late.”
According to Perry, the briefing “hit the White House like a bombshell,” because in effect the U.S. military was placing itself in opposition to the “powerful … Israeli lobby” by announcing that “America’s relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America’s soldiers.”
That didn’t ring true to me, so I asked a military officer who is familiar with the briefing in question and with Petraeus’s thinking on the issue to clarify matters. He told me that Perry’s item was “incorrect.” In the first place, Petraeus never recommended shifting the Palestinian territories to Centcom’s purview from European Command, as claimed by Perry. Nor did Petraeus belittle George Mitchell, whom he holds in high regard. All that happened, this officer told me, is that there was a “staff-officer briefing … on the situation in the West Bank, because that situation is a concern that Centcom hears in the Arab world all the time. Nothing more than that.”
I further queried this officer as to whether he had ever heard Petraeus express the view imputed to him by Mark Perry — namely that Israel’s West Bank settlements are the biggest obstacle to a peace accord and that the lack of a peace accord is responsible for killing American soldiers. This officer told me that he had heard Petraeus say “the lack of progress in the Peace Process, for whatever reason, creates challenges in Centcom’s AOR [Area of Responsibility], especially for the more moderate governmental leaders,” and that’s a concern — one of many — but he did not suggest that Petraeus was mainly blaming Israel and its settlements for the lack of progress. They are, he said, “one of many issues, among which also is the unwillingness to recognize Israel and the unwillingness to confront the extremists who threaten Israelis.”
That’s about what I expected: Petraeus holds a much more realistic and nuanced view than the one attributed to him by terrorist groupie Mark Perry. (For more on Petraeus’s view, see this report, which notes that Mulllen was not “stunned” by the briefing he received.) In other words, the current crisis in Israeli-U.S. relations cannot be laid at the American military’s door.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Israel must help us tackle Iran .. by Ted Belham
Ted Belham
This is bullshit
I met and interviewed Javedanvar, a leftist Iranian Jew two years ago and we had strong disagreements. I reported on the Petraeus matter yesterday in Blame the Jews .
The proposition put forward by Petraeus is that continued expansion is putting American lives at stake. I for one can’t see the connection but even if it were true, the least I would expect from an ally is that it should hang tough rather than sacrifice Israel’s national interest. How many times did American actions cost Israeli lives. Many.
Javendar says “Regional players such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE are not going to take America’s promises to stand up to Iran seriously when Obama cannot even convince his best friend in the region to assist him.” If ever there was a non-sequitor, this is one. Everyone knows that Israel is ready to assist in attacking Iran even going it alone. So the ability for Obama to force Israel to stop building has nothing to do with Iran.
Israel must help US tackle Iran
Israeli settlement-building is undermining the security of US forces, limiting its ability to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat
Meir Javedanfar, Guardian.co.uk,
For some in Israel, the issues of Jewish settlements and Iran’s nuclear programme are not connected. But for the United States, they are becoming more and more intertwined.
The factor that links them together is American concerns about casualties in the region.
According to Mark Perry writing in Foreign Policy, one of the main parties in Washington calling for Barack Obama to put his foot down against Israel’s settlement expansion, even before Vice-president Joe Biden’s recent call, has been General David Petraeus. In the Pentagon’s view, the Obama administration’s inability to stop the expansion of settlements is eroding America’s military posture in the Middle East. Such erosion could embolden Muslim extremists to increase their attacks on US forces in the region.
Petraeus wanted to confront the settlements by getting the US government to include the Palestinian issue under his command in Centcom. This was denied. Obama preferred to let George Mitchell and Biden handle it.
But when Biden heard Israel’s recent announcement of plans to expand housing in East Jerusalem, he decided to be frank. He openly told Israel’s prime minister: “What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
American concern about the settlements issue having an impact on the security of its forces could have two major impacts on Israel’s Iran policy.
One is that due to this increasing concern for the security of its soldiers, and the need to increase its credibility in the region, the US may place the settlement issue as part of its strategy to isolate Iran.
Such a move would not be without its own logic. The US needs to build a regional coalition against Iran. Regional players such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE are not going to take America’s promises to stand up to Iran seriously when Obama cannot even convince his best friend in the region to assist him. In order to have the credibility to persuade such countries to isolate Iran both politically and economically, the US could be pressured to bring Binyamin Netanyahu’s settlement policies into line.
The same goes for plans to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. Any such attack runs the risk of Iranian retaliation, through its proxies or even directly against US forces in the region. In order to reduce Iran’s influence prior to such an attack, the US may again need to improve its position by asking Israel and the Palestinians to push forward with the peace process.
As time goes by, failure to do so will become less and less of an option for Washington. Or put another way, it is unlikely that the US will risk the lives of its troops even before an attack, through Israel’s provocative gestures against Palestinians, and then to endanger them even more, by allowing an Israeli attack against Iran.
For now, the recent developments have shown that it will almost be impossible for Israel to go it alone against Iran, without American permission or participation. In fact, the recent US reaction to the settlements may have been designed to send this very message to Jerusalem: don’t take any unilateral action that could harm us.
This will place Netanyahu in a bind. On the one hand, he will have his coalition partners to deal with. On the other, he can’t ignore the Iranian nuclear threat. Far-right parties such as Yisrael Beitenu will be wanting Israel to build more in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, simply because they don’t see such areas as occupied lands. As Israel’s deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon (who belongs to Yisrael Beitenu) put it: “There is this perception that Israel is occupying stolen land and that the Palestinians are the only party with national, legal and historic rights to it. Not only is this morally and factually incorrect, but the more this narrative is being accepted, the less likely the Palestinians feel the need to come to the negotiating table.”
In other words, the way he sees it, in order to encourage Palestinians to return to the negotiation table, they have to be persuaded that the land occupied by Israel after 1967 is, in fact, not entirely theirs. Therefore by convincing them that they are entitled to less, they could actually be encouraged more to come forward and negotiate.
This warped sense of reality is a strong indication of the task ahead for Netanyahu.
The recent report in the Washington Post that Iran tried to buy nuclear bombs from Pakistan in the late 1980s is another reminder of the urgency and danger posed by the Iranian nuclear programme. Israel needs to help Obama put a stop to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s nuclear dreams. Putting an end to the construction of settlements is a fair and powerful way to help Obama help Israel.
Comments on Israpundit:
8 Comments »
Obama in more trouble than Netanyahu over Iran
Could it be that this kerfuffle is not over negotiations but over Iran. Perhaps Obama is looking for a way to prevent Israel from bombing Iran?
Both Bush and Obama have played footsies with Iran in the hope of getting her cooperation in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The price tag is obviously, letting Iran get the bomb. But then Iran’s cooperation will end.
The chess-masters of Tehran have played a single combination for the past five years: threaten America’s flanks in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to gain control of the center of the board, that is, by pushing on with a nuclear program that many suspect is designed to acquire nuclear weapons.
Iran has sufficient assets in the territory of its troubled neighbors to make a shambles of America’s Potemkin village. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki may be able to govern Iraq with a third of the seats contested in the March 7 parliamentary elections, provided that Iran’s allies such as Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr permit him to do so. And the appearance of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Kabul on March 10 to declare his solidarity with Afghanistan’s beleaguered President Hamid Karzai planted Iran’s flag in the midst of Afghan politics.
Iran will succeed, unless another player kicks over the chessboard. Israeli officials report that American officials are visiting Jerusalem - including Vice President Joseph Biden last week - to warn Israel against launching an attack on Iran. “They’re not talking about the Palestinians, they’re only talking about Iran,” commented the head of one Israeli political party.
That explains the exceptionally harsh, even adversarial tone that Washington has taken towards Israel, supposedly in response to last week’s go-ahead for 1,600 apartments in East Jerusalem, but evidently in anticipation of an Israeli attack on Iran.
Reuters quoted an unnamed American official warning that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s position was “perilous” because of alleged divisions in his government over negotiating with the Palestinians. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s March 12 statement seemed disproportionate that the East Jerusalem construction was “a deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship and counter to the spirit of the vice president’s trip”. And the Israeli news site Debka.com, which frequently carries intelligence community leaks, reports that Washington is threatening to withhold weapons from the Israelis.
Considering that Obama faces congressional elections in five months and well may lose control of both houses, the lady may protest too much. Obama may be in a lot more trouble than Netanyahu.
The Obama administration’s shrill tone towards Israel reflects its domestic political weakness as much as its strategic problems. According to a March 7 poll by The Israel Project, Americans take the Israeli side against the Palestinians by a margin of 57% to 7%, with the rest neutral. A Gallup Poll released February 28 gives the margin at 63% to 15%, with 23% neutral. Only 30% of respondents told Gallup that they expect a peace agreement between Israel and the Arab states.
More to the point, 60% of respondents in a March 2 Fox News poll said they believed force would be required to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, while only 25% believe that diplomacy and sanctions will work. Fifty-one percent of Democrats and 75% of Republicans polled favored the use of force. Obama’s job approval for handling Iran was at only 41%, with 42% disapproving.
An Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would polarize American opinion. And if the Obama administration attempted to punish Israel for doing what most Americans seemingly want to do in any event, the balance of American sentiment - if available polling data are any guide - would shift away from Obama and to Israel. Obama’s party would pay at the polls in November.
No one cares about the Palestinians; to the extent that the charade of Israeli negotiations with the weak and divided Palestine Authority comes into consideration, it is because Washington still hopes that a show of progress might be helpful in addressing more urgent concerns in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. Obama’s investment in rapprochement with Iran is not a sentimental gesture: it is the pillar on which American regional policy rests.
Despite the enormous difference in outlook between the last administration and the present one, there is an underlying continuity in Washington’s stance towards Iran, due to the facts on the ground put in place by Iran itself. I wrote on this site in October 2005, shortly after Ahmadinejad came to power:
- I do not believe any formal understanding is in place, but the probable outcome is that Washington will refrain from military action to forestall any Iranian nuclear arms developments, while Tehran will refrain from disrupting Washington’s constitutional Potemkin Village in Iraq. Tehran thinks strategically, as befits a country with a government newly elected by an overwhelming majority, while Washington thinks politically. President George W Bush is struggling to persuade the American public of the wisdom of his nation-building scheme in Iraq, and badly wants the Iranians to keep their hands in their pockets. Iran is prepared to do so as long as America keeps its opposition to its nuclear program within the confines of the diplomatic cul-de-sac defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency. (See A Syriajevo in the making?, Asia Times Online, October 25, 2005)
10 Comments »
Spengler versus V. D. Hanson: Two smart guys disagree.
This week two smart analysts differed over Iraq. Mr. Hanson (who is generally right on) sees the Iraq cup as half-full. He says it was worthwhile for Bush to overthrow Saddam Hussein despite it enabling Iran, because Iraq is about to emerge as a “neutral” democratic country free of Iranian control.
Spengler (who is also generally right on as well as being Jewish) sees the Iraq cup as half-empty. He feels it was a horrible waste of American blood and treasure to get rid of Saddam Huseein only to replace him with a crazy nuclear Iran which indirectly controls an Iraq which will become ever more of an enemy to America.
I vote with Spengler on Iraq. I disagree with him that Obama is trying to suck up to Iran at all costs. I believe that Obama is trying to manouever Israel and Iran into a fight in which one or both are destroyed, and America is able to pick up the pieces.
So should Israel play Obama’s game? They have no choice. If Obama is purposely allowing Iran to develope a nuke to use against Israel, then Israel will have to pre-empt at whatever cost (and things will then probably get very ugly very fast).
Comment by Samuel Fistel — March 15, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
If Obama wants to turn those poll numbers against Israel, a series of unsubstantiated allegations will do the trick.
Israel should go it alone, thereby eliminating the need to depend upon the fickle winds of public opinion.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 15, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
A pig has more balls than BB and Barack
Comment by yamit82 — March 15, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
Saddam Huseein was a threat. Iran is a threat. Anyone can only speculate if things are better now than they would have been if Saddam had been left in power. The answer is probably yes and no with the sum of it all uncertain. If things are in plus or minus territory since Saddam, is something that can be reasonably argued from either side.
Spengler versus V. D. Hanson: Two smart guys disagree.
They may both be right. . .and both be wrong, if you consider that when the glass is half full, it is also half empty.
Comment by RandyTexas — March 15, 2010 @ 8:35 pm
when the glass is half full, it is also half empty.
In fact, this is the B-Side title of Slim Whitman’s 45 rpm classic, “Rose Marie”:
“When the glass is half full,
It is also half empty.
Soon, Ma will be out on parole.When the glass is half full,
It is also half empty.
She’ll be gunnin’ for the Highway Patrol…”Comment by ayn reagan — March 15, 2010 @ 9:30 pm
RJC expresses deep concern over Obama administration Israel policy
Washington, D.C. (March 15, 2010) — The Republican Jewish Coalition said today that it was deeply upset by the tone and actions of the Obama administration regarding Israel in recent days.RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said:
The Obama administration has used harsh and intentionally undiplomatic language to exacerbate tensions with our ally Israel in the wake of Vice President Biden’s visit there. The strident and unwarranted escalation of tension, which has turned a minor diplomatic embarrassment into a major international incident, has raised serious concerns about the administration’s Israel policy from a variety of mainstream voices.*
Now Israeli sources report that the administration is pressuring Israel not only to halt construction in Ramat Shlomo but to make a “confidence-building” concession such as releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners (presumably terrorists) or turning over additional West Bank areas to Palestinian control.
We believe the administration’s actions are disproportionate and one-sided. It should be noted, there has been no similar official U.S. condemnation of any Palestinian action, including recent rioting on the Temple Mount and official Palestinian plans to name a public square for a female terrorist responsible for the worst single terror attack on Israeli soil.
Moreover, the administration’s stance is dangerous to the best interests of the U.S. and Israel. By distancing ourselves from our most important strategic ally in a troubled region, an ally with which we have strong and necessary joint military, intelligence, security, and trade agreements, we weaken the United States. By taking the role of the Palestinians’ negotiator in the guise of an “honest broker” and advancing Palestinian demands that should be the subjects of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, not their preconditions, the administration is seriously weakening the security of Israel.
A report in the Politico that Vice President Biden, speaking to Prime Minister Netanyahu behind closed doors, explicitly linked Israeli housing policy with the safety of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is also of great concern. It demonstrates the false linkage between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war on terrorism often used by Israel’s enemies to undermine Israel’s legitimacy and efforts for security and peace.
We call on the Obama administration to halt immediately its unwarranted pressure against Israel, to take steps to heal the dangerous rift it has created between the two countries, and to return to the policy of its predecessors in supporting Israel’s security and well-being as an important strategic ally.
Notes* Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren has called it “the worst crisis in 35 years.”
ADL National Director Abe Foxman said, “We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States. One can only wonder how far the U.S. is prepared to go in distancing itself from Israel in order to placate the Palestinians in the hope they see it is in their interest to return to the negotiating table.”
AIPAC called the “escalated rhetoric of recent days” a “distraction from the substantive work that needs to be done,” and called on the administration “to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State.”
Democratic Congresswoman Shelley Berkeley (D-NV-01) called the administration’s moves “an irresponsible overreaction” and “overwrought rhetoric designed to appease Palestinians politicians…”
The Wall Street Journal editors wrote, “Our enemies get courted; our friends get the squeeze. It has happened to Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Colombia. Now it’s Israel’s turn.”
Even the Washington Post reported, “Relations with Israel have been strained almost since the start of the Obama administration. Now they have plunged to their lowest ebb since the administration of George H.W. Bush.”
###
This RJC statement appears on the RJC web site at:
http://www.rjchq.org/Newsroom/newsdetail.aspx?id=dac3002d-1cd6-4bcf-91ab-1ca0da6f453cComment by yamit82 — March 15, 2010 @ 9:49 pm
Asshole Duck Hunting
Comment by yamit82 — March 15, 2010 @ 9:55 pm
The Wall Street Journal editors wrote, “Our enemies get courted; our friends get the squeeze. It has happened to Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Colombia. Now it’s Israel’s turn.”
It’s better to be Herod’s pig than his son
Comment by yamit82 — March 15, 2010 @ 10:01 pm
Jews united against Obama
All 30 ministers of Netanyahu’s government, including the Labor, expressed their support for continuing construction in East Jerusalem.The White House demands a construction freeze in extremely rude terms.
The current crisis is attributable to the scheming Israeli president. Peres expected that Obama will force Netanyahu to formally abandon the construction, and such a decision provoke coalition crisis. Netanyahu, accordingly, would have to bring Kadima into the government to prevent it from falling apart, and Kadima will push for further concessions to Palestinians.
Comment by yamit82 — March 15, 2010 @ 10:03 pm
Jewish women withstand firebombs
Palestinians tried to set a civilian Israeli bus on fire with Molotov cocktails near Schem. One Jewish woman was wounded “lightly,” as the media were quick to point out.While the EU is busy condemning Israel for imagined war crimes, every day Palestinians try to set Jewish cars and buses on fire.
Comment by yamit82 — March 15, 2010 @ 10:05 pm
US will raise the heat until Israel toes the line on Iran
Israpundit.com
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis March 14, 2010, 10:39 PM (GMT+02:00)
While exploiting Israel’s ill-timed announcement of 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem for concessions to the Palestinians, Washington will keep the hullabaloo against Israel at top pitch until the Netanyahu government toes the line on Iran, debkafile’s Washington sources report. This issue goes way beyond a campaign to unseat Netanyahu, in which Washington and Israeli elements have happily joined forces. The Obama administration is at odds on its Iran stance not only with Israel but Saudi Arabia, too, as well as the moderate Arab regimes of the Middle East, none of whom buy its new line.
Had Netanyahu’s political reflexes been sharper, he could have removed the immediate pretext for the crisis, the Jerusalem housing announcement during vice president Joe Biden’s visit, by firing a couple of bureaucrats and apologizing on the spot. But that would not have averted the crisis.
The Obama administration failed to arrest Iran’s race for a nuclear weapon in months of diplomacy and was unable to persuade Russia or China to join stiff sanctions. Yet the US president is flat against any military action against Iran’s nuclear installations, and will stop at nothing to stop Israel taking matters in its own hands. It is hammering Jerusalem with the bluntest instruments in its diplomatic armory to a degree unheard of against a friendly government.
This four-day battering follows the failure of two top US officials, Biden in Jerusalem March 9 and defense secretary Robert Gates in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi March 10-11, to persuade US Middle East allies to accept the new Obama take on Iran, which consists essentially of letting Iran take its nuclear program forward while administering mild sanctions from time to time to keep it under control.
Neither the Saudis and their Gulf neighbors nor the Israelis trust in this strategy for keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear power, a standing which would in enhance the capacity of the most radical Middle East elements, Syria, Hizballah and the Hamas, for destabilizing the region and generating terrorism to an alarming degree. Israel and Saudi Arabia would be first in their sights.
Strengthening Iran as a player in the international energy market would also weaken America’s hand because Russia and China would have gained leverage as champions of the winning side with kudos for averting both military action and harsh sanctions against it.
Both Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arabs and Israel are aghast at this prospect and are therefore deeply reluctant to line up behind Barack Obama on Iran.
The US president is playing for high stakes. A White House which capitulated to Iran is hardly the slogan Democratic candidates need for their midterm race against Republican rivals. In fact, it could cost the Democrats their majority and even place Obama’s second term in jeopardy when he faces the electorate in 2012.
With this in mind, the White House is going hard after Israel and its government to force Netanyahu to line up behind the Obama line on Iran. The pressure from Washington will be unrelenting and the arrows keep coming day by day until Israel folds.
Washington cannot wield this battery against Riyadh. In fact Gates ended his mission to Riyadh on the receiving end of Saudi ire, a fact which both sides preferred to keep quiet, except for two telltale signs: No joint communiqué was released at the end of Gates’s visit to King Abdullah’s farm outside Riyadh and, second, the Saudis publicly repudiated Gates’ statement after his arrival in Abu Dhabi that he had obtained Saudi consent to come aboard US diplomacy on Iran and play its part by leaning hard on China to endorse sanctions.
On March 13, the royal house issued this bulletin: “This issue is not true, it was not discussed during the visit of the secretary of defense who was in the kingdom recently.”
Failing to make headway with the Saudis, the US administration is putting all its weight behind extracting from prime minister Netanyahu an unequivocal commitment to refrain from military action against Iran. This commitment could then be used to persuade Riyadh that there is no hope of a military solution for Iran’s nuclear threat and that both Israel and Saudi Arabia must learn to live with a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The Keynesian Stimulus Dogma
By Mark W. Hendrickson
Friday, March 5, 2010
Why Do We Fear Calling Obama a Socialist?
by Douglas MacKinnon, Townhall
If the Shoe fits….
I am honestly confused. Why is it not permissible for us to call President Obama a socialist? Why do so many with a media platform dodge the question when asked point-blank if Obama is a socialist?
While obviously expected from those in the mainstream media who look upon Obama as an oracle, it’s disappointing and disingenuous when Republican “leaders” refuse to describe the president as a socialist.
Maybe some in the GOP and the mainstream media simply don’t know or understand the definition. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “socialism” as: “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”
Even with the broadest of interpretations, Obama’s beliefs seem to fall within that definition.
The reason the president recoils from the words “socialist” and “ideologue” is the same reason certain Republican politicians refuse to define him by those names: Political self-interest and survival. It’s the same reason the far-left duplicitously runs from the word “liberal” and now substitutes “progressive.”For the president, he seems to believe that should the country actually realize that he is in fact a “socialist” and “ideologue,” then he will be a one-term president at best. For certain GOP leaders, they seem to fear a mainstream media which will label them “politically incorrect,” “rude,” “offensive” or much worse should they assign those definitions to the president
The president is so fearful of these two words that he has repeatedly gone out of his way to publicly deny he is an ideologue or a socialist. Why? As “brilliant” as the left tells us Obama is, maybe he doesn’t know or understand the definition of “ideologue.”
Turning to another well-respected source, the American Heritage dictionary defines “ideologue” as: “An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.”
Again, what is wrong with that? As a conservative, I’d certainly want a president who believed in traditional values, smaller government, lower taxes, the Second Amendment, personal responsibility and secure borders to be an “advocate of that particular ideology.” Don’t we want and need our presidents to be ideologues? Isn’t that the whole idea?
So, for the president to deny he is an “ideologue” is not only foolish and false, but an insult to the intelligence of the American electorate. The problem for the president is not that he is an ideologue, but that he’s a socialist.Correct me when I’m wrong, but doesn’t the president want to greatly expand the federal government? Doesn’t he want and have government control of our automobile manufacturers? Doesn’t he want and have government control over our banks?
Doesn’t he want a government-run national health-care system which will control one-fifth of our economy? Doesn’t he want to take money from the “elite” and redistribute that wealth to the “poor?” When running for president, didn’t Obama himself say, "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.”
Doesn’t his party want to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine” to muzzle conservative thought? Don’t all of these goals of the president and his party fall within the definition of “socialism?”
Obama has every right to be a socialist. Fortunately, our form of government still allows freedom of expression. Unlike Lenin or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela however, the president hopes -- with a huge assist from the liberal intelligentsia -- to recast the United States into a socialist nanny-state in small, incremental steps.
He may yet succeed. To paraphrase Edmund Burke -- one of Obama’s favorite philosophers -- “The only thing necessary for the triumph of socialism is for good people to do nothing.”
Well, one way to start to do something is to call Obama what he is: A socialist.
.
Paul Ryan v. the President - Obamacare/Congress
March 5th, 2010
by: online.WSJ.com
Paul Ryan has been taking Obama to task
‘Every argument has been made. Everything that there is to say about health care has been said, and just about everybody has said it," President Obama declared yesterday as he urged Democrats to steamroll his plan through Congress. What hasn’t been heard, however, is even a shred of White House honesty about the true costs of ObamaCare, or its fiscal consequences.
Nearby, we reprint Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan’s remarks at the health summit last week, which methodically dismantle the falsehoods—there is no other way of putting it—that Mr. Obama has used to sell "reform" and repeated again yesterday. No one in the political class has even tried to refute Mr. Ryan’s arguments, though he made them directly to the President and his allies, no doubt because they are irrefutable. If Democrats are willing to ignore overwhelming public opposition to ObamaCare and pass it anyway, then what’s a trifling dispute over a couple of trillion dollars?
At his press conference yesterday, Mr. Obama claimed that "my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions—families, businesses and the federal government." He said it is "fully paid for" and "brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next two decades." Never before has a vast new entitlement been sold on the basis of fiscal responsibility, and one reason ObamaCare is so unpopular is that Americans understand the contradiction between untold new government subsidies and claims of spending restraint. They know a Big Con when they hear one.
Mr. Obama’s fiscal assertions are possible only because of the fraudulent accounting and budget gimmicks that Democrats spent months calibrating. Readers can find the gory details in Mr. Ryan’s pre-emptive rebuttal nearby, though one of the most egregious deceptions is that the bill counts 10 years of taxes but only six years of spending.
The real cost over a decade is about $2.3 trillion on paper, Mr. Ryan estimates, and even that is a lowball estimate considering how many people will flood to "free" health care and how many businesses will be induced to drop coverage. Mr. Obama claimed yesterday that the plan will cost "about $100 billion per year," but in fact the costs ramp up each year the program exists. The far more likely deficits are $460 billion over the first 10 years, and $1.4 trillion over the next 10.
What Mr. Ryan calls "probably the most cynical gimmick" deserves special attention, which is known in Washington as the "doc fix." Next month Medicare physician payments are scheduled to be cut by 22% and deeper thereafter, though Congress is sure to postpone the reductions as it always does. Failing to account for this inevitability takes nearly a quarter-trillion dollars off the ObamaCare books and by itself wipes out the "savings" that the White House continues to take credit for.
The House Budget Committee ranking Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
Some in the liberal cheering section now claim that this Medicare ruse isn't Mr. Obama's problem because it was first promised by Republicans and Bill Clinton in 1997. But then why did Democrats include the "doc fix" in all early versions of the bill to buy the support of the American Medical Association, only to dump this pricey item later when hiding it would make it easier to fake-reduce the deficit?
The President was (miraculously) struck dumb by Mr. Ryan's critique, and in his response drifted off into an irrelevant tangent about Medicare Advantage, while California Democrat Xavier Becerra claimed "you essentially said you can't trust the Congressional Budget Office." But Mr. Ryan was careful to note that he didn't doubt the professionalism of CBO, only the truthfulness of the Democratic gimmicks that the budget gnomes are asked to score.
Yesterday Mr. Obama again invoked the "nonpartisan, independent" authority of CBO, which misses the reality that if you feed the agency phony premises, you are going to get phony results at the other end.
The President also claimed the reason his plan is in trouble, and the reason Democrats must abuse the Senate's rules to ram this plan into law, is that "many Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies." So most of Mr. Obama's first year in office has been paralyzed over nothing more than minor regulatory hair-splitting. This is so preposterous that the President can't possibly believe it.
Congress's spring break begins on March 29, and Democratic leaders plan on jamming this monster through Congress before then. Americans have to hope that enough rank-and-file Democrats aren't as deaf to fiscal honesty as this President.
The US (i.e. “Obamanation”) does not need help from Israel nor anyone else in “tackling Iran”; because the US has no intention of tackling Iran — The US is hurriedly running off the field and leaving all its Middle Eastern team-mates, Jew and Arab alike, to take whatever Iran throws at them.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — March 16, 2010 @ 4:38 pm
You know, Oat, aside from your pathological anti-Semitism you’ve got a lot on the ball, which falls into the category of:
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Comment by ayn reagan — March 16, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
Bland other than state the obvious; what else you got?
Comment by yamit82 — March 16, 2010 @ 5:35 pm
The White House
http://lemonlimemoon.blogspot.com/
Binyamin Netanyahu
Somewhere in Israel.
Dear Benny,
You may have noticed headlines in American news today that we still consider you a strategic ally and to a point this is true but mainly you serve us as a strategic whipping boy.
Now don’t get your yarmulka in a twist over this. I mean it in the best possible way and it’s all between friends. We can talk plainly right? You serve a valuable function by allowing us to take all of our feelings of , shall we say, distaste for middle eastern 5th rate terror nations and take them out on you. I mean, come on boy, do you think we could get away with these demands in Riyad or something like that?
In all honesty you should not feel badly about this. We are bigger than you. We have more money than you and so it is your duty to suck up to us and if that means serving a lowly purpose on the international food chain then that is what you should do. Consider it being a martyr.
Another headline today says that we do not want you to build anymore houses in East Jerusalem. This is also true.You see, we cannot make the A-rabs angry at us. They have come here now too and well, we don’t want to handle any upsets that might occur due to catering to your childish whims about owning homes in Jerusalem.
Now, we know it’s been a Jewish capital forever and a day, but come on guys, when you think of the inconvenience it might cause us here in Washington can’t your better instincts and sense of fair play take over? Exactly how much emotional blackmail does it take to get you to do our bidding? Just funning with ya Ben. Don’t get all wee-wee’ed up over it.
Look , we here in America have some real serious problems going on right now. Our money’s running out. We regulated and damaged insurance so much that health care needs our help again.
Look at these headlines and weep for us Israel:
The Hamptons have the worst beach erosion in 20 years says one headline. Our cocaine users are making global warming worse says another. Google has a huge decision to make: whether to shut down, sort of, kind of , China’s internet, or something like that. Brad and Angelina had a spat. I mean you just can’t make stuff like this up Ben.
So, don’t whine to us about your petty home building problems in Jerusalem. It’s only real estate Ben… hellooooo! Hey, I just thought of something funny. You are the only nation on earth that can’t name your own capital city. In fact you are the only nation on earth everyone else meddles in to such an extent. Ha! Doesn’t that make you feel special in a kind of weird way? So play ball Israel. Let your enemies inside, let them have half your capital , let them claim your holy sites and trash them. For Pete sake Ben, turn the other cheek once in a doggone while.
Get a life. I mean seriously.We would do it if we were you.I have real serious stuff going on over here and don’t have time to piddle around with your stupid whining. Not that I am trying to talk down to you or anything.
Just saying…
As always,
Barack Obama.
Comment by yamit82 — March 16, 2010 @ 5:38 pm
American demands on Israel
Haaretz reports that Israel has not only received a tongue lashing from Secretary Clinton delivered to Ambassador Michael Oren, but has also received four peremptory demands:
1. Investigate the process that led to the announcement of the Ramat Shlomo construction plans in the middle of Biden’s visit. The Americans seek an official response from Israel on whether this was a bureaucratic mistake or a deliberate act carried out for political reasons. Already on Saturday night, Netanyahu announced the convening of a committee to look into the issue.
2. Reverse the decision by the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee to approve construction of 1,600 new housing units in Ramat Shlomo.
3. Make a substantial gesture toward the Palestinians enabling the renewal of peace talks. The Americans suggested that hundreds of Palestinian prisoners be released, that the Israel Defense Forces withdraw from additional areas of the West Bank and transfer them to Palestinian control, that the siege of the Gaza Strip be eased and further roadblocks in the West Bank be removed.
4. Issue an official declaration that the talks with the Palestinians, even indirect talks, will deal with all the conflict’s core issues - borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security arrangements, water and settlements.
American demands on the Palestinians
1.
2.
3.
4.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 16, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
The preceding is what’s known by liberals as “The Even-Handed Approach”.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 16, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
Israel needs a feisty pro-Israel campaign in America from its pro-Israel base. Israel can drum up more public support than the administration can, but right now support is mostly sentiment; it needs to become a major political issue and pushed to the front. Where are our leaders who are pro-Israel? They should be all over this. Even from a purely political perspective Obama’s political foes could profit greatly from this right now if they had the sense to realize it. If the status of Israel becomes a center stage issue, negative public opinion will drift over to hurt Obama’s domestic agenda. If high profile figures and politicians would stand up to Obama to help a friend, and Israel is a friend, it would help them immensely in many ways they don’t seem to realize.
Comment by RandyTexas — March 16, 2010 @ 6:44 pm
American lives are already at stake. They would kill every Jew and every American today if they could. At most, expansion is merely bringing up to the surface hatred that is already there. Even if there were no expansion, hostility would remain beneath building up pressure like a volcano. It’s better this way; the plume of smoke gives you a glimpse of reality. If you keep appeasing, you fool only yourself by hiding the truth until you can’t any longer. That’s when you have a catastrophe. Are we there yet?
Comment by RandyTexas — March 16, 2010 @ 7:02 pm