Iran: What's the Dealio?

Obama and Iran have entered into an historic agreement. Essentially, they have agreed to disagree and to look the other way while Iran builds a nuclear bomb. This is perhaps not the deal most people expected, but with Obama in charge was there really ever any other possibility? Here are the problems with the deal.

(1) It's Iran: In all deals with Iran, there is always one overriding problem: you just can’t trust Iran to keep to anything they agree to. No deal with Iran is worth the paper it is printed on. So if you reach a deal with Iran, then you are already a failure... and a moron.

(2) Fuzzy Promises: Turning to the deal specifically, the next problem is that the deal leaves all the key areas fuzzy. Here are some examples:

● Iran will be limited in its research and development into improved centrifuges, though apparently the limits are rather fuzzy and both sides already disagree about what they are. Those improved centrifuges, by the way, can’t be used to enrich uranium for ten years. After that, all bets are off. So expect an "Obama bomb" in 2025.

● Iran must uninstall some of its current centrifuges. That sounds good, except they are allowed to replace them with the more efficient centrifuges they are working on. Also, the numbers don’t make sense. When this process began, they had 12 centrifuges. They brought this up to 20,000 over time. They only run 9,000. Now we are told they need to reduce that amount to 6,000. That’s way more than 12, and it leaves 14,000 centrifuges ready to be run whenever they feel like breaking the agreement.

As an interesting aside, we are also told that Iran can’t enrich any more uranium. But if that is true, why let them spin the 6,000 centrifuges? The only reason to do that is to enrich uranium... which they aren’t allowed to do... except they can spin 6,000 centrifuges.

● Iran is required to reduce its current stockpile of enriched uranium from ten tons to just a few pounds – less than is needed to make a bomb. But no timeline is given for this, nor is a method specified. Obama is claiming Iran will export the material to places like France, but Iran is claiming they can dilute it rather than getting rid of it. That will leave the stuff ready to be returned to military use at any point. It's a bit like "diluting" bullets by storing them with chocolate.

● The IAEA and the US wanted Iran to admit that they have been researching bomb design and detonators and to identify what they've achieved. Some groups even suspect Iran has developed a detonator. Iran has refused to answer this. The agreement is really vague on this point and even team Obama only says that Iran “will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA’s concerns,” with no mention of what those measures are.

Essentially, on every significant issue, Iran has agreed to do something, but that something is always nebulous and vague and, even then, disputed.

(3) Trust, Don't Verify: Obama’s talking points meant to sell us on his “brilliant” plan also do a good deal of misleading bait and switch work. For example, Obama claims that the agreement subjects poor Iran to extensive snooping by international inspectors, with some surveillance lasting for up to 25 years! Sounds great, only, there will be no inspections allowed of military sites... where the Iranians would be building the bomb. Sure, you can look in my garage, but not in my secret lab in the basement.

And don’t worry about all those centrifuges Iran has because they aren’t allowed to spin them at the secret sites... only, no one is allowed to snoop at those sites, so no one but Iran will know what is happening there. Yet, John Kerry flat out lies in an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe: “To be clear, there is no aspect of this agreement that is based on promises or trust. Every element is subject to proof.” Right. Except the key provisions.

Obama also claims that sanctions could be snapped back into place if Iran cheats, but the agreement doesn’t actually allow that. Instead, it includes a dispute resolution provision that will likely take years before sanctions could be re-imposed... if ever.


So there you have it. I can’t say I’m disappointed per se because this is exactly what I would expect from an agreement negotiated by Obama. Seriously did you expect anything better?

Anyways, the way I see this going is that Iran will do whatever it wants and Obama will try to cover for them until it becomes too obvious to sustain. Then he will blame the next administration. In the meantime, Saudi will develop its own nuclear bomb. What happens next is anybody’s guess. Pakistan and India have avoided a nuclear war and Pakistan is batshit crazy. But Pakistan also doesn’t have Israel as a scapegoat, nor do they have a terrorist wing who would happily transport a bomb to some western city and set it off.

I guess the only thing we can say for sure is that Obama’s policy of pretend problems don’t exist is about to leave the world a much more dangerous place... again.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Netanyahu Speaks...

I am not sure if anyone has been paying attention (yeah, right...), but Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech to a Joint meeting of Congress on Tuesday. Depending on what political sites one goes to, it was a either triumph that helped or a failure that did not. But there is no mistaking that it was a dynamic speech by a world-class speaker. If you didn't get a chance to here it, let's go to the tape...[or read it if you prefer - transcript - LINK]



Frankly, I wasn't going to listen to the whole speech, but I was compelled to listen to the entire 40+ minutes. Just on it's face, rich-baritoned voiced Bibi Netanyahu is a compelling speaker and someone who commands to be listened to, but it is much deeper than that. The tag line to an editorial in the NY Post from John Podhoretz sums up exactly what I thought - LINK:

"It was a triumph — because, unlike Obama, Netanyahu had something of surpassing importance to say, and he said it with force, with strength, with conviction and with grace."

The only word I would add to that would be "clarity". He spoke with such a clarity that I have not heard from any world leader or politician in many years. He did not mince words or couch them in politically correct feel-good jargon. He spoke with clarity about the risk that the world is taking by making a "bad deal" with Iran and why Israel is most at risk.

I implore you to read it, listen to it, whichever you prefer. Whatever you might think about whether a foreign leader should have been allowed to speak before a joint meeting of our Congress with or without Obama's permission, it was important for him to be able to speak to the most "august" body about the existential threat to Israel and to the world at large. If we appease and acquiece for the sake of making any deal, we are all at risk. He explains it much better than I could recount, so judge for yourself and we can discuss.


Several Democrats chose not to attend and here is the list of those members who chose not to attend. To me they are all an embarrassment to Democracy, but that's just me. With one change - at the urging of his constiuents, Charlie Rangel (D/NY) actually did attend, but he is still an embarrassment (but that's just for so many other reasons...)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

What War?

Just a thought tonight. Did you know that Israel has invaded Gaza? Yeah, apparently they have. Interestingly, I don't see it covered anywhere except for Fox News. It doesn't make the front page of Yahoo or the AP. It doesn't rate on CNBC except for an initial discussion of whether or not it would affect the stock market (HINT: it didn't). I don't see the bloggers screaming about it. The UN isn't awash in antisemitic dictators trying to get Israel condemned. There are no riots in Europe. There are no riots on the Arab street that I've seen. And this is despite a fairly high number of casualties.

Now, maybe, I've missed all of this. I guess that's possible. But I suspect the reality is that the world has changed. Here are my thoughts on why there is so little interest about this war:

(1) Obama defended Israel from the get-go, which shut down the American left, which is where the antisemites find a home. So the media, the peaceniks, the OWS crowd, and the Democrats all felt compelled to look the other way this time.

(2) The Europeans are feeling too shamed to address this. After helplessly watching Putin sodomize the Ukrainians and finding that they were incapable of making any realistic response because they choose their economies over their principles, the self-eunuched Europeans seem to have lost their will to cast stones on others.

(3) A lot of the usual dictators who came out and attacked Israel are dead or gone and have been replaced by the Arab Spring. The new leaders are too preoccupied trying to keep their own people happy and realize that attacking Israel won't help.

(4) The Palestinians have lost their victim status. For several years now, the Palestinians have been running their own country (effectively), and they've done a miserable job of it. This is despite billions of dollars in aid and support. So essentially, they have worn out all their excuses. Then you add the fact they keep picking on Israel when it's obvious they cannot gain anything by doing it, and suddenly people like the Saudis realize that they are more trouble than they are worth.

That doesn't leave a lot of people to care about what is happening. I think that's why this is possibly one of the least-covered Middle East events in recent history. And if I'm right, this could eventually be seen as the first step in the Middle East calming down if the Palestinians cease being a cause celebre.

Thoughts? Have I missed anything?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Thoughts On The Middle East

This has been an interesting couple weeks in the Middle East. Israel attacked Hamas in Gaza. A peace deal was reached. Meanwhile, Egypt erupted into chaos, but that appears to have stopped. And then the UN recognized Palestine as kind of sort of similar to a state. Should we be worried? Actually, no.

Issue One: Stop Shooting! Get Him!

When Israel started sending Hamasters to meet their virgins, the President of Egypt jumped right in and did his best to negotiate a ceasefire. For those who don’t know, this dude’s name is Mohammed Morsi, and he’s from the Muslim Brotherhood, who dominate the Egyptian government. No sooner did Morsi arrange a ceasefire than the head of the Muslim Brotherhood condemned the ceasefire. This freaked out Team Obama, who issued a sternly worded letter.

What does this mean? Believe it or not, it’s probably a good thing.

Look, when the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt, I wasn’t worried. A lot of conservatives were worried because they don’t really understand what the Muslim Brotherhood is. They see them as an arm of al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization and they never bothered to learn their history. Liberals weren’t worried at first because they saw the Arab Spring as all unicorn poo and fairy dust. They wanted to believe that now that the oppressive dictators were gone, the Muslim people (who we know are just like liberals everywhere) would create a peaceful democratic government that would usher in a utopia. But then liberals changed their minds once the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t turn out as cuddly as they seemed. So now they’re worried too. Everyone is worried. . . except me.

History and human nature tell us that there is a huge difference between the way people speak when they have no responsibilities and how they act when they are actually given power. Bill Shakespeare picked up on this in “Henry V” when Hal’s friends are shocked to discover that the playful, irresponsible drunk they knew suddenly morphs into a joyless, serious King. It’s human nature. With power comes responsibility. And once you take over a government you suddenly discover that it’s not all “kill the infidels” anymore.... it becomes, why wasn’t my garbage picked up... do something about crime... there ain’t no jobs. At the same time, you pretty quickly learn that you can’t really go angering the Great Satan because Uncle Satan gives you billions of dollars a year which keep your economy from going down the Khomeini. And about wiping out those dirty Jews... well, let’s just say it gets a little harder when you know the Jews plan to bomb your house first in retaliation.

What’s going on here is that the Muslim Brotherhood has done exactly what history, and their history, suggests they would. They took over the government and they intend to govern. This is what they’ve done in other countries where they’ve been the loyal (non-loony) opposition. This is what they said they would do when they swore off violence. This is what revolutionary movements almost always do. And them negotiating a cease fire is evidence they want to become a respectable government.

“But they still condemned the ceasefire!” Yeah, so? This actually gives me even more hope, quite frankly. Think about this for a moment. Think about how cynical this is. This is the Muslim Brotherhood making a choice to ACT responsibly while cynically lying to their followers to maintain the image of being irresponsible. Does that remind you of anyone? That’s right, they’re the Democratic Party in pyramid print. What this means is that they grasp the difference between rhetoric and action and they have chosen the path of making the world happy, not their followers. That is a great sign.

Moreover, the statement they issued to their followers has a laughable caveat. They state that, yes, the evil Jews must die, but not today... not today... we shouldn’t even try to fight them until “all the Arabs are unified.” Wink wink. That will never happen.

Seriously, pay attention to the cynicism. This is how a revolutionary party becomes a respectable government without losing its supporters. This is how China can be both deeply communist and deeply capitalist. It’s intensely cynical, but it also gives me hope that they’ve made their choice and they want to steer Egypt away from the Irans and the al Qaedas.

Issue Two: I Am Your Pharaoh, Beeeatches!

The more interesting (read: more disturbing) issue happened while Morsi was making peace between the infidels and the Hamasters. When no one was looking, Morsi issued a decree which allowed him to re-try anyone for any crime committed prior to his taking power from Mubarak. Within this decree was a pardon for everyone on the winning side. It also held that any decrees Morsi issues from now on will be unappealable. In other words, rule of law is dead.

This resulted in a serious backlash from any number of groups, with the Supreme Court itself calling for strikes. People are saying he made himself into a modern Pharaoh and they point out that this is more power than even the evil dictator Mubarak had. Should we be worried? No. Honestly, this strikes me as a win-win-win for us.

● Scenario one: he becomes an evil despot and the people hate him. We win in that regard because it destroys the credibility of Islamic movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. No longer will the reason for the people’s suffering be this fake claim that an American imposed dictator is making them suffer, this time it will be someone they chose themselves. That takes us a step closer to ending our role as permanent scapegoat.

● Scenario two: he becomes a benign despot and uses his power to impose needed reforms. Again, we win because Egypt would become less of a basket case. And the more middle class they become, the less dangerous they become.

● Scenario three: the public rises up and he needs to back down. Again we win because that’s another seed that can sprout democratic ideas and institutions. . . the public demanding rule of law.

The worst case is that he becomes evil and attacks Israel out of desperation to save his butt when things go wrong, but that doesn’t really fit his prior actions or his personality. Plus, the military doesn’t support him enough for him to do that. Not to mention, Egypt’s army wouldn’t make it fifteen steps into the desert before Israel destroyed them because their army is decrepit and is really just built to control the public.

Issue Three: Hey, I Know You!

The UN Department of Thugs and Perverts voted to give the Palestinians observer status, which kind of implies they’re a real state. Ok. Yawn. Sorry. This has upset a lot of people, but honestly, so what? The Palestinians basically run their own state now as it is. How does UN recognition change anything? Iran already arms them. Saudi Arabia already funds them. Egypt already helps them smuggle in toys for the kids.... Torture Me Hosni is very popular this year. Seriously, how does this change anything?

Frankly, the best solution for the Palestinian/Israel issue has always been for Israel to carve out territory, hand it over, throw up a wall, and say, “you got what you want, now go away.” This is because once the Palestinians have a state, everyone else is going to get sick of hearing their whining. Why? Because “They stole our homeland and are keeping us prisoner” is a pretty compelling argument, “We wanted better land for our homes” is not.

Honestly, I see this recognition as a mistake by the Arabs. They have basically taken a step to make Palestine less interesting to everyone by making their demands a lot less compelling. Less compelling means less interesting. And less interesting means lower ratings. And lower ratings means you get cancelled.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Here Comes “The Republican War On Jews”

Obama has a Jewish problem. That’s been pretty obvious. You just can’t keep attacking people without them eventually getting upset. And Romney is now trying to win over Jewish votees. So it’s time for Obama to whip out the dirty tricks. Here comes the War on Jews.

Let’s start with the obvious. Obama lacks popularity. Anyone who has followed his approval rating knows that it looks like the famous Al Gore “hockey stick” only held the other way around. Check out this graph from Rasmussen, which shows a quick fall followed by remarkably stable unpopularity.

Obama has made this worse with policies that have hurt people and rhetoric that offends them. What this means is that Obama no longer has broad popularity and he needs to spend his time trying to excite his supporters group by group. That’s why we had the War on Women meme, the War on Hispanics/Immigrants meme, the War on Blacks meme, the War on the Poor meme, the War on the Middle Class meme, and a few others I’ve probably forgotten. Now it’s time for the War on Jews.

Obama’s popularity among Jews is fading. He’s down to 68% according to Gallup, though the real number is likely lower. Why? Well, his policies have largely undermined Israeli security in favor of the Palestinian radicals he knew in his youth. ObamaCare threatens Medicare, which is very popular with older Jewish voters in places like Florida. And his attacks on bankers have a distinctly anti-Semitic ring to them, so much so that the Wall Street community has openly complained about his rhetoric and have begun to close their wallets. And with Romney now making a play for Jewish support, it’s clearly time to act.

Hence, Nancy Pelosi fired the opening shots in the new meme this weekend when she claimed that Republican-leaning Jews are “being exploited” and that Republicans are merely “using [support for] Israel as an excuse, what they really want are tax cuts for the wealthy. So Israel, that can be one reason they put forth.” In other words, Jews, like blacks and women and everyone else before them are too stupid to realize that the Republicans are only lying to them about their beliefs and only want their votes so we can cut taxes on the wealthy. This woman is insane.

Interestingly, Pelosi must have realized calling Jews stupid was a bad move, so she quickly added this little contradiction: “And they’re smart people. They follow these issues. But they have to know the facts.” How can they both know the issues and yet not know the facts? That’s like saying, “he understands football, he just doesn’t know how football works.” Then she proceeded to explain some of the facts these silly deluded Jews didn’t know:

“The fact is that President Obama has been the strongest person in terms of sanctions on Iran, which is important to Israel. He’s been the strongest person on whether it’s Iron Dome, David’s Sling, any of these weapons systems and initiatives that relate to Israel. He has been there over and over again.”

Ok, so they didn’t realize that Obama has been pushing sanctions, that he’s been “the strongest person” on various weapons systems being built by Israel, and that he’s been to Israel. Uh... if they don’t know these “facts” then can we really say they know the issues? These aren’t factors anyone who “knows the issues” could have missed. Frankly, I’m finding her whole line of “you’re so deluded but you’re really smart but you don’t actually know jack” a tad bit insulting. Also, I should point out that Obama has not yet visited Israel even once since he's been in office, so she’s lying. . . as usual

Anyway, this weekend also saw Obama using foreign policy for electoral gain. Romney has been talking about Israel. He also just visited. And his speeches have gone down rather well. Said Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu about Romney’s Nevada foreign policy speech, “Mitt, I couldn't agree with you more.” Netanyahu also pointed out this about those sanctions Pelosi thinks Israel wants:

“We have to be honest and say that all the sanctions and diplomacy so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota. And that's why I believe that we need a strong and credible military threat coupled with the sanctions to have a chance to change that situation.”

So much for Pelosi’s facts. Romney, by the way, said in Israel that he has a “zero tolerance” policy toward Iran obtaining nuclear capability and said:

“Make no mistake: the ayatollahs in Tehran are testing our moral defenses. They want to know who will object, and who will look the other way. My message to the people of Israel and the leaders of Iran is one and the same: I will not look away; and neither will my country.”

One of his advisors even said that Romney would respect Israel’s right to strike Iran unilaterally.

So guess what mysteriously happened this weekend? SOMEONE let slip that Team Obama has presented Israel with a plan of attack for striking Iran. Let’s be honest. Obama’s national security team chose this weekend to leak that they have a plan to attack Israel because Romney’s speech was very well received and his support among Jews is growing. This leak is a disgusting political ploy which risks the lives of US personnel in the event of an attack, and it fits the pattern of leaks Team Obama has been guilty of in trying to make their effete foreign policy seem more muscular. Heads needs to start rolling for these leaks.

This administration really needs to be shown the door.

99 days to go!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Anti-Semitism Is Back In Fashion

In the United States, Jews have long been stalwarts of the Democratic Party. Indeed, they’ve never voted for Republicans by more than about 40% (Reagan) and typically they do about half that: McCain got 21%, Bush got 19%. But the left’s passion for a little anti-Semitism will not be denied. And Jews may soon find themselves in an uncomfortable position vis-à-vis the Democratic Party.

Until the late 1980s, the Democrats promoted the idea that Republicans are anti-Semitic. Indeed, you heard this claim a lot: that Republicans “hated” blacks, women and Jews. This was usually supported with some vague urban legend about some religious right personality talking about converting Jews or sometimes a mention of the Inquisition. . . I kid you not. This was then combined with a demand for unquestioned support for Israel.

Then Bill Clinton came along.

It wasn’t that Clinton was anti-Semitic, because he wasn’t. But after Clinton decided to make Middle-East peace his legacy, Israel elected the Likud Party, which refused to playing along with Clinton’s “peace process.” Team Clinton responded by becoming the first American administration I can think of that broke with the unquestioned support for Israel stance (in fact, they actively undermined Likud). Suddenly, it became acceptable to disagree with Israel in liberal circles.

At the same time, Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam ilk were making inroads in both the black community and the Democratic Party. This is a group that railed against Jews, particularly buying into the world-wide Zionist/banking conspiracy theories, and preached to blacks that Jews were “the hooked-nose blood suckers of the black community.” Interestingly, this wasn’t condemned by liberals at the time, unlike Jesse Jackson calling New York “Hymietown” in 1984.

In 2006, Israel attacked Lebanon. The wire services and groups like Al Jazeera slanted their coverage of this war to make Israel look like it was trying to kill civilians. In fact, at least one Reuters reporter got caught faking photos of supposedly dead civilians. But the deceptions worked and the world was outraged, including many in the anti-War/ anti-Bush left in the US. Suddenly, members of the American left were demanding war crimes charges be brought against Israel.

Fast forward to the financial crisis in 2008. When Wall Street imploded. The left started tossing around all the historical anti-Semitic stereotypes only without the word “Jew” attached to them. In other words, it became acceptable for leftists to rail against “Jewish bankers” so long as they only implied the “Jewish” part.

Then Obama got elected. Obama came through Rev. Wright’s “Christian” version of the Nation of Islam and his friends were 1960s radicals. Why does this matter? Because some of the radicals were Palestinians who had been fighting Israel for decades.

In 2010, a group of Palestinians tried to force their way through the Israeli blockade of Gaza. They used force and Israeli commandos responded by killing nine “activists.” The liberal world was outraged at Israel and friend-of-Obama Bill Ayers and Code Pink both became involved in trying to break the blockade and get Israel condemned at the UN.

Later in 2010, OWS is born from a jackass. . . like Damien from The Omen only dumber. Within days they start trotting out anti-Semitic statements and carrying anti-Semitic signs. They even allowed the NeoNazis to join them in some locations.

Just this week, Obama’s ambassador to Belgium told an audience that there are two types of anti-Semitism, the “traditional” kind, “which should be condemned,” and Muslim hatred for Jews, “which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians” and which, by implication, is apparently acceptable.

Enter George Soros.

The Center for American Progress, the Democratic Party’s “key hub of ideas and strategy,” and George Soros’s Media Matters have started attacking the Democratic Party’s “staunchly pro-Israel congressional leadership.” In fact, they have gone to war with those who would support Israel:

● MJ Rosenberg of Media Matters spends his days online “heaping vitriol” on those who support Israel. In particular, he openly questions the loyalty of the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin when it comes to Israel. . . this is an old tactic of anti-Semites and racists, to suggest secret foreign loyalties.

● Both CAP and Media Matters have attacked anyone who tries to argue that Iran is trying to build a bomb, even the White House, as Israeli stooges. CAP’s Eric Alterman accused the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC of trying to get America to go to war for Israel and called this AIPAC’s “big prize.”

● They attack people who support sanctions against Iran as “Israel-firsters,” implying racial supremacist beliefs in such actions. In one instance, Rosenberg blasted Democrat Brad Sherman for supporting sanctions as “the most ugly expression yet of this country’s almost bizarre obsession with punishing Iran, its people along with its government.” Note the idea that opposition to Iran is aimed at Iran’s people, i.e. “racism,” and it’s a result of a mental condition.

● Matt Duss at CAP wrote this: “Like segregation in the American South, the siege of Gaza, and the entire Israeli occupation for that matter, is a moral abomination that should be intolerable to anyone claiming progressive values.”

● They get really conspiratorial too. For example, Eli Clifton of ThinkProgress attacked a Quinnipiac poll that referenced Iran’s “nuclear program” because the poll was creating a presumption that such a program exists when there is no “definitive evidence.”

● And they actually called Holder’s idiotic idea that Iran is working with Mexican drug cartels a creation of “conservative think tanks” and AIPAC.

Incredibly, CAP only halfheartedly distanced itself from this after people pointed out these comments were “borderline anti-Semitic.” Incredibly, they claimed these comments, posted on their own blog, were not their official opinions. Yet, they have not taken them down, retracted them, condemned them, or fired anyone.

So what you have here is THE Democratic think tank and THE group that controls the media for the Democrats turning on Israel and batting about the idea that Jews in American (AIPAC) have some hidden control over our government which is being used to help world-wide Jewish interests. This is otherwise known as the International Zionist Conspiracy conspiracy theory. It is anti-Semitism at its worst.

Add in the fact the Democrats have made the Wall Street banker into the new enemy of mankind and their street urchins are actively spouting anti-Semitism in support of this, and American Jews may want to rethink their relationship to the Democratic Party.

The trend is there. I wouldn’t ignore it.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Libya, On The To Do List. . .

Libya. We’re still on Libya. Ug. Why are we talking about Libya? Because Obama is an idiot, that’s why. Well, let’s get this over with.... then we’ll agree to never speak of this again!

1. Obama... Silence Ain't Golden

When a civil war starts in a country that sits a few hundred miles south of Italy, a country rich in oil, a country we bombed in 1986, a country that sponsors international terrorism. . . US Presidents tend to issue statements. So why has Obama been conspicuously silent? We speculated about this the other day and strangely, none of us came close to the real answer: apparently, Obama is soooooo busy he just didn’t have time to issue a statement. I guess Oprah’s been pretty special this week?

Seriously, I'm not making this up!

Here’s the quote from Obama Spokesmonkey Jay “small hands” Carney:

“This is a scheduling issue. The president will meet with Secretary of State Clinton this afternoon. We will have something to say out of that meeting. If possible, the President will speak this afternoon or tomorrow.”

What the heck? This is what you say when you decline a lunch invitation, not when a country erupts in civil war! And how long does it take to issue a statement anyway? It’s really quite simple. Obama takes off his wife’s jeans, puts on a suit. He walks to the statement giving hallway. The media bows, cheers and cries. Someone turns on the TOTUS. Obama reads. The media applauds and holds up lighters. Obama returns to the Huckleberry Hound Show which his staff conveniently TiVoed. How hard is that?

Oh, I see, he doesn’t know what to say? Gee, what do you say when a murderous tyrant the world hates is fighting for his life against his own citizens and his military is switching sides in city after city? Hmmm. How about this:

[look serious]
[frown]

To the people of Libya,
Get him!

[beat cheeks]

Was that so hard? You don’t even have to put it in Haikou format! Seriously, it’s hard to find an easier speech to give. Grrr.

2. On Israel....

While we’re here, I thought I’d mention briefly what all of this means for Israel. I bring this up because The Economist has taken the strange position that if all of this upheaval in the Arab world leads to free and peaceful democracies in the Middle East (which is actually possible), then somehow the United States needs to abandon Israel.

Right, just like we abandoned England when Germany became a democracy.

How does this make any sense? I honestly can’t tell you. The little bit of “logic” The Economist presented was nothing more than watered down conspiracies statements in the Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy mold. Apparently, those sneaky Jews control the US because they have an effective lobby, and thus US policy has been a servant to Israel (as evidenced by us invading Iraq and in foreign aid we give Israel). If Arabs stop being meanies, then the US will need to give up supporting the regional bully, i.e. Israel. Q.E.D..

I hardly know where to begin with this. AARP is more powerful than the Israeli lobby? And if Jews are so powerful, why would that power suddenly fail them just because Arabs start voting? We invaded Iraq for a dozen reasons, none of which involved Israel. We give foreign aid to everyone. Israel isn’t the neighborhood bully, it’s the kid that stood up to the bullies. And if the Arabs stop being jerks, then Israel doesn’t need our protection. Hence, every single part of this theory is wrong.

The truth is this. If the Arab world becomes democratic and free (and gives up its desire to wipe Israel off the map), there is no reason in the world the US should abandon Israel. Frankly, I expect that would improve everyone’s relations and probably draw us closer into the whole region through increased tourism and investment.

Somehow, between the antiSemitic Economist and our silent President, I get the feeling we're not in the greatest of hands these days.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Weekly Bidenism

The Israeli/Palestinian issue is perhaps the most complex diplomatic issue the world has to offer. So why not send the world’s most complex thinker? Oh yes. Get ready for. . . The Weekly Bidenism.

Believe it or not, President Obama just announced that he is sending Slow Joe to Israel to “save” the failing Middle East Peace Process. Move over George Mitchell, make way for Slow Joe. And I mean that literally, considering Joe’s recent success in striking down pedestrians with his motorcade.

In fact, before we discuss the “merits” of handing this issue to Joe, let me extend this warning to my Jewish and Arab friends: get off the streets. Biden is coming! So far, in just one year, his motorcade has managed to scratch four pedestrians. He’s looking for five. He’s the Darth Vader of motorcaders! In fact, his motorcade has become such a sign of terror that they’re making a movie about it, they’re either calling it “Terror at 40 mph” or “The Cading.” Run!!!

Let’s get back to the issue. When you appoint someone to act as a negotiator, you typically look for someone who is considered impartial and who both sides can respect. That ain’t Joe.

Indeed, the Palestinians may wonder about Joe’s impartiality, as he famously said in 2007: “I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.” But hey, why should this be a problem for the Palestinians. Aren’t we all Zionists now. . . and Berliners? That doesn’t mean you aren’t impartial?

Of course, he also called Israel “the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East,” which kind of implies American ownership or at least partnership, so maybe. . . just maybe the Palestinians might not see him as entirely impartial? But then, his reasoning was a little strange, so maybe they’ll just write this off as typical Joeffoonery:

“Imagine our circumstance in the world were there no Israel. How many battleships would there be? How many troops would be stationed?”

Uh. . . what? Why would we be sending troops to protect the non-existing Israel? And what do battleships have to do with this? As you saying Israel keeps Arab navies from the high seas? Or are you calling Israel a proxy army for the United States? I think you might want to stop talking now Joe. How about just saying they’re the only legitimate democracy in the region and have been a good friend?

At least the Israelis will be happy to have him as a negotiator, right? I mean, heck, he told the Israeli’s that: “Israel’s decisions must be made in Jerusalem.” Thus, proving that he knows where Israel’s capitol is located. And he said, “Israel has the right to defend itself and it doesn't have to ask, just as any other free and independent country.” Good, Joe understands the concept of national sovereignty. Then he said that Israeli is “entitled” to launch a military strike against Iran:

“Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else. Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. . . . If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.”

Whooops. That one didn’t play so well in the press, but the Israelis were thrilled when he said it, especially when he added that the United States will “always stand by Israel, without telling Israelis what they can and cannot do.” What’s not to like, right?

Well, Joe giveth, and Joe taketh away too, like when said:

“Israel will have to reconcile itself with the nuclearization of Iran.”

He also told them that they “must” stop building settlements, must dismantle existing outposts, must work toward a two state solution with the Palestinians, and must allow free movement of Palestinians. So we can’t tell Israel what to do, but they better accept the fact that we’re going to tell them what to do? Oh, and wash behind your ears before you go to bed.

Of course, on the nuclear issue, the Israelis might take comfort from the idea that Joe might be exaggerating about Iran going nuclear. Indeed, Joe recently said:

“[Iran’s] not a nuclear power. I can understand why Ahmadinejad would make that assertion to divert the world's attention from the abuse of the civil liberties and civil rights of the people of Iran. The progress that Iran has made on the nuclear front is greatly exaggerated in my view.”

Excellent, so there’s nothing to worry about? Except that the International Atomic Energy Agency, and everyone else, disagrees. But that’s Joe, always the maverick.

At least Joe and Obama have a plan. That should put the Israelis at ease. Joe says to give sanctions time. He even assures us that Obama “has” (read: “might soon have”) China on board with sanctions, and that will solve the crisis. Let’s just hope the Israelis didn’t hear Biden when he said:

“It’s doubtful if the economic sanctions will be effective, and I am against opening an additional military and diplomatic front.”

Is this really the best choice for a negotiator for the Middle East Peace Process? This is a region that lives on a knife’s edge with war possible at any moment for the slightest of slights. And into this combustible mix, Obama now throws Simple Joe? Perhaps we have more to fear than just his motorcade. . .

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...