H/t Freedom is just another word
Archive for the ‘Foreign policy’ category
Cartoon of the day
September 14, 2015Obama’s victory was won by a politician, not a statesman
September 13, 2015Obama’s victory was won by a politician, not a statesman, Israel Hayom, Boaz Bismuth, September 13, 2015
U.S. President Barack Obama | Photo credit: AP
For once, however, Obama is right: Global warming is a burning issue that must be addressed, preferably starting in the Middle East, where the flames are unusually high.
*****************************
The U.S. House of Representatives voted Friday against the nuclear agreement with Iran, with a majority of 269 against, including 25 Democrats, and 162 in favor. This vote followed the expressed objections of 58 Senators, including four Democrats, who could not vote against the deal over a procedural win in the Senate on Thursday. It also followed a recent Pew Research Center survey showing that 49% of Americans oppose the deal, and only 21% support it.
Friday’s vote, albeit symbolic, proves that it is not the American people or their elected officials who want this deal — it is U.S. President Barack Obama who wants it, and what Obama wants, Obama gets.
The truth is, the U.S. does not believe Iran will adhere to the deal, but Obama, who since taking office has undermined the very foundations of the Middle East (and beyond), remains a savvy politician who knows exactly what needs to be done to push the nuclear deal through, despite the opposition it garners — opposition Obama is well aware of — so as to secure his legacy. Nevertheless, the nuclear deal is a victory won by a politician, not a statesman.
While Obama may have won the battle over the Iran nuclear deal, it was a procedural victory. History has taught us that the Senate rarely rejects a presidential foreign policy initiative.
The Iran nuclear deal would have been voted down if not for Obama’s considerable efforts. He understood the crucial need to present the Iran deal as an agreement, not as a treaty, which would have required he secure a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which he would not have been able to do. He also applied pressure on Democrats up for re-election, the majority of whom admitted the deal was far less than perfect.
According to American media, now that Obama has secured support for the Iran deal, he is turning his attention to global warming. For once, he is right — temperatures in the Middle East are scorching hot, and Obama had a hand in turning them up.
The recent sandstorm to cloud Israel was something of an ominous sign. The world has suddenly woken up to overt Russian presence in the Middle East. The Americans seem to have fallen asleep at the wheel, allowing Russian President Vladimir Putin to dictate a new reality on the ground, as he did in Ukraine. Could it be that Washington needed Moscow’s support for the Iran deal so badly it willingly dropped the ball?
The buildup of Russian forces in Syria has vast regional and international ramifications, which cannot be ignored. The West and Israel can no longer operate in Syria under the auspices of alleged “open skies,” and just in case that point was lost on anyone, Russia warned the U.S. against any “unintended incidents” on Syrian soil.
Russia has introduced its presence in the Middle East in a time when it could be seen as favorable. The international community wants to see the Islamic State group defeated, as do the Russians. Unlike in Ukraine, this time the Russians are on the same side as the good guys.
The Russians, however, are not alone: They have returned with the Iranians on their side, which is actually a gift from the U.S. — something that has irked the Saudis to no end, as they now have to find alternative avenues of dealing with both Moscow and Tehran.
For once, however, Obama is right: Global warming is a burning issue that must be addressed, preferably starting in the Middle East, where the flames are unusually high.
PM Netanyahu’s Greetings for Rosh Hashana
September 13, 2015Putin’s offer to shield & develop Israel’s gas fields predated Russia’s military buildup in Syria
September 13, 2015Putin’s offer to shield & develop Israel’s gas fields predated Russia’s military buildup in Syria, DEBKAfile, September 13, 2015
(Nice little gas field you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. — DM)
More than a fortnight ago, Russian President Vladimir put a proposition to Israel for Moscow to undertake responsibility for guarding Israel’s Mediterranean gas fields, along with the offer of a Russian investment of $7-10 billion for developing Leviathan, the largest well, and building a pipeline to Turkey for exporting the gas to Europe, DEBKAfile reports. The offer was made to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in confidential phone conversations and through quiet envoys.
At the time, Putin did not share with Netanyahu his plans for an imminent buildup of marines, air force units, warships and missiles in Syria, although the plan had been worked out in detail with Tehran in late July. The Russian ruler put it this way: Leviathan abuts on the fringes of Lebanon’s economic water zone and is therefore vulnerable to potential sabotage by Iran, Syria or Hizballah, whether by commando or rocket attack.
A multibillion Russian investment in the field would make it a Russian project which neither Syria nor Hizballah would dare attack, even though it belongs to Israel.
But now the situation has assumed a different face. Russian forces are streaming to Latakia, and Moscow has declared the area from Tartous, Syria up to Cyprus closed to shipping and air traffic from Sept. 15 to Oct. 7 in view of a “military exercise including test firings of guided missiles” from Russian warships.
When he offered a shield for Israeli gas fields in late August, The Russian ruler knew that implementation would rest with Russian military forces on the spot, rather than Iranian and Syrian reluctance to harm Russian interests.
Then, on Aug. 30, Netanyahu discussed the new Russian proposition with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi when they met in Florence, in the context of the former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s involvement in Middle Eastern and European energy business and his close ties with Putin.
Berlusconi and Netanyahu are also good friends.
The Israeli prime minister never explicitly confirmed to Putin that he would consider the Russian transaction.
He hesitated because he sensed that a deal with Moscow for gas projects would be unacceptable to Washington and Noble Energy of Texas, which holds a 39.66 percent share in the consortium controlling Leviathan, as well as stakes in the smaller Tanin and Tamar gas wells.
Meanwhile, two Israeli ministers, Moshe Kahlon, finance, and Arye Deri, economy, consistently obstructed the final government go-ahead for gas production, tactics which also held Netanyahu back from his reply to Putin.
But when the fresh influx of Russian troops and hardware to Syria became known (first revealed by DEBKAfile on Sept.1), Netanyahu began to appreciate that, not only had Israel’s military and strategic situation with regard to Syria and the eastern Mediterranean been stood on its head, so too had foreign investment prospects for development projects in Israeli gas.
Israel’s strategic landscape had in fact changed radically in four respects:
1. Its government can no longer accept as a working hypothesis (which never, incidentally, held up) the short term expectancy of the Assad regime. The injection of Russian military might, combined with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces, have given Assad a substantial lease of life.
The Israel Defense Forces must therefore revamp its posture on the Syrian front, and reassess its sponsorship of the select rebel groups which are holding the line in southern Syria against hostile Iranian or Hizballah cross-border attacks on northern Israel.
The changing attitude was suggested in views heard in the last couple of days from top Israeli security officials, who now say that leaving Assad in office might be the better option, after all.
2. The new Russian ground, air and sea buildup taking shape in Syria provides a shield not just for the Assad regime but also Hizballah. This too calls for changes in Israel’s military posture.
3. The Russian military presence in Syria seriously inhibits Israel’s flexibility for launching military action against Iranian or Hizballah targets when needed.
4. Three aspects of the new situation stand out prominently:
a) The Russian air force and navy are the strongest foreign military force in the eastern Mediterranean. The US deplloys [sic] nothing comparable.
b) Israel’s military strength is substantial but no one is looking for a military clash with the Russians, although this did occur four decades ago, when Israel was fighting for its life against Russian-backed Arab invasions.
c) In view of the prevalence of the Russian military presence in the eastern Mediterranean, it is hard to see any foreign investor coming forward to sink billions of dollars in Israeli gas.
d) Although Russia called Saturday, Sept. 12, for “military-to-military cooperation with the United States” to avert “unintended incidents” amid its naval “exercises” off the coast of Syria, the tone of the call was cynical. It is more than likely that Moscow may revert to the original Putin offer of a Russian defense shield for Israeli gas fields. But with such strong Russian cards in place in Syria, he may well stiffen his terms for this deal.
Compare Obama’s Rosh HaShanah and Eid-ul-Fitr Messages [Video]
September 13, 2015Compare Obama’s Rosh HaShanah and Eid-ul-Fitr Messages [Video], The Jewish Press, Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu, September 13, 2015
Americans voted for a change in 2008. And they got it.
President Barack Obama laced his annual Rosh HaShanah greetings with political overtones, in stark contrast to his message to Muslims last July on their Eid-ul-Fitr holiday marking the end of Ramadan.
President Obama reminded Jews that the “Book of Life is open.” Assuming a posture as a Jew, he added:
As millions of Jews ask God to inscribe their names in that Book we recognize how much lies beyond our control.
It was a pointed reminder to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that besides God, there also is President Obama who pulls the strings when it comes to world affairs, such as the nuclear agreement with Iran.
The President then preached peace, which he said is “hard, but right now the book is open. Not just for God but for us.”
That is a theme that was totally absent from his speech to Muslims in July, when he noted:
The end of Ramadan is a time to reflect spiritually, build communally, and aid those in need. While Eid marks the end of Ramadan, it marks a new beginning for each individual – a reason to celebrate and express gratitude on this holiday.
President Obama then devoted nearly half of his greeting to talk about how millions of Muslims go to mosques for prayers and then have “festive gatherings, gift exchanges, and feasts among friends, neighbors and families.”
He emphasized how “the diversity of traditions paint the vibrant images we see from around the world capturing the spirit and excitement of Eid – colorful dresses or white garments decorating the masses of people standing in lines for prayer, lanterns and ornaments lighting up bazaars and neighborhoods, intricate henna designs painted on hands of young girls and women, and an abundance of delectable foods and aromatic cuisines.”
Then he boasted that Eid-ul-Fitr now is a an official holiday in New York City public schools, and he praised Muslims for helping to raise money “for the churches burned in the wake of the shooting at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina” by a white racist.
The greeting to Muslims was absent of any reference to radical Muslim violence, peace in the Middle East, or the nuclear threat from Iran. It was a typical patronizing greeting made by every leader to partisan groups.
Now let’s go back to 2009 for President Obama’s first Rosh HaShanah greetings:
I want to extend my warmest wishes for this New Year. L’Shanah Tovah Tikatevu – may you have a good year, and may you be inscribed for blessing in the Book of Life….At the dawn of this New Year, let us rededicate ourselves to that work. Let us reject the impulse to harden ourselves to others’ suffering, and instead make a habit of empathy – of recognizing ourselves in each other and extending our compassion to those in need.
Let us resist prejudice, intolerance, and indifference in whatever forms they may take — let us stand up strongly to the scourge of anti-Semitism, which is still prevalent in far too many corners of our world….
And let us work to achieve lasting peace and security for the state of Israel, so that the Jewish state is fully accepted by its neighbors, and its children can live their dreams free from fear.
All of that was absent from this year’s greeting, which also did not mention anti-Semitism and certainly not anti-Zionism, lest he prompt reminders that Iran’s idea of peace is a world without Israel.
President Obama was elected on a motto of “change.”
He has fulfilled his promise.
He indeed has changed.
Not Satire (?) | Obama To Receive Second Nobel Peace Prize
September 12, 2015Obama To Receive Second Nobel Peace Prize, USA Today,
(It may — or may not — be a hoax. I have found no other such reports.
Update: Yep. It appears to be. Other articles by the same writer at the same source include Cynthia Francis, Wife of Pope Francis, Seeks Annulment To 38-Year Marriage. — DM)
(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
The Norwegian Nobel Committee, based in Oslo Norway, announced yesterday the name of their laureate for the 2015 Nobel Prize for Peace. President Barack Hussain Obama is their selection for this years prestigious award. With the Nobel Institutes selection, President Obama becomes the third man ever to win a Nobel Prize more than one time. He joins legendary physicist John Bardeen and brilliant chemist Fredrick Sanger, who were each awarded two Nobels in their respective fields.
President Obama’s first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded by the committee shortly after he took office in 2009. Viewed as contentious at the time, his selection as a laureate was described by the committee as being due to his creation in international politics of a new political climate which emphasized multilateralism and his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. Strong objections were raised at the time by many who were critical of the Nobel Committee’s choice of President Obama. Many argued that his selection so soon after having ascended to the Presidency was a political handout from the Norwegians. He had not been in a position to effect international diplomacy for any measurable time. Nor had he actually accomplished any action of note that had led to the spread of international peace. It seemed that he had been selected for no other reason than that he was elected to the Presidency.
Fast forward to the year 2015 and the Nobel Committee has once again selected President Obama, though this time he has had ample time and opportunity to make his mark upon the world stage. The Nobel Committee cited three separate contributing factors which led to their choice of President Obama a second time. The first was his for his leadership in brokering a diplomatic solution to the disarmament of chemical weapons in Syria. The second was for his strong commitment to drawing down the military presence of The United States in foreign countries, most notably Afghanistan and Iraq. The third was for his strong and continuing support of the United Nations and international law. Specifically his commitment to the U.N Assembly to move aggressively forward on U.N. resolution 21 and provide support for UNODA.
The peace prize will be awarded to President Obama on October the tenth of this year at the Nobel Institute’s Oslo headquarters. President Obama has expressed his gratitude to the Nobel Committee for their consideration of him as a laureate. He has subsequently pledged to donate the cash portion of the annual Nobel Prize to several charities that serve the domestic United States.
A rigged vote, no real debate
September 11, 2015A rigged vote, no real debate, Gatestone Institute, Alan M. Dershowitz, September 11, 2015
This has been a bad month for democracy, for serious debate and for the treatment of all Americans as equally capable of deciding important issue on their merits and demerits. Whether it also turns out to have been a bad month for peace and nuclear non-proliferation remains to be seen. But even those who support the deal should be ashamed of some of the undemocratic tactics and bigoted arguments employed to avoid a real debate and a majority vote.
********************
When I was growing up, “filibuster” was a dirty word. It was a tactic used by bigoted southern Senators to prevent the enactment of any civil rights legislation. I recall Senator Strom Thurman babbling on for 24 hours in an effort to keep the south racially segregated. We regarded the filibuster as the enemy of democracy and the weapon of choice against civil rights.
Yet, President Obama and his followers in the senate deployed this undemocratic weapon in order to stifle real debate about the nuclear deal with Iran and to prevent the up or down vote promised by the Corker bill. A President, who was more confident of the deal, would have welcomed the Lincoln-Douglas type debates that I and others had called for regarding the most important foreign policy decision of the 21st century. But instead of arguments on the merits and demerits of the deal, what we mostly got was ad hominems. Proponents of the deal trotted out famous names of those who supported the deal, without detailed arguments about why they took that position. No wonder so few Americans support the deal. According to a recent Pew poll approximately one in five Americans think the deal is a good one. The President had an obligation to use his bully pulpit to try to obtain majority support among voters. Not only did he fail to do that, he also failed to persuade a majority of senator and house members. So this minority deal will go into operation over the objection of majority of our legislators and voters.
One of the low points of this debate was a variation on the ad hominem fallacy. It was the argument by religious or ethnic identity. Supporters of the deal tried to get as many prominent Jews as they could to sign ads and petitions in favor of the deal. The implicit argument was, “See, even Jews support this deal, so it must be good for Israel,” despite the reality that the vast majority of Israelis and almost all of its political leaders believe the deal is bad for Israel.
The absolute low point in the non-debate was a New York Times chart, identifying opponents of the deal by whether they were Jewish or Gentile. The implication was that Jews who opposed the deal must be more loyal to their Jewish constituents or to Israel than Americans who supported the deal. But the chart itself made little sense. It turns out that the vast majority of democratic Congressmen who voted against the deal were not Jewish, and several of them represented districts in which less than 1% of the voters were Jewish. It is true that two out of the four democratic senators who voted against the deal were identified as Jews, but one of the non-Jewish Senators represents West Virginia where Jewish voters constituted less than one tenth of one percent of the voting population. Moreover, opposition to this deal is considerably greater among evangelical Christians than among Jews.
Identifying by their religion members of congress who voted against a deal that the Times strongly supported is, as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (Camera) aptly put it, more than a dog whistle; it is a bull horn. It plays squarely into anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews having dual loyalty. Will the Times next identify bankers, media moguls, journalists and professors by their religious identity? Would the Times have done that for other ethnic, religious or gender groups?
This has been a bad month for democracy, for serious debate and for the treatment of all Americans as equally capable of deciding important issue on their merits and demerits. Whether it also turns out to have been a bad month for peace and nuclear non-proliferation remains to be seen. But even those who support the deal should be ashamed of some of the undemocratic tactics and bigoted arguments employed to avoid a real debate and a majority vote.
Satire but not funny|Kim Jong-un has replaced John Boehner as Speaker of the House
September 11, 2015Kim Jong-un has replaced John Boehner as Speaker of the House, Dan Miller’s Blog, September 11, 2015
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
We have met the enemy and it is us: we have become too tired to be effective and hence are becoming indifferent. The charade on Capitol Hill continues, and not only about the nuke “deal” with Iran. Will the carnival end before it’s too late, or will Obama continue to win?
The House speaker is elected by all House members, not just those of the majority party. He need not be a member of the House. Boehner having resigned because a serious medical condition often reduces him to tears, one group of Democrats nominated Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to replace him. However, due to her support for Hillary Clinton, she fell out of favor with the White House so another group of Democrats nominated Kim Jong-un at Obama’s request. To avoid the appearance of confrontation, Republicans offered no candidates. Kim won by seventeen votes, becoming the first non-US citizen to hold the office thus far this month.
REPORTING FOR DUTY!
The current upset was precipitated by Republican members’ disagreements with Boehner and other party leaders about how best to deal with the catastrophic Iran nuke “deal” without unnecessarily offending the President. Kim Jong-un is expected to substitute his own brand of leadership for Boehner’s leadership through ambivalence.
A majority also deemed Kim the best qualified to negotiate with Dear Leader Obama on behalf of the House because, as the undisputed leader of a rogue nuclear nation himself, he should be able to pull not only Obama’s strings but also those of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Rogue Republic of Iran.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest declined comment on the situation beyond refusing to comment on whether Obama met privately with Kim to congratulate him. However, Obama is generally thought to have confirmed that He fully supports Kim’s way of governing his own Democratic Peoples’ Republic and — subject to the few pesky restraints still imposed by an antiquated Constitution that He has not yet found ways to sneak around — He does His best to emulate him. In that connection, Obama asked Kim for recommendations on antiaircraft guns to deal humanely with Jews and other traitors who oppose Him (Please see also, New York Times Launches Congress ‘Jew Tracker’ – Washington Free Beacon.)
Desiring to gain Obama’s total good will, Kim promised to have derogatory cartoons of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton painted on all future North Korean nukes and missiles just before they explode. In return, Obama promised to issue executive orders granting North Korea the permanent right to declassify any and all U.S. documents it sees fit pertaining to the security of the United States and to obtain copies, gratis, from the Government Printing Office.
House Speaker Kim Jong-un will next meet with Supreme Leader Khamenei in Tehran to make two common sense proposals, with which Khamenei is certain to agree:
First, Kim will propose that a group of highly regarded North Korean nuclear experts — under his personal guidance and supervision — conduct all nuke inspections in Iran and draw all conclusions concerning any past or present Iranian nuclear program based on them exclusively. Those conclusions will be drawn on behalf of, and in lieu of any conclusions drawn by, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The head of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, immediately endorsed this plan as “splendid and totally consistent with any and all IAEA – Iran “secret deals.”
Second, Kim will propose that Khamenei promise not to nuke anyone until all sanctions have been permanently eliminated, unless he really wants to.
Obama is thought to have agreed with every aspect of the Kim plan and to have directed Secretary Kerry to tell Khamenei that if he agrees all sanctions will be eliminated permanently, via executive decree, and hence even more expeditiously than previously expected. Due to a successful Senate filibuster yesterday, Obama can issue the executive decree very soon; Today — Friday, September 11th — is being considered seriously due to the obvious symbolism of the date.
H/t Freedom is just another word
The inevitable success of Kim’s mission will result in a win-win situation for nearly everyone, particularly the financially strapped IAEA, and the true Peace of Obama will prevail throughout all parts of the world that He considers worth saving. Remember — it’s all for the Children!
Addendum
하원 의장 김정은 의 문 사랑하는 북미 친구 , 그것은 오바마 대통령 아래에서 당신의 인생 이 곧 Amerika 민주주의 인민 공화국 이 될 것입니다 무엇 에 미래의 삶을 위해 잘 준비 것을 진심으로 희망 합니다. 배리 와 나는 제출 된 것을 기쁘게 사람들을 위해 가능한 한 오랫동안 지배 구조 의 우리의 양식 에 서서히 적응 을 하기 때문에 전환이 원활 하게 하기 위해 함께 열심히하고 고통 일했다 .
Translation:
Statement of House Speaker Kim Jong-un
My dear North American friends, it is my sincere hope that your life under President Obama has prepared you well for your future life in what will soon become the Democratic People’s Republic of Amerika. Barry [a.k.a. Barack] and I have worked long and hard together to acclimate you gradually to our transformed and transformational form of governance and hence to make the transition as smooth and painless as possible for those pleased to submit. Now, we will accelerate the progress.
Conclusions
It does not have to be that way. Here, in closing, are a few words from Daniel Greenfield.
We don’t have to give in to despair. If we do, we are lost. Lost the way that the left is lost. Lost the way that the Muslim world is lost.
We are not savages and feral children. We are the inheritors of a great civilization. It is still ours to lose. It is ours to keep if we understand its truths. [Emphasis added.]
We are not alone. A sense of isolation has been imposed on us as part of a culture war. The task of reconstructing our civilization and ending that isolation begins with our communication. We are the successors of revolutions of ideas. We need to do more than keep them alive. We must refresh them and renew them. And, most importantly, we must practice them.
We are not this culture. We are not our media. We are not our politicians. We are better than that.
We must win, but we must also remember what it is we hope to win. If we forget that, we lose. If we forget that, we will embrace dead end policies that cannot restore hope or bring victory.
What we have now is not a movement because we have not defined what it is we hope to win. We have built reactive movements to stave off despair. We must do better than that. We must not settle for striving to restore some idealized lost world. Instead we must dream big. We must think of the nation we want and of the civilization we want to live in and what it will take to build it.
Our enemies have set out big goals. We must set out bigger ones. We must become more than conservatives. If we remain conservatives, then all we will have is the America we live in now. And even if our children and grandchildren become conservatives, that is the culture and nation they will fight to conserve. We must become revolutionaries.
We must think in terms of the world we want. Not the world we have lost.
This is the America we live in now. But it doesn’t have to be.
It can be up to us, not to those who hate America and all for which she once stood.
John Kerry sings “Stand by Iran” (Capitol Steps Satire)
September 10, 2015John Kerry sings “Stand by Iran” (Capitol Steps Satire) via You Tube, December 10, 2013
(It’s nearly two years old but worth watching again. — DM)
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments