Y

eah, yeah, we sure tweeted about the #iranelections and blogged about how awful the Tehraniacs were, quashing political legitimate dissent over a fraudulent election.  But please, the Mullahs in Iran have nothing over the Commies in Beijing, who know how to quickly crush any expression in favor of political freedom.

AP reports from the Xinjiang capital of Urumqi, in the Uighurland west of China, that at least 140 have been killed and nearly 900 arrested after police a protest that up until than had been peaceful, demanding justice for two Uighurs killed last month during a fight with Han co-workers at a factory.  Soon thereafter, columns of paramilitary police were seen pouring into Urumqi, ready to open up a little Lhasa on the minority Uighers.

Sorry for not having a Tehran-like photo of suppression in action, but this is China, folks, and photos aren’t exactly flooding out of there.  In fact, Youku, China’s version of YouTube, and Fanfou, China’s Twitter, were both slammed shut in Xinjiang, and all Internet traffic slowed – a sure sign the government was heavily monitoring chatter.

Now that’s totalitarian suppression! The Mullahs should be moping, ashamed of themselves for their lily-livered response to pro-Democracy demonstrators.

Except not really.  Tehran was dealing pretty much with an all-Persian uprising; the Beijingoists are in the much more comfortable area of racial hatred and tribal supression, something they are very good at – the same thing that made the attacks on Tibet so pleasurable to the Han Chinese majority that runs China.

In Urumqui, as in Lhasa, the unrest is as much racial as it is political – if not more so.  With Chinese economic expansion, the majority Han ethnic group is spreading out throughout China, displacing Tibetans, Uighurs and others as they do.  The minorities complain to Beijing, but the Commies there see them as merely an inferior, backwards minority.

As for the Obama admin, as of 10:45 PST, there were no statements from the White House or State.

No Comments yet »

I

f there is one thing the people of Iran have learned since the “glorious” Islamic revolution, it’s to take the words of the supreme ayatollah seriously.

Yesterday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned that he’d had enough of this liberty and fair vote crowd and would be clamping down, pronto. And today, the crowds that were reported to be as high as one million yesterday, shrunk to 3,000, according to the Times (UK).  And here’s what they were met with:

Police in Tehran used teargas, metal batons and water cannons on protesters who continue to challenge the recent presidential elections.  …

Earlier today thousands of black-clad riot police were deployed to nearly every public square in the city, outnumbering those on the streets.

They completely blocked off Tehran’s Enghelab ‘Revolution’ Square after Mousavi supporters arranged to meet there.

Those who tried to gather were confronted by officers from all sections of Iran’s security services including the revolutionary guard, military police and religious paramilitaries called the Basij.

Smoke was seen rising from the square as tear gas was deployed on the protesters heard chanting ‘death to the dictator’ and crowds were dispersed with water canons.

Yes, I’ve tinted my avatar green on Twitter in solidarity with Iran’s freedom-hungry people, but that doesn’t mean I’ve ever given this little revolution any chance of succeeding.  I’ve seen totalitarianism at work, with faint memories of the Hungarian revolution when I was five, then Prague’s Velvet Revolution, then the Chinese dictators’ bloody suppression of Tianenmen, and the fade-out of the Azerbaijani revolution, the quick suppression of uprisings in Myanmar and in an encore, the Chinese dictators’ slaughter of monks and citizens in Tibet, Olympics or no Olympics.

Totalitarianism is a bear, a vicious, powerful bear. American presidents should always speak in favor of freedom, promote our system and our ideals, and speak out strongly against the actions of despots. They should pledge America’s strength towards diplomatic and economic actions. But they need to be very cautious when offering encouragement or succor, because history proves that totalitarians are in total control and will kill, torture and imprison to stay that way.

Obama is right not to say anything to encourage the Iranians to take to the street, because if they do and are massacred, he is not prepared to do anything in support of them.  (I’m not saying he’s right not to do anything to support them; only that since he’s not going to help, he shouldn’t encourage them to put themselves in a situation where they may need his help.)

But he didn’t go far enough in condemning Iran’s leaders, not by a long shot. It is not difficult to find the right position in a matter like his – especially if the president puts America’s role as the light for freedom throughout the world ahead of his own ludicrous desire to be photographed sitting next to Mah- I’m in the -moud for some serious head bashin’ Ahmadinejad (rhymes with “Hanging chad? We don’t need no hanging chad!”)  The president is, we’re told endlessly, brilliant. He’s supposed to be so good with words, so fresh diplomatically. 

He’s showing none of it … and the supreme ayatollah is showing us this (caution, upsettingly graphic):

Meanwhile, the NYT reports Obama is steadfastly resisting pressure to step up his rhetoric:

Mr. Obama, officials said, was determined to react to events as they unfold, rather than make statements that might play well politically but hinder his longer-term foreign-policy goals. The administration still hopes to pursue diplomatic engagement with Iran on its nuclear program.

Still, one senior official acknowledged that a bloody crackdown would scramble the administration’s calculations.

It looks increasingly that the bloody crackdown is happening in real time, right now. Will it scramble Obama’s calculations – or will he continue to put his desire to talk to Ahmadinejad, the recipient of the benefits of the corrupt election, ahead of America’s role as the world’s foremost advocate for human dignity and freedom?

No Comments yet »

A

s I understand it, here’s the Obama/Clinton State Dept’s take on how they will win what we used to call the war on terror:  The problem between the U.S. and the jihadists is that we just haven’t been likable enough. We’ will win over Islam if we spend less on the military and more on fish sticks for orphans.

That was the gist of Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith A. McHale’s talk to the Center for a New American Security today.  (I thought the old Bush security was just fine, by the way, since no Americans were killed by jihadists on American soil during his watch, post 9/11.)  Here’s some excerpts:

Whether we are strengthening old alliances, forging new partnerships to meet complex global challenges, engaging with citizens and civil society, or charting new strategies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, our national interests depend on effective engagement and innovative public diplomacy. The stakes could not be higher. We must get this right…This is not a propaganda contest — it is a relationship race. And we have got to get back in the game.

Enhanced public diplomacy is a key component of the President’s new strategy in the region…To achieve the President’s aims, we are launching a multi-faceted strategy to provide platforms for local moderate voices, support democratic institutions and civil society, and position the United States as a long-term partner working to create opportunities and enable the people of the region to chart the futures of their own countries.

We are responding to requests from the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to help meet the needs of their people. Secretary Clinton recently announced more than $100 million in humanitarian support for the people of Pakistan. And Ambassador Holbrooke just announced another $200 million. Since 2002, the United States has provided a total of more than $3.4 billion to alleviate suffering and promote economic growth, education, health, security and good governance in Pakistan. [Oh, wait! You mean Bush tried this to the tun of $3.4 billion and they're still trying to kill us? No matter; just apply the Universal Obama Solution - throw lots of money at it.]

Yet we have a credibility gap with many in the region — some have called it a ‘trust deficit.’ So part of our task is reassuring the people that our aim in the region is to support their own aspirations. We need to do a better job of getting the word out about what we are doing to help Pakistan and Afghanistan become more stable and prosperous, both through the local media and by communicating directly with people.”

It is not about getting the word out, or the trust deficit, but it is most definitely about the aspirations of the people of the region.  A significant percentage of them have a deeply imbedded aspiration to bring pain, suffering and death to the Great Satan, and no amount of communication or prosperity is going to change that.  Only rewriting the Q’ran will change that.

Islam has nurtured radicals since the dawn of the religion, through times of great wealth and times of great poverty alike.  Radical Muslims abound in Lebanon, where Democracy still hangs on. And education? Cairo University, where Obama spoke to the Muslim world last week (except for Iran, of course, where the state didn’t broadcast it), has spawned its share of very well educated Islamo-savages.

McHale concluded her comments with a bizarre historical reference:

A few days after I started at the State Department, I moved into George Marshall’s old office. General Marshall saw a world beyond our shores devastated by war and reeling from economic crisis. He knew that our fates and our fortunes were intertwined and that America had to engage with the world to ensure our future. So he launched one of the most far-reaching engagement efforts in history. And today we are still reaping the rewards of that investment in mutual prosperity and security. From Cairo to Kabul, from quiet villages to crowded cities, America is once again reaching out a hand of friendship and seeking new relationships. We know it is the right thing to do and we know, like General Marshall did, that our future depends on it.

Yeah, but back then Europe was a Christian continent. And the enemy was broken, broke and starving – a point we’ll never get to if the administration can’t even admit that we’re fighting terrorists.  There is a role for public diplomacy – what we used to call foreign aid – but alone, it will have no measurable effect on the level of jihadist violence against us.

No Comments yet »

N

o political choice is ever a 0/100 or a 100/0 affair.  We balance, sift and finally settle, selecting the candidates we will reject and the ones we will vote for.

With Barack Obama, I quickly felt that his leftist voting record and his transparently disingenuous rhetoric was bad news for America and I hoped Hillary would win the Dem nomination – not so much because I thought that would make it easier for the GOP nominee to win, but because it meant that no matter who won, America would be in better hands than it would be if it was in Obama’s.

Still, he wasn’t 0/100 with me.  I thought that his unique heritage could play well on the foreign policy stage, even if I didn’t trust his own policies.  When gaps are huge – as they are between radical Islam and us – bridging has to come first, with policies following.  Obama could be a bridge, and even if there are downsides to bridging, there is an upside (again not a 100/0 or 0/100 thing).  The upside was that Obama might spark a “moderate revolution” in Islam, creating the opportunity for the religion’s worst elements to be censored – eliminated – from within, instead of by us.

Today in Cairo this was either going to happen or not happen.  And none of us know, now that the speech has been given, whether sparking the moderation of Islam will be Obama’s legacy or not.  But we do know, and have to admit, that he was uniquely qualified by his heritage and life story to give this speech. I have read no commentaries or news reports.  I don’t know how it was received in Cairo, Tehran, Dearborn or either the right or left side of the blogosphere.  I just read the transcript on Real Clear Politics, and this is what I think.

Structurally, the speech is very basic.  It defines seven issues and introduces each by finding and celebrating our common ground in that area before detailing our differences and the Obama vision for resolution.  In the seven issues, he covered everything I wanted him to cover, including in #5 the one with the most potential power: women’s rights. If the women of Islam begin to demand rights, it will be a great force toward moderation and economic development, and I hope that Islamic women and men will be inspired by those words. 

The speech strained credulity and history at times trying to find common ground, as was the case early on when he cited the Treaty of Tripoli as evidence of a long, normal history between America and Islam:

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.”

“Recognize” is a unique way to put the relationship characterized by this treaty, which was all about war and piracy and slavery and extortion – hardly the basis for Islam always being a positive part of America’s story.  And it wasn’t John Adams that drafted the very controversial Article 11he quotes from, it was the diplomat Joel Barlow, who negotiated the treaty.

These oratorical stretches at the beginning of each of its seven sections are the points of the speech that are the must vulnerable, and surely will be the target of criticism.  I get it; he wants to show the connection, but the very fact that the connction is sometimes so hard to find reveals the difficulty of the challenge.

It is naive to think that one speech would transform the world; that’s the “magic bullet” theory that Obama seems to believe in but simply is not true.  Certain of his statements will stick in certain peoples’ craws and certain nations’ collective craws and will become their point of focus, building gaps, not bridges.   

On policy, a few things jumped out at me, most of all that he did not say unequivocally that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.  The closest he came to making a horrifying apology was in this section, when he appeared to apologize for our nuclear capabilities:

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.

Is he saying it was wrong for America to make the choice to become a nuclear nation?  It certainly seems so, and if that’s his belief, he’s got a lot of historical explaining to do, looking back, and he’s created a diplomatic quagmire, looking forward.

He satisfied me with his basic statements of support for Israel and surprised me in an extremely positive way with his frank condemnation of antisemitism and his statement – in Egypt, where antisemitism and Holocaust denial is a state-run business – that denying the Holocaust “is baseless, ignorant, and hateful.” I was less thrilled with his seeming acceptance of Hamas as a legitimate party going forward and his condemnation of Israeli settlements – but I loved that Holocaust talk!  How will it play in the Muslim world? We’ll see, but it certainly did no harm.

The other thing that troubled me is the promises he made to American Muslims, and the commitments he made on behalf of we non-Muslims.  He promised to make it easier for Muslims to fulfill the zakat – Islam’s charitable giving mandates – under U.S. tax law.  I wasn’t aware this was a problem, and I hope he’s not talking about making it easier for American Muslims to give to Hamas and other terrorist groups.

I’m also not sure which Americans, exactly, he was talking about here: 

Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

I know a few Americans who are doing that.  They’re called “missionaries,” and they have to live almost underground, fearful of religious persecution at any turn.  I fear Obama is calling for something akin to the radical Americans who went to Cuba in the 60s to harvest sugar cane – will there be troops of progressives trekking to Libya now, coming back with Islamic doctrination rather than leaving behind American ideals?

Then there was the ludicrous.  There always has to be the ludicrous in an Obama speech.

We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops.

Barry, Barry, Barry.  These people are living with intermittent electric power, water they can’t drink, and they use dangerously over-crowded public transportation or motorbikes or even donkeys and camels to get around.  Digitizing medical records when you’re going to clinics that wash and re-use wound dressings?  Green jobs when any job will do, thank you?  Leave the appeasing of the U.S. Greenies at home!

Still, I go back to the beginning and say this was a speech only Barack Obama could have given, and I have to say he did it well.  His audience wasn’t us, it was them, and he did not come off as either weak or arrogant, the two directions that would have sunk this initiative.  He positioned – perhaps too subtly for some – his country as a force for good, and held us up as an economic and human rights ideal.  He will be the source of many, many conversations in the Muslim world for some time to come, many of them focusing on this, the big question:

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

My guess:  As is the case now, most of us will work toward common ground, a good future for our children and respect for others.  And a few radical Islamists will continue to focus on destroying all things not Islamic and creating a new caliphate.

No Comments yet »

S

hall we take a little peek at the Euro-press and see how our prez fared on his recent trip across the pond?  It may be a good idea because Robert “Jive Talkin’” Gibbs is telling us it was a wonderfully successful trip, so applying the sort of cynicism I learned as a journalist (“If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”), I’m going to do a little verifying here.

No doubt, some loved it.  Spiegel quotes from the German paper Süddeutsche Zeitung:

“There will be some in America who say: ‘So, what has Obama gained in Europe? More troops for Afghanistan? More money to fight the recession? Nothing.’ A few hard-boiled Republicans have already started criticizing Obama for precisely these things. But they represent the old school.”

“According to the new school from Obama’s new Washington, this is the way to look at it: The president has brought home the most valuable thing he could have and the thing that the superpower critically needs at this time — credibility and the ability to win others’ faith.

But to see the other side, an opinion piece in today’s IHT is a pretty good place to start.  Somebody find Gibbs and make sure he doesn’t see this:

The gap between myth and reality at last week’s G-20 summit in London was truly breathtaking. On the one hand, President Barack Obama proclaimed he had come to London to listen, not dictate. That was the myth.

On the other, the prime drama of the G-20 was the attempt by the Obama economic team to bully the Europeans into doing additional fiscal stimulus. That was the reality.

Europe had good reason for saying no to the new American president.

Saying “no” to the American president?!  Where were his magical powers of persuasion, the magic words he assured us he, and he alone, had and would unleash once elected?

Here’s NRC, from the Netherlands:

Rarely does Obama express understanding for French or German skepticism of large government investments, and seldom does he openly give attention to the global nature of the crisis. Because of that, protectionism – “buy American!” – sneaks into his policy. According to Dale, Obama would “truly show leadership” if he would use the G20 summit in London to explicitly turn against that idea – and with that, against his own supporters. …

Some followers of the president have wondered the last couple of months why Obama has not yet used his popularity in Europe for personal appeals for more European solidarity in Afghanistan and for the closure of Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo).

Despite extensive efforts, Americans diplomats did not succeed in securing extra European troops for Afghanistan; The Hague conference did not bring any change in that department yesterday. In addition, American requests for the reception of released Gitmo prisoners hardly got any response in Europe.

Yeah, they loved him.  Sure.  Another outlet from the Netherlands, Elsevier, followed up Obama’s visit with a little piece called How Barack Obama Violates Human Rights, which contained this:

The [NATO Afghanistan] conference was also marked by contact between Islamic Iran and the United States. President Barack Obama wished Islamic Iran and Iranians happiness for the Iranian New Year. So did George W. Bush. He did it via the radio, but Obama used TV and the internet.

As Obama addressed the Iranian government, a number of bloggers were arrested in Tehran on suspicion of attempting to throw over the regime. Can a blogger overthrow a regime with his text? … Do great civilizations arrest columnists and bloggers nowadays?

Obama legitimized the Iranian government by explicitly mentioning the Iranian state. For President Bush, the Iranian civilians were more important, and he often addressed them. At that time, the Islamic republic could only count on criticism from the American government. Times have changed.

Apparently it is possible for Europeans to see right through Obama, a skill many Americans have not yet picked up.

El Pais in Spain wrote about the trip at its outset and foresaw exactly what would happen, a sign of being decidedly undazzled:

Barack Obama, the U.S. president for whom Europe swooned, is in Europe, on his first transatlantic visit. It’s more than probable, however, that this dizzying tour (the G-20, a NATO summit, meetings with the EU and Turkey) will end in a handful of hopeful statements and gestures … that are rather empty of concrete results.

And seeing right through Obama’s call for a nuke-free world was the German newspaper Die Welt, also quoted in Spiegel:

“Of course, at least in theory, it is possible to imagine scrapping all of the world’s nuclear warheads. But the fact is that you can’t just erase the fact that people know how to build atomic weapons. … Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and reducing existing nuclear arsenals to a certain degree are worthwhile goals, but the so-called ‘global zero’ is not. ‘More security’ is more important than ‘no nukes.’”

No Comments yet »

W

ith a surprise trip to Iraq, unless there are further surprises, Barry’s Big Adventure is winding down.  G20, NATO, speech to the Muslim world, visit to Iraq – as presidential jaunts go, this one was as ambitious as they come.  But was it successful?

Absolutely, at least from his perspective.  Let’s start with the high point: He wasn’t at home, so for a week the focus of the American voter wasn’t on the economy, which was a blessed relief for Dem strategist.

Now, the low point:

Don’t believe the CNN headline at the top, which is just media bias at its worst.  You saw it right.  At about 30 seconds in, our slim, good lookin’ president had a chance to give France’s too-hot first lady Carla Bruni, who’s leaning in for a little cheek-nuzzle, a little of his lips brushing her skin … but he backs off, sticks out his hand like a halfback stiff-arming, and she shifts to a handshake.  And see in back?  See Michelle’s long, withering hawkeyed check?  What’s with that?  As Red State called it, Henpecked in Chief.  Is this the image we want for our president?  You know Bush would have gone in for it, and Laura, sure of her husband’s fidelity, wouldn’t even have noticed.  But Obama held back and every straight man on the planet said, “You idiot!”

On now to less important measures. You (and I) can henpeck this trip apart as well as Michelle does Barry, but from a liberal perspective, the trip was a stunner.

At the G20, we saw an American president who let other nations lead and agenda-set, and we were not happy.  But Obama and his posse saw an American president who was properly differential and not, by any stretch of the imagination, arrogant – a word, by the way, that is much in the Lib lexicon nowadays, as in Obama isn’t, Bush was.  That, of course, is a pure fabrication; Obama is the height of arogance.  But they live in a fabricated world.  And in their world, Barry’s world, the G20 was ideal.

Off to NATO, where we saw a president not get much support for Afghanistan, but they saw a president who was not particularly militarily oriented and got lip service support for a war he, and they, must grudgingly give lip service to for appearances sake.  An upleasant but perfect stop.

In Prague, Obama outlined his vision for a nuclear free world, with a respected international agency watching over all of us, ensuring our safety.  We saw Li’l Kim Jong Il fire off a missile and blow the whole kumbayah moment, but the Libs couldn’t believe their ears.  I mean, man, it was like he was like wearing a peace sign or something.

Then to Istambul where he spent far too much time from our perspective bad-rapping America and its history, but on  this score, I’m going to give him some leeway. As much as I don’t like the message, I can concede that it may well have been the correct message for the audience he was speaking to. He has given the Muslim world his best shot.  He has laid out America as a flawed but great nation that’s ready to be a friend.  He’s said we think Islam’s just fine even if some of your folks periodically fly planes into our skyscrapers.  That’s what the Muslim world wanted to hear, so for that purpose, it was a well delivered speech.  And since he talked about American weaknesses in front of a foreign audience, the Libs were experiencing an unadulterated Dixie Chick moment.

And finally this morning the mandatory “secret” trip to Iraq, where he met with Gen Ray Odierno, said perfectly fine things about our wonderful troops and will meet with Iraq’s leadership.  Libs may squirm a bit at this, but they’ll probably concede that he did well with it, just as I did for his stop in Turkey.

So, he’s given it his best shot.  He’s rolled out the Obama mystique, the Obama vision, the Obama pixie dust, at every major venue that matters.  He did it cooly, without significant gaffe and with integrity, in the sense that whatever you may think, he was true to himself in this trip.  (Yeah, yeah, I know … what “self” does he have to be true to? But c’mon, try to see it through other eyes.)

Now he’s got nowhere to go but the White House. 

The market’s down 150 points, unemployment’s up, the Dem leadership is uncontrollable, his constituents have tasted blood and want more, the Tea Parties are spooling up … and overseas, the Europeans are going about being European and whatever good feelings he engendered among Muslims, I guarantee you, has not stopped the plotting, bomb-making jihadists. Those who bought the promise of the Obama campaign are still thinking that after all this, the pixie dust will hold strong, that change will come by the mere magic of His Presence and the power of His Words. 

We’ll see about that.  He did indeed give it his very best; now we’ll see what his very best can accomplish in a world that doesn’t curry much to pixie dust.

2 Comments »

Perhaps the most important story of the week for U.S. foreign policy was Ayatolla Ali Khamenei’s swift, rude rejection of President Hope’s latest “I can talk ‘em into it” overture towards Tehran, but it was hardly the only big news.  The need to make money robbed me of time to blog on these two other recent news items:

Fuoad Ajami in the WSJ: 

The opponents of the American project in Iraq did not know much about Afghanistan. They despaired of Iraq’s sectarianism and ethnic fragmentation, but those pale in comparison with the tribalism and ethnic complications of Afghanistan. If you had your fill with the Kurds and the Sunnis and the Shiites of Iraq, welcome to the warring histories of the Pashtuns, the Uzbeks, the Tajiks, and the Hazara Shiites of Afghanistan.

In their disdain for that Iraq project, the Democrats and the liberal left had insisted that Iraq was an artificial state put together by colonial fiat, and that it was a fool’s errand to try to make it whole and intact. Now in Afghanistan, we are in the quintessential world of banditry and tribalism, a political culture that has abhorred and resisted central authority.

I’ve said it ever since Obama rejected Iran and embraced Afghanistan that his position had nothing to do with commitment to or understanding of Afghanistan; it was only a pose so we could appear tough while still being for defeat in Iran.  Ajami’s piece gives depth and confirmation to my position, and points out that Obama has yet to commit to Afghanistan and lay out his objectives – a position that strengthens the Taliban every day.

Also in the WSJ, John Bolton:

While President Obama’s unanticipated Nowruz holiday greeting to Iran generated considerable press attention, his video wasn’t really this week’s big news related to the Islamic Republic. Far more important was that a senior defector — Iran’s former Deputy Minister of Defense Ali Reza Asghari — disclosed Tehran’s financing of Syria’s nuclear weapons program. That program’s centerpiece was a North Korean nuclear reactor in Syria. Israel destroyed it in September 2007.

At this point, it is impossible to ignore Iran’s active efforts to expand, improve and conceal its nuclear weapons program in Syria while it pretends to “negotiate” with Britain, France and Germany (the “EU-3″). No amount of video messages will change this reality. The question is whether this new information about Iran will sink in, or if Washington will continue to turn a blind eye toward Iran’s nuclear deceptions.

That the Pyongyang-Damascus-Tehran nuclear axis went undetected and unacknowledged for so long is an intelligence failure of the highest magnitude. It represents a plain unwillingness to allow hard truths to overcome well-entrenched policy views disguised as intelligence findings.

Our intelligence capabilities in Greater Jihadistan remain a pale shadow of our Cold War capabilities, even though the threat is real and far more complex.  Does anyone think our capabilities will improve under an Obama administration that has put a political hack in charge of the CIA? 

Bolton thinks Obama may well succeed in sparking some talks with Tehran, but that Tehran will use the talks just as they have used the EU-3 (Britain, France, Germany) talks: A good way to cover up and stall, while the Mullahs continue to pursue their dream of nuclear jihad.

No Comments yet »

C

ould Russia be taking Hillary up on her “Reset” (not “overcharge”) invitation?  Are they resetting glasnost and peristoika for the comfy familiarity of the cold war?  What do you read into this AP report?

A Russian Air Force chief said Saturday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has offered an island as a temporary base for strategic Russian bombers, the Interfax news agency reported.

The chief of staff of Russia’s long range aviation, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, also said Cuba could be used to base the aircraft, Interfax reported. …

Zhikharev said Chavez had offered “a whole island with an airdrome, which we can use as a temporary base for strategic bombers,” the agency reported. “If there is a corresponding political decision, then the use of the island … by the Russian Air Force is possible.”

Interfax reported he said earlier that Cuba has air bases with four or five runways long enough for the huge bombers and could be used to host the long-range planes. …

Independent military analyst Alexander Golts said from a strategic point of view there was nothing for Russia to gain from basing long-range craft within relatively short range of U.S. shores. “It has no military sense. The bombers don’t need any base. This is just a retaliatory gesture,” Golts said, saying Russia wanted to hit back after U.S. ships patrolled Black Sea waters.

At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey sees it as possibly that foreign policy challenge Joe Biden predicted his boss would get in the admin’s first six months:

It took John Kennedy more than a year to precipitate a military standoff with the Soviet Union over Cuba in the 1962 missile crisis.  It’s taken the Obama Amateur Hour less than two months.

James Joyner of the Atlantic Council is dismissive:

I’m sure Golts’ assessment is right here.  The Soviets did not have permanent bases in the area during the Cold War, so the strategic rationale for doing so now is hard to fathom.  Most likely, this is just a selective leak to the press to tweak the Obama administration.  

I tend to stand closer to Joyner here.  The Russians tried this once before when America had a young president who lacked deep experience, and they ended up giving JFK a leg up on foreign policy.  Unless the Russian memory fades to black around 1963, they will see the high-probability endgame of accepting Chavez’s invitation as the Bear shuffling back to the Mother Country, tail between its legs.

There are two other scenarios:  They fly in a TU-95 or two for a “goodwill” visit just to test the Obama response, which, if we can tell much from his first 50 days, will be late, weak and confused – giving Putin a victory as his planes wing home.

Alternatively, it’s the New World Order, with Obama and Putin just playing with our heads.

Dang, I’m missing W.

No Comments yet »

Budget Office Has No Faith In Stimulus

T

he Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan provider of economic analysis to Congress, isn’t the least bit optimistic about the effect of Porkasaurus on the economy. In fact, they see it as bad news:

President Obama’s economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary. (WashTimes)

And what of all the jobs Obama says (models) his bill will create?  CBO dismisses the impact of Porkasaurus jobs on the economy as “minimal.” And that makes this comment from “Suggestions4Obama” particularly pathetic:

I do not understand why people are having diffculty understanding. The number of unemployed people (11.6 million) and the unemployment rate (7.6 percent) rose in January. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 4.1 million. The Department of Labor reported today that nonfarm payroll employment fell sharply in January (-598,000) and the unemployment rate rose from 7.2 to 7.6 percent. Payroll employment has declined by 3.6 million since the start of the recession in December 2007, …. most of this mess happening only in past three months! And some wonder Obama is pushing so hard for a stimulus package. Is the Herbert Hoover approach, do nothing, all we need, leading us to a twelve year depression ??

Here’s the deal, S4O:  Simply stating the problem doesn’t make the stimulus a solution. Ask the guys in the photo – after all, the Depression got worse after FDR tried to spend his way out of it. Continue Reading »

No Comments yet »

W

inds of change are blowing, and Mah- I’m in the -moud for victory Ahmadinejad (rhymes with “I think Barack can be had”) has  his nose in the air, sniffing intently.  He likes what the breeze is blowing his way:

Without mentioning President Obama by name, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Wednesday repeatedly referred to those who want to bring “change,” a word used often in Obama’s election campaign, and seemed to indicate Iran would be looking to see whether there would be substantive differences in U.S. policy under Obama.

“We will wait patiently, listen to their words carefully, scrutinize their actions under a magnifier and if change happens truly and fundamentally, we will welcome that,” Ahmadinejad said, speaking to a crowd of thousands. (USA Today)

So is this a new sign that there is indeed hope for real change in US-Iran relations, that Obama’s much scoffed-at calls for talks with Iran might actually be a sane idea?  Given Ahmadinejad’s terms for change, I certainly don’t think so.

“Change means giving up support for the rootless, uncivilized, fabricated, murdering… Zionists and let the Palestinian nation decide its own destiny.”

Disparaging adjectives aside, there’s a problem with Mahmoud’s position here.  The trouble is, the Palestinian nation wants to decide its destiny and Israel’s, and their idea of Israel’s destiny sounds familiar:  Wipe them off the face of the earth.  Any Obama dialog with Iran had better state quickly that we won’t go along with that.

Then, as Iran spoils for war, fighting a barely clandestine war against us in Iraq, threatening transport in the Gulf, building nukes, Ahmadinejad defines change in U.S. military policy as he would like to see it:

“Change means putting an end to U.S. military presence in (different spots of) the world.”

Nifty.  Why do I get the feeling that you just can’t talk to this guy?

And finally, Ahmadinejad smells something he doesn’t like, and he wants Obama to change it right away:

“The change will be to apologize to the Iranian nation and try to compensate for their dark records and the crimes they have committed against the Iranian nation.”

He wants us to pay retribution for having supported the Shah.  How do we compute the price if the Iranian people are far more poor and repressed now than they were under the Shah?  How do we compute the price if the Shah was preceded by British and Russian imperialism and the either brutally repressive or lamely ineffective Qajar Persian heads of state? (Have you forgotten that the Russians actually seized Iranian territory and marched on Tehran after the 1917 Communist revolution?)  And are we to offset the price with their payments to us for seizure of our embassy and diplomats, and for the U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by Iranian-supplied weapons and Iranian-trained jihadists?

Ahmadinejad’s latest rant comes in direct response to Obama’s Al-Arabia interview Tuesday, in which the prez said, “”it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress.”  How much progress can there be if the Iranian starting position is for us to abandon Israel, withdraw our military from pretty much everywhere and pay them reparations?

1 Comment »