Republican Leader discusses health care, Afghanistan, economy
‘If the majority is hell-bent on ignoring the wishes of the American people, they have 60 votes in the Senate’
Absolutely unbelievable! Apparently the audacity of the O is contagious. Or maybe this is a product of his recent World Apology Tour. The UN has raised a question on whether the US is killing people indiscriminately with the use of UAVs. Perhaps they should have first asked this question to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah or any other terrorist group. For that is what terrorists do. Absolutely unbelievable! If anyone requires further explanation of this issue there is no point continuing a discussion. The world is truly losing its collective mind. This is beyond audacity. That the UN is the source is the only thing that is not a surprise.
What the hell do they think 9/11 was if not indiscriminate killing? In more than eight years has the UN accused al-Qaeda of violating international law for that? Nearly 3000 civilians killed in the attack on the WTC and the UN wants to know about drones? Wow! And this same organization is involved with determining whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons. How vulnerable do you feel right now?
It will take some time to nominate another story that even comes close to comparing to this one on the absurd meter.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
UN Special Rapporteur Questions Legality of US Use of Drones |
|
United Nations 27 October 2009 |
The U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings says the use of armed unmanned aircraft by the United States to hunt down terrorists could be a violation of international law. Philip Alston said Tuesday that Washington must explain how it is sure the United States is not killing people indiscriminately with these aircraft.
U.S. officials have never confirmed the use of Predator drones, but it is widely reported that the Central Intelligence Agency has used them to kill suspected terrorist leaders operating in Pakistan’s largely ungoverned tribal areas along its border with Afghanistan.
U.N. Special Rapporteur Philip Alston questioned the legality of their use under international law. “My concern is that these drones, these Predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions are not, in fact, being carried out through the use of these weapons,” he said.
U.S. officials never acknowledge these strikes, saying they do not discuss operational or intelligence matters.
The Special Rapporteur, who is an independent expert appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, said the U.S. response has been “untenable” and that Washington needs to be more willing to discuss aspects of its drone program. “Otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line, which is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws,” he said.
Alston said the United States should explain who is running the program and what precautions are being taken to ensure that these weapons are used within the framework of international law. He added that there must also be accountability and review mechanisms in place regarding their use.
While the recent decision by the Nobel committee to award the 2009 peace prize to President Obama focused more attention on the US leader no more will be said about it in this post. US diplomatic strategy, success or failure, foreign policy and the role of the US State Dept and White House will be. All the talk about rebuilding America’s image, hope and change, a nuclear free world and ends to conflict needs a reality check. How are things going so far?
Not necessarily in order of importance what is on most peoples’ minds these days in terms of international relations or foreign affairs? From the US perspective the countries of note would include Russia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, North Korea and Iran. Of course the perennial favorites not yet mentioned would be any country in the Middle East. Israel and its neighbors are still without solutions. Russia and China are still vying for top dog honors with the US on the world stage. Upstarts Iran and North Korea at the very least want a seat at the cool kids table. So nothing much has changed.
Here’s a brief recap of events in US diplomatic strategy with a ‘new’ President and Secretary of State.
Not a surprise to see a headline expressing failure in Middle East diplomacy no matter who is involved.
What about Iran?
And the view from the US Secretary of State…..
This is merely a continuation of the impotent international community’s response to Iran’s nuclear weapons program that was essentially confirmed again with yet another lie exposed with admission of the previously hidden enrichment facility already known to the Obama Administration. And no one will visit the plant until later this month. Like that will solve anything.
Which makes this next sham almost laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.
By Margaret Besheer
The United Nations
Another rhetorical masterpiece expressing the desire for a nuclear free world without the substance to support such a notion. The exclamation point is provided by the appeasement strategy reminiscent of a similar process that helped usher in WWII.
And what was the defining achievement by press accounts for the SoS Hillary Rodham Clinton?
Hillary Clinton Helps Turkey, Armenia Open Border - ABC News
Clinton uses diplomatic muscle in Turkey-Armenia row | Politics …
Turkey, Armenia Agree to Ties; Clinton’s Skill Tested (Update1 …
The Daily Star - Politics - Clinton hails Turkey, Armenia steps …
Clinton Helps Save Historic Turkey, Armenia Accord - International …
A more accurate appraisal of Clinton’s participation may be the following…..
By David Gollust
State Department
A simple visit to the US State Dept website would bear this out. At least in terms of demonstrating that this State Dept is essentially no different from any other feeble attempt by heads of state to display their conviction to foreign relations or determination to improve conditions in the world. A visit to the website while producing this post featured the following items:
Positive Future for U.S.-Russian Relations
Finding Common Ground With Russia
Secretary Clinton Travels to Europe
U.S. Supports Peace in Northern Ireland
U.S. Supports Emergence of Afghan Government
U.S.-U.K. Advancing Shared Values
U.S.-Ireland Working Together
and travel puff pieces?
So much for the hope and change of a new administration in the US and statements expressed to suggest foreign policy would be successful.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama is said to be struggling over what to do in Afghanistan. Does the rookie believe ignoring intel, military and state warnings is the answer? What does this say about his campaign rhetoric to get elected and his desire to maintain favor from the far left antiwar liberal standard?
By JONATHAN S. LANDAY, JOHN WALCOTT AND NANCY A. YOUSSEF
McClatchy Newspapers
His worry about public opinion ,aka far left support, and resistance to his own advisors is of such concern the report cited here mentions the problem twice in the first seven paragraphs.
Given the antiwar sentiment on the left that both candidate Obama and Clinton pandered to in 2008 their ability to do the right thing and at the same time protect their political futures are at odds with each other. With their own ‘experts’ and others suggesting the simmering conflicts are providing renewed strength for al-Qaeda now is not the time for indecision. Biden’s warning of a test for Obama may be just around the corner contrary to the original forecast.
Instead of national security and defense the liberal new direction is focused on an ill-conceived domestic policy Those issues can and should wait based on the pathetic proposals offered to date. The other matters are of immediate concern and need to be handled effectively. And yes, elections have consequences.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts
This blogger regularly albeit infrequently promotes reading George F Will’s columns. That remains. Similar to a previous misunderstood column criticizing the way Americans present themselves Mr Will may or is again coming under fire to some degree. It is unpopular in conservative circles to suggest abandoning military combat operations before victory is secured. But George F Will does make a point, unpopular or not. And he may end up being right but not necessarily for the reasons given below.
For several reasons this blog disagrees with the last two sentences presented above. You can of course make your own evaluation. Another opinion on this topic is at the WSJ.
Both with Mr Will and the WSJ piece from a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (O’Hanlon), the downside is discussed. The WSJ piece includes the upside.
Analyzing armed conflict while it is occurring and from an historical perspective is an unending endeavor. The only decisive outcome is whether those who risk making the ultimate sacrifice were at least allowed every conceivable opportunity for victory. After all, for the rest of us this analysis endeavor is merely Monday quarterbacking.
Perhaps the only statement on war with which we can all agree includes some expression of its futility. But this is what humans do when adequately provoked or someone decides all other options have evaporated. Until we morph into the perfect beings we sometimes think we are this practice will not become obsolete.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts
Is it simply a growing trend in conspiracy theories or is there valid evidence that election fraud is omnipresent in those countries of the world which allow citizens to choose their leaders? Reports on the latest challenges in an election deemed noteworthy by the various media is highlighted below.
There is mounting concern about the aftermath of Afghanistan’s presidential election. No results or even an estimated voter turnout have been announced by the country’s election officials. Partial results from some provinces are expected Tuesday, however. But the election overseers say official results may have to be delayed while they investigate a rising number of serious charges of voting fraud.
According to another report both sides make a claim of election fraud.
Earlier this year an election in Iran accompanied by subsequent charges of election fraud caused a ’stir’ that has not been satisfactorily resolved. It has been reported that the event is responsible for disruptions of alliances in the ruling elite.
Ebadi made similar comments during a protest speech in Amsterdam last month.
And then a contrast in claims of election fraud and media coverage on conspiracy theories.
Imagine that. Something claimed as stolen in Mexico. With all the rants following elections in the US that disappointed the liberal masses comes a stunning development within the conservative ranks in America.
WHAT???? Conservatives would consider leveling charges of election fraud???? Yes, it has come nearly full circle. Beyond the long standing American political rivalry between left and right there are other left and right battles making claim on election fraud.
Not to be outdone by anyone else Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez successfully cheated term limits for his electoral ambitions. As for the Russian Bear….
For what once appeared as an aberration in American politics, if not world public affairs, political corruption in the form of ‘vote early, vote often’ has risen to a level that reduces the discussion to one simple inquiry. If all elections are suspect does anything else in public debate matter? Or is this a new strategy to distract?
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Has the economic situation become so bleak in some people’s eyes or the state of Michigan that an interest in managing a prison hosting Gitmo detainees is seen as sensible? Desperate circumstances require desperate measures, maybe, but this smells like public prostitution with a government pimp. When you begin accepting ideas that would never have been considered in better economic times, red flags should be noticed not ignored.
If the state of Michigan sees Gitmo detainees as a key to their economic salvation the fall of the American auto industry has not been greatly exaggerated. And a question arises about Michigan’s commitment to save that industry. Democrats including Obama may have painted themselves into a corner with a deadline to close Gitmo. Republicans oppose Gitmo North but liberals are typically ready, willing and able to do whatever it takes to pursue their agenda even if that includes failure.
Some of what Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) has to say on the issue may be a little peculiar but one sentence of his quotes from The Hill’s article makes the obvious point. “And the only reason [Democrats] want to do it is for a few dollars.”
Those supporting Gitmo North should snap out of it and seek therapy. It won’t help but it may keep them out of circulation and let the smart ones decide the issue. This may not simply be a Michigan concern. Neighboring states or the entire nation have reason to be troubled by any detainee containment in the US given the risks known and unknown that come with the problem.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
from Maggie’s Notebook….
Michigan Kansas Terrorist Prison Courtroom: Jon Stewart Gitmo Video
It is difficult to determine which one is attempting to be more deceptive, Hillary Clinton or Iran’s Foreign Minister. Do you suppose inviting Mottaki to a sit down was worked out behind the scenes with Iran and the White House? Let’s see, there’s a NATO meeting in Brussels and a ‘conference’ gets conveniently scheduled at the same time. What an unremarkable coincidence that Clinton invites Iran to the sit down. And Iran’s FM predictably ‘considers’ the option, makes a few equally predictable comments hoping to make this all look spontaneous. Who’s buying that after Obama states he’s willing to do just about anything to appease those who would do us harm at the first opportunity?
Sure, according to Mottaki, Iran wants nothing but ‘peace and stability’ in Afghanistan. Just like they did not hing to disrupt that pursuit in Iraq or never said they want the elimination of Israel. And if memory serves, they refer to the US as Satan and want all infidels to die. Last time anyone checked, most of the US population would qualify as ‘infidels’ minus any sleeper cells. It is not known if those residing in the US who are Muslim meet the criteria for not being ‘infidels.’
Both Russia who is helping the Iranians with nuclear projects and the Iranians themselves are probably quite pleased that all this diplomatic foolishness takes such a long time. Whether they are ready to make or use nuclear weapons does not really matter. With all the wasted time over diplomacy with those who have no use for it Iran will most likely have or use a nuke before the talking ever stops.
Here once again is the requisite reminder that appeasement and surrender did not work for Neville Chamberlain. What makes anyone think it will work now? Probably the same reason that those who approve of Obama’s New Deal brand of socialism think it will work when it never has. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
06 March 2009 |
Iran said it is weighing a U.S. invitation to participate in an international conference on Afghanistan.
 |
| Iranian FM Manouchehr Mottaki (source: Wikipedia) |
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told Serbian state television Friday that Iranian officials were considering whether to attend the March 31 talks, but would not say whether they would.
Mottaki said he would discuss the matter with Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini during Frattini’s upcoming visit to Tehran. Italy said that trip has been postponed because of Iranian officials’ recent anti-Israeli and anti-American comments.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed that Iran be invited to the conference during a NATO meeting in Brussels Thursday. She said Iran would be invited as a “neighbor” and that the meeting would include other neighboring countries as well as NATO members and donors.
In the interview Friday, Mottaki blamed the U.S. for Afghanistan’s deteriorating security and said Iran’s strategy is the “return of peace and stability” in the country.
Iran’s invitation to attend the Afghan talks comes as the United States reviews the previous administration’s policy of isolating Tehran, including whether to open a low-level diplomatic office there.
The location of the conference has not been announced, but Clinton suggested Thursday that United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon open the ministerial-level meeting. She also suggested U.N. special envoy for Afghanistan Kai Eide chair the proceedings.
NATO ministers were reviewing the situation in Afghanistan ahead of upcoming presidential elections. They agreed on the need to assist Afghan authorities in providing security to assure a fair and free vote.
The United States has pledged an additional 17,000 troops for Afghanistan, and other NATO members are being asked for further contributions.
Moving forward on plans to have a sit down with Iran. Sending officials to hold preliminary discussions with Syria and other countries typically at odds with the US. Attempting a ’secret deal’ with Russia. Hell bent to withdraw from Iraq and now this. President Obama is ready, willing and able to cave to the Taliban in Afghanistan just as he directed more troops be sent there. How many events like this must take place before the public begins to see the appeasement and surrender tendencies of a new President?
Don’t be fooled by the President’s comparison to the US Military enlisting the help of various groups in Iraq. Al-qaeda was murdering their people as well and they were not opposed to retaliation for those actions even if it was done with Americans. ‘Reconciling’ with the Taliban amounts to conceding defeat and allowing the enemy to claim victory. The double danger lies in the fact that any concessions guarantee nothing and can enable the enemy without ever reaching agreement. It is a sign of weakness and puts everyone at risk.
Reengage the enemy in Afghanistan after a long interruption. Fashion success after the troop surge in Iraq and get this thing done once and for all. Obama appeasement and preemptive surrender is not an option unless one wishes to invite subsequent challenges from enemies. Another Neville Chamberlain moment hatched by a liberal in America, President Barack Obama.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
White House March 2009 |
U.S. President Barack Obama says he is looking at all kinds of options in Afghanistan - including reaching out to more moderate elements of the Taliban.
The president is in the midst of a detailed review of U.S. policy on Afghanistan, and he is indicating reconciliation could play an important part in his emerging strategy.
In an interview with the New York Times, he was asked if he would consider reaching out to more moderate elements of the Taliban - mirroring a successful U.S. military tactic in Iraq.
Mr. Obama said it might be possible, noting the outreach program in Iraq helped turn around the course of the war.
He spoke aboard Air Force One and his comments were recorded by a Times reporter.
“If you talk to General Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of al-Qaida in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said.
President Obama said there may be comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan along the Afghan border. But he stressed the situation there is much more complicated than in Iraq.
“You have a less-governed region, a history of fierce independence among tribes,” Mr. Obama said. “Those tribes are multiple and sometimes operate at cross purposes, so figuring all that out is going to be much more of a challenge.”
His comments were welcomed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has long advocated reconciliation with moderate elements of the Taliban. But Mr. Karzai emphasized there could be no dialog with Taliban allied with al-Qaida.
Violence in Afghanistan is at its highest level since the Taliban’s ouster in late 2001. President Obama announced last month that an additional 17,000 U.S. troops will be deployed to the country.
When asked by the New York Times if the United States is winning there, he replied no, adding U.S. troops have done an extraordinary job in a very difficult situation. He said conditions have deteriorated over the last year in Afghanistan, the Taliban is bolder, and the Afghan government still lacks the confidence of the people.
Analysts to Obama: There are no Taliban “moderates,” you nitwit (Michelle Malkin)
February 2009 |
|
| This front page was printed in September 1938 - one year before the outbreak of World War II. The Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, believed that ‘appeasement’ was the best way to avoid war with Germany. (graphic and caption above from link provided and not part of VOA report (click pic) |
U.S. President Barack Obama has tied the future of Iraq to that of the broader Middle East, which he says will include Washington’s “principled and sustained engagement” with Iran and Syria.
Mr. Obama said the U.S. can no longer deal with regional challenges in isolation. He argued Friday during a speech to Marines in North Carolina that Washington must take a “smarter, more sustainable and comprehensive approach.”
While reaching out to Tehran, Mr. Obama added that the U.S. is developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The Iranian government says its nuclear program has no military component.
Mr. Obama also said the U.S. will refocus on al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan and is actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world.
As proof of his commitment. he pointed to the appointment of George Mitchell, Dennis Ross and Richard Holbrooke as special envoys to the region.
He also announced he intends to send veteran diplomat Christopher Hill to Baghdad as U.S. ambassador.
The U.S. president said that everyone - both friends and foes - must know that the end of the Iraq war will bring a new era of American leadership and engagement in the Middle East.
crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Screw the UN
Another in a long list of additions to the Obama Administration reinforces the concern that while Hillary Rodham Clinton was unsuccessful in becoming President she succeeded in establishing a third Clinton term in spite of the loss. Susan Rice is US Ambassador to the United Nations and was a member of the Obama Biden Transition Team as well as senior foreign policy adviser for their 2008 campaign.
It has been said of Obama that filling vacancies from the previous administration demonstrates a preference for persons with impressive resumes’ in both education and experience. This selection was no departure from that criteria or strategy. A Wikipedia account of Dr Rice states her father told her to ‘never use race as an excuse or advantage’ and that she was concerned her accomplishments would be viewed as the result of affirmative action. Her personal success is impressive. It is possible she hails from a family with above average means so affirmative action should be a moot point. But what if any is the role of nepotism?
Madeleine Albright is described in the same account as a family friend and mentor to Rice. She urged Clinton to appoint Rice as an Assistant Secretary of State in 1997. While she impressed many and certainly enough to be confirmed others felt she was inexperienced and inflexible. A few years in the Clinton Administration and then to the Brookings Institution. A common career path for unemployed public servants similar to former Congressman becoming lobbyists. Next up the Clinton Obama Wars and filling the Administration with former staff to appease the Clinton clan before the convention. Oh there’s no nepotism here. And this is not a criticism directed at Rice for it is the case with most if not all Obama selections. So how is that working or shaping up for the average citizen?
Regarding President Obama’s election UN Sec Gen Ban Ki Moon expressed ‘Our goals are shared. Together, the United States of America and the United Nations can look forward to a new era of strong and effective partnership, delivering results and the change we need.’ If you take that statement at face value avoid persons selling infrastructure in Brooklyn or vacant land in Florida. Moon had more to say. Earlier this week, he welcomed Mr. Obama’s election “with great optimism,” noting that the UN and US have many common goals. By his own admission and that of Obama and Clinton these goals include but are not limited to the following:
United Nations reform (which will never happen)
Climate Change (or the promotion of more gloom and doom)
The Darfur Peace Process ( which does not exist, resembles the climate change item and is as likely to fail as that in the Middle East )
Global Economic Crisis (his words, and something these spendthrifts no nothing about )
But what Ban Ki Moon and the rest of the posse at the UN were really interested in was this.
UN Launches $613 Million Appeal for Gaza
By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
29 January 2009
And how does Moon qualify for the designation in the report above as a ‘world leader’? More to the point is what does the UN do besides make headlines and statements when they’re not collecting money and using it for who knows what? Could it be that aside from all the other conspiracy theories about the UN that they are quite happy with the Middle East conflict as another venue to work their craft of separating people from their money and giving it to their friends? If you object to that suggestion please explain why none of their ‘programs’ end in success or just end? Sustaining conflict in the world would be of benefit to them given their methods of operation.
So what does Dr Rice bring to the party?
Based on President Obama rescinding The Mexico City Policy, the liberal thirst for abortion and a press conference by the executive director of the UN population fund the crew must be drunk with sadistic pleasure over the spoils of a political victory. Here’s the damming evidence from the UN press conference in their own words.
And the final expression of support for ’safe’ abortions as ‘family planning’.
Translation:: The money is used to pay for abortions the ‘patient’ cannot afford which would lead to back alley practitioners who care less about the patient than the liberals care about the unborn child. And ‘family planning’ is liberal-speak for abortion. The only reason they support contraception is political. It gives them another pork item to support in legislation and lets them believe they have convinced you they are trying to do things the right way. Could it be any more pathetic?
So Dr Susan Rice will be doing the bidding of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Keep in mind both Clinton and Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy. Also notable is Obama’s weakness for ACORN and voter and campaign finance fraud as well as the Clintons’ scandal history including illegal transfers of sensitive technology via Chinagate. The perils of international politics grow larger. And the threat is not always from without but within.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
President Obama takes another page from the Ahmadinejad (Columbia U) playbook. For the Iranian it was engage the opponent, your target, your enemy, the infidels. Attempt to persuade them you mean them no harm. For Ahmadinejad it was more a case of the trojan horse. For Obama it is more a case of the appeaser cowering to a sworn enemy of Israel and anyone who defends them. Falls nicely into place with that infidel thing. And just as nicely into Obama’s surrender strategy if you recall the campaign of 2008.
The only thing missing from Obama’s message below is ‘and they all lived happily ever after.’.. And we know the genre of writing from which that fantasy comes. Hope and change will not render it true. This Messiah would need to conjure a miracle or three for that to happen. Pleading shows weakness and no courage of conviction whereas strength through the projection of power and determination based on defending principle does. Count the number of times that appeasing the agenda of rogue nations has been successful in the past.
Russia was not requested to ‘tear down that wall’ during the Cuban missile crisis. Japan wasn’t asked to surrender right after they attacked Pearl Harbor. But President Obama tells the ‘Muslim world’ he intends ‘to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace.’ He tells people with no interest in peace with Israel that he will work on that. Is that what comes from a Harvard education?
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
In his first interview with an Arab television station, President Barack Obama offered a bold change to America’s relations with the Muslim world.
“My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives,” President Obama told Al Arabiya. “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.”
In the interview, conducted in the White House map room, President Obama also expressed his commitment to tackling the Middle East peace process immediately.
“Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we’re not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we’re going to start now,” he said. “It may take a long time to do, but we’re going to do it now.”
The interview is part of the President’s broader outreach to the Muslim world, which includes a promise to make a major address from the capital of a Muslim nation.
Al Arabiya is a 24-hour Arabic-language news channel based out of Dubai.
Obama to Muslims: America Not Enemy |
|
| By VOA News 27 January 2009 |
 |
| US President Obama gives exclusive interview to Al-Arabiya TV |
U.S. President Barack Obama says he will work to show the Muslim world that Americans are not their enemy.
In his first formal interview - granted to an Arab television network - the American leader said his job is also to show Americans that people in the Muslim world simply want to live their lives and make better lives for their children.
Speaking on Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television, Mr. Obama pointed out that he has lived in Muslim countries and has Muslim family members.
As for Islamist terrorists, he said their ideas are bankrupt. He said nothing they have done has ensured that a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education, or has better health care.
Mr. Obama also repeated his inaugural address pledge to extend a hand to countries such as Iran if they are - as he said - “willing to unclench their fist.”
He said the United States must be willing to engage in diplomacy with Iran and promised to lay out a general framework and approach over the next several months.
Asked about the president’s comments Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it is up to Iran to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community.
As for the current standoff between Israel and Hamas, he said “the moment is ripe” for Israelis and Palestinians to achieve a lasting peace, but he added that all parties in the region must play a role in the process.
Mr. Obama said it is not possible to think of the Middle East without looking at the region as a whole, including Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan, for he said they are all interrelated.
He also said he plans to follow through on a promise to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital.
Every now and then one can recognize the use of artistic license by the author of a news report. Such is the case with at least part of the report below. But it fits nicely into the argument on this blog that President Obama is not a WYSIWYG politician. As evidenced by the phenomenon known as Obamania or some similar term there is a tendency in this nation to accept all of Mr Obama’s actions as right, above reproach, divine or in some way superhuman as the saving grace to whisk away all that ails the world.
President Obama’s executive orders related to Gitmo are not ‘designed , in part, to improve America’s image in the world.’ Almost simultaneously former Senator and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton accepted her confirmation as Secretary of State expressing that of the three ‘D’s in US foreign policy, defense, diplomacy and development only the last two would be targeted. Later in the piece below the real reason for President Obama’s instant use of executive orders on Gitmo are made clear. Activists and foreign governments have complained. Human rights activists and ‘many legal experts’ call the military trials unfair. Imagine that. Activists, foreign governments and most likely defense attorneys oppose Gitmo.
The rhetoric of playing by the rules, adhering to our values and other platitudes disguise the nature of the Obama philosophy. Kindly remember that Hillary Clinton is a fan of Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama spent much of his youth with Frank Marshall Davis. Barack Obama and his Marxist and socialist influences combined with Republican turned lefty Hillary Rodham Clinton and the rest of the clan that followed her to the Clinton Obama Administration are proving by their actions what most of us new before the election. An Obama Presidency will lead this country toward socialism and the weak-kneed appeasement policies reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. Maybe that is why Obama and ACORN focused on the youth vote in America. Being mostly oblivious to history they probably have no clue who Mr Chamberlain was and the significance of a reference to him on this topic.
Change you can believe in is correct. You can believe the change will not be a good thing. And you might find it interesting in the piece below that while the Bush Administration receives an inordinate amount of criticism on this topic Mr Obama ‘would listen to proposals for exceptions to the Army rules for some agencies and circumstances.’ Making good on a campaign promise is the excuse now and the harsh criticism does not need to be repeated as the gesture says it all. Make yourself look good to your supporters who have lost some confidence while quietly bashing your predecessor and setting up an appeasement policy with rhetoric.
The community organizer strikes again.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
“Rehab:” Gitmo recidivists thumb their noses in new video (Michelle Malkin)
| Obama Orders on Guantanamo and Interrogations Reverse Bush Policies | |
Washington January 2009 |
President Obama’s executive orders Thursday Jan 22nd, closing the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention center and banning torture and other harsh interrogation techniques, fulfill a campaign promise and impose major policy changes designed, in part, to improve America’s image in the world.
It was a dramatic moment at the White House on Thursday morning. As cameras clicked in front of him, President Obama said he was ordering all U.S. government agencies to abide by the restrictive interrogation rules published by the U.S. Army two years ago, and that he was ordering the closure of any prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency and said “Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now.”
The president also ordered an inspection of the Guantanamo facility to ensure it complies with the Geneva Conventions and U.S. laws. He also canceled a 2007 order by former-President Bush that opened the door to harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, and told all U.S. government agencies to ignore Bush administration decisions about what is allowed and what is not.
But President Obama did say he would listen to proposals for exceptions to the Army rules for some agencies and circumstances.
The president also suspended the military trials at Guantanamo, which human rights activists and many legal experts have branded as unfair.
The closing of the detention center and the end of those trials have long been sought by activists and many foreign governments. Some detainees were held in harsh conditions in the years immediately after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. Although conditions have improved and the government says harsh interrogation techniques are no longer used, Guantanamo has become a symbol of excess in the war on terrorism.
At Human Rights Watch in Washington, attorney Jennifer Daskal welcomed President Obama’s moves. “With the stroke of a pen, the new Barack Obama administration has put the United States back on a humane and rule-of-law-respecting course, and rejected the abusive practices of the last 7 1/2 years. These orders will go an enormous way toward restoring America’s image all around the world,” he said.
President Obama said that was part of what he wanted to do. “The message that we are sending around the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism, and we are going to do so vigilantly; we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals.”
President Obama started a process on Thursday that his predecessor, George W. Bush, also said he wanted to do but never did.
The former president and his spokesmen cited the difficulties of placing detainees in other countries and concerns about what to do with detainees who the government says are too dangerous to release, but cannot be put on trial because the evidence against them is secret or tainted by alleged torture. They also said 61 of the approximately 500 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to terrorism.
At a news conference shortly after the executive orders were signed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the only Bush cabinet member asked to stay in his job — said those difficult issues have not gone away.
GATES: “These are just issues that we will have to work through with the new administration. And some of the legal issues, which are really outside our purview, are the things that the Justice Department and the White House Counsel and so on will be working on.”
PESSIN: “But is there some option out there that you identified before, but was rejected by the Bush Administration, particularly with regard to those that you can’t release and can’t put on trial?”
GATES: “I don’t think so.”
Secretary Gates indicated he does not know exactly how the issues will be settled, but he noted that since the November presidential election, a few countries have expressed interest in taking some of the detainees from Guantanamo — reversing their previous refusals.
The Secretary, who is also a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said he is not concerned about the new restrictions on interrogators. He indicated that whatever advantage the harsh techniques might provide is no longer needed.
“We know a lot more about al-Qaida now than we did in the early years of the administration, the early years after September 11, 2001. And personally, I believe that the need for measures that go outside the Army Field Manual is dramatically less than it was several years ago,” he said.
Secretary Gates is a member of all three task forces President Obama formed on Thursday to decide how to close the Guantanamo detention center, what to do with its detainees and how to handle detainees and interrogations in the future. President Obama wants answers from his new task forces within six months.
The president’s orders do not pre-judge the issues, but they do call on the officials involved to consider transferring some Guantanamo detainees to U.S. prisons and trying them in regular civilian U.S. courts. Some of the detainees have been held for more than seven years without charges or trials.
Has President Barack Obama provided any clues on how he plans to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? After taking the oath of office as cited below….
…President Barack Obama delivered his inaugural address. As the transcript provides in the second paragraph of his speech President Obama made reference to this. ‘At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.’ There are two troubling items here. Is there a difference between ‘we the people’ and the President of the United States? And ‘true to our founding documents’ could be viewed as a little vague. Since he is now in the highest office in the nation it is difficult to determine if he is drawing a distinction between the two especially now that he is in ‘high office’.
If you object to the preceding paragraph consider the following:
There are other references out there on President Obama’s view of the founding documents. Use a search engine with the words ‘obama’ and ‘constitution’. For example, he in populating the US Supreme Court and perhaps other federal courts Mr Obama has said this. In explaining his vote against Roberts, Obama opined that deciding the “truly difficult” cases requires resort to “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” In short, “the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.” No clearer prescription for lawless judicial activism is possible.
Here’s a little more from the piece at The Weekly Standard.
Here’s a teaser from a Powerline piece that you may be interested in reading. Yesterday the Obama campaign called on University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein to tamp down the furor over Obama’s advocacy of “redistributive change” and overcoming of the Constitution’s “negative rights” in his 2001 radio interview. Politico’s Ben Smith reliably channelled Professor Sunstein’s spinning on behalf of Obama.
Another statement holds the phrase, ‘we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.’ Says who? Hope is for losers. The minute you start a sentence with ‘I hope’ you end the pursuit of the ends you seek by abandoning self-determination and personal responsibility. You then expect someone or something else to provide the solution on your behalf. Even the lottery has better odds of success. Hope is not the antidote for fear. Fear is a natural response to a threat. Hope is not part of the solution but a surrender to the fear.
‘Unity of purpose over conflict and discord’ is choice rhetoric. It is merely an extension of the hope and fear sentiment designed by the far left to convince the weak to succumb to the nanny state philosophy that government is the answer to all your problems. It is further evidence that an Obama Administration will choose appeasement and surrender over standing up and defending freedom against those who wish our nation harm.
The next two paragraphs on ’setting aside childish things’ and ‘reaffirmation’ is merely a shot at his opposition party as well as the previous administration. It is full of contradictions in how we must change and yet continue as we are. It exposes the desire to change America and redefine that change as something we have lost which is untrue. The only time we risk losing what is and has been America is when we fail to oppose radical notions that would lead to and end of this republic as we know it.
The next contradiction in this speech begins ‘this is the journey we continue today.’ On the one hand President Obama states we are just as good and strong as we always were and on the other hand we must change. Perhaps his call to stop putting off unpleasant decisions refers to his pursuit of socialism. If you disagree with this appraisal please explain how a never ending expansion of government and a continuation of government control of private enterprise is anything other than a move to socialism? The subsequent paragraph largely details Obama’s plan for such policies.
The paragraph starting with ‘nor is the question before us’ specifically addresses President Obama’s desire to redistribute wealth disguised as an endorsement of free markets. He accepts the fact that free markets work but without government intervention they do not share the wealth equally or for the common good. Yes, go ahead and be successful in free markets but be ready to share all you have with everyone else whether they earn it or not.
Much of the remainder of the speech beyond this point continues to stress Obama’s belief that his ideas are what WAS good about America and uses general rhetorical references to history as his proof that what he believes is what we once were. These parts of the speech reinforce his intention to appease the very people who threaten this nation. They are crafted to send a message that this new leader will bend to the threat. Every time this nation has withdrawn and given confidence to those who believe we are too timid to defend ourselves we have been attacked. A return to such policies will only invite more of the same. For Mr Obama to attempt to convince the public that weak-kneed concessions and appeasement of global threats is the best defense underscores his refusal to understand history or his intent to mislead.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
“It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.” (Michelle Malkin)
| Text of Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address | |
20 January 2009 |
My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”
America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Florida’s 24th district featured a decisive win for Democrat Suzanne Kosmas over three term Republican incumbent Tom Feeney. Kosmas is cited as having a real estate business and serving eight years in the Florida legislature. She will represent four Florida counties and while some refer to her as a moderate and having a history of working with Republicans and opposing tax cuts in Florida there are also hints of typical liberal agendas. At the top is her redeployment stance on Iraq, supporting massive infrastructure spending as well as propping up the Kennedy Space Center in her state, universal health care and alternative energy. If she believes in balanced budgets, pay as you go, ‘accountability’ and tax cuts how does that live with the spending she supports?
No need to scream about the lack of performance by Congress or the White House or either major political party on matters related to money. Managing budgets, appropriations and trying to empty the Treasury includes all of the above as co-conspirators. Only time will tell if Kosmas is just another liberal and the jury will probably be out for some time as she is another freshman member of the US House.
While this blog is something of a fan of NASA and its long history the agency is not without serious flaws. The relatively small portion of the federal budget used by NASA (16 billion a few years back) may be made leaner if the space agency ever decides to pursue some of the technologies advanced by the private sector in recent years. Kosmas states in her brief announcement and introduction on The Hill’s Congress blog that she views NASA, or more precisely, the Kennedy Space Center as ‘one of the most significant issues’ in her district. That is followed by this statement. ‘We will keep people working there and flying into space.’ It would seem reasonable to conclude NASA’s future and the employment prospects of those at the Kennedy Space Center will be determined by more than a statement by a freshman member of the House.
In the last paragraph of her blog post Kosmas indicates her constituents want bipartisan cooperation in Washington and adds her party leadership says they intend to do just that. Oh, the optimism and hopeful chants expressed by newly elected politicians. Armed with nothing more than a new job in Washington with the small probability that she will be able to accomplish anything significant during her first term or two Kosmas mirrors most of what the other newbies are saying. Would it be premature to conclude that the freshman described in these few posts as well as all the ones before them contribute to Washington politics as usual as their entry to national politics is taken from the same tired old script and political playbook used by those in Congress and elsewhere for years?
Veteran lawmakers typically gloat after their efforts defeat a competing effort from the opposition party. Likewise they blame the opposition party when things do not go well which is often. Veteran politicians and newbies use approved rhetoric when speaking publicly in an attempt to snow the voter. When things get really bad they all talk about the word ‘bipartisan’. It is used to equally distribute blame when they are all guilty and agree to collective job saving, their own. It is also used in an attempt to make the opposition party look bad when nothing is being done typically in regard to legislation. So the newbies mentioned here as well as the veteran lawmakers are all relying heavily on their political playbooks which supports the notion that, yes, newbies are complicit in Washington politics as usual.
Regarding Suzanne Kosmas specifically, there is a chance with what has been said about her and some of her previous state legislative performance something positive may occur. But those hopes may be dashed by her status as freshman and how her party will manipulate that fact to their advantage. Most likely will be the pressure to ‘do as we say’ or no money for you at re-election time.
We may never hear about her again.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
You are currently browsing the archives for the Afghanistan category.
Copyright © 2003-2006 Ulysses Ronquillo. All rights reserved.
Powered by WordPress v 2.0.3.
Page in 0.325 seconds.
