Blog @ MoreWhat.com

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

Iran Considering US Invite to Afghan Talks

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.

Delegating tasks is one thing but would someone please explain how it would not be entirely Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fault for dropping the ball on this one? A US Secretary of State tries to be cute and offer the Russian Foreign Minister a gift featuring one word in Russian and gets it wrong. Another fine example that the Obama Administration is amateur hour.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

‘Reset Button’

Vice President Joe Biden said last month that it was time for the two countries to hit the “reset button” in their relations, a phrase often repeated since. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev likewise said he was “reassured” by the positive signals coming from Washington since Barack Obama’s victory.

Clinton played on Biden’s phrase for photographers at the beginning of her meeting with Lavrov, handing him a green-wrapped box complete with bow and containing a mock “reset” button.

The two laughed as Lavrov explained that the mistranslated Russian word on the button didn’t say “reset,” as intended, but rather “overcharge.”

“We won’t let you do that to us,” Clinton said in response, before getting more serious. “We mean it and we look forward to it.”

Lavrov smiled and thanked her.

“We’re going to push the reset button of constructive cooperation,” Lavrov told reporters after the meeting.

The report indicates Hillary Clinton said the US will pursue a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians. How does that square with her quote below that different opinions will be respected? And how can she claim ‘time is of the essence’ if not to mean she wants a political win for her 2012 resume’? With at least one neighboring state calling for Israel to be eliminated and no significant history of progress towards peace since 1948 or before no one can really expect this situation to change soon.

Without serious impediments placed on groups like Hamas and their rocket attacks from a wide variety of nations in the world including Arab countries asking for cease fire agreements is just more of the same that has accomplished nothing worthwhile over decades. It is obvious the vast majority of nations in the world are not interested in solving this conflict. At least not in a way that would benefit all involved. When all the opinions vary and feature self-serving proposals or strategies as solutions there can be little optimism for the illusive prize some call peace. It would appear that most do not really seek peace but having their own way.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States will press for a two-state solution to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mrs. Clinton met with Israeli officials in Jerusalem Tuesday as part of her first foray into the region as Secretary of State.

Secretary Clinton’s pledge of support for a two-state solution may put the Obama administration at odds with Israel’s new leadership. The country may soon be led by the hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu who has refused to declare his support for a totally independent and sovereign Palestinian state.

At a news conference with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Tuesday, Secretary Clinton said the White House believes that moving toward a two-state solution is in Israel’s best interests.

“It is our assessment as I expressed yesterday and again today that eventually the inevitability of working toward a two-state solution seems inescapable,” Clinton said. “That doesn’t mean that we don’t respect the opinions of others who see it differently. But from my perspective and from the perspective of the Obama administration time is of the essence.”

Clinton’s schedule on Tuesday included a meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, who has been designated to form a coalition government after last month’s inconclusive elections. Mr. Netanyahu has said he wants to focus less on negotiations with the Palestinians and concentrate more on shoring up the Palestinian economy. He also supports the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank - something the United States sees as an obstacle to peace.

The Secretary of State acknowledged the road ahead will be difficult. She said the process of peace must start with finding a solution to the Gaza conflict. She called on Hamas to cooperate.

“The first step right now, not waiting for a new government, is a durable cease fire, but that can only be achieved if Hamas ceases the rocket attacks,” Clinton said. “No nation should be expected to sit idly by and allow rockets to assault its people and its territory. These attacks must stop.”

Israel’s defense ministry says militants in Gaza have fired more than 120 rockets at Israel since the end of Israel’s 22-day assault in January.

Mrs. Clinton on Tuesday also sought to ease Israeli concerns over the new U.S. approach to Iran. During his campaign, President Barack Obama said his administration would be open to dialogue with the Iranian leadership, triggering concern among many here that Washington might soften its position on Tehran.

Secretary Clinton assured the Israelis that will not happen.

“When we talk about engagement with Iran, do not be in any way confused,” Clinton said. “Our goal remains the same: to dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and continuing to fund terrorism. It happens to be a goal that is shared not only with Israel but with many countries that view Iran through the same prism that we do.”

Regarding Syria, she announced Washington plans to send two envoys to Damascus soon to begin discussions on improving relations with the U.S. and furthering peace efforts in the region.

On Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton is due to travel to the West Bank for meetings with President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian officials.

For those who continue to offer their unconditional support for President Obama’s Administration another report indicates public opposition for his policies and the suggestion he embraces appeasement as well as other dangerous strategies in both his foreign and domestic agendas are anchored in fact. Understandably Russia has been puffing up their chest lately as the anxiety of a diminished role in international affairs and the lesser ability to influence outcomes since the demise of the Soviet Union in the eighties and nineties takes its toll. Rather than incorporate these conditions into foreign policy of strength there is evidence the Obama Administration once again prefers the path of appeasement in an attempt to resolve other issues. In other words, we will abandon the missile defense program in Europe if you help foil Iran’s plans for a nuclear weapon.

Russia maintains no such agreement is in the works. Obama and his crew publicly suggest missile defense may not be necessary if Russia helps out. Any way you slice it there is every reason to conclude these political statements are simply that and Obama is fully invested in appeasement. It is another way of saying we won’t challenge you if you won’t hurt us. How is that going to improve national security? The sad truth is it won’t. Just see how it worked for Neville Chamberlain.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In Moscow, Medvedev spokeswoman Nataliya Timakova said that Obama’s letter contained various proposals and assessments, but offered no quid pro quo.

“Obama’s letter contained various proposals and assessments of the current situation,” she said . “But the message did not contain any specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives.”

She further disclosed that Obama’s letter was in response to one from Medvedev and that the Kremlin appreciated the “positive” spirit of Obama’s message.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has written to his Russian counterpart suggesting U.S. plans for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe might be unnecessary if Moscow helped in blocking Iran’s progress toward building long-range missiles, senior administration officials said on Tuesday.

Plans for deploying U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, ostensibly to guard against Iranian attacks on U.S. allies in Europe, are among a host of issues that soured U.S.-Russia relations during the former Bush administration. There have been indications Obama, who has vowed to shake up American foreign policy, might be willing to set aside the missile defense system.

“President Obama sent a letter to Medvedev that covered a broad range of issues, including missile defense and how it relates to the Iranian threat,” one senior administration official said on condition of anonymity to discuss private communications of the president.

“The suggestion is that need for missile defense deployment could become unnecessary if, working together with Russia, the Iran missile threat is addressed,” the official told The Associated Press.

Obama Offers Russia Secret Missile Defense Deal
By VOA News
03 March 2009

Senior officials in the Obama administration say President Barack Obama has offered Russia a deal involving a controversial plan by the U.S. to deploy a missile defense system.

The officials say Mr. Obama made the offer in a letter delivered early last month to his Russian counterpart, Dmitri Medvedev.

In the letter, the U.S. president offers to reconsider plans to deploy a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, in exchange for Moscow’s help to stop Iran from developing long-range weapons. Russia has developed economic and military ties with Tehran, and has resisted the hardline U.S. stance against Iran.

Russia has yet to respond to Washington’s overtures. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will discuss missile defense with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when they meet Saturday in Geneva.

Presidents Obama and Medvedev will meet in London April 2.

The missile defense plan angered Moscow when it was proposed by the Bush administration. Former President George W. Bush wanted the defense system, saying it was needed to deter Iran in case Tehran developed a nuclear warhead to fit on long-range missiles.

The Bush administration’s plans included building a high-tech radar facility in the Czech Republic, and deploying 10 interceptor missiles in Poland - two nations that Russia once considered within its “sphere of influence.” Mr. Bush rebuffed a Russian counter-proposal to install part of the system on its territory and jointly operate it.

Vice President Joe Biden has used the colloquial phrase “press the reset button” to describe the Obama administration’s goal of reviving and renewing Washington’s relations with Russia.

Over the years many published reports indicate terrorism is fostered in the West Bank and Gaza for the high unemployment, predominantly youthful population with no opportunity and a crowded populace living in poverty and dire conditions. Then how did Abbas calculate they would need $2.8 billion to rebuild Gaza? How does Clinton determine $300 million in aid will make Gaza peaceful and responsible? And then there are 75 ‘donor’ nations meeting to raise more money. The better question is how smart do you have to be to realize if you launch rockets against Israel long enough to force retaliation after the smoke clears you will receive billions of dollars to do with as you please? The secondary question is this. If Gaza is so bleak and suffering from deplorable conditions why would it cost that much to rebuild and why do the Palestinians need wads of cash to ‘cover a budget’ and for ‘institutional reforms and economic development’? Is this the first time they have ever received money in this manner? No.

There seem to be glaring contradictions not to mention an international scam that the US should not condone. Pay to bury the dead and patch up the wounded and humanitarian aid you can verify but how do they expect to avoid terrorists from getting there hands on the money? Hamas may not touch donations directly but there is nothing to stop millions from filtering to them through the many sinister alliances present in the region or across the street.

And some wonder why the situation never changes.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States’ pledge of $300 million in humanitarian aid for Gaza is intended to help achieve a Palestinian state that is “peaceful” and “responsible.”

In remarks Monday in Egypt at the international donors’ conference on reconstructing the Gaza Strip Clinton said U.S. monetary support for Gaza cannot be separated from achieving a “comprehensive peace” in the region.

Clinton said an additional $600 million of U.S. aid will go to the Palestinian Authority to cover budget shortfalls, institutional reforms and economic development. The U.S. says none of the money will benefit Hamas militants, who do not recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told international donors that financial aid without an end to the conflict with Israel would be “insufficient.”

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon warned that rebuilding the coastal enclave will be a daunting task as long as border crossings between Israel and Gaza remain closed, calling the situation “intolerable.”

Representatives from at least 75 donor nations are meeting in Sharm el-Sheik with a goal of raising money to rebuild Gaza after Israel’s military offensive.

The Palestinian Authority says it needs to raise $2.8 billion to reconstruct Gaza.

The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council said Sunday they would contribute $1.65 billion.

This trip is Clinton’s first to the Middle East as U.S. secretary of state. After the conference, Clinton is scheduled to meet with Israeli and Palestinian officials, including Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Israel and Hamas declared separate cease-fires in January, but rocket fire into Israel from Gaza has continued and Israel has launched targeted attacks on militants and smuggling tunnels in Gaza.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.

“The stimulus was political nirvana: cut taxes and raise spending,” said Robert Bixby, executive director of the fiscal watchdog group Concord Coalition, who is among those invited to the summit. “This is the opposite; it is the political agenda from hell.”

Some of the promises made by Barack Obama may have disappeared. Much talk of bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle leading up to the stimulus package and his administration in general along with transparency have faded. Quotes like the one above needed to generate debate on the stimulus before it became law. As cited by many in Congress, mostly from the GOP, no one may have had time and no one certainly read the 1000 plus page document. Hundreds of politicians voting on something they know little if anything about. And the public was shut out. Where is the promise from Obama that the public would be able to view and comment on the ‘proposal’?

Now we finally hear warnings and criticism that deficits will be too high, long term economic health is being ignored for expediency and there may be a ‘grand plan’ for the third rail of politics in the near future. While concern is voiced about entitlements and they were once the critics’ favorite target deficits and the willingness of foreign countries to buy our debt have taken center stage. With the new Secretary of State essentially begging China to buy more US debt and the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee on an appeasement mission to the Middle East we have much to be concerned about beyond the overwhelming insanity of the economic ‘fixes’ coming out of Washington.

Despite the embarrassment caused by Gregg’s about-face, the White House believes that he could be one of its most important allies in the overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and tax policy. That is because Gregg is the co-sponsor of the measure that would create a bipartisan commission to put together far-reaching recommendations for an up-or-down vote by Congress.

In an interview, Gregg said that under such a procedure, the measures could be passed within a year, as long as most of the benefit cuts and tax increases were not slated to take effect until well after the recession is over. “We need an up-or-down vote on a package that will be unquestionably bipartisan and fair,” Gregg said, a reference to criticism that Obama’s stimulus bill was too partisan.

Financial numbers from the Obama Administration that could make the man of steel wince and the opposition party talking benefit cuts and tax increases for social security is reason enough to conclude Washington has lost its collective mind. Not like it wasn’t a strong suspicion in the past but there is no other way to paint it these days.

Adding to the problem is evidence a previous post here asking whether GOP governors would embrace porkulus for their states has been answered. Two Democratic governors and two GOP governors were on Fox News Sunday and the view here is they all will gorge at the pork table. Granholm, Democratic governor of Michigan, said not only would she enjoy the pork but would eat the other’s shares if they turned it down. Rendell, Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, mentioned he will only be governor for a while longer and will plunder the pork yet be concerned about the problems facing those after he leaves. That’s reassuring. Mark Sanford and Tim Pawlenty, GOP governors of South Carolina and Minnesota respectively, were slightly more vague about their pork menus. Sanford will likely continue to criticize the stimulus and only indulge in those items for which he can acquire political cover. Pawlenty will undoubtedly do the same.

Going out on a limb the view at this blog is there is no politician alive who will not take the money. If Obama maintains a policy of use it or lose it you can bet staffers of every politician have already compiled a variety of public statements to cover every possibility. Either they will take the money and offer an excuse or offer the excuse and then take the money.

To listen to those praising infrastructure spending and citing the need can cause one to wonder if Saddam Hussein was not the only one ignoring such things in the last few decades. As an example the governor in my home state has been accused of robbing the transportation budget to pay for pet projects during his tenure. Now he looks forward to porkulus to make up the difference. But what is to stop him from doing more of the same. It would be no surprise if other states found themselves in the same situation.

And CITI group, bank, whatever, as well as other beneficiaries of the ANOTHER bailout of many are again asking for more money. You have to ask yourself if this will ever end? And perhaps more important will it do any good for the ‘economy’? Which brings to mind another words of wisdom type of sentiment.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Special interests? What special interests? (Michelle Malkin)