Blog @ MoreWhat.com

In early March 2009 Iran’s Khamenei expressed several points that would suggest the US and Iran will not likely find agreement with any proposed dialogue that could occur. There seems to be much posturing by both Iran and the White House. Obama and other Democrats have pushed for talks with Iran for a long time claiming the two countries can work out problems. Those in the US opposing such talks argue concessions or appeasement would be the only items in which Iran would be interested. And Iran continues to maintain their opposition to Israel and deny involvement in terrorism or pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Iran Denounces US During Gaza Meeting
By Edward Yeranian
Cairo
04 March 2009

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in the opening speech at the conference that President Obama spoke of change during his campaign but supported Israel’s devastating three-week offensive against the Gaza Strip earlier this year.

He says that even the new American president, who came to office with the slogan of bringing change to the policies of the Bush administration, avows unconditional support for Israel’s security, which means defending state terrorism, injustice and oppression, as well as a 22-day long massacre of hundreds of Palestinian men, women and children. This, the Ayatollah said, is the same path of the Bush administration.

You may notice in the excerpt above that Khamenei conveniently omits attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah and others or describing them as terrorism. Yet clearly in the example he uses, the December 2009 retaliation by Israel from repeated rocket attacks by Hamas, was initiated by terrorists he refuses to acknowledge.

Khamenei called for a referendum of all those residents of historic Palestine, whom he termed “legitimate,” to determine the fate of the Holy Land.

He says that he is proposing a solution which is democratic in principle and which serves as a logical basis for everyone. All those who have a legitimate stake in the territory of Palestine, he says, including Muslims, Christians and Jews should choose the structure of their ruling system in a general referendum. He says that Palestinian exiles must also participate in the referendum.

Mr. Obama has said his administration is looking for opportunities to engage Iran to help reduce tensions between the two countries - particularly related to Iran’s nuclear program.

Khamenei’s comments Wednesday highlighted how difficult it will be for the Obama administration to improve relations given the deep disagreements on both sides on issues like Israel and Iran’s nuclear efforts.

And the Iranian leader insults the intelligence of anyone reading his words regarding a referendum. Even without doing a head count on those living in the areas mentioned, to add so-called Palestinian exiles would at the very least stack the deck with unverifiable votes reminiscent of ACORN and make this ‘referendum’ a self-fulfilling prophecy with a nearly unlimited quantity of phantom voters that are anti-Israel.

Syria Offers to Mediate With Iran
By Edward Yeranian
Cairo
18 March 2009

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is proposing to mediate between the West and Iran, telling an Italian newspaper that he’s prepared to act as a go-between to improve relations that have been further strained over Iran’s nuclear program.

How convenient that after Congressional Dems sponsored an appeasement tour of the Middle East in August 2007 and Obama has been calling for appeasement worldwide Syria decides to offer to be a mediator on the Iran nukes issue as well as improving foreign relations with the United States.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy urged Mr. Assad, during a conference in France last July, to use his influence to help resolve Iran’s nuclear standoff with the West.

President Assad noted that dialogue was the best means to end long-standing disputes with Tehran, arguing that any attempt to contain a country ends by strengthening it.

And it seems French President Sarkozy is hedging his bets. It may be fair to say his rise to power not unlike Obama’s was premised on change. Now that the honeymoon is long over two things stand out. Mention of him in the previous reference as inviting Syria to get involved and lately warming up to re-entering NATO. What’s that about? Go for appeasement and if that puts you at risk fall back on newly formed ties with NATO to do your fighting for you?

Iran Warms to Obama Appeal for Better Relations
By Edward Yeranian
Cairo
20 March 2009

Iranian government TV carried a traditional New Year’s greeting from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad calling it the day of the “rebirth of love, friendship, and aspiration,” but it was President Obama’s message that captured many people’s attention.

First of all, ‘love, friendship and aspiration’ coming from Ahmedinejad is in direct opposition to his statements that Israel must be eliminated. And the Iranian President also had this to say.

“Mr. Obama has talked of change, but has taken no practical measures to redress America’s past mistakes in Iran,” he said. “If Mr. Obama takes a concrete action and makes fundamental changes to U.S. foreign policy towards other nations, including Iran, the Iranian government and people will not turn their back on him. Mr. Obama has referred to differences between Iran and the US. We believe that those differences stem from Washington’s hostile policy towards Iran. Minor changes will not end the differences.”

It is obvious anything short of appeasement and caving to Iranian intentions will not produce effective solutions or dissuade Iran from their current agenda. Where the author came up with the title suggesting Iran is ‘warming’ to the US is a puzzle.

US Looking for Reciprocal Iranian Gesture After Obama Message
By David Gollust
State Department
20 March 2009

The State Department said Friday U.S. officials are looking for a reciprocal gesture from Iran after President Barack Obama’s conciliatory holiday message to the Iranian people and government Thursday. Mr. Obama said in a broadcast for the Iranian new year holiday Nowruz that the United States wants “honest engagement” with Tehran based on mutual respect.

If the report above is true there is confirmation that Hillary Rodham Clinton does not have a clue or thinks you do not.

At a news briefing, State Department acting spokesman Robert Wood said that the crux of the President’s message was that despite the serious differences that have marred the relationship over time, the Obama administration is committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues with Tehran.

Senior Iranian leaders have not given any direct response but Wood signaled patience, saying the process is at an early stage.

“We’re at the beginning of this process,” he said. “The President has made it clear we’re going to engage diplomatically with Iran. We intend to do that. It will be up to the Iranians how they want to reciprocate.”

“But I also want to emphasize we still have some very difficult issues that divide us. And what the President has said is that we want to work with Iran on trying to deal with these differences. We’re willing to diplomatically engage. It’s really going to be up to Iran,” he added.

Wood said the problem issues in the relationship include Iranian threats toward Israel and other countries in the region and its nuclear program, which U.S. officials believe is weapons-related despite statements from Tehran that it is for peaceful purposes only.

If you cite all the problems with Iran and what they are trying to accomplish and yet claim to hold out hope for a few publicly expressed kind words to initiate some sort of reconciliation two things become apparent. Either you’re an idiot or much more is going on behind the scenes and as usual public rhetoric is for political purposes. Of course it is always possible both are right.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Dismisses Obama’s Appeal
By Edward Yeranian
Cairo
21 March 2009
Speaking in the holy city of Mashhad Saturday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the United States is using “the slogan of change,” but that he sees no real change in U.S. policy toward Iran.

Change in rhetoric alone is not enough, he said, and even then we haven’t seen much change in vocabulary. Change, he insists, must be authentic.

This part could be called ‘ gimme something.’ Obviously Obama blinked and now the Iranians are feeling superior. Could it be that during the Bush Administration Iran only talked tough as they had no other options to save face? Now that an American President is ‘asking’ to talk they have the upper hand in a discussion. So now what? Does Obama expect them to roll over and play nice or is the opposition correct, Obama’a agenda is full of appeasement?

PRESS RELEASE - Washington, D.C., March 23, 2009 - President Obama’s message to the Iranian people on the Nowruz holiday drew millions of viewers and listeners to the Voice of America (www.VOANews.com ), the largest international Persian-language broadcaster.

By Monday, VOA sites had more than 134,000 views of the three-minute speech, which Obama delivered late last Thursday as Iranians prepared to celebrate Nowruz, the Persian new year. The video was posted on www.VOANews.com, www.VOANews.com/persian/, and VOA’s partner YouTube channels. VOA’s Persian News Network (PNN) also broadcast the message to Iran, a country with a restricted media, on satellite television and on shortwave radio.

Over the weekend, PNN received and broadcast e-mails from inside Iran, many of them praising Obama’s speech. In one, Arash said he was pleased with Obamas “message because he (Obama) actually recognizes the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The writer also said he hoped Iran’s leaders “will study Obama’s speech and make a good decision.”

In his remarks, Obama talked of a “new beginning,” saying he hoped Iran, the United States and other nations would form constructive ties. He also praised Iran’s “great and celebrated culture.”

VOA’s dissemination of the video was also cited by Fox News Network, the Times of London and the Guardian in the United Kingdom, among many other places.

Whatever happened to strength through power?

Stanford Matthews
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.

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

Obama Ponders Outreach to Taliban Moderates

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) 

This is not about the porkulus bill but still significant. Much has been said about candidate Obama’s promises and delivery of same as President. A recurring theme is recruiting lobbyists for his administration. William J Lynn is no exception. A registered lobbyist until July and Senior Vice President of Government Operations and Strategy for Raytheon he was nominated and confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Defense this week.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) voiced opposition on Obama’s selection. On his first day in office, Obama issued an executive order forcing individuals to wait two years before they could be hired for the agencies they had lobbied and to remove themselves from involvement in issues related to their former employers.

“Obviously the American people were promised one thing but delivered another,” said McCain, Obama’s opponent in the presidential election.

Grassley’s comments included mention of Lynn being yet another Obama pick from the former Clinton Administration. On Lynn’s time as comptroller at the Pentagon Grassley said the following: As chief financial officer, Lynn “advocated very questionable accounting practices that were obviously not in the public interest,” Grassley told his colleagues on the Senate floor.

Lynn’s lame expression of how and when he would recuse himself from ‘banned’ actiivties, as if being there wasn’t one of them, is compounded by the fact that McCain opposed this nomination but voted for Lynn anyway. At least Grassley voted against the confirmation as did three others.

You could say it does not matter how Senators vote after the 1/2 majority is reached for it does not affect the outcome. But there is the nagging obstacle with that argument called principle. You could say casting a vote for other reasons is a political necessity or reality but the same problem exists regarding principle. Sort of ironic to be discussing principle when the President promised no lobbyists would not be allowed, then changed his mind on the specifics and then his former campaign opponent expresses concern on the topic but votes in favor of a lobbyist confirmation anyhow.

The only part of Washington politics and hope and change from Obama and others is Washington still works the same way and they hope you won’t notice they did not change anything as promised in this regard. However a change in this republic to socialism is a stronger possibility no matter how often anyone dismisses the claim.

The roll call vote is of course listed below.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111^th Congress - 1^st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs —93

NAYs —4

Not Voting - 2

Another dilemma for President Obama between campaign rhetoric and the realities of his new job. Adding to the difficulties are complaints from the ACLU which may be new territory for Democrats. The promise of transparency meets the need to protect national security when liberals claim to favor everything on the table regardless of consequences. Can the new President resolve these issues by simply saying, ‘I won’, as he has on other occasions?

Under Obama, same stance on rendition suit

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 10, 2009

On Monday, Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller said Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered a review to make sure government secrecy is invoked only to protect national security and not “to hide from the American people information that they have a right to know.”

But the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents five men suing Jeppesen for allegedly flying them to foreign torture chambers, said this case is the new administration’s chance to live up to its promises.

“Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama’s Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on this important civil liberties issue,” the ACLU’s executive director, Anthony Romero, said after the hearing.

Rendition Case Under Bush Gets Obama Backing

FEBRUARY 10, 2009
By EVAN PEREZ

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration backed the Bush administration’s arguments in a lawsuit involving the practice of seizing terror suspects abroad and sending them to third countries for questioning.

The case involves five men who claim U.S. operatives abducted them and sent them to be tortured in other countries. The men are suing a unit of Boeing Co., which they say provided aircraft to the Central Intelligence Agency for the “extraordinary rendition” program. Boeing declined to comment on the case.

Monday, Justice Department lawyers told the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court in San Francisco that the government believes state secrets and national security would be put at risk if the court allows the suit to proceed. That is the same argument the department used under President George W. Bush.

There of course is noise about ‘truth commissions’ and other nonsense which should be difficult to justify if the Obama Administration is supporting policies of the previous administration. But one could guess the liberal argument would be Bush was wrong and should be punished while Obama doing the same thing would be viewed as being done correctly since after all, he is the Messiah.

Before someone feels the urge to complain about this post or the commentary within consider the fact that left, right, center or any other political position these days is failing to bring solutions to fruition. So a few free shots based on this blog’s political leanings are nothing more than relieving frustration. As it sits right now there is more reason to criticize the left than the right given the White House and Congress are mathmatically controlled by Democrats. With Obama’s approval rating falling about 15 points since taking office and the Congressional approval rating still in the tank more criticism will probably follow and not just from this location.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama to CONTINUE Renditions of Terrorists to Torture Countries (Flopping Aces)

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

The United Nations is appealing for $613 million to help tens of thousands of people in Gaza recover from the three-week Israeli military offensive in the Palestinian territory. The money will provide life-saving assistance over the next six to nine months. The U.N. appeal was launched at the annual World Economic Forum in the Swiss alpine village of Davos.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is the first world leader to enter Gaza since Israel imposed a blockade on the Palestinian territory in June 2007. He describes his distress at what he saw.

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?

26 January 2009 – There is no more important forum for effective cooperation among States that the United Nations, the new ambassador of the United States to the United Nations stressed today, following her first meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

“I am looking very much forward to engaging in a cooperative, constructive fashion with my colleagues here in New York. I will listen, I will engage and I will work to advance United States interests, recognizing that in many, many instances, our national interests are best advanced when we are working hand in hand with that of others,” Susan Rice told reporters at UN Headquarters in New York.

Ms. Rice said she had an “excellent meeting” with the Secretary-General, covering a range of issues including climate change, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), UN peacekeeping, non-proliferation, Sudan and the situation in the Middle East.

“The United Nations is a vitally important institution. It has great potential. It still has room for great improvement,” she said, adding that she and Mr. Ban also touched on the challenge of making the Organization more effective and more efficient.

She recalled that President Barack Obama had wanted to place the US at the centre of the fight against poverty, and had stated that the MDGs – the globally agreed targets to slash poverty and other development challenges by 2015 – were now US goals.

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.

“President Obama’s actions sent a strong message about his leadership and strategic vision to support causes that will promote peace and development, equity and dignity, equality for women and girls and economic empowerment of the poor in all regions of the world,” she said. With the resumption of United States funding, UNFPA would be able to maintain recent gains during the current financial crisis and provide support to women in the poorest countries of the world. United Nations Member States had repeatedly said that progress for all would not happen without progress for women. That meant making women’s health, rights and equality an international priority.

She also welcomed the decision of the new United States administration to revoke the Mexico City policy, which paved the way for a restored United States partnership with some of the world’s leading non-governmental organizations that provide family planning services around the world. Access to safe and effective voluntary family planning, as Mr. Obama had said, was one of the most effective ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies and empowering women and men to plan their families. If a woman could not take decisions about her own fertility, she could not make decisions about anything else in her life.

And the final expression of support for ’safe’ abortions as ‘family planning’.

To a question about family planning, she said that its importance was demonstrated by the fact that unsafe abortion was considered the second leading cause of death for African women. Women who did not have access to family planning would go to have unsafe abortions, which often led to death.

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

So much changes and so much stays the same. While visions of Chinagate danced in her head. Hillary Rodham Clinton figured the scandal was dead. Opponents claim with evidence to support. Obama is a third Clinton term with more espionage to thwart. Right outta the Gates warning of preparedness with who flung poo, Clinton seeks more with China as if selling secrets is not taboo.

A Clinton Administration via President Obama is not a suggestion off the mark based on staffing since The One assumed office. A little background refresher of only one chapter from the Clinton book of scandals raises serious questions about a new Secretary of State focusing on China after Chinagate.

Try to make the argument that this is not something about which we should be concerned. For those of you who voted for Clinton and/or Obama in the 2008 campaign and/or election, did you consider this before entering the voting booth, mailing your ballot, doing the driveby or letting ACORN vote for you?

There are reports available suggesting President Clinton supported transferring sensitive technology as a method to insure no single nation had military dominance over the others. Liberals are a nightmare even terrorists could appreciate…… and do.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Exhibit 1
From approximately 1994 to 1998, Bernard Schwartz, who was the chairman of Loral Space & Communication Ltd., became the single largest donor to the Democratic Party by making contributions totaling approximately $1.5 million to various Democratic Party entities, including President Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign.

Exhibit 1a
Congressional and other related investigations subsequently found that, when a Chinese rocket attempting to launch a Loral-manufactured satellite failed, Loral helped China to identify the cause of the failure, thereby advancing China’s missile program and threatening U.S. national security. Loral subsequently paid a $14 million fine relating to this transfer of sensitive U.S. technology.

Exhibit 1b
“The Amended Complaint alleges that Hillary Rodham Clinton devised, agreed to participate in and implemented this unlawful scheme, and that President Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore authorized, agreed to participate in, and also implemented the scheme.”

For the lazy among you…..

The Idiot’s Guide to Chinagate (from Newsmax)

Exhibit 2
This is the same Justice Department that has botched up the investigation of the theft of information on the W-88 warhead, that has refused to appoint an independent counsel to investigate campaign fundraising illegalities, and that continues to cover up vital information in defiantly refusing to release the LaBella and Freeh memos suggesting that crimes may have been committed in the Chinagate scandal.

Exhibit 2a
Is this the first time the Clinton administration has been involved in lawbreaking and corruption? Hardly. It has almost become a way of life: Travelgate, Filegate, Buddhist Temple fundraisers, illegal foreign campaign contributions, the compromise of high-technology nuclear secrets to China, not to mention perjury and obstruction of justice–the list goes on and on.

Exhibit 2b
On the one hand, there is the mind-boggling story of how the Clinton administration deliberately changed almost 50 years of bipartisan security policies–relaxing export restrictions, signing waivers to allow technology transfers, ignoring China’s violation of arms control agreements, and its theft of our nuclear secrets, opening up even more nuclear and high technology floodgates to China and others–thus harming U.S. national security.

On the other hand, there is the continuing coverup–the effort to hide from Congress and the American people the true damage that has been done to national security and the Clinton administration’s central role in allowing so much of it to happen on their watch.

A face only an anarchist could love.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called for a “comprehensive dialogue” with China, extending beyond economic issues.

Secretary Clinton Tuesday said U.S. economic problems mean that people are losing jobs not only in America but also in China. So Clinton said that while the economy will always be a centerpiece of the U.S. relationship with China, the new U.S. administration wants it to be part of a broader agenda.

She said the Bush administration turned the strategic dialogue with China into an economic one.

Clinton did not mention what other issues she would bring up with the government in Beijing.

Human rights activists have called for renewed U.S. pressure on China to improve its human rights record and freedom of expression.

The French news agency said groups such as Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders, and veteran Chinese dissident Harry Wu expressed hope at a U.S. congressional hearing Tuesday that President Barack Obama will give China’s human rights problem a high priority.

The Associated Press quoted Defense Secretary Robert Gates as telling a Senate hearing Tuesday that the United States is ready to handle any foreseeable military threat from China.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.
Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, Political Byline, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, Wingless - Cuba: Beautiful Country, People…Not so Beautiful System…, Rosemary’s News and Ideas, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

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) 

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.

WASHINGTON — President Bush addresses supporters at the “Salute to Heroes” inaugural ball here Jan. 20. The president and first lady Laura Bush made the event their first stop on a tour of inaugural galas. The ball, held since 1953, honors recipients of the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award, and the newly inaugurated president. (Department of Defense photo by Army Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample)

President thanks veterans for service during inaugural ball

by Army Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample
American Forces Press Service

1/21/2005 - WASHINGTON — President Bush and first lady Laura Bush were greeted with resounding cheers as they made the first stop of their whirlwind tour of inaugural galas here Jan. 20.

At the “Salute to Heroes” inaugural ball, hundreds of veterans from across the country, along with their wives and families, greeted the president with a resounding show of support.

Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, stopped in later as they made their way through the inaugural circuit.

Kenneth Stumpf, one of many Medal of Honor recipients who endured tight security inside the hotel to see the president, was particularly happy to be there.

“I spent my entire life in the military, so whoever was the president, that was my commander-in-chief,” he said. “It just so happens I really like this one.”

The American Legion sponsors the ball, which recognizes recipients of the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award. The event started in 1953 for President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first inauguration.

Event co-sponsors include 13 other veterans service organizations.

With applause and cheers often interrupting his comments, the president used his brief appearance to thank veterans for their service.

“They have set a fantastic example for those who wear the uniform today,” he said. “Our veterans who have served all across the world in the cause of freedom, they have done so in a selfless way and for that, this nation is eternally grateful.”

The president also used the occasion to reiterate points made during his inaugural address, speaking on the importance of freedom and saying that United States will succeed in bringing democracy to Iraq.

“We believe in freedom, and we know that free societies will be peaceful societies,” the president said.

He also said that by ending tyranny, the United States “will have fulfilled the obligations of our founding fathers who recognized that every man and woman on the face of the earth should be free.”

With the Joints Chiefs of Staff seated on each side of the podium, the president acknowledged the difficulties being placed on the military.

“We’ve asked hard things of our troops and the families of our troops,” he said. But he cited the progress made in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“Think about what has happened in a very short period of time,” he said. “The people of Afghanistan have been liberated by our troops, and our friends, the Afghans, went to the polls by the millions for the first time in 5,000 years,” he said. “Very shortly, because of the great work of our military, and the military of our friends, the people of Iraq will be voting. This is a major achievement, and it’s a major milestone in the advance of liberty.”

The president admitted that bringing liberty to Iraq “has not been easy,” but “it’s going to happen,” he said. “And when it does, our military, and those of us who have been fortunate enough to be involved with our military, will be able to look back and say we did our duty, we did our duty for freedom, and we did our duty for generations of Americans to come.”

Before leaving, the president again thanked the audience, telling those veterans who have served and those who are now serving, “I am incredibly proud to be your commander in chief.”

(editor’s note: The simple search used at Google for news on this topic in the previous post was used at Yahoo for this post. The first result returned was this story.)
Some Presidents honor the troops.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

While catching up on some blog reads I have not had adequate time for in recent days I found another reminder of a problem of Presidential proportions that took place during the Inauguration festivities. Read the the first linked item below and try to convince anyone this is not a major presidential problem. The newly elected and inaugurated President whose duties include that of Commander-in-Chief could not manage to honor the military during inaugural events which included a tribute to medal of honor recipients.

There is no excuse for this colossal blunder. It speaks volumes on the flaws of a new president and gives credence to every criticism expressed thus far including those on this blog and others. To add insult to injury the results from a GOOGLE news search below where the line begins, ‘Obama Snubs Nation’s Heroes’, serves as evidence that Sean Hannity again was right on expectations about the inauguration. It is all about celebs and what they’re wearing. The link which goes to ‘ all 4,806 news articles’ is copied and pasted where the pictures begin for the first two pages of results. Funny, as this post was being prepared the number of articles in the Google list shrank from 4806 to 3804.

But more importantly the coverage by the MSM is again woefully inadequate. This also supports the notion that Obamania and the MSM’s kinky love affair and complicity in biased coverage of The One is no conspiracy theory. Over 50 years of unbroken tradition honoring this country’s heroes through 14 inaugurations since the beginning of this heroe’s inaugural ball and The Messiah decides to dishonor veterans and the MSM pretty much ignores it if the search results are any indication of what is available. But for now do not distracted by the media bias. This President may never be able to repair the damage of his choice or decision. What is worse he may not even care. And if that is the case then anyone who did not vote for him gets extra credit as an American.

Not even a simple apology from President Obama has been witnessed by this blog’s author nor is one anticipated. So on behalf of a flawed Commander-in Chief this blog once again salutes the United States Military and submits this apology for those who were ignored by President Barack Obama’s failure to attend the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama Snubs The Medal Of Honor Recipients: For the first time in 56 years, a newly-inaugurated president has not attended the ball begun by President Eisenhower

He attended quite a few as payback for the illegal campaign contributions, but I guess he did not have time for those that gave to their country, because afterall, it is all about Obama. Salute To Heroes Inaugural Ball, began by President Eisenhower 56 years ago, has been the destination of each new POTUS, that is until The One.

Am I surprised? No, I am not. Why? Based on the fact that he halted GITMO trials until May, and closed terrorist ‘black sites’ .

Obama Snubs Nation’s Heroes, Becomes the First President to Skip …
Cleveland Leader, OH - Jan 21, 2009
The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball was begun in 1953 for President Dwight Eisenhower’s inauguration. The event recognized recipients of the Medal of Honor, …
Video: First Lady Fashionista CBS
For The First Time In 56 Years An Inaugurated President Blew Off … KXMC
Obama Snubs Medal of Honor Ball Stop the ACLU
Fresno Bee - The Associated Press
all 4,806 news articles »

Michelle Obama’s Dress At Presidential Inauguration Oneindia, India - 13 hours ago Just like the election night, Michelle Obama’s outfit has once again caught in the fashion-o-meter. This time her Inauguration’ dress was both appreciated …

Michelle Obama Los Angeles Times, CA - 17 hours ago In a sea of black dresses, our First Lady stood out in a white Jason Wu one-shouldered gown at the inaugural balls. Some found Michelle Obama’s dress …

Going green Los Angeles Times, CA - 17 hours ago First Lady Michelle Obama’s sparkly lemongrass-hued sheath and matching coat by Isabel Toledo sparked the second style controversy of her new position (the …

Michelle Obama inaugural day dress makes lemongrass the new black MLive.com, MI - 23 hours ago I think charcoal was last year’s black and navy was black the year before that. But this year, it’s lemongrass or yellow-green or citrine, depending on who …

Michelle Obama’s dress designer: Jason Wu in profile Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom - Jan 22, 2009 Hilary Alexander profiles 26-year-old Taiwan-born designer Jason Wu, who was Michelle Obama’s chosen dress designer for Barack’s Inaguration Ball. …

Barack and Michelle Obama: the night of the 10 inauguration balls Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom - Jan 22, 2009 Barack and Michelle Obama took on 10 inauguration balls with evident pleasure and flair. Would you? By Becky Pugh On Tuesday evening, euphoric after …

First family puts a fresh face on fashion Houston Chronicle, United States - Jan 21, 2009 By CLIFFORD PUGH HOUSTON CHRONICLE Reactions to the one-shoulder chiffon inaugural gown that Jason Wu designed for first lady Michelle Obama ranged from …

Is Michelle Obama now the most powerful woman in fashion? guardian.co.uk, UK - Jan 21, 2009 President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama dance at the Neighbourhood Ball in Washington DC. Photograph: Mike Segar/Reuters On Tuesday, …

Belle of the inaugural ball Straits Times, Singapore - Jan 21, 2009 WASHINGTON: Mr Barack Obama, who fretted before his inauguration balls about his dancing skills, avoided stepping on his wife’s toes but ran into trouble …

Beyonce, Blige and Carey Stun at Inaugural Ball San Francisco Chronicle, USA - Jan 21, 2009 Mariah Carey, Mary J. Blige and Beyonce wowed Washington, DC on Tuesday night at the first presidential Inaugural Ball open to the public. …

Michelle Obama’s dress: What color was it really? The Associated Press - Jan 21, 2009 NEW YORK (AP) — So what color is “lemon grass,” really? The color of Michelle Obama’s ensemble during the inauguration ceremonies seemed to change all day …

Michelle Obama’s style: Change you can wear Los Angeles Times, CA - Jan 21, 2009 Elise Amendola/ AP For the inaugural balls, Michelle Obama chose a creamy one-shouldered gown by 26-year-old Taiwanese American designer Jason Wu. …

Michelle Obama wears it well Boston Globe, United States - Jan 21, 2009 Michelle Obama on Pennsylvania Avenue yesterday and at the Neighborhood Ball last night. (Doug Mills/Associated Press (left); Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images) …

Jason Wu’s “Dream-Like” Vision For Michelle Obama Wall Street Journal Blogs, NY - Jan 21, 2009 Jason Wu was settling in to watch the inaugural balls with pizza and a bunch of friends when his life suddenly was upended. On national TV, out walked …

(below is page two of two)

« View all web results for Salute To Heroes Inaugural Ball

Mangalorean.com

Obama calls for a “new declaration of independence” Mangalorean.com, India - Jan 18, 2009 Cummings then waved his hand in a large, dismissive goodbye gesture, saluting the departure of US President George W. Bush - to the delight of a mocking, …

Rather than honor those who serve the MSM as well as a newly elected and sworn President and Commander-in-Chief chose to celebrate glitz, bling and entertainers. The socialist left has truly arrived.

update: While checking links before completing this post, the number of news items related to this google search finally diminished to 8. That’s right, eight.

There will be no attempt to influence your opinion on the following. You should be able to draw the proper conclusion on your own.

The most telling irony this week comes from Arab protesters quick to denounce Israel’s military response to Hamas rocket attacks. Where was this outrage when Hamas began the rocket attacks? The contrived outrage over Israel defending itself from Hamas rocket attacks is the Arab self-exposure of their true feelings. It is quite obvious now as it may have been before that the ‘Arab world’ supports attacking Israel and opposes Israel defending itself. This blog has resisted publishing a statement like this in the past for lack of a well defined example of the Arab position on Israel. Some may reject the idea of their not being one before as easily as others may reject the idea that there is one now. That’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The opinion here is that there is no argument remaining that the Arab world means Israel no harm.

For those who feel inspired to criticize Israel for military action against rocket attack from Hamas the following excerpt and link is provided as the first in the chronology presented in this post. Livni told Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that Israel’s patience was exhausted after days of rocket barrages into Israel from Gaza, and that the Israeli government would no longer accept the status quo. This of course occured before any retaliation from Israel. It is not like the rocket attacks were quietly accepted until the defensive action began. Rockets were regularly fired on Israel from Hamas and no one in the ‘Arab world’ criticized Hamas.

Israel gave notice to Hamas and anyone else to stop the attack. Here is the second excerpt and link in this chronology.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has issued what he calls a “last minute” call to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, urging them to pressure their Hamas rulers to stop rocket fire into Israel.

Mr. Olmert made the appeal during a television interview with Arab station, Al-Arabiya on Thursday, during which he said Israel will not hesitate to strike Hamas or any other Palestinian militant group.

The remarks came as militants fired rockets and mortars into Israel for a second day in a row. Israeli officials say more than 80 rockets and mortar rounds hit southern Israel on Wednesday. No casualties were reported.

Meanwhile, Israeli defense officials say the military is preparing an operation against Hamas targets in Gaza.

The ‘Arab world’ remained quiet about the rocket attacks. Funny how they got all interested in the military response that contrary to their opinion is reasonable. Say nothing about militants attacking Israel but denounce Israel’s right to defend themselves against attack. And who was affected by the Israeli response?

Nearly 300 Palestinians, most of them armed militants, have been killed since Israel launched the offensive on Saturday. But let the protesters and certain media outlets lead you to believe that civilians are paying the price for Israel’s self-defense from rocket attack.

Where is the Arab criticism for the following?

Hundreds of Palestinians breached the Gaza border fence in four places and poured into Egypt on Sunday. Egyptian police opened fire, prompting gun battles with Palestinian militants. Several hours later, Egyptian officials said border guards restored order.

The breach followed Israel’s bombing of 40 tunnels in Gaza used by the ruling Islamic militant group Hamas to smuggle weapons and supplies across Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.

‘Used by Islamic militant group Hamas to smuggle weapons and supplies’ is the key portion in this report that falls on deaf Arab ears. Other reports indicate Arabs, Muslims, whatever, criticize Arab governments for their wimpy denouncement of Israel. So what’s new? Ignore any attack on Israel but make a great deal of noise when Israel responds to attacks. It is time the ‘religion of peace’ and its followers end the double standard toward Israel. If you want the insanity to stop you must not enable it by your action or inaction. If you want peace stop blaming everyone else for the problem and accept your own responsibility for finding peace.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Day of Infamy

The attack on Pearl Harbor was the culmination of a decade of deteriorating relations between Japan and the United States over the status of China and the security of Southeast Asia. The breakdown began in 1931 when Japanese army extremists, in defiance of government policy, invaded and overran the northern-most Chinese province of Manchuria. Japan ignored American protests, and in the summer of 1937 launched a full-scale attack on the rest of China. Although alarmed by this action, neither the United States nor any other nation with interests in the Far East was willing to use military force to halt Japanese expansion.

Over the next three years, war broke out in Europe and Japan joined Nazi Germany in the Axis Alliance. The United States applied both diplomatic and economic pressures to try to resolve the Sino-Japanese conflict. The Japanese government viewed these measures, especially an embargo on oil, as threats to their nation’s security. By the summer of 1941, both countries had taken positions from which they could not retreat without a serious loss of national prestige. Although both governments continued to negotiate their differences, Japan had already decided on war.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was part of a grand strategy of conquest in the Western Pacific. The objective was to immobilize the Pacific Fleet so that the United States could not interfere with these invasion plans. The principal architect of the attack was Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet. Though personally opposed to war with America, Admiral Yamamoto knew that Japan’s only hope of success in such a war was to achieve quick and decisive victory. America’s superior economic and industrial might would tip the scales in her favor during a prolonged conflict.

This third installment of The Downside of Elections as Term Limits features an interesting politician. For he was in politics as a staffer at the state level in Ohio. He is a veteran of the Air Force and tours in Iraq, etc., and advocates for veterans. He was a member of the state legislature in Ohio and has pursued his education to the level of master’s degree. Another US Congressional freshman with a substantial resume’ who is no stranger to politics. That may be further qualified by his announcement on The Hill dot com Congress blog. That is where this series of post’s started and continues to this third post. What is similar and what is contrast within John Boccieri’s blog post compared to the first two freshman featured here?

The classic excuse of representing one’s home constituents as a politician prepares to lobby for funds on his state’s behalf is presented in Boccieri’s opening at the Congress Blog. While separating Ohio from the remainder of the country in terms of economic strife he ignores state’s like Michigan who are in similar straits. Later in the second of two paragraphs he hints at favoring the auto industry bailout while explaining 25% of Ohio’s economy rises of falls with the Big Three. Maybe there should be some mention of why Ohio puts that many eggs in one basket? There are other examples where for instance agriculture dominates the economic landscape. And we all know how much of that industry was manipulated by others. From government subsidies tempting family farmers to abandon good principles in exchange for a sure thing by growing this or more frequently not growing that to the corporate heavyweights buying up or putting out of business those family farms which had been the core of American culture and economics. With all the talk of diversity these days there is a definite lack of it in American business demonstrated by forestry in the northwest, agriculture in the ‘heartland’, commercial fishing in the coastal areas and the list goes on.

While Boccieri is a veteran and advocates for veterans he seems to favor withdrawal from Iraq, etc. It is difficult to tell by his words but it may leave you with the impression his ‘bring them home with honor’ mirrors those liberals demanding surrender or appeasement before the troop surge but softening their tone after victory became the likely outcome. More pandering may be present in his use of hot button issues like health care and all those items focused on Ohio. Sure, all politicians do it. Lobby for their states through pork and earmarks and other political prizes. Does this freshman to the US Congress possess those characteristics attributed to long term lawmakers by virtue of his state experience? How else can one interpret his blog announcement?

There are videos at youtube where you can simply search by this freshman’s name to view them. None reviewed here gave a good glimpse into this politician’s motives or agenda. His blog post of two paragraphs seemed to do it better. That is why there are none published here as with the two former freshman featured.

Getting People Back To Work And Bringing Our Troops Homes (Congressman-elect John Boccieri)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Now, for another installment of The Downside of Elections as Term Limits the featured freshman is GOP Congressman-elect Tom Rooney in Florida’s 16th district. Above all it is hoped that Mr Rooney will not follow the examples provided by his two predecessors. GOP Congressman Mark Foley caused a scandal by sending emails to Congressional pages that could only be viewed as inappropriate and along with other particulars in the story indicate Foley has some real problems Foley’s replacement proves once again that the truth is stranger than fiction by causing his own sex scandal in cheating on his wife and getting sued by the woman with whom he had an affair. So, enter one Tom Rooney here to save the 16th for the Republican party. But…..

With an impressive resume’ Tom Rooney’s brief blog post at The Hill dot com does him a disservice. A Florida native according to Wiki and an Army vet, a lawyer who served at the JAG, for a US attorney and as an assistant AG and a teacher at West Point as he indicates in the blog post, his entry at The HIll’s Congress blog is unimpressive with one exception. While his resume’ includes service as a children’s advocate his blog post advocates for veterans and providing necessary services especially for those who return from combat with serious health issues. That is commendable and to be supported. That is the exception to an otherwise poorly presented announcement on the blog.

For instance, why should the typical reader know that the 16th district in Florida is the panhandle and home to one NAS and two AFB’s? The lame opening to the single paragraph post gives a disinterested mention of the budget, fiscal policy and the ‘bailout’. Rooney quite ‘obviously’ indicates energy independence and the veteran’s issue is what holds his interest. Well, sir, without effective attention to those issues for which you show little interest your primary issues will never be solved. The odds seem long that a freshman representative would get a seat on the Armed Services Committee let alone a significant voice anywhere in Washington. It would have been better if the Congressman-elect Rooney would have postponed his announcement until such time as he could present an introduction that at least matches his resume’.

Given that there is no chance a Democrat would display conservative principles any GOP candidate or in this case Congressman-elect holds the only promise for supporting a reasonable agenda. For that reason success for Tom Rooney would be a benefit to his constituents and possibly the rest of America too. With that in mind and the recent history of the 16th district in Florida, Rooney falls somewhere between the up and downside of elections as term limits. No doubt it is good Mahoney and Foley were ousted or outed as the case may be. Only time will tell if Rooney is up to the task. The upside is the two losers were eliminated via election so term limits were indeed part upside. If Rooney doesn’t work out that would demonstrate the downside once again. Not only suggesting newbies are a risk but all the time wasted over the last few election cycles with losers and rookies. But not like that supports the notion of veteran lawmakers being a better choice by default.

This emphasizes the importance of selecting qualified candidates for public office. The Florida 16th is a perfect example. Two successive office holders, one from each major party violated the public trust and their oath of office by behavior which is unacceptable but not uncommon in politics or elsewhere. Party politics regularly sacrifices due diligence and proper vetting for political expediency if not just for the lack of interest in matters other than political strategy. You cannot govern if you do not win. But by selecting those with glaring personal flaws you can do nothing of value.

Do right Mr Rooney. Your district’s recent representatives seemed to be incapable of doing right.

Stanford Matthew
MoreWhat.com