UNBELIEVABLE! Obama Administration Puts Israel On List Of Countries That Support Terrorism

Only in the twisted world of the Obama Administration, where allies are trashed, and enemies are embraced, could the tiny nation of Israel, on the front lines of the war on terror for decades, be on a list of 36 nations which “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.”

This is no joke and Alan Funt is dead so you can't be on Candid Camera. As reported by CNS News

The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General published the list of "specially designated countries" as an appendix to an unclassified May 11 report--"Supervision of Aliens Commensurate With Risk"--that was publicly posted on the Internet. (The appendix is on page 18 of the document.)

As a matter of policy, according to the inspector general’s report, citizens of Israel and other “specially designated countries” are subjected to a special security screening called a “Third Agency Check” (TAC) when they are actually detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the division of the Department of Homeland Security responsible for enforcing the immigration laws.

The five countries on the list that do not have majority Muslim populations--Kazakhstan (47 percent Muslim), Eritrea (36.5 percent Muslim), Israel (16.9 percent Muslim), the Philippines (5 percent Muslim) and Thailand (4.6 percent)--have had internal problems with radical Muslim terrorists, as reported by the State Department. 

Isn't that kind of blaming the victim?

ICE officers are supposed to check all aliens they take into custody against the Terrorist Watchlist, which includes the identities of individuals the U.S. government knows or reasonably suspects to be terrorists. When ICE holds a citizen from a “specially designated country” in its own detention facilities, according to the agency’s standing policy, the individual is also supposed to be run through a TAC.

“In addition to the Terrorist Watchlist screening, ICE uses a Third Agency Check (TAC) to screen aliens from specially designated countries (SDCs) that have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members,” says the inspector general’s report.

“The purpose of the additional screening is to determine whether other agencies have an interest in the alien,” says the report. “ICE’s policy requires officers to conduct TAC screenings only for aliens from SDCs if the aliens are in ICE custody. As a result, ICE does not perform a TAC for the majority of its population of aliens, which includes those incarcerated or released under supervision.”

The inspector general recommended in the report that ICE change its screening policy “to require officers to conduct TAC screenings for all aliens from SDCs, not just those held in ICE detention facilities.”

OK lets get this straight. Based on new Department of Homeland Security procedures, illegal immigrants who are caught breaking the law will not be deported, but the Inspector General is no recommending that every Israeli that visits the US should be subject to special screening procedures.

Wait! It gets crazier:

Even though the adminisration includes Israel among “specially designated countries” that it believes "have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members,” ICE Spokeswoman Gillian Christensen told CNSNews.com that the U.S. also considers Israel, as well as some other countries on the “specially designated countries” list, as partners in the struggle against terrorism.

“The U.S. does not and never has considered Israel to have links to terrorism, but rather they are a partner in our efforts to combat global terrorism,” Christensen said in a written statement. “Countries may have been included on the list because of the backgrounds of arrestees, not because of the country’s government itself.”

OH Israelis will now be subject to extra screening because the country arrests terrorists.
That makes sense?

ICE declined to say who put Israel on the list or when Israel was put there. However, in her written statement, ICE spokeswoman Christensen said the “specially designated country” list had been created "at least" seven years ago--which would have been during the presidency of George W. Bush--and that ICE was not responsible for creating it.

True but when this final list was proposed in March 2008 Israel was not on the list but North Korea was, today that is reversed.

“So many federal agencies have created different lists that U.S. officials contemplated adopting a single one to streamline the process, Stark wrote,” said the McClatchey report. “The proposed list, which officials said had yet to be adopted, includes 35 countries, most with significant Muslim or Arab populations.”

“The group of agencies--which included ICE, the National Security Agency and U.S. Customs and Border Protection--not only recommended one list but also suggested an interagency definition of ‘special interest alien,’” said the McClatchey report. “Under the proposal, a special interest alien would be an immigrant with terrorist ties or an immigrant who by nationality, ‘ethnicity or other factors may have ties or sympathies’ with the listed country.”

The 35 countries plus the West Bank and Gaza that were on the proposed list discussed in the ICE memo uncovered by McClatchey in March 2008 almost exactly matches the “specially designated countries” on the list published by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General on May 11, 2011. There are only two differences: North Korea was on the list proposed in 2008; it is not on the May 2011 list. Israel was not on the list proposed in 2008; it is on the May 2011 list.

See how this administration cares about Israel?  Even though the list was already set, they made a change to put our ally on this special list. Boy oh boy, just like he is with Great Britain, whose Queen he gave an Ipod full of his speeches and Broadway Show tunes, Barack Obama is a real friend of Israel.

Obama always says that despite his constant criticism of  Israel, America will always have a special partnership with the Jewish State.  Now we understand he means putting Israel on a "special" terrorism watch list.

OH MY! President Obama is Having Short-Term Memory Issues..OR WORSE

Folks the President of the United States may be folding under the pressure, at the very least he is exhibiting a frightening short term memory problem.  Take for example what he said during his press conference today.

“If everybody else is willing to take on their sacred cows and do tough things to achieve the goal of real deficit reduction, then I think it would be hard for the Republicans to stand there and say the tax break for corporate jets is sufficiently important that we’re not willing to come to the table and get a deal done.’’

The problem with that statement is that tax breaks for corporate jets are not a Republican sacred cow, they are a Democratic Party invention.  These tax breaks were part of the Democratic Party stimulus rammed through by the progressive Congress shortly after he was inaugurated and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

As reported by the Orlando Sentinel in February 2009:

That's right. Buried in the nearly $800 billion stimulus plan signed last week by President Barack Obama is a provision allowing companies to speed the depreciation of newly purchased corporate jets. On a popular model like the $530,100 Cirrus SR22 GTS, companies can now deduct about $418,000 -- a huge improvement over former limits. 

The new tax laws are a desperately needed lifeline for general-aviation manufacturers, which have shed some 11,000 jobs in the past three months. Given the jobs and taxes at stake, lawmakers are absolutely right in attempting to resuscitate the general-aviation industry. Unfortunately, it was the very same lawmakers who helped put the industry on life support in the first place.

 My friend Warner Todd Huston uses an AP Article to point out the President's demography on his blog.

The difference is that he believes that Barack Obama is being a demagogue, sorry buddy but I have to disagree. No one in their right mind could ever believe that the press would miss such a blatant error. And President Obama would never lie to us unless there was a mechanical problem with the TOTUS.  So the only explanation is that Barack Obama is no longer in his right mind, he is either having short term memory issues or even worse. 

Are Jewish Democrats Beginning to Say No To Obama ?

It seems as if everything is finally beginning to add up. According to several dozen interviews conducted by Politico, Americans of the Jewish faith are finally waking up to the fact that Barack Obama is not a friend of Israel. And the best efforts of Democratic spin-masters isn't going to change the truth.

David Ainsman really began to get worried about President Barack Obama’s standing with his fellow Jewish Democrats when a recent dinner with his wife and two other couples — all Obama voters in 2008 — nearly turned into a screaming match.

Ainsman, a prominent Democratic lawyer and Pittsburgh Jewish community leader, was trying to explain that Obama had just been offering Israel a bit of “tough love” in his May 19 speech on the Arab Spring. His friends disagreed — to say the least.

One said he had the sense that Obama “took the opportunity to throw Israel under the bus.” Another, who swore he wasn’t getting his information from the mutually despised Fox News, admitted he’d lost faith in the president.

But its not just this particular speech, it seems as if it is a cumulative effect of all of the times Obama has thrown Israel and its leaders under the bus since he was elected President.

“It’s less something specific than that these incidents keep on coming,” said Ainsman.

Ainsman is correct Obama's "war on Israel" began just a few days after inauguration and continued through his first year and even through today. For example, these are only some of the articles I wrote about Obama and Israel during his first months in office, and all this happened prior to his getting involved in the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

• Jan 29th 2009 Israel-Hating Samantha Power Named Key Obama Adviser
• Feb. 2009 Obama Appoints Anti-Israel Chas Freeman as Chairman of the National Intelligence Board
• June 4th 2009 Obama's Cairo Speech Threw Israel Under the Bus
• Sept. 29th 2009 Obama Tosses Israel Under The Bus--AGAIN !
  

Politico reports that the recent speech was the straw that broke the Camel's back:

The immediate controversy sparked by the speech was Obama’s statement that Israel should embrace the country’s 1967 borders, with “land swaps,” as a basis for peace talks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seized on the first half of that phrase and the threat of a return to what Israelis sometimes refer to as “Auschwitz borders.”

Ben Smith, the reporter who wrote the article believes that it is hard to resist the conclusion that some kind of tipping point has been reached.

Most of those interviewed were center-left American Jews and Obama supporters — and many of them Democratic donors. On some core issues involving Israel, they’re well to the left of Netanyahu and many Americans: They refer to the “West Bank,” not to “Judea and Samaria,” fervently supported the Oslo peace process and Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and believe in the urgency of creating a Palestinian state.

But they are also fearful for Israel at a moment of turmoil in a hostile region when the moderate Palestinian Authority is joining forces with the militantly anti-Israel Hamas.

“It’s a hot time, because Israel is isolated in the world and, in particular, with the Obama administration putting pressure on Israel,” said Rabbi Neil Cooper, leader of Temple Beth Hillel-Beth El in Philadelphia’s Main Line suburbs, who recently lectured his large, politically connected congregation on avoiding turning Israel into a partisan issue.

Some of these traditional Democrats now say, to their own astonishment, that they’ll consider voting for a Republican in 2012. And many of those who continue to support Obama said they find themselves constantly on the defensive in conversations with friends.

“I’m hearing a tremendous amount of skittishness from pro-Israel voters who voted for Obama and now are questioning whether they did the right thing or not,” said Betsy Sheerr, the former head of an abortion-rights-supporting, pro-Israel PAC in Philadelphia, who said she continues to support Obama, with only mild reservations. “I’m hearing a lot of ‘Oh, if we’d only elected Hillary instead.’”

Mentally challenged Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, told Smith detected a level of anxiety in a recent visit to a senior center in her South Florida district.

“They wanted some clarity on the president’s view,” she said. “I answered their questions and restored some confidence that maybe was a little shaky, [rebutted] misinformation and the inaccurate reporting about what was said.”

Of course the reporting was not inaccurate, like most Democrats in Congress, Wasserman-Shultz was defending her party's President. Well, either that or the reporting was
written above the third grade reading level.

“There’s an inclination in the community to not trust this president’s gut feel on Israel and every time he sets out on a path that’s troubling you do get this ‘ouch’ reaction from the Jewish Community because they’re distrustful of him,” said the president of a major national Jewish organization, who declined to be quoted by name to avoid endangering his ties to the White House.

Democrats argue that during this point of every presidential race there are arguments that this will be the year Jews abandon the Democratic party.  Truthfully, the only time that actually happened was the reelection campaign of Jimmy Carter.

“When Obama was running, there was a lot of concern among the guys in my group at shul, who are all late-30s to mid-40s, who I hang out with and daven with and go to dinner with, about Obama,” recalled Scott Matasar, a Cleveland lawyer who’s active in Jewish organizations.

Matasar remembers his friends’ worries over whether Obama was “going to be OK for Israel.” But then Obama met with the community’s leaders during a swing through Cleveland in the primary, and the rabbi at the denominationally conservative synagogue Matasar attends — “a real ardent Zionist and Israel defender” — came back to synagogue convinced.

Obama was aided in the turn-around by prominent Jews such as former NY Mayor Ed Koch and New Republic Editor Marty Peretz who gave the candidate a "Kosher on Israel" certificate. They will not be supporting Obama this time.

Now Matasar says he’s appalled by Obama’s “rookie mistakes and bumbling” and the reported marginalization of a veteran peace negotiator, Dennis Ross, in favor of aides who back a tougher line on Netanyahu. He’s the most pro-Obama member of his social circle but is finding the president harder to defend.

...A Philadelphia Democrat and pro-Israel activist, Joe Wolfson, recalled a similar progression.

“What got me past Obama in the recent election was Dennis Ross — I heard him speak in Philadelphia and I had many of my concerns allayed,” Wolfson said. “Now, I think I’m like many pro-Israel Democrats now who are looking to see whether we can vote Republican.”

Its not just the votes, this "Jewish Awakening" will also hurt him in the pocketbook.

A top-dollar Washington fundraiser aimed at Jewish donors in Miami last week raised more than $1 million from 80 people, and while one prominent Jewish activist said the DNC had to scramble to fill seats, seven-figure fundraisers are hard to sneer at.

People involved in the Philadelphia event, however, said they think Jewish doubts are taking a fund raising toll.

“We’re going to raise a ton of money, but I don’t know if we’re going to hit our goals,” said Daniel Berger, a lawyer who is firmly in the “peace camp” and said he blamed the controversy on Netanyahu’s intransigence.

The bottom line is that even hard core pro-Israel Jews do not vote on only one issue. Certainly Israel wasn't the only reason that 55% of American Jews voted against Jimmy Carter in 1980.  But, just as what happened 31 years ago, Barack Obama's anti-Israel policies are causing liberal Jews to take the rose-tint off their glasses and evaluate what has happened since January 2009, domestically, his foreign policy and his policy toward the Jewish state, and what they see is not very positive.

Lets just hope the trend continues because in the end a one-term Obama Presidency would be the best thing for America.

Petraeus Replacement Testifies: Obama's Afghanistan Withdrawal Plan Went AGAINST Military Advice

Yesterday Marine Lt. Gen. John Allen, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The General has been nominated to replace Gen. David Petraeus as head of coalition forces in Afghanistan.

As part of his testimony the General was grilled by Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham. He eventually gave a startling answer. The withdrawal plan announced by President Obama was not at the bottom of the scale of options recommended by the Generals on the ground, it was below all recommendations offered by the Military.

(If you cannot see video below click here)

GRAHAM: The option that the country has chosen through President Obama is to withdraw 10,000 this year, all surge forces gone by September. Is it fair to say, General Allen, that was not one of the options presented to the president by General Petraeus?

ALLEN: It is a more aggressive option than that which was presented.

GRAHAM: My question is, was that a option?

ALLEN: It was not.

GRAHAM: So I just want the country to understand that this is not the Petraeus strategy any longer. The commander in chief has the perfect right to do what he did. I just hope that it hasn't undercut what I think could be a very successful outcome.

During the 2008 Campaign "peace candidate" Barack Obama described Afghanistan as a good war. His surge announced in December 2009 was just beginning to turn things around.  But this President decided to destroy the momentum gained by the American heroes fighting in Afghanistan.  Barack Obama who has had no military training, decided to ignore the advice of his military leaders by withdrawing faster than they recommended. Sure they now say they back the plan, they are following orders.  Truth be told though, this President has put his reelection ahead of the needs of this country and the safety of our military heroes overseas.

OMG! Helen Thomas Wants Back into the White House Press Corps

Sheeee's Baaaaaaaaaaaaack! Or at least she wants to be back.   Helen Thomas made an appearance at the Busboys & Poets bookstore in Washington, D.C.  yesterday, and said she is ready for a comeback. She wants to return to the White House briefing room.

“Nothing can replace being there when you’re a reporter,” Thomas said. “Seeing with your own eyes — no, nothing can replace that. I was very lucky to cover history for so long.”

Thomas forced out of her job last June when a video first seen on this website came to light, where she told the Israeli Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine and go back to Germany and Poland.  

Anas “Andy” Shallal, the owner of Busboys & Poets and moderator for her appearance Sunday, followed up by asking her if she had reapplied for those credentials. According to Thomas, she said she had but hadn’t gotten an official response and assumed she had been denied.

“In a back way,” Thomas said. “I’ve been denied – I think so, I never heard.”

The words made to Rabbi Nesenoff last  June was even the worst of it.  Just a few months later in a speech made to a Muslim Anti-Bias conference Thomas used almost every anti-Semitic stereotype in the book.

"I paid the price for that," said Thomas, a longtime White House correspondent. "But it was worth it, to speak the truth. The Zionists have to understand that's their country, too. Palestinians were there long before any European Zionists."

Thomas claimed that "You can not say anything (critical) about Israel in this country."

That was the nicest thing Thomas said all night. In her speech about about discrimination against Arabs she launched into an anti-Semitic tirade about how those rich Jews control America

In a speech that drew a standing ovation, Thomas talked about "the whole question of money involved in politics."

"We are owned by propagandists against the Arabs. There's no question about that. Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where there mouth is…We're being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.

It was almost as if Thomas was reading directly from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, at an anti-Bias conference!!!

During her interview and speech, Thomas often used the term "Zionists" negatively, saying that Dennis Ross, President Obama's adviser to the Middle East, was a Zionist.

"Obama, he puts in charge for the Arab world a Zionist like Dennis Ross…You don't put a Zionist in charge of the Muslim world in the White House."

Below is the video of the Speech.



There are some people who believe that any criticism of Israel is Antisemitism. That belief is as ignorant as Antisemitism itself. There is however, a great deal of crossover between hatred of Israel and hatred of the Jews. To find out what people really mean you need to examine the words they use. Make no mistake about it, Thomas uttered the word "Zionists" but her words showed that she meant the word "Jews."  What Thomas said in December and again in her Playboy interview, that Congress, the White House, Hollywood and Wall Street are owned by Zionists, was a repetition of the anti-Semitic stereotypes that have been used for centuries to incite hatred of Jews. Ms. Thomas is nothing but a bigoted hater and that was the reason she was fired, not because she hates Israel (although most of the progressive media is anti-Israel). Thomas was canned because she is a low-life hater, an anti-Semite and she should not be allowed back into the White House press corps, nor should any other bigot.

The Scene of the Crime: I Accidentally Stumble Into A Hotbed of Educational Indoctrination

By Barry Rubin

My son took a computer design course in a summer camp that rented space in an Anglican private high school in the wealthiest Washington suburb. On the last day, students demonstrated the games they’d designed. I went for the presentation in the classroom, that was usually used by the school for teaching history, I was shocked but not surprised.

Remember, this was a completely random classroom in a random private school that I saw simply because a computer class was being held there during the summer. So what did I see? The following items:

• –About 15 short quotations on the wall around the room, including three by Noam Chomsky and one each by Cornell West and Howard Zinn. The theme? History is just a construct made up by someone. Consequently, there is no objective truth to strive for. Thus, there were also two by the liberal Democrat Arthur Schlesinger, one of which said something to the effect that history should be used to promote human freedom, a nice sentiment on the surface but which today implies that you can—indeed must—twist history to support your political positions.

• A poster of Malcolm X, with the quote, “By any means necessary,” which means, of course, the use of violence to bring down the evil United States…

• A poster of Che Guevara with a Cuban flag and revolutionary slogans.

• A poem by Alan Ginsberg of how bad America is.

• A collage called, “A Needless Sacrifice?” of how bad America’s wars are.

• A collage of the anti-Vietnam war movement, with a big peace sign.

• Several posters and cartoons ridiculing the “traditional” rolI e of women based on some stereotype of 1950s America, one of which claimed that wives always had to agree with their husbands and that women’s main job was to have dinner ready when her husband got home.

I am not leaving anything out that would seem to make the situation more balanced. The best I could come up with was a humorous quote from Lyndon Johnson about how hard it was to be president. Even the George Santayana quote was of the “history is bunk” variety. And, no, there were no pictures of Founding Fathers or anything about the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

As I explained to my son, I wouldn’t mind so much if there had been some of this balanced by something else. But there was no sign of balance whatsoever. Ironically, a message had been left on the board from the last class in which students thanked the teacher for teaching them how to think independently about history.

So I had accidentally happened on a scene that showed how wealthy Anglican parents from the Washington area elite are paying a lot of money to send their children to a school where they are indoctrinated on being left-wing radicals to the exclusion of all other ideas or world views.

Obviously, this would outrage conservatives. But how can one call this “liberalism”? Nothing would have to be changed to have made this appear like a classroom run by a Marxist-Leninist group, albeit one that was trying to be a bit subtle about it.

That such things exist will be ignored or denied. Yet it would have been impossible to have chosen a classroom in America more at random.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are teased and other articles are available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.     

What Obama Didn’t–And What We Should–Learn From The War In Afghanistan

By Barry Rubin

I am in favor of a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, but I was fascinated–in a negative way–with how President Barack Obama handled the issue. He didn’t deal with any of the real issues or the consequences. It was a speech by someone who doesn’t understand what’s been going on in Afghanistan or the world generally, a man with no real background in international affairs or military matters.

Let’s review briefly. The United States attacked Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban government that was involved in the September 11 attack on America and to wipe out al-Qaida, the group that did the attack, in that country. At some point, the mission was mistakenly changed into an inevitably failed nation-building effort.

The American effort was handicapped by:

-The difficulty of the terrain and society, probably the most difficult to transform into a modern democracy of any country in the world. A key problem was also the deeprootedness of radical Islamism in the society and worldview of the population.

–The lack of a strong Afghan ally and instead working with a weak, corrupt, disorganized Afghan government whose power was very much limited by ethnic and factional disputes as well as the local authority of strong warlords.

–The ignorance of Americans about Afghan society, their (praiseworthy but counterproductive under local conditions) moral restraint, their handicap as infidels, and their inability to deal with–or even discuss honestly–the Islamism problem.

–Sabotage by a highly paid Pakistani government much of which is on the side of the Afghan Taliban and al-Qaida.

None of these points was dealt with by Obama and it is quite possible he doesn’t understand them, especially because he followed the absurd nation-building, win-hearts-and-minds strategy for 2.5 year and put generals in command who advocated it.

No matter how courageous and competent were the U.S. soldiers there, they could not convert Afghanistan into a stable, democratic, modern society.

Nor has he suggested new srategies to cope with these issues. All he’s doing is withdrawing, a move that is going to be domestically popular. Again, the United States should withdraw but what are its strategic goals in doing so, what is its post-troop strategy?

The U.S. priority should be simple: keep the Taliban out of power; kill and destroy al-Qaida wherever it rears its head. How to do that? Pay off and back tough forces in Afghanistan who, also for their own interests, will fight these enemies. Use pressure on Pakistan to get the most out of that false ally. None of that was analyzed either.

Thus, the American people were given no useful information and the Obama Administration has no real strategy. When one watches the administration’s approach, it only confirms the idea that this government is totally incompetent and much of it has no grasp of international affairs, realpolitik, or military issues. And those in the White House simply don’t listen to those in the State and Defense departments who do.

Incidentally, something truly amazing happened after Obama’s speech that I’ve seen reported but not highlighted. Generals interviewed on the record at the Pentagon stated that they thought they could work with the plan though there were concerns the pace of withdrawal might endanger troops. In other words, high-ranking officers publicly criticized the president’s strategy albeit in a framework of being nominally supportive. I’ve never seen anything like this before and it is a measure of how truly upset the U.S. military command must be at Obama’s handling of issues. A few years from now this will come out in books and people will be astonished by the military’s anger and incredulity at Obama’s policies.

For 2.5 years, then, Obama followed the wrong policy in Afghanistan. Now he is revising the policy in a politically dictated manner but without any broader vision. And most of the mass media, in its rush to reflect and confirm Obama’s glory, missed all of these points.

But there are three more points that must be mentioned. First, there is the kind of thing that marks the difference between ordinary incompetence and the dangerous incompetence of the Obama White House. This president has opened negotiations with the Taliban–against the will of the Afghan government!–claiming that part of it is moderate.

In other words, just as it helped bring down Egypt’s government against the will of America’s Arab allies and is helping the Palestinian Authority against Israel’sinterests, and been supportive of Venezuela against America’s Latin American friends, and let Russia get away with misbehavior against U.S. friends in Central Europe and the south Caucasus, he’s doing the same thing with Afghanistan.

Ordinary incompetence is not fully protecting one’s own interests. The Obama version is voluntarily and actively to undermine one’s own interests. That’s the difference between this president and all of his predecessors, including the worst of them.

Second, Obama’s “solution” is to turn over the war to the Afghan government. But that’s a fantasy. The Kabul regime–incontrast to Iraq’s government–is incapable of taking up that burden. It will either collapse–Obama no doubt hopes only after the 2012 election–or lose control of everything outside the capital. I remember a conference I was at in [city deleted] when a pompous fool spoke [name deleted] spoke of how great the war was going and then a brilliant Afghan-American analyst [name deleted] tore him apart with detail after detail showing that the central government was a joke.

Obama thus offered a solution that he should know is simply not true. Thus, he is either mendacious or incompetent. One day the situation will explode in his face or that of his successor.

Finally, Obama called for a priority on nation-building at home in a way that would have led to accusations of isolationism if any Republican had said it. Yet the time for that speech was in January 2009. Who but Obama has been throwing money not only into Afghanistan and Iraq but even extended the overstretched military into a totally unnecessary war in Libya? Who raised spending–not just spending but, far worse, unproductive spending–in the face of a depression and these wars? Who followed a failed policy in Afghanistan for 2.5 years and even intensified that wrong approach?

When a president makes a speech and changes policy, it should be on the basis of what the chief executive has learned and it should be a teachable moment for the general public. Yet Obama isn’t holding anything back; he just doesn’t understand any of these things himself and cannot either pick the right people to advise him or listen to those who give good advice.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are teased and other articles are available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.    

Obama Meets With Jewish Donors (The President Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks)

By Barry Rubin

Speaking to Jewish donors (or should we say possible Jewish donors?) to his presidential campaign, President Barack Obama pledged that his administration would “devote all of its creative powers” to trying to bring about Mideast peace.

This is not an art project. What is needed is not “creative powers” but to deal with the actual, real situation. To me, “creative powers” (Samantha creative Powers?) means to come up with gimmicks, to do anything possible to bring about the supposed signing of a peace of paper [pun] as fast as possible. If they know the Palestinian Authority is inflexible, then they will just demand more concessions from Israel. And they won’t bother to ask whether the “peace agreement” they are pushing would last a month or produce a more stable region and a more secure Israel.

Every time Obama says that the “status quo is unsustainable,” he’s suggesting that anything would be better than the status quo. What he would produce, then, is a worse status quo.

Meanwhile, as if to prove the point, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas said he would drop seeking UN approval of unilateral Palestinian independence if the United States offers something better: “I don’t know if the U.S. has another option, but if it does, we will not go to the U.N..”

This is a beautiful example of Palestinian leaders’ chutzpah disguised as victimhood. Let’s consider the following points:

1. The Palestinian bid at the UN will fail. Abbas knows this. Therefore, he is asking to be given a better offer to a situation where he’d get nothing.

2. This strategy breaks every previous Palestinian Authority commitment but he wants to be paid for abandoning it.

3. The Palestinian Authority has refused to negotiate with Israel for 2.5 years yet has faced no pressure or punishment for its behavior. Now he wants to be given more.

4. The Palestinian Authority has partnered with Hamas, a genocidal antisemitic terrorist group that is aligned against U.S. interests and rejects peace with Israel, and the Palestinian Authority has faced no pressure or punishment for its behavior. Yet Abbas wants U.S. concessions to a PA in which Hamas is a full partner. (Whether the coalition collapses in future that is what the United States is dealing with at this time.) Does it bother anyone that the PA is ready to take on as equal partner a group that openly says that Jews have caused all major wars, seek to control the world, and should be wiped out by murdering all of them? Does it bother anyone that the Obama Administration has not cut off all relations or even support of the PA until it ends this partnership? Let’s face it, the only reason the current U.S. government isn’t dealing directly with Hamas is because of public and congressional opposition.

5. The U.S. government allows Abbas to put the blame on itself and promises to try harder, rush faster, and offer more rather than slapping him and the PA down for their intransigence, behavior, and lack of cooperation.

In other words, Abbas is acting as if he’s doing the United States a favor by taking its money, diplomatic support, and flattery when he does absolutely nothing in return, and then demands even more!

And the Obama Administration lets him get away with it.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are teased and other articles are available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.  

Economic Data Suggests the Stimulus Had NOTHING To Do With Recovery

"True the economy still stinks, and true the stimulus didn't do what we predicted it would, but that's because Bush left the economy in worse shape than we thought. If it wasn't for our quick action, America would have fallen into a great Depression."

If you believe the President and is progressive followers, the $800+ trillion dollar stimulus plan saved America from falling into a great depression. Many are predicting that claim will be a big part of Obama's reelection campaign.

Like many other claims coming from the Obama the claim that the stimulus saved us from a Great Depression is pure hyperbole.

IBD reviewed records of economic forecasts made just before Obama signed the stimulus bill into law, as well as economic data and monthly stimulus spending data from around that time, and reviews of the stimulus bill itself.

The conclusion is that in claiming to have staved off a Depression, the White House and its supporters seem to be engaging in a bit of historical revisionism.

Economists weren't predicting a Depression.

White House economists forecast in January 2009 that, even without a stimulus, unemployment would top out at just 8.8% — well below the 10.8% peak during the 1981-82 recession, and nowhere near Depression-era unemployment levels.

The same month, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that, absent any stimulus, the recession would end in "the second half of 2009." The recession officially ended in June 2009, suggesting that the stimulus did not have anything to do with it.

 As a matter of fact, based on the numbers the stimulus had little or any role in ending the recession.

The chart below shows that the recession had pretty much bottomed out by the time the stimulus bill was signed.

According to economists,  the recession officially ended in June 2009. Only 15% of the stimulus dollars had been spent by that date, so its safe to say very little of those funds had anything to do with getting us out of the recession.

When the recession officially ended in June 2009, just 15% of the stimulus money had gone out the door. And that figure's likely inflated, since almost a third of the money was in the form of grants to states, which some studies suggest they didn't spend, but used to pay down debt.

Other programs Obama often touts — Cash for Clunkers, mortgage help, homebuyer tax credits, the auto rescue plans — either came as the recession had ended or was ending or were widely deemed to be busts.

....Also often overlooked is that a tremendous amount of stimulus already was in the economy when Obama took office, including President Bush's $150 billion stimulus, two unemployment benefit extensions and $250 billion spent on "automatic stabilizers."

More importantly, the Bush administration pushed through the controversial $700 billion TARP program (which Obama sustained), while the Fed pursued an aggressive anti-recession campaign by, among other things, effectively lowering its target interest rate to zero.

Princeton economist Alan Blinder and Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi studied the relative contribution of Obama's $830 billion stimulus compared with TARP and the Fed's "financial-market policies."

While the economists credit Obama's stimulus for helping end the recession when it did and keeping unemployment lower than it would have been, they concluded that TARP and the Fed's actions were "substantially more effective" at saving the economy from ruin.

 Is IBD suggesting that it was Bush rather than Obama who ended the recession?  I would not go that far.  But I would suggest that based on this research, the stimulus plan was nothing but a big waste of money.

Tom Friedman-Lying For Peace

By Barry Rubin

My article, “The Unbearable Lightness of Mainstream Thinking on Israel-Palestinian Issues,” came out too early to include this howler from Tom Friedman. We should remember that Friedman is highly regarded in certain circles. Yet his columns are often laughable in terms of the actual Middle East. Consider this passage giving his proposal for a compromise at the UN:

“Each side would get something vital provided it gives the other what it wants. The Palestinians would gain recognition of statehood and U.N. membership, within provisional boundaries, with Israel and America voting in favor. And the Israelis would get formal U.N. recognition as a Jewish state — with the Palestinians and Arabs voting in favor.”

Now, can Friedman deliver the Palestinian, Arab, (and Muslim-majority state) votes for formal UN recognition of Israel as a Jewish state? Of course not. It reminds me of how President Barack Obama promised Israel in 2009 that in exchange for Israeli concessions he would deliver Arab ones. He totally failed, getting turned down by every Arab country.

They wouldn’t vote for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state because a Jewish state is not to be allowed in the Middle East since this is supposed to be exclusively Muslim and/or Arab territory. Some are totally against Israel’s existence, others could accept it in practice but not with their official approval of its existence and its definition as Jewish. And of course the Palestinian Authority and Fatah–obviously not Hamas–would never accept the idea of Israel as a Jewish state even in exchange for a West Bank-Gaza Strip state with its capital in east Jerusalem and its borders those of the pre-1967 variety.

Friedman could not get the leader of a single Arab state to pledge such a deal. So when he presents this to his readers as a way of solving the conflict he is lying. Yet this is the daily diet served up in terms of Middle East analysis.

Again, even in exchange for an independent Palestinian state along the 1967 borders with its capital including all of east Jerusalem, the Palestinian Authority would NOT:

–Give up a demand for a “right of return” of all Palestinians who wanted to going to live in Israel.

–Accept Israel as a Jewish state.

–Agree to end the conflict forever and formally drop all further demands on Israel.

I can think of more items to add to this list but those three are for certain. Notice by the way that all of these fantasies have the same theme: If Israel only takes more risks and makes more concessions, peace is (easily) possible. The Arabs and Palestinians are always presented as being ready to make concessions they would never dream of making. Then because Israel won’t fall for this nonsense and has already experienced several times over the fact that these things don’t work, it is presented as being against peace, intransigent, or not understanding its own true interests.

So let’s ask these people to stop lying or at least speaking from ignorance. If they refuse to do that, can’t they at least allow those who see that the emperor’s analysts have no clothes to have equal space and try (although they would fail) to answer the serious arguments to be made about these issues?


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
 

Dana Milbank Speaks of Shanda (Embarrassment) But Acts Like Just Another Progressive Schmednrik (Stupid Person)

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank tends to use an unusual barometer to select his topics.  He likes to write about subjects for which he has a very strong opinion, but very little knowledge. His latest column, Joe Lieberman joining Glenn Beck: a shanda proves my point.  Unfortunately Milbank would not know a shanda (Yiddish for embarrassment), if one jumped up kissed him on the lips and wished him a gut morgan. (good morning).

The purpose of this column was to criticize Senator Joe Lieberman for joining Glenn Beck for his August rally in Jerusalem called "Restoring Courage."

“I’d love to participate,” Lieberman confirmed when The Post’s Felicia Sonmez found him in a Capitol hallway. “It’s just going to be a rally to support Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship.”

This nearly caused me to plotz [faint].

Notice how cleverly Milbank stuck a Yiddish word into his column to prove his Jewish "street cred?"

Joe Lieberman, first Jew on a presidential ticket, was embracing Beck, the leading purveyor of anti-Semitic memes in the mass media. One of the most visible Jews in America was making common cause with a man who invoked apocalyptic Christian theology in promoting his rally in Israel.

I admire Lieberman, and I’ve defended him over the years when he defied party and faction. But if he shares a stage with this creature, he will surrender the decency that has defined his public life.

Its interesting that Milbank uses Yiddish to establish his Jewish "street cred", but calls him the leading purveyor of anti-Semitic memes" If Milbank truly wants to prove his Jewishness, perhaps he should learn the concept of, "motzi shem ra"is the spreading of malicious lies," which according to the Rabbis is a severe sin. With this comment, Milbank is showing he buys into the George Soros/ Media Matters strategy of trying to destroy Glenn Beck by branding him as an anti-Semite (the history of this strategy is outlined here).

For those of you who are not familiar with the Beck rally allow me to present this explanation.

Israel is in the most precarious position she has faced since the 1967 War. Palestinian terrorists are on three of its borders, Fatah in Judea and Samaria,  Hamas in Gaza,  Hezbollah in Lebanon. Adding to the threat is that the Syrian regime is  facing collapse, so it is tying to divert its people's attention from hating it leaders to hating Israel, Egypt is becoming radicalized and most of the parties with potential to twin the next election and take over leadership of the country are promising to tear up the Camp David treaty. And Iran, close to developing the capability to send a nuclear warhead into Tel Aviv continues to threaten to wipe the Jewish State off the map.

All this is happening in the background of a United States President, who's policies are the most anti-Israel in the short 63-year history of the Jewish State. Let's face it, Israel is more isolated today than she has ever been.

The purpose of Beck's Restoring Courage rally in Jerusalem in August is to show the world that good people of all faiths from across the world are standing with Israel.

It is time for us to courageously stand with Israel.

“I invite you to join me in Israel this summer to stand together and show the world what living a life of faith and honor really means. I invite you to join me in my quest to Restore Courage,” Glenn said.

Honesty, it would be nice if American Jewish Organizations created such a rally, but unfortunately most Jewish leaders in this country are more concerned with protecting the President's progressive agenda no matter what, than protecting Israel, which is not only the Jewish homeland, but the United State's biggest ally in the Middle East. But neither religious heritage nor the best interests of the United States are as important to most of these Jewish leaders as is reelecting Barack Obama and maintaining political power. Beck is throwing his rally partially because American Jewish leadership does not have the guts to do it themselves.

Milbank on the other hand feels that Beck's religion should eliminate him from leading such a rally:

It’s nice that Beck wants to defend Israel before the United Nations attempts in September to create a Palestinian state. But this support comes with an asterisk. Beck’s descriptions of his event as a gathering and a restoration echo his Mormon faith’s theology: there will be a “Gathering of Scattered Israel” in which Jews return to the Holy Land and are converted to Christianity as part of “the restoration of all things” and the Second Coming.

Hey Mr. Plotzing Shanda, did you know that Jewish theology is something very similar? In fact the tenth blessing of the Amidah prayer Jews recite every day is called, Kibbutz Galuyot ingathering of exiles :

"Sound the great shofar for our freedom and raise a banner to gather our exiles and unite us together from the four corners of the earth. Blessed are You, LORD, who regathers the scattered of His people Israel."

The sounding of the Shofar part is all about the coming of the Messiah (Jews believe the Messiah has not come yet and when he does will be a regular man). With his comment about Beck's religion is he saying that all Christians should not have freedom of religion in Israel or just Mormons?   Or maybe he believes Jewish practice should be banned  also, because he criticizes Beck for quoting a Jewish prophet.

Announcing his event on the radio last month, Beck invoked “the words of Ezekiel” – a prophet associated with end times theology – and said: “There are people who will say, ‘oh you are crazy, that’s not going to happen. People have been saying this is Ezekiel for 5,000 years, yadda yadda yadda.’ I have no idea if these are the Times. I just know that the old hatreds are starting up, and God will not hold us blameless. I choose to stand and be counted.”

....Beck assumed a Messianic role: “The peace that is promised comes from standing in the place where He asks us to stand. I believe I have been asked to stand in Jerusalem.” He predicted his gathering would send “a global shockwave. It will ripple across the earth.”

Mainstream Mormonism has de-emphasized this notion of a literal gathering of Jews in Israel, but megalomaniacal Beck sees value in it.

So Dana Milbank a Jew who based on his writing knows very little about Judaism, is now also an expert on the Mormon religion also (Note to Milbank: If you went to Broadway  to see  Book of Mormon, I hate to break this to you, but it is a work of fiction).

Beck is not Milbank's only Israel related target.  Another frequent target of the progressive WAPO writer is Israeli Prime Minster Binyamin Netanyahu.  For example after Obama's Middle East speech earlier this month, where he unilaterally called for negotiations to start with the 1948 armistice lines, Milbank criticized the President, not for abandoning an ally but because criticizing Israel will generate more support for Netanyahu.

... Obama bungled his Middle East speech. He unwittingly strengthened Israeli hawks such as Netanyahu and made the already remote prospect of peace that much more distant.

Milbank goes on to describe the reaction to Bibi's speech to AIPAC and Congress by his Israeli au pair, Inna who he describes as a moderate who was suspicious of the uncompromising Netanyahu, the episode turned her into a supporter.

She’s aware that Netanyahu isn’t about to strike a peace deal. After she listened on Tuesday to Netanyahu’s list of requirements for a Palestinian state — a list one Palestinian official called a “declaration of war” — she knew it was a nonstarter. “I can’t imagine it on a map,” she said.

Its interesting that Milbank is upset that Inna has become a Bibi fan, he does not argue against the President's plan, only Inna's reaction. He talks about the Palestinian reaction to Netanyahu's speech but ignores the fact that the Palestinians (even President Abbas who is considered a "moderate") refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish State and Obama refuses to push them toward that acceptance.

So what is a Shanda? Well, the fact that Senator Joe Liberman or any American Jew or not joins Glenn Beck in Jerusalem is not a shanda (if I could afford it, I would be there).  What is a shanda is the fact that the leadership of major American Jewish organizations are too cowardly to stand up to a progressive president and join the Beck rally).

What is also a shanda is a Washington Post columnist trying to establish his Jewish "street cred" by using Yiddish when he has no real idea about what Judaism is all about, uses progressive talking points to smear someone who is doing what those Jewish Leaders should be doing, protects the most anti-Israel President in history while falsely disparaging an Israeli Prime Minster.  The fact that Dana Milbank acts the part of balmalocha (Yiddish for expert) regarding Judaism, Mormonism, and Israel when he is only a partisan progressive schmednrik (Yiddish for stupid person) that is a shanda.

Manufacturing Execs Give WH Chief of Staff Daley Hell Over Obama's Anti-Business Policies

“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” Harry S. Truman

The thirty-third president's words never rang more true than at yesterday's meeting of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley was the "guest of honor." It was part of the President's effort to  make-nice session with corporate America before the election so he can gain their support for his campaign, get re-elected and then continue to crap all over private enterprise if he has a second term.

But this was not a friendly outreach session as Daley was confronted by angry executives who see their businesses heading downhill thanks to the administration's anti business policies.

Daley didn’t have any good answers for many of the questions blaming the business owners problems on “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible.”

One by one the Chief of Staff faced criticism from the executives in the room, who applauded each others criticism of the administration

“At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts utility executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government ‘throws sad into the gears of progress,’” said the Washington Post report.

Americans for Limited Government Communications Director and former Labor Department Public Affairs Chief of Staff Rick Manning  pointed out that Daley’s meeting may have large political implications.

“Business community to William Daley, your Jedi tricks don’t work on us,” Manning said in an email. “The chickens are coming home to roost from the wholesale assault by Obama on the free enterprise system and the private job creators who make it run. The meeting itself is incredible in that it demonstrates just how vulnerable Obama feels in 2012.”

Daley tried to lay out the administration’s efforts to help business, and  promoted Obama’s support for changing the corporate tax structure and for new free trade agreements.

When a paper company executive said Environmental Protection Agency regulations might cost her $10 million to $15 million to upgrade a mill, Daley said the number of rules and regulations “that come out of agencies is overwhelming.”

Later, he added: “We’re trying to bring some rationality to it.”

Daley’s appearance before Thursday’s meeting of the National Association of Manufacturers was an unusual public appearance for Obama’s relatively new chief of staff. He invited the executives to offer candid views and extended the question-and-answer session, at one point joking, “I’ll probably regret saying that.”

I am sure that he did.

On lowering the corporate tax rate, a top goal of business groups, Daley said again, “there are winners and losers.” He warned that some small businesses might face a tax increase.

Mary Andringa, head of NAM, described the meeting as “constructive” and was “quite pleased” that Daley devoted more than an hour to the group’s concerns.

But some business executives in the room said they were unimpressed by the White House’s attempts to woo industry.

“We think there’s a thin facade by the administration to say the right things, but they don’t come close to doing things,” said Barney T. Bishop III, chief executive of the business group Associated Industries of Florida. He called the efforts to streamline regulations “immaterial.”

“We love the platitudes, but we want to see action,” Bishop said.

And that's the bottom line for these executives.  Before they invest more in their businesses, and hire more people, they need to feel sure that the economic environment is going to get better. Unfortunately as the Obama administration's policies stand right now...that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Rasmussen Reports...Obama's Approval "Falls Off The Cliff"

Between Debbie Wassserman Schultz' claim that the economy was turning around, and Obama's joke about shovel ready projects, if the President, and the progressive Democratic party leadership has proven anything over the past few days, it is that they are out of touch with the American people. And the American people are beginning to understand the progressive's distance from the voters.

There is a wealth of polling data coming from Rasmussen over the past few days, that signal problems for the President.  For example the chart below reflects the President's overall approval/disapproval ratings since his Bin Laden announcement.

You will notice that right after the announcement the President's approval (Blue line) took a bump up, but that advantage was quickly dissipated. For the next month, the approval/disapproval numbers remained close until the bad economic data and comments such as the ones described above began to take their toll. Today there is a nine percent spread between those who disapprove (54%) and those who approve (45%) of the President's performance.

What should be particularly troubling for the President is that 62% of independent voters disapprove of Obama's performance (37% approve).  Independents are likely to be the difference in the 2012.


Obama's approval index shows the same pattern. Approval index is the difference between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove of the president's performance. This number is important because a voter with a strong opinion regarding a president's performance is more likely to work for or against the reelection of that president. Obama's approval index was at a -11 at the time if the Bin Laden mission.


It remained approximately in the same place until late last week when it fell to -19.  Just like the overall approval numbers, the independent voters show a strong negative feeling about Obama's performance with a -29 approval index.

Approval numbers are not the only statistic indicating voter frustration with President Obama.

• Almost two thirds of voters (65%) feel the country is going in the wrong direction

• 44% of voters blame the lousy economy on Obama (vs 49% who blame Bush). Last month it was only 39% blaming Obama, and 54% Bush.  Just as important is the fact that more independents (45%) blame Obama than Bush (44%).

• Only 28% of all voters and 23% of independents trust Obama on the economy more than they trust themselves.

• The President is seen as very liberal. 42% of voters see Obama as very liberal, 24% as somewhat liberal. Only 25% see him as a moderate. Independents generally agree, 39% see him as very liberal, 28% see him as somewhat liberal and only 23% see him as a moderate.  As US voters tend to be center-right, those very liberal numbers should be a concern for Obama's reelection team.

Putting it all together it is all bad news for the President. The only  good news (for him) is that there is a very long time between now and November 2012.  Over the next 17 months the Republicans need to keep pounding on the Presidential poor economic performance to ensure that America can elect a new president and turn itself around.

Epic Fail: Obama Supporters Try to Defend His Middle East Policy

By Barry  Rubin

It is remarkable how supporters of Obama’s Middle East policy are forced back onto wishful thinking and total projection based on new evidence. For example, in response to my critique of Obama’s strategy one reader writes:

I have a feeling that Obama will get an acknowledgement from PA to recognize right of Israel to exists and a cease violence so the 2 state solution can go forward.

Note the expression, “I have a feeling.” In other words, a subjective emotion rather than anything that has been observed in the actual world.

The PA, of course, recognized Israel’s right to exist (well, actually the PLO as the framework for creating the PA) 18 years ago in the Oslo agreement of 1993. So getting that wouldn’t be much of an achievement. BUT Fatah leaders have repeatedly stated that their group has not recognized and will never recognize Israel’s right to exist based on the excuse that the PA is the body to do so. But we all know what that means. Moreover, Hamas will never do so and it is now part (perhaps temporarily) of the PA.

Finally, the hope that the PA will agree to “cease violence.” Again, that was the basis of the Oslo agreement and the PA has not implemented it. There was a five-year-long intifada and a series of riots and terrorist attacks promoted by the PA with every means at its disposal.

The problem is not to get the PA to make promises — and it even often refuses to do that — but to implement the promises. Israel’s dilemma is that if it gives a lot of territory and returns close to the 1967 border, Palestine is then a state and can do what it wants. Israel would then be dependent on Obama’s support — a thin reed — and its own military. It would not be better off than it is now and would arguably be worse off.

Another reader writes:


Obama has already been twisting Europe to get up to plate thru NATO…He has given the PA ultimatums about taking their proposal to the UN. He knows Israel is AR only ally in the Mideast.

Let’s consider this:

A. Britain, France, Italy, and Germany all announced they would vote against unilateral independence before Obama did anything. He didn’t twist their arms; they took the lead.

B. There is no evidence that Obama has tried to twist anyone’s arm in Europe on this issue. Quite the opposite, he’s tried to get them to endorse his program of: We’ll get Palestine independence real fast so they don’t need to go to the UN. In other words, it is an appeasement strategy.

C. No, he has not given “ultimatums”; he’s just said he’s against it and will vote against it. In saying that, he’s assuming that it will go to the UN. An ultimatum is when you threaten someone with serious consequences unless they give in. He has not done so.

D. “He knows Israel is [our] only ally in the Mideast.” This is the most interesting sentence of all. No public action Obama has taken demonstrates that in any way. We only have the ritual pro-Israel statements. And such things as continued good military relations are not expressions of Obama’s personal views, but of Defense Department policies and sheer inertia.

In a sense, Obama’s strategy is like that of French President Charles de Gaulle in 1967, turning from a strong bilateral alliance with Israel to a policy of distancing oneself from Israel in a bid to win support from Arabs and Muslims. Of course, Obama cannot go so far as de Gaulle did, but that’s more due to American public opinion and Congress than to anything in Obama’s own psyche.

What fascinates me is that on the rare occasions when Obama supporters defend his policy against real and informed criticism, they cannot come up with anything good. Only by forgetting history, distorting it, or leaving out huge chunks of reality can they make a case.

The only way they can “win” arguments is in media, where the other side is basically not permitted to speak at all.

 

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are teased and other articles are available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.  

Boehner and Obama Heading For War Powers Act Showdown Over Libya

Ten days ago, on June 4th speaker Boehner gave President Obama some breathing room.  A privileged resolution introduced by a member of his own party Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)  directing the President, to remove U.S. armed forces from Libya was pulled from the floor at the last minute by Speaker Boehner because it was about to pass.

Instead Boehner offered  a resolution that directed the president to explain “in detail” the U.S.’s “security interests and objectives” that justify supporting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s bombing campaign against Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. The resolution gave the President two weeks to reply . Boehner's resolution passed the House by a vote of 268 to 145




Those two weeks are over this Friday. And the speaker wants answers.  He sent a letter to the President warning Obama that he will clearly will be in violation of the 1973 War Powers Act as of this weekend as the POTUS did not seek congressional consent for the operation within 60 days of the March 19 U.S. air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

"Either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution," Boehner wrote. "The House and the American people whom we represent deserve to know the determination you have made."

Boehner pointed out that the  that the administration  provided briefings for lawmakers but he never sought formal authorization. Seeking an explanation, he asked Obama for answers to constitutional and statutory questions by Friday.

The White House maintains that it has been in compliance with the War Powers Act and has called the Boehner resolution unhelpful and unnecessary. But the truth is Boehner's resolution saved the President from an earlier showdown.

On the Senate side, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. John (why the long face) Kerry, D-Mass has been trying to pass a resolution in support of the action, but the resolution, officially known as the Please Will You Make Me Secretary of State When Hilary Quits act of 2011,  hasn't yet made it out of committee.

Separately Jim Webb, D-Va., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., introduced a resolution last week, similar to the Boehner bill in the house that demands  Obama seek congressional consent for continued U.S. military involvement in Libya, provide a detailed justification for the decision to go to war.

Last week the White House will comply with the Boehner resolution but as of now there are only three working days left.  A major confrontation is brewing.

Boehner's full letter follow:

June 14, 2011

The President

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest

Washington, DC 20500



Dear Mr. President:

Five days from now, our country will reach the 90-day mark from the notification to Congress regarding the commencement of the military operation in Libya, which began on March 18, 2011. On June 3, 2011, the House passed a resolution which, among other provisions, made clear that the Administration has not asked for, nor received, Congressional authorization of the mission in Libya. Therefore, it would appear that in five days, the Administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission.

Since the mission began, the Administration has provided tactical operational briefings to the House of Representatives, but the White House has systematically avoided requesting a formal authorization for its action. It has simultaneously sought, however, to portray that its actions are consistent with the War Powers Resolution. The combination of these actions has left many Members of Congress, as well as the American people, frustrated by the lack of clarity over the Administration’s strategic policies, by a refusal to acknowledge and respect the role of the Congress, and by a refusal to comply with the basic tenets of the War Powers Resolution.

You took an oath before the American people on January 20, 2009 in which you swore to “faithfully execute the Office of President” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation. Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution. The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made.

Therefore, on behalf of the institution and the American people, I must ask you the following questions: Have you or your Administration conducted the legal analysis to justify your position as to whether your Administration views itself to be in compliance with the War Powers Resolution so that it may continue current operations, absent formal Congressional support or authorization, once the 90-day mark is reached? Assuming you conducted that analysis, was it with the consensus view of all stakeholders of the relevant Departments in the Executive branch? In addition, has there been an introduction of a new set of facts or circumstances which would have changed the legal analysis the Office of Legal Counsel released on April 1, 2011? Given the gravity of the constitutional and statutory questions involved, I request your answer by Friday, June 17, 2011.

From the beginning, the House of Representatives has sought to balance two equal imperatives regarding Libya which have been in direct contradiction: the House of Representatives takes seriously America’s leadership role in the world; our country’s interests in the region; and the commitments to and from its steadfast allies. At the same time, strong concern and opposition exists to the use of military force when the military mission, by design, cannot secure a U.S. strategic policy objective. The ongoing, deeply divisive debate originated with a lack of genuine consultation prior to commencement of operations and has been further exacerbated by the lack of visibility and leadership from you and your Administration.

I respect your authority as Commander-in-Chief, though I remain deeply concerned the Congress has not been provided answers from the Executive branch to fundamental questions regarding the Libya mission necessary for us to fulfill our equally important Constitutional responsibilities. I believe in the moral leadership our country can and should exhibit, especially during such a transformational time in the Middle East. I sincerely hope the Administration will faithfully comply with the War Powers Resolution and the requests made by the House of Representatives, and that you will use your unique authority as our President to engage the American people regarding our mission in Libya.

Respectfully,

John A. Boehner

Source: ABC News

Obama’s Ludicrous Proposal to Israel Unpacked

By Barry Rubin

Could President Barack Obama’s strategy possibly be more obvious to Israel? Not for the mass media, of course, but for Israel. Here’s a summary: Due to the Obama Administration’s ineptness, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is planning to ask the UN to give it unilateral independence in September. But rather than use its leverage against the PA–including pointing out that what it’s doing is contrary to every U.S.-guaranteed agreement that the PA signed with Israel during the last 18 years–the Obama Administration wants to use its leverage on Israel to force it to save Obama.

You see, Obama will find it hard to escape vetoing the PA’s bid in the Security Council before it ever gets to the General Assembly. This will not make Obama or the United States more popular with Muslims or Arabs. So Obama wants Israel to pay the price in exchange for…nothing.

To avoid the PA declaring unilateral independence without making any concessions, Obama wants Israel to accept what amounts to the PA getting independence without making any concessions! But it won’t be unilateral, right? Obama’s plan is for Israel to negotiate, turn over the all of the West Bank to the PA as soon as possible and then negotiate on all the issues with a PA-led state. Of course, that means Israel would give up all of its bargaining chips at the beginning of the negotiation rather than get something for them at the end in exchange for Palestinian concessions.

And, of course, Obama wants Israel to depend on his promises and support, not exactly reliable, right?

What’s really going on is that Obama wants Israel to take enormous risks and give up a huge amount of political capital, thus endangering its citizens and future in order to spare Obama from vetoing the PA’s initiative. And since Obama takes no strong action against the Fatah-Hamas coalition, he’s asking Israel to give these concessions to an interocutor that includes genocidal-minded antisemitic terrorists working with Iran, Syria, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The argument the Obama administration and its supporters is using–despite being taken seriously in the mass media–is absurd. Namely, Israel must make big concessions to give the PA a state as fast as possible because otherwise the Europeans will support unilateral Palestinian independence at the UN.

But wait a minute! First, if the U.S. government would use real leverage, leadership, and even some arm-twisting, this European action wouldn’t happen. Second, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy have already said they won’t back the PA’s move. So what’s Israel going to do, turn over the West Bank real fast to avoid having Spain and Sweden vote against Israel at the UN? Third, the U.S. government can just veto the plan. Problem over.

If Obama didn’t want to have to veto unilateral independence he should have been pressuring the PA to back down, the UN not to cooperate with this campaign, and his allies not to vote for it. Instead, Obama is seeking the easy way out: have Israel give the PA so much that it gives up the idea voluntarily. Why demand what the United States has already given to you?

And it doesn’t take a genius to understand that the kind of signal Obama is giving the PA is disastrous in other situations. Go against U.S. wishes, sabotage its policies, attack its allies, don’t fulfill your commitments, align with terrorist groups, threaten to do something outrageous…and then the Obama Administration will give in and force your enemies (it’s own allies) to surrender.

Thus, what Obama is doing is ludicrous, trying to get Israel to pay for his mistakes and his refusal to press the PA on anything in exchange for Israel getting nothing and betting its future on a belief that Obama will protect it.

Sounds a bit different from the way the mass media presents things, right? And not bloody likely to happen.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are teased and other articles are available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. 

WOOT! "The Great One" Uses The Lid

Last night, The Great One, Mark Levin used an article featured here on the Lid to show how the Obama Administration is taking away your freedom. The article was about a British Study which showed how Electric cars are putting more CO2 into the environment than the equivalent gas-powered car.

If you didn't listen to his show last night, the segment can be heard below. The original article is here. (if you cannot see the player below click here).

Thank you Mark Levin, I am honored.





Thank you Mark Levin, I am honored.