Does Obama Have a Credibility Problem?

Last week was quite a week in the political world. The Governor of New York fell out of bed in a famous D.C. hotel and proceeded to resign in Albany and America learned more about Senator Obama's, Minister Wright who apparently hates our nation. Perhaps Wright's radical sermons explain why Michelle Obama was never proud of our nation until her husband decided to run for the presidency. Is there an influence connection?

What has finally been revealed is that Islamic Mosques are not the only religious institutions where contempt for our nation is preached. The sermons of Rev. Wright give us a sample of deep seated residual resentment that exists among many in the black community. We've seen it bubble to the top before from the lips of Jesse Jackson, Andy Young etc.

Would you belong to a church for seventeen or so years and listen to a minister whose views you disagreed with simply because you found the churches' atmosphere inviting and warm and the congregation involved in good deeds? Apparently Senator Obama did but he claims he was neither aware of the thrust of his minister's sermons nor his thinking. He claims to have remained exclusively focused on his Minister's biblical sermons and good works and was unaware of his Minister's trip to Libya, his award to Mr. Farrakhan or his racist views all the while embracing Rev. Wright and asserting he was his mentor. Then why did Obama exclude Rev. Wright when he declared for the presidency? Yet he allowed the Rev. to serve in an advisory capacity on his campaign committee. Is Obama just another politician covering his tracks after being flushed out like a quail?

I remember opposing a decision made by a certain few members of my congregation to fire the director of education in a secret night cabal outside the view of the board. When I was pressured not to challenge the decision, I raised so much hell I forced a special congregational meeting be held. The educator was subsequently reinstated. My wife and I resigned shortly thereafter because I no longer wanted to be associated with the place and I was then a sitting board member. Eventually a large number of Congregants resigned and we eventually formed another Synagogue.

Is Obama the healer, the change agent he claims to be or another impostor seeking high office? One thing is for sure, Obama disavowed Rev. Wright but only after some seventeen years (Obama now claims he was never present when Wright flamboyantly spouted hatred and only recently heard about his sermons second hand.) I find that strange considering that his wife attended the church and they never communicated, Obama also told us he sought Rev. Wrights' guidance and that the Reverend was just an old uncle type.

Has Obama's decision to meet Muslim leaders, to withdraw troops from Iraq and other comments about how he would conduct foreign policy been influenced by Rev. Wright's thinking? One could easily conclude evidence of this based on both their pronouncements.

I also believe the tapes of Rev. Wright's inflammatory speeches is akin to a direct hit from a torpedo. The Reverend certainly has placed Obama on the defensive and revealed an aspect of Obama's life and association which the press and media chose not to expose or even probe because Obama has become their darling. Contrast how the press, media and liberals beat up on Justice Thomas and yet, now remain fairly silent. Is a double standard involved here?

I do not believe the scenes of Rev. Wright screaming his contemptible message will sit well, even if they are not representative of his general sermons. Will the public swallow Sen. Obama's golden tongued defense as he tries to wiggle free of Minister Wright's hook or do you believe Obama still has a credibility problem? What do think about Obama's judgment in light of these revelations? Is Obama being skewered unfavorably by the "Right Wing Conspiracy" that Hillary claims conveniently and consistently haunts her? If Obama was a Republican would he be attacked for belonging to a church whose Minister said what he has? I remember when Republican Guy Milner was running for Governor of Georgia and belonged to an exclusive and restrictive private country club in Florida, where he maintained a second residence. He was pummeled by the Atlanta Cox paper and media and in order to save his campaign resigned. Milner lost anyway. What of G.W who made a speech at Bob Jones University and was forced, by the press and media, to apologize for even going there? Newt Gingrich was hounded out of office, as I recall, for his personal indiscretions because of his earlier attacks on Rep. Wright who resigned when his own drinking problem was revealed among other revelations. Rep. Wright was the powerful Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Underneath Obama's controlled persona, cool presence and soothing oratory does there lie a more radical firebrand socialist that the press and media refuse to probe because they would rather focus on the inane? Certainly the candidates have been given passes on offering, in detail and under incisive follow up grilling, their solutions to the many problems we face. Is it even the responsibility of the press and media to probe or is that beyond their purview? From where I sit, I believe the press and media have a responsibility to be responsible, to help inform by asking the tough legitimate questions which will not allow any candidate posed to duck, weave and bob. I repeatedly submit, the press and media are predominantly liberal , patently seek to control the issue agenda and in doing so render their readers and viewers a biased disservice. Consequently, I believe it is legitimate to question their professional veracity.

Again, do these questions I pose and comments I make reveal evidence of a press and media double standard and bias or am I out of bounds?

You decide.

Moving away from Rev. Wright and returning to the Middle East. (See 1 below.)

Rice accuses both Israel and the Palestinians for not doing enough to implement The Road Map. The Road Map has a first section which states clearly Palestinians must cease terrorism before Israel is required to move forward. As Palestinian terrorism continued unabated the first paragraph of The Road Map has conveniently been forgotten and concurrent behavior requirements have been subtituted. (See 2 below.)

Muslim leaders attending a conference are concerned about violence and terrorism but, in typical fashion,accuse Israel of war crimes - shades of Jimmy Carter. (See 3 below.)

An Israeli Newspaper's editorial accuses the Administration of duplicity. (See 4 below.)

Saul Singer lays out what has been wrong with America's past policies regarding the Middle East. (See 5 below.)

More responses from a fellow memo reader:

Hi Dick, despite my recent silence ( I've been in Polynesia), I have been reading your columns with great interest. I cannot comment on the Palestinian situation with any degree of competence, but remain convinced that : 1) Israel MUST remain inviolate, and 2) that in order to live in peace, the Palestinians must only accept Israel's existence and work with Israel. I say this as a non-fundamentalist Christian with no "irons in the fire."

In re: the departure of Adm. Fallon: having some background in the USN, I must say that there is a tradition of naval superiority , going as far back as Adm. Inman and his colleagues. The USN , with it's "nothing's happening" outlook, does NOT have the correct answers to all our problems. The chain of command still exists, and Fallon should have known that. Four stars do not permit one to undermine the Commander in Chief. Nor do four stars allow one to castigate Gen. Petraeus in the manner reported. Someplace back there I seem to recall something about respect, courtesy, and working within the chain of command....!

In re: Obama: the ravings of this deranged so-called "pastor" whose gutter language contradicts his supposed many degrees, indicates to me Obama is totally ideologically unqualified for the position of president. If a Caucasian were linked with a church of this type, he would be dead in the water at this point. This is "change"??????? I don't care how many times Obama denounces him: he stayed in that congregation for 20 years--- didn't he know what kind of a psychopath this man was?

McCain suggests al Qaeda may seek to impact our election results fearing he would be the tougher and more committed of the three candidates. It would not be the first time external entities sought to influence our elections.(See 6 below.)

Finally, this past week we witnessed a vote to continue "earmarks." This by a duplicitous Democrat controlled Congress that speaks about fiscal responsibility yet, when given the opportunity, votes in the opposite direction. Voters have the Constitutional right, privilege and obligation to vote out of office their "professional politicians." If we choose not to do so because we so frequently conclude it is the other guy's politician who is guilty but not our own, then we will continue to have government by abdication. We will have no one but ourselves to blame for the consequences about which we complain. With freedom of choice comes responsibility and failure to act responsibly can result in freedoms lost. Single issue voting is a dangerous and myopic approach towards achieving good government.

Have a nice weekend and drink some Irish Mist to St Patrick's day!


Dick

1) Israel warned Syria it could pay a price for any Hezbollah attack.

Israel recently conveyed a warning to Syria through a third party that it would hold Damascus accountable for any Hezbollah attacks, Israeli and European sources said on Friday.

The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the warning stemmed largely from Israeli concerns that Hezbollah would launch salvos of cross-border rockets to coincide with any major Israeli offensive in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

The sources said the message was conveyed in February through at least one European intermediary following the assassination of a top Hezbollah commander and before this month's five-day Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip in which more than 120 Palestinians, many of them civilians, were killed.

After the group's senior commander, Imad Mughniyah, was killed in a bombing in Damascus, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah threatened Israel with "open war".

Shi'ite Muslim Hezbollah and its main backer, Iran, accused Israel of being behind the assassination, a charge Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office denied in a rare public statement.

A European source familiar with the matter said the message conveyed to Damascus said Syria could be targeted by Israel even if Hezbollah's attack emanated from Lebanese soil.

An Israeli source with knowledge of government affairs said: "The message was passed around late February, before the last round of fighting in Gaza."

"It has become clear to us Syria has to understand there is a price for its use of proxy terrorism, especially as Damascus is itself a proxy -- the long-arm of Iran," the source said.

Another senior government official with knowledge of defense affairs declined comment on whether a message was sent to Damascus, but told Reuters: "This is sound strategy. Syria has significantly deepened its involvement with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon since the war."

Asked about the risk of an Israeli attack on Syria in response to a Hezbollah attack, a British official said: "There is always a danger that a turn of events here could prompt something on the northern border, which would be a disaster."

The death of Mughniyah, the threatened Hezbollah retaliation does leave a specter of a wider regional conflict," the official said, playing down the chances of opening an Israeli-Syrian peace track under the circumstances.

"There's an interest on both sides but I think it's very difficult to move forward on it," the official said, citing close ties between Syria and Iran. "It's become far more difficult the idea of an Israeli-Syrian deal."

2) Rice: Neither Israel nor PA have done nearly enough to implement road map


U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Friday neither Israel nor the Palestinians have done "nearly enough" to meet their obligations under the 2003 road map for Middle East peace, making it difficult to sustain the U.S. push to end the conflict.

"I have not hidden the fact that I think that there is a lot of room for improvement on both sides concerning road map obligations," Rice told reporters as she flew to Santiago, her final stop on a two-day trip to Brazil and Chile.

"Frankly, not nearly enough has happened to demonstrate that the Israelis and the Palestinians fully understand ... what is a very clear view to me -- that without following road map obligations and without improvements on the ground, it's very hard to sustain this process," she added.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak drew fire Friday from the Palestinian Authority for failing to attend the first trilateral meeting with a U.S. envoy to discuss the implementation of the long dormant road map.

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad attended the meeting in a Jerusalem hotel with General William Fraser, who was appointed by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to oversee the road map's implementation.

Barak sent in his place a senior ministry strategist, Amos Gilad, whose portfolio covers many of the issues Fraser was expected to raise.

The Palestinians' chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, criticized Barak's decision not to attend, saying he should have been there as a gesture of respect.

"It would have been very appropriate for Barak to go," Erekat said. "Maybe Barak couldn't go because he is busy planning more [settlement construction] and more incursions."

Gilad, however, defended the decision. "The stress is on practical talks ... with the aim of moving forward the peace process," he said before the two-hour session. "All rumors about tensions are baseless."

An Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Barak's absence reflected his skepticism about the peace negotiations.

"He didn't feel like going to a meeting and getting scolded," the official said. Some diplomats have taken to calling his representative Gilad "Dr. No". "He always says no," one of them explained.

Israel was bracing for strong U.S. criticism after announcing plans earlier this week to push forward with building hundreds of new homes in a settlement north of Jerusalem.

Fayyad demands complete halt to settlement construction

During the meeting, Fayyad expressed frustration: "Israel is eroding the very possibility of the two-state solution. A freeze on settlement activity is crucial to preserving the possibility of a Palestinian state. And by freeze, I mean not one more brick."

Peace talks launched at a conference in Annapolis, Maryland in November have been bogged down by tensions over settlements and an upsurge in violence between the two sides. Western diplomats said the peace talks would formally resume next week.

U.S. officials said ahead of Friday's meeting that Washington was not satisfied with the pace at which Israel was moving to implement the road map.

"The United States considers the expansion of settlement activity to be not consistent with Israeli obligations under the road map and we have made that very clear. I have also said that it is certainly not helpful for the peace process," Rice told U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday.

Israel has likewise failed to uproot the unauthorized outposts in the West Bank.

U.S. officials said Washington believed the Palestinians needed to do more to meet their own obligations to boost security and rein in militants in the West Bank, though U.S. officials have privately complained to Israel that its frequent raids were undermining those efforts.

Friday's meet was expected to cover implementation of the first stage of the road map plan, which calls on Israel to remove outposts built without government authorization in the West Bank and to halt all settlement activity in the territory. The 2003 plan also demands that the Palestinians crack down on militants.

It was the first meeting with Fraser since the Annapolis conference. Fraser has submitted his first confidential report on road map implementation to Rice. The contents have been kept secret.

"We examined areas where the parties are not meeting their commitments and the reasons why, and explored ways to accelerate the process," the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem said after the meeting.

3) Muslim leaders open summit with calls to end Mideast violence (many worried about conflicts closer than Arab-Israeli conflict)

Many of the leaders at the summit had other conflicts in their territory or
nearby to worry about.


Muslim leaders and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called at the start of
an Islamic summit here Thursday for Israel to halt attacks on Palestinian
civilians and for an end to 'Islamophobia' by the West.

But new tensions between Chad and Sudan cast a shadow over the start of the
57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference meeting amid new efforts by
the UN chief and the Senegalese hopes to bring the bitter rivals together.

The UN Secretary General Ban renewed his condemnation of Israel's attacks on
Palestinian civilians in his speech to the 11th OIC summit.

"Israel's disproportionate and excessive use of force has killed and injured
many civilians, including children. I condemn these actions and call on
Israel to cease such attacks," Ban told an audience that included
Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas.

"At the same time, I also condemn the rocket attacks directed against Israel
and call for the immediate cessation of such acts. They serve no purpose,
endanger Israeli civilians and bring misery to the Palestinian people," he
added.

There has been a sharp escalation in violence since the end of February in
which more than 130 Palestinians were killed, including dozens of militants,
and five Israelis, including four soldiers.

President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal, head of the OCI for the next year, said
he would make efforts to end the Middle East conflict his number one
priority.

Wade also urged a ceasefire but called on Israel to end "all of its illegal
activities in the occupied territories ... the blind repression inflicted on
the Palestinian people."

Many of the leaders at the summit had other conflicts in their territory or
nearby to worry about.

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai was preoccupied with a car bomb in Kabul
that killed six people. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was also a key
figure at the summit as he confronts tensions with the United States over
its nuclear program.

"We are called upon to summon our potentials to deal with overdue and
chronic issues that continue to plague our lives," OIC Secretary General
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu told the summit, citing conflicts involving members
Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, Comoros and Afghanistan.

Highlighting the troubles that have beset its members, Chad accused rebels
backed by neighboring Sudan of crossing the border to launch an offensive
as Chadian President Idriss Deby Itno attended the Dakar meeting.

The rebels denied they had launched any offensive however and Sudan
described the allegations as "complete nonsense".

On the eve of the summit, Wade had sought to bring together Deby and Sudan's
President Omar al-Beshir for talks on ending bitter rivalry between the two.

But Beshir failed to turn up at the meeting, which also included the UN
chief. The Senegalese leader said Beshir blamed "a headache" for his
absence.

A meeting between Deby and Beshir started Thursday amid were widespread
doubts that any progress would be made. Chad and Sudan have made five
previous accords but at times come close to war in the past five years.

The diplomatic tensions diverted attention from the OIC leadership's efforts
to reform the body with a new charter and its campaign against
'Islamophobia' -- attacks and threats against Muslims and what it considers
insults against the Islamic faith in the West.

The OIC wants western nations to clamp down harder on what it considers
anti-Islamic gestures such as the publication of cartoons lampooning the
Prophet Mohammed in Denmark and the looming release of an anti-Islamic film
by far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders.

"Freedom of speech should reach the point of attacking or showing disrespect
for others point of views," said Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saud
al-Faisal in one of many speech which condemned "defamation" of Islam.

The UN chief joined the leaders in expressing disquiet.

"Millions of Muslims around the world want this summit to assure them that
we are defending the collective interest against the defamation of the
Prophet Mohammed and Muslims in general," said Arab League secretary general
Amr Mussa.

4)Jerusalem Post editorial slams US for treating settlement activity like terror.


Israel is reportedly bracing for a "skewed" report from Lt.-Gen. William
Fraser on Israeli and Palestinian implementation of their road map
obligations. What is likely "skewed," however, is not just one report, but
the whole US approach to achieving Arab-Israeli peace.

Since the government recently announced it would expand a settlement inside
the security barrier near Jerusalem, Israel expects to be criticized in the
Fraser report.

Meanwhile, though the Palestinian leadership in Gaza has been openly
orchestrating the bombardment of Israeli cities, Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas is not being held responsible for this, so US
criticism of the Palestinians is expected to be muted.

The micro problem with this approach is that there is no symmetry between
settlements and terrorism, on either the moral or strategic levels. It is a
moral travesty that building homes is compared to murdering innocents. But
even if settlement expansion can be seen as problematic, it makes little
sense to treat all settlements equally, as if there were no difference
between expanding existing towns that are contiguous with Israel and inside
the security barrier, and settlements situated amidst the Palestinian
population.

While the US seems to pretend that there is no line between "good" and "bad"
settlements, a clear distinction should be made between settlements that are
entirely consistent with a two-state solution and those designed to block
such an eventuality.

But all this is trivial compared to the macro problem, which is that the US
makes no distinction between the respective distances Israel and the
Palestinians are from making the two-state approach work, and instead looks
for ways to criticize both sides no matter what, in an attempt to appear
"evenhanded."

Since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, the Israeli public and political
system have moved dramatically from a consensus that a Palestinian state
would be an anathema, to an equally broad consensus that regards it as
acceptable, even a necessity. At the same time, the Palestinians have if
anything become more radicalized since 1993, and have not begun to prepare
themselves for a two-state approach, let alone embrace it.

The lack of movement on the Palestinian side is illustrated not just by the
complete rejection of Israel by Hamas, but by the nonexistence of a
Palestinian peace camp that accepts Israel's basic legitimacy. While Yasser
Arafat, and now Mahmoud Abbas, claimed to have accepted Israel's "right to
exist," both continued to champion the "right of return," an obvious
back-door method to achieve Israel's destruction.

Almost no Palestinian will accept that the Jewish people have any national
or historical rights to a state alongside Palestine; almost no Israeli will
reject the right of Palestinians to build a peaceful and democratic state
alongside Israel. This gargantuan gap is what prevents peace.

Pretending that Israelis and Palestinians are equally to blame for the lack
of peace is not just misleading and unfair, it is actively harmful to the
cause of peace, because it lets those who are obstructing peace off the
hook. Nor is this "skewing" limited to the Israeli-Palestinian sphere.

Another major impediment to peace is the free ride given to the non-radical
Arab states. These states are considered to be doing their part because they
are not directly helping Hamas (though much of Hamas's funding comes from
these countries, and Egypt refuses to stop the weapons flow to Gaza), and
because they have a standing offer to make peace once Israel has settled
with the Palestinians.

The Arab stance that they are patiently waiting for peace, however, should
not wash. These states could, if they led the way rather than insisted on
following, quickly tip the current Palestinian trend from radicalization to
moderation.

The non-radical Arab states do not lift a finger to encourage and exemplify
normalization with Israel partly because the international community -
including Israel - does not demand it of them, and does not blame them for
perpetuating the conflict. The other reason these states do not help is
because they are afraid that Iran will succeed in becoming a nuclear power,
and that in such a world it would be very dangerous to take a step that
seems to support the US or Israel.

In short, while the US is busy counting outposts and settlements, and acting
as if Israel is holding up the works, the real obstacles to peace lie
elsewhere. So long as these real obstacles do not become the focus of
Western policy, the "peace process" will continue to be a dismal failure.

5) Interesting Times: A synthesis to win
By SAUL SINGER

Though somewhat eclipsed by an economic slowdown, foreign policy is still a major political football in the upcoming US election. Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain will portray his Democratic rival, particularly the emphasis on dialogue with rogue regimes, as naive. Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will claim that the Bush foreign policy was a disaster, and that they can do better.

The truth is that both critiques are right. The deeper truth is that the past two decades of American foreign policy - including the senior George Bush's term, eight years of Bill Clinton, and eight years of George Bush the son - all failed to fundamentally grasp the imperatives of the post-Cold War era.

The core of the problem is this: Democrats take international law and institutions seriously, but not international threats; Republicans take global threats seriously, but not the institutions that have been created to deal with them. Today's world demands an integrated approach.

To be fair, the Republican approach is considerable closer to the target. The Democratic failure to take fundamental threats to the international order seriously is ultimately a failure to take the ideals represented by international institutions seriously as well.

WHEN DEMOCRATS scoff at the idea of promoting democracy, when they are happy to "engage" the worst dictators and ignore their human rights records, when they fail to be repelled as much by militant Islamism as they were by apartheid and other assaults on democratic values, they reveal their faith in multi-lateralism and the United Nations to be excuses for doing nothing.

But the post-Cold War Republican approach has failed as well. It has oscillated between "realists" such as the senior Bush, who subscribed to pre-9/11 notions of "stability," to the current Bush, who knew how to take on tyrants militarily but fumbled when it came to consolidating victories and confronting rogues by non-military means.

The charge that Bush is a unilateralist "cowboy" is not accurate. He did seek UN Security Council authorization for the invasion of Iraq, and the US did lead a coalition of nations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not fair to pretend that support from Great Britain doesn't count while support from France does.

The failure, however, is at a more fundamental level. Democrats have largely been defenders of the UN, while Republicans have been willing to go around it; but neither has attempted to confront and transform the international system into something that aids, rather than impedes, the struggle for freedom, security and human rights.

The task of transforming the international system must be taken on, even if it does not succeed for many years. There is no greater illustration of this need than the rising threat from Iran, and the stumbling international response to it.

To most, the failure regarding Iran relates to its quest to become a nuclear power. Yet this is just the tip of the iceberg. The even more fundamental error was to continue to allow rogue states to support terrorism with impunity.

WHAT NEEDS to be remembered is that the UN was born after the most devastating bloodletting in history with a straightforward mission: to be a vehicle for peace-loving nations to take collective action against international aggressors. Unlike its predecessor, the League of Nations, the UN Charter had teeth, and soberly laid out escalating tools - from trade and diplomatic embargoes to military action - to maintain international order.

We tend to forget this because the Soviet Union quickly turned the charter into a dead letter. During the Cold War, the fox had a veto in the hen house. But when, over two decades ago, the Soviets evaporated from the scene, the West did not proceed with a belated crackdown on terror-supporting regimes.

The 9/11 attacks should have made such a crackdown an obvious imperative. Even then, however, the US chose to demand UN support for American-led action rather than demand that the UN take simultaneous and comprehensive action against all terror-supporting states.

Though the UN Charter was written with old-fashioned invasions in mind, there can be no doubt that state support for terrorism constitutes a raw and brutal form of international aggression. Accordingly, it is impossible to speak of a "war against terrorism" when the UN Security Council still does not treat support for terrorism as a sanctionable offense.

The sanctions that were imposed on Libya for terrorism were the exception that proves the rule; Iran's and Syria's open support for Hamas and Hizbullah continues with complete impunity.

BUSH KNEW from the beginning that the Iranian regime, unlike those in Afghanistan or Iraq, could not be dealt with by an invasion. Yet he devised no coherent alternative designed to force Teheran to back down. He allowed his State Department to pursue a lowest-common-denominator policy designed around what Europe would agree to, not what had a chance of working.

European, not to mention Russian or Chinese, myopia is no excuse. A major part of the job description of being leader of the free world is to have the inclination and ability to persuade free nations to join the US in collective self-defense, and others to at least not stand in the way.

The Iranian debacle derives from the US leaving itself with only two options: military action or doing nothing. Creating the option of meaningful non-military action requires a Democratic-style commitment to diplomacy combined with a non-"realist," Republican-style determination to win, not just "deter" or "contain."

Bush's foreign policy has been discredited, while the Democrats have not offered a substitute that can be taken seriously. McCain needs to show how he would do things differently from his predecessor, while Obama and Clinton need something that Americans will feel addresses the rising threat from totalitarian Islamism.

Accordingly, the next president should hit the ground running with two goals, one immediate and the other longer-term. The immediate goal should be to convince Europe to end the 1 percent of its trade that is with Iran, which is 40% of Iran's trade with the world. The wider goal should be to ensure that any nation that supports terrorism is punished by UN Security Council sanctions.

Together, these goals require a new foreign policy synthesis that infuses diplomacy with muscle in order to achieve concrete objectives.

The West has no shortage of economic, diplomatic and military power. Yet the refusal to deploy these tools in an integrated way has rendered the West impotent in the face of a highly vulnerable, third-rate power. A post-Bush foreign policy - championed by either a Democrat or Republican - can transcend standard categories and end Western helplessness.

6) McCain warns al Qaeda might try and tilt US election against him



Republican presidential candidate John McCain spoke Friday in Philadelphia of his worry that anti-American extremists might attempt spectacular attacks in Iraqi to try and tilt the election against him.

“And I know they pay attention because of intercepts,” said McCain, adding: “We still have the most lethal explosive devices coming across the border form Iran into Iraq. We still have suicide bombers landing at the airport in Damascus and coming into Iraq as we speak. So I would not be surprised if they made an attempt. I believe we can counter most of it as we are countering them,” said the Republican presidential candidate.