Pandering and Feeding Bullies Can Cost Fingers!

Stephen Morris does not see Carter when he looks at Obama. He sees a man of keen intellect and ability who is on a learning curve that is upward. I hope Morris turns out to be correct and that I am wrong. Two Carters is enough for any nation to suffer.

I see an intelligent person whose heart is in the right place and whose head is scewed on wrong. (See 1 below.)

What nuclear disarmament means for Israel. (See 2 below.)

Welches give Obama an A as CEO but remain on the fence regarding his policies. (See 3 below.)

Obama is alerting those in his Party to expect a clash over Netanyahu's stance regarding a two state solution. A two state solution it is, so full speed ahead and disregard its illogic. (See 4 below.)

As Obama returns from his trip Rich Lowry walks us through, from his perspective, what was accomplished. It appears not a great deal of substance but a lot of theatre.

Our president revealed a great deal about his desire to live in a world where everyone is nice and treats each other with respect. It all reminds me of that song "Wouldn't It Be Loverly" Rex Harrison sang!

If one puts the best spin on what Obama accomplished one could say he laid the foundation for making an effort to show we walked the extra mile before all hell breaks loose and we do what we got to do - attack Iran and destroy its nuclear program and show the world we mean business when we say what we say unlike GW who talked but curbed his walk.

Obviously I do not believe Obama will do anything bordering on that and in fact I believe, diplomatically, he will seek more help from the U.N. to solve many of the world's intractable problems because he is not likely to get any from Europe, Russia and China. One would think he is smart enough to realize this is a dead end trip but maybe not.

In terms of the financial and economic picture, I believe Obama will attempt to inflate us out of the debt burden he is prepared to impose on our nation because there is no alternative unless he taxes everything in sight which I also would no put past him.

Either Obama is more naive than I have given him credit for being or he is a disguised genius hawk parading in sheep's clothing. Time will tell. (See 5 below.)

Roger Stone asks when will Spitzer stop lying. Stone really should ask whether Spitzer is capable of stopping lying. (See 6 below.)

Pam Meister would not do well in the White House as chief spin-meister as she goes apoplectic over Obama's many apologies. (See 7 below.)

April 9, big nuke day for Iran? (See 8 below.)

Obama could have been a tailor based on his ability to fashion his rhetoric to the occasion.

While Obama's popularity remains high his pandering will eventually do him in in my opinion. Yes, it would be very nice if one could change attitudes, of the likes of Ahamdinejad, Kim, Saudi Princes and the next generation of radical Islamists, with words and flattery, bowing and hugging etc. That might work in a different setting of comraderie where you are dealing with rational people rather than many who are hell bent on your destruction. Alas, that is not the world we live in and feeding bullies can and will result in lost fingers.

Making nice to those who are not nice is, well, just not nice and, above all, can be quite dangerous! Why? Because they interpret your 'fawning' as weakness which it actually could prove to be.

As for admitting America is not perfect, has made mistakes, is arrogant and needs to be loved again, that may all be disarming stratgey and neat diplomatic tactics but it can also been seen as grovelling and might be used against Obama in later forums.(See 9 below.)

However, Joe Conason sees Obama as an 'extremist's nightmare' who is going to divide and conquer them as he rides off on his white steed into the bright sunlight. You decide! (See 10 below.)

Again, A Happy Easter and Passover.

Dick




1) Obama Is No Jimmy Carter
By Stephen Morris

Barack Obama's European tour has been a public relations bonanza that has not yet reaped commensurate rewards in allied policies. Yet his speeches and answers to questions have revealed aspects of his foreign policy thinking that belie the original scepticism of many who feared his inexperience would result in the naivety and incoherence that plagued the Carter administration. Despite blunders in the appointments process, Obama has shown a wisdom, intellectual clarity and moral humility that Jimmy Carter lacked, and that augurs well for dealing with the tremendous threats to US and Western security.

The blunders in the second-tier appointments process are not likely Obama's fault but those of his aides. Distinguished retired four-star general Anthony Zinni was offered the important position of ambassador to Iraq, which he accepted, only to see the offer withdrawn in the most insulting manner, so former North Korea negotiator Christopher Hill could take it.

More telling, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair nominated Chas Freeman to be head of the Intelligence Review Board. This body issues a politically influential annual intelligence assessment.

However, it was revealed that Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, is a scathing critic of Israel and a passionate defender of the bloody Chinese crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Freeman had funded some of his public activities with money from the Saudi government and had served on the board of a Chinese company.

Moreover, revelation of Freeman's comments after 9/11, insinuating the al-Qa'ida attacks were caused by US policies, led to more criticism. Protests against the nomination came from supporters of Israel and supporters of human rights in China, most notably House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Freeman withdrew his nomination, bitterly blaming the allegedly ubiquitous "Israel lobby" for his demise. Yet the spontaneous public opposition of Israel supporters had nothing to do with any organised lobby and Pelosi's opposition also would have weighed quite heavily with the President. Lost in the heat of battle was the question of why, given recent intelligence failures over 9/11 and Iraq, the DNI would nominate a man so politically controversial and so deeply prejudiced to a position that demanded some political neutrality or even just modest objectivity. At least we can guess where Blair stands on certain issues.

Obama's foreign policy initiatives have skilfully embraced soft and hard lines. He has ordered the closing of the prison at Guantanamo, proposed engagement with Iran and proclaimed the goal of eliminating the world's nuclear weapons, beginning with imminent negotiations for reduction of US and Russian nuclear arsenals. The last initiative, even if naively pursued as an end in itself, may also be a shrewd attempt to give moral credibility to US demands that North Korea and Iran not become nuclear weapons states.

In the cases of Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama has been tough-minded and emphasised the inextricable link between the two countries in the struggle against radical Islamist terrorism. Until now US public support for the military side of the operation in Afghanistan had been weakening. In Europe it is feeble. Yet Obama, after commissioning several policy reviews, has crafted a new policy that increases the US military commitment while also increasing economic and political development aid. New US aid to Pakistan has been made conditional on Islamabad becoming more resolute in suppressing internal Islamist jihadists and stopping Taliban and al-Qa'ida sanctuaries infiltrating Afghanistan.

Obama, concerned with Europe's lack of resolve, told the Europeans that the struggle was theirs as much as America's. September 11 was an attack on the West. Many terrorist attacks in Europe have emanated from camps in Pakistan and Europe is geographically more vulnerable than the US to al-Qa'ida. Obama also made the important point that while an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty might be valuable for other reasons, it would not end the threat from al-Qa'ida. Obama's eloquence may have enthralled European public opinion. However, from European governments Obama has elicited only the promise of several thousand more temporary European troops for Afghanistan's elections.

Obama is a charismatic figure for many Americans and Europeans, in part because of his intelligence and eloquence but also because of his meteoric rise to become the first African-American President of the US. Obama simultaneously embodies the cosmopolitan dimension of the US and the classic American dream of success. Yet in western Europe his charisma has been insufficient to seduce non-Anglophone allies to share the US's military burdens.

Obama's talents, limitedly effective in Europe, will be less effective in the Middle East. The small, Westernised middle classes undoubtedly admire him. The rulers of friendly countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey welcome Obama for his Muslim ancestry and for his attempted outreach to the Muslim world. But much of the victimhood-obsessed Arab and Turkish intelligentsia, and of the less educated masses, are mired in resentment of the West, many susceptible to the hateful propaganda of radical Islamist political movements. That is why Obama's visit to NATO ally Turkey - a country that public opinion polls indicate has retreated from secularism to Islamism and is overwhelmingly anti-American - will likely change US-Middle East political relations only marginally.

In the case of Iran, as with North Korea, Obama faces a hostile, paranoid and ideologically driven regime that fears negotiations as a plot to undermine its attempts to change the entire region and its political order.

That is why Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, responded so gracelessly to Obama's outreach with several crude and unacceptable demands: that the US change its policies towards the Muslim world (leave Iraq and Afghanistan, and abandon support for Israel) before Iran would begin dialogue, let alone negotiations. Within a year Obama is likely to face the agonising decision of what to do about the Iranian regime's imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons. Will he carry out his promise, stated in the election debates, to do anything necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? The answer to that question - which may change world politics fundamentally for a generation - is not yet clear.

It depends on his assumptions about Iranian motives, and an array of political and economic circumstances, some not yet foreseeable.

There remains one important note of caution. In reaction to the North Korean missile test Obama spoke of the condemnation of the international community. Yet the feeble reaction of the UN Security Council shows once again that the indignation of the international community does not exist. One hopes Obama's use of the term international community is a rhetorical device, not an article of faith.

The multiple problems threatening the West today seem overwhelming. However, the US is led by a man of exceptional intelligence, political sophistication and serenity. Obama is a man who listens to an array of opinions before making policy decisions and, one hopes, is a man who learns from experience.

Stephen Morris is a senior fellow of the Foreign Policy Institute at Johns Hopkins University, Washington.

2) What Disarmament Means for Israel
By Shmuel Rosner


What Anne Appelbaum calls Obama’s Odd Obsession with Universal Nuclear Disarmament holds a special meaning for Israel. As I wrote a couple of months ago, Israeli officials have long realized this could mean trouble — especially because Obama’s plan might focus on a treaty Israel became familiar with during the Clinton years, banning the production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for nuclear explosives (the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, FMCT).

That would be a rollback in U.S. policy and a move toward the approach of President Bill Clinton, who called in 1993 for such a production ban. Two years later, the U.N. Conference on Disarmament took up discussions of a treaty to accomplish that — in part to try to halt weapons-enrichment programs in India, Pakistan and Israel, which had not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus were not subject to any international inspection regimen. In 2000, those three countries, the Clinton administration and the Conference on Disarmament agreed to pursue negotiations toward a Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty.

Israel wasn’t happy with this initiative ten years ago, and I don’t think its position has changed much since:

Ten years ago, Bill Clinton’s administration demanded that Israel not raise any obstacles with respect to this treaty. The prime minister at the time, Benjamin Netanyahu, acquiesced unenthusiastically to the pressures. A few months later, when he signed the Wye agreement with the Palestinians, Netanyahu asked for and received from Clinton a written commitment that American moves toward weapons control would not harm Israel’s deterrent capability. In the summer of 1999, then-prime minister Ehud Barak received a similar letter.

As things turn out, we might be approaching a new round of Clinton (this time Hillary) vs. Netanyahu. In 1999, Professor Shai Feldman (today at Brandeis University) wrote a paper for the Institute for National Security Studies, outlining Israel’s point of view toward the FMCT:

[T]he objectives of the proposed treaty to ban the production of fissile material - plutonium and enriched uranium - would serve Israel’s national security interests by freezing the present distribution of nuclear capabilities in the Middle East. Yet to secure these interests, certain conditions related to the treaty text, the associated verification procedures, and U.S.-Israeli defense relations would have to be met. Meeting these imperatives would be necessary to ensure that Israeli deterrence remain intact until political and strategic conditions in the region allow progress in arms control in Middle East, beyond the capping of nuclear programs.

What has changed since 1999 may have an impact on Israel’s thinking: with Iran advancing uninterrupted toward its goal of obtaining nuclear capabilities, Israel will now be even more suspicious toward the FMCT.

3) How Obama Is Doing
By Jack and Suzy Welch

Jack and Suzy Welch disagree with the President on points of policy but think he's earned an A thus far By Jack and Suzy Welch

This was the question floated by our host at a recent dinner party. In response, two people said they were disappointed, seven claimed to be on the fence, four asserted it was too early to tell, and three said flat-out great. Where were we in the mix? Allow us to issue a preliminary "report card" on President Obama's leadership since taking office to explain.

But first, note that we just used the word leadership. This column isn't about policy. If it were, we'd probably be on the fence, too. We passionately oppose the President's position on doing away with secret ballots for unionization votes, and we're suspicious of his cap-and-trade proposal, a version of which has done little for Europe. We also find the new budget alarming—with its optimistic forecasts and staggering short-term deficits. On the other hand, we're generally positive about the Administration's reaction to the economic crisis. And we're strongly supportive of his foreign policy, which strikes us as sound and progressive.

But forget all that. Our grade for Obama is based on how he's doing on critical performance criteria as our country's CEO.

Vision and Team-Building
Let's start with vision, the "thing" without which a person simply cannot lead. And look, whether you like his politics or not, Obama's obviously got it. From the economy to the environment, education to health care, the President has articulated his goals to the nation.

Vision, though, is meaningless alone. To be an effective leader, you must communicate consistently, vividly, and so darn frequently that your throat gets soar. You can't, as we've said, communicate too much, especially when you're galvanizing change.

Who could disagree that Obama's nailing this challenge? Every time he speaks, which is often, he's thoughtful, expansive, and candid. And he has also worked assiduously to get heard outside of Washington, even showing up on Jay Leno's set to reach beyond the "usual suspects." Again, we wish that Obama's message was sometimes a different one, but when we heard his NATO press conference last Saturday—explaining America's "exceptionalism"—his lucidity and lack of arrogance rendered any criticism moot. He will surely be the next American President to carry the mantle of The Great Communicator.

Now to team-building, another strength of successful leaders. The potential for "palace intrigue" between Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, not to mention the White House staff and Hillary Clinton's complex, high-caliber State Dept. organization made us skeptical on this front.

We may have been overconcerned. The economic team seems to be working seamlessly, egos in check, despite all the pressure. And Hillary is refreshing in her new role, with the President clearly giving her the latitude to make a mark. (Her recent remarks about U.S.-Mexico relations were frank and overdue.) We give the President points, too, for Arne Duncan, who, with his bold support of merit pay and charter schools, looks to be a great choice as Education Secretary.

Speed and Authenticity
Speed is another key attribute, and again, Obama can't be faulted. Weeks back, we actually worried he was moving too fast on too many fronts, diverting attention from the economic crisis. Since then, he has tightened his focus, making great strides, for instance, with the auto industry task force, which took decisive action with GM (GM).

And then there's authenticity, the hallmark of every effective leader.

Well, thank goodness for Michelle. Not that the President isn't "real," it's just that he remains somewhat cool in his affect. That's fine. But people crave humanity in their leaders. Luckily, his wife, with her warmth and broad appeal, is supplying it in buckets.

Before we begin to sound irrationally exuberant, remember that the President has yet to be tested on two key traits, resilience and the wherewithal to champion unpopular causes.

But 70 days is still plenty of time to get a sense of an executive's performance. And while we'd like to see his skills applied to different policies, when it comes to leadership, Barack Obama has certainly earned an A.

4) Obama team warns U.S. lawmakers: Expect confrontation with Israel
By Aluf Benn

In an unprecedented move, the Obama administration is readying for a possible confrontation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by briefing Democratic congressmen on the peace process and the positions of the new government in Israel regarding a two-state solution.

The Obama administration is expecting a clash with Netanyahu over his refusal to support the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

In recent weeks, American officials have briefed senior Democratic congressmen and prepared the ground for the possibility of disagreements with Israel over the peace process, according to information recently received. The administration's efforts are focused on President Barack Obama's Democratic Party, which now holds a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.


The preemptive briefing is meant to foil the possibility that Netanyahu may try to bypass the administration by rallying support in Congress.

The message that administration officials have relayed to the congressmen is that President Obama is committed to the security of Israel and intends to continue the military assistance agreement that was signed by his predecessor, George W. Bush.

However, Obama considers the two-state solution central to his Middle East policy, as he reiterated during a speech in Turkey on Monday, and he intends to ask that Netanyahu fulfill all the commitments made by previous governments in Israel: accepting the principle of a Palestinian state; freezing settlement activity; evacuating illegal outposts; and providing economic and security assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

Administration officials made it clear to congressmen that the Palestinians will also be required to fulfill their obligations in line with the road map and the Annapolis process.

According to the reports received in Israel, the U.S. administration is not concerned about recent statements by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman calling for a rejection of the Annapolis process or overtures made by Netanyahu during the election campaign.

U.S. officials say they will wait and hear Netanyahu's position from the prime minister himself when he meets Obama in Washington next month.

No hurry to play mediator

The Obama administration is also not opposed to the resumption of negotiations between Israel and Syria but will insist that the Syrian track not be used in Jerusalem as a way of evading obligations undertaken by Israel as part of the Annapolis process.

Obama is in no hurry to bring the U.S. in as lead mediator between Israel and Syria. American involvement, which both Israel and Syria consider essential for substantive progress, will remain conditional on progress in the dialogue between Washington and Damascus.

Regarding Iran, the Obama administration is preparing the ground for a policy distinguishing between Iran's right to have nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment done under international supervision, and the actual building of a nuclear weapon.

5) Obama's Non-Stop Naivete
By Rich Lowry

Pres. Barack Obama added a line at the last minute that wasn’t in the prepared text of his nuclear-disarmament speech in Prague: “I’m not naïve.”

He needed the disclaimer because, nearly simultaneously with his speech embracing the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons, Kim Jong Il launched a three-stage rocket over Japan. Coincidence? “I hate to speculate about North Korean motivations,” said Gary Samore, the very mannerly White House coordinator for nonproliferation ��" as if speculation were necessary.

North Korea’s diplomatic and economic strategy for two decades has been to engage in spectacular acts of international malfeasance to bully and cajole the world into concessions and aid. In between provocations, Pyongyang has promised several times over to abandon its nuclear program. It has never truly given it up, lest it lose its most prized bargaining chip.

As soon as the U.N. Security Council passes another ineffectual resolution regretting the defiance of its last ineffectual resolution (assuming it can manage even that), North Korea knows it will eventually find the Obama administration back at a negotiating table for the charade’s next act. Kims, father and son, have managed the Hermit Kingdom’s relations with the world with a perverse brilliance.

The meme in the press was how the test launch made Obama’s disarmament speech all the more “urgent.” It really makes it all the more childish and dangerous. In setting the goal of “Global Zero” (the program of universal disarmament that sounds a little like a new international Coke product), Obama hitched himself to a project as utopian as Pres. George W. Bush’s ambition to end tyranny in the world.

In fact, they are essentially the same goal. The bipartisan congressional Strategic Posture Review concluded in an interim report that to achieve Global Zero would require a “fundamental transformation of the world political order.” All significant geo-political conflicts would have to end, and all untrustworthy governments disappear. The verification regime would have to be so all-encompassing as to constitute a kind of world government.

The Obama administration thinks Global Zero serves a hardheaded purpose against rogue states. The theory is that our arsenal makes us nuclear hypocrites. Only by pursuing its elimination do we gain the moral standing to pressure other nations to give up their nuclear ambitions.

This is a misreading of the calculations that drive states to seek nuclear programs, and of human nature. If we had zero weapons, there would be even more of a premium on other states’ acquiring nukes, for purposes of protection, power-projection, and prestige.

The same weakness undercuts all the lesser arms-control schemes Obama touted in his Prague speech, from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to an international nuclear fuel bank: It’s easier to get responsible states to comply than the truly dangerous ones ��" or they wouldn’t be dangerous.

The nuclear gambit is emblematic of Obama’s “excuse me” ��" or excuse my predecessor and my country ��" diplomacy. He played to the European crowd by chastising Bush and his countrymen for their arrogance. He took responsibility for starting the financial crisis. He noted his country’s diminished power, with evident satisfaction. All of this can be justified as winning over Europe with a soft sell, if it weren’t that he got nothing for it.

Obama pleaded for more troops in Afghanistan, arguing correctly that terrorists emanating from that region pose a more direct threat to Europe. French president Nicholas Sarkozy responded with no additional troops, 150 MPs, and an offer to take one Gitmo detainee when the detention facility closes. At that, Sarkozy pronounced himself greatly pleased to be working “with a U.S. president who wants to change the world and who understands that the world does not boil down to simply American frontiers and borders.”

Obama referred at a press conference to every country having its “quirks.” This is a cute way of saying all nations have their own character and interests. Other nations may applaud our self-flagellation, but it won’t change them.

Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review.

6) When Will Eliot Spitzer Stop Lying?
By Roger Stone

Matt Lauer interviewed former Governor Eliot Spitzer on the Today Show this morning. Lauer asked Spitzer how often he had patronized prostitutes and Spitzer replied: "Not frequently, not long in the grand context of my life." In the "grand context" of Eliot's life, Spitzer frequented prostitutes for more than ten years, including during the time he served as New York's Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in the state. Even though Spitzer was an aggressive bargainer with madams over prices, according to federal prosecutors he spent at least $58,000 on prostitutes each year.

Just as Bill Clinton's blow-jobs from Monica Lewinsky distracted his critics and investigators from more serious crimes, such as selling U.S military secrets to the Chinese for illegal campaign contributions or the whole Clinton-Asian Funny Money scandal, Eliot Spitzer's prostitute problem has obscured his more serious crimes: abuse of power, perjury, and obstruction of justice.

You could even add theft of honest services, if you want to include his time as Attorney General when he spared his donors from his crazed crusading and turned a blind eye to tips about Bernard Madoff, who is a friend of Eliot's father. The Spitzers were investors with Madoff.

At the time, the prostitution dalliance actually saved Eliot, the faux sheriff of Wall Street, from even greater public scrutiny during his short gubernatorial tenure, which he escaped and still deserves. Governor Eliot was spying on his political enemy Majority Leader Joe Bruno and he used the New York State Police to do it. Then he stonewalled the subsequent investigation, Nixon-style.

The Albany County District Attorney David Soares, under whose jurisdiction the state surveillance investigation fell, conducted a sham inquiry into "Troopergate" as a political present to the "Steamroller," the governor's executive nom de guerre, who had been instrumental in the DA's rise. Spitzer aides also failed to cooperate with the State Ethics Board investigation. They refused to testify and withheld e-mail and state records, all in an effort to protect the governor's claims of total ignorance of any surveillance plot -a near ludicrous claim given Spitzer's well known control freak temperament.

Spitzer's appointees to the ethics board even tried to whitewash Spitzer's involvement. It was a cover up the likes of which would have made John Dean and Gordon Liddy proud, and it was in the midst of this criminal scenario that the FBI discovered his other criminal activity: solicitation of prostitution.

Spitzer's cover up then collapsed. E-mails released after Spitzer left office reveal the he himself okayed the dirty tricks operation to use the State Police to conduct espionage on his political opponents. A Spitzer aide, designated as the "fall guy," ultimately testified that Spitzer directed aides to "Put a hot poker up Bruno's ass" by leaking manufactured state documents that would smear his political rival.

While he was Governor, he laundered his call- girl payments to escape federal detection and transported hookers across state lines in willful violation of both federal money laundering statues and the Mann Act. Madame Kristin Davis recently confirmed that Spitzer used multiple call-girl services not just Emperor's Club VIP and that he was banned from one service for being excessively rough with the girls. Davis also said Spitzer was a "weasel" about using the required condom. Any girl in the business will tell you that means he tried to jump them without wrapping it.

And now, he's back. He has slithered out from under his shroud of shame with a column at SLATE magazine, and the media has begun to fawn over him as some sort of expert on Wall Street corruption. And Spitzer is all too happy to have us forget that the criminal charges he leveled at A.I.G's longtime CEO Hank Greenberg during his tenure as attorney general were all dismissed. And after A.I.G.'s board removed Greenberg, the company lurched toward collapse. The credit default swaps that brought the company crashing down were done after Greenberg's departure and would have never been done under Greenberg's risk management rules.

Spitzer showed no mercy to those whose companies he destroyed, often unfairly through leaks and press releases. Why should he be shown mercy now, let alone looked to as the savior he has already proven himself not to be?

Spitzer is an unbalanced megalomaniac and would-be dictator whose only regret is the exposure of his penchant for prostitutes. He violated state election laws in his campaign for attorney general when he received multi-million dollar "loans" from his father, which he lied about under oath in a law suit, but then subsequently admitted the truth. He lied about his abuse of power and he used his office to cover up his crimes. Eliot Spitzer is not fit for public service and will not be allowed to crawl back- he destroyed lives and companies without justification, other than his own warped political ambitions.

7) An Apology to Israel and the Rest of America's True Friends and Allies
By Pamela Meister

President Obama, as befits a true leftist, has been apologizing vociferously to the world for not only all of the horrible things George W. Bush did, but apparently also for the rest of us lowly Americans for being "arrogant" and "dismissive" toward Europe. I'll bet Eurolitists are practically wetting their pants at the admission of an American president that even though George W. Bush is out of office, the Ugly American is alive and well.


Additionally, he made sure America received its share of the blame for the world economic crisis. By doing so, I suppose he's just trying to make up for that blasted arrogance.


Obama also groveled at the feet of the "Muslim world" (no, there are no Christian and Jewish worlds, but thank you for asking) by declaring that the U.S. is not at war with Islam. He's right, we're not. Factions of Islam are at war with us and the rest of the West. And don't forget that bow to King Abdullah of the nation responsible for much of the financing of radical Islam. The MSM has pretty much ignored this embarrassing breach of protocol - heads of state do not bow and scrape to one another - but I find it interesting that Obama didn't make the same mistake with Queen Elizabeth. The only thing we heard about was Michelle Obama daring to touch Her Majesty, over which Larry King hyperventilated on his television show. Time to take that paper bag and put it over your head, Larry.


But now, as the first leg of the World Apology TourTM has come to its end and Obama must once again endure the tedium of the White House, I thought I'd take up the torch and deliver a few apologies that Obama seems to have forgotten. In the spirit of leftists everywhere, I offer the following:


•I'm sorry, Israel, that our president has seen fit to throw the oldest and most stable democracy in the Middle East under the bus. From his first call as president to Mahmoud Abbas to his funding of millions to Gaza victims, to his New Year's video address to Iran to his reaching out to the Taliban to cut a deal - not to mention his willingness to adopt the Saudi "peace" plan, Barack Obama has made it clear that the fate of a nation the size of New Jersey, surrounded by enemies that want to drive her people into the sea, is no longer a top priority. So much for standing up for the little guy.

•I'm sorry, Poland and Czech Republic, that our president seems to be ready to renege on a deal made by President Bush to create a defense missile shield that would protect those nations from the aggression of Russia. Supposedly, in return for this concession, Russia will lend its assistance in talking Iran out of continuing its nuclear weapons program. As Obama rolls over for Putin's lapdog Medvedev, it's the former Soviet satellite nations that may well end up playing dead - for keeps.

•I'm sorry, Britain, that Obama cared so little about our historic alliance that he treated Gordon Brown like a poor relation on Brown's first visit to the White House under the Obama administration. I'm also sorry that we have a leader who, rather than help pull your nation back from the abyss of kowtowing to radical Islam and other liberal PC claptrap, seems ready to drag us down with you.

•I'm sorry, Lebanon. Rumor has it that the U.S. is behind a deal that would spare Syrian leadership from prosecution regarding their alleged involvement in the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Meanwhile, Syria's been busy building a missile base, dispersing nuclear facilities throughout the country, and are building a chemical weapons plant in the northeast.


Even the Old Europe nations (France, Germany, etc.) with the most to gain from an Obama presidency are finding out that the glamorous rock star isn't all he's cracked up to be. Seems Obama is intent on sticking his nose in their business when it comes to who is allowed in the European Union and who is not, which has a few other noses bent out of joint. Apparently George Bush held the same views, but managed to say it in a way that didn't upset anyone. Yet he was the most embarrassing president of all time, no?


But then, all of this is what you get when you elect a rabble rouser Alinskyite community organizer as leader of the once-free world. Enjoy the hope and change while it lasts.


Pam Meister is editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org and contributes to Pajamas Media and Big Hollywood.

8) Iran expected to declare mastery of nuke fuel production

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to announce Iran has mastered the final stage of nuclear fuel production when the country celebrates its National Nuclear Day on Thursday.

"I will have good nuclear news for the respectful Iranian nation tomorrow (April 9)," Amadinejad said on Wednesday in a televised speech at the central city of Isfahan.

Analysts expect he will announce that Iran has completed the long process of uranium enrichment, enabling the country to produce its own fuel.



"A possible announcement will be production of natural uranium pellets for Iran's Arak heavy water reactor and also production of fuel rods and assembling rods into bundles," said an analyst, who asked not to be named. "It is the final stage in a long process to produce nuclear fuel."

The nuclear fuel cycle includes mining and milling of uranium ore, uranium enrichment, fabrication and use of nuclear fuel, reprocessing of used nuclear fuel, and disposal or management of radioactive waste or unreprocessed spent fuel.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in its February 19 report said it could not verify Iran's planned Arak heavy water reactor was being designed only for peaceful uses. Tehran says the complex will be geared to produce solely isotopes for medical care and agriculture.

Iran's Students News agency ISNA said Ahmadinejad would inaugurate a nuclear fuel fabrication facility in central Iran.

"This factory produces nuclear fuel pellets and rods," ISNA reported on Wednesday without giving a source.

Iran's nuclear chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh said in 2007 the Islamic state had produced and tested nuclear fuel pellets of enriched uranium.

Ahmadinejad also said Wednesday that his country welcomes talks with the United States should the American president prove to be honest in extending its hand toward Iran, one of the strongest signals yet that Tehran welcomes Barack Obama's calls for dialogue.

Ahmadinejad's comments come after Obama said his administration is looking for opportunities to engage Iran and pledged to rethink Washington's relationship with Tehran. At his inauguration in January, Obama said his administration would reach out to rival states, saying we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Last month, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rebuffed Obama's video message on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian new year, in which the president reached out to the Iranian people. Khamenei said Tehran was still waiting to see concrete changes in U.S. policy.

But Ahmadinejad offered a more conciliatory tone Wednesday.

"The Iranian nation welcomes a hand extended to it should it really and truly be based on honesty, justice and respect," Ahmadinejad said in a speech broadcast live on state television.

Ahmadinejad, however, said Obama will meet the fate of former President George W. Bush if he is proved not to be honest.

"But if, God forbid, the extended hand has an honest appearance but contains no honesty in content, it will meet the same response the Iranian nation gave to Mr. Bush," Ahmadinejad said.

Iranian leaders have struck a moderate - but cautious - tone about Obama since his election in November. Ahmadinejad sent Obama a message of congratulations after he was elected - the first time an Iranian leader offered such wishes to the winner of a U.S. presidential race since the two countries broke off relations.

Diplomatic ties between the U.S. and Iran were cut after the U.S. Embassy hostage-taking that followed the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The revolution toppled the pro-U.S. shah and brought to power a government of Islamic
clerics.

The United States cooperated with Iran in late 2001 and 2002 in the Afghanistan conflict, but the promising contacts fizzled - and were extinguished completely when Bush branded Tehran part of the Axis of Evil

9) The Careful Exaggerator: How Obama balances his rhetoric to fit the situation.
By John Dickerson


As President Obama traveled through Europe, he was a study in nuance. Speaking to a town hall in Strasbourg, France, he admitted American arrogance but also chided Europeans for their casual anti-Americanism. In another context, he quoted his college law professor: "Some are to blame, but all are responsible." In a town hall with students in Turkey, he pushed for nuance as an end in itself: "In the Muslim world, this notion that somehow everything is the fault of the Israelis lacks balance. There are two sides to every question. ... I say the same thing to my Jewish friends—which is, you have to see the perspective of the Palestinians. Learning to stand in somebody else's shoes, to see through their eyes—that's how peace begins."

Compared with the black-and-white approach of his predecessor, Obama's technique is practically grisaille. Yet while the nuance is intellectually welcome and politically beneficial—Americans appreciate its display on the world stage—it operates alongside another Obama trait: He's also a nuance-free exaggerator. In Turkey, he told students, "Some of my reporter friends from the States were asking, 'How come you didn't solve everything on this trip?' "

A politician is always on safe ground charging that the press has gone overboard. But no one was asking that question.

Nor was anyone saying what Obama said some people were saying in his press conference last month: "We did a video, sending a message to the Iranian people and the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And some people said, 'Well, they did not immediately say that we're eliminating nuclear weapons and stop funding terrorism.' " No one said that. But it helped Obama make his pitch for patience.

Obama exaggerates to free himself from the demands of the news cycle, which he described in France: "In an age of instant gratification, it's tempting to believe that every problem can and should be solved in the span of a week. When these problems aren't solved, we conclude that our efforts to solve them must have been in vain." When it comes to the economy, polls show that people are very patient. What Obama hopes to do though this exaggerated description is make all criticism seem like an irrational rush to judgment.


Often he plays Aunt Sally for rhetorical effect. He doesn't mischaracterize, exactly, but he exaggerates to bring his point into higher relief—as he did last week when talking about the ongoing threat of terrorism: "Some people say … if we changed our policies with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or if we were more respectful towards the Muslim world, suddenly these organizations would stop threatening us. That's just not the case."

It is in domestic political battles with Republicans, however, that the president's exaggerations may be sharpest. They are intended to make his opponents look foolish. "Some of what's been said in Congress is that there seems to be a set of folks who just believe that we should do nothing," he said of Republicans during the debate over the stimulus bill. Almost no one was suggesting that nothing be done. Writing in the Washington Post, he offered another cartoonish view, saying that his opponents believe "that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive."

Obama is not alone. He probably exaggerates no more than a typical politician. Republicans haul out the specter of socialism on the hour, and on the half hour they say Obama wants to turn America into Europe. But Obama prides himself on considered speech, and few politicians have talked and written about improving political dialogue as much as he has. "I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or … oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose," he wrote in his second book, The Audacity of Hope.

He might be wrong about that one. According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, Obama is as popular as ever. And his Republican opponents in Congress received their lowest approval rating in the entire span of history in which that question has been asked. No exaggeration.

10) An Extremist’s Nightmare
By Joe Conason

Getty ImagesIn America’s struggle against the extremists and terrorists epitomized by Al Qaeda, the strategic imperatives are to divide the enemy and neutralize their base. Fortunately for the United States and its allies, the new American president understands how to do that—and is uniquely suited to accomplish the mission.


If in the aftermath of 9/11 Western intelligence agencies had tried to conceive of a leader whose background would enable him to engage the world’s Muslims, they might have imagined someone like Barack Hussein Obama. Most analysts would naturally assume that such a person could never become president of the United States, but if they allowed themselves to imagine an ideal spokesman for American values, he might well have looked very much like the man elected last November.

Touring the ancient Ottoman capital of Istanbul, Mr. Obama stood as a living refutation of extremist propaganda before he spoke a single word. Son and grandson of African Muslims, he symbolizes what is often called “American exceptionalism”—the durable belief that the United States is the world’s hope to escape the old and bloody divisions that have been so ruinous for humanity over the centuries.

He rose through an open and democratic process, despite the legacy of racism and the vicious smears that denigrated his Christian faith while depicting him as a secret adherent of radical Islam. His middle name, uttered with a sneer by bigots during the campaign, is now an important asset (especially among the Shia in Iran, Iraq and elsewhere). He personally embodies the message that America bears no ill intentions toward Muslims or their nations.

The previous administration’s inability to broadcast that message effectively was among its most salient and least noted failures. While American policy in the Mideast has often angered Muslims—not without reason in places from Israel to Iran—the United States has other and more inspiring stories to tell as well. American soldiers were dispatched to protect the people of Kosovo from their Serbian oppressors, who portrayed the conflict there as a centuries-old clash between Christianity and Islam.

Meanwhile, millions of Muslim-Americans live peacefully here, under the protection of a Constitution that guarantees their religious freedom. And when those rights have been violated, fellow Americans of every persuasion have come to their defense.

No doubt Mr. Obama meant to emphasize those aspects of American life in his Istanbul speech, addressing Turkish students and young people across the developing world, who long to believe again that the United States stands for equality, fairness and decency. That belief was impossible to sustain during a decade of war, destruction and torture. Now the burden is on the president to revive latent admiration for our country and our values.

Mr. Obama’s diplomatic efforts resonate with special strength in Europe as well as across the Mideast, Africa and Asia precisely because he does not claim that his own beloved nation is without fault or flaw. He doesn’t pretend that American exceptionalism means American perfection. When he rebukes anti-American prejudice abroad, as he did at a town hall meeting in the French city of Strasbourg, his credibility is enhanced by honest acknowledgment of our mistakes.

While he returns home to remarkably strong and consistent support from most Americans, right-wing commentators relentlessly attempt to portray him as unworthy of trust and deficient in patriotism. They dishonestly truncate his speeches abroad, slicing out his defense of the United States and his rejection of anti-American propaganda, while headlining his candor about our flaws. They accuse him of apologizing for the war on terrorism, of “submission” to America’s adversaries and of “blaming America first” in seeking personal popularity abroad. They stand for policies that have brought us to the lowest stature in our history and they have nothing to offer, no policy or plan, except lies and deceptions.

The remarkable popularity of Mr. Obama across the world is not an artifact of anti-American sentiment, but its opposite—namely, the hope that America will again stand for liberal traditions of generosity and cooperation. Now he has made a beginning.