---
Responses from women friends and fellow memo readers to my memo about Fluke: "You have that right about the Law Student. How pathetic! Having been in the pharmaceutical industry my entire career, can hardly call birth control pills a health issue. There are therapeutic uses, but that is not the majority of usage, as we know. The real health issue is having unprotected sex. Birth control pills do not provide that safety net. Who is talking about that!?
Have a good night, L....."
"Right on. I am so upset with the way the press, women, Obama, and our elected leaders in Congress keep referring to the contraceptive issue as a religious issue. It was made a religious issue when Obama mandated that contraceptives be a mandatory inclusion in the health care bill.
Contraception is not a health care issue. Insurance is supposed to take care of unexpected medical conditions just like home owners insurance takes care of unexpected damage to the home or car insurance takes care of unexpected accidents. Neither home owner insurance nor car insurance takes care of painting the house or changing the oil in your car, that is your responsibility and your CHOICE. Contraception is a CHOICE that a woman makes when a woman makes the CHOICE to have sexual intercourse. Our society is not learning about personal responsibility, that a person is responsible for the choices they make, good or bad. I should not be forced to help pay for contraceptives for other women. That is their choice so they pay. It is a farce when Obama says that Catholic entities will be exempt from paying for the contraceptive inclusion. How much will the insurance be reduced, $1,000 a year which is what Ms. Flake says it costs her. Then will mine be increased $1,000 to pay for her contraceptives? Someone has to pay for it. Perhaps Obama should just add it to the cost of his insurance."
----
One response to Obama's AIPAC appearance. Somewhat mirrors my own comments and feelings. (See 2 below.)
Another comment on Obama's speech. (See 2a below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)DID PRESIDENT OBAMA JUST COMPARE HIMSELF TO NELSON MANDELA AND GANDHI?
between what he's trying to accomplish and the accomplishments of Nelson Mandela and Gandhi? The President's quote:
Around the world — Gandhi, Nelson Mandela — what they did was hard. It takes time. It takes more than a single term, it takes more than a single president, it takes more than a single individual.What it takes is ordinary citizens who keep believing, who are committed to fighting and pushing and inching this country closer and closer to our highest ideals. And I said in 2008, that I am not a perfect man and I will not be a perfect president. But I promised you back then that I would always tell you what I believe. I would always tell you where I stood.
The President’s remarks were also caught on video:
The President’s remarks can be interpreted as more than simply a comparison of his ambitions with those of the titans he mentions. He does explicitly mention that winning major political battles takes “more than one individual.” However, his citation of two specific individuals suggests that he may view himself in the role of a Mandela or a Gandhi, even if his followers are providing the mass movement grunt work.
Do you think the President’s comparison is just ill-advised campaign rhetoric? Or does he actually believe that he’s a historical figure on par with Mandela and Gandhi? Weigh in below.
1a)Afghanistan: The Failure of Strategic Leadership
Much is being said and written about the violence in Afghanistan over the improper burning of a Quran. But much of it misses several key points. The problem is not that the Qurans were burned, as was pointed out in part by an American Thinker article on 28 February, but the problem is that of leadership at the strategic levels and the leadership at the American Military Detention Facilities throughout the world.
Strategic messaging in the Islamic world is a battle the United States continues to lose. Part of it is because we do not fully understand the people we're trying to communicate with, but a larger part is simply because we fail to do the staff work necessary, and do it in sufficient detail, before we open our mouths.
Ned Barnett's article "We Don't Belong There" correctly put a few things into context, but it is clearly written from a viewpoint of somebody who rarely, if ever, deals with an Islamic people in the Middle East. It is true that the Qurans were desecrated by terrorists interned in the Bagram Detention Facility. But where was that discussion in the message from Obama or General Allen? This detail was left out, leaving the Afghans only the apology, which resulted in their rage.
The biggest error was made at the Bagram Detention Facility itself. The investigation may or may not be forthcoming about this, but the real question is "what did the leaders tell those who disposed of the Qurans?" The problem is this: even a low ranking officer or non-commissioned officer should know that disposal of the Qurans should be handled delicately. Ideally, nobody but a very few people would even know they were destroyed. They would be destroyed in a secure location, a burn barrel that is not near any "public" area, with few people to see the event, in the middle of the night. And they would ensure the books were burned completely. This is a case where throwing gasoline on the fire is a good idea.
The leaders at the Detention Facility failed to give proper and detailed instructions. And therein lies the problem. Exactly what instructions were given? Were the troops (or contractors, we don't really even know who did this, and we shouldn't know) told, "Get rid of these books." Were they told "take care of these Qurans." Or were they told "Throw these things out." The point is leaders, officers and senior non-commissioned officers, should have made their instructions perfectly clear so there could be no misunderstanding.
Next, leadership at strategic levels, President Obama and General Allen, failed miserably. These leaders rushed to apologize. While we do not know what staff work was done or what was known by those two at the highest levels, we do know their message failed to sufficiently address what Mr. Barnett, the BBC and the Washington Times reported -- that these books had been desecrated already. Therefore, the protests began and they were strong. And as most informed readers already know, six Americans were killed by disgruntled Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) Soldiers.
But that's only half the story. It is a terrible tragedy that those Soldiers were killed and several more are wounded. There is another part of the story that must be told.
Four Afghan Soldiers killed six American Soldiers. Really think about that. According to an August 11, 2010 article in USA Today the ANSF hit their target number of 240,000 Soldiers. I don't have the specific numbers, but I am confident the force of Afghan Army and police of the various kinds has grown since then. Therefore, out of a force of over 240,000 only FOUR, count them, FOUR, Afghans turned their weapons on their American advisors. I'm sure there are still very tense situations out there in the countryside of Afghanistan. I'm also confident there are villages and many people in them upset about the burning of these books. But that's a pretty good indication of just how well the U.S. military has trained the ANSF that only four out of a force
of 240,000 have done violence against their American trainers.
We are not hearing of the Afghan Army or police indiscriminately shooting at the protesters, as in Syria. We are not seeing protesters overrunning American bases. We are seeing loud, vocal protests, and minimal violence. This indicates discipline on the part of the ANSF. They do not want to hurt their countrymen. Keep in mind that the United Kingdom Embassy in Tehran was recently overrun while the Iranian police stood by and watched. Informed readers also know how the Syrians are handling what started as peaceful protests. The Soviets in Afghanistan trained and equipped an entire division with tanks and infantry fighting vehicles at one point. After receiving their equipment, the entire division said "thank you very much" and defected to the Mujahidin, taking their new equipment with them. We aren't seeing these major defections. Military professionals are training the ANSF and the security forces, Army and police are responding to the training.
President Karzai (President, not prime minister) has called for calm. He has recognized the right for the people to protest, but has asked them to do it peacefully. While he is calling for the people responsible to be punished, he also likely understands that will not happen. He is the President of Afghanistan -- he has to play at least a little to his Afghan (not Afghanis, the Afghani is their unit of money) constituency. That's to be expected. We see it all the time in American politics, why would we expect a different level of professionalism in the Middle East?
As somebody who served combat tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I am actually very pleased and impressed with what's happening there. There is relative calm in the country considering what just happened. And the real violence, the car bomb in Jalalabad -- the violence that is killing the Afghans -- is being done by the Taliban "in retaliation." But once again, in their retaliation against the evil Americans, the Taliban are actually killing their own countrymen, not the Americans. While the Taliban claim their people who infiltrated the ANSF killed the American Soldiers, that claim is easy to make after the event takes place.
Certainly there is much room for improvement in U.S. foreign policy concerning Afghanistan. Last year the Taliban used a turban bomb to kill the former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani and leader of the Afghan High Peace Council. Think about that one, too. They murdered the man responsible for establishing peace and reconciliation of Afghan Taliban fighters. Is it reasonable to think the Taliban will negotiate in good faith from their new office in Qatar? And do not forget the fact that two days before the September 11th terrorist attacks that started this entire mess, Al Qaida suicide bombers killed Ahmad Shah Massoud, the biggest thorn in the Taliban's ability to control all of Afghanistan. Massoud was the leader of the Northern Alliance which fought the Taliban throughout the 1990s for control of the country. That should be evidence enough that the Taliban and Al Qaida were partners in the crime that took place on September 11th, 2001.
It is correct that we are not dealing with "allied leaders" or rational decision makers. Very few in the Islamic World are rational as we see it. Sanctions on Iran are hurting the country, but sanctions did not stop Saddam Hussein and get Iraq to stop supporting terrorism. Pakistan showed their true colors last year when the world learned that Usama Bin Laden was hiding a few miles from their military academy. And Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and Al Qaida in Iraq continue to murder for the sake of murder and control.
Mr. Barnett's article makes a great point that "In the aftermath of World War II, we chose to impose our will on our conquered enemies." Absolutely correct. But I strongly disagree that those enemies are among our staunchest allies. How many Japanese troops are in Afghanistan? Exactly zero. And when the Canadians were about to attack a Taliban stronghold in 2006 and needed allied support, the Germans were not willing to commit to battle. Read Colonel Bernd Horn's excellent book, "No Lack of Courage" Operation Medusa, Afghanistan. Oh, they were fine with going to Afghanistan to build schools and dig wells, but to actually fight the war, well, no thank you. Our staunchest allies are new North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members -- countries such as Poland, Albania (who lost their first killed in action last month), Georgia and Bulgaria. Those nations cannot contribute much, but they are in the fight and they free American, British and Australian forces to find and kill the enemy.
The problem was that "conquering" the people was never American policy. The policy was "regime change" and the American military did that, they changed who was in charge of government in Afghanistan. So the military has done exactly what the civilian leadership asked of them -- conduct operations that result in regime change. The next step was to train and attempt to professionalize the Afghan National Security Forces. That is very hard to do with a literacy rate between 12 to 15%. The Afghan Army now has its own literacy program, an effort to teach new Soldiers how to read and write -- all the way up to the third grade level.
The Army and Marines are doing a fine job training an Army of men who cannot read.
It's very easy to Monday Morning Quarterback. It's easy to spend a few minutes on Google, get a few facts, and throw an emotional story out there. But those of us at American Thinker are better than that. We actually do think. And while we are very passionate about many topics, we must not be emotional about them. It's up to the analytical thinkers who read and write in AT to look in depth at subjects, and really study them. Only then will those who know and understand subjects in depth will be able to inform the rest of the American Thinker family about what's really going on out there.
The author is a veteran with combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)Adamant Obama confronts Netanyahu with a lone decision on Iran
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 4, 2012, 12:11 PM (GMT+02:00)
Binaymin Netanyahu's dilemma
Expectations that the meeting between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Monday, March 5, will produce accord on how and when to stop Iran going nuclear are likely to prove unfounded. Obama has made it clear that a military strike would be “premature”and economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure and negotiations must be allowed to run their course before a military option is considered as a last resort.
When Netanyahu flies home, therefore, he will come away from the White House facing exactly the same dilemma as before: It is up to him to determine Israel’s window of opportunity for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and decide if and when to go through with it.
After he met Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Ottawa Friday, March 2, Netanyahu tried to temper his disagreement with Obama by offering to go along with the Six Power negotiations with Iran starting in Istanbul next month, which are a cornerstone of the US president’s Iran policy, although Israel firmly believes Iran is just playing for time.
Nonetheless, for the talks to have any point, he proposed that they should aim for three results:
1. The dismantling of the uranium enrichment facilities buried underground at Fordo;
2. The transfer of highly-enriched uranium outside the country to international control, effectively removing the material for assembling a bomb out of Tehran’s hands;
3. A ban on uranium enrichment to a grade higher than 5 percent instead of the 20 percent concentrated fissile fuel stocked at present.
The Israeli prime minister’s proposal was rejected by the White House after Moscow too found it unacceptable.
A number of confidential Russian messages advised Israel to forget any reversals of Iran’s nuclear progress. The coming international negotiations, they said, must start with accepting the current status of Iran’s nuclear program, “There’s no turning back.”
The White House message to Netanyahu on the eve of his meeting with Obama was that Tehran would simply not come to the negotiating table if faced with those three demands.
This message was reinforced by a leak to the New York Times Sunday, March 4, asserting that “American intelligence agencies continue to say that there is no evidence that Iran has made a final decision to pursue a nuclear weapon. Recent assessments by American spy agencies have reaffirmed intelligence findings in 2007 and 2010 that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program.”
By reverting to its long-abandoned attitude of denial on the Iranian nuclear threat, Washington flies in the face of the last two International Atomic Energy Agency quarterly reports. The last one published ten days ago stated: “The agency continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program,” and “Iran has produced nearly 110kg of uranium enriched to 20 percent since early 2010. Western experts say about 250 kg is needed for a nuclear weapon.” The report also pointed out that “Iran is shifting the most sensitive aspect of its nuclear work, refining uranium to a level that takes it significantly closer to potential bomb material, to the site.”
Nuclear watchdog concerns were further exacerbated by Tehran’s refusal to allow inspectors to visit the Parchin site suspected of nuclear explosion tests in two recent visits.
The Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak has warned that Iran was in the process of moving clandestine nuclear projects to a “zone of immunity” safe from outside attack.
Notwithstanding all the evidence to the contrary, the Obama administration has resorted to turning the Iran’s nuclear clock back to 2007. Then, too, in an effort to hold Israel back from a preemptive attack on Iran, the National Intelligence Agency informed President George W. Bush that Iran had abandoned its military program in 2003.
A year ago, all the evidence accumulating of Iran’s rapid nuclear advances appeared to put the US-Israeli dispute to rest.
But now, the White House may be reacting to the explicit statement of Israel’s case by former Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin in the NYT ofn March 2. He wrote: “What is needed is an ironclad American assurance that if Israel refrains from acting in its own window of opportunity – and all other options have failed to halt Tehran’s nuclear quest – Washington will act to prevent a nuclear Iran while it is still within its power to do so.”
Washington sources report that no American president can be expected to tolerate Israel dictating terms, however just and pressing its case may be. Even before hearing what Israel had to say, Obama was resolved to oppose military action on Iran and not be moved on this. Now he is additionally determined to put his Israeli visitor in his place and draw a line on Jerusalem’s influence in Washington - both as a lesson to Jerusalem and an incentive for Tehran.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Netanyahu flies home, therefore, he will come away from the White House facing exactly the same dilemma as before: It is up to him to determine Israel’s window of opportunity for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and decide if and when to go through with it.
After he met Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Ottawa Friday, March 2, Netanyahu tried to temper his disagreement with Obama by offering to go along with the Six Power negotiations with Iran starting in Istanbul next month, which are a cornerstone of the US president’s Iran policy, although Israel firmly believes Iran is just playing for time.
Nonetheless, for the talks to have any point, he proposed that they should aim for three results:
1. The dismantling of the uranium enrichment facilities buried underground at Fordo;
2. The transfer of highly-enriched uranium outside the country to international control, effectively removing the material for assembling a bomb out of Tehran’s hands;
3. A ban on uranium enrichment to a grade higher than 5 percent instead of the 20 percent concentrated fissile fuel stocked at present.
The Israeli prime minister’s proposal was rejected by the White House after Moscow too found it unacceptable.
A number of confidential Russian messages advised Israel to forget any reversals of Iran’s nuclear progress. The coming international negotiations, they said, must start with accepting the current status of Iran’s nuclear program, “There’s no turning back.”
The White House message to Netanyahu on the eve of his meeting with Obama was that Tehran would simply not come to the negotiating table if faced with those three demands.
This message was reinforced by a leak to the New York Times Sunday, March 4, asserting that “American intelligence agencies continue to say that there is no evidence that Iran has made a final decision to pursue a nuclear weapon. Recent assessments by American spy agencies have reaffirmed intelligence findings in 2007 and 2010 that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program.”
By reverting to its long-abandoned attitude of denial on the Iranian nuclear threat, Washington flies in the face of the last two International Atomic Energy Agency quarterly reports. The last one published ten days ago stated: “The agency continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program,” and “Iran has produced nearly 110kg of uranium enriched to 20 percent since early 2010. Western experts say about 250 kg is needed for a nuclear weapon.” The report also pointed out that “Iran is shifting the most sensitive aspect of its nuclear work, refining uranium to a level that takes it significantly closer to potential bomb material, to the site.”
Nuclear watchdog concerns were further exacerbated by Tehran’s refusal to allow inspectors to visit the Parchin site suspected of nuclear explosion tests in two recent visits.
The Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak has warned that Iran was in the process of moving clandestine nuclear projects to a “zone of immunity” safe from outside attack.
Notwithstanding all the evidence to the contrary, the Obama administration has resorted to turning the Iran’s nuclear clock back to 2007. Then, too, in an effort to hold Israel back from a preemptive attack on Iran, the National Intelligence Agency informed President George W. Bush that Iran had abandoned its military program in 2003.
A year ago, all the evidence accumulating of Iran’s rapid nuclear advances appeared to put the US-Israeli dispute to rest.
But now, the White House may be reacting to the explicit statement of Israel’s case by former Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin in the NYT ofn March 2. He wrote: “What is needed is an ironclad American assurance that if Israel refrains from acting in its own window of opportunity – and all other options have failed to halt Tehran’s nuclear quest – Washington will act to prevent a nuclear Iran while it is still within its power to do so.”
Washington sources report that no American president can be expected to tolerate Israel dictating terms, however just and pressing its case may be. Even before hearing what Israel had to say, Obama was resolved to oppose military action on Iran and not be moved on this. Now he is additionally determined to put his Israeli visitor in his place and draw a line on Jerusalem’s influence in Washington - both as a lesson to Jerusalem and an incentive for Tehran.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Obama's Deeds Do Not Match Obama's Words
Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) Executive Director Matthew Brooks issued the following statement in reaction to President Obama's speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference:
"President Obama once again came before the AIPAC conference with a speech where his strong rhetoric does not match his administration's weak record on support of Israel. Obama said, 'As you examine my commitment, you don't just have to count on my words, you can look at my deeds.'
"Obama's deeds include unprecedented pressure on Israel not to build in its eternal capital of Jerusalem, cutting critical military aid to joint US-Israel missile defense program in a time of need, adopting as U.S. policy the Palestinian demand that Israel accept 1948 armistice lines as the basis for a final settlement, and failing to holding Palestinian leaders accountable for their refusal to keep their peace-process commitments.
"Mr. President, we have examined your deeds and they demonstrate that you are not providing the support that Israel needs. It is why elected officials, media and interested parties in the Middle East describe US-Israel relations as being at an all-time low and your policies as weakening Israel's position.
"It is said, one way to look into someone's heart is to see what they say when no one is watching. President Obama provided a glimpse of that when, in November 2011, an open microphone caught him joining with French President Nicholas Sarkozy in expressing exasperation over having to work with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Jewish community is too smart to fall for election-year revisionist history. We will remember in November."
"Mr. President, we have examined your deeds and they demonstrate that you are not providing the support that Israel needs. It is why elected officials, media and interested parties in the Middle East describe US-Israel relations as being at an all-time low and your policies as weakening Israel's position.
"It is said, one way to look into someone's heart is to see what they say when no one is watching. President Obama provided a glimpse of that when, in November 2011, an open microphone caught him joining with French President Nicholas Sarkozy in expressing exasperation over having to work with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Jewish community is too smart to fall for election-year revisionist history. We will remember in November."
2a)Obama warns against "loose talk" of war on Iran
WASHINGTON |
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama warned on Sunday against "loose talk" of a war with Iran ahead of a crucial meeting in which he will urge Israel's prime minister to avoid a premature strike on the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities.
On the eve of his talks with Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama used a speech to the pro-Israel U.S. lobbying group AIPAC to pledge his staunch support for the Jewish state and to argue that international sanctions on Iran must given more time to work.
"I firmly believe that an opportunity remains for diplomacy - backed by pressure - to succeed," Obama told a crowd of 13,000 at the AIPAC policy conference.
Obama said the "bluster" about a military strike was counterproductive because it has been driving up global oil prices, boosting demand for Iranian oil and helping to offset the impact of sanctions on its economy.
"I would ask that we all remember the weightiness of these issues, the stakes involved for Israel, for America, and for the world. Already, there is too much loose talk of war," Obama said.
Obama did not accuse any particular person or country of the "loose talk."
Obama's meeting with Netanyahu on Monday comes amid U.S. fears that Israel might opt to strike Iran on its own if it is not convinced of U.S. resolve to stop Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Such speculation has gained traction as Obama has faced election-year criticism from Republicans who question the strength of his support for Israel and accuse him of not taking a tough enough approach toward Iran.
Analysts say such criticism could lead Israel to calculate that Obama could ill afford a rift with the Jewish state with a U.S. election looming in November and would be forced to give at least tacit support if Israel were to take military action against Iran.
'VERY MUCH APPRECIATED'
Speaking in Canada, Netanyahu said, "I very much appreciated the fact that President Obama reiterated his position that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that all options are on the table."
The Israeli prime minister also said he appreciated that Obama "made clear that when it comes to a nuclear-armed Iran, containment is simply not an option."
"Perhaps most important of all, I appreciated the fact that he said that Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat," Netanyahu added.
Obama last week issued his most direct threat yet of U.S. military action against Iran, saying in an interview with the Atlantic magazine, "I don't bluff.
However, as he did in the AIPAC speech, Obama argued in the interview for focusing on sanctions as the course of action with the most likely chance of success.
In addition to framing his views on Iran ahead of the talks with Netanyahu, Obama also sought in the speech to push back on Republican critics who have seized on the differences between Netanyahu and Obama over Iran to argue he has not been supportive enough of a key U.S. ally.
"There should not be a shred of doubt by now: when the chips are down, I have Israel's back," Obama told the AIPAC conference
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment