Thursday, February 26, 2015

Obama's Ego Is Bruised and He Cannot Handle It!

Over time, a segment of the Republican Party became concerned about the increased  intrusion of government, loss of freedoms and  Supreme Court decisions they feared made law rather than interpreted the Constitution.  Their response was to get caught up in embracing  social issues.  The liberal media and press painted them in the corner with the brush these conservatives provided.

While this was happening the majority of centrist voters pulled away from voting for Republican candidates and the primal purpose of government , which is to protect citizens, got lost in translation and the debate.

Then we elected Obama to assuage our guilt and because, as Biden said, he was light skinned, came across as intelligent and an articulate speaker who was  running against a candidate, named Mc Cain, who did not know what he was doing.

Now we have a validation of what happens when you take your eye off the ball and allow yourself to be defined by radicals supported by leftist media and news hacks.

We  have lost standing among the world's democracies, we have run down our military to where we no longer can even defend our shrinking world foot print and  the vacuum created is now filled by evil doers and we went deeper in debt as we expanded funding welfare and dependency.

If I have over or mis-stated  the general summation of our plight please correct  or challenge me.

That said, please do not blame G.W because that has been trotted out and tried ad nauseum nor tell me 'what difference does it matter' because Hillary wrapped herself in that cover months ago.  Come up with something original, like 'Obama is a genius!'
===
A friend of mine and fellow memo reader has made the cogent observation that Obama fears a pipeline but feels comfortable with a nuclear Iran.  I suspect Obama also fears Netanyahu because he has served in an elite brigade in the IDF and has witnessed war first hand whereas Obama claim to fame a bad game of golf.

Obama's has allowed his ego to be bruised when it is all about world safety not about him. (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
Now for some humor: http://biggeekdad.com/2012/05/the-jovers/
===
I could not resist one more memo before we leave tomorrow but you have gotten used to me saying that haven't you?
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)

Houston, We’ve Got a Problem — Iran is Getting a Bomb!

Big Red Car here. Bright, sunny and crisp today. This is what we call winter in the ATX. We like winter — all three days of it. 70F on Sunday.
So, the administration has begun to “leak” out that the Iran deal is going to end up with Iran getting an invite to the nuclear bomb club. Oh boy!
The problem is this — we promised the Israelis, the world, the American people this would NOT happen.
This guy
promised this guy
that a nuclear armed Iran was NOT going to happen.
Now this guy
is coming to America to plead his case.  The first guy, President Obama, doesn’t want to meet with the second guy, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, when he is in the US. A breach of protocol kind of thing.
When dealing with nuclear weapons in the hands of nations which have pledged to wipe your nation from the face of the earth — well, PROTOCOL is very important. OK to arm the Devil with nuclear weapons but not OK to use the wrong fork with shellfish; or, God forbid, drink white wine with meat.
Let me remind you that within the DNA of Israel is the memory of a madman who killed 6,000,000 of them only for worshiping their God in their own way. For being Jews. Israel is understandably sensitive about arming madmen who have vowed to wipe them from the face of the earth. It has happened before. It is happening again. It was our word that stood between Israel and madness.
I am embarrassed for our Nation. We have lied to ourselves, the world and our only ally in the Middle East. We have thrown the future of Israel on to the table as if it were a pile of red chips and we have let the Iranians deal from the bottom of the deck. This is not going to end well for anyone.
We are a better nation than that. Our word should be and has historically been GOOD! We need to make it so.
But, hey, what the Hell do I really know anyway? I’m just a Big Red Car.

1a)U.S. and Israel: The Manufactured Crisis

By Elliott Abrams

The crisis between the United States and Israel has been manufactured by the Obama administration. Building a crisis up or down is well within the administration’s power, and it has chosen to build it up. Why? Three reasons: to damage and defeat Netanyahu (whom Obama has always disliked simply because he is on the right while Obama is on the left) in his election campaign, to prevent Israel from affecting the Iran policy debate in the United States, and worst of all to diminish Israel’s popularity in the United States and especially among Democrats.

Suppose for a moment that the Netanyahu speech before Congress is a mistake, a breach of protocol, a campaign maneuver, indeed all the bad things the White House is calling it. Grant all of that for a moment for the sake of argument and the behavior of the Obama administration is still inexplicable. Clearly more is behind its conduct than mere pique over the speech.

First comes the personal relationship and the desire to see Netanyahu lose the election. Recall that Obama became president before Netanyahu became prime minister, and it is obvious that the dislike was both personal and political before Netanyahu had done anything. Obama does not like people on the right, period—Americans, Israelis, Australians, you name it. Obama also decided immediately on taking office to pick a fight with Israel and make construction in settlements and in Jerusalem the central issue in U.S.-Israeli relations. Remember that he appointed George Mitchell as his special negotiator one day after assuming the presidency, and Mitchell was the father of the demand that construction—including even construction to accommodate what Mitchell called “natural growth” of families in settlement populations—be stopped dead. A confrontation was inevitable, and was desired by the White House.

Obama has overplayed his hand, in the sense that in poll after poll Israelis say that they do not support his Middle East policies. Historically, an Israeli prime minister loses domestic support when he cannot manage relations with Washington. This year may be the exception, the time when Israelis want a prime minister to oppose U.S. policies they view as dangerous. They may also believe that the Obama administration is simply so hostile that no prime minister could avoid confrontations.

I well remember how we in the Bush White House handled the poor personal relations between the president and French president Jacques Chirac. In 2004-2005 especially, the two men did not get along (arguing mostly about Iraq and just plain disliking each other as well) but we wanted to prevent their poor personal chemistry from damaging bilateral relations. So National Security Advisor Condi Rice in 2004, and then her successor Steve Hadley in 2005, set up a work-around. The French National Security Advisor Maurice Gourdault-Montagne traveled to Washington almost every month and came to the White House. There the French ambassador to the U.S., Jean-David Levitte, joined him for meetings with key NSC, DOD, and State Department officials. In 2005, Secretary of State Rice would come over from State to join Hadley and several of us on the NSC staff, and in the course of a half-day we would review every issue facing the United States and France. It was a serious time commitment for the American and French officials, but that is because we were determined to quarantine bad personal chemistry and prevent it from infecting the entire relationship—a goal set by President Bush himself.

Quite obviously, President Obama has no such goal. Israeli officials have complained to me for several years about the lack of contacts and communications with the White House. Susan Rice has determined that her job is to make bilateral relations worse, and has established no relationship with her Israeli counterpart Yossi Cohen. So the problem is not just bad chemistry at the top; it is an administration that has decided to create a tense and negative relationship from the top down.

One reason, as noted, is the hope that tension with America can lead to Netanyahu’s defeat in the March 17 election.  The second reason is Iran policy. The administration is desperately seeking a deal with Iran on terms that until recently were unacceptable to a broad swath of Democrats as well as Republicans. One after another, American demands or “red lines” have been abandoned. Clearly the administration worries that Israeli (not just Netanyahu, but Israeli) criticisms of the possible Iran nuclear deal might begin to reverberate. So it has adopted the tactic of personalizing the Israeli critique. Arguments that are shared across the Israeli political spectrum—that the likely Iran deal says nothing about Iranian ballistic missile development, says nothing about Iranian warhead development, does not require that Iran meet IAEA demands that it account for past warhead work, allows Iran thousands of centrifuges, will allow Iran to escape all monitoring and limitations after perhaps ten years—are attributed solely to Netanyahu and his election campaign. So Democrats are told they must oppose such arguments, and stiff Netanyahu, lest they contribute to his reelection. Clever, in a way, but of course completely misleading. And irresponsible when it comes to the deadly issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

The third Obama administration reason for building up this crisis is also deadly serious: it is to use the current tension to harm Israel’s support in the United States permanently. All opinion polls in the last several years show a partisan edge in support: overall support for Israel is steady and high, but its composition is changing. More and more Republicans support Israel, and the gap between Democratic and Republican support levels is growing. President Obama acts as if he sees this as a terrific development, one that should be enlarged as much as possible before he leaves office. That way he would leave behind not just an Iran deal, but weakened support for Israel on Iran and everything else.  Support for Israel would become less of a bipartisan matter and more a divisive issue between the two parties. It is not hard to envision Obama in retirement joining Jimmy Carter as a frequent critic of Israel, pushing the Democratic party to move away from its decades of very strong support for the Jewish state.

Perhaps this manufactured crisis will diminish after Netanyahu’s speech, where he is likely to say things that many Democrats still agree with. Perhaps it will diminish if Iran rejects any deal, even on the terms the Obama administration is offering. Perhaps Netanyahu will lose his election and a new Labor Party-led government will appear in Jerusalem. But more likely, the remaining 23 months of the Obama administration will be months of continuing tensions between Israel and the United States. That is because the administration desires that tension and views it as productive. The problem is not Netanyahu’s speech, which right or wrong to deliver should be a minor and passing factor in bilateral relations. The real issues are deeper and far more serious. This president has fostered a crisis in relations because it advances his own political and policy goals. That is what his subordinates and many Democrats in Congress are trying very hard, and with real success, to obfuscate.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments: