Chapter Four In Abram's Book. Bigger Button Battle Not Smart. Trump Appears Un-Serious.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We are becoming a nation of losers because winning has become a prize for everyone.

Kids nowadays are taught that winning isn’t everything; in fact, just showing up is an accomplishment. This is the mentality that participation trophies create. But in the real world, you’re rewarded for actual achievement – not effort. In this week’s video, Cobi Jones, former Olympian and former pro-soccer player for the L.A. Galaxy, explains why participation trophies actually make it harder for kids to succeed – not just in sports, but in all of life.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Never knew Comey rode. (See 1 below.)

And

Palestinians need to quit horsing around. (See 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cliff May knows something about Democracy.  The brother of one of my dearest friends and fellow memo reader was a very senior official working in the organization May heads.  He is writing a book and I hope to get him to speak when he visits Savannah.(See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The fourth Chapter in Elliott's book is entitled: "TheTrouble With U.S Policy"

I am half way through the chapter which begins with a review of GW' strong assertion of human rights as an essential part of our foreign policy initiatives.  Abrams reviews G.W's personal interaction as well as his State Department's with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya,Tunisia, and Yemen.

To GW's credit, being a devoutly religious man, he believed deeply in his pursuit of human rights and was of the opinion that everyone sought freedom.  His record of achievement was spotty and, towards the end of his second term, those within the State Department who disagreed with GW began to reassert their own control over our foreign policy and downplayed the issue.

"Then Came Obama" follows and it became evident, from almost day one, Obama rejected G.W's stress upon human rights.When Secretary Clinton went to China her 3 D's did not include human rights, which was pushed aside, and she announced our focus would be on the global economic crisis .global climate change and the security crisis.

When Obama went abroad and met with various Middle Eastern Rulers ,he ignored the fact that many, if not all, were oppressive rulers and, in fact, praised them for their leadership.

The world is now paying or is likely to continue paying a heavy price for Obama's head in the sand cupidity and anti-American stance.  I stopped on the section Elliott devotes to The promotion of Civil Society Organizations which he favors as effective because they deal directly with the "oppressed" people.

The most important unresolved issue that hangs like an albatross around the neck of our foreign policy seniors and which has driven our frequent support of oppressive regimes and dictators is the fear of not knowing what replaces them if we work to overthrow same?

Logically, if one believes these regimes will die on their own sword eventually, one would think, we would not want to be found on the wrong side.  That requires, perhaps, an unbounded faith that most in The State Department fear embracing because supporting the current dictator is either the easier course or brings short term predictability until of course everything blows up in our face. The State Department did not predict The Arab Spring and Sec Carter certainly looked like a fooled deer caught staring in headlights when she stated, "The Egyptian Government is Stable" referring to Mubarak two weeks before he fell.

Three more personal comments.  How can we be pushing others to adhere to "the respect of law" when we no longer seem to adhere to that dictum?

Secondly, allowing Libya's ruler and his son to be brutally killed after they co-operated with us, by fully ridding themselves of their WMD's, does not send a comforting signal to those from whom we seek change.

Finally. GW was correct when he said people seek to be free.  That said, being free in The Middle East does not mean living under our brand of democracy.  However, it should mean some basic rights like our own Bill of Rights as a minimum start.

We need friends, even when they are dictators, but we do not have to stop there.  GW continued to press Mubarak and caused him to make changes, maybe modest but nevertheless, they were positive ones.  Perhaps Qaddafi feared, after Iraq, G.W was going for him but, of all the dictators, he was the one who gave up virtually everything we would like to obtain from N Korea and Iran.

Making Human Rights and freedom  a consistent and visible facet of our foreign policy is critical and those in the State Department who do not support this concept and/or resist its implementation should be fired. (See 3 and 3a below.)

Trump's policies are mostly sound.  His immature personality may fit being a brash citizen real estate entrepreneur but undercuts him as president and makes him appear un-serious.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Get Off Your High Horse, James Comey

Since being unceremoniously fired from the FBI, former director James Comey has turned into quite the arrogant ass on social media. Using his tweets and Instas sparingly, he has come up with a formula sprinkled with Bible verses and cryptic messages to promote himself as some kind of holy warrior, destined to triumph over the forces of evil in the White House.

We haven’t liked Comey since he gave that speech exonerating Hillary Clinton and we like him less with every passing day. This guy was instrumental in the Deep State plot to overturn the results of the election and we’re not entirely convinced that simply being relived of his duties was a stiff enough punishment for his misdeeds. Maybe he let Hillary off the hook because he knew he was guilty of much, much worse.

But seriously, just look at Comey’s last tweet of 2017: “Here’s hoping 2018 brings more ethical leadership, focused on the truth and lasting values. Happy New Year, everybody.”

More ethical leadership? Really? This from the guy who stood by while the Obama Justice Department made a mockery out of due process with illegal spying into the Trump campaign? The same Justice Department that turned the Hillary Clinton email investigation into a political fiasco, with Comey a willing and active participant in the miscarriage of justice? The same Comey who leaked like a sieve when Trump took office and worked against the president until he was thrown out like yesterday’s garbage? HE’S talking to us about ethical leadership? What a joke.

Firing James Comey certainly did not make life easier for President Trump and history will yet decide if it was his greatest decision or his worst mistake. But whatever the future holds for the Russia investigation, there can be no doubt about one thing: Comey fully deserved to be let go. He allowed himself and his agency to become a pawn of the Democratic Party, chasing “intelligence” like the ridiculous dossier all the way into oblivion. Now his buddy Mueller has taken the reins, leaving Comey to tweet from his high horse whenever he has a free moment. Well, great. We’re sure that the Resistance appreciates every single one of his golden nuggets of rich wit.

We, however, appreciate the subtler niceties of law and order, and Comey’s absence will make it that much easier for the Trump Justice Department to restore it. That is, if Jeff Sessions ever wakes up to the insanity surrounding him and decides to get serious about protecting a White House under siege by leftists.

1a)

"   Palestinians also took to the streets to celebrate the 9/11 attacks carried out by al-Qaeda.

   " Another sign of Palestinian support for dictators and terrorists emerged in August 2017, when President Mahmoud Abbas sent the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un, a telegram congratulating him for "Liberation Day."

    "Something good has come out of the fiasco surrounding the Palestinian ambassador's association with a global terrorist: The Indians realize now that Israel is their ally in the war on terrorism -- certainly not the Palestinians, who again and again align themselves with those who seek death and destruction.

The Palestinians have an old and nasty habit of placing themselves on the wrong side of history and aligning themselves with tyrannical leaders and regimes. Every time the Palestinians make the wrong choice, they end up paying a heavy price. Yet, they do not seem to learn from their mistakes.

The latest example of Palestinian misjudgments surfaced last week when the Palestinian Authority "ambassador" to Pakistan, Walid Abu Ali, shared a stage with UN-designated terrorist and Jamat-ul-Dawa leader Hafiz Saeed.

The two men appeared together at a rally that was held to protest US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Thousands attended the rally in Rawalpindi, which was organized by the Defense of Pakistan Council, an alliance of religious parties dominated by Saeed's group.

Jamat-ul-Dawa has been blamed for the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which killed 166 people. Saeed is wanted by the US, which has offered a $10 million reward for his arrest. Pakistan, however, has turned down extradition requests and allows the terrorist to operate freely.

The appearance of the Palestinian Authority ambassador alongside Saeed drew sharp criticism from many Pakistanis and Indians alike.

Tarek Fatah, a Canadian-Indian writer and liberal activist who was born in Karachi, Pakistan, tweeted:

    "Palestinian Ambassador to Pakistan, Walid Abu Ali, joins wanted jihadi terrorist Hafiz Seed on stage. Was the Palestinian Authority aware that Hafiz Saeed is the man who ordered the 2008 Mumbai attacks? Did the Palestinian Authority authorize this validation of India's enemy No. 1?"

Thousands took to social media to express their outrage over the joint appearance of the PA envoy and the wanted terrorist. Many Indians criticized their government for voting against US President Donald Trump's announcement recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital in the UN General Assembly. They also called on the Indian government to correct its mistake by strengthening its ties with Israel.

Anil Kumar Sharma wrote:

    "Palestinians have slapped across the face the Indian government, which has recently betrayed Israel by voting in favor of the Palestinians (at the UN General Assembly). Hope this would jolt the Indian government to see the ground realities and formulate a totally pro-Israeli West Asia policy and follow US and move our embassy to Jerusalem."

Amitava Sarker commented: "India should have a strong practical policy on the Middle East. Again, we should know that progressive Israel is our friend and not fundamental Muslim countries."

Arvind Singh tweeted: "This is the proof that Palestinians support terrorism. We support them instead of supporting our friend, Israel."

Bobby Kapoor: "India sides with Palestine as recently as the UN vote while the Palestinian Authority sides with a global terrorist. India should review its policy towards Palestine."

Dhiraj Punj: "Huge embarrassment for Indians individually and for India as a nation. India votes for Palestine, and they (Palestinians) join Hafiz Saeed. Foreign policy disaster!!!"

Gpebble: "The Indian government must support Jerusalem as Israel's capital in response to this ugly brotherhood of Palestine and Hafiz Saeed the terrorist generator."

Harvey Kribs: "Palestinians are Islamic supremacists who seek Islamic hegemony in the Middle East in the same way Islamic terrorists seek Islamic hegemony in South Asia. If one puts an end to Palestinianism, the rest of the radical Islamists will fall by the wayside."

Alarmed by the strong reactions, the Palestinian Authority, in an unprecedented move, announced that it was recalling its ambassador to Pakistan.

A statement issued by the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah said that the Palestinians were committed to preserving their good relations with India. "Palestine is keen on supporting India's war against terrorism," the statement read. "Palestine and India are true partners in the war on terrorism." The Palestinian Authority claimed that the participation of its ambassador in the rally alongside Hafiz Saeed was an "unintentional and inexcusable error."

An "unintentional error"?

How, precisely, was the ambassador unaware of Hafiz Saeed's presence at the rally when he posed proudly for a "photo op" with the terrorist?

The Palestinians have a long record of making such "mistakes." Forging alliances with mass murderers and terrorists goes back to the days of Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who had close ties with Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. According to British records, Husseini told Hitler during a meeting in 1941: "The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the English, the Jews, and the Communists." He also thanked Hitler for supporting "the elimination of the Jewish national home."

Later, the Palestinians threw in their lot with the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and supported his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Kuwait was one of many wealthy Arab countries that used to provide the Palestinians with billions of dollars in aid every year. When Kuwait was liberated a year later by the US-led coalition, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were deported from Kuwait and other Gulf countries. When Saddam fired rockets at Israel during the first Gulf War, the Palestinians took to the streets to dance and cheer.

Palestinians also took to the streets to celebrate the 9/11 attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. In the past decade, they have also rejoiced each time Hamas or Hezbollah fired rockets or carried out suicide attacks against Israel. Scenes of Palestinians handing out sweets in the aftermath of suicide bombings and other terror attacks are commonplace on the Palestinian street.

Another sign of Palestinian support for dictators and terrorists emerged in August 2017, when President Mahmoud Abbas sent the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un, a telegram congratulating him for "Liberation Day." In his letter, Abbas said the Korean people "sacrificed the most precious sacrifices for its freedom and honor" and expressed his appreciation to the support North Korea has shown the Palestinian people in their fight for freedom."

So, Palestinian history is packed with support for terrorists and despots. The Palestinian Authority ambassador's participation in a rally together with Hafiz Saeed was anything but an "unintentional mistake." In fact, it reflects a long-standing Palestinian tradition of siding with evil and ruthless leaders, regimes, groups and terrorists.

The response from many Indians is encouraging. Something good has come out of the fiasco surrounding the Palestinian ambassador's association with a global terrorist: the Indians now know the depth of Palestinian admiration for, and glorification of, terrorists and their thirst for violence. The Indians also realize now that Israel is their ally in the war on terrorism -- certainly not the Palestinians, who again and again align themselves with those who seek death and destruction.

Bassam Tawil is a Muslim based in the Middle East.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2)

Eruption in Iran And it’s not just the economy, stupid. Clifford D. May 3 January 2018 - The Washington Times The revolution that transformed Iran in 1979 was a grand experiment. From that moment on, Iran would be ruled by an ayatollah, a man with deep knowledge of sharia, Islamic law. He would be the “supreme leader,” a euphemism for dictator. He would merit that authority because he would be regarded, literally, as God’s “representative on Earth.” The first supreme leader was Ruhollah Khomeini, a charismatic, fire-and-brimstone cleric, an unwavering proponent of jihad against America and the West. When he died in 1989 the title went to Ali Khamenei who in no way moderated the regime’s ideology. On the contrary, he has called the Islamic Revolution the “turning point in modern world history” Today, the regime in Tehran influences Iraq, props up the Assad dynasty in Syria, controls Lebanon through Hezbollah, and backs the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Thinking longer-term, Supreme Leader Khamenei has a nuclear weapons program — perhaps delayed but certainly not ended by the deal President Obama concluded — as well as a program to develop missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. That program continues apace. The pursuit of such ambitions has come at a cost. Iranians who had hoped they would enjoy more freedom and prosperity following the fall of the shah have been bitterly disappointed. Iranians who thought they would benefit from the tens of billions of dollars flowing to Iran since the nuclear deal — even more so. Starting last Thursday, Iranians by the hundreds of thousands began expressing that disappointment along with rising anger — risking their lives by staging protests in more than two dozen cities across the country. As I write this, an estimated 15 protestors have been killed by government forces. Hundreds have been arrested. Much of the Western media has downplayed this upheaval. Others have asserted that the protests are just about “a sluggish economy” and “an increase in the price of eggs” — in other words, apolitical and non-ideological. The chants being heard in the streets tell a different tale. Among them: “We don’t want an Islamic Republic!” “Death to the Dictator!” “Mullahs Must Get Lost!” “The Clerics Act Like Gods!” Death or freedom!” “Leave Syria, think about us!” “Not Gaza, not Lebanon, my life for Iran!” Also this statement of grim determination: “We will die. [But] we will take back Iran.” No, it’s not just the economy, stupid. Is another revolution brewing? When it comes to making predictions about such things, political scientists and intelligence analysts are on a par with astrologers. In truth, revolutions are like volcanos. No matter how much rumbling you hear, no matter how much smoke you see, you never know when they will blow. A common misconception: The more oppressive a regime, the more it invites its downfall. Actually, revolutions are most apt to succeed against regimes reluctant to engage in wholesale slaughter of their subjects. As a general rule, ruthlessness pays. And Iran’s theocrats — despite what we hear from their many Western apologists — are as ruthless as they come. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij militia have never been reluctant to bash heads. Iran has the world’s highest per capita execution rate. Those in power routinely torture dissidents, imprison human rights activists, rape women in prison, publicly hang homosexuals, take Western hostages — the list goes on. The last time Iranians took to the streets to challenge their rulers was in 2009. They famously chanted a question to President Obama: Are you with us or are you with them? (They utilized a Farsi pun: “Obama, Obama ya ba oona, ya ba ma?”) Eager for detente with the Islamic Republic, Mr. Obama declined to reply. It would be charitable to think of that decision as an experiment. The prevailing view among the foreign policy elite had long been that Iran was an essentially “normal nation” whose leaders favored “stability” in the region; that they were proud men who felt disrespected. If Mr. Obama were to extend his hand in friendship, surely they’d unclench their fists. We now know the results of the experiment. The foreign policy elite was wrong and those few analysts who saw Iran’s theocrats as an unappeasable enemy were right. Over the weekend, the State Department condemned Iran’s rulers for having turned “a wealthy country with a rich history and culture into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos.” Mr. Trump tweeted that the “entire world understands that the good people of Iran want change.” Sen. Tom Cotton and Sen. Ted Cruz were among the Republican lawmakers who issued strong statements. On the left, support for the rights and aspirations of the Iranians was less robust. Why? Those who identify as the “resistance” won’t agree on anything with Mr. Trump. More moderate Democrats and progressives may not want to be seen as implicitly criticizing Mr. Obama’s inaction in 2009 and his 2015 JCPOA. Nor are they eager to join with Republicans on what should be the next step: measures to support the demonstrators and exert serious new pressures on Iran’s rulers in order to restrain their repressive instincts. As for Mr. Obama himself, he has not, as I write this, responded to an online letter asking him “to send a strong and public message of compassion and solidarity” to Iranians demanding their human rights. If he were to do that, and if, before too long, modern jihadism were to collapse in the land where it first became the ruling ideology, a new experiment would begin — one enormously consequential for issues of war and peace over the decades ahead. Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for the Washington Times. Follow him on Twitter @CliffordDMay.  +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3) Trifling With the Nuclear Button Why Trump’s approval is so low despite his first-year successes. By The Editorial Board There’s little benefit in lunging at Donald Trump’s regular Twitter bait, as his opponents prove nearly every day. But you don’t have to be CNN to think that the President should stop popping off about nuclear weapons, whether he’s joking or not. “North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the ‘Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times,’” Mr. Trump tweeted Tuesday. “Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!” Perhaps Mr. Trump figured this was a clever line about comparative manhood, but it’s an example of why even many of Mr. Trump’s voters wonder if he has any sense of self-restraint. He was trolling a dictator, and boasting about himself in the process, which makes the President look small. He also distracted from the Iran protests that are vindicating his support for the Iranian people and discrediting his predecessor’s appeasement strategy. But more troubling is that Mr. Trump looked to be trifling with the world’s most serious security threat—a nuclear-armed rogue nation. Mr. Trump has been trying to convince the world that North’s Korea’s nuclear warhead and missile arsenal is so serious a threat that it might require pre-emptive military action. His main advisers, and hundreds of American officials, are working day and night to diminish the threat short of war. If Mr. Trump ever does have to strike the North, he needs the world to believe he is acting as a last resort, not because he thinks he has a bigger Button. Comments like these explain the paradox of Mr. Trump’s first year. He has genuine accomplishments to boast of—including tax reform, judicial nominees who are reshaping the federal courts, and a stop to new regulation. Yet even with the economy growing faster, and a tight labor market beginning to bid up wages, Mr. Trump’s job approval remains below 40% in the Real Clear Politics average. The paradox results from Mr. Trump’s governing behavior. His attacks on all and sundry have polarized the electorate even more than it was on Election Day in 2016. He retains the support of his most fervent base but he has lost support among many who voted against Hillary Clinton more than they did for him. Those Americans tend to think that a nuclear missile exchange isn’t a laughing matter. And please don’t compare this tweet to Ronald Reagan’s 1984 quip about Russia that “we begin bombing in five minutes.” The Gipper said that during a sound check as a joke to radio technicians. Mr. Trump sent his tweet around the world as a personal boast. Voters now tell pollsters they want a Democratic Congress by more than 12 percentage points. If this holds, Democrats will retake the House and Mr. Trump may be impeached. Mr. Trump needs to win over more voters if he wants to avoid that fate, and that means acting more like a President. If he won’t do it for the sake of his office, or for the Americans who took a gamble on him in 2016, he should at least consider his own self-preservation. 3a) More Iran Nonsense From the New York Times Understanding the regime's narrative.  By SOHRAB AHMARI  Thomas Erdbrink is at it again. The New York Times Tehran bureau chief told readers in November that Donald Trump’s tough rhetoric had pushed the Iranian people into the arms of a regime they detest. Iranians begged to differ: A few weeks after Erdbrink’s story appeared, hundreds of thousands of them poured into the streets in opposition to clerical rule. Confronted with this apparent discrepancy between reality and his thesis, Erdbrink filed a December 29 dispatch–from Niseko, Japan–that described the protests as “scattered” and concerned mainly with the “government’s handling of the economy.” Meanwhile, in actually existing Iran, the protests had spread from Mashhad, in the northeast, to some two-dozen cities. And the protesters were chanting “Death to the Islamic Republic,” “Death to [Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei,” and “Death to the Principle of the Guardianship” of the mullahs–not “Death to Inflation.” Erdbrink could have gotten wind of these slogans via Twitter and other social media outlets. Instead, he mostly relied on quotes from regime figures and pro-regime think-tankers keen to frame the uprising as apolitical. Nearly a week since the protests erupted, Erdbrink remains committed to his earlier conclusions. Witness his January 2 dispatch, this time from the Iranian capital. “Hard-Liners and Reformers Tapped Iranians’ Ire. Now Both Are Protest Targets,” reads the headline, and the body of the article suggests that the current revolt was instigated by these two competing factions inside the regime. The Tehran regime is invested in the hard-liners-versus-moderates-and-reformers narrative. It is a classic good-cop-bad-cop routine with many useful applications in foreign diplomacy. Numerous Western statesmen and intellectuals have fallen for it since the regime’s founding in 1979. Back then, another writer for the Times, Princeton’s Richard Falk, wrote of how the Ayatollah Khomeini’s “entourage of supporters is uniformly composed of moderate, progressive individuals”–shortly before the Khomeinists staged a decade-long orgy of torture and summary execution. Ever since, finding and supporting regime moderates has been a cornerstone of U.S. and European policy toward Iran. President Hasan Rouhani is only the latest in a long line of anti-Western, Islamist theocrats to be cast as the Great Smiling Moderate–opportunistically by the regime itself, naively by the Western foreign-policy establishment. Vocal Western support for the protesters would be foolish and downright reckless if the uprising is partly an attempt by the Medieval Hard-liners to damage the Great Smiling Moderate. This is little more than Persian intrigue. Don’t help the hard-liners bring down this good man! In Erdbrink’s account, it was Rouhani himself who kicked things off by exposing the extent of financial support for religious foundations and the security apparatus baked into a government budget: The initial catalyst for the anger appears to have been the leak by President Rouhani last month of a proposed government budget. For the first time, secret parts of the budget, including details of the country’s religious institutes, were exposed. Iranians discovered that billions of dollars were going to hard-line organizations, the military, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, and religious foundations that enrich the clerical elite. At the same time, the budget proposed to end cash subsidies for millions of citizens, increase fuel prices and privatize public schools…. Last Thursday, hard-liners tried to take back the initiative and embarrass the president, staging a demonstration in the holy city Mashhad, where hundreds chanted slogans against the weak economy and shouted ‘death to the dictator’ and ‘death to Rouhani.’ Let’s break down Erdbrink’s account: Rouhani released a portion of the budget, normally kept secret, that detailed funding for unpopular entities within the regime. He did this knowing that the leak would incite popular anger, but also calculating that he and his own executive branch would be spared the people’s wrath. Next, a hard-line Friday prayer leader in a conservative city (Mashhad) encouraged his flock to denounce the presidency. But then some of those Mashhad protesters took things too far by chanting against the regime as a whole. The hard-liners thus created a nationwide uprising, even though they normally loathe any spontaneous displays 0f people power. Each of the steps here is rather implausible, and Erdbrink connects them all into one even more implausible chain of causality. “Whenever the hard-liners want an anti-Rouhani protest they can easily mobilize their own base,” Saeed Ghasseminejad of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told me. “They do not need to bring ordinary Iranians to the streets which they know they can’t control.” Iranians didn’t need the hard-liners to organize them. Indeed, they had been staging such protests for years on a smaller scale. “What was different this time was that after years, participants were finally fed up with the regime’s promises and clearly understood their economic problem is rooted in the political structure of the regime. Anti-regime chants were dominant even on the first day.” Iranians don’t make New York Times-style distinctions between its various Byzantine factions. Maybe we in the West should stop with the factional charade as well. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++