.jpg)
This person also agree with my friend that Obama may be incompetent but he has been successful in turning this nation America on its heels!
===
If you believe the experts know what they are saying then there is still room on the upside. (See 1 below.)
===
This from a long time dear friend and fellow memo reader who encourages those who do not to speak out so their voices can be heard.
More PC'ism run amok? (See 2 below.)
===
All the blame on Israel. Perry just not a happy camper because Netanyahu rained on his parade. Just something about Israelis, they do not wish to place their nation at the mercy of recalcitrant Palestinians but Kerry can't rise to being an honest broker because he is so committed to accomplishing an agreement at any cost - Israel's cost.
The settlement issue remains a convenient ruse. (See 3 below.)
Never will happen. Obama has turned lying into an art form and to serve in his administration lying is a qualification. (See 4 below.)
Meanwhile, Hank Aaron , who is a wonderful and generous person, went a bit off the deep end recently when he equated certain Republicans who oppose Obama with the KKK.
Hank, like Jackie Robinson, went through a lot of hell and prejudice in his career and it left scars which , no doubt, have warped his thinking.
I loved watching him play when I/we lived in Atlanta and, if memory serves me right, I believe we were in the stands when he hit 715 or 61 or some momentous number.
We had great season tickets, row 18 right behind the catcher and loved going to the games but it got too expensive and traffic was horrendous, so in our last years in Atlanta we shared our tickets and went less often.
We were there during the Atlanta Braves long string of successful seasons including their World Series. Lots of fun and memories and all I can say is Hank would be well advised to stick to talking about baseball because he knows something about that and as for his racial views and politics he is off base.
===
What some very astute Republicans think about Jeb Bush. I happen to concur
I believe Jeb would be refreshing, upbeat, positive and rational. He was a fine Governor.
I would vote for Jeb in a minute but then I would also vote for the devil against Hillary, but that's an oxymoron. (See 5 below.)
===
It is now Annual Report time and I am receiving those pertaining to stocks I own.
What is sickening is that, in virtually, every case the proxy statements run well over 30 to 60 pages on executive and directorship compensation alone.
Those who run the companies in which I own stock are very well compensated , some deserving, some not but in almost every case the compensation seems unrealistically high. Those who prepare these reports try and justify the executive pay by comparing it to an index of related companies.
Executive compensation is now basically determined by some amorphous contrived complex formula prepared by advisers who receive their own compensation from the very companies they advise. It is a cozy relationship which involves justifying high compensation, which is then approved by board members who, themselves, receive enormous amounts for serving and attending upwards to maybe 8 or so annual meetings. Directors today, not only receive high cash payments, but also stock options, insurance on their lives, charitable contributions to charities of their choice, in some cases, and health care.
I do not support Obama's income disparity wedge issue which is purely political and based on distortions, lies etc.
However, I do believe corporate executive and director compensation has gone beyond justification and does lend itself to making Capitalists and Capitalism vulnerable to specious political charges.
And add to this compensation perks like chauffeurs, corporate jet travel, a large number of staff catering to their every wish and whim and like the joke goes it runs into money!
===
I have just finished reading Charles' Krauthammer's latest book which is a compendium of previously written op ed's now assembled under certain topic heads. His op eds are like prose and his psychiatric education constantly shines through.
I submit his section on Democratic Realism, written in 20024, pp 333- pp 351, is a must read. In it, Krauhammer explains how democrats think about foreign policy and why and how their thinking distinguishes itself from the way Republicans think about and deal with foreign policy. A must read!
Tonight Krauthammer, alluded to Obama's disastrous foreign policy results. America is no longer feared, respected or trusted. Quite an accomplishment!
What is even more disheartening are the lies, distortions, posturing, gaming and hot air Obama has resorted to to keep his failing/doomed balloons aloft.
Now Obama has resorted to wage gap wedge issues in order to take attention away from Obamacare and once again he resorts to phony numbers .Citing the false disparity at The White House alone, upends Obama's own argument.
If Disney remakes Pinocchio, with human characters, Obama would be my choice for the starring role.
One more piece of prospective evidence Obama's inept diplomacy is unraveling? (See 6 below.)
Verba non acta - the basis of Obama's foreign policy. (See 6a below.)
===
Off to Orlando and Miami to be with family. Had time to get this off before I left.
Again, Happy Easter and Passover.
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)-CNN Money Survey: Strategists Expect Stocks to Gain 7 Percent for Rest of Year
Despite the stock market's up-and-down performance so far this year, investment strategists expect the S&P 500 index to end the year at 1,968 according to a new CNNMoney survey.
That represents a 6.7 percent increase from Monday's close of 1,845.04. Despite hitting a record high last week, the S&P 500 has dipped 0.2 percent so far this year. The index soared 29.6 percent in 2013.
Most of the 26 strategists surveyed anticipate the economy will soon rebound from its weather-induced slowdown of the first quarter. And that economic growth will spark profit growth, they say
"Companies remain well-positioned to convert modest revenue growth into solid earnings growth, just as they've done for several years," Kate Warne, a market strategist with Edward Jones, tells CNNMoney. She has a year-end forecast of 1,985 for the S&P 500.
Jack Rivkin, chief investment officer at Altergis, explains U.S. stocks will benefit as investors exit foreign markets. "When you look around the world, the U.S. looks pretty attractive," he tells CNNMoney.
The strategists see technology as the market's best performing sector and utilities as the worst.
After stocks' slide of the past few days, some investors have turned cautious. "If you take a closer look under the hood, things have been deteriorating for a while now," Ryan Detrick, senior technical strategist at Schaeffer’s Investment Research, tells Bloomberg.
"Small caps and tech have been breaking down all over the place the past month, with the big blue chips holding tough. Well, now it looks like the last place bulls were hiding is finally starting to crack."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)I know that this is tilting at windmills, but here goes a plea to GET INVOLVED by writing comments on newspaper web sites. People all have their favorite news sites. Some people like to go to the NY Times, some the WashPost, some the LATimes. These publications sometimes permit comments, and sometimes permit readers to vote up or down the comments. But the readers of these publications rarely see a dissenting point of view, whereas there are always liberal commenters at Fox News or Red State trashing conservatives.
The NY Times was particularly nasty in a technoblog post by guy named Fahred Majoor on Mozilla's ouster of its CEO. His point of view was that Mozilla represents a "community" of users and the "community" has spoken as pro-gay marriage. That is, no one who uses Mozilla supported a religious and majority position on traditional marriage? Or no one that counted?
This is an area where the NYTimes actually permits readers to go on line, register with the NY Times (you can use an avatar name) and post comments. Most of the comments posted were by conservatives who blasted this guy. But the NY Times "moderates" its comments, and (1) gets to pick which comments are posted, (2) selects certain readers as "verified commenters" who get to have their messages posted without "initial moderation", (3) lets readers vote up or down comments so that the "Reader's Picks" always reflect a liberal bias, (4) does not permit comments on certain news articles or any opinion articles, and (5) shuts down the comments if they get too conservative.
In this case, however, the outrage from the libertarians, the free speech left, and the right are so strong that the combined commenters are very close to getting to the top of the Reader's Picks with a conservative comment in defense of traditional marriage -- the top vote getter only has 37 votes, and the next highest vote-getter has 33. A 4-vote margin!
Conservatives are always asking what they can do to communicate better. Well, here's one possible answer -- if you have the time (remember, we are all working to keep the welfare checks flowing), go online and comment! And when you have done that, vote up the comments that agree with your point of view. Don't let the radical left readers of the NYT have a monopoly; show them that there are thoughtful points of view that dissent from the main stream media. It is past time that we started monitoring the outrageous lies that are being told by The New York Times and never corrected. For example, do you remember the EXHAUSTIVE cover story in the magazine on Benghazi on December 28, 2013 that "reported" the following: "Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault"? The Times has never published a correction, or an apology, and the overwhelming majority of the comments that day agreed with the NYT thesis, because (1) they are ignorant of the facts because they read only the NYT, and (2) this line affirmed what they wanted to believe -- that Obama and Hillary Clinton had NO culpability.
If you want to sit on your hands and do nothing, fine. But if we can get 5 more votes, or 10, or 20, or 100 -- to start reading these blogs, following the comments, clicking the comments you like, and commenting on the errors in the articles, maybe, just maybe, we can educate a few more people to start using their own brains and look behind the curtain.
If you agree, click on the link below and look at the comments -- and then do something. As Dennis Prager said, "America can have liberty or it can have Firefox. Right now, it cannot have both." (It's on his website.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Today’s Top Stories
Peace process discussed at U.S. Senate hearing.
Associated Press: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry lays the blame for the peace process suspension clearly on Israel during testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee . According to the article, “his words made clear that Israel’s actions have thrown the process deep into doubt.”
When asked if the Palestinians share the blame, he mentioned that “they don’t have a state yet,” as if this explains and excuses the PA’s unilateral moves.
The New York Times coverage of the hearing reports that Kerry had specifically focused on the Israeli announcement of more construction of Jewish apartments in Jerusalem . Interestingly, rather than picking up the “They don’t have a state yet” comment, the NY Times says:
The State Department insisted that Mr. Kerry did not place the blame for the crisis with either the Israelis or the Palestinians. He also criticized the Palestinian Authority for applying to join 15 international treaties and conventions, a move toward recognition of Palestinian statehood outside the peace process, which the United States staunchly opposes.
John Kerry having a tough day?
See also in the The Australian, focusing on the settlement issue as the cause for the breakdown of the peace process rather than Palestinian unilateralism. Also covered by the LA Times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4) House Panel Urges Prosecution for Ex-IRS Official
Former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner engaged in an “aggressive and improper pursuit” of Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, a nonprofit political group advised by Republican Karl Rove, according to the House Ways and Means Committee.
Lerner’s intervention should be investigated by the Justice Department as a crime because she treated Republican-leaning groups unfairly, the committee said in a letter published after a two-hour closed session today. Some of the information in the letter had been kept secret until now under taxpayer-privacy laws.
“This is so important that the public has a right to know,” Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican, told reporters after the party-line vote to send the letter. “What do we have as Americans if we don’t have our constitutional rights?”
Lerner, who retired last year, has denied wrongdoing and said she committed no crimes. Democrats dismissed the letter as political theater and said Camp could have taken his concerns directly to prosecutors without the rare step of going public.
Under section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code, groups such as Crossroads must be operated exclusively for social welfare. IRS rules say they can’t make politics their primary purpose.
Crossroads GPS, which doesn’t have to disclose its donors, pumped more secret money into the 2012 election than any other group, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based group that tracks political spending.
The nonprofit group spent about $71 million of the $180 million it raised on TV ads and other activities it was required to report to the Federal Election Commission.
It also distributed about $35 million in grants that year, according to its tax forms. The largest grant recipient was Americans for Tax Reform, whose president is Grover Norquist, the tax documents show.
Crossroads applied for nonprofit status in September 2010, telling the IRS that its involvement in politics would be “limited.” Approval or denial of that application would be public. As is allowed under the law, the group operated under 501(c)(4) while its application is pending.
The Ways and Means letter uses Lerner’s e-mails to argue that she circumvented the agency’s procedures to deny Crossroads tax-exempt status, select them for an audit and interfere in the agency’s appeals process.
According to the documents released today, the IRS was working on a letter denying Crossroads tax-exempt status when the scrutiny of Tea Party groups became public in May 2013.
“The evidence shows that without Lerner’s intervention, neither adverse action would have been taken against Crossroads,” the letter said. “The committee has found no record of Lerner pursuing similarly situated left-leaning groups, despite receiving similar public complaints.”
Crossroads GPS President Steven Law said in an e-mailed statement today that the committee “confirms that there was an organized high-level effort within the IRS to subvert the agency’s own standards and procedures in order to harass law- abiding conservative advocacy groups like Crossroads GPS.”
Lerner vaulted from obscurity as the IRS’s director of exempt organizations in May 2013 when she disclosed that the tax agency had given extra scrutiny to some Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status solely because of their names. The ensuing controversy forced leadership changes at the Internal Revenue Service, triggered congressional investigations and made Lerner the target of House Republicans’ ire.
Until today, the investigations have focused on the IRS’s treatment of smaller Tea Party groups. The agency’s inquiry into Crossroads had been kept secret under confidentiality laws.
Lerner’s attorney, William Taylor of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP in Washington, said in a statement today that “the timing of today’s vote is odd. We have not heard from the House Ways and Means Committee. Nor has the committee previously issued a report of its findings.”
Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department will decide whether to prosecute Lerner. The Justice Department had no comment today.
Pressed during a hearing yesterday by Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, Holder wouldn’t provide details about the status of the Justice Department’s IRS inquiry.
“I am not going to talk about an ongoing investigation,” he said. “You don’t understand the nature of what it is that we’re doing. You can’t, because you’re not a part of the investigation.”
Representative Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means panel, said Republicans were taking an unnecessary action for political gain.
“It now seems clear that Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee have decided that they do not want to be left behind in the Republican campaign to declare this a scandal and keep it going until November,” Levin of Michigan was prepared to say in the meeting, according to remarks distributed to reporters. “Making this committee an arm of any campaign committee does a deep disservice to the proud traditions and legacy of this committee.”
The Justice Department has already been investigating the IRS controversy. No charges have been filed.
The laws Lerner may have violated include one that prohibits false statements, another that prohibits the use of official positions to deprive people of their rights and a U.S. tax code section that limits disclosure of taxpayer information.
The letter said Lerner misled investigators about when she became aware of the scrutiny of Tea Party groups. It also cited her use of a private e-mail address to which she sent some taxpayer information. If someone other than her accessed this information, that may be a crime, the letter said.
Separately, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is scheduled to vote tomorrow on whether Lerner should be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer lawmakers’ questions.
Republican Representative Darrell Issa of California, who released a March 11 report criticizing Lerner’s actions and has held repeated hearings on the IRS controversy, is chairman of the oversight committee.
4a) Hank Aaron Equates Modern Republicans to KKK
By Joe Battaglia
Racists are still around today, only they're wearing different clothes.
That was the sentiment shared by baseball Hall of Famer Hank Aaron in an interview Tuesday, likening Republican politicians opposing measures by President Barack Obama to the Ku Klux Klan.
Speaking to USA Today on the 40th anniversary of his breaking Babe Ruth's home run record, the 80-year-old Aaron said America today is "not that far removed" from the racial intolerance of the mid-20th century.
"We can talk about baseball. Talk about politics," Aaron said. "Sure, this country has a black president, but when you look at a black president, President Obama is left with his foot stuck in the mud from all of the Republicans with the way he’s treated.
"The bigger difference is that back then they had hoods. Now they have neckties and starched shirts."
Aaron, 80, added that, "We have moved in the right direction, and there have been improvements," when it comes to race relations, "but we still have a long ways to go in the country."
Aaron was honored before the Braves game against the New York Mets on Tuesday night with a ceremony commemorating the 40th anniversary of his 715th home run, hit on April 8, 1974, off Dodgers pitcher Al Downing to give him the major league record.
That was the sentiment shared by baseball Hall of Famer Hank Aaron in an interview Tuesday, likening Republican politicians opposing measures by President Barack Obama to the Ku Klux Klan.
Speaking to USA Today on the 40th anniversary of his breaking Babe Ruth's home run record, the 80-year-old Aaron said America today is "not that far removed" from the racial intolerance of the mid-20th century.
"We can talk about baseball. Talk about politics," Aaron said. "Sure, this country has a black president, but when you look at a black president, President Obama is left with his foot stuck in the mud from all of the Republicans with the way he’s treated.
"The bigger difference is that back then they had hoods. Now they have neckties and starched shirts."
Aaron, 80, added that, "We have moved in the right direction, and there have been improvements," when it comes to race relations, "but we still have a long ways to go in the country."
Aaron was honored before the Braves game against the New York Mets on Tuesday night with a ceremony commemorating the 40th anniversary of his 715th home run, hit on April 8, 1974, off Dodgers pitcher Al Downing to give him the major league record.
Aaron recalled the record pursuit as being joyless given the state of race relations in America at the time. Along the way, he received hate mail and death threats from whites angry to see a black man about to eclipse baseball's most hallowed record. He has saved every one of the letters.
According to USA Today, one of them reads: "You are [not] going to break this record established by the great Babe Ruth if I can help it. Whites are far more superior than jungle bunnies. My gun is watching your every black move."
"I was being thrown to the wolves," Aaron told USA Today. "Even though I did something great, nobody wanted to be a part of it. I was so isolated. I couldn't share it. For many years, even after Jackie Robinson, baseball was so segregated, really. You just didn't expect us to have a chance to do anything. Baseball was meant for the lily-white."
Aaron said he saved all of the hateful letters, "to remind myself that we are not that far removed from when I was chasing the record. If you think that, you are fooling yourself."
As an example, Aaron cited the decrease in U.S.-born black baseball players as evidence of modern-day structural racism. Last season, just 7.7 percent of MLB players were black.
"When I first started playing, you had a lot of black players in the major leagues," Aaron said. "Now, you don’t have any. So what progress have we made? You try to understand, but we’re going backward."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)M---
Obama has not helped but hurt Black young people . Jeb will [probably do more to help Black young people than any other possible Republican candidate . Look at his record in Florida.
I think he will get more votes from Independents than any other potential Republican candidate.
M---
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)- Moscow and Ramallah: The new alliance
A-----If Jeb Bush runs he gets my vote and money.He will get more Spanish speaking votes than any other Republican ever got or will get in 2016.He will get more Jewish votes than his brother gotwho did better than othersHe will get even more Christian votes.He will guarantee Florida..With a good VP from Ohio he would take that state.The Israelis love the son George will Love Jeb .He will beat HillaryI believe You could add other reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)- Moscow and Ramallah: The new alliance
Last week, the Palestinian Authority halted (until further notice) the talks with Israel and the United States. That is the proper definition for the decisions made by the Palestinian political echelon, which led to a deadlock in the negotiations.
The Netanyahu government did play for time and stutter in response to the initiatives of American Secretary of State John Kerry, but (most of the government) did not want to stop talking – if only because talking prevents another intifada-style popular outburst. And also because the Americans asked us to, both nicely and not nicely.
The hidden Israeli assumption was that the Palestinian political leadership would not dare disobey the US either; that it was only flexing its muscles; that it would be willing to walk on the edge without crossing it. From Jerusalem, a Palestinian cost-benefit calculation appeared relatively simple: A continuation of US aid and backing if the talks go on, or economic damage and diplomatic isolation if they are halted.
This led to the conclusion that the Palestinians were pursuing a new deal in order to “improve their position.” In contrast to his usual method, Netanyahu did not reject the possibility of such a three-way deal out of hand. He even made practical suggestions for its formation.
This led to the conclusion that the Palestinians were pursuing a new deal in order to “improve their position.” In contrast to his usual method, Netanyahu did not reject the possibility of such a three-way deal out of hand. He even made practical suggestions for its formation.
But at the decisive moment, the Palestinians more or less spat in America's face. Have they gone mad? Have they lost their mind? Don't they understand that, in today's dismantled Arab world, they have no real friend to lean on? Not to mention the fact that they have no significant supporters beyond the Middle Eastern region.
But perhaps they do: Take a look in Russia's direction. Unexpected things are happening there. Russia has concentrated a large military force along its border with Ukraine and is capable, according to NATO leaders' estimates, of invading the country within half a day's order. President Vladimir Putin appears to be looking for the right excuse to do that: The Kremlin is waging an internal and external false campaign unlike anything seen for at least 30 years. The campaign aims to prove that the current Ukraine government is fascist, pro-Western and is persecuting the Russian minority members to the point of putting their life in danger.
On the other side, the government in Kiev is releasing documents which it says prove that the Russian secret services were involved in commanding the crowd dispersal unit whose officers fired on protestors at Maidan Square, killing dozens of people. The conflict is growing and could deteriorate into violence at any moment.
Change in balance of power
Change in balance of power
Under these circumstances, it's only natural that the Kremlin is interested in expanding its (very limited) global circle of friends, and that the Palestinians are interested in an alternative patronage, in a strong, reliable friend with deep pockets. The Russian-Palestinian strategic alliance appears, therefore, to be a self-evident political and diplomatic move, which serves both sides very well.
From a Russian strategic point of view, the Palestinian Authority is perceived as an ideal bridgehead to the Arab world and as a fighter against the radical and fanatic Islam, which Russia sees as an enemy too. Some of the PLO's leaders studied in Soviet universities, understand Russian and share Putin's opinion that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was “the greatest political disaster of the 20th century.”
From a Palestinian point of view, Russia's credibility as a world power which does not abandon its protégés has been clearly proven in its attitude towards the Assad regime in Syria. Ramallah officials are certain that Russia can, within hours, approve emergency economic aid at a volume which the US is incapable of approving under any circumstances. Russia's representative at the UN will vote in favor of upgrading Palestine in the organization, while the US representative will object. The “Duma” (Russian assembly) in Moscow sympathizes with them, while the Congress in Washington is hostile towards them.
This is, therefore, an exemplary meeting of interests. Implementing it will change the balance of power in our region. Today, Secretary of State Kerry can threaten the Palestinians (and Israel) by warning that America will wash its hands off the attempt and effort to bring about a solution to the conflict. Tomorrow, the Palestinians will be the ones to threaten Kerry (and Israel) by inviting Russia to the negotiating table as a partner and mediator.
This is, therefore, an exemplary meeting of interests. Implementing it will change the balance of power in our region. Today, Secretary of State Kerry can threaten the Palestinians (and Israel) by warning that America will wash its hands off the attempt and effort to bring about a solution to the conflict. Tomorrow, the Palestinians will be the ones to threaten Kerry (and Israel) by inviting Russia to the negotiating table as a partner and mediator.
Who knows, perhaps Russia will be a better mediator after all.
There was recently a remarkable article in the New York Times, based on an interview with the National Security Adviser, Susan Rice. In it, she described what the Times called the “new, modest U.S. policy in the Middle East.” Susan Rice said we have three goals in the Middle East:
- Negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program.
- Negotiations with Syria over its chemical weapons program and over the war taking place in Syria.
- Negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians over Middle East peace.
What is striking is that it really is the foreign policy of Belgium: negotiations, negotiations, negotiations.
The foreign policy of the United States is, apparently, now to be centered in the United Nations, Brussels and Geneva, where we have talks about Syria with the Russians and talks about Iran with Iran's representatives.
What is missing in this formulation? In one word: power.
The president seems to regard power and the use of power pretty much the way he regards, for example, sexism — as if this is a problem we had in the past; in past decades we had to deal with this phenomenon, but we have overcome it. As if this is the great thing about the United States: that we have gotten beyond an old‑fashioned concept such as the use of power.
Once upon a time we would have said that the center of American policy in the Middle East is actually not Geneva or Brussels or the United Nations, it is the Fifth Fleet in the Gulf and the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Once upon a time, the rules for the Middle East were actually enforced by the United States.
I find when I talk to Arabs and Israelis nowadays, they are both saying the same thing: “What is the matter with you people? Don't you understand we have counted on you since the Second World War; you have essentially kept the peace here, you have been, as the British would say, 'the top country' in the Middle East since the Second World War, or at least since the British withdrew from Aden. You are going to walk away from that and you think your interests are going to be protected here?”
Who said that? We can go down a long list of people. Was it the King of Jordan, was it Prince Saud of Saudi Arabia? Was it Binyamin Netanyahu? Was it the Emirates, was it the Lebanese Christians, was it the Moroccans?
The answer is: all of the above because, in private, they are saying the same thing. This is the only thing President Obama has actually achieved in the Middle East: He has brought the Israelis and the Gulf Arabs together.
In the world, and the international political system, we — and certainly they in the Middle East — are faced with the Hobbesian situation of a “war of all against all” except for one thing — the United States. It used to be that the United States was what prevented that situation from exploding in ways that hurt both all of them and the West as well.
Saddam Hussein, for example, invaded Kuwait; it was the United States that said, No, we are not having countries swallowing each other up. So we reversed that attempt by sending 500,000 troops — parenthetically a feat that we could no longer achieve because of the downsizing in the military — but we enforced that rule.
When the Iranians started building a nuclear weapons program, it was the United States that said — three presidents have said — “You are not permitted to do that.” There was at least someone saying, “No, this is not a Hobbesian 'war of all against all': there are certain rules here that everyone will live by, and we, the United States, will enforce them.”
This started a long time ago — certainly after World War II, when the U.S. effected these rules against the Soviet Union. Obviously that is not the way the current U.S. Administration views the Middle East or its role there.
Is this approach more the result of incompetence on the part of the administration, or ideology? Go back to the president's first important speech about this: remember he went to Berlin as a candidate in 2008, and practically every German seems to have gone to applaud that speech. They may not be so keen on him nowadays, but that is a different question.
Campaigning for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama made a major foreign policy speech in Berlin, in which he stated: “We are all citizens of Berlin”. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Matthias Winkelmann)
The president said in that speech — he was talking about Iraq — “We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on a flawed ideology. This is the conventional thinking that has turned against the war but not against the habits that got us into the war in the first place.”
It is not enough to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan; you have to break those habits. What are the habits that have to be broken? This is the man who learned foreign policy from Rashid Khalidi and William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. The habits, as the Administration might see them, are “militarism,” “aggression,” “Cold War thinking” and an alleged effort to dominate the world, “Imperialism” — or what many others might call patriotism.
In 2008 the president made one of the most amazing statements that perhaps any president has ever made: “Tonight I speak to you not as a candidate for president.” This was the 2008 Berlin speech. “But as a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.” Later in the speech he said, “We are all citizens of Berlin.”
That is not what President Kennedy said. On June 26, 1963, President Kennedy said, “Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is, 'Ich bin ein Berliner.'” He did not say, “I am a Berliner.” Fast forward to President Barack Obama: he is saying we are all Berliners.
Matt Continetti, of the Washington Free Beacon, wrote “If we are all citizens, then the concept of citizenship has no meaning. The concept of citizenship which implies rootedness, partiality, particularity has no meaning. If we are citizens of everywhere, we are also citizens of nowhere.”
You hear this from the president over and over again. “Global citizen;” “new era of engagement.” He used that line in about 10 different speeches starting with his first State of the Union “reset.”
In the Administration's analysis of the world situation, there seems to be a great problem that needs to be solved; and the problem is the United States. It needs to break and overcome these old habits. Some of you might think instead that we have a great problem with Islamic extremism. That is not the president's view. The president made this really quite remarkable statement in his Cairo speech: “I consider it as part of my responsibility as president of the United States is to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
Think about that. It's really quite astonishing. I would say that if a president made that comment about Judaism or Christianity most of us would say, “That's really quite bizarre. It is actually not his job.”
To pick out and isolate Islam as the one religion, criticisms of which he has the responsibility to correct, is actually amazing.
You look at the Administration's policy: what is the goal here? What is he trying to achieve? It is certainly not a human rights policy; he seems remarkably indifferent to human rights everywhere.
Start with June 2009 in Iran: completely indifferent to the uprising that could conceivably have overthrown the Ayatollahs. Maybe it could not, but we shall never know. Or China: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's first trip there. When she was asked, “Why don't you say more about human rights?” she said, “We know what they'll say in response.” So much for human rights in China, for human rights in Russia.
I'll refer back to the Soviets for a second because when George Shultz was negotiating with the Soviets, he said that in every meeting he brought up the names of Orlov, Sahkarov, and Sharansky. We saw what Jackson‑Vanik did. Standing up to tyranny succeeded in enabling people leave the Soviet Union.
Secretary of State Schultz always used to say that one of the ways to do it is very simple. When you are meeting with the Soviets, he used to say, you start the meeting with human rights because if you have a two hour meeting and time is up and then you say, “Oh, wait a minute. I have one more thing I need to add” while everybody is walking out the door, it is obvious to them that that is the lowest priority item to you. So do not do that.
One of the things that have changed in this administration is that people who are fighting for democracy in places such as Turkey, Russia or China, do not feel that they have any moral or political support coming from Washington, in a way that they have over the years.
They are just not interested. On the humanitarian side, also not interested. When the president visited Africa, there were a fairly good number of articles in the newspapers talking about how disappointed Africans were. After all, they had gotten a lot of attention from President Bush. Now they had an African American president. Surely the amount of attention would be doubled, tripled. Instead, of course, it had largely disappeared.
The key job for humanitarian activities in Africa is the Africa desk at USAID, the Assistant Administrator for Africa. It has been vacant for over a year and a half. The president did not even bother to fill the job.
What is he interested in doing? Military strength? Clearly not.
Go back to the days when the president came to office and said we were going to create a great economic recovery plan. Remember the term “shovel ready”? We were looking for shovel ready projects. Actually, there were lots of shovel ready projects available in the military: after years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was much work to be done replacing, for example, tanks and half-tracks and artillery that had been worn out.
But none of the funds available went to that kind of military project; apparently he did not want to have anything to do with it. In Libya, the British and the French led. The U.S. was dragged into the conflict, and after two weeks it walked away. In Mali, the French led. They went in alone, with the hope that others would follow.
They asked for one thing from the United States: tankers. That was the item they lacked to be able to refuel jets flying from French bases in Senegal. The American reaction was to say that we could, but where do we send the bill. After enough protest, the policy was changed, but it has been like that, or worse.
Take Syria, where the president sent his Secretary of State out to give what could be called “war speeches.”
If you go back and look at those speeches Kerry gave in that week, they were terrific, heart‑wrenching speeches about the children being slaughtered in Syria by the use of chemical weapons. Great stuff to get the American people ready for military action that weekend. Until Friday came and the president changed his mind.
It is striking, by the way, that while among them, Vice President Biden, Secretary Hagel, and Secretary Kerry have about 80 years in the U.S. Senate, when President Obama decided to send the issue of Syria to the Senate and House for a vote, he did not even consult with any of those three people, Biden, Hagel, Kerry.
I am not arguing that he should have consulted them because they would be founts of wisdom, but I did not appoint them. He appointed Hagel and Kerry. He chose Biden. It is a sign of the immense disrespect in which he holds all three of them that he makes this decision without even consulting them — or actually consulting anyone outside of his own White House staff.
I have been told that New York's Senator, Chuck Schumer, who is, after all, the whip, was given about an hour's notice that this would be announced and it would be on TV — essentially the same notice that CNN got.
What is the purpose here? The purpose seems to be to limit American power. That is why I call it an ideological policy. It is really the product of the president's view that American power is a danger to the world and that his job as president is to restrain it, restrict it and diminish it — and that then the United States and everybody else in the world will be significantly better off.
It is a William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi view; you could also call it a Jimmy Carter view. To be fair to President Jimmy Carter: Carter, first of all, admitted error after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Remember that statement he made that he had learned more about the Soviet Union in the past week then he had all the previous years of his life? He may not have meant it, but he said it.
To be fair, there was a reversal with respect to American military power, and in the final year of the Carter administration there began to be a reinvestment in American military power. Actually, the American military build‑up did not begin in 1981 with Reagan. It began, in an admittedly smaller way, in 1980.
The Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon or an Israeli attack on Iran to prevent the acquisition of a nuclear weapon might be the equivalent. Certainly if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, it is a very big deal, and not only for all the obvious reasons about security — because the president has made about 20 speeches saying, “I will prevent….” He has not always used passive voice. He has said, “We will, I will prevent….”
That turns out to be nonsense. It has a huge impact on the United States and I think Americans hate Iran. When you have these polls saying, “What countries do you like best? What countries do you hate?” Iran is always way up there. People remember.
We see nothing like that with this president, who does not appear to believe he has made any errors because, from his point of view, he has not, if the purpose is to diminish American power in the world and the temptation to use that power. From that point of view, the president is experiencing great success.
Is this foreign policy reversible? My answer is yes for a number of reasons.
One of them is, because we do have friends and allies around the world who are anxious to join us; perhaps it will take a few years before they are able to help restore America to a greater influence. Every country in the periphery of China including the Communist countries, Vietnam, Laos, wants to join in that effort. Every country in the Middle East except, of course, Syria and Iran, wants to join in that effort.
I think that in world politics, as on Wall Street, there is such a thing as discounting. That is, people think about the future, and what they think will happen in the future begins to affect their conduct right away. The example is the move President Ronald Reagan made in foreign policy that most affected America's enemies and allies early in his term — and let the Russians know as well as our friends, “Whoa, this will be different.”
That act was firing the air traffic controllers. That was the moment when I think for many Americans but also for many people around the world people it was clear “He means what he says. He said he would do something here that everybody said he could not do, and he did it.”
That act came early. It had no real world effect on foreign affairs. It was purely domestic, but it had an impact. If we had a new president who, right from the start, made it clear that the current days were over you, would not need to have five wars to prove to people the days were over.
People would begin to adjust to the return of the United States to a position in which U.S. foreign policy was distinguishable from that of Belgium. Choosing Belgium may be a bit unfair to the Belgians. Occasionally there will be a Belgian in the audience that will come up and say, “Why are you picking on us?”
But there is more to be said about Syria. There is a lot more to be said about the administration's policy with respect to Israel and the Palestinians and those negotiations. To him Israel seems to be a problem. It is not viewed as a great ally, a great asset, and a military asset. It is just a problem — perhaps an example of the victory of ideology over what you see with your own eyes.
At the moment, Israel's relations with the Arabs are as good as they have ever been. The relations with the Egyptian army are terrific. Relations with the Moroccans are terrific. Relations with the Gulf Sunni Arabs are better than ever because they have a common enemy, Iran.
The notion that Israel is, in fact, a problem, is probably less true than it has ever been. The importance of Israel, for example, just to take one example, as a bulwark protecting the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which is important for their security, but also for our position in the Middle East, seems unappreciated. Israel's potential role with respect to Iran is viewed as a danger, rather than as a potential asset.
At the White House the U.S. Administration still says “All options are on the table, and don't underestimate the president.”
The only thing I can reply is, “I travel in the Middle East a fair amount, and talk to Arabs as well as Israelis. I think it's fair to say that from Morocco to Iran, there is not one single person who believes that.” I don't think he has any real allies abroad. If you asked that question a year ago the White House used to say, “Erdogan.” They don't say, “Erdogan” any more.
There are so many intractable problems and no intimation that Hamas is prepared to move on any of those. What do Kerry and his friends really see that gives them any optimism in this area? I think the only variable in his view is “me”. “I'm John Kerry. I can do this,” which is ludicrous.
And there is a lot more to be said about Iran. What is clear is that they are revving up. They are moving from the first generation to second generation centrifuges, which are much more efficient and productive. They are moving more materiel underground. They are attempting the plutonium route as well as the uranium route. And presumably they are working on a warhead. Of course, they can have a bomb without making the announcement and they can make the announcement without having a bomb.
Reagan came on the scene and with peace through strength — three words, clarified and explained to Americans what American foreign policy stands for.
Elliott Abrams is American diplomat, lawyer and political scientist, who has served in several presidential administrations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment