And then there is Iran! (See 1a below.)
===
Krauthammer in his "Things That Matter" lays out what Obama was and would be doing and did so early on (Irving Kristol Lecture Series to The American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C, Feb. 10, 2004.)
In essence, Obama told us he wanted to Change America, to Transform America.
Why? Because his view of America was that we were too powerful, intrusive and needed to be downsized to atone for our immorality.
To accomplish this, Obama set about to do several things. First, he had to keep us dependent on energy not only to satisfy the Greens but to weaken the dollar and continue to impact consumer income which would keep the economic recovery subdued.
Second, Obama had to create internal discord between the races and citizenry to increase the attitude toward victim-hood as well as increase dependency. This allowed him to run huge deficits so he could gut military spending.
None of this was ever spelled out in so many words by Obama but follow the trail of his actions which reveals the pattern of Krauthammer's definition of how Far Left Democrats view foreign policy and their embrace of internationalism.
Democrats believe Bush' desire to spread freedom was mere hubris because we were not a nation that had the moral right to do so. Obama set out, in his early speeches, to lay the groundwork for why America was not morally superior. Once he was able to convince the world that America was flawed our influence and trust was threatened and his subsequent actions helped speed the process..
So here we are today, unloved, not respected not feared and weakened. Obama even is willing to unilaterally reduce our nuclear forces in the face of Russian moves in The Crimea and Ukraine.
Our naval fleet had been reduced to WW 2 numbers and yet Obama professes he wants to shift more of our fleet to the Pacific to protect our allies and check Chinese and North Korean aspirations.
Look at his bluffs vis a vis Syria and Iran. He embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and has literally thrown Egypt into the Arms of Russia which is also gaining a bigger foot print in The Middle East as a result of its political support and supplying of military equipment to Iran and Syria while he threw away an opportunity to build upon the gains we achieved at the end of the Iraq War, which we had finally won, albeit at great cost in lives and money
Obama is also doing the same thing in Afghanistan, reducing our forces and commitment.
Finally, Obama has gone overboard in pressing concessions from Israel and ignored the Palestinian's failure to respond in kind.
According to Hank Aaron, all this is the talk of those whose brethren are related to the KKK. I seriously doubt Charles Krauthammer is such nor do I consider myself in their camp either. We are simply matching Obama's pronouncements with his actions and the connection is there to see for anyone without cataracts.
In his final words on foreign policy, Krauthammer lays out what America's should do and follows with a chapter on "Decline is a Choice" and points out why we are in decline but need not be if we so choose. This republished speech was written and given in 2009.
Interesting must read for those who care about what, in a realistic manner, is happening to America, its social fabric and standing in the world.
Sock it to 'em. (See 2 below.)
When times are tough, sanctimonious liberals slash, burn and smear their opponents. They cannot respond to accusations of Obama's lurch to the Far Left, his disastrous policies , foreign incompetence overboard spending so, with the help of Harry Reid, they have found a worthy 'pinata.' This time it is the Koch Brothers.
Previous victims were GW, Palin, Romney, Gingrich and a host of others who disagree with them. Attack the messenger when he delivers a message you do not like. but cannot refute
My LTE's to the local paper constantly draw arrows but seldom do I get a rational rebuttal..
As I frequently maintain, far too many liberals are humorless and really need to get a life. (See 2a below.)
===
I have begun taking them and they work!
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Israel Has Few Options With Palestinians
By Jonathan S. Tobin
The Palestinian Authority has thumbed its nose at both Israel and the peace talks sponsored by Secretary of State John Kerry. By making it clear that it won’t back a U.S. framework for continued negotiations or to agree to any of the mainly symbolic measures that would indicate they are willing to end the conflict with Israel, it’s clear PA leader Mahmoud Abbas seized on the first flimsy pretext for walking out on the talks that came along. The fact that he has been rewarded for this intransigence with a mendacious statement from Kerry to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that turned the truth on its head and placed the blame for the collapse of his initiative on Israel will only make it even less likely that Abbas will be more amenable in the future. That leaves both the U.S. and the parties with the dilemma of what to do next.
Abbas is happily returning to the Palestinians’ pointless campaign for more recognition from the United Nations and its constituent organizations. That won’t do a thing for the Palestinian people either in terms of their desire for independence or their crying need for a better government both in the Fatah-run West Bank and in Hamas-ruled Gaza.
Kerry is pondering how to find an excuse for a continuation of his fool’s errand in the Middle East. Common sense as well as the interests of the Obama administration would indicate that putting the entire enterprise on hold is both the better part of valor and an opportunity to devote his department to more important foreign policy problems.
But it is Israel that is in the most delicate position of the three parts to this love/hate triangle. They would like to put pressure on the Palestinians to get back to the table and to do something to make it clear to Kerry that he won’t get away with scapegoating the Jewish state. But options for doing either of those things are neither palatable nor in the country’s best interests.
Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government are rightly outraged by Kerry’s offhand swipe at them yesterday when he claimed that the announcement of a housing project in a 40-year-old Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem was the reason the talks collapsed. Not only did that have nothing to do with the Palestinian decision to bug out of the process, it was also false to claim that Israel had ever promised not to build in its capital, let alone in established areas that no one questions would stay in the Jewish state even in the event of a peace treaty. But there is little the Israelis can do to make their displeasure with the Americans felt that would not harm an alliance that is essential to its security. While Netanyahu has proved in the past that attacks on his policy of defending the unity of the capital only serve to strengthen him, venting anger at Kerry won’t accomplish anything. As with past insults delivered by President Obama, Netanyahu knows all too well that keeping his powder dry is the best, indeed, only option.
But Israel does have substantial leverage over the Palestinians. The PA depends on Israel for all sorts of revenue as well as on cooperation to keep their ramshackle government and the shoddy services it provides its people from collapse. Even more important, cooperation between the Israeli military and intelligence apparatus does more than deter terrorism against the Jewish state. It also ensures the personal survival of Abbas and his Fatah faction against potential trouble from Hamas and Islamic Jihad. If Israel really pulled the plug on the PA — rather than just taking symbolic steps such as Netanyahu’s order to end meetings between Israeli officials and their Palestinian counterparts, the Fatah apparatus would collapse.
While that sounds good to Israelis who dream of formal annexation of the West Bank in a one state solution that would exclude any Palestinian self-government, that is the last thing Netanyahu wants. The PA foments terrorism and incites hatred of Jews and Israel in its official media. People who have made it clear they won’t make peace with Israel under virtually any circumstances — as Abbas proved in 2008 when he fled talks with Ehud Olmert rather than accept independence — run it. But at this point it is also a necessary evil that Netanyahu understands that he must tolerate.
Without the PA, the task of maintaining Israel’s security would be even tougher. Nor is anyone in Jerusalem seriously interested in returning to the pre-Oslo status quo where the Israelis directly administered the West Bank. Netanyahu can make his displeasure with the PA felt for its UN gambit. But there are limits to how far he can go in punishing them that have nothing to do with American pressure.
Netanyahu would be foolish to go on releasing terrorist murderers to bribe Abbas to come back to the negotiations. Nor should he be asked to make any other unilateral concessions merely for the sake of talks that Abbas does not wish to advance no matter what he was offered. But this is perhaps the moment for him to return to a theme he has sounded in the past about helping make the West Bank more livable via economic development. Now that he has rid himself of the reform-minded Salam Fayyad as his prime minister, Abbas no longer has to pretend he cares much about good government. But it is on this point that he is most vulnerable. Managing the conflict rather than solving it remains the only short-term solution to either side. If Kerry wanted to do something constructive rather than promote a process that is fueled more by his ego than any reasonable prospects of success, that’s what he’d be emphasizing. But in the absence of such a change of heart, Israel has little choice but to sit tight and await the next move by both Kerry and Abbas.
Jonathan S. Tobin is senior online editor of COMMENTARY magazine and chief political blogger atwww.commentarymagazine.com.
1a) Excerpt from the ISRAEL PROJECT DAILY TIP
Iranian Supreme Leader bans negotiators from making concessions on Iranian "nuclear achievements"
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday ruled out concessions on what he described as Iran's "nuclear achievements," the latest in a line of repeated and explicit statements from top Iranian officials ruling out moves that Western analysts and the Obama administration consider minimal conditions necessary to verifiably put the Islamic republic's atomic program beyond use for weaponization. A post to Khamenei's Twitter account stated that "nuclear achievements are not going to stop [and] no one has the right to trade them and no one will do so," a stance echoed by remarks published on the Supreme Leader's official website declaring that "talks should continue" but that "everyone should know that Iran's activities in nuclear research and development, as well as its nuclear achievements, will never be stopped." Top U.S. nuclear experts, including prominent supporters of the Obama administration's diplomacy to Iran, have calculated that any robust deal with Iran must at a minimum include significant rollbacks of Iran's existing nuclear infrastructure. Khamenei is vested with ultimate authority over Iran's foreign policy and its diplomatic posture regarding nuclear negotiations, and observers have worried since the signing of the interim Joint Plan of Action (JPA) that expressions of intransigence by the Supreme Leader were aimed at providing pretexts for pocketing Western concessions and eventually abandoning comprehensive talks. Meanwhile talks between the P5+1 global powers and Iran, directed toward inking a final agreement by July 20, have resumed talks in Vienna. Assessments regarding the probable success of the negotiations varied by outlet and headline. Reuters emphasized a U.S. statement expressing doubts as to whether "gaps" between the parties could be bridged, Agence France-Presse (AFP) headlined its story with "Iran says 'narrowing some differences' in nuclear talks," and Iran's Fars news outlet was most optimistic with "FM: Iran, World Powers to Start Drafting Final Deal Soon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Inside the White House’s Secret Campaign to Scapegoat Israel
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry / AP
BY: Adam Kredo
The Obama administration has been waging a secret media war in capitals across two continents blaming Israel for the recent collapse of peace talks with the Palestinians, according to former Israeli diplomats and Washington, D.C. insiders familiar with the peace process.
Multiple sources told the Washington Free Beacon that top Obama administration officials have worked for the past several days to manufacture a crisis over the reissuing of housing permits in a Jerusalem neighborhood widely acknowledged as Israeli territory.
Senior State Department officials based in Israel have sought to lay the groundwork for Israel to take the blame for talks collapsing by peddling a narrative to the Israeli press claiming that the Palestinians were outraged over Israeli settlements, the Free Beacon has learned.
These administration officials have planted several stories in Israeli and U.S. newspapers blaming Israel for the collapse of peace talks and have additionally provided reporters with anonymous quotes slamming the Israeli government.
The primary source of these multiple reports has been identified as Middle East envoyMartin Indyk and his staff, according to these insiders, who said that the secret media campaign against Israel paved the way for Secretary of State John Kerry to go before Congress on Tuesday and publicly blame Israel for tanking the talks.
“The Palestinians didn’t even know they were supposed to be abandoning negotiations because of these housing permits, which are actually old, reissued permits for areas everyone assumes will end up on the Israelis’ side of the border anyway,” said one senior official at a U.S. based pro-Israel organization who asked to remain anonymous because the Obama administration has in the past retaliated against critics from inside the pro-Israel world.
“Then Martin Indyk started telling anyone who would listen that in fact the Palestinians were angry over the housing issue,” the source said. “Eventually, the Palestinians figured out it was in their interest to echo what the Americans were saying.”
Indyk, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration, as well as in several other roles, was appointed by Obama to act as the U.S. special envoy for peace negotiations.
One former Israeli diplomat familiar with Indyk’s tactics said that he is a crass political player who has a history of planting negative stories about Israel in order to undermine the Netanyahu government and bolster his hand in the talks.
“I’ve seen this before and see his fingerprints,” said the source, who referenced a separate story two weeks ago in which U.S. government sources implied that newly installed Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer was not performing his job effectively.
“It’s certainly in Indyk’s interest now [to undermine the Israelis], but this was a game he also used to play when he was ambassador twice,” said the former diplomat. “This is part of Indyk’s playbook.”
“There was only one person who would do this kind of thing and it’s Martin Indyk and his staff,” the former diplomat added.
Another Washington-based source familiar with the talks said that Kerry’s peace team has a track record of trashing Israel anonymously.
“It’s one of the worst-kept secrets in Jerusalem that Kerry’s team leaks anti-Netanyahu quotes and claims to the Israeli press—not that is should be a mystery why Israeli reporters based in Israel keep producing anti-Bibi quotes from ‘American officials,’” the source said.
“But just imagine the outrage if the roles were reversed and Bibi had a team on the ground in D.C. trashing Obama to the Washington Post on background,” the source said.
The Indyk-led campaign to turn the old Israeli housing permits into the main obstacle to peace began more than a week ago, when signs emerged that the Palestinians were poised to pull out of the peace talks.
“When talks fell apart and the State Department needed a scapegoat, of course they chose Israel, except they picked the dumbest explanation imaginable,” said the source who serves as a senior official at a pro-Israel organization.
The Obama administration seized on an announcement by the Israelis that 700 apartments would be built in Gilo, a Jerusalem suburb widely recognized as Israeli territory.
The housing news was actually a reissue of an earlier pronouncement permitting these new apartments to be built, meaning that the substance of the decree had not changed for months and had not been a roadblock to the peace talks.
It is not the first time that the Obama administration has expressed outrage over construction in Gilo.
Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg dismissed the notion in late 2009.
“The building of apartments in Gilo is irrelevant to eventual disposition of Jerusalem because everyone—the Americans, the Palestinians, and the Israelis—knows that Gilo, the suburb that is the latest source of tension between Washington and Jerusalem, will undoubtedly end up in Israel as part of a negotiated solution (not that that’s ever happening, by the way),” Goldberg wrote. “It doesn’t matter, then, if the Israelis build 900 housing units in Gilo or 900 skyscrapers: Gilo will be kept by Israel.”
The New York Times on Tuesday noted in a report of the talks that the issue of Gilo had “seemed a much less provocative issue,” even for the Palestinians.
Morris Amitay, a former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), said that it is ridiculous to claim that Gilo housing units killed the talks, which had been faltering for weeks under demands from the Palestinians that Israel release more terrorists from prison.
“To say that’s what ruined the peace process shows a complete lack of understanding on how long they’ve [the Israelis, Palestinians, and the Americans] been peace processing,” Amitay said.
Indyk’s bid to pin the blame of the Israelis may have paid off.
Reports emerged on Wednesday that Indyk had “raced to Jerusalem” to lead a bid aimed at salvaging the peace process.
When asked about the news, Amitay said, “the fact Kerry is leaving it up to him [Indyk] is a sign they’ve had to give up.”
2a) Upcoming Book to Target Koch Brothers' 'Dynasty'
Conservatives are bracing for what they fear may be another liberal media onslaught against philanthropists Charles and David Koch: The approaching publication of a new book that purports to tell how they "devised an ambitious, decades-long strategy to catapult their Libertarian-tinged ideology upon the nation…."
Written by Mother Jones Senior Editor Daniel Schulman, the book is due out in May and will arrive in the midst of an ongoing and active campaign by congressional Democrats to paint the Koch Brothers into a symbol of undue political interference by Republican moneyed interests.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently took to the Senate floor denouncing the two billionaires as "un-American" for donating and supporting organizations that back conservative policies and opposing Democrats in key Senate seats up for grabs this election year.
The new book to be released next month by Grand Central Publishing, a member of the Hachette book group, is titled "Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America’s Most Powerful and Private Dynasty."
Schulman comes from the world of Mother Jones and supporters of the Kochs expect it will reflect the sensibilities of the publication — which states on its web site, "We're not insulted by being called left, liberal, progressive, whatever."
Promotional material issued by the publisher seeks to position it as a mainstream work of biography, comparing it to British historian Niall Ferguson's "The House of Rothschild" trilogy. The publisher calls Sons of Wichita "a complete look into a wealthy and powerful family — warts and all."
That the book will put plenty of warts on display is reflected in its detailed account of an inter-family dispute that involved David and Charles Koch on the one hand, and their brothers Frederick and Bill on the other.
The publisher's promotional material describes that relationship as a "bitter, bare-knuckled legal battle that spanned nearly two decades."
Dan Gainor, the vice president of business and culture at the conservative Media Research Center watchdog, tells Newsmax that Mother Jones has "a huge anti-conservative agenda."
Gainor suggests that the book will be part of the larger Democratic effort to make the Kochs the symbol of Republican money sources.
"Their goal is to demonize all outside money — except their own," he said, referring to the significant controversial donors on their side of the aisle.
Gainor points to the huge political contributions Democrats have raked in from investor George Soros and big labor.
"The left's jihad against the Kochs is one of the most disgusting bouts of lies and disinformation I've seen in a long time," says Gainor. "Liberals have decided their route to winning Congress and the White House goes right through people who exemplify hard work and charitable giving."
Contacted by Newsmax Tuesday, Schulman stated by email that at the publisher's request he would be unable to do interviews about "Sons of Wichita" until closer to its May 20 release date.
Publishing sources in New York tell Newsmax that the book has been shrouded in secrecy and its publishing house has kept a tight lid on any pre-publicity relating to it. A recent LibraryJournal.com review stated the book aims for "a rounded biography" of the Kochs.
In addition to his role as senior editor of Mother Jones' Washington bureau, Schulman has written for the Boston Globe magazine, the Village Voice, and the Columbia Journalism Review.
In February, he co-authored a piece posted on MotherJones.com regarding a document left behind after a donor gathering at the Renaissance Esmeralda resort near Palm Springs, Calif. The article called the document "a fascinating glimpse into the Kochs' political machine."
Several tweets by Schulman also make reference to the Kochs. A March 13 tweet stated Reid "is back on the Koch Bros. warpath," describing the Nevada senator's rhetoric as a "dicey strategy."
The tweet linked to a post on Reid's website headlined: "Reid Remarks on the Koch Brothers' Attempt to Buy America's Democracy."
In that post, Reid alleges that the Koch brothers have exploited Americans suffering from cancer and have tried to rig the political process.
A publishing source in New York tells Newsmax that information about the book has been very tightly controlled by the publisher for reasons that remain unknown.
Says MRC's Gainor: "Through a collection of crazy liberal websites and Capitol Hill allegations, the left is demonizing success and trying to scare away anyone who dares challenge them."
2a) Upcoming Book to Target Koch Brothers' 'Dynasty'
Conservatives are bracing for what they fear may be another liberal media onslaught against philanthropists Charles and David Koch: The approaching publication of a new book that purports to tell how they "devised an ambitious, decades-long strategy to catapult their Libertarian-tinged ideology upon the nation…."
Written by Mother Jones Senior Editor Daniel Schulman, the book is due out in May and will arrive in the midst of an ongoing and active campaign by congressional Democrats to paint the Koch Brothers into a symbol of undue political interference by Republican moneyed interests.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently took to the Senate floor denouncing the two billionaires as "un-American" for donating and supporting organizations that back conservative policies and opposing Democrats in key Senate seats up for grabs this election year.
The new book to be released next month by Grand Central Publishing, a member of the Hachette book group, is titled "Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America’s Most Powerful and Private Dynasty."
Schulman comes from the world of Mother Jones and supporters of the Kochs expect it will reflect the sensibilities of the publication — which states on its web site, "We're not insulted by being called left, liberal, progressive, whatever."
Promotional material issued by the publisher seeks to position it as a mainstream work of biography, comparing it to British historian Niall Ferguson's "The House of Rothschild" trilogy. The publisher calls Sons of Wichita "a complete look into a wealthy and powerful family — warts and all."
That the book will put plenty of warts on display is reflected in its detailed account of an inter-family dispute that involved David and Charles Koch on the one hand, and their brothers Frederick and Bill on the other.
The publisher's promotional material describes that relationship as a "bitter, bare-knuckled legal battle that spanned nearly two decades."
Dan Gainor, the vice president of business and culture at the conservative Media Research Center watchdog, tells Newsmax that Mother Jones has "a huge anti-conservative agenda."
Gainor suggests that the book will be part of the larger Democratic effort to make the Kochs the symbol of Republican money sources.
"Their goal is to demonize all outside money — except their own," he said, referring to the significant controversial donors on their side of the aisle.
Gainor points to the huge political contributions Democrats have raked in from investor George Soros and big labor.
"The left's jihad against the Kochs is one of the most disgusting bouts of lies and disinformation I've seen in a long time," says Gainor. "Liberals have decided their route to winning Congress and the White House goes right through people who exemplify hard work and charitable giving."
Contacted by Newsmax Tuesday, Schulman stated by email that at the publisher's request he would be unable to do interviews about "Sons of Wichita" until closer to its May 20 release date.
Publishing sources in New York tell Newsmax that the book has been shrouded in secrecy and its publishing house has kept a tight lid on any pre-publicity relating to it. A recent LibraryJournal.com review stated the book aims for "a rounded biography" of the Kochs.
In addition to his role as senior editor of Mother Jones' Washington bureau, Schulman has written for the Boston Globe magazine, the Village Voice, and the Columbia Journalism Review.
In February, he co-authored a piece posted on MotherJones.com regarding a document left behind after a donor gathering at the Renaissance Esmeralda resort near Palm Springs, Calif. The article called the document "a fascinating glimpse into the Kochs' political machine."
Several tweets by Schulman also make reference to the Kochs. A March 13 tweet stated Reid "is back on the Koch Bros. warpath," describing the Nevada senator's rhetoric as a "dicey strategy."
The tweet linked to a post on Reid's website headlined: "Reid Remarks on the Koch Brothers' Attempt to Buy America's Democracy."
In that post, Reid alleges that the Koch brothers have exploited Americans suffering from cancer and have tried to rig the political process.
A publishing source in New York tells Newsmax that information about the book has been very tightly controlled by the publisher for reasons that remain unknown.
Says MRC's Gainor: "Through a collection of crazy liberal websites and Capitol Hill allegations, the left is demonizing success and trying to scare away anyone who dares challenge them."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment