.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
===
The elitist riff raff remain caught up with the rift! (See 1 below.)
===
I hope Obama knows the difference between a deli and a Synagogue but you never know with him because his teleprompter may not be working or possibly some JV White House underling staff member may not be able to spell.. (See 2 below.)
===
When someone threatens to annihilate you it has always been my naive view, believe them!
Obama, being more of a 'realist and pragmatist' than I, would counsel hug and appease them.
That is The Obama Doctrine and look where it has gotten us and the world! (See 3 below.)
I was asked to write a lengthy update piece on The Obama Doctrine of Diplomacy. This is my view. (See 3a below.)
===
Rationale for Bibb's address: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rcesa9SJyac&feature=youtu.be and (See 4 below.)
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
The ‘New York Times’ Violates My Protocol
The true rift between Netanyahu and Obama is about policy, not politesse
Last week, I had some unkind words for the New York Times, whose account of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress had to be amended to reflect the fact that Bibi accepted the invitation after the White House was informed, not before. No sooner had the piece run than friends, colleagues, and assorted observers began to frantically assail me with the idea that while the Times had issued a correction, the question of whether Bibi accepted the invitation before or after wasn’t important after all. The real issue, they scolded me, in increasingly exasperated and acrimonious language, was and remains Bibi’s flauting of the established rules of respectful behavior.
In the Calvin and Hobbes comics, Calvin enjoyed playing a very special game called Calvinball, in which he made up the rules as he went along to make sure he was always winning. Reading the continuous coverage of Bibi’s visit in the last few days makes you feel that the White House and its supporters are now playing their own version of Calvinball; let’s call it “protocol,” which is the official-sounding scare-word they use to imply that Bibi’s behavior was thoroughly out-of-bounds.
So, what precise point of “protocol” did Bibi outrageously violate? Well, went the original version, he accepted an invitation to address Congress without the White House being informed that he was coming—which is certainly no way to behave. Once the New York Times admitted that this story, which it printed, was 100 percent wrong—and that the White House had in fact been properly informed—the conversation about protocol miraculously morphed. Keeping the all-important word “protocol” in play, the discussion now revolves around President Barack Obama’s statement that he would not meet with Bibi so close to the Israeli elections in March; that, Obama said, would be a violation of “protocol.” Which is a fine point, except for the fact that Bibi never asked for such a meeting. Instead, he was invited to address Congress by the speaker of the House of Representatives, who is the leader of a coequal branch of government—just as he had been invited in 2011 by the very same man to address the very same branch of government without anyone mentioning the word “protocol.”
Why all the fuss right now? There are two useful ways to approach the question. The first is to try and imagine what would not have been a violation of the shifting rules of “protocol.” Indulge me here. Imagine John Boehner coming up with the idea to invite the prime minister of Israel to speak. Singularly committed to the sanctity of bipartisanship—the idea, that is, that no decision in Washington should be made without the benign approval of both parties—Boehner then calls the White House. “I have this crazy idea,” he says. “How about a speech from Bibi?” On the other end of the line, crickets. “The thing is, John,” say the Democrats, “we don’t really like Bibi, and his Iran policy is not really the one we’re trying to promote. Mind scrapping the whole thing?” Fighting back a tear, Boehner agrees. “Sure thing, guys,” he says. “Sorry for bringing it up. See you later at the congressional gym.”
This scenario, of course, is idiotic—yet it’s precisely the one so many Obama supporters have been strongly promoting in tones of heavy outrage this past week. Which leads me to the second, more useful way of thinking about the conflict, namely asking why Bibi is so intent on making a speech that was bound to piss off the White House and its itchy-fingered defenders.
The theory that’s being floated around by custodians of political civility and nonpartisanship like the New York Times, Josh Marshall, Matt Duss, et al., is that Bibi’s desire to speak to Congress is a petty bit of electioneering whose real audience is back home in Israel. If you believe that, you believe that Bibi and his men think that the best way to get Israelis to vote for him on March 17 is to make big-picture speeches in America two weeks earlier—while risking a very public pre-election row with your greatest ally and economic benefactor. You believe, bluntly put, that Bibi is a political moron in search of a blatant photo op that will allow him to bellow to a nation of his fellow troglodytes who will then vote for him. I don’t like Bibi very much, but I grew up with the man, and guess what: He’s smarter than that. And so is my toddler, who learned everything she knows about power dynamics and international politics from watching Frozen.
But there is another, much more serious explanation for Bibi’s eagerness to come to Washington in the middle of an election campaign that most polls show him winning handily: March 24 is the deadline for the framework agreement in the ongoing negotiations with Iran. As Michael Doran, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense and senior policy director in charge of the Middle East at the National Security Council, has shown in his factually grounded analysis of Obama’s Iran policy, when it comes to negotiating with the Islamic Republic, the Obama Administration is committed to keeping everyone in the dark. Unaware that he was being recorded, Benjamin Rhodes, a key Obama national security adviser, told a gathering of Democratic activists last year that Obama is hoping to keep Congress out of the loop as much as possible. “We’re already kind of thinking through, how do we structure a deal so we don’t necessarily require legislative action right away,” Rhodes said.
Congress, of course, may strongly disagree with Obama’s approach, especially now that it is controlled by the GOP. Which is why Congress can do many things to make sure the talks with Iran proceed with caution and some real degree of oversight, which Obama and his men are eager to avoid. As former Justice Department officials David Rivkin and Lee Casey wrote in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, “Congress should pass legislation now clearly stating the parameters of an acceptable nuclear deal with Iran, emphasizing the need to eliminate any Iranian breakout capability. It should also put the Iranians and our allies on notice that, absent congressional approval, the president cannot deliver comprehensive and permanent relief from the existing sanctions statutes.”
As Congress is about to face off with the president over these crucial issues, it makes sense that they might want to hear from the leader of one of the nations most threatened by Iranian aggression—who has warned about the dangers of an Iranian nuclear break-out for years, and has also demonstrated a pragmatic commitment to disarming Iran by way of joint diplomatic efforts rather than a unilateral Israeli strike. The looming March deadline and the face-off between the president and Congress—including prominent congressional Democrats—provide eminently sane and reasonable explanations for the timing of Bibi’s speech; that so many of Obama’s sycophants so aggressively promote the idea that Bibi is a re-election-crazy nutcase who doesn’t actually care much about Iran is truly baffling.
The Times’ insistence on sticking to the silly “protocol” storyline is truly maddening because there are real issues at stake here. The plain truth is that Obama and Bibi radically disagree on the direction that a joint Iran policy should take. Bibi forswore an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities because of the stated commitment of the past two U.S. administrations to U.N.-approved sanctions whose stated goal was to eliminate Iran’s capacity to build nuclear weapons. Now, it seems, American policy has swung 180 degrees in the opposite direction—toward embracing the idea of an unreconstructed Iran as a key U.S. ally in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and beyond. Instead of eliminating Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities, the Iranians will be able to retain a large proportion of their centrifuges and facilities, while sanctions will be lifted—strengthening the current regime, and allowing the Iranians to buy more of whatever they want to buy. Instead of finding new meanings for the word “protocol,” theTimes might profitably spend its time on figuring out why the White House lied to them—and setting out the terms of a very real policy debate in a way that illuminates the administration’s choices. Those choices may be right, and they may be wrong. But it seems clear that Times readers would be better served by some real attention to what the administration is doing and why than by buying into a deceptive spin campaign designed to undercut the arguments of its most visible and vocal opponent.
Alas, the nonsense keeps on coming. The most recent storyline, also promoted heavily by theTimes, that Bibi’s speech has met with opposition from a wide coalition including everyone from some Democrats to the ADL and the leader of the Reform movement somehow suggests he is empirically in the wrong. Reporters who cite the ADL’s opposition to Bibi’s speech might have noted that the man who will step in as the ADL’s head this summer, Jonathan Greenblatt, is currently employed as one of Obama’s advisers—which would make opposing Obama kind of sticky. Bibi surely has his detractors, and some of them have valid reasons for opposing his speech, even for loathing him, but the condemnation—in response to phone calls from reporters—is far from uniform. If it was, the story would not have generated so much attention for so long.
So here, again, are the facts: John Boehner invited Bibi to speak on an issue of national importance to both the United States and to Israel, and Bibi accepted. The White House was informed of the invitation in advance, as is proper. Democrats were not consulted. Tzipi Livni, Buji Herzog, Jonathan Greenblatt, and the editorial board of the New York Times were not consulted either. This is all according to custom and according to precedent. Any other reading of this story is a violation of protocol.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
One Dead, Two Policemen Wounded in Attack at Copenhagen Synagogue
The Great Synagogue in central Copenhagen, Denmark. Photo: Wikipedia.
One civilian was killed and two policemen were wounded early Sunday morning in a shooting attack outside the Great Synagogue in central Copenhagen, Denmark, according to multiple media reports.
The civilian, a Jewish community member guarding the house of worship during a bat-mitzva celebration, was shot in the head and the two policemen were shot in the arm and leg in the attack, according to the reports. Officials say it is likely that the attack was connected to an earlier deadly assault on a cafe in the city.
The gunman fled the scene on foot, and a manhunt is underway, The Times of Israel reported.
“It started with police being down at the site. A person comes up and starts to shoot,” police spokesman Allan Teddy Wadsworth-Hansen said.
Sky News cameraman Pete Milnes, who was near the scene of the attack, said: “There was a succession of about six or seven gunshots.
“Within a minute or so, armed police were on the scene, a helicopter was hovering overhead. I witnessed police apprehend an individual who was handcuffed and later released.
“There was 20 to 30 armed police officers with semi-automatic rifles shouting at locals to stay indoors and close windows.”
A photo published on Twitter purports to show a wounded policeman and another person lying injured, Sky News reported. Photo: @Rtridder.
A photo published on Twitter purported to show a wounded policeman and another person lying injured, Sky News reported.
Danish television station TV2 said a large metro and train station nearby, Norreport, was being evacuated, Reuters reported.
In a WhatsApp post, Rabbi Yitzi Loewenthal, the Chabad representative in Copenhagen, said he was at the synagogue just minutes before the attack and that his own center is now under lock-down.
“BH we are all fine. I was at the shul 30 minutes before it happened,” Loewenthal wrote. “Chabad house (where we also live) is in full lockdown. Police with machine guns have now closed the Chabad House street at both ends. Helicopters and sirens all around. Barricaded all doors.”
A former member of the Copenhagen Jewish community, now living in the US, told The Algemeiner that “the Jews in Denmark, who mainly live in Copenhagen, feel like most European Jews — it’s safe as long as you stay stealth. Don’t wear anything ‘Jewish’, don’t talk about Israel or anything Jewish in public, and you’ll be safe.”
The source, who did not wish to be named, added that “increasing Muslim immigration combined with increasing radicalization amongst a minority of this Muslim immigrant group has caused some trouble for the Jews in the past 10-20 years.”
Responding to the incident, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio offered his sympathies.
“The people of New York City offer solidarity to the Jewish community of Copenhagen, and urge Danish authorities to do everything possible to protect the Jewish community there,” De Blasio said. “Intolerance and anti-Semitism must be confronted and defeated, and security efforts must be visible and extensive. These brutal, hate-driven attempts to intimidate must not and will not be allowed to succeed.”
Officials said the earlier attack, which saw one man killed after some 40 shots were fired into the Krudttoenden Cafe, was likely a terror attack.
The Cafe was hosting a debate on freedom of speech which was attended by Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has been threatened with death for his cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.
Following the first attack, Denmark’s Prime Minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, said, “We feel certain now that it’s a religiously motivated attack, and thereby it is a terrorist attack. We take this situation extremely seriously. We are in a high alarm all over the country, and our main priority at this stage is to catch the perpetrators and make sure that we find them as soon as possible.”
Last month, after the terror attack at the Hyper Cacher supermarket in Paris left 4 Jews dead, Denmark’s Jewish community asked for a police presence outside the Copenhagen synagogue during services and when students arrive and leave the city’s Jewish school, the Associated Press reported.
Community chairman Dan Rosenberg Asmussen made the request to Justice Minister Mette Frederiksen who stopped short of making any promises to the country’s 7,000-strong Jewish community, according to the report. She said Denmark’s security agency would reconsider security at Jewish institutions.
At the time Frederiksen said the attacks in Paris made “us painfully aware of the importance that our Jewish fellow citizens can feel safe.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Abbas' Fatah threatens rocket attacks
and "the end of Israel"
Picture of Fatah fighters launching rockets:
"We have more [rockets], Zionists!"
by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
 |
| "The Path of the Storm. We have more [rockets], Zionists! Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades in Palestine" [Facebook, "Fatah - The Main Page," Feb. 9, 2015] |
Last week, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party posted three images glorifying the use of violence against Israel on its official Facebook page. The above image showing rockets being launched appeared with the text:
"We have more [rockets], Zionists!"
[Facebook, "Fatah - The Main Page," Feb. 9, 2015]
Another image also showed a Fatah fighter with a rocket and others firing weapons.
 |
"Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Army of the Storm,
Fatah's military wing. The Rage of the Storm."
[Facebook, "Fatah - The Main Page", Feb. 9, 2015]
|
A third poster showed a man firing an automatic rifle, with the text:
"The end of Israel, the liberation of Palestine"
[Facebook, "Fatah - The Main Page," Feb. 9, 2015]
 |
"Palestinian National Liberation Movement - Fatah,
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades in Palestine, The Path of the Storm. The end of Israel, the liberation of Palestine." [Facebook, "Fatah - The Main Page", Feb. 9, 2015] |
Names such as "the Path of the Storm" or "the Rage of the Storm" also appeared on the posters and refer to Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel during the 2014 Gaza war. This reference to the recent war, coupled with the words "the end of Israel," implies that Fatah is threatening to renew such attacks.
Less than two weeks ago, Palestinian Media Watch reported that Fatah promoted rocket attacks in a similar post on its Facebook page.
Likewise, Abbas' party emphasized its adherence to the use of violence, stating in January that it has "not thrown down the rifle."
All three images posted by Fatah on Feb. 9, 2015, bore the logo and name of Fatah's military wing "the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades in Palestine."
3a) Myth on Foreign Policy: More friendliness and diplomacy are the answers for lasting peace, not confronting our foes.
By Dick Berkowitz
President Obama began his first year in office convinced (having campaigned on the theme) that President Bush’s military belligerence was conducive to enraging our alleged foes. Obama’s counter to that would be a world tour that tried to reset American relationships. He began in Cairo and his mea culpa helped encourage the surge in The Muslim Brotherhood taking over during the Arab Spring offensive..
The Obama Doctrine
Obama traveled widely to apologize for American arrogance abroad, and for using water boarding on a few al-Qaida captives, promising we would never use that form of “torture” again. He vowed to close the Guantanamo Naval base because it was a symbol of our belligerence by housing terrorists we took as prisoners on the battlefield and not trying them in American criminal courts, e.g. NY City where we were hit on September 11, 2001. He banned the word “terrorism” from official state department references. He also began to sympathize with the Palestinian view on peace in the Middle East, versus that of our long time ally Israel.
His receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, early in his term, appeared to be an endorsement by the liberal European establishment that his new doctrine was correct. Engage and meet with Iran; don’t threaten them, but try all forms of diplomacy different from the Bush Doctrine: “You are either with us or against us.”
After all, Bush “got us into two wars that weren’t paid for” - Afghanistan and Iraq, and Afghanistan was more important because that was where bin Laden lived. Bush’s belligerence created more enemies who wanted to attack us. Never mind that George Bush wasn’t around when the terrorists first attempted to topple the World Trade Center in February 1993, and when they tried to destroy an American symbol of war – the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in October 2000, bombed the Marine Barracks in Lebanon and our embassy.
This Obama resetting of relations courted the Russians by reneging on missile defenses for Western Europe allies in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Russians would surely respond with future concessions in trying to convince Iran not to produce a nuclear weapon and delivery capability.
Obama also expedited our exit from Iraq (even after the surge had worked to pacify the lingering insurgents war) in favor of escalating the war in Afghanistan – his so-called “Good War”. However, he did not accept the full recommendations of the military leaders in the field regarding force needs, but he simultaneously announced their withdrawal with a future date certain. Obama’s inexperience showed again as he believed this act would surely assuage the anti-war wing of his party, who didn’t want any troops on foreign soil in the first place.
Results of the Obama Doctrine in the Middle East
Six years have transpired under Obama's more compassionate and empathetic policy. We can, perhaps, judge the change by focusing on the troubled Middle East. Let us not forget that Obama told us The Taliban no longer existed and ISIS was simply the equivalent of JV’s.
Iraq - Is now less of a friend than we thought and a bit too cozy with neighboring Iran. Perhaps they fear the U.S. will totally withdraw from the Middle East. Who wants to be on the enemy’s list of the next nuclear power –Iran?
This withdrawal without a residual American presence is now widely credited with allowing the emergence of ISIS as a powerful and ruthless threat to the whole region first in Syria and then expanding to northern Iraq – even threatening Baghdad, and Africa.
Syria – This was another disaster as Assad saw many of his own citizens try to duplicate the Arab Spring and overthrow a ruthless dictator. He killed his own people by the thousands in a desperate attempt to retain power. Meanwhile, we failed to support but Obama drew warning “red lines in the sand” if they dared to use chemical weapons. When Assad did use them we stood by impotently. Syria 's chemical weapons is now thought to be from Saddam Hussein who hid them there and away from UN inspectors.
One Obama response was Syrian rebels were infiltrated by al-Qaida and the takeover group may be worse than Assad. (Maybe we didn’t quite decimate al-Qaida by the drone program after all.) Obama’s back down from his line in the sand may well constitute a major blunder as it now emboldens others who no longer fear an American paper tiger and believe Obama is in his strict appeasement and withdrawal mode.
Obama’s famous “JV team” quote on the initial ISIS emergence gave credence to the belief that his foreign policy advisors were not on top of their game.
Another major Obama blunder is his boycott of world leaders’ solidarity march in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo slaughters and the kosher “deli” killings. His press corps' attempts to call the latter random violence was another misstep, as the world knew it as a clear jihadist attack on Jews shopping for the Sabbath in a Kosher Grocery Store. But to paraphrase his former Sec. of State, who got it all wrong with resetting our relationship with Russia, – “What difference does it make.”
Well it makes a lot of difference if you want to win against your adversary yet, cannot even identify them or call/define them by a specific name. It is one thing to believe you are defending against a tank and another if it is an auto.
Obama’s absurd resolution on authorization for use of military force (AUMF) offered to Congress is now viewed as a purely political legaleeze crafted document, trying to provide him cover for not using sufficient military force to defeat ISIS. His proposal calls for no U.S. ground troops and also for an end date three years from now. No military expert ,outside of Obama’s close control of the Pentagon, thinks it is a serious strategy to defeat ISIS. Even Obama’s referral to ISIL, instead of ISIS, is an insult to Israel, as the L stands for Levant – a description of the whole Near East including Israel’s territory.
Even as the U.S. started bombing ISIS targets, they have expanded their territorial control, and sources reveal they are getting upwards of 20,000 new recruits in their fight against western democracies. Some of them are U.S. citizens, and the Obama administration appears to have no strategy for preventing them from returning to the U.S. to wreak domestic terrorism.
A recent interview of Obama had him declaring “global warming” a greater threat to America than Islamic extremism. The latter still eludes him as a reference term, as he continues to treat such violence outside of the Middle East as random acts of violence instead of motivated by a religious fanaticism of a minor percentage of Muslims. If only 10% of Muslims are radicalized world wide, that’s a mere 150 million of them out of a worldwide estimated 1.5 billion Muslims.
Astonishingly, at the recent National Prayer Breakfast, Obama had the audacity to liken Islamic jihadist actions to the Crusades of 1000 years ago, where he blamed atrocities in the name of Christ. No mention was made that the Crusades were done some 400 years after aggressive attacks by Muslims into Europe threatening Christian populations. Obama’s remarks were also viewed as insulting to current western democracies because it mimicked Islamic talking points that the Crusades killed Muslims, so some “eye for an eye” retaliation was justified.
Never mind that current Christian beliefs are for “love thy neighbor” not “kill the unbelievers,” which appears to be in much of the Koran – the Muslim “Bible”.
These musings by Obama on current events seem to validate the feeling among most Americans he is not in sync with commonly felt American sentiments. A 36% approval rating of his foreign policy ratifies this belief. And it is understandable in the context of his childhood and upbringing. He spent a good deal of his formative years in a foreign country, fathered by someone who hated American “Colonialism”. Furthermore his later teens were spent in Hawaii influenced by a single parent and grandparents who were socialists at best, and Marxists at worst.
His adult life experiences were as a community organizer in Chicago, with virtually no foreign policy or military security experience. His long time religious counselor in Chicago, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is certainly no patriot who famously blamed America for atrocities against civilization. It is little wonder Obama might not feel the same way as most Americans on use of force as a component of foreign policy initiatives and for good in the world instead of a cause for apologies and empathy with our enemies.
Iran - Probably should be listed as a greater systemic threat to the U.S. and its allies than even ISIS. Iran is a state with a large army, huge oil based resources, with scientific skills, motivation to build a nuclear arsenal and long range rocket developing capability to deliver those weapons. North Korea has already paved the way. Thus Iran needs more than a “reset” of our relations.
Israel's Prime Minister has a different view of Iran than President Obama. Netanyahu's message to the UN General Assembly (repeated and updated before the U.S. Congress) sets forth a clear course of action to prevent further disasters of colossal proportions due to Iran’s achieving nuclear warhead capability.
Weak sanctions have proven insufficient to stop Iran’s nuclear progress, even though they have been acknowledged to hurt their economy. Alas, they have proven more painful to Iran’s population than to its fanatical leaders. Iran asked for a cessation of those sanctions to allegedly enter into meaningful negotiations with us. Who knows if they really stopped nuclear development, since inspections are difficult in a country 50% larger than California and run by those who have proven they know how to deceive?
Threats of mutual assured destruction – which worked in the cold war with the Soviet Union – seemingly has no effect on the religious obsessive Iran leadership, who are elated at the prospect of removing Israel by a nuclear attack. Even if there is a nuclear retaliation, Iran could survive it as a nation, but Israel, existentially speaking, could not. So future Iranian fundamentalists would be the winner, and current ones would earn martyr status and enjoy heavenly virgins as their reward.
A further risk of a nuclear Iran is they would not hesitate to entrust bombs to Islamist radicals who would use them against western modernism – Europe and the U.S. Bombing countries to a level of a century ago is not a problem for radical Islamists in keeping with their desire to rule the world through the establishment of a new Caliphate.
Therefore the only workable strategy, according to Netanyahu, is: Draw a clear red line beyond which Iran dare not cross and do not hesitate to threaten annihilation and/or their nuclear dismemberment.
Iran must dismantle its uranium enrichment program before it reaches a Stage Two 90% capability. It has already finished Stage One – 70% capability. Its enrichment facilities are mostly in clear sight of the world. Its statement that they are for peaceful energy development is uniformly scoffed at by the West. This drawing of the line must be made by a credible source believed to have the capability and willpower to inflict catastrophic harm upon Iran’s nuclear program.
The reason the enrichment program is crucial as the basis for the red line is that it is the only piece that is observable. The rest may be underground – more centrifuges under a mountain in Qom and detonators almost anywhere.
With such credible drawing of the red line, Netanyahu believes Iran will comply. They already backed down from such red lines due to a prior threat to close the Gulf of Hormuz, through which 35% of the world’s oil supply flows.
Could Israel be the bearer of this credible demand? Could President Obama present such a credible deterrent? Could another president of the U.S. make a cogent case against Iran? If not, then who? The question is do we have the will or are we going to resurrect another Chamberlain type response.
When does this red line need to be made? According to Netanyahu, nothing is absolute regarding intelligence reports, but making it much more than a few months from now could prove be too late.
Iran continues to support and spread terror throughout the world. Should America allow them to go nuclear combined with a delivery system capable of reaching beyond neighbors like Israel? Sanctions, even weak ones, brought them to the table yet, Obama suspended the sanctions while continuing negotiations. He has threatened to veto a congressional resolution to reapply sanctions if agreement is not reached by Spring of 2015. Reinsertion of sanctions takes time to accomplish, so his veto is, again, another delay that only helps Iran in its nuclear quest. Obama has proven he is a feckless negotiator always playing his hand first and thus, revealing his cards.
Does Obama actually believe Iran wants nuclear status for power plants, not weapons?
This is obvious to most but seemingly not to Obama, Iran is seeking to delay negotiations while they continue to produce low-grade uranium, something Israel has warned the five plus one negotiators about and Netanyahu will assuredly do again in his forthcoming address to Congress, the American people and the world.
Would Obama engineer the appearance of a deal for political gain even one that has no teeth and entails no legitimate inspection demands? (Thank you Neville Chamberlain – peace in our time) Even worse, Syria could trans-ship WMD to Hezbollah in Lebanon. (The Syrians likely received their WMD (chemical or even biological from Saddam Hussein).
As previously noted, Iran is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, including arming and supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban in Afghanistan, al-Qaida in Yemen and south Asia and Boko Haram in Africa.
Libya – Was another example of Obama’s leading from behind. He had the British and the French take the lead, and used American air power to help overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, who was under pressure during the Arab Spring’s heyday. Without direct American intervention it took longer than necessary to overthrow this dictator and after it was done we had little say in directing the outcome regarding the vacuum created. Today, Libya is a failed state run by radical Islamist terrorists.
The Benghazi disaster, where it was clear al-Qaida insurgents killed our Ambassador and no viable State Department attempt to prevent it, is further evidence of our weak posture when it comes to defending our interests. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, took token blame because it happened on her watch. However, she had no explanation why the embassy personnel were not given adequate protection beforehand when they desperately requested help months in advance as they saw a very dangerous environment developing. The investigation continues, to this day,only to be stonewalled by the Obama Administration.
Then the night of the actual assault on the anniversary of September 11, was blamed on a video released by an American in Los Angeles, as inspiring the allegedly “spontaneous” revolt. Live accounts from eyewitnesses as well as overhead drones clearly identified it as Islamic terrorists targeting American citizens.
Who issued the stand down order? The instinct of American military leaders in the area was to attempt rescue, as has been the tradition for a century, even in the face of danger (Witness what happened in “Black Hawk Down”.) Military jets in Italy could have been dispatched and on the scene in a few hours at supersonic speed to thwart the attackers until more reinforcements were available. Instead nothing was done, and four patriots died including a sitting Ambassador – the new face of America in the region.
Subsequently, the Administration consistently covered up the terrorist source of the attacks in an attempt to minimize its effects on the coming national election, as the re-emergence of al Qaeda went against Obama’s narrative they were a diminished threat. Obama called it a likely spontaneous demonstration against a video. Susan Rice the sitting American UN Ambassador was dispatched to all the Sunday political talk shows to continue this patently false story to prevent backlash against Obama’s election chances.
If this had happened in a Republican administration would there not have been cries of treason and high crimes ringing in every mainstream newsroom.
‘Instead, NBC minions of the Obama Administration, like Candy Crawley tried to continue to bail Obama out of this major subterfuge by his administration.
In retrospect, it is possible nothing could have been done militarily to save the four Americans but failing to try was a national disgrace. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta statement, 'we never act militarily until all options are evaluated and we are assured of success,' will go down as another disgrace of a high standing American official falling on his sword for his boss, the President, in order to deflect criticism.
Afghanistan- Is scheduled for a complete withdrawal of American troops. Meanwhile, its economy is much more fragile than Iraq’s, with much less oil resources, and a history of intense tribal feuding. The Taliban is rooting for the day they can regain control and re-implement Sharia Law, suppressing women and all opposition to their theocratic rule. They recently attacked and penetrated an air base where over 300 vulnerable U.S. Marines are training members of the Afghan military, such as it is.
Pakistan - is furious with the U.S. for invading its sovereign airspace without permission to kill bin Laden. It also claims much collateral damage from the almost exclusive use of drones to kill al-Qaeda targets. This execution tool (without a trial and with collateral damage) also prevents interrogation in order to learn of future terrorist plans. Prior methods of interrogation, admittedly harsh, have avowedly proven successful in not only preventing major follow-up attacks on U.S. soil, but also in leading us to bin Laden’s secret lair in Pakistan, where we administered final justice (without a trial). The Pakistanis were obviously embarrassed by the fact he was holed up close to their national military academy without detection.
Yemen – Heralded in the President’s 2015 state of the U.S. address as an example of success in the region, has just been taken over by Islamic radicals, forcing the U.S. to close its Embassy and any opportunity for monitoring the situation there via the CIA is now lost. Other western allies have also shut down their own embassies.
Saudi Arabia – aAlong time ally of the U.S. continues to have certain family members sponsoring terrorism and never forget they supported Osama bin Laden. For years, the ruling family has looked the other way at Wahhabi militants, whose goal is establishing Sharia Law and jihad worldwide, engaging in an ISIS type takeover of Saudi Arabia. Will the recent change in leadership change the Royal Family’s incipient toleration of their Kingdom’s destruction? Time will tell.
Qatar, - Has the same internal problem as Saudi Arabia with Wahhabi radicals.
Egypt, - After the Arab Spring Uprising, the initial winners were the Muslim Brotherhood, who have a long history of supporting fundamental Islam and a desire to rid the Middle East of Israel and Christians.
Subsequently,the Egyptian military effectively moved to shut down the Muslim Brotherhood’s networks and has, for now, prevented a subversion of Egypt’s stability. Yet Egypt remains unstable, and the threat of a MB return would place another mortal enemy of Israel as one of its closest neighbors. Meanwhile, Obama’s prior support of the MB and his rejection of the military takeover has returned Egypt to Russia’s diplomatic and military equipment orbit.
Jordan, - Incensed over the public burning of their pilot, was even willing to attack ISIS, showing up the U.S.’s weaker response.
Entire Middle East an absolute disaster – The Obama doctrine for the Middle East has clearly failed. Indeed, it may have created a huge destabilized situation, allowing for the rise of a nuclear Iran and spread of its regional influence and financing of Hamas, Hezbollah etc.
There is still no articulated strategy for the US to combat terrorism in the Middle East or elsewhere, or even to admit its source, namely radical Islam. Obama excuses ISIS' current atrocities by citing problems with the Crusades, that occurred 1000 years ago and blaming Christians for escalating violence. Is Obama’s interpretation of history distorted by the Muslim influence of his previous association with radical who hate America?
The rest of the world is also unstable .
Russia, was courted heavily to “reset” our relationship. We double-crossed eastern European countries on missile defense to avoid upsetting Russia. Have they helped us in return? Done anything to help in Iran and Syria? Remember when Obama cozened up to Medvedev and asked him to deliver Putin a message, i.e. ‘wait till I have more flexibility after my re-election.' Subsequently, Russia annexed the Crimea and is destabilizing Ukraine. Meanwhile, Obama refuses defensive military help to the besieged Ukraine government. These events have shown NATO to be a toothless tiger. Putinis not blind!
China - Is arming at an accelerating pace, while stealing our secrets and likely pursuing the hacking of major internal websites and computer sites. Our response, is to unilaterally disarm with heavy budget cuts to below WW 2 status.
North Korea - Threatened U.S. businesses if they allowed a film spoofing their dictator; and is working on longer-range missiles to enhance their nuclear threat aimed at the U.S.
European Allies, as noted previously, Obama removed missile defense of Poland and other Eastern Europan NATO allies. He snubbed a broad coalition of countries who vowed to fight Radical Islamic terrorist actions – murders and beheadings – even of U.S. citizens. He admitted his shunning of world leaders’ solidarity in Paris was a mistake and failed to send anyone of consequence though the Attorney General was in Paris the same weekend.
The visual effect of the US absence in Paris was stunning to the world audience.
Obama’s own military advisors disagree with him
Hagel, differed with Obama on ISIS, Putin, al-Qaida and resigned.
Panetta’s book reveals disagreement.
The National Security Council’s absence of military knowledge on this key advisory board is revealing.
Former officers, now retired and free to speak, universally condemn The Obama Doctrine.
Public distrust of Obama on foreign policy – 36% approval -lowest ever for a president??
In summation:
It is increasingly evident Obama’s mind set is not to engage, reluctantly lead from the rear, allow the spread of Muslim Terrorism and toss the ball to those who follow him in office. In Obama’s remaining two years there is no way to predict where the increasing press of Iran, ISIS’ and Russian influence will leave the world. However, this seems certain - the world, because of Obama’s obvious inexperience, incompetence, passivity and mind set, will become more unstable and dangerous. Meanwhile and additionally, our increasing fiscal deficit and gutting of our military will diminish American influence and that, too, can only increase world stability. Europe cannot supplant the vacuum our withdrawal creates and certainly it is not logical that Jordan and Israel, left to their own devices, can supplant American influence in their region.
We are paying a hefty price for Obama and his re-election and even some enlightened Democrats are beginning to exude remorse and express regrets. Meanwhile, the press and media continue to circle the wagons and protect their anointed.
_______________________________________________________
If the above is not frightening enough, the feckless UN stands by and watches, as it has for most of the past 20 years, history, population massacres in Croatia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Chechnya, the Sudan. Even Bill Clinton took unilateral U.S. action to prevent another massacre in Kosovo.
Meanwhile America shuns opportunities to strengthen our position in the world.
The pipeline to process Canadian oil will be vetoed by Obama to play to his Green base that oil is evil.
Obama also refuses to authorize increased drilling on federal lands.
However, Obama takes credit for the energy boom resulting from fracking that has greatly increased our chances to become energy independent and, in fact, help defuse the world’s reliance on energy from dangerous and inimical countries.
Obama has quietly fired almost every military general that won’t bend to his philosophy of weakening America and has placed many officials, with Muslim backgrounds, in sensitive positions in government – most particularly in agencies involved intelligence gathering and security.
________________________________________________________________________
Dick Berkowitz is a retired head of the South Eastern Institutional Sales Department of Oppenheimer & Company’s Atlanta office.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) COMMENTS BELOW FROM a FRIEND
4) COMMENTS BELOW FROM a FRIEND
There is not even a mention in Mr. Obama’s “negotiations” with Iran of their rush to develop ICBM’s. Right now their Shahab 3 missiles can reach every part of Israel, so they
don't need ICBM’s for that reason. That leads this advanced, clever, sophisticated observer to think that perhaps the Iranians are maneuvering to one day be able to
threaten/bomb/blackmail most of the western world. ICBM’s are needed for only one reason: to put nuclear warheads on them. Iran is currently claiming that their tests of such
missiles are for putting satellites into orbit but that is total hooey. And if they do develop ICBM”s , that’d be a nice legacy for Mr. Obama. Just not so great for the rest of us
colonialist, oppressor, racist white folks.
I just hope that when Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks to Congress and to the American people, he makes it clear that, while it is his job to protect his country, it is not only
Israel which is threatened. He won’t say that Mr. Obama isn’t doing the same job for his country but if he does make note of Iran’s push for ICBM’s, the American people will
understand that those ICBM’s will one day be aimed at them. Then a certain existential threat to Israel becomes a palpable threat to all of us, as well. For Americans, that
just might be the most important takeaway from Bibi’s speech — if he speaks about those future ICBM’s.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment