Even Jimmy Carter , who attended The Naval Academy, lived more in the real world than Obama, who is a dreamer and whose foreign policy initiatives have turned into nightmares. (See 1 below.)
Obama needs to call "The Plumber" and have him explain how to reset Hillary's reset button.
You see President Obama, "Put-in" seems to have a different interpretation of what you were trying to convey. Though he heard Hillarious , he then took your measure, found you confused,weak and then he laughed and disregarded your message.
"Put-in" loves sticking it to you and America because he understands power and its use.
Dershowitz also rakes Obama over the coals regarding The Iran Deal and accuses him of breaking the law. (See 1a below.)
A Pakistani's take on The Iran Deal. (See 1b below.)
Meanwhile
Sowell takes a harsh view of Boehner and writes he was his own worst problem and cites why. (See 1c below.)
===
Comment from long time friend and fellow memo reader about recent posting: "Had completely forgot, but, yes, that was the Republican promise after winning majority status. Good memory of your friend. Worthy post in your epistles. S------+
===
It should be evident to most anyone that Obama is stumbling his way to another disaster. In time, it is also possible that "Put-in" may over reach but until he does, America will be dancing to Russian music.
We have no strategy, we have few options to thwart "Put-in's" military take over of Syria and his desire to link his actions with Iran and Iraq places him a position to dictate foreign policy in and control over The Middle East.
Russia's bombing of those opposed to Syria's Assad has nothing to do with "Put-in's" desire to destroy ISIS and his demand that we withdraw our flights is simply another challenge by "Put-in" that caught Obama and The Pentagon off guard, which seems to be a matter of increasing frequency.
In doing so, "Put-in" is making a mockery of his recent understanding with Obama. "Put-in" seems willing to escalate his challenge knowing Obama will do nothing and even if O wanted to he is not in a position to do so.
Obama gave his options up over the last four years as he dithered back and forth.
Not only has "Put-in" increased his influence in The Middle East but he has taken all eyes off his 'rape' of The Ukraine. As noted above, "Put-in" may not succeed over the long term but he is committed to a strategy that is clear and he is willing to execute.
"Put-in" has to be laughing as he continues to rub Obama's nose in the Syrian sand!
In just a few weeks "Put-in" has elevated himself to be the 'go to' guy and Egypt's Sisi and Israel's Netanyahu got the message.
===
Democracy in the 21st Century. Malleability is its key. (See 3 below.)
===
We are leaving for Edisto Beach, S.C on Friday and will be gone for two weeks. We have always wanted to try this area along the coast.
Another long reprieve for my memo readers.
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Obama’s Surreal U.N. Speech
By Elliott Abrams
President Obama’s U.N. speech today is filled with nice lines that unfortunately bear no relationship to his seven years of foreign policy — and in some cases, no relationship to reality.
The speech had several strong paragraphs about freedom, human rights, and democracy. For example, Obama said: “I believe a government that suppresses peaceful dissent is not showing strength. It is showing weakness, and it is showing fear. History shows that regimes who fear their own people will eventually crumble.” But his administration has in fact steadily reduced American programs supporting human rights and democracy, and reached out to tyrannies such as Iran and Cuba — delaying the day when they will “eventually crumble.”
He spoke of the nuclear non-proliferation regime as one of the “principal achievements” of the United Nations, but of course that regime has been endangered by his awful Iran deal more than by any other development in decades. (And in what sense were nuclear non-proliferation agreements negotiated by the United States an achievement of the U.N., anyway?)
Obama spoke harshly of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, “who drops barrel bombs on innocent children” and uses chemical weapons, and he called for “a managed transition away from Assad.” But it is Barack Obama who has led the way for three years in doing absolutely nothing about Assad’s terror. When in 2012 even Hillary Clinton advised that the United States had to do more, Obama rejected that advice and stood firmly for inaction. On Libya, he said: “Even as we helped the Libyan people bring an end to the reign of a tyrant, our coalition could have and should have done more to fill a vacuum left behind.” But why did the coalition not do more? Because Barack Obama rushed for the exits, not because “our coalition” got it wrong.
Similarly on Ukraine, Obama spoke of Russia’s “aggression” and said: “We cannot stand by when the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a nation is flagrantly violated. If that happens without consequence in Ukraine, it could happen to any nation gathered here today.” But except for mild sanctions on Russia, what Obama is doing is precisely “standing by” — and denying the Ukrainians the weapons they have repeatedly begged from us, weapons they need to defend their country.
Then came Cuba, perhaps the most offensive part of Obama’s speech. Here is what he said:
“In this new era, we have to be strong enough to acknowledge when what you are doing is not working. For 50 years, the United States pursued a Cuban policy that failed to improve the lives of the Cuban people. We changed that. We continue to have differences with the Cuban government, we will continue to stand up for human rights, but we address these issues through diplomatic relations and increased commerce. And people-to-people ties. As these contacts yield progress, I am confident that our Congress will inevitably lift an embargo that should not be in place anymore. Change won’t come overnight to Cuba, but I am confident that openness, not coercion, will support reforms and better the life the Cuban people.”
Nowhere in all of this did he call for democracy in Cuba. Nowhere did he call upon the regime to free political prisoners; instead he said “change won’t come overnight,” as if the regime had not been resisting change through executions and jailings for more than 50 years. His only actual demand was made not to Castro but to the U.S. Congress, to fully end the embargo of Cuba. Now, human-rights conditions in Cuba have actually deteriorated in Cuba since his policy of embracing the regime was announced last year, giving the lie to the claim that “we will continue to stand up for human rights.” In fact, if President Obama wanted to stand up for human rights in Cuba, today’s address to the United Nations was a perfect opportunity. He blew it.
Some of the tougher language here, like that against the Assad regime, is welcome. But as with the talk about Ukraine, it won’t scare Putin or Assad or the Iranians. They’ve heard it all before and watched as Obama failed to act when American interests were on the line. They listened again today when he said he would never hesitate to use military force, but they recall the chemical-weapons red line in Syria that disappeared and the refusal to act forcefully on Ukraine or Syria, and they see Obama presiding over a steady decline in American military strength. It’s hard to believe they will wince and withdraw after hearing U.N. General Assembly speech number seven from Obama.
Obama concluded this speech by saying: “We are called upon to offer a different type of leadership. Leadership strong enough to recognize that nations share common interests, and people share a common humanity.” That’s a nice summation of Obama’s approach, and as we look at the global mess he has created, those words should stick in our minds. Our next president will also have to offer a “different kind of leadership,” one that realizes that the conduct of vicious regimes in China or Russia or Iran or Cuba won’t be affected by warm words about “common interests.” Today was vintage Obama, and one can only be thankful that his next U.N. speech will be his last.
— Elliott Abrams is senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is the author of Tested by Zion: The Bush Administration and the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
1a)
Dershowitz: Obama 'Committing a Crime' with Iran Deal
Obama 'tricked' Republicans into supporting the Corker Amendment, which guaranteed Iran deal, says law professor.
During a blistering attack on Iranian president Hassan Rouhani and President Barack Obama’s Iran deal, Prof. Alan Dershowitz made the stunning accusation that Obama “realizes that what the United States is doing [with the Iran deal] today amounts essentially to a crime.”
“What is that crime? That crime is providing material support to terrorism. And, what does this deal do? It provides tens of billions, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars of material support for terrorism,” he intoned, at a demonstration by Iranian opponents of the Rouhani regime, held outside UN Headquarters in New York Monday .
In an later exclusive interview with Arutz Sheva, Dershowitz also stated he believed that the Republicans were “tricked” by President Obama into passing the Corker Iran Nuclear Review Amendment which, while framed as a bipartisan compromise, guaranteed in effect that the Iran deal would be approved.
We asked specifically if the Republicans are not as complicit as Obama in passing the Iranian deal, because it was the Corker Amendment made it possible for Obama to get the deal through Congress despite the majority's objection.
Prof. Dershowitz agreed: “I think it was a terrible mistake that the Corker Amendment was passed. I think the Republicans were tricked into doing it. I don’t think they thought through the implications of how this would allow the President to get the deal through with a majority against it, both the House and the Senate, and a majority against them among the American people. The big victims, though, are the American people, the people of Israel, the people of the Middle East, and people in the world who want to see Iran without a nuclear weapon.”
Prof. Dershowitz opened by stating he was speaking out “for the wonderful people of Iran who are oppressed by terrible leaders of Iran.” He added that “the UN has become a podium and a lectern for the most oppressive and the most reactionary forces” in the world.
Today, Dershowitz explained, “Rouhani is the propaganda President of Iran... Because he the smiling face of a puppet of the tyrannical leadership of the Ayatollah Khamenei.”
Earlier in the speech, focusing on Rouhani, Dershowitz informed the thronging crowd that Rouhani “has presided over the brutal execution of more innocent people than even what [the previous president, Mahmoud] Ahmedinjihad presided over. But, at least Ahmedinjihad was totally honest. Ahmedinjihad presented himself as a bigot, as a Holocaust denier, as a defender of repression, as a hater of the United States, as a hater of all things decent. He was replaced by a smiling face, a propaganda expert who actually presents a moderate image to the world, but it’s a false moderate image.”
Dershowitz then rhetorically wished he could summon all the witnesses to the barbarity, falsehood and lies of Rouhani’s face “smiling face.” He asked for “the hundreds of thousands of people who have been murdered in cold blood by this regime in the name of its reactionary and repressive philosophy; the wonderful Iranian homosexuals who were hanged to death for being homosexuals; the Bahias that were murdered, the Muslims, the Christians, the Jews, who were murdered by this regime.” But, unfortunately, Dershowitz stated, “The one thing the Rouhani / Ahmedinjihad / Khamenei / Khomeini regime specializes in is killing off witnesses. The last
thing this regime wants is truth.”
Then Dershowitz attacked the Obama-Iran nuclear deal on the grounds that he explained in his latest book, “The Case Against the Iran Deal.”
Critically, he added that the deal would enable “Hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran to enable them to increase their repression everywhere in the world, most especially in Iran, but also the power to export terror to Lebanon and Syria in support for the terrorist leader Assad, to Yemen, to Iraq.”
1b)
Article In Pakistani Urdu Daily On Iran Nuclear Deal: 'American History Also Indicates That Its Record Of Implementing Agreements Is Not Good'; 'America Has A Pre-Existing Military Plan Against Iran'
A recent article titled "Challenges and Perils Facing the Iran Nuclear Deal" in the Pakistani Urdu dailyRoznama Ummat argued that Iran has sacrificed much in order to reach a nuclear deal, but that there are still challenges ahead in the implementation of the agreement.
The widely circulated Roznama Ummat is a staunch supporter of Islamist political parties. The article, by S. Anjum Asif, states that Israel is making great efforts to thwart this deal, including trying to mislead the American public through opinion polls.
Following are excerpts from the article:
"America Is Making Efforts To Assure Israel That Despite The Agreement With Iran, America Will Not Trust Iran"
"Doubts about the nuclear deal between Iran and the international powers, which was reached after two years of lengthy and patience-testing negotiations, still persist. The forces that are opposed to this agreement, including Israel, the American Congress and some Middle Eastern countries, are making efforts to somehow stop the implementation of this agreement. Israel has opposed any agreement with Iran from day one and is still firm in its stance. The Israeli prime minister has openly acknowledged that Israel would never accept this agreement.
"American history also indicates that its record of implementing agreements is not good; so there are chances that America would maintain its aggressive approach to keep Iran under pressure. With regard to the American record of honoring agreements, a European expert said, on condition of anonymity: 'The American record of abiding by the spirit of agreements is very bad and disgusting because America always dilly-dallies. So accepting these agreements as set in stone would not be right.'
"Three weeks after this agreement [was reached] in Vienna, an Iranian representative at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) lodged a complaint against America and took the stance that America is violating this agreement. In the complaint, the Iranian representative drew attention to White House spokesman Josh Earnest's statement that 'despite the agreement with Iran, the military option against Iran will remain [on the table]. America has gathered information about the Iranian nuclear program over the years; so if needed, the use of the military option is still possible.'
"What is the purpose of this provocative statement by America? In fact, America is making efforts to assure Israel that despite the agreement with Iran, America will not trust Iran and keep a strict watch on its nuclear program and, if needed, will not hesitate to pursue military action.
"Military action against Iran is Israel's heartfelt desire. But the problem is that Israel is not in a position to take military action against Iran, especially against Iran's nuclear installations. It knows full well that it does not have the capability to destroy Iran's nuclear installations. So Israel's heartfelt desire is either that America should be made to act against Iran or that both of them should do it together.
"The Iranian representative to the IAEA further said that America has begun violating the agreement, whose ink has not yet dried. He made it clear that America cannot run away from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, under which there is no room for clandestinely collecting information about Iran's nuclear program."
"Another Incident Could Further Endanger This Agreement; Obama Has Assured America's Gulf Allies That [The U.S.] Will Help Them If Their Security Is In Danger... [And] Supply The Latest Weapons"
"The reality is that international inspectors, who inspected Iran's nuclear facilities in the past, handed over the sensitive information provided to them by Iran itself to America and Israel, on the basis of which massive propaganda was conducted against Iran. The international inspectors, exceeding their mandate, provided secret and sensitive information on Iran to Israel and America, endangering its national security. So if the IAEA inspectors, under the new agreement, adopted a similar attitude that put the national security of Iran at risk, then the future of this agreement will be in danger.
"America will have to understand that Iran has sacrificed much to reach this agreement, and if its sacrifices are wasted due to American action, it will be dangerous for the whole region. The IAEA will have to fulfil its international responsibilities and must make sure that its inspectors do not share information gathered during visits to Iran with any other country – because Iran should not get the impression that international inspectors are committing an injustice towards it. This time, the situation is different. Iran has accepted international sanctions on its nuclear program, especially on its capability to enrich uranium, and it would like to act according to the spirit of the agreement.
"Another incident could further endanger this agreement. Barack Obama has assured America's Gulf allies that [America] will help them if their security is in danger, clearly meaning that America will supply the latest weapons to its Arab and Gulf allies, while it has already provided billions of dollars in weapons to those countries."
"Obama Wants This Agreement Passed By Congress Because He Knows That If Congress Rejects This Agreement Then There Will Be War With Iran"
"Despite Israel's open opposition to the agreement and announcement that it will never accept it, America is providing more lethal weapons to Israel. The presence of such large quantities of lethal weapons in the Middle Eastern and the Gulf states is not a positive sign. This will increase chances of a large scale war. A former American undersecretary of defense, Eric Edelman, has demanded that the American president increase American military presence in the Middle East, when America already has a large number of troops in the region, and any increase in those would result in increased tension in the region. A massive propaganda campaign is continuing in America and Israel against Iran. In this regard, Israel is trying to mislead the American people regarding the Iran deal.
"According to a poll by Quinnipiac University, 57 percent of Americans are opposed to the nuclear deal signed with Iran, whereas 28 percent are in favor of it. Similarly, in a poll conducted by NBC News andThe Wall Street Journal, 35 percent of Americans are opposed to the Iran deal, whereas 33 percent support it, and 32 percent did not express their opinion. In a July 2015 poll conducted by CNN/ORC, 52 percent of Americans were opposed to the possible deal with Iran, whereas 44 percent supported it.
"Such polls in America are conducted by sections which are under the influence of Israel, and those results are being played up. Its purpose is to get it [the nuclear deal] rejected by the American Congress. Such poll results directly affect opposition in the American Congress because if the American Congress rejects it with a two-thirds majority, then it would create a difficult situation for America, and to get out of the difficult situation, U.S. President Barack Obama can veto the Congressional decision. Barack Obama wants this agreement passed by Congress because he knows that if Congress rejects this agreement, then there will be war with Iran, with dire consequences.
"America has a pre-existing military plan against Iran, which starts with an attack on Iran's nuclear installations. Obviously, Iran will not sit idly by, and will launch missile attacks against Israel and America, which will destroy the peace in the region. But Israel will not refrain from its conspiracies, and is constantly working against the agreement, so that by wrecking the agreement with Iran, the ground will be prepared for joint military action by America and Israel against Iran. But is Israel ready to put its security at stake?"
Source: Roznama Ummat (Pakistan), August 31, 2015.
1c)
Good Riddance!
By Thomas Sowell
Good Riddance!
The impending departure of Speaker of the House John Boehner gives the House Republicans a real opportunity to accomplish something. But an opportunity is not a guarantee. It is a little like a football team being first down and goal at the ten-yard line.
You have a good chance of scoring a touchdown from there -- if you can get your act together. But you could also find yourself having to settle for a field goal. Or for a missed field goal.
And of course you can also fumble the ball and have the other team grab it -- and run it all the way back across the field to score a touchdown against you. With Republicans, it would be chancy to make a bet as to which of these scenarios is most likely.
Speaker Boehner had a tough hand to play, given the internal splits among House Republicans. But Boehner's biggest problem was Boehner. And it is a recurring Republican problem.
Nothing epitomized Boehner's wrong-headedness like an occasion when he emerged from the White House, after a conference with President Obama and others, to face a vast battery of microphones and television cameras.
Here was a golden opportunity for Speaker Boehner to make his case directly to the American people, unfiltered by the media. Instead, he just walked over to the microphones and cameras, briefly expressed his disgust with the conference he had just come from, and then walked on away.
Surely Boehner knew, going into this White House conference, that it could fail. And, surely, he knew that there would be an opportunity immediately afterwards to present his case to the public. But, like so many Republican leaders over the years, he seemed to have no sense of the importance of doing so -- or for the time and efforts needed to prepare for such an opportunity beforehand.
Whoever the next Speaker of the House is, someone should have a plaque made up to put on his desk -- a plaque reading: TALK, DAMMIT!
If the political situation in Washington is such that many of the expectations of Republican voters cannot be met, then at least take the time and trouble to spell that out in plain language to the public.
Maybe the smug consultants in Washington don't think the public can understand. But Ronald Reagan won two landslide elections by doing what subsequent Republican leaders disdained to do.
In between, he accomplished what was called "the Reagan revolution" without ever having a majority in both Houses of Congress. He could go over the heads of Congressional Democrats and explain to the public why certain legislation was needed -- and once he won over the voters, Democrats in Congress were not about to jeopardize their reelection chances by going against them.
One of the secrets of Reagan's political success was a segment of the population that was called "Reagan Democrats." These were voters who traditionally voted for Democrats but who had been won over to Reagan's agenda.
Contrary to the thinking -- or lack of thinking -- among today's Republican leaders, Reagan did not go to these Democratic voters and pander to them by offering them a watered-down version of what the Democrats were offering. He took his case to them and talked -- yes, TALKED -- to let them know what his own agenda offered to them and to the country.
Today's Republicans who proclaim a need to "reach out" to a wider constituency almost invariably mean pandering to those groups' current beliefs, not showing them how your agenda and your principles -- if you have any -- apply to their situation and to the good of the country.
You won't swing a whole constituency of Democrats your way, and neither did Ronald Reagan. But he swung enough of them to win elections and to force Congressional Democrats to respect the "Reagan Democrats" he had won over.
There are issues on which Republicans can appeal to blacks -- school choice being just one obvious and important issue. And it is unlikely that all Hispanic voters want open borders, through which criminals can come in and settle in their communities.
But unspoken words will never tap these sources of votes, nor perhaps even convince Congressional Republicans. And if the quarterback is unsure what to do, being first and goal on the ten-yard line may not mean much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)---
Democracy In The 21ST Century
Western democracy always seems to be in crisis — which may be its greatest strength. When the dizzying velocity of change seems the only constant in the world, democracy has proved supple and stable enough to respond, adapt and evolve and, thereby, endure.
Among the challenges Western democracies face today, none are more surprising and complex than that posed by their steadfast bedfellow: freedom.
Unlike authoritarian & repressive forces, the problems posed by freedom are especially tricky because they stem from democracy’s deepest values and highest expression. They represent a bottom-up revolution led by the choices people are allowed to make rather than those they are forced to.Thanks to powerful and plentiful new technologies as well as deepening commitments to universal human rights, individuals around the world are enjoying an explosion of freedom.This phenomenon is apparent across the landscape, but nowhere more profoundly than in the far freer flows of people (immigration), goods (the global economy) and information (social media and the Internet).
The popular tools and ideas empowering individuals to chart their own course, however, are weakening the ties that have long bound democratic communities together. In myriad ways they are rattling the foundation upon which Western democracy has long stood — the common purpose and identity that has inspired what John Stuart Mill called the necessary sense of “fellow feeling.”
“Something has fundamentally changed at the foundation of society, in how we relate to one another,” said Marc J. Dunkelman of Brown University, whose books include “The Vanishing Neighbor.” “The truth is that you can’t expect the institutions that existed and worked well in one context of community to continue to operate as effectively when the ground is shifting beneath them.”
Start with immigration — a timeless phenomenon that presents new and contemporary problems. It is easy to forget that until the 1960s Europe was a source, rather than a recipient, of immigrants. And although the United States has long been known as a nation of immigrants, restrictive policies limited the flow until 1965, when policy changes helped introduce a new era of legal and illegal immigration.
The challenge of absorbing these newcomers has increased in recent years because of the increased ability of people once trapped in poor and distant lands to seek a better life in the West. “For all its hardships, migration is an enormous exercise of freedom by people to have better lives,” said Peter H. Schuck, a professor at Yale Law School who has written extensively on immigration.
“Managing that flow is increasingly difficult because governments are rightly sensitive to human rights concerns, so that they cannot simply turn these people away without affording them some procedural rights.”
As advances in transportation have helped make migration less expensive, new communication technologies are giving people a greater ability to stay in touch with their homelands and maintain their cultural distinctiveness. This, combined with larger critiques of assimilationist pressures and a greater respect for multiculturalism, diminishes the pressure on immigrants to adopt the beliefs, values and assumptions of their adopted countries.
Numerous studies have found that, instead of bringing people together, diversity can alienate people from one another, leading to breakdowns in social trust. Robert D. Putnam, a professor of political science at Harvard, has argued that diversity often leads people toward “hunkering down,” or self-segregation.
So too does the freer flow of goods and ideas represented by globalization. That is what Gal Ariely of the University of Haifa in Israel found in a study of data from 63 countries. “On average, in those countries that benefit from a more relatively free spread of ideas and information, flow of goods and capital, people are less likely to be very proud of their country, less willing to fight for their country and less likely to support ethnic criteria for national membership,” Mr. Ariely wrote. “Therefore, these results support the argument that globalization is related to the decline of national identity.”
Even as new technologies are empowering some people to see themselves as parts of larger communities, the Internet provides others with the freedom to create their own identities.
As a result, society is becoming more compartmentalized, said Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist whose books include “The End of History and the Last Man.” He noted that “technology allows people to organize better and share so that you have, for instance, many online communities that did not exist 20 years ago. You used to have to share things with people you didn’t have much in common with, except that they lived on your street.”
Mr. Fukuyama said this belied the notion that we are witnessing the wholesale breakdown of community and the social fabric. Instead, our social ties are evolving into new types of relationships and associations.
Because it represents profound change, this trend poses threats to the traditional foundations of democratic societies. Dovetailing with other powerful forces emphasizing individualism and anti-authority stances, it has been linked to remarkable declines in trust — in most major institutions as well as in fellow citizens — throughout much of the West, and especially in the United States, since the 1970s.
Advancing freedom is far from the only challenge to Western democracies, and its effects are amplified by other forces. Chief among these are the perceived failure of European and American leaders to respond effectively to various crises, including income inequality and economic stagnation.
The irony is that bonds that tie citizens to their communities, the shared sense of purpose and identity that greases the wheels of collective action in democracies, are fraying at a time when people are increasingly dependent upon ever more powerful states to solve difficult problems.
In the short run, this could have anti-democratic effects, especially through the rise of reactionary political groups that seek to limit freedom or the continued efforts of entrenched elites to impose their policies on a recalcitrant or tuned-out public.
If the past is prologue, however, democratic societies will evolve to meet the needs of an ever-changing world. “I think we’re in a period of epic lag where the foundation of democracy has shifted and the institutions haven’t shifted to reflect that new reality,” Mr. Dunkelman said. “The miracle of democracy isn’t that it somehow solves all the challenges facing the people that it governs but that it has proven malleable enough to develop new institutions calibrated to new norms.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
