Halevy, former Mossad head, not the hawk, Shin Bet's Diskin is. Halevy has different take on Iran being a super power and places a great deal of faith in Israeli missile capability. Takes a lot of guts to believe a tiny country could sustain a concerted nuclear attack by hitting incoming missile(s) in the air and what of the radioactive fall-out? With any luck perhaps it would fall on Hezballah in Lebanon.
Halevy is right about Israel attacking only as a last resort. As to the window of opportunity, I doubt Israel would attack after our election, unless there was extreme and convincing provocation, because they would be placing any incoming president in a very tenuous situation unless the candidates were clued in advance of the election and had signed on, which is highly remote. (See 1 below.)
Today's Wall Street Editorial is a gottcha! It explains how Berliners, dependent on U.S resolve, were unwilling to give up yet Obama, essentially told the Iraqis he was willing to give up on them. Like a women's slip, Obama's judgment was showing and the Journal's editorial was quick to point this out to its readers.
As the Journal editors write, winning should be the end goal. In Berlin, Obama asserted we must win against terrorism but he just can't bring himself to win in Iraq because winning is connected to the surge and the surge is Obama's third untouchable rail. So he will come home, take advantage of our wining and say we must move to Afghanistan without admitting he was wrong about the surge. Meanwhile McCain will probably be attacked by the press and media for needlessly haranguing Obama about the issue. (See 2 below.)
The U.N., like the World Bank, is a cumbersome bureaucracy. Each has worthy specified goals and each constantly falls short of them for a variety of different but also similar reasons. There are times when the U.N. serves our purposes and times when it stifles our initiatives. So it might be if we align ourselves more closely with European attitudes. Europe is conflicted by increasing Muslim influence, stunted economic growth, a desire to avoid confrontations and jealous of American power. They are consistently united in one matter - let America carry the ball and pay the price.
Europeans have a history of warfare and the decimation it has caused. Therefore, they are more willing to deny and appease believing or hoping the wolf at the door will go away. Six years of fruitless negotiations with Iran, Europe's willingness to support the IAEA's failed efforts to corral Iran's nuclear ambitions are cited as evidence of patient statesmanship and tireless diplomacy.
Strange that no one suggests a time line to these meetings with Iran. It must be because no one is getting killed and the cost of long lunches and dinners is not great. Eventually there will be a cost, deferred perhaps, but the nuclear pigeons will come home to roost one day because Iran, with an assist from Russia, intends to have nuclear weapons, the ability to defend the underground plants in which they are made and the missiles to deliver the rewards of their labor.
What could go right? Well, the Iranian people could overthrow their leaders. Ahmadinejad could be relieved of his position and a more dovish person could replace him, they could have a deterrent type accident along the way or have considerable technical difficulty which would impede the production of a nuclear device. Least likely but still possible, they could conclude the various sanctions are not worth the trauma to their citizens. That presupposes the thugs who control Iranian life style really care about their people's comforts.
Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons has some negative consequences as well. First, it would shake up the Saudi Sheiks and signal their reliance upon the U.S. was misplaced. It would, of course, send a message to Egypt and other Middle East nations they too need nuclear weapons and could finesse developing them as Iran did. Lastly, it could cause Israel to preempt Iran and who knows where that would lead but for sure the U.S. would eventually be involved and, also for sure, blamed.
Nothing I have mentioned is rocket science thinking. Even pacifist Swedes understand these pros and cons. The question is whether anything, beyond fruitless talk, will alter Iran's inevitable move. Will there be a time line laid down by McCain and/or Obama? Will Obama's new found Europeans friends join him in supporting a 'Fifty Four Forty' draw the line in the sand gauntlet that has teeth, ie. Iran, you can take this to the bank, you will be attacked? Can we expect an inspiring speech along those lines? I suspect not.
What I do expect is more pussyfooting, empty threats, perhaps a dose of new sanctions, if Russia permits, and more talk about all options remain on the table but lost, somewhere, in the tablecloth. Denial is so comforting considering the dire alternatives for which we have only ourselves to blame.
GW has got to be relieved he will soon be in Crawford, Texas and no doubt many Americans as well. Time and events might cause them to think otherwise but like Obama and the surge, they will never be able to bring themselves to admit it. After all, all the world's ills are because of GW. If you don't believe it ask those 200,000 Berliners because Obama obliquely told them that was the case. (See Gerard Baker's take in 3 below and say AMEN!)
Charles Krauthammer gave Obama high marks for the way he handled himself in France today. Krauthammer stated Obama came as an invited guest, unlike in Germany, appeared with Sarkozy unlike being alone on the stage in Berlin and said everything the French wanted to hear which suggests Obama might have learned a thing or two along the way while on his overseas trip.
Dick
1) Mossad chief says strike on Iran could 'affect us for 100 years'
Former Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy told Time magazine in an interview published Thursday that an Israeli attack on Iran "could have an impact on us for the next 100 years" and should only be considered as a last resort.
Halevy, who currently heads the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, added that an Iranian attack on Israel would probably have little impact, because Iranian missiles would largely be intercepted by Israel's advanced anti-missile defense system.
Another former senior Mossad official, who reportedly served during Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's administration, told the American magazine that "Iran's achievement is creating an image of itself as a scary superpower when it's really a paper tiger.
An additional Israeli source told Time that Israel sees the period between the U.S. elections in November and the president's inauguration in January as the "window of opportunity" for a possible attack on Iran. The source explained that any military move against Iran would not be carried out before the elections, because it would negatively impact the presidential candidates, especially Republican candidate John McCain and "No Israel leader wants to be blamed for destroying the Republican chances," Time cited the source as saying.
However, the magazine quoted intelligence sources as saying that an Israeli attack on Iran would likely stall the Islamic republic's nuclear aspirations only by "a year or two."
Launching a long-range strike against a multitude of hidden targets in Iran entails huge risks and uncertain rewards, which makes the cost-benefit analysis weigh against an air strike on Iran, according to some senior Israeli officials who urge caution.
2) REVIEW & OUTLOOK: Baghdad, Berlin, Barack
For our money, the best line in Barack Obama's speech yesterday in Berlin came in the form of a quote from Ernst Reuter, the city's mayor during the period of the Soviet blockade and the American airlift, in 1948:
"But in the darkest hour," said Sen. Obama, "the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city's mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. 'There is only one possibility,' he said. 'For us to stand together united until this battle is won…. The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty'." This, from a U.S. Senator whose consistent message to the people of Baghdad, a similarly besieged city, also dependent on America's protection, has been, in effect, to give up.
Mr. Obama reiterated this view earlier in the week while traveling in the Middle East, in an interview with ABC's Terry Moran. Mr. Moran asked the Illinois Democrat whether -- "knowing what you know now" -- he would reconsider his opposition to last year's surge of U.S. troops in Iraq. "Well, no," Mr. Obama replied.
What Mr. Obama "knows now" is that the surge he opposed has saved Iraq, much as Harry Truman's airlift saved Berlin and underlined America's intention to defend Europe throughout the Cold War. The surge has also saved American lives in Iraq, with combat-related deaths (so far, there have been seven this month) at an all time low.
Mr. Obama offered his own unwitting testimony to this fact by not donning body armor upon his arrival in Baghdad and during a helicopter tour with Gen. David Petraeus. "There have been few if any attacks of late on our aircraft, and the situation did not require them to be wearing body armor," explained Gen. Petraeus's spokesman.
Mr. Obama also knows that Gen. Petraeus opposes setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. This military judgment ought to count for something, particularly since Congressional Democrats have long scolded President Bush for failing to pay sufficient heed to the advice of generals such as former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki. Yet Mr. Obama, who has always been careful to cite the views of military commanders to justify his 16 month withdrawal schedule, now says that heeding less congenial military advice would mean an abdication of his responsibilities as a prospective commander in chief.
The Obama campaign now makes much of the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki seems to have endorsed the idea of a timetable for withdrawal, with 2010 as the approximate date. This is being played as a great political coup for Mr. Obama -- which, we suppose, it is, if only because the media plays it that way.
But the significant debate is not over whether and when the U.S. will withdraw. It's over whether the U.S. will win. In his Berlin speech, Mr. Obama was at his most forceful when he insisted that "this is the moment when we must defeat terror," adding that "the threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it." This is well-said and true.
But it squares oddly with a political campaign whose central premise is that losing in Iraq -- and whatever calamities may follow -- is a matter of little consequence to U.S. or European interests. It squares oddly, too, with Mr. Obama's broader promise to "stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, the voter in Zimbabwe" and virtually every other global cause.
It is hard not to be moved by the sight during the speech of hundreds of American flags being waved, rather than burned. Then again, the last time a major American political figure delivered an open-air speech in Berlin, 10,000 riot police had to use tear gas and water cannons to repel violent demonstrators. It was June 1987, the speaker was Ronald Reagan, his message was: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Press accounts characterized the line as "provocative"; the Soviets called it "war-mongering"; 100,000 protesters marched against Reagan in the old German capital of Bonn. Two years later, the Berlin Wall fell.
Reagan's speech is a lesson in the difference between popularity and statesmanship. Watching Mr. Obama yesterday in Berlin, and throughout his foreign tour, was a reminder of how far the presumptive Democratic nominee has to go to reassure people he is capable of the latter -- "people," that is, who will actually get to cast a ballot in November.
3) He ventured forth to bring light to the world
By Gerard Baker
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.
Background
* Obama fears the Blair effect as tour continues
* The Europhiles are not the future, Mr Obama
* The Bugle - Barack Obama is coming to Europe!
* Our leaders go after some Obama magic
And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.
He traveled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.
And the Child spake and the tribes of NATO immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.
From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.
And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.
And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy plowshares.
From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.
In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.
As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.
And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.
The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.
And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.
Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.
And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.
Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.
But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.
And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.
Thence he traveled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.
On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.
And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”
Friday, July 25, 2008
Next Obama Venue - The Moon! You The Man!
Not the first such incident in Iran. Has Mossad and/or our own forces penetrated Iran? (See 1 below.)
Lee Cary parses Obama's Berlin speech and compares it with Sakozy's.
Obama's staff is now considering his making a speech from the Moon. Turn's out Obama's the Man! (See 2 below.)
A favorable read on Obama's Berlin speech. (See 3 below.)
The Chief Editor of Der Spiegel's Foreign Desk recognizes Obama's desire to be leader of the planet and has dubbed him #44. He also poses the question for others whether they are up to being led and will follow #44 in saving the planet. (See 4 below.)
Krauthammer writes Maliki has voted. Krauthammer agrees with my own previous comment, Maliki is a very clever politician but the could be Maliki also get what he wishes for and that could turn out to be more than he bargained for.
What I find interesting is that all this "Time Line" talk is all comic theatre. We came, we saw, we conquered and then we leave. We always intended staying til the job was done and when the job was done we intended picking up our marbles in the distant hope Iraq will stay in the game and become a trusted ally whose people were freed of a tyrranical leader. The time for leaving is when you have completed the training of a viable Iraq force capable of protecting the nation so that a stable government can function. The Sunnis recanted their earlier decision to stay aloof and that took some time. Now the Sunni are inside the government and progress is being made according to our own State Department's measurements. So logic would dictate the time for withdrawal is near at hand, because of the surge, and will begin unless something comes along to mess it all up. Trying to score political points on exact time fixing is garbage. Wars and their aftermath and establishing new nations do not fit the time line of birthing babies.
How long does Obama plan to sit and talk with Iran? Any time line there or is he just going to talk till the nukes come home? (See 5 below.)
More positive commentary on Obama's speech from The Economist.
If a person makes a substantive speech does that mean he is a person of substance? Kennedy made some great speeches but after the Bay of Pigs we nearly got into a nuclear confrontation. So much for substantive speechifying.
It took Nixon to 'unilaterally' get us out of Viet Nam after Kennedy had their leader overthrown. Nixon accepted defeat and we are still paying the price.
Granted I have have been accused of cynicism and single mindedness. Perhaps I have become jaded by having lived too long but not without some degree of justification because when I see the world embrace a meteor in the form of a single human - the cult of personality - I get uptight. I am reminded of Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Chavez and their brethren.
There is something potentially dangerous when the world places its faith in a single mortal who heightens expectations simply thru hyperbolic and soaring rhetoric. Sermons are uplifting but action and follow through also count for something.
Martin Luther King was not embraced. In fact, he was consistently and persistently resisted and I believe that made his arguments stronger. He too was on the right side of the moral issue and if you seek truly brilliant speech making then I will take MLK and place him right alongside Adlai S and Hubert H. The latter two were accomplished statesmen with years of selfless public service. They fit the mold of the kind of leadership I feel more comfortable with even though their social welfare concepts were a bit over the hill for me.
Victor Davis Hanson makes a wise observation:When one reads about hostile populations in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the West Bank, and Venezuela all rooting for Obama, it seems to be predicated on the notion that, given their impression of his background and career thus far, he will radically alter the course of American foreign policy and at home turn us toward the world’s accepted model of European
socialism.
Thus, the $64K-question arises if he is elected: will our belligerents cease their animus, given that we are devolving to their world view, or is their hatred such that they will sense weakness and try to exploit even Obama’s rehabilitated America. (That’s a rhetorical question, since the answer I think is clearly the latter.)
You decide. (See 6 below.)
Dick
1) Iran convoy attacked reportedly while taking arms to Hezbollah
An Iranian military convoy attacked in a mysterious explosion last week was delivering a load of military equipment to the Hezbollah militant group at the time of the blast, western officials told the London Daily Telegraph in a report published on Friday.
Details of the explosion, which occurred near a Revolutionary Guards' munitions warehouse in the Tehran suburb of Khavarshahar and left 15 people dead, were blacked out even in Iranian media.
Western officials told the Telegraph that the Revolutionary Guards had launched an investigation into the cause mystery blast, which apparently took place on July 19.
Advertisement
"This was a massive explosion that was heard throughout Tehran," an official told the Telegraph. "Even though lots of people were killed, the Revolutionary Guards are trying to conceal what really happened."
The Guards are investigating the possibility that the explosion was the result of sabotage, the officials said. There have been a number of unexplained explosions in Iran of late, including on at a mosque in Shiraz during a military exhibition, and another at a missile site.
The West believes Iran has been increasing its military support of Hezbollah recently, in case of a future armed confrontation over its nuclear program.
Iran is arming Hezbollah with missiles sent via Turkey, according to intelligence received in Israel. Turkish authorities are unaware of the arms shipments, which are in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 that brought an end to the Second Lebanon War.
Some of the weapons include long-range missiles that are being transfered through flights using Turkey's airspace, as well as overland though Turkey, under the guise of civilian cargo. From Turkey, the missiles are transfered to Syria and then Lebanon. Turkey has not permitted the use of its territory for such transfers.
Sources in Jerusalem said earlier this year that Israel is concerned Iran might start moving weapons to Hezbollah by means of ships that anchor in the Beirut port.
The sources said oversight of marine vessels by UNIFIL (the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) was not efficient enough to enforce an embargo on weapons shipments into Lebanon and to pinpoint such shipments.
2) Obama's Berlin Transfiguration Speech
By Lee Cary
Obama's Berlin speech was the platform for his transfiguration into the presumptive victorious candidate for global leadership.
Back on February 13, 2008, American Thinker ran an article entitled "Obama, The Global Candidate" that predicted this:
"Obama will be packaged as the Global Candidate to whom the world's poor and oppressed look for signs of hope for the future. His mixed race and varied national backgrounds symbolize his connectivity with peoples across the planet. The adulation felt for him beyond America offers the U.S. a chance for enhanced strength and repaired credibility worldwide. Sure, he's an American citizen, but he's also a global citizen, a man of the world."
Meanwhile, the MSM will make no effort to peel away the veneer of conceptual vapidity surrounding Obama's seductive oratory. They will not push him for clarity or details. Instead, they will be his campaign's de facto PR firm."
It happened in Berlin.
Obama's handlers may have read Clarice Feldman's, July 9, 2008 American Thinker article entitled "Memo from Leni Riefenstadl," and staged his transfiguration in Leni's homeland. Larry J. Sabato, a professor at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics and a frequent commentator for FOX News, described the audience's response as a "rapturous reception." Sounds like a religious experience.
The text of his speech was clear and well-written, and delivered entirely in English, from the one who earlier ridiculed Americans for not being multilingual, before a German audience. The stated messages are generally unremarkable, and included these:
* My being here displays an improbably political story.
* Berlin was a key location in the Cold War.
* The people of Cold War Berlin hoped for a better future.
* The Berlin Airlift worked.
* Today we face new challenges that include terrorism, global warming, unsecured nuclear material, illegal drug traffickers, violence associated with impoverished peoples, and genocide in Africa.
* The greatest walls -- playing off of the Berlin Wall analogy -- are those that divide us as peoples.
* (Note: The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s name was not mentioned.)
More important were the implied meta-messages that included these:
* When I'm POTUS, I'll treat Europe more deferentially than has Bush. You'll like me better.
"True partnerships and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other, and most of all, trust each other."
* I'll put more emphasis on fighting global poverty.
"This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created and share its benefits more equitably." (snip) "Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the source of AIDS in our time?"
* I'll take the reduction of carbon emissions more seriously than has the Bush administration. I care about the planet.
"Let us resolve that all nations -- including my own -- will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere."
* I share your dislike of the image of America projected by the Bush administration. I'll fix it.
"Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law?" (snip) "I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions."
* I'm the presumptive POTUS who will lead the world. This is my time.
"People of Berlin - people of the world - this is our moment. This is our time." "People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge is great."
We should note one particularly important statement. Obama said,
"And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close."
That one sentence contains three meta-messages:
* I agree with you. Bush was wrong to overthrow Saddam Hussein. But, nevertheless...
* Help me rebuild the Iraq that Bush destroyed so we can withdraw. (Does he assume the military portion of the fight is effectively over? Sounds like it.)
* That will enable me to finally end the war America was wrong to start.
So, what do we make of this speech? The answer is -- it doesn't matter. The speech was ancillary to the event. It carried no news. The German audience was merely a European stage prop. The target audience was (1) the old news media, who will fawn over the sort of positive audience reception there that Bush will never enjoy, and (2) undecided voters back at home.
Obama's aim was to build his image as a global statesman. Did he do that? He may have to some extent, but another statesman who flew the other way across the Atlantic delivered a far better speech about America.
When French President Nicolas Sarkozy spoke before the Congress of the United States on November 7, 2007, these were among his words.
"...From the very beginning, the American dream meant proving to all mankind that freedom, justice, human rights and democracy were no utopia but were rather the most realistic policy there is and the most likely to improve the fate of each and every person.
"Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That's what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it to be threatened somewhere in the world. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible.
What made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope for all mankind.
I remember the Berlin crisis and Kennedy who unhesitatingly risked engaging the United States in the most destructive of wars so that Europe could preserve the freedom for which the American people had already sacrificed so much. No one has the right to forget. Forgetting, for a person of my generation, would be tantamount to self-denial."
Isn't it odd that the French President understands America better than a man who has at least a fifty-percent chance to become the next American President?
In the audacity of his advancing megalomania, Barack Obama imagines that he has a manifest destiny to bring hope, not just to America, but to the world.
Perhaps had he been aware of recent comments by former NASA astronaut (Apollo 14) and moon-walker Dr. Edgar Mitchell, he would have expanded the range of his audience to include extraterrestrials. They, too, deserve hope.
3) Obama Tears Down the Wall
By John Nichols
Barack Obama had several responsibilities when he embarked on the global tour that John McCain dared him to make.
The young senator from Illinois needed to establish himself as a credible world leader by going to Iraq and Afghanistan evidencing both his recognition of George Bush's manifest mistakes and his willingness and ability to wage a functional fight against legitimate terrorist threats. Check!
He needed to establish himself as respected commander-in-chief by not just appearing for photo-opportunities with troops in the field but by connecting with soldiers so that that all Americans who recognize their confidence in the man who seeks the authority to send these young men and women into life-and-death battles. Check!
He needed to establish himself as a diplomat capable of finessing the demands of Israelis and Palestinians in a manner that might suggest that, unlike Bill Clinton or George Bush, he is committed to advancing a difficult Middle East peace process from Day 1 of his presidency. Check!
And, of course, he needed to confirm his status as the greatest political orator of the era by delivering far more than just a stump speech in Berlin. Check!
How impressive did Obama's speech have to be to the citizens of Berlin, who greeted the Democrat who would be president with chants of the candidate's "Yes We Can" slogan?
Before Obama's arrival, London's Telegraph newspaper, a bible at the very least of the English-speaking European establishment, published a list of the 25 greatest political speeches of the past century.
"When Senator Barack Obama steps onto the stage on Thursday, next to Berlin's Victory column, the world will be expecting a momentous speech," the Telegraph observed. "The bar is high because, as even his detractors concede, Mr Obama is a remarkable orator. He first shot to prominence when he moved many at the 2004 Democratic convention to tears. He announced he would run for president last year with a beautifully-crafted address in Abraham Lincoln's home town of Springfield, Illinois. A pivotal moment of his epic primary battle with Hillary Clinton was his Philadelphia speech about race after the incendiary utterances of his former pastor Jeremiah Wright threatened to scupper his White House bid. But what makes a truly great speech?"
The definition chosen by the newspaper – "rhetorical brilliance, originality, historical importance, lasting influence, delivery and inspirational quality" -- was broad enough to include Obama even before he reached Berlin.
His 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote made the list at No. 25, after addresses by Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
Ironically, the Kennedy (""Ich bin ein Berliner") and Reagan ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!") speeches were made in Berlin, not far from the spot where Obama spoke on Thursday evening. And the Hitler and Churchill speeches – respectively declaring Germany's determination to wage a world war and Britain's determination to win that war – were not unrelated to the city.
Such was the weight of history that Obama carried with him to the podium.
It was not just the crowd in Berlin that greeted him.
The whole world really was watching – including aides and allies of the McCain campaign who, frustrated by the success of their Democratic rival's global positioning, would be searching for some sign of a John Kerry-esque "Frenchness."
The McCain camp did not get what it was looking for.
Obama began his speech on a profoundly patriotic note.
I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.
I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father – my grandfather – was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.
At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning – his dream – required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life.
That is why I'm here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life.
That was good, but easy for a candidate who has made this rhetoric central to his appeal.
Where Obama hit his mark was with the bridge that linked his Americanism essay to the world. He did it as Kennedy and Reagan had before him, by celebrating the historic support of the United States for the people of a city that became the symbol of the Cold War.
Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof.
On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade.
This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin.
The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin.
And that's when the airlift began – when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city.
The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold.
But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city's mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. "There is only one possibility," he said. "For us to stand together united until this battle is won…The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty…People of the world, look at Berlin!"
People of the world – look at Berlin!
Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.
There was the theme.
There was the heart and the soul of Obama's message.
If reconciliation between the United States and Europe was possible after the battles of World War II, then surely it is possible after the battles of the Bush-Cheney era.
In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth – that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.
Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more – not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.
The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.
Yes, that was an echo of Ronald Reagan that Berlin and the world heard Thursday night.
To be sure, Obama's critics will do their best to miss it.
But those who chose to give the most significant international policy address yet delivered by the man who would be president an honest hearing will be hard-pressed to suggest that he did not stand as tall as the great communicator in Berlin.
Great speeches are rarely recognized for their significance at the time when they are delivered.
History makes them epic. Reagan's "tear down this wall" line became the stuff of history when the wall was torn down.
Obama's "the walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand" line will become the stuff of history if and when an Obama presidency achieves not just a reconciliation but a new era of global cooperation – on issues of peace, poverty and global warming.
That is a tall order.
Taller, indeed, than any of those placed before Obama when he began his improbable journey.
But on another historic night in Berlin, when the whole world was watching and listening, it seemed… possible.
4) No. 44 Has Spoken
By Gerhard Spörl
Anyone who saw Barack Obama at Berlin's Siegessäule on Thursday could recognize that this man will become the 44th president of the United States. He is more than ambitious -- he wants to lay claim to become the president of the world.
It was a ton to absorb -- and what a stupendous ride through world history: the story of his own family, the Berlin Airlift, terrorists, poorly secured nuclear material, the polar caps, World War II, America's errors, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, freedom. It's amazing anyone could pack such a potpourri of issues into the space of a speech that lasted less than 30 minutes.
So what sticks? That Barack Obama is a passionate politician who is fixated on -- and takes very seriously -- his desire for a better world. That he is an impressive speaker who knows how to casually draw his audience into his image of the world -- one who doesn't have any need to resort to the kind of cheap effects that tend to prompt the uproarious applause of an audience. That he is a typical American -- an idealist in the true spirit of the American success story who is now very casually making his claim to becoming something akin to the president of the world.
He also could have said: We are a world power, the only one on the planet at the moment, and I intend to act as if this were the case. But you're also allowed to participate in the attempt to try to save the world -- at least a bit of it. In that sense I am different from George W. Bush, very different. Indeed, Barack Obama has his own sound -- it's more utopian, he speaks of the general human desire for better conditions for all of humanity; and he speaks of the longing for strong and dynamic presidents and chancellors who are capable of acting on a global scale. With this drive and this radiance, he managed to drive Hillary Clinton out of the campaign. It is also the way he will outpace John McCain by November 4. It is the way he took the hearts of Americans by storm, and it is the way he is now taking Europe by storm.
By Subverted
Anyone who saw him make the short way from the Victory Column in Berlin on Thursday to the podium saw a man with the serious gait of a basketball player, a man who seemed young, decisive and focused. For those who witnessed his appearance in Berlin, it is hard to imagine that John McCain has any chance. McCain is 25 years his senior, a man who because of the torture he endured in Vietnam is in constant pain -- unable to comb his hair or lift his arm in celebration.
Europe is witnessing the 44th president of the United States during this trip. Anyone who listens to him realizes that he is not only ambitious but will also make demands. In the inner circles of Angela Merkel's Chancellery, he is reportedly seen as a pleasant person, one who arouses curiosity.
However, he is also certain to demand the help of the Germans, Brits and French in Afghanistan and Iraq. He's not going to let NATO shirk its duty -- and therein lie the perils of the engaging "we" and the catchy "Yes, we can." Otherwise all these hard-nosed Europeans will hope and pray that the future President Obama isn’t really all that serious about the saving the world of tomorrow, the polar caps, Darfur and the poppy harvest over in Afghanistan.
George W. Bush is yesterday, the Texas version of the arrogant world power. Obama is all about today -- the "everybody really just wants to be brothers and save the world" utopia. As for us, we who sometimes admire and sometimes curse this somewhat anemic, pragmatic democracy, we will have to quickly get used to Barack Obama, the new leader of a lofty democracy that loves those big nice words -- words that warm our hearts and alarm our minds.
Let's allow ourselves to be warmed today, by this man at the Victory Column. Then we'll take a further look.
5) Maliki Votes for Obama
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- In a stunning upset, Barack Obama this week won the Iraq primary. When Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki not once but several times expressed support for a U.S. troop withdrawal on a timetable that accorded roughly with Obama's 16-month proposal, he not only legitimized the plan. He relieved Obama of a major political liability by blunting the charge that, in order to appease the MoveOn left, Obama was willing to jeopardize the astonishing success of the surge and risk losing a war that is finally being won.
Maliki's endorsement left the McCain campaign and the Bush administration deeply discomfited. They underestimated Maliki's sophistication and cunning.
What is Maliki thinking? Clearly, he believes that the Iraq War is won. Al-Qaeda is defeated, the Sunni insurgency is in abeyance, the Shiite extremists are scattered and marginalized. There will, of course, be some continued level of violence, recurring challenges to the authority of the central government and perhaps even mini-Tet offensives by both Shiite and Sunni terrorists trying to demoralize U.S. and Iraqi public opinion in the run-up to their respective elections. But in Maliki's view, the strategic threats to the unity of the state and to the viability of the new democratic government are over.
Maliki believes that his armed forces are strong enough to sustain the new Iraq with minimal U.S. help. He may be overconfident, as he has been repeatedly in estimating his army's capacities, most recently in launching a somewhat premature attack on militias in Basra that ultimately required U.S. and British support to succeed. And he is certainly more confident of his own capacities than is Gen. David Petraeus.
Whether warranted or not, Maliki's very confidence allows him to set out a rapid timetable for U.S. withdrawal, albeit conditioned on continuing improvement in the security situation -- a caveat Obama generally omits. But Maliki calculates that no U.S. president, whatever his campaign promises, would be insane enough to lose Iraq after all that has been gained and then be saddled with a newly chaotic Iraq that would poison his presidency.
So Maliki is looking ahead, beyond the withdrawal of major U.S. combat forces, and toward the next stage: the long-term relationship between America and Iraq.
With whom does he prefer to negotiate the status-of-forces agreement that will not be concluded during the Bush administration? Obama or McCain?
Obama, reflecting the mainstream Democratic view, simply wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Two years ago, it was because the war was lost. Now, we are told, it is to save Afghanistan. The reasons change, but the conclusion is always the same. Out of Iraq. Banish the very memory. Leave as small and insignificant a residual force as possible. And no long-term bases.
McCain, like George Bush, envisions the U.S. seizing the fruits of victory of a bloody and costly war by establishing an extensive strategic relationship that would not only make the new Iraq a strong ally in the war on terror but would also provide the U.S. with the infrastructure and freedom of action to project American power regionally, as do U.S. forces in Germany, Japan and South Korea.
For example, we might want to retain an air base to deter Iran, protect regional allies and relieve our naval forces, which today carry much of the burden of protecting the Gulf, thus allowing redeployment elsewhere.
Any Iraqi leader would prefer a more pliant American negotiator because all countries -- we've seen this in Germany, Japan and South Korea -- want to maximize their own sovereign freedom of action while still retaining American protection.
It is no mystery who would be the more pliant U.S. negotiator. The Democrats have long been protesting the Bush administration's hard bargaining for strategic assets in postwar Iraq. Maliki knows the Democrats are so sick of this war, so politically and psychologically committed to its liquidation, so intent on doing nothing to vindicate "Bush's war," that they simply want out with the least continued American involvement.
Which is why Maliki gave Obama that royal reception, complete with the embrace of his heretofore problematic withdrawal timetable.
Obama was likely to be president anyway. He is likelier now still. Moreover, he not only agrees with Maliki on minimizing the U.S. role in postwar Iraq. He now owes him. That's why Maliki voted for Obama, casting the earliest and most ostentatious absentee ballot of this presidential election.
6) Obamamania grips Europe
Barack Obama delivers a largely successful speech to a massive crowd in Berlin
BARACK OBAMA set himself a difficult task for his extraordinary appearance in Berlin on Thursday July 24th. He said that he came not to campaign but to deliver a “substantive address” on the pointy-headed subject of trans-Atlantic relations. Yet the crowd was expected to number in the tens of thousands. The listeners were mainly European, but the real audience was in America. He needed to tell voters what they want to hear, while rousing those who had flocked to see him. He sought to remind people of American presidents who had become legends by winning Berliners’ hearts and minds, but could not afford to appear presumptuous.
In the end he largely pulled it off, though the speech was not quite as substantive as advertised and the mood did not quite attain euphoria. The police estimated that over 200,000 people—perhaps the largest live audience that Mr Obama has ever addressed—thronged the boulevard that stretches between the Prussian Victory Column and the Brandenburg Gate. Despite jams at the entrances and poor reception at the back of the crowd, most did not appear to be disappointed. He was “cosmopolitan, not only American,” said Garunya Karunahramoorthy, a student of international relations from Berlin. In bowing to a foreign audience, Mr Obama seemed to give new life to the idea of the American century.
Mr Obama achieved that by fusing an older tradition of American beneficence with a contemporary emphasis on multilateralism, which he was careful to call “partnership”. The Berlin setting gave him a chance to make partnership seem the most patriotic thing in the world, and he exploited it to the full. He began by reminding Berliners that America had helped them to break the Soviet-imposed blockade of 1948-49 and to knock down the Berlin wall four decades later. But he acknowledged that the relationship had lately become troubled. “On both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart”, he admitted. Europe began to see America “as part of what has gone wrong”, overlooking its sacrifices for “freedom around the globe”. And America, he confessed, had “made our share of mistakes”.
The bits of Mr Obama’s rhetoric that were most popular with the locals were aimed at convincing them that America would make fewer mistakes in an Obama presidency. It would “reject torture and stand for the rule of law”, strive for “a world without nuclear weapons” and follow the Germans’ example in setting ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions that cause global warming. The American Mars would no longer trample the sensitivities of the European Venus. “America has no better partner than Europe”, he declared.
If Mr Obama had left it at that, his Republican rivals might have put together a case that he was keener to defend European values than American ones. But he was staunch in defence of American interests, and made it plain that partnership would come with a price. “We must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it”, he declared. “Iran…must abandon its nuclear ambitions.” But the United States cannot accomplish such tasks on its own. And that means that reluctant Europeans—Germans in particular—will have to contribute more than they have done to such ventures as the war in Afghanistan. “My country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO’s first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success.”
Participants in Mr Obama’s meetings with German chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier report that he charmed and impressed them. The throng was also content, although one man rightly wondered “how he could deliver” on everything he promised.
Mr Obama’s view of the world is no sunnier than George Bush’s: it is equally menaced by terrorists and weapons of mass destruction and genocide and more so by global warming. But Mr Obama promises—in fact demands—a more co-operative approach to solving such problems. New walls threaten to divide religions, tribes and classes. The answer, he said, attempting to sound like Kennedy and Reagan rolled into one, is to tear them down.
Lee Cary parses Obama's Berlin speech and compares it with Sakozy's.
Obama's staff is now considering his making a speech from the Moon. Turn's out Obama's the Man! (See 2 below.)
A favorable read on Obama's Berlin speech. (See 3 below.)
The Chief Editor of Der Spiegel's Foreign Desk recognizes Obama's desire to be leader of the planet and has dubbed him #44. He also poses the question for others whether they are up to being led and will follow #44 in saving the planet. (See 4 below.)
Krauthammer writes Maliki has voted. Krauthammer agrees with my own previous comment, Maliki is a very clever politician but the could be Maliki also get what he wishes for and that could turn out to be more than he bargained for.
What I find interesting is that all this "Time Line" talk is all comic theatre. We came, we saw, we conquered and then we leave. We always intended staying til the job was done and when the job was done we intended picking up our marbles in the distant hope Iraq will stay in the game and become a trusted ally whose people were freed of a tyrranical leader. The time for leaving is when you have completed the training of a viable Iraq force capable of protecting the nation so that a stable government can function. The Sunnis recanted their earlier decision to stay aloof and that took some time. Now the Sunni are inside the government and progress is being made according to our own State Department's measurements. So logic would dictate the time for withdrawal is near at hand, because of the surge, and will begin unless something comes along to mess it all up. Trying to score political points on exact time fixing is garbage. Wars and their aftermath and establishing new nations do not fit the time line of birthing babies.
How long does Obama plan to sit and talk with Iran? Any time line there or is he just going to talk till the nukes come home? (See 5 below.)
More positive commentary on Obama's speech from The Economist.
If a person makes a substantive speech does that mean he is a person of substance? Kennedy made some great speeches but after the Bay of Pigs we nearly got into a nuclear confrontation. So much for substantive speechifying.
It took Nixon to 'unilaterally' get us out of Viet Nam after Kennedy had their leader overthrown. Nixon accepted defeat and we are still paying the price.
Granted I have have been accused of cynicism and single mindedness. Perhaps I have become jaded by having lived too long but not without some degree of justification because when I see the world embrace a meteor in the form of a single human - the cult of personality - I get uptight. I am reminded of Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Chavez and their brethren.
There is something potentially dangerous when the world places its faith in a single mortal who heightens expectations simply thru hyperbolic and soaring rhetoric. Sermons are uplifting but action and follow through also count for something.
Martin Luther King was not embraced. In fact, he was consistently and persistently resisted and I believe that made his arguments stronger. He too was on the right side of the moral issue and if you seek truly brilliant speech making then I will take MLK and place him right alongside Adlai S and Hubert H. The latter two were accomplished statesmen with years of selfless public service. They fit the mold of the kind of leadership I feel more comfortable with even though their social welfare concepts were a bit over the hill for me.
Victor Davis Hanson makes a wise observation:When one reads about hostile populations in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the West Bank, and Venezuela all rooting for Obama, it seems to be predicated on the notion that, given their impression of his background and career thus far, he will radically alter the course of American foreign policy and at home turn us toward the world’s accepted model of European
socialism.
Thus, the $64K-question arises if he is elected: will our belligerents cease their animus, given that we are devolving to their world view, or is their hatred such that they will sense weakness and try to exploit even Obama’s rehabilitated America. (That’s a rhetorical question, since the answer I think is clearly the latter.)
You decide. (See 6 below.)
Dick
1) Iran convoy attacked reportedly while taking arms to Hezbollah
An Iranian military convoy attacked in a mysterious explosion last week was delivering a load of military equipment to the Hezbollah militant group at the time of the blast, western officials told the London Daily Telegraph in a report published on Friday.
Details of the explosion, which occurred near a Revolutionary Guards' munitions warehouse in the Tehran suburb of Khavarshahar and left 15 people dead, were blacked out even in Iranian media.
Western officials told the Telegraph that the Revolutionary Guards had launched an investigation into the cause mystery blast, which apparently took place on July 19.
Advertisement
"This was a massive explosion that was heard throughout Tehran," an official told the Telegraph. "Even though lots of people were killed, the Revolutionary Guards are trying to conceal what really happened."
The Guards are investigating the possibility that the explosion was the result of sabotage, the officials said. There have been a number of unexplained explosions in Iran of late, including on at a mosque in Shiraz during a military exhibition, and another at a missile site.
The West believes Iran has been increasing its military support of Hezbollah recently, in case of a future armed confrontation over its nuclear program.
Iran is arming Hezbollah with missiles sent via Turkey, according to intelligence received in Israel. Turkish authorities are unaware of the arms shipments, which are in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 that brought an end to the Second Lebanon War.
Some of the weapons include long-range missiles that are being transfered through flights using Turkey's airspace, as well as overland though Turkey, under the guise of civilian cargo. From Turkey, the missiles are transfered to Syria and then Lebanon. Turkey has not permitted the use of its territory for such transfers.
Sources in Jerusalem said earlier this year that Israel is concerned Iran might start moving weapons to Hezbollah by means of ships that anchor in the Beirut port.
The sources said oversight of marine vessels by UNIFIL (the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) was not efficient enough to enforce an embargo on weapons shipments into Lebanon and to pinpoint such shipments.
2) Obama's Berlin Transfiguration Speech
By Lee Cary
Obama's Berlin speech was the platform for his transfiguration into the presumptive victorious candidate for global leadership.
Back on February 13, 2008, American Thinker ran an article entitled "Obama, The Global Candidate" that predicted this:
"Obama will be packaged as the Global Candidate to whom the world's poor and oppressed look for signs of hope for the future. His mixed race and varied national backgrounds symbolize his connectivity with peoples across the planet. The adulation felt for him beyond America offers the U.S. a chance for enhanced strength and repaired credibility worldwide. Sure, he's an American citizen, but he's also a global citizen, a man of the world."
Meanwhile, the MSM will make no effort to peel away the veneer of conceptual vapidity surrounding Obama's seductive oratory. They will not push him for clarity or details. Instead, they will be his campaign's de facto PR firm."
It happened in Berlin.
Obama's handlers may have read Clarice Feldman's, July 9, 2008 American Thinker article entitled "Memo from Leni Riefenstadl," and staged his transfiguration in Leni's homeland. Larry J. Sabato, a professor at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics and a frequent commentator for FOX News, described the audience's response as a "rapturous reception." Sounds like a religious experience.
The text of his speech was clear and well-written, and delivered entirely in English, from the one who earlier ridiculed Americans for not being multilingual, before a German audience. The stated messages are generally unremarkable, and included these:
* My being here displays an improbably political story.
* Berlin was a key location in the Cold War.
* The people of Cold War Berlin hoped for a better future.
* The Berlin Airlift worked.
* Today we face new challenges that include terrorism, global warming, unsecured nuclear material, illegal drug traffickers, violence associated with impoverished peoples, and genocide in Africa.
* The greatest walls -- playing off of the Berlin Wall analogy -- are those that divide us as peoples.
* (Note: The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s name was not mentioned.)
More important were the implied meta-messages that included these:
* When I'm POTUS, I'll treat Europe more deferentially than has Bush. You'll like me better.
"True partnerships and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other, and most of all, trust each other."
* I'll put more emphasis on fighting global poverty.
"This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created and share its benefits more equitably." (snip) "Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the source of AIDS in our time?"
* I'll take the reduction of carbon emissions more seriously than has the Bush administration. I care about the planet.
"Let us resolve that all nations -- including my own -- will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere."
* I share your dislike of the image of America projected by the Bush administration. I'll fix it.
"Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law?" (snip) "I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions."
* I'm the presumptive POTUS who will lead the world. This is my time.
"People of Berlin - people of the world - this is our moment. This is our time." "People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge is great."
We should note one particularly important statement. Obama said,
"And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close."
That one sentence contains three meta-messages:
* I agree with you. Bush was wrong to overthrow Saddam Hussein. But, nevertheless...
* Help me rebuild the Iraq that Bush destroyed so we can withdraw. (Does he assume the military portion of the fight is effectively over? Sounds like it.)
* That will enable me to finally end the war America was wrong to start.
So, what do we make of this speech? The answer is -- it doesn't matter. The speech was ancillary to the event. It carried no news. The German audience was merely a European stage prop. The target audience was (1) the old news media, who will fawn over the sort of positive audience reception there that Bush will never enjoy, and (2) undecided voters back at home.
Obama's aim was to build his image as a global statesman. Did he do that? He may have to some extent, but another statesman who flew the other way across the Atlantic delivered a far better speech about America.
When French President Nicolas Sarkozy spoke before the Congress of the United States on November 7, 2007, these were among his words.
"...From the very beginning, the American dream meant proving to all mankind that freedom, justice, human rights and democracy were no utopia but were rather the most realistic policy there is and the most likely to improve the fate of each and every person.
"Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That's what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it to be threatened somewhere in the world. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible.
What made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope for all mankind.
I remember the Berlin crisis and Kennedy who unhesitatingly risked engaging the United States in the most destructive of wars so that Europe could preserve the freedom for which the American people had already sacrificed so much. No one has the right to forget. Forgetting, for a person of my generation, would be tantamount to self-denial."
Isn't it odd that the French President understands America better than a man who has at least a fifty-percent chance to become the next American President?
In the audacity of his advancing megalomania, Barack Obama imagines that he has a manifest destiny to bring hope, not just to America, but to the world.
Perhaps had he been aware of recent comments by former NASA astronaut (Apollo 14) and moon-walker Dr. Edgar Mitchell, he would have expanded the range of his audience to include extraterrestrials. They, too, deserve hope.
3) Obama Tears Down the Wall
By John Nichols
Barack Obama had several responsibilities when he embarked on the global tour that John McCain dared him to make.
The young senator from Illinois needed to establish himself as a credible world leader by going to Iraq and Afghanistan evidencing both his recognition of George Bush's manifest mistakes and his willingness and ability to wage a functional fight against legitimate terrorist threats. Check!
He needed to establish himself as respected commander-in-chief by not just appearing for photo-opportunities with troops in the field but by connecting with soldiers so that that all Americans who recognize their confidence in the man who seeks the authority to send these young men and women into life-and-death battles. Check!
He needed to establish himself as a diplomat capable of finessing the demands of Israelis and Palestinians in a manner that might suggest that, unlike Bill Clinton or George Bush, he is committed to advancing a difficult Middle East peace process from Day 1 of his presidency. Check!
And, of course, he needed to confirm his status as the greatest political orator of the era by delivering far more than just a stump speech in Berlin. Check!
How impressive did Obama's speech have to be to the citizens of Berlin, who greeted the Democrat who would be president with chants of the candidate's "Yes We Can" slogan?
Before Obama's arrival, London's Telegraph newspaper, a bible at the very least of the English-speaking European establishment, published a list of the 25 greatest political speeches of the past century.
"When Senator Barack Obama steps onto the stage on Thursday, next to Berlin's Victory column, the world will be expecting a momentous speech," the Telegraph observed. "The bar is high because, as even his detractors concede, Mr Obama is a remarkable orator. He first shot to prominence when he moved many at the 2004 Democratic convention to tears. He announced he would run for president last year with a beautifully-crafted address in Abraham Lincoln's home town of Springfield, Illinois. A pivotal moment of his epic primary battle with Hillary Clinton was his Philadelphia speech about race after the incendiary utterances of his former pastor Jeremiah Wright threatened to scupper his White House bid. But what makes a truly great speech?"
The definition chosen by the newspaper – "rhetorical brilliance, originality, historical importance, lasting influence, delivery and inspirational quality" -- was broad enough to include Obama even before he reached Berlin.
His 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote made the list at No. 25, after addresses by Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
Ironically, the Kennedy (""Ich bin ein Berliner") and Reagan ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!") speeches were made in Berlin, not far from the spot where Obama spoke on Thursday evening. And the Hitler and Churchill speeches – respectively declaring Germany's determination to wage a world war and Britain's determination to win that war – were not unrelated to the city.
Such was the weight of history that Obama carried with him to the podium.
It was not just the crowd in Berlin that greeted him.
The whole world really was watching – including aides and allies of the McCain campaign who, frustrated by the success of their Democratic rival's global positioning, would be searching for some sign of a John Kerry-esque "Frenchness."
The McCain camp did not get what it was looking for.
Obama began his speech on a profoundly patriotic note.
I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.
I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father – my grandfather – was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.
At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning – his dream – required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life.
That is why I'm here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life.
That was good, but easy for a candidate who has made this rhetoric central to his appeal.
Where Obama hit his mark was with the bridge that linked his Americanism essay to the world. He did it as Kennedy and Reagan had before him, by celebrating the historic support of the United States for the people of a city that became the symbol of the Cold War.
Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof.
On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade.
This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin.
The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin.
And that's when the airlift began – when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city.
The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold.
But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city's mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. "There is only one possibility," he said. "For us to stand together united until this battle is won…The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty…People of the world, look at Berlin!"
People of the world – look at Berlin!
Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.
There was the theme.
There was the heart and the soul of Obama's message.
If reconciliation between the United States and Europe was possible after the battles of World War II, then surely it is possible after the battles of the Bush-Cheney era.
In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth – that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.
Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more – not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.
The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.
Yes, that was an echo of Ronald Reagan that Berlin and the world heard Thursday night.
To be sure, Obama's critics will do their best to miss it.
But those who chose to give the most significant international policy address yet delivered by the man who would be president an honest hearing will be hard-pressed to suggest that he did not stand as tall as the great communicator in Berlin.
Great speeches are rarely recognized for their significance at the time when they are delivered.
History makes them epic. Reagan's "tear down this wall" line became the stuff of history when the wall was torn down.
Obama's "the walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand" line will become the stuff of history if and when an Obama presidency achieves not just a reconciliation but a new era of global cooperation – on issues of peace, poverty and global warming.
That is a tall order.
Taller, indeed, than any of those placed before Obama when he began his improbable journey.
But on another historic night in Berlin, when the whole world was watching and listening, it seemed… possible.
4) No. 44 Has Spoken
By Gerhard Spörl
Anyone who saw Barack Obama at Berlin's Siegessäule on Thursday could recognize that this man will become the 44th president of the United States. He is more than ambitious -- he wants to lay claim to become the president of the world.
It was a ton to absorb -- and what a stupendous ride through world history: the story of his own family, the Berlin Airlift, terrorists, poorly secured nuclear material, the polar caps, World War II, America's errors, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, freedom. It's amazing anyone could pack such a potpourri of issues into the space of a speech that lasted less than 30 minutes.
So what sticks? That Barack Obama is a passionate politician who is fixated on -- and takes very seriously -- his desire for a better world. That he is an impressive speaker who knows how to casually draw his audience into his image of the world -- one who doesn't have any need to resort to the kind of cheap effects that tend to prompt the uproarious applause of an audience. That he is a typical American -- an idealist in the true spirit of the American success story who is now very casually making his claim to becoming something akin to the president of the world.
He also could have said: We are a world power, the only one on the planet at the moment, and I intend to act as if this were the case. But you're also allowed to participate in the attempt to try to save the world -- at least a bit of it. In that sense I am different from George W. Bush, very different. Indeed, Barack Obama has his own sound -- it's more utopian, he speaks of the general human desire for better conditions for all of humanity; and he speaks of the longing for strong and dynamic presidents and chancellors who are capable of acting on a global scale. With this drive and this radiance, he managed to drive Hillary Clinton out of the campaign. It is also the way he will outpace John McCain by November 4. It is the way he took the hearts of Americans by storm, and it is the way he is now taking Europe by storm.
By Subverted
Anyone who saw him make the short way from the Victory Column in Berlin on Thursday to the podium saw a man with the serious gait of a basketball player, a man who seemed young, decisive and focused. For those who witnessed his appearance in Berlin, it is hard to imagine that John McCain has any chance. McCain is 25 years his senior, a man who because of the torture he endured in Vietnam is in constant pain -- unable to comb his hair or lift his arm in celebration.
Europe is witnessing the 44th president of the United States during this trip. Anyone who listens to him realizes that he is not only ambitious but will also make demands. In the inner circles of Angela Merkel's Chancellery, he is reportedly seen as a pleasant person, one who arouses curiosity.
However, he is also certain to demand the help of the Germans, Brits and French in Afghanistan and Iraq. He's not going to let NATO shirk its duty -- and therein lie the perils of the engaging "we" and the catchy "Yes, we can." Otherwise all these hard-nosed Europeans will hope and pray that the future President Obama isn’t really all that serious about the saving the world of tomorrow, the polar caps, Darfur and the poppy harvest over in Afghanistan.
George W. Bush is yesterday, the Texas version of the arrogant world power. Obama is all about today -- the "everybody really just wants to be brothers and save the world" utopia. As for us, we who sometimes admire and sometimes curse this somewhat anemic, pragmatic democracy, we will have to quickly get used to Barack Obama, the new leader of a lofty democracy that loves those big nice words -- words that warm our hearts and alarm our minds.
Let's allow ourselves to be warmed today, by this man at the Victory Column. Then we'll take a further look.
5) Maliki Votes for Obama
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- In a stunning upset, Barack Obama this week won the Iraq primary. When Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki not once but several times expressed support for a U.S. troop withdrawal on a timetable that accorded roughly with Obama's 16-month proposal, he not only legitimized the plan. He relieved Obama of a major political liability by blunting the charge that, in order to appease the MoveOn left, Obama was willing to jeopardize the astonishing success of the surge and risk losing a war that is finally being won.
Maliki's endorsement left the McCain campaign and the Bush administration deeply discomfited. They underestimated Maliki's sophistication and cunning.
What is Maliki thinking? Clearly, he believes that the Iraq War is won. Al-Qaeda is defeated, the Sunni insurgency is in abeyance, the Shiite extremists are scattered and marginalized. There will, of course, be some continued level of violence, recurring challenges to the authority of the central government and perhaps even mini-Tet offensives by both Shiite and Sunni terrorists trying to demoralize U.S. and Iraqi public opinion in the run-up to their respective elections. But in Maliki's view, the strategic threats to the unity of the state and to the viability of the new democratic government are over.
Maliki believes that his armed forces are strong enough to sustain the new Iraq with minimal U.S. help. He may be overconfident, as he has been repeatedly in estimating his army's capacities, most recently in launching a somewhat premature attack on militias in Basra that ultimately required U.S. and British support to succeed. And he is certainly more confident of his own capacities than is Gen. David Petraeus.
Whether warranted or not, Maliki's very confidence allows him to set out a rapid timetable for U.S. withdrawal, albeit conditioned on continuing improvement in the security situation -- a caveat Obama generally omits. But Maliki calculates that no U.S. president, whatever his campaign promises, would be insane enough to lose Iraq after all that has been gained and then be saddled with a newly chaotic Iraq that would poison his presidency.
So Maliki is looking ahead, beyond the withdrawal of major U.S. combat forces, and toward the next stage: the long-term relationship between America and Iraq.
With whom does he prefer to negotiate the status-of-forces agreement that will not be concluded during the Bush administration? Obama or McCain?
Obama, reflecting the mainstream Democratic view, simply wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Two years ago, it was because the war was lost. Now, we are told, it is to save Afghanistan. The reasons change, but the conclusion is always the same. Out of Iraq. Banish the very memory. Leave as small and insignificant a residual force as possible. And no long-term bases.
McCain, like George Bush, envisions the U.S. seizing the fruits of victory of a bloody and costly war by establishing an extensive strategic relationship that would not only make the new Iraq a strong ally in the war on terror but would also provide the U.S. with the infrastructure and freedom of action to project American power regionally, as do U.S. forces in Germany, Japan and South Korea.
For example, we might want to retain an air base to deter Iran, protect regional allies and relieve our naval forces, which today carry much of the burden of protecting the Gulf, thus allowing redeployment elsewhere.
Any Iraqi leader would prefer a more pliant American negotiator because all countries -- we've seen this in Germany, Japan and South Korea -- want to maximize their own sovereign freedom of action while still retaining American protection.
It is no mystery who would be the more pliant U.S. negotiator. The Democrats have long been protesting the Bush administration's hard bargaining for strategic assets in postwar Iraq. Maliki knows the Democrats are so sick of this war, so politically and psychologically committed to its liquidation, so intent on doing nothing to vindicate "Bush's war," that they simply want out with the least continued American involvement.
Which is why Maliki gave Obama that royal reception, complete with the embrace of his heretofore problematic withdrawal timetable.
Obama was likely to be president anyway. He is likelier now still. Moreover, he not only agrees with Maliki on minimizing the U.S. role in postwar Iraq. He now owes him. That's why Maliki voted for Obama, casting the earliest and most ostentatious absentee ballot of this presidential election.
6) Obamamania grips Europe
Barack Obama delivers a largely successful speech to a massive crowd in Berlin
BARACK OBAMA set himself a difficult task for his extraordinary appearance in Berlin on Thursday July 24th. He said that he came not to campaign but to deliver a “substantive address” on the pointy-headed subject of trans-Atlantic relations. Yet the crowd was expected to number in the tens of thousands. The listeners were mainly European, but the real audience was in America. He needed to tell voters what they want to hear, while rousing those who had flocked to see him. He sought to remind people of American presidents who had become legends by winning Berliners’ hearts and minds, but could not afford to appear presumptuous.
In the end he largely pulled it off, though the speech was not quite as substantive as advertised and the mood did not quite attain euphoria. The police estimated that over 200,000 people—perhaps the largest live audience that Mr Obama has ever addressed—thronged the boulevard that stretches between the Prussian Victory Column and the Brandenburg Gate. Despite jams at the entrances and poor reception at the back of the crowd, most did not appear to be disappointed. He was “cosmopolitan, not only American,” said Garunya Karunahramoorthy, a student of international relations from Berlin. In bowing to a foreign audience, Mr Obama seemed to give new life to the idea of the American century.
Mr Obama achieved that by fusing an older tradition of American beneficence with a contemporary emphasis on multilateralism, which he was careful to call “partnership”. The Berlin setting gave him a chance to make partnership seem the most patriotic thing in the world, and he exploited it to the full. He began by reminding Berliners that America had helped them to break the Soviet-imposed blockade of 1948-49 and to knock down the Berlin wall four decades later. But he acknowledged that the relationship had lately become troubled. “On both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart”, he admitted. Europe began to see America “as part of what has gone wrong”, overlooking its sacrifices for “freedom around the globe”. And America, he confessed, had “made our share of mistakes”.
The bits of Mr Obama’s rhetoric that were most popular with the locals were aimed at convincing them that America would make fewer mistakes in an Obama presidency. It would “reject torture and stand for the rule of law”, strive for “a world without nuclear weapons” and follow the Germans’ example in setting ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions that cause global warming. The American Mars would no longer trample the sensitivities of the European Venus. “America has no better partner than Europe”, he declared.
If Mr Obama had left it at that, his Republican rivals might have put together a case that he was keener to defend European values than American ones. But he was staunch in defence of American interests, and made it plain that partnership would come with a price. “We must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it”, he declared. “Iran…must abandon its nuclear ambitions.” But the United States cannot accomplish such tasks on its own. And that means that reluctant Europeans—Germans in particular—will have to contribute more than they have done to such ventures as the war in Afghanistan. “My country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO’s first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success.”
Participants in Mr Obama’s meetings with German chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier report that he charmed and impressed them. The throng was also content, although one man rightly wondered “how he could deliver” on everything he promised.
Mr Obama’s view of the world is no sunnier than George Bush’s: it is equally menaced by terrorists and weapons of mass destruction and genocide and more so by global warming. But Mr Obama promises—in fact demands—a more co-operative approach to solving such problems. New walls threaten to divide religions, tribes and classes. The answer, he said, attempting to sound like Kennedy and Reagan rolled into one, is to tear them down.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Obama The Unilateralist? Wonders Never Cease!
Obama tells Olmert he wants to meet with Iran to legitimize his actions in the event they do not cease their march toward nuclear arms. Does this mean he has become a unilateralist? I thought that was a bad word in Democrat circles. (See 1 below.)
Diskin warns that Israel can no long say boo with any credibility and thus will pay a higher price in the future. Diskin's hard nosed assessment is a must read. (See 2 below.)
Kyle-Anne Shiver writes a scathing indictment and terms it the Obama Bubble. Shiver takes off the gloves, pulls no punches and in doing so is trying, like Paul Revere, to awake the voters from their self-imposed somnolent torpor. A very compelling piece of writing.(See 3 below.)
Another realist, departing Amb. Dan Gillerman, speaks his mind about UNFIL 2 the U.N. next fraud. Gillerman is Israel's equivalent of John Bolton in that he understands a failure when he sees it and is outspoken about it.(See 4 below.)
Mitch Albom discusses the recent exchange of two dead IDF soldier for Hezballah terrorists.
Earlier today I bumped into a friend, a former Israeli who fought in an elite IDF unit, came to this country as a doctor and is now retired. He reads my memos and believes Israel was right in seeking their soldiers back. He bases his view on moral grounds. My friend is no left wing chicken. He is a very caring man who has saved many lives and just believes Israel and Olmert had no choice and did what was right.
I disagree with him but respect his viewpoint. I fear the recent prisoner swap was another, more public, display of Israeli weakness as viewed through the prism of Israel's many radical enemies, that it will not stop further terrorist attempts to capture more soldiers and in fact will encourage them.
When we let killers out of jail invariably they kill again. Seldom are they redeemed while in prison. In fact, they are frequently hardened by the experience. (See 5 below.)
Even scratchy voiced Susan Estrich, is having second thoughts about the press and media's love affair with our new emperor. She highlights three pitfalls and suggests what is not be asked now will come around later. (See 6 below.)
Is a leading Democrat populist about to become popular in ways that he never planned? The National Enquirer ain't the most reliable source but frankly when it comes to holier than thou politicians nothing would surprise me.(See 7 below.)
Historian Victor Davis Hanson, writes: 'we just can't shake them '60's.' (See 8 below.)
Have a great weekend.
Dick
1) Obama to PM: Talks with Iran necessary to legitimize action
By Barak Ravid and Jack Khoury
Near the close of his visit to Israel on Wednesday, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. A major topic of their long conversation was Obama's declared willingness to engage in direct dialogue with Tehran.
Obama reportedly told Olmert that he is interested in meeting the Iranians in order to issue clear ultimatums. "If after that, they still show no willingness to change their nuclear policy, then any action against them would be legitimate," an Israeli source quoted him as saying.
Obama said it is clear that the Iranian nuclear issue will be a top priority for him as president, but said that as part of the diplomatic effort to end Tehran's enrichment program, the Iranians must be given an opportunity to change.
The presumptive nominee also emphasized the importance of solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said he had been impressed by the Palestinians' assessment that there has been substantial progress in the talks.
Obama also met with Noam Shalit, whose son Gilad has been held captive in the Gaza Strip for over two years, as well as with the Goldwasser and Regev families. Shalit said Obama sympathized with the family and its public struggle to bring Gilad home. He declined to comment on whether Obama would intervene personally in talks for his son's release.
2) Shin Bet head Diskin: Cease-fire with Hamas unlikely to hold
By Amos Harel
A seven-minute ride from Talansky, a minute's walk from Obama, the murderous tractor driver who launched his attack on Tuesday afternoon in central Jerusalem provided a reminder from real life. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not going anywhere in the near future. The day after the terrorist attack, the newspapers gave prominence to what was said by Yuval Diskin, the head of the Shin Bet security service, at a briefing he gave to the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee some two hours before the bulldozer attack. Diskin's forecast about there being copycats of the first "tractor terrorist," like his fierce criticism of the lack of law-enforcement and deterrence in East Jerusalem, were viewed as a prophecy that fulfilled itself at lightning speed. The small but well-oiled media section of the Shin Bet succeeded in presenting its performance, which at the bottom line was a failure to prevent a terror attack, as a near success.
Unlike his predecessor, Avi Dichter, Diskin appears very sparingly at meetings or forums in which his remarks can reach the general public. His remarks to the Knesset members therefore present a rare opportunity to understand the head of the service's world view. And the world according to Diskin is far from a friendly one: Fatah is weak, Hamas is gaining strength, Israel's deterrent powers are at a low ebb. More than a month after the declaration of the cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, Diskin admits that the tahadiyeh is stable. All those involved have an interest in its continuing, he says, and Hamas' influence on the other factions in the Strip is very great. Hamas sought the lull mainly because it was under pressure on account of the distress of the Palestinian public.
The sanctions that Israel imposed on the delivery of gasoline were a salient example. The residents of Gaza stopped driving their cars and the fact that it was only Hamas men who had enough gas to enable them to continue driving around, for the first time made them look corrupt. As an ideological and social movement, Hamas is considered to be in critical need of public support. It is also interested now in consolidating its power base in the Strip and in increasing its military strength. It has no interest in an immediate military confrontation with Israel at this point.
In agreeing to the cease-fire, Diskin believes, Israel extended a lifeline to Hamas. "We are not attacking them and we have lifted the blockade, while they have not taken upon themselves a commitment to stop their arms buildup. From the point of view of Hamas, it is the winner in the conflict, as the side that managed to hold its ground during the Israeli blockade. The lull in fighting is depicted as an impressive achievement for it." For its part, Israel is getting a temporary calm but, he says, "this is in fact an illusion. In our assessment, the rocket firing will start again at some point in the future."
In general, Diskin says, "our situation is extremely problematic in the struggle against radical Islam." He mentions a series of events in the past three years: the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Hamas' gaining of control of the government in Gaza, the Second Lebanon War, and now the cease-fire. "The events of the past three years have been a real blow to Israel's deterrent ability. Since Hamas came to power, the level of Palestinian daring against us has risen. That is the result of the erosion of our status."
Let us assume, Diskin continues, that Israel manages to arrive at an agreement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). We will have to make progress with the peace process while we have one leg stuck in the Gaza Strip and the other in the West Bank. The PA will not fight against Hamas. Hamas is stronger than Fatah, and if a joint "government of experts" is set up, its status will increase even more. Had Israel not arrested, after Gilad Shalit was kidnapped, Hamas' parliament members and ministers in the West Bank, Fatah would no longer be in charge of the PA in the West Bank.
Zero-sum game
Hamas has no intention of becoming more flexible about long-term issues vis-a-vis Israel, the Shin Bet head believes. Any flexibility it shows will be tactical. "For them the entire area of the Land of Israel is waqf [holy Muslim] land. In the future, they want to set up an Islamic caliphate here. From their point of view, it is a zero-sum game - them or us. A religious movement doesn't change its ideology."
Diskin expresses support for a deal for the release of Shalit, but not at any price. "We have to get Gilad Shalit back but not at the cost of killing dozens of innocent people. I am in favor of a deal, but a sane deal." After any agreement, Israel will have to reexamine very thoroughly the rules by which it exchanges prisoners of war. He opposes freeing "Young" Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti from prison, "but if the government decides to release him, it is best that this be done as a gesture to Abu Mazen rather than as part of a deal with Hamas." Unlike others, the Shin Bet head does not predict a great future for Barghouti outside the prison walls. "After the euphoria and the celebration [among Palestinians] over his release, we do not believe that Barghouti will play a crucial role in the arena."
East Jerusalem as the spearhead
In view of the great difficulty of fighting terror born and bred in East Jerusalem, it is not just the Shin Bet head who supports the idea of destroying terrorists' homes. The prime minister and defense minister are also in favor. It sounds simpler and more convincing than the alternatives - increasing the surveillance of a population of some 200,000, carrying out security checks of (for example) hundreds of Palestinian bulldozer drivers, and restricting freedom of movement among East Jerusalem residents bearing blue Israeli identity cards.
Major general Miki Levy, the (successful) commander of the Jerusalem District police when the terrorist bombings of the second intifada were at their height, explained this week that it was the razing of houses that saved Jerusalem. In 2002, he said in an interview with Army Radio, we proposed destroying the homes of members of the so-called Silwan unit of Hamas, which was responsible for the murder of dozens of Israelis. The political echelons wavered, but finally they accepted the point of view of the police and the Shin Bet. "Since then, we have had six years of quiet, until now."
The facts are somewhat different. In the year and a half following the destruction of the homes of the Silwan terrorists, in January 2003, there were another seven suicide bombings in Jerusalem, in which 75 Israelis were killed. Only then was a relative calm established, which held for three and a half years. Terror attacks in Jerusalem were halted thanks to the tremendous efforts made by the Shin Bet and the Israel Defense Forces, which managed to almost totally uproot the murderous terror networks of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Hebron, Bethlehem and Ramallah. It is these networks that sent most of the suicide bombers to Jerusalem, where they were assisted by local Arabs, who let them sleep over there and then transported them to the scene of the crime. They were brought under control only as a result of innumerable nighttime arrests and long hours of interrogation by the Shin Bet. The establishment of the separation fence, which made it more difficult (in some parts) to reach Jerusalem from the West Bank played a part too.
In the present round, the East Jerusalemites are the spearhead, the executors themselves. It is not at all clear that there was an organization behind the past six month's three suicide attacks in central Jerusalem. All the same, the closeness of the past three attacks now begins to seem like more than a mere statistical coincidence. One of the directions that will have to be checked is whether the three terrorists - the attacker at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva and the two bulldozer drivers - knew one another.Ibrahim Hamad, the head of the Silwan unit and the commander of the armed wing of Hamas in Ramallah who was arrested at the beginning of 2006, was a great believer in sleeper cells. Who knows what he left behind him when he was arrested?
Will destroying terrorists' homes again increase Israel's deterrent powers, if only in East Jerusalem? It is difficult to prove that empirically. Shin Bet and army officers who are asked for their opinion on this controversial issue always point to events that occurred some years ago, when Palestinian fathers reported their sons' intentions to the authorities for fear that the army would destroy the family's home as a punishment for the son's suicide bombing. But here too there are no more than 20 documented cases, and the question is always raised whether the destruction of a house is not the opening shot for the career of yet another terrorist.
Major General Udi Shani, who headed the committee that at the beginning of 2005 recommended to then chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon ceasing the practice of destroying the homes of terrorists, enlisted the help of writers and academic experts in preparing his report. The Shani committee stated that the damage caused by knocking down houses was greater than the value yielded by the practice, and that it had not been proven that it indeed deterred terrorists. So long as the trend is that terror is being thwarted, Shani said at that time, it is better to avoid destroying houses. If we find that we are in the midst of a new wave of suicide bombings, it is always possible to reconsider.
Ya'alon accepted the conclusions, even if they did not please him. Diskin thinks differently, but he has not yet produced decisive arguments in support of his stand.
Refighting the Lebanon war
Lebanon, too, is now a central concern for the top security echelons. There are officers in the General Staff who recommend putting an end to restraint and sending "military signals" to the adversary, especially against the backdrop of reports in the Arab media about Hebollah setting up advanced anti-aircraft batteries in the Lebanese mountains. The head of Military Intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, said at the cabinet meeting this week that, with the completion of the prisoner-swap deal, Hezbollah could be expected to try and carry out an attack along the northern border as early as this summer. Yadlin explained that from the organization's point of view, there are still some "open files" that could constitute a pretext for an attack: the assassination last February of its leader, Imad Mughniyeh, and the fate of the Shaba Farms and the village of Maghar. In the last General Staff exercise, which took place in May, as at the meetings of the General Staff, there were profound professional arguments - does Israel have a large enough order of battle, in case of need, to conduct an attack on two fronts, the Syrian and the Lebanese? To what depth would a maneuvering force have to penetrate in order to achieve a decisive win over the enemy? Does the IDF have sufficient firepower at its disposal in view of the missions it might have to face in the North? (Major General Moshe Ivri-Sukenik, who was head of the Northern Corps until the beginning of the year, believed that the answer was negative, and expressed vehement criticism of the situation). Following the war in Lebanon, the accepted wisdom among IDF officers and academic experts was that one of the worst mistakes in that conflict was the decision to hold back the entry of ground forces into Lebanon and the presumption that it was possible to solve the problem of the Katyushas by more and more aerial bombing. Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi hints that with him, things would be handled completely differently. And indeed, analysts believe that Ashkenazi, unlike his predecessor, Dan Halutz, has a thorough understanding of ground warfare and therefore would not hesitate to send forces deep into the field. However, when the question of what should have been is addressed to a number of senior officers, one hears contradictory responses. Some speak about flanking and encircling South Lebanon (in the spirit of the plan proposed by cabinet minister Shaul Mofaz toward the end of the war, a plan that the government refrained from approving). Others believe that there is no way to avoid a systematic hunt, house after house, and cell after cell. And there are some who return to the air force option, even though this approach failed in the war.
One senior officer says that it is clear that in the next round, ground forces will be employed "so as to take a maximum number of civilians out of the range of the Katyushas," but that such a move would not be the way to win the battle. "We must not discount the short-range rockets but we must also not exaggerate. A great deal depends on how well we know how to protect ourselves and on responsible behavior on the home front. In the end, the real result will depend on something else - on our ability to deter the other side and to create destruction there on a scope that will force them to stop." Another senior officer, from the field corps, touches on a sensitive spot: "It is easy to say that next time we'll send in the ground forces," he says. "What is not mentioned is the price. A government that decides on a move like that has to know that it will entail the loss of many soldiers' lives. Even after what we experienced in Lebanon, I can't see a government in Israel today making a decision of that kind without hesitating over the matter for a few days."
3) The Bubble of Obama Supremacy
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities.'
--The Gospel of Matthew 25:23 (New American Bible) Parable of the Talents
America is a unique country. We are the new world, not the old. We elect leaders in a reasonable step-by-step fashion, honoring lifetimes of experience and wisdom, proven abilities to do the job, much in keeping with Jesus' parable of the talents. Once a person proves capable at the small job, we give him a whack at a bigger one.
It's the American way.
Our Founders were wise to dump European monarchy in favor of government of the people, by the people and for the people. And because of our Founders' direct experience with capricious rulers, American tradition has shied away, in every generation, from putting our leaders upon larger-than-life pedestals.
Hero worship of politicians just reeks of old-world kingdoms, and thus produces visceral disgust among Americans.
As Herbert Spencer so wisely noted, "Hero worship is greatest where there is least regard for freedom."
And that's just not us, is it? We revere freedom too much to indulge in hero worship of our leaders
As Americans, we honor reasoned discourse, and spurn emotionalism in our elections.
As Americans, we honor accomplishment, not birthright.
As Americans, we listen, consider and carefully elect.
We don't fawn and follow. We don't faint. And we don't coronate.
So, how has it come to pass that we now have a mere candidate for the Presidency of our United States of America, who is being received upon foreign shores as though he were not only already our President, but also our king?
Barack Obama is an American anomaly. An enigma. An aberration.
* Never in American history has a man with so pitifully little on his resume received such adoration.
* Never in American history has a candidate had the temerity to mimic our Presidential seal and place it upon his podium.
* Never in American history has a mere interviewee deigned to write the rules for our interview.
* Never in American history has a mere candidate had the gall to travel abroad with a press corps and secret service in tow to give "fake press interviews" for manipulated "news" coverage.
* Never in American history has so little respect been given to our electoral process.
The whole disgusting spectacle just smacks of old-world Europe, those folks so quick to hail a Bonaparte or a Hitler.
And sadly, oh-so-sadly, the comparisons don't stop with the fawning masses surrounding our audacious whippersnapper, Obama.
Two Dealers in Hope
A leader is a dealer in hope.
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon Bonaparte is not one of my personal favorites, as historical leaders go, and it's really quite interesting that a guy, who seized power through a military coup d'etat put so much stock in the old diabolical lure of souls, hope, when one might presume that he could have just as easily relied on bully force alone to motivate his people.
And, of course, Napoleon's purpose was nearly the perfect opposite of Obama's. Napoleon wanted to conquer the world for France. Obama wants to take American sovereignty and submit it to the whims of the global community. Opposite ends, employing the same old tacky lure.
"What if," says an Obama ad, "there was hope instead of fear?" Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope is, not surprisingly, a portrait of utter despair and hopelessness, the kind aspiring rulers usually paint just before they offer themselves as the cure.
In Obama's America, as presented in his own written words, our Country is in dire need of a new era, abundant "change" to fix our "broken souls," to fill up that "hole" in our lives.
What do Americans want, according to our new sage, Barack Obama?
"They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives, something that will relieve a chronic loneliness or lift them above the exhausting, relentless toll of daily life. They need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them -- that they are not just destined to travel down a long highway toward nothingness."
I'm not sure which to reach for here, my hanky or my Pepto Bismol.
Ah, but we should not fear, little ones, for Barack is here. And he brings on his starlit wings and with his rising sun...hope.
And for generations to come, we shall remember Barack's coronation (or is that inauguration?) as the "moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal..."
Who does this man think he is?
If I were going to put my hope in a mere mortal, I certainly would not invest such a precious commodity in a man who took taxpayer money for a state senator's job and voted "present" 130 times, any more than I would give the title "valedictorian" to the student with the worst attendance record.
I would not put my hope in a man who promised his district's poor better housing and then got in bed with a slumlord, a man who used taxpayer funds to produce rat-infested, uninhabitable dwellings instead.
I would never, ever put my hope for the whole country, much less for the entire planet, in the hands of a man who could not even change one racist preacher's mind or convince a single Chicago neighborhood to forego gang warfare for honest work.
Barack Obama is riding within the biggest fantasy bubble this side of Oz.
Another Inconvenient Truth
The cry of "change" has been used by demagogues and revolutionaries throughout history, as they fan discontent. The worst of the lot was a European who brought his political party to power using the same ephemeral change mantra as Obama's.
Adolf Hitler plastered early 1930s Germany with posters declaring his noble democratic socialist intentions:
Peace and equal rights.
All must be different.
However, Adolf Hitler's notions of peace and equal rights turned out to be quite different than those of the rest of the civilized world. And his quaint, little slogan, All must be different, certainly produced different results, but they weren't exactly pleasing to all the Jews, nor to the Christians, who learned sadly after the fact, that for Hitler, different meant replacing Christ with himself.
Of course nobody is accusing Obama of being another Hitler here. But I have always looked askance at those who sell dreams of "change." So, when Obama emblazons everything within his grasp, including his super jet:
Change you can believe in
he seems to be calling out to those mortal-worshiping Europeans in a voice to which they can certainly relate, but in America those open-ended declarations from power-seekers tend to fall upon deaf ears. Americans traditionally are extremely skeptical of such messianic claims.
So, what to make of Obama's appearance this week before fawning European masses at Berlin's Victory Column, planted where it is by Hitler's architect Albert Speer as the central focal point of Imperial Berlin, to be renmed "Germania."
Poor planning perhaps. Horrible judgment, certainly, at least in the eyes of most Americans.
Nevertheless, while the Europeans fawn and faint for Obama this week, Americans sit on the other side of the Pond, wondering when someone will have the guts to call attention to the fact that the "Emperor's clothes" might not be all we've been told to believe.
A European Mindset Inflating Obama's Bubble: George Soros
After spending 25 million dollars in his "life or death" mission to defeat President Bush in 2004, and coming up with nothing but a souvenir Kerry t-shirt, George Soros is apparently pulling out all the stops this year. And Barack Obama is his man.
Soros, a Hungarian-born naturalized American citizen, prides himself in being able to speculate on currencies and reap astronomical profits. Since the early 90s, he has become increasingly involved in global politics, especially in his adopted country, our U.S. of A. He bought Obama stock early on, by contributing heftily to Obama's 2004 Senate campaign, then as a personal presidential backer.
And when Soros talks, Democrats listen. He has become their number one financier, and his pockets are 7-billion-dollars deep.
Soros, however, does not seem to believe in the nation-state concept and has been pushing with all his monetary might for a system of global governance, with global taxation powers, in which he and his power-broker comrades could better do their "good deeds," without the hindrance of those pesky things like borders, national constitutions, and individual defense interests.
Soros also owns more than 250 global publishing outlets, which are fed storylines from his Open Society Institute. Soros' political presence is shadowy, but if one looks closely, one cannot miss the emanations and penumbras of his backing of Obama's campaign.
When the Jeremiah Wright affair was exploding in his candidate's face, with a reluctant mainstream media finally forced to show the pastor's racist rants, while YouTube Wright snippets were wracking up hits so fast that it looked as though Obama's boat might sink, Bill Moyers did a one-on-one interview with Wright to let him explain himself. Moyers is a former trustee of the Open Society Institute, and one of Soros' "closest confidants and political collaborators." (David Horowitz and Richard Poe; Shadow Party; p. 240)
Moyers is also infamous for his remark on the Charlie Rose show, 2004 election night:
"I think if Kerry were to win this in a tight race, I think there'd be an effort to mount a coup, quite frankly."
When asked by Rose to explain what he meant by "coup," Moyers replied,
"I mean that the right wing is not going to accept it."
Americans get disappointed; Europeans mount coups.
When Wesley Clark, the Democrats' favorite retired army general, attacked John McCain's "qualifications" for the Presidency, especially his military credentials, our watchdog mainstream media seems not to have thought it relevant to point out that Wesley Clark currently sits on the board of another of Soros' groups: The International Crisis Group. Soros, in addition to heavily funding the group, also sits on the Board with Clark, as do some other Obama "people," Samantha Power and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Richard Armitage, the leaker of Valerie Plame's name, is also a member, as is Kofi Annan.
Barack Obama may be an upstart with a flimsy resume, but he travels in some very fancy circles, especially among those who adore Europe and truly wish America were much more like her.
Unfortunately, for Soros, his European mindset and his European-style game plan for Obama, his candidate, Americans tend to think of Europe as a nice place to visit, but not many of us really want to live there.
Soros has done all in his power to burst what he calls the "Bubble of American Supremacy," but so far, our economy has proved too resilient and our people too attached to our way of life, our freedom and our sovereignty.
Soros is betting on this Obama bubble of inevitability, the inflation of which has been helped so much by Soros' own machinations.
I'm betting on America.
4) Gillerman: UNIFIL failures may set stage for new conflict
By MICHAL LANDO and YAAKOV KATZ
UNIFIL soldiers assigned to maintain the cease-fire that ended the Second Lebanon War in the summer of 2006 are not carrying out their mandate and are potentially laying the groundwork for another round of violence between Israel and Hizbullah, Israel's outgoing UN ambassador Danny Gillerman has told The Jerusalem Post.
In a parting interview, Gillerman, who has served in the sensitive position for the past six years, had harsh words for the UN's failed implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701, which brought the war to an end on terms, he said, that should have constituted an achievement for Israel.
"They [UNIFIL] should be much more proactive - more aggressive in going after Hizbullah - in detecting [and] identifying arms depots. They should be going in there, not just relying on Lebanese armed forces to do so, who often work in collusion with Hizbullah," he said.
"The UNIFIL soldiers were not sent there to give out chocolates to children or write traffic tickets. They were sent there to carry out a mandate which was very clearly defined, and they are not [doing so]. By not doing it, they may be laying the groundwork for the next flare-up. So even in their own interest and for their safety, they should be more proactive and go after Hizbullah, and find a way to control the Israeli-Syrian border."
Gillerman said he had brought up his "very grave concerns" about the situation with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. He said the Israeli government had made a concerted effort to persuade the UN leadership to take a more assertive approach to the UNIFIL troops' nonimplementation of Resolution 1701.
"We have brought in experts, brought in generals, briefed them on the situation - they know exactly what is happening. We are not even asking them to change the mandate or the rules of operation, because that would mean opening the whole thing today, and God knows where you will end up. But within the mandate as it stands today, they can do much more and be more effective, and if they don't, they will have to regret it," he said.
"Resolution 1701 was perceived as a major diplomatic achievement for Israel, because in previous wars, while we did have resounding and outright victories on ground, they were never followed by political or diplomatic achievements. Here, while we may not have had a resounding victory on the ground, we did have a very significant diplomatic achievement, which not only put an end to the war, but also had elements of dramatically changing the situation on the ground.
"It brought in 30,000 soldiers to southern Lebanon, including 15,000 Lebanese armed forces who had never set foot there - that's totally new - and 15,000 international soldiers under UN mandate, some very highly skilled and well-trained, which created a new situation in southern Lebanon.
"Until July 12, 2006, southern Lebanon was Hizbullah territory - a state within a state. Hizbullah could do whatever it wanted out in the open, and no Lebanese soldier would dare venture [in]. All of a sudden, there were 30,000 soldiers there," Gillerman said.
Yet frequent Israeli reports state that Hizbullah has used the two years since the war to arm itself to a much larger extent than it had in the six years after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.
"Resolution 1701 was supposed to limit [the] actions of Hizbullah, and prevent it from rearming," said Gillerman. "It did not achieve that. Hizbullah today has rearmed to the point that it is possibly even better equipped than it was before the war. The resolution also imposed an embargo on arms shipments to militias in Lebanon - namely Hizbullah - which was a huge achievement, but that wasn't implemented either.
"1701 also demanded the immediate release of [reservists] Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, who, tragically, were returned two years later in coffins. So the implementation of 1701 is far from satisfactory. In fact, it's very disappointing. But the elements were there, and still are.
"One of the things I keep telling the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and others is that it is up to them to implement it. It is the Security Council who passed it, and the Security Council cannot afford for it to be just another piece of paper because, in the end, when there is another flare-up in Lebanon, and there very well may be, the UN will be to blame, because they sent those forces there, drafted the resolution and at the end nothing came of it," Gillerman said.
UNIFIL sources told the Post that while they were familiar with such criticism from Gillerman, the UN force had not received any official objections to the way it was operating and implementing its mandate.
One official said that UNIFIL had recently received letters of gratitude from Israel and Lebanon, thanking the peacekeeping force for implementing its mandate and operating against Hizbullah in southern Lebanon.
"We read this criticism in the press," the official said. "But no one has filed a complaint about this on an official level."
While Gillerman's criticism is shared by many in the defense establishment, including Defense Minister Ehud Barak - who recently said publicly that 1701 had "collapsed" - officers in the IDF Northern Command are less critical, and in recent briefings have said that Israel is "far better off with UNIFIL than without."
The explanation for this discrepancy stems from the fact that the IDF - and not the diplomatic echelon - is in charge of relations with UNIFIL. IDF Strategic and Foreign Liaison Department head Brig.-Gen. Yossi Heiman holds monthly meetings with UNIFIL commander Maj.-Gen. Claudio Graziano and a representative of the Lebanese Armed Forces.
5) A grim exchange illustrates a key difference
By Mitch Albom
It seemed such a ghastly trade, flesh and blood for two boxes of bones. Many criticized it. Some could not bear to watch it. But if anything showed the difference between Israel and Hezbollah in last week's exchange of two dead Israeli soldiers for five live prisoners and 199 corpses, it was not the trade itself.
It was the reaction.
In Israel, where the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev arrived in black coffins, the mood was, according to reports, somber and mournful. Candles were lit. Prayers were recited. These two young soldiers, both students and reservists at the time, were captured in a cross-border raid two years ago by Hezbollah guerrillas, setting off a small war that ultimately left 160 Israelis and 1000 Lebanese dead.
Because the Israeli military vows to never leave a soldier on the battlefield, negotiations were held to get the two men back, even though most believed they were dead. Hezbollah, which captured the two men to use them as bargaining chips, held firm to its demand that Israel free several prisoners, including one named Samir Kuntar.
Not Kuntar, many Israelis said. He was serving life sentences for murdering three people in 1979: a police officer, a civilian named Danny Haran, and Haran's four year-old daughter, whose head Kuntar smashed on rocks and with his rifle butt. Haran's wife, hiding her other baby from Kuntar, covered her mouth to stop her whimpering. The child suffocated.
Kuntar's killings were regarded in Israel as the most brutal form of terrorism. The thought of freeing him went against every fiber of justice.
But last week, after almost 30 years behind bars, Kuntar was allowed to go by the Israeli authorities. And on Wednesday, he walked down a red carpet in Beirut and was kissed by the Hezbollah leader and cheered like a rock star.
"Samir! Samir!" the crowd reportedly yelled. This for a man convicted of smashing a child's head into pieces.
You can take whatever side you like in the Israeli-Palestinian debate. You can argue who is entitled to land and statehood and borders.
But you cannot defend the frenzied lovefest that took place for Kuntar in Lebanon, as if he were some long-lost statesmen, instead of a common murderer who did the worst thing you can do: take the life of a child. What religion condones that? What holy book says that is a good thing? A banner in Beirut, according to the New York Times, read "G-d's Achievement Through Our Hands."
What G-d would have a child's murder on anyone's hands? How do people celebrate such a killer?
Is it because the little girl was Israeli — and Israel is the enemy? Since when does a 4-year-old know of politics or war? Is it because Arab children get killed by Israelis? Yes, children undeniably die in bombings — on both sides. But an Israeli soldier who deliberately smashed a child's head on a rock would be tried as a criminal, not cheered like a hero.
The total disregard for life of anyone who does not believe what Hezbollah believes stands in stark contrast to the value of life — and even of its demise — that Israel demonstrated in bringing those two bodies back. The families of Goldwasser and Regev were able to put their sons in the ground, to say goodbye, to end the wondering. That small act meant something to the government, which voted on the exchange. In the midst of the never-ending conflict Israel faces, that says an awful lot.
Meanwhile, here is what Kuntar said to the cheering crowd: "I return from Palestine only to go back to Palestine. I promise families in Palestine that we are coming back, me and my brothers in the resistance."
You'll note he never says the word "Israel." To men like Kuntar, Israel does not exist and should never exist. He and the terrorist group that freed him (and you can install Hezbollah into all the government seats you want, a terrorist group is still a terrorist group) want a world in which Israel has no place. The Jews should be driven into the sea.
With a philosophy like that, it may be hard to expect remorse. But if you can justify Hezbollah calling a national holiday to cheer home a child murderer, there is no talking to you. There is only mourning — as there was over two coffins last week — for a world in which such things and such thinking can take place.
6) Media Love of Obama Doesn't Equal Victory
By Susan Estrich
Some years ago, a friend of mine who was then District Attorney of Los Angeles held a press conference on the beach with a couple of high-powered celebrities to trumpet efforts to use the criminal law to crack down on polluters. The press covering the event included representatives of the courthouse/political press corps and the entertainment/celebrity media. The difference was so stark that it made for a great story, which my friend told with relish. The political reporters were their usual selves: yelling questions, demanding answers, cynical, skeptical, giving nothing and showing no respect. Another day at the beach. The entertainment/celebrity reporters groveled, fawning and apologizing, grateful for the opportunity to be in the presence of the stars, eager not to offend, showing more courtesy than my political pal got from his own staff. The celebs themselves were appalled by how crudely and rudely behaved the political reporters were; my friend the politician couldn't believe that the members of the entertainment press actually considered themselves to be "reporters."
I can't help but think of that story as I watch some of our nation's finest -- or at least our most famous -- political reporters fawning all over Barack Obama like entertainment reporters covering a movie star. Is this good for them? Or for him, for that matter?
I certainly understand exactly why it is happening. Right now, Obama is bigger than any rock star. Right now, every reporter wants to be close to him, on his good side, at the front of the bus, or at least the front of the line for an interview. They are reporting what they are getting, which in many cases means what they are given, not exactly reporting by any definition. But who's to complain? No one wants to offend a guy who just might be President. No one wants to be on the "bad" list, the list of the last to know, of people who don't get the invites or the leaks or the tidbits that their editors and bosses back home are reading in somebody else's blog or watching on someone else's broadcast.
No one, or almost no one, attacks the press for tossing softballs. Oh, John McCain can complain about the coverage, but complaining makes him look smaller, not bigger; he gets attacked for whining, which may be one reason he has backed off from any such complaints and is now going out of his way to say that he is not making an issue of the press love-in with Obama. Andrea Mitchell made the point that the press is running video and pictures they are being given with no idea of what's been edited in or out, but that certainly hasn't stopped her own network from doing so. Katie Couric, in the nicest possible way (the old, "not that I'm criticizing you but people are scratching their heads trying to understand approach") tried to pin Obama down on whether he now sees the surge as a success, whether he would still be against it if he knew then what he does now (sort of like, Hillary -- was your vote for the war a mistake?), and what are people saying all over the Internet? Bad Katie. How dare she do that? How dare she push that way? How dare she do her job? Next thing you know, CBS will be joining FOX News on the "no interview" list.
The problem with all this fawning is threefold. First of all, the fact that the press doesn't push doesn't mean that, sooner or later, the Republicans won't. They will. Every question the press doesn't ask and Obama doesn't have to answer will be the subject of a speech at the Republican convention, an ad down the road, a tirade by somebody that will ring truer than it should precisely because it hasn't been addressed before. Do you really think McCain and his friends won't push hard for Obama to admit he was "wrong" about the surge? Of course they will; every bit as hard as Obama pressed Hillary on her war vote. Better to deal with it in questions from Katie, get an answer down that puts the question to rest rather than leaving her hypothetical viewer scratching his head than waiting for it to come back in a debate. Attacking Katie is not the answer -- Katie isn't running for President.
Second, being the favorite of the press doesn't necessarily win you votes. Most people don't actually like the press. The friend of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Being liked by the boys and girls on the bus doesn't necessarily earn you the respect of the people back home. Standing up to them, giving as good as you get, all that helps. But if being loved by the press were a sure route to success, Hillary Clinton would never have carried all those big states after March 1. Ronald Reagan would never have gotten elected President. George Bush would have lost, twice.
Third, and perhaps most important, the American press corps is the most fickle lover you could ever have. They make my worst ex-boyfriend look like a paragon of loyalty and devotion, giving new meaning to the old expression, "love 'em and leave 'em." Except the press doesn't just leave, they destroy. The better the coverage at the outset, the worse it will almost certainly be later on. I can't begin to count how many times I have warned politicians and candidates to worry as much about the good coverage as the bad, because the more air they put in your balloon, the bigger the target when they start shooting.
Maybe the media will remain as firmly in Obama's camp as they seem to be right now, fighting for seats on the plane, celebrating his every move. But if so, he will really be a first. And it won't necessarily help him win.
7) The Democratic ticket and the John Edwards affair
By Byron York
There’s been a lot of talk lately that former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) will have some sort of role in the Obama administration, if there is one.
A few months ago, Edwards, the Democratic Party’s 2004 vice presidential candidate, seemed to pull himself out of the VP race. But then, a couple of weeks ago, Edwards quietly put himself back in, telling National Public Radio, “I’m prepared to seriously consider anything, anything [Obama] asks me to do for our country.”
“Anything” could, of course, mean running for vice president. But Edwards has done that before, and he didn’t exactly put Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) over the top.
Of course, “anything” could also mean serving as Obama’s attorney general, a position that has been mentioned for the former trial lawyer from North Carolina.
In any event, Edwards has shaped up as someone to watch should Democrats win in November.
But now there’s another reason to watch: an extensive story in the National Enquirer providing new evidence that Edwards, in the midst of his presidential campaign, had an extramarital affair that has, perhaps, resulted in a child.
The story began in 2006, when Edwards commissioned a woman named Rielle Hunter — sometimes described as a documentary filmmaker and sometimes as an aspiring actress — to make a series of brief behind-the-scenes Web videos about his campaign.
Newsweek did a short item on the videos, mentioning that Edwards met the filmmaker “at a New York bar where Edwards was having a business meeting.”
That’s all we heard about it until September 2007, when the Huffington Post published a story headlined “Edwards Mystery: Innocuous Videos Suddenly Shrouded In Secrecy.”
The website’s Sam Stein reported that the videos made by Hunter had suddenly disappeared from Edwards’s campaign website. “No longer am I working on a piece about new media and politics,” Stein wrote. “Now, I just want to know why these webisodes are shrouded in such mystery.”
Then, the Enquirer got into the story, reporting last October that Edwards was “caught in a shocking mistress scandal that could wreck his campaign.”
When Edwards was asked about the allegation, according to the Enquirer, he strongly denied it.
“The story is false. It’s completely untrue, ridiculous,” Edwards said. “Anyone who knows me knows that I have been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years.”
Later, in December 2007, the Enquirer published more details. A pregnant Hunter had moved to North Carolina, living in a house “owned by an Edwards backer” and driving a BMW sport utility vehicle registered to a longtime Edwards aide.
Hunter denied any affair, saying that the longtime, married Edwards aide was actually the father. A lawyer for that aide confirmed to the Enquirer that the aide was indeed the father.
Now the Enquirer has published a new story under the screaming headline SEN. JOHN EDWARDS CAUGHT WITH MISTRESS AND LOVE CHILD!
The tabloid reports that Edwards visited Hunter in a Los Angeles hotel Monday night, leaving her at 2:40 Tuesday morning. When the Enquirer’s reporters confronted Edwards, the story goes, he tried to escape.
Critics might question the Enquirer’s involvement in all this. Perhaps, they might charge, money changed hands to make the story happen.
Maybe it did. But one reads an Enquirer story just like one reads a story in The New York Times. You look at the allegation and try to sort out how much evidence the paper is presenting.
For example, after carefully reading the Times’s front-page story alleging that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had had an affair with a lobbyist, one could only ask, Where’s the evidence?
That’s not the case with the Edwards story; there’s quite a bit of detail.
What will happen now? Well, we probably won’t hear as many mentions of Edwards as a possible key player in an Obama administration.
But so far, Edwards is going on as if nothing happened. The morning after the Enquirer story appeared, he was in Denver, promoting an anti-poverty project.
Asked about the vice presidency, he said, “I’m not seeking the job. But anything Sen. Obama would ask me to do in his campaign or presidency I would consider seriously.”
Will Obama ask? Not likely.
8) The '60s Won't Go Away
By Victor Davis Hanson
What more can anyone say about the 1960s and all its legacies?
Those who protested some 40 years ago often still congratulate themselves that their loud zeal alone brought needed "change" to America in civil rights, the environment, women's liberation and world peace. Maybe. But critics counter that the larger culture that followed was the most self-absorbed in memory.
Everyone can at least agree that the spirit of the "Me Generation" is not going quietly into the night -- especially since that generation ushered in a certain coarseness and self-righteousness that still plagues our politics.
Take grandiose sermonizing about changing the world while offering few practical details how to do it.
Al Gore recently prophesized that America within 10 years could generate all its electrical needs from "renewable resources and carbon-constrained fuels" -- mainly wind, solar and geothermal power (which currently together account for less than 10 percent of our aggregate production).
In truth, that daydream has about as much chance of being realized by 2018 as Al Gore this year swearing off the use of polluting SUVs and gas-guzzling private jets as he whizzes to his next environmental pulpit.
Barack Obama, a child during the '60s, is imbued nonetheless with that decade's "hope and change" messianic sermonizing. Now he wants a new mammoth government-funded "civilian national security force," one "that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the Pentagon.
Sounds utopian, but at a time of record aggregate national debt, are we really going to borrow another half-trillion dollars a year to fund a kinder, gentler version of the military?
Gore and Obama may mean well. And we may someday rely mostly on wind and solar electrical power, and even benefit by having more aid workers abroad. But they discredit their proposals with '60s-style exaggeration and feel-good fantasies that cannot be realized as promised.
Another permanent '60s legacy is the assumption that the ends justify crude means. The so-called netroots bloggers often celebrate online with glee the illnesses or deaths of supposedly reactionary political opponents.
The crass anti-war group Moveon.org was not just content to object to Gen. David Petraeus testifying before Congress last autumn. In the fashion of 1960s agitprop, it had to go the next step in demonizing at a time of war our top-ranking Iraq ground commander as a traitor -- a "General Betray Us" as the group's ad in The New York Times blared.
Due to a "grassroots effort" to garner thousands of petition signatures, the city of San Francisco will have on the November ballot a measure to change the name of one of its water "pollution control plants" to the "George W. Bush Sewage Plant." What a national trend that would be! Should red states follow that pettiness and rename their own sewers and dumps after John Kerry or Bill Clinton?
We still suffer from the same 1960s juvenile petulance when the powers that be did not immediately fall in line as protestors demanded.
Now the spirit of that age permeates Congress, whose members won't drill oil off our coasts or the continental shelf, or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Yet in infantile fashion, they rant about "Big Oil's" high gas prices. So, Congress instead threatens to sue OPEC to be fairer and to pump more oil. And we beg the Saudis to drill and pump more in their waters so we don't have to in ours.
Even in the much-poorer 1960s, it was hard to take seriously the idea of loud middle-class suburban kids as street revolutionaries, given the fact that America was the richest and freest society in history. And it's even harder now when many of them are rich seniors and the country itself is far wealthier.
So when a member of the aging baby-boom generation finger-points at us that drilling oil is the moral equivalent of invading Iraq, or that America has become two nations (the haves and have-nots), we can often expect to discover that the self-righteous sermonizer is a hypocrite. Green Al Gore uses a lot more energy than the average American. Populist John Edwards lives in a huge mansion.
By now, we've grown accustomed to elites railing about America's pathologies from the comfort of their own privilege -- along with the usual '60s-style apologies that their own lives don't need to match their rhetoric, and that we should just concentrate on their near-divine messages.
In their defense, they can't help it -- it's still a '60s thing.
Diskin warns that Israel can no long say boo with any credibility and thus will pay a higher price in the future. Diskin's hard nosed assessment is a must read. (See 2 below.)
Kyle-Anne Shiver writes a scathing indictment and terms it the Obama Bubble. Shiver takes off the gloves, pulls no punches and in doing so is trying, like Paul Revere, to awake the voters from their self-imposed somnolent torpor. A very compelling piece of writing.(See 3 below.)
Another realist, departing Amb. Dan Gillerman, speaks his mind about UNFIL 2 the U.N. next fraud. Gillerman is Israel's equivalent of John Bolton in that he understands a failure when he sees it and is outspoken about it.(See 4 below.)
Mitch Albom discusses the recent exchange of two dead IDF soldier for Hezballah terrorists.
Earlier today I bumped into a friend, a former Israeli who fought in an elite IDF unit, came to this country as a doctor and is now retired. He reads my memos and believes Israel was right in seeking their soldiers back. He bases his view on moral grounds. My friend is no left wing chicken. He is a very caring man who has saved many lives and just believes Israel and Olmert had no choice and did what was right.
I disagree with him but respect his viewpoint. I fear the recent prisoner swap was another, more public, display of Israeli weakness as viewed through the prism of Israel's many radical enemies, that it will not stop further terrorist attempts to capture more soldiers and in fact will encourage them.
When we let killers out of jail invariably they kill again. Seldom are they redeemed while in prison. In fact, they are frequently hardened by the experience. (See 5 below.)
Even scratchy voiced Susan Estrich, is having second thoughts about the press and media's love affair with our new emperor. She highlights three pitfalls and suggests what is not be asked now will come around later. (See 6 below.)
Is a leading Democrat populist about to become popular in ways that he never planned? The National Enquirer ain't the most reliable source but frankly when it comes to holier than thou politicians nothing would surprise me.(See 7 below.)
Historian Victor Davis Hanson, writes: 'we just can't shake them '60's.' (See 8 below.)
Have a great weekend.
Dick
1) Obama to PM: Talks with Iran necessary to legitimize action
By Barak Ravid and Jack Khoury
Near the close of his visit to Israel on Wednesday, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. A major topic of their long conversation was Obama's declared willingness to engage in direct dialogue with Tehran.
Obama reportedly told Olmert that he is interested in meeting the Iranians in order to issue clear ultimatums. "If after that, they still show no willingness to change their nuclear policy, then any action against them would be legitimate," an Israeli source quoted him as saying.
Obama said it is clear that the Iranian nuclear issue will be a top priority for him as president, but said that as part of the diplomatic effort to end Tehran's enrichment program, the Iranians must be given an opportunity to change.
The presumptive nominee also emphasized the importance of solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said he had been impressed by the Palestinians' assessment that there has been substantial progress in the talks.
Obama also met with Noam Shalit, whose son Gilad has been held captive in the Gaza Strip for over two years, as well as with the Goldwasser and Regev families. Shalit said Obama sympathized with the family and its public struggle to bring Gilad home. He declined to comment on whether Obama would intervene personally in talks for his son's release.
2) Shin Bet head Diskin: Cease-fire with Hamas unlikely to hold
By Amos Harel
A seven-minute ride from Talansky, a minute's walk from Obama, the murderous tractor driver who launched his attack on Tuesday afternoon in central Jerusalem provided a reminder from real life. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not going anywhere in the near future. The day after the terrorist attack, the newspapers gave prominence to what was said by Yuval Diskin, the head of the Shin Bet security service, at a briefing he gave to the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee some two hours before the bulldozer attack. Diskin's forecast about there being copycats of the first "tractor terrorist," like his fierce criticism of the lack of law-enforcement and deterrence in East Jerusalem, were viewed as a prophecy that fulfilled itself at lightning speed. The small but well-oiled media section of the Shin Bet succeeded in presenting its performance, which at the bottom line was a failure to prevent a terror attack, as a near success.
Unlike his predecessor, Avi Dichter, Diskin appears very sparingly at meetings or forums in which his remarks can reach the general public. His remarks to the Knesset members therefore present a rare opportunity to understand the head of the service's world view. And the world according to Diskin is far from a friendly one: Fatah is weak, Hamas is gaining strength, Israel's deterrent powers are at a low ebb. More than a month after the declaration of the cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, Diskin admits that the tahadiyeh is stable. All those involved have an interest in its continuing, he says, and Hamas' influence on the other factions in the Strip is very great. Hamas sought the lull mainly because it was under pressure on account of the distress of the Palestinian public.
The sanctions that Israel imposed on the delivery of gasoline were a salient example. The residents of Gaza stopped driving their cars and the fact that it was only Hamas men who had enough gas to enable them to continue driving around, for the first time made them look corrupt. As an ideological and social movement, Hamas is considered to be in critical need of public support. It is also interested now in consolidating its power base in the Strip and in increasing its military strength. It has no interest in an immediate military confrontation with Israel at this point.
In agreeing to the cease-fire, Diskin believes, Israel extended a lifeline to Hamas. "We are not attacking them and we have lifted the blockade, while they have not taken upon themselves a commitment to stop their arms buildup. From the point of view of Hamas, it is the winner in the conflict, as the side that managed to hold its ground during the Israeli blockade. The lull in fighting is depicted as an impressive achievement for it." For its part, Israel is getting a temporary calm but, he says, "this is in fact an illusion. In our assessment, the rocket firing will start again at some point in the future."
In general, Diskin says, "our situation is extremely problematic in the struggle against radical Islam." He mentions a series of events in the past three years: the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Hamas' gaining of control of the government in Gaza, the Second Lebanon War, and now the cease-fire. "The events of the past three years have been a real blow to Israel's deterrent ability. Since Hamas came to power, the level of Palestinian daring against us has risen. That is the result of the erosion of our status."
Let us assume, Diskin continues, that Israel manages to arrive at an agreement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). We will have to make progress with the peace process while we have one leg stuck in the Gaza Strip and the other in the West Bank. The PA will not fight against Hamas. Hamas is stronger than Fatah, and if a joint "government of experts" is set up, its status will increase even more. Had Israel not arrested, after Gilad Shalit was kidnapped, Hamas' parliament members and ministers in the West Bank, Fatah would no longer be in charge of the PA in the West Bank.
Zero-sum game
Hamas has no intention of becoming more flexible about long-term issues vis-a-vis Israel, the Shin Bet head believes. Any flexibility it shows will be tactical. "For them the entire area of the Land of Israel is waqf [holy Muslim] land. In the future, they want to set up an Islamic caliphate here. From their point of view, it is a zero-sum game - them or us. A religious movement doesn't change its ideology."
Diskin expresses support for a deal for the release of Shalit, but not at any price. "We have to get Gilad Shalit back but not at the cost of killing dozens of innocent people. I am in favor of a deal, but a sane deal." After any agreement, Israel will have to reexamine very thoroughly the rules by which it exchanges prisoners of war. He opposes freeing "Young" Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti from prison, "but if the government decides to release him, it is best that this be done as a gesture to Abu Mazen rather than as part of a deal with Hamas." Unlike others, the Shin Bet head does not predict a great future for Barghouti outside the prison walls. "After the euphoria and the celebration [among Palestinians] over his release, we do not believe that Barghouti will play a crucial role in the arena."
East Jerusalem as the spearhead
In view of the great difficulty of fighting terror born and bred in East Jerusalem, it is not just the Shin Bet head who supports the idea of destroying terrorists' homes. The prime minister and defense minister are also in favor. It sounds simpler and more convincing than the alternatives - increasing the surveillance of a population of some 200,000, carrying out security checks of (for example) hundreds of Palestinian bulldozer drivers, and restricting freedom of movement among East Jerusalem residents bearing blue Israeli identity cards.
Major general Miki Levy, the (successful) commander of the Jerusalem District police when the terrorist bombings of the second intifada were at their height, explained this week that it was the razing of houses that saved Jerusalem. In 2002, he said in an interview with Army Radio, we proposed destroying the homes of members of the so-called Silwan unit of Hamas, which was responsible for the murder of dozens of Israelis. The political echelons wavered, but finally they accepted the point of view of the police and the Shin Bet. "Since then, we have had six years of quiet, until now."
The facts are somewhat different. In the year and a half following the destruction of the homes of the Silwan terrorists, in January 2003, there were another seven suicide bombings in Jerusalem, in which 75 Israelis were killed. Only then was a relative calm established, which held for three and a half years. Terror attacks in Jerusalem were halted thanks to the tremendous efforts made by the Shin Bet and the Israel Defense Forces, which managed to almost totally uproot the murderous terror networks of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Hebron, Bethlehem and Ramallah. It is these networks that sent most of the suicide bombers to Jerusalem, where they were assisted by local Arabs, who let them sleep over there and then transported them to the scene of the crime. They were brought under control only as a result of innumerable nighttime arrests and long hours of interrogation by the Shin Bet. The establishment of the separation fence, which made it more difficult (in some parts) to reach Jerusalem from the West Bank played a part too.
In the present round, the East Jerusalemites are the spearhead, the executors themselves. It is not at all clear that there was an organization behind the past six month's three suicide attacks in central Jerusalem. All the same, the closeness of the past three attacks now begins to seem like more than a mere statistical coincidence. One of the directions that will have to be checked is whether the three terrorists - the attacker at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva and the two bulldozer drivers - knew one another.Ibrahim Hamad, the head of the Silwan unit and the commander of the armed wing of Hamas in Ramallah who was arrested at the beginning of 2006, was a great believer in sleeper cells. Who knows what he left behind him when he was arrested?
Will destroying terrorists' homes again increase Israel's deterrent powers, if only in East Jerusalem? It is difficult to prove that empirically. Shin Bet and army officers who are asked for their opinion on this controversial issue always point to events that occurred some years ago, when Palestinian fathers reported their sons' intentions to the authorities for fear that the army would destroy the family's home as a punishment for the son's suicide bombing. But here too there are no more than 20 documented cases, and the question is always raised whether the destruction of a house is not the opening shot for the career of yet another terrorist.
Major General Udi Shani, who headed the committee that at the beginning of 2005 recommended to then chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon ceasing the practice of destroying the homes of terrorists, enlisted the help of writers and academic experts in preparing his report. The Shani committee stated that the damage caused by knocking down houses was greater than the value yielded by the practice, and that it had not been proven that it indeed deterred terrorists. So long as the trend is that terror is being thwarted, Shani said at that time, it is better to avoid destroying houses. If we find that we are in the midst of a new wave of suicide bombings, it is always possible to reconsider.
Ya'alon accepted the conclusions, even if they did not please him. Diskin thinks differently, but he has not yet produced decisive arguments in support of his stand.
Refighting the Lebanon war
Lebanon, too, is now a central concern for the top security echelons. There are officers in the General Staff who recommend putting an end to restraint and sending "military signals" to the adversary, especially against the backdrop of reports in the Arab media about Hebollah setting up advanced anti-aircraft batteries in the Lebanese mountains. The head of Military Intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, said at the cabinet meeting this week that, with the completion of the prisoner-swap deal, Hezbollah could be expected to try and carry out an attack along the northern border as early as this summer. Yadlin explained that from the organization's point of view, there are still some "open files" that could constitute a pretext for an attack: the assassination last February of its leader, Imad Mughniyeh, and the fate of the Shaba Farms and the village of Maghar. In the last General Staff exercise, which took place in May, as at the meetings of the General Staff, there were profound professional arguments - does Israel have a large enough order of battle, in case of need, to conduct an attack on two fronts, the Syrian and the Lebanese? To what depth would a maneuvering force have to penetrate in order to achieve a decisive win over the enemy? Does the IDF have sufficient firepower at its disposal in view of the missions it might have to face in the North? (Major General Moshe Ivri-Sukenik, who was head of the Northern Corps until the beginning of the year, believed that the answer was negative, and expressed vehement criticism of the situation). Following the war in Lebanon, the accepted wisdom among IDF officers and academic experts was that one of the worst mistakes in that conflict was the decision to hold back the entry of ground forces into Lebanon and the presumption that it was possible to solve the problem of the Katyushas by more and more aerial bombing. Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi hints that with him, things would be handled completely differently. And indeed, analysts believe that Ashkenazi, unlike his predecessor, Dan Halutz, has a thorough understanding of ground warfare and therefore would not hesitate to send forces deep into the field. However, when the question of what should have been is addressed to a number of senior officers, one hears contradictory responses. Some speak about flanking and encircling South Lebanon (in the spirit of the plan proposed by cabinet minister Shaul Mofaz toward the end of the war, a plan that the government refrained from approving). Others believe that there is no way to avoid a systematic hunt, house after house, and cell after cell. And there are some who return to the air force option, even though this approach failed in the war.
One senior officer says that it is clear that in the next round, ground forces will be employed "so as to take a maximum number of civilians out of the range of the Katyushas," but that such a move would not be the way to win the battle. "We must not discount the short-range rockets but we must also not exaggerate. A great deal depends on how well we know how to protect ourselves and on responsible behavior on the home front. In the end, the real result will depend on something else - on our ability to deter the other side and to create destruction there on a scope that will force them to stop." Another senior officer, from the field corps, touches on a sensitive spot: "It is easy to say that next time we'll send in the ground forces," he says. "What is not mentioned is the price. A government that decides on a move like that has to know that it will entail the loss of many soldiers' lives. Even after what we experienced in Lebanon, I can't see a government in Israel today making a decision of that kind without hesitating over the matter for a few days."
3) The Bubble of Obama Supremacy
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities.'
--The Gospel of Matthew 25:23 (New American Bible) Parable of the Talents
America is a unique country. We are the new world, not the old. We elect leaders in a reasonable step-by-step fashion, honoring lifetimes of experience and wisdom, proven abilities to do the job, much in keeping with Jesus' parable of the talents. Once a person proves capable at the small job, we give him a whack at a bigger one.
It's the American way.
Our Founders were wise to dump European monarchy in favor of government of the people, by the people and for the people. And because of our Founders' direct experience with capricious rulers, American tradition has shied away, in every generation, from putting our leaders upon larger-than-life pedestals.
Hero worship of politicians just reeks of old-world kingdoms, and thus produces visceral disgust among Americans.
As Herbert Spencer so wisely noted, "Hero worship is greatest where there is least regard for freedom."
And that's just not us, is it? We revere freedom too much to indulge in hero worship of our leaders
As Americans, we honor reasoned discourse, and spurn emotionalism in our elections.
As Americans, we honor accomplishment, not birthright.
As Americans, we listen, consider and carefully elect.
We don't fawn and follow. We don't faint. And we don't coronate.
So, how has it come to pass that we now have a mere candidate for the Presidency of our United States of America, who is being received upon foreign shores as though he were not only already our President, but also our king?
Barack Obama is an American anomaly. An enigma. An aberration.
* Never in American history has a man with so pitifully little on his resume received such adoration.
* Never in American history has a candidate had the temerity to mimic our Presidential seal and place it upon his podium.
* Never in American history has a mere interviewee deigned to write the rules for our interview.
* Never in American history has a mere candidate had the gall to travel abroad with a press corps and secret service in tow to give "fake press interviews" for manipulated "news" coverage.
* Never in American history has so little respect been given to our electoral process.
The whole disgusting spectacle just smacks of old-world Europe, those folks so quick to hail a Bonaparte or a Hitler.
And sadly, oh-so-sadly, the comparisons don't stop with the fawning masses surrounding our audacious whippersnapper, Obama.
Two Dealers in Hope
A leader is a dealer in hope.
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon Bonaparte is not one of my personal favorites, as historical leaders go, and it's really quite interesting that a guy, who seized power through a military coup d'etat put so much stock in the old diabolical lure of souls, hope, when one might presume that he could have just as easily relied on bully force alone to motivate his people.
And, of course, Napoleon's purpose was nearly the perfect opposite of Obama's. Napoleon wanted to conquer the world for France. Obama wants to take American sovereignty and submit it to the whims of the global community. Opposite ends, employing the same old tacky lure.
"What if," says an Obama ad, "there was hope instead of fear?" Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope is, not surprisingly, a portrait of utter despair and hopelessness, the kind aspiring rulers usually paint just before they offer themselves as the cure.
In Obama's America, as presented in his own written words, our Country is in dire need of a new era, abundant "change" to fix our "broken souls," to fill up that "hole" in our lives.
What do Americans want, according to our new sage, Barack Obama?
"They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives, something that will relieve a chronic loneliness or lift them above the exhausting, relentless toll of daily life. They need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them -- that they are not just destined to travel down a long highway toward nothingness."
I'm not sure which to reach for here, my hanky or my Pepto Bismol.
Ah, but we should not fear, little ones, for Barack is here. And he brings on his starlit wings and with his rising sun...hope.
And for generations to come, we shall remember Barack's coronation (or is that inauguration?) as the "moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal..."
Who does this man think he is?
If I were going to put my hope in a mere mortal, I certainly would not invest such a precious commodity in a man who took taxpayer money for a state senator's job and voted "present" 130 times, any more than I would give the title "valedictorian" to the student with the worst attendance record.
I would not put my hope in a man who promised his district's poor better housing and then got in bed with a slumlord, a man who used taxpayer funds to produce rat-infested, uninhabitable dwellings instead.
I would never, ever put my hope for the whole country, much less for the entire planet, in the hands of a man who could not even change one racist preacher's mind or convince a single Chicago neighborhood to forego gang warfare for honest work.
Barack Obama is riding within the biggest fantasy bubble this side of Oz.
Another Inconvenient Truth
The cry of "change" has been used by demagogues and revolutionaries throughout history, as they fan discontent. The worst of the lot was a European who brought his political party to power using the same ephemeral change mantra as Obama's.
Adolf Hitler plastered early 1930s Germany with posters declaring his noble democratic socialist intentions:
Peace and equal rights.
All must be different.
However, Adolf Hitler's notions of peace and equal rights turned out to be quite different than those of the rest of the civilized world. And his quaint, little slogan, All must be different, certainly produced different results, but they weren't exactly pleasing to all the Jews, nor to the Christians, who learned sadly after the fact, that for Hitler, different meant replacing Christ with himself.
Of course nobody is accusing Obama of being another Hitler here. But I have always looked askance at those who sell dreams of "change." So, when Obama emblazons everything within his grasp, including his super jet:
Change you can believe in
he seems to be calling out to those mortal-worshiping Europeans in a voice to which they can certainly relate, but in America those open-ended declarations from power-seekers tend to fall upon deaf ears. Americans traditionally are extremely skeptical of such messianic claims.
So, what to make of Obama's appearance this week before fawning European masses at Berlin's Victory Column, planted where it is by Hitler's architect Albert Speer as the central focal point of Imperial Berlin, to be renmed "Germania."
Poor planning perhaps. Horrible judgment, certainly, at least in the eyes of most Americans.
Nevertheless, while the Europeans fawn and faint for Obama this week, Americans sit on the other side of the Pond, wondering when someone will have the guts to call attention to the fact that the "Emperor's clothes" might not be all we've been told to believe.
A European Mindset Inflating Obama's Bubble: George Soros
After spending 25 million dollars in his "life or death" mission to defeat President Bush in 2004, and coming up with nothing but a souvenir Kerry t-shirt, George Soros is apparently pulling out all the stops this year. And Barack Obama is his man.
Soros, a Hungarian-born naturalized American citizen, prides himself in being able to speculate on currencies and reap astronomical profits. Since the early 90s, he has become increasingly involved in global politics, especially in his adopted country, our U.S. of A. He bought Obama stock early on, by contributing heftily to Obama's 2004 Senate campaign, then as a personal presidential backer.
And when Soros talks, Democrats listen. He has become their number one financier, and his pockets are 7-billion-dollars deep.
Soros, however, does not seem to believe in the nation-state concept and has been pushing with all his monetary might for a system of global governance, with global taxation powers, in which he and his power-broker comrades could better do their "good deeds," without the hindrance of those pesky things like borders, national constitutions, and individual defense interests.
Soros also owns more than 250 global publishing outlets, which are fed storylines from his Open Society Institute. Soros' political presence is shadowy, but if one looks closely, one cannot miss the emanations and penumbras of his backing of Obama's campaign.
When the Jeremiah Wright affair was exploding in his candidate's face, with a reluctant mainstream media finally forced to show the pastor's racist rants, while YouTube Wright snippets were wracking up hits so fast that it looked as though Obama's boat might sink, Bill Moyers did a one-on-one interview with Wright to let him explain himself. Moyers is a former trustee of the Open Society Institute, and one of Soros' "closest confidants and political collaborators." (David Horowitz and Richard Poe; Shadow Party; p. 240)
Moyers is also infamous for his remark on the Charlie Rose show, 2004 election night:
"I think if Kerry were to win this in a tight race, I think there'd be an effort to mount a coup, quite frankly."
When asked by Rose to explain what he meant by "coup," Moyers replied,
"I mean that the right wing is not going to accept it."
Americans get disappointed; Europeans mount coups.
When Wesley Clark, the Democrats' favorite retired army general, attacked John McCain's "qualifications" for the Presidency, especially his military credentials, our watchdog mainstream media seems not to have thought it relevant to point out that Wesley Clark currently sits on the board of another of Soros' groups: The International Crisis Group. Soros, in addition to heavily funding the group, also sits on the Board with Clark, as do some other Obama "people," Samantha Power and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Richard Armitage, the leaker of Valerie Plame's name, is also a member, as is Kofi Annan.
Barack Obama may be an upstart with a flimsy resume, but he travels in some very fancy circles, especially among those who adore Europe and truly wish America were much more like her.
Unfortunately, for Soros, his European mindset and his European-style game plan for Obama, his candidate, Americans tend to think of Europe as a nice place to visit, but not many of us really want to live there.
Soros has done all in his power to burst what he calls the "Bubble of American Supremacy," but so far, our economy has proved too resilient and our people too attached to our way of life, our freedom and our sovereignty.
Soros is betting on this Obama bubble of inevitability, the inflation of which has been helped so much by Soros' own machinations.
I'm betting on America.
4) Gillerman: UNIFIL failures may set stage for new conflict
By MICHAL LANDO and YAAKOV KATZ
UNIFIL soldiers assigned to maintain the cease-fire that ended the Second Lebanon War in the summer of 2006 are not carrying out their mandate and are potentially laying the groundwork for another round of violence between Israel and Hizbullah, Israel's outgoing UN ambassador Danny Gillerman has told The Jerusalem Post.
In a parting interview, Gillerman, who has served in the sensitive position for the past six years, had harsh words for the UN's failed implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701, which brought the war to an end on terms, he said, that should have constituted an achievement for Israel.
"They [UNIFIL] should be much more proactive - more aggressive in going after Hizbullah - in detecting [and] identifying arms depots. They should be going in there, not just relying on Lebanese armed forces to do so, who often work in collusion with Hizbullah," he said.
"The UNIFIL soldiers were not sent there to give out chocolates to children or write traffic tickets. They were sent there to carry out a mandate which was very clearly defined, and they are not [doing so]. By not doing it, they may be laying the groundwork for the next flare-up. So even in their own interest and for their safety, they should be more proactive and go after Hizbullah, and find a way to control the Israeli-Syrian border."
Gillerman said he had brought up his "very grave concerns" about the situation with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. He said the Israeli government had made a concerted effort to persuade the UN leadership to take a more assertive approach to the UNIFIL troops' nonimplementation of Resolution 1701.
"We have brought in experts, brought in generals, briefed them on the situation - they know exactly what is happening. We are not even asking them to change the mandate or the rules of operation, because that would mean opening the whole thing today, and God knows where you will end up. But within the mandate as it stands today, they can do much more and be more effective, and if they don't, they will have to regret it," he said.
"Resolution 1701 was perceived as a major diplomatic achievement for Israel, because in previous wars, while we did have resounding and outright victories on ground, they were never followed by political or diplomatic achievements. Here, while we may not have had a resounding victory on the ground, we did have a very significant diplomatic achievement, which not only put an end to the war, but also had elements of dramatically changing the situation on the ground.
"It brought in 30,000 soldiers to southern Lebanon, including 15,000 Lebanese armed forces who had never set foot there - that's totally new - and 15,000 international soldiers under UN mandate, some very highly skilled and well-trained, which created a new situation in southern Lebanon.
"Until July 12, 2006, southern Lebanon was Hizbullah territory - a state within a state. Hizbullah could do whatever it wanted out in the open, and no Lebanese soldier would dare venture [in]. All of a sudden, there were 30,000 soldiers there," Gillerman said.
Yet frequent Israeli reports state that Hizbullah has used the two years since the war to arm itself to a much larger extent than it had in the six years after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.
"Resolution 1701 was supposed to limit [the] actions of Hizbullah, and prevent it from rearming," said Gillerman. "It did not achieve that. Hizbullah today has rearmed to the point that it is possibly even better equipped than it was before the war. The resolution also imposed an embargo on arms shipments to militias in Lebanon - namely Hizbullah - which was a huge achievement, but that wasn't implemented either.
"1701 also demanded the immediate release of [reservists] Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, who, tragically, were returned two years later in coffins. So the implementation of 1701 is far from satisfactory. In fact, it's very disappointing. But the elements were there, and still are.
"One of the things I keep telling the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and others is that it is up to them to implement it. It is the Security Council who passed it, and the Security Council cannot afford for it to be just another piece of paper because, in the end, when there is another flare-up in Lebanon, and there very well may be, the UN will be to blame, because they sent those forces there, drafted the resolution and at the end nothing came of it," Gillerman said.
UNIFIL sources told the Post that while they were familiar with such criticism from Gillerman, the UN force had not received any official objections to the way it was operating and implementing its mandate.
One official said that UNIFIL had recently received letters of gratitude from Israel and Lebanon, thanking the peacekeeping force for implementing its mandate and operating against Hizbullah in southern Lebanon.
"We read this criticism in the press," the official said. "But no one has filed a complaint about this on an official level."
While Gillerman's criticism is shared by many in the defense establishment, including Defense Minister Ehud Barak - who recently said publicly that 1701 had "collapsed" - officers in the IDF Northern Command are less critical, and in recent briefings have said that Israel is "far better off with UNIFIL than without."
The explanation for this discrepancy stems from the fact that the IDF - and not the diplomatic echelon - is in charge of relations with UNIFIL. IDF Strategic and Foreign Liaison Department head Brig.-Gen. Yossi Heiman holds monthly meetings with UNIFIL commander Maj.-Gen. Claudio Graziano and a representative of the Lebanese Armed Forces.
5) A grim exchange illustrates a key difference
By Mitch Albom
It seemed such a ghastly trade, flesh and blood for two boxes of bones. Many criticized it. Some could not bear to watch it. But if anything showed the difference between Israel and Hezbollah in last week's exchange of two dead Israeli soldiers for five live prisoners and 199 corpses, it was not the trade itself.
It was the reaction.
In Israel, where the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev arrived in black coffins, the mood was, according to reports, somber and mournful. Candles were lit. Prayers were recited. These two young soldiers, both students and reservists at the time, were captured in a cross-border raid two years ago by Hezbollah guerrillas, setting off a small war that ultimately left 160 Israelis and 1000 Lebanese dead.
Because the Israeli military vows to never leave a soldier on the battlefield, negotiations were held to get the two men back, even though most believed they were dead. Hezbollah, which captured the two men to use them as bargaining chips, held firm to its demand that Israel free several prisoners, including one named Samir Kuntar.
Not Kuntar, many Israelis said. He was serving life sentences for murdering three people in 1979: a police officer, a civilian named Danny Haran, and Haran's four year-old daughter, whose head Kuntar smashed on rocks and with his rifle butt. Haran's wife, hiding her other baby from Kuntar, covered her mouth to stop her whimpering. The child suffocated.
Kuntar's killings were regarded in Israel as the most brutal form of terrorism. The thought of freeing him went against every fiber of justice.
But last week, after almost 30 years behind bars, Kuntar was allowed to go by the Israeli authorities. And on Wednesday, he walked down a red carpet in Beirut and was kissed by the Hezbollah leader and cheered like a rock star.
"Samir! Samir!" the crowd reportedly yelled. This for a man convicted of smashing a child's head into pieces.
You can take whatever side you like in the Israeli-Palestinian debate. You can argue who is entitled to land and statehood and borders.
But you cannot defend the frenzied lovefest that took place for Kuntar in Lebanon, as if he were some long-lost statesmen, instead of a common murderer who did the worst thing you can do: take the life of a child. What religion condones that? What holy book says that is a good thing? A banner in Beirut, according to the New York Times, read "G-d's Achievement Through Our Hands."
What G-d would have a child's murder on anyone's hands? How do people celebrate such a killer?
Is it because the little girl was Israeli — and Israel is the enemy? Since when does a 4-year-old know of politics or war? Is it because Arab children get killed by Israelis? Yes, children undeniably die in bombings — on both sides. But an Israeli soldier who deliberately smashed a child's head on a rock would be tried as a criminal, not cheered like a hero.
The total disregard for life of anyone who does not believe what Hezbollah believes stands in stark contrast to the value of life — and even of its demise — that Israel demonstrated in bringing those two bodies back. The families of Goldwasser and Regev were able to put their sons in the ground, to say goodbye, to end the wondering. That small act meant something to the government, which voted on the exchange. In the midst of the never-ending conflict Israel faces, that says an awful lot.
Meanwhile, here is what Kuntar said to the cheering crowd: "I return from Palestine only to go back to Palestine. I promise families in Palestine that we are coming back, me and my brothers in the resistance."
You'll note he never says the word "Israel." To men like Kuntar, Israel does not exist and should never exist. He and the terrorist group that freed him (and you can install Hezbollah into all the government seats you want, a terrorist group is still a terrorist group) want a world in which Israel has no place. The Jews should be driven into the sea.
With a philosophy like that, it may be hard to expect remorse. But if you can justify Hezbollah calling a national holiday to cheer home a child murderer, there is no talking to you. There is only mourning — as there was over two coffins last week — for a world in which such things and such thinking can take place.
6) Media Love of Obama Doesn't Equal Victory
By Susan Estrich
Some years ago, a friend of mine who was then District Attorney of Los Angeles held a press conference on the beach with a couple of high-powered celebrities to trumpet efforts to use the criminal law to crack down on polluters. The press covering the event included representatives of the courthouse/political press corps and the entertainment/celebrity media. The difference was so stark that it made for a great story, which my friend told with relish. The political reporters were their usual selves: yelling questions, demanding answers, cynical, skeptical, giving nothing and showing no respect. Another day at the beach. The entertainment/celebrity reporters groveled, fawning and apologizing, grateful for the opportunity to be in the presence of the stars, eager not to offend, showing more courtesy than my political pal got from his own staff. The celebs themselves were appalled by how crudely and rudely behaved the political reporters were; my friend the politician couldn't believe that the members of the entertainment press actually considered themselves to be "reporters."
I can't help but think of that story as I watch some of our nation's finest -- or at least our most famous -- political reporters fawning all over Barack Obama like entertainment reporters covering a movie star. Is this good for them? Or for him, for that matter?
I certainly understand exactly why it is happening. Right now, Obama is bigger than any rock star. Right now, every reporter wants to be close to him, on his good side, at the front of the bus, or at least the front of the line for an interview. They are reporting what they are getting, which in many cases means what they are given, not exactly reporting by any definition. But who's to complain? No one wants to offend a guy who just might be President. No one wants to be on the "bad" list, the list of the last to know, of people who don't get the invites or the leaks or the tidbits that their editors and bosses back home are reading in somebody else's blog or watching on someone else's broadcast.
No one, or almost no one, attacks the press for tossing softballs. Oh, John McCain can complain about the coverage, but complaining makes him look smaller, not bigger; he gets attacked for whining, which may be one reason he has backed off from any such complaints and is now going out of his way to say that he is not making an issue of the press love-in with Obama. Andrea Mitchell made the point that the press is running video and pictures they are being given with no idea of what's been edited in or out, but that certainly hasn't stopped her own network from doing so. Katie Couric, in the nicest possible way (the old, "not that I'm criticizing you but people are scratching their heads trying to understand approach") tried to pin Obama down on whether he now sees the surge as a success, whether he would still be against it if he knew then what he does now (sort of like, Hillary -- was your vote for the war a mistake?), and what are people saying all over the Internet? Bad Katie. How dare she do that? How dare she push that way? How dare she do her job? Next thing you know, CBS will be joining FOX News on the "no interview" list.
The problem with all this fawning is threefold. First of all, the fact that the press doesn't push doesn't mean that, sooner or later, the Republicans won't. They will. Every question the press doesn't ask and Obama doesn't have to answer will be the subject of a speech at the Republican convention, an ad down the road, a tirade by somebody that will ring truer than it should precisely because it hasn't been addressed before. Do you really think McCain and his friends won't push hard for Obama to admit he was "wrong" about the surge? Of course they will; every bit as hard as Obama pressed Hillary on her war vote. Better to deal with it in questions from Katie, get an answer down that puts the question to rest rather than leaving her hypothetical viewer scratching his head than waiting for it to come back in a debate. Attacking Katie is not the answer -- Katie isn't running for President.
Second, being the favorite of the press doesn't necessarily win you votes. Most people don't actually like the press. The friend of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Being liked by the boys and girls on the bus doesn't necessarily earn you the respect of the people back home. Standing up to them, giving as good as you get, all that helps. But if being loved by the press were a sure route to success, Hillary Clinton would never have carried all those big states after March 1. Ronald Reagan would never have gotten elected President. George Bush would have lost, twice.
Third, and perhaps most important, the American press corps is the most fickle lover you could ever have. They make my worst ex-boyfriend look like a paragon of loyalty and devotion, giving new meaning to the old expression, "love 'em and leave 'em." Except the press doesn't just leave, they destroy. The better the coverage at the outset, the worse it will almost certainly be later on. I can't begin to count how many times I have warned politicians and candidates to worry as much about the good coverage as the bad, because the more air they put in your balloon, the bigger the target when they start shooting.
Maybe the media will remain as firmly in Obama's camp as they seem to be right now, fighting for seats on the plane, celebrating his every move. But if so, he will really be a first. And it won't necessarily help him win.
7) The Democratic ticket and the John Edwards affair
By Byron York
There’s been a lot of talk lately that former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) will have some sort of role in the Obama administration, if there is one.
A few months ago, Edwards, the Democratic Party’s 2004 vice presidential candidate, seemed to pull himself out of the VP race. But then, a couple of weeks ago, Edwards quietly put himself back in, telling National Public Radio, “I’m prepared to seriously consider anything, anything [Obama] asks me to do for our country.”
“Anything” could, of course, mean running for vice president. But Edwards has done that before, and he didn’t exactly put Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) over the top.
Of course, “anything” could also mean serving as Obama’s attorney general, a position that has been mentioned for the former trial lawyer from North Carolina.
In any event, Edwards has shaped up as someone to watch should Democrats win in November.
But now there’s another reason to watch: an extensive story in the National Enquirer providing new evidence that Edwards, in the midst of his presidential campaign, had an extramarital affair that has, perhaps, resulted in a child.
The story began in 2006, when Edwards commissioned a woman named Rielle Hunter — sometimes described as a documentary filmmaker and sometimes as an aspiring actress — to make a series of brief behind-the-scenes Web videos about his campaign.
Newsweek did a short item on the videos, mentioning that Edwards met the filmmaker “at a New York bar where Edwards was having a business meeting.”
That’s all we heard about it until September 2007, when the Huffington Post published a story headlined “Edwards Mystery: Innocuous Videos Suddenly Shrouded In Secrecy.”
The website’s Sam Stein reported that the videos made by Hunter had suddenly disappeared from Edwards’s campaign website. “No longer am I working on a piece about new media and politics,” Stein wrote. “Now, I just want to know why these webisodes are shrouded in such mystery.”
Then, the Enquirer got into the story, reporting last October that Edwards was “caught in a shocking mistress scandal that could wreck his campaign.”
When Edwards was asked about the allegation, according to the Enquirer, he strongly denied it.
“The story is false. It’s completely untrue, ridiculous,” Edwards said. “Anyone who knows me knows that I have been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years.”
Later, in December 2007, the Enquirer published more details. A pregnant Hunter had moved to North Carolina, living in a house “owned by an Edwards backer” and driving a BMW sport utility vehicle registered to a longtime Edwards aide.
Hunter denied any affair, saying that the longtime, married Edwards aide was actually the father. A lawyer for that aide confirmed to the Enquirer that the aide was indeed the father.
Now the Enquirer has published a new story under the screaming headline SEN. JOHN EDWARDS CAUGHT WITH MISTRESS AND LOVE CHILD!
The tabloid reports that Edwards visited Hunter in a Los Angeles hotel Monday night, leaving her at 2:40 Tuesday morning. When the Enquirer’s reporters confronted Edwards, the story goes, he tried to escape.
Critics might question the Enquirer’s involvement in all this. Perhaps, they might charge, money changed hands to make the story happen.
Maybe it did. But one reads an Enquirer story just like one reads a story in The New York Times. You look at the allegation and try to sort out how much evidence the paper is presenting.
For example, after carefully reading the Times’s front-page story alleging that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had had an affair with a lobbyist, one could only ask, Where’s the evidence?
That’s not the case with the Edwards story; there’s quite a bit of detail.
What will happen now? Well, we probably won’t hear as many mentions of Edwards as a possible key player in an Obama administration.
But so far, Edwards is going on as if nothing happened. The morning after the Enquirer story appeared, he was in Denver, promoting an anti-poverty project.
Asked about the vice presidency, he said, “I’m not seeking the job. But anything Sen. Obama would ask me to do in his campaign or presidency I would consider seriously.”
Will Obama ask? Not likely.
8) The '60s Won't Go Away
By Victor Davis Hanson
What more can anyone say about the 1960s and all its legacies?
Those who protested some 40 years ago often still congratulate themselves that their loud zeal alone brought needed "change" to America in civil rights, the environment, women's liberation and world peace. Maybe. But critics counter that the larger culture that followed was the most self-absorbed in memory.
Everyone can at least agree that the spirit of the "Me Generation" is not going quietly into the night -- especially since that generation ushered in a certain coarseness and self-righteousness that still plagues our politics.
Take grandiose sermonizing about changing the world while offering few practical details how to do it.
Al Gore recently prophesized that America within 10 years could generate all its electrical needs from "renewable resources and carbon-constrained fuels" -- mainly wind, solar and geothermal power (which currently together account for less than 10 percent of our aggregate production).
In truth, that daydream has about as much chance of being realized by 2018 as Al Gore this year swearing off the use of polluting SUVs and gas-guzzling private jets as he whizzes to his next environmental pulpit.
Barack Obama, a child during the '60s, is imbued nonetheless with that decade's "hope and change" messianic sermonizing. Now he wants a new mammoth government-funded "civilian national security force," one "that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the Pentagon.
Sounds utopian, but at a time of record aggregate national debt, are we really going to borrow another half-trillion dollars a year to fund a kinder, gentler version of the military?
Gore and Obama may mean well. And we may someday rely mostly on wind and solar electrical power, and even benefit by having more aid workers abroad. But they discredit their proposals with '60s-style exaggeration and feel-good fantasies that cannot be realized as promised.
Another permanent '60s legacy is the assumption that the ends justify crude means. The so-called netroots bloggers often celebrate online with glee the illnesses or deaths of supposedly reactionary political opponents.
The crass anti-war group Moveon.org was not just content to object to Gen. David Petraeus testifying before Congress last autumn. In the fashion of 1960s agitprop, it had to go the next step in demonizing at a time of war our top-ranking Iraq ground commander as a traitor -- a "General Betray Us" as the group's ad in The New York Times blared.
Due to a "grassroots effort" to garner thousands of petition signatures, the city of San Francisco will have on the November ballot a measure to change the name of one of its water "pollution control plants" to the "George W. Bush Sewage Plant." What a national trend that would be! Should red states follow that pettiness and rename their own sewers and dumps after John Kerry or Bill Clinton?
We still suffer from the same 1960s juvenile petulance when the powers that be did not immediately fall in line as protestors demanded.
Now the spirit of that age permeates Congress, whose members won't drill oil off our coasts or the continental shelf, or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Yet in infantile fashion, they rant about "Big Oil's" high gas prices. So, Congress instead threatens to sue OPEC to be fairer and to pump more oil. And we beg the Saudis to drill and pump more in their waters so we don't have to in ours.
Even in the much-poorer 1960s, it was hard to take seriously the idea of loud middle-class suburban kids as street revolutionaries, given the fact that America was the richest and freest society in history. And it's even harder now when many of them are rich seniors and the country itself is far wealthier.
So when a member of the aging baby-boom generation finger-points at us that drilling oil is the moral equivalent of invading Iraq, or that America has become two nations (the haves and have-nots), we can often expect to discover that the self-righteous sermonizer is a hypocrite. Green Al Gore uses a lot more energy than the average American. Populist John Edwards lives in a huge mansion.
By now, we've grown accustomed to elites railing about America's pathologies from the comfort of their own privilege -- along with the usual '60s-style apologies that their own lives don't need to match their rhetoric, and that we should just concentrate on their near-divine messages.
In their defense, they can't help it -- it's still a '60s thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)