PAWaterCooler.com

Joining Obama’s white grandmother and Reverend Wright is the entire nation of Israel, who has been tossed under the Hope ‘n’ Change Express. Of all the foreign policy blunders this administration has made so far(and I haven’t yet seen an international relations decision that I agree with), it’s Israel policy is by far the most damaging and heartbreaking. The incomparable Victor Davis Hanson in a column appearing yesterday:

Lost in all this reset-button diplomacy is introspection on why past American presidents sought to support Israel in the first place. We seem to forget why no-nonsense Harry Truman, against worldwide opposition, ensured the original creation of the Jewish state — or why more than 60 percent of Americans in most polls continue to side with Israel in its struggle to survive.

In contrast, most of the rest of the world does the math and concludes Israel is a bad investment. It has no oil; its enemies possess nearly half the world’s reserves.

There is no downside in criticizing Israel, but censuring some of its radical Arab neighbors might prompt anything from an oil embargo to a terrorist response.

According to the academic cult of multiculturalism, it is fashionable to see pro-American, democratic and capitalist Israel as a symbol of a pernicious Western culture of oppression; its enemies are seen as underdog liberationists.

Jonah Goldberg has a thoughtful post on the Enterbrise Blog on the somewhat gloomy recognition of Israel’s Independence Day this year. Quoting the New York Times:

But there is something about the mood this year that feels darker than usual. It has a bipartisan quality to it. Both left and right are troubled, and both largely about the same things, especially the Iranian nuclear program combined with growing tensions with the Obama administration. “There is a confluence of two very worrying events,” said Michael Freund, a rightist columnist for The Jerusalem Post in a telephone interview. “One is the Iranian threat, an existential threat. Add to that the fact that for the first time in recent memory there is a president in the White House who is not overly sensitive to the Jewish state and its interests. You put the two together and it will affect anyone’s mood, even an optimist like me.”

Goldberg makes this observation, noting that Israel’s existence is perhaps the most fragile in the world:

There’s a tendency to think that worrying about Israel’s existence is a kind of paranoia. It’s a funny—though not ha ha funny—line of argument. Israel didn’t exist for 2,000 years. There are millions of people in this country who were alive when the idea of Israel existing seemed far-fetched. It is surrounded by people who want it to go away and are firmly convinced that making it go away is a realistic goal worth striving for. Some of those people are pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Daniel Foster notes that support for the Administration’s Israel policy is lacking: only one in three Americans–and amazingly slightly more than one in four Jews–actually approve of Obama’s handling of the Jewish State.

Cliff May illustrates our government’s naivite….? willful abandonment…? reckless inconsideration….? of our longtime ally with this post on The Corner:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is concerned that Syria has given Iranian-backed Hezbollah advanced Scud missiles, which the terrorist group plans to use in a new war against Israel. So far so good, right? But then:

“There’s only one thing that’s going to solve it, and that’s a two-state solution,” she said, referring to stalled international efforts to create an independent, viable Palestinian state living at peace with Israel.

It is not possible that Senator Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, believes that Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria would be satisfied with a two-state solution — assuming that one of those states is Israel. It is not possible that she could know so little about those who run Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria.

But is there any other way to interpret her comment?

Iran has made no secret of it’s desire to “wipe Israel off the face of the map.” A nuclear Iran will soon be capable of this. Robert Gates’ admission earlier this week indicating that the Obama Administration has absolutely no policy for dealing with a nuclear Iran only reinforces my belief that the Administration’s policies in the Middle East are dangerous for Israel and all freedom loving nations in the world.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Isn’t this why he stabbed Conservatives in the back??

Holder: Bin Laden Never To Be Caught Alive

Usama bin Laden will never be captured alive, Attorney General Eric Holder told lawmakers on Tuesday.

“The possibility of capturing him alive is infinitesimal,” Holder said. “He will be killed by us, or he will be killed by his own people so that he is not captured by us. We know that. … The possibility simply does not exist.”

That assessment, which Holder said was based on “all the intelligence I have had to review,” came during an often-heated hearing of a House Appropriations subcommittee.

Republicans pressed Holder over recent decisions to prosecute terrorism suspects in civilian courts, and they suggested he intends to treat terrorism suspects as “common criminals.”

Holder said such suggestions tend to “get my blood boiling,” calling them “anything but the truth.”

Email Ed Angiolillo, Join the other 3 commenters or Share This...

Jihad Jane Shows The Need For MORE Profiling!

The arrest of “Jihad Jane,” a white American woman accused of plotting with known terrorists, is both good and bad.

Good, of course, because those associating with terrorists should be brought to justice. (Colleen LaRose, Jane’s real name, showed her genius by publicly posting her intention to kill Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks, who had drawn Mohammed in a way she found offensive).

So yes, she’s a freak, and was a threat. Enough said.

But bad, because of all the politically correct morons who have once again come out of the woodwork, ranting that “profiling” is racist and doesn’t work. After all, they tell us, LaRose was one of us, and didn’t fit a terrorist profile, so therefore all profiling should cease.

It’s truly incredible how seemingly intelligent people can be so obtuse.

Take Richard Clarke, the former Counterterrorism Czar to two Presidents.

For our purposes, we’ll just call him “Dick.”

On a news program discussing the Jihad Jane case, Dick stated that, “profiling…has no value.”

Sure, Dick. You bet it doesn’t.

And along that line of thinking, I have only one more thing to add: your proctologist called, Dick.

He found your head.

Read the rest of Freindly Fire’s Jihad Jane column below and please post a comment!

http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/index.php/national-news/item/25-jihad-jane-shows-the-need-for-more-profiling

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

The “Jack Murtha” Philadelphia Navy Shipyard? Just Say NO!

BY CHRIS FREIND
“FREINDLY FIRE”

Reports have surfaced that Pennsylvania Democrats are in favor of naming the iconic Philadelphia Navy Shipyard after the recently-deceased Congressman Jack Murtha.

I have just one question for those who favor of such a preposterous idea— such as Congressman Bob Brady—:

“Hi. I’m Earth. Have we met?”

On what planet are these people living?

Yes, naming the veritable shipyard —one that played a decisive role in the Allies’ victory in World War II — after a man who flagrantly disregarded that old document called The Constitution for his own political benefit seems like a swell idea.

*********
A Vietnam veteran, Murtha knew firsthand how difficult fighting could be on both the battlefield and homefront. One would think a war as controversial as Vietnam, in which soldiers became targets of venomous slurs and unfair accusations by the public and elected officials, would have taught Big Jack the lessons of patience, humility and honor.
One would be wrong.

Read more at The Artorius News Bureau’s FreindlyFireZone.com, and please feel free to post a comment:

http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/index.php/local-news/item/20-the-“jack-murtha”-philadelphia-navy-shipyard?-just-say-no

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own new site, The Artorius News Bureau. Readers of his column “Freindly Fire” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”
Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on a Philadelphia-area talk radio show, WCHE, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

Back in October, I applauded the decision that allowed Temple University Purpose to bring Geert Wilders to Temple to speak to students as a victory for the first amendment.  Today, a rather ugly new development has surfaced. Mike Adams:

Geert Wilders came to Temple University on October 20, 2009. Wilders was invited in the wake of a controversy surrounding his film “Fitna” which was released in 2008. The film was controversial because it features passages of the Koran interspersed with scenes of violence on the part of Muslims. The movie was shown during the presentation at Temple. Extra security was provided and there was no disturbance.

On December 3, Temple University Purpose (TUP) – the group that hosted Wilders -was surprised with a bill from Temple for $800 for a “Security Officer.” This came with the explanation that the charge was for the costs “to secure the room and building.”

TUP Interim President Brittany Walsh pointed out that Temple had said – prior to the event – the university would pay any extra security costs. But, after repeated emails, she has received no substantive reply.

I had really hoped to find that this was a simple billing mistake on the part of the University administration, so I spoke to friend of the ‘Cooler, Jack Posobiec, who has contacts down at Temple and has been working with Brittany Walsh on this issue. He put me in touch with her. Brittany confirmed that the University has indeed billed Temple University Purpose for the “extra security” which, as organizer of the event, Brittany says she never authorized. TUP had already paid a $576 fee to the University as part of their contract with the University back in September of last year. Therefore, the balance the University says is now owed is $244–for the “extra security” neede for the Geert Wilders event in October. It is a balance that the University says they will waive if the TUP claims financial hardship, but a balance that TUP will not pay because it is an infringement of their first amendment rights. Mike Adams speculates that:

[T]his group is being punished financially because it hosted a speaker likely to offend a particularly volatile segment of the population. As a consequence, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has written to the president of Temple. In that letter, FIRE cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992), which says, “Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”

Temple is a public university and is bound by the Supreme Court’s decisions. If they are smart, they will go the way of four other public universities—the University of Colorado at Boulder; University of Massachusetts Amherst; University of California, Berkeley; and University of Arizona—and abandon such security fees before they get sued.

Two years ago, Temple’s speech code was struck down by the Third Circuit. That lawsuit was handled by my friends at the Alliance Defense Fund. If the university does not begin to respect the First Amendment, additional humiliation and litigation are certain to follow.

Brittany says that Temple President Ann Weaver Hart has been supportive of TUP and Brittany has contacted her in hopes that President Hart’s involvement in this matter will clear up the dispute between TUP and Student Activities before litigation proceeds.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

WaPo via NBC10 puts the Undie-bomber on the couch:

The 23-year-old Nigerian man accused of the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner apparently turned to the Internet for counseling and companionship, writing in an online forum that he was “lonely” and had “never found a true Muslim friend.”

“I have no one to speak too [sic],” read a posting from January 2005, when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was attending boarding school. “No one to consult, no one to support me and I feel depressed and lonely. I do not know what to do. And then I think this loneliness leads me to other problems.”

Here’s a guy who knows just how you feel, Umar (Warning: strong language in video):

Clearly, Abdulmutallab is unaware of the new “extend-an-open-hand” policy of the Obama Administration towards those who would wish us harm, otherwise, there would be no need to attempt to blow up an airplane over American soil.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Napolitano was on the Today Show this morning talking about how her remarks were taken out of context. Which is funny, because one of the very first things she said about the safety of air travel in this interview is, “One thing I’d like to point out here is that the system worked.” In other words, her remarks weren’t taken out of context, but her attempt at misdirecting the public from the issue at hand, the failure of the security measures implemented by DHS and TSA, failed as well.

On Today she told Matt Lauer that DHS was able to get the word out to other flights and security agencies within 60 to 90 minutes. How close together were those 9/11 flight crashes again? Sounds like even in it’s capacity as “first responder” that DHS can use a little work. The guy was on the terrorist watch list for pete’s sake–turned in by his own father. I wonder how many grandmas were frisked instead of him.

In response to this great system that “worked”, we can look forward to some great new safety measures:

Passengers will likely face longer lines at checkpoints and less freedom to move around the airplane during flight. Leisure travelers, such as the families that packed airports to return home on Sunday after the holiday, are likely to put up with the new inconveniences, as they have before.

On the Today Show right now they are reporting that in the last hour of the flight, you cannot move around at all (no restroom breaks, even for your kids), have anything at all on your lap–even a blanket, pillow or laptop, remove anything from the overhead, have no GPS or internet access device on. In other words, for the last hour of your flight, you will essentially be a prisoner in your seat.

Call me crazy, but I think that Americans would be much more understanding of these measures, and the measures already in place, if these procedures had the feel of actually being effective. But if TSA and DHS are going to insist on remaining politically correct and not even frisk the guys on the TERRORIST WATCH LIST, then I think Americans will lose patience with these increased annoyances really fast.

Terrorists win again. Heckuva job, Jannie.

Email LisaMossie, Join the discussion or Share This...

Except her “system” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with averting the tragedy that almost occured on Christmas Day.

Well, you gotta love that “everybody played an important role” business. Everyone, except, of course, those guys who were supposed to be checking the terrorist watch lists. Needless to say, there is a growing, and justified, movement calling for Napolitano to step down or be fired.

Andy McCarthy lays out the big picture on The Corner:

Though I share their outrage, I think outraged readers are missing the point. The people now in charge of our government believe Clinton-era counterterrorism was a successful model. They start from the premise that terrorism is a crime problem to be managed, not a war to be won. Overdone “war on drugs” rhetoric aside, we don’t try to “win” against (as in “defeat”) law-enforcement challenges. We expect them to happen from time to time and to contain, but never completely prevent, the damage.

Here, no thanks to the government, the plane was not destoyed, and we won’t get to the bottom of the larger conspiracy (enabling the likes of Napolitano to say there’s no indication of a larger plot — much less one launched by an international jihadist enterprise) because the guy got to lawyer up rather than be treated like a combatant and subjected to lengthy interrogation. But the terrorist will be convicted at trial (this “case” tees up like a slam-dunk), so the administration will put it in the books as a success … just like the Clinton folks did after the ‘93 WTC bombers and the embassy bombers were convicted. In their minds, litigation success equals national security success.

It is a dangerously absurd viewpoint, but it was clear during the campaign that it was Obama’s viewpoint. The American people — only seven years after 9/11 — elected him anyway. As we learn more painfully everyday, elections matter.

Email LisaMossie, Join the discussion or Share This...

Courtesy Dennis Prager:

“One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.”

H/T Jay Nordlinger on The Corner

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Hands down, the most ridiculous statement in this entire clip is this do-gooder who says:

“The Muslim students of Temple University have had a feeling of fear and hatred being thrown towards them for the past week and that is not ok.”

What makes it ridiculous is that just before it, Eyewitness News airs a clip of the Muslim girl, who is clearly more tolerant of another point of view than this Suburban whitebread liberal jackass. What also makes it ridiculous is the overt displays of hate and fear directed at Mr. Wilders and those sponsoring the event while Muslims sit peacefully in the audience.

What’s funny–not funny “ha ha” but funny sad, is how so many of these socially conscious protestors against “hate speech” missed the point entirely: Wilders was there to speak about freedom and how Islam, particularly radical Islam, hinders it. How do you think our little societal scold would feel if she was forced to dress like this:

Or this:

Does it not occur to dumb college broads like this that it is well documented that Islam oppresses the rights of women? Can they not see this from what they are forced to wear, for the sake of a religion that demands “modesty” of their women but makes no such demands of their men? And that’s to say nothing of the barbaric practice of honor killings, stonings and genital mutilation that still goes on in some of these countries. Women are forced to be second class citizens in Islamic ruled countries. It is beyond a tragedy that almost all of our so-called women’s rights groups ignore the plight of Islamic women; it is obscene that there are those who will fight for that right of one people to to continue to oppress another based on religion and gender in the name of political correctness. Tolerance of intolerance indeed.

We fritter away our freedom in the name of political correctness, and our youth, once the rebels that broke new ground and pushed the envelope into new ways of thinking, happily marches along to the PC tune like sheep to the slaughter. A true tragedy indeed.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

For those of you who may not remember, Geert Wilders is the Dutch politician who gained worldwide noteriety after producing the anti-Islamic film “Fitna”. You may recall that nobody wanted to touch “Fitna” with a ten foot pole, so Mr. Wilders posted it on YouTube. If you were quick enough, as I was, you were able to view this thought provoking film before the cowards at YouTube yanked it off several days after it’s original posting. In February this year, he was blocked from entering the UK to show this film:

He had tried to visit the UK in February 2009 to show his controversial film Fitna – roughly translated as “strife” in Arabic – which links the Koran to terrorism, but was turned back at Heathrow airport.

No TV company would broadcast the 17-minute film, which some Dutch politicians tried to ban before Mr Wilders posted it on the internet in March 2008.

Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen complained the furore over Fitna could endanger Dutch companies, soldiers and residents abroad.

That followed Denmark’s experience in 2006, when the publication of Danish cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad sparked protests across the Muslim world.

A student group called Temple University Purpose extended the invitation to Wilders to speak today; Temple is the first university in the United States that has allowed Wilders to address students.

As you can well imagine, this has caused all of the predicitable huffing and puffing from the university drones who have embraced political correctness at the cost of sacrificing free speech. Here are a few of such hyperventilations, courtesy the Phila Daily News:

Student Senate President Jeff Dempsey said he couldn’t support the decision to invite Wilders and hoped that the university would pull the plug on the program at the last minute.

“I’ve never been ashamed to be a Temple student,” Dempsey said, adding that university-sponsored dollars were not used to fund the event. “Our proud embrace of diversity and inclusion is tarnished by this man’s provocation of hate.”

Wilders was invited to speak by a new group on campus called Temple University Purpose.

Before the meeting, about a dozen students held signs with phrases including “Temple U. Does Not Condone Hate” and “Hate Speech [does not equal] Free Speech.”

Among the demonstrators was Megan Chialastri, vice president of All Sides, an organization that seeks to promote peace between Israel and Palestine.

“We feel student groups should not bring people on campus that jeopardize the safety, or just the way people feel on this campus,” she said.

In a letter issued last week, Monira Gamal-Eldin, president of the Muslim Students Association, criticized the university for being the first in the United States to allow Wilders to address students.

“The Muslim population at Temple feels attacked, threatened and ultimately unsafe that Mr. Wilders has been invited to voice his hate-driven opinions,” she wrote.

“The decision to allow Mr. Wilders to share his viewpoints is a danger not only for the public safety of Muslims and the honor of the core principle of Islam, but also for academic integrity and objectivity on campus.”

Would these groups have the safety concerns or this level of outrage if an anti-semitic or anti-Christian speaker were engaged? Nevermind–that’s a silly question. Hate speech only applies to protected groups, and in our world it is not only ok to be critical of Judeo-Christian ideals, it is actually encouraged, especially on our campuses.

These student groups who are so aggreived at the mere presence of a man who holds controversial ideas should ask themselves what it is they are afraid of. Labelling something “hate speech” is just another way of silencing dissent and stifling debate. It is the surest way to close a mind, which is the last thing university students should be encouraging. As Wilders himself has stated:

“I believe we have been too tolerant of the intolerant. We should learn to become intolerant of the intolerant,” he said.

And as far as safety concerns go, these same outraged Temple students who fear their safety has been “jeopardized” should ask themselves why it is Mr. Wilders who now requires a 24/7 bodyguard.

He lives under police protection because of earlier death threats, and has told the BBC his intention has only ever been “to have a debate about freedom of speech and the threat of Islamisation of our Western societies”.

“It’s not my intention to have anything at all to do with violence. On the contrary, I despise violence – I just want a debate.”

Temple University should be applauded for their courage in allowing Mr. Wilders to speak to students.

And those who think about it hard enough will wonder why any Unversity would need to exercise courage to invite him in the first place.

Email LisaMossie, Join the discussion or Share This...

Nobel Peace Prize Goes Into The Trashcan of History

BY CHRIS FREIND

All good things come to an end. And so it has for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In an unprecedented display of sucking up, the sycophants behind the Nobel Prize chose Barack Obama as the 2009 winner. What was once considered one of the most prestigious award in the world has now been relegated to the trash heap of history. Why?

A good question, as many are left wondering what Obama has done in the eight months of his presidency to deserve it.

But in truth, it has nothing to do with Obama’s policies or his vision for the world. As a matter of fact, this year’s prize actually has nothing to do with Barack Obama’s achievements at all, for a very good reason.

He had been President for a whopping 11 days before the nomination deadline of February 1.
(Yes, that would be eleven!)

So unless the world missed something that the Scandinavian derrière-kissers secretly knew about how Obama created world peace in those eleven days, how could he have possibly been awarded the prize?

Sound too far-fetched and incredulous, even for the Scandinavians?

Think again. A visit to the official Nobel Peace Prize website states it all too clearly:

“February – Deadline for submission. The Committee bases its assessment on nominations that must be postmarked no later than 1 February each year. Nominations postmarked and received after this date are included in the following year’s discussions.”

And what exactly are the criteria for one’s achievements to be considered for the prize?

Again, the Nobel website: “In addition to humanitarian efforts and peace movements, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded for work in a wide range of fields including advocacy of human rights, mediation of international conflicts, and arms control.”

Well that explains everything. In the last eight months — oh, sorry, I meant to say in the first 11 days of Obama’s presidency — he made earth-shattering achievements in all these areas. The world’s nuclear arsenals are now eliminated, Arabs and Jews are singing Kumbaya together in the Middle East, China no longer oppresses its citizens, and America’s largest jail (which happens to be in Obama’s home turf of Chicago) now stands empty, as its prisoners are now all productive members of society.

Oh, and we’re against waterboarding terrorists who hold knowledge of impending attacks on free people across the globe.

Ok, you got me. Only one of the above statements is true.

So if Obama didn’t actually achieve anything, then why the award?

According to the Nobel press release, Obama was chosen “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples….the Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

Even for Obama, who some have called The Second Coming, achieving all that in just 11 days is simply too much.

The real answer for picking Obama’s is obvious. The Nobel award was both political and pre-ordained, an advance “thank you” for his traveling the world and apologizing for America.

The real loser here is the credibility of the Prize, which has been seriously, and most likely irrevocably, damaged.

Why do people always feel the need to politicize everything? The Scandinavians have a terrible inferiority complex, a pathetic need to be liked by everyone.

Appeasers will never learn. What was once the gold standard is now worthless scrap metal. The result of this travesty is that not only will future awards be tainted with suspicion, but past recipients will have an asterisk next to their name. What deal did Al Gore make to get his award? Jimmy Carter? Kofi Annan?

Were they really deserving? Did their accomplishments truly merit the award?

Because the Nobel committee put their agenda before the vision set forth by Alfred Nobel, a doubt will now always accompany those questions.

Mr. Nobel is no doubt turning over in his grave.

Chris Freind, author of “Freindly Fire,” is an independent columnist and investigative reporter. Readers hail from six continents, thirty countries, and all fifty states. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Join the other 9 commenters or Share This...

Before the United States was voted out of contention in the first round of voting by the IOC this morning (with Tokyo and before Madrid it should be noted) this video is just part of the breathless hype that passed for news on the Today Show this morning. “The Obamas were rock stars today!” gushes Alan Abrahamson to Matt Lauer. “The United States of America is reaching out to the rest of the world. Is the rest of the world ready to reach back?” is what Abrahamson wrote regarding the Chicago bid. How quickly during the course of this interview that became “Obama is reaching his hand out to the rest of the world….”

And what’s up with that bid? For the first time ever the United States Government is going to underwrite the entire shebang? How much was that going to cost the American taxpayer?

HuffPo had another piece entitled “Oprah, Michelle, Obama Light up Copenhagen. Star Power Enough for Chicago’s Olympic Bid?”

“She really is amazing. Besides the significance of an African-American president and first lady, she’s impressive at any level,” said David Robinson, who admitted he was a little star struck after meeting Mrs. Obama on Wednesday afternoon. “With her education, with her dignity, the way she carries herself, she’s tremendous.”

Don’t forget “clean and articulate” too, David. Like when she talked about the great sacrifice she made by jetting to Copenhagen for the children. Or when, she told the IOC about her father teaching her a great right hook while gang violence in the streets of Chicago was playing all over the internet. Tremendous indeed.

Over on the right, where we are somewhat less impressed with the star power of the Obamas, most of us figured that the Chicago bid was in the bag. Why else would Obama risk so much political capital, why would he rush to Copenhagen when healthcare, Afghanistan and Iran hung in the balance, unless he was assured that he could bring home a much needed victory?

We were wrong. It looks like even we underestimated Obama’s colossal ego — so sure was he of his power to charm the world with his words that he was willing to risk humiliation on the world stage. Or perhaps he made a fundamental miscalculation: perhaps he did not take into account the effect of his nine months of non-stop apologizing for the shortcomings of America, sucking up to our adversaries and abandoning our allies.

As an American, I don’t hope to see my country embarassed in front of the world to satisfy my partisan distrust of the Obamas, but he made this Olympic bid all about him. The trip to charm the International Olympic Committtee was unprecedented by an American president and was not meant to be a victory for America, but political payback for the Chicago Daley Political Machine and a feather in the cap of a President who hasn’t really tasted success since he passed the stimulus bill. It was a silly, frivolous move by a man who really has bigger issues to address; issues on which he cannot vote “present.”

Did General McChrystal get a troop committment yet?

Has Iran stopped enriching uranium?

Is the healthcare matter settled?

Is unemployment dropping?

Is the economy recovering?

And how much did this jaunt around the world cost the American taxpayers?

Star power is waning. The world sees the Emporer has no clothes.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Ramesh Ponnuru has some ideas about Obama’s trip to Copenhagen:

Some people seem to think that the president is taking time away from more important things to go to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago to get the 2016 games. They’re wrong. He is taking time away from more important things to go get the credit for bringing the Olympics to Chicago. Does anyone seriously believe that the president would take a quick trip to Copenhagen with the possibility of coming back empty-handed? If the president is going, it’s because he knows that Chicago has already won. He’s going.

When he puts it that way, it somehow seems even lamer than it originally did that he’s going to Copenhagen. If that’s possible.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

After reading Fred’s post below, I was sadly unsurprised at the predictable asinine behavior exhibited by the G20 protestors.

But then I watched the nightly news with Brian Willaims and I saw this report by Mike Taibbi. It’s all just peaceful protests of cold weather and “warm people”. In fact, it’s just like Woodstock, what with the peace, love and dirty hippies! Oh, that tear gas thing? That was just peaceful protestors innocently misunderstanding instructions from the police–they simply started marching in the wrong direction.

Clearly, this is not the G20 I thought I knew.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

America’s Walkout Of Ahmadinejad Was Disgraceful – And Dumb

BY CHRIS FREIND

When will America learn that the largest part of politics is psychology? Time and again, we fail to see the implications of our actions, with our errors in judgment only leading to victories for our adversaries.

The most recent example was the United States, along with a dozen delegations from Western nations, walking out on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly.

And what did America and the West accomplish by that brilliant move?

They played right into Ahmadinejad’s hand. He could not have scripted it any better.

Immediately following the walkout, footage was undoubtedly beamed to Iran showing the “disrespect” of the West towards that country. The propaganda machine kicked into high gear, courtesy of our long-running and misguided politically correct policy.

It will be broadcast ad nauseum to Iranians – and the entire Muslim world – that we are bigoted, intolerant and hypocritical. It will be reinforced that the West is virulently anti-Muslim, anti-Persian, and anti-Iran, not to mention 100 % pro-Israel, incorrect as that is. We will have succeeded yet again in uniting many Muslims who otherwise hate each other.

A picture is worth a thousand words, and the image of the West walking out on the Iranian leader will stoke nationalistic fervor in his homeland, at the expense of efforts to bring moderate leadership to that country.

So why the asinine walkout? What did we gain? Are we not a democracy that is tolerant of other views, no matter how despicable? Have we not learned that the best way to bolster the status of an adversary, such as the KKK or neo-Nazis, is by providing them publicity through protest? Take away the controversy and attention, and you marginalize them. Their fifteen minutes will be up in ten.

Was the Iranian leader’s speech fiery? You bet. Did Ahmadinejad espouse sentiment against Israel? Of course he did, although he played it coyly by not mentioning that country by name. But at the end of the day, so what? For the vast majority of the world, his views are laughable. He comes across as a blowhard just trying to make headlines, which is understandable since his country has regressed under his leadership.

Ahmadinejad understands Politics 101 — divert attention away from the real issues by appealing to nationalism. The fact that his strategy is so basic makes our reaction that much more illogical, although it should come as no surprise.

Look back to the fierce opposition to Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University.

If one wanted to voice disapproval of Ahmadinejad’s totalitarian policies and his inflammatory statements, great. But the protests criticizing a private institution’s decision to allow an unpopular figure to speak was a different story.

The situation hasn’t changed. We are making the same mistake, except that this time it is a sovereign leader speaking to a world body. Sure, Mahmoud is divisive and highly controversial, but if these characteristics are the criteria for prohibiting a leader to speak, the line at the podium will be very, very short.

Why are we so afraid of Ahmadinejad? What frightens us so much that we demand his viewpoints be silenced? He is the leader of a sovereign nation, a man whose words and decisions have extremely significant weight on the world stage. Like him or not, he’s the President of Iran, and the West has no choice but to deal with him and his government. The least we can do is listen to what the man has to say.

People can protest all they want. That’s their right in this country, and Ahmadinejad has certainly given the world enough material. But a distinction has to be made as to what is being protested.

This is not a call for appeasement, nor is it running from reality. Iran’s posturing—and actions— have made the Western world very uncomfortable, and if that nation continues down its current path, the situation may well become bloody.

If Iran is an “enemy,” what others should be banned from appearing in America? Depends on your definition. Since France aided and abetted Iraq leading up to the Iraq war (in many cases illegally), they could also be characterized as such. Where do you draw the line?

We are not at war with Iran. If Ahmadinejad wants to make ludicrous statements amounting to Holocaust revisionist history, the absence of homosexuality in Iran and who was really behind 9/11, he does so at his own peril. He needs Western investment and petro dollars to survive, and such rhetoric only serves to undermine his credibility and jeopardize the economic stability of his country.

While he advocates much which we abhor, it is the strength of America that allows him to express himself without fear of repercussion.

That is why we are still the envy of the world. Let’s keep our eye on the ball and remain that way.

Chris Freind, author of “Freindly Fire,” is an independent newspaper columnist and investigative reporter whose readers hail from six continents, thirty countries, and all fifty states. His home publication is The Philadelphia Bulletin. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

Domestically, enacting Obama;s agenda has been sold to the American people as fixes for one pressing crisis after another. Congress is so pressed by these crises, in fact, that there is simply not enough time to read the bills.

But when faced with a real crisis in Afghanistan (the “good war”) well, hold on now, and let’s not be hasty, little hobbits. These things must be deliberated, discussed and properly spinned in enough news cycles so as to avoid all making the tough decisions. Too bad Obama can’t vote present anymore.

Here’s Charles Krauthammer, via the Corner, on Fox All Stars last night. He’s worth quoting at length:

Well, I think what’s really important here are two dates. The first is August 30. That’s when the McChrystal report was sent to Washington. That is three weeks ago. Obama has had a single meeting [on that report] since then.

He says he hasn’t reached a conclusion — I suppose because he is spending all his time preparing for Letterman and speeches to schoolchildren — to focus on a war in which our soldiers are in the field getting shot at and, as the president himself is saying, without a strategy.

Now, the other date is the 27th of March, when Obama gave a speech in the White House flanked by his Secretaries of Defense and State, in which he said, and I will read you this, because it is as if it never happened, “Today I’m announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

So we for six months have been living under the new Obama strategy, of which he says today we have none. And his next sentence is, again in March, “This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review” — not the beginning, the end of the policy review.

So it has been his policy, and now he tells us we don’t have a cart and we don’t have a horse.

What’s happening here is he announced the strategy of counterinsurgency in March. He said at the time that we “cannot afford” an “Afghanistan that slides [back] into chaos.”

He said “My message to the terrorists who oppose us — We will defeat you,” And now he’s not sure he wants to defeat them.

On the political consequences of Obama’s indecisiveness:

I’m not sure it’s a political problem. I think it’s a problem of what it does to the morale of the military and of the commanders in the field.

You are in the middle of a war and you have an urgent request — this is not just a general but an urgent request. And the logic here — it is all spelled out in a sentence or two; it is not a difficult proposition — the logic is we’re in a downward spiral. The enemy is gaining. We can stop them with American troops.

Once they are stopped and the spiral is reversed, as happened in Iraq as a result of the surge, then the Afghan army can, in principle, at least, take over, as happened in Iraq. That’s the idea.

You either can act on that or not. It’s not a complicated idea. Obama is not stalling because he’s studying all this. Obama is stalling because a) he doesn’t know and b) he doesn’t want to go politically against his own party.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

You know, that rather large one. On your shoulder.

This is what happens when a “strong, independent woman” rides her husband’s coattails to power. Brian Williams’ explanation that it was actually President Obama’s opinion the questioner wanted her to “channel” and not Bill Clinton’s, only adds insult to injury.

I almost feel bad for her. Almost.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

When asked if the U.S. would try a similar tactic for the release of the local hikers who are now being detatined in Iran, Joe Sestak had this to say about Bill Clinton’s successfull negotiation of the release of Al Gore journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling (heard on Smerconish this morning)

“Every situation is different, so maybe we won’t use the same tactics in
Iran, but in the case of North Korea, we know that Kim Jonng Il values prestige, status and recognition as a world power, which is why we sent him Bill Clinton”

In other words, we gave Kim exactly the prestige, status and recognition as a world power that he wanted. That photo op will will go a long way towards cementing Kim’s image of himself and North Korea.

Dick Morris:

This trip gives North Korea the ability to act like the good guy in world public opinion by releasing people they shouldn’t have seized in the first place. Considering their record, bomb explosions, and missile tests, we should not be in the business of letting North Korea score propaganda victories.

The AP is spinning it this way:

The Obama administration let North Korean leader Kim Jong Il save face by releasing two jailed Americans to former President Bill Clinton. The payoff — maybe not right away — is likely to be renewed dialogue with Pyongyang about its nuclear weapons program.

And from the same AP story, Clinton was not the first choice to go to North Korea to negotiate for the release. The first choice to go was apparently unsuitably prestigious:

The White House has taken pains since Clinton’s arrival in Pyongyang to play the mission as a private one designed only to win the release of Laura Ling, 32, and Euna Lee, 36, both with former Vice President Al Gore’s Current TV media venture. They were captured while on assignment to collect material for a report about trafficking of North Korean women into China.

Bill Clinton undertook the mission, a senior administration official said, only after the North assured the White House that the reporters would be freed and allowed to return home with the former president.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to detail the back-channel negotiations, also said the north rejected Gore as a suitable emissary.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

And Palin had no foreign policy experience, right? (To good not to share at both blogs!)

Dissident heroes from the age of the Iron Curtain, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and 20 other Central and Eastern European intellectuals, policymakers and leaders have penned an open letter to President Obama on the perils facing US-NATO relations should he cave to the Russians — and they should know:

Despite the efforts and significant contribution of the new members, NATO today seems weaker than when we joined. In many of our countries it is perceived as less and less relevant – and we feel it. Although we are full members, people question whether NATO would be willing and able to come to our defense in some future crises.

…

Many in the region are looking with hope to the Obama Administration to restore the Atlantic relationship as a moral compass for their domestic as well as foreign policies. A strong commitment to common liberal democratic values is essential to our countries. We know from our own historical experience the difference between when the United States stood up for its liberal democratic values and when it did not. Our region suffered when the United States succumbed to “realism” at Yalta. And it benefited when the United States used its power to fight for principle. That was critical during the Cold War and in opening the doors of NATO. Had a “realist” view prevailed in the early 1990s, we would not be in NATO today and the idea of a Europe whole, free, and at peace would be a distant dream.

Email Ed Angiolillo, Join the discussion or Share This...