Sunday, 04 October 2009

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, ON PRESIDENT OBAMA'S IRAN FOLLY

Ken Berwitz

The unfailingly brilliant  Charles Krauthammer has written a column about the uselessness of President Obama on the international stage (which even a blind man can see by now). 

Here it is:

Obamas French Lesson

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, October 2, 2009

 

"President Obama, I support the Americans' outstretched hand. But what did the

When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom. Just how low we've sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration's satisfaction when Russia's president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the United Nations, that "sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable."

 

You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.

 

Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia . . . what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority -- and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.

 

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran's nuclear program -- whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

 

Don't take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama's naivete. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

 

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

 

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports the Wall Street Journal (citing Le Monde), Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later -- in Pittsburgh. I've got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber it is not.

 

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times citing "White House officials," did not want to "dilute" his disarmament resolution "by diverting to Iran."

 

Diversion? It's the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

 

Yes. And from Obama's star turn as planetary visionary: "The administration told the French," reports the Wall Street Journal, "that it didn't want to 'spoil the image of success' for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N."

Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that "we live in a real world, not a virtual world."

 

He explained: "President Obama has even said, 'I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].' Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite."

 

Sarkozy's unspoken words? "And yet, sacr bleu, he's sitting on Qom!"

 

At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do. Although he could hardly have been surprised by Obama's fecklessness. After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, "No one nation can . . . dominate another nation." That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War" in fact "make no sense in an interconnected world." NATO, our alliances with Japan and South Korea, our umbrella over Taiwan, are senseless? What do our allies think when they hear such nonsense?

 

Bismarck is said to have said: "There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America." Bismarck never saw Obama at the U.N. Sarkozy did.

What a joke.  What a pathetic joke. 

And we have no one but ourselves to blame.  We elected a Chicago machine politician without any qualifications for the Presidency.  We handed him huge majorities in both houses of congress, so that he could pass pretty much anything he wanted to (and, other than the so-called "stimulus package", which has stimulated little other than his supporters' pockets, he's done a lousy job of that as well).

The 2010 elections, and especially the 2012 elections, cannot come fast enough.

free` The only question is will the media do it's job or will they just be P.R. for obama again in 2012? (10/04/09)


CHICAGO'S LOSS IS BLAMED ON PRESIDENT BUSH (DID YOU EVER DOUBT IT WOULD BE?)

Ken Berwitz

From former(?) Black panther and, insanely (that's my view anyway) , current congressperson, bobby rush, via www.thehill.com, we have this:

Congressman blames Bush for Chicago's Olympics defeat

By Michael O'Brien - 10/04/09 04:09 PM ET

The International Olympic Committee's (IOC) decision to quickly bounce Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Olympics reflects "tattered relationships" left behind by former President George W. Bush, one congressman said this weekend.

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), who represents a district on the south side of Chicago, commended President Barack Obama's ultimately unsuccessful work to secure the Olympics for the Windy City, but blamed Obama's predecessor for the first-round loss in IOC voting on the host of the 2016 games.

"I believe that [Friday]'s action is just the latest example of the cultural breach that still exists between the United States and several leaders of the global community of nations," Rush said in a statement Friday which was not received by The Hill until Sunday.

"[Friday}'s vote by the IOC members reflects the tattered relationships that remain after eight years of the catastrophic reign of the Bush administration," Rush continued. "It will obviously take some time for the Obama administration to continue its important work to repair that breach."

Like many other Democratic lawmakers, Rush thanked the president, First Lady Michelle Obama, and other prominent figures for their efforts on behalf of the city's Olympic bid.

Rush had encouraged Obama to make the now-controversial trip to Copenhagen on Friday to lobby for the games, a spokeswoman said.

Rush is now working with the city's "Olympic leadership" to address the spate of violence recently in the city, and will appear with Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan when they travel to Chicago to discuss that issue this week.

Simply stated, bobby rush's claim would need remedial help to achieve BS status.

Er, bobby:  Bush is no longer President.  Barack Obama is, and has been for the better part of a year.  Both houses of congress have huge majorities for Mr. Obama's party. Neither George Bush nor his party have any say about anything.

If the Presidency were an issue, the IOC would not be reacting to George Bush, who is retired and can never be President again.  It would be reacting to Barack Obama, who is President, and will remain President for, at the very least, for over 3 more years.  Maybe over 7 more years.

And if party were an issue, the IOC would be reacting to the Democratic party.

Lamentably, however, I have no doubt that there are plenty of brain-dead people, so invested in their unconditional love for Barack Obama, that they will ignore this reality.

They are being made fools of.  I pity them.


THE NEW YORK TIMES AND TERRORISM

Ken Berwitz

As the New York Times assures us that we're pretty safe from terrorism these days, I thought you might want to see something the published two months before the 9/11/2001 attacks.

The incredibly wrong assessment is Larry C. Johnson's.  The bold print is mine::

The Declining Terrorist Threat

By LARRY C. JOHNSON
Published: July 10, 2001

Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.

None of these beliefs are based in fact. While many crimes are committed against Americans abroad (as at home), politically inspired terrorism, as opposed to more ordinary criminality motivated by simple greed, is not as common as most people may think.

At first glance, things do seem to be getting worse. International terrorist incidents, as reported by the State Department, increased to 423 in 2000 from 392 in 1999. Recently, Americans were shaken by Filipino rebels kidnapping of Americans and the possible beheading of one hostage. But the overall terrorist trend is down. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, deaths from international terrorism fell to 2,527 in the decade of the 1990s, from 4,833 in the 80s

[T]errorism against American interests is rare. There were three attacks on American diplomatic buildings in 2000, compared with 42 in 1988. No Americans were killed in these incidents, nor have there been any deaths in this sort of attack this year.

Of the 423 international terrorist incidents documented in the State Departments report Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000, released in April, only 153 were judged by the department and the C.I.A. to be significant. And only 17 of these involved American citizens or businesses

I am not soft on terrorism; I believe strongly in remaining prepared to confront it. However, when the threat of terrorism is used to justify everything from building a missile defense to violating constitutional rights (as in the case of some Arab-Americans imprisoned without charge), it is time to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful.

Part of the blame can be assigned to 24-hour broadcast news operations too eager to find a dramatic story line in the events of the day and to pundits who repeat myths while ignoring clear empirical data. Politicians of both parties are also guilty. They warn constituents of dire threats and then appropriate money for redundant military installations and new government investigators and agents.

Finally, there are bureaucracies in the military and in intelligence agencies that are desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth. In the 1980s, when international terrorism was at its zenith, NATO and the United States European Command pooh-poohed the notion of preparing to fight terrorists. They were too busy preparing to fight the Soviets. With the evil empire gone, they discovered terrorism as an important priority.

I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.

Larry C. Johnson is a former State Department counterterrorism specialist.

Why in the world would anyone look to the New York Times for this kind of analysis?

free` OMG I had never seen that article before. If that is an example of the state departments counter-terrorism experts we are in deep trouble. I did a little search on the internet and found this article about what an America hating scumbag this johnson guy is. Here is a report from sweetness and light sweetness-light.com/archive/why-does-anyone-believe-larry-c-johnson (10/04/09)


TOP TEN REASONS CHICAGO DIDN'T GET THE OLYMPICS

Ken Berwitz

From National Review:

Top Ten Reasons Chicago Didnt Get the Olympics

10. Dead people cant vote at IOC meetings

9. Obama distracted by 25 min meeting with Gen. McChrystal

8. Who cares if Obama couldnt talk the IOC into Chicago? Hell be able to talk Iran out of nukes.

7. The impediment is Israel still building settlements.

6. Obviously no president would have been able to accomplish it.

5. Weve been quite clear and said all along that we didnt want the Olympics.

4. This isnt about the number of Olympics lost, its about the number of Olympics saved or created.

3. Clearly not enough wise Latina judges on the committee

2. Because the IOC is racist.

1. Its George Bushs fault.

A riot.

 


REPORTS OF THE LOCKERBIE BOMBER'S DEATH: GREATLY EXAGGERATED

Ken Berwitz

Steve Gilbert, of www.sweetness-light.com makes it plain he expected this.  And so did I:

Lockerbie Bomber: US Bribed Witness

October 3rd, 2009

From the Agence France-Presse:

 

US paid reward to Lockerbie witness, legal papers claim

 

LONDON A key witness in the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber was secretly paid up to two million dollars (1.4 million euros) in a deal approved by the US government, according to legal papers released Friday.

 

The claims were made in new documents published by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, which he maintains prove he is innocent of the 1988 bombing of a passenger jet over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 270 people.

 

Megrahi abandoned an appeal against his conviction for the bombing after the Scottish government released him from prison last month on compassionate grounds because he is terminally ill with prostate cancer.

 

His lawyers said the documents released on the website www.megrahimystory.net were not produced at the trial but would have been used in an appeal.

 

Megrahi, who is being treated in a Libyan hospital, said: "I continue to protest my innocence how could I fail to do so?"

 

The documents show that the US Department of Justice was asked to pay two million dollars to Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who sold clothing found to have been in the suitcase that contained the bomb.

 

US authorities were also asked to pay Gaucis brother Paul one million dollars for his role in identifying the clothing, although he did not give evidence at the trial.

 

The previously secret payments were uncovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which investigates possible miscarriages of justice.

The SCCRC found the information about the request for payments in the private diaries of detectives in the case, but not in their official notebooks.

 

It was unable to establish exactly how much the brothers received under the Department of Justices "reward-for-justice" programme but records show they received "substantial payments" after Megrahis trial

 

Do notice that Mr. Megrahi is so close to death that he is able to set up a website, hire lawyers and begin establishing the groundwork for his lawsuit against the United States for reparations.

 

We sure didnt see this coming.

I've never been to Scotland and always wanted  to go.  Now? I wouldn't set foot there. 

It would be nice if our intrepid, action-oriented President had something to say about this.....


OF SICKNESS, BOB CASEY AND SAXBY CHAMBLISS

Ken Berwitz

Gosh darn it, I hate when excrement like this happens., (how's that for sanitizing?)

I took my beautiful bride into Manhattan last night, and we ate at La Ripaille, a wonderful, intimate French bistro.  But during the meal I could feel myself getting sick.  My skin started feeling papery-thin and I was cold.  Yech.

I slept about 9 hours, which I never do, and woke up with 102 temperature, which I never get.

So I apologize for not putting anything up here so far today -- guilty with an explanation.

I did, however watch some of the morning news shows.  On Fox News Sunday they had Democrat Bob Case (whose father was Pennsylvania's Governor) and Saxby Chambliss (who would saddle their child with a name like that?)

Bob Casey does not have a single wrinkle on his entire face.  And the SOB is almost 50 years old.  My wife was ready to turn Shrek-green with envy.

And Saxby Chambliss?  Aside from the bizarre name (which I sort of assume is derived from a relative in his family), the man bears an unsettling, almost scary resemblance to "Grady", the nightclub waiter in "The Shining" who chopped up his wife and two daughters.

So it goes.......


iSRAEL PEACE PARTNER UPDATE

Ken Berwitz

The following Jerusalem Post report is for anyone who is still under the delusion that Palestinian Arabs present a viable peace partner for Israel:

Hamas children's TV program again calls for the 'slaughter of Jews'

A popular Hamas children's program that usually gives advice to youngsters, such as instructing them to listen to their parents, aired a call for the "slaughter" of Jews in Israel late last month, according to Palestinian

Media SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region  |  World

All Jews must be "erased from our land," Nassur, a stuffed bear who hosts the weekly program, Tomorrow's Pioneers, on Hamas's Al-Aksa television, explained to a child who called in to a September 22 show. "We want to slaughter them, Saraa, so they will be expelled from our land... we'll have to [do it] by slaughter."

Nan Jacques Zilberdik, an analyst at Palestinian Media Watch, which translated the program and regularly monitors Palestinian media, said Tomorrow's Pioneers, which comes out of the Gaza Strip, is available via satellite around the world. The program often blends pragmatic advice with hate, she said.

"Generally the program also transmits good messages to kids like drinking milk or asking parents permission to do something, but we also find these very problematic messages like the call to kill Jews," she said.

Furthermore, Zilberdik said that in her organization's broader monitoring of Palestinian media, no objections to or repudiation of hatred-inciting messages being included in children's programs had been found.

This is not the first time Palestinian Media Watch has discovered hateful content in programs made for children.

In 2007, the NGO discovered a Mickey Mouse-type figure who also called for the slaughter of Jews.

After worldwide outcry, the character was executed on the program by an Israeli interrogator, and was soon replaced by another character who expressed similar sentiments, Zilberdik said.

The following comes from a transcript of the program aired on September 22:

Nassur: "There won't be any Jews or Zionists, if Allah wills. They'll be erased."

Saraa: "Chased away."

Nassur: "And just like we will visit the Qaaba [in Mecca]... everyone will visit Jerusalem."

(A seven-year-old boy on the phone tells how his father, a member of Hamas's Izzadin Kassam Brigades, "died as a shahid (martyr).")

Nassur to boy: "What do you want to do to the Jews who shot your father?"

Boy: "I want to kill them."

Saraa: "We don't want to do anything to them, just expel them from our land."

Nassur: "We want to slaughter (nidbah-hom) them, so they will be expelled from our land, right?"

Saraa: "Yes. That's right. We will expel them from our land using all means."

Nassur: "And if they don't want [to go] peacefully, by words or talking, we'll have to [do it] by slaughter (shaht)."

What a lovely sentiment. 

Drink milk, listen to your parents....and slaughter Jews.

Yep, teach them young, and they'll carry it with them for the rest of their lives.

This, folks is who Israel is supposed to make peace with.

HOW?


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!