The Inscrutable Barack Obama
Caroline Glick describes President Obama’s trip to Israel as a “mysterious visit.” To her, the administration policy in the Middle East is a riddle wrapped inside an enigma.
The is truth we don’t know why Obama is coming to Israel. The Obama administration has not indicated where its Israel policy is going. And Obama’s Republican opposition is in complete disarray on foreign policy and not in any position to push him to reveal his plans.
Barry Rubin, also based in Israel, believes the president does have a long-term strategic goal. He’s decided to break with old American policy in the Middle East and throw his weight behind what he believed to be the coming wave of Islamic politics in the region. Rubin wrote that an analysis of documents showed that Obama’s idea of a solution to the crisis in the region was to pick the other side on the grounds that it would win:
In other words, a popular revolt was going to happen (I’ve seen the cables from the U.S. embassy in Tunisia that accurately predicted an upheaval), but would it succeed or fail? The Obama administration concluded that the revolt should succeed and set out to help make sure that it did so. As for who won, it favored not just moderate Islamic forces — which hardly existed as such — but moderate Islamist forces.
Which didn’t exist at all…
So the Obama administration did not stand beside friendly regimes or help to manage a limited transition with more democracy and reforms. No, it actively pushed to bring down at least four governments — Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen.
It did not push for the overthrow of two anti-American regimes — Iran and Syria — but on the contrary was still striving for good relations with those two dictatorships.
Equally, it did not push for the fall of radical anti-American governments in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.
No, it only pushed for the fall of “valuable allies.”
In which case his trip to Israel is for the purpose of “managing the decline.” Does this conclusively show what is on the president’s mind? At least one Republican who is still asking pointed questions about Obama’s Arab Spring policy is Senator Lindsey Graham. He believes on the basis of survivor interviews that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was burned while the U.S. was trying to cork the terrorist genie unleashed when Gaddafi was overthrown. “We were desperately trying to control the anti-aircraft missiles, the manpads, that were all over Libya, that are now all over the Mideast.”
An even larger genie, Graham argues, is now being freed in Syria and is demanding a plan to secure the Assad arsenal. According to CBS News: “Amid unconfirmed allegations of a chemical weapons attack in Syria, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is demanding a plan to secure chemical weapon sites in the country – even if it means sending in U.S. troops, according to Foreign Policy. Graham expressed grave concerns about the prospect of ‘chemical weapons in Syria falling in the hands of extremists,’ and said in an interview with Foreign Policy today ‘Americans need to lead on this issue.’”
This suggests that Obama is at least partially afraid of the powerful forces he has unleashed. Thus, even if Rubin is right, the other side of the coin is a desire to keep things from going too far. And in this matter the president has to walk a tightrope.
Nah, Obama just doesn't like Jews. He doesn't like Great Britain, doctors, insurance companies, oil companies, the United States, Judeo-Christian nations. . . And anything he dislikes, he bashes.
That's his whole policy as President: "It's all about me, my personal proclivities, my likes and dislikes." He's a puny little man, and a puny little president.
.
Nah, Obama just doesn't like Jews. He doesn't like Great Britain, doctors, insurance companies, oil companies, the United States, Judeo-Christian nations. . . And anything he dislikes, he bashes.
That's his whole policy as President: "It's all about me, my personal proclivities, my likes and dislikes." He's a puny little man, and a puny little president.
.
From the hot mikes criticizing Netanyahu, to al Jazeera et al. getting first interviewing dibs, his being silent during Iran's '10 election and subsequent protests, propping up Egypt's MB, giving them tanks, F-16's and continuing to give that anti-Semitic armpit of a country a hole lot of cash..
Shoot.. I'm surprised Netanyahu hadn't asked Uhbama for the Khalidi tapes.
WTF is he... (show more)
From the hot mikes criticizing Netanyahu, to al Jazeera et al. getting first interviewing dibs, his being silent during Iran's '10 election and subsequent protests, propping up Egypt's MB, giving them tanks, F-16's and continuing to give that anti-Semitic armpit of a country a hole lot of cash..
Shoot.. I'm surprised Netanyahu hadn't asked Uhbama for the Khalidi tapes.
WTF is he doing there anyway? (show less)
Nah, Obama just doesn't like Jews. He doesn't like Great Britain, doctors, insurance companies, oil companies, the United States, Judeo-Christian nations. . . And anything he dislikes, he bashes.
That's his whole policy as President: "It's all about me, my personal proclivities, my likes and dislikes." He's a puny little man, and a puny little president.
.
Nah, Obama just doesn't like Jews. He doesn't like Great Britain, doctors, insurance companies, oil companies, the United States, Judeo-Christian nations. . . And anything he dislikes, he bashes.
That's his whole policy as President: "It's all about me, my personal proclivities, my likes and dislikes." He's a puny little man, and a puny little president.
.
Dollars to doughnuts Obama is once again trying to strike a grand bargain for the Palestinians as a precursor to standing with Iran over Iranian nuclear war plans.
I saw the devil on TV and he looked just like Obama except less charming.
Who said the devil would be a charmer?
Dollars to doughnuts Obama is once again trying to strike a grand bargain for the Palestinians as a precursor to standing with Iran over Iranian nuclear war plans.
I saw the devil on TV and he looked just like Obama except less charming.
Who said the devil would be a charmer?
1. Given the record of Obamas actions in the Middle East and elsewhere, Netenyahu has no reason to trust anything he says. Obama says Irans development of a nuclear weapon is a red line, but he takes no effective action to prevent it, (sanctions against an oil exporting country are quite useless, as Saddam Hussein proved). The only result of Obamas actions over the last 4 years have been more and better-protected Iranian centrifuges producing more enriched uranium. And, the military forces in the US that might possible prevent this are being gutted by defense cuts.
2. Obama has already abandoned US allies such as Mubarak to the wolves, he has walked... (show more)
1. Given the record of Obamas actions in the Middle East and elsewhere, Netenyahu has no reason to trust anything he says. Obama says Irans development of a nuclear weapon is a red line, but he takes no effective action to prevent it, (sanctions against an oil exporting country are quite useless, as Saddam Hussein proved). The only result of Obamas actions over the last 4 years have been more and better-protected Iranian centrifuges producing more enriched uranium. And, the military forces in the US that might possible prevent this are being gutted by defense cuts.
2. Obama has already abandoned US allies such as Mubarak to the wolves, he has walked away from Iraq and Afghanistan, he proved utterly unable to protect his own ambassador in Libya. His reaction to North Koreas threat of nuclear attack is to...authorize enviromental impact statetements on increasing the number of missile interceptors in Alaska. Which he might do in a few years time. In the meantime he is eager to make more deals with Russia to further reduce what nuclear deterrent he has. These are not the actions of a man who is serious about his own national security, never mind his allies.
3. Obama wants to maintain control of the senate and take back control of the House in 2014. For that, he wants to cut military spending and have no wars abroad so he can buy the next election with more promises to his voting base. For his short term purposes, it makes sense for him to prevent an Israeli stirke against Iran and create a Palestinian state to win support from the the Islamic world. As an added bonus, this appeasement of Islam will hopefully prevent more terrorism directed at the US.
My guess is, he will use the threat of a withdrawel of US aid and the false promise of a missile shield to keep Israel quiet and allow for a Palestinian state. That this will lead to Iranian nuclear terrorism in a few years time will not bother him in the slightest. (show less)
Then, the Wan will lead with his behind, and the Three Conjectures will be all wrapped up, tout de suite.
Then, the Wan will lead with his behind, and the Three Conjectures will be all wrapped up, tout de suite.
A ONE STATE SOLUTION WITHOUT JEWS.
Obama has expressly advocated a CONTIGUOUS homeland for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. (Look up "contiguous", then take a look at the a map.)
People discounted Hitler's statements about eliminating Jews and opening up new "living space" in Russia as "mere rhetoric."
Meanwhile, the LA Times is still sitting on an explosive video of Obama's farewell speech for Rashid Khalidi. Anyone wonder what Obama said?
A ONE STATE SOLUTION WITHOUT JEWS.
Obama has expressly advocated a CONTIGUOUS homeland for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. (Look up "contiguous", then take a look at the a map.)
People discounted Hitler's statements about eliminating Jews and opening up new "living space" in Russia as "mere rhetoric."
Meanwhile, the LA Times is still sitting on an explosive video of Obama's farewell speech for Rashid Khalidi. Anyone wonder what Obama said?
Ops.
Then, he simply had to opine for the one state solution, something that Said would've said.
Ops.
Then, he simply had to opine for the one state solution, something that Said would've said.
Policy is made through the political process. That involves Congress, and through them, the People. The People have a right to ratify policy in broad terms. Thus, the Constitution reserves three powers to Congress:
1. Only Congress has the right to declare war.
2. "Advice and consent" to treaties negotiated by the president.
3. The Senate has the right to approve or deny presidential appointments of ambassadors, consuls and Sec. of State.
Now President Obama... (show more)
Policy is made through the political process. That involves Congress, and through them, the People. The People have a right to ratify policy in broad terms. Thus, the Constitution reserves three powers to Congress:
1. Only Congress has the right to declare war.
2. "Advice and consent" to treaties negotiated by the president.
3. The Senate has the right to approve or deny presidential appointments of ambassadors, consuls and Sec. of State.
Now President Obama has the legitimate right to advocate a Palestine in place of Israel, assuming he believed that. He has a right to advocate anything come to that. But he cannot act without convincing the broader public first. So he duty-bound to communicate his broad intentions to the public in some way. He cannot conduct a Secret Foreign Policy that is fundamentally in conflict with the political consensus.
Now, what is Obama up to? Who can say for sure, and therein lies the rub. You don't know whether to cheer or razz. I think it was the late Ed Koch who remarked that he suspected from the first that the President would double cross his Jewish supporters. What surprised him was that it would come so soon. That is a far harsher indictment than simply wishing that the President would speak plainly. (show less)
This enumeration form your comment tells me you are being sarcastic in your "moderate" tone about Obama:
""" 1. Only Congress has the right to declare war.
2. "Advice and consent" to treaties negotiated by the president.
3. The Senate has the right to approve or deny presidential appointments of ambassadors, consuls and Sec. of State. """
Because you obviously know, and have pointed out numerous times, that Obama does not feel constrained by these laws and rules, and has been given ample evidence that no one is trying very hard to stop him. You had me confused and disoriented for a moment. :-)
This enumeration form your comment tells me you are being sarcastic in your "moderate" tone about Obama:
""" 1. Only Congress has the right to declare war.
2. "Advice and consent" to treaties negotiated by the president.
3. The Senate has the right to approve or deny presidential appointments of ambassadors, consuls and Sec. of State. """
Because you obviously know, and have pointed out numerous times, that Obama does not feel constrained by these laws and rules, and has been given ample evidence that no one is trying very hard to stop him. You had me confused and disoriented for a moment. :-)
Unfortunately, Obama has consistently shown that he does not feel constrained by a constitution written by mere humans.
Re "Secret Foreign Policy: - in reality a president has many means to achieve results OUTSIDE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANNELS. Woodrow Wilson always wanted to join World War I, but had to campaign on a "keep us out" platform. Ronald Reagan's Iran/Contra strategy - whatever its merits - was another extra-constitutional effort.
Obama has stated - in AIPAC's face, no less - that he wants Palestinians to have a "SOVEREIGN AND CONTIGUOUS STATE" and continues to tout this on the White House... (show more)
Unfortunately, Obama has consistently shown that he does not feel constrained by a constitution written by mere humans.
Re "Secret Foreign Policy: - in reality a president has many means to achieve results OUTSIDE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANNELS. Woodrow Wilson always wanted to join World War I, but had to campaign on a "keep us out" platform. Ronald Reagan's Iran/Contra strategy - whatever its merits - was another extra-constitutional effort.
Obama has stated - in AIPAC's face, no less - that he wants Palestinians to have a "SOVEREIGN AND CONTIGUOUS STATE" and continues to tout this on the White House website. To its eternal shame, AIPAC did not walk out on the messiah.
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/22/remarks-president-aipac-policy-conference-2011" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/22/remarks-president-aipac-policy-conference-2011</a> (show less)
He was, even in his college daze, pro-German.
His PhD thesis reads as the foundation for the Nazi racial supremacist creed.
He had to be brought, kicking and screaming, into the war. He was, of course, entirely opposed to the Franco-British scheme of war reparations.
Your assumption has been debunked at length. Drop it.
He was, even in his college daze, pro-German.
His PhD thesis reads as the foundation for the Nazi racial supremacist creed.
He had to be brought, kicking and screaming, into the war. He was, of course, entirely opposed to the Franco-British scheme of war reparations.
Your assumption has been debunked at length. Drop it.
It is true that Wilson subscribed to most "modern" and post-constitutional shibboleths of his (and our) day.
Re WW I - being pro-German is not necessarily inconsistent with a "visionary" politician seizing on war as a means to magnify his impact on WORLD POLITICS. Remember that Great Britain had been considered the principal wold power until then.
It is true that Wilson subscribed to most "modern" and post-constitutional shibboleths of his (and our) day.
Re WW I - being pro-German is not necessarily inconsistent with a "visionary" politician seizing on war as a means to magnify his impact on WORLD POLITICS. Remember that Great Britain had been considered the principal wold power until then.
Don't attempt to read them until you have yourself strapped down to your chain with a safety belt.
You'll find yourself flipping pages -- to make sure the author is Wilson -- not Adolf.
I don't know how Wilson's thesis spread so far -- but Hitler lifted major elements -- almost body and soul -- from it.
Other sources include the movie classic "M." Jump to the trial sequence. Then flash on the rationale (Adolf's) for genocide. You can hardly miss the re-crafting, the rage.
And then, according to his own doctors, AH had late stage syphilis.
Moscow has finally admitted that Lenin died of syphilis; he was functionally insane his final years.(!)
And then, Napoleon... had a syphilis attack 6-17-1815. That's why the... (show more)
Don't attempt to read them until you have yourself strapped down to your chain with a safety belt.
You'll find yourself flipping pages -- to make sure the author is Wilson -- not Adolf.
I don't know how Wilson's thesis spread so far -- but Hitler lifted major elements -- almost body and soul -- from it.
Other sources include the movie classic "M." Jump to the trial sequence. Then flash on the rationale (Adolf's) for genocide. You can hardly miss the re-crafting, the rage.
And then, according to his own doctors, AH had late stage syphilis.
Moscow has finally admitted that Lenin died of syphilis; he was functionally insane his final years.(!)
And then, Napoleon... had a syphilis attack 6-17-1815. That's why the French Army didn't march when it should've, hence, Waterloo. (Also sourced from his own doctor's diary, dug up not so long ago.) (show less)
There is a saying that the customers is always right. That is true until a badly behaving customer causes you to lose other customers, then you have to fire a customer. I wonder if the Mossad is getting ready to fire someone.
There is a saying that the customers is always right. That is true until a badly behaving customer causes you to lose other customers, then you have to fire a customer. I wonder if the Mossad is getting ready to fire someone.