Obama Refuses to Meet With Netanyahu

Via Memeorandum, The Jerusalem Post reports that "Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Sunday canceled his plans to attend the upcoming AIPAC summit, after it became clear that US President Barack Obama would not meet him during the conference. " Why will Obama seek out Hugo Chavez at a conference yet refuse to meet with our allies?

This has been brewing for a few days. Consider this excerpt from an article by Jason Koutsoukis: "Can Israel still call the United States its best international friend? Apparently not, if you believe the tone of the local media.

"Watching the drama unfold inside Israel, the increasingly tense dialogue between US President Barack Obama and new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is taking on all the trappings of a duel. Almost every day brings news of another sore point between the two countries, a source of yet further inflammation of their once warm relations.

"One could be forgiven for thinking that the more immediate threat to Israel's national security lay across the Atlantic rather than from closer to home. It is bad enough that President Obama uses almost every opportunity he can to set the parameters of a final peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Now US officials are openly using Israeli anxiety over Iran's fledging nuclear program as a bargaining chip to force Israel's hand on giving up control of the West Bank Palestinian territory.

"No less a figure than White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel — whose father fought with the militant Zionist group the Irgun, and whose appointment had provided such reassurance to Israeli officials — was quoted this week laying down the law to Israel.

"If Israel wants US help to defuse the Iranian threat, Mr Emanuel was reported to have told Jewish leaders in Washington, then get ready to start evacuating settlements in the West Bank. Talkback radio blazed with fury across the country the same day, as Israelis protested that no US official had the right to tell them where to live."

There is an increasing tension in relations between Israel and the United States. Benjamin Netanyahu has become increasingly outspoken in his concern over Iran's nuclear program, as well as the apparent United States reticence to do anything about it. Given that our response to North Korea's missile launch was basically, 'don't do that again!', one can understand Israel's concern.

Shmulev Boteach wrote in the Jerusalem Post "Like many Americans, I have been awed by our president's capacity to draw those who hate us near. He is a man of considerable charm and grace. But I have to admit that I am increasingly troubled by his seeming inability to call out rogue dictators." Boteach and the Israelis are not alone in that feeling; many Americans are concerned as well.

Boteach went on, "All this leads to one important question. Suppose Obama succeeds in building friendships with Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad and the Taliban. What then? Does America still get to feel that it stands for something? Will we still be the beacon of liberty and freedom to the rest of the world, or will we have sold out in the name of political expediency? And do any of us seriously believe that presidential friendship is going to get a megalomaniac like Hugo Chavez to ease up on the levers of power, or are we just feeding his ego by showing him he can be a tyrant and still have a beer with the president of the United States? Will the Iranians really stop enriching uranium through diplomacy rather than economic sanctions? "

Netanyahu acknowledges that Iran threatens other countries besides Israel. He has also said that nonmilitary pressure may also work. An Atlantic article by Jeffrey Goldberg quotes Netanyahu, “I think the Iranian economy is very weak, which makes Iran susceptible to sanctions that can be ratcheted up by a variety of means.”

In October 2008 Jessie Jackson was quoted as saying that Obama would end "decades of putting Israel's interests first" and that“Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” will remain strong, but they’ll lose a great deal of their clout in an Obama nation."

I guess he was right.

Venezuela is Just a Tiny Little Country, Right?

With regard to Hugo Chavez it seems that once again Obama misses the point. When reporters pointed out that he was being criticized for shaking hands with Chavez, Obama replied:

"Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States’. They own Citgo. It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States. I don’t think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela."

Obama remains locked into his narrow focus of the world. It's not so much that we are worried about the "defense budget" of Venezuela, even though that in itself is debatable because of its allies. The larger issue here seems to be that Obama is providing legitimacy to this thuggish terrorist by his "polite conversation" and "shaking hands."

Granted, in some situations it would be worse to rudely pull back and refuse to shake an offered hand, but in this case it was reported that Obama "sought out" Mr. Chavez, crossing the crowded room to get to him. Was that really necessary?

Chavez uses his government to protect FARC terrorists. Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), is one of the deadliest and largest terrorist organizations in the world. In 2005, The Weekly Standard described FARC this way:

"Founded as the armed wing of the Colombian Communist party, this 16,000-strong terrorist force recruits children and funds its activities with billions of dollars collected as taxes on the cocaine trade. The group's explicit objective is to take Colombia by force. In pursuing its mission, FARC terrorists have kidnapped, extorted, and executed thousands of innocent civilians, bombed buildings, assassinated hundreds of political leaders, and, with two other local terrorist organizations, have turned Colombia into one of the most violent and dangerous countries in the world. All in all, FARC has caused the deaths of more than 100,000 people.

"The prominent FARC leader Olga Marin, for example, spoke on the floor of Venezuela's National Assembly in the summer of 2000, praising Hugo Chavez as a hero of the rebel movement and thanking the Venezuelan government for its "support."

After the 9/11 attacks, Chavez said,' "The United States brought the attacks upon itself, for their arrogant imperialist foreign policy.' Chavez also described the U.S. military response to bin Laden as 'terrorism,' claiming that he saw no difference between the invasion of Afghanistan and the September 11 terrorist attacks. "

Chavez considered himself a "brother" and "partner" of Saddam Hussein. He maintains close ties with Libya and Iran.

In 2003, Thor Halvorssen, writing for The Weekly Standard, said in response to a complaint by 16 congressmen, including Barney Frank and John Conyers, who complained that the United States was not adequately supporting Chavez against opposition:

"It is unthinkable that congressmen who enjoy access to detailed intelligence reports are willing so blithely to disregard the Chavez government's track record on matters that directly affect the national security of the United States. "

Indeed. It is equally unthinkable that the United States would legitimize or recognize a terrorist regime such as that of Chavez. It is even more unthinkable that Obama would not recognize that error. It again goes to show Obama's narrow view of history which is quite dangerous.

(H/T: The Plum Line and Memeorandum)

Thanks Prof. Jacobson for the Post of the Day spot!

Karl Rove is Creepy?

Har! Meghan McCain is creeped out because Karl Rove is following her on Twitter!

"Karl Rove follows me on Twitter. That’s creepy. I joined Twitter a few months ago; so far, it has been a liberating way to transition from political to personal blogging. It’s allowed me to share the less-serious aspects and humorously uncensored moments of my life. But there’s also been a downside: I am now being followed by Karl Rove, and my local sheriff, and God knows how many other political pundits. We need to take Twitter back from the creepy people."

She says she finds Karl's tweets "boring."

She DOES realize, doesn't she, that she has over 24,000 followers? And that Karl Rove follows lots of folks, myself included.

Meghan says Karl's tweets are "boring." Here are some of her more recent revelations:

"Now more important things, my sister went shopping for her prom dress yesterday! I can't believe it! I'm rooting for the pink or turquoise."

"So excited I don't have to work today! Yeah for Sunday!"

"Listening to Lady Gaga, drinking gallons of diet coke and trying to calm down and get this speech down cold."

Now, I'm not bashing Meghan; I follow her, too. I guess I'm creepy.

Obama's Reach

Brian Doherty has a scathing analysis of Obama's progress and agenda in American Conservative. Here's a little excerpt:

"That thoughtful skeptic of executive power now sits in the Oval Office. Isolating random bits of his presidential rhetoric, you can almost believe that he understands how a society really thrives. Obama said in his pseudo-State of the Union Address, “The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth.”

But in just three months, we have seen what Obama means when he talks about “reach.” He doesn’t mean “our reach” but his own. His sense of that reach, and the abrupt and scary speed with which he’s used it, marks him as an executive with a tentacled grip—multiple, crushing, inescapable. No longer the cautious critic of presidential power of the campaign trail, he now sees nothing as beyond his grasp.

Less than a hundred days in, the fully articulated ideological contours of his vision remain unclear—just as he wishes. It suits Obama’s self-image as a mere pragmatic problem solver to never explain, to float from power grab to usurpation as if nothing but thoughtful reaction to the exigencies of the moment guides him. But it’s already obvious that those actions veer strongly toward expansive government, limiting our options in every aspect of national life.

Be sure to read the whole thing!

The Obama Doctrine

There's been a lively debate on this blog of late regarding the release of the torture memos. (I've linked it on the top of the sidebar if you want to participate without scrolling down and searching for it).

One side (mine) believes that the release of the torture memos was a bad idea; yes, much, but not all, of the information was already out, however, now our enemies know our limits. This is new information. For more on that, see this IBDEditorial.

The other side, and pardon me if I'm oversimplifying it, seems to think that the release was a good thing because now we are kinder and more benevolent and Big Bad Bush is gone and the world will love us. The US was evil in the past, we're "better than that" and now that we don't torture anymore (i.e. bother to gather intelligence), the terrorists will think twice about killing us.

On the talk shows yesterday, Michael Hayden reaffirmed his WSJ piece by saying:

Michael Hayden, who served as former President Bush's last CIA director from 2006 to 2009, said releasing the memos outlining terror interrogation methods emboldened terrorist groups such as al Qaeda.

"What we have described for our enemies in the midst of a war are the outer limits that any American would ever go to in terms of interrogating an al Qaeda terrorist. That's very valuable information," Hayden said during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday."

"By taking [certain] techniques off the table, we have made it more difficult -- in a whole host of circumstances I can imagine -- for CIA officers to defend the nation," he said.

An article by Con Coughlin of the Telegraph recognzies the release of the memos for what it is:

"But a change of leadership at the White House does not mean the world has suddenly become a safer place. Al-Qaeda is still devising plots, the Taliban continues to murder coalition forces and rogue states such as North Korea, Syria and Iran persist with efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction while supporting Islamist terror groups.

So Mr Obama must take care when he attempts to score cheap political points on national security issues, as he did last week with his unnecessary decision to release previously classified details of the legal opinions authorising the use of the extreme interrogation techniques – torture, to you and me – that were drawn up by the Bush administration."
Then this from Brietbart:

But Obama is outpacing even Gorbachev. After just three months in power, the new American leader has, among many other things:

—Admitted to Europeans that America deserves at least part of the blame for the world's financial crisis because it did not regulate high-flying and greedy Wall Street gamblers.

—Told the Russians he wants to reset relations that fell to Cold War-style levels under his predecessor, George W. Bush

—Asked NATO for more help in the fight in Afghanistan, and, not getting much, did not castigate alliance partners.

—Lifted some restrictions on Cuban Americans' travel to their communist homeland and eased rules on sending wages back to families there.

—Shook hands with, more than once, and accepted a book from Hugo Chavez the virulently anti-American leader of oil-rich Venezuela

—Said America's appetite for illegal drugs and its lax control of the flow of guns and cash to Mexico were partly to blame for the drug-lord-inspired violence that is rattling the southern U.S. neighbor.

I guess the Obama Doctrine is shaping up.

Was I Just Insulted?

I think James Carville just called me "an old crank" but senility is setting in and I'm not sure.

Watch this and let me know if I need to go get some Geritol or something.



Is he even relevant anymore?

History Begins....When?

As the Summit of the Americas winds down today, reviews of Obama's performance are coming in, both positive and negative, depending on who you read.

Professor William Jacobson pointed to a Bloomberg piece which I had missed. All the fuss right now is over Obama's receipt of the Chavez book and over his fist-bump-sort of handshake with Chavez. I'm not sure how he could have graciously refused the book, and I can't fault him for that. Now, if he posts a five-star Amazon review of the book, we might have problems. But since Obama can't read Spanish, it's not likely.

No, the Bloomberg article quoted Obama, after Ortega's denunciation of the United States, as saying “You can’t blame the U.S. for every problem in this hemisphere,” Obama said. “I am very grateful that President Ortega didn’t blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.”

Jacobson, Althouse, and others, myself included, recognize this line as a rehash of his excuse for his friendship with Bill Ayers. Remember when he said, "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."

Jacobson makes this valid point:

"There is something truly bizarre about this reasoning. If something happened when Obama was not of a certain age (we know it is at least eight years old, although we don't know where the line is drawn) then he accepts no responsibility. That is fine if one is talking about personal responsibility only. Obama is no more responsible on a personal level for what others did, be it yesterday or 30 years ago, than anyone else. But Obama no longer is "anyone else."Obama is the President and bears the burden of dealing with accusations and attacks on this country related to events which did not take place on his watch."

In Obamaland, history began when he says it does. It's a totally narcissistic view of the world and should not shock us when he invokes this world view. This is a man who wrote his autobiography while still in law school, when he was still nobody. Nothing is more important to him than the subject of himself.

Maybe that's harsh, but consider the fact that he has never, so far as we know, lifted one finger to help his brother-in-the-hut, or the latest half-brother we've just learned about, or even his immigration-challenged aunt. These people can't help him. They are no benefit to him.

Maybe I'm too presumptive in analyzing his family tree. But there is no question that he has expressed disdain and offered apologies for America ever since he's been elected.

I'm no psychologist and don't want to get into pop analysis of his narcissism. I'll leave that to this guy who has written about narcissism as it relates to Obama.

Jacobson makes the point that Obama's view is "cowardly" and I might suggest also that it is dangerous. To ignore or discount what happened before you were born is dangerous, but when you become the President of the United States you OWN American History and it is his duty to defend us, not to blithely tolerate fifty minute harangues of our faults or shake hands with or appease dictators.

If Obama is such a master with words, why couldn't he come up with a better defense of Amercia after Ortega's speech, than that it all happened on somebody else's watch? We were rotten then, but now we aren't.

He's got to do better than that.

Update: John Hinderaker at Power Line nails it: "Does Obama really not understand that hostile foreign leaders are making a fool of him and of the country he purports to lead? Apparently not. I don't think Barack Obama is a stupid man, but he is in so far over his head that every time he ventures onto the international stage he not only embarrasses himself--and us--he damages, if ever so slightly, our national security."

And for a counter-view: Don Surber agrees with Obama.

(Thanks for the link, Professor!)

Quote of the Day

"To picture an American president offering to bow to those who had done this to us was an abomination."

Leo Thorsness
(referring to candidate McGovern)
Surviving Hell: A POWs Journey

Book Report: Surviving Hell

I mentioned last week that I'd ordered Surviving Hell by Leo Thorsness; I finished it last night.

Thorsness, as you may know, was a POW for 6 years in Vietnam and was at the Hanoi Hilton. I was lucky enough to meet him several years ago when he came to the school where I teach to speak to our students.

NRO recently excerpted the chapter where Thorsness and his cellmates (at times he was in solitary and other times with cellmates) were determined to have a church service on Sundays.

Thorsness has an easy writing style; the book reminded me of Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell in the fact that I just could NOT put it down. I couldn't put Lone Survivor down until "I" got Marcus off the side of that mountain in Afghanistan and I was the same way with Leo. Until "I" got him out of that cell, I had to keep reading.

He tells you, of course, that he was tortured and a little about that, but that's not the focus of the book. He writes of how they got through the days (the "Tap Code" was like POW texting! An ingenious system!) As Gary Sinise said in his jacket-blurb: "Surviving Hell tells it like it was in combat and in prison, but the story is also uplifting and helpful for anyone going through tough times. Leo is a survivor who shows us that, even in hell, we are much stronger than we think."

At 127 pages, there's no excuse for anyone not to read this book.

I'll leave it with this story he told about his cellmate Mike. Mike scrounged a small piece of fabric from the bath area one day. All the cellmates pitched in a tiny chip of precious soap so Mike could wash his fabric.

"Mike scrounged a small piece of red roof tile and laboriously ground it into a powder, which mixed with a bit of water, became a faded red or maroon color to make the flag's stripes. We had gotten a bit of medicine in the last year of our captivity, usually a blue pill of unknown provenance prescribed for afflictions. Mike patiently leached the color out of one of the pills and used it to make a blue square in the upper left of the handkerchief. With a needle made from bamboo wood and thread pulled from our single blanket, he stitched little white stars on this field of blue."

It took Mike a couple of weeks to make that flag, working secretly so the guards would not know, and when he proudly showed it to his cellmates, some of them cried. When the guards found the flag, of course, Mike was tortured as he knew he would be all along.

It's men like that, and like Thorsness, that inspire me. It's men like that who I look up to and admire. Those are Americans.

Rule 5 Sunday Linkage

Your gratuitous Rule 5 picture this week is Patrick Swayze because I loved him as Johnny Castle and I'm praying for Patrick Swayze.

Some things you need to go read from this week:

On the torture memo release, nobody did it better than IBDEditorials (well, except maybe Mukasey and Hayden.)

A small excerpt from IBD:

"These top secrets will arm Islamist jihadists with knowledge that will be invaluable to them. Future terrorist detainees will now know, for instance, that their interrogations are under continual video surveillance to make sure no lasting medical or psychological consequences result from the techniques used. Will they now teach themselves to fake such ill effects?

Terrorists will know that when they are placed in a tiny container in "cramped confinement" it will last only "up to two hours," as a declassified memo from the Justice Department to the CIA noted. They will know that "stress positions" are used "only to induce temporary muscle fatigue" not 'severe physical pain.'"

Critical Narrative had an excellent post this week on fascism and how the word is so loosely used these days without much thought to its meaning. You must read it.

Professor William Jacobson has a fabulous smack down of The New York Times!

If you missed Robert Stacy McCain's 'Bama speech you must go watch it - priceless!

Sister Toldjah has a tiny reminder about Obama's foreign language defict, but remember, we all need to learn one (I'm covered - I speak French).

Babalu Blog is still ALL OVER Obama's Cuba policy - good stuff.

Pundette sounds off as only Pundette can on the "Tea-Bagging" story.

If you want to see gorgeous pictures and read beautifully written narrative on Japan and Guam, do NOT miss Immersion. Absolutely stunning.

Bride of Rove has a lot of "cents"!!

And finally, Texas Rainmaker reminds us all of The Audacity of Unawareness. Be sure you read that.

Obama's Apology Tour

It's almost too much to ask - to expect red-blooded, patriotic, hard-working American citizens to stomach much more of this apology tour.

It's not like we should be surprised, though. The back story was there.

We have Obama's twenty years sitting in Jeremiah Wright's church listening to Wright denigrate the United States.

We had Michelle's comment: “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback" [emphasis mine]. She's right about one thing: it's definitely a different kind of politics.

We had the associations with Bill Ayers and with ACORN and all the others.

Then he insults our British allies by returning the Winston Churchill bust and slighting the Prime Minister when he visited America. Obama gives the Queen an iPod (albeit AND a lovely book).

While disenfranchising our allies, he sucks up to terrorist sponsors and dictators. The "lets make nice" video to Iran was embarrassing. Iran was so impressed they've convicted and imprisoned an American citizen for eight years in a Tehran jail. One more time: these people HATE us!

And so as Americans, how were we supposed to feel as Obama traipsed through Europe apologizing for America at every turn?

I never thought I'd see an American president bow to a Saudi king. Ever. Wrong on every level.

In Strasbourg Obama said, "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." He said that Americans don't appreciate Europe's "leading role."

Charles Krauthammer had some things to say about that "leading role" comment:

"Maybe that's because when there was a civil war in Europe's doorstep in the Balkans and genocide, it didn't lift a finger until America led. Maybe it's because there was an invasion in Kuwait, it didn't lift a finger until America led. Maybe it's because with America spending over half a trillion a year keeping open the sea lanes and defending the world, Europe is spending pennies on defense.

It's hard to appreciate an entity's leading role in the world when it's been sucking on your tit for 60 years as Europe has with regard to the United States..."

I'd like to speak to, or hear from, some World War II veterans about what they think about this constant apologizing.

The overall effect of it all is that one should be embarrassed to live in America - we're such an awful, arrogant country. We should suck up to and shake hands with dictators and terrorist sponsors so we can be friends with them, but meanwhile, lets piss off our European allies. Let's tell Israel they are on their own now. WTF?

And now this, from Obama's most recent speech to Latiin American leaders:

"I know that promises of partnership have gone unfulfilled in the past, and that trust has to be earned over time. While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership.

There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations; there is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values. So I'm here to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained throughout my administration."

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air said it best:

"Obama’s apologizing for being dictatorial … to Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and the Castros. As for “dictat[ing] our terms,” we used to call that defending American interests. When negotiating, people try to get the best terms for themselves."

I cannot imagine Reagan, for example, going out into the world and denigrating America as this president is doing. It enrages me. Hope and Change? It's change, for sure.

The next president will have much apologizing to do, himself.

Update: A reader/commenter recommended this book - I've just ordered it.

Roxana Saberi Convicted in Iran

Update: In a statement, Hillary Clinton said "that she's 'deeply disappointed' by an Iranian court's conviction on Saturday of Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi on espionage charges, and promised to "vigorously raise our concerns to the Iranian government."

Roxana Saberi has been tried, behind closed doors, and sentenced to eight years in prison in Iran.

Her lawyer Abdolsamad Khoramshahi vows to appeal.

No comment yet from our State Department or president who was last seen shaking hands with terrorist-sponsor Hugh Chavez.

Iran does not appear to be interested in the good will and mutual trust that Obama spoke of in his New Year video message; a face-saving option for them would be to immediately deport Saberi after her conviction, but instead she will spend eight years in notorious Evin prison which does not have a favorable record.

According to CPJ (Committee to Protect Journalists), "at least two journalists have died ‎there in the last six years amid circumstances that have not been fully explained. Omidreza Mirsayafi, a blogger serving ‎a 30-month sentence on a charge of insulting ‎religious figures, died at the prison in March under mysterious circumstances.‎ In July 2003, Iranian-Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi died from a brain hemorrhage that resulted from a beating at Evin Prison. An intelligence agent charged in the killing was acquitted after a flawed trial. Kazemi had been jailed because she took photographs outside the prison."

Iran's press freedom record is one of the poorest in the region. In addition to Saberi, at least five editors ‎and writers are currently imprisoned in Iran, CPJ research shows.

It has been suggested that Iran is using this case as a tool for a prisoner exchange for Iranian political prisoners. Whatever the case, Saberi is an American citizen and the State Department should use whatever means necessary to help her.

It is unconscionable that she should be left to rot in an Iranian prison for eight years, especially given the horrific track record of Iran with female prisoners.

Related posts:
Roxana Saberi Formally Charged

Update on Roxana Saberi

The Case of Roxana Saberi

The Other McCain Gives a Speech

I won't steal it and post it here, so you MUST go to The Other McCain and watch RSM's Alabama Tea Party speech.

Here is a tiny excerpt:

"Since I work in Washington, I contacted my source at the Department of Homeland Security and asked him what I should be on the lookout for. And I've got my notes from that interview with me. You might be a right-wing extremist if . . .
. . . you refuse to bow to Saudi royalty.
. . . you think the only good pirate is a dead pirate.
. . . you don't think it's a good idea for politicians in Washington to borrow another trillion dollars you grandchildren will have to repay.
. . . you think you know how to run your life better than a bunch of 'experts' in Washington.
. . . you believe in God, but don't think that Obama is the Messiah.
. . . you believe the only reason you have First Amendment Rights is because of your Second Amendment rights."

The only way the speech could have been better would have been if he'd been wearing his speedo.

Torture Memo Release = Big Mistake

One of my biggest concerns about Obama was always that I felt he was weak on national security and I felt he would make the nation less safe. I never thought he would actually deliberately put the nation at risk, I don't mean it in that way, but that I believe he is naive in the ways of our enemies and holds too much to the "if they love us they won't hurt us" philosophy.

The release of the torture memos just confirms this in my mind.

The techniques of waterboarding and sleep deprivation have already been widely reported, Obama, early on, prohibited their use, and there is no real serious legal reason to release these, so why do it?

In any important decision, you have to weigh the benefits against the consequences and make a determination which is the best thing for you to do. So what are the benefits in releasing these memos? That the world will love us? To the contrary - the world will look at these and only feel affirmation in their disgust of Americans, an affirmation which is confirmed by Obama's constant apologies for America.

The consequences involved in releasing the memos is not so much that they reveal that we waterboarded prisoners (three, actually), but that it slams the door for any future president to possibly reinstate any of the interrogation methods. Obama has, as Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey said in the WSJ this morning, effectively tied his own hands and not just his own but those of everyone else.

Professor William Jacobson made a good point in his post on the subject when he said that, "What is important to note at the outset, however, is to distinguish between the law and morality. Not everything which is immoral is illegal" [emphasis mine]. Jacobson analyzes the legalities involved of the torture statute and you should take a look at that.

So putting a guy in a confined area with a caterpillar and telling him it will sting him is now illegal torture? It might be cruel, but it's not torture, but that's another issue.

Should we capture Bin Laden and bring him to an interrogation room, we are now restricted to only the Army Field Manual as an interrogation guide. Child's play for someone like Bin Laden. I'm pretty sure he's not afraid of caterpillars either.

As Mukasey and Hayden point out, and any good law enforcement officer would tell you, there is a difference between interrogation and intelligence. With interrogation you already know the answers. Intelligence would be information you don't have yet but can confirm. Big difference.

Hayden discloses that "as late as 2006, even with the growing success of other intelligence tools, fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those interrogations."

What American could disagree with the fact that knowing about al Qaeda and how they operate absolutely makes us a safer nation?

These are not common, battleground informants that we're concerned with when it comes to intelligence gathering. We're talking about terrorists that cut off people's heads (remember Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg?) They will not care if America no longer deprives them of sleep or puts them in cages with caterpillars. We must retain the ability to gather information from hardened terrorists when it comes down to saving American lives, otherwise we're simply dealing with these prisoners in a penal, law enforcement capacity rather than an intelligence gathering capacity and this is a huge mistake.

America now finds itself in the position of being unable to effectively interrogate prisoners for the purpose of gathering intelligence because we have now given away our secrets, our methods, and have enabled our enemies to train for and plan against them should any future president decide they are needed.

Traveling with Bobby Jindal

Yesterday I posted a link to a funny t-shirt that rather mocked Gov. Bobby Jindal's national travels, and I indicated that there are plenty of people in the state that disapprove of his travels and wish he'd stay in the state more.

The Advocate has a story this morning on the cost of Bobby's travels noting that the security that must accompany him is paid out of the taxpayer pocket. I'm not sure why that's news to anyone, but that's beside the point.

"The state spent nearly $25,000 in eight months on plane tickets, hotel rooms, rental cars and meals on trips related to the governor’s out-of-state campaign fundraising efforts, according to a review of Louisiana State Police invoices and receipts. State Police also incur the cost of fuel and car rentals to shuttle the governor to events."

In February, the Advocate reports, Jindal went to Florida, Arkansas and North Carolina; then he visited four cities in California and then on to Washington D.C.; in April: New York, Boston and Florida. He has also visited Iowa and during the presidential campaign famously went to Arizona.

Jindal repeatedly denies that he's running for national office in 2012, insisting that he is concentrating on his re-election campaign for Governor and that he is mindful of the fact that he had to run against two millionaires when he was elected.

Nevertheless, he still continues to garner criticism for being out of the state so often. The state legislature convenes April 27 and by law he is forbidden to conduct fundraising activities during the two months of the session and for as long as he is acting on bills after the session.

Jindal was fundraising on the East Coast on Wednesday so he attended no Louisiana Tea Parties. Professor Jeff Sadow surmises that Jindal may have wanted to distance himself from the Tea Parties in order to not be seen as an extremist should he actually decide for a national run later on:

"...if Jindal fancies himself to have a national political career where he calculates winning the political center that haphazardly pays limited attention to politics and mainly through the mainstream media is the eventual key to victory, he may have believed in the tactical necessity of a distant approach."

While Jindal travels a great deal nationally in fundraising efforts, he is also the most-traveled governor within the state. The Alexandria Town Talk did an analysis of Jindal's in-state travels and determined through "Records secured from the governor's office and State Police... show Jindal has taken about 130 helicopter trips since he took office Jan. 14, 2008.

"Between Jan. 7, when he took his first helicopter trip this year, and March 5 (the date the record request was submitted to State Police), Jindal spent 64.1 hours in the air in 26 trips within the 60-day period. The governor has spent more than 200 hours in flights around the state since taking office a little over 15 months ago."

Jindal often helicopters to Sunday church services around the state to deliver a message or visit with congregations.

As far as Jindal being out of state so often, I agree with Professor Jeff Sadow who said, “Unless somebody can demonstrate exactly how Jindal is putting too much time into talking and not enough into doing, this criticism seems pointless.” I see no harm in Jindal's travels and see that this could actually benefit the state as well as raising his profile.

Related Posts: Romney/Jindal in 2012?
Bobby Refuses Porkulus
Bobby Finds His Legs

More on Susan Boyle

Like everyone else, I can't quit watching her. Here she is from CBS, and she even does it again, stone cold, a cappella.


Watch CBS Videos Online

H/T: Hot Air

Where's Bobby?

If you live in Louisiana and you're wondering where your governor is, you might want to pick up one of these t-shirts from Old River Road!

Most recently, Bobby was on GMA telling Dick Cheney to stop criticizing Obama. However, many Louisiana residents find themselves wondering from day to day, Where's Bobby? He's, as Moon Griffon would say, out of the state more than he's in it.

New Blogs!

I've added some new blogs to my blogroll; some of them are probably already familiar to you, I'm just lazy at updating sometimes.

One you may not have seen was tipped to me by Stacy in Dallas; it's called Immersion and is written by Stacy's friend Jessica who is in Japan now but on her way to South Korea to teach English. The blog is about Jessica's adventure and let me tell you, so far it is fabulous! And the photography is beautiful!

Be sure to take a look at it, and you'll be hooked. She's written so far about food, sightseeing, her broken foot, and most recently, attending a yakyuu game which, as I gather, is sort of like Japanese baseball.

It's nice not to think about politics ALL THE TIME!

(Photo from Jessica's blog, Immesion)

Obama and the IHS Monogram

I'm not too far out of line with Bernie Goldberg when he told Hannity this week of Obama that "we have to stop going out of our way to find fault with every single thing he does..."

Lord knows I bash him plenty, and while I sometimes get carried away, I try to stick to policy issues. Otherwise we will truly look like a bunch of "right wing extremists" with no legitimacy to our actual complaints which do have merit.

So the CNS News story this morning about The White House asking Georgetown to cover the IHS monogram on the pediment for Obama's speech on Tuesday seems a little over blown. CNS reminds us that "Roman Catholics traditionally use “IHS” as an abbreviation for Jesus’ name. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “St. Ignatius of Loyola adopted the monogram in his seal as general of the Society of Jesus (1541) and thus became the emblem of his institute.” The Society of Jesus is the formal name for the Jesuits."

The White House explanation is that they wanted a simple backdrop of flags and drape as in previous speeches. Reasonable enough. Kathryn Jean Lopez suggests that given this, Georgetown might have suggested that the speech be held elsewhere. The symbol could be offensive to some non-Christians, and Obama has reminded us that we are not a Christian nation. However, the IHS monogram is evident in the hall over 20 other places not visible to the television cameras as he speaks.

But I don't think this move is unprecedented. I don't want to post somebody's Flickr photo without permission, but if you go here, you will see the IHS monogram clearly covered by a similar, if not identical, piece of black plywood for a Mr. Georgetown pageant.

So I don't think that Obama or The White House has done anything especially remarkable here. I think as conservatives we would do well to stick to real issues. There are certainly enough to choose from where this administration gives offense without picking the insignificant things. I admit, to some, this is not insignificant, and I don't mean to make light of it. Some will assert that it points to a growing trend of anti-Christian messages by this administration. If that's the case, lets make the point for that, but not in a petty way.

Final Reflections on the Nation's Tea Parties

In the aftermath of yesterday's Tea Parties we can look with a new perspective over what it all meant.

The media coverage was as expected: CNN was nasty, FOX was favorable, as a rule. There were exceptions in all cases. There were a couple of pieces that I found interesting this morning, though. One was Ross Douthat who points out that in some regard the protests were slightly hypocritical in that nobody went to the streets to protest rising spending while Bush was in office. There is a tiny bit of merit in this stance except that while Bush was in office he was fighting two wars, among other things; and in truth, as Douthat also points out, many protesters were angry at the TARP bailout from the beginning. We know Bush did it. We aren't happy about that. We never called Bush a Messiah who could do no wrong. Still aren't.

Douthat misses a point, however, when he says "Obama is a very popular President, at the moment, his unpopularity among Republicans notwithstanding, and it's awfully hard to see the Tea Parties doing much to change that reality in the short run." While this is true, the protests were not simply about Obama. However much he likes for things to be all about him, these were not. The protest I attended had plenty of angry signs pointed at Senator Mary Landrieu, for example. People are angry at their own representatives who have not voted in a fiscally responsible way.

But to his credit, Douthat recognizes that people may have a cause to be alarmed:

"So if you're inclined to sneer and giggle at the Tea Parties, keep in mind that just because a group of protesters looks ragged, resentful, and naive, that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong to be alarmed":


Writing for the Wall Street Journal this morning, Karl Rove's assessment of the Tea Parties is that "Americans are reacting to runaway government spending that they were not told about before last year's election, and which Americans are growing to resent." Obama ran as a moderate but this is not "moderate" spending that he is proposing. Punk'd!

Rove rightly points out "In 2008, voters were less worried about taxes than they had been in previous elections. Why? Because the 15 years between President Bill Clinton's 1993 tax hike and Barack Obama's increase in cigarette taxes in February was the longest stretch in U.S. history without a federal tax increase. President George W. Bush's tax cuts also cut 13 million people on the lower-end of the income scale from the income tax rolls -- people who don't pay taxes aren't worried about the tax burden.

"So far, Mr. Obama has decided to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011 and avoid forcing Democrats to take a tough vote. But the tea parties reveal how hard it will be for the president to hide the Democrats' tax-and-spend tendencies from voters.

"Mr. Obama plans to boost federal spending 25% while nearly tripling the national debt over 10 years. Americans know that this kind of spending will have economic consequences, including new taxes being imposed by the new progressives."

Matt Miller, writing for The Daily Beast earlier this month, brought up Obama's dodge of a question by Chip Reid of CBS during the March 24 prime time press conference. Reid asked

“At both of your town-hall meetings in California last week, you said, quote, ‘I didn't run for president to pass on our problems to the next generation.’ But under your budget, the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next ten years. The Congressional Budget Office says $9.3 trillion. ... Isn't that kind of debt exactly what you were talking about when you said ‘passing on our problems to the next generation?’”

Obama dodged the question, blamed Bush and talked about projected economic growth. Miller contends that "Obama and his advisers expect to limit such debt via broader tax increases, presumably in a second term. As every honest observer knows ... once this recession is past, taxes will go up in the years ahead no matter who is in power."

The fact is that taxes will have to go up to pay for the programs Obama wants to put in place. And the "wealthy" can't pay for it all.

It will come down to all of us.

So back to the Tea Parties - what we have to remember is that Tea Party protests won't change what is coming; there is a rough road ahead. We can express our outrage and the march toward socialism, we can express our outrage at excessive and wasteful spending, we can express outrage over income redistribution and whatever else injustice floats your boat. But nothing will change unless we remember that when election time comes.

I'll leave it with a quote from Robert Stacy McCain from his own Tea Party adventure yesterday:

[You might be a right wing extremist if]. . . you believe the only reason you have First Amendment Rights is because of your Second Amendment rights.

Related Post: Shreveport/Bossier Tea Party

Shreveport/Bossier Tea Party

Our Tea Party was a HUGE success! Our organizers were totally on the ball; so much so that they are already planning the July 4 event!

I arrived about an hour early to see what I could do to help and was able to watch the crowd gather. What a site that was. Thirty minutes before kickoff we had over 200 people easily.
We had picture perfect weather with a nice, cool breeze, and that certainly helped. With rain over many of the protests today, I was glad we didn't have that. Almost everyone brought signs and many also brought canned goods for the Food Bank.

I spent 45 minutes or so wandering the crowd and taking pictures of the great signs. There were so many that were very creative. You can go to my Flickr page to see them all and the shots I don't have space to put here. LOTS of 'em. The Shreveport Times gallery is here.

The La. Outlaws kicked off at 5:00, starting with the National Anthem, beautifully done I might add. They played a mix of songs through the afternoon; of course they played the Martina McBride song "Independence Day." The crowd was a wonderful, diverse bunch. Old, young, black, white, veterans, children, dogs, handicapped, politically active, not-normally-politically active; I saw some people I work with, I saw people I haven't seen in ages....our final estimate was about 5,000 people (that's what we were told from the stage; I'm reserving the right to amend that when the final number comes in!).

Local attorney Royal Alexander was the emcee; he was in costume, of course. He introduced La. Rep. Jane Smith who led the invocation and then La. Sen. Buddy Shaw spoke. He was great and quoted Thomas Jefferson: "America has no greater enemy than national debt." Amen to that.

Another powerful speaker was C. L. Bryant (right) - a pastor from DeSoto Parish. He was loud, fired up and got things moving!

The keynote speaker was Congressman John Fleming. He had some not so nice things to say about what he has seen his first term in Washington and pointed specifically to the all powerful, dictatorial style of Nancy Pelosi. Fleming is an advocate for the Fair Tax and spoke quite a bit on that to a very receptive crowd.

We also heard from Shreveport attorney Craig Smith and some small business owners.

The crowd was respectful, polite, engaged and angry at the wasteful spending coming out of Washington. I talked to both Republicans and Democrats and I talked to people that voted for Obama and for McCain. Across the board, people are angry at the pork and the bailouts. This goes across party lines; it is not a protest against Obama specifically, despite what some may think. It's a protest against stupid, wasteful, irresponsible spending that we never got a chance to speak out about before it was voted into action.

One of the things Royal Alexander did in his opening remarks was to read off a list of some of the items in the Porkulus bill and the Omnibus bill - the honeybee research, the swine odor research, the genetics-for-grapes research project.... The crowd responded with loud "Boo"s to each of them.

So let PMS-NBC call us "whiners" and write this off as "nonsense." What we've seen all across this nation today is that a lot of Americans are pissed off at the representation they are getting in Washington, and these people will remember in 2010.

The worm will turn.

Update: The 5,000 number stands, as per The Shreveport Times. There's also a video here.

Teaparty

Teaparty

Tea Party Day!

Happy Tea Party Day!

I can't wait to see the nation today! I suspect that no matter how many people show up in their respective cities and towns that the left will still not "get" what we are protesting about, or will at least feign ignorance. In some cases that won't be an act.

Stay tuned to the internet today if you can't get to a Tea Party of your own. Glenn Reynolds will have coverage as will many other internet sites. I will send a couple of live-blog photos to this blog, then post more after its over.

Michelle Malkin has a little history lesson on how the Tea Party movement began.

Consider the possibility that you may be on local television or photographed for the newspaper. Even worse, consider that some ACORN infiltrator or other operative may try to talk to you.
Cynthia Yockey has some great advice for how to deal with a reporter should you be approached at your event. That may not be of such a concern here in Shreveport/Bossier, but you never know!

Along that same line, Michelle has a heads-up on some Code Pink and Daily Kos infiltrators and questions they are planning on asking. Be prepared!

Legal Insurrection explains the conspiracy theory. Also read his piece today about potential disruptions: When Fascism Comes to America, It Will Look Like Tea Party Crashers.

Read Ed Morrissey's post on the Tea Partys, also. He will have Tea Party coverage later this afternoon. Pointing to the rising spending, he says:

"That’s what drives the Tea Parties — not taxes today, but all of the spending that will eventually require crushing taxes to resolve. The Obama administration plans a spending spree unlike anything outside of world wars in our history, and wants to sell a fantasy that only the rich have to pay for it. It’s ridiculous on its face. The amounts are staggeringly high, and even 100% confiscation wouldn’t begin to cover it."

So find a Tea Party near you, take some canned goods to donate, take some signs, take your camera, and take your heart for America and go have a good time.

Let me know how YOUR Tea Party went!

This Pirate Thing...

...is getting ridiculous. From CNN tonight:

The Liberty Sun, a U.S.-flagged cargo ship bound for Mombasa, Kenya, was attacked Tuesday by Somali pirates, according to a NATO source with direct knowledge of the matter.

The pirates never made it onto the ship. The vessel is now being escorted by a coalition ship, still bound for Mombasa.

The source could provide no details on where the vessel was attacked but said it is suspected the pirates were based on a mother ship somewhere in the area.

On top of that, yesterday pirates captured a Lebanese ship, a Greek ship and two Egyptian ones.
Most of these ships are carrying humanitarian aid.

Find the mothership, find the pirate harbors and sink the little twits. Seriously, what state is going to retaliate? Oh wait - is that a right wing extremist point of view?

So sorry.

Here's an idea: lets move the pirates through renditions to Gitmo, or maybe Afghanistan, then relocate them with a nice little settlement check into a suburban neighborhood. They just need a little love and understanding.

NOT.