It's Time For an Intervention for E.J. Dionne

E.J. Dionne is delusional.  There is no other explanation.

In his latest column, titled "Can A Messiah Win Twice" (gag bucket, please...), Dionne ponders the likelihood of Obama's re-election:

Most Americans still believe that Obama inherited rather than caused the economic turmoil. Barring another crisis in Europe, there is a decent chance of somewhat better times by Election Day.

Obama's fall offensive against Republicans in Congress has paid dividends. Voters seem inclined to blame Washington's dysfunction on the GOP, not on a president they still rather like. Most also think Obama's foreign policy has put the nation on a steadier course.

Wow.

Where to start?

"Obama's foreign policy has put the nation on a steadier course." 

Yes, the shoot to kill drone program has netted us so much new intelligence!  Oh wait....

Most Americans, I think, recognize and are disgusted by Obama's fawning, bowing, apologies to dictators and his alienation of our allies.

Most Americans would be disgusted by his embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood and the news this week that Obama is aligning with Qaradawi to negotiate (read "surrender") with the Taliban.  He's preparing to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate political party.

Most Americans are disgusted by his lack of support for Israel.

Most Americans were repulsed by Obama's failure to support (until forced to make a statement) Iranians protesting a stolen election and who wanted democracy even when they were shot down in the streets by mullah enforcers.

Most Americans were stunned by Obama's complete and utter failure in Egypt.  Egypt has now replaced a pro-American regime with an anti-American one.  Again, he's aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.

There's much more fisking to be done on Mr. Dionne's piece, especially on the economic portion, but frankly, I'm getting nauseous. 

Clearly Obama still has plenty of fawning sycophants in the media.

Oh, and for the record, Dionne is betting that Obama gets re-elected.  Bwahahahahahaaa!

Caroline Glick Calls Out Obama

Caroline Glick, writing for The Jerusalem Post, has had enough of Appeasement Obama. In a recent column she expresses frustration and disgust at his conciliatory nature towards Amercia's adversaries and his seeming derision of America's longtime allies:

"Since Obama took office, he has been abandoning one US ally after another while seeking to curry favor with one US adversary after another. At every turn, America's allies - from Israel to Honduras, to Columbia, South Korea and Japan, to Poland and the Czech Republic - have reacted with disbelief and horror to his treachery. And at every turn, America's adversaries - from Iran to Venezuela to North Korea and Russia - have responded with derision and contempt to his seemingly obsessive attempts to appease them. "

Obama was reported to have received from 74 to 75 percent of the Jewish vote. Did those voters realize he was going to throw Israel under the bus the way that he has? Since he took office, Obama has taken a tough line on Israel; he has demanded that Israel stop expansion of settlements in the West Bank. In fact, in his U.N. speech to the General Assembly, Obama said that the United States "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" and called for an end to the "occupation that began in 1967" - referring to Israel's control of Judea and Samaria.

Obama has been conciliatory to Iran from the beginning, even before the election when he expressed his plan to meet without preconditions, then his Happy New Year message to Iran, even his refusal to support in any way those protesting for freedom against a stolen election. Glick points out that "Obama announced that he is sending a senior US official to meet with the Iranians on October 1. And with that announcement, any residual doubt that Obama is willing to live in a world in which Iran is armed with nuclear weaponry dissipated completely."

What is Israel to do, or to think, about their longtime ally, America?

Would any of Obama's fawning American media write anything like what Glick has when she points out that "As many Western Europeans have begun to openly acknowledge, the man they once likened to the messiah is nothing but a politician - and a weak, bungling one at that. Even Britain's Economist is laughing at him." Gerald Warner is still laughing at him.

Ouch. The saddest part is, she's telling the truth.

Obama has displayed absolutely nothing but weakness with regard to national security. He is concerned with passing his domestic agenda. Period. Energy policies. Cap and trade. Health care. The Olympics, for crying out loud. His golf game.

He's only talked to his commander of the Afghanistan theater once. ONCE.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to test missiles. Afghanistan languishes. North Korea proceeds with their nuclear program. Venezuela searches for a uranium deal. And terror threats bloom across the United States.

Sitting ducks.

(H/T: Loyal Louisiana Reader! You know who you are).

Cancelling Missile Defense

In his continuing effort to make America safer....

oh wait. Wrong guy. Try again...

The Wall Street Journal has this item for you today: "The White House will shelve Bush administration plans to build a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, according to people familiar with the matter, a move likely to cheer Moscow and roil the security debate in Europe. The U.S. will base its decision on a determination that Iran's long-range missile program has not progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the continental U.S. and major European capitals, according to current and former U.S. officials."

This is major capitulation to bullying by Russia and as Weekly Standard points out, we won't get anything for it. Michael Goldfarb, in fact, digs out this nugget from an April 2009 speech by Obama:

“So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed.”

What changed? This certainly will anger and disillusion our European allies even further. It's yet another move to pacify the bullies and dictators of the world while pushing our allies away. And again, we're getting nothing for it. So what's the point? Why?

And what of Israel? This ought to make them feel warm and fuzzy. Nice 'n safe.

You can follow the fallout through the day here, at Memeorandum.

Second Quote of the Day: Reagan on Israel in 1984

And let me assure you, we will never attempt to impose a solution on Israel, nor will we ever weaken in our opposition to terrorism by the PLO or by anybody else. As I said when I addressed you in 1980, terrorists are not guerillas or commandos or freedom fighters or anything else. They're terrorists, and should be identified as such. We will go on working with all our hearts to help the people of the Middle East achieve a just and lasting settlement -- a settlement that agrees, in the words of my statement of September 1982, that Israel ``has a right to exist in peace behind secure and defensible borders, and it has a right to expect its neighbors to recognize this.''

Reagan Speech to N'nai B'rith
September 6, 1984

Does it Matter if Obama is a Muslim?

As I scroll through my blogroll this morning there are lots of stories about Obama's comment about America being one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.

From The Caucus:

"The president said the United States and other parts of the Western world 'have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.'

“'And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,' Mr. Obama said. 'And so there’s got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.'"

WTF?

Dan Spencer at Red State has the best response to this:

Obama may be technically correct. If you compare the “number of Muslim Americans” — 1.8 to 3.0 million — to the Muslim population of other countries, 55 of 175 countries have more Muslims than does the United States. Nevertheless, his convoluted argument reminds me of that old adage you can prove anything with statistics.

If you consider the same population numbers and look at them as percentages, the usual and more meaningful way to deal with demographic data, you find that only 53 of 175 countries have a smaller Muslim population than does the United States. Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

Take that on the heels of this comment Obama made in April in Turkey:

"One of the great strengths of the United States," the President said, "is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

There was a lot of flak about that comment, given that he seemed to be denouncing the Christian roots upon which the Founding Fathers began this country. He was not speaking for a lot of Americans when he made that comment. It still rankles.

The part of Obama's most recent comment that puzzles is when he says that Americans have to "educate ourselves more effectively on Islam." Why? Because that's HIS religion? Because we need to better understand why the extreme wing of that religion wants to kill us? Why they hate us? Before you decapitate me in the comments, understand that I'm not criticizing the peaceful end of that religion. What I'm criticizing is the continued apologetic tone in Obama's references to Americans.

We don't understand Islam so we are at fault.

And he's not actually including himself when he says "ourselves" - it's more of a royal "we" that he is using. "We are not amused." HE understands Islam pretty darn well because the OTHER big story while you were sleeping is that now it's okay to refer to him as a Muslim - he's now embracing his Muslim roots.

Gateway Pundit tracks that one back through the campaign - how it wasn't okay but now it is.

Jake Tapper wrote about this new view last night:

During a conference call in preparation for President Obama's trip to Cairo, Egypt, where he will address the Muslim world, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said "the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to -- or before he's been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world -- you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father -- obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago."

But, during the campaign, on the Fight the Smears site, Obama was a "committed Christian." Maybe. Maybe not. Why does it matter?

It matters because it all affects Obama's world view and how he presents America to the rest of the world. Consider how he is now shutting out Israel. Israel has been our staunch ally in the Middle East and what are we now doing to them? Giving them ultimatums.

"United States President Barack Obama intends to give Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu four to six weeks to provide an "updated position" regarding construction in West Bank settlements and the two-state principle. "

Daniel Pipes writes "Even if one ignores the folly of focusing on Jerusalemites adding recreation rooms to their houses rather than Iranians adding centrifuges to their nuclear infrastructure and even if one overlooks the obvious counter productivity of letting Abbas off the hook – the new U.S. approach is doomed." (H/T: Israel Matzev)

So what does it all mean? So Obama is pretty much a Muslim, sees America as one of the largest Muslim countries in the world, and is turning Israel out into the cold. He told us he was going to remake America. We shouldn't be surprised at any of this.

Obama's America is a Muslim America with socialism. We've nationalized the banks, the auto industry and soon health care.

In the end what it means is that he may or may not be a Muslim but he does say and do whatever is politically expedient at the time. Which is I guess what all politicians do, to some degree. I don't care if he's Muslim. I don't care if he isn't. What I do care about is how he represents this country to the rest of the world and how he alienates our allies. I do care about how he's destroying the economy and socializing our country.

Obama's Holocaust Speech

I somehow missed the Obama speech on Holocaust Remembrance Day earlier this month. But Michael Ledeen didn't and he wrote about it here. The speech, as Mr. Ledeen says, isn't all bad, but there is a passage which illustrates a bigger global philosphy that we should note.

I've studied a lot about the Holocaust and I'd have to agree with Ledeen when he says that Obama's view of the genocide is a great deal different than pretty much everyone else's. In NRO's The Corner this afternoon, Ledeen highlights a passage of the speech and expounds:

Obama:

"We find cause for hope as well in Protestant and Catholic children attending school together in Northern Ireland; in Hutus and Tutsis living side-by-side, forgiving neighbors who have done the unforgivable; in a movement to save Darfur that has thousands of high school and college chapters in 25 countries and brought 70,000 people to the Washington Mall, people of every age and faith and background and race united in common cause with suffering brothers and sisters halfway around the world. Those numbers can be our future, our fellow citizens of the world showing us how to make the journey from oppression to survival, from witness to resistance and ultimately to reconciliation. That is what we mean when we say 'never again.'

Ledeen:

"It may be what he means by "never again," but most everybody else means "we're going to act to throttle the next would-be Hitler." Not "resistance and ultimately . . . reconciliation." Action, quite possibly military action. But Obama doesn't talk about military action anywhere in his speech. There is no mention of the Second World War, nor, for that matter, the belated military action that terminated the slaughter in Rwanda, or the decades-long police action in Northern Ireland, and of course no criticism of the total lack of action by the "international community" in Darfur.

"And yet he has the nerve to suggest that we should learn from 'our fellow citizens of the world showing us how to make the journey . . . ' Isn't it the other way round? For if "our fellow citizens" in Europe had had the same willingness to fight evil that we have so often displayed, there wouldn't have been a Holocaust to remember. But such unpleasant facts would have led him to praise American exceptionalism, and, as we know, he's not comfortable with such themes."

Certainly this was not the occasion for a militant speech. But one thing that stands out here is how his perspective fits right in with his apology tour, which Ledeen aptly points out. It is also consistent with his policy to never praise America. Americans helped liberate the camps - doesn't that count for something? Not in Obama's world; at least, he gives no indication that was the case.

He does speak of "the hope of a chosen people who have overcome oppression since the days of Exodus, of the nation of Israel rising from the destruction of the Holocaust, of the strong and enduring bonds between our nations," but some in Israel are questioning those strong bonds right now and doubting that Obama feels them.

I'm willing to be that had he been president during the Holocaust he'd have been willing to meet with Hitler "without preconditions" and search for that reconciliation he mentions.

While dipolomacy and conversation has its place, not all problems can be solved that way despite what Mr. Obama seems to think. There are times when military action is necessary. Obama does not seem to think so. Ronald Reagan left no doubt for our enemies that he would respond with force when necessary. He drew the line in the sand. No nonsense.

Our enemies need to know that we are willing to take action if necessary. The only message Obama seems to be putting out is "Let's talk!" Clearly Iran isn't afraid of us, nor is North Korea or Cuba or Venezuela or Hamas, or any of the other global terrorists who have challenged him.

Gird your loins kids; it's going to be a long four years.

Update: Via Memeorandum, here is a great post on the same topic.

Related:
Obama Refuses to Meet with Netanyahu
Louis Van Thyn

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.

$900 Million for Gaza?

Money grows on trees you know, and despite our tanking economy we apparently have enough cash to funnel $900 million to Gaza.

A New York Times story this morning explains that this aid is to help rebuild Gaza "after the Israeli incursion" last month. The Times does not point out that Israel, fed up with Hamas rocket attacks, was defending itself. That's beside the point.

This aid follows on the heels of the the "Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related to Gaza" order signed by Obama on January 27, 2009. The order allocated $20.3 million for the purpose of resettling Gaza refugees and would be distributed by the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency).

The new $900 million influx would also be handled by the UNRWA. Andy McCarthy, writing for National Review, expressed concern about UNRWA in a post this morning and it seems his fears are well founded. He says "the UNRWA is effectively an arm of Hamas in Gaza (and elsewhere). In its second term, the Bush State Department was reckless in enabling Palestinian terrorists on its utopian quest for Middle East peace. As in so much else, Obama is taking that parlous policy and multiplying it by a hundred."

During the election there were concerns about Obama's anti-Israel position. He was associated with several anti-Israel characters such as Rashid Khalidi (remember the 2003 tape suppressed by the LA Times in which Obama attended a farewell bash, along with Bill Ayers, for Khalidi?). I wrote about my own concerns here, here, and here. Obama's radical associations alarmed me, but many scoffed at me and said I should not to judge him by his friends. Fair enough.

But now we are giving aid to Gaza and to assume that this money won't find its way into the hands of Hamas is naive. Asaf Romirowsky, in an article published in 2007 by the Jewish Policy Center, wrote about how UNRWA supports Hamas and it is worth your time time to read.

Romirowsky points out that the UNRWA benefits from the continued conflict because without the conflict there would be no more purpose for them. The agency is staffed mainly by locals - "more than 23,000" of them and they are not screened against any terrorist watch list.

Khalidi himself explained that UNRWA employs "members of different political groups such as...Hamas and Islamic Jihad, without reference to their belonging to a specific group." The workers are even allowed to associate with terrorist groups.

Rominrowsky writes:

"There have also been widespread reports of terrorism from UNRWA-supervised facilities, including sniper attacks from UNRWA-run schools, bomb and arms factories in UNRWA camps, the transport of terrorists to their target zones in UNRWA ambulances, and even UNRWA employees directly tied to terrorist attacks against civilians.

Nidal Abd al-Fattah Abdallah Nazzal, an ambulance driver for UNRWA from Kalqiliya in the West Bank, was arrested by Israeli security services in August 2002. Nidal admitted that he was a Hamas activist and that he had transported weapons and explosives to terrorists in his ambulance, taking advantage of the freedom of movement afforded to UNRWA vehicles by the Israelis."

In addition, the UNRWA allowed terrorist groups to use their schools for the purpose of training Palestinian children how to make roadside bombs. Is this what we should be funding as U.S. taxpayers? There is more than enough evidence to support the fact that Hamas operates freely within UNRWA. So by extension, our government is funding terrorist organizations?

How might our ally Israel feel about all this influx of cash in the direction of Hamas?

If we want to weaken Hamas to the point where they can no longer terrorize Israel or anyone else, shouldn't we CUT their funding rather than making it easier for them to operate?

Hope 'n Change for the Middle East?

I've admired Obama sticking to the "one president at a time" mantra, but now I think he needs to speak out on the Israel/Gaza situation.

The problem is that nobody really seems to know what his position might be or how sympathetic he will be toward Israel, one of our own allies. There is one school of thought that suggests that Israel went ahead and retaliated against Hamas now because George Bush is still in office and they KNOW where he stands. In his Saturday radio address, President Bush said, "Since Hamas' violent takeover in the summer of 2007, living conditions have worsened for Palestinians in Gaza. By spending its resources on rocket launchers instead of roads and schools, Hamas has demonstrated that it has no intention of serving the Palestinian people."

He also said, "America's objectives in the Middle East will remain clear: We seek security and peace for our allies, the free people of Israel. For the Palestinian people, we seek a peaceful and democratic Palestinian state that serves its citizens and respects its neighbors. For all in the region, we seek an end to terror."

The blathering fools on HuffPo make me crazy in their criticism of Israel. Do they think that the people of Israel should just accept the 6400 rockets that have been launched at them over the past three years and do nothing? Diana West, author of The Death of the Grown-Up: How America's Arrested Development is Bringing Down Western Civilization, has an excellent analysis of the situation, the most poignant point being that the only grievance Hamas has is the very existence of Israel.

The Middle East situation has been screwed up forever, but right now, at this point in time, it seems to me that Mr. Obama would do well to make his position known; something beyond the soft platitudes he has issued so far. "One president at a time" has been the proper stance until now; now the world is actually looking to Obama to offer America's vision of "hope and change" for the Middle East.

(Image credit: weblogcartoons.com)