[IsraelTimes] In speech on Iran nukes, president uses a tactic that US Jewish opponents of the deal will find hard to combat: insinuating misplaced loyalty
In March 2013, US President Barack Obama That’s just how white folks will do you.... addressed the Israeli people in Jerusalem, reassuring them that the world's sole superpower would have their back in the face of threats from Iran and other Middle Eastern states seeking their annihilation.
"Those who adhere to the ideology of rejecting Israel's right to exist, they might as well reject the earth beneath them or the sky above, because Israel is not going anywhere," he said to raucous applause. " And today, I want to tell you -- particularly the young people -- so that there's no mistake here, so long as there is a United States of America -- Atem lo levad. You are not alone."
On Wednesday, in a speech at American University in Washington, Obama sent the opposite message to Jerusalem: You are indeed alone.
While he said he "deeply shares" the American people's "sincere affinity" for Israel and remains committed to maintaining its "Qualitative Military Edge," when it comes to your government's ferocious but "wrong" opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran, he made clear, you are on your own.
"Because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support," Obama said. "The United Nations ...a formerly good idea gone bad... Security Council has unanimously supported it. The majority of arms control and nonproliferation experts support it. Over 100 former ambassadors who served under Republican and Democratic presidents support it."
This was a biting barb aimed at highlighting Israel's isolation. Though aired via discreet diplomatic channels, the Arab Gulf States' apprehension over the nuclear deal is the Middle East's worst-kept secret. Obama is worried that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's incessant attacks on the deal have started making inroads among the American public
American voters oppose 57 - 28 percent, with only lukewarm support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and independent voters, the nuclear pact negotiated with Iran, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. Opposing the Iran deal are Republicans 86 - 3 percent and independent voters 55 - 29 percent, while Democrats support it 52 - 32 percent. There is little gender gap as men oppose the deal 59 - 30 percent and women oppose it 56 - 27 percent.
Congressional politicians will be very aware of this.
and -- more importantly -- among US politicians who can still kill the deal.
Therefore he unsubtly asserted that with its vocal opposition, Israel stands against the rest of the world.
It wasn't Obama's only jab at Israel and its leader. He mercilessly mocked opponents of the deal and what he characterized as simplistic but fallacious slogans. "Now, the final criticism, this is sort of catchall that you may hear, is the notion that there is a better deal to be had. That is repeated over and over again," he said. He then slightly altered his voice, almost imitating Netanyahu, and intoned the Israeli leader's mantra, "It's a bad deal -- we need a better deal." The audience at American University erupted into laughter.
Obama laid out in some detail why he believes the deal is the best -- and indeed the only -- option to prevent either war or a nuclear-armed Iran. He said Israel's opposition was "understandable," acknowledging that Americans should take heed when Israel is worried about something.
"No one can blame Israelis for having a deep skepticism about any dealings with the government like Iran's, which includes leaders who deny the Holocaust, embrace an ideology of anti-Semitism, facilitate the flow of rockets that are arrayed on Israel's borders," he allowed.
Americans "have to take seriously concerns in Israel," he noted, mentioning the administration's willingness to increase military aid and intelligence cooperation "to help meet Israel's pressing security needs."
But then Obama went for the jugular, making an argument that is hard to counter for American Jews, Israel supporters and other opponents of the deal.
"I believe the facts support this deal," he said. "I believe they are in America's interests and Israel's interests, and as president of the United States it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally."
In other words, Obama implied, if the commander-in-chief chooses to pursue a certain strategy, then opposing it based on the opposition of another country, even an allied one, is beyond the pale.
That's why, a day after Netanyahu held a video conference with US Jews highlighting his objections to the accord, Obama pointed out that Israel dwells alone in rejecting it. He wanted to signal to American supporters of Israel and other opponents of the deal that there is no rational reason to fight it, other than an exaggerated, and possibly even problematic, allegiance to Israel.
#3
The Bammer + USA had better be careful of what he asks for because he just might get it, as the future "Muslim/Islamic Napoleon" = Islamic Mahdi/Messiah/Imam 2030-2050 may conquer Israel, but he will also conquer the US-West as well.
Donald Trump is a baleful influence on American politics in my view, but he's not wrong about everything. Part of the reason for his popularity is that he refuses to carry Republican baggage from the Iraq war.
Last May he mocked Sen. Marco Rubio, telling a Fox News interviewer:
These characters, like Rubio, made a total fool of himself on Chris Wallace's program, talking about "We're better off without Saddam Hussein." Give me a break. Right now we have ISIS, which is worse than Saddam Hussein.
Sadly, he's right about Rubio, and about the Republican mainstream in general. Listening to Rubio twist and turn on Iraq was excruciating. As for Iraq, Daniel Pipes had a better take in 2003: get rid of Saddam, install a strongman we like, and then leave. But that's beside the point.
Despite strong public opposition to the Iran nuclear non-deal, President Obama wields an enormous advantage: he can tar his opponents with the mistakes of the early 2000s, as Eli Lake complained at Bloomberg News. Obama said:
The same columnists and former elected, former administration officials that were responsible for us getting into the Iraq war and were making these exact same claims back in 2002, 2003, with respect to Iraq.
That's a wilful misrepresentation on many levels, most of all because none of the neo-conservatives who promoted "democratic globalism" (Charles Krauthammer's phrase) propose to occupy Iran and build a democracy as they attempted to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one is talking about boots on the ground in Iran (except, perhaps, for small special forces teams), but about surgical strikes against nuclear facilities.
Republicans, though, are terrified to use the "W" word (and I don't mean Bush 43â˛s middle initial). My neo-con friends gave war a bad name. Norman Podhoretz, who fears nothing and nobody, wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal that "there was no 'better deal' with Iran to be had":
Unfortunately, however, I am unable to escape the conclusion that Mr. Obama is right when he dismisses as a nonstarter the kind of "better deal" his critics propose. Nor, given that the six other parties to the negotiations are eager to do business with Iran, could these stringent conditions be imposed if the U.S. were to walk away without a deal. The upshot is that if the objective remains preventing Iran from getting the bomb, the only way to do so is to bomb Iran.
But it's hard to find a single elected Republican who is willing to state the obvious in in public. The Republicans are pushing a mirage of a "better deal" instead of proposing the use of limited military force. That gives the advantage to Obama in one of the decisive political contests of our time.
The trouble is that most Americans don't trust us Republicans with military power. The last time they gave us a blank check, we lost 5,000 lives, took 52,000 battle casualties, sent 900,000 returning veterans to VA hospitals, spent $1 trillion, and disrupted millions of lives (with 1.5 million troop-years of deployment) with little to show for it. Iran's regional hegemony began with the Bush administration's 2005 decision to back the pro-Iranian Iraqi Shi'ite leader Nouri al-Maliki. George W. Bush stuck with Maliki throughout, because he believed that democracy would fix Iraq and the rest of the region. And as long as we refuse to admit our mistakes, the voters won't trust us. Why should they? The present mess in the Middle East arises from policies that both Obama and the Republican mainstream supported.
It's painful that we have to hear the truth from the likes of Donald Trump. Sen. Ted Cruz has criticized American mistakes in Iraq, but hasn't gotten the same level of public attention. Americans will begin to trust Republicans only after we admit that we made mistakes in the past, and promise that we will not demand great sacrifices from them in pursuit of ideological experiments like "democratic globalism." And Heaven help us if Trump takes on the mantel of truth-teller.
IMO, American MO in ME (ever since the Suez Crisis) is "Vidi, faciat pulmentum, aufugiunt"
#1
Right now we have ISIS, which is worse than Saddam Hussein.
Maybe because its core is made up of old Hussein employees. Had we initiated action to take out staging areas and personnel in Syria and Iran that funneled men and equipment into the fight the belligerents today won't be so belligerent.
#2
If one spends the time to return to 2008 and read the news reports, economic and social life in Iraq was a work in progress, and optimism abounded. Politics was a mess, but progress was being made. As Bush prepared to leave office Iraq was by most accounts a success story, and the US presence promised stability for years to come. One wonders what would have become of South Korea had we left in 1956, and West Germany in 1951?
[NATION.PK] The most resounding proclamation during the aftermath of the Beautiful Downtown Peshawar ...capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly known as the North-West Frontier Province), administrative and economic hub for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Peshawar is situated near the eastern end of the Khyber Pass, convenient to the Pak-Afghan border. Peshawar has evolved into one of Pakistan's most ethnically and linguistically diverse cities, which means lots of gunfire. School Attack was Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif ... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf... 's announcement in the All Parties Conference (APC) that Pakistain would 'no longer' differentiate between 'good' and 'bad' Taliban. This vow of no discrimination, which candidly acknowledged the state's hitherto duplicity in dealing with its biggest existential threat, thence became the most prominent clause of the ensuing National Action Plan (NAP) that was to target militancy in all shapes and sizes.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
08/06/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[NATION.PK] So Farooq Sattar would still like to defend his leader in London, even if it comes down to sitting under the glaring sun and calling it a night. His leader, the thing called the increasingly hugeAltaf Hussain ..The head of MQM in Pakistain, who has lived in London and hasn't laid eyes on Pakistain since Caesar made corporal. Judging from the size of him,he may be a Hutt... , acts like a clownish commander but surely there is more to him, than what meets the naked eye. Follow the long trail of his incendiary speeches, the devious outbursts which his underlings deny the next day with incredibly straight faces, and it is hard to miss the hate-filled and violence-ridden pattern. Doesn't the British government know what he is up to? It obviously does.
Let's not be naïve about it. Altaf Hussain would be behind bars in the UK for lesser crimes. The record of his speeches reeking with incitement to hatred, violence and even murder, should be enough to move such a 'civilized' state, one that takes special pride in its system of law and justice and civic standards, to curb his speech if nothing more. Besides, why is it taking the Scotland Yard forever to investigate the serious charges against him? They told us such things happened only in poor countries like ours. Is he just lucky? I certainly don't think so.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
08/06/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] BOWING to the supremacy of parliament and express language of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of Pakistain has dismissed the challenges to the 18th and 21st Amendments. Effectively, then, the new military court system designed to try civilian terrorism suspects in virtual secrecy and approved by a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament in January will resume functioning. Prison sentences and even the death penalty handed down by such courts will, if upheld on appeal, be implemented. The country is set to have a parallel judicial system for all intents and purposes until the sunset clause in the 21st Amendment expires in 2016. Yesterday was certainly bittersweet: the SC did the right thing in allowing the will of parliament to prevail, but it was the will of parliament itself that was flawed -- no democratic system should ever have military courts in the manner and for the reasons they have been foisted on the country by the military leadership after the Beautiful Downtown Peshawar ...capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly known as the North-West Frontier Province), administrative and economic hub for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Peshawar is situated near the eastern end of the Khyber Pass, convenient to the Pak-Afghan border. Peshawar has evolved into one of Pakistan's most ethnically and linguistically diverse cities, which means lots of gunfire. carnage last December.
The judgment itself, nearly a thousand pages long and in two languages, will be closely examined in the days ahead and will have far-reaching implications for a range of issues, from the basic feature/basic structure doctrine to whether future amendments to the Constitution can be challenged in court. None of that, though, will address a two-fold challenge that the country faces as a result of its elected representatives choosing the profoundly undemocratic path of military courts: reforming the criminal justice system on an urgent basis and ensuring that the life of the new military courts is not extended again for any reason whatsoever in 2016, when the sunset clause in the 21st Amendment will go into effect. Unhappily, the law ministry seems uniquely ill-equipped -- even in comparison to the lack of full-time, ministerial leadership and dysfunction in other key ministries such as foreign affairs and defence -- to lead from the front.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
08/06/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] THE callous manner in which the residents of a squatter settlement in Islamabad have been evicted and the protesters booked for terrorism is the latest chapter in a long story of the state's failure to discharge its basic responsibilities to the people. Its failure to recognise the people's right to shelter results in large-scale evictions in all parts of the country.
The outrageous treatment meted out to the residents of Islamabad's I-11 katchi abadi, described as an Afghan basti possibly to blunt public sympathy for the victims, raises many questions. It is not clear whether a serious attempt was made to secure an agreement with the affected people on alternative accommodation. And why was the settlement ignored for three decades? The squatters could not have been living there without the connivance of government officials that is never available without a hefty fee. Instead of trying the protesters, it is all those who lived off the katchi abadi residents that should be punished.
The problem of katchi abadis has been with us since the morrow of independence. As the population grew and the surplus rural labour sought work in urban centres, slums started appearing on the fringes of nearly all towns and cities. As Islamabad's population increases, it too attracts a large population for a variety of jobs. Those who take offence at ugly patches in the capital city often ignore the fact that these underprivileged citizens of Pakistain offer comfort to the occupants of vulgarly large mansions besides making a significant contribution to the country's informal economy.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/06/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] THE month of Ramazan was, for the citizens of Bloody Karachi ...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It is among the largest cities in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous... , not just a test of endurance but something of a trauma. Over 1,200 lives were lost as a result of the heatwave. We are being told that the victims have earned 'paradise'. However, the way to a man's heart remains through his stomach... that thought, on its own, is bleak. Nothing was done over Eid, for example, to remember them.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
08/06/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[SultanKnish] There is nothing that corrupts conservatives quite as much as the need to be nice.
Conservatives are natural optimists who see the world as being basically a nice place. They are nice because they think that the world is nice. That worldview is not reciprocated by the other side.
Where conservatives see a country store, liberals see an oppressive outpost of capitalism. Where conservatives see a family, liberals see abusive patriarchy, oppressive gender norms, religious indoctrination and apple pie. Our current broken family society is the outcome of a cultural war waged against families based on that viewpoint.
The left is convinced that the world is an evil place, that people are basically terrible and that they are the only thing standing between us and the return of human slavery.
It's no wonder that liberals are so nasty.
In political wars, conservatives have to force themselves to be nasty and liberals have to force themselves to be nice. Media control flips the script so that the average person is under the impression, without having listened to either one, that Rush Limbaugh screeches hate at the top of his lungs while Jon Stewart is a fun-loving entertainer, when really it's the other way around.
But the media excels at pumping out one core message; liberals are good people and conservatives are bad people. The details are usually forgettable and buried in a thousand contextualized stories, but the message permeates everything. And even when the public doesn't buy it, conservatives do. Kinda like Israelis vs Paleosimians
BLUF: [WAPO] "We would like an alliance against terrorism," Zeidan told President Obama and other world leaders as he made his case. "That [was] our target," he said in an interview.
But the Obama administration's plan to help the country rebuild its military, joined by other NATO governments, instead came to symbolize the shortcomings of the West's approach to post-revolution Libya. Undermined by insecurity and political divisions there, the flagship assistance program revealed not only the hollowness of Libyan institutions but also how different parts of the U.S. government worked at cross-purposes, dooming a project that Obama 'selected' as a personal priority. Lengthy, but a revealing assessment.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[NATION.PK] The most resounding proclamation during the aftermath of the 
[DAWN] THE callous manner in which the residents of a squatter settlement in Islamabad have been evicted and the protesters booked for terrorism is the latest chapter in a long story of the state's failure to discharge its basic responsibilities to the people. Its failure to recognise the people's right to shelter results in large-scale evictions in all parts of the country.
