Blog @ MoreWhat.com

So how is the President doing so far? He has some quiet time to think about that as he finishes his ten day vacation. Some have complained that while millions of Americans are unemployed or underemployed Barack Obama should not be playing golf and taking vacation.

The President opposes SB1070 in Arizona and signs legislation to spend $600 million on border security while his Justice Dept sues Arizona over a state law that others are considering for their own states.

Porkulus spending and bailouts have done nothing to improve the economy. Mostly they have provided payoffs for unions representing teachers and other public sector employees. Conflict inside the White House has Obama’s economic team in turmoil. Romer, the leader of Obama’s economic council is leaving.

As if the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan and controversy over Gitmo and civilian trials for terrorists were not enough trouble on the left for Obama he weighs in on the ground zero mosque and further splits his party.

Obamacare is not the winner Democrats portrayed. Since passage of the bill in late night sessions during Christmas last year the White House has spent much time defending the legislation. Something you would not have to do if the idea had any merit.

Just about everything is going wrong for the liberals who control the White House and Congress. As the midterms approach this November and every indication suggests a sweeping defeat for Democrats President Obama returns to the only strategy he knows. Blame someone else for your failures.

Once again President Obama is blaming George W Bush and the GOP for our current economic problems. Is the GOP responsible for our current economic and fiscal problems? Or is the economy now President Obama’s problem?

The GOP shares the blame for where we are. But that does not let the Democrats off the hook. If you seek the office of POTUS as Barack Obama did you have to know what you’re getting into. If you claim it’s the other guy’s fault and you’re the one to fix it you just signed on to do just that. If you fail it is a lame excuse to continue blaming others.

Here’s a flashback provided by The Hill on Barack Obama taking ownership of the US economy in 2009.

During a July 14, 2009, address in Warren, Mich., Obama said, “Now, my administration has a job to do, as well, and that job is to get this economy back on its feet. That’s my job. And it’s a job I gladly accept. I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, ‘Well, this is Obama’s economy.’ That’s fine. Give it to me. My job is to solve problems, not to stand on the sidelines and carp and gripe.”

Notice the phrase, ‘these folks who helped get us in this mess’. A stark contrast to other statements by the President that shift all the blame on others. And it would be correct. Both Democrats and Republicans share responsibility for what goes on in Washington, D.C. and the topic of governance.

What the President does not say is something all liberals avoid. Entitlements are the single largest drain on financial matters in the US. It is the bulk of the budget year in and year out. Those problems belong to Democrats. FDR, LBJ and other Democrats ushered in budget busting programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. In the current mess Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, The Community Reinvestment Act and corruptocrats like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank have directed the banking industry to lend to those who cannot repay the loans.

Mr President, as you blame the GOP for all our ills you should check your own party’s backyard and what they have done to bring us to this point. Adding Obamacare to the other failing programs mentioned above is not our way out of this.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The name says it all. Wikileaks produces ’sensitive materials to communicate to the public’. In the name of a self-proclaimed ‘multi-jurisdictional public service’ this organization displays information without regard for the damage it may cause. In their own words the material is sensitive. They should understand that no matter how noble their intent might be the consequences of their actions can be viewed as irresponsible. That reasonable distinction between transparency and irresponsible behavior trumps any noble intent.

Of the nine people listed on their board for 2007 five are described as activist, dissident or social justice advocate. The other four are listed as writer, security expert or physicist.

If the actions of others resulted in the death of an activist, dissident, advocate or writer, etc., it would be no surprise if these same people at Wikileaks expressed outrage and a desire for justice. If death is caused by their brand of ‘transparency’ to someone outside their sphere of influence it is predicted no such outrage or call for justice would be forthcoming from Wikileaks.

In the days ahead a more complete accounting of Wikileaks latest crusade will develop. Questions about the content and validity of ’sensitive materials’ displayed will be raised. The effect and possible ‘unintended consequences’ may also be analyzed.

If harm to anyone comes from this action by Wikileaks fair is fair. They should be held accountable for their actions. Like most other things in life you can take whistleblowing too far. Any reasonable method for any reasonable purpose can be misused. It is only a matter of time before a group like Wikileaks finds that threshhold and violates standards of ethics and good judgment.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

story source:

WikiLeaks Founder Defends Releasing US Documents on Afghanistan

Afghan, Pakistani Reactions at Odds Over Leaked US Documents

Analysis: Leaks Only a ‘Snapshot’ of Afghan War Effort

Like DeMint you can pass by the Steele problem as it is merely a distraction. There are many reasons why ousting Democrats this November is important. Not the least of which is the Obama Administration’s decision to sue over Arizona defending its borders since the Obamanation will not. The other items mentioned in the title are equally important.

But the overall consideration is to return this beloved nation back to its founding principles and only conservatives seem interested in that goal. And be clear. Candidates like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are not conservatives. Fiorina destroyed HP. Fiorina is an establishment Republican who is in lock step with RINO McCain. Whitman is in the news for two things recently. Her support from other billionaires and shamnesty. Like Bloomberg and Murdoch as well as other limousine liberals they claim conservative values while eroding the rule of law and support liberal fantasies that are dangerous.

Find real conservatives to support and get them in office. Our nation needs them. Let’s move the country in the right direction after years of neglect.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Republican Leader discusses health care, Afghanistan, economy

‘If the majority is hell-bent on ignoring the wishes of the American people, they have 60 votes in the Senate’

related: text on this story at Republican.Senate.Gov

Absolutely unbelievable! Apparently the audacity of the O is contagious. Or maybe this is a product of his recent World Apology Tour. The UN has raised a question on whether the US is killing people indiscriminately with the use of UAVs. Perhaps they should have first asked this question to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah or any other terrorist group. For that is what terrorists do. Absolutely unbelievable! If anyone requires further explanation of this issue there is no point continuing a discussion. The world is truly losing its collective mind. This is beyond audacity. That the UN is the source is the only thing that is not a surprise.

What the hell do they think 9/11 was if not indiscriminate killing? In more than eight years has the UN accused al-Qaeda of violating international law for that? Nearly 3000 civilians killed in the attack on the WTC and the UN wants to know about drones? Wow! And this same organization is involved with determining whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons. How vulnerable do you feel right now?

It will take some time to nominate another story that even comes close to comparing to this one on the absurd meter.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings says the use of armed unmanned aircraft by the United States to hunt down terrorists could be a violation of international law. Philip Alston said Tuesday that Washington must explain how it is sure the United States is not killing people indiscriminately with these aircraft.

U.S. officials have never confirmed the use of Predator drones, but it is widely reported that the Central Intelligence Agency has used them to kill suspected terrorist leaders operating in Pakistan’s largely ungoverned tribal areas along its border with Afghanistan.

U.N. Special Rapporteur Philip Alston questioned the legality of their use under international law. “My concern is that these drones, these Predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions are not, in fact, being carried out through the use of these weapons,” he said.

U.S. officials never acknowledge these strikes, saying they do not discuss operational or intelligence matters.

The Special Rapporteur, who is an independent expert appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, said the U.S. response has been “untenable” and that Washington needs to be more willing to discuss aspects of its drone program. “Otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line, which is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws,” he said.

Alston said the United States should explain who is running the program and what precautions are being taken to ensure that these weapons are used within the framework of international law. He added that there must also be accountability and review mechanisms in place regarding their use.

While the recent decision by the Nobel committee to award the 2009 peace prize to President Obama focused more attention on the US leader no more will be said about it in this post. US diplomatic strategy, success or failure, foreign policy and the role of the US State Dept and White House will be. All the talk about rebuilding America’s image, hope and change, a nuclear free world and ends to conflict needs a reality check. How are things going so far?

Not necessarily in order of importance what is on most peoples’ minds these days in terms of international relations or foreign affairs? From the US perspective the countries of note would include Russia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, North Korea and Iran. Of course the perennial favorites not yet mentioned would be any country in the Middle East. Israel and its neighbors are still without solutions. Russia and China are still vying for top dog honors with the US on the world stage. Upstarts Iran and North Korea at the very least want a seat at the cool kids table. So nothing much has changed.

Here’s a brief recap of events in US diplomatic strategy with a ‘new’ President and Secretary of State.

Still no progress in Palestinian/Israeli peace talks

NECN/ABC) - President Barack Obama’s Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, left the region Sunday after failing again to get Israelis and Palestinians back to the bargaining table. The breakdown of peace talks is taking a toll on Obama’s prestige among Palestinians.

President Obama’s Middle East peace envoy on another trip to the region - more meetings - more handshakes with Israelis and Palestinians - but still no progress, no movement in the peace process.

Not a surprise to see a headline expressing failure in Middle East diplomacy no matter who is involved.

What about Iran?

Putin Says Iran Sanctions Talk Premature

By VOA News
14 October 2009

Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin says it is premature to discuss sanctions against Iran for its controversial nuclear program.

And the view from the US Secretary of State…..

“I believe if sanctions become necessary, we will have support from Russia,” Clinton told ABC television in an interview on Wednesday.

This is merely a continuation of the impotent international community’s response to Iran’s nuclear weapons program that was essentially confirmed again with yet another lie exposed with admission of the previously hidden enrichment facility already known to the Obama Administration. And no one will visit the plant until later this month. Like that will solve anything.

Which makes this next sham almost laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Obama to Preside at UN Security Council

By Margaret Besheer
The United Nations

The United States has taken over the rotating presidency of the 15-member United Nations Security Council for the month of September. U.S. President Barack Obama and other top U.S. political figures will be at the world body this month to highlight issues of importance to the United States.

Another rhetorical masterpiece expressing the desire for a nuclear free world without the substance to support such a notion. The exclamation point is provided by the appeasement strategy reminiscent of a similar process that helped usher in WWII.

And what was the defining achievement by press accounts for the SoS Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Hillary Clinton Helps Turkey, Armenia Open Border - ABC News

Clinton uses diplomatic muscle in Turkey-Armenia row | Politics …

Turkey, Armenia Agree to Ties; Clinton’s Skill Tested (Update1 …

The Daily Star - Politics - Clinton hails Turkey, Armenia steps …

Clinton Helps Save Historic Turkey, Armenia Accord - International …

A more accurate appraisal of Clinton’s participation may be the following…..

Clinton to Attend Turkey-Armenia Normalization Deal Signing

By David Gollust
State Department

The State Department said Thursday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will fly to Zurich to attend Saturday’s signing of accords to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia.

A simple visit to the US State Dept website would bear this out. At least in terms of demonstrating that this State Dept is essentially no different from any other feeble attempt by heads of state to display their conviction to foreign relations or determination to improve conditions in the world. A visit to the website while producing this post featured the following items:

Positive Future for U.S.-Russian Relations

Finding Common Ground With Russia

Secretary Clinton Travels to Europe

U.S. Supports Peace in Northern Ireland

U.S. Supports Emergence of Afghan Government

U.S.-U.K. Advancing Shared Values

U.S.-Ireland Working Together

and travel puff pieces?

So much for the hope and change of a new administration in the US and statements expressed to suggest foreign policy would be successful.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama is said to be struggling over what to do in Afghanistan. Does the rookie believe ignoring intel, military and state warnings is the answer? What does this say about his campaign rhetoric to get elected and his desire to maintain favor from the far left antiwar liberal standard?

Officials: Obama advisers are downplaying Afghan dangers

By JONATHAN S. LANDAY, JOHN WALCOTT AND NANCY A. YOUSSEF
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration reconsiders its Afghanistan policy, White House officials are minimizing warnings from the intelligence community, the military and the State Department about the risks of adopting a limited strategy focused on al-Qaida, U.S. intelligence, diplomatic and military officials told McClatchy Newspapers.

His worry about public opinion ,aka far left support, and resistance to his own advisors is of such concern the report cited here mentions the problem twice in the first seven paragraphs.

However, the officials said, in their effort to muster domestic support for a more limited counterterrorism strategy that would concentrate on disrupting and dismantling al-Qaida, White House officials are neglecting warnings from their own experts about the dangers of a more modest approach.

Given the antiwar sentiment on the left that both candidate Obama and Clinton pandered to in 2008 their ability to do the right thing and at the same time protect their political futures are at odds with each other. With their own ‘experts’ and others suggesting the simmering conflicts are providing renewed strength for al-Qaeda now is not the time for indecision. Biden’s warning of a test for Obama may be just around the corner contrary to the original forecast.

Instead of national security and defense the liberal new direction is focused on an ill-conceived domestic policy Those issues can and should wait based on the pathetic proposals offered to date. The other matters are of immediate concern and need to be handled effectively. And yes, elections have consequences.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

This blogger regularly albeit infrequently promotes reading George F Will’s columns. That remains. Similar to a previous misunderstood column criticizing the way Americans present themselves Mr Will may or is again coming under fire to some degree. It is unpopular in conservative circles to suggest abandoning military combat operations before victory is secured. But George F Will does make a point, unpopular or not. And he may end up being right but not necessarily for the reasons given below.

Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck’s decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen’s, is squandered.

For several reasons this blog disagrees with the last two sentences presented above. You can of course make your own evaluation. Another opinion on this topic is at the WSJ.

The questions and concerns being raised are legitimate. Clearly, the mission has not been going well. Problems with our basic strategy, especially on the economic and development side, still need immediate attention. Moreover, our Afghan friends have a crucial role to play in both security and development, and if they fail to do so the overall warfighting and state-building effort will not succeed.

Both with Mr Will and the WSJ piece from a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (O’Hanlon), the downside is discussed. The WSJ piece includes the upside.

These problems need to be corrected soon. Even then, it will take at least 12-18 months to see results. Our chief challenge in Afghanistan is building state institutions and that is an inherently slow process. But as we debate new changes to our strategy this fall, we would do well to remember all that is working in our favor in this crucial effort.

Analyzing armed conflict while it is occurring and from an historical perspective is an unending endeavor. The only decisive outcome is whether those who risk making the ultimate sacrifice were at least allowed every conceivable opportunity for victory. After all, for the rest of us this analysis endeavor is merely Monday quarterbacking.

Perhaps the only statement on war with which we can all agree includes some expression of its futility. But this is what humans do when adequately provoked or someone decides all other options have evaporated. Until we morph into the perfect beings we sometimes think we are this practice will not become obsolete.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

Is it simply a growing trend in conspiracy theories or is there valid evidence that election fraud is omnipresent in those countries of the world which allow citizens to choose their leaders? Reports on the latest challenges in an election deemed noteworthy by the various media is highlighted below.

There is mounting concern about the aftermath of Afghanistan’s presidential election. No results or even an estimated voter turnout have been announced by the country’s election officials. Partial results from some provinces are expected Tuesday, however. But the election overseers say official results may have to be delayed while they investigate a rising number of serious charges of voting fraud.

According to another report both sides make a claim of election fraud.

Both the campaigns of incumbent President Hamid Karzai and his top challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, accuse the other of illegal campaign activities and tampering with the voting process.

Earlier this year an election in Iran accompanied by subsequent charges of election fraud caused a ’stir’ that has not been satisfactorily resolved. It has been reported that the event is responsible for disruptions of alliances in the ruling elite.

Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi repeated her call for a fresh election in Iran, held under the supervision of the United Nations.

Speaking during a visit to South Korea, Ebadi said a new presidential election with U.N. oversight could help end the unrest that erupted after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s disputed June 12 re-election.

Ebadi made similar comments during a protest speech in Amsterdam last month.

She also asked U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to visit Iran to receive a first-hand account of human rights abuses.

The secretary-general Monday sent what his office called a “customary letter” on his inauguration congratulating him, though the text would not be made public.

And then a contrast in claims of election fraud and media coverage on conspiracy theories.

Massive street protests by millions of peaceful demonstrators waving homemade signs and wearing bracelets displaying the color of their movement? At least 20 protesters gunned down by authorities and paramilitaries? Worldwide moral indignation stirred up by the international media?

Iran 2009? Yes!

Mexico 2006? Yes and no.

All aspects of the above scenario describe the Great Mexican Electoral Flimflam three years ago this July 2nd - save for the conundrum of worldwide moral indignation. Virtually ignored by the international media, the stealing of the Mexican presidential election by the right-wing oligarchy stirred little indignation anywhere outside of Mexico.

Imagine that. Something claimed as stolen in Mexico. With all the rants following elections in the US that disappointed the liberal masses comes a stunning development within the conservative ranks in America.

The primary question conservatives are afraid to ask is “What if the election is very close and Obama wins, then what?”

Will the McCain campaign protest? Is there a cadre of thousands of lawyers ready to jump on the ACORN voter registration fraud issue, or the Obama campaign pre-paid credit card donation debacle, or the many suspected votes cast for Obama by non-citizens?

Obama and his “thousands of attorneys” have answers to all these “trumped-up” complaints by the GOP. The DNC has convinced the Kool-aid crowd that Bush stole the last two elections, and they aren’t about the let that pass. So, hang on to you hats, and further down in this article you will find the Obama/DNC election fraud playbook.

WHAT???? Conservatives would consider leveling charges of election fraud???? Yes, it has come nearly full circle. Beyond the long standing American political rivalry between left and right there are other left and right battles making claim on election fraud.

Not to be outdone by anyone else Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez successfully cheated term limits for his electoral ambitions. As for the Russian Bear….

It has been 10 years since an ailing Boris Yeltsin promoted Putin from security chief to prime minister on Aug. 9, 1999. He was elected president the following year and in 2008 he handed the post — but not all the power — to a hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev.

Putin became prime minister again, allowed almost all the men he surrounded himself with as president to remain in power, and is still understood to call the major shots.

For what once appeared as an aberration in American politics, if not world public affairs, political corruption in the form of ‘vote early, vote often’ has risen to a level that reduces the discussion to one simple inquiry. If all elections are suspect does anything else in public debate matter? Or is this a new strategy to distract?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Has the economic situation become so bleak in some people’s eyes or the state of Michigan that an interest in managing a prison hosting Gitmo detainees is seen as sensible? Desperate circumstances require desperate measures, maybe, but this smells like public prostitution with a government pimp. When you begin accepting ideas that would never have been considered in better economic times, red flags should be noticed not ignored.

If the state of Michigan sees Gitmo detainees as a key to their economic salvation the fall of the American auto industry has not been greatly exaggerated. And a question arises about Michigan’s commitment to save that industry. Democrats including Obama may have painted themselves into a corner with a deadline to close Gitmo. Republicans oppose Gitmo North but liberals are typically ready, willing and able to do whatever it takes to pursue their agenda even if that includes failure.

Members of Congress, voicing fears that the prisoners would endanger their constituents, blocked the use of money in the $106 billion war-funding bill from going toward the prison’s closure, and House members in their defense appropriation bill have included a ban on transferring the detainees to U.S. soil

Some of what Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) has to say on the issue may be a little peculiar but one sentence of his quotes from The Hill’s article makes the obvious point. “And the only reason [Democrats] want to do it is for a few dollars.”

Those supporting Gitmo North should snap out of it and seek therapy. It won’t help but it may keep them out of circulation and let the smart ones decide the issue. This may not simply be a Michigan concern. Neighboring states or the entire nation have reason to be troubled by any detainee containment in the US given the risks known and unknown that come with the problem.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from Maggie’s Notebook….

Michigan Kansas Terrorist Prison Courtroom: Jon Stewart Gitmo Video

Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas may be the home of a new experimental stateside “Gitmo.” The Standish Maximum Correctional Facility in Standish, Michigan may be the second such facility. See a hilarious (allbeit liberal) video below with Jon Stewart. 

It is difficult to determine which one is attempting to be more deceptive, Hillary Clinton or Iran’s Foreign Minister. Do you suppose inviting Mottaki to a sit down was worked out behind the scenes with Iran and the White House? Let’s see, there’s a NATO meeting in Brussels and a ‘conference’ gets conveniently scheduled at the same time. What an unremarkable coincidence that Clinton invites Iran to the sit down. And Iran’s FM predictably ‘considers’ the option, makes a few equally predictable comments hoping to make this all look spontaneous. Who’s buying that after Obama states he’s willing to do just about anything to appease those who would do us harm at the first opportunity?

Sure, according to Mottaki, Iran wants nothing but ‘peace and stability’ in Afghanistan. Just like they did not hing to disrupt that pursuit in Iraq or never said they want the elimination of Israel. And if memory serves, they refer to the US as Satan and want all infidels to die. Last time anyone checked, most of the US population would qualify as ‘infidels’ minus any sleeper cells. It is not known if those residing in the US who are Muslim meet the criteria for not being ‘infidels.’

Both Russia who is helping the Iranians with nuclear projects and the Iranians themselves are probably quite pleased that all this diplomatic foolishness takes such a long time. Whether they are ready to make or use nuclear weapons does not really matter. With all the wasted time over diplomacy with those who have no use for it Iran will most likely have or use a nuke before the talking ever stops.

Here once again is the requisite reminder that appeasement and surrender did not work for Neville Chamberlain. What makes anyone think it will work now? Probably the same reason that those who approve of Obama’s New Deal brand of socialism think it will work when it never has. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Iran Considering US Invite to Afghan Talks

Iran said it is weighing a U.S. invitation to participate in an international conference on Afghanistan.

Iranian FM Manouchehr Mottaki (source: Wikipedia)

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told Serbian state television Friday that Iranian officials were considering whether to attend the March 31 talks, but would not say whether they would.

Mottaki said he would discuss the matter with Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini during Frattini’s upcoming visit to Tehran. Italy said that trip has been postponed because of Iranian officials’ recent anti-Israeli and anti-American comments.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed that Iran be invited to the conference during a NATO meeting in Brussels Thursday. She said Iran would be invited as a “neighbor” and that the meeting would include other neighboring countries as well as NATO members and donors.

In the interview Friday, Mottaki blamed the U.S. for Afghanistan’s deteriorating security and said Iran’s strategy is the “return of peace and stability” in the country.

Iran’s invitation to attend the Afghan talks comes as the United States reviews the previous administration’s policy of isolating Tehran, including whether to open a low-level diplomatic office there.

The location of the conference has not been announced, but Clinton suggested Thursday that United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon open the ministerial-level meeting. She also suggested U.N. special envoy for Afghanistan Kai Eide chair the proceedings.

NATO ministers were reviewing the situation in Afghanistan ahead of upcoming presidential elections. They agreed on the need to assist Afghan authorities in providing security to assure a fair and free vote.

The United States has pledged an additional 17,000 troops for Afghanistan, and other NATO members are being asked for further contributions.

Moving forward on plans to have a sit down with Iran. Sending officials to hold preliminary discussions with Syria and other countries typically at odds with the US. Attempting a ’secret deal’ with Russia. Hell bent to withdraw from Iraq and now this. President Obama is ready, willing and able to cave to the Taliban in Afghanistan just as he directed more troops be sent there. How many events like this must take place before the public begins to see the appeasement and surrender tendencies of a new President?

Don’t be fooled by the President’s comparison to the US Military enlisting the help of various groups in Iraq. Al-qaeda was murdering their people as well and they were not opposed to retaliation for those actions even if it was done with Americans. ‘Reconciling’ with the Taliban amounts to conceding defeat and allowing the enemy to claim victory. The double danger lies in the fact that any concessions guarantee nothing and can enable the enemy without ever reaching agreement. It is a sign of weakness and puts everyone at risk.

Reengage the enemy in Afghanistan after a long interruption. Fashion success after the troop surge in Iraq and get this thing done once and for all. Obama appeasement and preemptive surrender is not an option unless one wishes to invite subsequent challenges from enemies. Another Neville Chamberlain moment hatched by a liberal in America, President Barack Obama.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama Ponders Outreach to Taliban Moderates

U.S. President Barack Obama says he is looking at all kinds of options in Afghanistan - including reaching out to more moderate elements of the Taliban.

The president is in the midst of a detailed review of U.S. policy on Afghanistan, and he is indicating reconciliation could play an important part in his emerging strategy.

In an interview with the New York Times, he was asked if he would consider reaching out to more moderate elements of the Taliban - mirroring a successful U.S. military tactic in Iraq.

Mr. Obama said it might be possible, noting the outreach program in Iraq helped turn around the course of the war.

He spoke aboard Air Force One and his comments were recorded by a Times reporter.

“If you talk to General Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of al-Qaida in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said.

President Obama said there may be comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan along the Afghan border. But he stressed the situation there is much more complicated than in Iraq.

“You have a less-governed region, a history of fierce independence among tribes,” Mr. Obama said. “Those tribes are multiple and sometimes operate at cross purposes, so figuring all that out is going to be much more of a challenge.”

His comments were welcomed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has long advocated reconciliation with moderate elements of the Taliban. But Mr. Karzai emphasized there could be no dialog with Taliban allied with al-Qaida.

Violence in Afghanistan is at its highest level since the Taliban’s ouster in late 2001. President Obama announced last month that an additional 17,000 U.S. troops will be deployed to the country.

When asked by the New York Times if the United States is winning there, he replied no, adding U.S. troops have done an extraordinary job in a very difficult situation. He said conditions have deteriorated over the last year in Afghanistan, the Taliban is bolder, and the Afghan government still lacks the confidence of the people.

Analysts to Obama: There are no Taliban “moderates,” you nitwit (Michelle Malkin) 

This front page was printed in September 1938 - one year before the outbreak of World War II. The Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, believed that ‘appeasement’ was the best way to avoid war with Germany. (graphic and caption above from link provided and not part of VOA report (click pic)

U.S. President Barack Obama has tied the future of Iraq to that of the broader Middle East, which he says will include Washington’s “principled and sustained engagement” with Iran and Syria.

Mr. Obama said the U.S. can no longer deal with regional challenges in isolation. He argued Friday during a speech to Marines in North Carolina that Washington must take a “smarter, more sustainable and comprehensive approach.”

While reaching out to Tehran, Mr. Obama added that the U.S. is developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The Iranian government says its nuclear program has no military component.

Mr. Obama also said the U.S. will refocus on al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan and is actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world.

As proof of his commitment. he pointed to the appointment of George Mitchell, Dennis Ross and Richard Holbrooke as special envoys to the region.

He also announced he intends to send veteran diplomat Christopher Hill to Baghdad as U.S. ambassador.

The U.S. president said that everyone - both friends and foes - must know that the end of the Iraq war will bring a new era of American leadership and engagement in the Middle East.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Screw the UN

Another in a long list of additions to the Obama Administration reinforces the concern that while Hillary Rodham Clinton was unsuccessful in becoming President she succeeded in establishing a third Clinton term in spite of the loss. Susan Rice is US Ambassador to the United Nations and was a member of the Obama Biden Transition Team as well as senior foreign policy adviser for their 2008 campaign.

It has been said of Obama that filling vacancies from the previous administration demonstrates a preference for persons with impressive resumes’ in both education and experience. This selection was no departure from that criteria or strategy. A Wikipedia account of Dr Rice states her father told her to ‘never use race as an excuse or advantage’ and that she was concerned her accomplishments would be viewed as the result of affirmative action. Her personal success is impressive. It is possible she hails from a family with above average means so affirmative action should be a moot point. But what if any is the role of nepotism?

Madeleine Albright is described in the same account as a family friend and mentor to Rice. She urged Clinton to appoint Rice as an Assistant Secretary of State in 1997. While she impressed many and certainly enough to be confirmed others felt she was inexperienced and inflexible. A few years in the Clinton Administration and then to the Brookings Institution. A common career path for unemployed public servants similar to former Congressman becoming lobbyists. Next up the Clinton Obama Wars and filling the Administration with former staff to appease the Clinton clan before the convention. Oh there’s no nepotism here. And this is not a criticism directed at Rice for it is the case with most if not all Obama selections. So how is that working or shaping up for the average citizen?

Regarding President Obama’s election UN Sec Gen Ban Ki Moon expressed ‘Our goals are shared. Together, the United States of America and the United Nations can look forward to a new era of strong and effective partnership, delivering results and the change we need.’ If you take that statement at face value avoid persons selling infrastructure in Brooklyn or vacant land in Florida. Moon had more to say. Earlier this week, he welcomed Mr. Obama’s election “with great optimism,” noting that the UN and US have many common goals. By his own admission and that of Obama and Clinton these goals include but are not limited to the following:

United Nations reform (which will never happen)

Climate Change (or the promotion of more gloom and doom)

The Darfur Peace Process ( which does not exist, resembles the climate change item and is as likely to fail as that in the Middle East )

Global Economic Crisis (his words, and something these spendthrifts no nothing about )

But what Ban Ki Moon and the rest of the posse at the UN were really interested in was this.

UN Launches $613 Million Appeal for Gaza
By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
29 January 2009

The United Nations is appealing for $613 million to help tens of thousands of people in Gaza recover from the three-week Israeli military offensive in the Palestinian territory. The money will provide life-saving assistance over the next six to nine months. The U.N. appeal was launched at the annual World Economic Forum in the Swiss alpine village of Davos.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is the first world leader to enter Gaza since Israel imposed a blockade on the Palestinian territory in June 2007. He describes his distress at what he saw.

And how does Moon qualify for the designation in the report above as a ‘world leader’? More to the point is what does the UN do besides make headlines and statements when they’re not collecting money and using it for who knows what? Could it be that aside from all the other conspiracy theories about the UN that they are quite happy with the Middle East conflict as another venue to work their craft of separating people from their money and giving it to their friends? If you object to that suggestion please explain why none of their ‘programs’ end in success or just end? Sustaining conflict in the world would be of benefit to them given their methods of operation.

So what does Dr Rice bring to the party?

26 January 2009 – There is no more important forum for effective cooperation among States that the United Nations, the new ambassador of the United States to the United Nations stressed today, following her first meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

“I am looking very much forward to engaging in a cooperative, constructive fashion with my colleagues here in New York. I will listen, I will engage and I will work to advance United States interests, recognizing that in many, many instances, our national interests are best advanced when we are working hand in hand with that of others,” Susan Rice told reporters at UN Headquarters in New York.

Ms. Rice said she had an “excellent meeting” with the Secretary-General, covering a range of issues including climate change, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), UN peacekeeping, non-proliferation, Sudan and the situation in the Middle East.

“The United Nations is a vitally important institution. It has great potential. It still has room for great improvement,” she said, adding that she and Mr. Ban also touched on the challenge of making the Organization more effective and more efficient.

She recalled that President Barack Obama had wanted to place the US at the centre of the fight against poverty, and had stated that the MDGs – the globally agreed targets to slash poverty and other development challenges by 2015 – were now US goals.

Based on President Obama rescinding The Mexico City Policy, the liberal thirst for abortion and a press conference by the executive director of the UN population fund the crew must be drunk with sadistic pleasure over the spoils of a political victory. Here’s the damming evidence from the UN press conference in their own words.

“President Obama’s actions sent a strong message about his leadership and strategic vision to support causes that will promote peace and development, equity and dignity, equality for women and girls and economic empowerment of the poor in all regions of the world,” she said. With the resumption of United States funding, UNFPA would be able to maintain recent gains during the current financial crisis and provide support to women in the poorest countries of the world. United Nations Member States had repeatedly said that progress for all would not happen without progress for women. That meant making women’s health, rights and equality an international priority.

She also welcomed the decision of the new United States administration to revoke the Mexico City policy, which paved the way for a restored United States partnership with some of the world’s leading non-governmental organizations that provide family planning services around the world. Access to safe and effective voluntary family planning, as Mr. Obama had said, was one of the most effective ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies and empowering women and men to plan their families. If a woman could not take decisions about her own fertility, she could not make decisions about anything else in her life.

And the final expression of support for ’safe’ abortions as ‘family planning’.

To a question about family planning, she said that its importance was demonstrated by the fact that unsafe abortion was considered the second leading cause of death for African women. Women who did not have access to family planning would go to have unsafe abortions, which often led to death.

Translation:: The money is used to pay for abortions the ‘patient’ cannot afford which would lead to back alley practitioners who care less about the patient than the liberals care about the unborn child. And ‘family planning’ is liberal-speak for abortion. The only reason they support contraception is political. It gives them another pork item to support in legislation and lets them believe they have convinced you they are trying to do things the right way. Could it be any more pathetic?

So Dr Susan Rice will be doing the bidding of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Keep in mind both Clinton and Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy. Also notable is Obama’s weakness for ACORN and voter and campaign finance fraud as well as the Clintons’ scandal history including illegal transfers of sensitive technology via Chinagate. The perils of international politics grow larger. And the threat is not always from without but within.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

President Obama takes another page from the Ahmadinejad (Columbia U) playbook. For the Iranian it was engage the opponent, your target, your enemy, the infidels. Attempt to persuade them you mean them no harm. For Ahmadinejad it was more a case of the trojan horse. For Obama it is more a case of the appeaser cowering to a sworn enemy of Israel and anyone who defends them. Falls nicely into place with that infidel thing. And just as nicely into Obama’s surrender strategy if you recall the campaign of 2008.

The only thing missing from Obama’s message below is ‘and they all lived happily ever after.’.. And we know the genre of writing from which that fantasy comes. Hope and change will not render it true. This Messiah would need to conjure a miracle or three for that to happen. Pleading shows weakness and no courage of conviction whereas strength through the projection of power and determination based on defending principle does. Count the number of times that appeasing the agenda of rogue nations has been successful in the past.

Russia was not requested to ‘tear down that wall’ during the Cuban missile crisis. Japan wasn’t asked to surrender right after they attacked Pearl Harbor. But President Obama tells the ‘Muslim world’ he intends ‘to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace.’ He tells people with no interest in peace with Israel that he will work on that. Is that what comes from a Harvard education?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

President to Muslim World: “Americans are not your enemy”

In his first interview with an Arab television station, President Barack Obama offered a bold change to America’s relations with the Muslim world.

“My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives,” President Obama told Al Arabiya. “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.”

In the interview, conducted in the White House map room, President Obama also expressed his commitment to tackling the Middle East peace process immediately.

“Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we’re not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we’re going to start now,” he said. “It may take a long time to do, but we’re going to do it now.”

The interview is part of the President’s broader outreach to the Muslim world, which includes a promise to make a major address from the capital of a Muslim nation.

Al Arabiya is a 24-hour Arabic-language news channel based out of Dubai.

US President Obama gives exclusive interview to Al-Arabiya TV

U.S. President Barack Obama says he will work to show the Muslim world that Americans are not their enemy.

In his first formal interview - granted to an Arab television network - the American leader said his job is also to show Americans that people in the Muslim world simply want to live their lives and make better lives for their children.

Speaking on Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television, Mr. Obama pointed out that he has lived in Muslim countries and has Muslim family members.

As for Islamist terrorists, he said their ideas are bankrupt. He said nothing they have done has ensured that a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education, or has better health care.

Mr. Obama also repeated his inaugural address pledge to extend a hand to countries such as Iran if they are - as he said - “willing to unclench their fist.”

He said the United States must be willing to engage in diplomacy with Iran and promised to lay out a general framework and approach over the next several months.

Asked about the president’s comments Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it is up to Iran to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community.

As for the current standoff between Israel and Hamas, he said “the moment is ripe” for Israelis and Palestinians to achieve a lasting peace, but he added that all parties in the region must play a role in the process.

Mr. Obama said it is not possible to think of the Middle East without looking at the region as a whole, including Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan, for he said they are all interrelated.

He also said he plans to follow through on a promise to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital.