Archive for the 'Iraq' Category

Obama: Give It to Me

Posted in Public Affairs, Money Matters, Health, Bush, Iraq, wordpress, Politics, GOP, Immigration, Afghanistan, obama, Medicare on August 28th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

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

Terrorists Rejoice: UN Targets US on Behalf of Terrorists

Posted in Public Affairs, Terrorism, Iraq, war, wordpress, Politics, News Media, ethics, Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, U.N., United States, Iran, Aviation, obama, Foreign Affairs, Military, 9/11 on October 28th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

absolutely unbelievableAbsolutely 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

UN Special Rapporteur Questions Legality of US Use of Drones



27 October 2009

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.

Obama, Clinton, Mitchell: US Appeasement Policy

Posted in Public Affairs, Israel, Hezbollah, Iraq, wordpress, Politics, Democrats, Clinton, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Nuke, U.N., United States, Russia, China, India, Iran, Hamas, Palestine, obama, hillary, Foreign Affairs, Abbas, Fatah, Putin on October 15th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

Hillary Rodham ClintonTobacco BarryGeorge Mitchell
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

Obama and Crew Neglecting Warnings: War on Terrorism

Posted in Public Affairs, Terrorism, Iraq, war, wordpress, Politics, Religion, Afghanistan, Nuke, United States, Iran, obama, Foreign Affairs, Islam, Muslim, Military, 9/11 on October 11th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

Make Love Not WarTobacco BarryNobel Peace Prize
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

Read a Book

Posted in Education, Announcement, Israel, Terrorism, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iraq, war, wordpress, Religion, syria, Pakistan, Iran, Hamas, Palestine, Islam, Muslim, Abbas, Fatah, Saudi Arabia, Egypt on August 2nd, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

quite the turban
Read a book. It’s possible this blog has never recommended reading a particular book other than Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. But a recent visit to tsowell.com served up a reminder of a wise choice from many of Thomas Sowell’s suggested reading list. It is not new or the latest bestseller but that is certainly not a reason to discount it. In these times of social and political unrest not to mention terrorism and Jihad the book by Bernard Lewis entitled ‘ What Went Wrong’ is not only relevant but extremely well written and compelling. If you do not care to take this blog’s word for it, being on Sowell’s reading list should suffice.

Like any treatment of the topic discussed by Lewis it is not without its detractors. In the interest of fairness one search engine result that provides the dissenting viewpoint is linked here so you can have one recommendation accompanied by one random review by someone not impressed with the work or the author. It would not be surprising if this dissenting viewpoint is held by someone not fond of criticism toward someone or something they personally value, right or wrong.

A description of the book from Sowell’s site is presented here and hopefully Mr Sowell will not object.

A small book presenting a top scholar’s very readable account of the history that led the Islamic world from its pinnacles of achievement in the past to its present pathology and poisonous and dangerous hatreds.

How about a guess? Terrorists, Jihadis, Muslims and Islam will be offended. The rest of us will not. Give it a read and make up your own mind. Hopefully you have already accepted the earlier recommendation on Levin’s book and read that by now. It would not hurt to follow the link to Sowell’s lists, etc., to find other good reading material.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Gitmo North

Posted in Public Affairs, Money Matters, Terrorism, Iraq, war, wordpress, Politics, Democrats, liberal, Afghanistan, United States, Law, obama, Opinion, Military on July 28th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

camp xray
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. 

US Companies Sued Over Saddam’s Chemical Attacks

Posted in Public Affairs, Money Matters, Health, Iraq, wordpress, Politics, News Media, disclosure, ethics, Law, Justice, Environment, Business on April 11th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

10 April 2009

Three U.S. companies are being sued for selling material to the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein used in his chemical weapon attacks against Iraqi Kurds.

Five Iraqi expatriates filed a class action lawsuit this week in the U.S. state of Maryland, accusing the companies of violating the Geneva Conventions in connection with the attacks. The Republic of Iraq is also named in the suit.

Saddam’s government used various chemical weapons in the anti-Kurd Anfal campaign in the late 1980’s. At a ceremony last month honoring victims in Halabja, one of the most infamous attacks, Iraq’s environment minister Narim Osman told VOA Kurdish Service foreign companies should be put on trial for their role in the killings.

The companies being sued are Alcolac, VWR International, and Thermo Fisher Scientific.

Russia and Iraq May Revive Pre-War Contracts

Posted in Iraq, wordpress, United States, Russia, France, Germany on April 11th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

10 April 2009

Russia and Iraq have agreed to work toward restoring contracts established before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said the understanding was reached during Friday’s talks in Moscow between prime ministers of the two countries.

Russian energy firms such as Lukoil signed agreements with the government of Saddam Hussein. But Saddam later canceled Lukoil’s deal to develop Iraq’s West Qurna oil field, and other contracts were frozen after the 2003 U.S. invasion.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his Russian counterpart discussed improving cooperation on the oil and gas industries and other subjects.

Russian state media, Itar-Tass, quoted Mr. Maliki as saying that Russian companies will play an important role in Iraq’s reconstruction.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told reporters that his country and Iraq will likely resume cooperation in the area of military technology.

Mr. Maliki met later Friday with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev during his first official visit to Russia.

Iraq’s foreign minister signed an agreement last year to repay about $900 million in Soviet-era debt over 17 years. Russia agreed to forgive nearly $13 billion as part of the deal.

from MoreWhat.com:

Does anyone remember that Russia, France and Germany were among the loudest opposition to military force against Saddam Hussein at the UN before the war? One theory was the trio worried about lost revenue for contracts they had with Iraq at the time. Coming full circle it would appear.

Stanford Matthews

More Appeasement from Clinton and Obama

Posted in Terrorism, Iraq, war, wordpress, Clinton, Afghanistan, Iran, obama, hillary, Foreign Affairs, Military on March 10th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

Clinton, ObamaIt 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


06 March 2009

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

Iranian FM Manouchehr Mottaki during talks with Serbian PM Mirko Cvetkovic in Belgrade, 06 Mar 2009
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.

Surrender and Appeasement Still in Obama’s Playbook

Posted in Public Affairs, Terrorism, Iraq, war, wordpress, Politics, Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, Islam, Muslim, Military, 9/11 on March 9th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

Neville ChamberlainMoving 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



March 2009

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.

troops in AfghanistanThe 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) 

Is Obama’s Middle East Policy a Failure to Learn from History?

Posted in Public Affairs, Israel, Terrorism, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iraq, war, wordpress, Politics, Religion, syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Osama bin Laden, Iran, Hamas, Palestine, obama, Foreign Affairs, Islam, Muslim, Fatah, 9/11 on February 27th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews


February 2009

Neville Chamberlain pursued appeasement before WWII
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.

Is Muntazer al-Zaidi Waiting for Other Shoe to Drop?

Posted in Public Affairs, Bush, Iraq, wordpress, Politics, youtube, News Media, ethics, Video, Entertainment on January 30th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

Many have been entertained by the shoe throwing incident that occurred during President Bush’s last official visit to Iraq. Regardless of your opinion or impression of the event one has to wonder about the fate of the shoe throwing ‘journalist.’

He is reported below to be in jail awaiting trial. He may be the only one who never laughed about the incident.

The only handy resource for displaying the sculpture in this story is from YouTube and presented below. No assurance for the validity or accuracy, etc., of this video is expressed or implied by this blog or this post’s author.


Shoe Sculpture Honors Iraqi Journalist
By VOA News
30 January 2009

Iraqis are paying tribute to the journalist who threw his shoes at then-President George Bush at a statue dedicated to the incident.

A large bronze sculpture of a shoe, accompanied by an ode to journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi, was unveiled Thursday in Tikrit.

Zaidi gained instant fame during a Baghdad news conference last month, throwing his shoes to express his anger at the U.S.-led invasion of his country. His act inspired thousands across the Middle East to carry shoes in rallies of solidarity.

He is currently in jail awaiting trial.

Tikrit is the hometown of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. After a Baghdad statue of Saddam was toppled in 2003, Iraqis displayed their disgust with him by hitting the sculpture with shoes and slippers.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters

Trackposted to Nuke’s, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Political Byline, Woman Honor Thyself, Wingless - Alastair Crooke on Gaza & Hamas - living in the twilight zone!, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Obama, Clinton Send Political Clone to the UN

Posted in Public Affairs, Money Matters, Israel, Terrorism, Iraq, war, wordpress, Politics, liberal, Clinton, ethics, Afghanistan, U.N., Iran, Palestine, obama, Environment, Foreign Affairs, Military, Abortion on January 30th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Screw the UN

The Obama Clinton MachineAnother 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 AlbrightMadeleine 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.

Dr Susan RiceSo 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.

UN“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.

think about itTranslation:: 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

Obama Takes a Page from the Ahmadinejad Playbook

Posted in Public Affairs, Israel, Terrorism, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iraq, wordpress, Politics, Religion, News Media, syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Osama bin Laden, United States, Iran, Hamas, Palestine, obama, Islam, Muslim, Abbas, Fatah, Saudi Arabia, Asia, 9/11 on January 28th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

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.
superbama
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

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009 at 9:48 am

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.

Obama to Muslims: America Not Enemy

By VOA News
27 January 2009
US President Obama gives exclusive interview to Al-Arabiya TV
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.

Obama and Clinton Introduce First Stage of Appeasement Policy

Posted in Public Affairs, Bush, Terrorism, Iraq, war, wordpress, Politics, Clinton, Afghanistan, United States, obama, hillary, Foreign Affairs, Military, 9/11 on January 25th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

Every now and then one can recognize the use of artistic license by the author of a news report. Such is the case with at least part of the report below. But it fits nicely into the argument on this blog that President Obama is not a WYSIWYG politician. As evidenced by the phenomenon known as Obamania or some similar term there is a tendency in this nation to accept all of Mr Obama’s actions as right, above reproach, divine or in some way superhuman as the saving grace to whisk away all that ails the world.

Is Obama change you can believe in?President Obama’s executive orders related to Gitmo are not ‘designed , in part, to improve America’s image in the world.’ Almost simultaneously former Senator and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton accepted her confirmation as Secretary of State expressing that of the three ‘D’s in US foreign policy, defense, diplomacy and development only the last two would be targeted. Later in the piece below the real reason for President Obama’s instant use of executive orders on Gitmo are made clear. Activists and foreign governments have complained. Human rights activists and ‘many legal experts’ call the military trials unfair. Imagine that. Activists, foreign governments and most likely defense attorneys oppose Gitmo.

The rhetoric of playing by the rules, adhering to our values and other platitudes disguise the nature of the Obama philosophy. Kindly remember that Hillary Clinton is a fan of Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama spent much of his youth with Frank Marshall Davis. Barack Obama and his Marxist and socialist influences combined with Republican turned lefty Hillary Rodham Clinton and the rest of the clan that followed her to the Clinton Obama Administration are proving by their actions what most of us new before the election. An Obama Presidency will lead this country toward socialism and the weak-kneed appeasement policies reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. Maybe that is why Obama and ACORN focused on the youth vote in America. Being mostly oblivious to history they probably have no clue who Mr Chamberlain was and the significance of a reference to him on this topic.

Change you can believe in is correct. You can believe the change will not be a good thing. And you might find it interesting in the piece below that while the Bush Administration receives an inordinate amount of criticism on this topic Mr Obama ‘would listen to proposals for exceptions to the Army rules for some agencies and circumstances.’ Making good on a campaign promise is the excuse now and the harsh criticism does not need to be repeated as the gesture says it all. Make yourself look good to your supporters who have lost some confidence while quietly bashing your predecessor and setting up an appeasement policy with rhetoric.

The community organizer strikes again.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

“Rehab:” Gitmo recidivists thumb their noses in new video (Michelle Malkin) 

Obama Orders on Guantanamo and Interrogations Reverse Bush Policies


January 2009

President Obama’s executive orders Thursday Jan 22nd, closing the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention center and banning torture and other harsh interrogation techniques, fulfill a campaign promise and impose major policy changes designed, in part, to improve America’s image in the world.

It was a dramatic moment at the White House on Thursday morning. As cameras clicked in front of him, President Obama said he was ordering all U.S. government agencies to abide by the restrictive interrogation rules published by the U.S. Army two years ago, and that he was ordering the closure of any prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency and said “Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now.”

The president also ordered an inspection of the Guantanamo facility to ensure it complies with the Geneva Conventions and U.S. laws. He also canceled a 2007 order by former-President Bush that opened the door to harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, and told all U.S. government agencies to ignore Bush administration decisions about what is allowed and what is not.

But President Obama did say he would listen to proposals for exceptions to the Army rules for some agencies and circumstances.

The president also suspended the military trials at Guantanamo, which human rights activists and many legal experts have branded as unfair.

The closing of the detention center and the end of those trials have long been sought by activists and many foreign governments. Some detainees were held in harsh conditions in the years immediately after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. Although conditions have improved and the government says harsh interrogation techniques are no longer used, Guantanamo has become a symbol of excess in the war on terrorism.

At Human Rights Watch in Washington, attorney Jennifer Daskal welcomed President Obama’s moves. “With the stroke of a pen, the new Barack Obama administration has put the United States back on a humane and rule-of-law-respecting course, and rejected the abusive practices of the last 7 1/2 years. These orders will go an enormous way toward restoring America’s image all around the world,” he said.

President Obama said that was part of what he wanted to do. “The message that we are sending around the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism, and we are going to do so vigilantly; we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals.”

President Obama started a process on Thursday that his predecessor, George W. Bush, also said he wanted to do but never did.

The former president and his spokesmen cited the difficulties of placing detainees in other countries and concerns about what to do with detainees who the government says are too dangerous to release, but cannot be put on trial because the evidence against them is secret or tainted by alleged torture. They also said 61 of the approximately 500 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to terrorism.

At a news conference shortly after the executive orders were signed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the only Bush cabinet member asked to stay in his job — said those difficult issues have not gone away.

GATES: “These are just issues that we will have to work through with the new administration. And some of the legal issues, which are really outside our purview, are the things that the Justice Department and the White House Counsel and so on will be working on.”
PESSIN: “But is there some option out there that you identified before, but was rejected by the Bush Administration, particularly with regard to those that you can’t release and can’t put on trial?”
GATES: “I don’t think so.”

Secretary Gates indicated he does not know exactly how the issues will be settled, but he noted that since the November presidential election, a few countries have expressed interest in taking some of the detainees from Guantanamo — reversing their previous refusals.

The Secretary, who is also a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said he is not concerned about the new restrictions on interrogators. He indicated that whatever advantage the harsh techniques might provide is no longer needed.

“We know a lot more about al-Qaida now than we did in the early years of the administration, the early years after September 11, 2001. And personally, I believe that the need for measures that go outside the Army Field Manual is dramatically less than it was several years ago,” he said.

Secretary Gates is a member of all three task forces President Obama formed on Thursday to decide how to close the Guantanamo detention center, what to do with its detainees and how to handle detainees and interrogations in the future. President Obama wants answers from his new task forces within six months.

The president’s orders do not pre-judge the issues, but they do call on the officials involved to consider transferring some Guantanamo detainees to U.S. prisons and trying them in regular civilian U.S. courts. Some of the detainees have been held for more than seven years without charges or trials.