Blog @ MoreWhat.com

The last post on the topic of President Obama’s UN speech this September dealt with the first half dozen paragraphs. In the seventh, the small matter of Mr Obama’s math is troubling. He says he has been in office for nine months. It seems the days between late January and the Presidential Inauguration to near the same point in the month of September next would calculate to eight months. But that is small potatoes compared to the long list of troubling statements contained in this ‘address’.

In this post the President moves on to his accomplishments in those eight, or nine,months he has been in office.

His next statement is about Gitmo, terrorists and interrogation. He claims there will no longer be torture. The debate on this subject is not closed contrary to what the President suggests. The debate is not closed on what was or is torture except in the minds of those with an opinion to the contrary. In the President’s own words ‘frameworks’ are still being discussed. And his AG’s intent on retribution against those in the opposition party continues.

Gitmo is not closed and may not be for some time if at all. And to claim he will work with members of the United Nations to combat terrorism is as impotent as the record on such things to date. The President ran a campaign that included withdrawal from Iraq and something similar for Afghanistan. They inflamed the antiwar sentiment in cooperation with far left activist organizations as a ploy to win the election. Now they are faced with the grim reality such promises are not so easy and elections have consequences.

So in terms of the eight or nine months, depending on your math skills, that the President has been in office little if anything has been accomplished. Gitmo, Iraq and Afghanistan are still issues in search of solutions. What comes next in the Obama speech just piles on to the misstatements about his time in office.

Eliminating nukes, peace in the Middle East and climate change are the next items the President tries to claim as successful performance. A little premature given the nuke situation regarding Iran and North Korea at least without any discussion of the earliest members of the Nuke Club. Some slack can be afforded the President to any discussion of Middle East peace as many before him have struggled with this issue and there is little optimism his term in office will fare any better. The climate change topic is merely pandering to a particular sentiment not shared by all. It is likely the President and former or current community organizer sees some political value in this pursuit.

The President continues by expressing what he accomplished in terms of the the economic conditions around the world through the G20 and he appears to be again asking forgiveness by emphasizing a ‘re-engagement’ with the UN by joining various groups, offering money and appeasement in general. No wonder those around the planet pleased with his election maintain such an attitude. Any one who will roll over that easily makes their agendas that much easier to advance. This is not a positive sign that Obama intends to defend the interests of the US or the American people.

To this point in the speech transcript the President has accomplished little if anything yet states ‘this is what we have done’. He then goes on to discuss inaction and not getting things done which only serve to strengthen the uselessness of the body he was addressing. Everything that comes out of the UN is worthless. Maybe the President’s strategy was to follow that theme for his address. He mentions the dire circumstances needing attention. Shows that he has done nothing. Claims success for merely mentioning the issues. And encourages others to do something about it. All this and a sprinkling of mea culpas on behalf of the country whose interests he said he would never apologize for defending….. the United States. Is he faithfully executing his oath of office?

Here’s a direct quote from the speech as the final item for this post. It is President Obama speaking about the United Nations.

This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world could solve their problems together. Franklin Roosevelt, who died before he could see his vision for this institution become a reality, put it this way – and I quote: “The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one Nation…. It cannot be a peace of large nations – or of small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world.”

Simply starting an organization based initially on a pleasant sentiment provides no solution without willing participants. It is a little naive to expect world peace from an entity as corrupt as any other on the planet. Whether the UN continues to exist or is abandoned or replaced it is unlikely such efforts will succeed in bringing peace to the world until all the earth’s inhabitants honestly seek this end simultaneously. The probability of that happening any time soon is remote at best.

A call by President Obama for specific remedies to current conflict in the world would be the preferred choice. To present a challenge to other members of the UN to respond properly or risk appearing as co-conspirators to those conflicts may have initiated effective action. But then that is not the aim of the UN or the current American President.

More on this topic in the next post.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

President Obama’s speech to the UN last week has received ample focus. Some will laud the address and others will criticize. This post is just trying to determine what it is Mr Obama intended to accomplish speaking again on the world stage. So, here comes yet another analysis.

In the first paragraph of the transcript one has to wonder what exactly the President means by acting ‘boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad’? Certainly recent events involving missile defense, North Korea, Iran and other security threats do not inspire confidence nor indicate bold and collective action for justice, prosperity or anything else.

The next paragraph features typical rhetoric common to the Obama Administration. Just as the 2006 midterms featured the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid speaking of a new direction in America the Obama White House has focused on the empty slogan of hope and change. The latest action in evidence of broken campaign promises and the accuracy behind Joe Wilson’s statement ‘you lie’ is inserting the Big Pharma lobbyist Paul Kirk in the US Senate seat from Massachusetts vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy. The only purpose for buying the 60th vote in the Senate allows the Democrats to force more government control over American lives in the name of healthcare reform.

The third paragraph returns to a favorite ploy of the liberal majority. From an earlier mention of bold and collective action that has not materialized nor produced any effective governance the temptation to blame the previous administration for unilateral action and anti-American sentiment is a reversal of history. The anti-American sentiment was the cause for unilateral action in the absence of collective action from the UN and other international forums to confront terrorism. The same indifference is present now on issues involving Iran, North Korea and others seeking nuclear weapons. Only this time the current American president is indifferent to the bold and collective action he claims to champion.

In the next paragraph, the fourth, President Obama may as never before express his fondness for the word ‘audacity’. To state he will never apologize for defending the interests of ‘my nation’ or ‘my people’ after his World Apology Tour is only trumped by the audacity to proclaim these interests are shared.

The next two paragraphs circle earlier statements as well as introducing a timid mention of religion. Without the courage to express the religion of peace is now the religion of terrorism Mr Obama betrays his claim of bold and collective action once again. He follows this with promotion of more timid proclamations about global warming and pleas to be humanitarian. And he finishes these thoughts with a reminder of his World Apology Tour telling the rest of the planet he will sacrifice his nation’s interests contrary to any earlier reference to defending them.

This topic will be continued in the next post.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Is that the best Iran’s so-called supreme leader can do? Blame his country’s problems on media reports. That same media has recently reported Iran has agreed to a new set of rules for cooperation with the IAEA. You can call the IAEA independent all you want to but it’s relationship and sanction by the United Nations is all too clear. The IAEA’s ‘atoms for peace’ slogan is more than any rational human being can bear. The history of the UN and the IAEA fit well into Iran’s plans to play games with the all too willing international community until Iran detonates their first nuke.

Iran’s Supreme Leader says Western News Media Attempting to “Poison” Iran
Iran’s supreme leader says Western media are to blame for his country’s recent political unrest. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is pointing his finger at Western news media for inciting political friction in Iran.

In May of this year not the ‘Western News Media’ but ‘Iran’s state media’ got all puffed up about Iran’s missile tests complete with cheering crowds of those characterized as supporters of Ahmadinejad.

Iran Claims to Have Test-Fired Mid-Range Missile
Iran’s state media says the country has successfully test launched a mid-range surface-to-surface missile that can reach Israel, southeastern Europe and U.S. bases in the Middle East. Iranian government TV showed what it said was the test-firing of the Sejil-2, which it says has a range of 2,000 kilometers. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad also commented on the test-firing of the two-stage missile during a campaign speech in the northern town of Semnan. The crowd of several thousand Ahmedinejad supporters cheered as the president described the launch.

During the same month Ahmadinejad held a news conference rejecting talks about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Iran: No More Nuclear Talks With World Powers
Mr. Ahmadinejad told a news conference in Tehran Monday Iran will only agree to discussions with major powers about cooperating in managing global problems. He said Iran will not participate in talks about nuclear issues outside the framework of the U.N. nuclear agency.

This of course is combined with the year’s Iranian politics which generated this headline, ‘Ahmadinejad Win Sparks Protests in Tehran‘ in which an address by Ahmadinejad made the following claim, ‘In an address, Mr. Ahmadinejad declared the vote a great victory and called it a “completely free election.”

Add his statements which blame the US and Israel for all the world’s problems, his call for the destruction of Israel and recently renewed claim the holocaust never happened and it becomes clear any ‘poisoning of Iran’ is self-induced contrary to the stated opinion of Khamenei. Most of what comes out of Iran, minus the loyal opposition to the current regime, demonstrates a rogue state’s intention to develop a nuclear arsenal and put the world at risk. All the delays are nothing more than a smoke screen to buy time to complete their sinister strategy.

AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb
VIENNA — Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.

IAEA denies report it is sure Iran seeking atom bomb
The International Atomic Energy Agency reaffirmed IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei’s Sept. 9 comment that allegations the agency was sitting on evidence of Iranian bomb work were “politically motivated and baseless”.

Either way, the IAEA does not inspire confidence. You need a scorecard to keep up with all the reports on yes they do or no they don’t in terms of Iran’s status of joining the nuclear club. Argue the topic to your heart’s delight but one conclusion remains clear. The world does not need any more members to the nuke club. Pandora’s Box was opened long ago in the heat of a world war. There’s no putting the lid back on. Outside of ending the war with Japan in the last century none of the current known members of the nuke club have become reckless with the option. Who believes that restraint would be practices by any new members?

And no one has forgotten about North Korea or the Jihad crowd’s similar ambitions. World leaders are as impotent in this regard as with Iran.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

An earlier post on this blog, ‘IAEA Paper Tiger vs Iranian Nukes‘, expresses a viewpoint on the do-nothings regarding Iran’s nuclear threat. Oh how surprising that today a report referenced below confirms suspicions that the IAEA is one of those do-nothings.

VIENNA — The global threat posed by Iran’s suspect nuclear program is “hyped” because there’s no hard proof that Tehran has an ongoing effort to build an atomic weapon, the head of the U.N. nuclear agency asserts in a magazine interview.

And there is no ‘hard proof’ why? Because the do-nothings have failed to compel Iran to come clean. So what does Elbaradei say?

ELBARADEI: We have not seen concrete evidence that Tehran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program. But somehow, many people are talking about how Iran’s nuclear program is the greatest threat to the world. In many ways, I think the threat has been hyped. Yes, there’s concern about Iran’s future intentions and Iran needs to be more transparent with the IAEA and international community. We still have outstanding questions that are relevant to the nature of Tehran’s program, and we still need to verify that there aren’t undeclared activities taking place inside of the country. But the idea that we’ll wake up tomorrow and Iran will have a nuclear weapon is an idea that isn’t supported by the facts as we have seen them so far. It’s urgent, however, to initiate a dialogue between Washington and Tehran to build trust, normalize relations, and allay concerns as proposed by President Obama. To me, that’s the only way forward.

Not ‘we haven’t seen concrete evidence’ because you have not done your job to discover the evidence. Of course you have ‘outstanding’ questions. All the questions are outstanding. Here’s an outstanding question for you. How do you draw conclusions without the evidence you are supposed to collect. What facts have you seen so far? It is hard to see facts when you do not look. No one suggests your tomorrow scenario. Continuous foot dragging will allow Iran to develop and deploy and/or use nuclear weapons. Of course, hard to imagine the UN would defer action to the US. Now they expect an equal do-nothing to uncover evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons program through appeasement.

Why don’t we send Bill Clinton to Iran as happened with North Korea. There still must be Americans being held there. Go save someone Bill and broker another back room deal with terrorists. Your administration was good at doing that. Oh, could that be what ushered in 9/11. Gives the impression Americans are slow learners.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(note: the ‘puff piece’ interview of Elbaradei at the link for the pdf file in the excerpt above is pathetic.  The kind of special interest appraisal that generates do-nothings like the UN and the IAEA.)

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has circulated his latest reports on nuclear safeguards in Iran and Syria to Member States. The report outlines developments since the Director General´s report of 5 June 2009.

Circulation of the reports is restricted; they cannot be released to the public unless the IAEA Board decides otherwise.

General Mohamed ElBaradei has circulated his latest report on nuclear safeguards in Iran to the Agency´s Board of Governors, the 35-member policymaking body. The Board next convenes in Vienna on 7 September.

So here’s a recent Arab response on Iran’s nuclear program.

Israeli nuclear weapons and Western hypocrisy
By Yusuf Fernandez (Source: thepeoplevoice.org)

Once again, Arab states have announced that this year they will submit a resolution at September’s general assembly of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in order to force Israel to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and open up its secretive military nuclear program to international inspections.

The article also suggests ‘Israel’s rejection to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as the main obstacle to global nuclear disarmament.’ After stating that Israel has nukes with a 2000 km range and able to reach any Arab capital the article changes direction with ‘Israel is one of the few states in the world that have refused to sign the NPT and is reportedly the only state in the Middle East having nuclear weapons.’

Reportedly the only state in the Middle East having nukes, indeed. ‘Iran has repeatedly assured that its nuclear program is peaceful…’ Repeatedly ‘assured’ is the key here.

You may recall that Saddam Hussein commented after being apprehended from a hole in the ground that he did nothing to convince the world Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction for fear of looking weak to ‘his’ neighbors in the region. Had he not chosen that strategy he may have avoided another confrontation with the US military accompanied by the inevitable outcome. As if Desert Storm in 1991 was not proof enough he could not win a war against the US after invading Kuwait.

Like Iraq’s former ‘leader’ Saddam Hussein, Iran’s leadership behaves in a similar manner allowing statements calling for the destruction of Israel to stand refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist and yet claim their nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful. They now promote the notion of ‘Western hypocrisy’ while they express the desire to destroy Israel and at the same time define their nuclear program as ‘peaceful’.

If you are curious to know who is Yusef Fernandez the following is from Frontpage magazine. ‘Yusuf Fernandez, the spokesman for the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Entities…‘

Some additional information may be found useful as well.

In 1967 the first law allowing the Muslims to organize themselves, after a parenthesis of centuries, was promulgated in Spain, leading to the establishment in 1968 of the first local Muslim Association in Spain in Melilla, and in 1971, the first national association, the Association of Muslims in Spain (AME), which has its headquarters in Madrid. Under the Spanish Constitution the Statutory Law of Religious Freedom is promulgated, now in force, and the Union of Islamic Communities in Spain was constituted (UCIDE), as well as the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Entities (FEERI), which together constitute the Islamic Commission of Spain (CIE), which is a member of the Muslim Council of Cooperation in Europe (MCCE)[1]in Brussels, which is a consultative body to the European Union.

So the IAEA reports to this point have solved nothing as indicated in numerous reports in the ‘media’.

Yossi Melman / The IAEA report on Iran lacks the bottom line

‘IAEA hiding incriminating evidence’

UN nuclear watchdog denies hiding Iran information

UN reports increase in Iranian uranium programme

IAEA to report Iran atom slowdown ahead of talks

Iran, Syria have not carried out sufficient cooperation in …

Iran is continuing nuclear activity, says United Nations watchdog

Iran Claims Report ‘Vindicated’ Nuclear Program

Iran dismisses nuclear assessment

Iran is stonewalling the UN nuclear watchdog agency about “possible military dimensions” to its suspect nuclear programme, officials have said.

The UN is urging the regime to clarify the mysterious role of a foreign explosives expert and shed light on other issues.

A senior Iranian envoy angrily denounced the assessment as “fabrication,” insisting his country has gone out of its way to be transparent and co-operative.

In its latest report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it has pressed the Islamic Republic to clarify its uranium enrichment activities and reassure the world that it is not trying to build an atomic weapon.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful and geared solely toward generating electricity. The United States and key allies contend the country is covertly trying to build an atomic weapon.

These stories support comments suggesting the ‘international community’ response to the nuclear ambitions of Iran, North Korea and others is impotent. They do nothing about the problem outside of promoting resolutions at the equally impotent United Nations. This criticism includes the IAEA.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The United Nations is nothing more than an extension of existing conduits for nations to project their policy agendas. The lack of performance, effective outcomes and adherance to the organization’s orginal mission demonstrate the UN is at least obselete. True to past trends this latest attempt to pass off a ‘resolution’ as anything meaningful once again confirms international cooperation at the heads of state level is useless. The only purpose served is providing a venue whereby nations can bitch slap each other or organize tag teams for groups to bash a common target.

Talk, talk, talk and no action is an accurate description the United Nations. The statement to ‘do something even if it is wrong’ is a relevant suggestion and the only one this ‘body’ has seen fit to address.

As for the quote by Noam Chomsky (below) ’shut up’!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The United Nations General Assembly in meetings Thursday debated the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect or “R-to-P resolution.” In concept, it is a strategy based on state responsibility, international assistance and timely and decisive responses to countries in trouble around the world. But there is less than unanimous agreement that it will ever work.

The stage for Thursday’s debate was set early when Edward Luck, special advisor to the Secretary-General, told the U.N. General Assembly what not to do.

“What we do not need at this point, however, are efforts to turn back the clock to divide the membership, or to divert attention from our central task. The world is changing. Our thinking needs to evolve with it,” he said.

After an informal morning session, there was further discussion of the R-to-P issue by a panel of distinguished scholars and political activists. American Professor of linguistics and philosophy and political author, Noam Chomsky, did not believe the big or rich will rescue the poor and little.

“Take the case that I mentioned about the World Food Program cutting back its funding It wasn’t even reported in the mainstream in the United States. Who cares? It is a criticism of the Western countries,” he noted. “They’re the ones cutting down their funding because it’s more important by their priorities to bail-out banks than to feed people,” he said.

Garth Evans, co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, stated he is not in favor of an all-encompassing rescue plan for the ills of the world.

“It’s very important that we must refine and define and narrow the scope of this enterprise so that it doesn’t become an all-purpose excuse for dealing with human rights generally and comfort generally,” he said.

The debate continues, the speeches go on. Will people help people? What are the boundaries of U.N. responsibility? The concluding evidence and the final decision is still to come.

From the White House website and the out of place blog three items are featured. Health care reform is touted as ‘the key to our fiscal future.’ The 2000th transportation construction job located in Michigan is described so cutely as the road to recovery. And ‘a broad array of ways’ the public can participate in government extends the fantasy of transparency and accountability, etc.

And a list along side these items outlines legislation passed this year. The measure on credit card rules demonstrates the not so creative use of words to give the impression new laws are significant. Accountability (there’s that word again), responsibility and disclosure are combined with credit or card to give the cute acronym CARD for this law. Another weapons procurement law, another title suggesting a way to save homes of those at risk of foreclosure, something on fraud and recovery, serving America, managing public lands, extending some small business programs, PORKULUS, DTV and SCHIPS finish out the list with a bill characterized as securing fair pay.

You can conclude that all these things guarantee the spending of more taxpayer dollars. What you cannot conclude is whether or not they will do any good. Every time Congress passes a law and the President signs it money will be spent. But exactly what good it does or the fact that no one in Washington (or really at any other level of government) will do anything to present facts and figures with supporting data to prove the end results or lack of same stands as evidence nothing changes in the executive and legislative branches at the federal level and all talk of transparency and accountability is ludicrous.

Put this in comparison with the biggest issues this past week. North Korea has expanded on its course to collide with the rest of the world on nuclear threats and its reckless actions while the best the White House can do is say it supports the UN resolution that is simply one more impotent act in a series of them from the international community including current leadership of the United States.

Iran is reported to have held elections in which the little Hitler has been kept in power while the opposition is making claims of election fraud. Has anyone offered a helping hand to those making the allegations in an effort to place pressure on Iran to show proof of a valid election? If the world’s rogue state’s can refuse to recognize Israel why can’t the same be said of Iran based on this week’s elections?

A Treasury Dept task force ‘defends’ taking over the automobile industry There is some quiet noise being made about Gitmo and Uighur detainees and China’s opposition to relocating them from members of Congress. Obama plans to push another government takeover in the form of health care reform. The House of Representatives passes a State Dept funding plan to clean up other people’s messes and waste more taxpayer money. But let’s keep accepting the White House PR that progress is being made and things are going to get better. Cuz there from the government and here to help. Right.

It might be fair to say that Russia an China, being two other significant players on the world scene, are doing just as poorly as the US leadership in turning things around and getting serious about what really matters. But this blog is not that concerned about how well other countries are living up to their responsibilities. The US needs its leadership to return to principles that have kept us going all these years. Tearing down what has been and ‘rebuilding the fundamental ways’ this country functions as Obama has suggested is not a recipe for success.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to analyze the issue of nukes, North Korea and their ability to deliver them or cause other world powers to look impotent. As is the case with most international conflict there is plenty of blame to go around. You can criticize the current and former US Presidential administrations for appearing inept or acting that way. But it is equally fair to distribute criticism to all concerned. That would be the handful of countries engaged or not at one time or another in direct talks with North Korea on the issue of nuclear intentions not so different from that of Iran. It also includes the do nothing approach of the United Nations and members all.

Along with more than several countries in Africa, Iran, North Korea and examples from nearly every continent have presented problems international in scope that major powers and the UN have dropped the ball on numerous times. And then a couple of news reports of the last couple of days emphasize the fiasco that is the response to North Korean nukes.

The United States stressed its resolve to defend allies Japan and South Korea Wednesday, as it dismissed North Korea’s latest threats as “saber rattling” and “bluster.”

That is part of a report from the 27th you can read by clicking on the linked text. But the quoted dismissal of saber rattling and bluster is contradicted by the following story from the 28th.

South Korea and the United States have raised their defense alert levels on the Korean peninsula, a day after the North said it was willing to discard the 56-year old armistice that paused the Korean War. Analysts expect more tension in the days ahead.

This is a perfectly fine example of what is wrong with the relationships and operating performance among friendly and not so friendly countries around this frail planet. From time to time when some of the world’s children continuously demonstrate an inability to play well with others (even given the sad state of affairs in world politics) the rest of the children should be able to agree on an effective remedy to the situation.

When the safety of all concerned can be threatened by a few how much intelligence does it require to negotiate an arrangement that will end the stupidity? The tired old excuses that these matters are more complex than the ordinary citizen understands simply don’t hold water. If it is a matter of waiting to see who blinks first let this ordinary citizen be the first to inform you, that already happened. Now get on with it and solve the problem.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

North Korea and Iran know what most of us know. The impotent actions of the United Nations and each member nations’ special interest will never accomplish the original idea of being an effective forum for resolution in international affairs. It is merely for show and another venue for political fantasy. And the recent liberal thrust in US politics by virtue of the loss of conservative common sense, again through political stupidity, brings the failed policies of surrender and appeasement back to life in a similar fashion to that of Neville Chamberlain before WWII.

As is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, North Korea confirms its understanding that absent an international community of nations as there should be in the UN they have no reason to abandon their stated pursuit of a nuclear weapons program.

A North Korean news announcer read a Foreign Ministry statement saying talks aimed at ending the North’s nuclear weapons are “not needed,” and that it will no longer participate.

The statement goes on to say the North will restart its main nuclear facility - which was disabled under a previous agreement - and reprocess stored nuclear fuel rods into material usable for boosting what it calls its “nuclear deterrent.” (read more)

And Iran as well, while using a slightly different approach, has chosen to stall the US surrender monkeys in Washington DC in pursuit of its nuclear ambitions.

The United States Monday said it welcomed a conciliatory Iranian statement about possible new talks with world powers on its nuclear program. But the State Department says it remains skeptical that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful.

A senior State Department official said no date has been set for a P-5 Plus 1 meeting with Iran and that despite the latest Iranian comments, he said he did not think one is imminent.

He said if a meeting is held, it would likely be at the so-called “political director” level and involve, on the U.S. side, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns and not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (read more)

Enjoy the brief respite from political stupidity in the US after the US Navy and three Navy Seals once again demonstrated what is possible with strength through power. When threatened, neutralize the threat.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Over the years many published reports indicate terrorism is fostered in the West Bank and Gaza for the high unemployment, predominantly youthful population with no opportunity and a crowded populace living in poverty and dire conditions. Then how did Abbas calculate they would need $2.8 billion to rebuild Gaza? How does Clinton determine $300 million in aid will make Gaza peaceful and responsible? And then there are 75 ‘donor’ nations meeting to raise more money. The better question is how smart do you have to be to realize if you launch rockets against Israel long enough to force retaliation after the smoke clears you will receive billions of dollars to do with as you please? The secondary question is this. If Gaza is so bleak and suffering from deplorable conditions why would it cost that much to rebuild and why do the Palestinians need wads of cash to ‘cover a budget’ and for ‘institutional reforms and economic development’? Is this the first time they have ever received money in this manner? No.

There seem to be glaring contradictions not to mention an international scam that the US should not condone. Pay to bury the dead and patch up the wounded and humanitarian aid you can verify but how do they expect to avoid terrorists from getting there hands on the money? Hamas may not touch donations directly but there is nothing to stop millions from filtering to them through the many sinister alliances present in the region or across the street.

And some wonder why the situation never changes.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States’ pledge of $300 million in humanitarian aid for Gaza is intended to help achieve a Palestinian state that is “peaceful” and “responsible.”

In remarks Monday in Egypt at the international donors’ conference on reconstructing the Gaza Strip Clinton said U.S. monetary support for Gaza cannot be separated from achieving a “comprehensive peace” in the region.

Clinton said an additional $600 million of U.S. aid will go to the Palestinian Authority to cover budget shortfalls, institutional reforms and economic development. The U.S. says none of the money will benefit Hamas militants, who do not recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told international donors that financial aid without an end to the conflict with Israel would be “insufficient.”

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon warned that rebuilding the coastal enclave will be a daunting task as long as border crossings between Israel and Gaza remain closed, calling the situation “intolerable.”

Representatives from at least 75 donor nations are meeting in Sharm el-Sheik with a goal of raising money to rebuild Gaza after Israel’s military offensive.

The Palestinian Authority says it needs to raise $2.8 billion to reconstruct Gaza.

The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council said Sunday they would contribute $1.65 billion.

This trip is Clinton’s first to the Middle East as U.S. secretary of state. After the conference, Clinton is scheduled to meet with Israeli and Palestinian officials, including Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Israel and Hamas declared separate cease-fires in January, but rocket fire into Israel from Gaza has continued and Israel has launched targeted attacks on militants and smuggling tunnels in Gaza.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts
Screw the UN

More on the Obama Adminisration and troubling trends are in the news. It is not a surprise nor necessarily atypical for a President of one political party to undo that of a former President of another party. The Obama Administration rescinded the Mexico City Policy ban on funding foreign abortions which has a history of reversals with each change in President of the opposing party. He appeared to be reversing policy on Gitmo but the jury is still out on that one. And the liberal fringe is not happy about the new President’s action or inaction on Iraq and Afghanistan or some other matters.

Does it seem odd to you that the President Obama’s first foreign trip was to Canada while his new Secretary of State headed for Indonesia and China and the rest of Asia? It is not unlike an opinion voiced by Rush Limbaugh on news the President does not favor the Fairness Doctrine. El Rushbo suggests we should not be optimistic about the news in that Obama did not say something like he would not sign or would veto such legislation. Alternatively, Limbaugh suggested it as a trait of the new liberal President to not spend political capital when he can get others to do it. That may also explain his trip to Canada. And Hillary is simply trying to add to her lacking resume’ for 2012. But Canada is boycotting Durban II. Hmmm.

That brings us to this issue, Durban II. The US and Israel were the only countries to vote against it in 2001 or beyond. Now that Obama is in office funny how the UN’s agenda on race again takes center stage. In the past there was the suggestion that opponents of Israel would use the opportunity to gain advantage by using international events to portray Israel and/or the US as racist. Given Obama and Holder’s notable quotes on the topic this may be of some concern to the public at large. Another reversal of Bush 43 policy which may also prove to be dangerous.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Op-Ed: Boycott Durban II

Jewish Telegraphic Agency, NY - Feb 18, 2009
The April 2009 Durban II conference promises to top that fiasco, despite the Obama administration’s decision to attempt to influence the process. …

Can the United States fix Durban II?

Reuters - Feb 18, 2009
Israel and Canada have already announced they would boycott “Durban II,” as the conference is being called, and the Bush administration was opposed to the …

Obama officials meet US Jews to explain their Durban II policy

Human Rights Tribune, Switzerland - Feb 18, 2009
Jerusalem fears that the “Durban II” summit, set to be held in Geneva this April, will be used by Arab nations and others as a forum to criticize Israel as …

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

Just another example of whining from the Muslim population when another one of their attacks on Israel fails. Is it possible they really expect to eliminate or defeat Israel by lobbing primitive rockets in their country? No. They know the rocket attacks will not cause much more than an annoyance. That is not why they do it. They simply try to see what they can get away with and wait for Israel to lose patients from getting no cooperation in solving the problem. Then once Israel exercises its right to defend itself by defeating those responsible the remainder of the Muslim world whines that Israel is being unfair and mistreating the offenders.

It shows how ridiculous international politics are as this sort of thing has continued for years and the rest of world is content to let it continue. With the number of those involved expressing a desire to eliminate Israel the chance of a peace arrangement has never been realistic. Why other nations including the US even engage in the theatre of appearing to believe it will ever happen is as ridiculous as witnessing just one more violent episode like another old rerun on TV.

What was just expressed is the main reason this blog has only recently published any commentary on the topic. The endless loop that is the history of the Middle East with regard to Israel and its neighbors is so repetitive as to be pathetic nonsense. Those opposed to Israel in the region and elsewhere have no interest in peace. That is why it is time to republish another Muslim cartoon to demonstrate the silly notion of the religion of peace. One annoying display deserves another.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Worldwide Protests Against Gaza Operation

Tens of thousands of Muslims took to the streets Friday from Amman to Jakarta to protest the Israeli action in Gaza.

An estimated 50,000 people rallied in the Egyptian coastal city of Alexandria after Friday prayers. The demonstrators waved Palestinian flags and shouted slogans against Israel, and in support of Hamas.

In Amman, Jordan, police fired teargas on a crowd of some two-thousand people to prevent them from marching to the Israeli embassy.

In Israel’s occupied West Bank, police in Ramallah and Hebron also used teargas to disperse Palestinian protesters.

Other demonstrations were reported in Turkey, Algeria, Kenya, Indonesia and Malaysia.

Some of the demonstrators expressed anger at Arab leaders for failing to ease the plight of people in Gaza. Egypt has kept its border with Gaza largely closed.

The European Jewish Congress said earlier this week it was planning pro-Israel rallies in London, Rome, Berlin, Vienna, and other locations.

The most telling irony this week comes from Arab protesters quick to denounce Israel’s military response to Hamas rocket attacks. Where was this outrage when Hamas began the rocket attacks? The contrived outrage over Israel defending itself from Hamas rocket attacks is the Arab self-exposure of their true feelings. It is quite obvious now as it may have been before that the ‘Arab world’ supports attacking Israel and opposes Israel defending itself. This blog has resisted publishing a statement like this in the past for lack of a well defined example of the Arab position on Israel. Some may reject the idea of their not being one before as easily as others may reject the idea that there is one now. That’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The opinion here is that there is no argument remaining that the Arab world means Israel no harm.

For those who feel inspired to criticize Israel for military action against rocket attack from Hamas the following excerpt and link is provided as the first in the chronology presented in this post. Livni told Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that Israel’s patience was exhausted after days of rocket barrages into Israel from Gaza, and that the Israeli government would no longer accept the status quo. This of course occured before any retaliation from Israel. It is not like the rocket attacks were quietly accepted until the defensive action began. Rockets were regularly fired on Israel from Hamas and no one in the ‘Arab world’ criticized Hamas.

Israel gave notice to Hamas and anyone else to stop the attack. Here is the second excerpt and link in this chronology.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has issued what he calls a “last minute” call to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, urging them to pressure their Hamas rulers to stop rocket fire into Israel.

Mr. Olmert made the appeal during a television interview with Arab station, Al-Arabiya on Thursday, during which he said Israel will not hesitate to strike Hamas or any other Palestinian militant group.

The remarks came as militants fired rockets and mortars into Israel for a second day in a row. Israeli officials say more than 80 rockets and mortar rounds hit southern Israel on Wednesday. No casualties were reported.

Meanwhile, Israeli defense officials say the military is preparing an operation against Hamas targets in Gaza.

The ‘Arab world’ remained quiet about the rocket attacks. Funny how they got all interested in the military response that contrary to their opinion is reasonable. Say nothing about militants attacking Israel but denounce Israel’s right to defend themselves against attack. And who was affected by the Israeli response?

Nearly 300 Palestinians, most of them armed militants, have been killed since Israel launched the offensive on Saturday. But let the protesters and certain media outlets lead you to believe that civilians are paying the price for Israel’s self-defense from rocket attack.

Where is the Arab criticism for the following?

Hundreds of Palestinians breached the Gaza border fence in four places and poured into Egypt on Sunday. Egyptian police opened fire, prompting gun battles with Palestinian militants. Several hours later, Egyptian officials said border guards restored order.

The breach followed Israel’s bombing of 40 tunnels in Gaza used by the ruling Islamic militant group Hamas to smuggle weapons and supplies across Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.

‘Used by Islamic militant group Hamas to smuggle weapons and supplies’ is the key portion in this report that falls on deaf Arab ears. Other reports indicate Arabs, Muslims, whatever, criticize Arab governments for their wimpy denouncement of Israel. So what’s new? Ignore any attack on Israel but make a great deal of noise when Israel responds to attacks. It is time the ‘religion of peace’ and its followers end the double standard toward Israel. If you want the insanity to stop you must not enable it by your action or inaction. If you want peace stop blaming everyone else for the problem and accept your own responsibility for finding peace.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

There are obvious questions about Colin Powell’s essentially 11th hour endorsement of Barack Obama. Not the least of which would be why Powell’s son remains loyal to Senator John McCain. In the piece below from The Hill there is a suggestion that the junior Powell may stand to win a job in a McCain Administration. One could make the case he could have a job in either candidate’s administration. A more compelling question could be is Colin Powell’s endorsement a little payback for falling on his sword at the United Nations with his now famous address laying out the case for WMD leading up to the war in Iraq? Or is it simply that Colin Powell is now in a position to do what he wants?

Colin Powell splits with son over White House race
By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 10/20/08 02:21 PM [ET]

Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, has put him at odds with his own son, former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell.

Michael Powell, who served as a policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, is a surrogate for John McCain and represents the GOP nominee on the campaign trail.

He endorsed McCain early in the Republican primary in January, and said the Arizona senator was the best candidate to “calm the turbulent economic waters and to steer the new economy in a direction that will bring growth, opportunity and prosperity to all Americans.”

Rush Limbaugh wants you to believe Colin Powell’s endorsement is based solely on race. There is not sufficient information to conclude that to be true or false. But it certainly is plausible. This blog believes its payback time. All those years of being the good soldier, serving at the pleasure of the President and a fine record of accomplishment and a stellar reputation that was at least threatened by the United Nations episode may see the General using his new found freedom to stick it to the GOP and his former colleagues. But at what price?

Barack Obama comes with a substantial amount of baggage as does his running mate Joe Biden. If Colin Powell is supporting Barack Obama simply due to the shared heritage of race, how would that play if any of Obama’s skeletons in the closet emerge as major political scandals? By throwing support for the Democratic party candidate Powell may be risking more bad press if the conveniently scheduled post-election hearings on the housing scandal at Freddie and Fannie are not successful in covering up DNC complicity in the subprime mortgage mess.

Colin Powell did not have to endorse either candidate. Is it possible that the man with the stellar reputation and immense standing in the world is merely endorsing Barack Obama for President because he truly believes he is the right man for the job? You can only believe that if you are certain that Colin Powell did everything in his life based on what he believed in rather than what was expected of him. Powell was at odds with Cheney and Rumsfeld over the Iraq situation and was regularly ganged up on by others in the Adminstration. Yet he went to the United Nations, again serving at the pleasure of the President, and made the case for the Bush White House and WMD. Are you convinced he believed what he was saying or do you think he did what was expected of him?

So it is possible Colin Powell is endorsing Barack Obama for reasons other than he believes Obama to be the right man for the job. Could it be another reasonable person is being used by the scam phenomenon that is Obama? Colin Powell’s endorsement may be more complicated than any one reason. He may believe Barack Obama is the right man for the job. He may be doing this solely on race. He may be getting payback on his former colleagues.

The endorsement effect may have faded over time so the announcement this close to the election may be more telling than other indicators. Help shore up some fading support and dominate some of the news cycle with a big name endorsement with two weeks left. This is strategy and Powell is no stranger to such things. This is politically motivated and there is an agenda in which Powell is a player. Endorsements should not have much significance these days as there is little risk to those offering the endorsement in most cases.

So the payback angle still holds. But what Colin Powell may have in mind is another run at Secretary of State. Go back and do things the way you wanted to without the restrictions from opposition like the last time around. But that could be done in a McCain Administration as well. But then Powell would not get the added bonus of doing it with a black President.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com