Read this story all the way through ... you will then understand why many view Obama as a world class hypocrite, fraud with disturbing far left radical ties (and leanings).
Obama Bars Press from Press Award Ceremony
Politics | Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:28:46 am PDT
You couldn’t make up stuff like this.
Barack Obama was elected commander in chief promising to run the most transparent presidential administration in American history.
This achievement and the overall promise of his historic administration caused the National Newspaper Publishers Assn. to name him “Newsmaker of the Year.”
The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon.
The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press.
UPDATE at 3/20/09 11:25:09 am:
The National Newspaper Association, despite its innocuous name, is actually an association of far-left publications that includes “Final Call” — the paper published by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam: NNPA - Article - member papers.
And that explains why Obama doesn’t want the mainstream press at this award ceremony.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33117_Obama_Bars_Press_from_Press_Award_Ceremony
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Obama does Leno - and promptly makes tasteless joke about Special Olympics
Get that man his teleprompter ! What was Obama's brain (David Axelrod) thinking ?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/19/obama-does-tonight-strike-right-tone/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/obama-tells-leno-stunned-aig-bonuses/
President Obama sat down with Jay Leno on Thursday for a late-night TV interview that spanned a range of topics -- from the economic crisis to the presidential dog -- and even, at one point, featured the president joking that his bowling ability was suitable for the Special Olympics.
The bowling comment was a reminder of his poor performance on the lanes last year during one of his campaign stops. Obama bragged to "The Tonight Show" that he recently bowled 129 on the White House alley.
"It's like Special Olympics," he said.
Oh,and coach K goes on TV to suggest Obama fix the damn economy and not spend his time publicly filling out and discussing his NCAA tournament picks.
After the president released his NCAA tournament picks, Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski wondered aloud why Obama was spending time on brackets when more pressing matters are at hand.
"As much as I respect what he's doing, really, the economy is something that he should focus on, probably more than the brackets," Krzyzewski said. (Obama picked Duke rival North Carolina to win the NCAA Championship.)
Hey coach K, there are priorities, and then there are priorities.
Governing ain't exactly at the top of O's list it seems....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/19/obama-does-tonight-strike-right-tone/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/obama-tells-leno-stunned-aig-bonuses/
President Obama sat down with Jay Leno on Thursday for a late-night TV interview that spanned a range of topics -- from the economic crisis to the presidential dog -- and even, at one point, featured the president joking that his bowling ability was suitable for the Special Olympics.
The bowling comment was a reminder of his poor performance on the lanes last year during one of his campaign stops. Obama bragged to "The Tonight Show" that he recently bowled 129 on the White House alley.
"It's like Special Olympics," he said.
Oh,and coach K goes on TV to suggest Obama fix the damn economy and not spend his time publicly filling out and discussing his NCAA tournament picks.
After the president released his NCAA tournament picks, Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski wondered aloud why Obama was spending time on brackets when more pressing matters are at hand.
"As much as I respect what he's doing, really, the economy is something that he should focus on, probably more than the brackets," Krzyzewski said. (Obama picked Duke rival North Carolina to win the NCAA Championship.)
Hey coach K, there are priorities, and then there are priorities.
Governing ain't exactly at the top of O's list it seems....
Eric Holder - more confirmation that he is a disaster AG
Man, this guy is dangerous !
Eric Holder Says Gitmo Prisoners Might Be Released in the USUS News | Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 7:04:46 pm PDT
Well, isn’t this lovely: Some Guantanamo prisoners could be released in U.S.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Some of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners could be released into the United States while others could be put on trial in the American court system, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday.
Eric Holder Says Gitmo Prisoners Might Be Released in the USUS News | Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 7:04:46 pm PDT
Well, isn’t this lovely: Some Guantanamo prisoners could be released in U.S.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Some of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners could be released into the United States while others could be put on trial in the American court system, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Calls Grow for Geithner to Resign
Strike one was the tax evasion issue.
Strike two was his non-plan, plan.
Is AIG Strike 3 ?
Time: "Treasury Learned of AIG Bonuses Earlier Than Claimed"
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1886138,00.html
The R-Word [David Freddoso]
Rep. Darrell Issa (R, Calif.), ranking Republican on Government Oversight, becomes the second Republican in Congress to call for Tim Geithner's resignation. The first was Rep. Connie Mack (R, Fla.).
"Secretary Geithner either didn’t know about the bonuses, and was grossly negligent, or he did know and failed to bring this to the president’s attention," Issa said. "Either way, the end result has been a significant waste of taxpayer dollars and he should take immediate responsibility and resign."
Strike two was his non-plan, plan.
Is AIG Strike 3 ?
Time: "Treasury Learned of AIG Bonuses Earlier Than Claimed"
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1886138,00.html
The R-Word [David Freddoso]
Rep. Darrell Issa (R, Calif.), ranking Republican on Government Oversight, becomes the second Republican in Congress to call for Tim Geithner's resignation. The first was Rep. Connie Mack (R, Fla.).
"Secretary Geithner either didn’t know about the bonuses, and was grossly negligent, or he did know and failed to bring this to the president’s attention," Issa said. "Either way, the end result has been a significant waste of taxpayer dollars and he should take immediate responsibility and resign."
Hypocrite in Chief; Hypocrites in Congress
So Many Democrats, So Much Phony Outrage [David Freddoso]
As members of the House Financial Services Committee prepared to question AIG’s chief executive, Edward Liddy, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Tex.) invoked the famous line from Casablanca: “I’m shocked — shocked! — to find that gambling is going on in here!”
The line from the corrupt Captain Louis Renault, a regular gambler at Rick’s American Cafe, is quite appropriate for this situation. U.S. lawmakers are now feigning outrage over the $165 million in bonuses paid by AIG to its executives — even though Congress voted to make such bonuses legal. And today, on a party-line vote, lawmakers voted against taking the bonus money back from the company.
One after another, members of the subcommmittee asked some version of the question: How could the company, in the midst of raking in $173 billion from the government and its Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), do something so “unconscionable?”
Rep. Paul Hodes (D., N.H.) declared that the AIG employees’ contracts containing the bonuses “should be held to be invalid or unenforceable on the grounds of public policy.” (No one is sure exactly what that is supposed to mean.) Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), chairman of the Financial Services Committee, suggested that the government use its status as 80-percent owner of AIG to sue and recoup employees’ contractually obligated bonuses. “They gave themselves contracts that insulate them from the losses,” Frank complained. “We’re the effective owners of this company. We ought to exercise our rights as the owners . . . . Let’s bring a lawsuit, as the owners, against people who really did damage to the company.”
But Frank, Hodes, and 244 other congressmen — all Democrats — voted last month for a stimulus package that explicitly allows TARP funds to be used for such bonuses. To be precise, President Obama’s $789 billion stimulus package contained the following provision, which deals specifically with executive compensation at AIG and other companies that receive TARP money:
The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.
Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.) read this statutory language to the subcommittee twice during the hearing’s early-afternoon session, just in case anyone was unaware. The executive compensation loophole was not merely a holdover from President Bush’s original bailout plan. It was laid out in clear statutory language that was enacted and signed by Democrats over vigorous Republican opposition. The provision was inserted in conference committee by Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), one of the biggest beneficiaries of political contributions from AIG employees.
As Royce noted, “Some Democrats were aware of the bonuses, and went out of their way to protect those bonuses.” President Obama was one of them, but you would not know it from his dramatic performance on Monday, when he addressed the issue of AIG bonuses. “I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?” Obama asked. “This is not just a matter of dollars and cents. It’s about our fundamental values . . . excuse me, I’m choked up with anger here.”
Yet it was Obama who signed the very bill that made the rules for bonuses under TARP, and that bill clearly allowed these bonuses. Obama stumped for it all over the country — but did he actually read it? And are politicians such as Obama, Dodd, and all the others who supported the stimulus package entitled to feign outrage when their own legislation produces easily foreseeable and undesirable results?
Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.), one of the few members of the Financial Services Committee who both understands bailout legislation and has been unsparing in his criticism of it, put the question in the simplest terms: “What I really want to say to some of the loudest critics is, ‘What did you expect?’”
But it isn’t just a question of what they did expect. It is also a question of what they now expect. For even as the Financial Services Committee hearing was still taking place, the full House had the opportunity to vote on a measure that would stop payments to AIG until the bonus money is returned and require future bonuses at TARP-assisted firms to be approved by Treasury.
House Democrats defeated the bill with a procedural motion in a party-line vote, 221 to 182. Among those voting to block consideration of the bill were Frank, Hodes, and Rep. Gary Ackerman (D., N.Y.), who had earlier caused the entire Financial Services Committee to burst out in laughter by referring to AIG’s credit-default swaps as “I Can't Believe It’s Not Insurance.” In fact, all but six of the 42 Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee voted to kill the no-bonus bill (four of them did not vote). Then they all went back to the hearing to question Edward Liddy, AIG’s new CEO, and express further outrage at the bonuses.
In Congress, true outrages are not intended to be remedied in realistic ways. Rather, they represent opportunities for politicians — in this case Democrats — to pretend outrage at their own legislation, and then to score points with populist rhetoric.
As members of the House Financial Services Committee prepared to question AIG’s chief executive, Edward Liddy, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Tex.) invoked the famous line from Casablanca: “I’m shocked — shocked! — to find that gambling is going on in here!”
The line from the corrupt Captain Louis Renault, a regular gambler at Rick’s American Cafe, is quite appropriate for this situation. U.S. lawmakers are now feigning outrage over the $165 million in bonuses paid by AIG to its executives — even though Congress voted to make such bonuses legal. And today, on a party-line vote, lawmakers voted against taking the bonus money back from the company.
One after another, members of the subcommmittee asked some version of the question: How could the company, in the midst of raking in $173 billion from the government and its Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), do something so “unconscionable?”
Rep. Paul Hodes (D., N.H.) declared that the AIG employees’ contracts containing the bonuses “should be held to be invalid or unenforceable on the grounds of public policy.” (No one is sure exactly what that is supposed to mean.) Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), chairman of the Financial Services Committee, suggested that the government use its status as 80-percent owner of AIG to sue and recoup employees’ contractually obligated bonuses. “They gave themselves contracts that insulate them from the losses,” Frank complained. “We’re the effective owners of this company. We ought to exercise our rights as the owners . . . . Let’s bring a lawsuit, as the owners, against people who really did damage to the company.”
But Frank, Hodes, and 244 other congressmen — all Democrats — voted last month for a stimulus package that explicitly allows TARP funds to be used for such bonuses. To be precise, President Obama’s $789 billion stimulus package contained the following provision, which deals specifically with executive compensation at AIG and other companies that receive TARP money:
The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.
Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.) read this statutory language to the subcommittee twice during the hearing’s early-afternoon session, just in case anyone was unaware. The executive compensation loophole was not merely a holdover from President Bush’s original bailout plan. It was laid out in clear statutory language that was enacted and signed by Democrats over vigorous Republican opposition. The provision was inserted in conference committee by Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), one of the biggest beneficiaries of political contributions from AIG employees.
As Royce noted, “Some Democrats were aware of the bonuses, and went out of their way to protect those bonuses.” President Obama was one of them, but you would not know it from his dramatic performance on Monday, when he addressed the issue of AIG bonuses. “I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?” Obama asked. “This is not just a matter of dollars and cents. It’s about our fundamental values . . . excuse me, I’m choked up with anger here.”
Yet it was Obama who signed the very bill that made the rules for bonuses under TARP, and that bill clearly allowed these bonuses. Obama stumped for it all over the country — but did he actually read it? And are politicians such as Obama, Dodd, and all the others who supported the stimulus package entitled to feign outrage when their own legislation produces easily foreseeable and undesirable results?
Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.), one of the few members of the Financial Services Committee who both understands bailout legislation and has been unsparing in his criticism of it, put the question in the simplest terms: “What I really want to say to some of the loudest critics is, ‘What did you expect?’”
But it isn’t just a question of what they did expect. It is also a question of what they now expect. For even as the Financial Services Committee hearing was still taking place, the full House had the opportunity to vote on a measure that would stop payments to AIG until the bonus money is returned and require future bonuses at TARP-assisted firms to be approved by Treasury.
House Democrats defeated the bill with a procedural motion in a party-line vote, 221 to 182. Among those voting to block consideration of the bill were Frank, Hodes, and Rep. Gary Ackerman (D., N.Y.), who had earlier caused the entire Financial Services Committee to burst out in laughter by referring to AIG’s credit-default swaps as “I Can't Believe It’s Not Insurance.” In fact, all but six of the 42 Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee voted to kill the no-bonus bill (four of them did not vote). Then they all went back to the hearing to question Edward Liddy, AIG’s new CEO, and express further outrage at the bonuses.
In Congress, true outrages are not intended to be remedied in realistic ways. Rather, they represent opportunities for politicians — in this case Democrats — to pretend outrage at their own legislation, and then to score points with populist rhetoric.
Teleprompter in Chief ....
Obama: Lost Without His ScriptPolitics | Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:23:24 am PDT
During an address with the Prime Minister of Ireland yesterday, Barack Obama ended up thanking himself.
Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was just a few paragraphs into an address in Washington when he realised it all sounded a bit too familiar.
It was. He was repeating the speech President Barack Obama had just read from the same teleprompter.
Mr Cowen stopped, turned to the president and said: “That’s your speech.”
A laughing Mr Obama returned to the podium to take over but it seems the script had finally been switched and the US president ended up thanking himself for inviting everyone to the party.
During an address with the Prime Minister of Ireland yesterday, Barack Obama ended up thanking himself.
Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was just a few paragraphs into an address in Washington when he realised it all sounded a bit too familiar.
It was. He was repeating the speech President Barack Obama had just read from the same teleprompter.
Mr Cowen stopped, turned to the president and said: “That’s your speech.”
A laughing Mr Obama returned to the podium to take over but it seems the script had finally been switched and the US president ended up thanking himself for inviting everyone to the party.
Bush: Gracious to a fault ...
Bush's grace, as indicated in the piece below is an admirable quality. That he continues to be gracious towards Obama in light of Obama's continuing slaps at Bush even today tells you more about Obama and his team ....
Bush: 'Essential' to Help Barack Obama
Politics | Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:00:37 am PDT
Speaking in Canada, former President George W. Bush said it’s ‘essential’ to support Barack Obama.
Bush declined to critique the Obama administration in Tuesday’s speech, saying the new president has enough critics and that he “deserves my silence.”
Former Vice President Dick Cheney has said that Obama’s decisions threatened America’s safety. Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has said he hoped Obama would fail.
“I love my country a lot more than I love politics,” Bush said. “I think it is essential that he be helped in office.”
Some commentators see this as a significant break between Bush and former VP Dick Cheney, who said yesterday that Obama’s policies are making America less safe. But Cheney always did play the attack dog role in the Bush administration, while Bush played the gracious self-deprecating diplomat. This is just more of the same dynamic.
Bush: 'Essential' to Help Barack Obama
Politics | Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:00:37 am PDT
Speaking in Canada, former President George W. Bush said it’s ‘essential’ to support Barack Obama.
Bush declined to critique the Obama administration in Tuesday’s speech, saying the new president has enough critics and that he “deserves my silence.”
Former Vice President Dick Cheney has said that Obama’s decisions threatened America’s safety. Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has said he hoped Obama would fail.
“I love my country a lot more than I love politics,” Bush said. “I think it is essential that he be helped in office.”
Some commentators see this as a significant break between Bush and former VP Dick Cheney, who said yesterday that Obama’s policies are making America less safe. But Cheney always did play the attack dog role in the Bush administration, while Bush played the gracious self-deprecating diplomat. This is just more of the same dynamic.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
AIG Bonus Hypocrisy -- Chris Dodd (again) at fault ?
Lose $165 Million, Gain an Issue [David Freddoso]
Last week, in an obscure subcommittee hearing, a senior Treasury official professed ignorance when asked by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D, Md.) about $165 million that AIG paid in employee retention bonuses as it was raking in billions in TARP funds from Uncle Sam. The story had not yet made the rounds on the news.
But it was not long before everyone was railing against them. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D, N.Y.) suggested a 100 percent tax on them. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R, Iowa) suggested in jest that AIG execs commit hara-kiri. Even President Obama got into the act, affecting outrage over them before delivering yesterday's speech on small businesses.
But why is Obama so outraged and surprised? Today we learn that he signed the very bill that quite clearly made those bonuses legal — the $787 billion stimulus package he had traveled around the nation promoting. The bill includes restrictions on executive compensation, but creates an exception for bonuses contractually obligated before February 11 of this year. The provision, and the exception, were inserted into the bill by the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd (D, Conn.), who has received more than $100,000 from AIG employees in the last 20 years, had written and inserted the relevant provision, with the relevant loophole. How can he, the president, or anyone else who voted for the stimulus, suddenly act surprised? Don't tell us they didn't read the bill.
House Republicans are already calling for a return of the money, and holding a press conference. Here is the statement from House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R, Va.) from this afternoon.
“Today, news reports reveal that a last minute provision in the stimulus bill inserted by Democrats protected bonuses like those received by AIG executives. Taxpayers deserve better than this from their government, and this is just the latest reason why legislation must be transparent for all Americans to see before it is recklessly signed into law.”
UPDATE: Here is the loophole, from the section of the stimulus package that deals with compensation rules for TARP recipients:
The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.
Frankly, it's hard to imagine how the government could prevent such contracts from being honored. But the presence of this loophole, in black and white, certainly gives the lie to all of this phony outrage — by the senator who created the loophole, by the president who signed it into law, and by everyone else who voted for the stimulus package.
Last week, in an obscure subcommittee hearing, a senior Treasury official professed ignorance when asked by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D, Md.) about $165 million that AIG paid in employee retention bonuses as it was raking in billions in TARP funds from Uncle Sam. The story had not yet made the rounds on the news.
But it was not long before everyone was railing against them. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D, N.Y.) suggested a 100 percent tax on them. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R, Iowa) suggested in jest that AIG execs commit hara-kiri. Even President Obama got into the act, affecting outrage over them before delivering yesterday's speech on small businesses.
But why is Obama so outraged and surprised? Today we learn that he signed the very bill that quite clearly made those bonuses legal — the $787 billion stimulus package he had traveled around the nation promoting. The bill includes restrictions on executive compensation, but creates an exception for bonuses contractually obligated before February 11 of this year. The provision, and the exception, were inserted into the bill by the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd (D, Conn.), who has received more than $100,000 from AIG employees in the last 20 years, had written and inserted the relevant provision, with the relevant loophole. How can he, the president, or anyone else who voted for the stimulus, suddenly act surprised? Don't tell us they didn't read the bill.
House Republicans are already calling for a return of the money, and holding a press conference. Here is the statement from House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R, Va.) from this afternoon.
“Today, news reports reveal that a last minute provision in the stimulus bill inserted by Democrats protected bonuses like those received by AIG executives. Taxpayers deserve better than this from their government, and this is just the latest reason why legislation must be transparent for all Americans to see before it is recklessly signed into law.”
UPDATE: Here is the loophole, from the section of the stimulus package that deals with compensation rules for TARP recipients:
The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.
Frankly, it's hard to imagine how the government could prevent such contracts from being honored. But the presence of this loophole, in black and white, certainly gives the lie to all of this phony outrage — by the senator who created the loophole, by the president who signed it into law, and by everyone else who voted for the stimulus package.
AIG Bonus Hypocrisy -- and is Robert Gibbs as dumb as he sounds ?
Don't Worry, the Obama Administration is on Top of AIG [Mark Hemingway]
Jake Tapper, who's pretty much a one-man Robert Gibbs wrecking crew, put up this transcript from a White House press conference two weeks ago. That was when the last $30 billion infusion to AIG was announced, and AIG's hundreds of millions in bonuses were already in the works:
TAPPER: AIG, is the administration confident that it, that it knows what happened to the tens of billions of dollars previously given to AIG?
GIBBS: Is it confident — I'm sorry?
TAPPER: That they know — that you guys know what happened to the previous billions before you hand over this next $30 billion.
GIBBS: Yes — yes, the — I mean, I don't think it's a — well, obviously, you've got a huge insurance company that is losing money, not the least of which because of its sheer size and sheer size and decrease in the growth in our economy. It experiences a far bigger drop, largely because of its size. But, again, the steps that — that Treasury and — and others took were to ensure a larger systemic problem wasn't one that we had to deal with here today in letting something just die.
TAPPER: But in terms of specifically the — I guess it's like $150 billion before, you guys are confident...
GIBBS: Yes.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/two-weeks-ago-w.html
Jake Tapper, who's pretty much a one-man Robert Gibbs wrecking crew, put up this transcript from a White House press conference two weeks ago. That was when the last $30 billion infusion to AIG was announced, and AIG's hundreds of millions in bonuses were already in the works:
TAPPER: AIG, is the administration confident that it, that it knows what happened to the tens of billions of dollars previously given to AIG?
GIBBS: Is it confident — I'm sorry?
TAPPER: That they know — that you guys know what happened to the previous billions before you hand over this next $30 billion.
GIBBS: Yes — yes, the — I mean, I don't think it's a — well, obviously, you've got a huge insurance company that is losing money, not the least of which because of its sheer size and sheer size and decrease in the growth in our economy. It experiences a far bigger drop, largely because of its size. But, again, the steps that — that Treasury and — and others took were to ensure a larger systemic problem wasn't one that we had to deal with here today in letting something just die.
TAPPER: But in terms of specifically the — I guess it's like $150 billion before, you guys are confident...
GIBBS: Yes.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/two-weeks-ago-w.html
Monday, March 16, 2009
Darth Cheney speaks
just kidding Mr. Former VP ... here's Cheney's new article on Obama's moves on the terrorism front.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/16/cheney-hits-obama-policy-on-terrorism/
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/16/cheney-hits-obama-policy-on-terrorism/
Foreign Policy is where I really worry about Obama ....
The idea of engaging Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, etc. is simply madness (& idiotic and naive).
The New Appeasers [Michael Ledeen]
The Boston Globe tells us that a group of today’s leading appeasers (from Paul Volcker to Chuck Hegel) sent a letter to President-elect Obama just before the Inauguration (so that it was apparently drafted during the Gaza fighting), calling on him to negotiate with Hamas. They say that the president will speak with them, which is altogether in keeping with the current fad of seeking the talking cure to all the world’s maladies. The British Government is undertaking negotiations with Hezbollah. The Pentagon has approved talks with the Muslim Brotherhood. Vice President Joe Biden wants talks with the Taliban. And calls abound to avoid offending those who kill us. The pro-Israel Washington Institute wants to tone down the language we use, recommending we stop using phrases like “war on terror,” “global insurgency,” even “the Muslim world.” The president himself wants talks with Iran, as do numerous columnists, such as the New York Times’s Roger Cohen. Secretary of State Clinton has dispatched diplomats to Damascus to talk to Bashar Assad.
The rationale for this surge in talks was provided by Fareed Zakaria in a Newsweek cover story entitled “Radical Islam is a Fact. Get Used to It.” Zakaria called for a more “sophisticated approach” to the Islamic world, arguing that many of the radical Islamist groups are not part of a unified global movement against the West, that they had “local” grievances, and that these grievances could be dealt with one by one, presumably leading the groups to make peace with us.
This is appeasement masquerading as realism, and it is eerily reminiscent of the wish-fulfillment fantasies of the 1970s and early 1980s, when the appeasers of that era claimed that Communism was similarly subject to “local” variation. It was said that the “Eurocommunists” even shared some of our values, and could be wooed away from the Soviet Union if we showed sufficient respect, sympathy, and understanding. That never happened, needless to say; but when the Soviet Empire fell, the Eurocommunists passed into history as well.
Talks with Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Tehran, and Damascus are cut from the same roll of dream material. I’ve provided a longer discussion here.
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/03/15/the-appeasers/
03/16 12:39
The New Appeasers [Michael Ledeen]
The Boston Globe tells us that a group of today’s leading appeasers (from Paul Volcker to Chuck Hegel) sent a letter to President-elect Obama just before the Inauguration (so that it was apparently drafted during the Gaza fighting), calling on him to negotiate with Hamas. They say that the president will speak with them, which is altogether in keeping with the current fad of seeking the talking cure to all the world’s maladies. The British Government is undertaking negotiations with Hezbollah. The Pentagon has approved talks with the Muslim Brotherhood. Vice President Joe Biden wants talks with the Taliban. And calls abound to avoid offending those who kill us. The pro-Israel Washington Institute wants to tone down the language we use, recommending we stop using phrases like “war on terror,” “global insurgency,” even “the Muslim world.” The president himself wants talks with Iran, as do numerous columnists, such as the New York Times’s Roger Cohen. Secretary of State Clinton has dispatched diplomats to Damascus to talk to Bashar Assad.
The rationale for this surge in talks was provided by Fareed Zakaria in a Newsweek cover story entitled “Radical Islam is a Fact. Get Used to It.” Zakaria called for a more “sophisticated approach” to the Islamic world, arguing that many of the radical Islamist groups are not part of a unified global movement against the West, that they had “local” grievances, and that these grievances could be dealt with one by one, presumably leading the groups to make peace with us.
This is appeasement masquerading as realism, and it is eerily reminiscent of the wish-fulfillment fantasies of the 1970s and early 1980s, when the appeasers of that era claimed that Communism was similarly subject to “local” variation. It was said that the “Eurocommunists” even shared some of our values, and could be wooed away from the Soviet Union if we showed sufficient respect, sympathy, and understanding. That never happened, needless to say; but when the Soviet Empire fell, the Eurocommunists passed into history as well.
Talks with Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Tehran, and Damascus are cut from the same roll of dream material. I’ve provided a longer discussion here.
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/03/15/the-appeasers/
03/16 12:39
Obama: Making Orwell Proud
I rather liked this post from Victor Davis Hanson, even though the theme is similar to the last post here:
Making Orwell Proud [Victor Davis Hanson]
Guantanamo is still open, but there are no longer "enemy combatants" there (Perhaps the name of the camp can be changed next?). The old campaign snicker that a naïve McCain really believed that a then-stronger economy is "fundamentally sound" is now the new Obama gospel about a far weaker one. There are to be no more earmarks in spite of 8,000-plus new ones. A $3.6 trillion-dollar budget is proof of commitment to financial responsibility; the remedy of Bush’s borrowing profligacy is to increase the deficit from $500 billion to $1.7 trillion. Bush’s signing statements bad; Obama’s signing statements good. An end to lobbyists in an administration ensure there are over ten; the highest ethical standards mean the nominations of Daschle, Richardson, etc. The changing meaning of words really does trump memory and reality itself.
Making Orwell Proud [Victor Davis Hanson]
Guantanamo is still open, but there are no longer "enemy combatants" there (Perhaps the name of the camp can be changed next?). The old campaign snicker that a naïve McCain really believed that a then-stronger economy is "fundamentally sound" is now the new Obama gospel about a far weaker one. There are to be no more earmarks in spite of 8,000-plus new ones. A $3.6 trillion-dollar budget is proof of commitment to financial responsibility; the remedy of Bush’s borrowing profligacy is to increase the deficit from $500 billion to $1.7 trillion. Bush’s signing statements bad; Obama’s signing statements good. An end to lobbyists in an administration ensure there are over ten; the highest ethical standards mean the nominations of Daschle, Richardson, etc. The changing meaning of words really does trump memory and reality itself.
Obama's Competence Problem
I thought this post was very succinct in articulating some of the pertinent issues that people like me have with Obama ...
Obama's Competence Problem [Jonah Goldberg]
From Michael Goodwin of the Daily News:
Which brings us to the heart of the matter: the doubts about Obama himself. His famous eloquence is wearing thin through daily exposure and because his actions are often disconnected from his words. His lack of administrative experience is showing.
His promises and policies contradict each other often enough that evidence of hypocrisy is ceasing to be news. Remember the pledges about bipartisanship and high ethics? They're so last year.
The beat goes on. Last week, Obama brazenly gave a speech about earmark reform just after he quietly signed a $410 billion spending bill that had about 9,000 earmarks in it. He denounced Bush's habit of disregarding pieces of laws he didn't like, so-called signing statements, then issued one himself.
And in an absolute jaw-dropper, he told business leaders, "I don't like the idea of spending more government money, nor am I interested in expanding government's role."
No wonder Americans are confused. Our President is, too.
-----
me: But hey, don't worry, Obama will appear on Jay Leno on Thursday night to yuk it up and try to show that he is in command ....
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/03/15/2009-03-15_more_than_a_bad_day_worries_grow_that_ba.html
Obama's Competence Problem [Jonah Goldberg]
From Michael Goodwin of the Daily News:
Which brings us to the heart of the matter: the doubts about Obama himself. His famous eloquence is wearing thin through daily exposure and because his actions are often disconnected from his words. His lack of administrative experience is showing.
His promises and policies contradict each other often enough that evidence of hypocrisy is ceasing to be news. Remember the pledges about bipartisanship and high ethics? They're so last year.
The beat goes on. Last week, Obama brazenly gave a speech about earmark reform just after he quietly signed a $410 billion spending bill that had about 9,000 earmarks in it. He denounced Bush's habit of disregarding pieces of laws he didn't like, so-called signing statements, then issued one himself.
And in an absolute jaw-dropper, he told business leaders, "I don't like the idea of spending more government money, nor am I interested in expanding government's role."
No wonder Americans are confused. Our President is, too.
-----
me: But hey, don't worry, Obama will appear on Jay Leno on Thursday night to yuk it up and try to show that he is in command ....
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/03/15/2009-03-15_more_than_a_bad_day_worries_grow_that_ba.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
