Great work being done here: http://bench.nationalreview.com/
Sotomayor's Second Try [Wendy Long]
JCN has reviewed Judge Sotomayor's second crack at responding to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire. Given the continued omissions in her responses, one begins to wonder if she cannot follow instructions or simply does not care to.
We've addressed some of these problems in a letter to senators with a copy to Greg Craig, White House counsel.
Here's the letter, at our JCN website.
Judge Sotomayor and the Belizean Grove [Ed Whelan]
As the New York Times reported yesterday, Judge Sotomayor has informed the Senate that (in NYT’s phrasing) the Belizean Grove, the “all-female networking club” she belongs to, “did not discriminate in an inappropriate way.”
I don’t have a settled position on what rules ought to govern a judge’s membership in a men-only or women-only club (or on the broader question of what public policy towards such clubs ought to be). On the one hand, I’m generally inclined to favor a genuine diversity in which men and women would have choices among single-sex and men-and-women clubs. On the other hand, I recognize that, deliberately or otherwise, some men-only clubs may operate to deprive women of unique or important opportunities for networking and advancement in the business world. My impression is that that problem is far less common than it was 25 or 30 years ago, largely because so many business-related clubs that were previously men-only have chosen to open, or been forced to open, to women.
Whatever debate there might be over what the rules ought to be, there should be little dispute that judges ought to comply with the rules that are actually in effect. Let’s consider whether Judge Sotomayor has complied with Canon 2C of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Canon 2C states: “A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.” The commentary to Canon 2C provides this additional guidance:
Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is often a complex question to which judges should be sensitive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization's current membership rolls but rather depends on how the organization selects members and other relevant factors, such as that the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or that it is in fact and effect an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not be constitutionally prohibited. See New York State Club Ass'n. Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 108 S. Ct. 2225, 101 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1988); Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 107 S. Ct. 1940, 95 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1987); Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984). Other relevant factors include the size and nature of the organization and the diversity of persons in the locale who might reasonably be considered potential members. Thus the mere absence of diverse membership does not by itself demonstrate a violation unless reasonable persons with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances would expect that the membership would be diverse in the absence of invidious discrimination. Absent such factors, an organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership.
I’m certainly not going to contend that this guidance is crystal-clear. But my initial take is that none of the factors that would tend to excuse discrimination on the basis of sex are present in the case of the Belizean Grove. Judge Sotomayor contends only:
Men are involved in its [the Belizean Grove’s] activities—they participate in trips, host events, and speak at functions—but to the best of my knowledge, a man has never asked to be considered for membership. It is also my understanding that all interested individuals are duly considered by the membership committee.
As Jennifer Rubin points out, the “we let the guys come to party” defense “is reminiscent of the ‘we let women be social members’ excuses that exclusive men’s clubs routinely gave for decades—and which were scorned by women’s groups.” Further:
[T]he line about “no one ever asking to join” is rich. Certainly if one declares the organization to be “all men” or “all white” or “all anything” those not in the “all” group are going to be dissuaded from seeking membership. Isn’t the mere statement of exclusivity enough to raise concerns?
It would therefore seem that the default rule set forth in the last sentence of the commentary to Canon 2C (which I have italicized) presumptively applies. It’s also worth noting that Judge Sotomayor, before becoming a member of the Belizean Grove, could have requested that the Committee on Codes of Conduct provide her a confidential advisory opinion about the propriety of membership.
I won’t claim that Sotomayor’s membership in the Belizean Grove is itself a matter of any concern to me. But her apparent violation of Canon 2C and her readiness to rationalize her own participation in reverse discrimination tie into broader concerns about her impartiality.
Further, what’s sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. In that regard, I’ll highlight Jeffrey Lord’s essay on Judge Brooks Smith’s confirmation travails (“Pat Leahy’s Fish Story”), which discusses how Senate Democrats in 2002 went into conniptions over Smith’s former membership in an all-male fishing club.
Re: Judge Sotomayor and the Belizean Grove [Matthew J. Franck]
Michael Kinsley has some choice words for Judge Sotomayor's explanation that it "did not discriminate in an inappropriate way":
If Obama had nominated a man who was a member of the Bohemian Grove, that would be a big issue and probably a fatal one. So how is it different if Sotomayor is a member of a club set up specifically to be the female equivalent? Rather than try to answer this question honestly, Sotomayor chose to make the preposterous argument that the Belizean Grove isn't a women's club. It's just that no men have ever applied for membership, you see. White clubs used to explain the absence of black members the same way. It's a laughable argument—a brazen whopper—and an insult to the citizenry and the Senate that must confirm her.
The rest is pretty good too.
Belizean Grove: More Double Standards, More Double Talk [Wendy Long]
Thank goodness. Michael Kinsley hits the nail on the head this morning in the Washington Post about Sonia Sotomayor's membership in a discriminatory women's club:
If Obama had nominated a man who was a member of the Bohemian Grove, that would be a big issue and probably a fatal one. So how is it different if Sotomayor is a member of a club set up specifically to be the female equivalent? Rather than try to answer this question honestly, Sotomayor chose to make the preposterous argument that the Belizean Grove isn't a women's club. It's just that no men have ever applied for membership, you see. White clubs used to explain the absence of black members the same way. It's a laughable argument — a brazen whopper — and an insult to the citizenry and the Senate that must confirm her.
My husband is a member of an all-male club that has an excessive devotion to pigs and where the men put their shod feet on the table at dinner. I have enough trouble keeping my tablecloth clean and do not mind being excluded from such a Club. But it would not occur to me (or, I should think, other women) to "ask to be considered for membership" when membership is plainly not open to women. Just as I don't mind my husband's club excluding women, I don't mind Judge Sotomayor's club excluding men.
But Judge Sotomayor minds very much when others discriminate, particularly against women. What is objectionable is her absurd contention that her club's discrimination is not discrimination because "a man has never asked to be considered for membership."
That calls to mind the opinion of the district court in the Ricci case, which was embraced by Sotomayor, that the City of New Haven didn't discriminate against anyone, because no one was promoted. See, everyone was treated equally!
That kind of "whopper," as Kinsley appropriately calls it, causes rational people of goodwill to scratch their heads and say, "Huh?"
The White House and Judge Sotomayor have been selling “up is down” this entire nomination, and now we are supposed to believe that an all-women group, specifically designed (as stated in its mission) as a mirror of the Bohemian Grove, is not the mirror the Bohemian Grove.
Just like “Latina woman” was a slip of the tongue. Then we find out the "slip" occurred regularly over 13 years.
Just like, apparently, "The dog ate my PRLDF files.” But some of them, still not produced to the Senate, are public records.
The White House assures pro-abortion groups that Sotomayor is with them. Joe Biden tells law-enforcement groups that the Judge has "got your back." But the White House has given no "assurances" to anyone about how she'll vote as a Supreme Court Justice.
Come again?
Frankly, I don’t have a problem with her Belizean membership. I suspect, like most Americans, I have a problem with the duplicity and hypocrisy that permeate this White House and this nominee.
This is just the typical liberal "do as I say, not as I do" double standard that leads her to implement gender, race, and ethnic quotas for the rest of the world, when, as Investor's Business Daily has noted, for example, she apparently hires law clerks under different standards than she would impose upon the society at large.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Iran ... interesting take
Let's see how it plays out ...
An Interesting Exchange from The Rachel Maddow Show Last Night [Greg Pollowitz]
Yes, you're reading the title correctly. Maddow interviewed Reza Aslan, author of How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror on what's going on in Iran.
I have the entire exchange below, but I've highlighted what I thought was the most interesting part. It's the fact that Mousavi was one of the founders of the '79 revolution and he's basically following the same playbook, but this time the target is the existing ruling structure. I found the interview to be rather informative, considering the rest of the MSM has decided to use Twitter as its main source of information.
Joining us now is Reza Aslan. He's a senior fellow at the Orfalea Center on Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He's also author of a new book, "How to Win a Cosmic War:
God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror."
Mr. Aslan, thank you so much for joining us tonight.
REZA ASLAN, DAILY BEAST COLUMNIST: You're welcome, Rachel.
MADDOW: As I just mentioned, there are reports that Iran's Assembly of Experts has called for an emergency meeting. What are your sources inside of Iran telling you about that and how significant do you think it would be?
ASLAN: Well, just the very fact that the meeting is being convened is significant. The Assembly of Experts, as you said, gets to decide who the next supreme leader will be, and they also get to decide whether the current supreme leader is still qualified for his position. The head of the Assembly of Experts, of course, is Ayatollah Rafsanjani.
Now, Rafsanjani is probably the second most powerful man in Iran after the supreme leader. He's certainly the richest man in Iran. He was also Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's main opponent four years ago. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this year, really went after Rafsanjani hard, accused him of corruption, of graft. And Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad really went at it in a very public way that you don't normally see in Iran.
And once the elections were called for Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani has been working behind the scenes to try to get those elections annulled. And this goes back to an earlier point that you made, is that this isn't about, you know, the mullahs versus the people, or even, you know, the clerical regime versus the reformers. This is something that goes to the very heart of the legitimacy of the Islamic republic. It's the government, itself, that's beginning to crack apart.
MADDOW: And as we see, senior members of the regime start to split, as we see senior clerics come forward in support of the opposition, as we see this meeting convene-is it possible that that changes the way that the government can crackdown? I mean, if it's just students or it's just a specific class, or if just some sort of regional uprising, it seems to me that the government would have more options than if it is some sort of resistance movement that spans right-that splits even right through the heart of the power structure.
ASLAN: No question. You know, we saw something similar to what's happening now in 1999, the so-called "Tehran Spring," where college students poured out into the streets by the tens of thousands demanding greater freedoms, and ultimately, the regime responded with bloody violence.
That's just not an option this time because this isn't-as you said it's not about college students. We've got-you know, this is a movement that is essentially cutting across all the traditional borders and the traditional divisions in Iran.
You have some of the most important and influential people within the Iranian establishment, not just Rafsanjani but the former president, Mohammad Khatami. The Grand Ayatollah Ali Montazeri is one person that you mentioned, but also, the Grand Ayatollah Sanei who's issued a fatwa calling election fraud a mortal sin.
And these are people whose religious credentials go way beyond the supreme leader's religious credentials. They are not exactly equals by any means. Montazeri and Sanei, they're grand ayatollahs; they are way above Ayatollah Khamenei, the current supreme leader.
MADDOW: Reza, we are in day five of following this. And in terms of what to expect next and to watch for next, we are expecting another major demonstration tomorrow. It's not just a demonstration but it's a planned day of mourning for those who have been killed in the protests thus far.
What should we watch for tomorrow? And how important, do you think, tomorrow is going to be?
ASLAN: What's really fascinating about what's happening right now, in 2009, is that it looks a lot like what was happening in 1979. And there's a very simple reason for that. The same people are in charge. I mean, Mousavi, Rafsanjani, Khatami, Mehdi Karoubi, the other reformist candidates — these were all the original revolutionaries who brought down the shah to begin with. So, they know how to do this right.
And so, what you're going to see tomorrow is something that was pulled exactly out of the playbook of 1979, which is that you have these massive mourning rallies where you mourn the deaths of those who were martyred in the cause of freedom. And these things tend to get a little out of control. They often result in even more violence by the security forces and even more deaths-which then requires another mourning rally which is even larger, which then requires more violence from the government-and this just becomes an ongoing snowball that can't be stopped. That's how the shah was removed from power was these mourning ceremonies.
And so, Mousavi, very smartly, calling for an official, not a rally, but an official day of mourning tomorrow. I think we're going to see crowds that we haven't even begun to see yet, and then follow that, on Friday, which is sort of the Muslim Sabbath, the day of prayer, which is traditionally a day of gathering anyway, this is just beginning, Rachel. This is just the beginning.
(The AP is reporting hundreds of thousands of mourners on the streets today in Tehran)
MADDOW: Wow. It's a story that we're nowhere near getting our arms around in terms of understanding it and events preceding faster than we can really understand, but we're trying.
Reza Aslan, senior fellow at the Orfalea Center on Global and International Studies at UC-Santa Barbara-your insight here is just really invaluable. Thanks, Reza. Thanks for joining us.
An Interesting Exchange from The Rachel Maddow Show Last Night [Greg Pollowitz]
Yes, you're reading the title correctly. Maddow interviewed Reza Aslan, author of How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror on what's going on in Iran.
I have the entire exchange below, but I've highlighted what I thought was the most interesting part. It's the fact that Mousavi was one of the founders of the '79 revolution and he's basically following the same playbook, but this time the target is the existing ruling structure. I found the interview to be rather informative, considering the rest of the MSM has decided to use Twitter as its main source of information.
Joining us now is Reza Aslan. He's a senior fellow at the Orfalea Center on Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He's also author of a new book, "How to Win a Cosmic War:
God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror."
Mr. Aslan, thank you so much for joining us tonight.
REZA ASLAN, DAILY BEAST COLUMNIST: You're welcome, Rachel.
MADDOW: As I just mentioned, there are reports that Iran's Assembly of Experts has called for an emergency meeting. What are your sources inside of Iran telling you about that and how significant do you think it would be?
ASLAN: Well, just the very fact that the meeting is being convened is significant. The Assembly of Experts, as you said, gets to decide who the next supreme leader will be, and they also get to decide whether the current supreme leader is still qualified for his position. The head of the Assembly of Experts, of course, is Ayatollah Rafsanjani.
Now, Rafsanjani is probably the second most powerful man in Iran after the supreme leader. He's certainly the richest man in Iran. He was also Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's main opponent four years ago. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this year, really went after Rafsanjani hard, accused him of corruption, of graft. And Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad really went at it in a very public way that you don't normally see in Iran.
And once the elections were called for Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani has been working behind the scenes to try to get those elections annulled. And this goes back to an earlier point that you made, is that this isn't about, you know, the mullahs versus the people, or even, you know, the clerical regime versus the reformers. This is something that goes to the very heart of the legitimacy of the Islamic republic. It's the government, itself, that's beginning to crack apart.
MADDOW: And as we see, senior members of the regime start to split, as we see senior clerics come forward in support of the opposition, as we see this meeting convene-is it possible that that changes the way that the government can crackdown? I mean, if it's just students or it's just a specific class, or if just some sort of regional uprising, it seems to me that the government would have more options than if it is some sort of resistance movement that spans right-that splits even right through the heart of the power structure.
ASLAN: No question. You know, we saw something similar to what's happening now in 1999, the so-called "Tehran Spring," where college students poured out into the streets by the tens of thousands demanding greater freedoms, and ultimately, the regime responded with bloody violence.
That's just not an option this time because this isn't-as you said it's not about college students. We've got-you know, this is a movement that is essentially cutting across all the traditional borders and the traditional divisions in Iran.
You have some of the most important and influential people within the Iranian establishment, not just Rafsanjani but the former president, Mohammad Khatami. The Grand Ayatollah Ali Montazeri is one person that you mentioned, but also, the Grand Ayatollah Sanei who's issued a fatwa calling election fraud a mortal sin.
And these are people whose religious credentials go way beyond the supreme leader's religious credentials. They are not exactly equals by any means. Montazeri and Sanei, they're grand ayatollahs; they are way above Ayatollah Khamenei, the current supreme leader.
MADDOW: Reza, we are in day five of following this. And in terms of what to expect next and to watch for next, we are expecting another major demonstration tomorrow. It's not just a demonstration but it's a planned day of mourning for those who have been killed in the protests thus far.
What should we watch for tomorrow? And how important, do you think, tomorrow is going to be?
ASLAN: What's really fascinating about what's happening right now, in 2009, is that it looks a lot like what was happening in 1979. And there's a very simple reason for that. The same people are in charge. I mean, Mousavi, Rafsanjani, Khatami, Mehdi Karoubi, the other reformist candidates — these were all the original revolutionaries who brought down the shah to begin with. So, they know how to do this right.
And so, what you're going to see tomorrow is something that was pulled exactly out of the playbook of 1979, which is that you have these massive mourning rallies where you mourn the deaths of those who were martyred in the cause of freedom. And these things tend to get a little out of control. They often result in even more violence by the security forces and even more deaths-which then requires another mourning rally which is even larger, which then requires more violence from the government-and this just becomes an ongoing snowball that can't be stopped. That's how the shah was removed from power was these mourning ceremonies.
And so, Mousavi, very smartly, calling for an official, not a rally, but an official day of mourning tomorrow. I think we're going to see crowds that we haven't even begun to see yet, and then follow that, on Friday, which is sort of the Muslim Sabbath, the day of prayer, which is traditionally a day of gathering anyway, this is just beginning, Rachel. This is just the beginning.
(The AP is reporting hundreds of thousands of mourners on the streets today in Tehran)
MADDOW: Wow. It's a story that we're nowhere near getting our arms around in terms of understanding it and events preceding faster than we can really understand, but we're trying.
Reza Aslan, senior fellow at the Orfalea Center on Global and International Studies at UC-Santa Barbara-your insight here is just really invaluable. Thanks, Reza. Thanks for joining us.
Obama Bashing Du Jour
It is exhausting to detail all of the problems that I and others have with Obama on so many topics: Terrorism, Defense, Taxes, Economic Policy, Health Care, Iran, Israel, Leadership, Hypocrisy ... to name just a few.
Therefore, today I will simply highlight a few of the many valid and well articulated criticisms of Obama ....
Charles Krauthammer:
On Obama’s response to events in Iran:
The president is also speaking in code. The Pope [John Paul II] spoke in a code which was implicit and understood support for the forces of freedom.
The code the administration is using is implicit support for this repressive, tyrannical regime.
We watched Gibbs say that what's going on is vigorous debate. The shooting of eight demonstrators is not debate. The knocking of heads, bloodying of demonstrators by the Revolutionary Guards is not debate. The arbitrary arrest of journalists, political opposition, and students is not debate.
And to call it a debate and to use this neutral and denatured language is disgraceful.
Beyond that, the point here is no longer elections. The reason that at least eight have died is not because they wanted a recount of hanging chads in the outer precincts of Esfahan. What they wanted is to no longer live under a tyrannical dictatorship, a misogynistic, repressive, incompetent, and corrupt theocracy.
And that's what the demonstration and the moment is all about. It's about the regime. There is an opportunity — revolution is going to happen one way or the other eventually, and this theocracy will fall. It may not happen now, but it ought to be supported, because it might happen now, and it would change the world if it did.
On the media's coverage of the president:
Well, look, the media are so in the tank, really, they ought to get scuba gear...
But what's really interesting, the president yesterday has said, he complained about FOX, and he said, I think accurately, that it is the one, only voice of opposition in the media.
And it makes us a lot like Caracas where all the media, except one, are state run, with the exception that in Hugo Chavez-land, you go after that one station with machetes. I haven't seen any machetes around here, so I think we are at least safe for now.
But the rest of the media are entirely in the tank, and it's embarrassing. You would think it would be embarrassment that would deter them.
Obama does u-turns on all kinds of policies—on taking [public] money in campaigns, on rendition, on eavesdropping, on all kinds of issues, and the press does a u-turn, a whiplash u-turn in step.
In the end, what you have to—could—conclude is that it is, in part, ideological affinity with Obama, but also in part, he's a rock star, and he sells. So it isn't only ideology. It is greed. If you have him on the cover, he sells.
And that is the only defense that the mainstream media have, and it isn't a pretty one — money.
Bush Nostalgia [Charlotte Hays]
Obama is the first American president who is unaware of the historical sources of America’s moral strength. In his tepid response to events in Iran, the president hailed democratic process, freedom of speech, and the ability to select one’s own leaders as “universal values.” But they aren't. A quick glance around the world’s totalitarian regimes, including most especially that of Iran, should convince anyone of that. These values come from America and the West. Imagine having a president who either doesn't know or won't say it.
The New Orwellianism [Victor Davis Hanson]
We use Orwell, Orwellian, and Orwellianism loosely a lot these days, but what is going on in the Obama administration is beginning to get a little creepy and resembles a lot of things Orwell wrote about in 1984.
When in, Soviet fashion, a critical overseer is dismissed as being "confused" and suffering mental problems in carrying out the law, as Gerald Walpin probably did in uncovering waste and possible fraud in connection with the mayor of Sacramento; or when the government begins to create new words like "overseas contingency operations" and "man-made catastrophes"; or when Justice Sotomayor says that a Latina is inherently a better judge than a white man — and then says she does not mean what she says — or that a female-only club that has no males does so because no males apparently applied (using the argument of pre-Civil Rights Southern country clubs); or when the president begins nationalizing companies because he has no interest in the federal government interfering with private enterprise or swears that he is going to uncover waste and insist on financial sobriety as he runs up a nearly $2 trillion deficit, we see a creeping Orwellianism everywhere. Bush (and "Bush did it") has become the proverbial enemy at large, sort of playing the role of Trotsky in the Soviet 1930s, or the face on the big screen we are supposed to hate — alternately demonized and airbrushed (when Obama adopts his policies like military tribunals, Iraq, or renditions). Newspeak has even proclaimed our president a "god," and a journalist has adopted proskynesis in his presence.
All this dissimulation is based on two general principles — one, the cause of egalitarianism and equality of result is so critical that the tawdry means of distorting reality is not only worth it, but not tawdry; and two, 30 years of postmodern teaching in our law and graduate schools have insidiously convinced many of our elites that there is no absolute truth, only competing narratives that take on credence depending on the race, class, gender, and access to power of those who speak.
As a rule of thumb, when key administration officials say they do not wish to do something, the odds are they have already done it, and when they imply "Bush did it" it means that they will adopt it (e.g., anti-terrorism protocols) or exceed it (Bush deficits).
Therefore, today I will simply highlight a few of the many valid and well articulated criticisms of Obama ....
Charles Krauthammer:
On Obama’s response to events in Iran:
The president is also speaking in code. The Pope [John Paul II] spoke in a code which was implicit and understood support for the forces of freedom.
The code the administration is using is implicit support for this repressive, tyrannical regime.
We watched Gibbs say that what's going on is vigorous debate. The shooting of eight demonstrators is not debate. The knocking of heads, bloodying of demonstrators by the Revolutionary Guards is not debate. The arbitrary arrest of journalists, political opposition, and students is not debate.
And to call it a debate and to use this neutral and denatured language is disgraceful.
Beyond that, the point here is no longer elections. The reason that at least eight have died is not because they wanted a recount of hanging chads in the outer precincts of Esfahan. What they wanted is to no longer live under a tyrannical dictatorship, a misogynistic, repressive, incompetent, and corrupt theocracy.
And that's what the demonstration and the moment is all about. It's about the regime. There is an opportunity — revolution is going to happen one way or the other eventually, and this theocracy will fall. It may not happen now, but it ought to be supported, because it might happen now, and it would change the world if it did.
On the media's coverage of the president:
Well, look, the media are so in the tank, really, they ought to get scuba gear...
But what's really interesting, the president yesterday has said, he complained about FOX, and he said, I think accurately, that it is the one, only voice of opposition in the media.
And it makes us a lot like Caracas where all the media, except one, are state run, with the exception that in Hugo Chavez-land, you go after that one station with machetes. I haven't seen any machetes around here, so I think we are at least safe for now.
But the rest of the media are entirely in the tank, and it's embarrassing. You would think it would be embarrassment that would deter them.
Obama does u-turns on all kinds of policies—on taking [public] money in campaigns, on rendition, on eavesdropping, on all kinds of issues, and the press does a u-turn, a whiplash u-turn in step.
In the end, what you have to—could—conclude is that it is, in part, ideological affinity with Obama, but also in part, he's a rock star, and he sells. So it isn't only ideology. It is greed. If you have him on the cover, he sells.
And that is the only defense that the mainstream media have, and it isn't a pretty one — money.
Bush Nostalgia [Charlotte Hays]
Obama is the first American president who is unaware of the historical sources of America’s moral strength. In his tepid response to events in Iran, the president hailed democratic process, freedom of speech, and the ability to select one’s own leaders as “universal values.” But they aren't. A quick glance around the world’s totalitarian regimes, including most especially that of Iran, should convince anyone of that. These values come from America and the West. Imagine having a president who either doesn't know or won't say it.
The New Orwellianism [Victor Davis Hanson]
We use Orwell, Orwellian, and Orwellianism loosely a lot these days, but what is going on in the Obama administration is beginning to get a little creepy and resembles a lot of things Orwell wrote about in 1984.
When in, Soviet fashion, a critical overseer is dismissed as being "confused" and suffering mental problems in carrying out the law, as Gerald Walpin probably did in uncovering waste and possible fraud in connection with the mayor of Sacramento; or when the government begins to create new words like "overseas contingency operations" and "man-made catastrophes"; or when Justice Sotomayor says that a Latina is inherently a better judge than a white man — and then says she does not mean what she says — or that a female-only club that has no males does so because no males apparently applied (using the argument of pre-Civil Rights Southern country clubs); or when the president begins nationalizing companies because he has no interest in the federal government interfering with private enterprise or swears that he is going to uncover waste and insist on financial sobriety as he runs up a nearly $2 trillion deficit, we see a creeping Orwellianism everywhere. Bush (and "Bush did it") has become the proverbial enemy at large, sort of playing the role of Trotsky in the Soviet 1930s, or the face on the big screen we are supposed to hate — alternately demonized and airbrushed (when Obama adopts his policies like military tribunals, Iraq, or renditions). Newspeak has even proclaimed our president a "god," and a journalist has adopted proskynesis in his presence.
All this dissimulation is based on two general principles — one, the cause of egalitarianism and equality of result is so critical that the tawdry means of distorting reality is not only worth it, but not tawdry; and two, 30 years of postmodern teaching in our law and graduate schools have insidiously convinced many of our elites that there is no absolute truth, only competing narratives that take on credence depending on the race, class, gender, and access to power of those who speak.
As a rule of thumb, when key administration officials say they do not wish to do something, the odds are they have already done it, and when they imply "Bush did it" it means that they will adopt it (e.g., anti-terrorism protocols) or exceed it (Bush deficits).
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Iran - updates + Obama's flawed approach
There is just a ton of awesome commentary on the unfolding situation in Iran: Here is a sampling.
This moment cries out for Reaganesque leadership from the United States; not the muddled thinking that is Obama.
"The Iranian regime has to go because it's a threat to the national security of the United States. That is the case that has to be made — as has always been the case." Andy McCarthy
'the White House may need to start over from scratch. Iran is the same country it was a week ago, but it no longer has quite the same government.' Totten.
Two to Read on Iran [Peter Wehner]
In today’s papers are two pieces that are noteworthy. One is by Dan Senor and Christian Whiton, laying out five specific things President Obama could do to promote freedom in Iran. To those who insist there is nothing we can do, Senor and Whiton reply: Yes There Is.
Among the specific recommendations by Senor and Whiton are these: (a) Mr. Obama should contact Mr. Mousavi to signal his interest in the situation and Mr. Mousavi's security; (b) the president should deliver another taped message to the Iranian people — only this time he should acknowledge the fundamental reality that the regime lacks the consent of its people to govern, which therefore necessitates a channel to the "other Iran"; (c) Obama should direct U.S. ambassadors in Europe and the Gulf to meet with local Iranian anti-regime expatriates; (d) additional funding should be provided immediately for Radio Farda, an effective Persian-language radio, Internet, and satellite property of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; and (e) the administration should take steps — for example, access to the Web and other means of communication — to give Iranian reformers and dissidents a level playing field with the regime in the battle of ideas.
The other piece, by Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says this:
Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis… If Obama appears to lend support to the Iranian opposition in any way, he will appear hostile to the regime, which is precisely what he hoped to avoid.
This is an important, and potentially a decisive, moment in Iran; it is hard to know what will eventually emerge from the popular uprising we are witnessing. The situation is quite fluid, and may be for some time to come.
How President Obama deals with this matter — whether he takes actions that show tangible support for the forces of liberation or whether he sits passively by as events unfold, nervous to offend cruel regimes — will tell us a lot about him and his core commitments.
Charles Krauthammer:
On Obama’s reaction to the situation in Iran:
I find the president's reaction bordering on the bizarre. It's not just little and late, but he had a statement today in which he welcomed the Iranian leader's gesture about redoing some of the vote, as you indicated.
And the president has said "I have seen in Iran's initial reaction from the supreme leader." He is using an honorific to apply to a man whose minions out there are breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, arresting students, shutting the press down, and basically trying to suppress a popular democratic revolution.
So he uses that honorific, and then says that this supreme leader — it indicates that he understand that the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election. Deep concerns? There is a revolution in the street.
And it is not about elections anymore. It started out about elections. It's about the legitimacy of a regime, this theocratic dictatorship in Iran, which is now at stake. That's the point.
What we have here is a regime whose legitimacy is challenged, and this revolution is going to end in one of two ways — suppressed, as was the Tiananmen revolution in China, or it will be a second Iranian revolution that will liberate Iran and change the region and the world.
And the president is taking a hands-off attitude. Instead of standing, as Reagan did, in the Polish uprising of 1981, and say we stand with the people in the street who believe in democracy. It is a simple statement. He ought to make it.
And it is a disgrace that the United States is not stating it as simply and honestly as that.
Obama's Cold Realism [Jonah Goldberg]
I would like to refer readers who think I'm reading Obama wrong in my column, to read Robert Kagan's outstanding column in the Washington Post today.
An excerpt:
It's not that Obama preferred a victory by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He probably would have been happy to do business with Mir Hossein Mousavi, even if there was little reason to believe Mousavi would have pursued a different approach to the nuclear issue. But once Mousavi lost, however fairly or unfairly, Obama objectively had no use for him or his followers. If Obama appears to lend support to the Iranian opposition in any way, he will appear hostile to the regime, which is precisely what he hoped to avoid.
Obama's policy now requires getting past the election controversies quickly so that he can soon begin negotiations with the reelected Ahmadinejad government. This will be difficult as long as opposition protests continue and the government appears to be either unsettled or too brutal to do business with. What Obama needs is a rapid return to peace and quiet in Iran, not continued ferment. His goal must be to deflate the opposition, not to encourage it. And that, by and large, is what he has been doing.
If you find all this disturbing, you should. The worst thing is that this approach will probably not prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. But this is what "realism" is all about. It is what sent Brent Scowcroft to raise a champagne toast to China's leaders in the wake of Tiananmen Square. It is what convinced Gerald Ford not to meet with Alexander Solzhenitsyn at the height of detente. Republicans have traditionally been better at it than Democrats — though they have rarely been rewarded by the American people at the ballot box, as Ford and George H.W. Bush can attest. We'll see whether President Obama can be just as cold-blooded in pursuit of better relations with an ugly regime, without suffering the same political fate.
The New 'Realism' [Mark Steyn]
Peter Wehner mentioned Robert Kagan's column earlier, and it seems to me its thesis is worryingly plausible:
Obama never meant to spark political upheaval in Iran, much less encourage the Iranian people to take to the streets. That they are doing so is not good news for the president but, rather, an unwelcome complication in his strategy of engaging and seeking rapprochement with the Iranian government on nuclear issues.
One of the great innovations in the Obama administration's approach to Iran, after all, was supposed to be its deliberate embrace of the Tehran rulers' legitimacy. In his opening diplomatic gambit, his statement to Iran on the Persian new year in March, Obama went out of his way to speak directly to Iran's rulers, a notable departure from George W. Bush's habit of speaking to the Iranian people over their leaders' heads. As former Clinton official Martin Indyk put it at the time, the wording was carefully designed "to demonstrate acceptance of the government of Iran."
Indeed. The president's unprecedently deferential remarks toward Iran's "Supreme Leader" are inexplicable if you're sympathetic to the fellows currently being fired on but entirely consistent with a strategy of regime legitimization. Mr. Kagan adds:
The idea was that the United States could hardly expect the Iranian regime to negotiate on core issues of national security, such as its nuclear program, so long as Washington gave any encouragement to the government's opponents. Obama had to make a choice, and he made it. This was widely applauded as a "realist" departure from the Bush administration's quixotic and counterproductive idealism... His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis.
The administration's behavior fits this depressing thesis — as I'm sure the mullahs have already figured out.
Curtain 1 or Curtain 2? [Jonah Goldberg]
Another point I think needs making. Lots of folks argue — including President Obama — that Mousavi isn't that different from Ahmadinejad on issues like Israel and Iran's nuclear program and so why make such a fuss? I think this is an awfully static analysis of the situation. Sure, if the election had gone swimmingly and Mousavi had won, he might have been the dutiful Egon Krenz of the Mullahcracy, with some window dressing reforms to placate the masses. Or he might have done better than that. Who knows? But all of that is academic now.
Moreover, that debate is a little annoying because it tends to support the idea that this was a legitimate election in the first place. Mousavi was a handpicked hack. His leadership of the reform forces is by default or as Michael Ledeen put it, "He is a leader who has been made into a revolutionary by a movement that grew up around him." At this point the question is, do the people of Iran succeed or does the clerical politburo and its henchmen succeed. If the people succeed, the regime is in real trouble. It's amazing how so many observers doubt something the regime itself manifestly knows. If these protests weren't a threat to the regime and the established theocratic order the regime wouldn't be shooting people. It wouldn't be tearing down the web, raiding the universities, kicking foreign journalists out, or showing documentaries about archeology while the streets filled with millions.
Lastly, I understand why Obama is fixated on keeping Iran from getting nukes. I don't want Iran to get nukes either, even though I think Obama's approach to that goal has been flawed and is getting worse. But if Iran is determined to have nukes regardless of who leads it — and I think it pretty much is — then it is very much in our interest for Iran to become more democratic and "normal." Of course, we are a long way from Iran being a healthy, normal, democracy, but it's worth remembering that healthy, normal, democracies are much less likely to export terror or lob nuclear missiles at their neighbors.
Behind Curtain #1 is Ahmandinejad. He is a known quantity. We know that Ahmandinejad isn't interested in giving up his nuclear program. We know that he's keen on Israel being wiped from the map. We know that he is not a rational actor. Of course it is possible that what we would find behind Curtain #2 is not that different from what lurks behind Curtain #1. But there's a very good chance that it would be a lot better and that's in our vital national interest. Could it be worse than the devil we know? No conservative can ever rule out the "it could be worse" potential of any choice. But it's hard to see how the reformers would be worse than what we've had for 30 years.
Sure, there's a certain leap of faith there. But there's also a leap of faith involved in betting Ahmandinejad and the mullahs can be reasoned with.
So if we have to take such a leap, why not have the wind of our principles and ideals at our back?
Re: To Meddle or Not To Meddle [Jonah Goldberg]
Andy, I think we're on the same page. But to clarify. You write:
I agree with Jonah that John is off-base in suggesting that there is a current of opinion on the Right which holds that demonstrations in the streets mean a government is illegitimate and must fall. But I disagree with what I take — perhaps mistakenly — to be the implication that something has happened in the last few days that ought to change our view of the legitimacy of this government. This was never a "democracy." It was a farce. The elections never meant anything in terms of legitimacy. The mullahs controlled the outcome of the elections through and through. Until now, it has been enough to exercise veto power over who could stand for election — but the fact that they were doing that was confirmation that, if the vote went bad and they needed to take the next logical step of fixing the vote count, they would fix the vote count. The fact that the bank robbery occurs at high-noon for all to see doesn't make it more of a robbery than one conducted in stealth.
This is the point I was trying to make when I wrote:
Where I take exception is when John suggests that other folks on the right haven't made this calculation as well. It seems to me, they made it without needing to see police wearing ski masks to understand that this regime deserved to go. I like his new bright line standard, but his epiphany doesn't mean his friends on the right are quite so romantic and naive as he makes it sound.
Those on the right who've been more enthusiastic about aiding the forces of "hope and change" didn't need to see the images from Tehran this week to be convinced the Iranian regime needs to go. The images this week merely convinced us — or at least me — that this is a good time to expedite a process that should have started a long, long time ago.
To Meddle or Not to Meddle [Andy McCarthy]
As someone who has favored for years a policy of regime change in Iran (see, e.g., here, here, here, here and here), what stuns me about the commentary over the last couple of days is the perception that the regime has done something shocking with this election. The regime isn't any different today than it was the day before the election, the days before it gave logistical assistance to the 9/11 suicide hijacking teams, the day before it took al-Qaeda in for harboring after the 9/11 attacks, the day before Khobar Towers, or every day of combat in Iraq. Throughout the last 30 years, this revolutionary regime has made war on America while it brutalized its own people. The latter brutalization has ebbed and flowed with circumstances, depending on how threatened (or at least vexed) the regime felt at any given time.
Serial American governments, however, have shunned moral clarity and shunned their own fatuous rhetoric — rapprochement," "engagement," "cultivating 'moderates,'" "democracy promotion," "the Bush Doctrine," back to "engagement" again — in pursuit of what our foeign policy geniuses have been so certain is the grand bargain with Iran that has been within reach any day now for the last 30 years. The Clinton administration obstructed the FBI's investigation of Khobar because highlighting Iran's complicity in the murder of 19 members of our Air Force would have been inconvenient for its overtures to "reformer" Khatami (while the real power, the mullahs, happily plowed full speed ahead — death to America style — building their nukes and abetting our enemies). The Bush administration was flat incoherent, with the president correctly calling Iran an implacable terrorist regime while his State Department treated them like they were any rational government — eschewing sticks and continuing to entice them with more carrots every time they mocked the last batch of goodies.
Keep reading this post . . .
The Case for Meddling [Seth Leibsohn]
Hopefully, the protests in Iran over the past few days will not abate. Rich Lowry here, as John Hinderaker at Powerline, have shared their diffidence about getting too excited with the talk of regime change in Iran. Smartly. But if I read them right, they also have taken to reconsidering such diffidence as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has hardened and the images of Iranian police in face masks are shown trying to disperse the protestors — kicking, beating, and dragging them away to who knows where.
As John Hinderaker pointed out: “I am perhaps a little less willing than some of my friends on the right to assume that because demonstrators take to the streets and the government tries to crack down, it necessarily means that the government deserves to fall.” But, he goes on: “the difference here is that Iran’s regime is brutal—brutal when it hangs homosexuals, when it stones adulterers, when it drags college students from their dormitories.” He admits he has a new, “bright line standard: when your policemen wear ski masks, it’s time for a new regime.”
Here are some additional items to add to the standard: As CNN reports, yesterday, “Iran’s government banned international journalists from covering rallies and blocked access to some online communication tools in the wake of last week’s disputed presidential election. Reporters working for international news outlets, including CNN, could talk about the rallies in their live reports but were not allowed to leave their hotel rooms and offices.” And, of course, we know this regime is — to remind — the lead sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, trying to acquire more nuclear technology while thwarting nuclear inspectors, and has openly talked of making possible a world without Israel or America.
Keep reading this post . .
Opposing view: 'Speak out forcefully'
Iranian protesters deserve better than Obama's passive response
By John McCain
When peaceful demonstrators are beaten and killed in the streets by a repressive regime, the United States has a duty to speak out. When protesters are silenced, we should raise our own voices on their behalf. And when an election is stolen, the United States should condemn it.
These principles are neither Republican nor Democratic. They reflect a bipartisan consensus that stretches back decades and reflect America's identification with universal values. The U.S. president is the leader of the free world, and with this leadership comes the obligation to speak out forthrightly on behalf of all those who lack the basic rights we often take for granted at home.
Yet the Obama administration has responded passively and tepidly to the extraordinary demonstrations on the streets of Iran, in which tens of thousands have protested fraudulent elections and a media crackdown. The president has carefully avoided offering any expression of solidarity to the brave men and women who are risking their lives, and the State Department has even refused to use the word "condemn" in response to violent attacks against them.
Defenders of this approach claim that such restraint is necessary, and that to do otherwise would either discredit the protesters or undermine our nuclear diplomacy with the regime they oppose.
These arguments are not persuasive. To begin with, engagement with the regime should not come at the expense of engagement with the people. It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who conducted hard-headed diplomacy with leaders of the Soviet Union at the same time he publicly challenged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. His words, then widely viewed as needlessly provocative, provided a beacon of hope to those suffering behind the Iron Curtain.
Perhaps that is why our democratic allies in Europe have shown no such hesitation to speak out forcefully against what they recognize as the Iranian regime's reprehensive conduct. The United States should be at the forefront of these efforts, leading all those nations that care about human freedom in an effort to condemn sham elections, denounce the violence against peaceful protesters and express solidarity with those millions of Iranians who want change. The world should expect nothing less from us, and we should expect nothing less of ourselves.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was his party's candidate for president in 2008.
From a Hospital Somewhere in Iran [Michael Ledeen]
I am a medical student. There was chaos last night at the trauma section in one of our main hospitals. Although by decree, all riot-related injuries were supposed to be sent to military hospitals, all other hospitals were filled to the rim. Last night, nine people died at our hospital and another 28 had gunshot wounds. All hospital employees were crying till dawn. They (government) removed the dead bodies on back of trucks, before we were even able to get their names or other information. What can you even say to the people who don't even respect the dead. No one was allowed to speak to the wounded or get any information from them. This morning the faculty and the students protested by gathering at the lobby of the hospital where they were confronted by plain cloths anti-riot militia, who in turn closed off the hospital and imprisoned the staff. The extent of injuries are so grave, that despite being one of the most staffed emergency rooms, they've asked everyone to stay and help—I'm sure it will even be worst tonight.
What can anyone say in face of all these atrocities? What can you say to the family of the 13 year old boy who died from gunshots and whose dead body then disappeared?
This issue is not about cheating(election) anymore. This is not about stealing votes anymore. The issue is about a vast injustice inflected on the people.
ME: The president says he doesn't want to "meddle." Aside from the fact that he unhesitatingly meddles in Israel, how can any American remain aloof from this sort of thing?
Re: Re: To Meddle or Not to Meddle [Andy McCarthy]
Seth, we've had numerous teachable moments just over the last 13 years, and all involving Iran killing Americans. The problem with the "forward march of freedom" contingent is that it overestimates the degree to which the hopes and aspirations of Iranians are going to move public opinion in America — especially an America that has spent a number of years disfavoring an Iraq war that it's been told has been almost exclusively about the hopes and aspirations of the Iraqi people (at least since mid-2003).
The Iranian regime has to go because it's a threat to the national security of the United States. That is the case that has to be made — as has always been the case. That this happens to jibe with the hopes and aspirations of Iranians (how many we don't know, but hopefully most) is a very good thing. But those who think what's being done to the Iranian people is going to sway American public opinion decisively (and force Obama's hand) should prepare to be disappointed.
The anti-American element is the dispositive one — and it's the one Obama won't acknowledge; if that doesn't get turned around, this is a lost cause.
This moment cries out for Reaganesque leadership from the United States; not the muddled thinking that is Obama.
"The Iranian regime has to go because it's a threat to the national security of the United States. That is the case that has to be made — as has always been the case." Andy McCarthy
'the White House may need to start over from scratch. Iran is the same country it was a week ago, but it no longer has quite the same government.' Totten.
Two to Read on Iran [Peter Wehner]
In today’s papers are two pieces that are noteworthy. One is by Dan Senor and Christian Whiton, laying out five specific things President Obama could do to promote freedom in Iran. To those who insist there is nothing we can do, Senor and Whiton reply: Yes There Is.
Among the specific recommendations by Senor and Whiton are these: (a) Mr. Obama should contact Mr. Mousavi to signal his interest in the situation and Mr. Mousavi's security; (b) the president should deliver another taped message to the Iranian people — only this time he should acknowledge the fundamental reality that the regime lacks the consent of its people to govern, which therefore necessitates a channel to the "other Iran"; (c) Obama should direct U.S. ambassadors in Europe and the Gulf to meet with local Iranian anti-regime expatriates; (d) additional funding should be provided immediately for Radio Farda, an effective Persian-language radio, Internet, and satellite property of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; and (e) the administration should take steps — for example, access to the Web and other means of communication — to give Iranian reformers and dissidents a level playing field with the regime in the battle of ideas.
The other piece, by Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says this:
Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis… If Obama appears to lend support to the Iranian opposition in any way, he will appear hostile to the regime, which is precisely what he hoped to avoid.
This is an important, and potentially a decisive, moment in Iran; it is hard to know what will eventually emerge from the popular uprising we are witnessing. The situation is quite fluid, and may be for some time to come.
How President Obama deals with this matter — whether he takes actions that show tangible support for the forces of liberation or whether he sits passively by as events unfold, nervous to offend cruel regimes — will tell us a lot about him and his core commitments.
Charles Krauthammer:
On Obama’s reaction to the situation in Iran:
I find the president's reaction bordering on the bizarre. It's not just little and late, but he had a statement today in which he welcomed the Iranian leader's gesture about redoing some of the vote, as you indicated.
And the president has said "I have seen in Iran's initial reaction from the supreme leader." He is using an honorific to apply to a man whose minions out there are breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, arresting students, shutting the press down, and basically trying to suppress a popular democratic revolution.
So he uses that honorific, and then says that this supreme leader — it indicates that he understand that the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election. Deep concerns? There is a revolution in the street.
And it is not about elections anymore. It started out about elections. It's about the legitimacy of a regime, this theocratic dictatorship in Iran, which is now at stake. That's the point.
What we have here is a regime whose legitimacy is challenged, and this revolution is going to end in one of two ways — suppressed, as was the Tiananmen revolution in China, or it will be a second Iranian revolution that will liberate Iran and change the region and the world.
And the president is taking a hands-off attitude. Instead of standing, as Reagan did, in the Polish uprising of 1981, and say we stand with the people in the street who believe in democracy. It is a simple statement. He ought to make it.
And it is a disgrace that the United States is not stating it as simply and honestly as that.
Obama's Cold Realism [Jonah Goldberg]
I would like to refer readers who think I'm reading Obama wrong in my column, to read Robert Kagan's outstanding column in the Washington Post today.
An excerpt:
It's not that Obama preferred a victory by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He probably would have been happy to do business with Mir Hossein Mousavi, even if there was little reason to believe Mousavi would have pursued a different approach to the nuclear issue. But once Mousavi lost, however fairly or unfairly, Obama objectively had no use for him or his followers. If Obama appears to lend support to the Iranian opposition in any way, he will appear hostile to the regime, which is precisely what he hoped to avoid.
Obama's policy now requires getting past the election controversies quickly so that he can soon begin negotiations with the reelected Ahmadinejad government. This will be difficult as long as opposition protests continue and the government appears to be either unsettled or too brutal to do business with. What Obama needs is a rapid return to peace and quiet in Iran, not continued ferment. His goal must be to deflate the opposition, not to encourage it. And that, by and large, is what he has been doing.
If you find all this disturbing, you should. The worst thing is that this approach will probably not prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. But this is what "realism" is all about. It is what sent Brent Scowcroft to raise a champagne toast to China's leaders in the wake of Tiananmen Square. It is what convinced Gerald Ford not to meet with Alexander Solzhenitsyn at the height of detente. Republicans have traditionally been better at it than Democrats — though they have rarely been rewarded by the American people at the ballot box, as Ford and George H.W. Bush can attest. We'll see whether President Obama can be just as cold-blooded in pursuit of better relations with an ugly regime, without suffering the same political fate.
The New 'Realism' [Mark Steyn]
Peter Wehner mentioned Robert Kagan's column earlier, and it seems to me its thesis is worryingly plausible:
Obama never meant to spark political upheaval in Iran, much less encourage the Iranian people to take to the streets. That they are doing so is not good news for the president but, rather, an unwelcome complication in his strategy of engaging and seeking rapprochement with the Iranian government on nuclear issues.
One of the great innovations in the Obama administration's approach to Iran, after all, was supposed to be its deliberate embrace of the Tehran rulers' legitimacy. In his opening diplomatic gambit, his statement to Iran on the Persian new year in March, Obama went out of his way to speak directly to Iran's rulers, a notable departure from George W. Bush's habit of speaking to the Iranian people over their leaders' heads. As former Clinton official Martin Indyk put it at the time, the wording was carefully designed "to demonstrate acceptance of the government of Iran."
Indeed. The president's unprecedently deferential remarks toward Iran's "Supreme Leader" are inexplicable if you're sympathetic to the fellows currently being fired on but entirely consistent with a strategy of regime legitimization. Mr. Kagan adds:
The idea was that the United States could hardly expect the Iranian regime to negotiate on core issues of national security, such as its nuclear program, so long as Washington gave any encouragement to the government's opponents. Obama had to make a choice, and he made it. This was widely applauded as a "realist" departure from the Bush administration's quixotic and counterproductive idealism... His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis.
The administration's behavior fits this depressing thesis — as I'm sure the mullahs have already figured out.
Curtain 1 or Curtain 2? [Jonah Goldberg]
Another point I think needs making. Lots of folks argue — including President Obama — that Mousavi isn't that different from Ahmadinejad on issues like Israel and Iran's nuclear program and so why make such a fuss? I think this is an awfully static analysis of the situation. Sure, if the election had gone swimmingly and Mousavi had won, he might have been the dutiful Egon Krenz of the Mullahcracy, with some window dressing reforms to placate the masses. Or he might have done better than that. Who knows? But all of that is academic now.
Moreover, that debate is a little annoying because it tends to support the idea that this was a legitimate election in the first place. Mousavi was a handpicked hack. His leadership of the reform forces is by default or as Michael Ledeen put it, "He is a leader who has been made into a revolutionary by a movement that grew up around him." At this point the question is, do the people of Iran succeed or does the clerical politburo and its henchmen succeed. If the people succeed, the regime is in real trouble. It's amazing how so many observers doubt something the regime itself manifestly knows. If these protests weren't a threat to the regime and the established theocratic order the regime wouldn't be shooting people. It wouldn't be tearing down the web, raiding the universities, kicking foreign journalists out, or showing documentaries about archeology while the streets filled with millions.
Lastly, I understand why Obama is fixated on keeping Iran from getting nukes. I don't want Iran to get nukes either, even though I think Obama's approach to that goal has been flawed and is getting worse. But if Iran is determined to have nukes regardless of who leads it — and I think it pretty much is — then it is very much in our interest for Iran to become more democratic and "normal." Of course, we are a long way from Iran being a healthy, normal, democracy, but it's worth remembering that healthy, normal, democracies are much less likely to export terror or lob nuclear missiles at their neighbors.
Behind Curtain #1 is Ahmandinejad. He is a known quantity. We know that Ahmandinejad isn't interested in giving up his nuclear program. We know that he's keen on Israel being wiped from the map. We know that he is not a rational actor. Of course it is possible that what we would find behind Curtain #2 is not that different from what lurks behind Curtain #1. But there's a very good chance that it would be a lot better and that's in our vital national interest. Could it be worse than the devil we know? No conservative can ever rule out the "it could be worse" potential of any choice. But it's hard to see how the reformers would be worse than what we've had for 30 years.
Sure, there's a certain leap of faith there. But there's also a leap of faith involved in betting Ahmandinejad and the mullahs can be reasoned with.
So if we have to take such a leap, why not have the wind of our principles and ideals at our back?
Re: To Meddle or Not To Meddle [Jonah Goldberg]
Andy, I think we're on the same page. But to clarify. You write:
I agree with Jonah that John is off-base in suggesting that there is a current of opinion on the Right which holds that demonstrations in the streets mean a government is illegitimate and must fall. But I disagree with what I take — perhaps mistakenly — to be the implication that something has happened in the last few days that ought to change our view of the legitimacy of this government. This was never a "democracy." It was a farce. The elections never meant anything in terms of legitimacy. The mullahs controlled the outcome of the elections through and through. Until now, it has been enough to exercise veto power over who could stand for election — but the fact that they were doing that was confirmation that, if the vote went bad and they needed to take the next logical step of fixing the vote count, they would fix the vote count. The fact that the bank robbery occurs at high-noon for all to see doesn't make it more of a robbery than one conducted in stealth.
This is the point I was trying to make when I wrote:
Where I take exception is when John suggests that other folks on the right haven't made this calculation as well. It seems to me, they made it without needing to see police wearing ski masks to understand that this regime deserved to go. I like his new bright line standard, but his epiphany doesn't mean his friends on the right are quite so romantic and naive as he makes it sound.
Those on the right who've been more enthusiastic about aiding the forces of "hope and change" didn't need to see the images from Tehran this week to be convinced the Iranian regime needs to go. The images this week merely convinced us — or at least me — that this is a good time to expedite a process that should have started a long, long time ago.
To Meddle or Not to Meddle [Andy McCarthy]
As someone who has favored for years a policy of regime change in Iran (see, e.g., here, here, here, here and here), what stuns me about the commentary over the last couple of days is the perception that the regime has done something shocking with this election. The regime isn't any different today than it was the day before the election, the days before it gave logistical assistance to the 9/11 suicide hijacking teams, the day before it took al-Qaeda in for harboring after the 9/11 attacks, the day before Khobar Towers, or every day of combat in Iraq. Throughout the last 30 years, this revolutionary regime has made war on America while it brutalized its own people. The latter brutalization has ebbed and flowed with circumstances, depending on how threatened (or at least vexed) the regime felt at any given time.
Serial American governments, however, have shunned moral clarity and shunned their own fatuous rhetoric — rapprochement," "engagement," "cultivating 'moderates,'" "democracy promotion," "the Bush Doctrine," back to "engagement" again — in pursuit of what our foeign policy geniuses have been so certain is the grand bargain with Iran that has been within reach any day now for the last 30 years. The Clinton administration obstructed the FBI's investigation of Khobar because highlighting Iran's complicity in the murder of 19 members of our Air Force would have been inconvenient for its overtures to "reformer" Khatami (while the real power, the mullahs, happily plowed full speed ahead — death to America style — building their nukes and abetting our enemies). The Bush administration was flat incoherent, with the president correctly calling Iran an implacable terrorist regime while his State Department treated them like they were any rational government — eschewing sticks and continuing to entice them with more carrots every time they mocked the last batch of goodies.
Keep reading this post . . .
The Case for Meddling [Seth Leibsohn]
Hopefully, the protests in Iran over the past few days will not abate. Rich Lowry here, as John Hinderaker at Powerline, have shared their diffidence about getting too excited with the talk of regime change in Iran. Smartly. But if I read them right, they also have taken to reconsidering such diffidence as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has hardened and the images of Iranian police in face masks are shown trying to disperse the protestors — kicking, beating, and dragging them away to who knows where.
As John Hinderaker pointed out: “I am perhaps a little less willing than some of my friends on the right to assume that because demonstrators take to the streets and the government tries to crack down, it necessarily means that the government deserves to fall.” But, he goes on: “the difference here is that Iran’s regime is brutal—brutal when it hangs homosexuals, when it stones adulterers, when it drags college students from their dormitories.” He admits he has a new, “bright line standard: when your policemen wear ski masks, it’s time for a new regime.”
Here are some additional items to add to the standard: As CNN reports, yesterday, “Iran’s government banned international journalists from covering rallies and blocked access to some online communication tools in the wake of last week’s disputed presidential election. Reporters working for international news outlets, including CNN, could talk about the rallies in their live reports but were not allowed to leave their hotel rooms and offices.” And, of course, we know this regime is — to remind — the lead sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, trying to acquire more nuclear technology while thwarting nuclear inspectors, and has openly talked of making possible a world without Israel or America.
Keep reading this post . .
Opposing view: 'Speak out forcefully'
Iranian protesters deserve better than Obama's passive response
By John McCain
When peaceful demonstrators are beaten and killed in the streets by a repressive regime, the United States has a duty to speak out. When protesters are silenced, we should raise our own voices on their behalf. And when an election is stolen, the United States should condemn it.
These principles are neither Republican nor Democratic. They reflect a bipartisan consensus that stretches back decades and reflect America's identification with universal values. The U.S. president is the leader of the free world, and with this leadership comes the obligation to speak out forthrightly on behalf of all those who lack the basic rights we often take for granted at home.
Yet the Obama administration has responded passively and tepidly to the extraordinary demonstrations on the streets of Iran, in which tens of thousands have protested fraudulent elections and a media crackdown. The president has carefully avoided offering any expression of solidarity to the brave men and women who are risking their lives, and the State Department has even refused to use the word "condemn" in response to violent attacks against them.
Defenders of this approach claim that such restraint is necessary, and that to do otherwise would either discredit the protesters or undermine our nuclear diplomacy with the regime they oppose.
These arguments are not persuasive. To begin with, engagement with the regime should not come at the expense of engagement with the people. It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who conducted hard-headed diplomacy with leaders of the Soviet Union at the same time he publicly challenged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. His words, then widely viewed as needlessly provocative, provided a beacon of hope to those suffering behind the Iron Curtain.
Perhaps that is why our democratic allies in Europe have shown no such hesitation to speak out forcefully against what they recognize as the Iranian regime's reprehensive conduct. The United States should be at the forefront of these efforts, leading all those nations that care about human freedom in an effort to condemn sham elections, denounce the violence against peaceful protesters and express solidarity with those millions of Iranians who want change. The world should expect nothing less from us, and we should expect nothing less of ourselves.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was his party's candidate for president in 2008.
From a Hospital Somewhere in Iran [Michael Ledeen]
I am a medical student. There was chaos last night at the trauma section in one of our main hospitals. Although by decree, all riot-related injuries were supposed to be sent to military hospitals, all other hospitals were filled to the rim. Last night, nine people died at our hospital and another 28 had gunshot wounds. All hospital employees were crying till dawn. They (government) removed the dead bodies on back of trucks, before we were even able to get their names or other information. What can you even say to the people who don't even respect the dead. No one was allowed to speak to the wounded or get any information from them. This morning the faculty and the students protested by gathering at the lobby of the hospital where they were confronted by plain cloths anti-riot militia, who in turn closed off the hospital and imprisoned the staff. The extent of injuries are so grave, that despite being one of the most staffed emergency rooms, they've asked everyone to stay and help—I'm sure it will even be worst tonight.
What can anyone say in face of all these atrocities? What can you say to the family of the 13 year old boy who died from gunshots and whose dead body then disappeared?
This issue is not about cheating(election) anymore. This is not about stealing votes anymore. The issue is about a vast injustice inflected on the people.
ME: The president says he doesn't want to "meddle." Aside from the fact that he unhesitatingly meddles in Israel, how can any American remain aloof from this sort of thing?
Re: Re: To Meddle or Not to Meddle [Andy McCarthy]
Seth, we've had numerous teachable moments just over the last 13 years, and all involving Iran killing Americans. The problem with the "forward march of freedom" contingent is that it overestimates the degree to which the hopes and aspirations of Iranians are going to move public opinion in America — especially an America that has spent a number of years disfavoring an Iraq war that it's been told has been almost exclusively about the hopes and aspirations of the Iraqi people (at least since mid-2003).
The Iranian regime has to go because it's a threat to the national security of the United States. That is the case that has to be made — as has always been the case. That this happens to jibe with the hopes and aspirations of Iranians (how many we don't know, but hopefully most) is a very good thing. But those who think what's being done to the Iranian people is going to sway American public opinion decisively (and force Obama's hand) should prepare to be disappointed.
The anti-American element is the dispositive one — and it's the one Obama won't acknowledge; if that doesn't get turned around, this is a lost cause.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Iran - Obama speaks - wimps out ....
Obama's Chicken Kiev [Michael Rubin]
Obama's silence — and his lack of moral clarity — are quickly making his reaction akin to George H. W. Bush's infamous "Chicken Kiev" speech, when the elder Bush effectively sided with Moscow against the freedom of the Ukraine. Indeed, had Obama not broken with formula and recognized the ayatollahs as the legitimate representatives of the Iranian people during his Nowruz greeting, he might not have found his reaction so constrained. Regardless, Obama's silence is a failure of leadership and a betrayal of freedom on a Carter-esque scale.
'Deeply Troubled' [Rich Lowry]
Obama has to be judicious here, but his statement just now was pretty weak: 1) he seemed to take the election-review process seriously, when it's going to be a rubber stamp; 2) there was a sense in which he seemed to be patting the demonstrators on the head and saying, "Nice work — but better luck next time"; 3) he went way, way out of his way to say he'll basically negotiate with Ahmadinejad no matter what.
Obama's silence — and his lack of moral clarity — are quickly making his reaction akin to George H. W. Bush's infamous "Chicken Kiev" speech, when the elder Bush effectively sided with Moscow against the freedom of the Ukraine. Indeed, had Obama not broken with formula and recognized the ayatollahs as the legitimate representatives of the Iranian people during his Nowruz greeting, he might not have found his reaction so constrained. Regardless, Obama's silence is a failure of leadership and a betrayal of freedom on a Carter-esque scale.
'Deeply Troubled' [Rich Lowry]
Obama has to be judicious here, but his statement just now was pretty weak: 1) he seemed to take the election-review process seriously, when it's going to be a rubber stamp; 2) there was a sense in which he seemed to be patting the demonstrators on the head and saying, "Nice work — but better luck next time"; 3) he went way, way out of his way to say he'll basically negotiate with Ahmadinejad no matter what.
Iran - We Ask Again, Where is Obama ?
So far, he is MIA.
We know where GWB would be ... harshly criticizing a phony election and supporting the Iranian people that yearn to be free of the yoke of the crazy mullahs.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33933_Massive_Protests_in_Iran
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33934_Eyewitness-_Violence_in_Tehran
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33935_Protester_Slain_in_Tehran_Others_Wounded
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33937_Video-_Iranian_Militia_Fires_on_Protesters
One-stop Shop on Iran [Michael Rubin]
Fred Kagan and his team — Charlie Szrom, Maseh Zarif, Ahmad Majidyar, Ali Alfoneh, etc. — have done yeoman's work at www.irantracker.com, a one-stop shop on Iran, its major players, its election breakdown, etc. With everything going on in the aftermath of the election, it's worth a frequent check. It's updated several times each day.
General Strike Tomorrow in Iran [Michael Ledeen]
Called by Mousavi, who asks supporters to confront the thugs with flowers, not guns.
Which is the right strategy, surely. I don't think Mousavi can win a gunfight, but I think he can certainly win a mass confrontation.
Still waiting for the Messiah to pronounce on the deeper meaning of it all . . .
In Case You Missed It [NRO Staff]
Our Iran editorial:
Many Iranians are displaying the courage of despair, in the knowledge that they have been deceived and cheated. They were promised an election for president. The incumbent president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a fanatic who has alienated huge sections of the population, and Iranians’ hope was that this election would provide some sort of test of public opinion. Not the independent official that the title seems to describe, the president is responsible for putting into practice the policies of the “supreme leader,” and as such he is hardly more than a public dogsbody. Under the disguise of clerical robes and turbans, the Islamic Republic is a classic example of thugocracy.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, evidently believed that the electoral maneuver could be carried out as usual, according to his sole and uncontested will. He may even believe that he is popular and respected. So an election with the superficial air of a contest was arranged. A field of 475 possible candidates (no women, naturally) was whittled down to Ahmadinejad and three elderly members of the Islamic establishment. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad prepared to coast to victory.
One of the three selected elders, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, quite unexpectedly turned out to be willing and able to criticize Ahmadinejad, and emerged as a figurehead for genuine opposition. Pres. Barack Obama was excited by what he described as “a robust debate,” though this soon enough proved to have no content. Ahmadinejad accused Mousavi of “Hitler-style” smears and falsifications, and of having Zionist links. The Iranian ballot is not secret; voters can be identified and punished. Huge numbers of blank ballot papers were available to the authorities. Suspect Web sites and publications were closed down. Foreign observers were forbidden. So when the votes were counted, Ahmadinejad was found to have about 63 percent, with a majority in every sector — ethnic minorities, women, students, and so on. Mousavi received about 33 percent, and, although he is an Azeri, he was declared to have been outvoted in his own Azeri province, thus confirming the unstoppable zeal of those who had rigged the outcome.
What had happened, Mousavi said, was “a dangerous charade.” Ahmadinejad responded by declaring that he could not guarantee Mousavi’s safety. It is possible that Mousavi will have to pay — perhaps with his freedom or his life — for telling the truth. In their thousands, his supporters have taken to the streets, setting fire to tires and trash. The basij — the regime’s paramilitary forces — are operating as usual in pairs, one driving a motorcycle and the other on the pillion swinging a baton, while their colleagues on foot beat demonstrators and drag them off under arrest. So a country governed according to Islamic principles that supposedly are peaceful by definition proves to be a police state like any other.
Nothing like this has been seen since the shah was overthrown 30 years ago and the Islamic Republic installed. How far repression will go is unforeseeable, but the regime’s misguided manipulation and recourse to violence is a lasting stain. The supreme leader and his president have little choice except to pretend to strength. President Obama should call them on it, lending the opposition his rhetorical support. So far, he has given the impression that he wants the dictatorship to stabilize itself so he can get back to the work of appeasing it. The more Obama extends that hand of his, the likelier the regime is to try to crush its bones.
We know where GWB would be ... harshly criticizing a phony election and supporting the Iranian people that yearn to be free of the yoke of the crazy mullahs.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33933_Massive_Protests_in_Iran
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33934_Eyewitness-_Violence_in_Tehran
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33935_Protester_Slain_in_Tehran_Others_Wounded
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33937_Video-_Iranian_Militia_Fires_on_Protesters
One-stop Shop on Iran [Michael Rubin]
Fred Kagan and his team — Charlie Szrom, Maseh Zarif, Ahmad Majidyar, Ali Alfoneh, etc. — have done yeoman's work at www.irantracker.com, a one-stop shop on Iran, its major players, its election breakdown, etc. With everything going on in the aftermath of the election, it's worth a frequent check. It's updated several times each day.
General Strike Tomorrow in Iran [Michael Ledeen]
Called by Mousavi, who asks supporters to confront the thugs with flowers, not guns.
Which is the right strategy, surely. I don't think Mousavi can win a gunfight, but I think he can certainly win a mass confrontation.
Still waiting for the Messiah to pronounce on the deeper meaning of it all . . .
In Case You Missed It [NRO Staff]
Our Iran editorial:
Many Iranians are displaying the courage of despair, in the knowledge that they have been deceived and cheated. They were promised an election for president. The incumbent president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a fanatic who has alienated huge sections of the population, and Iranians’ hope was that this election would provide some sort of test of public opinion. Not the independent official that the title seems to describe, the president is responsible for putting into practice the policies of the “supreme leader,” and as such he is hardly more than a public dogsbody. Under the disguise of clerical robes and turbans, the Islamic Republic is a classic example of thugocracy.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, evidently believed that the electoral maneuver could be carried out as usual, according to his sole and uncontested will. He may even believe that he is popular and respected. So an election with the superficial air of a contest was arranged. A field of 475 possible candidates (no women, naturally) was whittled down to Ahmadinejad and three elderly members of the Islamic establishment. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad prepared to coast to victory.
One of the three selected elders, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, quite unexpectedly turned out to be willing and able to criticize Ahmadinejad, and emerged as a figurehead for genuine opposition. Pres. Barack Obama was excited by what he described as “a robust debate,” though this soon enough proved to have no content. Ahmadinejad accused Mousavi of “Hitler-style” smears and falsifications, and of having Zionist links. The Iranian ballot is not secret; voters can be identified and punished. Huge numbers of blank ballot papers were available to the authorities. Suspect Web sites and publications were closed down. Foreign observers were forbidden. So when the votes were counted, Ahmadinejad was found to have about 63 percent, with a majority in every sector — ethnic minorities, women, students, and so on. Mousavi received about 33 percent, and, although he is an Azeri, he was declared to have been outvoted in his own Azeri province, thus confirming the unstoppable zeal of those who had rigged the outcome.
What had happened, Mousavi said, was “a dangerous charade.” Ahmadinejad responded by declaring that he could not guarantee Mousavi’s safety. It is possible that Mousavi will have to pay — perhaps with his freedom or his life — for telling the truth. In their thousands, his supporters have taken to the streets, setting fire to tires and trash. The basij — the regime’s paramilitary forces — are operating as usual in pairs, one driving a motorcycle and the other on the pillion swinging a baton, while their colleagues on foot beat demonstrators and drag them off under arrest. So a country governed according to Islamic principles that supposedly are peaceful by definition proves to be a police state like any other.
Nothing like this has been seen since the shah was overthrown 30 years ago and the Islamic Republic installed. How far repression will go is unforeseeable, but the regime’s misguided manipulation and recourse to violence is a lasting stain. The supreme leader and his president have little choice except to pretend to strength. President Obama should call them on it, lending the opposition his rhetorical support. So far, he has given the impression that he wants the dictatorship to stabilize itself so he can get back to the work of appeasing it. The more Obama extends that hand of his, the likelier the regime is to try to crush its bones.
Israel Update: Netanyahu's masterful speech
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33929_Netanyahus_Conditions_for_Peace
Some key points from the Jerusalem Post article on the speech:
“I support the idea of regional peace that is being led by Obama,” Netanyahu said, adding that he was willing to meet any Arab leader anywhere.
“I turn to Arab leaders: Let’s make peace, I am ready,” Netahyahu said. “I am willing to go to Damascus, Riyadh, Beirut - to meet anytime and anywhere.”
Netanyahu warned of the threat emanating from Iran, saying, “The biggest threat to Israel, and the middle east and all of humanity is the meeting between radical Islamism and nuclear weaponry.”
Netanyahu called on the Palestinians to “begin peace talks immediately, and without preconditions.” Citing the “heavy toll” the ongoing conflict has taken and mentioning the death of his brother, Yonatan, Netanyahu said, “I don’t want war. Nobody in Israel wants war.”
“If the advantages of peace are so clear, we must ask - why is peace still far? What is perpetuating the conflict for over 60 years? We must reach the root of the struggle,” he continued.
“Let me use the most simple words - the root of the struggle is the refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. The initial Arab refusal was to a Jewish state in any location, before Israeli presence in the West Bank,” the prime minister said.
“The closer we get to an agreement with the Palestinians, the further it is rejected,” he continued. “We tried a withdrawal with an agreement, without one, a partial withdraw and we offered a near-complete withdraw. We uprooted Jewish settlers from their homes, and received a barrage of missiles in return.”
“Sadly, even the Palestinian moderates won’t say the most simple statement - Israel is the Jewish national state, and will remain as such.
“To achieve peace, courage and honesty are necessary from both sides. The Palestinians must say - ‘enough with this conflict. We recognize Israel’s right to exist, and want to live by their side.’
“A public Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish nation-state is a prerequisite for regional peace,” Netanyahu said.
“In the heart of Israel there lives a large group of Palestinians,“ the prime minister continued, noting his will to see a demilitarized Palestinian state existing peacefully alongside Israel.
“For peace,” he said, “we must ensure that Palestinians have no weapons and the opportunity to create pacts with hostile forces. We ask that the US commit that in the end-deal the Palestinian territory will be demilitarized. Without that, sooner or later, we will have another ‘Hamastan.’ And Israel can’t agree to that.”
Caroline Glick on Netanyahu:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTgyNzVjMzQ5NGM0NzE2ZDQ2Zjg0OTYxYWQyMzU5NWU=
Q&A: Caroline Glick on Netanyahu & the World [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a much-discussed speech on Sunday, endorsing a demilitarized Palestinian state and responding to Pres. Barack Obama’s recent Cairo address, among other things. Caroline Glick took a few questions about it and the Iranian elections this morning.
Caroline is senior contributing editor of the Jerusalem Post and the senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy. She’s also author of Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad. Here’s the conversation:
LOPEZ: Is it shocking Netanyahu would come out for a Palestinian state?
GLICK: It is not shocking that Netanyahu would set out the conditions under which he would agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state. The Obama administration’s obsession with creating one in Israel’s heartland as quickly as possible regardless of the character of Palestinian society, Palestinian support for the destruction of Israel, and the close ties the U.S.-sponsored Palestinian Authority shares with global terror groups and state sponsors of terror like Hezbollah and Iran made it necessary for Israel’s premier to make it very clear what must happen before Israel will agree to proceed on this path.
LOPEZ: Is this anything remotely like a breakthrough?
GLICK: There are only two ways that Netanyahu’s speech can constitute a breakthrough.
First, in the unlikely circumstance that the Obama administration actually cares about Israel’s concerns, Netanyahu’s speech should give the president and his advisors pause before they renew their massive pressure on Israel to make dangerous concessions to the Palestinians.
Second, Netanyahu’s speech could empower Israel’s supporters in Congress to begin questioning the administration’s harsh treatment of the U.S.’s closest ally in the Middle East and so perhaps act as a brake on the administration’s moves to steamroll Israel. Aside from that, what his speech served to do was expose just how radical the Palestinian and Arab position on Israel is.
The Palestinians reacted to Netanyahu’s speech with calls to war in retaliation for his demand that they recognize Israel’s right to exist. This is not the sort of behavior one might expect from supposedly “moderate” Palestinian political leaders.
LOPEZ: Will the U.S. and Israel agree on settlements? Have we entered a chill in our relationship?
GLICK: Obama and his advisors have made clear that their view on the settlements is not based on facts. It is based on their acceptance of the false Arab narrative of the Middle East conflict. They accept Arab historical revisionism that places the cart before the horse by claiming that Israel’s presence in the disputed territories is the cause of the conflict when in fact Israel’s presence in the disputed territories is a consequence of their continuous attempts to invade and destroy Israel. Since the Obama administration’s view is based on a false assertion, it is impermeable to fact and rational argument and therefore it is unlikely to change.
LOPEZ: Is it significant that Netanyahu responded to Obama’s Cairo speech?
GLICK: It is very significant for Israel and world Jewry and perhaps for Israel’s supporters that Netanyahu responded to Obama’s Cairo speech. That speech was full of distortions of Jewish history and deeply dismissive of the Jewish claims to our homeland. It was absolutely necessary for Netanyahu to respond to Obama’s false and hideous assertion that Israel owes its creation to the Holocaust. And in explaining that the Holocaust could only happen because Israel didn’t exist at the time and by setting out the true 3,500-year-old Jewish connection to the land Netanyahu provided a necessary corrective to Obama’s move to write the Jewish people out of the history of the Middle East. Here too, Obama’s position is based on an Arab myth — most enthusiastically propounded today by the likes of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — that the Jews are interlopers in the region.
LOPEZ: How bad might that be if a new intifada begins? Or a war between Israel and a neighbor?
GLICK: If the Palestinians follow through with their threat to renew their terror war against Israel it will be quite bad. This is so not because Israel will be unable to defend itself. Israel has the means to defend itself. It will be quite bad because, in light of the hostile treatment Israel is suffering at the hands of the Obama administration, and given the central role the U.S. under Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton is playing in arming and training the Palestinian army that will likely be attacking Israeli targets in Judea and Samaria, the U.S. may well side with the Arabs against Israel. The administration is already placing limitations on arms sales to Israel. In this event, Israel will have to move quickly to find other suppliers. It is unlikely today that Arab states will go to war with Israel, although that could change quickly if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. In that event, the Iranians will be in a position to blackmail Arab states like Egypt and Jordan into abrogating their peace treaties with Israel and opening hostilities against it. Iran would accomplish this task by threatening to overthrow the Mubarak regime and the Hashemite Kingdom. It is this specter — along with the specter of nuclear attack and chronic terror violence conducted under Iran’s nuclear umbrella — that makes it essential for Israel to move quickly to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
LOPEZ: How nervous is Israel about Ahmadinejad’s “reelection”?
GLICK: In a round about sort of way, Ahmadinejad’s “reelection” empowers Israel to take the necessary action. By stealing the election, Ahmadinejad now stands in open opposition to the Iranian people. This decreases the likelihood that the public will rally around the regime in the event of an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear installations. Ahmadinejad’s open hatred of the U.S. and his humiliation of the Obama administration will similarly make it more difficult politically for the administration to prevent Israel from striking Iran. If before the Iranian elections it was easy to see the administration signing on to U.N. Security Council sanctions against Israel in the event of an Israeli strike against Iran, or even shooting down Israeli aircraft en route to Iran, in their aftermath, such prospects seem more unlikely.
Some key points from the Jerusalem Post article on the speech:
“I support the idea of regional peace that is being led by Obama,” Netanyahu said, adding that he was willing to meet any Arab leader anywhere.
“I turn to Arab leaders: Let’s make peace, I am ready,” Netahyahu said. “I am willing to go to Damascus, Riyadh, Beirut - to meet anytime and anywhere.”
Netanyahu warned of the threat emanating from Iran, saying, “The biggest threat to Israel, and the middle east and all of humanity is the meeting between radical Islamism and nuclear weaponry.”
Netanyahu called on the Palestinians to “begin peace talks immediately, and without preconditions.” Citing the “heavy toll” the ongoing conflict has taken and mentioning the death of his brother, Yonatan, Netanyahu said, “I don’t want war. Nobody in Israel wants war.”
“If the advantages of peace are so clear, we must ask - why is peace still far? What is perpetuating the conflict for over 60 years? We must reach the root of the struggle,” he continued.
“Let me use the most simple words - the root of the struggle is the refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. The initial Arab refusal was to a Jewish state in any location, before Israeli presence in the West Bank,” the prime minister said.
“The closer we get to an agreement with the Palestinians, the further it is rejected,” he continued. “We tried a withdrawal with an agreement, without one, a partial withdraw and we offered a near-complete withdraw. We uprooted Jewish settlers from their homes, and received a barrage of missiles in return.”
“Sadly, even the Palestinian moderates won’t say the most simple statement - Israel is the Jewish national state, and will remain as such.
“To achieve peace, courage and honesty are necessary from both sides. The Palestinians must say - ‘enough with this conflict. We recognize Israel’s right to exist, and want to live by their side.’
“A public Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish nation-state is a prerequisite for regional peace,” Netanyahu said.
“In the heart of Israel there lives a large group of Palestinians,“ the prime minister continued, noting his will to see a demilitarized Palestinian state existing peacefully alongside Israel.
“For peace,” he said, “we must ensure that Palestinians have no weapons and the opportunity to create pacts with hostile forces. We ask that the US commit that in the end-deal the Palestinian territory will be demilitarized. Without that, sooner or later, we will have another ‘Hamastan.’ And Israel can’t agree to that.”
Caroline Glick on Netanyahu:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTgyNzVjMzQ5NGM0NzE2ZDQ2Zjg0OTYxYWQyMzU5NWU=
Q&A: Caroline Glick on Netanyahu & the World [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a much-discussed speech on Sunday, endorsing a demilitarized Palestinian state and responding to Pres. Barack Obama’s recent Cairo address, among other things. Caroline Glick took a few questions about it and the Iranian elections this morning.
Caroline is senior contributing editor of the Jerusalem Post and the senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy. She’s also author of Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad. Here’s the conversation:
LOPEZ: Is it shocking Netanyahu would come out for a Palestinian state?
GLICK: It is not shocking that Netanyahu would set out the conditions under which he would agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state. The Obama administration’s obsession with creating one in Israel’s heartland as quickly as possible regardless of the character of Palestinian society, Palestinian support for the destruction of Israel, and the close ties the U.S.-sponsored Palestinian Authority shares with global terror groups and state sponsors of terror like Hezbollah and Iran made it necessary for Israel’s premier to make it very clear what must happen before Israel will agree to proceed on this path.
LOPEZ: Is this anything remotely like a breakthrough?
GLICK: There are only two ways that Netanyahu’s speech can constitute a breakthrough.
First, in the unlikely circumstance that the Obama administration actually cares about Israel’s concerns, Netanyahu’s speech should give the president and his advisors pause before they renew their massive pressure on Israel to make dangerous concessions to the Palestinians.
Second, Netanyahu’s speech could empower Israel’s supporters in Congress to begin questioning the administration’s harsh treatment of the U.S.’s closest ally in the Middle East and so perhaps act as a brake on the administration’s moves to steamroll Israel. Aside from that, what his speech served to do was expose just how radical the Palestinian and Arab position on Israel is.
The Palestinians reacted to Netanyahu’s speech with calls to war in retaliation for his demand that they recognize Israel’s right to exist. This is not the sort of behavior one might expect from supposedly “moderate” Palestinian political leaders.
LOPEZ: Will the U.S. and Israel agree on settlements? Have we entered a chill in our relationship?
GLICK: Obama and his advisors have made clear that their view on the settlements is not based on facts. It is based on their acceptance of the false Arab narrative of the Middle East conflict. They accept Arab historical revisionism that places the cart before the horse by claiming that Israel’s presence in the disputed territories is the cause of the conflict when in fact Israel’s presence in the disputed territories is a consequence of their continuous attempts to invade and destroy Israel. Since the Obama administration’s view is based on a false assertion, it is impermeable to fact and rational argument and therefore it is unlikely to change.
LOPEZ: Is it significant that Netanyahu responded to Obama’s Cairo speech?
GLICK: It is very significant for Israel and world Jewry and perhaps for Israel’s supporters that Netanyahu responded to Obama’s Cairo speech. That speech was full of distortions of Jewish history and deeply dismissive of the Jewish claims to our homeland. It was absolutely necessary for Netanyahu to respond to Obama’s false and hideous assertion that Israel owes its creation to the Holocaust. And in explaining that the Holocaust could only happen because Israel didn’t exist at the time and by setting out the true 3,500-year-old Jewish connection to the land Netanyahu provided a necessary corrective to Obama’s move to write the Jewish people out of the history of the Middle East. Here too, Obama’s position is based on an Arab myth — most enthusiastically propounded today by the likes of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — that the Jews are interlopers in the region.
LOPEZ: How bad might that be if a new intifada begins? Or a war between Israel and a neighbor?
GLICK: If the Palestinians follow through with their threat to renew their terror war against Israel it will be quite bad. This is so not because Israel will be unable to defend itself. Israel has the means to defend itself. It will be quite bad because, in light of the hostile treatment Israel is suffering at the hands of the Obama administration, and given the central role the U.S. under Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton is playing in arming and training the Palestinian army that will likely be attacking Israeli targets in Judea and Samaria, the U.S. may well side with the Arabs against Israel. The administration is already placing limitations on arms sales to Israel. In this event, Israel will have to move quickly to find other suppliers. It is unlikely today that Arab states will go to war with Israel, although that could change quickly if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. In that event, the Iranians will be in a position to blackmail Arab states like Egypt and Jordan into abrogating their peace treaties with Israel and opening hostilities against it. Iran would accomplish this task by threatening to overthrow the Mubarak regime and the Hashemite Kingdom. It is this specter — along with the specter of nuclear attack and chronic terror violence conducted under Iran’s nuclear umbrella — that makes it essential for Israel to move quickly to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
LOPEZ: How nervous is Israel about Ahmadinejad’s “reelection”?
GLICK: In a round about sort of way, Ahmadinejad’s “reelection” empowers Israel to take the necessary action. By stealing the election, Ahmadinejad now stands in open opposition to the Iranian people. This decreases the likelihood that the public will rally around the regime in the event of an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear installations. Ahmadinejad’s open hatred of the U.S. and his humiliation of the Obama administration will similarly make it more difficult politically for the administration to prevent Israel from striking Iran. If before the Iranian elections it was easy to see the administration signing on to U.N. Security Council sanctions against Israel in the event of an Israeli strike against Iran, or even shooting down Israeli aircraft en route to Iran, in their aftermath, such prospects seem more unlikely.
ObamaCare Updates
AMA [Tevi Troy]
President Obama is speaking to the American Medical Association today to try to get its support for his version of health reform. To succeed, he will have to convince the AMA, and the American people, that the government won't be taking over health care, and that he knows how to pay for his plan.
Doctors won't like a "public plan," because they too often lose money on current "public plan" patients — those in Medicare. A broad-range public plan for non-retirees will over time shrink the number of Americans in private coverage, because some employers will stop offering plans, and more and more individuals will migrate towards the government plan. As Scott Harrington writes in today's Wall Street Journal, a public plan would soon become the only plan. This is why not only doctors, but also some key Blue Dog Democrats, are opposed to the government plan.
In terms of cost, estimates are in the range of $1.2 trillion or higher. President Obama has been talking about higher taxes, provider cuts, and taxes on comprehensive, employer-provided health insurance to pay for it. These ideas won't be popular among doctors, either.
—Tevi Troy is the former deputy secretary of health and human services, and author of Intellectuals and the American Presidency.
'That Is a Fact'
"Health-care reform is the single most important thing we can do for America’s long-term fiscal health." The president right now, speaking to the AMA in Chicago.
And, of course, anyone who raises questions about his plan — and how the "facts" may not add up — is just trying to scare you ...
More on the AMA [Tevi Troy]
Here's how President Obama handled the two health-care worries I raised earlier — high costs and concerns about a government-run public plan — in his AMA speech earlier today.
With respect to the public plan, he asserted, quite clearly and multiple times, that no one would lose their current coverage or have to change their current doctor. He may be right that no one would immediately have to make these changes, but that misses the larger point of what would happen over time. The notion of crowd out, where privately-insured people move to publicly subsidized plans when they become available, is not an overnight phenomenon so much as over time migration. The more important point is that the president issued his clearest endorsement yet of a public plan, giving us an indication of what the White House thinking is on this flashpoint issue.
As for the cost issue, it is clear that the administration senses some vulnerability in this area, and so the president laid out a long list of specific-sounding cuts in a host of areas: Medicare Advantage cuts — $177 billion; "incentives for more effective care" — $109 billion; more efficient drug purchasing — $75 billion; and that old standby, reducing "waste, fraud, and abuse" — $1 billion. Some of these are inarguably good ideas — no one is opposed to stopping fraud or waste, for example — but it is not clear if these ideas will lead to the necessary savings or will join the long list of promised health-care savings that never seem to materialize. If that is the case, then the unmaterialized savings turn into bigger deficits and ultimately into higher taxes.
It was also interesting to see that the president did raise malpractice costs, one of the AMA's biggest concerns. After doing so, he quickly said that he would be opposed to judgment caps, indicating that the trial bar does not need to worry about significant efforts to reign in that particular form of abuse.
'Cuts' in Medicare and Medicaid [Rich Lowry]
Remember when Newt Gingrich was savaged for proposing reductions in the rate of growth in Medicare and Medicaid? Obama seems to be doing a Newt almost every other day, as he reaches for a way to pay for his health-care program. How long before opportunistic Republicans begin warning seniors that Obama is putting their Medicare at risk, in one of those turn-about-is-fair-play Washington moments? The proposed Obama savings don't come from innovative reforms but from simply squeezing providers, which will have predictable negative consequences.
In fact, as NBC points out, Peter Orszag himself noted these consequences when he was head of the CBO:
An argument against this option is that reducing the payment updates might cause some providers to lower the quality of care they provided or to stop serving Medicare beneficiaries altogether. In addition, different types of health care services may be more capable of achieving such productivity increases than others are. If so, this option could cause considerable hardship for providers that are not able to increase their productivity by the amount assumed in the update.
What Obama Used to Think of Medicare Cuts [Rich Lowry]
A friend in Cantor’s office sends this nugget from Obama on the campaign trail:
Then-Senator Barack Obama Characterized Finding Savings In Medicare As “Drastic Cuts” That “Would Mean Fewer Places To Get Care And Less Freedom To Choose Your Own Doctors” And “It Ain’t Right.”
THEN-SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Senator McCain and I have real differences on this issue. Senator McCain's been eager to share some of the details of his health care plan, but not all of them. It's like those ads for prescription drugs. You know, they start off, everybody's running in the fields and everybody's happy and then there's the little fine print that says, you know, side effects may include. Now, first of all, we found out that Senator McCain wants to pay for his plan by taxing your health care benefits for the first time in history. Just like George Bush. That was bad enough. But ‘The Wall Street Journal’ recently reported that it was actually worse than we thought. It turns out Senator McCain would pay for part of his plan by making drastic cuts in Medicare. $882 billion worth. $882 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for an ill-conceived, badly thought through health care plan that won't provide more health care to people. Even though Medicare's already facing a looming shortfall. Now, this should come as no surprise. It's entirely consistent with Senator McCain's record during his 26 years in Congress, where time and again he's opposed Medicare. In fact, Senator McCain has voted against protecting Medicare 40 times. Forty times he's failed to stand up for Medicare. So what would Senator McCain's cuts mean for Medicare at a time when more and more Americans are relying on it? It would mean a cut of more than 20 percent in Medicare benefits next year. If you count on Medicare, it would mean fewer places to get care and less freedom to choose your own doctors. You'll pay more for your drugs. You'll receive fewer services. You'll get lower quality care. I don't think that's right. In fact, it ain't right.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks, Roanoke, VA, 10/17/08)
President Obama is speaking to the American Medical Association today to try to get its support for his version of health reform. To succeed, he will have to convince the AMA, and the American people, that the government won't be taking over health care, and that he knows how to pay for his plan.
Doctors won't like a "public plan," because they too often lose money on current "public plan" patients — those in Medicare. A broad-range public plan for non-retirees will over time shrink the number of Americans in private coverage, because some employers will stop offering plans, and more and more individuals will migrate towards the government plan. As Scott Harrington writes in today's Wall Street Journal, a public plan would soon become the only plan. This is why not only doctors, but also some key Blue Dog Democrats, are opposed to the government plan.
In terms of cost, estimates are in the range of $1.2 trillion or higher. President Obama has been talking about higher taxes, provider cuts, and taxes on comprehensive, employer-provided health insurance to pay for it. These ideas won't be popular among doctors, either.
—Tevi Troy is the former deputy secretary of health and human services, and author of Intellectuals and the American Presidency.
'That Is a Fact'
"Health-care reform is the single most important thing we can do for America’s long-term fiscal health." The president right now, speaking to the AMA in Chicago.
And, of course, anyone who raises questions about his plan — and how the "facts" may not add up — is just trying to scare you ...
More on the AMA [Tevi Troy]
Here's how President Obama handled the two health-care worries I raised earlier — high costs and concerns about a government-run public plan — in his AMA speech earlier today.
With respect to the public plan, he asserted, quite clearly and multiple times, that no one would lose their current coverage or have to change their current doctor. He may be right that no one would immediately have to make these changes, but that misses the larger point of what would happen over time. The notion of crowd out, where privately-insured people move to publicly subsidized plans when they become available, is not an overnight phenomenon so much as over time migration. The more important point is that the president issued his clearest endorsement yet of a public plan, giving us an indication of what the White House thinking is on this flashpoint issue.
As for the cost issue, it is clear that the administration senses some vulnerability in this area, and so the president laid out a long list of specific-sounding cuts in a host of areas: Medicare Advantage cuts — $177 billion; "incentives for more effective care" — $109 billion; more efficient drug purchasing — $75 billion; and that old standby, reducing "waste, fraud, and abuse" — $1 billion. Some of these are inarguably good ideas — no one is opposed to stopping fraud or waste, for example — but it is not clear if these ideas will lead to the necessary savings or will join the long list of promised health-care savings that never seem to materialize. If that is the case, then the unmaterialized savings turn into bigger deficits and ultimately into higher taxes.
It was also interesting to see that the president did raise malpractice costs, one of the AMA's biggest concerns. After doing so, he quickly said that he would be opposed to judgment caps, indicating that the trial bar does not need to worry about significant efforts to reign in that particular form of abuse.
'Cuts' in Medicare and Medicaid [Rich Lowry]
Remember when Newt Gingrich was savaged for proposing reductions in the rate of growth in Medicare and Medicaid? Obama seems to be doing a Newt almost every other day, as he reaches for a way to pay for his health-care program. How long before opportunistic Republicans begin warning seniors that Obama is putting their Medicare at risk, in one of those turn-about-is-fair-play Washington moments? The proposed Obama savings don't come from innovative reforms but from simply squeezing providers, which will have predictable negative consequences.
In fact, as NBC points out, Peter Orszag himself noted these consequences when he was head of the CBO:
An argument against this option is that reducing the payment updates might cause some providers to lower the quality of care they provided or to stop serving Medicare beneficiaries altogether. In addition, different types of health care services may be more capable of achieving such productivity increases than others are. If so, this option could cause considerable hardship for providers that are not able to increase their productivity by the amount assumed in the update.
What Obama Used to Think of Medicare Cuts [Rich Lowry]
A friend in Cantor’s office sends this nugget from Obama on the campaign trail:
Then-Senator Barack Obama Characterized Finding Savings In Medicare As “Drastic Cuts” That “Would Mean Fewer Places To Get Care And Less Freedom To Choose Your Own Doctors” And “It Ain’t Right.”
THEN-SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Senator McCain and I have real differences on this issue. Senator McCain's been eager to share some of the details of his health care plan, but not all of them. It's like those ads for prescription drugs. You know, they start off, everybody's running in the fields and everybody's happy and then there's the little fine print that says, you know, side effects may include. Now, first of all, we found out that Senator McCain wants to pay for his plan by taxing your health care benefits for the first time in history. Just like George Bush. That was bad enough. But ‘The Wall Street Journal’ recently reported that it was actually worse than we thought. It turns out Senator McCain would pay for part of his plan by making drastic cuts in Medicare. $882 billion worth. $882 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for an ill-conceived, badly thought through health care plan that won't provide more health care to people. Even though Medicare's already facing a looming shortfall. Now, this should come as no surprise. It's entirely consistent with Senator McCain's record during his 26 years in Congress, where time and again he's opposed Medicare. In fact, Senator McCain has voted against protecting Medicare 40 times. Forty times he's failed to stand up for Medicare. So what would Senator McCain's cuts mean for Medicare at a time when more and more Americans are relying on it? It would mean a cut of more than 20 percent in Medicare benefits next year. If you count on Medicare, it would mean fewer places to get care and less freedom to choose your own doctors. You'll pay more for your drugs. You'll receive fewer services. You'll get lower quality care. I don't think that's right. In fact, it ain't right.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks, Roanoke, VA, 10/17/08)
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Where is Obama on Iran Election ? - Mitt Romney
Obama is MIA, say Romney.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33927_Romney-_Wheres_Obama_on_Iran
where art thou, o King HopeyChange ?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33927_Romney-_Wheres_Obama_on_Iran
where art thou, o King HopeyChange ?
Middle East thoughts .... Iran, Netanyahu, Jimmy Carter Shocka !
Iran .... evil Iranian President Ahmadinejad "wins" or steals electin in Iran. Riots and all sorts of fuss ensues.
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu works to blunt Obama's dangerous and stupid approach to Israeli / Palestinian issues. Palestinians, as usual, reject whatever is said and threaten even more violence.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371095741&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371096849&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Full text of speech here
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371096254&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371096340&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
This is the real shocker: noted Israel critic and worst President ever James Earl "Jimmeh" Carter, visits West Bank settlement and actually endorses the idea (reality) that Jerusalem area settlement bloc will / should remain Israeli in a final settlement. This is really a welcome and shocking development !
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371093499&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
In a surprising move for a man famous for talking about "apartheid" in connection with the West Bank, former US president Jimmy Carter gave his endorsement Sunday to settlements in Gush Etzion, located just south of Jerusalem.
"This particular settlement area is not one I ever envision being abandoned or changed over into Palestinian territory," Carter said at the end of his afternoon visit to Neveh Daniel, in Gush Etzion.
After more than 30 years of working toward ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it was his first visit to a settlement.
Although he did not signify whether he meant his comment to include all 14 Gush Etzion settlements, he said that they were among the settlements over the 1967 Green Line "that I think will be here forever."
....An assistant to the former president said, however, that while to the best of his knowledge Carter had never made such a strong statement in support of a settlement, retention of some of the settlements in Gush Etzion was in line with his thinking.
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu works to blunt Obama's dangerous and stupid approach to Israeli / Palestinian issues. Palestinians, as usual, reject whatever is said and threaten even more violence.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371095741&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371096849&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Full text of speech here
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371096254&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371096340&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
This is the real shocker: noted Israel critic and worst President ever James Earl "Jimmeh" Carter, visits West Bank settlement and actually endorses the idea (reality) that Jerusalem area settlement bloc will / should remain Israeli in a final settlement. This is really a welcome and shocking development !
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371093499&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
In a surprising move for a man famous for talking about "apartheid" in connection with the West Bank, former US president Jimmy Carter gave his endorsement Sunday to settlements in Gush Etzion, located just south of Jerusalem.
"This particular settlement area is not one I ever envision being abandoned or changed over into Palestinian territory," Carter said at the end of his afternoon visit to Neveh Daniel, in Gush Etzion.
After more than 30 years of working toward ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it was his first visit to a settlement.
Although he did not signify whether he meant his comment to include all 14 Gush Etzion settlements, he said that they were among the settlements over the 1967 Green Line "that I think will be here forever."
....An assistant to the former president said, however, that while to the best of his knowledge Carter had never made such a strong statement in support of a settlement, retention of some of the settlements in Gush Etzion was in line with his thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
