Obama Embarrasses Himself Before The Queen of England

President Obama committed an awkward gaffe at Buckingham Palace tonight. He rose to propose a toast to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth saying “Ladies and gentlemen please stand with me and raise your glasses as I propose a toast,” the president said, putting down his note cards and grabbing his glass. “To her majesty the Queen.”

The correct British custom when performing the Loyalty Oath, as it's called, is that after you say "To the Queen", or in this case, "To her majesty, the Queen", that's the cue for the orchestra to start to play the British national anthem, "God Save The Queen". Everyone stands while the anthem is being played just as we do here, and the toast is drunk once the anthem is finished.

Except President Obama had some more of his tortured rhetoric to deliver and continued talking during the beginning of anthem as the orchestra played!

Needless to say, this was as big a faux pas as if someone had been yakking at a state affair during "The Star Spangled Banner", and the Queen smiled uncertainly throughout. Thankfully, the president at least had the sense to put his glass back down on the table and not chug his wine while the anthem was playing.

Admittedly this is a small if amusing deal. But haven't we always been told how sophisticated and brilliant this president is, and how much better he was going to get along with our allies?

It's obvious that that so-called ignorant cowboy President George W. Bush knew better than to do this - if he ever had, it would have been a front page story in big headlines across the country.

(hat tip, Louie Louie)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Netanyahu Addresses Congress To An Enthusiastic Response

Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress today and gave a speech reiterating his previous remarks to President Obama - and Congress absolutely ate it up.

Warm, folksy and incisive, if was Netanyahu at his best..amazing what some peole can do without a teleprompter.

The Israeli leader was greeted with minutes-long applause as he entered the chamber, and his remarks were greeted by standing ovations no less than 29 times.

Netanyahu told Congress that Israel was the only country that has guaranteed freedom of all faiths in Jerusalem, and that Jerusalem must remain undivided.

He also was quite clear that Israel “will not return to the indefensible borders of 1967”, that the 'Palestinian' refugee problem will be solved outside the borders of Israel, and that Israel must retain a military presence in the Jordan Valley, remarking that in the Middle East, peace depends on the ability to defend oneself.

He also was quite plain that Israel had no intention of negotiating anything with a 'Palestinian' entity that was allied with Hamas.

One of the best lines of the speech: "President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… “I will accept a Palestinian state.” It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… “I will accept a Jewish state.”

The heckler, by the way was Rae Abileah, a Left wing loon belonging to President Obama's friends, Code Pink.

President Obama obviously forgot how popular our Israeli ally is with the majority of Americans. And his attempt to undercut and embarrass Bibi Netanyahu turned out to be a miserable failure.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Malaysia: 'Muslims Must Properly Oppress Those Uppity Infidels!'

Quran-9:29, Fight those who believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), even if they are of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Muslim leaders in Malaysia are quite perturbed at the rights they feel are being given to dhimmi non-Muslims in Malaysia and are calling for a 're-evaluation':

Former president of Islamic Da’wah Foundation Malaysia (Yadim), Datuk Nakhaie Ahmad, said treatment of non-Muslims must be based on the social contract agreed and pointed out that the government has been too gracious to the community.

“In attempts to get vote and support of non-Muslims, we have been very gracious in giving them their civil rights. Civil rights given to them includes the rights to vote, participation in politics, hold office, involvement in the military and so forth but we cannot just willingly give them everything."

Malaysia is officially an Islamic state. Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad declared it one a decade ago.

You may remember Mahathir...he's the one who received a standing ovation for a keynote speech on October 16th, 2003 to the Organization of Islamic Conference declaring that `Jews run the world', that the destruction of Israel was a goal towards a larger pan-Islamic caliphate, and that essentially, the US and Europe will only accept Islam as their master after their current masters, the Jews, are destroyed.

Apparently a significant part of Malaysia's Muslims are upset after there was a wide spread rumor of a Christian plot to make Malaysia more pluralistic and end it's status as an officially Islamic state:

“We cannot give them important government position as it is not allowed for non-Muslims to become ministers in a Islamic state. Head of military must also not be given to non-Muslims."

“Without thinking about the future of our country, we are so willing to give them everything. Granting them their civil rights must be balanced with Islamic preaching so they will understand justice in Islam and the Islamic system,” Nakhaie said.

Malaysian Islamic Youth Movement (Abim) deputy president, Dr Mohd Rumaizuddin Ghazali, also stressed that Malaysia must never become a secular state.

“This is why many non-Muslim politicians want to declare the country as a secular state because then the government will not have fund religious programmes."

“They are scared that if we accept Malaysia as an Islamic state then there are many implications which means that only Muslims have the right to lead the country,” he said.

Mohd Rumaizuddin added that the Malays are beginning to be trampled on and non-Muslims are starting to take advantage of the community.

“Because of politics, we are still not free after more than 50 years of independence,” he said.

Hizbut Tahrir Malaysia president Abdul Hakim Othman added the country’s constitution must be replaced as it has been stained by the colonial British.

"A Caliphate state is based on divine revelation. It is not a democratic or a theocratic state. It is only an Islamic state when the constitution is based on the Qu'ran and prophetic traditions,” he said.

Yes, apparently Malaysia's dhimmis need to learn their place.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Perfect - Michael Steele Now MSNBC's Newest Talking Head

RINO con man, ex- RNC head and self promoter Michael Steele has latched onto a brand new meal ticket. MSNBC just announced that he'll be joining them as a political analyst and regular contributor.

It's a perfect forum for him to crap on his former Republican party comrades, aided and abetted by the rest of the Mess NBC crew.

They don't hardly make hucksters and shuck and jive artists like Steele anymore, and MSNBC is to be congratulated on snaring him. He's a perfect fit with the rest of their on-air talent. However, given their ratings, I hope they keep a close eye on his expense accounts.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Mitch Daniels Won't Run In 2012

Another one bites the dust....

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels decided to pull the plug on a presidential run and informed his followers in a midnight e-mail:

“I hope this reaches you before the public news does," Daniels wrote. "If so, please respect my confidence for the short time until I can make it known to all."

"The counsel and encouragement I received from important citizens like you caused me to think very deeply about becoming a national candidate. In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one, but that, the interests and wishes of my family, is the most important consideration of all. If I have disappointed you, I will always be sorry."

"If you feel that this was a non-courageous or unpatriotic decision, I understand and will not attempt to persuade you otherwise. I only hope that you will accept my sincerity in the judgment I reached," he wrote.

"Many thanks for your help and input during this period of reflection. Please stay in touch if you see ways in which an obscure Midwestern governor might make a constructive contribution to the rebuilding of our economy and our Republic.”

I admit, I'm not at all unhappy about his decision. Daniels had a number of foreign policy positions and other items I found extremely questionable.

So the search by the GOP establishment goes on for the RINO anti-Romney.

Let's see...Barbour's out, Trump's out, Huckabee's out, Gingrich might as well be out. That leaves Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and (snicker) Ron Paul who are definitely in, with John Huntsman and Michelle Bachmann leaning towards running.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the GOP establishment start beating the drums for Jeb Bush any day now.

And there's a certain housewife in Wasilla who has expressed some interest....and so far, she seems to be sitting back and watching the other circus acts eliminate each other, as I guessed she'd do.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The Treason Times: "Now That bin-Laden's Dead, Can My Son John Come Home?"

Leave it to the New York Times to publish a Sunday op-ed by American traitor John Walker Lindh's father stating an entirely bogus case for Taliban Johnny's freedom.

Daddy conveniently forgets that this son wasn't just hanging out with the Taliban - he pled guilty to fighting with them against American troops, to having explosives designed to kill them, and to being a follower of bin-Laden.

He also forgets that little Johnny Lindh received training at the Al-Farouq training camp in Afghanistan run by the Taliban and al-Qaeda and that he had had previously received training with Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, an internationally designated terrorist organization based in Pakistan.

The Bush Administration unfortunately chose to drop counts of conspiring to kill Americans (including a CIA Agent who was murdered after interrogating Lindh) and assisting terrorist organizations that the prosecutor, Paul McNulty said were strong and easily provable in exchange for the plea bargain that netted this treasonous piece of walking excrement a 20 year sentence instead of life in jail. If there was any justice, they should have hung him.

And now, his father is calling for his release so he can go back to his jihadi pals and fight against his countrymen again.

The apple indeed doesn't fall far from the tree. And for Pravda-on-the-Hudson to print this is a new low, even for them.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama's Embarrassing Try For A Walk Back At AIPAC

President Obama made his speech at AIPAC this morning, and it could be reduced to the following:

"Aaaaghhhh, let me be perfectly clear. Uuuuuughhhh-hem, when I said that Israel should go back to the 1967 lines, I did not mean the lines that may or may not have existed before or after any hostilities that may or may not have occurred.

It was a misrepresentation for you to listen to what I said. You should have heard what I meant after the polls came out showing that what I said wasn't what I mean....now!"

The speech was politely received at AIPAC, but it's worth noting what the president chose to 'clarify':

The president barely mentioned Iran in his original speech. here, he emphasized the danger a nuclear armed Iran poses, but aside from talking about sanctions he's placing on Iran - which are obviously having a limited effect - nothing about what he's prepared to do to stop them.

Ditto on Hezbollah, who weren't even mentioned in Thursday's speech. Here, the president says 'we're working to stop them' but as usual, nothing concrete.

Today,, in front of AIPAC, the president says that "the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace." On Thursday, the Fatah/Hamas menage was merely 'problematic'.

Today, the president is demanding that "Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements." Thursday, there were no demands for Hamas at all.And what if Fatah and Hamas tell the president to go pound sand, as they have thus far? Then what is the president prepared to do? Again, no concrete penalties for 'Palestinian' actions, since only Israel gets demands. No, just more words to try and game the crowd and nothing concrete.

The president decided to double down on the use of the 1967 lines idea, saying that:

The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

You'll notice I emphasized certain parts.

The idea of a 'contiguous Palestinian state' would only be possible to someone who never learned to read a map.To put it bluntly, if 'Palestine' is contiguous, Israel won't be:



Next, note the phrase, 'Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself - against any threat.

I mentioned this before. Since Israel has never demanded a single US soldier to fight its battles, what President Obama appears to be saying is that in the event of hostilities, the US will be neutral, will not supply Israel with arms or supplies, and that Israel is on its own as far as he's concerned.

Next, look at the entire paragraph that deals with provisions to stop terrorism, stop the flow of weapons, provide border security and a phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces coordinated "with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state."

Guess what- these are exactly the same assurances the Israelis got before Oslo and again before their retreat from Gaza.For that matter, the UN passed a resolution to that effect when it came to getting the Israelis to withdraw from Lebanon. Worked out well for Israel, didn't it?

The 'Palestine' President Obama envisions is going to have a common border with Syria. The US did absolutely nothing to stop Iran and Syria from rearming Hezbollah, so why should yet another farcical land-for-peace deal work out any differently for Israel?

If Israel signs a land for peace swap with the new 'Palestinian' government that includes Hamas, that means the 'Palestinians' already have plenty of lethal missiles, plus a lot of gently used US weapons courtesy of Fatah from the civil war in Gaza. Not only that, but thanks to President Obama's undermining of Egypt's Mubarak regime, the new military/Muslim Brotherhood government is already opening the Rafah crossing so that Hamas can get plenty more. Is President Obama planning to have US forces invade Gaza and take them away from Hamas? And what happens if the Israelis give up strategic depth in exchange for words and a piece of paper and the new Hamas/Fatah beast decides not to honor it anymore once they have the land under their possession? What if they suddenly decide to ally with Syria and Iran and bring those forces into 'Palestine'?

If President Obama thinks what he's saying is realistic, he's either less bright than I already think he is, or he thinks the Israelis and their American supporters are really stupid. There's no third possibility.

Even if the idea of land for peace and a demilitarized 'Palestinian' state weren't totally unrealistic, the fact remains that once again, the president is demanding that Israel give away land before the 'Palestinians' give away anything. There's no upside or logical reason whatsoever for the Israelis to negotiate anything with Hamas, and no reason for Israel to negotiate on something concrete like borders before the Pals agree on no 'right of return' and give up all claims to Jerusalem.

There's no question in my mind that President Obama's omissions and circumlocutions on these matters is entirely deliberate. He wants Israel to agree to be raped, and he wants to create the fiction of consent beforehand.

Which is why he's going to be meeting with the British PM David Cameron to co-ordinate the action against the Jewish State.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

As Expected, Jeffrey Goldberg Hits Netanyu And Hearts Obama

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg has a piece out today entitled, Dear Mr. Netanyahu, Please Don't Speak to My President That Way. In it, he throws a hissy fit over Bibi Netanyahu's initial reaction to President Obama's speech and accuses Netanyahu of insulting his idol:

For whatever reason, I tend to react strongly when a foreign leader disrespects the United States, and its President. I didn't like it when Hugo Chavez of Venezuela insulted President Bush; I don't like listening to Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan lecture the U.S. on its sins, and I'm not happy when certain Pakistani leaders gin-up righteous indignation about American behavior when it was their country that served as a refuge for the greatest mass murderer in American history.

And so I was similarly taken aback when I read a statement from Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday that he "expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both House of Congress."

So Netanyahu "expects" to hear this from the President of the United States? And if President Obama doesn't walk back the speech, what will Netanyahu do? Will he cut off Israeli military aid to the U.S.? Will he cease to fight for the U.S. in the United Nations, and in the many international forums that treat Israel as a pariah?

Goldberg seems to forget that Obama and Hillary Clinton out and out lied to Netanyahu and the Israelis about those 2004 commitments, which were used to persuade Israel retreat from Gaza and sign on to the Roadmap. And that in this particular speech of Obama's, the president flushed UN Resolution 242 away like it never existed.

From Netanyahu's reaction, it's obvious that Obama didn't inform the Israelis of what was coming. Is that how one treats an ally?

Goldberg also apparently doesn't read the NY Times, which reported not only that Obama Administration sources admitted that the timing of Obama's speech was planned intentionally to undercut Netanyahu's address to Congress next week but that the president is deliberately trashing Netanyahu, saying he lacks the ability to negotiate a peace deal..as if it was the Israelis and not the Palestinians who were boycotting talks!

After all that, Goldberg has the nerve to wonder why Netanyahu is calling our president out on keeping his word?

Goldberg's reaction is to be expected. Like a lot of Jews on the Left, he worships the idol Obama...and he's simply chosen sides. But I have no problem calling it exactly what it is.

As for his sneering condescension what Israel is going to do about it, he obviously doesn't realize how valuable an ally Israel is to America, or what kind of message throwing them to the wolves sends to both our friends and our enemies.

The Israelis are not going to commit national suicide on Obama or the EU's say so. They produce things the world wants to buy, have a valuable strategic and military presence may very well decide to find other alliances if the current occupant of the White House continues to defecate on them.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Something You May Have Missed - Obama Tells Israel Not To Count On The US In Wartime

Ed Morrissey caught something in Obama's speech you may have missed. Along with everything else, Obama essentially said yesterday that the US would not be coming to Israel’s aid if they have to defend themselves as we have before..that they were on their own as far as he's concerned.



"As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat."

Remember, this speech was broadcast all over the world in English, Arabic and Farsi, and every word was scrutinized and tweezed in advance by the president and his speechwriters. President Barack Hussein Obama just informed Israel's enemies that America no longer has Israel's back.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Bibi Meets With Obama And Pushes Back

Israeli PM Netanyahu met with President Obama the day after the president's execrable speech on the Middle East yesterday and told the president he was prepared to make compromises to achieve peace but that he rejected President Barack Obama's proposal that Israel return to 1967 borders.

It's obvious that the meeting itself was not an amicable one...just look at Obama's posture and body language in this video. His anger is obvious.

Bibi's public statement suffered for a halting, somewhat uncertain delivery and a certain obsequiousness ( which may have been feigned and a device not to appear too combative), but essentially he hit all the right notes...that Israel cannot return to the indefensible '67 lines, that Israel cannot negotiate with a 'Palestinian' government that is allied with Hamas, ( whom Netanyahu cleverly referred to as the 'Palestinian' version of al-Qaeda), that there were two groups of refugees resulting from the 1948 attack on Israel, that Israel had absorbed the Jewish refugees,that the Arabs had refused to absorb theirs, that the solution to the 'Palestinian' refugee problem would have to be addressed outside Israel's borders and that it was time the 'Palestinians' were told that.

This is pretty much what I think Netanyahu will say when he addresses Congress.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Rush Limbaugh : "Obama's Urging Israel To Destroy Itself"

Here's a snippet of Rush Limbaugh's reaction to President Obama's Middle East speech yesterday..and the full transcript to the entire segment below. As usual, he's ahead of the curve and points out what I've been saying all along...that the president has been orchestrating and assisting the Muslim Brotherhood revolts in the Arab world, particularly in Egypt.

The one link he didn't make in this segment ( although I'm sure he's aware of it) is the UN's 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine that Obama pushed to get adopted there and is using as a precedent in Libya.

I can almost guarantee you that Obama has plans to use it against Israel to get the US to intervene against Israel and in favor of the 'Palestinians'.

RUSH: All right, so now we know, ladies and gentlemen, it is official, and the instincts of many, including mine, were correct. The Arab Spring is an uprising of Middle Eastern nations against Israel, and they have been aided and abetted by President Barack Obama of the United States of America. That's what's going on, and that's what this speech was all about.

Greetings, welcome back. Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute.

Here's the money quote of the speech. It came near the end of it. This is what all of this was about. "The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state."

Back to the 1967 borders. So Israel is now surrounded by enemies. I've been there. You really can't grasp this until you go. I mean you can look at it on a map but 'til you see how small Israel is and how surrounded it is, and then the demands that they give up even more, Israel is a country at one point nine miles wide, nine miles is all. Now, these enemies which surround Israel now have major weapons. And so according to President Obama, in a speech, Israel should give up its buffer areas like the Golan Heights, and again, if you've been to the Golan Heights you can see the strategic importance. You can see everything from there, including who's coming at you.

Now, for me, I don't know how you can even think this way. And again, I say this having been there and toured Israel for five days. I don't know how you can think this way when the Palestinians are committed to destroying Israel. And it's not just the Palestinians. Virtually every nation surrounding Israel is committed to its destruction. What country in its right mind would make a deal with such an enemy? Would we go back to our 1848 borders? Would we give the French areas of the Louisiana Purchase? Would we do this? What kind of president urges a country to destroy itself and submit its people to potential genocide? And that's what Obama has just done.

Now, there is some scuttlebutt going on, and it's only fair to mention this. As you know, Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to Washington to meet with President Obama. And the scuttlebutt is that as a bargaining chip, Netanyahu was considering using this offer of going back to the '67 borders with swaps. I don't know if this is true, but the scuttlebutt is that in a certain set of circumstances, if negotiations evolved in a certain way, that this would be something Netanyahu would propose. Well, if that's true, he's lost it because Obama just gave it away. Obama just used it himself, if that was to be a bargaining chip. Now, I have to tell you, I don't understand how that would be a bargaining chip. I don't know yet, I'm gonna have to try to learn this. I don't know why Israel would offer to go back to the '67 borders. But that's the scuttlebutt. The scuttlebutt is that they might be willing to and Netanyahu might be willing to offer such a thing. All right, well, let's accept that, the scuttlebutt's true; he can't offer it any longer because Obama just took it.

So if that was true, if that was something in Netanyahu's arsenal, Obama just took it away from him. Israel has no flexibility in this at all other than to say no. So again, Obama just took away what could have been a bargaining chip the Israelis wanted to employ here. So that's what this is all about. The Arab Spring is an uprising against Israel. The president of the United States has implicitly recognized the ultimate goal of the Arab Spring, and that is the defeat of and the end of Israel. And in this speech, President Obama got out in front of it. President Obama is helping them in their goal. That's real leadership, is it not? Realizing what the Arab Spring is and moving the ball forward for them.
Just the other day, by the way, we saw Israel being attacked from all sides. There was a day last week where Israel was under the gun from all three sides. It was on the day of the anniversary of the founding of their nation, which the Arabs call that day a catastrophe. Those are the demonstrators that impressed Obama, by the way, and those are the demonstrators he cited today in his speech, the ones that were protesting Israel. So Obama is implicitly recognizing the ultimate goal of the Arab Spring, the defeat of Israel. He's trying to get out in front and help them achieve their goal. The Arab Spring is an offensive against Israel, and this speech proves it. Every new government in the Middle East will be anti-Israel.

I tell you what, folks, Obama is really feeling his oats here from the Osama Bin Laden assassination. On the heels of that, he has sided with the Palestinians against Israel. It's almost as if he had a Democrat-controlled Congress again, could jam legislation down our throats. And yes, all the other stuff is true, too. He did pledge all kinds of money. He did promise to give away the store. He pledged all kinds of new aid to help in this process. So it's an amazing thing, the 1967 borders, give up the buffer zones. The one thing again, and I'm gonna have to dig deep on this, and it's gonna be tough for me to find this during the program. I hope I can, but I don't quite understand Israel offering this as a bargaining chip. I don't know what they would get for it, but that's the scuttlebutt. The scuttlebutt is that Israel was gonna offer this themselves, a return to the '67 borders. And again, even if that happened to be true, they can't now because Obama's just demanded it, not made it a bargaining chip. Israel, I don't know what they hope to gain by this.

I remember on that trip, it was in the summer of 1993, five-day trip, it was profoundly informative, moving, and educational. I had a chance to talk with many of the leaders of the day -- Rabin, Shimon Peres -- some of this I look back on, it was funny, I remember sitting in Shimon Peres's office, he kept buckling and unbuckling his belt while seated. I tried not to comment on it. I tried not to even look like I noticed it. But he had obviously been prepared, done his homework, 'cause he kept ragging on Ronald Reagan and the trees, that Reagan had done great damage to the trees. So I think he was jabbing me in a way, trying to get a rise, but the belt buckle thing I never quite got. When I had a chance to talk with Rabin, remember, we didn't know it at the time we were there, but they were in the midst of secret discussions to give up even more of the country with Arafat. These talks were going on I think in Germany. We didn't learn about this 'til a couple months later.

I asked Rabin, "Why are you all of a sudden willing to make deals with people who have sworn your extermination? Intellectually I don't understand it." I said, "Is it because of your age and you've lived your entire life at war, and you don't want that for your kids?" And he swore that's not what it was. And he said this was the time this had to be done to end hostilities. The highlight was getting a three-hour tour of settlements in the West Bank on a bus with Ariel Sharon, who, of course, had no desire to give up anything. And the people of the West Bank, we stopped at a couple houses in the West Bank, and the people there loved Ariel Sharon. We had a Mossad briefing, went up to the Golan Heights. And that was kind of moving, too.

At the military installation in the Golan Heights I remember asking a young 19-year-old member of the Israeli Defense Forces something along the lines of why, other than conscription, why do you do this? And he said, "I want you to look over there." And he pointed in the direction -- "See, that's Syria." And it was, you know, a couple cornfields away. I mean it was right there, is the point. "See over there? That's Jordan." They can see the land representing every country that wants them wiped out. And then he pointed down the bottom of the hill. He said, "You see that? That's my house where my mom and dad and my sister live. That's why I do this. We're surrounded. We're totally surrounded."

Okay. Psst. Media tweak time, folks, Media Tweak of the Day. Don't tell anybody. Time for the media tweak. Given the partial mission of Osama Bin Laden, you have to know that there are places in the Middle East today who think it's just a shame he didn't live to see this day, after this speech by an American president. If he woulda just hung on a couple of more weeks, they are no doubt saying at Al-Qaeda camps, at Taliban camps, Sheik Bin Laden would have been so happy. They're no doubt saying that after hearing this speech.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay, we'll get to the phones here just a second, but I have one little thing. I did get a note here from someone familiar with the internal political workings of the state of Israel. "Rush, the 1967 borders, as a basis for two states, is not a big deal. The vast majority of Israelis favor it or are at least politically reconciled to that. That's not a big deal. The real news in this speech is that Obama advocates a two-state deal without first settling the claims of the Palestinian refugees from 1948 to a right of return." You're familiar with that term? The right of return means the 1948 refugees demand a return to their homes in pre-1967 Israel. "If that were part of any deal that would of course destroy Israel as a Jewish state, it would be overrun. And it's an extreme demand that nobody in Israel can or ever would accept, and until the Palestinians agree, as they haven't, to relinquish this right, there can't be a deal."

There will not be two states unless the Palestinians give up on that. And they haven't, and they won't, and my old buddy here says if Obama can't say that in public, he's being irresponsible or worse. Now, I'm assuming here that all of this is pap. This whole speech today is designed to be something other than what it came off being. It celebrates the Arab Spring, aligning against Israel, all of this, there's no question about it. But to have a genuine two-state existence, the right of return has to be dealt with, and it hasn't been. It wasn't even mentioned and as such to talk about a two-state solution without mentioning a right of return is irresponsible.

So here you have grandstanding on the part of the president for his own personal political purposes, without regard to the results of anything on the ground in Israel. It's not surprising. It's not surprising Obama would hijack something that everybody thinks is of great, major import; would hijack something that everybody thinks portends major change for the region, when in fact it doesn't at all. And yet he gets credit for being ahead of major change when nothing really is going to happen. You talk about meddling in another country's affairs. You know, I don't know. I don't live in Israel, obviously. I keep hearing here the '67 borders, not a big deal to Israelis. To me, it seems like suicide. But what do I know? I'm not an Israeli, and I don't live here.

We'll shake all this out. (interruption) What is our foreign policy? What is Obama's foreign policy? It's called reelect 2012 Barack Obama. I shoulda mentioned this at the top because it's true of everything that he's doing now, foreign policy, domestic or what have you. You have to look at all this through the prism of the Obama reelect effort. Our foreign policy is reelect Obama. It's not so much what our foreign policy is, is they believe in the power of speeches to win votes. They believe in the aggressive use of speeches, pure and simple. He knows full well that by tomorrow everybody's gonna have forgotten the nuts and bolts of what he said, that Israel is not gonna go to the '67 borders because the Palestinians are not gonna cave on the right to return, so nothing's really gonna change except he's gonna have made one hell of a good speech that the media will be able to go back to it and say it was thoughtful, it was sincere, it was serious, all that rotgut. Everything's designed to make Obama look good, Snerdley. You know that.

Break Transcript

RUSH: This is Kevin, St. Clairsville, Ohio. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. Longtime listener. I've been a listener since 1988.

RUSH: Thank you, sir, that's from the get-go.

CALLER: Yes, sir. And the reason I was calling was to weigh in on the president's speech today. My theory is that with him asking the Israelis to pull back to the '67 borders, I think Israel is being set up in that obviously I don't believe that Israel is just gonna roll over and play dead and do what President Obama wants them to do. But the average person out there who isn't informed enough about what's going on in the Middle East, when Israel fails to do that, and then, you know, this is the beginning of making the Israelis look like the bad guys, in other words, making them look like --

RUSH: Oh, yeah.

CALLER: -- the poor Palestinians --

RUSH: Absolutely.

CALLER: -- are really trying, but the Israelis --

RUSH: Oh, yeah, there's no question that's the point. As I was just reading, somebody had a point here that I can't remember -- I am absorbing so much -- Israel is paying the price for Barack Obama's lack of popularity in the Arab world. That's how somebody here has just put it, and I wish I could remember who said it so that I could credit them, but you're exactly right. Israel is paying the price for Obama's lack of popularity, and his attempt to regain it in the Middle East.

Now, get this. This is just in from the Jerusalem Post. Now, remember, my media tweak on today's program was that you just know that in certain terrorist enclaves of the Middle East, they're saying, "Damn it, if only Sheik Bin Laden could have been alive to hear this speech, to hear the plan offered for the destruction of Israel. If only Sheik Bin Laden could have heard." You know they're saying this.

And from the Jerusalem Post: "Right-Wing Members of the Knesset are Calling Obama the New Arafat -- 'Barack Hussein Obama adopted the staged plan for Israel's destruction of Yasser Arafat, and he is trying to force it on our prime minister,' said Likud MK Danny Danon. 'All that was new in the speech was that he called for Israel to return to 1967 borders without solving the crisis. Netanyahu has only one option: To tell Obama forget about it.'" So the caller says Obama is playing the Arab street, and he is. He's trying to define the Arab Spring here as an Arab uprising. You know, going back to '67, the more I've looked into this the more I have found that it's not that big a deal to Israelis, that apparently it was going to be a bargaining chip that Netanyahu was prepared to use, but he can't now since Obama has appropriated it for himself.

Tantamount here, though, is the right of return. And without acknowledging that, there cannot be a two-state solution, because the Israelis are not ever gonna agree to a right of return. If there was, there's no Israel left, and the Palestinians are never gonna formally agree to a right of return, so there's never gonna be an agreement here. You know, I am not a diplomat and I didn't go to school to be a diplomat, and I'm therefore, in these circles, not qualified, but I'm just gonna tell you here, folks, from the streets of common sense. For as long as I've been alive we've been going through this dog and pony show of negotiated peace settlements in the Middle East, and there's no such thing. It is never going to happen, and it never does happen.

Peace results from one side emerging victorious in the conflict, the other side losing and surrendering. Until that happens, all of this... it's amazing, there are careers planned for, there are careers built on this never being solved. I mean the last thing diplomats at the State Department want is a solution for any of this. There's no reason for them, then. It's like the Reverend Jackson really doesn't want to end racial strife, 'cause there's no reason for the Monochrome Coalition. These people feed off of this stuff. But just using simple common sense, how can you expect there to be a negotiated peace between two parties when one side has as its objective the extermination of the other side? You can throw all the striped-pants diplomat bigwigs in the State Department at me all day long and nobody's gonna ever be able to persuade me that I'm full of it. This is to me just simple, pure common sense.

I don't know about you, but as a citizen, it doesn't matter who the president is, it doesn't matter what world leaders are; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, boy, what a purpose it serves. It serves a purpose for presidents to be great like Clinton wanted to be great. It offered a forum for Arafat to be whatever he wanted to be. In fact, you know, proof of what I'm saying, there was a point in time when Clinton gave Arafat everything he was asking for, and Arafat ran away from it and hid. He was stunned and he was shocked. But this conflict is just too handy for too many people. It offers too much too much opportunity for too many people. A bunch of think tank people have an opportunity to make careers as great thinkers by being Middle East experts, all the guest opportunities on the cable network shows, all the writing opportunities, the publishing opportunities, sitting in this distinguished chair, or that distinguished chair, at this prestigious think tank or what have you, never solving anything. Never, ever getting anything done.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The Council Has Spoken!!

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week, carved eternally in the records of cyberspace in our inner sanctum.


This week's winning article, Why we don't revere our intellectuals by The Colossus of Rhody, took a far reaching look at exactly what intellectual has come to mean in our society and why many of us don't revere them - and it has nothing to do with their intellectual capacity, but with something else entirely. Here's a slice:

Insty had a brief blurb up linking to a Guardian (UK) article which asks "Why don't we love our intellectuals?" In response, Insty also linked to articles by Christopher Hitchens and the inimitable James Taranto. The question is a good one; conventional wisdom, such that it is, posits that conservatives are the "anti-intellctual" crowd ... you'll see this conceit uttered frequently by folks like the usual suspects, and by those "big brains" in the mainstream media. As partial evidence, it's conservatives who are frequently made fun of and derided. George W. Bush was a total buffoon -- even though he had better college grades than Al Gore; Dan Quayle was a walking, talking gaffe machine -- but our current veep actually makes Quayle look like a professional motivational speaker; Ronald Reagan was a "lovable dunce;" Sarah Palin is [insert demeaning comment]," etc. etc. etc.

Take Hitchens' article next: He dissects the "intellectual" that is Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is sort of a radical leftist academic pop-culture icon (he got a nice gratuitous shout out in Matt Damon's "Good Will Hunting," for instance), who somehow has managed to evolve into this deeply heavy political and cultural thinker even though his area of expertise is ... linguistics. He is greatly admired by a former big-time Delaware blogger many of you probably know, Dana Garrett. Let me state right up front that I love Dana to death -- he's an incredibly nice and personable fellow, who actually listens to conservative arguments and concedes good points when they're made ... a very rare trait for a progressive. (Notice that I did not put quotations around the word "progressive" this time like I normally do, for Dana is a true progressive.) Chomsky was one of the [many] items Dana and I argued about back in the day. It's easy to understand why the noted linguist is endeared by progressives: the virtually constant tendency to side with the "underdog," taking up the cause of the historically oppressed, fighting for minorities and the poor, etc. The problem is that Chomsky and his acolytes will overlook virtually every negative aspect about the causes they take up. Why? To be consistent? Because maintaining a contrarian view is of utmost importance? This leads to what historian Paul Johnson (noted in the Guardian article) stated about people like Chomsky -- they are "moral cretins."

Hitchens' article dissects much of this aspect, and is pretty much in line with how I feel about him. In this case, 'ol Noam chimed in on the death of Osama bin Laden where he questioned the al Qaeda leader's actual responsibility for 9/11, said bin Laden was no worse than George W. Bush, and claimed that, by our commando raid on bin Laden's compound, we thus "would justify a contingency whereby 'Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.'" Chomsky also complained that bin Laden's killing was a "planned assassination," and that he "should have been accorded all the rights of criminal suspects."

It should come as little surprise, then, that bin Laden was apparently a fan of the MIT professor.

Our non-Council winner this week was Sultan Knish's Allahu Akbar, an explanation of what that often heard term really means...and more importantly, how and when it's used. An important read.



Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

• First place with 3 2/3 votes! The Colossus of Rhodey–-Why We Don't Revere Our Intellectuals


• Second place with 2 1/3 votes – Joshuapundit-Historical Resonance, Barack Obama And The Coming Election


• Third place *t* with 2 votes – Snapped Shot-Shooting al-Aqsa


• Third place *t* with 2 votes – The Noisy Room-A Kinder, Gentler Hatchet Job


• Fourth place with 1 1/3 vote – The Glittering Eye – Why does The Unemployment Rate Stay So High?


• Fifth place with 1 vote – Bookworm Room – Community Servitude


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – New Zeal – Rapping for the Rev’lution: ‘Pac Was a Teenaged Communist


• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – VA Right! – Republican 2012 Presidential Field Goes Jurassic as RINO-Saur Gingrich Jumps in the Primordial Ooze

Non-Council Winners

• First place with 3 1/3 votes! – Sultan Knish- Allahu Akbar submitted byNew Zeal


• Second place with 2 1/3 votes – Gates Of Vienna – The Intrusion of Sharia Into American Justice submitted by Joshuapundit


• Third place *t* with 1 vote -Wired/Danger Room – NATO Choppers, Pakistani Troops ‘Exchange Fire' submitted by Right Truth


• Third place *t* with 1 vote -Maggie's Farm/Bruce Kesler – What My Grandfather Taught Me About Honor submitted by Bookworm Room


• Third place *t* with 1 vote -Pajamas media/Victor Davis Hanson – End Of An idea - Why Affirmative Action Should Stop submitted by Rhymes With Right


• Third place *t* with 1 vote -Via Meadea – Establishment Blues submitted by The Glittering Eye


• Third place *t* with 1 vote - Atlas Shrugs – New York City: Muslims March in Jewish Genocide Bund Rally; "Third Intifada" Marches Round the World submitted by The Watcher


• Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote -Big Government/Kyle Olson – IL Tea Party Activists Expose Alleged Gift Cards-For-Votes School Scam submitted by The Noisy Room


• Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote -The Reaganite Republican – Iran Moving Ahead on Venezuelan Missile Bases that Bring Miami Well Within Range submitted by The Political Commentator


• Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote -Doug Ross – My response To HuffPo's "Constitutional Expert" submitted by The Watcher


• Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote -Israellycool – Nakba Caption Bias of the Day submitted by Snapped Shot

See you next week!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

German Company Rewards Salesmen With Orgy

Ah, what a unique company benefit!

German insurance company Munich RE is one of the largest re-insurers in the world, and ERGO, one of their divisions must be a particularly happy place to work.

Back in 2007 ERGO rewarded its top sales people and executives with an orgy in the Hungarian capital of Budapest.

Apparently there were about a hundred participants and twenty prostitutes at the affair, and ( this part made me laugh) with typical Germanic efficiency the prostitutes all wore color-coded arm-bands designating whether they were available or not and and the women had their arms stamped after each, umm..servicing.

According to Handelsblatt, quoting an unnamed participant, guests were able to take the women to four-poster beds at the spa "and do whatever they liked".

"After each such encounter the women were stamped on the lower arm in order to keep track of how often each woman was frequented," the paper quoted the man as saying.

"The women wore red and yellow wrist bands. One lot were hostesses, the others would fulfill your every wish.

"There were also women with white wrist bands. They were reserved for board members and the very best sales reps."

I can just see it now. You see someone that catches your fancy, walk up to her and get told, " Hans, you only increased your sales quota by twenty per cent. Go find one of the yellow band girls, and try and do better next year, ja?"

A spokesman for ERGO admitted that yes, the orgy happened but also said that it was not the usual way the company rewarded their employees.

Work hard, play hard!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Netanyahu Rejects Obama's Call For Palestinian State Based on '49 Armistice Lines

Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu was fairly quick to reject Obama's call for a 'Palestinian' state based on the 1949 Armistice lines ( that's actually what the pre-'67 lines actually were..they were never borders).

Netanyahu has a perfectly logical reason for doing so..in a statement released today, Netanyahu said a withdrawal to the pre '67 lines would jeopardize Israel's security and leave major Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria outside Israeli borders.

"Israel appreciates President Obama's commitment to peace," the statement said. "Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state. That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004. ... Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines."

Actually, President Obama's actual speech did talk about a settlement based on the '67 lines with adjustments,which is actually a retreat to the agreement Bush and Sharon had - you know, the one Hillary and Obama swore never happened. But the harsh language Obama used towards Israel not only made Netanyahu react but Israel's many supporters here in the US as well.

You see, when the president is addressing the Israelis, it's always in the command tone about concrete demands he wants from Israel. When he addresses the Palestinians, he's not demanding anything concrete, he just says that Palestinians will get what they want if they do what he's asking.

For instance , Israel must end settlement activity. But the Palestinians should realize that
' efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure.' Not that the Palestinians must end demonizing Israel, or that the US won't support them if they fail to do so..just that it might not be such a good idea. Israel must accede to a peace settlement must be based on pre-1967 lines. But
Fatah allying with a genocidal Hamas is only 'problematical' when it comes to negotiations, not a game ender.

Half of the Democrats in Congress are already pushing for aid to be cut off to the Palestinians because of Fatah's menage with Hamas, and after today, those efforts will intensify.

And if President Obama was hoping to reassure Jewish voters and donors with today's speech and his weekend appearance before AIPAC, he really miscalculated. The true believers like J Street will still drink the Kool-ade, but some Jewish support for Obama is likely to erode.

Even worse, by telling the 'Palestinians' that 'Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state' and insisting 'Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist' he angered them as well.

Our president is a man of unique talents, if that's the word for it. He seems to be able to infuriate both sides of a given dispute almost at will.

And oh yes, I almost forgot - after our amateur president's performance today and his remarks on Yemen and Bahrain, Saudi King Abdullah probably wanted to emasculate Obama personally.

The always scintillating J.E. Dyer has more over at Hot Air

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Missing The Point Of Obama's Middle East Speech On Israel

As I predicted, President Obama's Middle East speech dealt only peripherally with Israel and the Palestinians, although you'd never know that to see the media coverage. The Drudge headline based on the AP story, 'Obama sides with Palestinians' is typical.

What Obama actually did was retreat back to endorsing President Bush's agreement with Sharon RE: The Roadmap, the 1948 lines with adjustments to reflect demographic reality. You know, the one Obama and Hillary swore never existed.And Obama, just like Bush, pointedly left out Jerusalem.

Of course, being Obama, he crouched it in such harsh language, referring to a 'Palestinian' state 'based on the '67 borders' and the 'humiliation of permanent occupation' that the Israelis and their considerable base of supporters will end up being livid.

For that matter, what President Obama endorsed today is pretty damned close to Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu's peace proposal, including a demilitarized 'Palestinian' state.

None of it matters, since the 'Palestinians' won't accept any of it anyway, and the Israelis are not going to go back to the '67 lines unless they're suicidal. And President Obama is fully aware of that.

He likewise told the 'Palestinians' that the US will not support their efforts to circumvent negotiations and declare a state via the UN, ( which could just mean we abstain instead of using a veto) and that the US is going to wait and see how the new Hamas/Fatah beast behaves, and if they at least give lip service to the idea of recognizing Israel.

This of course will tick off the 'Palestinians' yet again another case of our amateur president angering both sides of a dispute!

This was President Obama's way of trying to back away from the mess he created - at least for now.

The main point of today's festivities was to announce more jirzyah for the Arabs and to lay the ground for legitimizing the Muslim Brotherhood.

As I mentioned before, this is a speech along the lines of the Leftist politicians who were insisting circa 1948 that Mao was just an 'agrarian reformer'.

(via memeorandum)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Live Blogging Obama's Speech

Again, I watch and listen to this stuff so you don't have too..a fairly naive and unanchored speech, but with a couple of surprises.


9:12 - Hillary's opening remarks - yecch!

9:14 - Obama's up...Yes, a eulogizing of the Arab Spring. The US and the Arabs are bound by faith?

9:15: yep, we're bringing the troops home...and hey I killed bin-Laden so the war's over!

9:16: Al Qaeda was bad..not like the good guys, the Arab Spring/Muslim Brotherhood.

9:17 Funny to hear Obama talking about government tyranny!

9:18- Now he's comparing Arab Spring to our revolution, and Rosa Parks!

9:20 - Obama hits the Arab antagonism to Israel as a cynical distraction..he's right there, and it surprises me to hear him say it.

9:22 - Freedom, dignity, yadda yadda...'non-violent action accomplished more in months than terrorism has in years.' We'll see if the Arabs agree.

9:24 - Mentions non-proliferation of nuclear arms...but not Iran!

9:25 - We will keep our commitments to friends and partners? Tell Mubarak that!

9:26 - Here we go,hope n'change...let's hear what he's selling.

9:27 - Here's the caveat 'their version of democracy and their aims might not align with our own'..he's preparing the ground for acceptance of MB regimes.

9:28 - Says US policy will be to support reform and the Arab Spring.

9:30 - Hits Khaddaffi, justifies our involvement on the basis of human rights. Claims we had a mandate for action..that would be the UN's rsponsibility to protect' doctrine, 'R2P' - no mention of Syria yet.

9:31 - OK, he mentions Syria. But sanctions, no armed force.

9:32 Calls for Assad to lead the transition to democracy or 'get out of the way.' Hits Iran for hypocrisy on repression..but again, no mention of any concrete action.

9:33 - refers to Iran's support of terrorism - surprising!

9:34 - Calls for Yemeni president to step down, calls for Bahrain government to step down, even though he acknowledges Iran is 'taking advantage'. Is he suggesting those countries be ceded to Iranian control? The Saudis will love that one.

9:35 Refers to Iraq as a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy. Ask the Christians about that, who are fleeing in droves. His nose should have grown a foot for that one alone.

9:37 - OK, we'll see more student visas for Arabs and Muslims...lovely.

9:38 - America respects the right of all voices to be heard - ( like the Muslim Brotherhood)

9:39 - Tahrir Square 'Muslims, Christians, we are one' - He would never mention the chants of Jew Jew while Lara Logan was being gang raped, or MB leader and Jew hater Qaradawi speaking before thousands there. Briefly mentions Copts, but I doubt any aid we give Egypt will be tied to their righ tto live in peace.

9:40 - Women's rights and empowerment..OK, easy applause line.

9:41 - OK, here comes the price tag for the US taxpayers.Talks about promoting financial stability - never mind here at home!

9:43 - We're going to start with Egypt and Tunisia. US will forgive $1 billion in debts, $1 billion in loan guarantees for Egypt. We're also going to create 'investment funds' ala' the Marshall Plan. Comprehensive trade and investment plan, trade liberalization - I wonder, will that abrogate the US law prohibiting US companies from participating in the Arab's anti-Israeli boycott? Probably.

9:47 - Here it comes, look out Israel...

9:48 Acknowledges 2 years of work on Israeli-Palestinian peace was a failure.

9:49 - Says Palestinian efforts to work through UN in statehood will not be successful..which means US will not support it.

9:50 - Usual stuff on US supporting Israel's security. Calls Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria 'permanent occupation'. Says peace cannot be imposed. Endorsing two-state solution. Calls for a viable Palestine, a secure Israel.Calls for borders on pre-1967 lines, with land swaps. Sovereign contiguous Palestine? If 'Palestine' is contiguous, Israel cannot be.

9:53 - Calls for Palestine to be a non-militarized state.Fatah and Hamas reject that utterly.

9:54 - Admits he's not addressing issues of refugees and Jerusalem. Calls for negotiations to resume, but acknowledges Hamas/Fatah unity a problem.Meanwhile, we;ll still give 'em our money.

9:56 - A choice between hate and hope..

9:58 - Obama now compares the 'Arab Spring' to US revolution again.

10:00 - 'Hardship always follows a season of hope.'

The bottom line - we're going to work with the new Muslim Brotherhood governments and give them money.Obama sees these new governments as comparable to our American revolution and the civil rights struggle.

On the 'Palestinian'- Israeli conflict, nothing new. The 'Palestinians' in particular will never accept what he's offering as a solution, so I expect that the 'peace' process is on hold for now, until the US sees how the Hamas/Fatah creature behaves. The US will not try to impose a peace agreement or support the 'Palestinians' unilateral attempt to gain statehood via the UN.

Obama is going to do nothing concrete on Syria or on Iran's nuclear program aside from rhetoric.

That's pretty much it.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Barack Obama's New Middle East Gambit

President Obama has a new, improved Middle East gambit he's planning to unveil before he makes his trip to Europe next week.

The president is scheduled to speak before AIPAC this coming weekend at their annual conference. It's getting closer to election time and the president is not exactly noted for either his warmth for AIPAC or for Israel. So you can expect a speech swimming in non-specific platitudes with about the same level of honesty as the one he gave at AIPAC before the 2008 election. The president will get a polite reception, but this is not 2008.

Obama is also reportedly considering making a trip to Israel, perhaps in June to accept Israeli President Shimon Peres' invitation to attend Peres' "Presidents' Conference" in Jerusalem. I personally doubt he'll go , but if he does it will be very restricted and carefully planned to keep the Israeli public away. He's not too popular there.

But before the president speaks in front of AIPAC and before Israeli PM Netanyahu addresses Congress, President Obama has a speech planned to address the Muslim world that is being dubbed 'Cairo II', a reference to Obama's 2008 apologia to the Muslim world that took place in that city.That's going to be the key to what happens next.

The president has apparently ruled out unearthing yet another major US peace initiative for the 'Palestinians' and Israel just now, despite what you may have heard. Aside from a passing reference to the need to resolve the conflict and have Israel sit down with the new Hamas/Fatah creature for peace talks, I doubt we'll hear much. The upcoming Cairo II speech will deal with different subject matter and Obama has very different goals in mind for it.

So what is President Obama up to in the Middle East? What will he say on Thursday?

To predict that, let's remember a few things:

The president's chief foreign policy aim has always been what in his mind is a 'reset' between the Muslim world, as he calls it, and America. He wants a realignment of American foreign policy to reflect that and has pursued it avidly, and the fact that this policy has largely failed hasn't changed anything for him.

This president is an intensely political animal, and he is addressing two audiences here - the Muslim world and his political constituency at home.

What I think the president will attempt to do is use the killing of Osama bin-Laden as a 'reset button' to essentially declare any hostilities between America and the Islamic world over and to declare a new era of outreach to the Muslim world.

That part of the speech will be mostly for his American constituency, since a significant part of his Muslim listeners consider bin-Laden a hero and martyr. He will obliquely refer to al-Qaeda as hijacking Islam, 'the religion of peace' and will point towards the revolts in Egypt and Libya as a cure.

What President Obama is going to embark on here is the beginning of no less than the legitimization of the Muslim Brotherhood. He will wax poetic about the 'Arab spring' to do it. Not only will he need to continue to endorse the 'Arab Spring' for his audience in the Muslim World, he will have to convince Americans that this is a good thing for US interest in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary.

President Obama had a large part in orchestrating the current unrest in the Arab World and the rise of the Brotherhood, the Ikhwan. He went out of his way to meet, recognize and assist members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, insisting that they be allowed to attend his Cairo speech and then summarily dumping US ally Egyptian President Mubarak without a backward glance after helping to undermining him. There are a number of people in his administration with close ties to the Brotherhood, like Obama's hand picked ambassador to the Organization of Islamic Conferences, Rashad Husayn.

What's at stake in terms of American interests is no less than an Ikhwan controlled Caliphate in Libya, Egypt and in 'Palestine', controlled by the Brotherhood's 'Palestinian' branch Hamas and on friendly terms with Iran..who just coincidentally are the instigators and backers of the two other outpourings of the Arab Spring, Yemen and Bahrain.

In the late 1940's during the Chinese civil war, there were a number of Leftist politicians who referred to Mao as 'an agrarian reformer' to justify US support for what when then referred to as Chinese democracy. It was only much later that Mao's true nature became known, and by then it was too late to do anything about it.

The president's speech will be of a similar nature, and he will undoubtedly include US largess in the form of financial aid and in the case of Egypt, debt forgiveness.

But the Arab Spring's true nature can be seen in the above wall poster painted by the Libyan refugees we are supporting, by a reading of the Hamas charter and a careful look at what Hamas and Fatah are saying, by the attacks in Egypt on the Copts, and by remembering that the first major gathering in Egypt's Tahrir Square after the revolt featured Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a religious leader who is banned in America and much of Europe and who claims that Allah sent Hitler to destroy the Jews and that it is up to Muslims to finish the job.

That is the true face of the 'Arab Spring' ....not a move towards freedom and democracy as we understand it but simply replacing one form of despotism with another.

President Obama is like the Sorcerer's Apprentice when it comes to the Middle East, meddling in things he doesn't quite grasp and then running around frantically when the results get out of hand and he gets in over his head. It will be interesting to see what he has to say.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Iran's Bushehr Plant Now Operational

The Iranians are saying that Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant is now fully operational.

According to an interview with Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Saleh on Iran's state-run Press TV, the plant has successfully reached criticality, a term used to describe the point in a nuclear reaction when the fissile material is self-sustaining.

"This stage lasts for two months. We hope the plant will gain some 40 percent of its power within the next one or two months," Salehi added.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov had said last week that the Bushehr plant would be fully operational 'within a few weeks.'

Bushehr is the most public Iranian nuclear facilities, and the Iranians have a number of other clandestine sites under wraps, like their heavy water reactor at Arak. A heavy water reactor, by the way, has has no real peaceful application.

In a separate item, the Iranians are simply denying the contents of a UN report that says that Iran and North Korea have regularly been exchanging ballistic missile and nuclear technology.

Of course, you read about this here on Joshuapundit first, about three years ago.

Needless to say, I doubt the UN is going to be doing anything about yet another blatant violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran signed.

As for our president, I hope someone manages to interrupt his golf game to tell him that these developments are a bit more of concern to the United States than killing Osama bin-Laden and stealing his pornography stash.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!