What follows is an excerpt from a blog posting written by Elliott Abrams on the Council on Foreign Relations web site. The posting concerns the recent US veto in the UN Security Council of a resoultion put forward by the Palestinian Authority to condemn Israel for settlement activity in the West Bank.
'On the last day before the vote, the President called Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The Israeli press reported that “In a 50-minute phone call, he asked Abbas to drop the resolution and settle for a non-binding statement condemning settlement expansion, Palestinian officials said. Abbas on Friday received a follow-up call from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the issue, the Palestinian news agency Wafa said.” But apparently the President did more than ask: “One senior Palestinian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the offer, made in an hour-long phone call from Obama, was accompanied by veiled threats of ‘repercussions’ if it were refused.
‘Obama threatened on Thursday night to take measures against the Palestinian Authority if it insists on going to the Security Council to condemn Israeli settlement activity, and demand that it be stopped,’ the official said. ‘There will be repercussions for Palestinian-American relations if you continue your attempts to go to the Security Council and ignore our requests in this matter, especially as we suggested other alternatives,’ the official quoted Obama as telling Abbas.” Abbas rejected the Clinton and Obama appeals and/or ignored their threats, in itself a sign of reduced American diplomatic influence.'
The President of the United States being ignored by a leader who's continued rule depends almost exclusively on American financial and military support. What does that say about this President's ability to influence events around the World?
We have become spectators on the World stage. I suppose we better get used to this. At least for another two years.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Saturday, February 19, 2011
American Hostages on Yacht and Other Thoughts
1. Any American dumb enough to sail their yacht into the Indian Ocean is too dumb to risk American lives to rescue. It is one thing to be taken hostage aboard an oil tanker or a commercial vessel. Those crews have no choice but to sail through dangerous waters. But recreational boaters (or yachters, if that is the appropriate term) have no business being in those waters and if they are, they should bear the risk and not the U.S. military, who is already, no doubt, on their way to rescue them. Just my opinion.
2. We have an entitlement program spending problem that threatens to bankrupt our country and our elected officials have not yet figured out that we want them to fix it. They are still playing politics with our financial future. Until such time that they understand that they need to take action now, we should continue to vote them out until we reach the right mix of courageous individuals who are not necessarily interested in a career in the House or Senate, but are interested in serving their Nation bravely. And, taking the action necessary to change the curve of future spending. Be they GOP or Dems, they need to go . . . until we get action to address our structural spending.
3. Wisconsin is no Side Show. What is going on in Madison is the real deal and only the begining of what will be the Fight of the Century. That is, the fight brewing between the taxpayers and the public employee unions. This war will go on for years and will consist of many battles like the one unfolding in Madison. In the end, the taxpayers of this country are going to take back our country from the unholy alliance of public employee unions and entrenched political powers. It will take time and it will be a bloody affair, but there is no choice. We can not continue to fund promises made by gutless political ghosts over the past few decades.
Most private corporations changed from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans a decade, or more, ago. Why? Because defined benefit plans are unaffordable and private companies did the math and realized they would be bankrupt if they continued to fund a defined benefit plan. Our gutless politicans have been unwilling to address this issue over the last several decades, because it will cost them votes and might cost them their office. Because politics has become a career for many of them, they have been unwilling to make the hard choices necessary to save us. So the battle is being taken "to the streets" of our state capitols and will also be fought in our city and county governments. Sooner or later, a brave political force will win one of these battles and then you better stand back or you will get rolled over by the force of change.
2. We have an entitlement program spending problem that threatens to bankrupt our country and our elected officials have not yet figured out that we want them to fix it. They are still playing politics with our financial future. Until such time that they understand that they need to take action now, we should continue to vote them out until we reach the right mix of courageous individuals who are not necessarily interested in a career in the House or Senate, but are interested in serving their Nation bravely. And, taking the action necessary to change the curve of future spending. Be they GOP or Dems, they need to go . . . until we get action to address our structural spending.
3. Wisconsin is no Side Show. What is going on in Madison is the real deal and only the begining of what will be the Fight of the Century. That is, the fight brewing between the taxpayers and the public employee unions. This war will go on for years and will consist of many battles like the one unfolding in Madison. In the end, the taxpayers of this country are going to take back our country from the unholy alliance of public employee unions and entrenched political powers. It will take time and it will be a bloody affair, but there is no choice. We can not continue to fund promises made by gutless political ghosts over the past few decades.
Most private corporations changed from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans a decade, or more, ago. Why? Because defined benefit plans are unaffordable and private companies did the math and realized they would be bankrupt if they continued to fund a defined benefit plan. Our gutless politicans have been unwilling to address this issue over the last several decades, because it will cost them votes and might cost them their office. Because politics has become a career for many of them, they have been unwilling to make the hard choices necessary to save us. So the battle is being taken "to the streets" of our state capitols and will also be fought in our city and county governments. Sooner or later, a brave political force will win one of these battles and then you better stand back or you will get rolled over by the force of change.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Obama Hastens The Waning of American Power
How could it be that this Administration, which came in with a stated desire to restore American influence and respect in the World, is actually contributing to the acceleration of our decline as a World Power.
It is happening before our very eyes. We move a notch down when our President commands so little respect that the King of Saudi Arabia calls him up and yells at him for 30 minutes, threatening to take our place in providing the financial support to Egypt that we hinted we would withhold if Mubarak did not stand down. Like or dislike the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the problem for us is that it is no secret to the rest of the World that the 87 year old King dressed down our President for 30 minutes on the phone. You can just imagine how that call went . . . "yes sir, Your Highness . . . no sir, Your Highness . . . we're trying Your Highness . . . " Our foreign policy on Egypt during the last few weeks has been so scatter-shot, disorganized and without direction that it confused everyone. And, now, like the rooster taking credit for the sun rising, Obama supporters are claiming victory, as if the genius Obama Plan worked, afterall. Pahhhhleeze . . .
We move a notch down when our leader gets the cold shoulder at the G-20 meeting, when he suggested further financial stimulus was needed. We whine about the valuation of the Chinese Yuan and China's leaders lecture our President on profligate spending. We are the spendthrifts of the World, spending more than 1.5 Trillion dollars more than we have . . . this year alone. We will have trillion dollar deficits for years . . . this is depressing.
I know that my friends on the Left are going to say that this is all Bush's fault, but my question back to them is . . . when does that crutch stop working? At what point is President Obama responsible for outcome? And, if he is so ineffective that he can't change our course, then maybe he should step aside for the good of the country.
Perhaps we had our century and that what is happening is a natural passing of the baton to the next World Order . . . China, India, the BRIC countries . . . we will share power with them in the coming decades. But, do we need to pursue policies that actually help this process along?
2012 . . . 2012 . . . 2012
It is happening before our very eyes. We move a notch down when our President commands so little respect that the King of Saudi Arabia calls him up and yells at him for 30 minutes, threatening to take our place in providing the financial support to Egypt that we hinted we would withhold if Mubarak did not stand down. Like or dislike the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the problem for us is that it is no secret to the rest of the World that the 87 year old King dressed down our President for 30 minutes on the phone. You can just imagine how that call went . . . "yes sir, Your Highness . . . no sir, Your Highness . . . we're trying Your Highness . . . " Our foreign policy on Egypt during the last few weeks has been so scatter-shot, disorganized and without direction that it confused everyone. And, now, like the rooster taking credit for the sun rising, Obama supporters are claiming victory, as if the genius Obama Plan worked, afterall. Pahhhhleeze . . .
We move a notch down when our leader gets the cold shoulder at the G-20 meeting, when he suggested further financial stimulus was needed. We whine about the valuation of the Chinese Yuan and China's leaders lecture our President on profligate spending. We are the spendthrifts of the World, spending more than 1.5 Trillion dollars more than we have . . . this year alone. We will have trillion dollar deficits for years . . . this is depressing.
I know that my friends on the Left are going to say that this is all Bush's fault, but my question back to them is . . . when does that crutch stop working? At what point is President Obama responsible for outcome? And, if he is so ineffective that he can't change our course, then maybe he should step aside for the good of the country.
Perhaps we had our century and that what is happening is a natural passing of the baton to the next World Order . . . China, India, the BRIC countries . . . we will share power with them in the coming decades. But, do we need to pursue policies that actually help this process along?
2012 . . . 2012 . . . 2012
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Egyptian Turmoil . . . American Incompentence
Less than two years ago, when the rogue, international outlaw, regime in Iran was dealing with street protests (much larger and more widespread than the current Egyptian protests) and Iran was at the tipping point of possibly falling to a strong and deep democratic (small "d") movement, the Obama Administration's posture was that that was an internal problem for the Iranian people to sort out and that the U.S. was not going to get involved. The U.S. Governemnt did nothing publicly to support the democratic movement in Iran, which was subsequently, mercilessly, crushed by the ruling mullahs.
Today, the repressive Iranian regime is more in control of the country than before the protests and we missed a possibly once-in-a-generation opportunity to nudge that country towards the democratic column.
Flash forward to today, when the Mubarak regime in Egypt, a close U.S. ally for 30 years, is dealing with street protests. Today, the Obama Administration is threatening to pull our $1.5 Billion of annual support if the Mubarak regime uses force to quell the rebellion. While it is certainly true that Mubarak is no democrat (small "d") and that individual freedoms do not reign in Egypt today, it seemed that the Obama Administration's policy with respect to such matters, at least in the case of Iran, was to back away and let the people of the country in question determine their fate.
Is there something upside down in all this? Backing away from Iran while strongly inserting ourselves on the side of street protests in Egypt, our ally?
The U.S. Government could be hastening the fall of the Egyptian Government, not having a clue what kind of regime will follow in its wake. It is entirely possible that Egypt could morph into an Islamic ruled state, similar to Iran. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt and has strong roots there, to this day, despite being repressed for the last several decades. Arab Nationalism is a strong under-current in Egypt, and has been for decades, back to Nasser, and before. We have no idea what is next for Egypt if Mubarak falls.
The stakes are quite high for the U.S. in all this. Peace in the Middle East is dependent on a stable Egypt. If Egypt falls, the next regime may take a different approach to the Camp David Accords and to Israel. Already there is pressure in Egypt to develop nuclear weapons to counter the emerging Iranian nuclear threat. Imagine if a openly hostile regime were to take power in Egypt and start a crash program to develop nuclear weapons. What would you do if you were Israel in those circumstances? Where does the peace process go if Israel can not count on its Arab neighbors to honor their agreements? I have heard Israelis say that Camp David was one bullet away from being scrapped by the Egyptians. Is the U.S. actually loading the gun and providing the bullet for that?
One does not go gambling with uncertain outcomes when the consequences are so dire.
It just all seems so amateurish. So, wide-eyed and naive.
Threats to withhold aid should be made privately. Making them publicly only adds fuel to the fire and emboldens the street protesters. Do we want to do that when we don't know what is next in Egypt?
2012 can not come fast enough.
Today, the repressive Iranian regime is more in control of the country than before the protests and we missed a possibly once-in-a-generation opportunity to nudge that country towards the democratic column.
Flash forward to today, when the Mubarak regime in Egypt, a close U.S. ally for 30 years, is dealing with street protests. Today, the Obama Administration is threatening to pull our $1.5 Billion of annual support if the Mubarak regime uses force to quell the rebellion. While it is certainly true that Mubarak is no democrat (small "d") and that individual freedoms do not reign in Egypt today, it seemed that the Obama Administration's policy with respect to such matters, at least in the case of Iran, was to back away and let the people of the country in question determine their fate.
Is there something upside down in all this? Backing away from Iran while strongly inserting ourselves on the side of street protests in Egypt, our ally?
The U.S. Government could be hastening the fall of the Egyptian Government, not having a clue what kind of regime will follow in its wake. It is entirely possible that Egypt could morph into an Islamic ruled state, similar to Iran. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt and has strong roots there, to this day, despite being repressed for the last several decades. Arab Nationalism is a strong under-current in Egypt, and has been for decades, back to Nasser, and before. We have no idea what is next for Egypt if Mubarak falls.
The stakes are quite high for the U.S. in all this. Peace in the Middle East is dependent on a stable Egypt. If Egypt falls, the next regime may take a different approach to the Camp David Accords and to Israel. Already there is pressure in Egypt to develop nuclear weapons to counter the emerging Iranian nuclear threat. Imagine if a openly hostile regime were to take power in Egypt and start a crash program to develop nuclear weapons. What would you do if you were Israel in those circumstances? Where does the peace process go if Israel can not count on its Arab neighbors to honor their agreements? I have heard Israelis say that Camp David was one bullet away from being scrapped by the Egyptians. Is the U.S. actually loading the gun and providing the bullet for that?
One does not go gambling with uncertain outcomes when the consequences are so dire.
It just all seems so amateurish. So, wide-eyed and naive.
Threats to withhold aid should be made privately. Making them publicly only adds fuel to the fire and emboldens the street protesters. Do we want to do that when we don't know what is next in Egypt?
2012 can not come fast enough.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
More Consequences of a Weak Foreign Policy
It is no coincidence that North Korea sunk a South Korean submarine and is now shelling a South Korean island, killing several people. In the past, the regime in North Korea was satisfied just talking a big game, and building their nuclear program secretly. Now, they realize that the worst thing that will happen to them is the Obama Administration running to the UN and passing yet another resolution condemning North Korea. In other words, there are no real consequences.
This, on top of the humiliating treatment of the US President at the Group of 20 meeting ten days ago . . .
This, on top of the failure of the Obama Administration to achieve any results with Iran, Syria, Lebanon . . . tossing our friends Poland and Czech Republic over for the Russian Mafia Regime.
In two short years, Obama has managed to gut our power on the World stage.
Well, he has been right about one thing . . . the US is certainly not seen the same way in the World any longer . . . at least he has that "success" to fall back upon . . .
This, on top of the humiliating treatment of the US President at the Group of 20 meeting ten days ago . . .
This, on top of the failure of the Obama Administration to achieve any results with Iran, Syria, Lebanon . . . tossing our friends Poland and Czech Republic over for the Russian Mafia Regime.
In two short years, Obama has managed to gut our power on the World stage.
Well, he has been right about one thing . . . the US is certainly not seen the same way in the World any longer . . . at least he has that "success" to fall back upon . . .
Friday, November 5, 2010
The President Still Doesn't Get It
He said today that he takes responsibility for not getting his message through. He wants to really work hard at helping us to understand the subtleties of what he is trying to accomplish. Wrong again, Mr. President.
You don't need to re-package your message. You didn't go too fast. We weren't blinded by anger at the economy. We understand the implications of what you are trying to do. We get that you want more regulation, larger government, more spending (to "help" us) and higher taxes.
And, we decisively rejected your policies on Tuesday night.
I think Senator McConnell is right. The President needs a pink slip. If he continues to try to patronize the voters, instead of listening to them, he will get his pink slip in 2012 (as long as the GOP doesnt' nominate SP).
You don't need to re-package your message. You didn't go too fast. We weren't blinded by anger at the economy. We understand the implications of what you are trying to do. We get that you want more regulation, larger government, more spending (to "help" us) and higher taxes.
And, we decisively rejected your policies on Tuesday night.
I think Senator McConnell is right. The President needs a pink slip. If he continues to try to patronize the voters, instead of listening to them, he will get his pink slip in 2012 (as long as the GOP doesnt' nominate SP).
Monday, November 1, 2010
Step Carefully Over the Corpse . . . it Might Come Back!!
Tomorrow will usher in a new GOP majority in the House. That much appears to be certain. The only question is how big this victory will be for the GOP. Will it be 40 seats? Or as high as 75 seats, as some pundits are predicting. We will find out in very short order.
The danger begins Wednesday for the new GOP majority because it is pretty clear that the public is not so much giving the GOP a resounding victory as they are repudiating the short lived Big Government era of Barack Obama, Henry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. In other words, the GOP is seen as the solution to the Democrats. They better offer up some solutions, instead of just "saying no" as Nancy Reagan used to say.
When the Democrat leadership insisted on a really huge (a trillion counts are really huge) new entitlement program, when polling showed the majority of the American People were opposed to Obamacare, they should have known this would happen. When the stimulus did not reduce unemployment to 8%, as President Obama said it would . . . they should have known they would pay the price at the poll. When Democrat leadership continues, up to this very day, to insult the American People by trying to explain away the election losses they are about to suffer as having been bought and paid for by "special interests" when "special interests" are who put President Obama into power in the first place (I suppose the definition of "special interest" depends on whether or not they take a "special interest" in you), they are just asking to be defeated at the poll. This is all very predictable.
The real question comes on Wednesday. The GOP can come in with guns blazing, shut down the Government, repeal legislation, gridlock the machinery of Government . . . and then they, too, will suffer the consequences of their actions two years hence.
Or . . . they can swerve to the Center line and sit down and try to work out some of the pressing problems of today with the Democrat leaders. History suggests that it is possible to achieve great things when the Legislative branch is split, or at least in different hands than the Executive. Because the two parties are forced to work together. Neither will have a working majority. So, work together they must. Unless the GOP decides not to cooperate, in which case, they will be handed their pink slips in 2012, just as their Democrat predecessors are about to be.
Two years is a long time. Just ask President Obama. And that is exactly what President Obama is hoping. The GOP can easily prove themselves incompetent to lead in two years' time. GOP leadership is still non-existent. There is not yet a GOP leader who has shown the guts to stand up and clearly say that DADT must finally go. There is yet a GOP leader who has the nerve to stand up to the anti-choice wing and tell them they are wonderful people, but woefully out of touch with how the American People vote on this issue. There is yet to emerge a GOP leader willing to wrestle the reigns of power from the radio entertainers (and former Alaska Governors) who pretend to speak for the GOP, while raking in tens of millions of dollars a year entertaining people by saying outrageous things. Until such a leader emerges, the GOP will be rudderless and thrust this way and that way, depending on the news cycle.
Two years is plenty of time for John Boehner to mess things up in the House, turn himself into the most hated politician in the Land, as Nancy Pelosi did in very short order. He is capable of doing that, for sure. The real question the GOP must answer, after tomorrow is, "are there enough adults in the room" to bring about order in their chaotic house?
Let's hope so. Otherwise, the pendulum will swing back, they will be thrust from office once again, and we will have four more years of "Obama the Divider" and his class warfare rhetoric, which, quite frankly, has gotten very tiresome after two (short) years.
Woldy
The danger begins Wednesday for the new GOP majority because it is pretty clear that the public is not so much giving the GOP a resounding victory as they are repudiating the short lived Big Government era of Barack Obama, Henry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. In other words, the GOP is seen as the solution to the Democrats. They better offer up some solutions, instead of just "saying no" as Nancy Reagan used to say.
When the Democrat leadership insisted on a really huge (a trillion counts are really huge) new entitlement program, when polling showed the majority of the American People were opposed to Obamacare, they should have known this would happen. When the stimulus did not reduce unemployment to 8%, as President Obama said it would . . . they should have known they would pay the price at the poll. When Democrat leadership continues, up to this very day, to insult the American People by trying to explain away the election losses they are about to suffer as having been bought and paid for by "special interests" when "special interests" are who put President Obama into power in the first place (I suppose the definition of "special interest" depends on whether or not they take a "special interest" in you), they are just asking to be defeated at the poll. This is all very predictable.
The real question comes on Wednesday. The GOP can come in with guns blazing, shut down the Government, repeal legislation, gridlock the machinery of Government . . . and then they, too, will suffer the consequences of their actions two years hence.
Or . . . they can swerve to the Center line and sit down and try to work out some of the pressing problems of today with the Democrat leaders. History suggests that it is possible to achieve great things when the Legislative branch is split, or at least in different hands than the Executive. Because the two parties are forced to work together. Neither will have a working majority. So, work together they must. Unless the GOP decides not to cooperate, in which case, they will be handed their pink slips in 2012, just as their Democrat predecessors are about to be.
Two years is a long time. Just ask President Obama. And that is exactly what President Obama is hoping. The GOP can easily prove themselves incompetent to lead in two years' time. GOP leadership is still non-existent. There is not yet a GOP leader who has shown the guts to stand up and clearly say that DADT must finally go. There is yet a GOP leader who has the nerve to stand up to the anti-choice wing and tell them they are wonderful people, but woefully out of touch with how the American People vote on this issue. There is yet to emerge a GOP leader willing to wrestle the reigns of power from the radio entertainers (and former Alaska Governors) who pretend to speak for the GOP, while raking in tens of millions of dollars a year entertaining people by saying outrageous things. Until such a leader emerges, the GOP will be rudderless and thrust this way and that way, depending on the news cycle.
Two years is plenty of time for John Boehner to mess things up in the House, turn himself into the most hated politician in the Land, as Nancy Pelosi did in very short order. He is capable of doing that, for sure. The real question the GOP must answer, after tomorrow is, "are there enough adults in the room" to bring about order in their chaotic house?
Let's hope so. Otherwise, the pendulum will swing back, they will be thrust from office once again, and we will have four more years of "Obama the Divider" and his class warfare rhetoric, which, quite frankly, has gotten very tiresome after two (short) years.
Woldy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)