The Rabbi Roasts Obama and Kerry On Their Character And A Whole Host Of Missteps

Search

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Crying 'ceasefire' in a crowded military theater: On walking with Kerry

By Rabbi Dov Fischer

The Government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has done well to avoid being cowed into a poorly conceived ceasefire in the midst of its defensive struggle to stop Hamas from raining rockets and terror indiscriminately on the people of Israel. It has been encouraging, even inspiring, to read and hear the loud and angry responses throughout Israel — condemnatory across the board, from right to left — denouncing each of the respectively ludicrous ceasefire proposals that have been floated by John Kerry, United States Secretary of State, partly on his own and partly in consultation with two of the world's most notorious generators of Israel-hate: Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and the leadership of Qatar.

Erdogan only recently accused Israel, as he often does, of barbarism worse than Hitler, and Qatar underwrites terrorism and murder all over the world, perhaps more than does any other financial center including Iran. Indeed, political commentator Charles Krauthammer has described Qatar as being more a bank for terrorism than an actual polity.

It may seem beyond belief that a well-spoken American Secretary of State would be so oblivious to the facts on the diplomatic ground that he would continue crying "ceasefire!" in the crowded Middle Eastern military theater, even after Hamas unilaterally has violated so many of them already, most tragically the latest "72-hour ceasefire" of last Friday that they violated within 90 minutes, murdering three Israeli soldiers including Hadar Goldin, whose gorgeous smile broke all our hearts this past weekend. Most Israelis do not know John Kerry as well as we Americans do. If one picture is worth a thousand words, then this video of John Kerry testifying in Congress against his own American countrymen is worth an encyclopedia.

In his 1971 testimony, he focused on his memories of being in Vietnam during the war effort, amid the most barbaric of people — American soldiers:

"They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. . . .

We found most [Vietnamese] people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American. . . . We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong. We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We sawAmerica lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum."

To understand John Kerry circa 2014, one need only replace "Viet Cong" with "Hamas," "Vietnamese" people with "Palestinians," and "Americans" with "Israelis." Like watching the movie "Groundhog Day," we are witnessing John Kerry experiencing his chance, forty years later, to relive his youthful days of Vietnam self-righteousness, to conclude his unfinished business, to see indigenous "Third World" victims of "Western imperialism" finally vindicated.

And, yet, as Israelis rightfully throw up their hands in disbelief and frustration over the Secretary of State who "married up" to become enriched with money but who continues otherwise without a clue, there is good reason for Israel's defenders to hope that he will not — because he cannot — mess things up for Israel, if only Israel stands strong.

Thus, Israel must understand who Kerry is, where he stands in America outside the liberal redoubt of his Massachusetts base, and to understand that, beyond Kerry's dramatic limitations, the Obama Administration itself now is limited and partly incapacitated in ways that few American governments have been since America's emergence as a world power a century ago.

First, the American people had a chance to elect John Kerry to be our President a few years ago in 2004. He only had to defeat a somewhat unsteady George W. Bush, who was seeking a second term. Kerry came into the three Presidential debates with the reputation of being a world-class debater, a star from Harvard, facing a man from Texas whom the liberal media depicted as a bumbling fool.

Indeed, Kerry won the first debate, as Bush entered completely unprepared. And then the American people got to know Kerry. The more they learned about him, the more they shrugged and decided that Bush was not such a bad guy after all.

By the time the election arrived, Bush did not seem so stupid any more. Because, in two consecutive debates, Bush ran circles around the Ivy League Kerry. So Kerry has presented himself to the American people, who took his measure and found him wanting. He was rejected. He is Secretary of State today only because he was an early supporter of Barack Obama for President, at a time when others backed Hillary Clinton or Kerry's former running mate, John Edwards. Obama owed Kerry a favor. And, perhaps unwittingly, Obama did Israel a favor, too.

Despite their antipathies towards Israel, Obama and Kerry ironically are proving to be an utterly unexpected blessing for Israel. Through their extraordinary mishandling of the challenges and opportunities raised by Israel's current effort to weaken Hamas, they inadvertently have exasperated Arab Moslem countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, virtually driving them to ally quietly with Israel, as never before.

Those countries have seen that unchecked Islamist terror now threatens stable Moslem regimes, as ISIS rages throughout eastern Syria and western Iraq, while the Moslem Brotherhood nearly transformed Egypt even as Al Qaeda has made inroads in the Sinai. They know that they are next, and they are compelled to place hope in Israel, of all things, because they have determined that Obama and Kerry will not be freedom's buffers from Hamas.

Obama is the weakest President America has had since the lackluster trio of Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan allowed the United States to slide into Civil War. He is weak and vain, incompetent, utterly out of his league on the world stage or even in his own American backyard.

Similarly, Kerry's own lacunae become apparent to bothIsrael and Mahmoud Abbas when he utterly mishandled the "peace talks" that he tried to impose on both sides a few months ago.

Israel and Mahmoud Abbas both faced Kerry's deadlines and implied threats, all bit their lips as they waited to see what would happen upon blamed for failing to make a deal on Kerry's timetable, and they all saw that nothing happened.

Just as Syria learned that Obama does not enforce ultimata and "red lines," and just as Vladimir Putin has taken Obama's and Kerry's measure, first in Crimea and now in eastern Ukraine, so have the Israelis and Mahmoud Abbas figured out who Kerry is.

More than that, it is important for every Israeli to understand what really is on Obama's and Kerry's plate today, in between Kerry's efforts to cry "ceasefire!" in a crowded military theater.

Although it may seem to Netanyahu and his cabinet that nothing is more important to Obama and Kerry than imposing a ceasefire, the actual situation as it now stands sees Obama plagued with an unprecedented boatload of profound problems all over the place, most of much higher priority than whether Israel will cease defending against Hamas. Consider just a smattering:

1. Crimea - Ukraine - Russia. Putin has seized Crimea from right under Obama's nose, and he rightly guessed that Obama and Kerry would not know how to stop him or force a reversal. Obama came back and lectured, saying that Putin is "on the wrong side of history." Putin somehow recovered from the insult and next supplied Ukrainian separatists with the kinds of weapons that recently took down Malaysian Flight MH17.

Still on the wrong side of history. Now Putin not only is supplying separatists with weapons to fight a civil war, but he has launched a Cruise missile, violating a sacrosanct treaty that Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev had signed in 1987 at the height of the Cold War. That now is on Obama's plate. Obama and Kerry need to deal with that — immediately.

2. ISIL/ISIS is shaping a modern-day Islamist Caliphate out of northeastern Syria and western Iraq. They now are driving Kurds out of northern Iraq, have seized financial institutions giving them $2 billion in assets, and even claim control of the Mosul Dam, which gives them new fighting leverage. The Syria of past decades no longer exists. While Al Qaeda is now crucifying Christians , ISIL has driven Christians out of Mosul where they had lived for nearly two thousand years. Nouri al-Maliki is struggling to hold Iraq together, and Obama wants a replacement for Maliki to save what is left, to bring in Sunnis and to hold Baghdad.

When Obama became President, George Bush had left a long-term apparatus in place to secure gains in Iraq, and Obama abandoned those achievements when he failed to reach a comparatively common status-of-forces agreement with Maliki.

Now all of Iraq may fall — either to ISIS/ISIL, or it might become an extension of Shiite Iran, as Lebanon often has been an extension of Assad Syria. Obama and Kerry need to deal with that — immediately.

3. Libya is going into partial civil war, and Benghazi is in insurrection. Although he and his Administration dishonestly claimed originally that the American ambassador to Libya had been murdered on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi because of a cheaply made short homemade clip on Youtube, Obama in fact presided over a security disaster that saw Al Qaeda regroup in Libya and wreak murderous chaos against America by design on the eleventh anniversary of the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center bombing. Obama proudly "led from behind," and we therefore left no long-term apparatus in place to secure the gains in Libya from disappearing in a vacuum when Kaddafi fell. Obama and Kerry now need to deal with that — immediately.

4. Iran is building nuclear weapons that not only will threaten Israel but also will have capabilities of endangering all of Europe and eventually the United States. Obama and Kerry need to deal with that — immediately.

5. Tens of thousands of unaccompanied children presently are being smuggled into America by drug dealers and cartels from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. The problem erupted into a frenzy when Obama started advancing the argument that, although illegal immigration cannot be countenanced, the children of adult lawbreakers should not be punished.

Word reached South America that Obama will not deport children, and the race to the border commenced, with drug cartels inducing desperately poor parents to pay a king's ransom in return for promises to smuggle the little ones into America and away from drug-gang violence in their own countries.

America even has refugee camps forming here. The flood tide has gotten so bad that Governor Rick Perry has called his state's National Guard to guard the Texasborder, while cities around the country are seeing everyday citizens riot against secret Obama efforts to move undocumented children into their towns. The United States Congress has recessed for the summer without solving the mess, and Obama is threatening to act beyond his Constitutional powers as a result.

Meanwhile, the Congress already is suing him in the federal courts for acting dictatorially in a series of matters, in violation of the American Constitution's laws that separate the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

Obama and Kerry need to deal with that — immediately.

6. All of America, across the political spectrum, recently was shocked to learn that the nation's heroes, past veterans of American military service, who are assured premium quality health care at special hospitals run by the United States Veterans Administration (VA), in fact have been the victims of scandalous VA incompetence, bordering on criminal misconduct.

Dozens of veterans were allowed to die, many needlessly, because they were put on lengthy "waiting lists" to see doctors, so never received medical care in time. Two thousand or more others never even were put on the "waiting lists."

In Phoenix, Arizona alone, the wait to see a doctor was four months, with 1,700 never even wait-listed. The scandal began with Phoenix and now has been revealed to be systemic throughout the country. Obama needs to deal with that — immediately.

7. The Internal Revenue Service of America (IRS) oversees income-tax collection. Americans have a long-admired national system of voluntary and mostly honestly reporting income and paying taxes every year.

The IRS properly audits suspicious situations, keeping the system honest and the "playing field level" for everyone. It has long been a central principle of American society that the IRS never mixes politics with tax-collecting, and the effort by the Nixon White House to politicize the IRS led to an Article of Impeachment against him:

"He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner."

Forty years later, it now emerges that Obama supporters in the IRS targeted lawful anti-Obama political groups for excruciating audits during the months preceding the 2012 Presidential elections that saw Obama reelected.

At the center of the scandal that has shocked much of the country is a woman named Lois Lerner, who was Director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS.

In Congressional hearings, she repeatedly has invoked her right, as an American, to refuse to testify about her role in the scandal — on grounds that her testimony may lead to her incrimination. When Congress demanded that the IRS produce copies of emails from Lerner's computer, the IRS produced documents and did not produce many thousands more, ultimately saying that Lerner's computer had "crashed," and all her emails were lost.

Americans know that, if the IRS demands emails of them during an IRS audit, that excuse will not work. Now, amid all the scandal, new experts within IRS have emerged to testify that her computer hard disk did not crash, just sustained scratches, and thousands of pages still probably could have been produced.

The investigators are wondering whether Lerner contacted and coordinated with people in the Obama White House when targeting his opponents for audits. Yes, Obama needs to deal with that — immediately.

8. "Operation Fast and Furious." The Obama Administration concocted a plan to trace weapons sales by and to Mexican drug cartels by introducing 1,400 firearms into Mexico in October 2009, then monitoring their transfers. Thing is, the Obama Administration lost track of the weapons that now were circulating among the drug cartels. Compounding the calamity, U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered at the border in December 2011, and two of the "Fast and Furious" firearms were found at the scene of the murder. Obama needs to deal with that — eventually.

9. On March 31, 2014, United States Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi was driving along the southern border of the United States. He made a wrong turn, accidentally entering Mexico. In his car's trunk were three legally registered guns, a very common phenomenon in the American culture, particularly for a Marine. Four months later, the Mexicans will not release him, have abused him in prison, and Obama for some inexplicable reason cannot get him freed. The story is on the national news every other night, and his mother pleads passionately. Obama needs to deal with that — immediately.

10. Continued cracks in Obama's much-vaunted "Affordable Care Act," also known as ObamaCare. The majority of Americans hate the law, and it is killing aspects of the American economy and personal household income, as employers reduce hiring full-time 40-hour-weekly workers and instead hire workers for 29 hours a week, because the law does not require employers to pay ObamaCare premiums for workers who work fewer than 30 hours a week. A wide range of lawsuits against the law are moving forward in the courts, and one provision after another has been getting overturned. Obama needs to deal with that — pretty soon.

11. The mad rush of corporate inversions, as major American corporations link up with small irrelevant European companies in a ruse to avoid inflated American corporate taxes and stifling corporate regulations, now has erupted — seemingly overnight — as the new rage in American markets. Obama needs to deal with that — immediately.

Miraculously, Hamas could not have selected a more foolish time to start a war with Israel. Israel's elected leadership will benefit by grasping the full dimensions of opportunity that exist right now as Obama's and Kerry's plates fill heavier by the day with so many burning and urgent crises that former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, assessing the situation now submerging Obama and Kerry, says simply that "the world is a mess."

And all of this comes only three months before an American national election when Obama potentially may lose his United States Senate majority to the Republicans, which will finish off his agenda for his remaining two years. Indeed, even if his party somehow saves his Senate majority, the very threat of losing it all compels him now to devote inordinate time to fundraising — specifically right now, just during the heart of the Israel-Hamas war — with no way to focus on everything at once, and circumscribed in his ability to over-do his pressure on Israel at a time when he is compelled to tell millionaire Hollywood Jewish liberals every night, as he vacuums their pockets clean and absorbs their money at fundraising soirees and dinners, that he bleeds for Israel, something they need to hear regardless of whether he is speaking truth or whether they even care. As a forerunner of this bi-partisan support for Israel, the Congress just approvedanother $225 million towards Israel's Iron Dome defense,

Mr. Kerry has picked the wrong time to cry "Ceasefire" in a crowded military theater. With Iran manufacturing trouble, Iraq in flames, Syria splitting like an amoeba, Libya back in chaos, Putin on the march into Ukraine through proxies, Christians being driven from the caliphate, scandals at home regarding IRS harassing political opponents, lost emails, children surging at the border and living in refugee camps, veterans dying at home while waiting for the Government to let them see a doctor, American elections only three months away — and so much more — Hamas miraculously picked the worst possible time for them to start a bloody fight with Israel, and this moment offers Israel the first opportunity since 1967 to fight a just war to a conclusion that can extend until Israel believes it properly and satisfactorily has achieved the goals needed to make this the last war with Hamas.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Bill Clinton's terror error haunts Israel in Gaza today
By Stephen M. Flatow
clinton_unhappy.jpg

[SIZE=+1]A father pleads for the ex-president to rectify his deadly mistake that continues to this day. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1] It's never too late to pursue justice [/SIZE]


In recent days, the news media have been reporting that a Hamas military commander named Mohammed Deif is one of the senior figures directing the thousands of Gaza rocket attacks against Israel. What the media have not mentioned is that the Clinton administration had numerous opportunities to put Deif behind bars, but instead led him slip right through its fingers.


Deif was a senior disciple of the infamous Yehya Ayyash, the Hamas master bomber nicknamed "The Engineer." After Ayyash was killed in 1995, Deif succeeded him. Deif co-designed the Qassam rocket, thousands of which have been blasting Israeli towns, homes, and kindergartens.


The bombings that Deif masterminded took the lives of hundreds Israelis, as well as a number of American citizens, including Ira Weinstein and Jewish Theological Seminary student Matthew Eisenfeld and his fiance, Sara Duker of New Jersey, who were passengers on a Jerusalem bus that Deif's men bombed on February 25, 1996; Yitzhak Weinstock, the teenage grandson of Los Angeles rabbi Simon Dolgin, murdered in a drive-by shooting on December 1, 1993; and American-Israeli soldier Nachshon Wachsman, , kidnapped and murdered by Hamas in October 1994.

After my daughter Alisa was murdered by Palestinian bus-bombers in 1995, I was invited to take part in numerous meetings and conference calls with Jewish leaders and Clinton administration officials, in which we raised the issue of American victims of Palestinian terror. Deif's name came up often.


President Clinton visited Nachshon Wachsman's grave during his March 1996 visit to Israel and personally promised Nachshon's parents that the U.S. would "make it a top priority" to capture Deif.

Martin Indyk, who was then the U.S. ambassador to Israel, even put it in writing--in a letter to the Wachsman family on March 26, 1997, Indyk stated that "the arrest of Muhammed Deif (sic)…remains a high priority for the U.S. Government."

It soon became clear, however, that those promises were just words. On December 19, 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright took part in a conference call with American Jewish leaders, organized by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. An official of the National Council of Young Israel asked her why the Clinton administration did not insist that the Palestinian Authority hand over killers of Americans, such as Deif, who were being sheltered in PA territory. Shockingly, Albright replied that she did not know who Deif was.

Then, in the spring of 2000, Deif was within reach. Israel Television reported on May 14, 2000, that PA chairman Yasir Arafat had placed Deif in "protective detention...he was arrested for his own safety, to protect him from the Israeli Shin Bet security service."

The Conference of Presidents publicly urged that "the United States pursue the extradition of Mohammed Deif, who is currently being held in 'protective detention' by the Palestinian Authority...We believe the extradition of Deif and his prosecution in this country will send a clear message of determination both in regard to the war against terrorism as well as the commitment to protect American citizens at home and abroad."

President Clinton could have demanded that Arafat hand him over to the U.S. for prosecution. After all, Clinton was giving $500-million annually, as well as important political and diplomatic support. But Clinton did nothing--except make more empty promises. Three months later (August 25), Ha'aretz reported that in a meeting with American Jewish leaders, Clinton again pledged to arrest Deif.

Left free to continue terrorizing Israelis, Deif did so. In 2002, he became head of Hamas's military arm, the Iz-a-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Today he is comfortably situated in one of the Hamas underground command bunkers, giving orders to fire rockets at Israel, while watching Secretary of State John Kerry demand that Israel cease firing at Hamas.

But it's never too late to pursue justice.

Let's start with some acknowledgement of past errors. Bill Clinton should admit that he was wrong to refrain from insisting on the extradition of Deif. The former president has been very candid about the fact that he failed to respond to the Rwanda genocide. He should be just as contrite about his failures concurring Hamas's genocidal war against Israel.

The Conference of Presidents needs to speak out, too. Along with other groups, such as AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, and the American Jewish Committee, the Conference should demand that the extradition of Deif to the United States be included as one of the provisions of any ceasefire plan. Deif must stand trial, in America, for the murders of American Jews.

Most of all, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry need to make it unequivocally clear that they stand with Israel, and against Deif and Hamas. No more wrangling over funds that Israel needs for Iron Dome; no more statements implying that Israel and Hamas are on the same moral level; and, above all, no more pressure on Israel for one-sided ceasefires. Instead of handcuffing Israel in its war with Hamas, how about the U.S. committing itself to putting Deif in handcuffs?
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
The Moral Sickness of the Far Left
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/author/douglas-murray/

Owen Jones’s column in the Guardian is headlined ‘Anti-Jewish hatred is rising – we must see it for what it is.’ Sadly the article falls well short of that headline’s aspiration.

At one point in the piece Owen singles me out for criticism: ‘Take Douglas Murray, a writer with a particular obsession with Islam.’ (I suppose ‘obsession’, rather than ‘interest’, say, is intended to suggest something untoward. But I confess that I am indeed especially interested in one of the major stories of our day.) Owen goes on to say of me:

‘“Thousands of anti-Semites have today succeeded in bringing central London to an almost total standstill” was his reprehensible description of a Palestine solidarity demonstration last month. This is not simply an unforgivable libel against peace protestors – Jews among them – who simply object to their government’s complicity in the massacre of children. It makes it much harder to identify genuine anti-Semitism.’

Now I have had to pick Owen up on this before. But here we go again.

The last time there was an exchange between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, Owen appeared on primetime BBC TV and seemed especially eager to claim, during a lengthy anti-Israel rant, that Israel was particularly interested in killing children. He said:

‘“I don’t want to just throw statistics around – I’ll give you one example of one of those children. Omar Misheri [sic]. He’s 11-months old, he’s a little boy, the son of a BBC journalist and he was killed in a so-called “targeted strike”.’

Now as I noted here last year, the case Owen appeared to be referencing was the tragic case of Omar Jihad al-Mishrawi. The son of a BBC Arabic Journalist, he was indeed killed in a strike. But not a ‘targeted strike’ by the IDF. No — the young Omar al-Mishrawi was killed by a rocket fired off by Hamas which ‘misfired’ and killed a child in Gaza rather than, as Hamas intended, a child in Israel.

This was not my claim, but the claim of a subsequent UN report. As I noted last year, there should have been a lesson in this for Owen — as well as numerous other commentators on these matters. During a war it is exceedingly difficult if you are on the ground — never mind if you are not — to determine who has fired what where and when. I wrote a whole book about this a few years ago. Anybody who knows anything at all about conflict zones knows that the reporting of wars needs to be done with great care.

But on that occasion Owen was so keen to attack Israel that he failed to exercise that care. When I highlighted his serious factual error and suggested that he apologise for misleading viewers of the BBC, he refused to apologise and decided to stick to the libel under the apparent impression that attack was a better form of defence than apology. I thought that a shame at the time and thought less of Owen as a result.

Yet what is most striking today is that Owen is at it again. It is not just that he does not have the intellectual honesty to admit that anti-Semitism in Europe today is spearheaded not by far-right white racists, but by Muslims — and young Muslims in particular. Such people are happy to spend weekend after weekend dragging their young children to chant hatred against Israel on the streets of western capitals (thus ensuring that the hatred is kept alive for another generation). The real problem is that he continues to condemn anti-Semitism at the same time as assiduously feeding it.

As you can see from the quote above from his piece today, Owen criticises me for perpetrating an
unforgivable libel against peace protestors – Jews among them – who simply object to their government’s complicity in the massacre of children.’
And there that real and outrageous libel is once again. Take the word ‘massacre’.

‘Massacre’. So carelessly and easily dropped in. Perhaps it is thrown around in the society which Owen keeps and the rallies which he attends. So commonplace, perhaps, that he doesn’t even notice that he’s using it. But here’s the thing. Even if Owen and his fellow-travellers don’t hear the ‘Heil Hitlers’ of their fellow protestors or see the posters saying ‘Hitler, you were right’, or claim that this is some minority fringe, all the while they are writing columns strenuously objecting to the burning of synagogues and the beating up of rabbis while painting the background against which these acts of violence occur. And facts — and their distortion — are, after all, meant to matter.

Yet here is Owen glibly holding Israel responsible not just for a ‘massacre’ but for ‘the massacre of children.’ What is one to do about a claim like that? Beside me I have a Chambers dictionary:
Massacre, n indiscriminate slaughter, esp with cruelty; carnage. – vt to kill with violence and cruelty; to slaughter.

That might be how one would describe the activities of ISIS in Iraq. It might well be how one would describe the intentions (even if they are largely, and carefully thwarted by Israeli defence systems) of Hamas or Hezbollah. But Israel? The IDF is carrying out the most targeted and careful campaign in military history. They seek to take out Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s rocket launch sites and to target the terrorist leadership. They have not been involved in Gaza in order to kill the Palestinian civilians which Hamas deliberately puts in their way as human shields.

I am sure that, if Israel ‘wanted’ to carry out ‘indiscriminate slaughter’ in Gaza, they could. But they don’t want to, which is a major reason why they don’t. Israel’s aim is to minimize civilian casualties. Hamas’s aim — in Israel and in Gaza (where at least 10 per cent of Hamas’s own rockets fall short and hit Gazans) — is to maximise civilian casualties.

But this is of no apparent interest to Owen or the thousands of people who turned out again last weekend to protest against Israel. To these people Israel is committing a ‘massacre’, an ‘atrocity’, ‘war-crimes’, ‘genocide’ and even a ‘Holocaust.’ There is no evidence for these claims. They are a wild and wilful distortion of the facts on the ground. The claim that Israel is engaged in ‘the massacre of children’ is not just a lie. It is precisely the sort of lie which makes its way into the body politic and then persuades some people that they must act on this outrage. After all, if you knew of a friendly government which was wilfully engaged in the deliberate ‘indiscriminate slaughter’ of children, what would you not do to stop it?

Here, in a nutshell, you can see the moral sickness of a portion of the Left. For good form’s sake — and doubtless sometimes with sincerity — they stress how much they loathe anti-Semitism. But as they hold one hand up in a scout’s promise that they oppose all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism, there they are with the other hand busily feeding the furies. Anybody really concerned about avoiding anti-Semitism should take another course. An honest person would realise that if you stop the lies then, although you might never entirely stop the anti-Semitism, you may at least subdue it.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
Tell this guy to start talking to the Jewish community in this country. Tell him to tell them to take their collective heads out of their collective asses

Somebody has to, we know the Pauls will just vote for more and more and more free stuff for as long as they live.

When you take from Peter to give to Paul, you can always count on Paul's support. That is the essence of the modern day democratic party. It's their soul
 

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
26,039
Tokens
Liberals are losers.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
We can't afford to let Isis run wild in Iraq

Max Boot 8-16-2014

A successful military intervention isn't just possible; it's essential

16 August 2014

Iraq is a bloody mess. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has extended its hold from eastern Syria into western and northern Iraq, massacring Shi’ites, Christians and Yazidis wherever it can. Meanwhile in Baghdad there has been a constitutional crisis, with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki threatening to cling to power even though his own political bloc has chosen a different candidate.

The situation is now so bad that it has impinged on the holiday arrangements of our own leaders in the West. President Barack Obama, as he relaxes in Martha’s Vineyard, is at the same time somehow meant to be directing US warplanes back into action to succour tens of thousands of trapped Yazidis and to relieve the pressure on Kurdistan’s capital, Erbil. David Cameron, for his part, had to take time out from his holiday in Portugal so as to order the RAF to drop humanitarian supplies to the Yazidis.
453563774.jpg
Displaced Iraqi families from the Yazidi community cross the Iraqi-Syrian border Photo: Getty

But these are small steps that will hardly shake the newfound power of the Islamic State. What more are Obama and Cameron prepared to do to deal with the growing threat from Isis — which, left unchecked, would not only be a strategic disaster for their countries but a political disaster for them?

Faced with these troubles in a strange, far-away land, it would be natural for many westerners, including Obama and Cameron, to despair. No doubt many on both sides of the Atlantic are concluding that this latest spasm of ugliness is a natural result of the misguided Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq, that Iraqis simply like to massacre each other and that there is little the West can or should do about it. Didn’t our previous intervention just make things worse?

This is alluring but wrong-headed. In point of fact, while the US and Britain did create a disaster in Iraq by not doing more to maintain law and order after Saddam Hussein’s downfall, the situation turned dramatically after the success of the ‘surge’ in 2007-2008. Violence fell more than 90 per cent and Iraqi politics began to function again. The situation was stable enough that in 2010 Vice President Joe Biden bragged on CNN that Iraq would be ‘one of the great achievements of this administration’.
453563630x.jpg
An Iraqi child from the Yazidi community rests at the Fishkhabur crossing Photo: Getty

The wheels came off only when, after failing to get a Status of Forces Agreement with Maliki, Obama pulled out all US troops at the end of 2011. With no Americans looking over his shoulder, Maliki was free to unleash his inner sectarian. His victimisation of Sunnis made them receptive to Isis, which was being reborn in the chaos of Syria.

This history is worth reciting to refute the common prejudice that Iraq is a hopeless basket case condemned to perpetual violence. Remember how dire the situation was in 2006 when even senior American military officers were convinced that Iraq was lost and when senior British officers were sheltering in their Basra bunkers from incessant rocket fire? Yet within a year there was a nearly miraculous turnaround brought about by an increase in the number of US troops, a change in their strategy and the mobilisation of the Sunni tribes against al-Qa’eda in Iraq (as Isis was previously known).

Similar success could be possible now even without dispatching 170,000 western troops, because Isis has a major weak spot that we can exploit: it is unpopular even with its Sunni constituents. Already there have been rumblings of discontent from Mosul among Iraqis who are not happy to have jihadists destroying their ancient monuments, such as the tomb of the prophet Jonah, and telling them how to live.
(Among other things, Isis is fanatically opposed to smoking and drinking, two activities that ordinary Iraqis love.)

Unfortunately, past tribal uprisings against Isis were brutally snuffed out until in 2006-2007 US military forces came to their aid. The US and its allies, including Britain, need to mount a similar campaign to mobilise tribal fighters once again.

It won’t be easy, because Sunnis are intensely suspicious — and understandably so — of the sectarian leaders in Baghdad. There should, however, be a decent chance to form a government of national unity under Haider al-Abadi (who, unlike the more insular Maliki, speaks fluent English and earned a DPhil at the University of Manchester) that would have more credibility with Sunnis and Kurds. Then it would be a matter of giving the vast majority of Iraqis, who detest and fear Isis, the means to fight back without having to rely, as the Shi’ites have been doing lately, on help from Iran’s notorious Quds Force.

What this means in practical terms is that the US and its allies will have to beef up their presence in Iraq. That doesn’t mean sending ground troops but it does mean sending more advisers, more intelligence personnel, more aircraft and more special operations forces.

Obama has already increased the US presence to more than 1,000 troops and set up two joint operations centres with the Iraqi military in Baghdad and Erbil. He has also begun air attacks on Isis, which are being carried out from the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush. The CIA has apparently also begun to arm the Kurdish peshmerga, whose resistance to Isis had been hindered by lack of ammunition and heavy weapons.

This is a good start but only a start. The US and its allies, Britain foremost among them, need to expand their goals and their means to achieve them. So far President Obama has talked only of containing Isis, of preventing it from massacring Yazidis or taking Erbil. That’s not enough. We should not tolerate the existence of a terrorist state similar to Taleban-era Afghanistan sprawling across Iraq and Syria.

Already thousands of foreign jihadis, including many Europeans, have been drawn to Syria. If left unchecked, this terrorist playpen is likely to generate attacks not only on neighbouring states such as Lebanon and Jordan but on western targets too. The West’s goal should be rollback, not containment. In for a penny, in for a pound. If we’re going to bomb Isis, let’s do it right. Or, as Napoleon aptly advised, ‘If you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna.’

Defeating Isis will require boosting the western advisory and special operations presence in Iraq to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10,000 to 15,000 personnel and sending aircraft that will be based in Iraq, rather than at sea or from distant bases, to facilitate a more sustained bombing campaign. Advisers should be evenly distributed between the Kurdish peshmerga, the Sunni tribes and some of the more capable units of the Iraqi security forces in order to make clear that we are not playing favourites among Iraq’s sectarian groups. Simply having western advisers present alongside anti-Isis fighters will greatly enhance their morale, professionalism and effectiveness.
453548146.jpg
The CIA have apparently begun to arm the Kurdish peshmerga Photo: Getty

With more American (and, one hopes, allied) eyes on the ground, it will be possible to call in more air strikes with greater effectiveness, as occurred in Afghanistan during the autumn of 2001. Western commandos such as Seal Team Six, Delta Force and the British and Australian SAS should also expand operations to carry out the kind of intelligence-driven leadership targeting that was an important part of the 2007-2008 surge. Such actions in Iraq must be complemented with greater aid to the Free Syrian Army in order to fight Isis on the other side of the rapidly disintegrating border with Iraq.

It will not be quick or easy to reverse the gains that Isis has made. But with the right strategy, appropriate resources and a little determination, Mosul and Fallujah can be retaken before the self-styled Islamic Caliphate solidifies its hold on a region larger than Jordan. However much they may want to avoid further entanglement in the messy Middle East, Obama and Cameron have no choice but to act unless they want to leave a new terrorist state as part of their legacy in office.
Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and the author of ‘Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present Day’
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Tell this guy to start talking to the Jewish community in this country. Tell him to tell them to take their collective heads out of their collective asses

Somebody has to, we know the Pauls will just vote for more and more and more free stuff for as long as they live.

When you take from Peter to give to Paul, you can always count on Paul's support. That is the essence of the modern day democratic party. It's their soul

Most Jewish people I know who voted for Obama can't stand him now. Also, most are in favor of military action in Iraq and list helping the homeless and starving victims as the first reason ahead of crushing the perps. Edited to add: Even the extreme Leftys in Israel want Hamas crushed now.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
[h=2]Obama Reportedly Blocks Israel Missile Shipment[/h]US administration officials stop missile transfer, order all future transfers to be scrutinized in sign of further cooling ties.

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services[URL="http://www.therxforum.com/#"]557[/URL]


By Ari Yashar

First Publish: 8/14/2014, 9:06 AM / Last Update: 8/14/2014, 10:34 AM


494426.jpg
President Barack Obama
Reuters



A new report reveals that US President Barack Obama's administration stopped a shipment of missiles to Israel late last month and tightened weapons shipment procedures to Israel, as tensions between the two nations grow amid Operation Protective Edge.
The report in the Wall Street Journal, released Wednesday night, cites US officials in Obama's administration, who say they discovered Israel had requested a large number of Hellfire missiles directly through military-to-military channels. An initial batch of the missiles was about to be shipped, according to sources in Israel and the US Congress.
At that point, the Pentagon stepped in and put the transfer on hold. Further, top White House officials instructed various US military agencies to consult with the US State Department before approving any additional requests from Israel.
A senior Obama administration official was quoted in the report as saying the transfer shouldn't have been a routine "check-the-box approval," given Israel's defensive operation in Gaza against Hamas, which is recognized as a terrorist organization by the US.
The decision to clamp down on future transfers was the equivalent of "the United States saying 'the buck stops here. Wait a second…It's not OK anymore,'" said the official.
A Israeli defense official confirmed the reports to Walla! on Thursday, saying "the US delayed a shipment of Hellfire missiles to the Israeli airforce." He added "apparently it was (done) on the background of national tension" with Israel.
Obama has been at odds with Israel over the defensive operation in Gaza, making various attempts to press Israel into accepting a truce with the adamant terrorist organization of Hamas. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reportedly responded to the pressure by telling the administration "not to ever second guess me again," after Hamas committed one of its many ceasefire violations.
Currently a new five-day ceasefire has come into effect as of Wednesday at midnight, with Obama calling Netanyahu shortly ahead of when it came into effect to push for a "sustainable" ceasefire.
According to US officials cited in the Wall Street Journal report, the Wednesday night phone call between Obama and Netanyahu was "particularly combative."
"Discovering" military-to-military arms transfers
The report noted that on July 20, ahead of the Hellfire missile cancellation, the IDF asked the US military for various munitions such as 120-mm mortar shells and 40-mm illuminating rounds, without the knowledge of Obama's administration.
Three days later the request was approved by the military, without Obama or US Secretary of State John Kerry being approached for approval, given that their approval was not required for such a transfer.
A US defense official added that the standard review process in such requests was properly followed.
The transfer without Obama's unnecessary approval was followed by a similar incident ahead of the Hellfire cancellation, which occurred the same day as the July 30 IDF strike on terrorists adjacent to a UN school, which the US slammed as "disgraceful."
In response, the IDF confirmed it targeted Islamic Jihad terrorists in the vicinity of the school. Previously the IDF provided video evidence that Hamas fires rockets from inside schools; further, UNRWA schools have been used in at least three cases to store Hamas rockets, after which UNRWA repeatedly returned the rockets to Hamas.
On the same day as the UN school strike, US reports said the 120-mm and 40-mm rounds had been released by the US army to the IDF, with one Obama administration official saying "we were blindsided."

A US defense official responded, saying "there was no intent to blindside anyone. The process for this transfer was followed precisely along the lines that it should have."
Demonstrating the tense ties between Obama's administration and Israel, a senior official of the administration told the Wall Street Journal "we have many, many friends around the world. The United States is their (Israel's) strongest friend."
"The notion that they are playing the United States, or that they're manipulating us publicly, completely miscalculates their place in the world," added the official.
The US decision to tighten down on arms transfers to Israel comes as the UK is threatening similar actions. On Tuesday, the British government threatened to suspend 12 arms export licenses to Israel if fighting resumed in Gaza.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
[h=2]Hamas TV Showcases Rocket Production, Anti-Semitic Mouse[/h]Share
Tweet
Email


Al Aqsa TV image captured by Israel Hayom

check-big.png
check-big.png
check-big.png
check-big.png
check-big.png
check-big.png
check-big.png


BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
August 14, 2014 9:36 am
Hamas’ Al Aqsa television station aired footage on Wednesday night of long-range M-75 rockets being manufactured by Hamas members as “irrefutable proof the Zionist enemy did not achieve its goals,” according to Israel Hayom.
During Operation Protective Edge, Hamas fired M-75 rockets as far as the Tel Aviv and Dimona areas.
Wednesday’s broadcast appeared to be an attempt by Hamas to show that it was continuing to build rockets, even under Israeli fire. In the background of the images broadcast by Hamas, a television is seen airing a report that appeared on Al Jazeera on August 7.
Hamas spokesman Sami Abu-Zuhri said of the report: “This is irrefutable proof that the Zionist enemy did not achieve the goals it set for itself. The production of rockets is continuing all the time. … The resistance will keep fighting to thwart the Zionist enemy.”
Al Aqsa has long been used by Hamas as a propaganda outlet. It even features children programming, such as the anti-Semitic “Hamas Mickey Mouse” character, that teaches Islamic supremacy and hatred for jews.
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
Obama Reportedly Blocks Israel Missile Shipment

US administration officials stop missile transfer, order all future transfers to be scrutinized in sign of further cooling ties.

Reuters

A new report reveals that US President Barack Obama's administration stopped a shipment of missiles to Israel late last month and tightened weapons shipment procedures to Israel, as tensions between the two nations grow amid Operation Protective Edge.

Obama is pro Israel. I know this to be true. And how do I know you may ask? The Guesser told me and much like Obama he never lies. :)
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
"Obama Reportedly Blocks Israel Missile Shipment"
Obama is a Dunce Cap. So what will happen here? Israel will instead IMPROVE the technology of the Hellfire Missile and then give it to the US. Obama wants to force Israel into a ceasefire, beg the hamas terrorists to allow the Abbas fatah terrorists take over Gaza, and continue the charade that fatah wants peace.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Tell this guy to start talking to the Jewish community in this country. Tell him to tell them to take their collective heads out of their collective asses

Somebody has to, we know the Pauls will just vote for more and more and more free stuff for as long as they live.

When you take from Peter to give to Paul, you can always count on Paul's support. That is the essence of the modern day democratic party. It's their soul

Funny that I happened upon this today, in Jewish World Review, penned by a Roman Catholic:
Jewish self-loathing By Alicia Colon
Published August 13, 2014

343522828918_resize_2.jpg


Some other highlighted articles on the site:

Mark Steyn: You Want Nazis?
Gabriel Schoenfeld: War Crimes in Gaza?
Jonathan Tobin: Care about the Jewish state's future? Obama, in interview, reveals even more reasons to worry
Alan M. Dershowitz: Confirmed: Needless death and destruction in Gaza

Nellie S. Huang: The Best Health Mutual Funds to Buy Now
Brierly Wright, M.S., R.D.: Try these 'secret-weapon' foods to boost your changes of losing weight

Rabbi Berel Wein: Mission men
Mona Charen: The UN Prevents Peace

Mark A. Kellner: OMG: Is profanity losing its punch?
Kimberly Lankford: 50 Ways to Cut Your Health Care Costs
James K. Glassman: Investors, Are You Ready for the Next Global Crisis?

I recently watched the new program "Manhattan" which is about the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos, New Mexico that gave us the atom bomb. A young physicist arriving at the site is introduced to the project as being 'Shangri-La' and having the 'highest combined IQ than any town in the country, and more Jews in Babylon." When it comes to science, it is no secret that most believe that Jews are overwhelmingly intelligent. But when it comes to politics, that percentage dwindles considerably for so many still vote for Democrats who are not friends of Israel.

As a Roman Catholic, I find their lack of support for this tiny democrat country surrounded by enemies to be inexplicable. It's as if these self-loathing Jews want no connection to Israel; that it has no right to defend itself against genocide. They think orthodox and observant Jews should get over the holocaust because it could never happen again especially in America. I hope that the blatant anti-Semitism that has erupted since the Gaza war has opened their peanut brains because they are so wrong about it never happening again.

Another 'Kristallnacht" erupted in Paris where the hordes of Muslim immigrants burned Jewish businesses and attacked synagogues with axes and knives. A Rabbi from Brooklyn was killed Saturday on his way to Temple in Miami. Just another robbery, you might say, or another clear target of bigotry. Jews in Brooklyn were targets of the knockout game perpetrated by young blacks which is another irony dismissed by liberals.

In the 1960's Jews were dominant players in the civil rights movement and two Jewish members of C.O.R.E were murdered by the K.K.K. in Mississippi while on a voter registration campaign. Yet Jews are despised by the militant Black Panthers of today and of old. Who can forget Jesse Jackson referring to NYC as Hymietown? I've listened to those militant blacks preaching anti-Semitic remarks on Broadway soapboxes and cursing Israel as murderers of Palestinians. I've always wondered why those supporters of the impoverished Palestine refugees never questioned how Yasser Arafat became a billionaire whose wife lived lavishly in Europe while the refugees starved.

Why do blacks and other minorities feel so much antipathy towards their Jewish neighbors? Is it because they are in the main-Democrats? Is it because that party indoctrinated them with the envy syndrome; constantly railing against the one percenters?

Remember Cynthia McKinney? On Power Line, John Hinderaker wrote; "Cynthia McKinney was one of the looniest Democrats of her generation. A 9/11 Truther, she lost not one but two Democratic primaries because she was considered too far out. Her father's explanation that she was in trouble because "the Jews have bought everybody."

Have they?

Are they so successful because they have bought everybody off as the race demagogues allege? Or is it because like all successful individuals, they work extra hard and maintain strong family ties that sustain them through the rough years?

I'm considered one of the minorities and I grew up in Spanish Harlem at a time when I had Jewish neighbors as poor as my family. When they started rising up the economic ladder through the fruits of their labor, they shared their bounty with us. It took us a lot longer because our family as in so many Hispanic families was quite dysfunctional.

What I will never understand is why so many Jewish liberals vote for Democrats (He Hate Me, you there???) who fail to support our only democrat ally in the Middle East. Israel would not exist today without Republican Richard Nixon supplying the Israelis with the vital aircrafts needed to defeat the enemy in that last war in 1973. PM Golda Meir said Nixon saved Israel and he did so over the objection of RINOs in his own party and the Democrats who wanted Israel brought down a peg to promote their own peace initiative with the PLO.

The United Nations routinely censures Israel for defending itself from slaughter while ignoring the murderous dictators and human rights violators. It has become an impotent, cowardly and corrupt institution and should be removed from the United States and transferred to one of the nations ruled by despots. Here's a bit of news for this ignorant organization- America and Israel are good and moral nations.
They are the first to respond to international disasters. Tsunamis, earthquakes, cyclones, whatever has created a deadly life threatening crisis. I read an article in the Algemeiner Blog by Danielle Haberer who described Israel perfectly:

"Having risen from the depths of a dark past, Jews have a unique obligation to respond to the suffering of the world. This obligation is a guiding principle at the core of Israeli society. The Jewish State cannot be a bystander. In their undertakings as "upstanders," Israelis have provided humanitarian aid to people all over the globe, from Boston to Oklahoma, to Haiti, to Japan, to Gaza, to Syria, and many more, dealing with a wide array of dire situations, from natural disasters to medical emergencies, to refugee crises, to wars, to genocide."

Yet it is the height of stupidity when those most in need of aid turn Israelis away thanks to demonizing demagogues in their own country. The mainstream media fails to report the humanitarian efforts of Israel because it is in their own interests to portray Israel as a heartless murderer of Palestinian children thus maintaining their access to Muslim countries. Ironically many in the press are Jewish self-loathers. Never once do they compare the minuscule global aid given by the more wealthy Muslim nations to the munificent efforts of Israel. Has any non-Muslim been treated in a Muslim hospital?

As a Catholic, my religion's sacred sites are protected by Israelis in Jerusalem. Jihadists routinely destroy temples and artifacts dating back millennia that belong to ancient religions other than their own. These radical Muslims are not good and moral people. Both the United States and Israel could blast Mecca and Medina off the map but they do not because they are good and moral nations.
Why is that so hard to accept?
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Barack Obama’s Toothless and Feckless Foreign Policy

The President’s weakness, deeply rooted in failed past administrations, is a surreal disaster for America and the world

By Joseph Loconte | 08/13/14 9:30am
Illustration by Dale Stephanos

A month after the German surrender ending the First World War, American President Woodrow Wilson arrived in Paris to throngs of admirers. After four years of the most destructive war in human history, Europeans looked to Wilson to broker the peace. All over Europe there were parks, squares, streets and railway stations bearing his name. H.G. Wells described the scene in Paris on December 13, 1918 when the president entered the city. “He was transfigured in the eyes of men,” he wrote. “He ceased to be a common statesman; he became a Messiah.”

Like Woodrow Wilson, the arrival of President Barack Obama on the world stage was greeted with a fervor that bordered on religious worship. Despising President George W. Bush’s “war on terror,” many looked to Mr. Obama to order the peace.

Like Wilson, candidate Obama had promised to transform international relations: hope would overcome defeatism, diplomacy would replace aggression, a revived United Nations would tame American unilateralism. Gushing at the prospect of an Obama White House, Harvard University’s Joseph Nye spoke for many: “It is difficult to think of any single act that would do more to restore America’s soft power than the election of Obama to the presidency.”

Now, after almost six years, it is difficult to think of a time when American power—soft or hard—was so inconsequential. Indeed, the gulf between Mr. Obama’s vision of the world and the world as we find it is staggering.
An Orthodox priest gestures with a stick as Maidan self-defence activists clash Kiev-1 volunteer battalion in Kiev. (Photo by Sergei Supinsky/AFP/Getty Images)

The Syrian regime commits war crimes with impunity, creating a refugee crisis not seen since the Second World War. In a spasm of aggression thought a relic of the Cold War, Russia swallows up Crimea and destabilizes eastern Ukraine. The Arab Spring devolves into an endless winter of sectarian violence. Whatever gains U.S. forces made in establishing liberal and humane governments in Afghanistan and Iraq have completely unraveled: security is worse than ever and the one tiny island of pro-American sentiment faces extinction, as Kurdish towns fall to a new strain of virulent jihad. The forces of radical Islamic extremism—supposedly “decimated” a few years ago—are resurgent and threatening governments across the globe.

Many events are beyond any president’s control. Certainly the pathologies that afflict much of the Islamic world are impossible for any nation to cure. And Mr. Obama inherited botched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that severely damaged America’s standing and security in the world.

Nevertheless, the alarming fact remains that Mr. Obama seems not to understand the relationship of power to diplomacy. His vision of foreign policy, immature from the start, appears incapable of rising beyond campaign bromides and false choices. No president has so openly rejected America’s role as “the indispensable nation” in world affairs. The combined result is a leadership vacuum being filled by terror and disorder.

A Peace to End All Peace

Despite his self-description as a “student of history,” Mr. Obama embodies the worst foreign policy impulses of some of America’s most deeply flawed presidents. Let’s begin with Woodrow Wilson, an East Coast intellectual with a liberal Presbyterian moralism. Wilson regarded European “power politics” with high-minded revulsion. He believed that a new community of nations, committed to diplomacy and moral suasion, could eliminate war.
‘The world is less violent than it has ever been,’ Mr. Obama told a gathering earlier this summer. ‘It is more tolerant than it has ever been.’ In political science jargon, this is neither idealism nor realism—not even foreign policy minimalism. It is surrealism. (Photo by Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)

“Wilson kept alive the hope that human society, despite the evidence, was getting better, that nations would one day live in harmony,” writes historian Margaret MacMillan. “In 1919, before disillusionment had set in, the world was more than ready to listen to him.”

Much of the world did listen, and the result was the hopelessly misguidedTreaty of Versailles. Bearing Wilson’s imprint, the treaty created a feckless League of Nations that sought to end power politics through treaties, arms reductions and a global “brotherhood of man.”

Disillusionment set in almost instantly, as a militant and vengeful Germany waited in the wings. As George F. Kennan described it in his classic work, American Diplomacy, “This was the sort of peace you got when … you indulged yourself in the colossal conceit of thinking that you could suddenly make international life over into what you believed to be your own image.”

Woodrow Wilson’s Ghost Goes to Moscow

That’s a fair critique of the Obama doctrine, especially as it’s been applied to Russia. The diplomatic “reset” with Vladimir Putin focused on offering incentives to Moscow—giving up a missile-defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic—to achieve better relations with a demonstrably aggressive autocrat. Instead, it has produced the most dangerous international environment with Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Obama’s chief diplomat, Secretary of State John Kerry, channeling Wilson’s ghost, was stunned by Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty earlier in the year: “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.”
A man throws a Molotov cocktail in Kiev. (Photo by Sergei Supinsky/AFP/Getty Images)

This childlike view of international relations was reinforced by Mr. Obama in a March 27 speech to the European Union. Although the president mentioned the importance of NATO to European security, he then made NATO irrelevant to the crisis. “Of course Ukraine is not a member of NATO, in part because of its close and complex history with Russia,” he said. “Nor will Russia be dislodged from Crimea or deterred from further escalation by military force.”

Wilson wanted “open diplomacy” to replace the diplomatic intrigues of the European powers.

Announcing in advance to an aggressor that there will be no military response to further aggression is about as open as it gets. Mr. Putin has gotten the message: ignoring U.S. economic sanctions, he continues to supply separatist rebels with sophisticated arms and has massed another 20,000 Russian troops along the Ukraine border.

The Hubris of FDR and Obama

Mr. Obama’s foreign policy idealism is aggravated by his hubris—not the maligned Texas swagger of a Mr. Bush, but rather a fierce and narrow political ambition that ultimately endangers America’s national security interests.

In this, he walks in the steps of one of his political heroes, Franklin Roosevelt. FDR’s leadership during the Second World War is rightly praised: he presided over the transformation of America’s anemic economy into an “arsenal of democracy.”
Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin, and Nouri Al-Maliki. (Photos by Getty Images)

But Roosevelt’s pre-war leadership was a disaster. Terrified of losing domestic support for his “New Deal,” he ignored the rising threat of international fascism. He gladly signed the neutrality acts of the 1930s, making it illegal for the United States to offer assistance to any combatant in a European war—no matter what the circumstances. Perfectly in step with the nation’s isolationist mood, he denounced the idea that America would side with the democracies in a European war as “100 percent wrong.”

It is often forgotten that FDR approved the infamous 1938 Munich Agreement—the diplomatic betrayal that delivered Czechoslovakia into Nazi hands and set the stage for the Second World War. While Winston Churchill denounced the pact as an “unmitigated defeat” for the cause of peace, Roosevelt asked Hitler for a guarantee that Germany would not attack other nations of Europe. (Hitler mocked the request during a Nazi party rally.)

Thus the devil in Berlin was emboldened, and the decade of appeasement reached its nadir.

Like Roosevelt, the hubris of Mr. Obama consists in his inclination to obscure unpleasant international realities for the sake of his political ambitions. For Mr. Obama, political success (re-election) depended on repudiating the foreign policies of his predecessor, regardless of the strategic consequences. Like FDR, he refuses to expend political capital to challenge a “war-weary” nation to exert its influence where it is desperately needed.

The Debacle in the Middle East

Hence the president’s catastrophic policies in the Middle East. Take Libya. The toppling of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, involving no U.S. ground troops and no loss of American lives, was trumpeted as the prudent alternative to Bush-style intervention. Mr. Obama called the military action “a lesson in what the international community can achieve when we stand together as one.”
A child sleeps as Iraqi Yazidis take refuge in Dohuk. (Photo by Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP/Getty Images)

The lesson, instead, is that the Obama administration will compromise national security in order to proclaim a foreign policy success. There is no other explanation for its clumsy deceptions in the days after the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, which killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. Insisting the attack was not premeditated, the administration blamed a “very offensive video” for insulting Islam and stirring up resentments around the Arab world.

The act of terror, we were told, did not reflect growing al Qaeda influence in Libya because of American neglect. We now know all of this was a falsehood, maintained to serve a presidential election campaign. Today, Libya is in meltdown — its government in disarray, it offers safe harbor for jihadi terrorists as weapons and fighters from the former regime destabilize sub-Saharan Africa.

Now take Syria. “We have been very clear to the Assad regime … that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president told reporters two years ago this month. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

In the end, Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people changed nothing. The Obama administration backed away from its threat to punish Mr. Assad militarily, leaving it to Russia—Mr. Assad’s most important ally—to orchestrate a deal to seize and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons.

The White House says it was the prospect of American force that caused the Syrian leader to give up his chemical stockpile. Not likely. Secretary of State Kerry telegraphed to the regime the extent of the U.S. military threat, promising “an unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.” No administration in American history has described the use of U.S.military power in such diminutive terms. No dictator in history would have been frightened by it.

Mr. Assad has not been deterred from committing further war crimes—he is simply using other weapons of terror and destruction to remain in power (and probably still uses chemical weapons). The result, after three years of U.S. inaction, is that the conflict has metastasized into a regional disaster: 170,000 Syrians are dead, and 9 million have abandoned their homes, including 2.5 million who have fled to Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq.
Displaced Iraqis from the Yazidi community carry their children as they cross the Iraqi-Syrian border. (Photo by Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP/Getty Images)


The Tragedy of Iraq

Let’s now consider Iraq. U.S. intelligence officials had been warning the administration for months that jihadists of the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) were exploiting the chaos in Syria—they now control about a third of that country—and exporting it to Iraq. Their stunning success in seizing swaths of territory in northern and western Iraq could have been prevented.

Yet Mr. Obama—who failed to reach an agreement with Iraq to leave a contingent of U.S. forces to ensure stability—lays all blame at the feet of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for his divisive leadership. The United States, Mr. Obama says, “is simply not going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis that gives us some assurance that they’re prepared to work together.” It is hard to conceive of a more soothing message to the jihadists in the region.

In addition to major cities and towns, ISIS extremists are seizing dams, refineries and oil fields. This gives them access to cash and the ability to coerce unwilling populations into submission. Their aim is the establishment of a totalitarian, pre-modern caliphate, extending across the region. We face the gruesome prospect of Iraq—a nation for which the United States has sacrificed blood and treasure—forcibly absorbed into this dystopian future.

History will severely judge an American president who cannot or will not muster an alliance of nations to defeat this malignancy in the heart of the Middle East. (Photo by Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)

It is already happening. ISIS forces have captured Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, and the nation’s largest dam, which provides water and power to millions. They continue to seize cities and towns across western and northern Iraq, giving ethnic and religious minorities the same choice: leave, convert to Islam or be executed. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are being driven from their homes. Only days ago, the extremists have taken over Qaraqosh, Iraq’s largest Christian town, forcing its nearly 60,000 residents to flee.

Yet none of this has created in President Obama a sense of urgency. Only the latest crisis in northwest Iraq, where tens of thousands of Yezidis are trapped in the peaks of Mount Sinjar, has prodded the president to action. Facing starvation, yet fearing death if they descend into areas controlled by ISIS, the Yezidis have become a wretched symbol of human suffering and American impotence. In a token gesture of humanitarian intervention, U.S. air strikes—no doubt “incredibly small and limited”—began last week. Even so, when the Pentagon was asked this week if there were plans to actually prevent a genocide of the Yezidis and create a corridor to safety, the answer was the usual prevarication: “We’re assessing the situation.”

Despite the growing threat to U.S. security, as well as the appalling level of human suffering, the president has yet to offer a strategic vision for actually defeating the extremists. Several hundred U.S. “advisors” have been dispatched, but to no visible effect. A targeted, sustained and punishing air assault—the one action that could put the fear of God into the jihadists—is not even being contemplated. History will severely judge an American president who cannot or will not muster an alliance of nations to defeat this malignancy in the heart of the Middle East.

Power and Diplomacy

In all this President Obama betrays his fundamental error, both intellectual and moral—the delusion that war is an unmitigated evil, easily avoidable, and that peace is the natural order of the universe.

Writing during the 1940s, theologian Reinhold Niebuhr assailed these “moralistic illusions” in his book Christianity and Power Politics. Modern liberalism, he said, has forgotten that the failure to use power effectively, to protect civilization, is a moral failure of the highest order. “In this liberalism there is little understanding of the depth to which human malevolence may sink and the heights to which malignant power may rise,” he wrote. “Some easy and vapid escape is sought from the terrors and woes of a tragic era.”

For most of his presidency Mr. Obama has sought an easy way out of the terrors of our age. His vapid foreign policy slogan was proudly announced on Air Force One: “Don’t do stupid shit.” Paralysis, however, is not the same thing as prudence. In this case it has invited a storm of violence, barbarism and insecurity.
Rebel fighters from the Islamic Front hold a position during clashes with militants of the Islamic State (IS). (Photo Ahmed Deeb/AFP/Getty Images)

A genocidal Islamist movement sweeps through Syria and Iraq, and the administration is “watching these events carefully.” Christian communities throughout Africa and the Middle East experience persecution not seen since the days of the Romans, and the leader of the free world remains in denial. “The world is less violent than it has ever been,” Mr. Obama told a gathering earlier this summer. “It is more tolerant than it has ever been.” In political science jargon, this is neither idealism nor realism—not even foreign policy minimalism. It is surrealism.

Thus the president persists with his diplomatic mantra: “There is no military solution to this problem.” What Mr. Obama fails to grasp is that any achievement toward peace and democracy—any diplomatic triumph—depends on the projection of American military power. The defeat of Nazism, the transformation of Japan and Germany into liberal democracies, the rescue of South Korea from communist tyranny, the liberation of Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union—none of it is conceivable apart from the credible threat of America’s armed forces.

Great statesmen, Democrat and Republican, have understood this political reality. They did not always authorize force to counter tyranny, but they used the threat of American hard power to support soft power strategies that worked. Harry Truman did this during the 1948 Berlin crisis when—ignoring advice to abandon the city—he ordered a massive, round-the-clock airlift to keep the West Berliners alive in the face of a Soviet blockade. Truman, the architect of NATO, knew that the preservation of democracy in West Berlin was the key to protecting freedom in the rest of Europe.

Ronald Reagan accomplished something similar when he vigorously supported the Solidarity movement in communist Poland in the 1980s. During the long years of martial law, the United States delivered a steady supply of covert assistance to help sustain the pro-democracy forces. As the Soviets struggled to match Reagan’s military build-up, the democratic revolution in Poland became the first crack in the Berlin Wall.

“The Polish nation, speaking through Solidarity, has provided one of the brightest, bravest moments of modern history,” Reagan told the American people in December 1981. “The torch of liberty is hot. It warms those who hold it high. It burns those who try to extinguish it.”

Mr. Obama, haunted by the demons of Vietnam and Iraq, cannot seem to decide what to do with the torch of liberty. And his ambivalence communicates American weakness. The problem is that the dark and demonic forces of this world are not in retreat. They thrive on democratic weakness. They advance when they sense a lack of political and spiritual resolve.

What power on earth can keep them at bay? Without its champion, the United States, liberty’s torch threatens to become a smoldering wick, overwhelmed in a world of shadows and fog.

Joseph Loconte is an associate professor of history at The King’s College in New York City and the author of God, Locke, and Liberty: The Struggle for Religious Freedom in the West (Lexington Press, 2014; josephloconte.com)
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,903
Messages
13,575,005
Members
100,883
Latest member
iniesta2025
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com