Maureen Dowd: "Obama is Bi"

Maureen Dowd doesn't think he's bi-polar. Not sure I'd want to take that bet! But her NYT piece seems to be similar to the theme I noted a little while ago, about Obama being firmly on both sides of the automation issue! Ms. Dowd:

Our president likes to be on both sides at once.

In Afghanistan, he wants to go but he wants to stay. He’s surging and withdrawing simultaneously. He’s leaving fewer troops than are needed for a counterinsurgency strategy and more troops than are needed for a counterterrorism strategy — and he seems to want both strategies at the same time. Our work is done but we have to still be there. Our work isn’t done but we can go.

On Libya, President Obama wants to lead from behind. He’s engaging in hostilities against Qaddafi while telling Congress he’s not engaging in hostilities against Qaddafi.

On the budget, he wants to cut spending and increase spending. On the environment, he wants to increase energy production but is reluctant to drill. On health care, he wants to get everybody covered but will not press for a universal system. On Wall Street, he assails fat cats, but at cocktail parties, he wants to collect some of their fat for his campaign.

On politics, he likes to be friends with the other side but bash ’em at the same time. For others, bipartisanship means transcending their own prior political identities. For President Obama, it means that he participates in all political identities. He does not seem deeply affiliated with any side except his own.

Maureen, we are in rare agreement. But you may not have come out and pinpointed the exact reason that Obama is on both sides of every issue.

On some of the most important issues facing this nation, it is time for the president to come out of the closet.

As just an ordinary, scum sucking, tell the people whatever it is they want to hear, politician.
I'm with you, Maureen!

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Obama's Israeli Peace Proposal in Cartoons

There seem to be a lot of these floating around. Pretty good ones, too!















H/T Brutally Honest, Wyblog, Michael Ramirez,

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Speaks at AIPAC, Again

Israel can sleep safely tonight! Barry has imposed sanctions on Iran!

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ addressed an AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington today. (Candidate Obama addressed them in 2008.) A couple of things jumped out at me.

We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel in a tough neighborhood.

A "tough neighborhood"??? Excuse me, Mr. President, but Israel is a nation under siege from its enemies. Chicago has rough neighborhoods, Israel is in a war zone.

"You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Here in the U.S., we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime."

Tough sanctions against Iran? How'd that work out for us against Saddam Hussein in Iraq?
Did tough sanctions bring down his regime or bring about peace in the region or extinguish his desire to rebuild his WMD capabilities? Israel can sleep safely tonight! Barry has imposed sanctions! /sarcasm

"...a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region."

Oh, you mean like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, after you were instrumental in the removal of Mubarak, who are avowedly hostile to Israel? And whatever factions are rebelling in Libya, about whose ideologies and intentions towards Israel you haven't a clue?

So, let me see...we have turmoil in Egypt, Syria, and Libya, where you just started a military action. We have shooting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and you sent a military mission into Pakistan, without the knowledge or permission of their government, and now you want to impose your will on our lone democratic ally in the Middle East, because...you needed to draw attention away from your golf outings??

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps"

Here's where you plan goes off the rails, Mr. President. Take the city of Jerusalem, the city of David, the capitol of Israel. Your proposal not only has it jutting like a peninsula into what would then be another country, but the old lines transect Jerusalem. Which part of Jerusalem do you envision either side would "mutually agree" to give up? On what would you base that belief? Certainly not on the last 44 years of history! And you have publicly stated that Jerusalem "must remain undivided". Who mutually agreed to that swap, Mr. President?

In the end, you have a pretty speech, which is only as dependable as the man who gives it. Too often in the past, Obama's promises have come with an expiration date. Why should we believe these are any different? And why should the nation of Israel risk its security and existence based on your words, Mr. Obama?

Full Text Of Obama's Speech To AIPAC

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Barack Obama: Master of Understatement

Jake Tapper of ABC, on the inept foreign policy pronouncements of Barack Hussein Obama II



"Obviously, there are differences between us." -Barack Hussein Obama II

Ya, think, Barry??? That's a little like saying there are differences between the lion and the gazelle.

"Precise formulations and language" - B Obama.

You think there's merely a difference in the "formulation" of how you say it? President Obama, which part of "Hell, no!" didn't you understand?

H/T Memeorandum

The Cain Doctrine: "You Mess With Israel, You Mess With the United States"

Stacy McCain had this great piece of video to cleanse the residue of Obama's folly from earlier this week. On the brighter side, if the world does come to an end in the next twenty four hours, no one will really care just how bad a president Obama truly is.



"You Mess With Israel, You Mess With the United States" Sounds an awful lot like the way we used to treat our allies!

Obama is no Friend of Israel

Obama took another giant step towards making sure our allies are treated worse than our enemies.
Obama Sees ’67 Borders as Starting Point for Peace Deal

WASHINGTON — President Obama, seeking to capture a moment of epochal change in the Arab world, began a new effort on Thursday to break the stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, setting out a new starting point for negotiations on the region’s most intractable problem.

...The Israeli government immediately protested, saying that for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders would leave it “indefensible.” Mr. Netanyahu held an angry phone call with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday morning before the speech, officials said, in which he demanded that the president’s reference to 1967 borders be cut.

So many things wrong with this. First, it goes against long standing support for defensible borders for Israel. It gives away the high ground of the Golan Heights and bringing virtually all of the country into mortar and rocket range of its enemies.

Second, why 1967? What gives the president of the United States the right to demand what territories a sovereign and democratic state must cede to its neighbors and, truth be told, enemies based on a purely arbitrary determination? The claims of Israel on what has been called the Promised Land go back literally thousands of years. Why 1967?

It is interesting that for many years liberals accused conservatives of wanting to "turn back the clock" on any number of issues. Why does Obama want to "turn back the clock" on Israel? And compared to thousands of years of Israeli history, 44 years is but a tiny fraction. Why not add a couple of decades and take the borders back to the 1947 borders? What's that you say? The modern state of Israel did not come into existence until 1948? Reducing Israel to a country eight miles across will go far in returning Israel to its 1947 borders...

And just for giggles, what if the President of Mexico demanded that the US return to it's pre-1848 borders before it would negotiate any new treaties with us? If Obama can void the Six Day war, why can't Mexico void the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo?

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything

Great Speeches by US Presidents, Edited by Ron Paul

I recently found a copy, in a rare book store*, of Great Speeches by American Presidents, edited by Ron Paul. It's a slim volume, not well used, but allow me a couple of excerpts:

Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully "endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation." Jefferson argued that "The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace."

…should they ever cross our border. -RP

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, suffer any hardship . . . to secure the survival and success of liberty."

-John Fitzgerald Kennedy

…within the confines of the continental US. -RP

"Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'"

-Ronald Wilson Reagan

…or would that be interfering in the internal "squabbles" of East Germany and the Soviet Union? Because I'd never want to do that! -RP

It is a sad thing to report, but after hearing the remarks of Congressman Paul and a number of his followers in the past few days, I have come to the realization that Ron Paul's foreign policy is much more closely aligned to that of Barack Obama than Ronald Reagan. Paul's echoing of bring the troops home smacks more of isolationism than "bear any burden, suffer any hardship". His castigation of Israel for the Gaza blockade could just as easily be applied to Kennedy's Cuban crisis. And how could a neo-isolationist ever have stood at the Brandenburg Gate and called for the Berlin Wall to come down? None of our business, don'tcha know?

I have heard Paul compared to Jefferson and I have heard him compared to Reagan.
But, please tell me how the "bring the troops home and spend our money here" memes of Paul and Obama differ? In fact, if you can believe either of them, Ron Paul would be far more reckless in abandoning our allies abroad than would Barack Obama, who has shown himself to be no great friend to either Israel or Great Britain.

Sorry. I'm not drinking the Ron Paul Kool-Aid®.

*If you believe this, I have a bridge for you!

Ron Paul, On Throwing Our Allies Under the Bus

Classic Liberal had a number of videos for an interview by Judge Andrew Napolitano with Sarah Palin and Congressman Ron Paul.



Let me preface this by saying that I admire Ron Paul for (most of) his views on the Constitution. He is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, and his views on domestic policies are largely in alignment with mine. But on matters of foreign policy, the Congressman and I part ways. I heard this interview early this AM and have not been able to get it out of my mind. At around 4:35 into the video, Congressman Paul says the US is an empire. This is either hyperbolic on his part or he is badly mistaken. This may be due, in part, to what I call Paul's neo-isolationism. Our military projects the power of the US beyond our borders. Congressman Paul sees this influence as some kind of "empire", though not one classically defined*. I see it more as "deterrence" and "influence". We want to encourage other countries to embrace freedom. We want to discourage other countries that would take freedom away.
*The US has defeated a number of enemies and we have seized neither their lands nor their resources, which is what empires typically do. On this point, Congressman Paul is wrong.

Then, he goes on to speak about how we don't need to be the cops of the world and how we don't need nine hundred plus bases around the world, and both those things may be true! There are certainly areas around the world where we could reduce our presence while still projecting our power. However, when asked about coming to the defense of our allies, Paul said this at 5:08:

"No, I'd treat Israel like all the other countries."

Really? I have heard this from Mr. Paul's mouth before and I am still no less incredulous. The idea that we should treat all countries as equals strikes me as either naively idealistic or borderline insane. The idea that we would treat Great Britain and Israel the same as we would Iran or North Korea is preposterous.
I believe, in theory, we should treat all people equally as well. But, if I see two men coming at me on the street and one is carrying a Bible and the other is carrying a switchblade, I'm going to treat those two individuals differently. Refusing to aid our allies until the enemy is at our doorstep is a good way not to have any allies when the enemy is at our doorstep.

...we don't get involved in their internal or external squabbles and we just stay out of it

"Squabbles?" My dictionary defines "Squabble" as a petty quarrel. Does Congressman Paul believe that Israel fighting for its very survival is a "petty quarrel"? Is smuggling rockets to Hamas indicative of a petty quarrel? A petty quarrel might be the neighbor playing the stereo too loud or too late at night. The first RPG I lob through my neighbor's window escalates that up from a "squabble" to something more.
But, if it's just a squabble, then let's not send warships to the gulf, let's send guidance counselors! A couple of good shrinks with a PhD in psychology and we can solve all the problems in the Middle East. After all...they're just "squabbles", right?
One would think that after so many years of public service that Mr. Paul could be more precise in the words he uses to describe the US and our allies' plight in the world than "empire" and "squabbles"? Unless, that's what he really believes...


My fervent hope is that his son Rand has not adopted his father's views on foreign policy.

More videos linked at Classic Liberal
Cross posted at Say Anything