Checkmate At The End – Libya, Oscars, Wisconsin

There is not much news. There is a lot of noise. At first glance it appears as if there is a great deal of news, but upon further reflection what we are witnessing is data points. The data points are all the incremental accumulation of the coming end of several news stories.

At liberal Slate magazine we noticed an interesting sentence regarding the dreadful dull Academy Awards from last night and the possibility that co-host James Franco was high:

“So complete was Franco’s desistance from the co-hosting project that there was speculation around the Web as to whether he might have been partaking of a little of the Pineapple Express backstage. (You know, that strain of weed so rare that “smoking it is like killing a unicorn.”) All I know is that at some point during what must have been a long, tedious and stressful night, Franco clearly decided, “I’m never doing this again, so it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks.” Unfortunately instead of loosening him up, this realization, herb-assisted or no, shut him down. He was like a one-term president dedicated to governing on the platform of Who Gives A Crap.”

President “Who Gives A Crap” made yet another appearance which further burdened a tedious event. The once “must watch” Oscar ceremony became as worth watching as the Nobel Peace Prize post President “Who Gives A Crap”. For a president who did not have time to denounce Libyan nutjob Gaddaffy but does have time to host Motown parties, basketball tutorials, and Glady’s Knight, it was another example of “Who Gives A Crap.”

Republican/conservative websites earlier noted that President “Who Gives A Crap” had once promised to don “comfy shoes” and walk the picket lines if ever unions were threatened. The unions are silent and protective of President “Who Gives A Crap”. There were no calls from organized labor that their great hero borrow Lanvin sneakers from Michelle and head on up to Wisconsin and prove he gives a crap about anyone but himself.

That it was Republican/conservative websites, not Big Labor, that goaded President “Who Gives A Crap” with his own words is instructive. As we wrote in our very first article about the Wisconsin battle, “The ending won’t be pretty.”

Big Media outlets are pretending that somehow the battle of Wisconsin will hurt Republicans. The truth is that it is the Obama Dimocratic Party that is in great danger as Big Labor is about to have its testicular fortitude cut off. In New York, the just elected governor from the Cuomo dynasty is in his very own Wisconsin style battle:

“New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has proven particularly adept at keeping his party at line and labor unions at bay and off the airwaves while he pushes for budget cuts.

But there are some signs of cracks in support in his own party emerging today, as a source forwards on a letter sent by 42 local Democratic elected officials to the governor. At issue is Cuomo’s decision to let a tax surcharge on income over $1 million expire, a tax that many Democrats had hoped to use to plug the budget gap:

“[S]ome of Governor Cuomo’s budget policies are neither balanced nor well conceived,” write the signers, led by Robert Jackson, a New York City Councilman, and Catherine Fahey, a local Albany official. “According to the Governor, this is what it means to be a ‘new Democrat.’ …If this is what it means to be a New Democrat, and if this is what it means to be progressive then something is very wrong.”

The signers don’t include any members of a state legislature whose members know that they cross Cuomo at their peril, but it’s a sign of restiveness in Democratic Party ranks.”

“The ending won’t be pretty” we wrote. Andy Stern in an interview with Ezra Klein agrees with us:

“Andy Stern: ‘It may not end beautifully in Wisconsin.’

Last year, Andy Stern retired as the president of SEIU, the service employees union that he’d built into a 2.2 million member heavyweight. During his tenure, Stern was known — and sometimes reviled — for his efforts to reform organized labor in America: He struck deals with corporations like Wal-Mart, led a number of unions to break away from the AFL-CIO and form Change to Win, and argued that unions had to modernize themselves and accept the effective end of the corporate welfare state and the dawn of a much more competitive economy, when contracts alone wouldn’t be enough. Since retiring, Stern has served as a member of the president’s fiscal commission and a fellow at Georgetown University. We spoke last night about where labor goes after Wisconsin. A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

Ezra Klein: A week ago, everyone I spoke to in the labor movement was convinced that Walker’s initiative was the worst thing to happen to them in a generation. Now I talk to them and they say it may be the best thing to happen to them in a generation. Where do you come down?

Andy Stern: It has that potential. The unions managed to strip the fiscal issues out from all of it, and Walker made such a big mistake exempting the police and firemen’s unions. He mobilized unions members in a way that hasn’t happened in a long time, and brought them together with students and other progressives. It’s turned into a Democrat versus Republican fight, not a good government versus bad government fight. Walker is beginning to look stubborn and inflexible. They’ve clearly raised the price of taking this action to a very high level. It was interesting to see [Indiana’s] Mitch Daniels and [Florida’s] Rick Scott back away from this stuff. But it may not end beautifully in Wisconsin. They have to be really careful about how that end is interpreted — whatever it is. You have to think about how to not make it a loss, without making ridiculous claims that you’ve won.

But this is what we do best in labor: fight back. Our question going forward is how do we change our posture on budget and fiscal issues so we’re not always looking like an impediment. Budget and pensions are math. There is a problem in Wisconsin next year, as there is in 44 other states. And the union eventually made a decision about contributing to solve the problem, but doing it under duress looks different than doing it as part of a collaborative process.”

All that fight back talk is gibberish intended to deceive from the thrashing that unions are about to get in Wisconsin and in many other states. As we wrote this is less about unions than unions as an auxiliary of the Obama Dimocratic Party. President Nixon was in many ways saved by the “silent majority” and union members from the trade unions who beat up protesting anti-war students. That was at a time when unions had supporters in Republican ranks and Republicans had supporters in union leadership ranks.

What Stern and his ilk refuse to acknowledge is that Big Labor leaders are often at odds with the interests of their rank and file. We saw that in Massachusetts where labor unions paid workers to hold signs for Martha Coakley but those same workers voted for Scott Brown. Obama’s health scam was the breaking point for many of those union members. Andy Stern refuses to acknowledge the problem preferring to gloat about the “successes” such as electing President “Who Gives A Crap”:

“EK: When you left SEIU last year, my private suspicion was that you were leaving because you didn’t see a future for the labor movement. You’d broken SEIU and your allied unions off into Change to Win, and that didn’t reverse the decline. You’d helped to elect Barack Obama, and gotten health-care reform passed, and those were major accomplishments, but it seemed to me that if you’d seen a path forward for union density, you would have stuck around once they were finished. Was I right?

AS: What I would say is I felt that the next strategy of change would be different. I had tried everything I knew. I was too much of a victim of the model I created. I tried Change to Win and helping Obama, and then I just ran out of Andy Stern ideas.”

Big Labor, just like the mainline women’s organizations, gay groups and many Jewish organizations would rather tie themselves to President “Who Gives A Crap” than talk to their workers and act as representatives of the workers. At one point Stern appears to wake up to the failed alliance:

” EK: But that wasn’t an inevitable outcome. The Great Depression, of course, was a huge boost for the labor movement. The Great Recession has been a huge blow to it. I’ve been kicking around a theory that Obama and the Democrats were loathe — for reasons that made pragmatic sense — to really create a persuasive narrative around what had gone wrong in the country. Doing so would’ve meant vilifying Wall Street, and they needed the market to stabilize, and employers to start hiring again. Plus, they didn’t really believe it. But that left a vacuum that Republicans occupied with a different set of villains: Government, and by association, labor unions, particularly public-employee labor unions. Think there’s any truth to that?

AS: I would say that Republicans have been very successful. There are three things Americans don’t like: Big unions, big government, and big corporations. So Republicans go after big government and big unions, and only talk about small businesses. And it’s worked. Where does the union movement have enough penetration in an industry of this century to be disruptive? We’re down to 6.2 percent in the private sector. The forces that don’t like unions there have largely finished with us. And now they’re moving to the public sector. But part of this story is that the Democratic Party hasn’t embraced unions in the last 20 years. Republicans understood unions as an ally of the Democratic Party. But unions couldn’t get Democrats to embrace unions as a response. They made the argument that making more union members was how you make more Democrats, and that argument is true, but they couldn’t get the Democratic Party to really embrace that theory. Today, no one thinks about any type of labor or industrial policy at all.”

Labor unions are about to learn that they must adapt or die. Ignoring workers so that labor leaders get invitations to the White House is a sure path to death.

Wade Radthke, the ACORN founder sounds the warning as well:

“There still seems to be no coherent strategy or plan that pulls labor together in a more fundamental direction to rebuild and reassert. In some ways it is too easy to see Wisconsin as a last gasp of the old school. I heard recently that the Madison AFL-CIO was debating calling a general strike. If called, who would come? If we came, what would we really stop? I want to see this and count the feet on those streets! [snip]

…SEIU and every other union need to pull all of their last dollars together and figure out how to survive and turn the tide and do it now, make it real, and make it very, very different, because the bell has rung on the old school and the old ideas, as Stern acknowledges, and we are running out of time and money with the tide coming in hard against us.

Indeed “who would come?” Move-on called for nationwide rallies this past weekend in support of Wisconsin’s public service unions. The rallies were as much of a dud as the Academy Awards with maybe 50,000 people nationwide attending. President “Who Gives A Crap” was AWOL. Perhaps President “Who Gives A Crap” and Mrs. “We all have to sacrifice” were busy with their personal trainer who flies in from Chicago several times a week to keep them toned.

The endgame in Wisconsin is approaching. No matter how many protesters are bused to Wisconsin this is not going to end well. Tomorrow Governor Scott Walker will follow through on his policies and blame the Fleebaggers for the consequences loss of jobs for many. Some of those jobs might be the 7 Fleebaggers who are might be recalled from office.

* * * * * *

Libya’s Quadaffy is also seeing the endgame approaching. Obama loving Chris Hitchens discusses President “Who Gives A Crap”:

“The Obama administration also behaves as if the weight of the United States in world affairs is approximately the same as that of Switzerland. We await developments. We urge caution, even restraint. We hope for the formation of an international consensus. And, just as there is something despicable about the way in which Swiss bankers change horses, so there is something contemptible about the way in which Washington has been affecting—and perhaps helping to bring about—American impotence. Except that, whereas at least the Swiss have the excuse of cynicism, American policy manages to be both cynical and naive.

This has been especially evident in the case of Libya. For weeks, the administration dithered over Egypt and calibrated its actions to the lowest and slowest common denominators, on the grounds that it was difficult to deal with a rancid old friend and ally who had outlived his usefulness. But then it became the turn of Muammar Qaddafi—an all-round stinking nuisance and moreover a long-term enemy—and the dithering began all over again. Until Wednesday Feb. 23, when the president made a few anodyne remarks that condemned “violence” in general but failed to cite Qaddafi in particular—every important statesman and stateswoman in the world had been heard from, with the exception of Obama. And his silence was hardly worth breaking. Echoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had managed a few words of her own, he stressed only that the need was for a unanimous international opinion, as if in the absence of complete unity nothing could be done, or even attempted. This would hand an automatic veto to any of Qaddafi’s remaining allies. It also underscored the impression that the opinion of the United States was no more worth hearing than that of, say, Switzerland. Secretary Clinton was then dispatched to no other destination than Geneva, where she will meet with the U.N. Human Rights Council—an absurd body that is already hopelessly tainted with Qaddafi’s membership.

By the time of Obama’s empty speech, even the notoriously lenient Arab League had suspended Libya’s participation, and several of Qaddafi’s senior diplomatic envoys had bravely defected. One of them, based in New York, had warned of the use of warplanes against civilians and called for a “no-fly zone.” Others have pointed out the planes that are bringing fresh mercenaries to Qaddafi’s side. In the Mediterranean, the United States maintains its Sixth Fleet, which could ground Qaddafi’s air force without breaking a sweat. But wait! We have not yet heard from the Swiss admiralty, without whose input it would surely be imprudent to proceed.”

Chris Hitchens’ words are empty because he was one of those that most vilified Hillary Clinton and supported President “Who Gives A Crap”. Now Obama’s weak excuses are tallied by Hitchens:

“Evidently a little sensitive to the related charges of being a) taken yet again completely by surprise, b) apparently without a policy of its own, and c) morally neuter, the Obama administration contrived to come up with an argument that maximized every form of feebleness. Were we to have taken a more robust or discernible position, it was argued, our diplomatic staff in Libya might have been endangered. In other words, we decided to behave as if they were already hostages! The governments of much less powerful nations, many with large expatriate populations as well as embassies in Libya, had already condemned Qaddafi’s criminal behavior, and the European Union had considered sanctions, but the United States (which didn’t even charter a boat for the removal of staff until Tuesday) felt obliged to act as if it were the colonel’s unwilling prisoner. I can’t immediately think of any precedent for this pathetic “doctrine,” but I can easily see what a useful precedent it sets for any future rogue regime attempting to buy time. Leave us alone—don’t even raise your voice against us—or we cannot guarantee the security of your embassy. (It wouldn’t be too soon, even now, for the NATO alliance to make it plain to Qaddafi that if he even tried such a thing, he would lose his throne, and his ramshackle armed forces, and perhaps his worthless life, all in the course of one afternoon.)”

Obama has been too busy courting the Academy Awards to develop a strategy or a purpose. President “Who Gives A Crap” is fast turning the United States into a helpless, stinking piece of crap:

“The United States, with or without allies, has unchallengeable power in the air and on the adjacent waters. It can produce great air lifts and sea lifts of humanitarian and medical aid, which will soon be needed anyway along the Egyptian and Tunisian borders, and which would purchase undreamed-of goodwill. It has the chance to make up for its pointless, discredited tardiness with respect to events in Cairo and Tunis. It also has a president who has shown at least the capacity to deliver great speeches on grand themes. Instead, and in the crucial and formative days in which revolutions are decided, we have had to endure the futile squawkings of a cuckoo clock.”

Obama could give a speech to the Arab and Muslim world noting that the Jews are not the problem. A few Reaganesque cruise missiles aimed at the Tripoli barracks in which Quadaffy hides could be persuasive that it is time to depart either Libya or this Earth. But Obama does not give a crap.

All Obama cares about is himself and the muscular arms of Mrs. “Who Gives A Crap”. The endgame in Wisconsin and Libya approaches. 2012 approaches as well.

Share

To Flee Or Not To Flee? – That Is The Question

Obamaitis is contagious and spreading. Back in 2007 when we first warned about Barack Obama’s record of voting “present” little did we know it was an infectious disease.

By voting “present” instead of “yea” or “nay” Barack Obama fled from responsibility. Barack Obama was physically “present” but absent from the fight.

Wisconsin Obama Dimocrats have taken the Obama germ and fled to states governed by other Obama Dimocrats. Today we learned that Indiana Obama Dimocrats are now “Fleebaggers” too though we are sure they are in luxury quarters not a fleabag hotel.

Tactical retreats have an honorable history. Washington retreated across the Delaware, Allied armies avoided devastation at Dunkirk, and even in political history there are many instances when it was intelligent to live to fight another day. But considering that the Big Fight of the year will be the potential federal government shutdown (think debt ceiling and budgets that need to be passed) Obama Dimocrats in the states are undercutting Obama Dimocrats at the national level. How will national Dimocrats denounce a government shutdown when they are praising a government shutdown at the local level?

The Fleebagging tactics of the past few days are shutdowns or legislative filibusters by another name. We respect shutdowns and filibusters but it was Obama Dimocrats that have vigorously denounced both tactics. From appearances, these legislative gimmicks are all they have left. It didn’t have to be this way. What happened was the voters voted and elections have consequences. Isn’t that what Obama said in 2009? “I won.” “Elections have consequences.” Didn’t Obama say that?

The fact is that elections do have consequences. What Obama Dimocrats are witnessing is the consequences of drinking the poison called Obama. Last year, in an article called “The Obama Death Threat – You Got Me” we quoted from a Weekly Standard articled calledThe Clinton Voters Jump Ship“:

“For six months during the 2008 primaries, Obama and Hillary Clinton crisscrossed the country wooing voters. Obama consistently failed to win over important parts of the Democratic base, even after it became clear that he was going to be his party’s nominee. [snip]

Instead, it may be that his general election triumph was the aberration—that his coalition was never as strong as the financial panic of September 2008 made it seem. It would mean that he is now returning to his natural base of support and that the Jacksonians and others who resisted him in the primaries have turned away once again from his charms.

But it also suggests something more, that the Democratic party is now the party of Obama, for good and for ill. While the president is no Jacksonian, his party has many in its ranks. Democratic officeholders should be concerned about their voters fleeing not just from Obama but from their party as well. The president may be in the process of trimming the Democratic base back into something that looks an awful lot like his own primary base.

A few weeks ago Representative Marion Berry, a Jacksonian from Arkansas’s First District, recounted an exchange he had with the president. Asked how he was going to prevent a midterm disaster on the scale of 1994, Obama replied, “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.” Which may be precisely the problem.”

As the article noted, those of us who consider ourselves Democrats, not Obama Dimocrats, are “fleeing not just from Obama but from [our] their party as well.” The party ran away from us and we are running away from the party. In 1994 the economy was recovering but the voters did not believe it yet or did not credit Bill Clinton. But by 1996 and even during the off year elections in 1998 (as Republicans prepped to impeach him) Bill Clinton led Democrats to victory.

Barack Obama has led to defeat after defeat. As more Obama Dimocrats retire from the Senate and redistricting consequences come into play it is almost a sure thing (many commentators consider it a sure thing for sure) that Republicans will win the Senate in 2012 and keep control of the House. Because many of the same factors (many more Dimocrats will again be up for reelection in the Senate in 2016) will be in play in 2016 as in 2012 the future is very bleak for Obama and his Dimocratic Party Obamination.

Elections have consequences. In February 2010’s Mistake in ’08 – The Power Of Hillary Clinton Supporters quoting from the same source, we discussed some significant election results from the primaries of 2008:

“For six months during the 2008 primaries, Obama and Hillary Clinton crisscrossed the country wooing voters. Obama consistently failed to win over important parts of the Democratic base, even after it became clear that he was going to be his party’s nominee.

On February 5—Super Tuesday— Obama did poorly in both New Jersey and Massachusetts, losing to Clinton by 10 and 15 points, respectively. The exit polls were in line with Obama’s performance throughout the primary race: He did very well with blacks, wealthy voters, highly educated voters, and very young voters. He did poorly with working-class whites and older voters.”

Why review this election history? At the time we wrote those articles Republican Scott Brown had just won in Massachusetts the “Kennedy seat” and Republican Chris Christie had just beaten Jon Corzine in New Jersey. In New Jersey Christie won because of defections among the same groups who had been against Obama in the presidential primaries.” In Massachusetts Scott Brown won in the “ethnic, blue-collar strongholds that went heavily for Clinton in the primaries.”

When Obama went campaigning in Massachusetts and New Jersey it was a death sentence for the Dimocrats running in those states. When Obama said “You’ve got me” to those running for election in 2010 it was also a death sentence.

Scott Brown’s election was a rejection of Obama’s health scam and that rejection came from true blue Massachusetts. Obama and his Dimocrats ignored the people and the Massachusetts vote and rammed through the health scam. Now they complain that the Republicans in Wisconsin are ramming through legislation even though the people of Wisconsin voted for the Republican governor (and dumped the Dimocratic legislature for Republicans too) who specifically ran on that issue.

The Republican victory in New Jersey has been even more consequential:

“Now, Christie’s playbook has become standard reading for many of the Republican governors that were elected in 2010.

In Wisconsin last week, Gov. Scott Walker upset state public sector unions so much that Democratic lawmakers fled the state to avoid a vote on his budget, and teachers joined in solidarity by effectively going on strike.

In Ohio, Republican Gov. John Kasich vowed to take on public sector unions even before taking office. And now, the state’s legislature is considering a bill that would restrict collective bargaining rights and implement a merit pay system for teachers.

In Tennessee, Gov. Bill Haslam has presented plans to make it harder for public school teachers to achieve tenure. Almost immediately, teachers’ unions pegged the plan as being ‘anti-teacher.”

But the Christie effect isn’t just rippling through states where Republicans made major gains in the 2010 midterm elections.

An unlikely face of union reform and fiscal hawkishness can be found in recently-elected Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York. Cuomo, the son of a Democratic icon, has even vowed to take a hard look at state employee pensions.

The proposed reforms have union members seething in fury, but no state has been immune to budget difficulties. By taking on union contracts as a way to balance the budget, governors like Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Bill Haslam are following in the footsteps of Chris Christie.

So did Christie start a trend?”

You betcha.

The Republican takeover in states like New Jersey and Wisconsin (and Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania) are a direct consequence of Barack Obama being gifted the Democratic nomination in 2008. It is the Obama failure of leadership that had led to the current political and economic crisis. Instead of leading Obama has fled from the tough decisions. Instead of leading Obama has fled from economic reality. Instead of leading Obama has fled from those duped into voting for him and even from an honest conversation with those who have never trusted him.

Obama’s foolish Dimocrats are going to have to accept the consequences of having Obama as their “leader”. Obama Dimocrats are going to have to stand and fight or continue to run away. Running away like fleas from a dogcollar is not the answer. Obama has fled from any real leadership on fiscal policy. Obama’s only answer is to spend and spend. Once it comes to frugality it’s off to Vail, Spain, or the golf course.

The opposition party to the Republicans has to lead not flee. If there is a case to be made for more spending – make it. If there is a case for cutbacks – make it. But stop running away. Things are not going to get better by running away. Obama’s latest antics are causing a downturn in support for him:

“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 21% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 (see trends).

That’s the lowest level of Strong Approval yet recorded for President Obama and the lowest Approval Index rating since November.

Republicans have a nine-point advantage over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

Most voters continue to favor repeal of the health care law.”

If these sometime lawmakers want to flee they should flee from Obama.

The fiscal problems of the country and the states are not going to disappear. This is not Egypt and Governor Scott Walker is not Mubarak. In Michigan, not a state run by Republicans, the disaster for Detroit schools is not in the future. The disaster has arrived. Blaming unions or running away from the problems posed by unions is not the answer. The problems are going to have to be confronted (in Wisconsin after today the Fleebaggers will have to earn their paychecks and collect them in person). Running away is not the answer.

Running away? We do wish Barack Obama would flee to Libya and plant a wet one on Gaddafi/Kaddafi who has vowed to stay in the country and “die a martyr.” In the land of camels, Daffy would rather fight than switch.

Obama has been near silent on Kaddafi/Gaddafi even as he was vocal about ousting dictator/American ally Mubarak. Perhaps it is because Libya has oil and Egypt has none. Maybe that is why Gaddafi/Kaddafi/DaffyDuck is supposedly threatening to blow up oil pipelines. George W. Bush was denounced for supposedly waging “war for oil” and Obama is waging “appeasement for oil”.

Why do we want Obama to go to Libya? It is not to rid ourselves of Obama by afflicting the long suffering Libyan people. No, we hope Obama goes to Libya and infects Kaddafi/Qaddaffi/Daffy with the contagion of Obamaitis. Once infected, Kaddafi will flee from Libya.

Obama can then rule Libya and Michelle can wear all the garish costumes previously worn by the madman of the Mideast. That would be a win/win for the world.

Share

Presidents’ Day In Hell

It’s Presidents’ Day so the Hell called MSNBC decided to acquire viewers, or a viewer, by airing a special broadcast featuring a real president. Jabba The Hut Chris Matthews thinks he can avoid the fate of Keith Olbermann by doing a special program featuring President Bill Clinton. Chris Matthews, the slimy host of Mudball, thinks we will end the boycott/girlcott of the cable snoozefest in order to get a glimpse of Bill Clinton. Ain’t gonna happen.

The boycott/girlcott of MSNBC is still on. We are imposing Sharia law. Anyone who watches MSNBC will have their eyes gouged out, their ears cut off, their hands and feet amputated, and their nostrils stuffed with Michelle Obama’s armpit hairs.

The Bill Clinton special is being sold as a glowing portrait but no doubt the loathsome Chris Matthews will find little and big ways to slime the guest. Matthews will also skew events with his twisted version of history. We won’t watch and neither will you – or else. We won’t watch no matter how the show is sold:

“Hardball host Chris Matthews offers a Presidents’ Day gift to Bill Clinton with a new documentary.

“President of the World” is how Matthews titled his special on the ex-president, airing Monday at 10 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC.

The premise is that Clinton’s post-presidency has been unlike any other: Theodore Roosevelt’s “international stardom” combined with Herbert Hoover’s “public redemption” and Jimmy Carter’s “low-key humanitarian work.”

Today Bill Clinton produced new cause for great amounts of silly outrage when he and George H.W. Bush announced a new University of Arizona center The National Institute for Civil Discourse. We’ll stick with our version of Sharia law and issue fatwas.

Anyone who watches the Hellish MSNBC risks incurring the wrath of our fatwa. Because we are merciful (bleeding heart liberals that we are) we will consider pleas for forgiveness from those unable to resist the lure of Bill Clinton, the spectacle of Chris Matthews crawling to Bill for rating(s), those who wish to figure out why Bill Clinton would humiliate Matthews this way, or scholars/writers who for various reasons believe they need to watch the show so that others are kept informed but are not burdened with watching.

The above does not mean that absolution will be granted automatically. To qualify for exemption from our fatwa justice the potential viewer (this loopy hole is valid for tonight only and only for one hour) must recite the Big Pink catechism before and after the show begins:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

* * * * * *

It’s not difficult to understand why Chris O’Tingles would choose to ignore his love crush, Barack Obama, on this Presidents’ Day. Even O’Tingles understands that Obama is a boob. An unpopular boob with a 55% disapproval rating.

The boob in the White House is having a dramatic impact on those who foolishly allied themselves with him. Big Labor is about to suffer a Hellish defeat in Wisconsin that will cripple the Obama Dimocratic Party as Wisconsinitis spreads to other states.

The White House response to the coming catastrophe is to lie and run away by pretending they never played a role in the Wisconsin disaster. However earlier White House “tweets” prove again that Obama and his thugs are lying. Barack Obama is running away from his earlier position because he knows the gig is up and his poll numbers are down. Obama simply cannot be trusted – and Big Labor is about to learn that lesson, again.

As we wrote earlier, the battle of Wisconsin is not going to end well. The “optics” for labor indeed look very bad. We earlier made the point that the Thunderball in Wisconsin should be attributed to the labor movement and the Democratic Party having effectively merged. Labor leaders cared mostly about electing politicians and politicians mostly cared about wooing the Big Labor leaders. Now the foolishness of that union for both labor and what once was the Democratic Party (but is now the Obama Dimocratic Party), can be witnessed. A labor union official makes the point we elaborated on:

“Whatever happened to the vague sense 10 years ago of the need to develop a community unionism?” asked another official, who suggested labor leaders on the ground in Wisconsin shouldn’t have been surprised by the Walker attack, yet were clearly caught off guard. “They’ve been talking only to themselves for too long.”

In 2008 the Democratic Party ignored the rank and file voters and imposed their chosen boob on the party. The “leaders” talked to themselves for too long. They choose a boob over an experienced and ready on day one, ready to answer a 3:00 a.m. phone call, leader. In the same way Big Labor bosses have ignored their own rank and file and now they are about to get hit.

American organized labor is going to have to go back to the basics. At the beginning labor unions were very representative of the workers. But eventually as the unions grew, received substantial dues collected directly from the checks of the workers – the unions and the workers separated in their interests.

Big Labor became a bureaucracy interested in its own survival. Labor unions increasingly saw their bureaucratic interests as paramount. The workers lost when their representatives cared more about themselves and transformed into what amounted to a second boss. Power corrupted.

American organized labor is going to have to go back to the basics and focus on the workers, not politicians, as their primary concern if they want to get out of the Hell they are about to enter. All over the world leaders are learning to get back to the basics and listen to the people.

Libya’s Qaddafi is learning that lesson in his own very public Hell. Qaddafi’s reign is crumbling. Barack Obama should watch and learn before the gates of Hell close in on him. But Obama won’t learn. Obama will have to be pushed out, forced out.

Barack Obama should start packing his bags. He’s got a one way ticket on this Presidents’ Day. It’s not a ticket to paradise.

Share

Thunderball In Wisconsin

We’re watching events unfold in Wisconsin with a barely stifled yawn. It’s not that the scenes aren’t exciting, it’s that we’ve seen this show before. The ending won’t be pretty.

Recall the golden age of Obama promises and how the world would change? Well, it has. Elections have consequences. In the case of Obama – if you elect a boob, expect boobery.

In the case of Republicans – wait – Republicans? Weren’t they supposed to have died off after Obama’s election? Isn’t there a demographic bomb that killed off the Republican Party and has ensured endless victories for the party of Barack Obama? And didn’t Barack Obama promise some magic card check thingy that would invigorate Big Labor?

Here at Big Pink we scoffed at the demographic nonsense of well educated idiots. We gutted the notion that Barack Obama and the demographic bomb are anything but cheap glittery balls. As to Republicans – we disagree with them and we thought a fighter like Hillary Clinton was needed to fight them – but we never thought they were stupid.

We knew Republicans would adapt and react to demographic trends and political realities. This is what we wrote before last year’s Republican victories:

The obvious mistake that the massive “creative class” brains made when they created the Obama monster in a Chicago laboratory was that Republicans would remain static in their strategies and candidates. The stupidity was to think that Republicans would go to sleep and stick to an outdated playbook. Strategists such as Teixeira managed to persuade the gullible “leadership” that even though White Americans would remain a potent electoral force these White Americans could be ignored if they were “lunch bucket Joe and Jane”. In other words, the White Working Class would be ignored and instead wealthy white liberals and their kids would be the only ones invited to participate in the New America.

The additional stupidity from the “creative class” brains was that the Democratic base could be taken for granted. After all, reasoned these brains, by definition the base is the base. The base could be ignored and led by the nose. Sound familiar Democratic progressives? Instead of nurturing the base and courting the base in order to keep the base – arrogance ruled arrogantly.

So which races are the two most important races this election cycle? Think Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and Marco Rubio in Florida.”

The Republicans adapted and now have a very diverse pool among the leadership ranks. Republicans have young people, young women, ethnics, and young Latinos. As to those “two most important races”, young Republican conservative Latino Marco Rubio won and Wisconsin Obama Dimocrat “old white guy” progressive Russ Feingold lost. Which leads us to Wisconsin and Big Labor.

Have you noticed how little we have thus far mentioned Big Labor and labor unions in Wisconsin? It’s because labor and labor unions are a side show even as they take center stage and the spotlight is on them. What we are witnessing in Wisconsin is a not dead, very smart Republican Party cut the air hose on the Obama Dimocratic Party.

To our shock and surprise, NBC had some worthwhile, if obvious, analysis:

“Upside down: Anyone else noticed how the political protests in Wisconsin — as well as the game of hide and seek there — have turned the political rhetoric upside down? A year ago, during the health-care fight in Washington, Democrats maintained that elections have consequences. Now it’s the Republicans in power in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) who are saying this. A year ago, Republicans complained of partisan legislation being quickly crammed through the system (though that process took an entire year), and now it’s Democrats who are voicing this complaint in Wisconsin. And a year ago, Republicans used every parliamentary trick in the book (cloture, votes up until Christmas Eve) to stop or slow down the health-care legislation. Now we’re seeing the Democrats use what’s at their disposal (like fleeing to Illinois to deny a quorum) to stop or slow down the legislation in Wisconsin. Bottom line: Those in political power do every thing they can to pass their priorities, and those out of power do every thing they can to stop them.”

It’s not a surprise but NBC gets the history right but misses the point, again. NBC goes with the “pols are pols” stupidity those at Left Talk spew. The point is that Republicans realize that the best way to stop a tank is to deprive it of gasoline. It’s the supply lines, stupid.

Remember the James Bond movie Thunderball? In the climatic undersea battle we see the chief tactic of the “frogmen” is to cut the air hose from the other guy and leave the victim twitching and gasping for air. That’s what the Republicans are doing.



Why is there such a hubbub in Wisconsin? Why is Barack Obama sending his thugs and thug machine OAFs to Wisconsin? Why are there tens of thousands of demonstrators out on the streets and in the state capital? Why are the labor unions finally so aroused? Why is there a scent of camels (not the cigarette) and Cairo in the air? It has almost nothing to do with paying more for health benefits or pensions.

What is happening in Wisconsin is that Obama realizes he is mortally threatened. What is happening in Wisconsin is that the Obama Dimocratic Party knows it is mortally threatened. That’s why now, all of a sudden, Obama Dimocrats are so concerned about “the workers”.

For too long the Democratic Party relied on labor unions to do just about everything. The payoff for public labor unions was a friendly negotiator across the table. Nothing wrong with that arrangement except that ultimately it hurt the workers as they increasingly became cogs in a Big Labor machine that cared about them less and less. The Democratic Party was ultimately hurt too.

The Democratic Party atrophied with its dependence on labor unions to supply the manpower and womanpower, along with the financing for campaigns as well as the headquarters and field offices. Along with union endorsements came money and workers and therefore the game became union endorsements instead of outreach to individuals. The game was not to appeal to the workers but instead to romance the Big Labor union bosses. We’re all guilty of this – Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton included.

For the unions, the workers became less important. The workers essentially became only dues payers. The Big Labor bosses increasingly ignored the plight of the workers and only cared that the dues were paid. With the money from the workers’ dues unions paid for political protection and friendly negotiators in the public service labor arena. Instead of spending all their money on union organizing and increasing their ranks, unions saw their easy path on the political highway. Republicans noticed.

In the wake of Barack Obama’s election it all began to fall apart. Obama had made a big show of loving unions and pledged to pass Big Labor’s number one priority in 2009. As if. Obama was not about to help Big Labor when it could possibly undermine him. Legislation that would get rid of the secrecy of the ballot box in union elections, garner hundreds of thousands of new union members, was great for unions. But perhaps they would then get too strong and challenge him. Further, why help Big Labor when it would require some political capital? Obama did a lot of talkin’ and not much else.

Now in the the wake of the Citizens United decision which increases the power of Big Business, Barack Obama knows the Republicans have a very smart plan to cut off his oxygen supply and leave him flopping about at the bottom of the sea. Wisconsin unions have already surrendered on higher health benefits bills and pension contributions. What they will not agree on, cannot agree on are the killer provisions which for all intents and purposes will neuter them in 2012.

These killer provisions would allow workers to opt out of paying union dues. The public service unions would also have to hold a vote every year on whether or not to stay in business. This would all mean the workers would be back in control of their unions – because the union bosses would have to listen to them continuously not just collect the paid dues. But this also means that the unions would be greatly weakened and have to struggle just for survival. Any idea of increased power in 2012 would be gone. Mass expenditures to help elect Obama Dimocrats would be lessened if not imperiled.

The Republicans have played this very well. Republicans appear to be on the side of fiscal probity and the taxpayer while at the same time running a spear through Obama and his Keystone Kops Dimocrats by slicing through the air hose. To this the Dimocrats have responded with a tactic that is sure to fail – they have run away.

According to Sam Stein, who interviewed the Texas Democrats that tried the same run away tactic years ago, the great hardship for the runaway Wisconsin Dimocrats will be a lack of sex:

“As a group of Wisconsin Democrats camp outside their state in hopes of stalling an anti-public union bill, veterans of such high-stake showdowns see numerous challenges ahead. The media coverage will be suffocating; the urge to cut a deal will be compelling; the lack of sex will be, well, unsettling. Seriously. [snip]

She’s not joking. Among the many trying elements that come with a “quorum break,” the disruption to a lawmaker’s personal life ranks highest.”

Stein also notes about the Texas Dems, “Their flight was also, ultimately, fruitless, and I think inexplicable to many voters.” It’s sad that when it comes to “fight or flight” the choice for those we used to call compatriots is flight – and the greatest hardship is deprivation of sexual orgasm. Evil Republicans we suppose are preventing masturbatory alternatives (or secret sex treats from Disney).

This is not going to end well. A rational party would have realized that running away from a fight is not going to be a winning strategy. Republicans are not going to be deterred and they will indeed follow Obama’s example and cram/ram the legislation through. The difference here will be that the public sides more with the Wisconsin Republicans than Americans ever sided with Obama and his health scam.

A rational party would have stayed in the capital and fought. They would have lost anyway but they could have made an argument to the public. The notion that these frightened Obama Dimocrats should be cheered is a ludicrous one. At most they are delaying a vote but they are losing the battle for public opinion. The desperation tactic is easy to understand because this Wisconsin legislation will cut huge resources from every Dimocratic campaign, but ultimately they are going to lose the battle. Wouldn’t it have been better to “man up” (we prefer “woman up”) and fight, lose and fight again?

It would have been better long term to stay and fight. However there are other considerations driving Obama Dimocrats and Big Labor in this fight.

One major consideration is FEAR. Big Labor and Obama Dimocrats want riots and demonstrations and outrage and horror to be seen in the false HOPE that somehow this will frighten Republicans in Wisconsin and other states. Like Barack Obama’s election this is a false HOPE. The Republicans are not going to be frightened.

The Thunderball that has hit the land of La Follette (yup, Wisconsin is the progressive promised land, or was) is going to hit other states. Some of these will be really big states like Ohio. Obama Dimocrats know this.

The FEAR tactic is meant to help out with the TIME factor. Republicans in state after state are going to pass Wisconsin type laws and these will impact just in time for 2012. With 21 states completely under Republican control (Pennsylvania and Florida included) the Republicans know they are in a strong position. Obama Dimocrats in the streets, labor unions in the streets, insulting signs in the streets are not going to deter.

“The president’s political machine worked in close coordination Thursday with state and national union officials to get thousands of protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals.

Their efforts began to spread, as thousands of labor supporters turned out for a hearing in Columbus, Ohio, to protest a measure from Gov. John Kasich (R) that would cut collective-bargaining rights.

By the end of the day, Democratic Party officials were organizing additional demonstrations in Ohio and Indiana, where an effort is underway to trim benefits for public workers. Some union activists predicted similar protests in Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.”

Barack Obama long ago sold out American workers and the American people in order to help himself with business leaders, insurance companies, Big PhaRma and others (let’s not forget Exelon). Now the chickens are, um, coming home.

Obama’s new Dimocratic Party was to be built on African-Americans, young people, and gentry whites. The White Working Class was dumped along with seniors. Big Labor money was welcome but only in exchange for nothing. Big Labor knows that they are in a trap of their own making when they supported treacherous Barack Obama:

“Two years into a presidency that carried immense promises for the labor movement, this is how it has gone for Obama. Some unions remain firmly by his side, while others think he has reneged on promises or – as he seeks to mend relationships with business leaders – abandoned them altogether.

“He’s basically trying to be everything to everybody,” said Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, a nursing union that claims 160,000 members and is an affiliate of the AFL-CIO. “Until you look at the policies, and then it’s clear he’s there for the corporate sector.

The union arranged a protest this month when Obama addressed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, accusing him of cozying up to big businesses.

Officials from another AFL-CIO affiliate, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, said that tens of thousands of its members have been laid off and that they don’t see the White House advocating for them.

They may be lost to the Democratic cause,” said Rick Sloan, a spokesman for the union.

Hey, you could have had Hillary who would have fought. But that hopey changey glitter ball was so new you had to chase it.

When unions hire non-union pickets you know something is very wrong. The better strategy for labor in Wisconsin and Big Labor generally would have been to try to win the battle for public opinion even if they lost the fight and the law passed. But this is not about labor or workers. The battle of Wisconsin is about money for Obama Dimocrats in 2012.

Today Sarah Palin has sent a note of support to demonstrating backers of Governor Walker and the Republicans in Wisconsin. Herman Cain is declaring Wisconsin “ground zero”. It’s supporters versus opponents in the Battle of Wisconsin. In the land of La Follette progressives, Republicans are WTF (winning the future). It’s a mad, mad, world.

But not to worry. While workers are in the cold streets of Wisconsin (there’s now a Winter storm watch), while Republicans are demonstrating for their beliefs as well, while Big Labor and Big Business fight a climatic battle…

Michelle Obama, who calls for diets and sacrifice... is in expensive Vail, Colorado on a ski vacation. Don’t forget to tip the help Michelle, they’re voters, a fact your hubby forgot.

Share

Hillary Clinton Strikes Back At Obama And Iran

Any doubts about the accuracy of our many reports (list of links HERE) on the secret and sometimes not so secret war by Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton should have been completely dispelled this week. Proof emerged that last week John Kerry was enlisted by Barack Obama to specifically target and undermine, on a nationally broadcast (Meet The Press) television show, the Secretary of State.

The ostensible issue for the combat was the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt. Hillary knew that the situation in Egypt was not as simple as many wanted to believe. For all the Hope and Change, Hillary knew things could turn ugly very quickly and that there was a danger of going from the frying pan into the fire. The Iron Veil threatened to fall.

Today in Egypt the same military that has been in charge since the 1950s is still in charge. The people of Egypt are less secure in their homes than they have ever been. We now know that at the height of the protests a brutal sexual assault (“Jew! Jew!” was also heard) occurred against a woman CBS correspondent.

She was surrounded in the same way Israel is surrounded. She was rescued by women and the Egyptian military. The assault against a prominent woman correspondent was only mildly noted at the White House. For some on the left, it was all a joke to be laughed about.

As events progressed the unrest continues to spread. This week the not so secret war against Hillary Clinton also continued to spread. Hillary Clinton struck back.

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton delivered an important speech on internet freedom. The speech was widely advertised and expected to generate lots of news. Barack Obama in a brazen attempt to marginalize Hillary Clinton chose that day to hold a rare press conference.

By Wednesday, John Kerry was in Pakistan in an attempt to further marginalize Hillary Clinton:

“Senator John Kerry, the former US presidential candidate, is holding high-level meetings in Pakistan in an attempt to defuse a diplomatic crisis involving a US embassy worker who shot dead two Pakistanis last month.”

A United States embassy worker is under arrest in Pakistan. One would expect that the ultimate authority for the embassy, the United States Secretary of State, would be the one to speak out. But no, John Kerry was on the job in Pakistan to help Barack Obama further undermine Hillary Clinton.

All the attempts to undermine if not destroy Hillary Clinton were futile. This smart woman knows she is under attack and she knows how to fight back. Recently she agreed to be interviewed by glamor magazine Harper’s Bazaar. In the interview it was noted how popular Hillary Clinton is and the misogyny and sexism which drive many of the attacks against her:

“So often vilified during her time as first lady of the United States, Clinton is now often cited as the country’s most admired woman. [snip]

She seems resigned to gender being an issue in politics. “Being a serious candidate for president as a woman brought out all the stuff that still exists about that,” she says. “Some of it was personal, some of it was gender based, and you kind of accept it. I think that if you live long enough, you realize that so much of what happens in life is out of your control, but how you respond to it is in your control. That’s what I try to remember.”

If Harper’s Bazaar was not enough, Hillary also was featured on CNN. In a long article, Hillary explained herself on many issues including Egypt:

“On one show after another, she gave them the new mantra — the U.S. wanted an “orderly transition.” It was a carefully crafted phrase which acknowledged the importance of moving to democracy in Egypt, but took into account the need to avoid chaos and a power vacuum that could bring to power a radical Islamist movement, as it did during the 1979 Iranian revolution.

The interviews were done, but Clinton’s day was just starting.”

The article ignored the Obama ordered attack by John Kerry on Meet The Press. But for all the pro-Obama tilt in the article what was significant was that Hillary was utilizing her ability to access Big Media – that is what Obama and his henchmen fear the most.

The secret and not so secret war against Hillary Clinton by Barack Obama is important. This is not a personality driven war. Barack Obama wants to commit boobery and/or treachery on a world wide stage and that is dangerous. The latest danger is the proposed outrage at the United Nations by Obama lackey Susan Rice:

In major reversal, U.S. agrees to rebuke Israel in Security Council

The U.S. has informed Arab governments that it will support a U.N. Security Council statement reaffirming that the 15-nation body “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” a move aimed at avoiding the prospect of having to veto a stronger Palestinian resolution calling the settlements illegal. [snip]

Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, outlined the new U.S. offer in a closed door meeting on Tuesday with the Arab Group, a bloc of Arab countries from North Africa and the Middle East.”

Weakness and a betrayal of allies is not the proper role for the United States. Obama cannot be trusted by friend nor foe. From the outset Susan Rice was stationed at the U.N. and given cabinet status by Obama in order to undermine Hillary Clinton and now Susan Rice is doing her real job.

Susan Rice and Barack Obama will help the enemies of Israel instead of concentrating on the real enemies of peace. The problem is not Israel or settlements even though very few are stating this simple fact.

Hillary Clinton is doing what she can, in the sub rosa war, to resist Susan Rice and Barack Obama’s attacks on Israel:

“US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday that UN Security Council resolutions are “not the right vehicle” for forging ahead towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Our focus is on doing what is best to advance negotiations between the parties that will lead to a two-state solution,” she told reporters after a closed-door briefing with senators covering unrest throughout the Middle East.

“And we have consistently — over many years — said that the United Nations Security Council, and resolutions that would come before the Security Council, are not the right vehicle to advance that goal,” said Clinton.”

It was on Iran that Hillary exhibited the greatest skill. Hillary not only beat up on Iran, she used Iran to beat up on Obama – all in a sub rosa war that few notice let alone dare mention.

Hillary knew that it was American allies (most if not all corrupt) in the Middle East that have been under attack. America’s enemies appeared safe from demonstrations. So Hillary played a little smart power politics and decided to turn the tables. Hillary went after Iran as the corrupt, hypocrites they are. By going after Iran she also forced Obama to criticize an American enemy (something he is always loathe to do).

After a discussion with Speaker Boehner, in which she argued for funding for the State Department, Hillary merged the topic of funding with the topic of Iran:

“QUESTION: Thank you, Madam Secretary. When you were First Lady 16 years ago, we had a Republican Congress that imposed some very deep cuts, particularly in the diplomacy and foreign aid sectors. Is this reminiscent of that? And did you communicate that to the Speaker in your meeting today?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that what we learned – and certainly I think the lessons from the ‘90s are very important today – is that we cannot recede from our presence anywhere in the world. What we’re living through is a historic period where all kinds of changes – some of them in support of American values and some of them directly opposed to American values – are occurring. And I think it’s important not to have to keep learning those lessons. [snip]

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, we’re receiving reports – NBC News is receiving reports there’s thousands in the streets all around Iran right now, the opposition party headquarters is possibly under siege. There are thousands of protestors. Internet lines are being jammed. The phone lines are being jammed. Can you comment on the situation in Iran, and what’s your message to the Iranians in the streets tonight?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me very clearly and directly support the aspirations of the people who are in the streets in Iran today. All through the crisis in Egypt, we had three very consistent messages: We were against violence, and we stated it often and we communicated it directly to Egyptian authorities. Secondly, we supported the universal human rights of the Egyptian people. And third, we stood for political change that would result in positive outcomes that would give the Egyptian people a better economic and political future.

We believe the same for Iran. We are against violence, and we would call to account the Iranian Government that is, once again, using its security forces and resorting to violence to prevent the free expression of ideas from their own people. Secondly, we support the universal human rights of the Iranian people. They deserve to have the same rights that they saw being played out in Egypt and that are part of their own birthright. And thirdly, we think that there needs to be a commitment to open up the political system in Iran, to hear the voices of the opposition and civil society.

And I would add that what we see happening in Iran today is a testament to the courage of the Iranian people and an indictment of the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, a regime which over the last three weeks has constantly hailed what went on in Egypt, and now, when given the opportunity to afford their people the same rights as they called for on behalf of the Egyptian people, once again illustrate their true nature. So our message has been consistent and it remains the same, and we wish the opposition and the brave people in the streets across cities in Iran the same opportunity that they saw their Egyptian counterparts seize in the last week.”

Hillary Clinton reference a “civil society” to a theocratic power. Hillary called out Iran on its hypocrisy on freedom for Egyptians but the Iron Veil for its own people. Hillary spoke out on behalf of “universal human rights” not as a scold but as a weapon on behalf of American interests and our core values to beat up on the Iranian theocrats.

Hillary spoke up repeatedly for the demonstrators in the streets of Iran. Hillary did not restrict herself to one time comments. Hillary almost grabbed the flags on the Arab street and called for revolutionary change by herself:

“U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised increased support today to civil society activists fighting repressive governments around the world.

Pointing to the uprisings in Egypt and other Arab nations, Clinton said support for non-governmental civil society groups will play a key role in advancing democratic reforms.

If we’re going to take advantage of this historic moment, we have to tap the expertise, experience and energy of civil society,” Clinton said as she convened the inaugural Strategic Dialogue with Civil Society at the State Department, bringing together representatives from groups in more than 20 nations.”

Is it not amazing that such a meeting was convened at such a remarkable moment by such a remarkable woman? Not really. It’s Hillary:

“The U.S., she said, will double its financial support to protect civil society groups, though she offered no specifics.

A fund managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development to protect civil society groups from efforts by governments to censor or otherwise restrict their work will be increased to about $3.4 million, from $1.5 million, said Tomicah Tillemann, a senior adviser, in a later briefing. [snip]

Along with the participants at the State Department, Clinton said, thousands were participating in today’s forum from 50 embassies and through live online chats conducted in Arabic, Russian and Spanish.”

Hillary and the State Department are keeping their eyes and axes on Iran:

“Another focus, he said, will be on supporting civil groups in Iran.
“Iran historically has had some of the strongest civil society in the Middle East, and we are eager to do what we can to strengthen that civil society,” Tillemann said. “We think it’s very unfortunate the regime has turned its back on that rich tradition.”

Laura Rozen took the Obama side on criticism of Iran:

“Obama offers cautious support on Iran

It’s advice Obama largely seems to have heeded in his comments on the Iran protests in his news conference today, the Washington Post reports:

In his news conference, Obama continued to focus on the demonstrations underway and not on his preferred outcome, a balance he also maintained during the 18-day uprising in Egypt. […]

Obama’s caution stems from the same fear that appeared to guide his response in June 2009: that a clear U.S. call for regime change in Iran would allow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to cast the protest movement as a creation of Western governments and Israel.

“Each country is different, each country has its own traditions, and America can’t dictate what happens in these societies,” Obama said, adding that his administration would lend “moral support to those seeking better lives.” […]

Obama on Tuesday endorsed the Iranian demonstrators’ right to protest against their government without explicitly aligning the United States with their goals.

“My hope and expectation is that we’re going to continue to see the people of Iran have the courage to be able to express their yearning for greater freedoms and a more representative government, understanding that America cannot ultimately dictate what happens inside of Iran any more than it could inside of Egypt,” he said.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, more full-throatedly backed Iran’s protesters in remarks yesterday, saying she “clearly and directly supports the aspirations” of the demonstrators — perhaps part of an orchestrated good cop/bad cop routine.”

It was not a “good cop/bad cop routine”. Hillary was defending American interests by supporting demonstrators in the streets of theocratic Iran. There is almost no downside in strongly supporting those against the Iranian regime. Obama however appears to prefer to attack America’s friends and coddle its enemies. That’s a tough and ugly thing to say but it is hard to dispute. We’re not the only ones who have noticed this. The Washington Post has noticed too:

“President Obama cautiously criticized the Iranian government Tuesday for carrying out a deadly crackdown on street demonstrations, as hard-line legislators in Tehran called for the execution of several prominent opposition leaders.”

What was the Obama verbiage against the theocratic killers of their own people?

“Obama’s careful formulation – calling on the government to allow protesters to express their grievances but stopping short of calling for a change in leadership – highlighted the sharp differences between the political dynamic that his administration faces in Iran and the one that shaped the recent revolt in Egypt.

In Egypt, Obama had to balance the United States’ long-standing support for a secular ally against the reality that popular backing for President Hosni Mubarak had all but evaporated. But in Iran, Obama confronts an Islamist regime hostile to U.S. interests and eager to turn any opposition movement into a proxy for the United States and Israel.”

The Iranian theocrats will always blame the Jews or the Americans or the Zionists or Martians for their troubles. What is needed in Iran is support for the demonstrators and to let them know they are not alone and that America will call attention to their struggle. But for Obama, it’s coddle the enemy, be cautious in denouncing the foe:

“Earlier in the day, scores of Iranian lawmakers led a demonstration on the floor of parliament, calling for the execution of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who have been under house arrest for some time. In a statement, 221 members of parliament said: “We believe the people have lost their patience and demand capital punishment.”

The threat provided an ominous turn to the Iranian unrest, which Obama had yet to comment on publicly until his Tuesday news conference.”

When it comes to America’s friends, Obama is quick to denounce and undermine:

In the days before the Egyptian turmoil reached its climax, Obama aligned himself with the demonstrators’ demand for a new government. With Iran, he has not been so bold.

His call for Iran’s government to allow peaceful protest echoed the one he made after the opposition Green Movement emerged on Tehran’s streets in June 2009 following a disputed presidential election, a response many conservatives criticized as tepid. [snip]

“What’s been different is the Iranian government’s response, which is to shoot people and beat people and arrest people.”

This defies logic. If a government does not kill people or beat them then they get treated with contempt and attacks by Obama. If a government kills people or beats them they they get treated with respect and kid gloves by Obama. Something is very wrong with this. What is wrong is Obama. The problem is Obama.

The problem is Obama. The solution is Hillary.

The secret and not so secret fight will continue.

Share

Iran Rises As Proof Of Barack Obama Attacks On Hillary Clinton Emerge

Today the American State department is “tweeting” in Farsi in order to communicate with Iranian opposition groups. This is exactly the type of activity that we have called for. This is exactly the type of activity that an American State Department should be engaged in. The American State Department should afflict our enemies and support our friends. PBS reports:

“3:20 a.m. We began the live blog with a list, unconfirmed, of demonstration sites and times in 24 cities. Here is an updated list, similarly unverifiable, now comprising 41 cities. Times are not provided for most of the new additions, but in every case where they are given, they are in the range of 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.:

* Tehran: 3 PM (From Imam Hossein to Azadi Square)
* Babol: 5 PM (Dr. Shariati Avenue, Amir Kabir Square, adjacent to Shadi Park)
* Shiraz: 3 PM (Final Destination is Engineering Building #2. Path 1: From Namazi Square to the University. Path 2: Namazi Square to Setad University toward Namazi to Engineering University. Path 3: Eram Square toward Namazi Square to Engineering University and other roads and streets leading that end in Mullah Sadraa toward the Engineering University)
* Isfahan: 3 PM (Enghelab Avenue and Chahrbaghe Abbasi)
* Ahvaz: 6 PM (Saa’at Traffic Circle to Abadan Fourway)
* Mashhad: 5 PM (From Rahnomayee Threeway toward Shariati Square)
* 
Rasht: 3 PM (Motahhari Avenue)
* Ardabil: 4 PM (From From Imam Square to Sahriati Square)
* Bushahr: 5 PM (From Shuhada Avenue)
* Kerman 3 PM (Main Square, Azadi Square)
* Orumieh: 4 PM (From Shahrjaee to Enghelab Square)
* Tabriz: 5 PM (Abrasan Traffic Circle [University], Valiasr Square, and Baghmesheh Avenue)
* Hamedan: 4 PM (Bo-Ali’s Tomb, Daneshgah Square)
* Tonekabon: 5 PM (From Karimabad Square to Imam Square)
* Kermanshah: 3 PM (Ferdowsi Square)
* Sanandaj: 5 PM (Pasdaran Avenue)
* Semnan: 5 PM (From Sa’adi Square to Kowsar Square)
* Khurramabad: 5 PM (Shuhadaye Sharqi Avenue)
* Shahre Kord: 5 PM (The area between Dampezishky Square to Enghelab Square)
* Kashan: 5 PM (15th of Khordad Square)
* Ghazvin: 5 PM (Khayyam Avenue / Adl Square)
* Sari: 5 PM (Gharen Avenue, Enghelab Avenue)
* Gorgan: 5 PM (Valiasr Square to Zartusht)
* Arak: 5 PM (Abbasabad Avenue, Malik Avenue, Imam Khomeini Avenue)
* Elam: 3 PM (24-Meter Avenue, 4-Meter Avenue, and Ashrafi Isfahani Avenue)
* Varamin: (Rahe-Aahan Square to Main Square in Varamin)
* Pishva: (Shariati Avenue)
* Gharchak: (Mohammadabad Avenue)
* Islamshahr: (Baghe Faiz Avenue and Imam Hossein Boulevard, from the beginning of Saveh Avenue to the Main Square in Baghe Faiz)
* Karaj: (Shah Abbasi Square to Hisarak Square)
* Birjand: (Muddarris Square)
* Bojnord: (17th of Shahrivar Square)
* Zanjan: (Sa’adi Avenue, Imam Avenue)
* Garmsaar: (Shuhada Avenue to Imam Square)
* Shahrud: (12th of Bahman Avenue)
* Yasouj: (Saheli Park on Provincial Square)
* Gilan: (Imam Khomeini Avenue — Muttahhari Avenue — Gulsar Avenue)
* Boroujard: (Shuhada Avenue)
* Amol: (Imam Reza Avenue)
* Bandare Abbas: (From Resalat Fourway to Nakhle Nakhuda)
* Yazd: (10th of Farwardin Square, Ayatollah Kashani Square,and from Mujahideen Square to Abuzar Square) [snip]

[snip]

4:40 p.m. Al Arabiya is also reporting that Mousavi and Rahnavard have joined the protesters. [snip]

5:05 p.m. More reports coming in of Isfahan protests, and now confirmation of protests in Kermanshah, as well. Estimates in those two cities and Shiraz are of thousands of participants.

And we’ve confirmed from multiple sources that tear gas was indeed used in Tehran’s Valiasr Square to disperse protesters. Additional clashes are being reported there.

Hafte Tir Square has also been taken over by security forces like Azadi Square and protesters are finding it difficult to navigate through.

Thousands are silently marching on Enghelab Avenue toward Azadi Square. Clashes are breaking out along the route, with protesters being beaten by security forces, but the silent march continues.

5:15 p.m. A series of tweets from CNN’s Reza Sayah:

Tehran witness – pockets of crowds along Enghelab Ave. chant “death to the dictator”

Tehran witness: Clashes at Imam Hossein Square – protesters chant “Death to dictator”

Tehran witness: Clashes in front of Tehran U – sec forces fire tear gas and paint balls”

In the past few weeks a favorite phrase of the muddle-headed is “We are all Egyptians now.” Nonsense. We are Americans. Our interests are American. Our values are American. Our goals and policy objectives should be American.

We recall when George W. Bush and the “neo-cons” set out upon a plan to bring freedom to the Arab world. But we cannot bring freedom to the Arab world. Those in the Arab/Muslim world must free themselves. Freedom must be fought for and earned. American foreign policy should be aimed at keeping anti-democratic forces (such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its plans for Sharia law, Iran, and Syria) at bay and build up the strength of democratic forces (such as those Muslim Egyptians who became a human shield for Coptic Christians) throughout the world.

In Iran the United States will not bring freedom. We can only aid and abet the forces against the current regime and assist the democratic faction in those forces to come to the fore. In Iran the situation is fairly easy to understand. There is a rabid theocracy in control of Iran and there is little chance that change will bring about something worse. Change in Iran is on the probable side of “change for the better”.

In Egypt the situation has been more complicated and much more perilous. We can easily see things going from bad to worse – from the frying pan into the fire.

Egypt is THE Arab country. In Egypt, for all the claims that it was a democratic revolution that came from the streets, there has been plenty of evidence that other forces, such as the military have been at play. The recent news of a Mubarak “poodle” now in charge and a military solidifying its grip on the country confirm the probability that the Egyptian revolution has either already been betrayed or has been a pawn of military interests. In weeks and months to come it will likely turn out that the Egyptian revolution was really a spat between factions in the Egyptian military-industrial business complex.

* * * * * *

As we have repeatedly stated our biggest objection to Barack Obama is his lack of a world view congruent with reality. In the past week Obama supporters have conceded on this matter. At DailyKooks and other Obama Hopium dens, including Big Media outlets, the claim is now that Obama does not have a doctrine and that is somehow a wonderful thing to lack.

At the New York Times there is celebration that Obama Is The Third Bush Term:

“The revolution in Egypt has reopened a long-simmering debate about the “freedom agenda” that animated George W. Bush’s presidency. Was he right after all, as his supporters have argued? Are they claiming credit he does not deserve? And has President Obama picked up the mantle of democracy and made it his own?

The debate in Washington, and Dallas, tends to overlook the reality that revolutions in far-off countries are for the most part built from the ground up, not triggered by policy made in the halls of the West Wing. But the lessons of the Egyptian uprising will ripple through American politics, policymaking and history-shaping for some time to come.

President Bush, after all, made “ending tyranny in our world” the centerpiece of his second inaugural address, and, although he pursued it selectively, he considers it one of his signature legacies. The very notion of democracy promotion became so associated with him, and with the war in Iraq, that Democrats believed that it was now discredited.”

These Obama Dimocrats are now busy discovering their inner Egyptian. These Obama Dimocrats write nonsensical screeds about freedom and conservatives without having any idea what they are talking about. These Obama Dimocrats ignore the long term strategies of groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. These Obama Dimocrats choose to ignore the reality that even the leading opposition leaders in Egypt, even non-Muslim Brotherhood leaders, will try to end the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt which helps stabilize the region.

These Obama Dimocrats, along with George W. Bush apologists who want to rehabilitate the “freedom agenda”, somehow ignore that as rotten as Hosni Mubarak was, as corrupt as Mubarak was, as desperately in need of reform and real (not fake) change was needed in Egypt – Mubarak kept his foot firmly on the back of the women-hating Muslim Brotherhood.



Many Obama Dimocrats will say about Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood what they said during the Obama health scam debate: screw women. During that heath debate Obama Dimocrats and PINOs (Progressives In Name Only) and even many women said that it was so important to pass Obama’s health scam that the long standing Democratic Party principles on women’s rights should be aborted. Now the same crew says to Egyptian women, “take one for the team, for the guys.”

Hillary Clinton worked for years with Suzanne Mubarak to fight against human trafficking, against, female genital mutilation and child labor “sanctioned by some conservative Islamic groups”, and for the rights of women.

Hillary Clinton also understood, because she has experience and a world view, that elections are not necessarily democracy and that there were and are great dangers in Egypt. Hillary knew what Hosni Mubarak reportedly said to Israel before he resigned.

“We see the democracy the United States spearheaded in Iran and with Hamas, in Gaza, and that’s the fate of the Middle East …. They may be talking about democracy but they don’t know what they’re talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam.

Hillary Clinton has a world view and understands the dangers that come with 3:00 a.m. calls. Ever since Hillary Clinton mocked Barack Obama as “naive” when he declared his “no preconditions” foolishness, the aim from the Obama foreign policy acolytes has been the destruction of Hillary. Samantha Powers called Hillary a “monster”. Now Samantha Powers and the rest of the Obama thugs continue their war on Hillary.

For years now, we have documented the secret and sometimes public war by Barack Obama against Hillary. This weekend the New York Times confirmed much of what we have written. We wrote that John Kerry was deployed by Obama to attack Hillary. That was confirmed:

“Last Saturday afternoon, President Obama got a jarring update from his national security team: With restive crowds of young Egyptians demanding President Hosni Mubarak’s immediate resignation, Frank G. Wisner, the envoy who Mr. Obama had sent to Cairo only days before, had just told a Munich conference that Mr. Mubarak was indispensable to Egypt’s democratic transition.

Mr. Obama was furious, and it did not help that his secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Wisner’s key backer, was publicly warning that any credible transition would take time — even as Mr. Obama was demanding that change in Egypt begin right away.

Seething about coverage that made it look as if the administration were protecting a dictator and ignoring the pleas of the youths of Cairo, the president “made it clear that this was not the message we should be delivering,” said one official who was present. He told Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to take a hard line with his Egyptian counterpart, and he pushed Senator John Kerry to counter the message from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Wisner when he appeared on a Sunday talk show the next day.”

The Times report is chock full of confirmations of what we have written. The comments of Frank Wisner (more below) were used to attack Hillary and brand her as evil and brand Obama as a Mess-iah. There is not only a war against Hillary Clinton but also a fight between the American State Department and the Obama worshipers at the White House.

The Obama worshipers at the White House were concerned about Obama’s image. Hillary Clinton and the State Department were concerned with American interests, not polishing Obama’s apple. Joe Biden, who is a boob but at least has some experience in foreign policy joined with Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Bob Gates:

“A president who himself is often torn between idealism and pragmatism was navigating the counsel of a traditional foreign policy establishment led by Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Biden and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, with that of a younger White House staff who worried that the American preoccupation with stability could put a historic president on the wrong side of history.

In fact, Mr. Obama never did take the extraordinary step of publicly calling on Mr. Mubarak to resign.”

The Times mischaracterizes the two opposing “teams”. The Hillary led group has as its interests, American interests. The Obama faction has Obama as its interest:

“Inside the White House, the same youthful aides who during his campaign pushed Mr. Obama to challenge the assumptions of the foreign policy establishment were now arguing that his failure to side with the protesters could be remembered with bitterness by a rising generation.

Those onetime campaign aides included Denis McDonough, the sharp-tongued deputy national security adviser; Benjamin J. Rhodes, who wrote the president’s seminal address to the Islamic world in Cairo in June 2009; and Samantha Power, the outspoken Pulitzer Prize winner and human rights advocate who was once drummed out of the campaign for describing Mrs. Clinton as a monster.”

That callow crew of Obama worshipers have academic dreams and crackpot ideas about the world. Denis McDonough is the chief anonymous source attacking Hillary for years now. It was this crackpot crew that created the completely discredited “no preconditions” Obama policy during the campaign. It is this crackpot crew that wrote the distortions of history Obama spewed in Cairo. The Obama crew has a batch of dreams and hallucinations that are not congruent with historical reality.

Obama used to brag about how he would speak unpleasant truths that people needed to hear. But to the Egyptian people and the American people Obama lied. Obama did not want to tell the truth because it would tarnish his “brand”. Obama did not tell the truth because he wants to be the popular guy playing to the crowd:

“The debate was how to deploy American influence on a volatile and fast-changing situation — to at least temporarily shore up a faltering ally proposing a gradual transition in the interests of stability, or to signal more support for a new generation of Egyptians demanding faster and more decisive change.

Despite the fervor on the streets of Cairo, and Mr. Obama’s occasional tough language, the president always took a pragmatic view of how to use America’s limited influence over change in Egypt. He was not in disagreement with the positions of Mr. Wisner and Mrs. Clinton about how long transition would take.

Barack Obama could have done the sensible thing, what Hillary Clinton said. Hillary warned against a “faux democracy” like the Iranian revolution. Hillary warned repeatedly about the need for change but she also understood that the Muslim Brotherhood and their misogyny and sexism could be unleashed in the most important Arab country.

Of course we as Americans want an Arab and Muslim world that is comfortable with modernity and wants peace and what is good for their people. We as Americans could not help but hope that the people would want and win democratic reforms that would bring about economic prosperity and freedom.

What we didn’t and don’t want is to go from bad to worse. We were not alone. Many countries, including Arab countries were worried about what forces were about to be unleashed. Obama did not tell the truth however. Obama preferred to order his thugs and cronies attack Hillary. Hillary knew what to do. Obama was flummoxed and not ready for the 3:00 a.m. call:

“As the administration struggled to craft a message, it was playing to multiple audiences — the crowds in Tahrir Square who wanted Mr. Obama to be their champion; neighboring allies who feared instability and that revolutionary fervor would spill across their borders; and home audiences on the left and the right who saw this as a test of whether he would restore democracy promotion to the top of the foreign policy agenda.

Mrs. Clinton and some of her State Department subordinates wanted to move cautiously, and reassure allies they were not being abandoned, in part influenced by daily calls from Israel, Saudi Arabia and others who feared an Egypt without Mr. Mubarak would destabilize the entire region. Some of these allies were nervous in part because they believed that the United States had cheerleaded the protesters in Tunisia.”

It’s about American interests, not Barack Obama’s brand, stupid:

In fact, some of the differences in approach stemmed from the institutional biases of the State Department versus those of the White House. The diplomats at the State Department view the Egyptian crisis through the lens of American strategic interests in the region, its threat to the 1979 peace accord between Egypt and Israel and its effects on the Middle East peace process.

The White House shared those concerns, officials said, but workers in the West Wing also worried that if Mr. Obama did not encourage the young people in the streets with forceful, even inspiring language, he would be accused of abandoning the ideals he expressed in his 2009 speech in Cairo.”

For the White House it was all about Obama. For Hillary Clinton it was about the United States. And just for the record, no one needs to lecture Hillary Clinton about human rights:

“For her part, Mrs. Clinton, too, has called for radical change in the Arab world. In January, on a trip to Qatar, she issued a scathing critique of Arab leaders, saying their countries risked “sinking into the sand” if they did not undertake swift political reforms. She said that stagnant economies and the bulge in the youth population was a recipe for the kind of unrest that later convulsed Tunisia and Egypt. And during a meeting at the White House on Jan. 29, officials said, Mrs. Clinton pushed for the administration to adopt language that would clearly lay the groundwork for Mr. Mubarak’s departure.

But she also expressed concern later that a hasty exit of Mr. Mubarak could complicate Egypt’s transition to democracy given the lack of a political culture there. Added to that, many foreign policy experts worried — and still worry — that Egyptians are even now faced with a choice between the military on one side and the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group, on the other.

The Times report confirms that Obama was petulant when Hosni Mubarak did not do what Obama wanted early on. Hillary Clinton then went to the Munich Security Conference without Obama enforcer Thomas Donilon. Frank Wisner was at the conference via video link. Wisner, a former American ambassador to Egypt had spoken with Mubarak. The “no preconditions” crowd was not happy with Wisner:

“Mr. Wisner comes from the old school of nurturing American relationships around the world. And he warned the audience in Munich that “you need to get a national consensus around the preconditions of the next step forward,” and that, in the remarks that so angered Mr. Obama, Mr. Mubarak “must stay in office in order to steer those changes through.”

In Munich, Mrs. Clinton and other Western officials put their emphasis on the “orderly” part of an “orderly transition” in Egypt. Mrs. Clinton ticked off the list of hurdles that had to be surmounted: Political parties had to be created, leaders had to emerge from an opposition that had been suppressed for 30 years, the Constitution needed to be amended and voter rolls assembled.

She said the process should move “as expeditiously as possible under the circumstances,” but added, “That takes time.”

The Times also reports that something was “conflated”. That was purposeful. It was another premeditated attack against Hillary Clinton:

“Mrs. Clinton’s message, officials said, was conflated later with Mr. Wisner’s. Administration officials insist that Mr. Obama was angered by Mr. Wisner’s remarks, not by Mrs. Clinton’s. But speaking to reporters on the flight home from Munich, Mrs. Clinton echoed at least part of Mr. Wisner’s argument, warning that Mr. Mubarak’s abrupt resignation could prompt a chain of events, stipulated by the Egyptian Constitution, which would lead to elections in two months — far too short a time.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Philippe Reines, said, “The secretary sees the need for profound transformation in the Middle East – and sees it as consistent with both our values and long-term interests.” But he added, “She is also very mindful of the challenges and seeks to insure it proceeds in a way where people’s aspirations are realized and not thwarted; where lives are valued and not lost.”

Hillary Clinton knows something about “people’s aspirations” and that those aspirations, like the wishes of the 2008 Democratic rank and file, can indeed be thwarted.

The White House, says the New York Times “recruited Senator Kerry” to go on the attack. Regular readers are not surprised. We have written about this before:

“Kerry’s moves are part of the long war Barack Obama is secretly waging against Hillary Clinton which we have outlined (See, Barack Obama At War With Hillary Clinton (And Thank You Andrew Breitbart), and Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part I, and Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part II, and Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part III, and Obama At War With Hillary Clinton And General McChrystal (The New Shinseki), and Going… Going… Gone).”

The attacks on Hillary Clinton by Barack Obama and his henchmen are only going to multiply. If Hillary Clinton had any doubts about the attacks on her the latest New York Times article has erased those doubts.

Hillary Clinton is in a very difficult position. Hillary knows that Obama is a dangerous boob. Every day the danger from Obama boobery grows. To leave the boob to his own devices imperils the country. To stay for much longer imperils her.

Keep doing the correct thing Hillary. It’s your decision. We have your back.

Share

NOT The Fall Of The Berlin Wall – Egyptian Army In Charge – Why And What Next?

Mubarak has finally resigned on the day 32 years ago the Shah was removed from Iran. The Egyptian Army is now in charge. So much for the grand revolution for freedom Big Media is trying to sell. The revolution has already been betrayed.

This is not the fall of the Berlin Wall or the removal of Ceausescu or the fall of the Soviet. In those remarkable revolutions the transition was without any doubt from tyranny to freedom. In those liberating revolutions the people demanded freedom and won. In Egypt today, the Army is now in charge.

What has happened and what should the United States do now?

Barack Obama has driven the foreign policy cart into the ditch abyss. Obama thought that his personality would prevent other actors on the world stage from perusing their interests. Early on Obama went to Cairo, snubbed Israel, and gave a speech which distorted history. Obama followed up that speech to the Muslim world with a visit to Saudi Arabia to bow before the Saudi king. Now the King of Saudi Arabia has replied with a kick to Obama on his bowing ass:

“US President Barack Obama spoke with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia Wednesday to discuss events in Egypt. The Saudi King reportedly said that in the case that the United States withdraws its financial support for Cairo, that his kingdom would prop up Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s regime, The Times reported.

According to the report, the Saudi king told Obama not to push Mubarak too hard, so as not to humiliate him amid the ongoing protests demanding his ouster.”

The United States had some leverage with the Egyptian military due to the billion plus dollars the Egyptian Army received from the United States. What the Saudi King did was cut those tendons of influence by assuring the Egyptian Army that the Saudi kingdom would pay the bills. After a few short years, Barack Obama has undermined almost to nonexistence American influence in the most important state in the Arab/Muslim world.

The Egyptian Army is less like the American army and more like the Iranian Army. In Egypt and Iran the army owns businesses and the upper ranks are often wealthy. The Egyptian Army now has absolute control of the country but it already had achieved many of its aims before today’s events:

“Analysis: Egypt military in power grab amid unrest

After two weeks of protests, Egypt’s military now has four of its own in the nation’s top government posts and thousands of its soldiers providing security in the streets.

The military, already the country’s most powerful institution, has taken advantage of the unrest to solidify its authority, using a combination of force and public relations to deliver what amounts to a soft coup in a country where it is widely viewed as the ultimate guarantor of national interests.”

Vice President Omar Suleiman, a former army general and also the chief of intelligence is now the latest dictator. Mubarak was a dictator and a former air force commander. The revered and deservedly respected Anwar Sadat was also a general and a dictator. Not much has changed other than the cheers on the streets. The Egyptian Army is in charge once again:

“It gave the country all four of its presidents since young army officers seized power in a 1952 coup that toppled the monarchy. It has over the past six decades lowered its public profile, but nevertheless remains Egypt’s most powerful institution.

The recipient of $1.3 billion in annual U.S. aid, it has in recent years ventured into business, strengthening its hand with lucrative government contracts in construction, road building and food production. For decades, its generals have been given key government posts after retirement, including serving in the Cabinet, as heads of government departments, provincial governors and mayors.

Any successor to Mubarak who does not enjoy the support of the senior military brass will be actively undermined and thwarted by the generals,” said Augustus Richard Norton, a Middle East expert from Boston University.

The military’s stealth offensive to take control of the country is multi-tiered. [snip]

“We have two options to resolve this crisis: either dialogue and understanding, or a coup,” Suleiman sternly warned in the meeting with editors. “A coup can be either beneficial or detrimental, but it could lead to further irrational steps and we want to avoid reaching that point.”

A “soft coup” is a polite way of saying “bloody coup in white gloves”. A coup, soft or hard, is still a coup. The Egyptian Army is settling scores and consolidating power to cheers in the streets from the gullible:

Taking advantage of the political vacuum created by the massive demonstrations, the military swiftly moved to settle old scores with two main rival groups. One consists of the mogul businessmen-politicians who have over the past decade rallied around Mubarak’s powerful son Gamal to dominate society, causing friction with the military’s own economic interests.

The second is Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic Party, in which the younger Mubarak rapidly rose through the ranks to become its de facto leader.

Nurtured by the two Mubaraks, these two groups have risen to such a position of power in recent years that they posed a credible threat to the military’s longtime domination, according to the analysts and a senior NDP official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.”

To cheers from the streets and the Big Blog Boys and affiliate Hausfraus, as well as the almost un-American Obama supporters in the White House, trying to undermine the State Department – the Egyptian Army is grabbing power and getting rid of its rivals. The Egyptian Army is consolidating power unto itself.

While many understandably want to cheer “the victory of the Egyptian people” what is happening is Egypt is the Army has used the people to grab total power. If the army had wanted to, it could have crushed the people in the streets. That the army did not move is because the army did not want to move. The pawns in the streets were useful to the army.

Many in the West cheered when the dictatorial Shah was removed in Iran (32 years ago today). Those same cheers are heard in the West today. Many in the West also delude themselves into thinking that the Egyptian Army will carry out the will of the people and lead to “democracy”. The Egyptian Army however is now in charge and the United States because of Barack Obama little to no influence with the Egyptian Army.

Those that put their Hope for Change in the Egyptian Army will soon be disappointed:

“Don’t Count on Egypt’s Army
We cannot trust Egypt’s military to combat Islamists.

‘My name is Khalid Islambouli,” the assassin thundered. “I have slain Pharaoh, and I do not fear death!” This was at an annual state parade in Cairo on October 6, 1981. Islambouli, swelling with a delirious pride, had just strafed the reviewing stand with bullets, killing Egyptian president Anwar Sadat and hurtling his nation into chaos.

That was the plan. Islambouli, like several of his coconspirators, was a Muslim Brotherhood veteran who’d drunk deep the incitements of the Ikhwan’s martyred leader, Sayyid Qutb, but lost patience with the organization’s Fabian approach to revolution. He’d joined Islamic Jihad, one of several splinter groups that would later be folded into al-Qaeda by another Brotherhood alum, Ayman Zawahiri.

They’d hoped to trigger an Islamic upheaval by “cutting off the head of the snake” and seizing power in the ensuing chaos. But apart from murdering the president, the plot failed. Power passed seamlessly to Sadat’s vice president, Hosni Mubarak, who cracked down brutally on the terrorists.

The story is worth remembering as chaos grips Egypt yet again. In the drama three decades ago, one tie beyond citizenship united all the major players — the villain, the victim, the heroes who put down the uprising, and the bureaucrat who emerged from obscurity to grab the autocratic reins he has yet to relinquish: They were all members of the Egyptian military.

The great smile on the face of the Egyptian military will soon fade and the remainder will be bared teeth of brass:

“It’s true enough that Egypt’s highly professional armed forces constitute the most revered institution in the country. Their professionalism has been purchased at a cost of nearly $40 billion from U.S. taxpayers since 1978, when Sadat made the peace with Israel that drove the jihadists to kill him. Thus, when analysts herald the stability of Egypt’s military — fortified by a generation of training and cooperative relations with U.S. warriors — the implication is that this will be to our benefit. Their patriotism will prevent Mubarak’s worst excesses and usher him out the door, and their pro-Western bent will guard against that worst of all worlds: the very sharia state Khalid Islambouli and his fellow jihadists sought to impose 30 years ago.

Even if everything we’d like to believe about the Egyptian military were true, the dream of secular stability would be very difficult to realize. Thanks to the West’s conflating of democratic processes with democratic culture, the crisis is careering toward a premature “settlement” by popular elections, to be held no later than September. Unfortunately, that is years before civil society — stunted by the powerful influence of fundamentalist Islam, the constant threat of terrorism, and Mubarak’s iron-fisted rule — can evolve sufficiently for real self-government.”

It is sad that many on the left, as well as some on the right (Iraq anyone?) conflate elections with democracy. Over and over on “left” blogs we read that the “will of the people” even if they choose the Muslim Brotherhood must be respected because they have the democratic right to choose. What these commentators refuse to acknowledge is that elections are not the end goal.

“The Egyptian military is a reflection not of its American trainers but of Egyptian society. Its popularity in the country owes in large part to the fact that almost all able-bodied men are conscripted to serve for one to three years. Its uppermost ranks, from which rose Egypt’s presidents — Mubarak, Sadat, and modern Egypt’s founder, Gamal Abdel Nasser — are today largely pro-American. The rank and file, however, have always included thousands of Muslim fundamentalists and radicals. Unquestionably, military service is a leveling experience, creating a common bond that unites different social strata. We should not overstate its effect, though. The military features all the complexity and divisions of Egypt at large.”

* * * * * *

What can we do now? What should we do now? First, take off the Hopium tinted glasses. Understand the ditch Obama has driven American policy into.

Second, as we have written before – do everything to protect Egypt from the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, and Syria:

“American policy should be aimed at making sure that Egypt moves towards a modern society which provides economic opportunity for its people. What is most important is that American policy must be aimed at protecting Egypt from takeover by Islamic extremists. American policy must be particularly aimed at preventing Iran from winning what many understand to be a “proxy war” between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Evil choice, meet Evil choice.”

Third, the United States should covertly and overtly help what remains of the opposition in Iran (which celebrates the 32nd Anniversary of the overthrow of the Shah today) and Syria. Perhaps Saudi Arabia can be persuaded to publicly and overtly assist, in the name of their own self-interest, to undermine the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

Obama has bungled the difficult and always ugly American relationship with the Wahhabist Saudi leadership. There is a chance however that the Saudi’s can help, again in the name of self-interest for both parties, the Egyptian Army to promote the forces within that army that are hostile and suspicious of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Finally, the United States State Department should help build up the democratic forces in Egypt. Egyptian-Americans, many of whom are prominent American citizens should be encouraged to return to their native land (of course ideological enemies such as the “Blind Sheikh” and Ali Mohammed should not be included in this group) to temporarily assist in setting up democratic parties and democratic institutions. The Egyptian Army might be persuaded that allowing democratic forces to emerge will not be as detrimental to them as they think.

Despite Barack Obama, the United States must promote its interests in the Middle East. In days to come we will describe further the battles between the State Department and the near un-American Obama supporters in the White House who undermine American interests in the Middle East. We will also discuss the full horror of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The United States must prepare to defend its interests and the flickering flame of freedom in the Middle East. Those celebrating the eruption in Egyptian streets will eventually recognize that Hope is not a replacement for reality. We don’t want to be churlish. We wish we could celebrate and widely smile as ordinary Egyptians rout a dictator.

While we wish the Egyptian people well and salute those who are fighting for freedom in the streets, we can’t help but be wary even if our fingers are crossed and our hearts filled with the prayer that we are totally wrong about the events in the streets of Egypt:

“The worldwide euphoria that has greeted the Egyptian uprising is understandable. All revolutions are blissful in the first days. The romance could be forgiven if this were Paris 1789. But it is not. In the intervening 222 years, we have learned how these things can end.

The Egyptian awakening carries promise and hope and of course merits our support. But only a child can believe that a democratic outcome is inevitable. And only a blinkered optimist can believe that it is even the most likely outcome.

Yes, the Egyptian revolution is broad-based. But so were the French and the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. Indeed in Iran, the revolution only succeeded – the shah was long opposed by the mullahs – when the merchants, the housewives, the students and the secularists joined to bring him down.

And who ended up in control? The most disciplined, ruthless and ideologically committed – the radical Islamists.

This is why our paramount moral and strategic interest in Egypt is real democracy in which power does not devolve to those who believe in one man, one vote, one time.

The grand promises of this day have as a soundtrack to our ears Beethoven’s magnificent Eroica Symphony:

“Originally the work was to be titled the “Bonaparte Symphony” (New Groves), as a tribute to Napoleon Bonaparte, the French Consul who had begun to radically reform Europe after conducting sweeping military campaigns across the continent. In 1804, Napoleon crowned himself emperor, a move which angered Beethoven. As legend has it, the composer ripped through the title page and later renamed the symphony the Eroica because he refused to dedicate one of his pieces to the man he now considered a “tyrant”.

The Egyptian people fighting for freedom in the streets will likely taste bitter tears after this glorious night in their history. Their revolution has already been betrayed.



Share

Bros Before Hos, TraumPolitik And Obama Versus Hillary Clinton In Egypt, Part II

It’s not too difficult to figure out who Obama and his thugs want to get rid of more: Hillary Clinton or Hosni Mubarak?

Rumors are everywhere today that Hosni Mubarak is about to resign and a new epoch of horror potentially awaits the world from the Middle East. It is very possible that we are beginning to see a Cold War style “Iron Veil” about to descend. Other reports are that Vice President Suleiman will replace Mubarak when he steps down. Other rumors are that the military will rule. But it is not Hosni Mubarak’s fate which worries Obama, it is his own.

Hillary Clinton will always be a reminder that Obama is not ready for that 3:00 a.m. call. When the phone rang this January with the news from Egypt (confirming what Obama was told months ago even though he is desperately blaming others, again) Obama was not ready to answer.

Obama performed the ol’ eeny meeny miny mo to buy time and figure out what to do. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were forced to go out and try to buy some time with statements about “stability” while Obama consulted a Ouija board and Michelle Obama gutted some chickens to divine the path of destiny from entrails. Obama, after two years, still requires on-the-job training.

We are not alone in bringing up that 3:00 a.m. call or in noting that Obama is not ready still:

“The 3:00am call from Cairo?

During the 2008 Democratic primary campaign, Hillary Clinton asked voters who they would want to handle a phone call at 3:00am warning of a crisis – her or Barack Obama. Given recent and ongoing events in the Middle East, I believe the phone is ringing off the hook. How the Obama Administration handles that call will determine the future of much of American foreign policy in the region. Let’s hope they get it right. Judging from the formulation and execution of American foreign policy in the last two years, I am not sanguine about the outcome.

A look back at the President Obama’s foreign policy efforts in the region since he took office in January 2009 reveals a lackluster record (I am being kind).”

From the very beginning Obama tried to marginalize Hillary Clinton, appoint special envoys, force Obama cronies onto the State Department, and essentially run foreign policy. Obama displayed the same talent on foreign policy as in domestic policy – namely, both were driven into the ditch.

The moment Obama speaks things fall apart. In Iran and Syria Obama has proven a total boob. Iran continues its nuclear program and funding of “terrorist and insurgent groups”. Iran’s power in Iraq continues to grow via agents such as Muqtada al-Sadr.

Likewise, Syria is now the dominant force in Lebanon. Obama, contrary to the U.S. Senate, an Obama Dimocratic senate at that, proceeded with a “recess appointment” of an ambassador to Damascus – a post vacant since the 2005 Syrian ordered murder of Lebanese Prime Minister al-Hariri. According to Jim Hoagland and diplomatic sources this recess appointment was an absolute surprise to the State Department.

In now Syrian controlled Lebanaon, Al-Hariri’s 2005 death was supposed to be the spark for a revolution by the Lebanese against their Syrian overloads. Now the Syrians have won, the people of Lebanon defeated. An American ambassador in Syria is a reward for the tyrannical regime.

Instead of Hillary style “preconditions” and concessions from Syria in exchange for the return of the American ambassador, Barack Obama conceded the appointment with nothing to show for it.

Foreign policy has been run from the White House by now reassigned Rahm Emanuel, Jim Messina, David Axelrod, and still active in boobery Mark Lippert (chief of staff National Security council), Hillary nemesis Susan Rice (UN Ambassador), and Denis McDonough (Director National Security Council). It is also Denis McDonough who is the sewage pipe used to attack Hillary Clinton.

Sarah Palin remembers the 3:00 a.m. call Hillary Clinton warned the country about as well:

“It’s a difficult situation. This is that 3am White House phone call and it seems for many of us trying to get that information from our leader in the White House, it seems that that call went right to the answering machine. And nobody yet has explained to the American public what they know, and surely they know more than the rest of us know, who it is who will be taking the place of Mubarak.”

At Legal Insurrection the 3:00 a.m. phone call is updated to a grisly hypothetical, “What If Israel Calls At 3 a.m.?” which grows less hypothetical daily.



Last week, as Egypt exploded, Hillary Clinton hosted a much needed, first ever meeting of all 260 American ambassadors in more than 180 countries. The ambassadors were able to meet with their respective regional bureaus in Washington for two days and then hear the equivalent of a “State of the Union/State Department” address from Hillary Clinton. It is a very good idea for ambassadors to be able to talk with each other and with the Washington bureaucracy and get a singular chance to commune with each other.

Hillary Clinton had the foresight to organize that meeting of ambassadors on a week that such a meeting was needed. Hillary Clinton understands that a government leader must not only have a vision, a world-view, communication skills but also the ability to inspire and lead the bureaucracy of government. That meeting must have threatened many at the White House.

John Kerry, who along with Ted Kennedy worked secretly at first and then publicly to gift Obama the Democratic Party nomination, jumped at the chance to go after Hillary. Kerry, was used to attack Hillary and the very word she was asked by Obama to push – “stability”. Kerry wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in which he ostensibly advised Hosni Mubarak “must accept that the stability of his country hinges….” This was a crack to disparage Hillary for conveying the message she was told to convey.

John Kerry also arranged for his home town newspaper to praise him as the next obvious secretary of state. Wrote the Boston Globe of Kerry:

“AS EGYPT battles over its future, Senator John Kerry is negotiating his own.

The Bay State’s senior senator is running an unofficial campaign to become the next secretary of state. For once, he looks artful, as well as ambitious.[snip]

With Egypt as the backdrop, Kerry knows the truth of an often-cited maxim that is associated with Obama’s former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

Out of crisis, comes opportunity.”

Kerry of course denied that he has ambition to be the next secretary of state. The Kerry denial of what is staring everyone in the face was mocked by ABC News:

“Got that? John Kerry is not auditioning to be Secretary of State. He is not lobbying for the job. He does not secretly covet the job. He is perfectly happy right where he is.”

Kerry’s moves are part of the long war Barack Obama is secretly waging against Hillary Clinton which we have outlined (See, Barack Obama At War With Hillary Clinton (And Thank You Andrew Breitbart), and Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part I, and Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part II, and Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part III, and Obama At War With Hillary Clinton And General McChrystal (The New Shinseki), and Going… Going… Gone).

John Kerry was doing the work of Obama while helping himself. Obama was confused about Egypt in the same way he was confused about the Russian invasion of Georgia during the general election of 2008. Obama’s foreign policy is no preconditions, no knowledge, no defense of America, no idea what to do other than bow and wow them with his “personality”, no idea of what, when, where, how, or who.

Hillary Clinton by contrast has known all the players in this crisis for years. She knows Hosni Mubarak very well. She knows how Mubarak thinks. She knows how to deal with Mubarak. In other words Hillary is a problem for Barack and his goons.

What exactly did the original 3:00 a.m. phone call warning from Hillary Clinton say?



“It’s 3:00 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing. Something is happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call – whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It’s 3:00 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?”

The person you want nowhere near the phone is inexperienced and unqualified Barack Obama. After setting up Hillary Clinton (and Joe Biden who denied Mubarak is a dictator) to claim “stability” in Egypt, Obama knew there was only one person who knew what she was doing. That however did not mean that Hillary Clinton would be allowed to operate without backstabbing knives in her back. If Hillary said “A” the White House said “B”:

“The actions of the Egyptian government amid protests there will determine whether the United States continues to give aid to the north African country, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday.

The White House will “make determinations” based on Egypt’s response to the protests, Gibbs told reporters. “We are … watching the actions of [the Egyptian] government,” he said.

Gibbs’s position appears to be different than that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said Sunday that “there’s no discussion at this time about cutting off aid” to Egypt.

“Right now, we are trying to convey a message that is very clear,” Clinton said on ABC’s “This Week.” “We want to ensure that there is no violence and no provocation that results in violence, and we want to see these reforms and process of national dialogue begin.”

The backstabbing against Hillary Clinton by Obama goons continues. But Barack Obama desperately needs Hillary. Politico described the headless chicken in the egg shaped office and the smart plucky blond lady:

“Confronted with the most acute foreign policy crisis of his administration, President Barack Obama is increasingly relying on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her advice and connections — including a 20-year friendship with the family of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that has drawn fire from human rights advocates.”

Again, what did that 3:00 a.m. ad say? (“Your vote will decide who answers that call – whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.”)

Inexperienced, unqualified, Barack Obama needs Hillary but he will still wage a secret war against her:

“It was Clinton who came up with the idea of sending Frank Wisner, U.S. ambassador to Egypt in the 1980’s, to Cairo to deliver Obama’s pointed request that Mubarak not seek a new term as the country’s leader, an administration official told POLITICO.

And it was Clinton who Obama dispatched to appear on five Sunday morning shows to send a not-so-subtle message to the tottering dictator that the time had come for a “peaceful transition to real democracy,” not Mubarak’s “faux democracy.”

We note that it is “an administration official” who says Hillary “came up with the idea of sending Frank Wisner.” Wisner of course did a good job of communicating the need for Mubarak to not attack the demonstrators. But Wisner also had business interests in Egypt which is the sly White House way of smearing Hillary.

We also note that the “faux democracy” remark by Hillary Clinton is in fact not an attack on Mubarak but instead the “faux democracy” if Islamic extremists such as the Muslim Brotherhood rule in Egypt. This is an example of Politico putting words in Hillary’s mouth that she never has uttered. Here is the direct quote along with Hillary Clinton reprimanding David Gregory for putting words in her mouth:

David, you cannot keep trying to put words in my mouth. I’ve never said that. I don’t intend to say that. I want the Egyptian people to have the chance to chart a new future. It needs to be an orderly, peaceful transition to real democracy, not faux democracy like the elections we saw in Iran two years ago, where you have one election 30 years ago and then the people just keep staying in power and become less and less responsive to their people. We want to see a real democracy that reflects the vibrancy of Egyptian society. And we believe that President Mubarak, his government, civil society, political activists, need to be part of a national dialogue to bring that about.”

Politico, like David Gregory, put words in Hillary’s mouth. We’re taking them out and throwing them back at Politico.

At least Politico has not forgotten the 3:00 a.m. ad:

“As a Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, Clinton aired the famous “3 a.m.” commercial, with its image of a White House phone ringing with news of an international crisis, to question Obama’s foreign policy experience. But in the past week, Clinton has been at the center of Obama’s frantic attempt to keep pace with spiraling events — including a critical meeting in the Oval Office last Saturday when Obama deputized Clinton to clarify the administration’s confused response to the crisis.

Politico is of course ignoring the facts they themselves reported that Hillary did try to “clarify the administration’s confused response to the crisis” but that after Hillary spoke Robert Gibbs stabbed her in the back and muddied the waters and the policy further. Obama needs Hillary but he also wants to remove her as a player – backstabbing and dirty politics are Obama’s Chicago Way. Obama does not like to be reminded that Hillary knows (as her ad stated) the players and the policy:

“Just as importantly, she also is providing valuable insights into Mubarak’s behavior, according to officials. Those insights are honed from years of contact with the 82-year-old Egyptian leader and his much younger wife, a relationship that deepened during Clinton’s 1999 trip to Egypt with her daughter Chelsea.

Hillary knows Mubarak is a dictator, and they aren’t close friends,” says a former top U.S. diplomat with ties to Obama. “But she knows him well enough — well enough to know this guy isn’t Saddam Hussein, and he’s probably the one who told the army not to fire into the crowd.”

Clinton is even closer to Suzanne Mubarak, supporting her human rights work, including initiatives geared at reducing youth unemployment and campaigns to stop human trafficking and the sexual mutilation of women.”

What is Hillary doing and why is she qualified to do it?

Mubarak needs to be shown a path out of this, and Hillary’s trying to find a way to do that,” added the official, who says Clinton also is sharing her experience with other Mideast leaders who may be facing similar upheaval. “She knows a lot of these people on a personal level.

Hillary Clinton’s experience and abilities are needed now more than ever:

“… the administration has never faced a foreign crisis of this magnitude that requires “all hands on deck,” according to a senior administration official.

But it’s also because the pragmatic Clinton is “one of the few remaining grown-ups,” in the words of one former State Department higher-up, who can speak authoritatively at a time of rapid staff turnover in the West Wing.

She’s the obvious choice to adopt this role,” says Daniel Kurtzer who served as ambassador to Egypt under Bill Clinton and as President George W. Bush’s ambassador to Israel.

You need someone out there who understands the complexity of this situation,” adds Kurtzer. “And she’s one of the only people who could step in. She knows all of these players very well, and that’s critical at a time when the administration is presented with so few good alternatives.”

Hillary Clinton indeed knows the complexities. At the Munich Security Conference Hillary Clinton led the way:



“In the Middle East, we have not yet seen security and democratic development converge in the same way. Let me offer a few observations about where we’ve come from and where we need to go. [snip]

For decades, though, most of these same governments have not pursued the kind of political and economic reforms that would make them more democratic, responsible, and accountable. In Doha last month, I urged the leaders of the region to address the needs and aspirations of their people and offer a positive vision for the future for their sake and for ours because the region is being battered by a perfect storm of powerful trends. A growing majority of its people are under the age of 30. Many of these young people, even the most educated among them, cannot find work.

At the same time, however, they are more connected with each other and with events occurring around them because of technology. And this generation is rightly demanding that their governments become more effective, more responsive, and more open. All of this is taking place against a backdrop of depleting resources. Water tables are dropping, and oil reserves are running out.

Leaders in the region may be able to hold back the tide for a little while, but not for long. That has been the story of the last weeks. It is what has driven demonstrators into the streets of Tunis, Cairo, and cities throughout the area. The status quo is simply not sustainable. So for all our friends, for all the friends in the region including governments and people, the challenge is to help our partners take systematic steps to usher in a better future where people’s voices are heard, their rights respected, and their aspirations met.”

Hillary Clinton has laid out the challenges and Hillary Clinton understands the threat:

“This is not simply a matter of idealism. It is a strategic necessity. Without genuine progress toward open and accountable political systems, the gap between people and their governments will only grow, and instability will only deepen. Across the region, there must be clear and real progress toward open, transparent, fair, and accountable systems. Now, in some countries, this transition is happening quickly; in others it will take more time. Different countries face different circumstances.

And of course, there are risks. There are risks with the transition to democracy. It can be chaotic. It can cause short-term instability. Even worse – and we have seen it before – the transition can backslide into just another authoritarian regime. Revolutions have overthrown dictators in the name of democracy only to see the political process hijacked by new autocrats who use violence, deception, and rigged elections to stay in power or to advance an agenda of extremism.

So the transition to democracy will only work if it is deliberate, inclusive, and transparent. Those who want to participate in the political system must commit to basic principles such as renouncing violence as a tool of political coercion, respecting the rights of minorities – ethnic and religious minorities, participating in a spirit of tolerance and compromise. Those who refuse to make those commitments do not deserve a seat at the table. We will continue to champion free and fair elections as an essential part of building and maintaining a democracy.

But we know elections alone are not sufficient. They’re not even sufficient to secure lasting change. So we also must work together to support the institutions of good governance, the rule of law and an independent judiciary, transparency and a free press, strong political parties, protection for the rights of minorities and more, because those, indeed, are the building blocks of a true democracy.”

Those are words that must make the Muslim Brotherhood afraid. Hillary Clinton is demonstrating the type of experience, knowledge, and ability that Barack Obama fears.

The world is on the edge of a knife.

Share

Bros Before Hos, TraumPolitik And Obama Versus Hillary Clinton In Egypt, Part I

We said there would be a price to be paid for having a boob in the White House. We stated that American policy must be to prevent interests such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, Syria, from intervening in Egyptian affairs. We warned that the perils in Egypt were many and that the demonstrations in the streets could take a very dangerous course.

When we referenced Tienanmen Square it was to remind all that in China there was a much much greater outpouring in the streets (recall the Goddess of Democracy?) and even more hope for great change.

At Tienanmen the Chinese people rose up in a year when several communist governments had already been crushed by people power and usually silent Western intervention. In cities throughout China there were uprisings. For seven weeks the demonstrations grew in number and power and the government appeared to be in danger and fearful. Tienanmen Square, usually reserved for demonstrations of governmental power, was occupied far longer than Tahrir Square in Egypt. The People’s Liberation Army, we were repeatedly assured, would never fire on the people. Then in one June night it was over. As PUMA PAC details, violence is a very useful tool.

* * * * * *

Did anyone really believe that Egypt was Czechoslovakia? Did anyone really believe that the Velvet Revolution and the Velvet Divorce which gave peaceful birth to the Czech Republic and Slovakia would be replicated in Egypt? The question in Egypt always was how violence would break out and who would employ violence first. Mubarak has been the first to covertly throw the first stone, but there should be no delusion that the stones would fly sometime.

The New York Times yesterday published a very rosy scenario for Egypt and a lovely portrait of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is an Op-ed article called “Egypt’s Bumbling Brotherhood”. We hope the op-ed piece is on target. In the op-ed article we are told that Americans and Europeans have little or nothing to fear as to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The article states that the Muslim Brotherhood has tried to get power in Egypt but that “in 83 years it has botched every opportunity”. We are told the Muslim Brotherhood is “marginal” to the “spirit of revolt” in today’s Arab world.

The op-ed further tells us that “The error was compounded when the Brotherhood threw in its lot with Mohamed ElBaradei” because ElBaradei only impresses fools in the West. The op-ed tells us that the Muslim Brotherhood has forsworn violence, has a rivalry with Al Qaeda, is too centrist for real radicals, is against Israel but Egyptians don’t want that, and:

“What we are seeing in Egypt is a revolt led by digitally informed young people and joined by families from all rungs of society. Though in one sense it happened overnight, many of its young proponents have long been working behind the scenes, independent of the Brotherhood or any old guard opposition.”

The op-ed ends with this:

“But there is little reason for the United States to fear a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood. If Egypt is allowed to find its own way, as it so promisingly began to do over the past week, the problems of violent extremism and waves of emigration that America and Europe most fear from this unhappy region could well fade as its disaffected youth at last find hope at home.”

Let’s hope against hope that the op-ed is absolutely correct in it’s assessments. Our fingers are crossed and our prayers are directed towards our total humiliation and the triumph of the analysis in that op-ed. We hope we are totally wrong, that the Egyptian events are a true wave of democracy and that all the region’s dictators will be sent packing and that soon we will hear celestial choirs and a democratic wave of peace and wonderfulness and pie. We hope for all that, but we don’t think so. We remember that “bros before hos” Obama T-shirt.

We think that op-ed is demented. It is as demented as those who think that if Mubarak leaves all will return to normal and that Egypt has no role for the United States to play. This type of personality driven analysis (“Mubarak is the problem”) and foolish traumpolitik which suggests that countries are somehow isolated and therefore the United States has no role in Egypt are the opposite of what we suggest – a coldblooded realpolitik analysis of American interests.

That New York Times op-ed nonsense was followed today by an article in the news section of the New York Times called “As Islamist Group Rises, Its Intentions Are Unclear”:

“After maintaining a low profile in protests largely by secular young Egyptians, the Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s largest opposition force, appeared to be taking on a more assertive role Thursday, issuing a statement asking for President Hosni Mubarak to step aside for a transitional government. [snip]

But one of the few near-certainties of a post-Mubarak Egypt is that the Muslim Brotherhood will emerge as a powerful political force.

The unanswered question, according to experts on the region, is whether that will prove a manageable challenge for the United States and Israel or a catastrophe for American interests in the Middle East. [snip]

Mr. Hamid said the Muslim Brotherhood’s deep hostility to Israel — which reflects majority public opinion in Egypt — will pose difficulties for American policy. Its conservative views on the rights of women and intolerance of religious minorities are offensive by Western standards.”

“Bros before Hos” – after all it is not the Muslim Sisterhood. Those that advocate a role for the Muslim Brotherhood are spouting nonsense for whatever reason. “’Yes, in their heart of hearts, they hate Israel,” Mr. Hamid said”. They also have a fear and hatred of women and will not tolerate other religious belief systems – or atheists for that matter.

In that news article, as opposed to the traumpolitik op-ed, we are informed that the Muslim Brotherhood has renounced violence but only “as a means of achieving power in Egypt”. We are enlightened that:

The group did not, however, reject violence in other circumstances, and its leaders have endorsed acts of terrorism against Israel and against American troops in Iraq.”

Is that clear enough? Not for George Soros. George Soros blames Israel for the problems in Egypt. George Soros thinks the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohamed ElBaradei are just ducky. According to Soros the Muslim Brotherhood will play a “constructive role” and “The main stumbling block is Israel.”

Democrat Kirsten Powers joins us in warning about the Muslim Brotherhood and the traumpolitik delusions many in the left are engaged in:

When the protests first began in Egypt, I was in constant contact with an Egyptian relative who is a successful businessman, university professor and astute student of world politics. As my husband and I panicked for our family’s safety, this relative was calm, assuring me that Hosni Mubarak would appoint an interim government and that there would likely be an important role for Omar Suileman, who is a well respected leader in Egypt. Both these things quickly came true. Day after day he assured me that everything would be fine. He was sure that the Muslim Brotherhood—which he regards as a radical Islamist group – was not organized enough to gain any significant power.

Today, he was not so calm. Our family in Egypt is shocked and alarmed by what they are hearing from Western voices and even the apparent leading opposition candidate Mohamed ElBaradei—who has partnered with the Muslim Brotherhood — who claim that the Brotherhood is a moderate group that should not be feared.

As Coptic Christians—native Egyptians who comprise the largest religious minority in the Middle East—they are especially attuned to the double-speak of Islamist groups trying to attain power.

During the last elections, the Brotherhood’s slogan was “Islam is the solution.” Its logo is a black flag with a sword and the Koran.

This reminded me of a trip my husband and I made to Saudi Arabia last year. While driving in from the airport we passed a gigantic statue of a gold sword. I asked our guide what the inscription said, and he told me that it was from the Koran and translated to, “Sometimes the sword is better than words.”

Powers is sure to be accused of Muslim bashing. But Powers is engaged in looking reality in the face and reporting the results of that experience. No doubt there are many Muslims and Arabs engaged in the protests in Egypt who just want to live their lives and be the equivalent of “cafeteria Catholics”. This type of Catholic accepts the basic tenets of Catholicism but rejects certain aspects of church teaching (such as on abortion).

“Cafeteria Muslims” who also want to live their lives and not live by the sword are the ones we cheer on. But there are certain well funded, well organized Muslims who indeed do want to live by the sword.

Our politics, in regard to the various strains and elements in the Arab/Muslim world, should be guided by reality – not by dreams and hopes. It is realpolitik versus traumpolitik, or dream politics.

Kirsten Powers gazes in wonder at the traumpolitik dementia at Brookings and segments of the left:

“I spent much of yesterday interviewing American experts on the region—including two Brookings Institution scholars who are experts on the Muslim Brotherhood—and was reassured over and over that the organization has reformed and does not seek to establish a fundamentalist state. One claimed that Brotherhood officials have said they view Copts as equal citizens.

My relative laughed at this. He says when Brotherhood members have been asked about how they would treat Christians they are vague. When asked about whether they would nationalize the banks, they are vague. Even one of the Brookings scholars told me that the Brotherhood would probably segregate the sexes. This is far from a secular group.

Our family in Egypt always makes the point that if the current regime—which is considered moderate and quasi-secular—arrests people who convert from Islam to Christianity, what do you think it will be like if power is seized by a group that has as its explicit goal the spread of Islam?

One of the things I consistently hear from the Egyptian Christians I know is that Islamists know the right things to say in order to gain power. They are sophisticated. They are especially astute at telling Westerners what they want to hear.”

Egypt is to be considered “liberal” in the Arab world. Powers describes the daily oppressions in Saudi Arabia even as guides parrot words about how things are growing more liberal and open – in a society that cuts men’s hair on the street if it is too long and death is the reward for conversion from Islam. Yet many in the West, many liberals, many women “progressives” think we in the West have to embrace the oppressors.

Powers discusses Shadi Hamid, who we discussed above, of Brookings:

“Shadi Hamid, a Brookings Institute scholar and expert on the Muslim Brotherhood (which he maintains is not radical) made the case to me that Egypt is a very Islamic country, and if the people want an Islamic government that is their choice. It’s not for the U.S. to decide.

As a liberal, I have a very hard time with the idea that I’m not supposed to care about a potential government that is oppressive to minorities and women. I also do not support theocracies—Muslim, Christian or otherwise even if they aren’t fundamentalist. If find it strange that so many American liberals aren’t concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated mission to “spread Islam.” It’s hard to imagine them being so unconcerned about a Christian political group with the stated mission of establishing a Christian theocracy gaining power in a new government.

If the Muslim Brotherhood wants to evangelize Islam on its own time that is fine; but it shouldn’t be able to use government power to do so. I should also note that it is already against the law for Christians to share their faith in Egypt—and that’s under a quasi-secular government. (Human Rights Watch last year accused Egypt of “widespread discrimination” against Christians and other religious minorities.)

This isn’t to say that Mubarak deserves our support. He’s an oppressive dictator. But all the Americans who are supporting the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in the new government need to understand who they really are. Beyond my own personal concern for the treatment of Christians and women, fundamentalist Islamic governments generally aren’t known for being pro-American.

I shared with my Egyptian relative that most experts I spoke to here believe that Turkey is the model that Egypt will follow.

Again, laughter.

It is disgusting that many American liberals don’t understand, or pretend not to, what is happening in Egypt and the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood and allies. Like the American left who shamed themselves with support for Stalin and oppressive communist regimes the present day is littered with these fake liberals and loathsome fake progressives. Many writers and critics in the left who denounce Christianity regularly and applaud atheism then turn their heads and pretend they just do not see as systems of oppression against women are implemented in Muslim/Arab countries.

Those “liberals” who think that Egypt should be abandoned or allowed to do whatever it wants are fools. The American revolution was a product of direct intervention by France. The destruction of the “Evil Empire” was accomplished by a strong Pope who used Vatican power to end the Soviet domination of the East. It is rare that counties have revolutions or changes in power without intervention of outside forces.

The idiot left wants American intervention in places like Sudan but want hands off in countries like Egypt which could determine oppressions for generations if not centuries to come. The threat of an “Iron Veil” from Northern Africa through the Middle East and beyond is an ugly possibility. To say “it’s their country” is an abdication of reality.

The idiot left also has those attention seekers whose entire knowledge comes from attending conferences hosted by other members of the idiot left who blame Israel for everything. It is a noxious Judenrein viewpoint that states Israel should not exist because the Jews in their homeland are the problem (“The “Zionist experiment” and Pres. Harry Truman’s risks finally proved a bridge too far in a hostile region where Israel stands alone.”)

“Zionist experiment” indeed. These PINO’s and their Hausfrau affiliates want to blame Israel for everything bad in the Middle East. These PINOs and their Hausfrau affiliates ignore reality and engage in traumpolitik delusions.

Egypt, as we have written from the outset is not just an inning, it is the ballgame. The ballgame is not going well.

Hosni Mubarak has not forgotten the lessons of Tienanmen and reporters are getting beaten up and the people shut up. As the fighting begins in Tahrir Square Mubarak told the truth about Obama: He does not understand. Or is it that Obama is too busy worrying about reelection, continuing the war on Hillary Clinton, and pretending he really truly cares about being a Christian?

It’s bound to get worse.

Next: The war on Hillary Clinton; Hosni Mubarak; and the battle for the future.

Share

Let My People Go – Mubarak As Healthy As Obamacare

Barack Obama thought his great pyramid would be the health care law scam. But Mess-iah Pharaoh Obama got another surprise yesterday. His heath care, or rather health insurance bailout scam was ruled “unconstitutional”.



Yesterday a federal court in Florida sang “Let My People Go”.

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications,” Vinson wrote.”

None of this should surprise our regular readers. The Obama health scam was so badly written it left out the most boilerplate of clauses which insulates an entire law and all its provisions from being overturned on the basis of one faulty provision.


Vinson Ruling

Judge Vinson’s decision notes that there used to be a severability clause in the legislation at one point but that it was removed. This removal Judge Vinson takes to be purposeful and an acknowledgment by congress that this health scam pyramid could not stand once the “mandate” block was removed. Of course, we know it was boobery (as one Obama Dimocrat acknowledged) pure and simple.

The judge ruled the entire law unconstitutional and now Obama and his courtroom clowns will have to get a stay from the courts in order to keep the law from dying a quicker death than Hosni Mubarak.

Judge Vinson referenced the Boston Tea Party in his opinion. The judge also cited what Obama said in 2008. Our readers will remember that at the time we warned Obama that his statements would come back to bite him in his scrawny buttocks. Judge Vinson imprinted his teeth in Barack’s buns:

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.”



Back in February of 2008 we quoted Paul Krugman (he was not an Obama apple polisher then and often spoke the truth) in our warnings to Barack Obama and those who supported genuine Universal Health Care. Wrote Krugman in 2008:

“… Mr. Obama’s campaigning on the health care issue has sabotaged his own prospects.

You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.

If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.

As we predicted, there was no real “reform”, no real health care reform. What Obama shoveled out instead was the equivalent of billions for Big Insurance and Big PhaRma. Without real reform, without real health care, without the ability to bargain for lower drug prices by Medicare, all that remains is a big fat scam.

Today Senate Republicans will begin their challenge to the waiver-ridden Obama health scam. The assault will continue in the courts. An experienced president knowledgeable about constitutional issues would have known to insist on a severability clause, regional boards to ameliorate Commerce Clause concerns and a “point of contact (such as when someone seeks health care) enrollment” style “mandate” which would have ended the “inactivity” argument cited by Judge Vinson. Instead of a president with experience in government and a history of work for the American people and constitutional understanding – a boob was elected.

If you elect a boob, expect boobery.

* * * * * *

It’s not just the boobery and willful collusion with Big Insurance and Big PhaRma Americans have to fear. The boobery crosses the oceans.

As we warned, the Iron Veil is about to cover continents. The Muslim Brotherhood advocates for the Iron Veil and Barack Obama is bowing before the “Brotherhood”. News reports have it that Obama “supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government”.

The Muslim Brotherhood does not even have to demand, fight, negotiate, for a place – Barack Obama has already agreed to back their demands. The Obama “negotiator” who has already caved in is Robert Malley:

“If the name Robert Malley sounds familiar, it should. Obama supposedly fired Malley as an adviser for Middle East affairs in April 2008 from his campaign (Malley later claimed he’d quit) after it came out that Malley had met with Hamas on several occasions, despite Hamas’ status as a terrorist group as indicated by the State Department. Those meetings took place through the auspices of the International Crisis Group as well. Malley also helped create J Street, designed as a counterbalance to AIPAC, which lobbies for Israel in Washington, and while a member of Clinton’s team was the only administration official to blame Israel for Yasser Arafat’s refusal to accept the Clinton peace plan.”

Bill Clinton has made it clear that it was Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian leadership who bore responsibility for the failure of peace. Barack Obama chose as an adviser the one former Clinton employee who does not understand basic facts about war and peace in the middle east:

“A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.

Muhammad Ghannem reportedly told Al- Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease “in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.” He added that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” saying the world should understand that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”

If Israel were to disappear today it would not stop the strife nor further expansion of global tensions. The problem is not Israel. The problem is organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood who advocate a Caliphate and who do not want separation of secular government power from spiritual church power.

Byron York writes today about the “conflicting views of democracy and religion” in Egypt:

“Last year the Pew Research Center Global Attitudes Project conducted a survey of opinion in several Muslim countries. The subject was the proper role of Islam in politics and society. One of the countries surveyed was Egypt, and among other discoveries, the Pew researchers found that 84 percent of Egyptians favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion.

In another survey, Pew found that 90 percent of Egyptians say they believe in freedom of religion. Pew also found that a majority of Egyptians think democracy, with protections of free speech and assembly, is “preferable to any other kind of government.” [snip]

The Pew survey found wide streams of opinion in Egypt that seem at the very least inhospitable to democracy. When asked which side they would take in a struggle between “groups who want to modernize the country [and] Islamic fundamentalists,” 59 percent of Egyptians picked the fundamentalists, while 27 percent picked the modernizers. In a country in which the army will likely play a deciding role in selecting the next political leadership, just 32 percent believe in civilian control of the military. And a majority, 54 percent, support making segregation of men and women in the workplace the law throughout Egypt.”

We previously cited the recent protection of Coptic Christians as a hopeful sign in Egypt. However, the influx of “clerics” into demonstrations and the segregation of women in the “Million Man March” today informs us that the Iron Veil is indeed about to be inflicted on millions in various continents.

Already we see, the Brotherhood moving to strap the Iron Veil on the sisterhood. In Jordan today, under pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood, the King fired the entire cabinet in anticipation of mass demonstrations tomorrow. In Tunisia, a synagogue was set on fire. Some will no doubt foolishly advocate that the Jews of Tunisia are the ones to blame and need to move.

The only one about to move however is Hosni Mubarak. Today “four million Egyptians have taken to the streets across the country to pressure President Hosni Mubarak and his government to step down.”

Mubarak announced today some scheme to stay in office until September and not run for reelection (he said it was his intention all along to leave after having sacrificed himself for the people and that the Obama knife in his back has nothing to do with his new career path). As long as the Egyptian army does not follow the path of the People’s Liberation Army, which decided to attack the much bigger and longer siege at Tienanmen Square in China, Mubarak will have to leave sooner rather than later.

With a snide smile we can say that Hosni Mubarak is as healthy as the Obamacare health care scam and not about to get a waiver.

Share