Archive for the ‘Israel’ Category
Based on this report, I’d say there’s better than a 50-50 shot that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is defeated Tuesday night:
This past Saturday, Wasserman Schultz personally lambasted a longtime Democrat supporter from Miami-Dade County who was caught talking to Harrington. This same individual further annoyed Wasserman Schultz by refusing to display a “Wasserman Schultz for Congress” sign and then told Debbie that he had already voted for Harrington instead of her.
This longtime Democrat leader, who shall remain anonymous for purposes of this report, indicated that he was disgusted and said that had never been so insulted in his life.
On Sunday, the Shark Tank visited one of the strongest Democrat precincts in Congressional District 23- the City of Hollywood’s main public library- and in speaking to Democrats waiting in line as wells as those who just voted, many of them said that they voted for Harrington over Wasserman Schultz.
What a night Tuesday might be. It starts, of course, with Mitt defeating President Obama, ending this neverending economic nightmare. Defeating Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would be a nice bonus for Republicans nationwide who are tired of Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s lippy behavior.
This information is potentially enlightening:
Coincidentally, Harrington herself was working voters in the line, she indicated that she was receiving extraordinary support from Democrats and Independents who were waiting in line to vote. There’s no doubt that there are many disaffected Democrats throughout the district are irritated with DWS’s partisan rhetoric and her neglect of congressional responsibilities as the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.
DWS’s district has lots of Jewish voters. It isn’t a stretch to think that a healthy portion of the Democrats that are voting for Ms. Harrington are Jewish. Considering the possibility DWS spent considerable time defending President Obama’s harsh treatment of Israel, it’s entirely possible that Jewish voters are taking their frustrations out on DWS.
The recent Harrington v. Wasserman Schultz polling has the incumbent congresswoman with a 4.5% lead over there challenger, and some local politicos believe that not only is the race competitive, but also that an upset is possible.
This year’s polls haven’t been that trustworthy. That’s especially true if they’re basing their polls on 2008 turnout models. If people really have tired of DWS’s boorish behavior, then I’d bet the polling is essentially irrelevant.
In 1979, Islamic extremists raided the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. They held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. In 1983, U.S. Marines were ordered out of Beirut after a massive attack killed 241 Marines. In 1993, the Clinton administration ordered U.S. troops out of Somalia after al-Qa’ida terrorists shot down a U.S. Blackhawk helicopter in Mogadishu.
UBL summarized the lesson al-Qa’ida learned from those experiences during an interview with ABC News’ John Miller:
Miller: You have said, “If the Americans are so brave they will come and arrest me.” Do you think that is something my country will try?
Bin Ladin: We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier. He is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight hot wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions, showing they can run in less than twenty-four hours. This was then repeated in Somalia.
It’s easy to understand why UBL reached that conclusion. His mistake isn’t that Americans haven’t fled hotspots. It isn’t just that Americans have looked impotent. It’s that American presidents have contributed to U.S. soldiers looking impotent by having them flee after terrorist attacks.
The lesson that President Bush learned from these lessons is that terrorists are terrified when U.S. soldiers don’t hide from adversity. Terrorists are most worried when U.S. soldiers run towards hotspots. Unfortunately, President Obama didn’t learn that lesson. He ‘learned’ that it’s best to be timid, to talk in civil tones to barbarians. That’s what he did here:
The president said the disputed election would not change his belief in greater diplomatic efforts with Iran.
“I have always felt that, as odious as I feel some of President Ahmadinejad ‘s statements (are), as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on core issues, the use of tough hard headed diplomacy, diplomacy without illusions, is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of national security interests,” the president said. “We will continue to pursue a tough direct dialogue between our two countries.”
That’s what ABC’s Kristina Wong wrote on June 15, 2009 during the Green Revolution. What the Iranian mullahs heard was that President Obama was giving them carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. They essentially heard President Obama say he was ambivalent to the protests.
A short 39 months later, North Africa, the Middle East and Southwest Asia have erupted in anti-American violence. The people serving in the U.S. embassy in Pakistan are only safe because the embassy compound is surrounded with a wall of tear gas. The consulate and annex, aka the safehouse, in Benghazi, Libya are decimated, the ruins the product of a well-planned, coordinated terrorist attack.
This is a great political opportunity for Mitt Romney because it’s a great opportunity for him to explain his vision and strategy for the Middle East, Southwest Asia and North Africa. Simply saying that a Romney administration would a) have an open door relationship with Israel, b) use covert assets to prevent terrorist attacks and c) condition foreign aid on nations’ willingness to partner with the U.S. in preventing the security nightmares currently erupting around the Mediterranean.
That would dramatically differentiate Mitt’s foreign policy from President Obama’s failed foreign policy.
Tags: Paper Tiger, Blackhawk Down, Somalia, Bill Clinton, Beirut, President Reagan, Tehran, Hostage Crisis, Ayatollah Khomeini, Jimmy Carter, Benghazi, Pakistan, Terrorist Attacks, Embassies, President Obama, Israel, Covert Operations, Foreign Aid, National Security, Mitt Romney, GOP, Election 2012
During his speech at the Democrats’ convention, Vice President Biden asked whether Osama bin Laden was better off now than he was 4 years ago. Since he set that benchmark, it’s only fair to use that criteria across North Africa and the Middle East. Charles Krauthammer’s column provides proof that life’s pretty good for some disgusting people:
Iran repeatedly defies U.S. demands on nuclear enrichment, then, as a measure of its contempt for what America thinks, openly admits that its Revolutionary Guards are deployed in Syria. Russia, after arming Assad, warns America to stay out, while the secretary of state delivers vapid lectures about Assad “meeting” his international “obligations.” The Gulf states beg America to act on Iran; Obama strains mightily to restrain…Israel. Sovereign U.S. territory is breached and U.S. interests are burned.
Life couldn’t get much better for state sponsors of terrorism and traditional American enemies. They know that they’re on easy street. They know President Obama’s foreign policy of appeasement is good for bad guy business.
In a very real sense, Iran, Russia and Syria are much better off today than they were 4 years ago. In fact, it won’t take long before Iran’s mullahs will be insufferable and unstoppable. Just a little more enrichment and they’ll have a nuclear weapon. By any sane administration’s measure, that means Iran is the biggest winner in President Obama’s high-stakes gamble.
Meanwhile, trusted allies like Israel and Poland were thrown under the bus. President Obama sent the final unmistakable message to Israel when he accepted a meeting with Egyptian President Morsi while refusing to meet with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu or Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
President Obama’s message to the Israelis was simple: Drop dead. We don’t care.
Another unmistakable message this administration sent was during the protests of the rigged Iranian elections of 2009. This administration’s message to the protesters was equally clear: Drop dead. We’re siding with the mullahs, not with Iran’s freedom-loving people.
Things are badly wrong when the people that should fear the US are smiling and the people that trust the US are worried and fidgeting. That’s where we’re at right now.
To adapt a phrase from a legendary story, there’s no joy in Worldville tonight. The One just made the world a nastier neighborhood.
President Obama’s insistence that he’s Israel’s best friend is taking a beating, especially after reading this article:
Tensions between Israel and the current U.S. administration further deteriorated last week when President Barack Obama refused to meet with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during his upcoming visit to New York, where he will address the UN General Assembly.
The White House insisted that the meeting would not take place due to the president’s pressing “campaign obligations” which would take him out of New York.
Obama has further snubbed Israeli leaders by refusing to meet with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who will also be in New York next week, WND news station reported.
Barak is scheduled to attend the 2012 Clinton Global Initiative, an annual summit of high-powered political and business leaders scheduled to overlap with the U.N. General Assembly.
While the President has not cited any pressing “campaign obligations” that would take him out of New York during Barak’s visit, he has, nonetheless, refused a meeting, WND reported.
While Obama will not meet any Israeli leader during their visits to New York, he will, however, find time to meet with Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi.
It’s insulting to Israel and to the Jewish community in the United States that President Obama refuses to meet with Defense Minister Ehud Barak or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during what I refer to as UN week.
President Obama’s insistence that he’s Israel’s best friend is spin based on his hope that he won’t get hurt too badly in Florida by his hostility towards Israel. President Obama knows that he’s been the most hostile, anti-Israeli president in this nation’s history.
The fact that he’s meeting with Egyptian President Morsi, whose government didn’t attempt to protect the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on 9/11, proves that President Obama hates Israel.
Liberals were outraged when Mitt Romney said that the Palestinians aren’t interested in peace. Thanks to this article, we now know that Mitt had it right:
Palestinian Authority head, Mahmoud Abbas, proposed cancelling the Oslo Accords with Israel at a weekend meeting of the PA leadership, a senior member of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) told AFP on Tuesday.
PLO Executive Committee member Wassel Abu Yusef said Abbas raised the idea of “cancelling the Oslo agreement as well as the associated economic and security arrangements,” at the meeting on Saturday and Sunday.
Abu Yusef said that “members of the Palestinian leadership had mixed opinions on the issue, and it was decided to postpone any decision until their next meeting,” due to be held after Abbas’s return from the UN General Assembly later this month. “It was the first time the Palestinian leadership put the issue of the Oslo agreement on the table since it was signed in 1993,” Abu Yusef added.
Cancelling the Oslo Accords means Hamas/Fatah/the PA is free to resume their terrorist attacks. The Accords were political cover for their terrorist attacks. Nobody really thought that they’d lost their love of pushing the Jewish state into the Mediterranean.
Liberals touted the agreements as proof of the PLO’s seriousness about peace. We have an agreement, they said at the time.
Conservatives laughed at the notion that that leopard had changed its spots.
The most telling thing about the media’s going ballistic over Mitt Romney’s statement is that they think it’s wrong to state what’s painfully obvious. If the media thinks it’s wrong to state what’s painfully obvious, what other principles do they are important?
I know this administration won’t agree with this but it’s time to call terrorists terrorists. Mahmoud Abbas is the leader of a government of terrorists.
Rather than sticking the nation’s head in the sand and pretending like the Middle East isn’t one lit match away from erupting in violence, perhaps it’s time for the US to push aside this administration’s fantasies that Iran can be held in check by sanctions.
Perhaps, it’s time that the US government took a harder line stance with the Muslim Brotherhood.
President Obama’s belief that we should coddle state sponsors of terrorism while turning our backs on our greatest allies is repulsive.
Tags: Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority, PLO, Muslim Brotherhood, Political Correctness, Terrorism, Benghazi, Iran, President Obama, Democrats, Mitt Romney, Israel, National Security, GOP, Election 2012
Michele Bachmann said what’s been on everyone’s mind recently when she urged President Obama to cancel his appearance on Letterman so he could meet with Israeli PM Netanyahu:
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), speaking at the Values Voter Summit last week in Washington, D.C., said that President Barack Obama needs to cancel his upcoming interview with David Letterman and instead meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“And President Obama needs to get his priorities straight. What he needs to do is cancel his planned interview with David Letterman, cancel his meeting with Beyonce, cancel his meeting with Jay Z, and instead agree to meet with the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, because you see, America and Israel have a commonality of interests,” Bachmann said.
The images being transmitted by this administration are that they can’t be distracted by crises in the Middle East and in North Africa. They’re in full campaign mode and nothing, not even terrorist attacks in Benghazi or Iran getting nuclear weapons, will prevent them from showing up on cheesy talk shows or attending glitzy fundraisers.
While the economy stumbled, allies got ignored and threats developed, President Obama stuck with a schedule filled with golf outings (100 and counting), fundraisers (200 and counting) and appearances on late night talk shows (too numerous to count).
Given his disinterest in his official responsibilities, it isn’t surprising that most of the Middle East is ablaze, the economy is in shambles and Israel thinks that this administration is jerking them around.
Rest assured that Jewish voters in Florida will notice the disdain this administration has for Israel. Don’t be surprised if you hear from Mayor Koch about that in the very near future.
President Obama won’t get away with simply saying his administration is tight with the Israeli government, either. He’ll have to prove that his administration is willing to fight Iran to protect Israel.
Anything short of that will be seen as the actions of a weak-in-the-knees politician who isn’t interested in Israel.
President Obama’s words are meaningless, especially when it comes to Israel. Last week, President Obama said that he’d “stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel.” This week, when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu asked to meet with President Obama, President Obama chose to appear on David Letterman’s show instead:
The president will chat with the “Late Show” host during a trip to New York City next week, according to the National Journal. Letterman’s nightly monologues mostly spare the president from satirical ribbing, saving his most cutting remarks for the Romneys…or even former President George W. Bush.
The news comes on the same day Obama told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu he couldn’t meet with him due to a scheduling conflict.
Nothing says standing with Israel like sitting down with David Letterman for a chat.
The fact that President Obama hasn’t announced that he’s rescheduling his Letterman interview to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks louder than 100 of President Obama’s speeches.
President Obama hasn’t been faithful in dealing with America’s best ally in the Middle East. Instead, he’s tried re-establishing a diplomatic relationship with Iran and Syria while throwing Israel under the proverbial bus.
After the Democrats’ platform difficulties with regards to Israel, Hamas and the Palestinian Right of Return, don’t be surprised if Jewish voters don’t reward him this November.
Michael Savage and Glenn Beck have long been known for their thirst for publicity. For awhile, the running joke was that the most dangerous place in DC was between a TV camera and Sen. Schumer. That applies to Mssrs. Beck and Savage.
This morning, Glenn Beck said that he could support Ron Paul as a third party candidate if Newt’s the nominee:
Glenn Beck said this morning on his radio show that if Newt Gingrich is the nominee and Ron Paul runs third party, he’d consider voting for Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich, and he hates Ron Paul’s policies on the Middle East.
This afternoon, Michael Savage announced that he’d offered Newt $1,000,000 to get out of the race:
The Republican presidential field has come down to two candidates who have a real chance of getting the nomination: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. While it’s true that Romney is not as strong a conservative as many would like him to be, the most pressing issue before America today is defeating Barack Obama. And that is something Newt Gingrich cannot do.
What a pair of dimwits. Beck allegedly loves Israel. Still, he’s throwing Israel under the bus by supporting a presidential candidate that, at best, is indifferent to Israel.
As an evangelical Christian, I’ve seen historical proof that God takes seriously the covenant He made with Abraham. That’s where He said “Surely, I will bless those that bless you and I will surely curse those that curse you.”
The Democrats’ best years came when they forged a strong bond between the U.S. and Israel. It isn’t coincidence that they started going dowhill shortly after they started taking a more pro-Arab policy stance.
My bigger point is that Beck is willing to ignore God’s command because Newt Gingrich isn’t conservative enough for him. That’s total stupidity.
Savage’s logic is even more tortured. It’s his opinion that Newt can’t win even though he’s attracing a wide variety of voters into his coalition. This shows that Mr. Savage isn’t the brightest bulb in Talk Radio’s chandelier.
In 1994, Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz put together the Congract With America. All 10 items polled at 70% or better. If you read Newt’s 21st Century Contract With America, it’s apparent that these proposals all get 70% support.
I’d love to hear Mr. Savage explain how Newt isn’t electable when he’s running on a set of important issues that each gets 70% support. If Savage thinks that Newt’s pulling uphill with a dozen issues that each gets 70% support, then he’s an idiot.
All candidates would love to have those type of difficulties.
Tonight’s defining moment came during a heated exchange between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich on the subject of Newt’s statements to The Jewish Channel on the Palestinians.
Newt said that his statement was historically accurate. When Mitt attempted to make points, here’s what Mitt said:
“If I’m president of the United States, I will exercise sobriety, care, stability, and make sure that in a setting like this, anything I say that can affect a place with rockets going in, with people dying, I don’t do anything that will harm that process,” Romney said in reference to Israel.
“And therefore before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend [Israeli Prime Minister] Bibi Netanyahu and say, ‘Would it help if I said this? What would you like me to do? Let’s work together because we’re partners.’”
“I’m not a bomb-thrower, rhetorically or literally,” Romney said.
Newt immediately threw that back in Mitt’s face, saying:
“I think sometimes that it’s helpful to have a president of the United States who has the courage to tell the truth,” Gingrich said, arguing that then-President Ronald Reagan went around his national security advisers to call the Soviet Union an “evil empire” and “overruled” the State Department to utter his famous “Tear down this wall” line.
“Reagan believed the power of truth restated to the world and reframed the world,” Gingrich said. “I’m a Reaganite. I’m proud to be a Reaganite. I will tell the truth, even if it’s at the risk of causing some confusion sometimes with the timid.”
Plenty of GOP presidential candidates have called themselves Reagan conservatives. Newt’s the first GOP presidential candidate to fully appreciate what a Reagan conservative is and to act like a Reagan conservative.
Newt’s exactly right. Timid people like Mitt don’t change the world. They just manage it until handing it of to the next guy. People like Reagan change the world in a positive way.
After that, the wind left Mitt’s sails. He turned in one of his most tepid debate performances of this cycle. Mitt’s reaching his hand across to offer Rick Perry a $10,000 bet was stupid, exposing him to ridicule as a rich fat cat who doesn’t understand the middle class and the working poor.
I’m not buying into that characterization. I’m just saying that he’ll now lose support because of that gesture.
That isn’t the bad news. The night’s really bad news is that he got abused by Newt on an important issue.
I’ll predict right now that Mitt’s numbers will take a significant hit by next week’s end and that Rick Santorum will pick up alot of Mitt’s lost support.
In fact, I’d argue that, at best, Mitt finished third in the debate behind Newt, then Rick Santorum.
Finally, I think Mitt’s team will retool their Iowa strategy after tonight’s performance. After tonight, Mitt doesn’t stand a chance of winning Iowa. If he goes all out, he’s likely to finish third or possibly even fourth in Iowa.
It’s one thing to finish a respectable second. It’s another to fade fast and finish a disappointing third or fourth. That’d kill his momentum and demolish his air of inevitability.
UPDATE: Here’s the partial video of Newt demolishing Mitt on national security:
I saved the debate on my DVR. While this video is powerful, watching the back-and-forth between Mitt and Newt was more powerful.
It wouldn’t be fair to say that Mitt looked like a deer in the headlights. It’s totally fair to say that Mitt got schooled by Newt the professor.
If there’s anything that should be rejected totally, it’s President Obama’s plan for destabilizing the Middle East.
“Remember that, before 1967, Israel was all of nine miles wide,” Netanyahu said, emphasizing his words with his hands. “It was half the width of the Washington Beltway. And these were not the boundaries of peace; they were the boundaries of repeated wars, because the attack on Israel was so attractive.”
Obama, frustrated by Mideast peace talks that have collapsed, is seeking to get both sides to contend with the issues of borders and security. Even progress on those enormous fronts would still leave unsettled the fate of Jerusalem and of Palestinian refugees. Netanyahu underscored just how difficult that last issue is alone, declaring that Palestinians will not be allowed to settle in Israel as part of any peace plan.
“It’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen,” he said. “And I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly it’s not going to happen.”
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Netanyahu’s comments with Obama were tantamount to “his total rejection of the Obama vision and speech.”
“Without Mr. Netanyahu committing to two states on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, he is not a partner to the peace process,” Erekat said. “I think, when President Obama gave him a choice between dictation and negotiations, he chose dictation.”
I agree with Mr. Erekat that Netanyahu’s actions are the “total rejection of the Obama vision and speech.” President Obama’s speech and vision are truly worthy of total rejection. They destabilize the region because they embolden Hamas, Hizbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Fatah and other terrorist organizations operating in the Middle East and in North Africa.
Caroline Glick’s article frames things perfectly:
Hamas is a jihadist movement dedicated to the annihilation of the Jewish people, and the establishment of a global caliphate. It’s in their charter. And all Obama said of the movement that has now taken over the Palestinian Authority was, “Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection.”
Irrelevant and untrue.
It is irrelevant because obviously the Palestinians don’t want peace. That’s why they just formed a government dedicated to Israel’s destruction.
As for being untrue, Obama’s speech makes clear that they have no reason to fear a loss of prosperity. After all, by failing to mention that US law bars the US government from funding an entity which includes Hamas, he made clear that the US will continue to bankroll the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority. So too, the EU will continue to join the US in giving them billions for bombs and patronage jobs. The Palestinians have nothing to worry about. They will continue to be rewarded regardless of what they do.
Let’s admit the obvious: The Palestinian Authority isn’t interested in peace in the Middle East any more than Hamas is interested in it. This dance is a sham. That’s what it’s been for decades. This time, unfortunately, the U.S. president has sided with the terrorists and against Israel.