Obama Spending and Lessons from Venezuela

Faced with shortages of food, building materials and other staples, President Hugo Chávez is intensifying state control of the Venezuelan economy through a new wave of takeovers of private companies and the creation of government-controlled ventures with allies like Cuba and Iran.

The moves come just months after voters rejected a referendum to give the president sweeping constitutional power over the economy and public institutions, leading to new accusations that Chávez is more interested in consolidating power than in fixing Venezuela's problems.

And while he has argued that aggressive action against the private sector is needed to correct social injustices and fight soaring inflation, his critics say his moves are instead compounding those troubles.

Above are excerpts from an Int'l Herald Tribune article - Chávez tightens reins on Venezuelan economy - just a month ago. It has some disturbing rumblings of familiarity... most especially that final sentence.

Obama, the likely DNC candidate, has tax incentive proposals on his possible Oval Office desk for $50 billion into energy venture capitalist funds, $150 billion for more biofuel issues, doubling existing science and research for clean energy products, doubling existing federal funding for research on job creation, more federal workforce training programs, distressed home owners funds, quadrupling Early Head Start funding and increasing existing Head Start funding, $5 billion for transitional jobs for the low income, and creating an Affordable Housing trust fund.

And... oh yeah, all of rural America should have high speed internet. Hasn't he heard of Directway?? And is he proposing we put a net satellite in orbit for those that those who do not have a shot at the southern skies satellite? Boy won't that be a pretty penny.

Then of course, we can't leave out the most overt large scale government creation - universal health care.

The above programs are merely a drop in the bucket for a President Obama spending frenzy, in conjunction with his merry bank of progressives leading the House and Senate. It has to be obvious even to the blissfully oblivious that Obama will be one expensive President to maintain. With cronies in charge of Congressional purse strings, what way is there to stop America from becoming a total welfare state, such as Cuba or Venezuela?

We hear little of the big spending Obama plans in the media. Instead, mesmerized by his appealing baritone, we're to get all a'twitter about a middle class tax cut. So do we get the new x% tax cut on the amount we're at now *with* the Bush tax cuts? Or will Obama increase our taxes by letting the Bush cuts expire, *then* give us our x% cut? Makes a difference, don't you think? We might just come out in the wash with it all. But it sure makes for good campaign fodder amongst the true believers.

Reality is Obama's cuts won't mean much difference in the large scheme. The taxes to be added on for all his desired programs have yet to be tallied for the public. By the time he's done with his socialist program reforms we will have redefined a large portion of America's economic class - combining raised lower classes with the lowered middle class, and creating a newer, larger lower-middle class. Whether that's good comes from where you are sitting now.

Reading thru a President Obama's plans of a socialist USA on his website, I have to wonder just how long will it be before we see excerpts, like above, about the US and Obama instead of Chavez and Venezuela? The propositions of both leaders are eerily parallel in substance and end goals. They share the belief that the fix all for economic problems is by government seizing profits - whether by de-privatization, or by taxes - and redistributing to the masses. And certainly Obama's youthful adulation of Frank William Marshall is just one more troublesome association to add to his other collection of raging pastors, US terrorist bombers, sleazier than usual real estate investors, and a magically, squeaky clean mortgage CEO from the financially troubled Countrywide Mortgage.

Before we step hastily into an Obama socialist quagmire, we would be wise to observe, in real time, some serious lessons from Venezuela. Chavez - despite serious financial woes - is not abandoning his Marxist dream. Instead, he continues to consolidate ultimate state power by going after productive private businesses. Even using his own version of the US's "eminent domain" by offering some, if not low, compensation.

Still, Chávez is pressing ahead with the takeovers of companies big and small. These include Sidor, a large, Argentine-controlled steelmaker; cement companies owned by Mexican, Swiss and French investors; more than 30 sugar plantations; a large dairy products company; and a sprawling cattle estate on the southern plains.

Chávez has avoided outright confiscations of private companies, by offering some compensation, but the terms of these deals are growing increasingly contentious, with the president threatening to withhold payments. In Sidor's case, the company had asked for up to $4 billion in compensation; Chávez is giving it $800 million.

Needless to say, Venezuelan business owners aren't feeling comfortable these days. Even small business are feeling the pinch. From an AP article just two days ago:

Mirina Kakalanos has been forced to double prices at her family's shoe store in the last year. Customers turn away after browsing the pumps and sandals, but Kakalanos says she has no choice.

"There is less money coming in, and more costs to cover," said the 40-year-old mother of three, whose Greek immigrant father opened the shop after moving to Venezuela in search of a better life. Now she barely makes enough to get by.

Gas is cheap in Venezuela. But before you get too envious, that's only a part of the story. Or, as Rory Carroll, reporting from Caracus, put in in his Jan 2008 article in the Guardian:

Venezuela, a major oil producer which introduced the subsidy as a populist measure in the 1940s, is probably the most extreme case of a gas-guzzling dream becoming a policy nightmare.

A lack of rigs and other problems has reduced the output of the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, just as domestic consumption has soared to 780,000 barrels a day. The subsidy costs the government around £4.5bn annually. It also encourages a brisk trade in contraband petrol across the Colombian border, where prices are higher.

snip

Some economists call the subsidy "Hood Robin", because it steals from the poor and gives to the rich by favouring relatively wealthy car owners above the poor who rely on public transport.

Oil revenues to the state has tripled since 2004 to $63.9 bil, and account for 50% of the nation's budget. Chavez has also taken over the electricity and phone utilities in the name of the state. There is no doubt the palace is awash in govt cash. This should be good for a socialist nation, right?

Wrong. What Chavez didn't pump of govt cash into his neighborly FARC terrorists, political buds, and other similar human scum, he funneled into welfare/social programs. Fresh with "free money", the population went into a spending binge and banks increased lending... all atop the booming new car purchases (500,000 sold last year alone, population of 25.5 mil)

But now life is different and the fruits of socialism are coming home to roose. With massive govt constraints and constantly morphing laws, foreign investments for business have fallen to record lows. There's food shortages, high unemployment, and serious inflation. Six years after Chavez came to power, the nat'l poverty level still was standing at 37%. Historically poor, it's not hard to understand Venezuelan's ran amok with free cash in fist.

In a desperate attempt to fix what is, and was inevitably going to, go wrong, Chavez's govt giveaway of oil money continues. Last month Chavez increased the minimum wage 30% (about $372 US). Still, only half of the Venezuelan's will see that raise in wages. Including a woman selling vegetables in an open market. Yorbelis Suarez says she pays three times what she did just two months ago for her stock.

Now Chavez plays with the currency to gain the upper hand.

As prices now climb again, Chavez's government has tried to tame the trend - issuing US$4 billion in bonds in April to absorb excess cash, enforcing price controls on basic foods and holding the currency to a fixed exchange rate. It introduced a new monetary unit in January to boost confidence in its sagging "bolivar," and changed the way inflation is measured, incorporating data from smaller cities with less cash on hand.

The Central Bank embraced a more traditional anti-inflationary measure in March, raising interest rates on credit cards to 32 percent and on savings deposits to 10 percent to slow consumer spending.

But inflation is galloping, with rates of roughly 30 percent after running at nearly 20 percent a year earlier. And some of Chavez's tactics have backfired.

Price caps have caused sporadic shortages, as some food producers sought other, more profitable work. And foreign exchange controls make it harder for businesses to get dollars to buy imports, driving them to buy the U.S. currency on the black market, where it has sold at times for twice the official rate - further inflating prices.

Investors complain that these restrictions - not to mention the fear that their lands or companies could be taken over by the government - are making it harder to do business in Venezuela.

It's no historic secret that communism/socialism/Marxist regimes are short lived failures that lead to poverty for unpriviliged masses. But still some leaders persist in bucking history.

Stanford Terry Karls says oil booms always results in rapid growth... until they reach what she calls "absorption crunch".

You just can't absorb that huge influx of money properly," Karl said. "You get problems with your prices, you get problems of supply. ... All those bottlenecks slow down growth and eventually create inflation."

And so it comes down to the economic unstability of socialism - internally and externally. It is a concept that only works in smaller, personal units, and where the resources are boundless. But the catch 22 is they have created a state where there is no incentive for foreign investment, and the production of Venezuala's wealth - oil - slows. There is no incentive for private enterprise from within to increase the govt socialist network. Much easier to sit back and "take". So the money supply is dwindling, and the consumption is rising. The gap will only widen until ultimate failure.

If socialist principles can not work in a country with 16% of our population, and one of the 10 largest oil reserves in the world, how can we expect a socialist America to survive with our consumption, our advanced technology, and our out of control immigrant population? Especially when you consider the largest percentage of our exports is commodities like transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment? All of which require importing of oil to manufacture.

And so we come to see what well be America's future under a President Obama, as reflected in Venezuela under Chavez's govt giveaway policies - or perhaps better described as life in Obama's proposed United States Socialist Republic.

Obama's Chicago style diplomacy? Corners Lieberman after critique

Jake Tapper sets the imagination a'whirling. His Political Punch entry today, "Obama Confronts Lieberman On McCain Advocacy, Tone, on Senate Floor", conjures visions reminiscent of 1900s Chicago mob bosses and their intimidation "diplomacy".

To set the stage, Lieberman had just finished a critique on the Senate floor of BHO's AIPAC speech on Wednesday - the day following his self-coronation - when Obama ushered him off to the side for some private "words".

Returning to the Senate after his securing the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Lieberman greeted each on the Senate floor in the Well as they were voting on the budget resolution.

They shook hands. But Obama didn’t let go, leading Lieberman - cordially - by the hand across the room into a corner on the Democratic side, where Democratic sources tell ABC News he delivered some tough words for the junior senator from Connecticut, who had just minutes before hammered Obama's speech before the pro-Israel group AIPAC in a conference call arranged by the McCain campaign.

Watch video of the encounter on the Senate floor HERE.

The two spoke intensely for approximately five minutes, with no one able to hear their conversation. Reporters watched as Obama leaned closely in to Lieberman, whose back was literally up against the wall.

Neither party is officially talking. But while Lieberman spokesman Marshall Whitman says the conversation was "a cordial and friendly discussion" and Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says it was "private and friendly," Democratic sources tell ABC News that the conversation was a stern rebuke to Lieberman for his criticism of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee on the conference call, as well as a discussion about how far Lieberman is willing to go in his advocacy of McCain, and the tone of the campaign.

The video link provided is a long shot, and captures only the part of Obama's firm clasp on Lieberman amidst the crowd, until they exit out of frame to the right. The rest is presumably constructed from witnesses. Tapper's accounting does rightfully deserve this caveat... the full encounter, nor the video, is not available on tape. So on can only guess what was said, and in what manner. I'll wager "body language" interpretators are going to have a ball with this one....

However this bizarre event, an obviously more virulent and younger Senator physically pulling the older and smaller Lieberman out of the crowd, and instead to a private wall, begs the most simple of observations. You can take the boy out of Chicago. But can you take the Chicago out of the boy?

DNC need for "exit strategy" dooms Hillary run?Not so fast....

“We pledged to support her to the end. Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is.”

Rep-NY Charles Rangel

Typical of the cowardly party that has neither balls, nor patience and loyalty. Per their own rules, he/she with the most delegates wins.

However, as a result of the last two primaries, neither Hillary nor Obama had the needed pledged delegates to cross the finish line. Obama declares victory, but only with the aid of promises from the super delegates.

One hitch... supers don't cast their official votes until the DNC Convention in August. And while they may promise a vote today, events tomorrow allows them wiggle room to change their minds - all within the wacky and hardly Democratic DNC rules.

This means Obama's strutting is truly premature... unless, of course, he and other party leaders force Hillary out against her better judgment. And evidently, they have.

Her decision came after a day of conversations with supporters on Capitol Hill about her future now that Mr. Obama had clinched the nomination. Mrs. Clinton had, in a speech after Tuesday night’s primaries, suggested that she wanted to wait before deciding about her future, but in conversations throughout the day on Wednesday, her aides said, she was urged to step aside.

snip

Mrs. Clinton’s decision came as some of her most prominent supporters — including former Vice President Walter F. Mondale — announced they were now backing Mr. Obama.

snip

The desire of the party for Mrs. Clinton to leave the race was signaled — if politely as four top Democratic leaders issued a statement on Wednesday morning asking all uncommitted delegates to make their decisions by Friday. The statement from the party officials — Howard Dean, the Democratic chairman; Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker; Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Gov. Joe Manchin of West Virginia — stopped short of endorsing Mr. Obama, but aides said they would likely move in that direction if Mrs. Clinton lingered in the race.

“The voters have spoken,” they said in their joint statement released before 7 a.m., purposefully timed to set the tone for the day after the election. “Democrats must now turn our full attention to the general election.”

The voters have spoken? What BS... Obama is a super delegate creation. And not even an official one until Denver at that. But let's not get facts get in the way of railroading.

But the Democrats are not known for their endurance. And the lack of a Hillary exit strategy - or "when the hell the end is", as Charlie puts it - isn't giving the lily-livered, high-profile supporters much to go on. So the big guns come out en masse to bully Hillary out of the running. Just as they've done over and over on Iraq, the powerful DNC elite declare defeat early, and prepare to abandon ship.

Perhaps more admirable is the core Hillary base... loyal and feeling every inch cheated, swindled, and disenfranchised. They know the rules too. And they're having to face the fact that the "every vote must count" of their beloved party is nothing more than an meaningless, feel-good slogan, empty of meaning and implementation.

His Messiahship and the big guns have spoken. Still I wonder how they'll deal with inevitable, and likely severe, "buyers' remorse".

But there is still the glimmer of a chance. Hillary will officially "suspend" her campaign, and throw her endorsement to Obama. However "suspend" is entirely different than "end". This is being done in order for her to continue fund raising to pay off debts.

Or is it just a way to wait quietly in the wings without officially withdrawing in the race? Only time will tell. And if that buyers' remorse does set in prior to Denver, they may be very glad they couldn't shake the lady.

World praises Iraq progress DNC "stays the course" on "failed policy" rhetoric

Evidently the rest of the world isn't so consumed with Bush hate as they cannot acknowledge from Iraq's fledgling govt has accomplished against all odds.

A declaration adopted by 100 delegations at a Stockholm conference said the participants "recognised the important efforts made by the (Iraqi) government to improve security and public order and combat terrorism and sectarian violence across Iraq."

It also acknowledged political and economic progress made, and said that "given the difficult context, these successes are all the more remarkable."

In a speech earlier to the conference, Ban said Iraq was "stepping back from the abyss that we feared most," adding that with international help the war-torn country could fulfill its "vision of becoming a free, secure, stable and prosperous nation."

He cautioned however that "the situation remains fragile."

In the meantime, the likely DNC candidate for POTUS stubbornly "stays the course". Just two days ago, Obama has the "audacity" to speak thru his spokesman, Bill Burton, responding to McCain's offer for a joint exploratory trip to Iraq:

"John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer."

Not confined to the Presidential hopeful, Pelosi herself regurgitated the same ol' line in an interview with the SF Chronicle.

Asked if she saw any evidence of the surge’s positive impact on her May 17 trip to Iraq she responded:

Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.

Blind hatred and selfish arrogance in order to secure the nation's top political seat are qualities in a leader that requires the US voter to adopt a "willing suspension of disbelief".

OBAMABOTS "TAKE A DUMP" ON PORTLAND's LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMORIAL

On a side note, symbolic of Obama's refusal to even recognize, let alone honor, our military's success can be found at his Portland, OR rally... where literally the Obamabots "took a dump" on Portland's fallen law enforcement officers.

Brennan, who controlled the crowd near the Portland Police Memorial, noticed several Porta Potties set up in the middle of the memorial. Brennan had been at the site five days earlier for an annual memorial service and a flag was still set at half mast on the day of the rally.

"There was plenty of room elsewhere so space wasn't an issue," Brennan said. "So someone used some really poor decision making, whoever elected to put them there. I mean, it's somewhat hallowed ground, I guess you could call it."

After several days, Brennan attached a photo he took to a letter and e-mailed it to dozens of media outlets and the Obama campaign.

Brennan said officers haven't heard back from the Obama campaign. He said someone owes an apology to the families of the fallen officers.

The officer, of course, doesn't blame Obama personally. However it's ironically insightful that his followers are just as oblivious to the honor and accomplishments of those that serve as the "messiah" they follow.

Pakistan Update: Musharraf out?Foreign fighters okay...

With the DNC bent on taking over all branches of US government, fulling overdue promises of "tough love" by yanking the US troops out of Iraq, ignoring Lebanon, and Pakistan's peace deals further inflaming Afghanistan under NATO's command, it can be said that Middle East allies for the US might be getting to be an endangered species.

Quietly behind the scenes, and out of the western media spotlight, Pakistan is steadily traveling the yellow brick road to rogue and defiant ally-in-name-and-money-only status... content just to silence bombs in their back yard while allowing Taliban/AQ and fellow ilk militants to ping pong back and forth across the Afghanistan border at will.

Two deals were cemented over the past month, involving exchanging of prisoners and, in theory, either exiling or handing over foreign militants. However S. Waziristan Taliban leaders have made it abundantly clear that they have no intentions of halting their jihad battles on Afghan soil.

“First, we will not accept such a ban. But we hope the peace deal will be inked without a clause that puts restrictions on mujahideen to cross the border (into Afghanistan),” Abu Zakwan, Taliban commander in the Kotkai area of South Waziristan, told Daily Times on Saturday. Using the alias of Abu Zakwan, the commander said that government negotiators are asking for a pledge to stop cross-border attacks, but the Taliban were not committing to such an agreement.

Jihad centre: He said Waziristan was serving the region as “centre for jihad” and people from across the country were being trained for holy war “against the United States”.

To date, the peace deals have not resulted in any militants of note being either expelled or turned over to the Pakistan govt. Indeed, all they've done is add to the terrorists in the region, using their get-out-of-jail-free cards as an exchange for Pakistan Army hostages. As predicted, the militants deny knowing of any foreign fighters' whereabouts. Mehsud claims they are not harboring Zawahiri, OBL or ilk. Indeed, he insists Bin Laden is dead. I've seen this story on quite a few blogs, however not one link to the original story works. Take away what you wish from that note.

Meanship Nawaz Sharif continues his pressure on PPP's Zardari to not only oust Musharraf, but calls for trials for sedition. In today's Khaleej Times, he suggests that Zardari's party has agreed to expel Musharraf from the Presidency. Thus far, there has been no comment or confirmation from the PPP representative, nor PM Gilani.

One can safely say that Pakistan's efforts to curb jihad violence may offer temporary benefits for them... however making deals while they continue to foster jihad against the US doesn't benefit us, or the war on Islamic jihad movements, one bit. This would be the same US/Uncle Sam who's shelled out incentive cash, hand over fist, to Pakistan. And now, to add insult to injury, we're about to lose the rare military general ballsy enough to give a silent nod to US operations over Pakistan soil, and incur/endure the wrath of his country.

Pakistan, however, sees Obama with his incentive packages and "talk nice" coming. They have their hands already outstretched, whining that their anti-terror efforts on the behalf of the US costs twice what the US pays in the Coalition Support Fund.

A US Government Accountability Office report issued last week said that of $5.8 billion in US support for anti-terrorism efforts in the Fata between 2002 and 2007, about 96 per cent had gone towards reimbursing the Pakistani military, three per cent on border security and one per cent on development aid projects.

Talking to Dawn, sources said the $5.8 billion Pakistan received from the CSF was reimbursement of what the country had already spent.

“It is not easy to deploy 100,000 troops in a troubled area,” said one diplomatic source. “Look, how the Americans are spending billions of dollars on maintaining troops in Iraq. If the Americans feel that the Iraq war is draining their resources, imagine how it affects Pakistan.”

I have to ask... just how many times has Pakistan has deployed troops, especially in that number? Last year was filled with western media, accusing Musharraf of not doing anything. Yet now we are to believe that they're in the red, deploying troops on our behalf at every turn? Apparently the Pakistanis believe the US should carry the financial load of maintaining peace in their own tribal regions.

There is a smidgen of validity in that argument, of which they will have no problems in convincing a naive POTUS Obama that smidgen is much larger in US dollars. Tho many tribal elders may not seek war against the US or the west, they do harbor and benefit from those who do. However Pakistan's internal battles did not begin with America's more prominent presence in the Middle East. Nor will they end when we withdraw and come home. Jihad was there before we came, and will always be there.

Come the era of a possible President Obama in the WH, there are very different positions on the ME political chess board now. NATO falters in Afghanistan, and NATO alliance countries refuse to pony up the needed troops. Iraqis and US forces in Iraq are making headway, but live under the threat of having their progress reversed the moment a DNC leader takes the oath of office. Lebanon is morphing before our very eyes, with the Hezbollah shadow puppet government becoming more powerful with their legislative veto powers just acquired. Last year, Iran has no nuke program via an NIE - a report Obama buys hook, line and sinker. But today even the IAEA is concerned. Still the int'l community that makes up the corrupt and anti-semite UN, dances around significant action. And Obama will make sure US actions are blessed by the corrupt before implementing.

Pakistan, already proving the appeasement path benefits only their own backyard, and that terrorists will not budge on the bigger battle of training jihad, will be perhaps the next President's biggest problem. A President Obama will make nice, pass over more cash, and terrorists and dictators will continue to smile.

Fasten your seat belts, because we're in for a bumpy ride...

UPDATED:Dangerous liaisons, oil & appeasement policyA vision of our future?

There is a slow groundswell in the West. There is no longer a proud and defiant movement to battle the jihad movements who carried out, assisted, or cheered on the 911 bombers that hit US soil in 2001.Instead the US finds itself inexplicably drawn to appeasement foreign policy, driven by war weary denizens.

It is the military families who bear the sacrifices for the war. For the majority, Americans are unaffected… except now – in their minds - in their wallets. Not for the actual war spending mind you, but because of the link from Iraq to the rising price of oil worldwide.

And so we come to the odd 6 degrees of separation between dangerous liaisons, appeasement foreign policy and the price of oil. It's ironic that it will ultimately be gas prices that herd Americans thru the gates to appeasement. But years of "the war is lost" or "this war cannot be won militarily" have taken their toll on the dangerously misinformed US voter.

We are taught Iraq and Bush are the cause for oil prices. They listen to Cindy Sheehan, as she continues the lie that Cheney still owns part of, and profits off of, Halliburton. Too many give a derelict Congress a pass. Increased global demands by a fast developing India and China, an ailing dollar, and topped with speculators fueling commodies are never factored into reality.

Facts tend to be inconvenient to political ends, and mean nothing to the disgruntled. They only know they are paying almost twice the amount they did last year for filling up their gas tanks, and seeing the effect domino into the cost of groceries. We are a nation of blame... as long as it's anyone but ourselves.

And any villain at hand will do. Mostly especially big oil - the industry America so loves to hate. Yesterday we had yet another rerun in Senate Hearings… just as in Nov 2005, Mar 2006 and May 2007, the oil industry execs appear for their annual reaming from Senators, diverting the attention from themselves to wealthy oil barons. Just as nothing happened back in 2005, nor in the decades before, nothing will again be done. But it makes for good political theatre in an election year.

As long as the US equates war on jihad elements with oil, they will support any and all attempts to extract ourselves from that battle... and hang the consequences. This same mentality that ties the two will curtain future military endeavors as a way to guarantee lower gas prices. Therefore a withdrawal from Iraq goes hand in hand with a new approach in foreign policy to accomplish that objective. Appeasement replaces military response.

Thus we come to a vision of our future. A world where our military hesitates to enter Middle East battlegrounds, and diplomats cut deals that ply our enemy with enough incentives to stop the bombs going off daily, achieving a false sense of relative peace.

Americans, desperate for a return to what they see as prosperity lost, are set to elect leadership that will lead us down the rosy path of appeasement foreign policy to accomplish just that end. Even more distressing, that trend is global in nature.

Obama, likely nominee (if you ask him), promises he will be an American President who sits down unconditionally with the enemy. Britain, formerly one of the US's strongest allies, has already placed a pacifist - PM Gordon Brown - at the helm who fits nicely with a President Obama's ideas. Brown has been busy making appointments of diplomats that echo his own sentiments.

____________________________________

UPDATE 5/24/08 - Britain's Foreign Sec'y "queries" Obama's Iran policy

Well now, surprises never cease. While on the surface it appears an Obama Presidency would be a match made in heavey with Britain's PM Brown and Foreign Sec'y Miliband, it's even more likely (and frightening...) that Mr. Obama is too extreme even for the very liberal Brits in power. Oh my...

David Miliband (see "appointment of diplomats" link above) has met with all three Presidential candidates during a trip to the US this week, feeling them out individually on their foreign policy. Apparently, in as polite of terms as possible, he's not terribly impressed with BHO.

Exact accounts of the conversation with Mr Obama differ and there is certainly acute anxiety on the part of the British not to be seen as stoking political controversy in America’s presidential elections. In the past week Mr McCain has repeatedly hammered Mr Obama for what he claims is a “naive” commitment to hold direct talks with foreign dictators.

snip

Mr Miliband, in a press conference with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reiterated Britain’s support for the united front on Iran adopted by the US and its European allies, which he believes is beginning to pay dividends. “Our position, jointly, has always been that as long as Iran exercises responsibilities, then it will be able to forge a more productive and positive relationship with the international community,” Mr Miliband said.

An aide later told The Times that the Foreign Secretary was being very careful to avoid direct criticism of any presidential candidate’s positions. But the same source added: “We know Obama wants to engage more, but we don’t know what route he will take or what he means by ‘no pre-conditions’. It has not unravelled yet and, when it does, we will be able to see where it converges or conflicts with what we’re doing.”

A Foreign Office spokesman later said: “I just want to stress that David Miliband is not confused about Obama’s policy. It would be quite wrong to say that.”

END UPDATE
__________________________________________



Australia’s Kevin Rudd is certainly more reserved in military use than John Howard, the previous strong US ally. Tho Rudd remains a strong ally in Afghanistan, and rejects Ahmadinejad, he is still a question mark in the march to appeasement foreign policy.

Pakistan, now under the PPP, has already implemented Obama'esque appeasement policy. They have made pacts with Baitullah Meshud in the S. Waziristan area, and finalizing a similar pact with the Maulana Fazlullah in the NWTA.

Mehsud has had Pakistan dancing to his tune over the past few months. At the beginning of the year, militants ravaged Pakistan with numerous suicide attacks and then suddenly proposed a peace agreement. Under immense pressure from its vulnerable domestic political and economic situation, Pakistan accepted the peace deal and then also accepted the militants' demand for the swapping of prisoners.

The world's reaction to Pakistan’s back room deals? Britain's Brown officials predictably applaud Pakistan's appeasement deals. The Taliban themselves are overjoyed. With the agreements, they have again reinforced their numbers, freeing 55 Taliban militants ranging in importance from the lowly fighter to commanders. As if freedom wasn't enough, Islamabad also "paid a sum of 20 million Pakistani rupees (US$287,000) to the militants."

We all must wonder - was the money paid to the freed jihad terrorists provided by the US for their cooperation in the global war on jihad movements? And will future appeasement deals – paying freed terrorists - also be funded by US incentive money? Such is the ugly reality of striking “deals” with the enemy.

A few of these jailed militants are former guests of Club Gitmo, including Muslim Dost. Mufti Yousuf is again running around free, while Maulana Abdul Aziz of the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad is expected to be released soon. A fighter who promises to drive Pakistan to a Islamic revolution.
Where is the sanity in the Pakistan government letting loose a fighter, determined to evoke revolution?

Qari Ziaur Rahman, another freed militant they say is destined to become legendary, was also released in exchange for Pak military hostages in the Meshud appeasement agreement. Ziaur is in charge of Taliban finances.

The few not applauding this foreign policy movement is the current WH administration, and those countries who will be most affected by this “illusion of peac” - countries (like Afghanistan) who end up with these beasts proliferating in their own back yard because of another country's "truce". Other traditionally liberal countries, also directly affected with an increasing Muslim immigration that refuses to assimilate, have elected new, more conservative leadership (i.e. Italy, France and the Netherlands). Apparently, for those on the direct receiving end of these kinder/gentler tactics, it’s only a matter of time before the truth hits - one side of the parties only honors compromise.

As the US, as well as other western nations, start caving in to the appeasement trend, what is it we can expect from "peace" with such men, again running free? Do we assume that their hatred of the west dissipated with their release? Will the west be left alone if the US pulls out of Iraq, but stays in Afghanistan?

These beliefs are the delusions of the hopeful and naivel. The Taliban and other jihad movements, fresh off a propaganda victory, are recognized, forgiven, released *and* compensated for their "unjust" confinement. They have reprieve to regroup, re plan. Only this time, they may enjoy new financial and political incentives to bolster their cause. They already head back to their respective battlefields, relishing their second chance to fight the US and the west.

The bombs may go dormant in Pakistan and other places temporarily. But the new wave of global leaders, embodied by a President Obama, leads us to a fool’s paradise. A world of dangerous liaisons where the enemy has been enabled financially, politically and militarily by us - their targets. Time is not on our side.

UPDATED: Pakistan cuts 2nd "appeasement" dealAfghanistan royally PO'd

Here we go. Round #-who-can-keep-count. AP's Riaz Khan's headline screams "Pakistan, Militants agree to Peace Deal" in the NWFP, including the hotbed of activity in Swat.

A senior minister in the government of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province said the two sides sealed the 15-point plan on Wednesday during talks in the provincial capital, Peshawar.

Militants agreed to recognize the government's authority, halt suicide and bomb attacks and hand over any foreign militants in the area, minister Bashir Bilour told reporters after the talks.

In return, the government will release prisoners and make limited concessions on the demands of the cleric, Maulana Fazlullah, for the imposition of Islamic law in the region, he said.

Bilour also said that the army would "gradually" withdraw from the area - a key demand of the militants.

snip

Ali Bakht Khan, an envoy for Fazlullah, called on the government to release 202 of his associates from custody within the next two weeks.

"We will follow this agreement and shall cooperate to bring peace to Swat," Khan said.

It was unclear whether either Fazlullah or his commanders, whose men allegedly beheaded captured soldiers and pro-government elders, would face any punishment.

Ah yes, there's that we-will-impose-Islamic-law-and-you-will-not-interfere bit. The common denominator among terrorists. Needless to say the Taliban are happier than a pig in a poke about the negotiations. And why shouldn't they be? The aces fall mostly into their hands. However what comes to mind is again, Barry Rubin's article in the Israeli Insider, where he said:

If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying.

But note this deal bears remarkable resemblance to the truce with Baitullah Mehsud's little deal last month. Per an April 24th, 2008 Dawn news blurb:

Pakistan closing in on pact with militant Mehsud tribe PESHAWAR, Pakistan, April 25 (Reuters) - Pakistan is close to clinching a peace pact with the Mehsuds, one of the most recalcitrant tribes in its tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

“It's now a matter of days before we have an agreement. The talks are in a very advanced stage,” a senior government official involved in the negotiations told Reuters.

A draft of the 15-point accord with the Mehsud tribal elders was shown to Reuters. It included a call for an end to militant activity, exchange of prisoners and gradual withdrawal of the army from South Waziristan. The draft did not explicitly say whether militants should stop cross-border attacks into neighbouring Afghanistan. But it did say Mehsud tribesmen should expel al Qaeda and other foreign fighters from their area within a month and stop their lands being used as a base for attacks.

While the authorities and tribal elders made final touches to the pact, Baitullah Mehsud, who was declared as the leader of the Pakistani Taliban late last year, on Wednesday ordered his followers to stop attacks inside Pakistan. A government official described the ceasefire as part of a series of confidence building measures that will be taken before the agreement is signed. He said the government also planned to lift blockade of Mehsud territory by the military. (Posted @ 16:30 PST)

This earlier agreement has been moving forward with little western press. Prisoners have been exchanged, the Pak military pulled back because Baitullah threatened to halt talks when they didn't, and Mehsud met with with the NWFP Governor yesterday to demand reopening of the roads.

Just how does Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta feel about Pakistan's new found friendship with their militants? Needless to say, they are quite unhappy, and sound remarkably like the US Cowboy President.

“Anyone thinking that they are able to reach peace in the region through what we call an appeasement policy — we consider it is a wrong and dangerous policy,” Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta told reporters.

A peace deal with the Pakistani Taliban in 2006 reportedly led to a spike in violence across the border.

Describing the 2006 deal as bad for Afghanistan, Spanta said the government was “extremely and infinitely concerned” about Islamabad’s moves, which officials in Pakistan say have seen troops redeployed in the tribal zone.

He cited media reports as saying the Taliban wanted peace in Pakistan so they would be able to continue jihad in Afghanistan.

“As the victim of terrorism, we have the right to say we’re concerned,” the minister said, adding Kabul had spoken of its fears with Islamabad and Washington.—AFP

While it's highly touted by western media that the US military is on the brink of "breaking", and "spread too thin", it is less reported that the enemy is in the same boat. They are but a shadow of their former selves, reconstituting their organization in Pakistan. If part of these agreements are to again shuffle the fighters back across the borders, Afghani leaders are right to be concerned.

And for what end? Peace talks and truces between the Pak government and their militants do not have a history of success. Afghanistan's concern that this may be merely a bait and switch maneuver is echo'ed by the US and John Negroponte, also citing the last failure with Baitullah Mehsud in 2006. The Afghanis and US/NATO forces will beat the militants back again, and they will - once again - land in the laps of the Pakistanis who seem content merely to get them out of their own back yards.

Fact is, until the Pak govt stops refusing int'l help in controlling these cockroaches (or takes assertive moves to control them theirselves), this ping pong of the enemy will go on, unabated. Yes... Pakistan remains a looming problem for the next POTUS.

Considering the terms of these "truces", one might say it's time to sent our stop watches. To see signs of cooperation at the onset, Mehsud terms dictate he should be expelling foreign fighters within a month. The Fazlullah is supposed to hand them over to the Pak government... but with no stated time frame in the AP article.

From what we've seen of Mehsud's deal in the early weeks, his demands have been fast and furious, and the threats of resuming hostilities remain bubbling ever close to the surface. Yet there is still no line of exiled foreign AQ/Taliban crossing the border to Afghanistan enmasse. Meshud has what he wants. And what of the Pak goverment? They have temporarily quieted the bombs and deaths, and still await bussing of the enemy to anywhere but Pakistan. Yet despite the "peace" deal, the fostering and support of jihad movements - source of Pakistan's bombs - continues. The problem has not been solved. Merely relocated and postponed.

This dependence upon the bad guys to police their own militant buddies contrasts starkly with Iraq military's recent launching of Operation The Lion's Roar - a mission to forcibly expel the foreign elements from their soil. Already in their short history, the Iraqi government has learned that you cannot depend upon those that harbor the foreigners to kick them out into the cold.

But note the word used by Afghanistan's Foreign Minister - "appeasement". This is not a media pundit or candidates for POTUS. This is a word used by a leader who sees the results of "appeasement" in their own back yards. It is a very real result of an oft tried and failed policy.

Which brings us, once again, to our regional ally Afghanistan and their objections to Pakistan's "appeasement" (their words) process. This is a policy that US hopeful, Barack Obama, has every intention of mimicking. The likelihood of a President Obama succeeding in peace with such appeasement deals is just as unlikely as Pakistan will be with theirs.

But obviously, it's extremely likely that he will accomplish royally pissing off our allies...

_________________________________________________

UPDATE MAY 22nd, 2008 - BRITAIN SIDES WITH APPEASEMENT POLICY

According to today Adnkronos article, Britain has decided to back the negotiations with the Pakistani militants.

Britain supports talks between Pakistan’s new rulers and tribal leaders aimed at curbing insurgency along the Afghan border, Foreign Secretary David Miliband told a US audience late on Wednesday.

In a speech to a Washington think-tank, Miliband said there was “no military solution” to the spread of militancy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Miliband and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at a joint press conference in Washington on Wednesday that promoting democracy was the best way to fight terrorism in Pakistan and neighbouring Afghanistan.

He visited Pakistan last month for talks with the new government and backed the government’s effort to seek a negotiated solution to the insurgency in its tribal region.

But Miliband warned that there should only be reconciliation with those who renounce violence.

Miliband is Britain's youngest foreign sec'y in three decades. Appointed by PM Gordon Brown, he's part of the kinder/gentler British rule that is slowly emerging after the departure of the US ally, Tony Blair. An outspoken "skeptic" of the OIF from the get go, Miliband has been busy shaking up his department, moving diplomats to cover the Asian and Middle East areas more heavily.

He is, evidently, a believer that the days of the US as a superpower are on the decline.

While the world's balance of power is moving from West to East, some have overstated the decline of the United States as the world's superpower, he told the audience.

"In economic terms, and even more so in military terms, the U.S. will have at least another generation as the global superpower," Miliband said. "Nevertheless, this century may come to be known as the Asian century."

Miliband said the United States remains Britain's most important ally, but acknowledged links with a host of other countries are becoming increasingly important.

Our allies... oh joy. Well, he and a President Obama should see eye to eye on the increasing irrelevance of the US in a world dominated by appeasement and politically correct behavior. I guess between the two, they will only piss off our allies who are actually engaging the jihad movement enemies...

An President Obama?"If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying.

An insightful column in the Israel Insider today by Barry Rubin, "LEBANON TO WEST: WAKE UP FAST!"

Anyone who has read my dissertations and rants knows I have the utmost disdain for our western media, our Congress, and the lazy American voters who insist on rejecting in depth education before forming opinions and casting votes. The media, charged with the education of voters on current events, constantly casts the US as the villain in the ongoing battle between the global Islamic jihad movements and western cultures and freedoms. The voters do not care to learn differently... takes too much time for "homework" and research. Spoiled US citizens are too easily distracted, and demonstrate little pride or aptitude for learning

Yet the path we insist upon traveling is fraught with danger of losing all we hold dear. What happens in the Middle East has an effect here, to the stubborn denial of average Joe and Josephine Blow. Each press headline offers more tinder to the fire that fuels jihad. Even tho their appeal is dwindling amongst Muslims for their brutal methods, it doesn't take many militants to inflict the damage and gain ground. It takes one suicide bomber, well placed in a public venue, to make an impact. It takes only a few well armed brutal leaders to subdue a nation into fear.

Rubin's article is a plea to humanity. Wake up, before it's too late. Much of his content revolves around Lebanon, too weak to stand up to Hezbollah. On the flip side, with 1/3 of the Shia Lebanese willing to fight back, Hezbollah leaders know they can't defeat the government militarily. But, as Rubin says, they don't need to. They merely need to control the government, forcing it to do their bidding.

Why should Lebanese Sunni, Druze, and Christians risk their lives when the West doesn't help them? Every Israeli speaking nonsense about Syria making peace; every American claiming Damascus might split from Tehran; every European preaching appeasement has in fact been engaged in confidence-breaking measures.

Hizballah doesn't need to win a military victory but only to show it can win one, using that position of strength to try to force its demands on the moderate government. . The government has already accepted Michel Suleiman, Syria's candidate for president. But Hizballah and the rest say this is not enough: they want veto power over everything.

This much is obvious to those of us who read. We have our own puppets in government with non-elected officials behind the scenes, controlling the marionette strings.

Rubin, blasting the western leaders and media for their inaction on behalf of Lebanon, and lack of urgency, reserves his strongest criticisms for the leading DNC candidate, Barack Obama.

If you want to know what's wrong, consider Obama's May 10 statement on Lebanon. He starts out playing tough, talking about "Hezbollah's power grab in Beirut. This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately." He calls for supporting the Lebanese government, strengthening the Lebanese army, and to "insist on disarming Hezbollah."

But how to do this? By "working with the international community and the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet."

In other words, according to the Obama world view, it's a problem of development. If people have more money they won't be terrorists. Of course, that was the policy of Hariri, which was countered by Syria blowing him up. In politics, bombs trump business. And any way you can't have a strong economy with no government and chaos. Part of the mistake here is Obama's assumption that Hizballah (and other radicals) want stability and prosperity. In fact, they want to use instability as blackmail in their pursuit of They don't want conciliation. It's a military-strategic problem, not one of community organizing.

The underlined statements (by me) drive a huge misconception home. It's true that a thriving economic Arab democracy is less a hotbed of terrorist recruitment. But what so many miss is this is the exact reason AQ and ilk cannot afford for Iraq to be in anything but chaos.... to keep instability and violence as such a level that the denizens cave in, relinquish all freedoms to oppression merely to live more easily through another day in hell.

Obama continues in his naivety, suggesting that the UN resolutions must be implemented. Terrific... this is the group that could not, and will not, even disarm Hezbollah. The UN and NATO are nothing but a history of one failure after another. The absolute irrelevance and corruption can be simply noted by the fact that the human rights committee is headed by Libya. Right....

But then Obama, with his Marxist views, speaks the soothing words that sound so good to gullible westerners, and strikes fear in the hearts of Arabs and Lebananese who desire freedom over Hezbollah oppression.

"It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment."

Aptly translated by Rubin, Obama is "endorsing the Hizballah program." . Obama's largest failure as a leader is that he finds nothing in this battle worth fighting for. Diplomacy is, in his opinion, the answer.

Rubin then provides some the sarcastic comeback by Lebanon's government supporters to Obama's nonsensical suggestion.

"Oh the time we wasted by fighting Hizballah all those years?. If only we had engaged them and their masters in diplomacy?sitting with them around discussion tables, welcoming them into our parliament, and letting them veto cabinet decisions. If only Obama had shared his wisdom with us before, back when he was rallying with some of our former friends at pro-Palestinian rallies in Chicago. How stupid we were when, instead of developing 'national consensus' with them, we organized media campaigns against Israel on behalf of the impoverished people who voted for them.

"During that time when we bought into the cause against Israel, treating resistance fighters like our brothers, we really should have been 'building consensus' with them. Because what we did . . . was . . . unnecessary antagonism, a product of a 'corrupt patronage system and unfair distribution of wealth.'"

"We stand today regretting the wasted time that could have been wisely spent talking to them, to the Syrian occupiers who brought them into our system, and the Iranian revolutionary guards who trained them."

The Lebanese see thru Obama's vision of "unity", and the serious damage following his Pied Piper vision can wreak. Why is it American's cannot?

But, as the sage and astute Rubin aptly says...

When Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama says he will negotiate with Syria and Iran over Iraq's future, he signals every Persian Gulf regime to cut its own deal with Iran. When his stances convince Hamas that he's the guy for them; when Iran and Syria conclude they merely need stand defiant and wait until January 21 for any existing pressure vanishes, the U.S. position in the Middle East is being systematically destroyed.

Note that this does not make Obama the candidate favored by Arabs in general but only by the radicals. Egyptians, Jordanians, Gulf Arabs, and the majorities in Lebanon and Iraq are very worried. This is not just an Israel problem; it is one for all non-extremists in the region.

If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying.

Amen to that....

Obama vs Wright The politics of "change"?? Hardly

I've been trying to stay out of the Obama/Wright fray as it's covered non-stop in other blogs. But there's a couple of nagging problems I had with Wright's media blitz on the talking head shows over the weekend.

Theories raised were a false excitement by HRC and GOP supporters alike about how this "dooms" Obama's campaign. Even now, CNN commentators are spinning that Wright appears to be engaging in deliberate sabatoge of his "friend".

Others were saying Wright was deliberating sinking the Obama ship of "hope" in order to resurrect the race card and strengthen his position as a civil rights leader to a newly outraged black community.

And I could not disagree more with both theories.

Wright was poised to be the albatross around Obama's neck thru the ensuing primaries, and the general election. Were it to affect BHO's popular vote, it narrows the gap between HRC and BHO. The DNC rightfully could make a strong case to thru the nomination to HRC via superdelegates based on electoral college strength of the states she won because of a very narrow popular vote.

This "steal" from Obama then becomes less an outrage, and a logical progression for the DNC in order to secure the WH. The majority of DNC voters and the media cannot feed the civil rights movement legitimately since the call was then so close.

I firmly believe that there was a tacit agreement between Wright and Obama to stage a public divorce that would benefit both.

______________________________________

UPDATE: A planned strategy? Not so far fetched afterall. This distancing was predicted by Wright himself in an April 30th NYTs story.

Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.

“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”

END UPDATE
_______________________________________


For Wright, slated to release a book with his new found fame later this year (unknown release date), he gains a notoriety that could fuel sales for the "inside story" of their relationship.

For Obama, it's perfect. A public divorce forever removes the albatross from the DNC issue list... all prior to the upcoming primaries so as not to threated his presumed popular vote win. And it considerably lessens it's impact in the general. In fact, his "change" of heart would probably endear him in the voters' eyes. Much "soul searching" and heartache at severing relationships with one he revered for years. Add to that the public sympathy at being the "victim" of a long time friend and mentor.

____________________________________

UPDATE: Already Jimmah Carter calls BHO "courageous". Margaret Carlson says "Wright was disasterous" for BHO... "until today". Howard Fineman says this makes the pledged BHO supers more secure, and won't scare the unpledged away now that Wright is history. da spin is fast and furious. And all in Obama's favor. Just as planned
END UPDATE

________________________________________

That "public divorce" has now begun with Obama's breaking news press conference today.

"I have been a member of Trinity Church since 1992. I have known Rev. Wright for almost 20 years," he said at a news conference in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. "The person I saw yesterday is not the person I met 20 years ago."

Obama said he is outraged by Wright's remarks that seemed to suggest the U.S. government might be responsible for the spread of AIDS in the black community, and his equation of some American wartime efforts with terrorism.

"What particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing," said Obama, who added that Wright had shown "little regard for me" and seemed more concerned with "taking center stage."

Obama said Wright's comments were not only "divisive and destructive," but they also "end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate."

snip

"I cannot prevent him from making these remarks," but "when I say I find these comments appalling I mean it. It contradicts what I'm about and who I am ... It is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country."

In a break with previous comments, Obama focused his criticism on Wright the man, and not simply his remarks.

Obama said he gave Wright "the benefit of the doubt" before his speech on race relations.

"What we saw yesterday from Rev. Wright was a resurfacing and, I believe, an exploitation of these old divisions," Obama said.

snip

He said he had not spoken with Wright since the minister's Monday speech, though he would not rule out a conversation with him in the future.

Obama said his relationship with Wright may have suffered irreparable harm. "There's been great damage," he said. "It may have been unintentional on his part, but I do not see that relationship being the same after this."

Obama effectively, and firmly, steps back. He remains a member of the church, however this poses no problem as Wright is no longer the pastor.

This campaign ploy is clever, and deliberate. It is also overlooked as the political move it is by the media. However I also believe that, behind the scenes, there is no relationship change with Wright. It was a cooperative effort in order to best benefit both on their respective paths.

This, of course, shows Obama to be no different than any other politician. The quintessential opportunitst who says and does anything to be elected.

It also puts a serious crack in his pride of "judgment"... playing the public "dupe", victimized by his friend and mentor who, BHO says, effectively hid his true beliefs for a couple of decades.
_________________________________

UPDATE TWO: A poster over at AJ's Strata-sphere turned me on to this March 18th blog post by Amy Holmes on National Review's The Corner. Now this is a woman who was truly prescient, save the launch of operation "The Pastor Plan".
END UPDATE TWO
_____________________________________

This is not the only crack in the Obama armor. His insistence that he is a man not emphasizing race and division is clearly belied by his own campaign site.

While over there, checking in on his "spin control" blog (under the "Learn" menu, titled "Know the Facts"), I noticed a category called "People". Silly me... I thought this was the campaign staff involved and never checked it.

But I wandered in and found a complete list of "people", neatly categorized by class or race. Classes/races includes:

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
African Americans
Americans Abroad
Environmentalists
First Americans (that's the native Americans to the rest of us...)
Generation Obama
Kids
Labor
Latinos
LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender)
People of Faith
Students
Veterans
Women


Whoa... no class for me as "white community".... I feel oppressed. Just "Women". But I think of myself as an American, not a "woman" fighting mythical obstacles. And I have worked most of my life in a male dominated field, sans hitches or glass ceilings.

But that's not the half of it. Each "category" of class/race has it's own blog devoted to them. And entirely different posts from the general Obama blog.

All I can say is, for a guy that touts "unite", he has a nasty habit of categorizing Americans. And this continued penchant for dividing us is directly opposed to his promises of unity.

Hillary - on how to win friends and influence people

I'm just beside myself with laughter today. It was just Mar 26th when I posted on "Just who is beating the drums of war in Iran?", noting that while the Bush admin has been constantly saying dealing with Iran was taking the diplomatic path, every liberal/progressive blog, DNC Congress elitist and left wing media was warning that Bush would be invading Iran before his term was up.

Now we have Hillary promising military attack on Iran if they attack Israel. (H/T to Flopping Aces)

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Well, this is about as smart of posturing as Obama's "cowboy policy" promise to go into Pakistan, sans their blessings, upon "actionable intelligence" about Bin Laden's whereabouts.

Needless to say Hillary has now joined Obama with lessons on how *not* to improve our image in the int'l community. Their ideas on how to win friends and influence people leave much to be desired.

It was, of course, only a matter of time before Tehran spoke up in retort.

“We will cut off the hand of invaders with the slightest attack on the country,” Army Commander Major General Ataollah Salehi told a graduation ceremony of military cadets here on Monday.

snip

“Now, we are in a situation that the enemy has occupied neighboring countries (of Iraq and Afghanistan) and have surrounded us. It planned to wipe out the Islamic country of Iran by targeting mock enemies such as Taliban and Saddam but it could not.

It's interesting that Tehran has noticed a US success that the US electorate, nor the DNC, has not. That with Bush's Iraq maneuver to depose Saddam, he left us a US friendly ally in the region that's parked right in the middle of Iran and Syria. Not such a dumb strategy afterall... providing, of course, we don't abandon Iraq to militants, jihadists, and Islamic law.

But more than ever, it's the height of irony and chutpah to accuse the GOP and Bush WH for warmongering when, in fact, it is the media and DNC candidates themselves who "walk the walk" for the winds of war, and announce that Iran is in their crosshairs.

Collision course with Pakistan still imminent for next POTUS

I've said this many times... most recently in my March 31st 2008 post, "Pakistan Update: Trouble on the Horizon?". Prior to that, I lambasted the fools who bought, hook-line-and-sinker, the media demonization of Musharraf in "Hating Musharraf. Those chickens comin' home to roost" on Mar 25th.

During the run up to Pakistan's elections, there were few to no western media voices that credited Musharraf for his risky and bold stand, aiding the US against many Pakistan political power houses. The US electorate, dutiful little sheeple they tend to be, bought into the notion that Benazir's PPP party win would magically produce a more cooperative ally - ignoring the history of the party leaders and ministers (as well as Sharif's own sketchy past).

It's almost a month later, and it's becoming even more abundantly clear that the US media and electorate is now getting exactly what they asked for. And for that misplaced faith in the PPP, aided by a relentless piling-on of Musharraf, we're another step closer to the future collision course with the complacent PPP led Pakistani government and a weakened Musharraf. They just do not demonstrate the heart to do much more than talk... An approach that has yielded nothing but a trail of broken truces in the past.

From today's NYTs, "U.S. Commanders Seeking to Widen Pakistan Attacks " by MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT, comes reports of a wisely cautious WH, bent on not riling the new Pakistani govt while simultaneously trying to dance around cleaning out the wasp nests of AQ and neo Taliban that have entrenched themselves in the tribal regions of that country.

American commanders in Afghanistan have in recent months urged a widening of the war that could include American attacks on indigenous Pakistani militants in the tribal areas inside Pakistan, according to United States officials.

The requests have been rebuffed for now, the officials said, after deliberations in Washington among senior Bush administration officials who fear that attacking Pakistani radicals may anger Pakistan’s new government, which is negotiating with the militants, and destabilize an already fragile security situation.

American commanders would prefer that Pakistani forces attack the militants, but Pakistani military operations in the tribal areas have slowed recently to avoid upsetting the negotiations.

Pakistan has given it's tacit nod to remote Predator drone strikes, but have made it abundantly clear they will not tolerate US boots on the ground, nor unsanctioned air strikes. Yet the US lives in a rock/hard place of facts. The areas with the highest threats are the very places the US is most restricted in actions by Pakistan. Instead, Pakistan insists on plodding thru with negotiating with their tribal militant factions... the very same who provide unmitigated aid to AQ and other Islamic jihad movements, as well as murdering the more peaceful tribal elders who do not cooperate.

The WH, however, knows the delicate line it walks. It has no choice but to let Pakistan learn it's lessons... one more time... the hard way.

Administration officials say the risk of angering the new government in Pakistan and stirring increased anti-American sentiment in the tribal areas outweighs the benefits of dismantling militant networks in the region.

“It’s certainly something we want to get to, but not yet,” said one Bush administration official. “If you do it now, you can expect to do it without Pakistani approval, and you can expect to do it only once because the Pakistanis will never help us again.”

This last line is one Cowboy Obama needs to remember, given his previous statements about Pakistan.

Back in August [2007], I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on al Qaeda in their territory," the Illinois Democrat, who now threatens to strike at Senator Hillary Rodham Hillary in New Hampshire after a stunning performance in Iowa, said.

"What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike."

Obama's military swagger.. whether for show or for real... did not set with with the Pakistani's then. And it's unlikely it will go over any better with the new PPP led Parliament and PM Gilani in this post election era.

On the flip side, a GOP President McCain is in the same position as GWB. Without cooperation from the Pakistanis, and with Musharraf on the ropes, his hands are equally tied.

Either way, the next POTUS faces an uphill battle with the "kinder and gentler" approach the new Pak government has elected to take. Obama will either lose us an ally in the region with his unilaterial proposition, or McCain will find himself looking for incentives to use on Pakistan to get them more motivated in battling the jihad/militant elements.

One undeniable fact - Musharraf's maverick actions with the Pakistan army will be sorely missed.

Is the "Dumbing down of America" successful?

Fascinating article by Bradley Gitz from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette that echoes some of my fears that the dumbing down of America may be successful.

Several political stories congealed in recent weeks with the cumulative effect of saying something troubling about the intelligence of the American electorate, or at least the intelligence of the American electorate as reflected in the eyes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. For one, Clinton erred in making claims about touching down in Bosnia under sniper fire. Because there was no doubt about the discrepancy between what actually happened and what she said had happened, the word “lie” was beneficially reintroduced to our political vocabulary. Second, Obama gave an eloquent speech seeking to explain the views of his pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright, and to provide an explanation for his failure to disassociate himself from those views. Third, John McCain came under attack for allegedly having said that America will be fighting in Iraq decades after he, everyone he knows and the rest of us are all pushing up daisies.

snip

Per Gitz, Clinton thought we were all dumb enough to blindly accept she put herself in bodily harm to demonstrate her courage on our behalf. BHO sought to extract himself from the Wright association by claiming "everyone has racial baggage and, in the case of Wright, such baggage is understandable in light of our nation’s sorry history of racial discrimination."

In the case of McCain, Gitz points out that "anyone who read the full transcripts of his remarks would readily grasp that he did not remotely mean what his critics, among whose ranks are included Clinton and Obama, say he meant."

Certainly it takes a "dumbed down America" to buy into Clinton's repeated tale of her dangerous Bosnian visit. An America who lazily prefers to believe media headlines, and ignore facts not so readily provided until push comes to shove.

I can only add that a "dumb America", if you read the media reports, also chose to buy into Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech as perfectly logical, and managed to ignore the not-so-subtle promise of a more socialized American and increased affirmative action'esque policies under his WH admin. Even Americans craving socialism reject preferential treatment under affirmative action. So why they choose to miss this little tidbit boggles the mind.

For McCain, he didn't have much of a fighting chance - being the nominee of the party so many want to hate. Truth of statements would get in the way of that pure emotionalism.

Gitz considers the media slam on McCain as the worst of the three... with both DNC candidates and the media assuming that Americans would be too ignorant to read McCain's actual full statement, and realize that we may very well be in Iraq a century from now... just as we are still in Germany, Japan and Korea a half century plus after those wars were fought. Both the media and DNC assume we - dumbed down America - can not discern the difference between foreign base deploment, and an active fighting force.

Clinton's behavior he passes off very briefly - a sign of her and Bill's desperate ambition to reclaim 1600 Pennsylvania Ave again as their mailing address.

Obama - in the forefront of repeating the McCain's "100 year Iraq war" mischaracterization - proves himself hypocritical... passing himself off as a new and more honest politician while demonstrating just the opposite by perpetuating such insulting mistruths to rally supporters.

Gitz's last sentence?

The cumulative effect of it all was to convey a low regard for the intelligence of the American people. And also to create the nagging hunch that such low regard is perhaps justified.

And herein lies perhaps an ugly truth. The American electorate has been dumbed down enough to be dangerous. We are, in overwhelming numbers, willing to place our political and current events education in the hands of an politically driven media with an agenda. We allow our public schools to utilize textbooks with revisionist history, striking any language considered un-PC in today's hypersensitive world.

Even worse, we are anxious to elect a POTUS and Congress who will put in massive safety nets that provide government care and money from cradle to grave because we are too lazy, lack the ambition, or find it just too hard to take care of ourselves. And to achieve that false sense of security under government control, we're willing to believe anything. It is only when it is too late that the reality of what we lost for that safety net will come home to roost.

Which brings up the tacit notion that Democrats constantly infer by their political policy suggestions. That the majority of American citizens are incapable of making a wise decision for their own welfare, so the government must do that for them. They place government in the position of a doting Mom or Dad, constantly bailing the foolish teenager out of trouble. Tough love is not a position of the liberal progressives.

It's taken decades and generations of public education to indoctrinate our youth into adults who feel their future in the US - with all it's advantages and opportunities - is "hopeless". BHO and HRC both play on this "victimized class" for voters, with BHO actually having the audacity to use the label "hope" prominently in his campaign slogans. It's no surprise, and certainly no scandal that the man states in his speeches that Americans are "bitter". It is wholly in keeping of his view of dumbed down America... again incapable of rising to the changing business climate and world of global trade that costs the US high paying, union industrial jobs.

As for the GOP'ers. There are still a few of us - adamant holdouts for control of our own lives, smaller government and more fiscal responsibility. But judging by Congressional membership voted in (when one of them actually decides to quit or dies....), and the GOP choice for POTUS this year (very liberal in domestic policies) even that segment of America is dying off.

So it may be that the long, hard task of dumbing down of America is, indeed, successful after all.

Hating Musharraf Those chickens are comin' home to roost

Upon the return of Benazir Bhutto, the western media was all a'gog. Hailing her as Pakistan's deliverer from the evil Musharraf. Proclaimed A Hero for Democracy, she was given press passes for her less than stellar, and corruption riddled, past PM terms. Then, upon death, unofficially canonized by the same history challenged media (tho saved from such a real perilous fate by her Muslim religion...).

On the opposite end of the stick was the harsh criticism and journalistic sniping at Musharraf. He stood as the fall guy, demonized for all of Pakistan's failures in controlling the al Qaeda and Taliban in their tribal regions.

Western media then rejoiced at Benazir's PPP party victory in elections... sure that such a change would result in a more democratic Pakistan, and a thorough clean up of the militants in their midst.

Musharraf, who previously had threatened to resign if the Parliament so much as whispered the word "impeach" in his direction, now finds himself politically isolated after the inauguration of the new Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani.

Not only does Nawaz Sharif have it in for Musharraf, Gilani also has his past beefs with Pakistan's President. Both have been booted out, and/or jailed and arrested by Musharraf - both charged with corruption. And payback for the Prez is proving to be a real bitch as they apply pressure for his ouster.

So it's no surprise that rumours abound regarding his imminent resignation. Who can blame the guy? The western media treated him slightly better than they treat our own President, totally oblivious to the narrow line a Muslim President must walk, and unappreciative for the help he has provided the US. Fact is, Muslim countries do not like to be seen as cooperating overtly with the evil western US. So most aid needed to remain below the NYT's press radar in order to minimize backlash from the Pakistanis themselves.

Well, congratuations, all you history challenged PPP/Benazir lovers. You are about to be granted that "Pakistan" you have craved since Bhutto's return. A Pakistan that rejects your perceived enemy, Musharraf, and comes up with a new way to deal with the militants in their midst....

There's no more military missions. It's negotiate with the bad guys time.

But Mr Negroponte and Mr Boucher scheduled early calls on Mr Sharif and Mr Zardari, both of whom have indicated that the new democratic coalition intends following a very different policy from Mr Musharraf on the war against terror and dealing with jihadi militants.

Both said this week they believed the Washington-backed military assault against the jihadis had failed and that they were keen to try negotiations in an effort to end the wave of suicide bomb attacks.

It must be pointed out that Sharif's past ties to hardline militants is still of great concern, especially given his position of power today. A position made possible by Musharraf's agreement not to enforce the 10 year exile to Saudi Arabia... thereby signing his own political death warrant.

It must also be noted that the history of negotiations with the militants in the tribal regions has produced more broken truces and failures than the joint military attempts.

Which brings us to today... Pakistan has basically elected an "Obama" impersonator... a prime minister who believes in talk over fighting. Mr. "let's talk" Obama, on the other hand, has just boxed himself into a foreign policy corner. His publicly laid out cowboy policy towards Pakistan, threatening to go in without their permission if he has "actionable intelligence", is not going to sit well with Gilani and the new power in Parliament.

Needless to say, this new and lesser approach by a perceived ally will present problems for either candidate landing in the Oval Office. McCain will face resistance for cooperative joint missions, formerly granted by Musharraf on the sly. And the presumed DNC nominee, Obama, is now on a direct collision course with Pakistan unless he starts furiously backpeddling.

These events will give new meaning to Joni Mitchell's lyrics, "Well, don't it always seem to go - That you don't know what you got till it's gone".... The media drove the US into a frenzy of hate against Musharraf.

Yet he shall be sorely missed when those chickens do indeed come home to roost.