Iraq: An Example for the Middle East by Richard Grenell - Al-Jazeera
It’s Been Bloody, Deadly and Yet An Example For the Entire Middle East
The Iraqi people have voted in free and fair elections locally, nationally and provincially since Saddam Hussein was ousted by the American military in 2003. This week, Iraqis will show the Arab world once again that their hard-fought freedom and painful sacrifices are an example for all people struggling under oppressive regimes.
On January 10, 2007, President George W. Bush defied critics and ignored popular opinion and political polls throughout the United States by committing more than 20,000 additional American troops to the war in Iraq. “The Surge,” as it is commonly called, has since been credited with bringing the Iraqi people more security, less violence and greater freedoms. By July 2008, the surge was heralded as a success from Baghdad to Boston.
In originally announcing the highly controversial surge, President Bush made a nationally televised gamble to dramatically change the most important United States foreign policy of his presidency. While Bush confidently said that the surge was for a "unified, democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror," Democrats in Washington, DC, loudly disagreed. Bush went on to make clear that more than 20,000 American men and women would be placed throughout Baghad and the Al Anbar Province "to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security." The president’s bold gambit was belittled and roundly mocked among liberals in the United States and Europe -- as well as by the future leader of the free world.
Moments after the surge was announced, then-U.S. Senator Barack Obama announced, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." Future President Obama was emphatic that America should not only not add troops but that American men and women should also exit Iraq as soon as possible. In announcing his candidacy for president a month later, Obama said: “It’s time to start bringing our troops home...That’s why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.” Within months of entering the race for the White House in 2007, Obama started voting against Congressional funding for the troops and campaigning strongly for bringing the troops home.
It’s fair to say that if Barack Obama would have been president a year earlier than he was, a very different Iraq would have emerged than the one developing today. In June 2006 and September of 2007, Obama voted to bring the American troops home from Iraq. If implemented, Obama’s wish would have left the untrained Iraqi military force to deal with the sectarian violence alone. Iran, Syria and Al-Qaeda would have been left unchallenged in their efforts to destabilize Iraq and surely would have successfully fomented a civil war by moving their secret campaign to arm and entice violent factions out into the open. The more than 4,300 American soldiers who died defending freedom in Iraq and the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by the extremists’ violence would have been in vain.
But thankfully, for Iraqis who believe in democracy and crave freedom, George W. Bush ignored popular opinion and worked closely with military experts to surge Iraq forward and help put it on the path it is today. Although Iraq still sees sectarian violence and terrorist bombings all too much, there is no question that Iraq has made monumental change to its political system and in a relatively short time.
This week’s free and fair elections are yet another example of a young democracy taking hold in a country where just a few years ago real elections and campaigning were unthinkable. No country in the Middle East gives its people more freedoms than Iraq does today. NGO’s are being created weekly, a civil society has emerged to challenge the government’s decisions, demand transparency, represent minorities and bring attention to people and issues that were ignored in the past. Iraq has a free press that is unrivaled in the Arab world, unobstructed access to the Internet and a military that is becoming a force to be reckoned with in the heart of the world’s most unstable territory.
While Iraq’s very young democracy is messy, incomplete and imperfect, it is currently the envy of the Arab world. But the Western media’s impatience to see a perfectly developed democracy in Iraq has made it difficult for people to see the important progress that has been made in the seven years this month that America led a coalition to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Obama’s view that America should have given up on Iraq certainly had many supporters in the U.S. when the surge was announced. Then-Senator Joe Biden said after Bush’s televised appearance, "If he surges another 20, 30 (thousand), or whatever number he's going to, into Baghdad, it'll be a tragic mistake." Then-Senator Hillary Clinton proclaimed, "Based on the president's speech tonight, I cannot support his proposed escalation of the war in Iraq." And
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would still be working toward her stated goal "Bringing the War to an End is my Highest Priority as Speaker.” Iraqis should be thankful that Obama, Biden, Clinton and Pelosi weren’t in charge of American foreign policy in 2007.
Because this weekend, 19 million eligible Iraqis will be able to participate in the greatest democratic exercise the Arab world has ever seen. Once again, Iraq is holding national parliamentary elections and showing the world just how far it’s come in a short period of time. Unlike in 2005’s national parliamentary election, the 6,529 candidates this time have been feverishly campaigning for months and their names will be on an open ballot. The Iraqi government has enlisted 300,000 elections officials to watch over the process at the 50,000 polling stations throughout the country, including those ballots cast outside Iraq by Iraqis living abroad. Americans are rightly proud to watch millions of Iraqis go to the polls to cast their ballots for anyone they chose. And like Americans, Iraqis will still need to petition their government, organize around issues and demand transparency even after the final ballot has been counted.
While ethnic and religious rivalry continues, the Iraqis will need to denounce sectarianism and embrace nationalism yet again. While political maneuvering, compromise, scandal and political patronage will unfortunately be a part of any democracy, Iraqis must bravely go to the polls and cast their votes to decide whether Nuri Kamal al-Maliki deserves enough seats to return as prime minister. Whoever wins, the Iraqis must also work to quickly form a new and inclusive government with a peaceful transition of its leaders. As Iraqis are learning, democracy is a constant process, not a one-time event.
But this weekend’s election reminds us, too, that Bush’s vision for democracy in the Middle East is beginning to unfold with the consecutive democratic elections in Iraq and Afghanistan. As both these countries continue to mature and fine-tune their systems, the question remains – which Arab country will be next? Who will start the long, expensive and bloody process of bringing freedom and democracy to their people?
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
steve poizner shows guts and leadership
San Diego Union-Tribune editorial on Steve Poizner
by Richard Grenell
Poizner’s Iran Campaign Shows He Has Guts and Vision
Divestment from South Africa for its official policy of racial segregation started in California in 1977 when students began to organize and protest the fact that Stanford University was investing in companies doing business in South Africa. The United States Federal Government officially joined the divestment fight in 1986 and apartheid officially ended after a long battle when the South African elections were held in 1994. While divestment campaigns for social injustices have been highly controversial, there is no question that using all means necessary for national security concerns is not only prudent but crucial.
The truth is I’ve never met State Insurance Commissioner and candidate for Governor Steve Poizner, but I have spent 8 years working inside the UN’s Security Council looking for ways to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Poizner’s demand that 1300 California-licensed insurers give him information about indirect investments in Iran's nuclear, oil, defense and banking sectors is a brilliant move that deserves public accolades. For anyone who supports peaceful and diplomatic solutions to dangerous problems, Poizner has demonstrated that he is that rare public leader that isn’t just talking about issues. While a military deterrence is critical to solve the Iranian nuclear issue, we all need to be using the tools at our disposal to help force a peaceful solution before military action is required. European politicians and bankers should join the fight and send a powerful and peaceful economic message to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s perilous government.
Forcing California insurance companies that own stock in some multinational companies that operate in Iran to divest will undoubtedly have a direct impact on Ahmadinejad’s nuclear ambitions. Thousands of students and opposition leaders have been protesting in the streets of Tehran for months, complaining that Iran’s economy is suffering because the international community continues to isolate Iran over the government’s illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons. Poizner’s initiative supports those students by forcing more multinational companies to follow the UN sanctions demand and stop doing business with Ahmadinejad.
The Bush Administration passed several United Nations Security Council resolutions sanctioning the Government of Iran for its secret uranium enrichment. Iran’s recent announcement that it had successfully enriched uranium to 19.75% grade demonstrates that they have the technology and ambition to make a nuclear weapon. And this week, the slow-moving, state-the-obvious International Atomic Energy Agency announced that it fears Iran is working toward a nuclear warhead to go along with its undisclosed uranium enrichment activities.
While the Obama team nervously talks among themselves, they have missed the opportunity to make the Internet available to the thousands of student protesters inside Iran or to implement another round of harsh sanctions on Ahmadinejad that could push his government over the cliff and deliver the fatal blow to his presidency.
There may still be time to make sure Iran doesn’t acquire the nuclear weapons that they will surely use, but it will take quick and sustained action like divestment initiatives from political leaders around the world. The White House and European politicians should take note. An immediate combination of paralyzing UN sanctions, aggressive support for the struggling opposition inside Iran, firm pressure on Europeans to implement the current financial sanctions and a credible use of a military deterrence must all be realized - and soon. Poizner isn’t waiting for the Obama Administration to get its act together; he is doing what he can to ensure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.
While many politicians are eager to jump on popular public social movements, few leaders think creatively enough to start a movement when there is no media attention. Steve Poizner is clearly a leader that is thinking strategically about the public’s safety and working to lead an important national security movement that has yet to garner the media’s attention.
While many politicians talk about what they WILL do if given the power of a political office, Poizner is showing us what he IS doing to help make California and the rest of the world safe and secure.
by Richard Grenell
Poizner’s Iran Campaign Shows He Has Guts and Vision
Divestment from South Africa for its official policy of racial segregation started in California in 1977 when students began to organize and protest the fact that Stanford University was investing in companies doing business in South Africa. The United States Federal Government officially joined the divestment fight in 1986 and apartheid officially ended after a long battle when the South African elections were held in 1994. While divestment campaigns for social injustices have been highly controversial, there is no question that using all means necessary for national security concerns is not only prudent but crucial.
The truth is I’ve never met State Insurance Commissioner and candidate for Governor Steve Poizner, but I have spent 8 years working inside the UN’s Security Council looking for ways to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Poizner’s demand that 1300 California-licensed insurers give him information about indirect investments in Iran's nuclear, oil, defense and banking sectors is a brilliant move that deserves public accolades. For anyone who supports peaceful and diplomatic solutions to dangerous problems, Poizner has demonstrated that he is that rare public leader that isn’t just talking about issues. While a military deterrence is critical to solve the Iranian nuclear issue, we all need to be using the tools at our disposal to help force a peaceful solution before military action is required. European politicians and bankers should join the fight and send a powerful and peaceful economic message to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s perilous government.
Forcing California insurance companies that own stock in some multinational companies that operate in Iran to divest will undoubtedly have a direct impact on Ahmadinejad’s nuclear ambitions. Thousands of students and opposition leaders have been protesting in the streets of Tehran for months, complaining that Iran’s economy is suffering because the international community continues to isolate Iran over the government’s illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons. Poizner’s initiative supports those students by forcing more multinational companies to follow the UN sanctions demand and stop doing business with Ahmadinejad.
The Bush Administration passed several United Nations Security Council resolutions sanctioning the Government of Iran for its secret uranium enrichment. Iran’s recent announcement that it had successfully enriched uranium to 19.75% grade demonstrates that they have the technology and ambition to make a nuclear weapon. And this week, the slow-moving, state-the-obvious International Atomic Energy Agency announced that it fears Iran is working toward a nuclear warhead to go along with its undisclosed uranium enrichment activities.
While the Obama team nervously talks among themselves, they have missed the opportunity to make the Internet available to the thousands of student protesters inside Iran or to implement another round of harsh sanctions on Ahmadinejad that could push his government over the cliff and deliver the fatal blow to his presidency.
There may still be time to make sure Iran doesn’t acquire the nuclear weapons that they will surely use, but it will take quick and sustained action like divestment initiatives from political leaders around the world. The White House and European politicians should take note. An immediate combination of paralyzing UN sanctions, aggressive support for the struggling opposition inside Iran, firm pressure on Europeans to implement the current financial sanctions and a credible use of a military deterrence must all be realized - and soon. Poizner isn’t waiting for the Obama Administration to get its act together; he is doing what he can to ensure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.
While many politicians are eager to jump on popular public social movements, few leaders think creatively enough to start a movement when there is no media attention. Steve Poizner is clearly a leader that is thinking strategically about the public’s safety and working to lead an important national security movement that has yet to garner the media’s attention.
While many politicians talk about what they WILL do if given the power of a political office, Poizner is showing us what he IS doing to help make California and the rest of the world safe and secure.
Monday, February 22, 2010
obama's gamble to talk iran out of a nuclear weapon is a failure
Obama’s Gamble To Talk Iran Out of a Nuclear Weapon Has Failed
Let’s face it; President Barack Obama’s hope for a dialogue with dictators was a naïve gamble to begin with. Even many people in his own party thought it was an academic exercise from an inexperienced law professor that wasn’t rooted in reality. But during the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama was on one side of the argument of what to do about Iran and Hillary Clinton and John McCain were on the other. Obama championed the idea that he could rally the international community to do more to isolate the Government of Iran and that he could sit down with its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to convince him that he should give up the illegal pursuit of a nuclear bomb. Clinton and McCain, however, advocated for a tougher approach that included immediate new sanctions, using The White House bully-pulpit and possible military action. While Obama believed that he could convince Ahmadinejad of the error of his ways through direct dialogue, Clinton and McCain warned that it was a waste of precious time.
One year later Obama has single-handedly allowed the Iranians more than a year of unfettered progress toward a nuclear weapon with less pressure and inquiry from the international community. Even the slow-moving, state-the-obvious International Atomic Energy Agency announced this week that it fears Iran is working toward a nuclear warhead to go along with its undisclosed uranium enrichment activities. While Obama experimented with his classroom thesis of talking dictators out of their nuclear pursuits, many in the international community celebrated the fact that they weren’t being confronted by the United States with the lingering Iran problem. From Cairo to Berlin, the world celebrated Obama’s perceived world peace and even gave him the Nobel Prize. The Iranians, meanwhile, continued to build a nuclear weapon. While Obama did his world-wide victory lap, the Iranian Government celebrated their freedom. And although the United States has been negotiating with Iran for more than 30 years, Obama has been acting like this nation has never tried diplomacy. It is dangerous for a President to believe that his personality is so different from previous leaders’ that people will change their course of action just because of who is asking.
But recently, the President has been trying something new. “The next step is sanctions,” President Obama said on February 9. The problem with the President’s latest pronouncement is that the next step WAS sanctions – 14 months ago. Obama missed his opportunity to crank up the heat on Tehran and send the Government of Iran the message that the world cannot wait for it to decide an appropriate time to give up its illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons. Over the last 14 months, the U.S. should have been enforcing the existing UN sanctions, ratcheting up the pressure with new penalties, urging the Europeans to abide by the current financial restrictions and supporting the opposition inside Iran. Now, a new round of sanctions and the inevitable protracted process getting to a UN vote may play into the Iranian’s hopes for more time. UN sanctions will take months of consistent pressure. To begin a UN sanctions process now will only compound the dangerous mistakes Obama has already made.
And his UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, may be too weak to negotiate a Security Council resolution on Iran. Shockingly, Obama and Rice haven’t produced a single UN Security Council resolution on Iran since they’ve been in office. Putting Rice up against the Iranians or even the Chinese or Europeans should give every American a cause for concern. Rice is much more at home in an empty Security Council chamber with a Vogue Magazine camera across from her than a disagreeable foreign diplomat. This past year, Rice has spent more time in Washington looking to trip up Hillary and take her job than she has spent working the halls of the UN negotiating a resolution on Iran. And like Obama, she has not paid attention to the priority issues. While Rice claims that her cabinet-level job requires more DC face time, in fact, U.S. Mission employees have confirmed that Rice isn’t leading the Iran negotiations from New York or Washington. The State Department in Washington has taken the responsibility of writing a UN Resolution away from Rice and is negotiating directly with the French ambassador. American leadership at the UN has vanished. And the United States has never been more popular because of it. While the Iranians have been secretly enriching uranium to 19.75% grade and demonstrating that they have the technology to make a nuclear weapon, the U.S. has spent this last year pressuring China on its carbon emissions and working towards a Copenhagen Accord.
Warnings from China that we need a diplomatic solution for Iran and no new sanctions have scared the Obama Administration into a year-long holding pattern. But Russian and Chinese veto threats are nothing new. Russia and China are experts at whipping the media into an anti-sanctions frenzy. Obama and Rice don’t seem to understand that Russia and China publicly speak one way but rarely stand behind their threats when an issue like Iran is put to a Security Council vote. Neither China nor Russia will call for a vote on Iran sanctions but they can be forced to a veto. Rice should have required a discussion on the Iran issue last year and called for a sanctions vote when the original Obama deadline passed last summer.
Team Obama has spent the year dithering and hoping that doing nothing would allow the opposition inside Iran time to peacefully bring down Ahmadinejad’s government. But while the Obama team nervously talks among themselves, they have missed the opportunity to make the Internet available to the thousands of student protesters inside Iran or to implement harsh sanctions on the government that could push Ahmadinejad over the cliff and deliver the fatal blow to his presidency. The Obama administration should cease making the old, tired claim that American involvement would undermine the opposition by playing into the hands of Ahmadinejad’s re-cycled message that this is an American CIA coup on his presidency. We are well past the point of the Arab world thinking thousands of Iranian students and opposition leaders are in the streets of Tehran because of American enticement. Many in the Arab world would privately cheer if Ahmadinejad’s government fell or if the Iranian nuclear sites were destroyed. The lack of Obama leadership and assistance to the opposition inside Iran is now prohibiting the fall of a dictatorship on the brink. When White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs complains more often about former Vice President Dick Cheney than about Ahmadinejad it sends the wrong message to the Iranians, Chinese and Russians.
Team Obama’s robotic and bland pronouncements citing general themes and re-cycled talking points from the Bush Administration will not stop Iran’s march toward a nuclear weapon. It is time for even Obama to admit that he failed to convince the Iranians to give up their illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons and has failed to motivate the cheering crowds of Germany and Egypt to do more than celebrate the kinder, gentler, weaker American President. There may still be time to make sure Iran doesn’t acquire the nuclear weapons that they will surely use, but it will require quick and sustained action by the White House. An immediate combination of paralyzing UN sanctions, aggressive support for the struggling opposition inside Iran, firm pressure on Europeans to implement the current financial sanctions and a credible use of a military deterrence must all be realized - and soon.
Let’s face it; President Barack Obama’s hope for a dialogue with dictators was a naïve gamble to begin with. Even many people in his own party thought it was an academic exercise from an inexperienced law professor that wasn’t rooted in reality. But during the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama was on one side of the argument of what to do about Iran and Hillary Clinton and John McCain were on the other. Obama championed the idea that he could rally the international community to do more to isolate the Government of Iran and that he could sit down with its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to convince him that he should give up the illegal pursuit of a nuclear bomb. Clinton and McCain, however, advocated for a tougher approach that included immediate new sanctions, using The White House bully-pulpit and possible military action. While Obama believed that he could convince Ahmadinejad of the error of his ways through direct dialogue, Clinton and McCain warned that it was a waste of precious time.
One year later Obama has single-handedly allowed the Iranians more than a year of unfettered progress toward a nuclear weapon with less pressure and inquiry from the international community. Even the slow-moving, state-the-obvious International Atomic Energy Agency announced this week that it fears Iran is working toward a nuclear warhead to go along with its undisclosed uranium enrichment activities. While Obama experimented with his classroom thesis of talking dictators out of their nuclear pursuits, many in the international community celebrated the fact that they weren’t being confronted by the United States with the lingering Iran problem. From Cairo to Berlin, the world celebrated Obama’s perceived world peace and even gave him the Nobel Prize. The Iranians, meanwhile, continued to build a nuclear weapon. While Obama did his world-wide victory lap, the Iranian Government celebrated their freedom. And although the United States has been negotiating with Iran for more than 30 years, Obama has been acting like this nation has never tried diplomacy. It is dangerous for a President to believe that his personality is so different from previous leaders’ that people will change their course of action just because of who is asking.
But recently, the President has been trying something new. “The next step is sanctions,” President Obama said on February 9. The problem with the President’s latest pronouncement is that the next step WAS sanctions – 14 months ago. Obama missed his opportunity to crank up the heat on Tehran and send the Government of Iran the message that the world cannot wait for it to decide an appropriate time to give up its illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons. Over the last 14 months, the U.S. should have been enforcing the existing UN sanctions, ratcheting up the pressure with new penalties, urging the Europeans to abide by the current financial restrictions and supporting the opposition inside Iran. Now, a new round of sanctions and the inevitable protracted process getting to a UN vote may play into the Iranian’s hopes for more time. UN sanctions will take months of consistent pressure. To begin a UN sanctions process now will only compound the dangerous mistakes Obama has already made.
And his UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, may be too weak to negotiate a Security Council resolution on Iran. Shockingly, Obama and Rice haven’t produced a single UN Security Council resolution on Iran since they’ve been in office. Putting Rice up against the Iranians or even the Chinese or Europeans should give every American a cause for concern. Rice is much more at home in an empty Security Council chamber with a Vogue Magazine camera across from her than a disagreeable foreign diplomat. This past year, Rice has spent more time in Washington looking to trip up Hillary and take her job than she has spent working the halls of the UN negotiating a resolution on Iran. And like Obama, she has not paid attention to the priority issues. While Rice claims that her cabinet-level job requires more DC face time, in fact, U.S. Mission employees have confirmed that Rice isn’t leading the Iran negotiations from New York or Washington. The State Department in Washington has taken the responsibility of writing a UN Resolution away from Rice and is negotiating directly with the French ambassador. American leadership at the UN has vanished. And the United States has never been more popular because of it. While the Iranians have been secretly enriching uranium to 19.75% grade and demonstrating that they have the technology to make a nuclear weapon, the U.S. has spent this last year pressuring China on its carbon emissions and working towards a Copenhagen Accord.
Warnings from China that we need a diplomatic solution for Iran and no new sanctions have scared the Obama Administration into a year-long holding pattern. But Russian and Chinese veto threats are nothing new. Russia and China are experts at whipping the media into an anti-sanctions frenzy. Obama and Rice don’t seem to understand that Russia and China publicly speak one way but rarely stand behind their threats when an issue like Iran is put to a Security Council vote. Neither China nor Russia will call for a vote on Iran sanctions but they can be forced to a veto. Rice should have required a discussion on the Iran issue last year and called for a sanctions vote when the original Obama deadline passed last summer.
Team Obama has spent the year dithering and hoping that doing nothing would allow the opposition inside Iran time to peacefully bring down Ahmadinejad’s government. But while the Obama team nervously talks among themselves, they have missed the opportunity to make the Internet available to the thousands of student protesters inside Iran or to implement harsh sanctions on the government that could push Ahmadinejad over the cliff and deliver the fatal blow to his presidency. The Obama administration should cease making the old, tired claim that American involvement would undermine the opposition by playing into the hands of Ahmadinejad’s re-cycled message that this is an American CIA coup on his presidency. We are well past the point of the Arab world thinking thousands of Iranian students and opposition leaders are in the streets of Tehran because of American enticement. Many in the Arab world would privately cheer if Ahmadinejad’s government fell or if the Iranian nuclear sites were destroyed. The lack of Obama leadership and assistance to the opposition inside Iran is now prohibiting the fall of a dictatorship on the brink. When White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs complains more often about former Vice President Dick Cheney than about Ahmadinejad it sends the wrong message to the Iranians, Chinese and Russians.
Team Obama’s robotic and bland pronouncements citing general themes and re-cycled talking points from the Bush Administration will not stop Iran’s march toward a nuclear weapon. It is time for even Obama to admit that he failed to convince the Iranians to give up their illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons and has failed to motivate the cheering crowds of Germany and Egypt to do more than celebrate the kinder, gentler, weaker American President. There may still be time to make sure Iran doesn’t acquire the nuclear weapons that they will surely use, but it will require quick and sustained action by the White House. An immediate combination of paralyzing UN sanctions, aggressive support for the struggling opposition inside Iran, firm pressure on Europeans to implement the current financial sanctions and a credible use of a military deterrence must all be realized - and soon.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
middle america hopes sandra bullock wins an oscar for blind side
Middle America Cheers For Sandra Bullock
Listening to National Public Radio handicap the Academy Award Best Actress Nominees, it’s clear that media and Hollywood elites think the movie The Blind Side has too much mass appeal and not enough edginess to win any serious awards. Within hours of the announcement of Oscar nominations, the Hollywood press had mostly condescending analysis of Sandra Bullock’s portrayal of Leigh Anne Tuohy, a real-life suburban woman who intervenes in a troubled teenager’s life. ABC News went so far to ask on February 3, “Does Sandra Bullock Deserve an Oscar for Blind Side?” For the super-cool Hollywood types, Leigh Anne is just too simple. For them, straight forward and inspiring is boring. They think church-attending Republicans from the South are not hip enough for an Academy Award. However, despite the fact that Bullock’s performance continues to inspire millions of moviegoers around the world, few filmmakers in Hollywood seem impressed enough to reward her an Oscar.
The divide between those who attend movies and those who make movies has never been wider. While serious Hollywood types spend most of their time, energy and money on movies that trivialize the experiences of middle America, middle America spends its time and money on movies that celebrate what it is to be an American. Capitalism is good for Hollywood executives, but it’s under assault in the scripts being written. American military men and women are celebrated as heroes on Main Street, but they are overwhelmingly portrayed as killers in the movies that Hollywood produces. And while Hollywood is tremendously liberal, the rest of America is not.
But middle America is fighting back. Millions of people have responded to The Blind Side and Sandra Bullock’s performance in such a way that many of the traditional Hollywood types have been forced to take notice. If there is one thing that Hollywood understands, it is money. Variety reported in early January that The Blind Side brought in $208.5 million in its 7th week of release, making it the first picture in history driven solely by a female star to break the $200 million domestic box office mark. Sandra Bullock is America’s star, not Hollywood’s. We have responded to her performances over the years because she is inspiring and talented. America loves Bullock’s real humility, fun personality and true generosity. Bullock gives generously to crisis’ like her $1 million dollar gift to the Tsunami Relief effort in Indonesia, more to Hurricane Katrina relief and recently the Haiti earthquake fund – all without seeking media attention for it. She is funny, beautiful and refreshingly normal. Bullock is not from a Hollywood dynasty or family, she is someone from your family.
For the millions of moviegoers who have seen The Blind Side, it’s more than a blockbuster movie. For them, Bullock is a hero who doesn’t wait for others to respond or a government program to kick in before she helps a young man in need. The Blind Side speaks to America’s sense of right and wrong, and Bullock’s portrayal of Leigh Anne Tuohy is a suburban anthem that continues to inspire and cajole men and women to help change someone’s life. For millions of Americans, The Blind Side is more accurately America than the highly celebrated movie Precious. The Blind Side is the conservative response to Hollywood’s fêted Precious. While Precious was gritty and edgy, Bullock’s performance in The Blind Side was just as real. Bullock could have easily given in to the usual Hollywood portrayal of a southern Christian woman by overdoing the sappiness and creating a condescending caricature of life in the suburbs when you have a southern accent. But Bullock knows real suburban America because that is where she came from. The brilliance of The Blind Side is that the characters weren’t over the top in the usual Hollywood way. The characters were real – real Americans struggling to change their world.
While many in Hollywood dismiss the life experiences of everyday Americans as trivial or unglamorous, Bullock’s performance in The Blind Side celebrates real Americans. America doesn’t need to be taught by Hollywood, Hollywood could use some lessons from real Americans. Sandra Bullock just may be the one person is Hollywood that could bridge the ever-growing gap between the two.
Listening to National Public Radio handicap the Academy Award Best Actress Nominees, it’s clear that media and Hollywood elites think the movie The Blind Side has too much mass appeal and not enough edginess to win any serious awards. Within hours of the announcement of Oscar nominations, the Hollywood press had mostly condescending analysis of Sandra Bullock’s portrayal of Leigh Anne Tuohy, a real-life suburban woman who intervenes in a troubled teenager’s life. ABC News went so far to ask on February 3, “Does Sandra Bullock Deserve an Oscar for Blind Side?” For the super-cool Hollywood types, Leigh Anne is just too simple. For them, straight forward and inspiring is boring. They think church-attending Republicans from the South are not hip enough for an Academy Award. However, despite the fact that Bullock’s performance continues to inspire millions of moviegoers around the world, few filmmakers in Hollywood seem impressed enough to reward her an Oscar.
The divide between those who attend movies and those who make movies has never been wider. While serious Hollywood types spend most of their time, energy and money on movies that trivialize the experiences of middle America, middle America spends its time and money on movies that celebrate what it is to be an American. Capitalism is good for Hollywood executives, but it’s under assault in the scripts being written. American military men and women are celebrated as heroes on Main Street, but they are overwhelmingly portrayed as killers in the movies that Hollywood produces. And while Hollywood is tremendously liberal, the rest of America is not.
But middle America is fighting back. Millions of people have responded to The Blind Side and Sandra Bullock’s performance in such a way that many of the traditional Hollywood types have been forced to take notice. If there is one thing that Hollywood understands, it is money. Variety reported in early January that The Blind Side brought in $208.5 million in its 7th week of release, making it the first picture in history driven solely by a female star to break the $200 million domestic box office mark. Sandra Bullock is America’s star, not Hollywood’s. We have responded to her performances over the years because she is inspiring and talented. America loves Bullock’s real humility, fun personality and true generosity. Bullock gives generously to crisis’ like her $1 million dollar gift to the Tsunami Relief effort in Indonesia, more to Hurricane Katrina relief and recently the Haiti earthquake fund – all without seeking media attention for it. She is funny, beautiful and refreshingly normal. Bullock is not from a Hollywood dynasty or family, she is someone from your family.
For the millions of moviegoers who have seen The Blind Side, it’s more than a blockbuster movie. For them, Bullock is a hero who doesn’t wait for others to respond or a government program to kick in before she helps a young man in need. The Blind Side speaks to America’s sense of right and wrong, and Bullock’s portrayal of Leigh Anne Tuohy is a suburban anthem that continues to inspire and cajole men and women to help change someone’s life. For millions of Americans, The Blind Side is more accurately America than the highly celebrated movie Precious. The Blind Side is the conservative response to Hollywood’s fêted Precious. While Precious was gritty and edgy, Bullock’s performance in The Blind Side was just as real. Bullock could have easily given in to the usual Hollywood portrayal of a southern Christian woman by overdoing the sappiness and creating a condescending caricature of life in the suburbs when you have a southern accent. But Bullock knows real suburban America because that is where she came from. The brilliance of The Blind Side is that the characters weren’t over the top in the usual Hollywood way. The characters were real – real Americans struggling to change their world.
While many in Hollywood dismiss the life experiences of everyday Americans as trivial or unglamorous, Bullock’s performance in The Blind Side celebrates real Americans. America doesn’t need to be taught by Hollywood, Hollywood could use some lessons from real Americans. Sandra Bullock just may be the one person is Hollywood that could bridge the ever-growing gap between the two.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
holden and me
holden and me - cbsnews.com
I remember hearing about a controversial book when I was in 7th Grade. There was talk of banning the book from the high school reading list and even some discussions about taking it off the library shelf. Very few teachers or leaders in my small Michigan community ever discussed the issue of The Catcher in the Rye and certainly no one came to the 1951 Novel’s defense.
Between 1961 and 1982, The Catcher in the Rye was the most censored book in high schools and libraries in the United States. But all the talk about banning it made me rush out to find it. I remember nervously asking the librarian where the JD Salinger section was – I didn’t want to say the book’s name for fear of getting in trouble. The Catcher in the Rye was targeted by some schools as a book too risqué to read and certainly not appropriate for young minds. My parents certainly would not have approved of the book but I secretly read it when I was in 7th grade. I felt so rebellious and my young mind loved it. Of course, Holden’s language was shocking at the time. But Holden was brutally honest and deep. And I wanted to be deep. He was a rebel but he was one of the good guys. I wanted to be as confident as Holden.
Over the years, throughout high school, college and grad school, I would consistently re-read the story of Holden’s 3-day trip to New York City, usually reading it around Christmas time. With each reading I became more confident about my future and what life was about. Maybe my excitement had more to do with the anticipation of the coming New Year but The Catcher in the Rye made me feel more adventurous and curious about the world. With each reading I became more hopeful that the good guys would eventually win.
When I moved to New York City as an adult I often thought about Holden’s travels in the City. And more than once I considered traveling to New Hampshire to find J.D. Salinger just to tell him what an effect his book had on my young life. Periodically I would google Salinger just to see if he had been seen walking to get groceries or venturing outside his secluded home. Several years ago I even decided to visit a couple of booksellers in New York City to find out how much it would cost to purchase an original First Edition copy of The Cather in the Rye, I wish I would have purchased it then.
Salinger had many fans including President George H.W. Bush who called The Catcher in the Rye "a marvelous book" that inspired him as a young man, as well as Mark David Chapman who killed John Lennon. The actors Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson, Tobey Maguire, John Cusak and Leonardo DiCaprio have all fought to play Holden Caulfield on the big screen. As exciting as it might have been to see Holden and Pencey Prep on stage or in the theatre, I always thought it was a fruitless attempt. Salinger writes in the first pages of The Cather in the Rye, “If there’s one thing I hate, it’s the movies,” Holden says.
Salinger’s years of self-imposed seclusion is reported to have produced fifteen more novels that have never been seen by the public. This week, as we mourn the author of one of the greatest novels of all time, we can be hopeful that he left us fifteen more adventures.
I remember hearing about a controversial book when I was in 7th Grade. There was talk of banning the book from the high school reading list and even some discussions about taking it off the library shelf. Very few teachers or leaders in my small Michigan community ever discussed the issue of The Catcher in the Rye and certainly no one came to the 1951 Novel’s defense.
Between 1961 and 1982, The Catcher in the Rye was the most censored book in high schools and libraries in the United States. But all the talk about banning it made me rush out to find it. I remember nervously asking the librarian where the JD Salinger section was – I didn’t want to say the book’s name for fear of getting in trouble. The Catcher in the Rye was targeted by some schools as a book too risqué to read and certainly not appropriate for young minds. My parents certainly would not have approved of the book but I secretly read it when I was in 7th grade. I felt so rebellious and my young mind loved it. Of course, Holden’s language was shocking at the time. But Holden was brutally honest and deep. And I wanted to be deep. He was a rebel but he was one of the good guys. I wanted to be as confident as Holden.
Over the years, throughout high school, college and grad school, I would consistently re-read the story of Holden’s 3-day trip to New York City, usually reading it around Christmas time. With each reading I became more confident about my future and what life was about. Maybe my excitement had more to do with the anticipation of the coming New Year but The Catcher in the Rye made me feel more adventurous and curious about the world. With each reading I became more hopeful that the good guys would eventually win.
When I moved to New York City as an adult I often thought about Holden’s travels in the City. And more than once I considered traveling to New Hampshire to find J.D. Salinger just to tell him what an effect his book had on my young life. Periodically I would google Salinger just to see if he had been seen walking to get groceries or venturing outside his secluded home. Several years ago I even decided to visit a couple of booksellers in New York City to find out how much it would cost to purchase an original First Edition copy of The Cather in the Rye, I wish I would have purchased it then.
Salinger had many fans including President George H.W. Bush who called The Catcher in the Rye "a marvelous book" that inspired him as a young man, as well as Mark David Chapman who killed John Lennon. The actors Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson, Tobey Maguire, John Cusak and Leonardo DiCaprio have all fought to play Holden Caulfield on the big screen. As exciting as it might have been to see Holden and Pencey Prep on stage or in the theatre, I always thought it was a fruitless attempt. Salinger writes in the first pages of The Cather in the Rye, “If there’s one thing I hate, it’s the movies,” Holden says.
Salinger’s years of self-imposed seclusion is reported to have produced fifteen more novels that have never been seen by the public. This week, as we mourn the author of one of the greatest novels of all time, we can be hopeful that he left us fifteen more adventures.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
robert gibbs thanks chuck todd for the great coverage
Robert Gibbs Thanks Chuck Todd For The Great Coverage
Watching Chuck Todd on The Today Show the morning after President Obama’s first State of the Union speech one would think that we have a divided Congress. If you were linked to Chuck Todd on his Facebook page during the speech then you would have also seen several status updates about watching Republicans sitting down during standing ovations or looking sour during some of the President’s policy announcements. Todd and The Today Show have completely missed the reality of Washington’s power game and have instead proven to be the go-to guy and morning show for this White House. Their consistent voice for Obama’s hope and change tour reached its climax this morning with their report on last night’s State of the Union speech.
Todd’s report, the lead story for The Today Show, focused on the few times in Obama’s speech where he tried to reach out to the Republicans. Todd never mentioned once how Obama started the speech by blaming Bush for our current problems and how he consistently blamed the previous Administration for a banking collapse, large deficits and an economy in the tank. For a President with all of the power in Washington, Obama’s speech was antagonistic and full of excuses. Someone needs to remind Todd that the President’s party overwhelmingly controls Congress and could have passed any piece of change legislation they wanted this past year. Why Todd continues to focus on the minority party is more than disturbing, it’s biased. The President’s first year has been a failure, the worst first year performance by any President, and the blame goes squarely on his own party and his ability to lead them.
While The Today Show cameras kept showing the Democrats standing and clapping for Obama’s speech and the Republicans seated, voters were led to believe that it was the Republicans fault that this past year has been a disaster in Washington.
Not to be outdone by Todd, Meredith Vieira jumped in to pile on too. Speaking with Vice President Joe Biden, Vieira asked “What risk do Republicans run if they remain the party of NO?” Biden, of course, had an answer and stayed on message by emphasizing how when the Obama Administration took office they brought America “back from the abyss”. No one challenged Biden with the facts: larger deficits, unemployment at an all-time high and his own party controlling all of Washington.
Todd and Vieira also pointed out Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s silent frustration with being called-out by the President when he mouthed the words “No, that’s not true” while the NBC cameras went to slow motion to emphasize the point. But the fact that the President of the United States was so partisan throughout his speech, blamed Bush for his problems and publicly attacked the Supreme Court on national television for their most-recent decision while they had to sit there and be silent was never mentioned on-air.
When it was Matt Lauer’s turn to jump in he also stayed on the theme that Republicans are to blame for this President’s disastrous first year and low approval ratings. Lauer emphasized the “political divide in congress right now” without pointing out that if there is a political divide then it’s because the Democrats can’t agree among themselves on what to do or how to do it.
Since Todd, Vieira and Lauer obviously don’t understand that the Democrats have unprecedented influence in Congress, here’s a reminder: there are 255 Democrats and 178 Republicans in the House; and there are 56 Democrats and 41 Republicans in the Senate. Todd should start putting the White House and its party of power under scrutiny and stop force-feeding the American people with the White House’s message that their first year’s failure is anyone’s fault but their own.
Watching Chuck Todd on The Today Show the morning after President Obama’s first State of the Union speech one would think that we have a divided Congress. If you were linked to Chuck Todd on his Facebook page during the speech then you would have also seen several status updates about watching Republicans sitting down during standing ovations or looking sour during some of the President’s policy announcements. Todd and The Today Show have completely missed the reality of Washington’s power game and have instead proven to be the go-to guy and morning show for this White House. Their consistent voice for Obama’s hope and change tour reached its climax this morning with their report on last night’s State of the Union speech.
Todd’s report, the lead story for The Today Show, focused on the few times in Obama’s speech where he tried to reach out to the Republicans. Todd never mentioned once how Obama started the speech by blaming Bush for our current problems and how he consistently blamed the previous Administration for a banking collapse, large deficits and an economy in the tank. For a President with all of the power in Washington, Obama’s speech was antagonistic and full of excuses. Someone needs to remind Todd that the President’s party overwhelmingly controls Congress and could have passed any piece of change legislation they wanted this past year. Why Todd continues to focus on the minority party is more than disturbing, it’s biased. The President’s first year has been a failure, the worst first year performance by any President, and the blame goes squarely on his own party and his ability to lead them.
While The Today Show cameras kept showing the Democrats standing and clapping for Obama’s speech and the Republicans seated, voters were led to believe that it was the Republicans fault that this past year has been a disaster in Washington.
Not to be outdone by Todd, Meredith Vieira jumped in to pile on too. Speaking with Vice President Joe Biden, Vieira asked “What risk do Republicans run if they remain the party of NO?” Biden, of course, had an answer and stayed on message by emphasizing how when the Obama Administration took office they brought America “back from the abyss”. No one challenged Biden with the facts: larger deficits, unemployment at an all-time high and his own party controlling all of Washington.
Todd and Vieira also pointed out Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s silent frustration with being called-out by the President when he mouthed the words “No, that’s not true” while the NBC cameras went to slow motion to emphasize the point. But the fact that the President of the United States was so partisan throughout his speech, blamed Bush for his problems and publicly attacked the Supreme Court on national television for their most-recent decision while they had to sit there and be silent was never mentioned on-air.
When it was Matt Lauer’s turn to jump in he also stayed on the theme that Republicans are to blame for this President’s disastrous first year and low approval ratings. Lauer emphasized the “political divide in congress right now” without pointing out that if there is a political divide then it’s because the Democrats can’t agree among themselves on what to do or how to do it.
Since Todd, Vieira and Lauer obviously don’t understand that the Democrats have unprecedented influence in Congress, here’s a reminder: there are 255 Democrats and 178 Republicans in the House; and there are 56 Democrats and 41 Republicans in the Senate. Todd should start putting the White House and its party of power under scrutiny and stop force-feeding the American people with the White House’s message that their first year’s failure is anyone’s fault but their own.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
obama's state of the union: "it's not my fault..."
obama's sotu: "it's not my fault..."
“It’s Not My Fault But I’ll Keep Spending”
It is hard to believe a President that says “...I am not interested in re-litigating the past” after he just spent 60 minutes of his First State of the Union Address re-litigating the past and blaming Bush for his problems.
It is hard to take a President seriously when he speaks 116 words describing how he wants to get rid of nuclear weapons but only 38 words uttered on the biggest violator of those principles - Iran. It is hard to understand why Obama and his Administration have wasted this past year by not increasing the sanctions on Iran and building on the Bush Administration’s 3 UN resolutions sanctioning Iran for their continued illegal uranium enrichment.
It’s hard to take a President seriously when he says we will take the fight to al Qaeda but then brings al Qaeda to the U.S. to be tried in an American court. It’s hard to understand a President who sends the lawyers to a terrorist to tell him that he has the right to remain silent but then brags that he is tough on terrorists.
And if you thought Obama had learned a lesson from the recent Scott Brown election in Massachusetts, think again. From the moment he started his address to the Nation, Obama made it perfectly clear that all of his problems were Bush’s fault.
“One year ago I took office in the midst of 2 wars, a bad economy…” blah, blah, blah. “One year later the worst of the storm has passed but the devastation remains….,” Obama said in the first minutes of his speech. The problem with the President’s continued excuse is that since he has taken office unemployment has surged, the deficit has skyrocketed and Washington’s spending has gotten even more out of control. But to hear the President speak, his reckless spending has had nothing to do with our financial problems or highest unemployment rates in decades. But time has run out on Obama’s excuses. The American people are fed up and the President’s poll numbers are in the tank. The Democrats have had an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate and yet, Obama’s first year has been one of the worst first year’s for any President in history. For all of Obama’s big talk about change, very little has been done despite the fact that his Party controls all of Washington and has the ability to make change immediately. It doesn’t make sense for the President to blame Republicans for his first year failures. He has only his majority party to blame.
If you thought Obama was ready to stop spending billions of dollars we don’t have, think again. Tonight, Obama went on a spending spree that would make Nancy Pelosi happy. The President’s new #1 focus is now on creating jobs, he says. It’s no longer healthcare. More than 42 minutes into his speech not a word had been uttered about healthcare. But there was plenty said on how to spend your tax dollars even though we are already behind on paying our bills. There was $30 billion for community banks to give to small businesses, billions for infrastructure projects to put unions to work, millions for clean energy businesses, millions for community colleges, millions for more pell grants, millions for child care credits, billions for new home owners, millions for farmers and veterans and the list continues. While a case can be made for helping each and every one of these groups, there has been no regard for who will pay for these new programs or whether now is the time to spend this money.
As Obama’s speech continued, there was more blaming Bush for the problems and more spending from his Administration. But what was most shocking to watch was President Obama double down on partisanship. Obama wasn’t humble or conciliatory, he was antagonistic and cocky. But for a President who promised change and has the votes in Congress to deliver it, it was a disappointing night. It was more of the same from Washington.
And then an hour into his speech the President suddenly changed his tone. It was like Obama suddenly remembered that the State of Massachusetts just voted for a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. President Obama became the outreacher-in-chief. If Obama had delivered the last 20 minutes of his speech first, and cut out the political jabs from the first 60 minutes of the speech then he would have been better received.
In the end, Obama speech reminded us that he isn’t leading his party or the Nation. For a President starting his term with a massive majority in Congress and sky-high approval ratings, he has squandered a ton of political capital with nothing to show for it.
“It’s Not My Fault But I’ll Keep Spending”
It is hard to believe a President that says “...I am not interested in re-litigating the past” after he just spent 60 minutes of his First State of the Union Address re-litigating the past and blaming Bush for his problems.
It is hard to take a President seriously when he speaks 116 words describing how he wants to get rid of nuclear weapons but only 38 words uttered on the biggest violator of those principles - Iran. It is hard to understand why Obama and his Administration have wasted this past year by not increasing the sanctions on Iran and building on the Bush Administration’s 3 UN resolutions sanctioning Iran for their continued illegal uranium enrichment.
It’s hard to take a President seriously when he says we will take the fight to al Qaeda but then brings al Qaeda to the U.S. to be tried in an American court. It’s hard to understand a President who sends the lawyers to a terrorist to tell him that he has the right to remain silent but then brags that he is tough on terrorists.
And if you thought Obama had learned a lesson from the recent Scott Brown election in Massachusetts, think again. From the moment he started his address to the Nation, Obama made it perfectly clear that all of his problems were Bush’s fault.
“One year ago I took office in the midst of 2 wars, a bad economy…” blah, blah, blah. “One year later the worst of the storm has passed but the devastation remains….,” Obama said in the first minutes of his speech. The problem with the President’s continued excuse is that since he has taken office unemployment has surged, the deficit has skyrocketed and Washington’s spending has gotten even more out of control. But to hear the President speak, his reckless spending has had nothing to do with our financial problems or highest unemployment rates in decades. But time has run out on Obama’s excuses. The American people are fed up and the President’s poll numbers are in the tank. The Democrats have had an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate and yet, Obama’s first year has been one of the worst first year’s for any President in history. For all of Obama’s big talk about change, very little has been done despite the fact that his Party controls all of Washington and has the ability to make change immediately. It doesn’t make sense for the President to blame Republicans for his first year failures. He has only his majority party to blame.
If you thought Obama was ready to stop spending billions of dollars we don’t have, think again. Tonight, Obama went on a spending spree that would make Nancy Pelosi happy. The President’s new #1 focus is now on creating jobs, he says. It’s no longer healthcare. More than 42 minutes into his speech not a word had been uttered about healthcare. But there was plenty said on how to spend your tax dollars even though we are already behind on paying our bills. There was $30 billion for community banks to give to small businesses, billions for infrastructure projects to put unions to work, millions for clean energy businesses, millions for community colleges, millions for more pell grants, millions for child care credits, billions for new home owners, millions for farmers and veterans and the list continues. While a case can be made for helping each and every one of these groups, there has been no regard for who will pay for these new programs or whether now is the time to spend this money.
As Obama’s speech continued, there was more blaming Bush for the problems and more spending from his Administration. But what was most shocking to watch was President Obama double down on partisanship. Obama wasn’t humble or conciliatory, he was antagonistic and cocky. But for a President who promised change and has the votes in Congress to deliver it, it was a disappointing night. It was more of the same from Washington.
And then an hour into his speech the President suddenly changed his tone. It was like Obama suddenly remembered that the State of Massachusetts just voted for a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. President Obama became the outreacher-in-chief. If Obama had delivered the last 20 minutes of his speech first, and cut out the political jabs from the first 60 minutes of the speech then he would have been better received.
In the end, Obama speech reminded us that he isn’t leading his party or the Nation. For a President starting his term with a massive majority in Congress and sky-high approval ratings, he has squandered a ton of political capital with nothing to show for it.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
obama's approach is scary
newsmax.com grenell interview on foreign policy
Grenell: Obama's Terrorism Approach 'Scary'
Tuesday, 26 Jan 2010 03:43 PM Article Font Size
By: Dan Weil
Richard Grenell, former spokesman for the U.S. Representative to the United Nations calls President Obama’s approach to terrorism “scary.”
“Here’s a guy who clearly wants to be the most popular guy in the room,” Grenell, who served President George W. Bush, told Newsmax.TV’s Kathleen Walter. “He doesn’t want to make tough decisions that anger people.”
The former diplomat criticized Obama for treating accused terrorists as civilians.
“Scott Brown, the winner of the Massachusetts senate race said it best when he said, I don’t want to give them a bunch of lawyers. I want to give these terrorists a fight. I think that’s how most Americans view this situation.”
Grenell is particularly upset that the Christmas day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was read his rights after being taken from the plane.
“Someone said to this guy who just tried to blow up a plane, ‘You have the right to remain silent,’” Grenell noted.
“I would have said you don’t have the right to remain silent. I want to go over here, and I want to knock you around mentally until you start spilling some information.”
"It’s important to find out who sent and financed Abdulmutallab, so that we can stop future threats, Grenell points out.
Discussing the situation in Haiti, he stresses that the United States must stay involved for the long term.
“We can do anything we want when we set our minds to it,” Grenell said. “We are clearly focused on Haiti right now. I think the Haitian people will benefit from that.”
The U.N. will be of no help, having failed miserably in its 17 years there, he says.
“Right now we’re just dealing in Haiti on an emergency basis. We’re going to have to quickly switch into development and operational issues.” Our government will have to weather criticism that we’re too involved with another country, Grenell says.
“If we want to change that country for the better, we’re going to have to look for some economic development. It’s a long, expensive, messy road. But in the end I think Americans will want that to happen in Haiti.”
See Video: Click on link at the top of this entry.
Grenell: Obama's Terrorism Approach 'Scary'
Tuesday, 26 Jan 2010 03:43 PM Article Font Size
By: Dan Weil
Richard Grenell, former spokesman for the U.S. Representative to the United Nations calls President Obama’s approach to terrorism “scary.”
“Here’s a guy who clearly wants to be the most popular guy in the room,” Grenell, who served President George W. Bush, told Newsmax.TV’s Kathleen Walter. “He doesn’t want to make tough decisions that anger people.”
The former diplomat criticized Obama for treating accused terrorists as civilians.
“Scott Brown, the winner of the Massachusetts senate race said it best when he said, I don’t want to give them a bunch of lawyers. I want to give these terrorists a fight. I think that’s how most Americans view this situation.”
Grenell is particularly upset that the Christmas day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was read his rights after being taken from the plane.
“Someone said to this guy who just tried to blow up a plane, ‘You have the right to remain silent,’” Grenell noted.
“I would have said you don’t have the right to remain silent. I want to go over here, and I want to knock you around mentally until you start spilling some information.”
"It’s important to find out who sent and financed Abdulmutallab, so that we can stop future threats, Grenell points out.
Discussing the situation in Haiti, he stresses that the United States must stay involved for the long term.
“We can do anything we want when we set our minds to it,” Grenell said. “We are clearly focused on Haiti right now. I think the Haitian people will benefit from that.”
The U.N. will be of no help, having failed miserably in its 17 years there, he says.
“Right now we’re just dealing in Haiti on an emergency basis. We’re going to have to quickly switch into development and operational issues.” Our government will have to weather criticism that we’re too involved with another country, Grenell says.
“If we want to change that country for the better, we’re going to have to look for some economic development. It’s a long, expensive, messy road. But in the end I think Americans will want that to happen in Haiti.”
See Video: Click on link at the top of this entry.
Monday, January 25, 2010
new study shows susan rice isn't engaging the un
New Study Suggests U.S. Ambassador Rice Isn’t Engaging the UN
We actually heard from Susan Rice more during the presidential campaign when she was a foreign policy adviser to then-candidate Barack Obama than we have over the last year, when she has been representing us at the UN. It has been just over one year since Rice was confirmed by the United States Senate to be the Permanent Representative to the UN and she so far has been wildly inattentive in New York. While Rice has been active in the social scene of Washington and The White House, a new study released by the uber-serious Security Council Report suggests that this past year has been the most inactive Security Council since 1991. For an Administration that promised to utilize the UN and improve our reputation around the world, its dinner-party circuit strategy isn’t making America more secure.
Much of the blame for that belongs to Rice and her habitual silence. Rice has not conducted the hard negotiations nor done the sometimes unpopular work of engaging the UN on the United States’ priority issues. When Rice does attend UN negotiations, she is all too willing to avoid confrontation. She has instead opted to spend time networking in Washington and making nice with her colleagues in New York. While other foreign Ambassadors speak fondly of Rice and her easy ways, she has been a weak negotiator for the American people.
This lack of American leadership has resulted in the general Security Council inactivity spotlighted in the new study by the Columbia University-affiliated Security Council Report.
The Report says:
“In 2009 the total number of Council decisions (resolutions and presidential statements) decreased by 26 percent from 2008. The number dropped from 113 to 83, the lowest level since 1991.
Resolutions dropped from 65 to 48 and presidential statements from 48 to 35.
This significant trend is also mirrored in a matching reduction in formal Council activity. The number of formal Council meetings decreased by 20 percent, from 243 to 194.
The number of press statements, which is one indicator of Council decision making at the informal level, also decreased by 23 percent, from 47 to 36.”
Rice has been spending several days a week in Washington with her larger than normal DC-based staff and spending less time with the 200-plus employees who work for her in New York. While Rice launched her tenure with a glamour spread in Vogue Magazine by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz showing her kicking back in an empty Security Council Chamber, she seems to not enjoy the Chamber when it’s full of diplomats. During the recent Haiti crisis, Rice was not only absent from the Security Council vote to expand the UN’s peacekeeping operation but she also failed to call an emergency meeting in the immediate aftermath to request more help. In fact, 7 days after the Haiti earthquake left tens of thousands of people in the streets without food or shelter, it was UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon that came to the Security Council to request more troops – the American Ambassador hadn’t bothered.
Rice has gambled this past year that keeping America unengaged at the UN is the best way to keep the Obama Administration and herself popular with other countries. But while the newly released report suggests that the Security Council has been cordial and pleasant in 2009, the number of crisis situations, international conflicts and peacekeeping operations haven’t decreased. No meaningful improvement has been seen to the international issues monitored by the Security Council; in fact, the study suggests that some situations have gotten worse. Without American leadership at the UN, countries just continue to talk and socialize and spend taxpayer dollars. The Security Council Report also highlights the fact that fewer decisions were made by the Security Council in 2009 than in previous years. Tough decisions are never popular to make and even less popular to force upon the UN. But the American people expect their representative to utilize the UN to further America’s priority issues and demand that their money is spent wisely.
For Rice, the UN budget reform efforts started by the Bush Administration have been too controversial to continue. Rice has avoided tough negotiations and public feuds and has made little to no effort to engage her colleagues on reforming the UN budget process. U.S. citizens pay 22% of the UN’s regular budget, 26% of the UN Peacekeeping Budget and give millions more in voluntary contributions to a plethora of other UN programs. They deserve an ambassador who doesn’t duck even a messy public fight with other countries looking to spend American taxpayers’ dollars.
According to several UN veteran reporters and some US Mission staff, Rice has been missing from crucial negotiations on Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium, too. She’s failed to build on Bush Administration progress on sanctioning Iran. While the Russians and Chinese have historically complained publicly about a vote forced upon them, in the end they voted for such resolutions. Despite multiple deadlines missed by the Iranian government, Rice and her team have so far been unsuccessful in getting a single sanctions resolution. The irony that the French are tougher than the Americans on the Iran issue has prompted former Bush Administration officials to say, “thank God for the French”.
Although Obama and Rice campaigned on the promise to restore America’s reputation internationally, they have chosen the easy path of popularity over progress. Ambassadors will always be loved at the UN when they ignore the important debates and discussions that will keep America strong and safe. It is short-sighted and dangerous to choose likability over the safety and security of those who actually pay your salary. And one sure way to weaken the UN is to placate it, neglect it and marginalize it, as Rice has done this past year. The UN and the American people deserve better.
We actually heard from Susan Rice more during the presidential campaign when she was a foreign policy adviser to then-candidate Barack Obama than we have over the last year, when she has been representing us at the UN. It has been just over one year since Rice was confirmed by the United States Senate to be the Permanent Representative to the UN and she so far has been wildly inattentive in New York. While Rice has been active in the social scene of Washington and The White House, a new study released by the uber-serious Security Council Report suggests that this past year has been the most inactive Security Council since 1991. For an Administration that promised to utilize the UN and improve our reputation around the world, its dinner-party circuit strategy isn’t making America more secure.
Much of the blame for that belongs to Rice and her habitual silence. Rice has not conducted the hard negotiations nor done the sometimes unpopular work of engaging the UN on the United States’ priority issues. When Rice does attend UN negotiations, she is all too willing to avoid confrontation. She has instead opted to spend time networking in Washington and making nice with her colleagues in New York. While other foreign Ambassadors speak fondly of Rice and her easy ways, she has been a weak negotiator for the American people.
This lack of American leadership has resulted in the general Security Council inactivity spotlighted in the new study by the Columbia University-affiliated Security Council Report.
The Report says:
“In 2009 the total number of Council decisions (resolutions and presidential statements) decreased by 26 percent from 2008. The number dropped from 113 to 83, the lowest level since 1991.
Resolutions dropped from 65 to 48 and presidential statements from 48 to 35.
This significant trend is also mirrored in a matching reduction in formal Council activity. The number of formal Council meetings decreased by 20 percent, from 243 to 194.
The number of press statements, which is one indicator of Council decision making at the informal level, also decreased by 23 percent, from 47 to 36.”
Rice has been spending several days a week in Washington with her larger than normal DC-based staff and spending less time with the 200-plus employees who work for her in New York. While Rice launched her tenure with a glamour spread in Vogue Magazine by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz showing her kicking back in an empty Security Council Chamber, she seems to not enjoy the Chamber when it’s full of diplomats. During the recent Haiti crisis, Rice was not only absent from the Security Council vote to expand the UN’s peacekeeping operation but she also failed to call an emergency meeting in the immediate aftermath to request more help. In fact, 7 days after the Haiti earthquake left tens of thousands of people in the streets without food or shelter, it was UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon that came to the Security Council to request more troops – the American Ambassador hadn’t bothered.
Rice has gambled this past year that keeping America unengaged at the UN is the best way to keep the Obama Administration and herself popular with other countries. But while the newly released report suggests that the Security Council has been cordial and pleasant in 2009, the number of crisis situations, international conflicts and peacekeeping operations haven’t decreased. No meaningful improvement has been seen to the international issues monitored by the Security Council; in fact, the study suggests that some situations have gotten worse. Without American leadership at the UN, countries just continue to talk and socialize and spend taxpayer dollars. The Security Council Report also highlights the fact that fewer decisions were made by the Security Council in 2009 than in previous years. Tough decisions are never popular to make and even less popular to force upon the UN. But the American people expect their representative to utilize the UN to further America’s priority issues and demand that their money is spent wisely.
For Rice, the UN budget reform efforts started by the Bush Administration have been too controversial to continue. Rice has avoided tough negotiations and public feuds and has made little to no effort to engage her colleagues on reforming the UN budget process. U.S. citizens pay 22% of the UN’s regular budget, 26% of the UN Peacekeeping Budget and give millions more in voluntary contributions to a plethora of other UN programs. They deserve an ambassador who doesn’t duck even a messy public fight with other countries looking to spend American taxpayers’ dollars.
According to several UN veteran reporters and some US Mission staff, Rice has been missing from crucial negotiations on Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium, too. She’s failed to build on Bush Administration progress on sanctioning Iran. While the Russians and Chinese have historically complained publicly about a vote forced upon them, in the end they voted for such resolutions. Despite multiple deadlines missed by the Iranian government, Rice and her team have so far been unsuccessful in getting a single sanctions resolution. The irony that the French are tougher than the Americans on the Iran issue has prompted former Bush Administration officials to say, “thank God for the French”.
Although Obama and Rice campaigned on the promise to restore America’s reputation internationally, they have chosen the easy path of popularity over progress. Ambassadors will always be loved at the UN when they ignore the important debates and discussions that will keep America strong and safe. It is short-sighted and dangerous to choose likability over the safety and security of those who actually pay your salary. And one sure way to weaken the UN is to placate it, neglect it and marginalize it, as Rice has done this past year. The UN and the American people deserve better.
Friday, January 22, 2010
where has susan rice been?
breitbart.com/Where Has Susan Rice Been?
Where Has Susan Rice Been This Past Year?
This week marks the one year anniversary of Susan Rice’s confirmation by the United States Senate to represent the American people at the United Nations. Over the past 12 months, the U.S. has faced some serious foreign policy challenges such as Iran’s nuclear ambitions, North Korea’s ongoing nuclear weapons’ tests, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, freezing terrorists’ assets world-wide and now the on-going disaster in Haiti. But while the UN struggles to find common ground on these and other important issues, Susan Rice has chosen to spend several days of the work week over the last year in Washington, DC hanging out at the White House and not engaging seriously in New York at the UN.
Rice started off her tenure at the UN with a glamour spread in Vogue Magazine by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz showing her kicking back in an empty Security Council Chamber. It was this silly piece that first signaled to the UN reporters and diplomats that Rice was in New York to have fun and participate in the events that Upper East Side diplomats do. While Rice does commute from Washington, DC every week, she lives in the penthouse of the Waldorf Astoria when in New York. She also has the largest Washington, DC office and staff of any U.S. Ambassador to the UN in history. She regularly attends White House social functions appearing as the Disney character “Goofy” at this year’s White House Halloween Party and attended multiple Christmas Parties at The White House this holiday season.
While Rice, like all Democrat-appointed US Ambassadors to the UN, also serves in the President’s cabinet, she has nevertheless been absent at many crucial Security Council meetings in New York during some of the world body’s most turbulent times. Rice was even missing from this week’s Security Council debate and vote to add new Peacekeepers to a beleaguered UN operation in Haiti. According to several UN veteran reporters and some US Mission staff, Rice has been missing from crucial negotiations on Iran too. They say that when Rice does attend UN negotiations, she is all too willing to avoid confrontation. The Permanent Members of the Security Council - the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia and China – rely on American leadership to drive issues to a close and force votes. While the Permanent Members historically complain publicly about being forced to vote or meet on certain issues, without one country driving issues to completion the UN Members will keep talking or find ways to continue fruitless discussions. After spending 8 years inside the UN and watching the Security Council debate a plethora of issues, I can personally attest to the fact that an effective American Ambassador cannot worry about being the most popular person in the room. Forcing an end to a UN debate and calling for the Security Council to vote on an issue is never popular.
Over the last year, Rice has avoided tough negotiations and public feuds at the UN and has subsequently produced very few UN resolutions on America’s priority issues. While other foreign Ambassadors speak fondly of Rice and her ability to make nice at the UN, she has been a weak negotiator for the American people. Many UN veterans have indicated that Rice’s lack of leadership on the Iranian issue in particular has forced the French Ambassador to pick up the slack in trying to forge a new Security Council resolution to increase sanctions. The irony that the French are tougher than the Americans on the Iran issue has not been lost on career State Department officials.
During the Bush Administration, much to the dismay of many UN members, the United States delegation passed several sanctions resolutions on Iran for their continued uranium enrichment. The Russians and Chinese, in particular, complained publicly about a vote forced upon them, but in the end they voted for the UN sanctions resolution. Rice and her team have so far been unsuccessful in getting even one single sanctions resolution despite having given multiple deadlines to the Iranian Government.
Rice’s weak and sporadic attention to U.S. priority issues actually damages the UN’s credibility by sending the message that U.S. tax dollars can be spent without regard to effectiveness. Americans have always demanded that the UN reform its bloated system and it has fallen to the American Ambassador to the UN to spearhead that reform. Under Rice’s leadership, the U.S. delegation has been astonishingly quiet on UN budget and reform issues. While Peacekeeping operations continue to be expanded without challenge and the UN Budget dramatically increased, Rice and her team have drawn few lines in the sand with the UN. Not surprisingly, Rice has chosen to abandon a messy public fight with other countries looking to spend American taxpayers’ dollars. The U.S. taxpayer pays 22% of the UN’s total budget and 26% of its Peacekeeping budget – more than $1 Billion every year. While the Bush Administration had some success in starting a top to bottom review of every UN mandate and program, the Rice team has dropped the effort altogether. On November 19, 2009, the U.S. Government’s General Accounting Office issued a report questioning how some of the $330 million the U.S. gave to the UN Office for Project Services’ was spent, including a citation of $200,000 to renovate a guest house. So far, Rice and her team have done very little to follow up on this and other questionable budget issues. Demanding UN reform won’t endear you to other Ambassadors, but the American people expect it.
Rice often says that she is different than her predecessors and chooses to socialize and engage her UN colleagues quietly. But the irony is that engaging the world body, as John Bolton did, gives the American people the confidence that our Representatives at the UN are watching how the money is spent and how effective the programs are being implemented. Fighting for quality UN international peacekeeping programs only strengthens the UN and allows it to do more. Reforming the UN makes it more effective and ensuring that the UN spends our money wisely enables it and us to do more for suffering people around the world. One sure way to weaken the UN is to marginalize it, placate it and not engage it as Rice has done this past year.
Perhaps the best example of how Susan Rice views her responsibilities at the UN this year is seen in her revamp of the Bush era website for her office. While previous U.S. Ambassadors to the UN have prominently displayed the American flag on their website and proudly displayed the site in red, white and blue coloring, Rice has changed the site to UN Blue, added a large UN logo and only later added a small American flag after several reporters inquired about the dramatic change and missing American stars and stripes. Rice has gambled this past year that keeping America unengaged at the UN is the best way to be the most popular Ambassador. Unfortunately, though well-liked during her sporadic visits to the UN, Rice has so far been unable to produce any meaningful progress on the world’s most troubling issues.
Where Has Susan Rice Been This Past Year?
This week marks the one year anniversary of Susan Rice’s confirmation by the United States Senate to represent the American people at the United Nations. Over the past 12 months, the U.S. has faced some serious foreign policy challenges such as Iran’s nuclear ambitions, North Korea’s ongoing nuclear weapons’ tests, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, freezing terrorists’ assets world-wide and now the on-going disaster in Haiti. But while the UN struggles to find common ground on these and other important issues, Susan Rice has chosen to spend several days of the work week over the last year in Washington, DC hanging out at the White House and not engaging seriously in New York at the UN.
Rice started off her tenure at the UN with a glamour spread in Vogue Magazine by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz showing her kicking back in an empty Security Council Chamber. It was this silly piece that first signaled to the UN reporters and diplomats that Rice was in New York to have fun and participate in the events that Upper East Side diplomats do. While Rice does commute from Washington, DC every week, she lives in the penthouse of the Waldorf Astoria when in New York. She also has the largest Washington, DC office and staff of any U.S. Ambassador to the UN in history. She regularly attends White House social functions appearing as the Disney character “Goofy” at this year’s White House Halloween Party and attended multiple Christmas Parties at The White House this holiday season.
While Rice, like all Democrat-appointed US Ambassadors to the UN, also serves in the President’s cabinet, she has nevertheless been absent at many crucial Security Council meetings in New York during some of the world body’s most turbulent times. Rice was even missing from this week’s Security Council debate and vote to add new Peacekeepers to a beleaguered UN operation in Haiti. According to several UN veteran reporters and some US Mission staff, Rice has been missing from crucial negotiations on Iran too. They say that when Rice does attend UN negotiations, she is all too willing to avoid confrontation. The Permanent Members of the Security Council - the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia and China – rely on American leadership to drive issues to a close and force votes. While the Permanent Members historically complain publicly about being forced to vote or meet on certain issues, without one country driving issues to completion the UN Members will keep talking or find ways to continue fruitless discussions. After spending 8 years inside the UN and watching the Security Council debate a plethora of issues, I can personally attest to the fact that an effective American Ambassador cannot worry about being the most popular person in the room. Forcing an end to a UN debate and calling for the Security Council to vote on an issue is never popular.
Over the last year, Rice has avoided tough negotiations and public feuds at the UN and has subsequently produced very few UN resolutions on America’s priority issues. While other foreign Ambassadors speak fondly of Rice and her ability to make nice at the UN, she has been a weak negotiator for the American people. Many UN veterans have indicated that Rice’s lack of leadership on the Iranian issue in particular has forced the French Ambassador to pick up the slack in trying to forge a new Security Council resolution to increase sanctions. The irony that the French are tougher than the Americans on the Iran issue has not been lost on career State Department officials.
During the Bush Administration, much to the dismay of many UN members, the United States delegation passed several sanctions resolutions on Iran for their continued uranium enrichment. The Russians and Chinese, in particular, complained publicly about a vote forced upon them, but in the end they voted for the UN sanctions resolution. Rice and her team have so far been unsuccessful in getting even one single sanctions resolution despite having given multiple deadlines to the Iranian Government.
Rice’s weak and sporadic attention to U.S. priority issues actually damages the UN’s credibility by sending the message that U.S. tax dollars can be spent without regard to effectiveness. Americans have always demanded that the UN reform its bloated system and it has fallen to the American Ambassador to the UN to spearhead that reform. Under Rice’s leadership, the U.S. delegation has been astonishingly quiet on UN budget and reform issues. While Peacekeeping operations continue to be expanded without challenge and the UN Budget dramatically increased, Rice and her team have drawn few lines in the sand with the UN. Not surprisingly, Rice has chosen to abandon a messy public fight with other countries looking to spend American taxpayers’ dollars. The U.S. taxpayer pays 22% of the UN’s total budget and 26% of its Peacekeeping budget – more than $1 Billion every year. While the Bush Administration had some success in starting a top to bottom review of every UN mandate and program, the Rice team has dropped the effort altogether. On November 19, 2009, the U.S. Government’s General Accounting Office issued a report questioning how some of the $330 million the U.S. gave to the UN Office for Project Services’ was spent, including a citation of $200,000 to renovate a guest house. So far, Rice and her team have done very little to follow up on this and other questionable budget issues. Demanding UN reform won’t endear you to other Ambassadors, but the American people expect it.
Rice often says that she is different than her predecessors and chooses to socialize and engage her UN colleagues quietly. But the irony is that engaging the world body, as John Bolton did, gives the American people the confidence that our Representatives at the UN are watching how the money is spent and how effective the programs are being implemented. Fighting for quality UN international peacekeeping programs only strengthens the UN and allows it to do more. Reforming the UN makes it more effective and ensuring that the UN spends our money wisely enables it and us to do more for suffering people around the world. One sure way to weaken the UN is to marginalize it, placate it and not engage it as Rice has done this past year.
Perhaps the best example of how Susan Rice views her responsibilities at the UN this year is seen in her revamp of the Bush era website for her office. While previous U.S. Ambassadors to the UN have prominently displayed the American flag on their website and proudly displayed the site in red, white and blue coloring, Rice has changed the site to UN Blue, added a large UN logo and only later added a small American flag after several reporters inquired about the dramatic change and missing American stars and stripes. Rice has gambled this past year that keeping America unengaged at the UN is the best way to be the most popular Ambassador. Unfortunately, though well-liked during her sporadic visits to the UN, Rice has so far been unable to produce any meaningful progress on the world’s most troubling issues.
Monday, January 11, 2010
reid and the democrats scramble to look clean and articulate
huff post/grenell on reid's racial comments
Liberal Elites See No Problem With Reid
Watching Gwen Ifill, Al Sharpton and a plethora of African American news reporters and academics on MSNBC defend and excuse Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s racial slight makes you realize why the Democratic Party can take black voters for granted. There are absolutely no consequences for liberal elites to have differing public and private views on political issues. The Democratic Party even went so far to dismiss the disparaging comments by Joe Biden about Barack Obama being clean and articulate to nominate and confirm him as Vice President at their convention. Today, the sitting Vice President stands as the symbol of liberal elite’s racial double standard.
It is troubling, however, why African American voters (and gay and lesbian voters too) give unwavering and unconditional support to a political party that ignores them once the fundraising is over. Keeping issues of race and equality squarely in the political sphere relegates the important topics to partisan bickering. Politics is a competitive sport after all.
There is also absolutely no question that there is a Democratic double standard with Reid’s recent racial remarks as compared to the last time a Majority Leader made regrettable comments. Trent Lott’s unfortunate comment at a 100th Birthday Party actually didn’t say anything specific about race issues – the linkage was made by the media to suggest that the compliment honoring Strom Thurmond meant something that could be a code phrase supporting Strom’s previous segregation stance. While the linkage was a jump, it made many people uncomfortable that a leader in the Senate was above reproach on race issues.
Reid’s offensive comments, however, were actually specific to race. No extrapolation needs to be made to understand the derogatory words. What’s even more ironic is that Reid’s remarks were about the leader of his own political party. If Reid would have made the same remarks about a Republican then he would be under more political pressure to resign. However, liberal elites being who they are, the condescending remark by the leader of the Senate was quickly excused by most every Democrat, the President and the Congressional Black Caucus members.
What is clear is that Democratic elites talk privately one way with each other and another way publicly about race issues. Watching liberal elites justify the Reid remark this past weekend (see Al Hunt on This Week) and draw differences with Trent Lott’s non-racial comment about race was as ridiculous as Al Sharpton dismissing the comment on Fox News or Gwen Ifill’s outrageous defense of Reid’s comments on NBC. Liberal elites are tripping over themselves to justify the Reid comment. It’s also clear that the unwavering support to the Democratic Party by African-Americans, women and gays and lesbians feed into these public/private pronouncements on political issues. These groups need to look long and hard at the lessons we have learned this past weekend about the Senate Majority Leader’s racial comments and the rush by Democratic leaders to excuse them. It’s clear that Democrats don’t have to pay attention to the concerns of these groups and can take them for granted.
Another lesson we learned this weekend is that Republicans are not safe discussing the issue of race but Democrats are. The double standard we see based on political party sends the message that Republicans best keep their mouths shut on the issue but Democrats are able to freely discuss sensitive racial matters and are even given a pass on any comments they make that seem offensive. Democrats successfully keep the issue of race as a political issue and thereby relegate it to something we should disagree on.
If Trent Lott was forced to resign as a Senate leader then there is no question that Reid must too. If the liberals now want to dismiss Reid’s comments and instead talk about whether or not we have put too much attention on political gaffes, they should have brought this important subject up during the Trent Lott leadership debate. Today, Republicans get to choose whether to publicly call for Reid’s resignation or whether to use the opportunity to talk about mistakes and forgiveness. The liberal elites, however, will undoubtedly be huddling privately to discuss the matter.
Liberal Elites See No Problem With Reid
Watching Gwen Ifill, Al Sharpton and a plethora of African American news reporters and academics on MSNBC defend and excuse Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s racial slight makes you realize why the Democratic Party can take black voters for granted. There are absolutely no consequences for liberal elites to have differing public and private views on political issues. The Democratic Party even went so far to dismiss the disparaging comments by Joe Biden about Barack Obama being clean and articulate to nominate and confirm him as Vice President at their convention. Today, the sitting Vice President stands as the symbol of liberal elite’s racial double standard.
It is troubling, however, why African American voters (and gay and lesbian voters too) give unwavering and unconditional support to a political party that ignores them once the fundraising is over. Keeping issues of race and equality squarely in the political sphere relegates the important topics to partisan bickering. Politics is a competitive sport after all.
There is also absolutely no question that there is a Democratic double standard with Reid’s recent racial remarks as compared to the last time a Majority Leader made regrettable comments. Trent Lott’s unfortunate comment at a 100th Birthday Party actually didn’t say anything specific about race issues – the linkage was made by the media to suggest that the compliment honoring Strom Thurmond meant something that could be a code phrase supporting Strom’s previous segregation stance. While the linkage was a jump, it made many people uncomfortable that a leader in the Senate was above reproach on race issues.
Reid’s offensive comments, however, were actually specific to race. No extrapolation needs to be made to understand the derogatory words. What’s even more ironic is that Reid’s remarks were about the leader of his own political party. If Reid would have made the same remarks about a Republican then he would be under more political pressure to resign. However, liberal elites being who they are, the condescending remark by the leader of the Senate was quickly excused by most every Democrat, the President and the Congressional Black Caucus members.
What is clear is that Democratic elites talk privately one way with each other and another way publicly about race issues. Watching liberal elites justify the Reid remark this past weekend (see Al Hunt on This Week) and draw differences with Trent Lott’s non-racial comment about race was as ridiculous as Al Sharpton dismissing the comment on Fox News or Gwen Ifill’s outrageous defense of Reid’s comments on NBC. Liberal elites are tripping over themselves to justify the Reid comment. It’s also clear that the unwavering support to the Democratic Party by African-Americans, women and gays and lesbians feed into these public/private pronouncements on political issues. These groups need to look long and hard at the lessons we have learned this past weekend about the Senate Majority Leader’s racial comments and the rush by Democratic leaders to excuse them. It’s clear that Democrats don’t have to pay attention to the concerns of these groups and can take them for granted.
Another lesson we learned this weekend is that Republicans are not safe discussing the issue of race but Democrats are. The double standard we see based on political party sends the message that Republicans best keep their mouths shut on the issue but Democrats are able to freely discuss sensitive racial matters and are even given a pass on any comments they make that seem offensive. Democrats successfully keep the issue of race as a political issue and thereby relegate it to something we should disagree on.
If Trent Lott was forced to resign as a Senate leader then there is no question that Reid must too. If the liberals now want to dismiss Reid’s comments and instead talk about whether or not we have put too much attention on political gaffes, they should have brought this important subject up during the Trent Lott leadership debate. Today, Republicans get to choose whether to publicly call for Reid’s resignation or whether to use the opportunity to talk about mistakes and forgiveness. The liberal elites, however, will undoubtedly be huddling privately to discuss the matter.
harry reid scrambles to look clean and articulate
politico.com/ richard grenell on harry reid
Two words – Trent Lott. There is absolutely no question that there is a Democratic double standard with Reid’s racial remarks. Trent Lott’s unfortunate comment at a 100th Birthday Party actually didn’t say anything specific about race issues – the linkage was made by the media to suggest that the compliment honoring Strom Thurmond meant something that could be a code phrase supporting Strom’s previous segregation stance. While the linkage was a jump, it made many people uncomfortable that a leader in the Senate was above reproach on race issues.
Reid’s offensive comments, however, were actually specific to race. No extrapolation needs to be made to understand the derogatory words. What’s even more ironic is that Reid’s remarks were about the leader of his own political party. If Reid would have made the same remarks about a Republican then he would be under more political pressure to resign. However, liberal elites being who they are, the condescending remark by the leader of the Senate was quickly excused by most every Democrat, the President and the Congressional Black Caucus members.
What is clear is that Democratic elites talk privately one way with each other and another way publicly about race issues (see Vice President Joe Biden’s racial remarks about Obama). Watching liberal elites justify the Reid remark this past weekend (see Al Hunt on This Week) and draw differences with Trent Lott’s non-racial comment about race was as ridiculous as Al Sharpton dismissing the comment on Fox News (see Sunday’s transcript) or Gwen Ifill’s outrageous defense of Reid’s comments on NBC. Liberal elites are tripping over themselves to justify the Reid comment. It’s also clear that the unwavering support to the Democratic party by African-Americans, women and gays and lesbians feed into these public/private pronouncements on political issues. These groups need to look long and hard at the lessons we have learned this past weekend about the Senate Majority Leader’s racial comments and the rush by Democratic leaders to excuse them. Democrats don’t have to pay attention to the concerns of these groups because there is no price to pay for ignoring and dismissing them.
Another lesson we have learned this weekend is that Republicans are not safe discussing the issue of race but Democrats are. The double standard we see based on political party sends the message that Republicans best keep their mouths shut on the issue but Democrats are able to freely discuss sensitive racial matters and are even given a pass on any comments they make that seem offensive. Democrats successfully keep the issue of race as a political issue and thereby relegate it to something we should disagree on.
If Trent Lott was forced to resign as a Senate leader then there is no question that Reid must too. If the liberals now want to dismiss Reid’s comments and instead talk about whether or not we have put too much attention on political gaffes, they should have brought this important subject up during the Trent Lott leadership debate. Today, Republicans get to choose whether to call for Reid’s resignation or whether to use the opportunity to talk about mistakes and forgiveness.
Two words – Trent Lott. There is absolutely no question that there is a Democratic double standard with Reid’s racial remarks. Trent Lott’s unfortunate comment at a 100th Birthday Party actually didn’t say anything specific about race issues – the linkage was made by the media to suggest that the compliment honoring Strom Thurmond meant something that could be a code phrase supporting Strom’s previous segregation stance. While the linkage was a jump, it made many people uncomfortable that a leader in the Senate was above reproach on race issues.
Reid’s offensive comments, however, were actually specific to race. No extrapolation needs to be made to understand the derogatory words. What’s even more ironic is that Reid’s remarks were about the leader of his own political party. If Reid would have made the same remarks about a Republican then he would be under more political pressure to resign. However, liberal elites being who they are, the condescending remark by the leader of the Senate was quickly excused by most every Democrat, the President and the Congressional Black Caucus members.
What is clear is that Democratic elites talk privately one way with each other and another way publicly about race issues (see Vice President Joe Biden’s racial remarks about Obama). Watching liberal elites justify the Reid remark this past weekend (see Al Hunt on This Week) and draw differences with Trent Lott’s non-racial comment about race was as ridiculous as Al Sharpton dismissing the comment on Fox News (see Sunday’s transcript) or Gwen Ifill’s outrageous defense of Reid’s comments on NBC. Liberal elites are tripping over themselves to justify the Reid comment. It’s also clear that the unwavering support to the Democratic party by African-Americans, women and gays and lesbians feed into these public/private pronouncements on political issues. These groups need to look long and hard at the lessons we have learned this past weekend about the Senate Majority Leader’s racial comments and the rush by Democratic leaders to excuse them. Democrats don’t have to pay attention to the concerns of these groups because there is no price to pay for ignoring and dismissing them.
Another lesson we have learned this weekend is that Republicans are not safe discussing the issue of race but Democrats are. The double standard we see based on political party sends the message that Republicans best keep their mouths shut on the issue but Democrats are able to freely discuss sensitive racial matters and are even given a pass on any comments they make that seem offensive. Democrats successfully keep the issue of race as a political issue and thereby relegate it to something we should disagree on.
If Trent Lott was forced to resign as a Senate leader then there is no question that Reid must too. If the liberals now want to dismiss Reid’s comments and instead talk about whether or not we have put too much attention on political gaffes, they should have brought this important subject up during the Trent Lott leadership debate. Today, Republicans get to choose whether to call for Reid’s resignation or whether to use the opportunity to talk about mistakes and forgiveness.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
hillary's visa problem
big government.com/hillary's visa problem
Hillary’s Visa Problem
President Obama came back to work this week after leaving the Presidency for his Hawaiian holiday vacation. Hawaii proved to be a restful retreat for the President, his team and the White House press corps who all took time off from their regular duties to enjoy the Hawaiian sun and ignore their responsibilities.
But after 10 days of tropical silence, this week there is a sudden flurry of security reviews, media statements, ass-covering and more misstatements coming out of Washington from the Obama Administration. But we still don’t know why the State Department didn’t revoke the visa of a man they knew had ties to al-qaeda.
Even the normally workaholic Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was enjoying a silent 10 nights on the matter. Taking her time to get the facts and pack up the Christmas decorations, Hillary finally came out looking like she had just landed in Yugoslavia under sniper fire. Secretary Clinton joined Janet Napolitano in glossing over the facts surrounding the Christmas Day attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253. Not to be outdone that all went well with her agency while the boss was on vacation, Secretary Clinton said that the State Department “fully complied with the requirements set forth in the interagency process" about sharing threat information. What? Fully complied? The State Department not only failed to share the threat information with a variety of agencies but those who had the information didn’t even act upon it themselves. In fact, Several State Department officials in Nigeria and Washington, DC didn’t even do the basic tasks expected of public servants working to protect Americans.
Not only did the State Department not comply with all the requirements Secretary Clinton had said, but the State Department also violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 1735 by not providing the new information they received on an al-qaeda suspect to the UN. We know that State Department officials in Nigeria and Washington had the information because someone wrote a top secret cable dated November 20, 2009 explaining that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had ties to al-qaeda. This means that the State Department had 35 days to revoke Adbulmutallab’s visa and share the information with the UN – it failed to do either.
Had the State Department shared the cable with other U.S. agencies or given the information to the UN, as required under the Chapter 7 Resolution, all Nations would have been obligated to deny entry and freeze the assets of anyone officially on the UN’s Terrorist List.
The smoking gun is the November 20 State Department cable that wasn’t acted upon. No one shared it with the Embassy visa section, other U.S. agencies or the UN. How could a top secret cable be written but not acted upon by the same Embassy that wrote it? Questions remain as to who approved the cable, where was it sent and why wasn’t a visa revoked because of the cable?
U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria Robin Sanders and Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Johnnie Carson need to answer some questions about what they did with the November 20, 2009 top secret cable containing crucial national security information. Did they ignore the fact that their Embassy identified an al-qaeda operative? Did they not check to see if a visa was already granted to this al-qaeda operative? Who all approved the visa? Who read the cable? At the very minimum, Ambassador Robin Sanders needs to tell the American people why she didn’t revoke the visa of Abdulmutallab after her team originally approved it.
What we’ve learned since Janet Napolitano and Hillary Clinton thought everything went as bureaucratically expected on Christmas Day is that President Obama takes surf board accidents on his vacation very seriously but is willing to delegate the safety of the American public to subordinates.
Hillary’s Visa Problem
President Obama came back to work this week after leaving the Presidency for his Hawaiian holiday vacation. Hawaii proved to be a restful retreat for the President, his team and the White House press corps who all took time off from their regular duties to enjoy the Hawaiian sun and ignore their responsibilities.
But after 10 days of tropical silence, this week there is a sudden flurry of security reviews, media statements, ass-covering and more misstatements coming out of Washington from the Obama Administration. But we still don’t know why the State Department didn’t revoke the visa of a man they knew had ties to al-qaeda.
Even the normally workaholic Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was enjoying a silent 10 nights on the matter. Taking her time to get the facts and pack up the Christmas decorations, Hillary finally came out looking like she had just landed in Yugoslavia under sniper fire. Secretary Clinton joined Janet Napolitano in glossing over the facts surrounding the Christmas Day attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253. Not to be outdone that all went well with her agency while the boss was on vacation, Secretary Clinton said that the State Department “fully complied with the requirements set forth in the interagency process" about sharing threat information. What? Fully complied? The State Department not only failed to share the threat information with a variety of agencies but those who had the information didn’t even act upon it themselves. In fact, Several State Department officials in Nigeria and Washington, DC didn’t even do the basic tasks expected of public servants working to protect Americans.
Not only did the State Department not comply with all the requirements Secretary Clinton had said, but the State Department also violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 1735 by not providing the new information they received on an al-qaeda suspect to the UN. We know that State Department officials in Nigeria and Washington had the information because someone wrote a top secret cable dated November 20, 2009 explaining that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had ties to al-qaeda. This means that the State Department had 35 days to revoke Adbulmutallab’s visa and share the information with the UN – it failed to do either.
Had the State Department shared the cable with other U.S. agencies or given the information to the UN, as required under the Chapter 7 Resolution, all Nations would have been obligated to deny entry and freeze the assets of anyone officially on the UN’s Terrorist List.
The smoking gun is the November 20 State Department cable that wasn’t acted upon. No one shared it with the Embassy visa section, other U.S. agencies or the UN. How could a top secret cable be written but not acted upon by the same Embassy that wrote it? Questions remain as to who approved the cable, where was it sent and why wasn’t a visa revoked because of the cable?
U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria Robin Sanders and Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Johnnie Carson need to answer some questions about what they did with the November 20, 2009 top secret cable containing crucial national security information. Did they ignore the fact that their Embassy identified an al-qaeda operative? Did they not check to see if a visa was already granted to this al-qaeda operative? Who all approved the visa? Who read the cable? At the very minimum, Ambassador Robin Sanders needs to tell the American people why she didn’t revoke the visa of Abdulmutallab after her team originally approved it.
What we’ve learned since Janet Napolitano and Hillary Clinton thought everything went as bureaucratically expected on Christmas Day is that President Obama takes surf board accidents on his vacation very seriously but is willing to delegate the safety of the American public to subordinates.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
obama's foreign policy year in review
al-jazeera/ a year of little change
Barack Obama’s First Year in Foreign Policy
This past year has not been a successful year for the 44th President of the United States. Although the Barack Obama Administration has had the incredible luxury of having its own political party – the Democrats – control the House of Representatives and the Senate by wide margins, there has been little progress on domestic and international issues. Obama and his team have the ability to pass any bill and create any new law they want without relying on a single Republican vote. And yet, the Obama Administration has failed to capitalize on that advantage. As Obama came into office, he promised lots of change. But so far, not much has changed. Domestically, the United States is facing the largest unemployment in decades and the American budget deficit is at an all time high. Internationally, the United States may now appear to be more popular but it’s largely because we aren’t asking countries to do much these days. The Obama team isn’t leading the world. They have chosen the easy path of non-confrontation. Copenhagen is proof. Sadly, the Administration has confused popularity with progress. Let’s take a closer look at a few of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy priorities over the last year:
Iran
Consecutive United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iran were passed during the Bush Administration and the pressure was placed on the Iranian government to stop enriching uranium. Resolution 1737 imposed strict sanctions on the Government of Iran and was passed unanimously by the Security Council on December 23, 2006 after weeks of negotiations and stalling tactics from China and Russia. Resolutions 1696, 1747 and 1803, all passed during the Bush Administration, kept the pressure mounting on Iran to abide by the international community’s demands to suspend all nuclear enrichment activity. Despite grumblings from Security Council members about having to vote for such measures, the Bush Administration forced the votes and in the end was able to get multiple resolutions passed with unanimous support. Where Bush successfully isolated the Government of Iran, the Obama Administration has eased the pressure on them and the members of the Security Council. Instead of building on all of the work that had been done to negotiate sanctions, the Obama Administration pushed the “reset button” and started over, thereby releasing the mounting pressure. The Russians and Chinese were relieved that UN resolution negotiations were not proceeding with urgency. China and Russia even complimented the Obama Administration as a group of “good listeners” and the new process as “respectful”. The Government of Iran, too, was pleased to have more time to enrich uranium and less pressure to stop their delivery system testing. The Obama Administration hasn’t produced a single UN Security Council resolution on Iran since it took office – the last one passed by President Bush a full 15 months ago. The Obama Administration’s policy on Iran has been a complete failure and has only strengthened Iran’s resolve.
Afghanistan/Pakistan
President Obama’s December announcement that he will send 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan was a welcomed sign for the peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Although the Obama team spent too much time fretting over their decision to add the troops because it would upset activists in the Democratic Party, Obama’s decision was a courageous one. Democratic leaders, however, are not pleased with the President’s decision. Nancy Pelosi recently said that it will be up to President Obama to make his own case for the troop increase because lawmakers are skeptical and Dennis Kucinich has vowed to offer a bill that would pull all American troops from Afghanistan immediately. President Obama is now in the uncomfortable position of having to count on Republicans to support his troop increase decision and give him one of his few victories this year. Obama’s announcement now makes the war in Afghanistan his war to win or lose. In Pakistan, the Obama team has a mixed record over the last year. While making the Afghanistan announcement in conjunction with a new robust strategy to confront terrorists in Pakistan, the Obama team has signaled their willingness to think strategically in the region. For America, a successful Afghanistan strategy can only be achieved when al-qaeda and the Taliban are wiped out in both countries – Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghanistan alone is of no strategic value to the United States. While we hope that democracy can be achieved for the people of Afghanistan and that they will be able to have a greater quality of life, these pursuits of human rights and development should be led by the United Nations. Pakistan, however, is a more important strategic partner for the United States and Obama has yet to recognize it. Ensuring that the Government of Pakistan is able to deal with its extremists should be a top priority for America. So far, Obama has not been able to develop a strategy to deal with President Asif Zadari and the growing anti-Americanism in his country.
Iraq
Candidate Obama promised to pull troops from Iraq as soon as he took office. But President Obama learned that it wasn’t possible. Republicans were pleased that Obama took the advice of his military advisors and changed his policy but his Democratic colleagues have continued to complain about a campaign promise that is still unfulfilled. In trying to capitalize on the growing American frustration over the lack of progress in Iraq, candidate Obama outmaneuvered Hilary Clinton and then John McCain. The many Americans who voted for Obama because they wanted the troops to come home from Iraq have also been disappointed. But the Administration is gambling that an emphasis on a troop increase in Afghanistan and a new robust strategy for Pakistan will insulate them from charges of military weakness in Iraq.
Israel and Palestine
Perhaps the one issue that brought Arabs around the world the most hope for progress with the election of Barack Obama was the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Even some in America were hopeful that Obama would be able to reassure the Palestinians and America’s historical tie with Israel would be sufficient enough to bring the parties together to form a permanent peace. But Barack Obama stumbled early on with his Cairo speech and his directive on settlements. He failed to challenge Arabs to act during his Cairo speech and it was seen by Israel and many in America as a missed opportunity. His public instruction that Israel cease all settlement activity was also a misstep. American Presidents can privately cajole and push the parties to negotiate but no American President can dictate to the parties what should be done. Obama must learn that the Palestinians and the Israelis must each bargain and agree to the terms of any peace deal on their own if it is to last.
Barack Obama’s First Year in Foreign Policy
This past year has not been a successful year for the 44th President of the United States. Although the Barack Obama Administration has had the incredible luxury of having its own political party – the Democrats – control the House of Representatives and the Senate by wide margins, there has been little progress on domestic and international issues. Obama and his team have the ability to pass any bill and create any new law they want without relying on a single Republican vote. And yet, the Obama Administration has failed to capitalize on that advantage. As Obama came into office, he promised lots of change. But so far, not much has changed. Domestically, the United States is facing the largest unemployment in decades and the American budget deficit is at an all time high. Internationally, the United States may now appear to be more popular but it’s largely because we aren’t asking countries to do much these days. The Obama team isn’t leading the world. They have chosen the easy path of non-confrontation. Copenhagen is proof. Sadly, the Administration has confused popularity with progress. Let’s take a closer look at a few of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy priorities over the last year:
Iran
Consecutive United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iran were passed during the Bush Administration and the pressure was placed on the Iranian government to stop enriching uranium. Resolution 1737 imposed strict sanctions on the Government of Iran and was passed unanimously by the Security Council on December 23, 2006 after weeks of negotiations and stalling tactics from China and Russia. Resolutions 1696, 1747 and 1803, all passed during the Bush Administration, kept the pressure mounting on Iran to abide by the international community’s demands to suspend all nuclear enrichment activity. Despite grumblings from Security Council members about having to vote for such measures, the Bush Administration forced the votes and in the end was able to get multiple resolutions passed with unanimous support. Where Bush successfully isolated the Government of Iran, the Obama Administration has eased the pressure on them and the members of the Security Council. Instead of building on all of the work that had been done to negotiate sanctions, the Obama Administration pushed the “reset button” and started over, thereby releasing the mounting pressure. The Russians and Chinese were relieved that UN resolution negotiations were not proceeding with urgency. China and Russia even complimented the Obama Administration as a group of “good listeners” and the new process as “respectful”. The Government of Iran, too, was pleased to have more time to enrich uranium and less pressure to stop their delivery system testing. The Obama Administration hasn’t produced a single UN Security Council resolution on Iran since it took office – the last one passed by President Bush a full 15 months ago. The Obama Administration’s policy on Iran has been a complete failure and has only strengthened Iran’s resolve.
Afghanistan/Pakistan
President Obama’s December announcement that he will send 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan was a welcomed sign for the peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Although the Obama team spent too much time fretting over their decision to add the troops because it would upset activists in the Democratic Party, Obama’s decision was a courageous one. Democratic leaders, however, are not pleased with the President’s decision. Nancy Pelosi recently said that it will be up to President Obama to make his own case for the troop increase because lawmakers are skeptical and Dennis Kucinich has vowed to offer a bill that would pull all American troops from Afghanistan immediately. President Obama is now in the uncomfortable position of having to count on Republicans to support his troop increase decision and give him one of his few victories this year. Obama’s announcement now makes the war in Afghanistan his war to win or lose. In Pakistan, the Obama team has a mixed record over the last year. While making the Afghanistan announcement in conjunction with a new robust strategy to confront terrorists in Pakistan, the Obama team has signaled their willingness to think strategically in the region. For America, a successful Afghanistan strategy can only be achieved when al-qaeda and the Taliban are wiped out in both countries – Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghanistan alone is of no strategic value to the United States. While we hope that democracy can be achieved for the people of Afghanistan and that they will be able to have a greater quality of life, these pursuits of human rights and development should be led by the United Nations. Pakistan, however, is a more important strategic partner for the United States and Obama has yet to recognize it. Ensuring that the Government of Pakistan is able to deal with its extremists should be a top priority for America. So far, Obama has not been able to develop a strategy to deal with President Asif Zadari and the growing anti-Americanism in his country.
Iraq
Candidate Obama promised to pull troops from Iraq as soon as he took office. But President Obama learned that it wasn’t possible. Republicans were pleased that Obama took the advice of his military advisors and changed his policy but his Democratic colleagues have continued to complain about a campaign promise that is still unfulfilled. In trying to capitalize on the growing American frustration over the lack of progress in Iraq, candidate Obama outmaneuvered Hilary Clinton and then John McCain. The many Americans who voted for Obama because they wanted the troops to come home from Iraq have also been disappointed. But the Administration is gambling that an emphasis on a troop increase in Afghanistan and a new robust strategy for Pakistan will insulate them from charges of military weakness in Iraq.
Israel and Palestine
Perhaps the one issue that brought Arabs around the world the most hope for progress with the election of Barack Obama was the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Even some in America were hopeful that Obama would be able to reassure the Palestinians and America’s historical tie with Israel would be sufficient enough to bring the parties together to form a permanent peace. But Barack Obama stumbled early on with his Cairo speech and his directive on settlements. He failed to challenge Arabs to act during his Cairo speech and it was seen by Israel and many in America as a missed opportunity. His public instruction that Israel cease all settlement activity was also a misstep. American Presidents can privately cajole and push the parties to negotiate but no American President can dictate to the parties what should be done. Obama must learn that the Palestinians and the Israelis must each bargain and agree to the terms of any peace deal on their own if it is to last.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
you're doing a heck of a job, janet
huff post - grenell on napolitano
Janet Napolitano Is Doing a Heck of a Job.
Remember when President Bush told FEMA Director Michael Brown he was doing a heck of a job with the Hurricane Katrina response? Now comes Janet Napolitano.
Napolitano’s characterization and subsequent spin that “the system worked” in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab’s Detroit terror scare proves that she isn’t qualified to be the head of Homeland Security in a post-9/11 world. The Christmas Day terrorism scare over Detroit was a test and she failed it.
Roughly eight years has passed since 2,973 people were killed on September 11, 2001 because terrorists boarded a plane and used it as a weapon. This week, another terrorist successfully boarded a plane with the intent of using it as a weapon against Americans – just like on September 11, 2001. And Janet Napolitano, the woman charged with keeping us safe, thinks all went well. We are lucky that Abdulmuttalab’s bomb failed to go off as he planned. We are also lucky to find out now that Napolitano isn’t equipped to lead a massive agency designed to keep us safe from international terrorists. Napolitano should resign and if she fails to do so then President Obama should ask for her resignation and replace her immediately. Napolitano should be replaced before she has to deal with an incident far greater than the one she just glossed over. Whatever her spin is now of her initial reaction to a major terrorist breach of security isn’t sufficient. Americans have lost faith in Janet Napolitano.
It’s not that Napolitano wasn’t a good Arizona Attorney General or Governor – she may well have been. Since I have never lived in Arizona I don’t have an opinion on her tenure and legacy. But the idea that a politician is equipped to lead a national agency charged with keeping Americans safe just because she worked her way up the Arizona political ladder is naïve and dangerous. Being the Secretary of Homeland Security is a serious job that requires thoughtful expertise in complicated international issues and shouldn’t be a political reward. Napolitano doesn’t have the international experience or the anti-terrorism background needed to lead an agency with over 200,000 employees and a budget of more than $50 billion. Napolitano’s experience in immigration and border issues from her days in Arizona equip her for the United States Border Control Agency or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But it is clear that she isn’t qualified to be Secretary of Homeland Security. With politics being what it is – patronage for political colleagues - she flew through the confirmation process with little questioning from the Democratically controlled Senate. Most Americans now have lost faith in her ability to keep us safe from terrorists in the sky or on land. She has proven to be a weak link in a critical role and President Obama should let her go.
But don’t count on a rational decision coming out of the White House on this issue anytime soon. It took President Obama 3 full days to break away from his Hawaii trip to respond to this serious breach in security that affects every American. When Obama finally spoke about the incident he said, “We will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable.” Of course, he did rest and for 3 days. Americans would have more confidence in President Obama and Janet Napolitano if he would have spoken these words immediately after the incident instead of golfing in Hawaii and lounging poolside for several days; and if she would have ordered an immediate review of all airline security procedures - not suggested that all went as planned. The idea that a large airliner was almost blown from the sky if not for luck and our President went to play golf without speaking to nervous Americans is scary enough but sending out his Secretary of Homeland Security to tell us all went well is even more troubling. We want to believe the President when he said on February 23, 2009, “My highest priority is to keep the American people safe.” But if his top priority is to keep us safe from terrorists then he needs to replace an obvious weak link in the system.
Luck and luck alone averted a major terrorist attack on American soil on Christmas Day 2009. And the Obama team failed to take the incident seriously. A full four days after the foiled attack someone in the Administration finally got around to requesting a full review of airline procedures. It is pretty clear that the Obama team isn’t as experienced in fighting terrorism as they should be. Less than a year into the Obama Administration’s term and its clear we need some change in leadership – Napolitano must go.
Janet Napolitano Is Doing a Heck of a Job.
Remember when President Bush told FEMA Director Michael Brown he was doing a heck of a job with the Hurricane Katrina response? Now comes Janet Napolitano.
Napolitano’s characterization and subsequent spin that “the system worked” in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab’s Detroit terror scare proves that she isn’t qualified to be the head of Homeland Security in a post-9/11 world. The Christmas Day terrorism scare over Detroit was a test and she failed it.
Roughly eight years has passed since 2,973 people were killed on September 11, 2001 because terrorists boarded a plane and used it as a weapon. This week, another terrorist successfully boarded a plane with the intent of using it as a weapon against Americans – just like on September 11, 2001. And Janet Napolitano, the woman charged with keeping us safe, thinks all went well. We are lucky that Abdulmuttalab’s bomb failed to go off as he planned. We are also lucky to find out now that Napolitano isn’t equipped to lead a massive agency designed to keep us safe from international terrorists. Napolitano should resign and if she fails to do so then President Obama should ask for her resignation and replace her immediately. Napolitano should be replaced before she has to deal with an incident far greater than the one she just glossed over. Whatever her spin is now of her initial reaction to a major terrorist breach of security isn’t sufficient. Americans have lost faith in Janet Napolitano.
It’s not that Napolitano wasn’t a good Arizona Attorney General or Governor – she may well have been. Since I have never lived in Arizona I don’t have an opinion on her tenure and legacy. But the idea that a politician is equipped to lead a national agency charged with keeping Americans safe just because she worked her way up the Arizona political ladder is naïve and dangerous. Being the Secretary of Homeland Security is a serious job that requires thoughtful expertise in complicated international issues and shouldn’t be a political reward. Napolitano doesn’t have the international experience or the anti-terrorism background needed to lead an agency with over 200,000 employees and a budget of more than $50 billion. Napolitano’s experience in immigration and border issues from her days in Arizona equip her for the United States Border Control Agency or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But it is clear that she isn’t qualified to be Secretary of Homeland Security. With politics being what it is – patronage for political colleagues - she flew through the confirmation process with little questioning from the Democratically controlled Senate. Most Americans now have lost faith in her ability to keep us safe from terrorists in the sky or on land. She has proven to be a weak link in a critical role and President Obama should let her go.
But don’t count on a rational decision coming out of the White House on this issue anytime soon. It took President Obama 3 full days to break away from his Hawaii trip to respond to this serious breach in security that affects every American. When Obama finally spoke about the incident he said, “We will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable.” Of course, he did rest and for 3 days. Americans would have more confidence in President Obama and Janet Napolitano if he would have spoken these words immediately after the incident instead of golfing in Hawaii and lounging poolside for several days; and if she would have ordered an immediate review of all airline security procedures - not suggested that all went as planned. The idea that a large airliner was almost blown from the sky if not for luck and our President went to play golf without speaking to nervous Americans is scary enough but sending out his Secretary of Homeland Security to tell us all went well is even more troubling. We want to believe the President when he said on February 23, 2009, “My highest priority is to keep the American people safe.” But if his top priority is to keep us safe from terrorists then he needs to replace an obvious weak link in the system.
Luck and luck alone averted a major terrorist attack on American soil on Christmas Day 2009. And the Obama team failed to take the incident seriously. A full four days after the foiled attack someone in the Administration finally got around to requesting a full review of airline procedures. It is pretty clear that the Obama team isn’t as experienced in fighting terrorism as they should be. Less than a year into the Obama Administration’s term and its clear we need some change in leadership – Napolitano must go.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
obama's popularity isn't translating into progress
huffington post/front page
Obama’s Popularity Isn’t Translating Into Progress
The White House staff should never allow Barack Obama to go to Copenhagen again. The last time Obama went to Copenhagen the United States got thrown out of the 2016 Olympic bidding process in the first round. This last week, Obama went to Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change Conference and he lost an international agreement on one of his priority issues. If Obama can’t convince the international community to go along with one of his signature issues then the President’s clout isn’t what some Americans claim it is. Other than healthcare reform, President Obama has talked about global warming and climate change issues more than almost any other issue during the campaign and since taking office. The Copenhagen disaster is a real sign of Obama’s shallow influence internationally.
The biggest news coming out of Copenhagen, but not covered by the American media, is that Obama hasn’t been able to convince other Countries to act even though he is the most popular Head of State. One year into Obama’s Presidency and the international community has yet to take action on any U.S. priority. You have to wonder why world leaders claim to love him but won’t follow him.
Obama’s popularity and charisma failed to convince the world to bring the Olympics to the U.S., to sign the Copenhagen agreement, to produce new additional NATO troops for Afghanistan or Iraq, to produce any additional action on confronting Iran’s continued uranium enrichment and even to convince his own Democratic party to support some of his priority issues.
Candidate Obama received the media’s overt support throughout the primary and general elections and became an international super star. Today, Barack or Michelle Obama continue to appear on large and medium sized magazine covers from health and fitness publications to news periodicals to cooking and sports magazines and in nearly every language.
But Copenhagen has shown that we shouldn’t confuse Obama’s popularity with progress. He is clearly popular in other countries but it is because he isn’t asking them to act. Or if he is, he isn’t strong enough to convince them. They love the easy ride.
Iran’s illegal enrichment of uranium is a perfect example of Obama’s weakness. During the Bush Administration, President Bush and his team were able to isolate Iran and organize the international community to produce Security Council sanctions and a total of 3 UN resolutions. Although forcing the Security Council to negotiate and ultimately vote on tough resolutions is never easy and always unpopular, it is an important leadership test. China, Russia and others weren’t happy to be forced to confront Iran – but ultimately Iran sanctions were passed with unanimous support.
The Obama team has chosen to take the easy and popular path. There has been no increase in sanctions or additional UN resolutions on Iran since the Bush Administration ended. In fact, multiple deadlines have passed without repercussions for the Government of Iran. Enrichment continues at multiple sites in Iran even though the UN Security Council has demanded the Government suspend enrichment with verification.
Obama’s popularity may produce large crowds and warm compliments, but one thing I learned while serving 8 years at the United Nations is to be suspicious when you are the most popular guy in a room full of international negotiators.
Obama’s Popularity Isn’t Translating Into Progress
The White House staff should never allow Barack Obama to go to Copenhagen again. The last time Obama went to Copenhagen the United States got thrown out of the 2016 Olympic bidding process in the first round. This last week, Obama went to Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change Conference and he lost an international agreement on one of his priority issues. If Obama can’t convince the international community to go along with one of his signature issues then the President’s clout isn’t what some Americans claim it is. Other than healthcare reform, President Obama has talked about global warming and climate change issues more than almost any other issue during the campaign and since taking office. The Copenhagen disaster is a real sign of Obama’s shallow influence internationally.
The biggest news coming out of Copenhagen, but not covered by the American media, is that Obama hasn’t been able to convince other Countries to act even though he is the most popular Head of State. One year into Obama’s Presidency and the international community has yet to take action on any U.S. priority. You have to wonder why world leaders claim to love him but won’t follow him.
Obama’s popularity and charisma failed to convince the world to bring the Olympics to the U.S., to sign the Copenhagen agreement, to produce new additional NATO troops for Afghanistan or Iraq, to produce any additional action on confronting Iran’s continued uranium enrichment and even to convince his own Democratic party to support some of his priority issues.
Candidate Obama received the media’s overt support throughout the primary and general elections and became an international super star. Today, Barack or Michelle Obama continue to appear on large and medium sized magazine covers from health and fitness publications to news periodicals to cooking and sports magazines and in nearly every language.
But Copenhagen has shown that we shouldn’t confuse Obama’s popularity with progress. He is clearly popular in other countries but it is because he isn’t asking them to act. Or if he is, he isn’t strong enough to convince them. They love the easy ride.
Iran’s illegal enrichment of uranium is a perfect example of Obama’s weakness. During the Bush Administration, President Bush and his team were able to isolate Iran and organize the international community to produce Security Council sanctions and a total of 3 UN resolutions. Although forcing the Security Council to negotiate and ultimately vote on tough resolutions is never easy and always unpopular, it is an important leadership test. China, Russia and others weren’t happy to be forced to confront Iran – but ultimately Iran sanctions were passed with unanimous support.
The Obama team has chosen to take the easy and popular path. There has been no increase in sanctions or additional UN resolutions on Iran since the Bush Administration ended. In fact, multiple deadlines have passed without repercussions for the Government of Iran. Enrichment continues at multiple sites in Iran even though the UN Security Council has demanded the Government suspend enrichment with verification.
Obama’s popularity may produce large crowds and warm compliments, but one thing I learned while serving 8 years at the United Nations is to be suspicious when you are the most popular guy in a room full of international negotiators.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
pelosi ignores the gay marriage issue because there are no consequences
cbsnews.com/pelosi and grenell
So What Will Pelosi Do About DC Gay Marriage?
By Richard Grenell
Nancy Pelosi represents the gayest congressional district in the United States. She also happens to be the most powerful person, woman or man, in the House of Representatives. With one simple directive she can force 435 Members of Congress from across the United States to vote on any piece of legislation she wants. Healthcare legislation, immigration reform, tax increases or gay marriage are all issues that Speaker Nancy Pelosi can choose to have voted on by Congress. She could schedule a vote at 3 a.m. and members would be expected to appear. She alone gets to decide what the House of Representatives votes on and when it votes. But will Pelosi pass the DC gay marriage bill -- one of her district's most important issues -- before the end of the year? What is she waiting for? She has the power to do it immediately and DC needs Congressional approval to move forward with equal rights for all citizens.
Nancy Pelosi also has a Democratic partner over in the Senate in Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid has the same power in the Senate with the 100 members that Nancy Pelosi has in the House of Representatives. Together, Pelosi and Reid have a Democratic President in Barack Obama. It isn’t an overstatement to say that these three Democrats – Pelosi, Reid and Obama – can force any issue to a vote and make that issue a law. All Pelosi, Reid and Obama have to do is get their own party to go along with their ideas – no Republicans are needed to go along with the Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda. Not one Republican is needed to enact new laws. None. Zero.
So why aren’t these three Democrats passing new laws and making changes? Where is the gay marriage law they promised when they were put in charge and the Republicans were run out of office?
The answer, of course, is and has always been that America is not ready for gay marriage. Nearly every public poll taken has shown that the electorate, albeit the public at large, is not ready. Pelosi, Reid and Obama are only reading public opinion surveys when they delay votes on gay issues. Even California, the most liberal state in the nation, wasn’t able to get the electorate to see the value of equal rights for all. But the Nation’s Capital has and now needs Pelosi’s support.
What is needed to pass gay marriage is not a Democratic majority – this past year has proven that to be true – but politicians and judges comfortable enough to ignore what the majority of the voters want and do what is uncomfortable, unpopular - and morally right. Equal rights should not be debatable and certainly should not be put to a vote of the people. Would we ask the electorate to vote on whether or not Catholics and Protestants should marry? Of course we would not. The Catholic Church or the local evangelical church should not be forced to bless the new union of a divorced woman if they don’t want to. But civil governments don’t make the same distinctions. While religious institutions should be able to pick and choose which unions they bless, civil governments should issue marriage licenses to all couples.
But the more that the gay leaders raise money for and give unconditional support to Democratic politicians, the more Democratic leaders are encouraged to take gay marriage voters for granted. Anyone who is still holding out for the Democrats to be the gayest political party is now part of the problem. The more gay marriage is made a political issue the longer gays will be treated as less than and unequal. Equal rights should not be a partisan political issue so why are all gay leaders in one political party?
Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have to pay attention to gays because there is no price to pay for ignoring them.
So What Will Pelosi Do About DC Gay Marriage?
By Richard Grenell
Nancy Pelosi represents the gayest congressional district in the United States. She also happens to be the most powerful person, woman or man, in the House of Representatives. With one simple directive she can force 435 Members of Congress from across the United States to vote on any piece of legislation she wants. Healthcare legislation, immigration reform, tax increases or gay marriage are all issues that Speaker Nancy Pelosi can choose to have voted on by Congress. She could schedule a vote at 3 a.m. and members would be expected to appear. She alone gets to decide what the House of Representatives votes on and when it votes. But will Pelosi pass the DC gay marriage bill -- one of her district's most important issues -- before the end of the year? What is she waiting for? She has the power to do it immediately and DC needs Congressional approval to move forward with equal rights for all citizens.
Nancy Pelosi also has a Democratic partner over in the Senate in Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid has the same power in the Senate with the 100 members that Nancy Pelosi has in the House of Representatives. Together, Pelosi and Reid have a Democratic President in Barack Obama. It isn’t an overstatement to say that these three Democrats – Pelosi, Reid and Obama – can force any issue to a vote and make that issue a law. All Pelosi, Reid and Obama have to do is get their own party to go along with their ideas – no Republicans are needed to go along with the Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda. Not one Republican is needed to enact new laws. None. Zero.
So why aren’t these three Democrats passing new laws and making changes? Where is the gay marriage law they promised when they were put in charge and the Republicans were run out of office?
The answer, of course, is and has always been that America is not ready for gay marriage. Nearly every public poll taken has shown that the electorate, albeit the public at large, is not ready. Pelosi, Reid and Obama are only reading public opinion surveys when they delay votes on gay issues. Even California, the most liberal state in the nation, wasn’t able to get the electorate to see the value of equal rights for all. But the Nation’s Capital has and now needs Pelosi’s support.
What is needed to pass gay marriage is not a Democratic majority – this past year has proven that to be true – but politicians and judges comfortable enough to ignore what the majority of the voters want and do what is uncomfortable, unpopular - and morally right. Equal rights should not be debatable and certainly should not be put to a vote of the people. Would we ask the electorate to vote on whether or not Catholics and Protestants should marry? Of course we would not. The Catholic Church or the local evangelical church should not be forced to bless the new union of a divorced woman if they don’t want to. But civil governments don’t make the same distinctions. While religious institutions should be able to pick and choose which unions they bless, civil governments should issue marriage licenses to all couples.
But the more that the gay leaders raise money for and give unconditional support to Democratic politicians, the more Democratic leaders are encouraged to take gay marriage voters for granted. Anyone who is still holding out for the Democrats to be the gayest political party is now part of the problem. The more gay marriage is made a political issue the longer gays will be treated as less than and unequal. Equal rights should not be a partisan political issue so why are all gay leaders in one political party?
Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have to pay attention to gays because there is no price to pay for ignoring them.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
obama takes credit for a bush policy
huffpost.com/grenell
The Obama Team is Taking Credit for a Bush Policy
The White House this week leaked intelligence information to the New York Times to suggest that their North Korea policy is working. And although David Sanger from the Times was all too quick to buy the Administration’s line, an honest assessment of the Obama team’s claims shows that the successful policy they highlight was designed and first implemented in the Bush Administration.
Over the weekend, an airplane leaving North Korea with a cargo of illegal weapons was seized by Thailand. The Thai intelligence authorities worked with American officials to determine that the 5 member crew from a cargo company in the Republic of Georgia was carrying roughly 30 tons of illegal military equipment.
The Obama team points to the recently passed United Nations Security Council Resolution on North Korea, Resolution 1874, as evidence that they can design a strategy to contain North Korea from gaining weapons and materials to make or launch a nuclear weapon like seizing the Georgian plane. UN Security Council Resolution 1874, however, authorizes countries to board sea vessels and ships, not airplanes. The New York Times highlighted story in Thailand was an airplane and therefore technically didn’t fall under the Obama team’s UN resolution – it was a Bush Administration resolution that gave the authority to seize the plane.
Additionally, the White House and the New York Times missed the fact that the UN Security Council has had sanctions on the DPRK for years. In rushing to trumpet the Obama team’s erroneous claims, the New York Times failed to understand that it is already illegal to carry arms in or out of North Korea. The Bush Administration passed the UN Security Council resolution that made it illegal to transfer illegal weapons by sea or air – or any means. Thailand has been authorized, albeit expected, to seize ships and planes suspected of carrying illegal cargo since 2006. Resolution 1695, passed July 15, 2006, reads in operative paragraphs 3 and 4:
3. Requires all Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent missile and missile-related items, materials, goods and technology being transferred to DPRK’s missile or WMD programmes;
4. Requires all Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent the procurement of missiles or missile related-items, materials, goods and technology from the DPRK, and the transfer of any financial
resources in relation to DPRK’s missile or WMD programmes;
And Resolution 1718, passed October 14, 2006, says in operative paragraphs 7 and 8:
7. Decides also that the DPRK shall abandon all other existing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programme in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner;
8. Decides that:
(a) All Member States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK, through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories…
Further, early in the Bush Administration John Bolton conceived of and implemented a successful program called The Proliferation Security Initiative or PSI. PSI acted as a coalition of the willing searchers. Several countries in and around North Korea have been working together for quite some time to patrol the water, land and air for possible illegal shipments going in and coming out of North Korea. The Japanese, in particular, have been very concerned and have aggressively been watching North Korean exports and imports. Countries interested in intercepting cargo going in and out of North Korea have been stopping and boarding suspicious vessels for many years. Once Bolton was at the United Nations as our American Ambassador, he was able to draft similar language used from the successful PSI program into UN Security Council mandated resolutions thereby compelling countries to work to ensure no illegal weapons entered or left North Korea with a UN mandated appeal.
However, The New York Times’ David Sanger yesterday wrote, “The Obama administration is trying to show that it will choke off the North’s illicit exports even while attempting to reopen nuclear talks. In interviews in recent weeks, several officials said they believed that the Bush administration, which came to office seeking to topple the North Korean government of Kim Jong-il, mistakenly eased pressure on him while pursuing disarmament accords, almost all of them since renounced by the North.”
While Resolution 1874 is an additional constraint on North Korea, it is redundant and not as thorough as Resolutions 1695 and 1718. Resolutions 1695 and 1718, more important resolutions passed during the Bush Administration, established wide-ranging sanctions on DPRK back in 2006.
The simple fact is that during the Bush Administration the pressure was greatly increased on the North Koreans, not decreased as the White House and the Times says. I have written to David Sanger asking him and the New York Times to correct the record but so far I haven’t heard back.
The Obama Team is Taking Credit for a Bush Policy
The White House this week leaked intelligence information to the New York Times to suggest that their North Korea policy is working. And although David Sanger from the Times was all too quick to buy the Administration’s line, an honest assessment of the Obama team’s claims shows that the successful policy they highlight was designed and first implemented in the Bush Administration.
Over the weekend, an airplane leaving North Korea with a cargo of illegal weapons was seized by Thailand. The Thai intelligence authorities worked with American officials to determine that the 5 member crew from a cargo company in the Republic of Georgia was carrying roughly 30 tons of illegal military equipment.
The Obama team points to the recently passed United Nations Security Council Resolution on North Korea, Resolution 1874, as evidence that they can design a strategy to contain North Korea from gaining weapons and materials to make or launch a nuclear weapon like seizing the Georgian plane. UN Security Council Resolution 1874, however, authorizes countries to board sea vessels and ships, not airplanes. The New York Times highlighted story in Thailand was an airplane and therefore technically didn’t fall under the Obama team’s UN resolution – it was a Bush Administration resolution that gave the authority to seize the plane.
Additionally, the White House and the New York Times missed the fact that the UN Security Council has had sanctions on the DPRK for years. In rushing to trumpet the Obama team’s erroneous claims, the New York Times failed to understand that it is already illegal to carry arms in or out of North Korea. The Bush Administration passed the UN Security Council resolution that made it illegal to transfer illegal weapons by sea or air – or any means. Thailand has been authorized, albeit expected, to seize ships and planes suspected of carrying illegal cargo since 2006. Resolution 1695, passed July 15, 2006, reads in operative paragraphs 3 and 4:
3. Requires all Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent missile and missile-related items, materials, goods and technology being transferred to DPRK’s missile or WMD programmes;
4. Requires all Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent the procurement of missiles or missile related-items, materials, goods and technology from the DPRK, and the transfer of any financial
resources in relation to DPRK’s missile or WMD programmes;
And Resolution 1718, passed October 14, 2006, says in operative paragraphs 7 and 8:
7. Decides also that the DPRK shall abandon all other existing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programme in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner;
8. Decides that:
(a) All Member States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK, through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories…
Further, early in the Bush Administration John Bolton conceived of and implemented a successful program called The Proliferation Security Initiative or PSI. PSI acted as a coalition of the willing searchers. Several countries in and around North Korea have been working together for quite some time to patrol the water, land and air for possible illegal shipments going in and coming out of North Korea. The Japanese, in particular, have been very concerned and have aggressively been watching North Korean exports and imports. Countries interested in intercepting cargo going in and out of North Korea have been stopping and boarding suspicious vessels for many years. Once Bolton was at the United Nations as our American Ambassador, he was able to draft similar language used from the successful PSI program into UN Security Council mandated resolutions thereby compelling countries to work to ensure no illegal weapons entered or left North Korea with a UN mandated appeal.
However, The New York Times’ David Sanger yesterday wrote, “The Obama administration is trying to show that it will choke off the North’s illicit exports even while attempting to reopen nuclear talks. In interviews in recent weeks, several officials said they believed that the Bush administration, which came to office seeking to topple the North Korean government of Kim Jong-il, mistakenly eased pressure on him while pursuing disarmament accords, almost all of them since renounced by the North.”
While Resolution 1874 is an additional constraint on North Korea, it is redundant and not as thorough as Resolutions 1695 and 1718. Resolutions 1695 and 1718, more important resolutions passed during the Bush Administration, established wide-ranging sanctions on DPRK back in 2006.
The simple fact is that during the Bush Administration the pressure was greatly increased on the North Koreans, not decreased as the White House and the Times says. I have written to David Sanger asking him and the New York Times to correct the record but so far I haven’t heard back.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
