George W. Bush must be smiling. It started with Afghanistan, then Iraq, Tunisia and now Egypt. The Arab youth are defying Joe Biden and the rest of the American foreign policy “establishment” and proving that their demands are legitimate. Egyptian students, doctors, lawyers and the unemployed are showing that democracy is attainable for the Middle East and that Arabs, too, deserve to live in freedom and prosperity. Tunisia’s revolution was quick, Egypt’s was forceful and resolute. All eyes are on Algeria, Palestine, Yemen and Jordan whose youth seem to be simmering in the same way. Like it or not, George Bush was right and Joe Biden was wrong. President George W. Bush’s vision for democracy in the Middle East may be coming true. Bush spoke often about how generations of committed freedom fighters worked together to bring down Communism throughout Eastern Europe. And Bush used it as an example to suggest that the Middle East could also experience the same freedoms. It seems ironic that the same month in which we celebrate President Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday and his forceful demands in Berlin to the Communist leader to “Tear down this Wall”, the Obama Administration missed the chance to support the Middle East’s Berlin moment. President Obama’s flowery Cairo speech in June 2009 tried to carry Bush’s vision for the region forward but subsequently failed to deliver any White House support for the democracy seekers in Iran, Tunisia or Egypt when they needed it. One Arab diplomat on Twitter said today, “President of the free world to speak about freedom from tyranny today at 1:30. You’re 17 days late Mr. President.” When the Egypt protests started eighteen days ago, Vice President Biden immediately took to the airwaves to question the legitimacy of the protesters, claim that Mubarack was not a dictator and to de-link the situation in Tunisia from what was beginning to happen in Cairo. JIM LEHRER: Some people are suggesting that we may be seeing the beginning of a kind of domino effect, similar to what happened after the Cold War in Eastern Europe. Poland came first, then Hungary, East Germany. We have got Tunisia, as you say, maybe Egypt, who knows. Do you smell the same thing coming? JOE BIDEN: No, I don’t. I wouldn’t compare the two……I think it’s a stretch to compare it to Eastern Europe. And later in the PBS interview… JIM LEHRER: The word — the word to describe the leadership of Mubarak and Egypt and also in Tunisia before was dictator. Should Mubarak be seen as a dictator? JOE BIDEN: ….I would not refer to him as a dictator. JIM LEHRER: Mr. Vice President, should we be — should the United States be encouraging these protesters, whether they’re in Tunisia or Egypt or wherever? They want their rights. And should we encourage them to seek them, if it means going to the streets or whatever? JOE BIDEN: …We’re encouraging the protesters to, as they assemble, do it peacefully. And we’re encouraging the government to act responsibly and to try to engage in a discussion as to what the legitimate claims being made are, if they are, and try to work them out. Watching the thousands of young people take to the streets throughout the Middle East to demand government reforms and greater freedoms is inspiring. The Vice President must be embarrassed by today’s remarkable change in Egypt since he was the first Administration official to take to the airwaves to try and hold up Egypt’s Berlin Wall. The historic departure of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and the thousands of Arab youth in the streets of the Middle East just isn’t Change Biden can believe in.
Tag Archives: joe biden
obama-biden support mubarak, the dictator
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s 30 year rule could be coming to end. But Vice President Joe Biden, speaking for the administration, hopes it’s not. On PBS News Hour Thursday, Biden said, “Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with – with Israel. … I would not refer to him as a dictator.” Biden went on to twice question whether or not the tens of thousands of protesters on the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, Mahalla El-Kubra, Tanta, and Suez had legitimate complaints.
The Vice President has been famously and consistently called a foreign policy expert by the Washington establishment. In fact, President Obama admitted during his campaign for president that he relied on Biden’s foreign policy advice while both men were in the Senate. Most people in Washington assumed if Obama made it to the White House he would appoint Biden as his Secretary of State, a position Biden openly admitted he wanted. But Biden’s comments to PBS show that he is either naïve to Egypt’s oppressive regime or thinks the criticism is over-hyped and tolerable.
Mubarak responded to the protesters’ demands early Friday morning by shutting down the Internet, including Facebook and Twitter accounts. Italy-based Seabone, Inc, one of Egypt’s major service providers, reported that there was no Internet traffic going into or out of the country after 12:30 a.m. local time. One has to wonder if Joe Biden believes that legitimately elected leaders shut down the Internet when threatened with criticism.
Sultan Al Qassemi, a writer for The National & Emarat Alyoum, pleaded with the outside world for help. He somehow got out a tweet from his account saying “Egypt has shut down the Internet. Calls by Secretary Clinton have been ignored. Please help.” He called out Barack Obama, Robert Gibbs and State Department Spokesman PJ Crowley in his tweet.
Protesters have taken to the streets to demand greater freedoms, democracy and an end to Mubarak’s 30 reign of corruption, police brutality and torture. Opposition leaders have also been calling out the “soft opposition” targeting those who publicly push for reforms, but aren’t willing to challenge Mubarak in any serious way (Biden falls into this category). Egyptian protesters have been encouraged by their Tunisian neighbors’ success. Last week, thousands of Tunisians rallied publicly and demanded that their President, Ben Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali step down. After a few days, President Ben Ali resigned and fled the country. Could Mubarak be next?
Biden’s support for Mubarak in the face of his falling regime sends a powerful and unfortunate message to the Arab world that their freedoms are negotiable. While American interests in the Middle East must obviously be protected, America’s credibility to support democracy for everyone everywhere is crucial. Wiki leaks have already shown American ambassadors and foreign service officers criticizing governments privately but publicly saying very little. How can VP Biden ever talk about the importance of fighting for freedom and democracy again if he chooses to support a corrupt dictatorship at the very time its being so strongly challenged from within? The Vice President’s absolute show of support for Mubarak is unfortunately being heard throughout the Arab world. The people of Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Cuba and North Korea are listening. It’s too bad that Vice President Biden can’t find a way to support everyday Egyptians’ pleadings for more freedoms.
oprah is tougher
Last week, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice called a press conference. She used her political capital and soapbox to bring together UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin to combat what she calls “a global problem.” She called on world leaders to follow her lead in bringing an end to this global scourge. As the powerful group gathered in front of the international media assembled to witness the announcement, Rice proclaimed, “It’s a killer. The suffering it causes is direct and immediate—lives lost for no reason, futures shattered in an instant. But its toll is truly global. It’s a problem, as the Secretary-General just said, that needs global attention and action—and that’s why we all stand here today.”
In her first press conference with the Secretary-General and the Russian Ambassador by her side, Rice wasn’t speaking about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Sudan’s genocide or North Korea’s downing of a South Korean ship. Rice wasn’t speaking of the global fight against terrorism either. Rice called the powerful group together to stop the world from texting while driving.
While texting and driving may be an important issue in the United States or other western countries, the overwhelming majority of the world’s population doesn’t own a cell phone, let alone a car. Recent statistics show that roughly 8% of the world’s population owns a car, compared to 89% of U.S. households. Texting while driving, an important public safety issue, is best left to the jurisdiction of local and state officials, not our UN Ambassador. America’s representative to the UN has plenty of other issues she should be working on. For Rice to assemble such an important group of leaders to confront such a non-controversial issue shows an incredible weakness as a serious diplomat. Within just a few weeks, Rice chose to speak up on texting while driving but failed to speak out on Iran’s election to the Women’s Commission.
As Ambassador, Rice hasn’t been willing to wade into America’s complicated foreign policy challenges and has avoided controversial issues. Citizen Rice, however, talked tough about America’s foreign policy challenges and spoke often about Sudan’s genocide.
In 2004, citizen Rice lambasted President Bush for not doing more to lead our allies at the UN on the Iranian nuclear issue. She said, “This approach demands more of the United States than abdication to European diplomacy. It requires U.S. leadership, in partnership with the Europeans, of a complex and urgent negotiation with Iran. Apparently, President Bush finds this prospect too difficult or too uncomfortable.” (Her full article, “We Need a Real Iran Policy,” can be read here: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2004/1230iran_rice.aspx). But in the nearly 16 months Rice has been representing the American people at the United Nations, she has not produced a single resolution aimed at stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. The Bush Administration produced five resolutions on Iran’s illegal pursuit, three with increasing sanctions.
And in 2007 while working at the Brookings Institute, Rice accepted an invitation from then-Senator Joe Biden to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the issue of Darfur. Then citizen Rice said, “The U.S. should press for a Chapter 7 U.N. resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum. Accept the unconditional deployment of the U.N. force or face military consequences. The resolution would authorize enforcement by U.N. member states collectively or individually.” But UN Ambassador Rice hasn’t passed, circulated or even written that resolution. And in a 2006 interview with National Public Radio, citizen Rice said, “Well, I think the first thing that the international community ought to do is to strike Sudanese air assets, their aircraft, their helicopters, their airfields, that have been used relentlessly to attack innocent civilians in Darfur.” As Ambassador, Rice has never asked the Security Council to approve those airstrikes.
Either Susan Rice is a weak negotiator or she is a tough talker from the sidelines. If America’s Ambassador to the UN is to be relegated to stopping drivers from texting while behind the wheel, then maybe President Obama should ask Oprah to be our representative at the UN – at least she is asking people to sign a contract.
Rick Sanchez’s Show claims ‘technical difficulties’ in getting GOP Healthcare response.
Rick Sanchez’s Show claims ‘technical difficulties’ in getting GOP Healthcare response.
The day after the federal government hijacked 1/5 of the U.S. economy in order to give health insurance to unemployed 26 year olds was a giddy day for CNN’s Rick Sanchez. The 3pm EST host for the supposed cable news network in the middle couldn’t hold back his excitement for the healthcare hijack that had just taken place in Washington.
Sanchez gave us 25 minutes of non-stop gloating from supporters of the healthcare take-over. Sanchez gave us Obama, Biden, Pelosi, more Obama, Biden’s over-the-top and profane characterization that this is a really big deal, more Obama, Ted Kennedy’s widow telling us this is a really big deal, more Obama and a really long pen-signing ceremony to celebrate the occasion. We also got some yucking-it-up moments from Democratic members of Congress telling the President they had cast some tough votes on a really big issue. Then Sanchez gave us Analysis 101 with David Gergen and another reporter conversing with him on how the Republicans keep talking about over-turning the legislation but the reality is they won’t be able to do it. Sanchez assured us that he knew it was all talk – and that it couldn’t be done. When Gergen tried to bring up the fact that public opinion was on the Republicans’ side as evident by the most recent poll showing a large number of Americans were not pleased with the takeover, Sanchez jumped in to say that in his humble opinion “We shouldn’t even be talking about that poll because it was taken before the vote”. Huh? Why would that matter? Americans don’t want this healthcare hijack and all the pushing by Sanchez that this is a really big deal won’t change their minds. We know it’s a really big deal and that’s why we’re mad!
And then, 25 minutes into Sanchez’s show he tells us that in an effort to be fair, we will soon be hearing from the Republicans “to get their take” on the healthcare hijack. But after the obligatory commercial break, Sanchez tells us that we won’t be able to hear from the Republicans right now because CNN has a technical problem. Seriously? There is only one computer satellite available for the Republicans’ response in all of CNN? It’s hard to believe but Sanchez assured us it was true. After several minutes and several other non-stories, Sanchez tells us that we will get GOP reaction, “If we get the computer fixed “. And then Sanchez starts laughing in an obvious ‘I don’t care’ kind of way. “It’s not like it’s our fault, it’s a technical difficulty,” he tries to explain with a smirk on his face.
Whatever excuse Rick Sanchez comes up with, the simple fact is that his show had no Republican response 35 minutes into it on the day after the “really big deal” healthcare vote. For more than 35 minutes, Sanchez orchestrated a liberal diatribe in support of the bill.
When CNN finally “fixed” the technical problems, Sanchez’s highly anticipated GOP response turned out to be a twitter review of tweets from 6 members of Congress over the last 24 hours. The 6 tweets highlighted by Sanchez, trumpeted as CNN’s Republican response, weren’t from Republicans afterall. The first three tweets highlighted were from Democratic Senator Udall, Democratic Senator Specter and White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs. The last 3 tweets were from Republicans – Price, Jenkins and Meghan McCain. Hardly a GOP response. And hardly a show worth watching.
iraq: bloody, deadly and yet an example for the middle east
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?
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.
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.