September 14-17, 2012
Sep 14 03:11 Is Middle East President Obama's Waterloo? Sep 14 05:53 Photo ID opponents tout flawed cost report Sep 15 09:54 Kirsten Powers: the only intellectually honest liberal journalist Sep 16 04:45 Questioning "The Question" ad Sep 16 08:15 McCarter thinks high marginal tax rates are "marketing problem" Sep 16 11:47 Susan Rice: Benghazi was spontaneous act Sep 17 23:56 Exposing Nolan's mining institute Sep 17 15:05 Bachmann rips Obama for Letterman interview
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Is Middle East President Obama's Waterloo?
Jimmy Carter would be pleased with President Obama's foreign policy/national security record, mostly because it's helping his foreign policy/national security record look almost respectable.
The reality is that both men ignored reality. President Carter's policies are best described as appeasement. This letter to the Ayatollah Khomeini is proof of President Carter's appeasement strategy:
Dear Ayatollah Khomeini:
Based on the willingness of the Revolutionary Council to receive them, I am asking two distinguished Americans, Mr. Ramsey Clark and Mr. William G. Miller, to carry this letter to you and to discuss with you and your designees the situation in Tehran and the full range of current issues between the U.S. and Iran.
In the name of the American people, I ask that you release unharmed all Americans presently detained in Iran and those held with them and allow them to leave your country safely and without delay. I ask you to recognize the compelling humanitarian reasons, firmly based in international law, for doing so.
I have asked both men to meet with you and to hear from you your perspective on events in Iran and the problems which have arisen between our two countries. The people of the United States desire to have relations with Iran based upon equality, mutual respect, and friendship.
They will report to me immediately upon their return.
Sincerely,
(signed) Jimmy Carter
It isn't difficult picturing President Obama writing that letter, especially considering his willingness to look the other way during the civilian riots after Iran's rigged elections and treating Russia like a trusted ally. This administration's apologies to a terrorist organization for the actions of a third party half a world away is what appeasement looks like.
This map of the Middle East shows 9 nations where violence has either broken out this week or where tensions are rising by the hour.
In 2008, Sen. McCain's campaign sunk when he badly mishandled the credit crisis. This year, President Obama is badly mishandling the Middle East in a time of extreme panic.
If this administration made a mistake on an isolated incident, it's possible the American people could overlook the mistake. It isn't likely that they'll ignore a president's misstatements at a time when an entire region of the world simultaneously erupts in violence.
What's happening now isn't a misstep. It's a crisis brought on by wrongheaded thinking over an entire presidential term. Any administration that thinks terrorist attacks are "man-caused disasters" and wars are "overseas contingency operations" is living in fantasyland.
An administration that reads terrorists their rights is woefully weak. An administration that refuses to call Maj. Nidal Hassan's shooting spree at Ft. Hood a terrorist attack is woefully weak.
Presidential administrations can get through international situations. It's difficult getting through international crises of their own making.
Tags: President Obama , Man-Caused Disasters , Overseas Contingency Operations , Ft. Hood Shooting , Major Nidal Hassan , Tunisia , Egypt , Yemen , Jordan , Libya , National Security , Foreign Policy , Muslim Spring , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Friday, September 14, 2012 3:11 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 14-Sep-12 07:28 AM
Who is Romney's foreign affairs advisor these days.
I recall he bravely fired one earlier based on - as if it mattered re foreign policy and intelligence assessment - being gay. Or was that a false report?
Does he have a foreign policy advisor, or just shoot from the lip w/o advice?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-Sep-12 07:34 AM
He's been advised by John Bolton, Condi Rice and James A. Baker III in the past. I don't know if any of them are advising him right now.
Comment 3 by Martha Trowbridge at 14-Sep-12 10:22 AM
eric z says: "Does he...just shoot from the lip w/o advice?"
How very clever of you to direct attention away from the commentary. To morph the discussion into "Kill Romney".
Hurry! Time to post an onslaught of "Kill Romney" comments - from multiple fake identities, of course.
Photo ID opponents tout flawed cost report
Opponents of Minnesota's proposed Photo ID constitutional amendment gave away their secret for estimating the cost of elections in a Photo ID environment:
Ritchie has largely relied on a 2011 estimate state Minnesota Management and Budget officials prepared for a voter ID bill that Gov. Dayton later vetoed. It showed roughly $32 million in start up costs for the state, with another $24 million for counties.
Ritchie's flaw is that S.F. 509 is nothing like the proposed constitutional amendment. S.F. 509 is almost 2,000 lines long. H.F. 2738 is 39 lines long.
Based on H.F. 2738's language, it's impossible for Ritchie to know what the cost is. Ritchie's 'statistics' (I use that term exceptionally loosely) are, at best, wild estimates.
In testimony to the House Government Finance Committee, Ritchie admitted that there are probably less than 100,000 people who would be eligible to vote who don't have state-issued photographic identification. If that's accurate, then the cost of providing free photographic identification would be less than $2,000,000 initially.
Educating citizens of the requirements of the new constitutional amendment wouldn't cost the millions of dollars opponents of Photo ID claim it would. Most of the education could be done by civic groups for little or nothing.
The cost to counties allegation is fiction. The only potential cost to a county would be from DFL activists filing lawsuits claiming a voter was disenfranchised because of the Photo ID requirement. That type of lawsuit would likely get tossed because the litigants would have to prove that they couldn't obtain photographic identification.
Ritchie and other opponents of the proposed Photo ID constitutional amendment don't have many options left in defeating it. That's why they're resorting to scare tactics, dishonest statistics and threats of frivolous lawsuits.
Their options are pretty pathetic at this point.
Tags: Constitutional Amendment , Mark Ritchie , ACLU , Photo ID , Lawsuits , Elections , Election 2012
Posted Friday, September 14, 2012 5:53 AM
Comment 1 by Eric F. Heins at 14-Sep-12 12:35 PM
The question of 'implementation cost' is based on a flawed premise. Namely, "The State should not spend much to guarantee the integrity of our elections".
Yeah, its only a core function of government. We don't pay any attention to THOSE antiquated things anymore.
Comment 2 by eric z at 15-Sep-12 07:32 AM
The question is not cost. The question is whether it should or should not be done, and a bigger question long-term, will bastardizing the Minnesota Constitution prove itself to be the bad idea it appears to be.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Sep-12 10:04 AM
The question isn't whether it should be done. The question is whether Gov. Dayton, who vetoed the bill, & the DFL legislators who voted against the legislation should be held accountable for not listening to their constituents. With 60% of Democrats, 76% of independents & 92% of Republicans supporting Photo ID, the question, it seems, is why this DFL governor & these DFL legislators ignored the will of the people.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 15-Sep-12 12:27 PM
Eric Z:
It doesn't bastardiz Minnesota's constitution to put this amendment since a bastardizing version was by constitutional to put in future spending decisions and a tax into the constitution.
Besides Ritchie and judges don't want to obey the constitution right now since they won't enforce the current election laws.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by lucy at 04-Oct-13 08:09 PM
the first guy to respond on here is a total idiot. I know him and he is dumber than a box of rocks so just ignore him like everyone else does.
Kirsten Powers: the only intellectually honest liberal journalist
Liberal journalist after liberal journalist has written about Mitt Romney's alleged gaffe about the U.S. diplomat's pre-attack apology. While they piled on, insisting that Mitt had committed political suicide, they ignored the fact that President Obama's Middle East policies had failed dismally.
I've disagreed with her policy beliefs nearly 100% of the time. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to applaud Kirsten Powers' calling out other liberal journalists for their willfully ignoring what was actually happening in the Middle East:
Here's the transcript of Powers' exchange with Megyn Kelly:
MEGYN KELLY: Kirsten, you wound up having the Obama administration and Mitt Romney agreeing that the embassy statement was not appropriate, and yet the whole media narrative yesterday was how awful Gov. Romney was for pointing it out.
KIRSTEN POWERS: Oh yeah. It's still the media narrative. And the thing is, the outrage that has been expressed over the fact that Mitt Romney put out this statement has even overshadowed any kind of outrage that you would see over the fact that you have Islamic flags being hoisted over American embassies, the fact that an American ambassador is dead. You just are not seeing the same level of outrage over just the process of what time he put the statement out. It is just absolutely, utterly insane the way that they have elevated this.
And even if we stipulated, Megyn, let's just stipulate that, for the sake of argument, Romney shouldn't have done it. I don't agree with that. It still would not explain the obsession with Romney's statement over these horrific events that are unfolding.
KELLY: When you're detecting media, potential media bias, you look back at what would the media have done if this had happened on George Bush's watch, if we had had these attacks on the embassies and the consulates.
POWERS: Yeah. It would have been completely radically different. Like I said, even if you agree that Mitt Romney did something wrong, OK, look at that, but then let's also look at the Obama administration. It was just radio silence. They allowed that statement to stay up on an embassy website, which is taken as the official position of the U.S. government. Someone was tweeting from the official account, and they didn't come out and say a word. So, what's that about? Why didn't they know that these attacks were coming? Was Obama getting his intelligence briefings? These are the issues that should be being asked and would be being asked if this had happened on George Bush's watch.
With images of fires burning throughout the region, from Benghazi to Cairo to Khartoum to Sana'a, the media obsessed over Mitt Romney's statement criticizing the administration for pre-apologizing for an obscure video. With al Qa'idaesque flags flying at the walls of multiple embassies throughout the region, the media obsessed over Mitt's justified statement.
The fact is that the media stuck socks in their mouths rather than ask this administration why President Obama's Cairo speech in April, 2009 seemed for naught. They didn't ask why he'd praised the Arab Spring 18 months ago but now sat with egg on his face as the Arab Spring has exploded with terrorist flags flying boldly at the U.S.'s Egyptian Embassy.
While it isn't fair to blame all of the violence on this administration's policies (terrorists will, from time to time, commit acts of terrorism), it's more than fair to ask why President Obama is willing to not exert U.S. influence in the region. It's more than fair to ask why President Obama is essentially abandoning the most troubled region in the world.
Unfortunately for the American people, the Obama media has obsessed with trivialities and bought Jay Carney's ridiculous statement :
"This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video--a film--that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and--to Muslims."
Terrorists don't fear this administration. They aren't worried that the U.S. will seek retribution for their attacks. They see the U.S. as disinterested and confused.
The good news for the Obama administration is that their lapdog media has stuck a sock in their mouth rather than report that President Obama's policies have have failed.
Tags: President Obama , Middle East , Egypt , Libya , Sudan , Yemen , Riots , Terrorism , Assassinations , U.S. Embassies , Foreign Policy , Democrats
Posted Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:54 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 16-Sep-12 08:33 AM
Bomb 'em. Back to the stone age. Just as it worked in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. More drones. More spies. More troops to discover IEDs the hard way.
Gary, aside from the sniping, what policy do you recommend? Step by step, along with the arguments for why it will work?
A screed is one thing. A policy answer is another.
What would Newt do?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 16-Sep-12 11:06 AM
I'd revert to the part of the Bush Doctrine of hunting down, then punishing terrorists. We don't need wars with nations. We just need to keep taking out terrorist networks.
Bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age isn't that difficult. They're living in the Tenth Century.
I'd increase covert activities to take the terrorists' networks out & undermine Syria's & Iran's regimes.
Pulling out of a perennial hotspot out of disinterest, which is President Obama's policy, is disastrous. This week's terrorist attacks are proof of that.
Questioning "The Question" ad
In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Mitt Romney said that President Obama couldn't tell the American people that they were better off than they were 4 years ago. Presumably, he meant that President Obama couldn't honestly say that.
It appears as though President Obama was foolish enough to tell Americans that they're better off now than 4 years ago:
This is proof that President Obama won't hesitate in lying if that's what it takes to win re-election. The real unemployment rate is 11.4%, which is 3.6 points higher than when he took office. Gas prices have more than doubled in that time, jumping from $1.84 a gallon to $3.85 a gallon. Add to that spikes in electric bills and grocery bills, the $4,019 drop in median household income. That doesn't include 2 downgrades of the U.S. credit rating, the only downgrades in our history.
Add to that the 3 rounds of quantitative easing, each intended as a stimulus to the economy. Bernanke's sugar-high tactics haven't worked. They've only devalued the dollar. QE3 is a tacit admission that President Obama's policies haven't worked.
Thanks to President Obama's regulatory assault on fossil fuels, almost 100 coal-fired power plants across the United States have either shut down or have announced they're shutting down soon. If that's President Obama's definition of being better off, then it's the opposite of the American people's definition of being better off.
There's a reason why companies haven't invested almost $2,000,000,000,000 that's sitting on the sidelines. Entrepreneurs don't trust President Obama. One day, he's talking about how he's the entrepreneur's best friend. The next day, he's criticizing them for their greediness.
By a whopping 54%-35% margin, the American people prefer being left alone than having government offering a helping hand.
President Obama won't change policies. Though his policies have failed, his ego won't let him admit he's made one monumental mistake after another.
If Americans want higher gas prices, expensive grocery and electric bills, high real unemployment and lower wages, they must vote for President Obama.
If they want a real economy, the only option is Romney-Ryan.
Tags: President Obama , Regulations , Gas Prices , Electric Bills , Coal-Fired Power Plants , Groceries , QE3 , Unemployment , Deficits , Recession , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, September 16, 2012 4:45 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 16-Sep-12 08:24 AM
As I have said many times before, unless the GOP can clearly articulate their message about what they are going to do to make things better, the Democrats will win this election. There are too many people who are getting too much from government and Obama and the Democrats are promising to give them even more. Why would anyone getting a government check vote to give themselves and their neighbors less of what soomeones else has earned? These types of people will give up all their liberty and freedom for the security of the government.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Sep-12 11:10 AM
That's such BS, Chad. It's assuming that everyone getting unemployment prefers achieving nothing. That's insulting. There's no question that some people who enjoy that lifestyle but writing everyone currently getting government assistance off is foolishness.
McCarter thinks high marginal tax rates are "marketing problem"
Jerry McCarter, the DFL-endorsed candidate opposing Sen. John Pederson, said something jaw-dropping at Friday's candidate forum. That forum was sponsored by the St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce.
Here's a partial transcript of what McCarter said:
First of all, I think we have a much more progressive tax system than other states do. But, you know, we've got a marketing problem. You know, when you have marginal rates that are among the highest in the country, it's not good marketing. We need to play with those numbers...
High marginal tax rates don't represent "a marketing problem." They present an economic problem. Combining high tax rates with regulatory uncertainty is like poison to the economy. Entrepreneurs won't put their capital at risk unless they know they'll get a solid return on their investment. Mr. McCarter's priorities page is interesting reading, especially this part:
Fair & Equitable Taxation As a practicing accountant for three decades, Jerry understands Minnesota's tax code. The entire tax code needs to be restructured to make it fairer and more equitable. Low-income and middle-class taxpayers should not pay a higher percentage of their incomes in state and local taxes than those with higher incomes. He believes a full assessment of the tax structure is in order.
TRANSLATION: I support tax increases on "the rich" because they aren't "paying their fair share." Mr. McCarter apparently isn't in grasp of the facts, either.
I'm told that, during another part of the questioning, McCarter said that Minnesota is heading in the wrong direction. When it was Sen. Pederson's turn to speak, Sen. Pederson said that unemployment dropped and median household incomes rose the past 2 years.
If Mr. McCarter wants to argue that creating jobs and rising incomes are proof that Minnesota is heading in the wrong direction, he's welcome to argue that.
It's difficult picturing Mr. McCarter winning if he thinks making "the rich pay their fair share" will grow jobs, that high marginal tax rates are a PR problem and that creating jobs and rising incomes are proof that Minnesota is heading in the wrong direction.
Sen. Pederson has earned bipartisan respect from the standpoint that he's regarded as one of the most prepared legislators in St. Paul. Having lived in St. Cloud all my life, I know that that's something people appreciate from their legislators.
Tags: St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce , Candidate Forum , Jerry McCarter , Tax The Rich , Bonding , Debates , DFL , John Pederson , Jobs , Income , MNGOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, September 16, 2012 8:15 AM
No comments.
Susan Rice: Benghazi was spontaneous act
The question isn't whether the Obama administration will backtrack from Ambassador Rice's statement . It's just a question of whether the media will report their backtracking. Here's the insulting thing Ambassador Rice said:
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
'Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous, not a premeditated response to what had transpired in Cairo,' Rice told me this morning on 'This Week.'
'In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,' Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. American Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.
'We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to, or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,' Rice said. 'And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons: And it then evolved from there.'
The administration will retract Ambassador Rice's statement, possibly before the Vikings-Colts kickoff, especially after Drudge posted this article :
Benghazi, Libya (CNN) -- Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.
Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.
He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.
"The situation is frightening, it scares us," Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.
Mabrouk said it was not the first time he has warned foreigners about the worsening security situation in the face of the growing presence of armed jihadist groups in the Benghazi area.
This administration has difficulty admitting that their decisions and policies have been disasters. There's no excuse for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi to be operating in business-as-usual mode.
Ed Morrissey is all over this story with this post :
That comes as news to the Libyan government, which has now arrested 50 people in connection to the murders and the attack on the consulate. Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf told CBS' Face the Nation that the attack was planned for months by people who had infiltrated Libya from other nations specifically for the attack:
About 50 arrests have been made in connection with the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi in which the American Ambassador and three other consulate employees were killed, and some of the suspects involved are from outside the country, Libya's president told CBS News.
In an interview for 'Face the Nation' Sunday, President Mohamed Magariaf also said that evidence 'leaves us with no doubt' that the attack was pre-planned.
'It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival,' he told Bob Schieffer.
The networks aren't providing cover for the Obama administration, leaving them with no option except admitting that Ambassador Rice was lying through her teeth on national TV. In fact, it's a matter of when, not if.
Tags: President Obama , Susan Rice , Libya , Benghazi , Terrorists , Operations , CNN , CBS , Bob Schieffer , ABC , Jake Tapper , Democrats
Posted Sunday, September 16, 2012 11:47 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 16-Sep-12 04:59 PM
She seems as bad as Romney, shooting off her mouth prematurely before any/all facts are in so that level headed individuals can then have a say, based on the facts as they come in. At least she was not badmouthing the Commander in Chief imprudently, in a time where solidarity is needed.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Sep-12 10:39 PM
Eric, What did Romney get wrong in his statement? I can tell you what Rice got wrong. As for the need for solidarity, i won't settle for staying silent when the CoC is endangering North Africa & the Middle East. I won't sit quietly while President Obama abuses our best ally in the region but looks the other way when a corrupt regime oppresses their people after a rigged election.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 17-Sep-12 10:57 AM
Eric:
When you realize that she is lying to death you're admiting just how bad this comment is.
But as Gary asked what was wrong with the Romney statement?
He was hitting the State Department for apologizing for the film which wasn't the cause as we have know learned.
He was telling the world (unlike Obama, Hillary, and Rice) that the United States will not stand up and defend our terrority and our people.
Oh let me guess you think that is brilliant and great leadership to let mobs in multiple countries beat up on the United States.
When did Jimmy Carter become President again?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Exposing Nolan's mining institute
When DFL opponent Jeff Anderson criticized Rick Nolan for not supporting miners, DFL congressional candidate Rick Nolan announced an initiative for a mining institute :
DFL congressional candidate Rick Nolan proposed on Wednesday, July 18, development of a new federal technical institute on mining and the environment to help the industry overcome production and environmental issues to create more jobs, an idea immediately panned by his opponents as expensive and ineffective.
Nolan said the institute would help push applied research that would help mining companies overcome technical problems such as how to extract more mineral from the same rock, but also to overcome environmental issues like reducing waste rock and making sure mine runoff doesn't damage local waterways.
That's a nice-sounding proposal if it wasn't so expensive and ineffective. This paragraph is the key to understanding why the institute wouldn't help miners:
Nolan said the institute should be built on Minnesota's Iron Range and would create hundreds of jobs on its campus as well as attract mining research investment to the region as it worked to promote the local and national mining industry.
I can't imagine any miners getting employed on the institute's campus. I suspect that's why Jeff Anderson criticized Nolan's initiative:
Anderson blasted the Nolan plan as wasteful federal spending that would create no immediate mining jobs, and he challenged Nolan to support immediate regulation reduction such as changing the state's long-standing sulfate standard for wild rice lakes and rivers. That standard currently is being upheld by the Environmental Protection Agency under the federal Clean Water Act. Sulfate often is a byproduct of mining. Anderson said the standard threatens several taconite and copper mining projects if not changed.
"While I support the idea of doing more research into evolving mining technologies, the people seeking jobs in this district cannot feed their families with studies," Anderson said. "They need jobs. They need good, livable-wages jobs."
The point of Anderson's criticism is that Nolan's initiative is about creating political cover, not mining jobs.
During a DFL debate, Anderson highlighted the fact that there are tighter regulations for the mines than for wastewater treatment plants. There isn't a scientific reason for having separate standards. There is a political reason for it, though, specifically to prevent mining.
Rick Nolan supports Twin Cities environmentalists more than the miners from the Range.
While Mr. Nolan was siding with Twin Cities environmentalists, Chip's fought for creating high-paying mining jobs :
Today, the Cravaack for Congress Campaign issued a statement regarding the continued assault on Minnesota mining jobs by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in which the Agency proposes a rejection of the Minnesota State Implementation Plan put forward by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for upgrading taconite facilities.
The rule, which imposes an unrealistic timeline for compliance, would threaten Minnesota's mining industry and the over 40,000 residents who depend on the mining industry for their livelihood.
'The silence from the DFL and Mr. Nolan on this issue has been deafening, and without surprise. On August 13, two days before the EPA's rule was announced, Twin Cities-based Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness publically opposed the state plan and mining jobs in Minnesota,' said Michael Bars, Cravaack's Press Secretary.
The only question left to answer is whether Mr. Nolan will be willing to admit he's representing the Twin Cities environmentalists or if he'll deny that until after the election.
Tags: Rick Nolan , Environmentalists , Mining , Mining Institute , EPA , DFL , Chip Cravaack , Iron Range , Regulations , Jobs , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, September 17, 2012 11:56 PM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 18-Sep-12 12:03 AM
The only way this boondoggle will produce mining jobs is if it is located between Hoyt Lakes and Aurora with a major tunneling operation in the basement.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 18-Sep-12 12:24 AM
The odds of that being part of Nolan's blueprint are south of slim & equal to none. LOL
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 18-Sep-12 03:18 PM
Gary:
Is it possible to go south of none on odds?
Walter
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Sep-12 02:43 AM
Statistically, it's impossible.
Bachmann rips Obama for Letterman interview
Michele Bachmann said what's been on everyone's mind recently when she urged President Obama to cancel his appearance on Letterman so he could meet with Israeli PM Netanyahu :
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), speaking at the Values Voter Summit last week in Washington, D.C., said that President Barack Obama needs to cancel his upcoming interview with David Letterman and instead meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
'And President Obama needs to get his priorities straight. What he needs to do is cancel his planned interview with David Letterman, cancel his meeting with Beyonce, cancel his meeting with Jay Z, and instead agree to meet with the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, because you see, America and Israel have a commonality of interests,' Bachmann said.
The images being transmitted by this administration are that they can't be distracted by crises in the Middle East and in North Africa. They're in full campaign mode and nothing, not even terrorist attacks in Benghazi or Iran getting nuclear weapons, will prevent them from showing up on cheesy talk shows or attending glitzy fundraisers.
While the economy stumbled, allies got ignored and threats developed, President Obama stuck with a schedule filled with golf outings (100 and counting), fundraisers (200 and counting) and appearances on late night talk shows (too numerous to count).
Given his disinterest in his official responsibilities, it isn't surprising that most of the Middle East is ablaze, the economy is in shambles and Israel thinks that this administration is jerking them around.
Rest assured that Jewish voters in Florida will notice the disdain this administration has for Israel. Don't be surprised if you hear from Mayor Koch about that in the very near future.
President Obama won't get away with simply saying his administration is tight with the Israeli government, either. He'll have to prove that his administration is willing to fight Iran to protect Israel.
Anything short of that will be seen as the actions of a weak-in-the-knees politician who isn't interested in Israel.
Tags: Michele Bachmann , Israel , GOP , President Obama , Benghazi , Iran , Recession , Terrorist Attacks , Fundraisers , Israel , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Monday, September 17, 2012 3:05 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 18-Sep-12 10:09 AM
In troubled times it is good to see how all put partisanship aside and pull together. It makes America strong.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 18-Sep-12 12:26 PM
Eric, What's the virtue in letting President Obama get away with ignoring our best ally in the Middle East?
What's so virtuous about President Obama put a higher priority on his campaign than on preventing terrorist attacks at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi?
Let's see you defend that. President Obama's first responsibility is to the people, not his campaign. If he won't do his job, he should be fired.
Anyone that thinks people should sit silently while President Obama ignores his official responsibilities is a corruption enabler.
We've got a high unemployment. Terrorist attacks killed our ambassador to Libya. Gas prices are $4 a gallon. President Obama's solution to these crises is appearing on Letterman? You can't be serious.
If you don't think President Obama's behavior is irresponsible, then you're delusional.
Comment 3 by eric z at 18-Sep-12 12:53 PM
Isreal can set its own policies and put its own military at risk, and we should not interfere one way or the other. They are a sovereign state with their leaders elected to lead them in ways that may or may not be wise. Vice versa. I agree we should not ever feel entitled to dictate to them. Vice versa. Besides, on Letterman, Obama can discuss the 47% video, something having more importance to our nation and its future, than a superhawk present chief of state of another nation. One Meir Dagan disputes as being too hawkish for a decades long Mossad head. Have a perspective, read a spectrum of the Israeli press before presuming it a monolithic state run by AIPAC.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Sep-12 02:53 AM
First, the US relies heavily on Israeli intelligence in the Middle East. Pissing them off is stupid from that standpoint. Second, telling Israel that they're less important than schmoozing with David Letterman sends our other allies that they can't rely on us. That's terribly foolish strategically. Third, it's stupid politically. Why should people think that this president puts America first when he's more interested in partying with Beyonce & Jay-Z? Finally, there are terrorists killing our diplomats in the Middle East. Don't you think that deserves the full attention of our Commander-in-Chief? Or are those diplomats simply expendable in your eyes?
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 18-Sep-12 03:25 PM
Eric:
Boy what planet are you living on. Democrats started critizing Bush because he was golfing so he stopped golfing. Where are all of those people who thought a President was distracted and didn't care now that it is a democrat in office.
As for Israel how can they set their own policy when the United States is busy leaking plans for how Israel might confront Iran?
Can you imagine in 1939 or 1940 and Winston Churchill asked for a meeting with Roosevelt and Roosevelt decided it was more important to have a meeting with Humprey Bogart?
That is how unreal your defense of Obama is, because if this was President Bush or any other Republican you will be totally outraged. Oh I forgot the Republican will know it's imporant to help Israel and not leak their military secrets.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by eric z at 18-Sep-12 10:01 PM
Walter - Not that the analogy is worth much, but 1939 to mid 1940, Chamberlain Prime Minister.
Aside from that, you are suggesting that Britain should have been setting US policy then? Why?
The Saudis pump oil, the Israelis are good at high tech, but they got whomped in Lebanon and are less belligerent these days, hoping they can talk others into fighting in their place and doing coat holding, something the Saudis can get away with, because of the oil.
Walter, are you saying the success and economic gains of the Iraq war suggest we should take on Iran because neighbors have problems getting along and we are neocon heaven? Yesterday, Walter.
