Iran Terror Plot-Will Obama Miss His 3AM Phone Call?

By Barry Rubin

Remember that Hillary Clinton ad about it being the early morning hours and the phone’s ringing in the White House? Well it’s arrived in real life, and the phone is — or isn’t — going to be answered by Barack Obama. And the question is: What are you going to do about the dramatic announcement of an Iranian plot to attack targets in Washington, D.C.?

True, it’s a bizarre story about Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Mexican drug lords. But, after all, the United States was impelled a step toward entering World War One by the Zimmerman Note in which German agents sought to entice Mexico to go to war against the United States.

Vice President Joe Biden has said that “nothing has been taken off the table” when it comes to the U.S. response. The Saudis, who are famous for keeping a low profile and trying to avoid problems — often through money — are openly livid. They’re basically saying something along the lines of, “We told you so.” They tried and gave up because they didn’t get U.S. or Western help. Will anything change now?

Is This Story True?

There are some points that would make one question this whole garish tale. Most important:

–This does not match past Iranian practice. Many “experts” think this is the clincher, but precedent is not always a reliable guide. Things change. Be careful on this point. But clearly this does not correspond with past Iranian operations that went through either direct agents or trusted Muslim Islamist clients.

–Why should some Iranian-American businessman in Texas be a key Iranian agent? It’s called secret agent work for a reason. A sleeper cell should not be obvious. And he did have a relative in the Revolutionary Guards hierarchy, if the indictment is to be believed, who helped him.

–Why didn’t Iran use its own assets? Again, I think this is a strongest argument against the story. The whole thing is amateurish but more importantly it was Iran’s most sensitive operation ever and the absurdly high danger of exposure was obvious. Even if Iran was going to do this kind of operation, it would have developed these contacts with the Mexicans and not immediately entrusted some drug gang official that one of their guys barely knew.

–What was the Iranian goal? Certainly, Iran has been threatening the United States with dire consequences for a while. But why the sudden decision to escalate? Revenge for sanctions? And what was their plan for concealing Iranian involvement if the attack did happen? One can explain such a change, but one cannot explain it very well. This raises questions, but again is not a definitive answer.

The Administration is telling its favored reporters that the Iranians were desperate (sanctions are biting; Tehran is become more aggressive in Syria to fight the revolution there and in Afghanistan. I don’t buy it. Iran’s operations are designed to spread or protect existing influence among Muslims and not to launch a direct bin Ladin style Jihad on American soil. Again, if the evidence exists I’ll accept it but on an analytical basis it doesn’t compute.

Did the Administration make the whole thing up to protect itself politically? No, it wouldn’t dare since such behavior would eventually be easily exposed and backfire big-time. And besides, if it were going to do such a thing it would invent a free-lance terror plot, not drag the United States into a potential confrontation with Iran, a country that it’s been trying to avoid confrontation with.

(If I had to make a guess–and it is too early to do so–I’d speculate that the Iranian agent(s) involved didn’t have full authorization to organize such attacks but that’s an educated guess. The problem with that theory is that Iranian regime organizations tend to be heavily top-down, Iran is a dictatorship, and the counter-intelligence groups keep an eye on everyone. But even if my theory were to be correct, since the Iranians would never admit it was a rogue operation that wouldn’t save the regime from potential consequences, if any. )

All that’s important is this: If the U.S. government has persuasive evidence that it can present, then it happened. Since the main defendent has turned state’s evidence then he will supply details and we would see that the story is true and the trail does lead back to Iran’s government. BUT if the Obama Administration can make the charges stick that is only the beginning of its problems!

Might This Blow Up in the Obama’s Administration’s Face?

Absolutely yes. If they were fooled by a fabricator, if revealing the case too soon (to stave off criticism of Attorney General Holder over the gun-smuggling case) damaged the chance of success in uncovering the terrorist network, or if the government’s response is not equal to the crisis they’ve developed, then the Obama administration will look worse.

This whole affair is extremely dangerous for the White House. Any idea that this is an easy win for the administration — see how good we are at protecting America — is dead wrong.

I am not arguing and do not believe that they created this plot, but this would not be the first time that U.S. officials have been fooled by Iranians with an agenda to fool them.

What Will the Administration Do about It?

The response is fraught with peril. The immediate reaction — we’ll mobilize world opinion! — makes the administration look buffoonish. If this is true, it is an act of war by Iran, at least by elements in the Iranian government (you know, the kind of people who could one day give nuclear weapons to terrorists).

Response A: Do Nothing

Wow, can you see that in the presidential debates in 2012? An enemy chose to attack the very capital city and the Obama administration could only respond with press releases and Biden growling!

Response B: The “Sunni Strategy”

This really scares me. This administration is quite capable of saying: Iran is the enemy so what we must do is work with our good Muslim friends, you know the Muslim Brotherhood? We need to win over Hamas and Hizballah from Iran by proving we are nice to them. Oh, and we need to work closely with that wonderful Turkish government, like letting them organize the political succession in Syria!

And so on. Do not underestimate the stupidity, incompetence, and ignorance of this administration regarding the Middle East.

Response C: A United Front against Revolutionary Islamism

The U.S. government takes the lead in organizing and supporting Europe, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf monarchies, Israel, and Jordan into a cooperative alignment. Back the oppositions in Iran, Turkey, and Lebanon. Punish enemies and reward friends. Whatever shortcomings Saudi Arabia has, its leaders have been correct about the Iranian threat and their frustration with Obama’s failure to lead. The Saudis even tried to save Lebanon from Iranian-Syrian domination but gave up when Washington wouldn’t help them.

The point is not to go to war with Iran but to oppose Iranian interests and allies everywhere, including the use of covert operations. Challenge Iranian agents of influence in Lebanon and Iraq. Containment is not just about nuclear weapons for Tehran, but about the spreading influence of that regime and, more broadly, the gains being made by revolutionary Islamists throughout the region.

That also means the United States must seem like a strong and determined leader. It must have very serious credibility. And it will have to identify revolutionary Islamism as the enemy.

Look, this is the Obama administration we are talking about. I don’t think they can do it. Hopefully, the next president can do so. There better be a next president in sight because there are a lot more crises on the way.

As I said at the start, I do not think this is some brilliant maneuver that will end up being to the Obama administration’s advantage. They have either made a huge mistake that’s going to be exposed or presented themselves with a challenge they cannot meet.

Ring! Ring! It’s your telephone, Mr. President.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
 

Independents To Obama "GET OUT!"

For some reason the IBD/TIPP poll is not reported as often as some of the others, but in my experience they have been amongst the more accurate of political polls. The latest IBD/TIPP report contains bad news for President Obama. By a 51-41% Americans want someone new to run the country.

A more ominous indicator of the President's chances is his standing amongst the Independents.  They were key to getting him elected in 2008, but no they want somebody else to sit in the Oval Office by a margin of  54%-36%.

As you might have expected, the economy is the big issue dragging Obama down. According to the poll, half of Americans give Obama poor or unacceptable marks in creating jobs and economic growth vs. 24% who say he's doing well, with independents its 51%-18% and 33% of them give him an "F" vs. just 2% who give an "A" (the report doesn't mention this but I assume that 2% represents independent voters who just woke up from a 3-year-long coma).

"Independents, the unbiased arbiters, are disappointed. They have been hurt badly with job losses. They don't see the president's policies improving the economy, said Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducted the poll.

Karlyn Bowman, polling analyst for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, says those numbers are daunting for any candidate, let alone an incumbent.

"He has a 36% rating among independents, 38% among whites. Those numbers have to improve for him to be re-elected," she said.

More than a year after the White House and Democrats declared a "recovery summer," the public has yet to see an improvement. By 42%-16%, people expect economic conditions to get worse over the next six months. Another 39% foresee no change.

Among independents, 48% expect conditions to worsen vs. 12% seeing improvement.

Not all the news is bad for the incumbent President, 70% of Americans "like Obama personally," they just want him out of office so he can have more time on his hands to 'make new friends"

UNPRECEDENTED! Harry Reid Invents New Senate Rule To Prevent Vote on Obama Jobs Bill

 Harry Reid invented a new Senate rule tonight, its called "Because I said so!" 

Minority leader Mitch McConnell only wanted to do what the President asked, force a speedy vote on Obama's Jobs bill. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a member of the President's party would not allow it to happen and he created a new Senate rule to make it happen. Because he didn't have enough votes for its passage, Reid delayed Senate action on Obama's bill, Instead he scheduled debate and vote on a bill focusing on China's currency manipulation.

The President however, has been ostracizing the Republicans for not passing his class warfare jobs bill even though he cannot get it through the branch of Congress his own party controls. In answer to the President's demands for a vote, Minority McConnell made a "motion to suspend the rules," to allow a vote on the amendments to the China currency bill,one of which was the Jobs bill. These motions require a two-thirds vote so they are almost always defeated. But the vote would have established for the the Country what was really going on, Obama's charges about a GOP delay were nothing but a cynical political move made by a president who cares much more about his failing re-election effort than our failing economy.

Here's where it gets interesting, the Senate has always allowed motions to suspend to be offered (and voted down). In this case however, trying to protect his president, rather than provide transparency to voters Reid broke with precedent and ruled McConnell's motion out of order.

The Senate parliamentarian admitted the move was unprecedented, but of course the the Democratic chair, ruled in favor of Reid. McConnell appealed the ruling, but by a vote of 51 to 48 the majority Democratic party decided,  rather than to allow the vote, which would indicate to the public that they too rejected Obama's bill, to hide from the voters what was actually going on behind the scenes and to allow the President to continue to unfairly single out the GOP.

In one stroke Harry Reid was able to rewrite Senate rules making it even harder than it already is for the minority party to force votes on any amendments, or even discuss them.  This is the Senate, Constitutionally designed to be a deliberative body, but in one fell swoop Harry Reid said no, because he said so.  Should Republicans retake the Senate next year, it's something that could come back to haunt Democrats in a major way.

Senator McConnell took the Senate floor to express his outrage about this unprecedented move:

The Majority Leader in effect has overruled the chair--with a simple majority vote--and established the precedent that even one single motion to suspend, even one, is dilatory. Changing the rules of the Senate...And if you look back at this bill, what we've had in effect is no amendments before cloture, no motions to suspend after cloture, no expression on the part of the minority at all...Now, the fundamental problem here is the majority never likes to take votes. That's the core problem.”

Not quite Senator McConnell, you are being too polite, the core problem is the Majority wants to legislate behind closed doors, just as they did with the original stimulus, just like they did with Obamacare. In their minds it is a great sin if the people who elected them got an honest accounting of what was really happening in the Senate.

In 2009 Democrats Fought AGAINST "Millionaires Tax"

Sometimes it is really amazing how quickly politicians flip-flop. Anybody who hasn't been on Mars or one of the outer planets during the past few weeks knows how the Congressional Democrats have been playing class warfare, setting up successful people as being selfish and not wanting to pay their "fair share" of Taxes.

But back in 2009 it was a very different story.  During the Obamacare debate Nancy Pelosi was trying to legislate that Obamacare would be partially funded via a surtax on the "rich" ($250,000+ income). Democrats in both houses fought that suggestion "tooth and nail," and Pelosi's attempt was defeated.

Back then Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) told USA Today

“Still, the idea has been criticized by some Democrats. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Tuesday that he has ‘not heard much support’ from his colleagues.” (“House Dems' Health Bill Would Tax Rich,” USA Today, 7/15/09)

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told the Washington Post:

‘Tax is a four-letter word’ with voters, even families not ranking in the top 1 percent of earners ‘hope they're going to be there someday,’ he said. ‘So they don't necessarily think it's fair.’” (“Health-Care Plan Would Add Surtax On Wealthy,” The Washington Post,7/15/09)

 He told Bloomberg something similar, that "he’s ‘not hearing a lot’ of support for a surtax on wealthy Americans. People in his state don’t like the so-called millionaire’s tax ‘because they are looking someday to get there themselves,’ Nelson said. ‘It’s the American way.’” (“House Health Plan Seeks 5.4 Percent Millionaire Tax,” Bloomberg, 7/14/09)

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), was fighting against the Millionaire's Tax, instead he advocated the Cadillac Tax, a tax on the most generous 1 percent of private plans.  Conrad told the Washington Post that the Millionaires tax is ‘a very tough sell.’” (“Health-Care Plan Would Add Surtax On Wealthy,” The Washington Post, 7/15/09)

Perhaps the most surprising repudiation of the Millionaire's Tax was a letter sent by Congressman Polis,  Former Congressman Tickle-me-Massa and twenty other Representatives sent to Strong-Armed (and fake big-lipped) Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Embedded below,  the letter made some of the same anti-tax points that the Democrats are ridiculing today because they are coming from conservatives and Republicans.

“Especially in a recession, we need to make sure not to kill the goose that will lay the golden eggs of our recovery. By concentrating the cost of health care reform in one area, and in one that will negatively affect small businesses, we are concerned that this will discourage entrepre­neurial activity and job growth.” 

“This proposed surcharge will also have a direct negative impact on manufacturers, another industry essential for our recovery. As manufacturers are capital intensive businesses, their taxable income is often higher… Manufacturing machinery can cost over $1 million and many owners have to save for years to expand and buy new equipment. Yet those profits saved each year would be hit by this proposed surcharge, which could lead to reduced investment.”

And my personal favorite:

 “… a surcharge would tax income above $1 million at a new rate of 45 percent. Combined with state taxes, many successful small businesses -- the very kind of business that should lead in creating new jobs and help us emerge from this recession -- will be taxed at over 50 percent.” 

Only two years ago, Congressional Democrats made a pretty compelling argument that a Millionaire's Tax would be a lousy idea and the proposal was pulled from Obamacare. Two years later many Democrats still think that the tax is wrong. Heck that's why Harry Reid did not allow Obama's plan to be voted on yesterday, it didn't have the votes.

Despite his party's objections in 2009 and today, the President continues to place the blame at the feet of conservative Republicans, proving that the only reason for his Class Warfare charge is to demonize his political opposition and divide the country to help him in his fight for re-election.

The full 2009 letter to Pelosi is below, I would suggest that you click on the view in full screen button (bottom left) to read it without hurting your eyes.

Chris Matthews is Right- Maybe Its Time for Conservatives To Fess Up And Admit The Bad Things We're Going to Do

While speaking during his Hardball show earlier this week, Mr. Tinkle Down his legs, Chris Matthews waxed poetic about how wonderful the universe would be if only Barack Obama was re-elected in 2012.  Well almost, what he really said was how lousy things he would be if a Republican were elected. He warned

"Tea Partiers and neocons...celebrating the death penalty, elevating torture, ending environmental protection as we know it, breaking unions, punishing gays, starting more wars, and enacting one more giant tax cut for the rich – or worse"

Maybe Matthews has a point. While the list of horrors he mentioned are close to our agenda, Matthews is a bit off on every item he listed, but he has spurred me into thinking  maybe its time for the tea partying neo-cons like me to admit what we really have in store for this country should our people get elected in 2012. Since no one else is willing to do it...I guess it will be up to me to let the world know. Below is the secret Tea Partiers list of what we will get done in the first year after we take over, its very close to what Mr. Tinkle said above.

• The Death Penalty- Matthews is wrong, Conservatives celebrate life and those who believe in a death penalty feel it is a necessary evil.  That being said, we plan to add two crimes to the Capital Punishment list.

--Wearing too much perfume. You know those people who always plop down next to you on a train or bus, mostly women, who smell like they basted themselves is "aire de cheapo perfume?" Sorry ladies, but that is a crime against humanity.

--Cell phone abusers. You are on the 6 am train into Manhattan catching a precious few extra moments of sleep,  when suddenly two rows in front of you a guy rouses you out of your slumber by talking loudly into his cell phone about his "conquest" the night before. Under a GOP/Tea Party administration, US DHS Agents will be on each and every bus and train car with orders to shoot and kill the loud public phone talker.

• Elevating torture.  Again Matthews has the right idea but not in the way he thinks. We will not be torturing any al Qaeda terrorists, but we will be torturing people who's time has long passed, just to convince them to "go away."  I am speaking about people like Al Gore and Meghan McCain to name a few.  Also earning torture will be anybody who creates horrible nightmares, I am talking about the mental images that cause people to scream in their sleep forever.  This law is not meant to discourage film makers who create horror films.  We are talking about the real horror makers, people like Nancy Grace having a wardrobe malfunction on live TV, or 967-year-old Hugh Hefner talking about his sex life with 22-year-old playmates.

• Punishing Gays. OK, Matthew has us there, once the Tea Party-NeoCons take over we will be punishing Gays. We will also be punishing African-Americans, Latinos, Jews, women, Muslims, redheads, other conservatives and anybody else who breaks the law. We wont be punishing groups but individuals and unlike the progressives we will treat everyone equally, without political correctness or regards to their race, religion, hair color and/or what kind of pre-sweetened cereal they had for breakfast.

• Breaking Unions. There is one rule that the Neo-Tea Party types have which Mr. Matthews must be unaware of, "you break it, you fix it." No one wants to break anything.  In fact it is because of this rule that we do not support Barack Obama for re-election, he broke the economy and instead of trying to fix it, he wants to keep breaking it

• Starting More Wars. Mr. Tinkle must have read this one wrong.  The Neo-teas do not want to start wars, we want any President to get congressional approval before he starts any wars. Just like President Bush did before Afghanistan and Iraq, just as President Obama didn't before Libya.

• Tax Cuts For The Rich. Yep we can own up to that one also.  Those nasty conservatives do want tax cuts for the rich, they also want tax cuts for the middle class, and anybody else who fits into the 53% of Americans who pay income taxes.   I will let you in on a little secret that you cannot tell people where you heard it. Those Tea Party Neo-cons believe that the tax monies paid into the government is really the tax payers money so the government should be using less of it and returning as much as possible to its original owners.

• And Even Worse... Here's is something that even Chris Matthews doesn't know.  There is a Tea Party plan to force Crayola Crayons to get rid of some of their crayon colors because the names sound too subversive.  Among those slotted for elimination are:

-Atomic Tangerine (sounds too terroristy)
-Beaver (no sexual references)
-Cotton Candy (this recommendation came from Michelle Obama)
-Magic Mint (too druggy)
-Piggy Pink (sounds too much like Congressional earmarks)
-Tickle Me Pink (sounds too much like former Congressman Massa)

There you have it, the real agenda of the Neo-Cons and Tea Party movement. And to think if Chris Matthews didn't push the point, we never would have fessed up. No, we probably would have been hanging out looking for ways to live on the public dole, take other people's money, while looking for others to place blame.  You know....just like progressives.

HORSE CRAP! Liberal Media Claims "Occupy Wall Street" is a Left-Wing Tea Party

The liberal media has constantly found ways to put down the tea party movement.  First there were the sexual slurs we were 'tea baggers." Then we were racists, stupid and finally we were stubborn extremists whose only wish was to close down the government and/or remove Barack Obama from office.

The media's latest slander of the Tea Party puts all of the others to shame. They are calling the left-wing "Occupy Wall Street" protests in New York a liberal tea party.  Ladies and Gentlemen, I know the tea party, I have been to some of their rallies, some of the tea party leaders are friends of mine, it is with 100% certainty I can report that the only similarity between the tea party movement and the occupy wall street protests is they are both comprised of Homo Sapiens.

That doesn't stop the liberal media though. Take NBC news for example; On Saturday Night's Evening News correspondent Michelle Franzen quoted Columbia University's Dorian Warren who asserted the Wall Street protests were "a liberal version of the Tea Party." He added: "I think this could potentially carry over into the 2012 elections and get people to the polls."

On Sunday's Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne about the movement: "...your column out tomorrow talks about the equivalent Tea Party movement on the left. 

Time Magazine said:

In its broadest outlines, this new outpouring of protest is driven by the same fuel that gave fire to the Tea Party: Anger at elites, a feeling of injustice, a concern about jobs, fear about the direction of the economy and a clear desire to take action. Whereas the Tea Party focused these furies on government, Occupy Wall Street focuses the fury on corporate America. It seems, quite simply, to be the left’s answer to the right’s size-of-government critique that has dominated national politics for the last two years.

Neither in methodology or goals is there any similarity between the tea party and this Occupy Wall Street group.

Tea Party rallies were calm protests whose attendees respected the local ordinances and cleaned up after they were done. For the most part the only people arrested at tea party rallies were the SEIU thugs sent by the administration to bust some heads. At the occupy Wall Street rally yesterday, 700 people were arrested for ignoring police instructions and blocking access to the Brooklyn Bridge.

The goals of the Tea Party were all about returning this country to what made it great,  following the road map of this country's success, the  Constitution, along with the the traditional American values of freedom, independence celebrating success, and personal responsibility.

The Occupy Wall Street Folks have a list of demands most of them are unconstitutional, they are the antithesis of the traditional American values. The Occupy Wall Street folks created goals that are all about tearing down institutions.  They are looking to create dependency on the government, take away freedom and blame all of their problems on others. Under the Occupy Wall Street demands, no one would ever have to work hard ever again. If they had their way everyone would just be able to take more from the government's endless supply of cash. All loans will be forgiven and everyone will have a salary whether they work or not.

• Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

• Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

• Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

• Demand four: Free college education.

• Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

• Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

• Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

• Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

• Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

• Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

• Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

• Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

• Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Respecting  the local laws vs. 700 arrests on one day, using the guide book that made America great the Constitution vs. ignoring what worked so well, personal responsibility vs. eliminating responsibility, a sense of independence and pride in ones accomplishments vs. allowing others to do everything for you, celebrating success vs.penalizing it, those are the basic differences between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street group.

Sorry media you are all wrong, there is absolutely no similarity between the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street protests.  To imply that they are even remotely the same is pure horse crap!

Democrats Refuse to Put Jobs Bill on Senate Schedule

Speaking to reporters at the beginning of his Cabinet meeting today, President Obama said he is ready to sign the legislation. Once again he implied that only the GOP was holding his bill up when he called on congressional Republicans to spell out what aspects of his plan they agree with and which they reject.  Perhaps a better idea would be to ask Senate Democrats what they don't like about the bill. After all three weeks after he submitted his Tax and Spend  jobs bill and demanded that it  be passed right away the Senate, which is controlled by the President's party has yet to take up the legislation, truth be told they have yet to take up when they are going to take up the bill.

According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

But while the White House will again be calling for action by lawmakers, the first order of business in the Senate this week - that would the Senate which is controlled by the President's own party - will be a measure on China's currency.

Why is Obama's own party delaying the vote on his Jobs bill? Simple they don't have the votes.

At this point, Democrats probably don't have 50 votes for the underlying Obama jobs bill, as Democrats are split for a variety of reasons.

Some Senate Democrats don't like the way the plan is paid for with higher taxes; others don't like higher tax levies on the oil and gas industry as well as other details.

Even NY Senator Chuck Schumer, the most partisan of partisan hacks is indicating some problems with the bill.  At issue is the increased taxes the president wants to impose to fund the bill:

"After [Obama] announced the jobs bill ... he proposed ways of paying for it that are probably not the best way to garner the votes," Schumer said.

"We're looking for better ways," said Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate.

Republican leaders in the House had been vocal arguing that now was not the time to raise any taxes. And Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) has said that Democratic senators standing for election won't vote for a tax increase - "even on the wealthiest people."

It seems that the party loyalists are not going for Obama's class war fare, especially those nearing their re-election campaign.  All we know for sure is Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid has promised to bring the bill up for consideration this year, but there is a lot of "this year" left.  And while President Obama is making the GOP his scapegoat, it is the Democrats causing much of the Delay.

Fast And Furious Document Dump Raises More Questions About a White House Cover Up

Political Mothers have an old saying, if you don't have something nice to say, say it on Friday.  The Friday document drop is an old American Political tradition, release controversial information or make a controversial firing on a Friday, when the "a" team of media correspondents have already filed their reports and taken off for the weekend.  The thought is that will prevent the information from picking up momentum and the bad news dominating the news cycle for a few days.

So it was no surprise that when it was going to release documents which show the White House North American Director of Security Affairs had more than a cursory knowledge Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama Administration released them on Friday afternoon.

Fast and Furious was a project of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fireworks where basically some "geniuses" high up in ATF (and possibly the DOJ and White House) thought it would be a great idea to sell assault weapons to the violent Mexican drug cartels.  The US government decided--in order to fight the Mexican Drug Cartels, we should arm them and let them keep their weapons once they were used in committing crimes .

Those assault weapons ceded to the drug cartels have been used for crimes in Mexico, used to kill a Border Agent named Brian Terry, turned up  at the scenes of violent crimes in Phoenix, and other crimes across the country.  The House Oversight Committee and Senator Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee has been investigating "Fast and Furious" in an attempt to identify who approved this lame-brained scheme and how can operations like this be prevented from happening in the future.

Yesterday, on doc dump Friday, the White House turned over new documents in the Congressional investigation of fast and furious.

The documents show extensive communications between Bill Newell - who led Fast and Furious - and then-White House National Security Staffer Kevin O'Reilly. While it was known that the two had contact, the documents indicate a more extensive discussion of Fast and Furious than the two previously admitted.

Emails indicate the two also spoke on the phone. Such detailed, direct communications between a local ATF manager in Phoenix and a White House national security staffer has raised interest among Congressional investigators looking into Fast and Furious. Newell has said he and O'Reilly are long time friends. (the documents are embedded below)

In the E-mails Newell and O' Reilly discuss ATF's gun trafficking efforts along the border including Fast and Furious case, though not by name. O' Reilly, the Director of North East Affairs for the National Security Staff of the White House seems to have more than a "friends" interest in the Phoenix office's gun trafficking cases even including weekly status reports. They do not mention specific tactics such as "letting guns walk.

A lawyer for the White House wrote Congressional investigators: "none of the communications between ATF and the White House revealed the investigative law enforcement tactics at issue in your inquiry, let alone any decision to allow guns to 'walk.'"

Which is 100% true. Also true is the fact that the White House is with holding some documents.

However, the chief counsel to President Barack Obama, Kathryn Ruemmler, indicated that the White House was withholding an unspecified number of internal e-mails exchanged among three National Security Staff aides. "These internal NSS emails are not included in the enclosed documents because the [Executive Office of the President] has significant confidentiality interests in its internal communications.

I am willing to put money down on the fact that those " significant confidentiality interests in its internal communications" involve protecting some White House backsides.

Among the documents produced: an email in which ATF's Newell sent the White House's O'Reilly an "arrow chart reflecting the ultimate destination of firearms we intercepted and/or where the guns ended up." The chart shows arrows leading from Arizona to destinations all over Mexico.

In response, O'Reilly wrote on Sept. 3, 2010 "The arrow chart is really interesting - and - no surprise - implies at least that different (Drug Trafficking Organizations) in Mexico have very different and geographically distinct networks in the US for acquiring guns. Did last year's TX effort develop a similar graphic?"

Keep in mind, while the ATF was sharing some pretty charts with at least one White House official, about the movement of American purchased contraband throughout Mexico, our Mexican allies knew nothing about the program.


Congressional investigators for Republicans Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) have asked to interview O'Reilly by September 30. But the White House sent the North American Director on an assignment to Iraq, which last time I checked was not part of North America, but it does put him outside the reach of Congressional investigators.

One administration source says White House national security staffers were "briefed on the toplines of ongoing federal efforts, but nobody in White House knew about the investigative tactics being used in the operation, let alone any decision to let guns walk."

If that is the case, why is the White House holding back some emails, why is O'Reilly in Iraq when the White House has known since July that he would be next on the list to be questioned.

Maybe the White House knew absolutely nothing about allowing guns to walk.  Maybe the ATF ignored standard procedure (and the opportunity to protect their own butts)by not asking high ups in the Department of Justice of the Fast and Furious was OK with them. And maybe even the 100 page+ worth of conversations about this secret program between the project head in ATF and the Director of North America for National Security Affairs was just friendly conversation (hey its possible American Idol wasn't good that year maybe the two buddies had nothing else to talk about), but the part I don't get is if all that is true, why is the White House withholding some documents, and making sure O'Reilly is not available to interview?

Something be rotten in the District of Columbia (the White House document dump is embedded below).
ffdocdump

The Rise and Fall of Rick Perry->And The Lid Teaches His Friend Jazz The Facts About Israel

Participating as a guest on the Rick Moran show is a guilty pleasure, and last night's show was probably one of the most enjoyable ever.  Rick, who is an editor at both PJM, American Thinker and runs his own blog Right Wing Nut House is very masterful at getting his guest to think and interact and last night the interaction between Stephen Green the famous Vodkapundit, my good friend Jazz Shaw who blogs at the Hot Air Green Room and myself was pretty spirited.   Make sure you listen to the last segment where we discuss the Middle East.  For those of you who don't know both Jazz and me, we agree 95% of the time, that 5% is mostly comprised of the Middle East. While Jazz will probably still disagree, I didn't argue with Jazz's opinions but the facts that he based his opinions on.

(if you cannot see media player below Please Click Here)

Sheila Jackson Lee to Conservative Bloggers SHUT UP and Stop Being Racist

One of the initial things Loretta, my first boss in the real world, taught me was that it's OK to be stupid, and it's OK to be nasty, but stupid and nasty is a horrible combination.  No member of congress proves that more, than Houston Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Last night Ms Jackson Lee appeared on the Tavis Smiley program and was asked to comment on what he saw as conservative blogger joy over what seemed to be a split between the President and the Congressional Black Caucus, her answer was they should shut up and stop practicing racial politics.

(if you cannot see video below, please click here)

Untitled from Naked Emperor News on Vimeo.

Those are strong words for a woman who is reported to be a mean-spirited boss, but even meaner to her African-American employees.

Given Jackson Lee’s apparent touchiness on racial questions, there’s a certain irony in the fact that aides claim she is far harsher to the African Americans who work for her. “’You stupid mother-effer’ was like a constant,” says one. “Like, all the time. But the interesting thing is she would really project that behavior more towards her African American staffers. She would have other ethnic groups in the office, like interns or whatnot. But it was really her African American staffers who she felt comfortable enough to really curse out…. This is something we always talked about. We chalked it up to her just feeling more comfortable acting out her aggression toward a certain group of people versus others.”

If Ms. Lee wants to be the "Racial Politics Police" why didn't she say anything in 2010 when her colleague, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, tried to brand War Hero and all around mench, Allen West as some sort of criminal biker.  Having had the privilege of meeting Congressman West twice, I am willing to swear on a stack of bibles that he indeed is African-American.

The truth is Ms Jackson Lee doesn't really know what she is talking about. No not like when she said North and South Vietnam are living peacefully side by side, even though there hasn't been a North and South Vietnam since Gerald Ford was President, not even like when she  told the House Judiciary Committee the “penalty” that the health-care law enacted last year by Congress imposes on individuals who do not buy health insurance is not in fact a penalty, even though the bill calls it a penalty, no those are just examples of why the Congresswoman will never be a brain surgeon.

In this case, Ms Lee is blindly following the progressive agenda. They have been working hard brand conservatives who criticize the President as racist.  The fact is the Congresswoman has no understanding of the hows, wheres and whys of conservative positions (that is above her thought grade).

Did myself and other conservative bloggers report the battles between the CBC an Obama? You bet! I for one also report the growing space between Obama and the Jewish vote.  Does that mean I am a racist AND an anti-Semite? Or does it mean I write a political blog and what seems to be a growing distance between President Obama and his most loyal supporters is big political news.


I would never expect Congresswoman Jackson Lee to read my blog, after all some of the words I use have more than three letters, but if I did not report and comment on major political news my readers would go elsewhere, and to be honest I need the ad revenue. The only other way to get money these days is to be a major contributor to the Obama Campaign.

Another Survey Shows Obama's Deteriorating Jewish Support (and Its not Just Because Of Israel)

Another opinion poll was released reporting s a deterioration of Barack Obama's support in the Jewish Community.  What makes this set of results surprising is the poll was conducted by the American Jewish Committee, a group who's leanings are so liberal,  it chastises more conservative Jewish organizations that criticize Obama's Israel policy. Another surprise in the survey (at lease for those unfamiliar with Jewish voters) is that Israel is just one of the issues driving Jews away from Obama.

For the first time since his inauguration, the annual  AJC poll shows more Jews disapproving of Obama's performance than approving. Approval of Obama’s performance declined to 45 percent, and disapproval rose to 48 percent. Last year's AJC survey reported 51 percent approved, and 44 percent disapproved.

Key areas of  Jewish voter disapproval are the economy (duh), and immigration. Foreign policy is a wash and most Jews approve of  the President's performance with National Security and Energy.As expected, the President's Israel Policy meets with disapproval.

Note: the only people who believe that Jews approve of his policy are members of the Democratic caucuses in either house of Congress, people who work for the DNC, or Obama reelection campaign or members of the National Jewish Democratic Council. Of course the NJDC wouldn't criticize Obama even if he woke up one day and (God forbid) decided to bomb Tel Aviv.

 It would be hard for those folks to deny the objection to Obama and Israel now as the results aren't even close.Do you approve or disapprove of the Obama Administration's handling of U.S. -Israel relations?

Interestingly the Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu, not a favorite amongst the liberal Jewish Community in the US has a better approval story than Obama.Do you approve or disapprove of the Netanyahu government's handling of Israel-U.S. relations?The poll also asks how they would vote in an Obama election against:

• Romney (Obama 50%, Romney 32%, Neither 16%)

• Perry  (Obama 55%, Perry 25%, Neither 18%)

• Bachmann (Obama 59%, Bachmann 19%, Neither 21%)

A few things to point out, Obama beats each of the above, but in each case his percent of the vote is lower than his 2008 total. Based on the poll Obama's 2012 performance with Jews  depends on who the Republicans put up. It is very early, and actual Jewish support for each of these GOP candidates could be much higher or much lower because Jewish Democrats are not  familiar with the GOP candidates (except for what the mainstream media slanders about them).

In the end this study doesn't show that Obama will lose the Jewish vote in 2012, nor should it.  I would be very surprised if  Obama lost the Jewish vote in 2012. What it does show is the GOP has an opportunity to steal enough  Jewish votes to make a difference in some key states.  The large "none of the above" numbers reflect the possibility that Jewish voters may become so frustrated with the choice of candidates that a big segment of them may stay home. This hurts the Democrats.  Based on historic trends 70-80% of those Jews who stay home will be votes lost to the Democratic candidate.And most important IMHO, is that it kills the argument of many  unfamiliar with Jewish voters.  Israel  is not the only issue that shapes their election picks.

NBC's David Gregory Tries To Get Netanyahu To Create an Obama Commercial

On Today's Meet the Press, Liberal activist/host David Gregory campaigned for President Obama to recover his standing in the Jewish Community. Actually what he tried to do is get Binyamin Netanyahu to say that Obama is as big a friend to Israel as Bush.  When that didn't work he tried to get Bibi to bash Mitt Romney's statement saying criticizing Obama's stance on Israel.  When Netanyahu refused to bite on the first two attempts Gregory tried to get him to say that support of Israel should not be a campaign issue.

As you can see by the partial transcript and video below, Netanyahu dodged Gregory's best attempts at trying to create a sound-bite for an Obama commercial:

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: Back in 2002, you said Israel has had no better friend in the White House than George W. Bush. Would you say the same about President Obama?

ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: They've all been great friends of Israel. You know why?

MR. GREGORY: You said, "No better friend in the White House than George W. Bush."

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: When did I say that?

MR. GREGORY: 2002 on this program.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: OK. Well, they keep moving. They keep adding new people to--you know, that's the peculiar thing about our system, the leaders, the leaders keep changing.

MR. GREGORY: So George W. Bush and President Obama are equivalent in your mind.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: God, I'm not going...

MR. GREGORY: I'm asking--no, but I'm asking you a serious question.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I'm not going to start ranking. I'll tell you what, they're all...

MR. GREGORY: You did rank. But, Prime Minister, you did rank. And you said that America was behind you; and, in fact, this has been a frosty relationship between this administration and your administration. And the reality is that there's politics in this country and a presidential campaign. Just this week, you had Mitt Romney, a Republican, say of Obama that he threw Israel under the bus. Rick Perry described Obama's Middle East policy as naive, arrogant, misguided and dangerous. Do you disagree with those statements?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: David, you're trying to throw me under the bus of American politics. And guess what, I'm not going to be thrown there. So I'll tell you what...

MR. GREGORY: You didn't mind disagreeing with President Clinton's analysis this week about the Middle East.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Sure.

MR. GREGORY: Do you disagree with these Republican candidates?


PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I think the important thing to understand is this, and, and this is the truth about America, Israel enjoys tremendous bipartisan support, tremendous. And, and, and, you know, you just have to walk around the breadth and length of this country, it's--or fly, it's a big country--and everywhere you go, you see this tremendous, tremendous sympathy and affinity for Israel. This is what, I think, is one of the great blessings that Israel has in the, in the 21st century. So--and I think that bipartisan support is expressed by any person who happens to be the president of the United States...

MR. GREGORY: Are you concerned that partisanship is being injected into this?

(if you cannot see video below please click here)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

NBC News: Working For the re-election of Obama as best they can.

Source: NBC News

Bob Beckel is Either Too Partisan or Too Lazy to Check His Israeli "Settlement" Facts

Whenever I think that Barack Obama has had his worst week ever...he finds a way to make it worse. This week began with more Solyndra revelations tying the failed Solar Panel firm's federal loan to politics directed by the Obama White House and it ended at the United Nations where President Abbas made a disastrous application for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian Statehood, which more than anything was a result of Barack Obama's disastrous Middle East policy.

According to Bob Beckel on Friday's The Five Obama's policies had nothing to do with the UN disaster, nothing to do with the fact that Abbas refuses to negotiate, and nothing to do with the fact that Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, its all the fault of the settlements, the settlements, the settlements. To be hones I can't remember if he repeated the words "the settlements" three or four times but Beckel certainly made his point. He also proved that he is either too partisan to admit the truth, or too lazy to research recent  history, but either way he is wrong.

Allow me to explain the facts and for brevity's sake I will start with the Obama Administration.

While the Palestinian's have never accepted Israeli settlements, secession of all settlement building has never been a precondition to talks. Israel had long ago agreed not to build new communities  in Judea and Samaria but would continue to add housing units to existing communities.

During the government of PM Ehud Barak, there were direct talks and construction continued in existing communities.

It was the Obama administration's naiveté that made the settlements an issue. Hillary Clinton first demanded the freeze in 2009 and was quickly backed up by Obama. What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession (a settlement freeze including no new housing units in existing communities) was for Israel a grave sacrifice. From their point of view Obama was telling Adult Israelis that their children could no longer live near their parents. He was also saying that a policy not accepted in the United States (allowing people of a certain faith to live anywhere they want) was OK as long as it appeased the Arab world.

It is interesting that the man who pushed for Muslims to build a mosque on Ground Zero, and for Illegal immigrants to live in Arizona, believes that Jews should be banned from living on the West Bank of the Jordan River.

Making the Settlement a cornerstone of the new administration's Middle East policy, was a major naivete-driven error by the Obama administration which was compounded by their inclusion of Jerusalem in the mix and their constant public berating of the Jewish State. This turned the Israeli population against Obama, especially the Israeli left who would be more inclined to support a settlement freeze demand. A May 2011 Smith Poll conducted for the Jerusalem Post showed that only 12% of Israelis believe Obama is pro-Israel, 40% believe he is pro-Palestinian.

Obama's demand for a freeze of natural community growth broke a US/Israel agreement made during the Bush administration.

Obama, through his Secretary of State Ms Clinton, said there was never an agreement between Israel and the US about natural expansion of existing settlements. Elliot Abrams who negotiated the agreement for the United States says that the Administration is lying.

Immediately the Palestinians seized upon the Obama-created issue. Seeing an opportunity to avoid talking, they used Obama’s demands to make a settlement freeze a precondition to further talks, even though there were negotiations and construction going on simultaneously before Obama became president.

In August 2009 Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a ten month settlement building freeze in Judea and Samaria. It was approved by the Knesset and implemented on November 25, 2009 and ran till September 25, 2010. Despite pressure from the United States, the Palestinians wasted the first 9  months of the freeze and would not come to the negotiation table till September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended. A fact lost on Mr. Beckel.

After the freeze ended, Abbas once again hid behind Obama's naivete, another fact that Beckel forgets. With the end of the freeze pressure was put on Jewish State to extend it indefinitely.  No one questioned the Palestinian Authority’s refusal talk for the first nine months of a ten month freeze.

The US began to negotiate with the Israel to extend the freeze. And the two sides came close to a deal. Based on their experience with Obama and the deal negotiated by Elliot Abrams during the Bush Administration, Israel demanded that any proposal be presented in writing as any oral deal with the Obama administration was worth the paper it was printed on.

The written offer never came and worse yet, the Secretary of State wasn’t negotiating in good faith. Instead Ms Clinton was playing "Bait and Switch."

As Israel waited for a letter clarifying America's guarantees in exchange for a proposed building ban for Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, a diplomatic source has come forward saying that no such letter is on its way. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and contrary to reports, the U.S. did not guarantee an end to the freeze, the source said.

The source, a senior diplomat with inside knowledge of Netanyahu's recent meetings in Washington, said Clinton made commitments when talking to Netanyahu, but later slipped out of them by claiming that she had not been speaking on behalf of U.S. President Obama – who, she said in the end, did not give his approval.

Despite the Obama administration's bait and switch, Netanyahu tried to give the Palestinian side an "out." In early October 2010 he made a very simple offer to the PA.  If you were to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, we will extend the freeze.  As reported by Al Jazeera the answer was a resounding no:

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has offered to renew a partial settlement construction freeze in exchange for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. 

He announced the offer on Monday, just three days after the Palestinians and Arab states gave the US a month to persuade Israel to renew a 10-month moratorium on settlement housing starts that expired on September 26.

Netanyahu's proposal met with swift rejection from senior Palestinian officials.

"The whole world holds Netanyahu responsible for what is happening in the region, after he chose to push ahead with the settlement project at the expense of an advance in the peace process. Settlement freeze is a commitment Netanyahu should respect," Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Al Jazeera.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior official of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, described the settlement issue as "an aggression on Palestinian rights and land".

"What Israel calls itself is an Israeli matter that does not concern us. The two issues are not related," he told Al Jazeera in reference to Netanyahu's condition that Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Nabil Abu Rudainah, the spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said a return to peace talks required a freeze on settlement building by Israel.

"The issue of the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the matter," he told the Reuters news agency.

The Palestinian side still refuses to take that first step toward peace, recognizing the Jewish  State of Israel. And while Barack Obama was willing to destroy the prospects for negotiations by making the settlements an issue the way it never had before, he has avoided upsetting the Palestinians by demanding that they recognize the Jewish State of Israel.  Something Obama tap danced around the issue as recently as his speech in front of the General Assembly last week. Those, Mr. Beckel is what are called facts.

Its not just Bob Beckel, he is just the most annoying. The real story of a settlement freeze has been ignored by the mainstream media, Earlier this week Gretchen Carlson of Fox and Friends reported that the Administration was trying to get Israel to return to the table, despite the fact that Israel never left the table, the Palestinians did. Israel offered a ten month freeze to help the US out of a problem caused by our President's naiveté, the Palestinians ignored the freeze until it was too late, an extension of the freeze was first sabotaged by Hilary Clinton's bait and switch tactics and a refusal to put things in writing, then by PA President Abbas because he didn't want to recognize Israel.

Whether Beckel is ignoring the truth because he desperately wants to turn around the progressive Obama's fortunes, or because he is too lazy to investigate the truth it doesn't really matter.What matters is that there is a dearth of truth coming out of the main stream media, even on Fox News. I guess bias and or/laziness is bipartisan.

Maxine Waters Leaks More Verbal Stupidity-The GOP is Using Obama For His Food

In Maxine Waters' warped mind there is nothing wrong with this country except for the fact that the GOP and the Tea Party movement exist. She believes that everybody has the right to HER opinion. After saying the Tea Party should go to hell, Obama's programs help white people too much today she said that the President wasn't doing enough to bash his opponents.  Especially since they have been stealing his food and they are trying to kill him.

“He’s been very nice about it,” Waters said of Obama’s budget negotiations with Republicans. “He’s been on the other side of the aisle talking with people. He’s invited them up to the White House to have beer. He’s invited them to come and watch the Super Bowl games.

“He’s done all of that, and when they eat his food and drink his beer and leave, then they go and try to kill him [on Capitol Hill],” she told an audience gathered for the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Foundation’s annual legislative conference in Washington.

Gee, what ever happened to the new tone? No one has said they want to kill the POTUS. On top of that the President serves a mean bean dip.

“You’ve gotta fight — you will not win this battle without fighting,” she added.

Waters and her fellow Democratic party members of the CBC are very upset they are not winning the class war.

Many House liberals have been disenchanted with Obama going back to December, when the president accepted GOP demands that the Bush-era tax rates be extended to even the wealthiest Americans — a provision strongly opposed by most Democrats.

The president drew similar liberal criticism this summer for backing enormous cuts in both a 2011 spending bill and legislation to raise the debt ceiling. More recently, some CBC members wondered aloud why Obama didn’t visit any urban areas on his August jobs tour through the Midwest.

....“We love the president. We want him to be successful,” Waters said. “But does he feel our pain? Does he understand what’s going on out here?”

Then she went after her favorite target

“We have got to show up. The Tea Party shows up. The Tea Party intimidates everybody,” she said. “We have to show people that we have no fear. Don’t mistake the silence for intimidation.”

Waters and her fellow progressives don't "get it." When they demonize the tea party, they demonize the American people. Because the polls show that American people support the tea party positions even when they don't support the tea party itself.

Allow me to suggest that Ms Waters may one day regret her attacks on grass roots America.

I Hate Israel! I Hate America! I’m a Muslim! I’ve Got it All! Let Me Be Your Leader!

Scene: A nightclub in Morocco.

Abdul: “I’m sorry, sir, this is a private room.”
German official [from the Nazi-controlled DeutschBank]: “You dare not keep me out of here!”
Rick: “Your cash is good at the bar.”
German official: “What! Do you know who I am?”
Rick: ‘I do. You’re lucky the bar’s open to you.”

–“Casablanca,” (1942)

By Barry Rubin

First it was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the Iranian revolution.

Hey, he said in effect, Yes, I’m a Persian, Yes, I’m a Shia, but I hate Israel and want to destroy it! And besides we’re all Muslims. So let me lead the Middle East. I know the way to kick the Americans out of the Middle East, too. By force! And the blood spilled and behold, Iran was popular for a while. But the Arabs and Sunni eventually found other heroes, and some became frightened of Iran’s power.

Then there was Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi dictatorship.

Hey, he said in effect, I am an Arab, I am a Sunni. True, I am a Godless atheist who kills believers. But I not only hate the Americans and Israelis but I also hate the Shia and those Shia heretics. So let me lead the Middle East. I know how to defeat them! By force! And the blood spilled and behold, Iraq was popular for a while. But then he led Iraq to disaster, and was defeated and then killed.

Then there was Usama bin Ladin.

He said, I am an Arab, I am a Sunni. True, I am no trained cleric. But I hate the Americans. What? Oh, yes, forgot about that one. I also hate Israel. I know how to defeat them! By force! So let me lead the Middle East. By force! And the blood spilled and behold, Usama bin Ladin was popular for a while. And then he was killed, too.

Then there was Muhammad Fadlallah of Hizballah.

He said in effect, I am an Arab, though a Shia. I am a cleric! I have it all. I hate the Americans (though many of them don’t even realize it) and Israel. I know how to defeat them! By force! See, I won the war! Oops! Spoke too soon, heh! And the blood spilled and Fadlallah was popular for a while, Lebanon was in ruins though, still, Hizballah seized state power there. But he sided with Iran and the Syrian dictatorship so the Sunni Arabs waxed wroth.

And now, there is Yusuf al-Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood and they can say: We’re Arab! We’re Muslim! We’ve got it all, including the most respected Sunni Islamist in the world as our guide! We don’t need no stinkin’ Persians or Shias! (Film reference: “Treasure of the Sierra Madre.”)

Soon we will take over Egypt. We hate the Americans and Israel. We know how to defeat them! By force! True, Egypt lost in 1948 and 1956 and 1967 and, ultimately, in 1973, too. Still, a few Allahu Akhbar’s will take care of that. True, if we were aggressive we might lose all that U.S. aid but what’s money compared to the Will of Allah and the prospect of heaven? Besides, America is collapsing; Israel is losing its support—the more concessions, the more aggressive we will be. And we have our Hamas friends.

There is something different this time, however, since there is still another savior of Islam in the field: Turkish President Recep Erdogan. He says: True, I’m not an Arab but I’m Sunni. And I hate the United States, though I don’t say so in public. And I know how to defeat them: by force! Let’s go and fight! And the Arab League leaders erupt in cheers and chant his name. Then the Muslim Brotherhood discovers he is too subtle for them, he wants to keep the Islamism secret until all power is seized and they disagree with that strategy.

Still, Erdogan is making his leadership bid. Here he is at the Arab League foreign minister’s meeting: “It is time for us to take responsibility for our common future….We are entitled to meet the righteous demands of our people using any legitimate means.”

Note two phrases: “our common future” means forget about Arab nationalism. All us Muslims got to stick together. Seeing Turks as Europeans is an obsolete notion for him. Ninety years of secular, Western-oriented nationalism is over.

“Any legitimate means” means the right and need to go to war against Israel. Of course, the U.S. government still acts as if nothing has changed, that Turkey is not just a reliable ally but an especially honored role model, star ally.

Incidentally, don’t waste any time on the lies and denials, here’s Turkey’s foreign minister explaining the new policy of Turkey being leader of the Middle East as he secretly expressed it to a meeting of high-level ruling party officials and as made available to us by Wikileaks.

And let’s not forget Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser; and Syria’s Assad dynasty; and, of course, Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasir Arafat. All of them also had the same basic program. All of them failed miserably and left their people worse off.

I keep thinking of George Costanza of “Seinfeld” explaining, “You think sickness like that grows on trees? Nobody is sicker than me, nobody….I’m disturbed! I’m depressed! I’m inadequate! I got it all!”

There were some others—King Abdallah of Jordan; Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt; Bashir al-Gemayel of Lebanon. They were all murdered, though, by other locals. King Hussein of Jordan isn’t around any more. So let’s see, demagogues who back terrorism and violence, hate the West, and refuse compromise fail miserably and become heroes. Moderates who want to focus on economic progress (including here Husni Mubarak) and peacemaking are jeered and killed or deposed by their own people.

Might there be a pattern here?

Meanwhile, like Bart Simpson, President Barack Obama and other Western leaders keep writing on the blackboard one hundred times: Now, if only we prove to them we’re their friends they’ll like us.

Maybe, say the Europeans, if we recognize a Palestinian state they will like us! Maybe if we say enough things about Muslims they’ll like us! After all, it is all our fault, or Israel’s fault, that they are angry. They couldn’t possibly want a revolution based on a radical ideology followed by a repressive dictatorship because that’s what they really want!

Reminds me of the lyrics to “I Hope I Get It” from “A Chorus Line”:

“I think I’ve got it.
I think I’ve got it.
I knew he liked me all the time.
Still it isn’t over….What does he want from me?
What should I try to be?”

In other words, Western leaders aren’t protecting their interests. They’re auditioning for the role of Middle East hero against those who can say they are a Muslim or even an Arab. Guess who’s going to get the part? Are they going to persuade the producers that they hate Israel more than Qaradawi or Erdogan or Fadlallah? That they will promote Islam as well as people like that? That they will kick the West (that is, themselves) out of the Middle East?

In contrast, a Gulf Arab, who hates all this stuff, gave the alternative in a private conversation: “I don’t want an American president to behave like an Arab. I want an American president who will behave like an American.”

The United States and Europe should be preparing to audition for a very different part in a very different production. How about “Casablanca” or “High Noon”? Obama might be better advised (and it would be less of a stretch) to go out for the Noel Coward role for “In Which We Serve.” Or even “The Four Feathers” in which a coward finds his inner hero.(Warning: Watch only the 1939 version.) Funny, they don’t make films like those any more.

They better start making politicians like that very soon!

The good news: If you are reading this you have already learned. Explain it to everyone you know.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

Barack Obama's Bridge To Nowhere

The Barack Obama "Re-elect me because I offered a jobs bill that even my own party hates" tour continued today with a trip to the Brent Spence Bridge. No the POTUS wasn't threatening to jump because the public doesn't like his class warfare-inspired tax provisions, nor was he threatening to jump because voters trust the GOP more than Democrats regarding the economy. He wasn't even threatening to kill himself rather than be subjected to Nancy Grace in a low-cut dress on Dancing With The Stars ever again. Thank Goodness he wasn't even threatening to kill himself at all (although the Nancy Grace thing was pretty compelling).

This President visited the bridge because he was trying to make a point, partially to the voters but mostly to the Republican leadership. The Trent Spence Bridge rises above the Ohio River and spans John Boehner's home state of Ohio and Mitch McConnel's home state of Kentucky. Obama was trying to tell these Republicans that he could go over their heads and directly to their constituents at any time and through the power of the Presidential "Bully Pulpit" he can make their lives very difficult.

What Obama doesn't understand is that he has used the "Bully Pulpit" so many times that, just like the Trent Spence Bridge, it is functionally obsolete. In the two states, his trip was seen as just another staged re-election event and a bit of a parody of itself.

The 50-year-old, 830-foot bridge is well past its prime and Obama supposedly used it as a way to showcase why Congress should back his "tax and spend" $450 billion dollar job plan which includes infrastructure spending.

But here is the part of the visit that really gives it the "Obama touch." According to the Cincinnati Enquirer this bridge might not get any of the money from the infrastructure plan even in the unlikely event that the bill gets passed. But that may be a good thing because a project to modernize this bridge would not be shovel ready, even by the President's standards.

The bill itself contains no mention of the Brent Spence bridge, or any other specific projects. Even if the bill is passed, it's not clear funding included in the bill for stimulus or the creation of a national infrastructure bank would ever reach the bridge.

That's because if the point of the jobs bill is to create jobs now, then the Brent Spence Bridge may make a nice backdrop for a speech, but it's not the best example of a shovel-ready project.

According to highway officials in Ohio and Kentucky, the bridge is still in the preliminary engineering and environmental clearance phase. In a best case scenario, the earliest that workers would be hired would be in 2013, but more likely 2015.

This trip is just another Barack Obama political stunt. It's what he has been doing non-stop since he became a candidate for the office he now holds.

If he was truly serious about creating jobs, he would be in Washington right now, rolling up his sleeves and sitting down with Congressional leaders. But that is not what this president does, he is the pitchman, he does not know how to be a leader or an executive, he only knows how to campaign. That is why he took a photo-op today, near a bridge that probably won't get any money until at least 2015--a bridge trip to nowhere.

If he was trying to impress GOP leaders, he didn't. If he was trying to impress voters, he didn't. Perhaps the only person he impressed was DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Keep in mind though, impressing her is no big accomplishment, the DNC chair has proven many times over that she will buy any piece of political guano the President tosses her way.

Hopefully by the time this bridge is ready to begin its rehabilitation in 2015, the Republican jobs bill would be entering its third year. You know that bill, its the one where we create jobs by voting Barack Obama out of his.