Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for the ‘Middle East’ Category


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 13, 2010

Okay, now that seems to make more sense.

After the Times Online reported on Saturday that Saudi Arabia had given Israel permission to use their airspace for possible raids on Iranian nuclear facilities, Saudi Arabian Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf is saying that it ain’t so.

From Haaretz:

Saudi Arabia would not allow Israeli bombers to pass through its airspace en route to a possible strike of Iran’s nuclear facilities, a member of the Saudi royal family said Saturday, denying an earlier Times of London report.

Earlier Saturday, the Times reported that Saudi Arabia has practiced standing down its anti-aircraft systems to allow Israeli warplanes passage on their way to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, adding that the Saudis have allocated a narrow corridor of airspace in the north of the country.

Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, the Saudi envoy to the U.K. speaking to the London-based Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, denied that report, saying such a move “would be against the policy adopted and followed by the Kingdom.”

According to Asharq al-Awsat report, bin Nawaf reiterated the Saudi Arabia’s rejection of any violation of its territories or airspace, adding that it would be “illogical to allow the Israeli occupying force, with whom Saudi Arabia has no relations whatsoever, to use its land and airspace.”

This story doesn’t especially surprise me.

While the original story did seem plausible to me in a “maybe-there-really-could-be-a-Santa-Claus” kind of way, one could have probably bet the mortgage that a story like this would follow soon after, regardless of how accurate it is.

It almost had to happen.

And while a case can be made that the Saudis will ultimately do whatever is necessary to preserve the kingdom, including allowing Israel to use Saudi air space to conduct raids on Iranian nuclear targets, would anyone expect Saudi Arabia to say publicly that they’ve actually come to an agreement of this type with Israel?
wordpress statistics


Posted in Middle East | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 13, 2010

Common enemies create unlikely coalitions.

The oft-quoted phrase “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” sums it up quite nicely.

On a micro level, the annoying, noisy neighbor next door becomes an unexpected ally when the even more annoying guy down the street keeps letting his out-of-control dog go rummaging through everyone’s garbage cans, leaving trash strewn everywhere.

The guy with the smelly armpits on the subway sitting next to me becomes an instant comrade when the naked-from-the-waist-down dude across from us starts hurling peanut shells, shouting expletive-rich, pro-Obama slogans.

Arguably, the most well-known example of this kind of thing on a macro level is the alliance between the United States and Soviet Union during World War II.

Common foe: Nazi Germany.

Yet, within seconds of the war ending, the Cold War was officially on.

In a world where the scourge of moral equivalency acts as a fertility drug of evil – and the rise of kindness to the cruel is matched only by the increase of cruelty to the kind – the very concept that the nation of Saudi Arabia would stand with Israel before the United States does is, to say the least, distressing.

Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Hugh Tomlinson of the Times Online writes:

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.

To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.

“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”

Odd times.

Saudi Arabia, obviously, is concerned about an ever-strengthening Shia. It is more than obvious, even to the Saudis, that Barack Obama’s United States of America cannot be counted on for cover.

Thus the backup plan.

And what, pray tell, is Plan B?

Let Israel take care of it.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

At least temporarily.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Middle East | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2010

From the “Fancy That” file …

The religion of peace is wrapping its ever-loving, all-inclusive arms around the dregs of American society and inviting them to blow up infidels. According to a new Senate report, it turns out that a number of ex-convicts who saw the light and converted to Islam while behind bars in American prisons have made the most out of their post-incarceration lives by going to Yemen and trying to become new Al Qaeda team members.

(But don’t think it necessarily has anything to do with Islam).

Richard Sisk of the New York Daily News writes:

The focus on ex-cons was part of an intensified effort by Al Qaeda to involve Americans who could more easily slip through security and pose a “significant threat” to carry out attacks in the U.S., said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

“These Americans are not necessarily of Arab or South Asian descent” but “include individuals who converted to Islam in prison,” Kerry said in a foreword to the report by his committee.

As many as 36 of the ex-cons, nearly half from New York, were believed to be in Yemen, and U.S. counterterror officials were on “heightened alert because of the potential threat from extremists carrying American passports,” the report said.

The FBI and CIA were also concerned about a separate group of fewer than 10 Americans without criminal records who went to Yemen, converted to Islam and married Yemeni women to be allowed to remain in the country.

The report quoted a U.S. official who described the smaller group as “blond-haired, blue eyed-types” who fit the profile of Americans wanted by Al Qaeda for terror missions.

So Al Qaeda is racially profiling?


Most interesting (and painfully typical of those who live in Leftsville) is this post from a blogger at the Daily News website called hjo4:

When you keep people disenfranchised, placing them in prison, the only (thing) that’s being done is that we’re creating Home grown terrorist. I often wondered what would America’s reaction be when her own citizens became suicide bombers, I guess we’ll find out.

So, according to hjo4, imprisoning people – which disenfranchises them – transforms these individuals into home-grown terrorists.

In short, we are to blame.

We keep people disenfranchised.

By coming down hard on larcenists, thieves and embezzlers, we alienate them. By laying down the law with child abusers, sexual deviants and violent miscreants, we make felons feel terrible about themselves. By throwing murderers and rapists behind bars, we shackle the souls within.

Where has the self-esteem inside our nation’s prisons gone?

This is one reason why the closing of Guantanamo Bay won’t be happening anytime soon, despite President Obama’s waffle-in-the-sky dreams of eradicating everything George W. Bush.

Real life has a way of intruding on the dreams of even the most idealistic water walkers.

But it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Islam. What about all of those abortion clinic bombers?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 23, 2009

obama our confused president

As an “add-on” to the piece I posted on Sunday called “Bam Acknowledges the Iranian Upheaval,” I wanted to tip my hat to talk show host Mark Levin who made a very interesting point on his radio program Monday evening – something I wish I would have made myself in the article.

When it was originally reported that the election results in Iran were very close, and that the very real possibility existed that the opposition (Mir-Hossein Mousavi) could pull out a victory over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President Barack Obama wasted no time in giving himself a pat on the back and a hearty attaboy, crediting – at least in part – his now much-hearalded (and thoroughly vacuous) speech in Cairo, Egypt as a catalyst for the start of a “new dialogue” in that country.

That he did so came as no surprise, of course.

Indeed, it fit in quite famously with his modus operandi – that is, everything that Obama says and does is all about Obama. Everything else – if it cannot be shaped, molded, redefined and beat into political submission – is irrelevant.

Mark Levin – The Great One – points out how Obamacrats had no problem devouring bromide after bromide from Bam’s Big Box-O-Platitudes, calling his empty speech in Cairo the fuel behind what was seen at first as a potentially historic election.

Even now, some credit Bam’s Cairo teleprompter read as the spark and inspiration behind the courage summoned by the people of Iran to rise up in protest against their government when the election results took a curiously decisive and comfortable turn toward an Ahmadinejad victory.

Levin notes how looking toward Cairo as some sort of catalyst for the events in Iran is nothing more than sycophant media-hype, Obama-spun fantasy-world nonsense, and liberal wishful thinking. Rather, one needs to look toward the successes in Iraq – and the policies implemented by the Bush administration – as a more reasonable explanation as to why the events in Iran have unfolded as they have.

He’s absolutely right.

No one – absolutely no one – in the mainstream media (and God forbid, the administration) would ever dream of attributing the turnaround in Iraq as having any sort of influence on the extraordinary happenings over the past week in Iran. It can only be Obama, savior to the world, foil to the xenophopic notion of American exceptionalism, with his delightfully naive perceptions of the world and his unwillingness to confront and label evil, that could actually move the people of Iran to rise up and fight for their basic human rights. The slow and steady push toward democracy in the once despotic nation of Iraq could not possibly have anything to do with the upheaval in neighboring Iran, according to leftists.

After all, to a liberal, crediting George W. Bush for anything outside of slaughtering innocents and war crimes is worse than a dozen ice picks to the eye or mentioning God in public.

Indeed, in my piece on Sunday, I was very critical of the President’s handling of the situation in Iran – how unreliable, weak and embarrassing it makes the United States look. 

On his radio program on Monday, Mark Levin helped to illustrate my point – although he certainly doesn’t know me from Adam. (All I can say, as an admirer of his, is “thank you, Great One.”)

Please take a moment to compare and contrast how President Ronald Reagan, in December, 1981, spoke out against the government-led violence in Poland to President Barack Obama’s words almost 28 years later.


reagan picAs I speak to you tonight, the fate of a proud and ancient nation hangs in the balance. For a thousand years, Christmas has been celebrated in Poland, a land of deep religious faith, but this Christmas brings little joy to the courageous Polish people. They have been betrayed by their own government.

The men who rule them and their totalitarian allies fear the very freedom that the Polish people cherish. They have answered the stirrings of liberty with brute force, killings, mass arrests, and the setting up of concentration camps. Lech Walesa and other Solidarity leaders are imprisoned, their fate unknown. Factories, mines, universities, and homes have been assaulted.

The Polish Government has trampled underfoot solemn commitments to the UN Charter and the Helsinki accords. It has even broken the Gdansk agreement of. August 1980, by which the Polish Government recognized the basic right of its people to form free trade unions and to strike.

I urge the Polish Government and its allies to consider the consequences of their actions. How can they possibly justify using naked force to crush a people who ask for nothing more than the right to lead their own lives in freedom and dignity? Brute force may intimidate, but it cannot form the basis of an enduring society, and the ailing Polish economy cannot be rebuilt with terror tactics.

I want emphatically to state tonight that if the outrages in Poland do not cease, we cannot and will not conduct “business as usual” with the perpetrators and those who aid and abet them. Make no mistake, their crime will cost them dearly in their future dealings with America and free peoples everywhere. I do not make this statement lightly or without serious reflection.


obamaThe last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for — those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That’s what they do. That’s what we’ve already seen. We shouldn’t be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the — Iranian people are seeking to — let their voices be heard. 

Now, what we can do is bear witness and say — to the world that the, you know, incredible demonstrations that we’ve seen is a testimony to — I think what Dr. King called the — the arc of the moral universe. It’s long but it bends towards justice.

Such strength.

How exactly can one accurately measure the moral arc of the universe when one cannot – or is unwilling to – first take a stand against that which is immoral?

Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 21, 2009

iranian protestor beatenIt’s being called a change in approach.

Allow me a moment or two to set this straight in my mind.

He was against imposing values before he was for it, even though he was adamant about imposing at least some ideas before he said he was in favor of staying out of things altogether. All of this, of course, came before he finally crawled out from behind his ice cream cone to say something about the violence and upheaval in Iran, despite his inclination not to perturb the murderers and thugs of the world, or throw a monkey wrench into his policy of appeasement and paddy cake.

If ever there was a leader with less of a clue about foreign policy than President Barack Obama – without having to backtrack all the way to Neville Chamberlain – it isn’t readily apparent.

Willing to throw the nation of Israel (one of our closest allies) under the bus, making demands of them, i.e. imposing values, while attempting to make nice-nice with those who would think nothing of slitting the throats of his own children is frustrating enough. Having his Secretary of State say that if North Korea doesn’t watch out, the United States may put them back on a “bad guy’s list” of terrorist nations is, indeed, embarrassing. But to come to the conclusion that it was strategically (and politically) expedient to say nothing and play “neutral” towards the horrendous acts of brutality being perpetrated by the Iranian government on its citizenry in the streets of that country until now – when it was clear that the heat of the political winds were calling him to do so – is downright bad leadership.

It was up to the President of the United States to take an open and unequivocal stand, without mincing words and without concern for his image, against the violence and cruelty taking place in Iran right away. It was up to the leader of the free world to say “to hell with worrying about how sour my relationship with Iran might get if I say something,” and act like a President – someone who gives a damn about something other than his popularity and legacy. It was time to show resolve by pulling a page from the Reagan and Thatcher handbook and engage Iran directly with immediate condemnations.

One would think that the images and reports of innocents being slaughtered in the streets by a despotic government ought to raise the ire of a man so shaped and influenced by the graduates of the protest culture. One would assume that the fist-pimping, community-organizing, radical leftist that burns deep within the President would summon the spirits that moved his mentors to work to overthrow the “tyranny” of the United States back in the day and at least act like the violence in Iran matters to him.

Maybe the President left his outrage at customs counter in Egypt.

It’s absolutely stunning.

On one hand, without an inkling of hesitation, the President is willing to publicly announce battle strategies while still at war, overhaul and socialize the greatest health care system the world has ever known, grow the national debt to unsustainable levels, apologize for the actions of his own country overseas, demand that Israel roll over yet again for those who want to see her destroyed, and generally blame everything that is wrong with the world on the previous administration. Yet, on the other hand, as the innocent in Iran are butchered by the government in some of the most remarkable and shocking pictures many have seen in a long time, Obama decides that the best thing to do is take a “wait and see” approach … until now, that is. He has realized, to his great dismay, that the whole Iranian “upheaval thing” isn’t just going to fade into news archives and back pages.

He actually had to say something about it.

And so he did.

He has called on Iran to “stop all the violent and unjust actions” … and only a week or so late!

(That sound you hear are members of The Guardian Council shaking in their shoes).

Said the President:

obama and iranThe Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said – “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

The words themselves are fine, but its impact – a week overdue and seemingly forced –  has the effect of a paraplegic threatening to kick the ass of a professional wrestler.

Remember, the United States is to lead by example, according to the President.

Another speech or two in Cairo ought to crack that nut.

Naturally, saliva gushing Obamacrats have hailed the President’s silence and sudden change in course as brilliant strategy.

A blogger called Anna at Ben Smith’s blog at the Politico website echoes the sentiments of many Obamacrats, writing:

Had (Obama) come out in support of the idea that the election had been rigged, he’d have given the ruling elites a lot of ammunition: the great Satan is trying to influence Iranian affairs again, beware the Westerners, etc. But this way, he’s only saying things that are incontestable: free speech must be protected and governments cannot kill citizens with impunity.

This is yet another brazen example of why liberals – while quite good at making music and designing websites – cannot be trusted with matters of national security.

Blame America first.

To Anna, and other leftocrats, it is the United States that would have exaserbated the situation in Iran by openly and swiftly castigating the actions of the government there. It is America that would have fuelled anger in Iranian’s ruling elites had Obama said anything deemed disparaging and critical (because Lord knows the Ayatollah Khamenei and friends were all waving their American flags and looking toward us for moral guidance right up until the Iranian elections). In other words – in Anna’s world – if Obama can keep quiet in the wake of some of the ugliest violence against innocents seen in quite a while, America won’t be as great a Satan as it most certainly would have been otherwise.

Beacuse, after all, it matters what Iran thinks of us.

Of course, I’m wondering what Obama will do if the Iranian government flat-out refuses to be led by American example?

What if the Iranian government dosen’t stop all the “violent and just actions against its own people?”

Will Obama break out the “whooping stick” and put them on a new list?

Or maybe (dare I say it) threaten them with some United Nations fist pumping?

Can sanctions be right around the corner?

Another poster at Smith’s blog at Politico makes this important point:

Obama seems to forget that “universal rights to free speech” aren’t guaranteed in Islamic society. The protesters have no right to be doing what they are doing and they will be cleared from the streets and punished by Islamic law.


Liberals routinely speak of how close-mined, non-nuanced, and “black and white” conservatives are. It’s as interesting a theory as it is false because it requires no thought. Liberals are overwhelmingly the ones who see things in “black and white.” There are no “shades of grey” in the lefty rainbow.

For example, to be against same-sex marriage is to be a homophobe. In the mind of a liberal, there’s simply no chance that a conservative may simply wish to keep the definition of marriage as it has always been and still not hate gays.

To liberals, the war against islamo-Facism (if they even consider it a war anymore) is all about Osama Bin Ladin … and that’s it. That there are a multitude of terrorist groups with the same objectives as Al Qaeda is irrelevant to them.

Only platitudes (and probably warfare itself) carry any weight with liberals. For Obama to implacably condemn what the Iranian government has been doing to its own people, would have been a waste of time, according to libs. Iran wouldn’t be influenced or compelled to change their ways based on a Presidential condemnation, they’d explain. For Obama to demand a stop to the violence would have been pointless, they’d argue – and it’d be meddling in other people’s affairs. Conservatives are fooling themselves to think it really matters if the President of the United States stands up for so-called “freedom” and “democracy.”

Who are we to demand anything?

What right we do we have?

(Perhaps Israel is asking the same question of Obama who has demanded that Israel remove settlements from the “occupied territories.”)

Keep in mind that these criticisms of conservatives come from the people who lap up and suck on Obama’s empty bumper-sticker platitudes like a liberal on a working man’s paycheck. Recall how they cried, sighed and shuddered at the “brilliance” of his poster-board, slogan-happy rhetoric when he spoke in Cairo. Remember how they fawned and fainted when he gabbed in Germany, speaking in flowery, pointless, uncourageous, cleverly crafted news-bite fodder (proven even more hollow by his week of “neutrality”).

appeasementObama regularly uses words like “peace” and “unity” and liberals wet themselves. Yet, when the bell rings, and the time comes to actually stand up and defend those principals that foster basic human rights, Obama shuts up. He knows liberty is offensive to some people.

But that is precisely what the President of the United States should have been doing from the moment it became apparent what was happening in Iran – boldly speaking out against the government-led violence, condemning the actions of the Iranian government, sending a crucial message that America not only supports those who fight for the basic human rights, but is never afraid to say so.

Liberals, of course, find no importance in doing this, unless no one is offended in the process – that is, except American conservatives. Being openly critical of the Iranian government would have gotten a whole bunch of Mullah panties in a twist, and that just couldn’t be allowed to happen.

The fact is, while liberals continue to applaud what they see as a brilliantly tempered strategy on the part of Barack Obama to “stay out of it,” those of us who actually are cognizant of the real world understand that such “neutrality” makes America look weak and disinterested … and our enemies know it.

America cannot be disinterested and neutral when such obvious examples of brutality are on display for the world to see.

Yes, this President is a veritable platitude-machine, careful not to offend anyone, speaking in vague generalities, throwing out meaningless phrases like “working together,” “common ground” and “striving toward peace,” all the while never exuding the courage to define and condemn that which is evil – unless you consider corporate profits and being without health care insurance evil.

That is a huge problem.

When the President of the United States cannot denounce the likes of the Iranian government, it is bad for the world.

Sure, it was a nice touch for Obama to quote Martin Luther King Jr. in his comments, but I doubt there are too many of the Iranian elite doing a double-take saying, “Damn, he’s right, you know.”

We’d be the Great Satan no matter how many times we puckered up to kiss their backsides.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 11, 2009

obama with his feet up

The picture in question (taken Monday) depicts the President of the United States speaking on the telephone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

I have a few reactions to this now controversial picture –  the least of which is that someone needs to tell the President of the United States to take his damn feet off the furniture. Using such a celebrated and historic piece as the HMS Resolute desk as a hassock is unbecoming.

It simply would never occur to me to lay my feet on such a treasured artifact, let alone allow a less-than-flattering photograph of me doing so to be released. Of course, I am not cut of messianic cloth, nor do I play a messiah on this blog, so I admit to being out of my league.

As I have written about several times since his anointment, tradition and history mean less to this President than his predecessors.

A far cry from the famous images of John Kennedy working at the Resolute desk while little John John played below, Obama’s regular-guy, kick back style is presumably meant to depict this White House as more accessible and relatable to the common folk – like having vulgar comedians speak at what used to be “stuffy” washington insider events, or taking the wife to New York City for a “Date Night.” Unfortunately, his less-than-presidential approach serves no purpose beyond making the White House a less dignified one.

Looking at the picture, I also cannot help but wonder where his liberal heart has gone.

How is it that the man whose stated mission is to tear down cultural and political barriers and bring the world together for a giant group hug – the man whose compassion and appreciation of the sensitivities of people from every corner of the globe has been heralded and slobbered over as one of the benchmarks of a new age of global understanding – didn’t make it a priority to remember that Middle Easterners take it as an insult to be shown the sole of the foot?

It’s not as if he is prone to ignorance, mind you. He certainly made it his business to avoid “insulting” anyone during the first leg of his American Apology Tour by bowing to the Saudi king, remember? The picture, after all, does show the leader of the free world – a man who has promised to wash away the bad feelings created by the previous administration – leaning back, with the bottom of his feet to the camera, speaking to the leader of the Israel.

Not particularly presidential, nor very complimentary.

Not very bright either.

Granted, it isn’t a traditional insult to Jews as it is to Arabs, but many Isrealis are taking it as such.

Howard Arenstein from CBS World Watch writes:

Israeli TV newscasters Tuesday night interpreted a photo taken Monday in the Oval Office of President Obama talking on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an “insult” to Israel.

They saw the incident as somewhat akin to an incident last year, when the Iraqi reporter threw a shoe at President Bush in Baghdad.

It is considered an insult in the Arab world to show the sole of your shoe to someone. It is not a Jewish custom necessarily, but Israel feels enough a part of the Middle East after 60 years to be insulted too.

Was there a subliminal message intended from the White House to Netanyahu in Jerusalem, who is publicly resisting attempts by Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to force Israel to stop any kind of settlement activity in occupied territories once and forever?

Whether or not it is true, it shows the mood in Israel. They feel cornered. The reactions out of Israel reflect that feeling.

In and of itself, under normal “non-leftist-in-office” circumstances, the photograph would probably not have triggered nearly as much controversey as it has.

But the controversey is real … and certainly the most critically important point in this matter is the perception among many Israelis that their country’s relationship with an Obama-led United States is rapidly changing for the worse. The steadfast alliance between the two nations has now hit a very dangerous crossroads, and the President seems more than willing to let that very important friendship take a big hit. The obsession with bonafide leftists like Obama to create moral equivelancies across the board in the form of elevating the enemies of freedom while abandoning liberty’s defenders is now manifesting itself in the form of high ranking Israeli officials talking about possible sanctions against the United States.

This is coming from one of America’s strongest allies.

How long has Obama been in office?

From the Jerusalem Post:

In a sign of growing concern in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government over US President Barack Obama’s Middle East policies, Minister-without-Portfolio Yossi Peled proposed Israeli sanctions on the US in a letter to cabinet ministers on Sunday.

In the 11-page letter, obtained by The Jerusalem Post from a minister on Monday, Peled recommends steps Israel can take to compensate for the shift in American policy, which he believes has become hostile to Israel.

“Obama’s ascendance represents a turning point in America’s approach to the region, especially to Israel,” he wrote in the letter. “The new administration believes that in order to fight terror, guarantee stability and withdraw from Iraq, a new diplomatic slant is needed involving drastic steps to pacify the Muslim world and the adoption of a more balanced approach to Israel, including intensive pressure to stop building in settlements, remove outposts and advance the formation of a Palestinian state.”

Peled added that faced with an American government with an activist agenda that does not mesh with Israel’s, traditional reactions are no longer relevant. He said he expected that Obama would eventually realize that appeasement and dialogue with countries that support terror would not have positive results.

Obamacrats are concerned with legacy.

The most disturbing passage in Howard Arnstein’s article reads:

Israel’s Channel One TV reported that Netanyahu was told Tuesday by an “American official” in Jerusalem that, “We are going to change the world. Please, don’t interfere.” The report said Netanyahu’s aides interpreted this as a “threat.”

Prior to embarking on the latest leg of his American Apology Tour to the Middle East last week, the President made it a point to declare that he was not in favor of the United States (or Israel, for that matter) imposing their values on other nations. Yet, Bam and Company are unwavering in saying Israel must stop any and all settlement activity in the occupied territories.


Imposition anyone?

Indeed, one of the most overused – and incorrectly applied – words in public discourse today is “hypocrisy.”

Not in this case.

Gabriel Malor from the great Ace of Spades blog writes:

I don’t even have the words to say how shameful Obama’s treatment of our allies has been. But this is more horrifying than merely irritating our coalition partners; it goes beyond destroying our special relationship with the UK. Those are bad things, but this is beyond the pale. He is throwing a good people to the wolves. It sickens me.

The Messiah has been in office less than six months.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Israel, Liberalism, Middle East | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 3, 2009

obama middle east

Had he not been elected to the most powerful office in the world – and if not for his capacious and affecting community organizing resume – perhaps President Barack Obama might have found a proportionate level of success as a professional arbitrator or matchmaker. The chances are quite good, for instance, that he could have brought the pot and the kettle a little closer together.

The President, on the eve of his trip to the Middle East – where perhaps a new set of apologies for American deeds are on the docket for international consumption – said the United States was not there to lecture or impose its values on countries with questionable records on human rights and political freedoms, like Egypt, where he is scheduled to grovel tomorrow.

Said the President:

“The danger, I think, is when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture.”

This, of course, is coming from the man who has literally “imposed” his radical Marxist-flavored agenda on his own country – the leader of the party quick to chide conservatives for being ideologues and quick to accuse them of trying to impose their value systems on liberty-loving Americans who measure their freedoms by their ability to abort children at will and the ease with which they can acquire condoms at school.

Surely, there must be something amiss here.

obama_dictatorThe President can’t be against imposing values on those who may not agree with him, can he? From the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, to the government takeover of General Motors, to the closing of Guantanamo Bay, to the unparalleled expansion of government, to the exponential inflating of the national debt, to using taxpayer money to help fund abortions overseas, to the nominating of an unqualified jurist to the Supreme Court, how is it that Obama is now all-of-a-sudden anti-imposition?

Let me humbly suggest that Obama is not against the imposition of value sets on human beings who may not be so ready to jump on his waffle wagon. Rather, because he is a leftist of prodigious proportion, he is opposed to any imposition of conservative values.

That seems to make more sense, doesn’t it?

Indeed, like anyone in power, Obama selectively chooses his “impositions” – only he throws in an unmistakable dictatorial twist.

The man has used a plethora of public funds to attempt to “save” private entities from ruin – something completely antithetical to the free market system that built this nation – and in the process is on track to create a national debt larger than the combined debt of the previous 43 presidents. He has spent almost incalculable amounts of taxpayer money on pork-barrel projects supposedly geared to stimulate economic growth – projects like making public housing projects more “green” and supplying doorknobs to buildings that need new ones – and in the process, has afforded the federal government the opportunity to literally run a private corporation. He is also in the process of completely transforming the medical delivery system in this nation – with unprecendented, unchecked speed – into a nightmarish rationed European-style government-run healthcare debacle where Washington will serve as everyone’s HMO.

If that’s not imposition, what is?

Of course, the President won’t be dealing with American conservatives overseas. He’ll be taking his Kleenex-spined, “Let’s not tick anyone off” Kumbaya approach on the road to the ever-accommodating Middle-East.

Obama has made it clear that the United States will continue to vigorously shake off the irons of crippling Bush-era policies and Reagan-like cowboyism. America won’t be doing any of that “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” nonsense anymore.

Instead, America will serve as a “role model” to the world, as Obama put it.

We will lead by example.

The long list of examples of despotic nations who turned themselves around by taking a page from the American “Lead By Example” songbook will inspire today’s struggling oppressors and violators of decency.

The human-rights deniers and evil-doers of the world will only need to watch America to see the error of their ways.

(Can I get a big “Hell, yeah!” from the audience?)

Indeed, it is a new day in the United States.

(Removes barf bag from top drawer. Keeps it at the ready).

This idea that a President of the United States would be wrongly “imposing” a value system by simply doing what he is supposed to do – that is, advocating for the advancement of freedom, having the conviction to label evil, and promising to protect liberty-loving people everywhere – is shamelessly preposterous. If not the President of the United States, then who else will (or should) affirm the values that foster liberty?

It seems infeasible for liberals to admit certain realities – and not just the obvious stuff, like the existence of evil, or the fact that it’s okay to use the words “Islamic” and “terrorist” in the same sentence. They grapple with the idea that, like it or not, politicians will regularly attempt to infuse, or “impose,” their value set into what they do politically, regardless of what side of the aisle they stand on.

That’s why we elect them.

The value system of the person we elect to represent us is supposed to matter.

Yet, to liberals, only conservatives stoop so low as to “impose” their values on people. While liberals seek to make things better for absolutely everyone (for our own good), conservatives seek to impose. That’s because they see differences between themselves and those on the right as more than just philosophical – they see them as moral. To them, conservatives have ulterior motives. Thus, because conservatives are almost always driven by less than noble aims, conservatism itself is inherently beastly.

Whereas conservatives overwhelmingly believe that libs are simply wrong (with endless data to back up those assertions), liberals believe conservatives are also bad.

It’s all part of liberal denial.

After all, how could saving the world and wishing to make everyone equal be an imposition?

The fact is, politicians from both the left and right regularly attempt to “impose” – to one degree or another – their value systems on the electorate – although conservatives do it far less than liberals do.

It can’t be denied.

By definition, because conservatives believe in small government – and thus, less government intrusion – there is less to “impose.” The key is that conservatives tend to adhere to the letter of the Constitution – or profess to do so – while liberals openly and unabashedly manipulate what they believe is a pliable document – a Constitution that lives and breathes – into often unrecognizable conformations that allow them to easier “impose” their agendas on the public, i.e. Roe vs Wade. (The Constitution, for example,  is silent on abortion and enumerates no rights to privacy, but thanks to “emanations” and “penumbras,” it magically became a Constitutional matter).

In short, this entire matter is really just a case of “To Impose or Not To Impose.” It’s all about the situation, the audience and the political points that can be scored.

(Gee, what else is new?)

The Obama foreign policy template is to make sure to avoid annoying, offending, or upsetting anyone at all costs – except, possibly, the Israelis. The same basic “offend no one” approach holds true on the domestic front –  except, of course, where conservatives are concerned.  All bets are off at that point. They’re fair game to be chastised, criticized, marginalized and excluded – except when Bam grants safe (and controlled) passage.

Indeed, Obama calls for unity, but a quick gander at the Obama/English dictionary shows that “unity” simply means he wants everyone to think like him.

Talk about imposition.

Please understand my point here when it comes to this notion of not wanting to “impose” values on others. I think it’s a vague term to begin with, and unless the President is thinking of invading Egypt and installing a democratic government, he simply sounds silly and weak. Defending the values that have made (and continue to make) the United States the greatest nation the world has ever known – and making the case for those values – is not an imposition on anyone.

Obviously,  I don’t expect him (or want him) to go into Saudi Arabia – or anywhere – like a guns-a-blazin’ lunatic and start demanding things and insulting those who are welcoming him into their country. I wouldn’t ask that of any president. That isn’t my point.

There are ways to do things, and there are ways to do things.

I suppose that in the wake of President Obama’s unfounded plan to close Guantanamo Bay, and his moronic move to announce publicly the United States withdrawal date from Iraq, I could make the claim that the President is “imposing” his security-compromising policies and terrorist-appeasing war plan on folks like me who regard national security and the realities of living in a dangerous world as an adult matter.

But alas, I am only an American conservative – and that’s pretty low on the Bam totem pole.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 1, 2009

if only israel leaves

if only israel leaves

To speak ill of Noam Chomsky in Manhattan (or any other liberal enclave where liberalism rests like an angry tumor) is akin to taking a cinderblock to the face of a beloved grandmother or drop kicking kittens with steel-tipped boots. It just isn’t done – not without outraging a whole bunch of people.

I tried it once.

I had no idea that I was both a Nazi and an evil money-grubbing Capitalist. My versatility astounded me.

Indeed, there are more of Chomsky’s books on any given bookstore shelf in New York City than there are happy mosquitoes at a nudist convention – or peace symbols in Greenwich Village.

Well, I’d like to take a few paragraphs to speak ill of him – and then some – if I may.

Call me a nasty kitten-kicker, if you will. Tag me with a “grandma-smacking” label if it suits you, but I must go on record as saying that Chomsky is a bona-fide moral oaf. To believe what he believes, he would have to be, by definition, a moral idiot.


(I am aware that I have spiked heavily into the red on the “Incredibly Obvious” meter, but this one requires a response).

Late last week, Chomsky gave an interview to Amy Goodman, host of liberal tea-time’s favorite radio noise “Democracy Now.” In it, Chomsky said that President Obama’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “approximately the Bush position” and said that a solution can be found if Israel simply “leaves.”

In response to Obama’s comments on the Middle-East conflict on Thursday, Mr. Chomsky said:

(Obama) began by saying that Israel, like any democracy, has a right to defend itself. That’s true, but there’s a gap in the reasoning.

It has a right to defend itself. It doesn’t follow that it has a right to defend itself by force. So we might agree, say, that, you know, the British army in the United States in the colonies in 1776 had a right to defend itself from the terror of George Washington’s armies, which was quite real, but it didn’t follow they had a right to defend themselves by force, because they had no right to be here.

So, yes, they had a right to defend themselves, and they had a way to do it—namely, leave. Same with the Nazis defending themselves against the terror of the partisans. They have no right to do it by force. In the case of Israel, it’s exactly the same. They have a right to defend themselves, and they can easily do it.

One, in a narrow sense, they could have done it by accepting the ceasefire that Hamas proposed right before the invasion—I won’t go through the details—a ceasefire that had been in place and that Israel violated and broke.

With all due respect, the gap exists between Mr. Chomsky’s ears.

There is egregious moral impotence in pacifism, and that is precisely what Chomsky advocates. Pacifism is, indeed, his answer to conflict – but his position is more sinister than just that. (Yes, pacifism is sinister when evil is allowed to subsist). He advocates pacifism only when practiced by the United States or Israel. Terrorists, totalitarians, fascists and despots get passes – or at the very least, a whole host of “reasons” and “excuses” for why they have been forced to fire missiles at civilians or strap bombs across their chests.

I invite anyone to summon the creative forces of their imagination to create a scenario of conflict where the likes of Mr. Chomsky would not find some way to squeeze in a denunciation of America.

For example, given a horrific terrorist attack in, say, Washington, D.C., Chomsky might admit it was a terrible thing, but would immediately begin asking what America had done to provoke it. The only correct response, according to Mr. C, would be to do nothing. Condemnations against those who perpetrated the act would be short-lived and fleeting to Chomsky and his self-loathing disciples.

But pacifism is not only a moral failing, it is, literally, a sickness – an act given to self-destruction – because it defies the natural instinct of humans to defend themselves when confronted with attack.

The age old question, “How exactly does one defend itself without force when the enemy exists in a different moral reality?” has yet to be sufficiently answered by Leftocrats. Better yet, “How is retreating from evil a sound defense?” cuts to it with a bit more verve. Mr. Chomsky is so tragically inept on the realities of the world that he truly believes that those who perpetrate evil – like the Nazis or Islamo-fascist terrorists – will cease their aggressions if the other side simply “leaves.”

Thus, in Chomskyville, goodness could never prevail.

How sad that our universities are filled with professors who own this worldview.

Leftists like Chomsky live in cartoon constructs of how they wish things to be. Some of them may, indeed, be wonderful people, but they possess no wisdom and cannot be trusted on matters of survival.

Besides, Israel did leave Gaza, remember? It was in all the papers.

And exactly who lobbed thousands of indiscriminate missiles into Israel on a daily basis? Exactly who violated the ceasefire agreement the moment it expired?

Mr. Chomsky subscribes to his own set of facts here.

Does it not trouble Mr. Chomsky that Hamas fighters use the innocent as shields, use civilian dwellings to harbor their weapons and fire upon Israelis from deep within ordinary neighborhoods?

No need to answer that.

It doesn’t trouble him because Israel has the temerity to fight back … and to him (and other moral cowards like him), that’s where the abomination lies.

But in a broader sense—and this is a crucial omission in everything Obama said, and if you know who his advisers are, you understand why—Israel can defend itself by stopping its crimes. Gaza and the West Bank are a unit.

Israel, with US backing, is carrying out constant crimes, not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank, where it is moving systematically with US support to take over the parts of the West Bank that it wants and to leave Palestinians isolated in unviable cantons, Bantustans, as Sharon called them. Well, stop those crimes, and resistance to them will stop.

Note the phrase: “Israel can defend itself by stopping its crimes.”

we're so proud of junior

we're so proud of junior

As unsporting of me as it may be to fire back at the intellectually frail with pesky facts, I’ll take the risk … It was Hamas – a terrorist organization that exists, by their own admission, with the goal of eliminating the State of Israel – that fired missiles into Israel by the thousands. It was Hamas who broke the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire. And yet the criminals are the Israelis for defending themselves?

If I may ask directly … Mr. Chomsky, if Israel stopped defending itself in the conventional way – by force – and did so your way – the roll over, bend over and take it method – what is your best educated guess as to what would happen to Israel?

There is not a single Israeli leader who does not agree that there should be, in some form, a two state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians. (Keep in mind, the sizeable Arab and Palestinian populations that live peacefully in Israel proper, with the full rights of citizenship). Yet, Hamas doesn’t want a two-state solution. They want Israel destroyed.

Where exactly is the moral equivalence?

For those who claim that the Middle East conflict is complicated, they are dead wrong. It is simple.

One side wants Israel to go away forever. Israel doesn’t want to.

That the solution may be complicated is a separate issue.

Many thanks to Little Green Footballs for bringing this story to my attention.

Posted in Liberalism, Middle East | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »