From The Political Commentator Keep Giving Iran More Time, The Only Result Will Be More Time Lost As could have been expected and predicted, Iran, given and apparently accepting the structure of a deal by the United Nations to ship its enriched uranium to France and Russia, is once again making a mockery out of the international community. This past Friday they missed the deadline to respond to the draft proposal drawn up by the IAEA, and today was quoted by a news source as saying that while they agree in principle to the framework, they want very "important" changes made to it. Iran says that they will let the world know what the changes are within 48 hours. Like a parent who gives warning after warning and threat after threat to the disobedient child, Iran puts little if any credence in the resolve of the countries involved to actually back up any tough rhetoric with substantive action. As the perfect example, this was what the Foreign Minster of France had to say regarding these new stall tactics: "We have been waiting for light at the end of the tunnel for almost three years. We will wait until we decide that enough is enough and that the process is exhausted," ... "One day it will be too late." That is a very open ended statement, and one which would lead anyone reading, particularly the leaders of Iran, to think that there is time plenty of time for more games and deceptions. The only action, unfortunately, that will hold any weight is that of military action.  Anything else is merely a killer of time leading up to the inevitable, all the while Iran goes on about it's merry way. Sanctions and diplomacy are merely a way of giving this country more time to do what it is that it wants to do. For starters, as articulated by its leader, Iran would like to blow Israel out of existence.  The enablers around the world, posing as leaders, need to take a stand.

The Preemptive Strike Doctrine

Clear and Present Danger

If an individual, or the United States as a sovereign nation is aware of a building danger to security or safety, is the optimal plan to wait until it is a clear and present danger before dealing with it? Common sense would seem to dictate that the line separating danger and imminent danger is extremely fine, and that waiting is in no way consistent with the premise of either personal or national security.

As an individual you would work the problem through the system to try and contain it. As a nation facing entities and regimes that seek to inflict as much damage and destruction as possible on innocent men, women and children, the solution is more complex. And yes, this solution may in fact require the use of military force to take that threat out.

The Preemptive Strike Doctrine was put in place by the Bush administration in 2002 with the expressed purpose of giving the United States the right to protect, not only our citizens, but our allies around the world from the ever increasing threats that exist. It stated that the United States had the right to deal with a building threat to security in addition to a threat that presented a "clear and present danger" Unfortunately for all involved, because it was implemented by President Bush, it is a pariah that President Obama wants to eradicate.

Obviously, Iran is the textbook case for the fine line that we have to walk. There is a quickly building danger posed to world security by the Iranian nuclear program. Our "allies" in the fight to end or contain this threat, Russia and China, are not true allies. In fact, China and Russia have their own agendas, which will prevent them from taking any real action against this regime. China has a need for the Iranian oil to fuel its 6% plus economic growth. Russia has economic ties to Iran and is in fact helping them in building its’ nuclear infrastructure and missile defense system. This very missile defense system will make dealing with the nukes problem, when it does become a clear and present danger, that much more difficult to deal with. Is waiting for this point in the best interest of United States national security?

The Obama Doctrine

This apparent method of the Obama administration for dealing with threats to the United States and our friends around the world has become clear. Ominously clear. It is the idea of diplomacy first and second, with the implementation of sanctions and deal making together with our supposed allies to gain the help needed to deal with the problem third. The fallacy of this plan?

You cannot enter into substantive and valid negotiations with when the other party to those negotiations is a rogue regime with the stated goal of destroying our allies and the U.S. You cannot implement economic sanctions against a government who does not have the vested interests of its' own population at heart. Additionally, when your partners in imposing the sanctions will most likely not abide by them, this method of containing the threat will fail. China and Russia have clearly stated that they do not favor sanctions at this time. 

At the same time, through the Obama Doctrine premise of appeasement, the United States has portrayed itself as the polar opposite of Bush. Weak and willing to give up most anything to achieve our goals in ways that will make them unachievable. We gave up missile defense in Poland and Czechoslovakia to appease the Russians with the understanding that they would back sanctions, and they did not.

Our allies in this fight against global threats, as well as Iran and North Korea, do not respect weakness, but they will take full advantage of it. For the Russians under acting leader Putin, they will get whatever they can from the United States, and in return most likely never come through on their side of the bargain. For Iran, they will play the game and dance the dance, stringing us along while continuing on the way to a nuclear capability.

What the Obama Doctrine does not seem to account for is that rhetoric, flowery speech and empty threats do not scare anyone. Anyone, except for those around the world who see it for what it is: “Clear and present danger" to the United States itself. In the end, those nations who live under a daily threat to security will be forced to take matters into their own hands, act unilaterally, and pay a price to ensure national security.

What the Obama Doctrine needs to account for is that in the world today, the emphasis has to be on a pragmatic approach to events, and not an approach designed to simply be "not George Bush." While the far left may endorse that, the rest of us will pay the price. 

Michael Haltman writes The Political Commentator, with articles having been picked up by publications such as The Wall Street Journal, Chicago Sun-Times and Houston Chronicle. He focuses much of his writing on national security,  the war on terror, the presidency and politics as usual. Living in New York, aware that Americans have short memories and our enemy’s great patience, he hopes that his articles will help keep us vigilant and aware. Michael welcomes any questions or comments at exetertraining@aol.com.

From The Political Commentator A Terror Cell Is Uncovered In Queens Najibullah Zazi is arrested along with his father and another man, charged with plotting a terrorist act against our country. Raids on apartments found the bomb making material, and information found on a computer showed the blueprint for making the bombs. Nazi Khan, whose apartment Zazi stayed at says that he can't find work. Leaders of the Muslim community say that they haven't been this scared since after 9/11. Well, you know what, neither have millions of New Yorkers. Having lived through 9/11/01, the people of the City know what fear is. Having been terror free for eight years, this arrest is a wakeup call. The war on terror is not over and has certainly not been won. It goes on day after day predominatly behind the scenes, with law enforcement doing one hell of a job protecting us. When reality appears on the surface, as in the case of these arrests, it reminds us that we live with the danger every day. It requires that a total cleanup be done (or as much as possible), an action which is the best interest of every New Yorker regardless of race, gender or religion. The Muslim community, rather than making a racial profiling claim should be concerned with the safety of all of its citizens as well. Men With Red Hair Hypothetically, let's say there was a worldwide population of men with red hair of 1 billion. There was a group of a few thousand that were smuggling a deadly form of heroin into the country through our airports. Should the customs agents focus their attention towards the red haired men, or towards everyone else so as to appear not to be profiling? Here is a great article written by an Arab-American man back in 2002, but still relevant today. "Profile Me, Please" by Joseph Farah Airport security in the United States is a joke. Every time I go through security checks I am shocked and dismayed to see elderly women pulled from lines for extra security checks. I see little kids getting scanned for metal on their persons. In short, I see the least likely "terrorists" getting the most scrutiny from security personnel. I don't get it. Meanwhile, I never seem to get checked. Why am I complaining? Because I fit the profile of the very people who are most likely to hijack an airplane or blow it up in a suicide attack. I am an Arab-American. I have an Arabic surname. I look Arabic. I know what you are going to say: "Farah, pulling you out of line would be profiling. It's not American to discriminate against people because of their national origin or racial characteristics." Need I remind my fellow Americans that we are at war? I personally would much prefer to see our country use its precious security resources more wisely. Not everyone is a security risk. Common sense needs to be employed if we are to make this country safer. Isn't it preferable to inconvenience me and people who look like me than to turn our entire country into a virtual police state? Indeed that is what's happening in America today. More and more laws are being passed to give government sweeping powers to snoop on every American. We have the USA Patriot Act. We have Total Information Awareness. We have Big Brother on the rise. Meanwhile, we have Colin Powell suggesting what America needs is more Muslims. We have President Bush and others in government attacking anyone who dares warn about the dangers of Islamism. We have federal officials sucking up to Saudi Arabia, which finances terrorism around the globe and the nation we have to thank for most of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers. This is not the way to fight the war on terrorism. This is not the way to make our country safer. This is not the way we will beat our enemies. There is a way to make our airliners safe. We should follow the El Al model. I have flown El Al often. On El Al, I am treated with suspicion. All Arabs are. And that is why El Al had not witnessed a hijacking in 20 years until last week when an Arab secreted a knife on board a flight with a plan to commandeer the plane into an Israeli skyscraper. Sky marshals wrestled him to the ground and averted a disaster. Why would I want to see a security system that would cause me more hassle? Because I want to see my flights land at airports – not in buildings. A few moments of irritation are well worth it. When I fly El Al, it gives me peace of mind to have my bags searched, to go through extra security checks, to be interrogated longer than non-Arabs. Are my rights violated when I fly El Al? Absolutely not. El Al follows sensible security precautions because it is the national airline of a country under siege by terrorists – a nation that understood the threat of Arab airline hijackings 25 years before Sept. 11. In short, El Al procedures make perfect sense – if the objective is making the skies safer and preventing terrorism. But if the objective is non-discrimination, then we are in big trouble. This "diversity" madness will be our undoing as a nation. This "tolerance" obsession will be used as a weapon against us. This "multicultural" preoccupation should not be a higher calling than national or personal security. This "pluralism" desire needs to be kept in perspective and checked at the gate along with the terrorists. Our enemy understands our weaknesses. And, believe me, our infatuation with anti-discrimination policies can be a lethal weakness. That's why I am begging America to get a clue: Profile me, please. It's not because I am a threat, but because I am not. I have nothing to fear from an extra baggage check, a few extra questions or one extra scan of my person. But people who look like me – Middle Eastern men – pose a much higher security risk. Not to acknowledge that fact after the carnage of Sept. 11 would be nothing short of insanity.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2009

Anonymity and Hatred

First, This On The Homeland Security Front

More signs out of Washington that the President does not, or will not, understand the dangers of the global war on terror, aka overseas contingency operations.

(Weekly Standard)  Cantor: Obama Still Deliberating Whether We Need to Defeat Taliban

"Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) just wrapped up a conference call with reporters following a meeting he attended with other members of Congress, the president and his advisers at the White House this afternoon. Cantor said that during the meeting President Obama made "very clear" his goal is to "dismantle al Qaeda and its extremist allies." As recently as a week ago, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that defeating al Qaeda's extremist allies means defeating the Taliban, but there have been reports that some White House advisers think the goal should be defeating just al Qaeda, not the Taliban.

Cantor recalled the president said during the meeting that "that discussion is ongoing about whether you can actually separate the two--al Qaeda and the Taliban."

Stating Opinion Is Critical, But Not Anonymously 

I have posted responses to some of my articles here in the past that were written anonymously in order to demonstrate the "courage" of some when they are able to state them from behind a curtain. No accountability for their thoughts and beliefs. These statements have typically shown the revisionist thinking of the left, the name calling of the left and the lack of tolerance of the left to ideas that differ from their own. Courage would be to make statements and back them up with an identity and personal ownership. 

The World View  

The anonymous views of the left pale when comparing them to the anti-semitic thoughts of one of the commentators to a post I wrote titled The Price of Appeasement. Remember Hitler?. The comment was posted onNewsvine with the writer using the pseudonym of Professor Dr. S. Collymore. Curious about who this professor actually is, I went to Wikipedia and found out that he is a serial anonymous poster, who uses these types of names to try and add credibility to his arguments. When he speaks however, all credibility quickly fades away. If you have something to say, say it, mean it and own it! 

A free flow of ideas and opinions is a critical part of discussion, but when parties to the discussion can hide like children behind their mother’s skirts, it allows the forum to be corrupted by ignorance and hate. If someone truly feels the hate, let them stand behind their thoughts with a name.

Professor Dr. S. Collymore
When are we going to bury the European holocaust as we've obviously and indifferently done with all the other numerous atrocities that Europeans, their governments, military and colonialist settlers have carried out worldwide and in quite a few instances rendered extinct many indigenous peoples, like Tasman Man, the Arawaks and others, in the process and stop treating it as different from all the other European inspired and executed universal holocausts?

Who says, and what makes a white European Jew any more valuable to humanity than a North American Red Indian; a Caribbean Carib; a New Zealand Maori, an Australian Aborigine or numerous other such people cruelly and callously brought to the edge of extinction by this same European barbarity practised against fellow Europeans who practised a different religion from their kith and kin?

Frankly I'm thoroughly pi*sed of by this preferential treatment show to European Jews whose current behaviour particularly towards Palestinians and Arabs is no different and in many instances far worst than what was shown to them by the Nazis of Europe. And let’s be also blunt about this. There is plenty of empirical data to show that European Jews were complicit and actively involved in the armed forces of Nazi Europe, particularly the German Armed Forces, as were many Mischlinge (mixed confessional Jews but still Europeans).

Moreover, while we head ad nauseum about the Jews few remember and most don't give a damn about the Gypsies (still persecuted in Europe) and the many millions of other innocent civilians who were also slaughtered in Europe-wide death camps. Where is the fairness? Where is the objectivity? Where is the compassion and obsession shown towards these forgotten millions? Hardly surprising that today's Jews feel and act as though they can do whatever the hell they like and do so with immunity - courtesy of the west's guilt.

Well I'm not one of those who have any guilt or sympathy to dispense to these bête noire enfants terrible. They got killed - yes. They suffered - yes. But so did many millions and hundreds of millions more around the world. And as someone whose parents and relatives fought Fascism and Nazism when the US was making money out of it; when Spain was supporting it; when Italy was doing the same; and when anti-semitic feeling and prejudices were rife not only throughout Europe but also the US, my riposte is this - GO TO HELL AND STAY THERE!

You had your day European Jew; you've made billions out of peddling your grief while others in similar straits made none and still don't; yet you're still not satisfied.

The European holocaust is a historical event; belongs to the past and has NO place in the future of mankind; any more than we should allow the British crushing of the so-called Indian Mutiny or the Boer War to have any distorted relevance on the political, social or developmental proceedings of contemporary human beings.

And from my personal perspective all I see in the excruciating, obscene, ritual observation of this obsession ghoulish pastime is a con artist’s bonanza to make yet more money for those peddling their perverse and perverted, zonist zeal. Enjoy it if you must; pay obeisance to it if you want to but don’t expect me to, as I’ve bloody well had enough of it all.

Professor Dr. Stanley Collymore.

Remember The Odd Couple Episode: The Hustler

FromThe Political and Financial Markets Commentator "Happy Days" Are Here Again? I have been talking for some time about the fact that the goal of President Obama is to be well liked in the world. To be the anti-Bush. To make no waves, speak the words that everyone wants to hear, promote an agenda of diplomacy no matter what with the hint that there is the potential for strong action behind it. Does anyone really believe that to be the case. President Bush was hated around the world, but our enemies knew that he carried a big stick. Does anyone fear Obama and his sidekicks Pelosi and Reid? It is critical as a superpower for that to be the case. As an example, to play diplomacy games with Iran is a losing proposition if they know that they can just string us along with no fear of the end game. All because he wants to make friends. Just like Richie, when we need a little more Fonz! The Cunningham Effect (RealClearPolitcs) "Happy Days pivoted around the friendship between two very different American teenagers, Richie Cunningham and Fonzie Fonzarelli. Richie was clean-cut, wholesome, an absolute goody-goody, and everybody loved him. Fonzie, especially in the early series, was a tough nut. Greased-back hair, always astride his outlaw motorbike, decked out in Marlon Brando T-shirt, Fonzie inspired fear and envy in men, and swoons among the gals. Everyone was frightened of Fonzie. He could banish bad guys with a look. In one episode, Fonzie tried to teach Richie his style. Richie practised the grimaces, the flexes, the stares, but alas the bad guys were not impressed and certainly not deterred. In the midst of a desperate scrape, Richie turned to Fonzie imploringly and asked: Why are my deadly looks, threatening flexes and strategic grimaces having no effect? Oh yeah, Fonzie replied, I forgot to tell you. For all that to work, once in your life you have to have hit someone. You cannot imagine a deeper strategic insight. At some point, Obama is going to have to do something seriously unpleasant to someone..." Does he have it in him?

From The Political and Financial Markets Commentator (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com). Visit to sign-up for free feed or email delivery of new articles.   

 

Huge Concession To Russia. Will Russia Do The Same For Us?

 

 

President Obama better hope so! When we meet with Russia at the G 20 and the U.N. General Assembly, we had better get backing from Russia on Iranian action, or the weakening of our defenses will have been in vain, and America under this administration will once again be viewed as weak and ineffectual at a great cost to the American people and others around the world.

 

Even if they make overtures of agreement on action against Iran, will they follow through? Will they still operate through the back door? We know we have given up our plan, but how do we really know if the Russians ever give up theirs?

 

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev: "We appreciate the responsible approach of the U.S. president." Of course he does!

 

"I discussed this issue with the U.S. president during our meetings in London and Moscow. At that time, in our joint statement, we agreed to, and set in stone that Russia and the United States will seek to work together to assess the risks of missile proliferation in the world." All well and good, but what is Russia bringing to the table?

 

Excerpt from September 9th story here: Eastern European Missile Defense: Da Comrades, Izvi`Neete

 

In it I made the following comments: "It now appears that the United States stands ready to abandon the plans for missile defense installations in Poland and Czechoslovakia. This at the urging of our "good" friends in Moscow. What do we stand to gain by weakening our ability to defend against longer range Iranian missiles.

 

We HOPE that through this appeasement, Moscow will end its shipments of materials to Iran that are actually assisting its program of developing nuclear weapons. We also hope that Moscow will then cease giving aid in the development of Iran's missile defenses designed to stop a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities or nuclear weapons themselves. Quite a leap of faith!"

 

Yet cave to Russian pressure is exactly what we did! We know why the Russian President is smiling above, but why President Obama? Does he know something we don't know? I certainly hope so.

 

The Need For Strength Of One's Convictions

 

Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates said this on scrapping the old plan for the new: (ABC News) “...The original program that I recommended would have had no capability against short and medium range missiles until probably 2018. What the new system provides is some capability beginning in 2011 that will grow steadily each year in terms of its sophistication and its coverage of Europe,” he added..."

 

Now Gates was there at the inception of the planned missile defense installations in Poland and Czechoslovakia during the Bush administration, citing its critical importance at the time. Now he is reversing that position. If he was honest then, he should resign in protest of this decision. If he is being honest now, then we need him to resign as well. What is the good to the security of our country if the Secretary of Defense is merely a pawn of the President with no convictions he is willing to stand behind?

From The Political and Financial Markets Commentator, Mike Haltman