With friends like Obama, why would Israel need enemies?

I've always suspected that, in addition to the official message, Obama added his own little prayer about Israel's demise.

I’ve always suspected that, in addition to the official message, Obama added his own little prayer about Israel’s demise.

Harry Truman could have been called an anti-Semite based on some of the things he said about Jews, but it was he who voted “yes” at the UN, making possible Israel’s creation in 1948.  Nixon could have been called an anti-Semite based on some of the things he said about Jews, but it was he who saved Israel’s bacon (pardon the non-kosher word choice) in 1973.

Oh, and here’s the really funny part:  Barack Obama, who claims to be the greatest friend Israel has ever had in America, gives every indication of being the worst enemy Israel has ever had in the White House.  He speaks of love, but his actions can be measured just by looking at his appointments to State, Defense, and the UN.

And speaking of Obama’s appointment to head America’s State Department:

Yes, in what’s now being called his ‘poof’ speech, our secretary of state went out of his way not to blame Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO’s intransigence and refusal to negotiate anything for the failed talks. Of course, it’s all Israel’s fault!

“Israel didn’t release the Palestinian prisoners on the day they were supposed to be freed, and another day passed, and another day, and then another 700 settlement units were announced in Jerusalem, and ‘poof’…that was sort of the moment,” remarked Kerry before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Read the rest here.

I’m struggling to come up with some amusing animal kingdom analogy (“lions blame antelope for hastening their own deaths because they run away, enticing the lions”), but I can’t.  I’m too irritated, and there’s nothing amusing about this.  It’s just scary.

Thomas Frank’s weird defense of Obama’s attack on Fox News *UPDATED*

As far as I can tell, Frank’s primary defense of Obama’s attack on Fox News is that Obama isn’t as bad as Nixon’s attacks on the press were.  Given the low esteem in which liberals hold Nixon, I think we can safely call that damning with faint praise.  (Or, perhaps, praising with faint damns would be more accurate.)

UPDATE:  Showing that history didn’t end with Richard Nixon, Steven Crowder gives a few more reminders about the Obami’s attacks on free speech they find offensive.

What do Obama and Nixon have in common?

You’d think that Obama and Richard Nixon have nothing in common — but you’d be wrong.  They both were whining self-pitiers who couldn’t stand the attacks that are entirely normative in a democratic political process.  You can read here about Obama’s inability to take any criticism whatsoever, and the following should remind you of Nixon’s character:

Can you imagine how Obama, who has the kind of fawning, loving, deferential press Nixon could only dream of, would have handled things if he’d faced a press that actually tried to kick him around a bit?  Of course, had that been the case, there wouldn’t have been a President Obama.

Getting the facts right about Presidential chit-chats

In an earlier post, I tackled Obama’s incredible naiveté  (or stupidity) in proposing that, if he were President, he’d just go off and have a little chat with dictators who gleefully kill their own citizens and who promise to kill the citizens of other nations.  I said that the President of the United States never “just goes off” for a meeting with a hostile leader without there first having been lots of prior meetings by underlings to lay the groundwork.  Only in that way can the President be assured that he isn’t putting his prestige on the line simply so that a dictator can enhance his own standing and, potentially, thumb his nose at the world’s most powerful leader.  (Not to mention the risk that the American president, so as not to leave empty handed, makes terrible and dangerous concessions.)  In the comments, I was asked to provide examples of these “pre-meetings,” and I didn’t before.  I can now:

Mr. Obama’s Sunday statement grew out of a kerfuffle over his proclaimed willingness to meet – eagerly and without precondition – during his first year as president with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. On Monday, he said it was a show of confidence when American leaders meet with rivals; he insisted he was merely doing what Richard Nixon did by going to China.

I recommend that he read Henry Kissinger’s book, “The White House Years.” Mr. Obama would learn it took 134 private meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats before a breakthrough at a Jan. 20, 1970 meeting in Warsaw. It took 18 months of behind-the-scenes discussions before Mr. Kissinger secretly visited Beijing. And it took seven more months of hard work before Nixon went to China. The result was a new relationship, announced in a communiqué worked out over months of careful diplomacy.

The Chinese didn’t change because of a presidential visit. In another book, “Diplomacy,” Mr. Kissinger writes that “China was induced to rejoin the community of nations less by the prospect of dialogue with the United States than by fear of being attacked by its ostensible ally, the Soviet Union.” Change came because the U.S. convinced Beijing it was in its interest to change. Then the president visited.

The same is true with other successful negotiations. President Ronald Reagan prepared the ground for his meetings with a series of Soviet leaders by rebuilding the U.S. military, restoring confidence in American intentions, and pressuring the Soviets by raising the specter of a missile defense shield.

Reagan knew rogue states only change when they see there are real consequences of their actions, and when it is in their interest to change. This requires patience, vision, hard work and the use of all the tools, talents and relationships available to the U.S. We saw a recent example when Libya, fearful of American resolve after 9/11, gave up its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. These programs, incidentally, were more advanced than Western intelligence thought.

Reagan knew he must not squander the prestige of the American presidency and the authority of the United States by meaningless meetings that serve only as propaganda victories for our adversaries. Mr. Obama seems to believe charisma and smooth talk can fundamentally alter the behavior of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba.

Read the rest here, and see what dangerous concessions Obama might be forced to make if he goes on his Magical Mystery Tour.