SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Road Walker who wrote (516227)9/26/2009 9:19:02 AM
From: Alighieri2 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1577439
 
Obama's Iran disclosure likely part of clever chess game
McClatchy Newspapers

By Steven Thomma, McClatchy Newspapers Steven Thomma, Mcclatchy Newspapers – Fri Sep 25, 6:38 pm ET

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama always said he'd be willing to meet with rogue nations such as Iran without preconditions, but he never said he wouldn't try to set the stage.

The revelation Friday that Iran has a secret nuclear facility capped a calculated effort by Obama to build pressure against Iran days before a multinational confrontation over its nuclear plans on Thursday in Switzerland .

For weeks, Obama played a form of international chess to build a unified multi-national front against Iran while preserving the option to talk and negotiate. He abandoned plans for a ballistic missile defense in Europe , apparently in part to win Russian cooperation, slapped tariffs on Chinese tires, arguably to prod them along, then huddled with their leaders and finally rolled out the news that he'd held close to the vest for months — that Iran has a secret uranium enrichment plant.

"This is a very clever way of doing it," said Fariborz Ghadar , a professor at Penn State University and Iran scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies .

"We've been taking baby steps. Now we have the Oct. 1 meeting coming up and we have an ace in the hole, knowing that these guys have been cheating again. He played the cheating card. They're making Iran look really bad."

How long Obama will keep negotiating, and whether there's some point at which he'd stop talking and take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities, however, is unknown.

Rather than cancelling the Oct. 1 meeting between officials of Iran and Britain , China , France , Germany , Russia and the U.S., as some neoconservatives argued he should, Obama incorporated the meeting into his negotiating strategy.

All along, he appears to have been working to assemble a unified international response to Iran , including not just close allies such as Britain and France but those major powers, such as China and Russia , which in the past have been reluctant to support tough sanctions against Iran .

Whether Obama chose to release the information this week or was forced to do it wasn't clear. Iran , apparently aware that U.S., British and French intelligence had discovered its secret plant, sent a letter Monday to the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency reporting what it called a "pilot" plant.

Regardless, the world didn't learn of the plant until Obama announced it in a joint appearance in Pittsburgh Friday with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy .

Presenting several voices was an important step, said former Sen. Sam Nunn , a Georgia Democrat and a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee .

" The United States doesn't have to say everything every time," he said. "We need to let other countries come forward and express their outrage."

Those allies aren't enough, however, he added. " China and Russia have to be on board, being united here is absolutely imperative," Nunn said. "The fact that Russia has issued a strong statement . . . we are in far better position now than we were four or five months ago."

The effort to get Russia on board may have included Obama's decision this month to abandon a U.S. missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland . The system was aimed at protecting Europe from Iran but was seen as a threat by Russia .

Although Obama administration officials said the decision was never part of a bargain with Russia and was merely a move to a more efficient Navy -based missile defense, analysts think it was aimed at least in part at winning Russian support against Iran .

Then, Obama raised the ante by telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev about the discovery during a half-hour meeting Wednesday in New York .

Meeting with students in Pittsburgh on Thursday, Medvedev joked when asked about Iran that it felt like he was still in his meeting with Obama. The Russian leader said that he'd told Obama that Iran "has a right to its own peaceful nuclear program" and that he didn't think sanctions were the best response.

He said the international community would consider sanctions or other punitive measures, but only after trying "positive incentives" to get Iran to drop the weapons program.

On Friday morning, the Kremlin issued a terse statement calling on Iran to provide proof that the plant is being used only for peaceful purposes by Thursday, when Iran is scheduled to meet with the U.S., Russia and four other countries in Geneva, Switzerland .

"There has been a softening in the Russian position as result of the move the administration made on ballistic missile defense," said Mark Dubowitz , the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies , a Republican-affiliated policy organization. "The Russians, if the deal is good for them, will throw the Iranians under the bus."

Dubowitz also said that Obama likely imposed tariffs on Chinese tires earlier this month to pressure China to go along with international efforts against nuclear weapons development both Iran and North Korea .

"The leverage we have over the Chinese is access to our market," he said. "That was a shot across the bow to the Chinese."

Obama discussed Iran in depth with Chinese President Hu Jintao when they met for an hour on Tuesday in New York — White House aides said that Obama stressed that Iran is a "vital" issue to the U.S. He didn't, however, mention the news about the secret Iranian nuclear plant.

Instead, Obama pulled Hu aside at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh Friday morning, engaging in a four-minute talk that was described as very serious.

" China is just now fully absorbing these latest revelations," said a senior Obama administration official, who requested anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity. "I think we should stay tuned for the Chinese position in the coming days."



To: Road Walker who wrote (516227)9/26/2009 9:56:57 AM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577439
 
According to Gallup poll results released on Wednesday, the president’s approval rating has stopped falling and has leveled out in the low-50 percents, about the same as Ronald Reagan’s and Bill Clinton’s at this point in their presidencies (both two-termers, lest we forget).

WTF is this idiot talking about? Obama, just yesterday, tested new lows in the Gallup poll. Note the trend:

gallup.com


Obama told “60 Minutes” last week that if a health care bill passes, “I own it.” But, if it fails, the Republicans will own it.


This is an absurd claim. Obama owns it no matter what. It is HIS legislation. It is HIS fault the bills are too sweeping for the amount of political capital he has left. HE is the big visionary, remember?

Obama's attempt to over-reach with this legislation is what is killing it. If the liberals push it through, or try to, the public is going to kill them at the polls.

It is Obama's mess, no matter what.



To: Road Walker who wrote (516227)9/30/2009 10:58:00 AM
From: tejek2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577439
 
Maybe Obama was wise to hang back. While anger can simmer forever, overheated outrage is exhausting and ultimately counterproductive.

Anyone familiar with Aesop’s fable “The Tortoise and the Hare” surely remembers this lesson: slow and steady wins the race. I was beginning to think of Obama as the hare, but maybe he’s the tortoise.


It seems every time Obama gets questioned and criticized he ends up proving the nay sayers wrong.



To: Road Walker who wrote (516227)9/30/2009 11:05:10 AM
From: tejek1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577439
 
Where Did ‘We’ Go?
______________________________________________________________

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
September 30, 2009

I hate to write about this, but I have actually been to this play before and it is really disturbing.

I was in Israel interviewing Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin just before he was assassinated in 1995. We had a beer in his office. He needed one. I remember the ugly mood in Israel then — a mood in which extreme right-wing settlers and politicians were doing all they could to delegitimize Rabin, who was committed to trading land for peace as part of the Oslo accords. They questioned his authority. They accused him of treason. They created pictures depicting him as a Nazi SS officer, and they shouted death threats at rallies. His political opponents winked at it all.

And in so doing they created a poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish settler as a license to kill Rabin — he must have heard, “God will be on your side” — and so he did.

Others have already remarked on this analogy, but I want to add my voice because the parallels to Israel then and America today turn my stomach: I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.

What kind of madness is it that someone would create a poll on Facebook asking respondents, “Should Obama be killed?” The choices were: “No, Maybe, Yes, and Yes if he cuts my health care.” The Secret Service is now investigating. I hope they put the jerk in jail and throw away the key because this is exactly what was being done to Rabin.

Even if you are not worried that someone might draw from these vitriolic attacks a license to try to hurt the president, you have to be worried about what is happening to American politics more broadly.

Our leaders, even the president, can no longer utter the word “we” with a straight face. There is no more “we” in American politics at a time when “we” have these huge problems — the deficit, the recession, health care, climate change and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — that “we” can only manage, let alone fix, if there is a collective “we” at work.

Sometimes I wonder whether George H.W. Bush, president “41,” will be remembered as our last “legitimate” president. The right impeached Bill Clinton and hounded him from Day 1 with the bogus Whitewater “scandal.” George W. Bush was elected under a cloud because of the Florida voting mess, and his critics on the left never let him forget it.

And Mr. Obama is now having his legitimacy attacked by a concerted campaign from the right fringe. They are using everything from smears that he is a closet “socialist” to calling him a “liar” in the middle of a joint session of Congress to fabricating doubts about his birth in America and whether he is even a citizen. And these attacks are not just coming from the fringe. Now they come from Lou Dobbs on CNN and from members of the House of Representatives.

Again, hack away at the man’s policies and even his character all you want. I know politics is a tough business. But if we destroy the legitimacy of another president to lead or to pull the country together for what most Americans want most right now — nation-building at home — we are in serious trouble. We can’t go 24 years without a legitimate president — not without being swamped by the problems that we will end up postponing because we can’t address them rationally.

The American political system was, as the saying goes, “designed by geniuses so it could be run by idiots.” But a cocktail of political and technological trends have converged in the last decade that are making it possible for the idiots of all political stripes to overwhelm and paralyze the genius of our system.

Those factors are: the wild excess of money in politics; the gerrymandering of political districts, making them permanently Republican or Democratic and erasing the political middle; a 24/7 cable news cycle that makes all politics a daily battle of tactics that overwhelm strategic thinking; and a blogosphere that at its best enriches our debates, adding new checks on the establishment, and at its worst coarsens our debates to a whole new level, giving a new power to anonymous slanderers to send lies around the world. Finally, on top of it all, we now have a permanent presidential campaign that encourages all partisanship, all the time among our leading politicians.

I would argue that together these changes add up to a difference of degree that is a difference in kind — a different kind of American political scene that makes me wonder whether we can seriously discuss serious issues any longer and make decisions on the basis of the national interest.

We can’t change this overnight, but what we can change, and must change, is people crossing the line between criticizing the president and tacitly encouraging the unthinkable and the unforgivable.