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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (55833)9/14/2012 11:30:06 PM
From: greatplains_guy1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
How the media turned Obama's foreign policy bungle into a Romney gaffe
September 12, 2012 | 6:00 pm
Philip Klein
Senior Editorial Writer

We're still learning more details about the events leading up to and surrounding the attacks by Islamic radicals on the U.S. consulate in Libya and embassy in Egypt, but the media has already agreed on one thing: Mitt Romney is the political loser.

"Unless the Romney campaign has gamed this crisis out in some manner completely invisible to the Gang of 500, his doubling down on criticism of the President for the statement coming out of Cairo is likely to be seen as one of the most craven and ill-advised tactical moves in this entire campaign," opined Time's Mark Halperin.

That instant conventional wisdom is a pretty fortunate turn of events for Obama, given that it diverted focus from his administration's bungled handling of the entire situation and the failure of his broader foreign policy posture.

When President Obama came into his office, he vowed to repair the damage to the U.S. image abroad that was done by the Bush administration. In April 2009, less than three months into his presidency, he boasted to the Turkish government of having ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay and prohibited the use of torture. "The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history," he went on, referring to the legacies of slavery, segregation and the treatment of Native Americans.

In June, Obama delivered a speech in Cairo in which he called for "a new beginning" between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

Taken together, such instances became known in conservative circles as the "apology tour." Though fact checkers have pointed out that Obama never literally issued an apology, it's clear that Obama was trying to make a break with the past. Especially in the Middle East, he wanted to send the signal that his approach would be more conciliatory and sensitive to Islamic values than what preceded it.

Yet, on Tuesday, the breach of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Sept. 11 and replacement of the American flag with one resembling the flag of al Qaeda represented an example of the type of anti-American sentiment that Obama's more conciliatory posture was meant to quell. Later, we learned that an American ambassador had been killed in an attack in Libya, along with three other diplomats.

When a statement surfaced from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo condemning, "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims" and "firmly [rejecting] the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others," it looked like weakness in the face of the attack.

There are conflicting reports as to whether this statement -- a reference to an online American-made film mocking Islam -- was issued before or after the assault on the embassy started. But on its Twitter account, the Embassy later reiterated that its statement "still stands." Back in Washington, the Obama administration distanced itself from its own embassy's statement, which isn't some minor outpost but the representative of U.S. policy in arguably the most important Arab nation. Soon, the Embassy began deleting messages from its official Twitter account, including the one standing by its initial statement.

This looked like amateur hour, and it also fed into the broader critique many Republicans have made of the Obama administration. So it seemed natural that Romney would release a statement Tuesday night condemning both the attacks and Obama's weak response. But Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt shot back and said he was "shocked" Romney would play politics at such a time. And the media fell into line.

When Romney gave a press conference Wednesday, the questions focused on whether it was appropriate for him to criticize Obama at the time he did. Romney's responses didn't really matter, because reporters had already decided their narrative. Obama did not take any questions in his own press conference moments later.

In 2004, John Kerry routinely attacked President Bush's handling of Iraq when things weren't going well in the country. And the media dutifully reported on Bush's foreign policy 'blunders' in Iraq. But now, instead of scrutinizing Obama's handling of a foreign policy crisis, the media has decided that the real story in Egypt and Libya is a Mitt Romney reaction.

Philip Klein ( pklein@washingtonexaminer.com) is a senior editorial writer for The Washington Examiner. Follow him on Twitter at @philipaklein.

washingtonexaminer.com



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (55833)9/17/2012 10:38:45 PM
From: greatplains_guy1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
America's Mideast Policies in Shambles
The Consequences of Obama's Bungled Mideast Policy
By Michael Barone - September 17, 2012

In Libya, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three colleagues were murdered Tuesday. Earlier that day, protesters in Egypt stormed the U.S. embassy and tore down the American flag.

It was "the day the roof fell in," proclaimed blogger and historian Walter Russell Mead. Barack Obama's "efforts to reconcile the U.S. and moderate Islamism -- in part by distancing the U.S. from Israel -- have angered Israel without reducing Islamist bitterness against the United States."

In other words, his Middle East policies are in shambles. His assumption that a president "who doesn't look like other presidents" would endear America to Arabs has been proven unfounded.

So have other assumptions. Like the idea that Iran's mullah regime would negotiate with us if we uttered soothing words and turned a cold eye on Iranian dissidents, as Obama did in June 2009.

And the idea that creating distance between the United States and Israel would lead to a settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.

Obama came to office believing that America had a lot to apologize for. For the "tension" between the U.S. and the Muslim world that "has been fed" by colonialism and the Cold War, as he said in his June 2009 "New Beginning" speech in Cairo.

There, he implicitly contrasted George W. Bush's emphasis on universal human rights by admitting that "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone."

Since the 9/11/12 attacks on America, Muslims have been protesting over much of the world, from Tunisia to Yemen to Bangladesh, and in some cases, have been assaulting our embassies.

The ostensible reason for the protests is a video produced by someone in the United States criticizing the Prophet Muhammad. But that's obviously just a pretext, used by Islamist terrorist organizers to whip up frenzy in nations with large numbers of angry unemployed young men.

Unfortunately, some of our government officials have taken the complaints about the video seriously. Before the attack, the Cairo embassy issued a statement condemning "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims."

When Mitt Romney condemned that statement, he was widely criticized by mainstream media. But his judgment was confirmed when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ordered the statement taken down.

Even so, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the protests were directed at the video rather than the United States -- wishful thinking. The Hollywood Reporter revealed that the FBI was sent to Los Angeles to track down the video maker. The Los Angeles Times reported that the State Department asked YouTube whether the offending video violated its terms of service.

As Fox News commentator Kirsten Powers wrote, "Our leaders shouldn't let our enemies know that when they kill our people and attack our embassies that the U.S. government will act like a battered wife making excuses for her psychotic husband."

It's also disturbing that Obama, after his brief statement deploring the Benghazi murders (and not mentioning the attack on the Cairo embassy), immediately embarked on a four-hour plane ride to campaign in Las Vegas.

In an interview there with Telemundo, Obama said Egypt was neither an ally nor an enemy. Later, the State Department spokesman conceded that Egypt is officially an ally under a 1989 law.

That's an unforced error for an incumbent president, one who has criticized his opponent's lack of foreign policy experience.

But perhaps it's not surprising. American Enterprise Institute's Marc Thiessen revealed last week that Obama has skipped more than half of his daily intelligence briefings. He reads the reports instead. His last in-person briefing before 9/11/12 was on Sept. 5.

It's not clear why security efforts failed in Benghazi and the Libyan government's assurances that it will protect our diplomats in the future seems sincere.

And Obama did find time for a reportedly "tense" phone conversation with Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, who then made a public statement denouncing the attacks. But on the phone, Morsi reportedly asked Obama to "put an end to such behavior" -- i.e., suppress the video. Did the president explain that we have a First Amendment that prevents government from doing such things?

Under settled principles of international law, attacks on diplomats by, or permitted by, governments can be considered acts of war. The threat of such attacks deserves a more stern response than a campaign trip to Vegas, a misstatement of settled policy and skipped intelligence briefings.

realclearpolitics.com



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (55833)4/12/2013 9:00:24 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
Korean Nuclear Worries Raised
Updated April 11, 2013, 8:35 p.m. ET
By DION NISSENBAUM And JAY SOLOMON

A new U.S. military intelligence assessment says for the first time that North Korea may have developed a nuclear device small enough to mount on a ballistic missile, but said such a weapon's "reliability would be low."

In an assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency, a branch of the Pentagon, analysts appeared to upgrade U.S. estimates of North Korea's nuclear-weapons abilities, according to a portion of the report disclosed by a lawmaker at a House hearing on Thursday.

There was disagreement in Washington over the extent of North Korea's capabilities, with Obama administration officials and the Pentagon press office saying there isn't evidence that the country could use such a weapon.

Tensions are running high in Washington over how best to address the North Korean threat without triggering precipitous reactions from U.S. allies in North Asia. The White House has made an effort to rein in tensions and more tightly control the message, but as the varying interpretations of Pyongyang's abilities show, that can be difficult on politically charged issues.

The Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, rated its confidence in its finding as "moderate." Experts said that, if proven accurate, the assessment would mark a dangerous advance in the North Korean program.

"It's more forward-leaning about the threat than they've previously said," said a staff member of the House Armed Services Committee who has read the DIA report. "Clearly, they are very alarmed, and the information they are seeing shows a great deal of alarm—and now more information is coming out for the American people to see."



The disclosure came as John Kerry arrives Friday in Asia for his first tour as secretary of state through a region more on edge than it has been in years. North Korea has threatened to launch missiles and South Korea has vowed to retaliate against hostile acts.

Mr. Kerry will visit South Korea on Friday, China on Saturday and Japan on Sunday. He plans to press Beijing to more aggressively muscle North Korea away from its military and nuclear threats, senior U.S. officials said.

Mr. Kerry also will reassure South Korea and Japan that the Obama administration is committed to their defense and to shifting the U.S. national-security focus toward Asia and away from the Middle East.

Paving the way for Mr. Kerry's visit, President Barack Obama exhorted the North Koreans to tone down their rhetoric and said he favored diplomatic engagement, but said the U.S. would take "all necessary steps" to protect its interests.



His comments came after an Oval Office meeting with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who urged China to exercise its influence over North Korea "so that this situation will be resolved peacefully."

The DIA assessment was first divulged Thursday at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R., Colo.).

"DIA assesses with moderate confidence the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles," according to the unclassified conclusion of the March threat assessment provided to lawmakers. "However, the reliability will be low."

Following the disclosure at the House hearing, the Pentagon issued a statement saying it "would be inaccurate to suggest that the North Korean regime has fully tested, developed, or demonstrated the kinds of nuclear capabilities referenced in the passage. The United States continues to closely monitor the North Korean nuclear program and calls upon North Korea to honor its international obligations."

Late Thursday, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, issued a statement backing up the Pentagon's statement. He added that the DIA finding wasn't an assessment from all 16 intelligence agencies, saying "North Korea has not yet demonstrated the full range of capabilities necessary for a nuclear armed missile."

South Korea's military doesn't believe North Korea has a nuclear weapon small enough to mount on a missile, a defense ministry spokesman said Friday.

Earlier, at a separate hearing in Congress, Mr. Clapper played down the latest spate of escalatory talk, suggesting it was bluster. "All of the belligerent rhetoric of late, I think, is designed for both an internal and an external audience," he said. "But I think first and foremost it's to show that [ Kim Jong Eun] is firmly in control in North Korea."

Mr. Clapper did reiterate the collective assessment of U.S. spy agencies that "North Korea has already demonstrated capabilities that threaten the U.S. and the security environment in East Asia."

Senior Obama administration officials said Thursday that the White House hasn't seen evidence that the North can successfully put a nuclear weapon on a missile, despite progress over the years.

"North Korea has launched missiles and successfully put a satellite in orbit in December, so we know that they have long-range missile technology. We know that they have a nuclear capability and have stated their intention to use it together with their missile capabilities. They've made progress over the past several years in developing both of those elements and that is concerning to us," a senior administration official said.

"But we've not seen any evidence that they've actually been able to marry up their nuclear technology with their missile capabilities. They've certainly not successfully carried out these intentions," the official said.

The administration, the official said, will "continue to monitor the situation and take prudent steps to protect ourselves and our allies."

By releasing the intelligence assessment, House Republicans injected more concern about the North Korean threat into the public debate. Committee staff members said Rep. Lamborn had checked the assessment with the DIA before making the information public to ensure that the conclusion was accurate and unclassified.

DIA officials wouldn't comment Thursday. The Central Intelligence Agency also declined to comment.

The DIA is one of more than a dozen U.S. spy agencies, and it wasn't known whether its conclusion was shared by other intelligence analysts.

Analysts said the intelligence assessment is an indication of growing concern within the administration over the increasing nuclear threat from North Korea.

"North Korea's ballistic-missile and nuclear threat is very much a near-term threat," said Victor Cha, a specialist on North Korea at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "For people to say it's just bluster, well, the bluster may be harmless, but the steady progression in their program is not harmless."

North Korea has said its nuclear test in February involved a miniature device, a description U.S. and international experts said at the time could mean the government had developed a warhead small enough to mount onto a missile.

In recent weeks, the U.S. has demonstrated its increasing concern about the threat from North Korea by bolstering its missile defenses in the region.

The Pentagon has said it would spend about $1 billion to add 14 extra missile interceptors in Fort Greely, Alaska. The ground based interceptors are meant to destroy long range missiles launched by North Korea to the U.S. There are currently 30 interceptors in Alaska and California.

While the additional interceptors won't be ready until 2017, the Pentagon has taken more immediate steps to bolster missile defenses in the region. It has sent ballistic-missile-defense ships off the coast of South Korea. It also said it would deploy the Army's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system to Guam, to protect the military base there from midrange North Korean rockets.

Mr. Kerry is expected to face major challenges in selling U.S. assurances to a North Asia that is at its most combustible state in decades. North Korea's recent nuclear-weapons tests, missile launches and threats are fueling nationalistic calls in Seoul and Tokyo for those countries to respond and significantly enhance their own defenses.

The drive is being fed by concerns over the U.S.'s financial position and Washington's ability to defend its Asian allies long-term, these diplomats and analysts said.

"Of all the issues I heard while in Asia, getting our fiscal house in order was No. 1," said Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), who met with South Korean President Park Geun-hye recently in Seoul, and discussed the North Korea crisis.

The new Chinese government of President Xi Jinping is also expected to test Mr. Kerry and the Obama administration's commitment to "pivot" its strategic focus to Asia, when he visits Beijing starting on Saturday.

Mr. Kerry's predecessor, Hillary Clinton, was viewed in Beijing as the driving force behind the U.S.'s more aggressive posture in Asia in recent years, said Chinese government officials and analysts.

Her high-profile challenging of Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea, beginning in 2010, infuriated Beijing's leadership.

Mrs. Clinton also was the lead U.S. voice criticizing China's positions on Internet freedom and cyberwarfare. And she worked to strengthen Washington's relations with China's closest neighbors, helping to orchestrate a U.S. rapprochement with Myanmar's military government in 2012.

Several Chinese experts on foreign policy have suggested in recent weeks that they believed Mr. Kerry will be less "aggressive" than Mrs. Clinton, and would place greater emphasis on the economic and other nonmilitary aspects of this refocusing on Asia.

Siobhan Gorman, Julian E. Barnes, Adam Entous and Jeremy Page contributed to this article.
Write to Dion Nissenbaum at dion.nissenbaum@wsj.com


online.wsj.com