Y'all been had!

Mr. Obama's Middle East - Editorial - Washington Post
After all, he doesn't see the region much differently than President Bush does.
In the heat of the Democratic primary campaign, some on the left were inspired to believe that Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) offered a far-reaching transformation of U.S. foreign policy, "the most sweeping liberal foreign-policy critique we've heard from a serious presidential contender in decades," as one particularly breathless article in the American Prospect put it. Yet, when Mr. Obama opened his general election campaign this week with a major speech on Middle East policy, the substantive strategy he outlined was, in many respects, not very much different from that of the Bush administration -- or that of Republican Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). That's not a bad thing; rather, it's a demonstration that there is a strong bipartisan consensus about America's vital interests in the Middle East and that the sensible options for defending them are relatively limited.
Liberal notions of a foreign policy shakeup sometimes begin -- and end -- with a cooling of U.S. support for Israel. But in his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobbying group, delivered hours after he clinched the Democratic nomination, Mr. Obama was so forceful in backing the military, economic and territorial interests of the Jewish state that he later had to offer a clarification, pointing out that his endorsement of an "undivided" Jerusalem did not mean he ruled out Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over the final status of the city. READ IT ALL

Nouriel Roubini is a professor of economics at NYU.
Always respected, of late he has become a household word in his profession due to the uncanny accuracy of his predictions. Almost alone, he predicted the present financial meltdown and the real estate crackup, months, sometimes years, before the immense majority of his colleagues.

I am putting in all this preface so that readers don't think that the following text is simply the production of some pajama clad, over-caffeinated  blogger.

Will Israel Attack Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Before the End of the Bush Administration? Joschka Fischer Argues Yes
I had the pleasure to meet and speak at length over the weekend with Joschka Fischer, former Foreign Minister of Germany and one of the deepest geo-strategic thinkers in the world. He argued with me that – as he fleshed out in a a recent article he wrote for the Project Syndicate – Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before the end of the Bush administration and that Israel effectively received the green light to this action from Bush during his recent visit to Israel. Fischer was recently in Israel to attend the celebrations for the 60th anniversary of Israel creation. A variety of factors and conversations – fleshed out in his article – have led him to the conclusion that Israel will attack Iran before the end of the Bush administration. This is just an opinion of one – however influential and well-connected – observer; but the arguments that Fischer makes on why Israel may go ahead sound compelling. We certainly don’t know if Israel will act that early – and certainly Israel has signaled that it will not accept an Iran that is nuclear - but let us consider the economic and financial consequences of such action.

First, even before Iran may try to retaliate to this action by trying to block the flow of oil from the Gulf, oil prices would spike above $200 dollar a barrel.

Second, Iran could react militarily to such Israeli action (that would be taken with the tacit support and the military logistic support of the US) by unleashing its supporters in Iraq against the US military forces there. That would trigger a military reaction by the US that would start a sustained air-led bombing campaign against Iran’s military capabilities (air force, anti-aircraft defenses, radar and other military installations, etc.)

Third, Iran would unleash its supporters in Lebanon and Gaza (Hezbollah and Hamas) in a military confrontation with Israel. A broader war will follow in the Middle East.

Fourth, Iran would use both the threat of blocking the flow of oil out of the Gulf and an actual sharp reduction of its exports of oil (an embargo) to spike the price of oil. Oil prices would rapidly rise above $200 per barrel and the US and global economy would spin into a severe stagflationary recession (like those triggered by the sharp spikes in the prices of oil following the staflationary shocks of the Yom Kippur war in 1973, the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990).

Fifth, while Sunni regimes may – in private – sigh relief following the destruction of the nuclear capabilities of the Shiite Iranian regime – the Sunni Arab street (the masses of poor Sunnis) from Algeria to Egypt and all the way to Pakistan, India and Indonesia may become even more anti-Western and anti-American leading to the risk over time of rise of anti-Western fundamentalist regimes in many Arab countries.

Sixth, the Bush administration whose hands have been tied by the new National Intelligence Estimate (that argued that Iran had suspended its program of development of nuclear weapons) would thus be able to strike Iran – via Israel - before the end of its term. Such October surprise by Israel would also certainly lead to the election of McCain and defeat of Obama as a national security crisis of such an extent would doom the chances of Democrats to win the White House. So both Israel – that prefers McCain to Obama and is hurried to act as it is wary of the constraints that an Obama presidency may put on its ability to act against Iran – and the Bush administration would guarantee the election of McCain.

Now, it is not certain – as argued by Fischer – that Israel will strike that early; this is just a guess and a prediction by one observer even if many others think likewise. But if such action were to be taken by Israel the consequences outlined above would be the clear outcome: a major global recession, wars throughout the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Israel, etc.) and a major increase in geopolitical instability.

While we have our eyes on Obama's history making achievement and Hillary's dark designs, something really important  may be about to happen.

http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

There is a strong rumor that McCain is going to pick the governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin as his running mate.

She is young (44) wildly popular in her state, a former mayor,  the mother of five children, with one son serving in the army and if I may be allowed a sexist aside, she  is extremely pretty.

I noticed that McCain in his pitiful speech  he thanked Hillary for dinging the glass ceiling as "the father of three daughters"... I thought that this was a very effective ploy.

There are a lot of women who are feeling very bruised about how Hillary is being treated right now and McCain's choosing Governor Palin as his running mate might rope in a lot of these ladies.

This would make choosing a VP much more difficult for Obama.

http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," he said. (emphasis mine)

Israel calls the city its undivided and eternal capital, but this status has never been recognized internationally. Palestinians want East Jerusalem, captured by Israel at war in 1967, for a future capital." Barack Obama, speaking to AIPAC, June, 4th, 2008 - Reuters

First things first.

No Palestinian leader is ever going to sign any agreement giving an "undivided" Jerusalem to Israel, because if he did so he would be signing his own death sentence. Not only would no Palestinian ever accept it, no Muslim anywhere in the world would ever accept it either.

That means that with Barack Obama as president there is no hope for peace in the Middle East. Absolutely that simple.

One thing is to guarantee Israel's existence or threaten Iran with sanctions or even attack, and quite another is to commit the United States to a policy which mortally offends every Muslim in the world... forever and ever, amen.

By choosing to award a holy city disputed by two religions exclusively to one of the religions, Barack Obama, having no other legitimacy to make that gift than America's military force, is committing the United States of America to a role in a religious war, as a belligerent in that war. By making this commitment, Barack Obama is literally declaring jihad against Islam... forever and ever, amen.

Doing this legitimizes Islamic radicals and terrorists everywhere... forever and ever, amen.

By endorsing this position, which is totally outside International law, Barack Obama has forfeited any credibility he might have ever had to provide a new direction to American foreign policy.

It was Christmas Day in the harem,

The eunuchs were all standing round,

With dozens of naked women

All scattered on the ground;

When in came the mighty Sultan

To gaze at his marble halls.

He said: "What do you want for Christmas lads?"

And the eunuchs they all shouted:

"TIDINGS OF COMFORT AND JOY..."

It was AIPAC day in Washington and the candidates were all standing round...

Rather than rant on tiresomely, I thought I would just collage the whole thing. DS

Jewish Telegraph Agency
As 5,000 AIPAC activists ascend Capitol Hill this week, they will be pushing a multifaceted agenda with a clear bottom line: It's the sanctions, stupid.

Some new wrinkles in the lobbying blitz that traditionally follows the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy forum deal with the role of Arab nations in advancing Israel-Arab peace and with securing a pledged increase in U.S. assistance to Israel.(....)After two days of sessions heavily weighted toward considering the possibility of a nuclear threat, 5,000 of the 7,000 activists will head to 500 meetings on the Hill armed with talking points for a bill that has languished in the U.S. Senate since it passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives last year.

The Iran Counter Proliferation Act would expand existing sanctions by hitting companies and nations that deal with Iran's energy sector. It also would cut off Iran entirely from the U.S. finance system.

Bolstering that bill is a nonbinding resolution put forward last week by U.S. Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.). The resolution urges President Bush to immediately impose some of the sanctions in the Counter Proliferation Act and adds the new proposal: cut off the export of refined petroleum to Iran.

"Despite sitting on some of the largest oil reserves in the world, Iran has been forced to import 40 percent of its refined petroleum -- gasoline and diesel -- because of a lack of investment in its oil refining infrastructure," states the memo prepared for AIPAC activists. "Limiting Iran’s ability to import gasoline will severely impact Iran’s economy and could lead to dramatically greater domestic pressure on the regime to change course."

The language of the congressional resolution is sensitive to the political realities of a presidential campaign that has made the possibility of war against Iran a partisan issue: It explicitly counts out military action -- a point hammered home in the AIPAC talking points.

Asia Times
It has become relatively fashionable for some members of the Israeli lobby to deny any involvement in the build-up towards the war on Iraq. But few remember what AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr told the New York Sun in January 2003: "Quietly lobbying Congress to approve the use of force in Iraq was one of AIPAC's successes over the past year."

And in a New Yorker profile of Steven Rosen, AIPAC's policy director during the run-up to the war on Iraqi, it was stated that "AIPAC lobbied Congress in favor of the Iraqi war".

Compare it with a 2007 Gallup study based on 13 different polls, according to which 77% of American Jews were opposed to the Iraq war, compared to 52% of Americans.

The Forward
The Arizona senator received a standing ovation when he blasted Obama for not supporting a Senate resolution demanding the designation of Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terror group.(...) On the issue of the Iraq war, McCain made an attempt to present the current situation in relation to Israel’s security, arguing that Obama’s call for a gradual troop reduction would cause a “catastrophe” that would “profoundly affect the security of the United States, Israel and our other friends.”

McCain’s reference to the possible danger a withdrawal would pose to Israel was greeted with applause from the audience. A similar case was made last year at the Aipac conference by both Vice President Dick Cheney and by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Aipac’s annual policy conference, which is traditionally one of Washington’s biggest political events, is attracting even more media attention this year, due to the expected appearance of all three presidential candidates.

Wall Street Journal
 Both Republicans and Democrats view Jewish-Americans as key swing voters in the presidential election. Jewish-Americans have leaned toward Democrats due to their liberal stances on domestic issues, such as abortion and immigration. But Sen. McCain's backers believe their candidate's hard-line approach to securing Israel could cause some Jewish-Americans to cross party lines.

The strategy to woo Jewish voters could be crucial in Florida, according to Adam Hasner, the majority leader in the state's House of Representatives, who is leading the McCain campaign's Jewish outreach there.

Joschka Fischer, Beirut Star
Although it is acknowledged in Israel that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would involve grave and hard-to-assess risks, the choice between acceptance of an Iranian bomb and an attempt at its military destruction, with all the attendant consequences, is clear. Israel won't stand by and wait for matters to take their course.

Arnaud De Borchgrave, Middle East Times
The Israeli air force has fine-tuned aerial bombardments of Iran's key nuclear facilities. But these number at least 27 that are widely scattered, and built underground close to population centers. Iran would then assume that such an operation could not take place without a green light from the White House. And the mullahs' formidable retaliatory capabilities with asymmetric warfare would then target the United States and its Persian Gulf allies. Oil at $400 wouldn't take long.

Nouriel Roubini
 The Bush administration whose hands have been tied by the new National Intelligence Estimate (that argued that Iran had suspended its program of development of nuclear weapons) would thus be able to strike Iran – via Israel - before the end of its term. Such October surprise by Israel would also certainly lead to the election of McCain and defeat of Obama as a national security crisis of such an extent would doom the chances of Democrats to win the White House. So both Israel – that prefers McCain to Obama and is hurried to act as it is wary of the constraints that an Obama presidency may put on its ability to act against Iran – and the Bush administration would guarantee the election of McCain.

Now, it is not certain – as argued by Fischer – that Israel will strike that early; this is just a guess and a prediction by one observer even if many others think likewise. But if such action were to be taken by Israel the consequences outlined above would be the clear outcome: a major global recession, wars throughout the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Israel, etc.) and a major increase in geopolitical instability.

The Fifth Voyage of Sinbad the Sailor
When I was a little advanced into the island, I saw an old man who appeared very weak and feeble. He sat upon the bank of a stream, and at first I took him to be one who had been shipwrecked like myself. I went towards him and saluted him, but he only bowed his head a little. I asked him what he did there, but instead of answering he made a sign for me to take him upon my back and carry him over the brook, signifying that it was to gather fruit.

I believed him really to stand in need of my help, so took him upon my back, and having carried him over, bade him get down, and for that end stooped that he might get off with ease: but instead of that (which I laugh at every time I think of it), the old man, who to me had appeared very decrepit, clasped his legs nimbly about my neck, and then I perceived his skin to resemble that of a cow. He sat astride upon my shoulders, and held my throat so tight that I thought he would have strangled me, the fright of which made me faint away and fall down.

Notwithstanding my fainting, the ill-natured old fellow kept fast about my neck, but opened his legs a little to give me time to recover my breath. When I had done so, he thrust one of his feet against my stomach, and struck me so rudely on the side with the other, that he forced me to rise up against my will. Having got up, he made me walk under the trees, and forced me now and then to stop, to gather and eat fruit such as we found. He never left me all day, and when I lay down to rest by night, he laid himself down with me, always holding fast about my neck. Every morning he pushed me to make me wake, and afterwards obliged me to get up and walk, and pressed me with his feet. You may judge then what trouble I was in, to be loaded with such a burden as I could by no means rid myself of.