Genius

I'll take one of these for my desk, thank you:

More of the Same

As I'm sure you can imagine, there are those who aren't as pleased with Obama's speech in Cairo as we are. One of the critics is Caroline Glick, an Israeli-American journalist and Israeli hard-liner. This is how her column begins:

From an Israeli perspective, Pres. Barack Obama’s speech today in Cairo was deeply disturbing. Both rhetorically and programmatically, Obama’s speech was a renunciation of America’s strategic alliance with Israel.

So at least you know where she's coming from at the outset. Her claim is ridiculous. It's difficult to come to the conclusion that our "strategic alliance" with Israel is at an end when Congress has slated to give Israel $30 billion in military aid over the next ten years. Have you heard any chatter about that promise being revoked? Me neither. And if you'll allow me a moment of realpolitik, what exactly our we getting out of our supposedly "strategic alliance" with Israel? During the Bush administration we sent military aid to Israel and essentially gave them carte blanche to do as they wished with Hamas and Hezbollah. In return, we are blamed as the facilitators of Israeli violence against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, and Islamic terrorists use that support in their propaganda campaigns against us. Perhaps the Israelis think they are safer if they go to war repeatedly against Hamas, but are we?

Glick goes on:

In addition to his morally outrageous characterization of Israel and factually inaccurate account of its foundations, Obama struck out at the Jewish state through the two policies he outlined in his address. His first policy involves coercing Israel into barring all Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria (otherwise known as the West Bank), and Jerusalem.

"Otherwise known"? The "West Bank" is what everyone in the world calls the portion of Earth presently occupied by 2.4 million Palestinians, and the 300,000 Israeli settlers who would like to take that land from them, except the Israelis and some our very own special right-wingers. Calling it otherwise is propaganda, pure and simple.

Lastly, this paragraphs smacks of the short-sightedness that is entirely typical of Israeli hard-liners:

Obama claims that this policy will increase prospects for peace. But this is untrue. As Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas made clear in his Washington Post interview last week, Obama’s trenchant campaign against Jewish construction in these areas has convinced the Palestinians they have no reason to be flexible in their positions towards Israel. Indeed, Obama’s assault on Israeli construction and his unsubstantiated, bigoted claim that the presence of Jews in Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem impedes progress towards peace ensures that there will be no agreement whatsoever between Israel and the Palestinians.

After all, why would the Palestinians make a deal with Israel when they know that Obama will blame Israel for the absence of a peace agreement?

[...]

The only silver lining for Israelis from the president’s speech in Cairo and his general positions on the Middle East is that Obama has overplayed his hand. Far from bending to his will, a large majority of Israelis perceives Obama as a hostile force and has rallied in support of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu against the administration. This public support gives Netanyahu the maneuver room he needs to take the actions that Israel needs to take to defend against the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran and to assert its national rights and to defend itself against Palestinian terrorists and other Arab and non-Arab anti-Semites who wish it ill.

It's certainly true that Abbas has taken a wait-and-see approach, and that he believes that since Netanyahu will never agree to a real settlement freeze his only course of action is to wait for Netanyahu to be pushed out of office. But the Palestinians will never agree to a comprehensive peace that permits the Israelis to continue the expansion of settlements in the West Bank (and why would they?) and that, coupled with Israeli insistence on at the very least the "natural growth" of settlements is a major sticking point in any peace agreement.  For Glick to call Israeli instransigence as an obstacle to peace an "unsubstantiated, bigoted claim" is especially absurd, since she just referred to an interview with Abbas in which he said quite plainly that there can be no peace with settlement expansion. Only by signaling an end to the past American policy of winking at the Israelis every time a settlement freeze is discussed, can Obama hope to push the peace process forward. So in fact, taking a harder stance on settlement expansion is the only way to move the peace process forward.  

As for her "silver lining"...well, that she may be right about. The Israelis may very well decide to rally around Netanyahu and continue to oppose a settlement freeze or restraint in their military actions against the Palestinians. This is frustrating no doubt, but neither is it an obstacle to peace in the long-run. Doing as Glick desires will result in the continued marginalization of Israel, which in turn will contribute towards a softening of American support for Israel, which in turn will reduce Israeli freedom to act unilaterally with the Palestinians, which in turn will help bring the Israelis to the negotiating table. It would be best for everyone, but most especially the Israelis, to realize this and so make moves towards peace now when they stand to gain a great propaganda victory in doing so. But provided Obama is in office long enough, and provided he continues to deny Israel American approval of the actions they take against the Palestinians, they will eventually come around in one fashion or another.

UPDATE: Another stupid response to the Obama speech:

“I have to admire the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews lives in Jerusalem.”

Thus did Israeli government press director Daniel Seamen caustically dismiss President Obama’s opposition to Israel’s right to “natural growth” of its settlements in Arab East Jerusalem and on the West Bank.

That's from the "you did it so why can't I?" approach to diplomacy. No one was more caustic about American segregation than the Soviets, who under Stalin deported millions of ethnic minorities who were considered a possible threat to the State. And now the Israeli government attempts to hoist the Obama administration on its own petard, I guess for having the audacity to not to give back land to the Mohawks, Senecas and whatnot before criticizing Israeli's activities in the West Bank. Any reader of this blog knows of our Native American affiliations, but that's just ridiculous. But that does prompt me to ask: why the Iriquois? They are hardly the tribe most well-known for having their land stolen, and for forced relocation. Of all tribes the Cherokee are possibly the most cogent example of forced relocation, but even tribes like the Sioux and the Apache should be more well-known examples, given how intertwined they are in the lore of the American west. Are Israeli children learning something different in school from us? Or was that also an unstated reference to the credit the Iriquois are given for inspiring American democracy?

Great job

While Rush Limbaugh and the people on FOX News were in a tizzy over President Obama's landmark speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt today, I found it interesting that the consistently crazy conservative blog Hot Air described the speech as "surprisingly good." It's qualified praise, of course, but still, any praise is astonishing given the "OMG President Obama is subservient to the Saudi King!" posts of the blog's recent past.

Anyway, it's not an overstatement that President Obama's speech (which was a campaign promise) was as rhetorically brilliant and substantive as normal. I highly advise you to watch and/or read it in full here. He offered tough words to Al Qaeda (who clearly don't know how to deal with him) and those who would justify 9/11 and deny the Holocaust, while simultaneously calling on Israel to stop the expansion of settlements (and promoting a Palestinian state) and admitting the the CIA's role in deposing Mosaddeq. He calls for expanded rights for women in the Muslim world but says that while the U.S. will always promote democracy it won't force it on others. He asks Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, but recognizes their right to peaceful nuclear energy and recommits to a nuclear-free world in general (could this hurt Ahmadinejad's re-election hopes? Let's hope so). Seriously, Barack Obama is so different from what we've seen before it's still, even nearly five months in now, amazing to know that he is indeed the President of the United States and is making history everyday.

Of course, U.S.-Muslim relations will not instantly be rid of tensions with one speech, but it's a damn good start and a down payment on President Obama's promise of a new foreign policy.

UPDATE: Pro-western coalition wins in Lebanon and the man expected to be the next prime minister hails President Obama's speech. Others is the Muslim world also reacted positively.

Afternoon Links

Things worth reading:

1. An earthquake in Italy is estimated to have killed a hundred people so far, and left tens of thousands more homeless.

2. Florida: bringing back debtor's prison (sort of.)

3. Turkey: President Obama visits Turkey, calls Turkey an important ally, speaks of resolving the conflict over the Armenian genocide. Turkish PM Erdogan tells us to accept the reality of Hamas.

4. Thirty-three Iraqis die in coordinated car bombings in and around Baghdad.

5. The brain: Researchers are working on ways of "editing" memory. Scientists have also concluded that the stress of being poor alters the brains of children.

6. Secretary of Defense Gates proposes to make cuts to several big-ticket defense items. To which I say, we'll see about that.

7. President Obama aims for a world free of nuclear weapons.

8. Millions of shelter animals die, while morons buy designer "hybrid" breeds raised in appalling conditions.

9. Sports: Can Brazil's talented soccer player Marta revive women's soccer in the U.S.? Speaking of soccer, FC Dallas has stunk it up in the first three games of the season, losing all three while giving up seven goals and scoring only two. The Dallas Mavericks, as is typical in this up and down season,lost to a woeful Memphis team with less than half their win total on Friday night and then blew out similarly struggling Phoenix on Sunday. They are now one win or one Phoenix loss away from wrapping up the eight seed in the playoffs, and still-amazingly-in the hunt for the seventh seed, which they can get with some help from Utah. And the Texas Rangers open their season today with a game at home against Cleveland.

Obama admin wants to keep science and politics separate

You've probably all heard by now that President Obama plans to lift the Bush-ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but he is also indicating a new committment to science that goes beyond just that action:

When President Obama lifts restrictions on funding for human embryonic stem cell research today, he will also issue a presidential memorandum aimed at insulating scientific decisions across the federal government from political influence, officials said yesterday.

"The president believes that it's particularly important to sign this memorandum so that we can put science and technology back at the heart of pursuing a broad range of national goals," Melody C. Barnes, director of Obama's Domestic Policy Council, told reporters during a telephone briefing yesterday.

Although officials would not go into details, the memorandum will order the Office of Science and Technology Policy to "assure a number of effective standards and practices that will help our society feel that we have the highest-quality individuals carrying out scientific jobs and that information is shared with the public," said Harold Varmus, who co-chairs Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Removing this ideologically-motivated roadblock is a good start, and some members of Congress are looking at codifying into law so that a future administration can't just change it back. But most exciting is that we have an administration that is going to be driven by science not just on stem cells, but climate change and other issues, instead of politics. After the Bush years, this couldn't be more welcome.

The Beginning of the End

It's official:

“Let me say this as plainly as I can,” the president told thousands of Marines stationed here. “By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”

The “transitional force” he will leave behind will no longer participate in major combat missions but instead train and advise Iraqi security forces, hunt down terrorist cells and protect American civilian and military personnel working in Iraq. Mr. Obama promised that all of them will leave as well by December 2011 in accordance with a security agreement with Iraq negotiated by President George W. Bush before he left office last month.

At the same time, Mr. Obama vowed to continue the American commitment to building a new Iraqi society and to resettling millions of displaced Iraqis still away from home — elsewhere in their own nation or in neighboring countries. And he promised to escalate diplomatic involvement in the broader region, including new lines of communication with Iran and Syria.

“Every nation and every group must know — whether you wish America good or ill — that the end of the war in Iraq will enable a new era of American leadership and engagement in the Middle East,” the president said. “And that era has just begun.”

The announcement marked a sharp turning point in the American venture in Iraq, one that signaled a shift in the once-fiery political debate at home and in the nation’s priorities abroad. The choice of Camp Lejeune, the largest Marine base on the East Coast, symbolized the transition because 8,000 troops from here will soon ship out to Afghanistan as part of a 17,000-troop buildup ordered by Mr. Obama.

The reaction to the Iraq drawdown plan indicated an emerging consensus in the United States that it is time to begin getting out. While some leading Congressional Democrats grumbled about the size of the residual force, the drawdown largely won support across party lines, including from leading Republicans like Senator John McCain of Arizona, who lost year’s election to Mr. Obama after a fierce debate over Iraq.

Speaking on the Senate floor on Friday before the president’s speech, Mr. McCain credited the opportunity to pull troops out to the surge that Mr. Bush ordered two years ago with his support. But he cautioned that Iraq remains fragile, urging Mr. Obama to remain flexible and listen to military commanders.

“With these factors in mind, I believe the president’s withdrawal plan is a reasonable one,” Mr. McCain said. “Given the gains in Iraq and the requirements to send additional troops to Afghanistan, together with the significant number of troops that will remain in Iraq and the president’s willingness to reassess based on conditions on the ground, I am cautiously optimistic that the plan as laid out by the president can lead to success.”

Former Bush aides also offered support for the plan, calling it the logical next step after the president’s agreement with Iraq to withdraw all forces by the end of 2011. “The specific timing is only slightly different but consistent with the goal of helping Iraq become self sufficient in providing its own security,” Gordon D. Johndroe, who was Mr. Bush’s last national security spokesman, said in an interview. “This is possible because of the success of the surge.”

Mr. Obama called Mr. Bush from a holding room at Camp Lejeune just before going on stage in the base gymnasium to make the announcement, aides said. He called Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq from Air Force One on the flight from Washington to brief him on the withdrawal plan.

In Baghdad, Yassen Majeed, an adviser to Mr. Maliki, said the prime minister “is very comfortable with the plan.”

“The Prime Minister assured the American president that the security situation in Iraq is stable and his forces are ready to take over all the responsibilities from the American side.”

Some in the media have pointed out that this will take longer than the 16 months President Obama talked about during the campaign, but he always said that was flexible based on what his military advisers told him, and he also war clear that he would leave behind a residual force (just as he was clear that he'd likely send more troops to Afghanistan) - so all the talk about broken campaign promises is bunk. His anti-war credentials as a candidate came from his early documented opposition to going into Iraq in the first place, not for wanting to pull out overnight (no matter how much the media and the McCain campaign wanted it to seem that way).

However, questions over the size of the residual force are entirely fair (I'm sure Xanthippas will have commentary on this later), but we do not know yet what the exact size of it will be nor the Obama's administration full plan in using them until the Dec. 31st, 2011 end date for all U.S. forces agreed to with Iraq last year.

In the meantime, I think we have cause to celebrate what is at least the beginning of the end of this disastrous and stupid war in Iraq. And we should certainly be glad it is President Obama and not President McCain in charge.

Obama admin will focus on health care soon

As hinted previously, President Obama will use his budget blueprint to begin his health care reform efforts. The budget will be rolled out February 26th, though he will likely talk about these priorities in his address to a joint session of Congress two days before. Meanwhile, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius continues to be the leading contender for the HHS post.

Legislative Update IV

President Obama signed his first bill into law this week. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act reversed a 2007 Supreme Court decision declaration pay discrimination claims must be filed within 180 days of the first offense. This law triggers a new 180-day window after each discriminatory paycheck. Lilly Ledbetter is an Alabama woman who discovered after 19 years on the job at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co that she was the lowest-paid supervisor at her plant despite having more experience than several male co-workers. President Obama remarked that it seemed fitting that the first bill he would sign into law stood for greater equality.

Despite President Obama personally consulting and making concessions with the GOP, the House of Representatives passed its version of the economic stimulus bill without a single Republican vote. The Senate will take up its version next week, where it will need at least a few Republican votes to pass. Then, changes will need to be worked out between the two chambers and passed again before President Obama can sign it into law.

The Senate passed its bill to expand the SCHIP program. The House will take up the same measure next week, and President Obama will sign it into law. President Bush had vetoed the bill, but now with a Democratic President and greater Democratic majorities in Congress, this version of the bill gives even more of what Democrats wanted.

Also, the Senate for a second time approved a bill that delays the national transition to digital television to June 12th from February 17. The House failed to pass the bill under rules that required a two-thirds majority due to Republican opposition. The House will likely pass it when it takes it up again next week under normal rules that requires only a simply majority to pass. President Obama will sign the bill.

Lastly, Attorney General-designate won a strong 17-2 recommendation from the Senate Judiciary Committee and should receive bipartisan approval from the full Senate on February 2nd.

The First Week

Think Progress has a great list of President Obama's first actions and how they break with the policies of the Bush administration.

Legislative Update III

The Senate joined the House of Representatives in passing the Lilly Ledbetter wage discrimination bill which reverses a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that narrowly defines the time period during which a worker can file a claim of wage discrimination, even if the worker is unaware for months or years that he or she is getting less than colleagues doing the same job. This should be on President Obama's desk soon and may be the first bill he signs into law.

Meanwhile, the House Ways and Mean Committee approved the tax portion of the economic stimulus that the full House will vote on along with other measures package next week. The Senate is coming up with their own version, but President Obama has said he expects to win approval by mid-February. He will also speak to a joint session of Congress next month.