Obama's Israel Problem

9:02 AM, Jan 29, 2015
BY WILLIAM KRISTOL

Share on twitterShare on facebookShare on emailMore Sharing Services

The Obama administration is angry with Israel. Here's the administration's house organ, the New York Times, this morning:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, after days of mounting tension, signaled on Wednesday how angry it is with Israel that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted Republican leaders’ invitation to address Congress on Iran without consulting the White House.

The outrage the episode has incited within President Obama’s inner circle became clear in unusually sharp criticism by a senior administration official who said that the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer, who helped orchestrate the invitation, had repeatedly placed Mr. Netanyahu’s political fortunes above the relationship between Israel and the United States.

Story continues below

The official who made the comments to The New York Times would not be named...

Of course, the official who last summer called Prime Minister Netanyahu a "coward" and a "chickens--t" would not be named either. But there is no reason to think those unnamed angry officials do not speak for an angry president.

The Obama White House usually prides itself on not getting angry. Its self-image is that it's cool, calm, and collected. And it doesn't get angry at, for example, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Obama White House understands and appreciates the complexities of the Islamic Republic's politics and history. It is only with respect to the Jewish state that the Obama White House is impatient, peremptory, and angry.

Why has Obama been lashing out? Because he had a dream. He was to be the American president who would preside at, and take credit for, the founding of a Palestinian state. Obama would be to Palestine what Harry Truman was to Israel. Now it's clear that's not going to happen during his presidency. Obama's frustrated that it's not going to happen. So he lashes out.

But Obama is still pursuing another dream: to be the American president who goes to Tehran, who achieves with Iran what Richard Nixon achieved with China. And he thinks Israel, and Israel's friends in the United States, stand in the way of achieving that dream. So he has another reason to be angry.

Of course, it's not Israel but reality that stands in the way of Obama's dreams. His Cairo speech, and the policies that followed from it, have crashed on the shoals of reality. Obama said in Cairo in June 2009, that he hoped that his administration would end the "cycle of suspicion and discord" between the United States and much of the Muslim world:

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. ...

There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth."

But the truth is that Obama's policies haven't ameliorated the crisis in Islam or lessened the discord between Islam and the West. They have worsened the discord and exacerbated the crisis. Obama's policies of retreat have strengthened radical Islam, and undermined those in the Muslim world who do believe in "justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

It is Obama's failures that explain his anger—his failures, and his hopes that a breakthrough with Iran could erase the memories of failure and appear to vindicate his foreign policy. Israel stands in the way, he thinks, of this breakthrough. Prime Minister Netanyahu stands in the way. And so Obama lashes out.

It's of course unseemly. But it's also dangerous. Neville Chamberlain and the British establishment were far angrier with Winston Churchill, and much harsher in their attempts to discredit him, in the late 1930s when the dreams of appeasement were failing, than earlier, when hope for the success of appeasement was alive. When you think your policies are going to be vindicated, you ignore or dismiss critics. It's when you suspect and fear imminent failure that you lash out.

So we have an angry president, increasingly desperate for vindication of his failed foreign policy, accelerating both his appeasement of Iran and his attacks on Israel. The good news is that the Republican party and the conservative movement—and most of the American people—stand with Israel and against President Obama. Of major parts of the American Jewish community, on the other hand, one can say no such thing.

Romney not running

By JAMES HOHMANN & LUCY MCCALMONT | 01/30/2015 07:27 AM EST | Updated: 01/30/2015 11:43 AM EST

Mitt Romney will not run a third time for president, he will announce Friday on a conference call with donors, sources familiar with his plans told POLITICO.

"After putting considerable thought into making another run for president, I've decided it is best to give other leaders in the Party the opportunity to become our next nominee," Romney will say on the call.

Top GOP sources said that Romney flinched at Jeb Bush's strength in fundraising and early polling. Just Thursday, the former Florida governor poached a close Romney adviser who had run his 2012 Iowa campaign.

Those closest to Romney have pushed him hard to run, especially his main fundraisers and some of his strategists from last time. But there was very little encouragement from outside of his inner circle.

In the three weeks since Romney floated a trial balloon during a meeting with donors in New York, the response has been mostly negative among early-state activists, conservative thought leaders in the media and a swath of donors who feel like Romney had his chance.

Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt has posted the text of Romney's remarks on the conference call.

On the call with donors, Romney planned to express a high degree of confidence that he "could win the nomination." He insisted that his finance team and political team found encouraging signs. Romney noted that polls show he is leading in the first four states that kick off the nominating process.

"So I am convinced that we could win the nomination, but fully realize it would have been a difficult test and a hard fight," he said in his prepared remarks. "I would have the best chance of beating the eventual Democrat nominee, but that is before the other contenders have had the opportunity to take their message to the voters."

Romney does not name the names of other candidates, but he does say it is time for a new generation of Republican leaders - perhaps an implicit rub at Bush.

"I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders, one who may not be as well known as I am today, one who has not yet taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started, may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democratic nominee," Romney planned to say on the call. "In fact, I expect and hope that to be the case."

Romney, a former Bain Capital executive, approached a potential third campaign by trying to think pragmatically about whether he should run. He believes that he's the strongest candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016, according to those who have spoken with him, but he's also watched this month as the base of the party has responded harshly to the trial balloon he's floated. Romney knows that winning the nomination would not be easy.

At this point in 2011, Romney had a big team in place. This time, he's been much slower in revving up. He's relying on a close-knit circle of family, including his son Tagg, and key advisers from last time.

On Thursday, it emerged that Dave Kochel -- who ran Iowa for Romney in 2012 -- has defected to Jeb Bush. The New York Times reported that he'll move to Florida and will become Bush's national campaign manager.

Near the end of the donor call, according to his prepared remarks, Romney said it "seems unlikely" that he will change his mind. He said he will not organize a new political action committee, take donations or hire a campaign team.

"You can't imagine how hard it is for Ann and me to step aside, especially knowing of your support and the support of so many people across the country," Romney said in his prepared remarks for the call. "But we believe it is for the best of the party and the nation."

Open Jihad Declared in Egypt Following State Dept. Meeting with Muslim Brotherhood-Aligned Leaders

---

AP

BY: Adam Kredo Follow @Kredo0 
January 30, 2015 5:00 am

The Muslim Brotherhood called for “a long, uncompromising jihad” in Egypt just one day after a delegation of the Islamist group’s key leaders and allies met with the State Department, according to an official statement released this week.

Just days after a delegation that included two top Brotherhood leaders was hosted at the State Department, the organization released an official statement calling on its supporters to “prepare” for jihad, according to an independent translation of the statement first posted on Tuesday.

The statement also was issued just two days before a major terror attack Thursday in Egypt’s lawless Sinai region that killed at least 25.

“It is incumbent upon everyone to be aware that we are in the process of a new phase, where we summon what is latent in our strength, where we recall the meanings of jihad and prepare ourselves, our wives, our sons, our daughters, and whoever marched on our path to a long, uncompromising jihad, and during this stage we ask for martyrdom,” it states.

Preparation for jihad is a key theme of the Brotherhood’s latest call for jihad.

An image posted with the statement shows two crossing swords and the word “prepare!” between them. Below the swords it reads, “the voice of truth, strength, and freedom.” According to the statement, “that is the motto of the Dawa of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The statement also invokes the well-known Muslim cleric Imam al-Bana, who founded the Brotherhood and has called for the death of Jews.

“Imam al-Bana prepared the jihad brigades that he sent to Palestine to kill the Zionist usurpers and the second [Supreme] Guide Hassan al-Hudaybi reconstructed the ‘secret apparatus’ to bleed the British occupiers,” the statement says.

The Brotherhood’s renewed call for jihad comes at a time when current Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is cracking down on the group and imprisoning many of its supporters, who notoriously engaged in violence following the ouster of Brotherhood-ally Mohamed Morsi.

Egypt experts said the timing of this declaration is an embarrassment for the State Department.

“The fact that the Brotherhood issued its call to jihad two days after its meeting at the State Department will be grist for endless anti-American conspiracy theories about a supposed partnership between Washington and the Brotherhood,” said Eric Trager, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). “The State Department should have foreseen what an embarrassment this would be.”

One member of that U.S. delegation, a Brotherhood-aligned judge in Egypt, posed for a picture while at Foggy Bottom in which he held up the Islamic group’s notorious four-finger Rabia symbol, according to his Facebook page.

“Now in the U.S. State Department. Your steadfastness impresses everyone,” reads an Arabic caption posted along with the photo.

Other members of that group included Gamal Heshmat, a leading member of the Brotherhood, and Abdel Mawgoud al-Dardery, a Brotherhood member who served as a parliamentarian from Luxor.

When asked on Tuesday evening to comment on the meeting, a State Department official told the Washington Free Beacon, “We meet with representatives from across the political spectrum in Egypt.”

The official declined to elaborate on who may have been hosted or on any details about the timing and substance of any talks.

The meeting was described by a member of the delegation, Maha Azzam as “fruitful,” according to one person who attended a public event in Washington earlier this week hosted by the group.

The call for jihad, while surprising in light of the Brotherhood’s attempts to appear moderate, is part and parcel of organization’s longstanding beliefs, Trager said.

“Muslim Brothers have been committing violent acts for a very long time,” Trager explained. “Under Morsi, Muslim Brothers tortured protesters outside the presidential palace. After Morsi’s ouster, they have frequently attacked security forces and state property. “

“But until now, the official line from the Brotherhood was to support this implicitly by justifying its causes, without justifying the acts themselves,” he added. “ So the Brotherhood’s open call to jihad doesn’t necessarily mean a tactical shift, but a rhetorical one.”

Terrorism expert and national security reporter Patrick Poole said he was struck by the clarity of the Brotherhood’s call.

“It invokes the Muslim Brotherhood’s terrorist past, specifically mentioning the ‘special apparatus’ that waged terror in the 1940s and 1950s until the Nasser government cracked down on the group, as well as the troops sent by founder Hassan al-Banna to fight against Israel in 1948,” he said.

“It concludes saying that the Brotherhood has entered a new stage, warns of a long jihad ahead, and to prepare for martyrdom,” Poole said. “Not sure how much more clear they could be.”

Poole wondered if the call for jihad would convince Brotherhood apologists that the group still backs violence.

“What remains to be seen is how this announcement will be received inside the Beltway, where the vast majority of the ‘experts’ have repeatedly said that the Brotherhood had abandoned its terrorist past, which it is now clearly reviving, and had renounced violence,” Poole said. “Will this development be met with contrition, or silence? And what says the State Department who met with these guys this week?”

The State Department did not respond to a request for comment before press time.

U.S. economy grew at 2.6 percent pace in fourth quarter of 2014

U.S. economy grew at 2.6 percent pace in fourth quarter of 2014

CHICO HARLAN 
8:47 AM

The U.S. economy slowed its pace of growth between the months of October and December, according to government data released Friday morning, expanding at a 2.6 percent pace that was slightly below market expectations and half the rate of the blowout 5 percent expansion seen in the previous three months.

Still, the fourth quarter pace indicates an economy moving at near full stride and easily outpacing the rest of the developed world — namely Europe and Japan. Not since 2003 and 2004 has the American economy grown so briskly over a nine-month stretch. For 2014, however, the numbers were less of a blowout: The annual gross domestic product grew 2.4 percent, according to the Commerce Department, dragged down by a sharp weather-influenced contraction first three months.

On balance, the GDP numbers from April through December provided a clear signal that the recovery has kicked into a higher gear. Most economists think the momentum will continue: The International Monetary Fund pegs U.S. growth in 2015 at 3.6 percent.

“We certainly have a much better footing than we have had at any earlier point in the recovery,” said Dan North, lead economist for Euler Hermes, a credit insurance company.

The GDP numbers for the last quarter of 2014 could still fluctuate, and the data will be reassessed twice more over the next two months.

Data from the latest quarter showed a 4.3 percent bump in consumer spending. That spending accounts for about two-thirds of the GDP, and economists have said that falling oil prices — which translate into cheaper gasoline — amount to a tax break that saves consumers hundreds of dollars annually.

In recent weeks there had been conflicting news about the extent to which consumers were spending that money. Though October and November spending was brisk, retail sales slumped in December, according to earlier data.

Perceptions of the economy always lag behind the real-time shifts, but Americans are changing their views about the nation’s direction. Only 24 percent call the U.S. economy “poor,” compared with 39 percent a year earlier, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted earlier this month. President Obama’s approval rating has ticked up as a result.

The numbers don't lie

Positive effect of "mindless austerity" convinces Obama call for a renewed spending spree

**Written by Doug Powers

Before we begin, in the spirit of bipartisanship, here's a background soundtrack to represent the Democrat point of view:

What's that all about? In case you hadn't noticed, happy days are here again!

Declaring an end to "mindless austerity," President Barack Obama called for a surge in government spending Thursdayand asked Congress to throw out the sweeping budget cuts both parties agreed to four years ago when deficits were spiraling out of control.

Obama's proposed $74 billion in added spending — about 7 percent — would be divided about evenly between defense programs and the domestic side of the budget. Although he's sought before to reverse the "sequester" spending cuts, Obama's pitch in this year's budget comes with the added oomph of an improving economy and big recent declines in federal deficits.

"Hooray! We're going to hell in a slightly slower hand basket this year. Throw in some more weight!"

Actually everything's not OK, and Obama knows that, so as a result it's never too late to help set up the 2016 Dems' excuse of "we'd have been even better off if the GOP-controlled Congress hadn't blocked all our great jobs plans."

Here's a byproduct of our "mindless austerity": 

$18,082,591,078,060.27 (-) #nationaldebt

— National Debt Tweets (@NationalDebt) January 29, 2015

Bartender, another round of Solyndras for everybody! *Hic!*

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

A grim warning cry on soaring US debt

By Betsy McCaughey

January 29, 2015 | 7:53pm

Photo: EPA

President Obama’s self-congratulatory State of the Union message last week made it sound like our nation’s problems are behind us. But on Tuesday the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office set the record straight with a blistering warning.

The CBO cautioned that America’s unaffordable public programs and crushing debt will condemn us to anemic economic growth.

Total federal debt will reach $22.3 trillion by 2020. Unsustainable, says the CBO — especially when now-low interest rates return to normal.

Don’t count on spendaholics in Congress to take this warning seriously. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), for example, responded to the CBO by boasting about this year’ s $468 billion federal deficit — the smallest since Obama took office — and smirking at “Republican rhetoric about ‘a big government’ boogeyman.”

Sorry, senator. The CBO predicts you won’t be seeing deficits that small again except in the rear-view mirror. By 2020, the deficit will nearly double, as federal spending reaches a staggering $4.8 trillion.

A four-foot stack of $100 bills totals $1 million. To get to $1 billion, you need seven stacks as high as the Washington monument. To get to $4.8 trillion, you need 33,000 Washington monuments.

Or an increasing number of entitlement programs. The CBO report devotes an entire chapter to the nation’s newest entitlement, ObamaCare, presenting three distressing facts on the programs next five years:

•  The cost of subsidies on the exchanges will more than triple, from $32 billion to $106 billion in 2020.
•  Over the same period, federal Medicaid costs (also goosed by the ObamaCare law) will double.
•  Despite all the spending, 30 million people will still be uninsured. That’s more than the number the law helps.

Worst of all is this new CBO prediction: Some 9 million to 10 million people will lose their employer-provided coverage in the next three years. Some will wind up on Medicaid, others in subsidized exchange plans.

Translation: Millions who now earn their benefits will instead be collecting them as government “assistance.” Hardly progress. One out of every four Americans under 65 will be on health welfare.

Shocked at the prospect of losing your on-the-job coverage? You’ve been Gruberized.

Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who called the public “stupid,” also falsely assured audiences that ObamaCare was designed “to leave those who are happy with their employer-sponsored insurance alone.”

The White House made similar statements.

THE COST OF SUBSIDIES ON THE [OBAMACARE] EXCHANGES WILL MORE THAN TRIPLE.

Speaking of deceptions, this week’s CBO report finally puts an end to its own laughable claim that ObamaCare is paid for and repealing it would “add to the deficit.”

That’s what CBO chief Douglas Elmendorf shamelessly told Congress in 2011 and 2012. Democrats used it as ammo against presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who ran on repeal.

Shameless, because back then the CBO should have admitted the health law was rigged to take in revenue for four years before paying for entitlements.

“Deficit reduction” there simply meant taxing first, and not starting to spend until later. But once the outlays begin, the law’s a budget-buster, not a deficit-reducer.

This week’s CBO report shows the staggering cost of ObamaCare over the next 10 years, with no pretense that it’s paid for or solves the problem of the uninsured.

Of course, ObamaCare is only part of the entitlement problem. Medicare is a bigger part — even though spending per Medicare beneficiary is actually declining, despite overall health-care inflation.

Trouble is, enrollment is set to soar as the rest of the Baby Boom turns 65. Short of upping the eligibility age or means-testing — or a yet-undiscovered reform that somehow saves money without compromising care — Medicare spending will continue upward.

Overall, the CBO report is a reality check.

In his State of the Union speech, Obama bragged about bringing down the deficit — as if it were his doing, rather than a temporary result of economic recovery — then launched into a laundry list of spending proposals, including free community college.

As if the nation could afford yet another entitlement.

The CBO report shows that entitlement reform is urgently needed. The best way to start is by not adding new ones.

SHARE THIS: