Graham: Obama's Iraq, Afghan policies 'being run out of Chicago'

Senator Graham's comments that the Iran and Afghan policies are 'being run out of Chicago' IMO are 100% correct.  Everything Obama is doing now is about re-election which is being run out of Chicago.  He doesn't care if it is the wrong decision if it helps his reelection chances with the far left.  Obama is very shallow and shows more by the day he only cares about being reelected.  Then he can continue his perks including vacations around the world on the backs of the US taxpayer and his wife can visit wherever she wants as part of their entitlement mentality.

To risk the loss of Iraq for political purposes is unconscionable but then not sure how much of a conscience that Obama has ever had.  What he doesn't have in the way of a conscience, he makes up for with arrogance.

We would love to see Lindsey Graham as the next Secretary of Defense -- he would be perfect for the job!

Graham: Obama's Iraq, Afghan policies 'being run out of Chicago'


By Kevin Bogardus - 10/23/11 09:32 AM ET 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that key foreign policy decisions by the Obama administration are being made for political reasons. 

"I would argue Iraq and Afghanistan is being run out of Chicago, not Washington, in terms of decisions," Graham said on Fox News Sunday.


Graham criticized President Obama for planning to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. He said the White House ignored requests from military commanders for more troops in the country. 

"I think in the last year he has made some poor, dangerous foreign policy decisions at the strategic level when it comes to Iraq," Graham said. "When your military commander, who I trust, says you need 15,000 to 18,000 in 2012 to secure the gains we have fought for and you have zero and you celebrate that, that’s pretty disappointing." 

Earlier on the show, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said both the United States and Iraq agreed to the plan to withdraw all U.S. troops. She also noted that it was the Bush administration that came to a security agreement in 2008 with Iraq to withdraw all U.S. combat forces. 

"You have a bipartisan commitment to withdraw combat troops," Clinton said.
She said Iraq is an independent nation and that they need to make decisions regarding their own security. 

"That is what we were there for: to give the Iraqi people the chance to make their own decisions," Clinton said.   

Source:  The Hill

Are Libya and the Budget Part of Obama's Re-election Strategy?

According to a working theory by Erik Erickson this morning at Red State that could be the Obama endgame which would make sense when nothing else does.

“The best playbook for his re-election is that of Bill Clinton. But Clinton had a government shutdown and Kosovo. In the absence of either, Barack Obama must manufacture them.”

If Obama thinks his war in Libya and a shutdown of Government is going to win him points with the voters then he is delusional. The shutdown of Government under Clinton wouldn't have worked for him either while hurting Republicans if we had the internet to find out the facts not what the media was feeding us for facts.  Adding to the spin of the media was Newt Gingrich's poor handling of the situation with his comments.  The action to shut down Goverment helped Clinton but in this instance the American people are not buying into the Democrat and media spin on the shutdown. 

Obama and the Democrats have made a mockery of the FY 11 budget process and the American people know it.  The White House is not negotiating so the Congress passes three-week continuing resolutions with billions cut each time.  That is no way to run the Government and it can be laid right at the doorstep of the Democrat Senators and President Obama -- they are fully responsible.  Forgot to mention the House in all of this mess when under Pelosi's rule, they 'deemed' a budget passed last fall instead of having an actual budget so the trifecta of Obama/Reid/Pelosi strikes again against the interests of the American people.

On the second front for reelection, Libya, Obama is considering coming back from Central America early but why bother as he already blew this whole exercise if it was to make him look Presidential. He looks like a wimp flying off to Brazil, Chili, and Central America for a spring break with his family.  No amount of spin is going to change a lot of our minds that he is using Air Force One jetting off to the south for a vacation without giving one thought to the high price of jet fuel that is costing the American taxpayers dearly. Giving a recorded message to the American people including members of Congress that he was sending our military into war instead of talking to Congressional leadership face to face is the act of a wimp and a coward. He never once bothered to seriously consult with any of the leadership of Congress before making the decision. He acted as a 3rd World Dictator using the military at will in what he thought would make him look Presidential. We give him a "F" for dithering during this whole conflict and then waiting for the UN to pass one of the dumbest resolutions EVER when sending military in a wartime situation:

Under the U.N. mandate authorizing the mission, international fighter pilots are not permitted to intervene in battles between Libya’s forces and the loosely organized rebels.

The above is the mission of the UN resolution in a nutshell but that is not what Obama is saying as he talks about regime change which is nowhere in the resolution according to the Washington Post:

The U.N. Security Council’s stated objective is “the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence.” This is entirely incompatible with President Obama’s stated objective of getting Moammar Gaddafi “to step down from power and leave.” If the violence ends, Gaddafi will not leave. To the contrary, if military intervention succeeds in achieving the United Nations’ goal of forcing a cease-fire on the warring parties, it will lock in the status quo on the ground. Two weeks ago, this would have left the rebels with control over large swaths of the country. But today, Gaddafi has regained most of the ground he lost to the resistance. The air campaign stopped him from driving the rebels from their last urban strongholds. But now the opposition holds Benghazi as the capital of a liberated enclave, protected by Western air power — much as Iraqi Kurdistan was during the decade before the fall of Saddam Hussein.

While reading the column by Michael Barone this morning in the Washington Examiner was struck with the huge difference in candidate Obama and President Obama. We have seen candidates change their spots after being elected but this time Obama throws candidate Obama under the bus:

"It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action," candidate Obama said in December 2007

Why does the mainstream media continue to cover for Obama most of them not even mentioning what Candidate Obama said? Talk about dereliction of duty -- members of the media come straight to mind right after Obama.

The damning contradictions of Obama's attack on Libya

By: Michael Barone 03/22/11 8:05 PM
Senior Political Analyst http://twitter.com/MichaelBarone

President Obama has sent U.S. military forces into Libya.-Pablo Martinez Monsivais/APLet's imagine that all goes well in Libya. The rebels, protected by airstrikes, recapture lost territory and sweep into Tripoli. Moammar Gadhafi and his sons one way or the other disappear.
Leaders propose a democratic and secular constitution that voters overwhelmingly approve. The first act of the duly elected government is to issue a proclamation of thanks and friendship to the United States, Britain, France and others who prevented Gadhafi's mass slaughter.

Well, we can all dream, can't we?

But in the cold light of day none of these happy eventualities seems very likely. As one who hopes for success in this enterprise, I am dismayed by the contradictions in the course we are following.

Some three weeks ago President Obama said Gadhafi "must go." But the U.N. Security Council resolution under which we are acting stops well short of this goal.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen confirmed that Gadhafi may remain in power indefinitely. National Security Council staffer Ben Rhodes said, "It's not about regime change."

If not, then the purported purpose of the operation, to "protect civilians," could be of unlimited duration. Libya might well be divided between a Gadhafi regime in the west around Tripoli and a rebel regime in the east around Benghazi.

Maintaining the existence of the latter will likely require military force. Obama has conceded that the United States is currently in command of operations, but says that command will be handed off to others in "days, not weeks."

But news reports make it clear that the overwhelming majority of military forces in action are American. Putting a British or French officer in command will not change that. And putting U.S. forces under foreign command might weaken support for the enterprise here at home.

(snip)

The result in Libya is a policy whose means seem unlikely to produce the desired ends.

In the process, this Democratic president has jettisoned some of the basic tenets of his party's foreign policy.

"It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action," candidate Obama said in December 2007. But Congress was not informed or, it seems, consulted in any serious way about this decision to take military action in Libya.

Instead members of Congress, like the general public, heard the president make the announcement in Rio de Janeiro. That's quite a contrast with George W. Bush, who sought and obtained congressional approval of military action in Afghanistan in September 2001 and Iraq in October 2002.

Since then many Democrats have denounced Bush's "rush to war" in Iraq. But military action there began a full five months after Congress approved. Obama didn't wait five days after the Security Council resolution.

Excerpt: Read more at the Washington Examiner

The mainstream media has remained pretty quiet about the fact that Obama took this action to launch a war in Libya while on vacation. They would have crucified Pres Bush on several fronts if he took the same action as Obama when he (Bush) launched the attack on Iraq, e.g. not consulting Congress, going on vacation to a foreign country, launching a war from Brazil via a recorded message that members of Congress heard right along with the rest of us for starters. That doesn't even include how the Democrats in Congress would have acted if Bush had followed the same path. Talk about a double standard. Some Democrats and media still talk about how Bush rushed to war in Iraq after six months of meetings in Congress, a Congressional resolution authorizing the action, along with the United Nations resolution. Five days after the UN resolution Obama launches the attack on Libya without consulting Congress from a foreign country. Where is the outcry?

For ten years the United States was involved in the no-fly zone in Iraq before we attacked. We believe that's what we are looking at in Libya for a no-fly zone if not longer if things don't change drastically. Obama can dream all he wants about how this will help him with his reelection, but in the end we are in the skies of Libya without an end game and with no vested interest in Libya. Obama waited too long to call for a no-fly zone and gave Gadhafi a chance to regain some of his strength.  To put it in simple terms -- Obama failed on Libya.

Now we are stuck patrolling the skies of a no fly zone thanks to this inept President who looks to be putting his reelection ahead of the good of the Country. Kind of reminds you of LBJ until he finally realized he couldn't get reelected due to his escalation and micromanaging the war in Vietnam. Will history repeat itself with Obama deciding not to run? We doubt it as he is more of a narcissist then LBJ which is saying something.

Did Obama Change Name of Fort Hood's Heavy Brigade Combat Team to Advise and Assist Brigade in order to say all "Combat" Troops are out of Iraq?

Corrected Article, Sep 10, 2010 -- Due to some questions about the email and picture, we have pulled them from the site because we cannot get further verification on the picture that allegedly comes  from Iraq.

UPDATE, Sep 3, 2010

Army Times confirms that combat troops in Iraq have just been renamed, not removed. As the final convoy of the Army's 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, based at Fort Lewis, Wash., entered Kuwait early Thursday, a different Stryker brigade remained in Iraq. Soldiers from the 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division are deployed in Iraq as members of an Advise and Assist Brigade, the Army's designation for brigades selected to conduct security force assistance.

So while the "last full U.S. combat brigade" have left Iraq, just under 50,000 soldiers from specially trained heavy, infantry and Stryker brigades will stay, as well as two combat aviation brigades. Compared with the 49,000 soldiers in Iraq, there are close to 67,000 in Afghanistan and another 9,700 in Kuwait, according to the latest Army chart on global commitments dated Aug. 17. Under an agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011.

There are seven Advise and Assist Brigades in Iraq, as well as two additional National Guard infantry brigades "for security," said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Craig Ratcliff. Last year, the Army decided that rather than devote permanent force structure to the growing security force assistance mission, it would modify and augment existing brigades. The Army has three different standard brigade combat teams: infantry, Stryker and heavy.

To build an Advise and Assist Brigade, the Army selects one of these three and puts it through special training before deploying. The Army selected brigade combat teams as the unit upon which to build advisory brigades partly because they would be able to retain their inherent capability to conduct offensive and defensive operations, according to the Army's security force assistance field manual, which came out in May 2009. This way, the brigade can shift the bulk of its operational focus from security force assistance to combat operations if necessary.

To prepare for their mission in Iraq, heavy, infantry and Stryker brigades receive specialized training that can include city management courses, civil affairs training and border patrol classes. As far as equipment goes, the brigades either brought their gear with them or used equipment left behind that is typical to their type of brigade, said Ratcliff. The first Advise and Assist Brigade - the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 1st Armored Division from Fort Bliss, Texas - deployed last spring to Iraq, serving as a "proof of principle" for the advisory brigade concept. Of the seven Advise and Assist Brigades still in Iraq, four are from the 3rd Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, Ga.

The 1st Heavy Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, based at Fort Bliss, and the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, based at Fort Carson, Colo., are also serving as Advise and Assist Brigades. The 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division is based at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Two combat aviation brigades also remain in Iraq, according to Dan O'Boyle, Redstone Arsenal spokesman. Three more are deployed in Afghanistan, where there are currently no Advise and Assist Brigades... Army Times
________________
This morning we discovered those troops leaving Fort Hood are 'combat' troops with a new name on their way to Iraq.  In fact, the first of them had a layover in Bangor Maine Tuesday on as reported in the Bangor Daily News:

BANGOR, Maine — As the nation watches troops being withdrawn from the Middle East, few perhaps are aware that another wave of soldiers is being deployed.

On Tuesday, a group of about 150 soldiers from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, based in Fort Hood, Texas, had a two-hour layover at Bangor International Airport on their way to southern Iraq.

“It’s funny because the big thing on the news as we were getting ready to leave was all the big hoopla about all the combat forces coming out, so all the soldiers and their families are asking, ‘Why are we going?’” Lt. Col. Bryan Mullins said.

“Well, we said it was the difference between the guys whose job it is to fight versus guys whose primary job it is to help people, or secure people, who are doing something else,” he said.

“So we are combat arms soldiers — I’m a tanker, we’ve got other tankers and artillery. But our job in Iraq is primarily going to be to training Iraqi security forces, cops, the [Iraqi] army, the border forces — they’ve got huge border forces,” he said.

“We haven’t been able to pay a whole lot of attention to those over the first six years because we were too busy doing other stuff,” he said. “So now, on the back end of the mission, we’re going to spend a whole lot more time and energy on that.”

The unit also will provide security for U.S. State Department personnel while in the Middle East, he said...

According to Mullins, an estimated 5,000 members of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment have been deployed and will be securing the southern half of Iraq.

This makes the speech by Obama on Tuesday night a fraud on the American people for political purposes saying that  'combat troops' are out of Iraq when in fact they have only changed the name of the units.  Did he want so much to say he kept his promise, that he hid the truth in his speech.  How many of the national media will report that we are still sending 'combat' troops to Iraq this week, and we did not withdraw all 'combat' troops as reported by NBC?

Aug 19, 2010 ... The last American combat troops left Iraq today, ... NBC News said that the last soldiers to reach Kuwait were proud of the collective ... have pulled out off Iraq – two weeks ahead of Barack Obama's 31 August deadline

Why are the media covering for Obama on this when that same media ripped Pres Bush for the sign "Mission Accomplished" which was the banner for the ship returning from THEIR Mission? Have they truly sold every ounce of integrity in their body to Obama?  American citizens think all the 'combat' troops are out of Iraq but you could say that is in Name Only because they are still there. In fact, we are happy to know that the 50,000 troops left in Iraq are 'combat' troops for the most part no matter what Obama says. I would hate to think we had pulled out everyone capable of defending the Americans we still have in Iraq.

Is this is more bait and switch by Obama and his Administration with their willing accomplices in the national media? Note that local media is not buying into the 'no combat troops' as the Bangor Maine Daily News reported there are more 'combat' troops on the way to Iraq.

Only a small minded person who puts politics over all else would pull a stunt like Obama has done so he can meet a political deadline he artificially set when he took office to have 'combat' troops out of Iraq.

What national media outlet will report that we not only have combat troops still in Iraq under a new name but also are sending more?  Obama and the media may be able to fool the vast majority of American people but they cannot fool the members of the military who are deployed in Iraq who like this soldier in the email sent back the truth.

Personally we are happy there are still combat troops in Iraq to protect the Americans we have in Iraq.  Bottom line is that it appears to be symbolism over substance but not shocked with this Administration.

LA Times: Barack Obama gives weird Oval Office addresses

What can you say to that comment which was the first paragraph in the LA Times article, Obama speech: Official end to U.S. combat in Iraq, but so many But's?

No one we knew watched the speech of Obama last night so we are relying on comments from various websites which are not kind to Obama's speech. The days of the 95% of media fawning over Obama seem to be drawing to a close except for Chris Matthews and others at MSNBC. We don't exactly consider the LA Times or Huffington Post conservative sources -- far from it. We have included media comments, a short website comment and comments from members of Congress. The comments from the Democrat members of Congress are few and far between -- we are still looking.

We will start with the LA Times:

After becoming the first president ever not to address fellow citizens from that strangely clear desk during his first year in office, the Democrat gave his second Oval Office speech in 11 weeks Tuesday night to mark the scheduled end of U.S. combat ops in Iraq after seven years and 4,421 American deaths.

Obama had to mark the occasion because his entire Democratic political personna was based on opposition to the Iraq war. (Also closing Guantanamo; but that's another story.) And there are midterm elections looming Nov. 2 with polls predicting a stateside surge in Republican troops....

American presidents speak from the Oval Office for momentous events: The Russians are putting missiles in Cuba and that's gotta stop (Kennedy, 1962). I will not seek and will not accept the re-nomination of my party (Johnson, 1968). I am resigning as president (Nixon, 1974). The Challenger loss leaves us all looking to the heavens for consolation (Reagan, 1986). As I speak, American military forces are kicking ass in some foreign place (too numerous to mention).

You had a sense that Tuesday was momentous more to Obama and his Chicago crowd than anyone trying to follow him....

The result was the Real Good Talker didn't talk real good. He tried to touch way too many bases. And missed most. Much the same occurred in his June Oval Office address when the nation wanted to know How he was going to stop its worst environmental calamity and, instead, got a pitch for green energy and more windmills. Does his 747 ever touch ground?

Jacob Heilbrunn, Huffington Post:

It's hard not to examine President Obama's speech on Iraq and the economy without experiencing a sinking feeling. Obama employed a number of nautical metaphors about sailing through turbulent seas and storms in his speech, but even he seemed a little queasy about it all. Nothing could have made clearer the extent to which he remains a hostage of the Bush era, both in domestic and foreign policy. His speech did not chart a path to the future but remained mired in the past.

It is hard to top this short and to the point comment:

Internet Scofflaw.com

Oh geez

President Obama says we owe it to the troops to adopt his domestic agenda?! Wow.

Jim Hanson, Big Peace Obama Has Learned Nothing About Being Commander in Chief:

President Obama’s biggest problem as Commander in Chief is that he is not a leader. He is detached from the troops who fight our wars and they will never feel about him the way they did about George W. Bush. He is uninspiring and it is obvious that he considers the fight against Islamic extremists to be a distraction from his true mission, fundamentally transforming and rescuing America from its failed past. There was not a single moment in his speech where he spoke to the troops about their mission. He spoke about them in reverent tones, but he never articulated what we were fighting and why it really mattered. There is a reason for that, he has absolutely no rapport with them, he doesn’t understand them, and he has absolutely no clue how to lead them. Hell he really wishes he didn’t have to. Obama is a politician and that is where he feels comfortable. he even felt obligated to remind us that “ending” the Iraq War was a campaign promise of his.

Susan Jones, CNS, After the Speech: Obama’s Commitment to Victory Questioned

CNSNews.com) – President Obama’s prime-time speech to the nation announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq is getting generally poor reviews from Republicans and conservatives, not only for what Obama said, but for what he did not say.

By injecting the economy – a domestic issue – into a major speech on the end of combat in Iraq, Obama signaled where his real interests lie, one analyst said. One Republican questioned Obama’s comments on Afghanistan. And several Republicans objected to Obama not giving President Bush his fair share of credit for the successful Iraq surge strategy.

We also found some comments from members of Congress:

Senator Inhofe (R-OK):

"We owe a debt of gratitude to the 1.5 million men and women who answered their nation's call and have served in Iraq since operations began in 2003. President Obama was wrong to be against the war in the first place, he was incorrect about the surge and he still fails to recognize the strategic importance of the United States being in Iraq. Our effort to liberate the people of Iraq from the grip of one of the most dangerous and brutal dictators in the world cannot be overstated. In so doing, we have taken steps toward putting Iraq on the road to a democratic form of government that will provide stability to the region.

"While the United States still has 50,000 combat troops in harm's way in Iraq, it is misleading for the commander-in-chief to declare combat operations over simply to tout a fulfilled campaign promise. With Iraqi Security Forces being increasingly targeted and with a still-to-be-formed Iraqi government, it is premature for President Obama to make this speech from the Oval Office. We must continue to be committed to the people of Iraq as we continue forward as strategic partners."

Senator John McCain (R-AZ):

“The part that really disturbs me the most,” McCain continued – I’m not surprised that he wouldn’t give George Bush credit; that’s just in the DNA of the individual, apparently. But when he (Obama) said [about Afghanistan] -- our withdrawal will be conditions-based, and then contradicted that by saying, we will begin to withdraw in the middle of 2011 – that’s an ambiguity… that could cause us to fail.”

McCain said it’s up to the president to press for victory in any war the U.S. undertakes: “It takes the president of the United States to say, unequivocally, that we’re going to win, and then we’re going to withdraw. Just like we were able to do in Iraq with the success of the surge – which he unalterably opposed and now seems to be taking credit for.”

Congressman Pence (R-IN):

Two things, Sean. Number one, he didn't give credit where credit is due to his predecessor, who against withering domestic criticism refused to accept defeat in Iraq. And secondly, he used the word “victory” at the tail end of the speech, but it’s not at all clear he was actually referring to Iraq when he did it. It was something about “there are no ceremonies for surrender.” I thought this speech was wanting. I thought it lacked gratitude toward his predecessor. He said tonight that he and President George W. Bush disagreed about the war. Well, Sean, the American people know they didn't just disagree about the war. They disagreed about the surge. And then-Senator Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi were wrong about the surge and they were wrong to oppose it and the American people know it.

About 95% or more of the reviews of the speech have been that his delivery was weak, inserting the economy into the speech was wrong, and his lack of giving President Bush the credit for surge Obama and Biden vehemently opposed was missing. Bottom Line was another failed Oval Office speech from the newly decorated Oval Office which also failed. Could not feature sitting at a desk looking at those striped walls all day, but when is the last time that Obama spent all day in the Oval Office? Has anyone ever seen any paperwork on his desk except the desk top?

Victory is the ONLY Option

The Palestine Peace Distraction

Why is Obama so intent on demanding what Israel needs to do to make peace with the Palestinians? The suicide bombers who are going into Israel to kill Jewish people come from the radical terrorists groups of the Palestinians. Yet, Obama wants the Israeli's to make all the concessions? Obama has zero right to tell the Israeli's where they can and cannot build. Israel is not a protectorate of the United States but an independent country.

How can Obama possibly think he can demand peace between Israel and the Palestinians and it is going to happen? It is naive to think a peace settlement dictated by Obama would last. We also have yet to figure out why Obama thinks a settlement to the Israel and Palestine impasse would have a broad reaching affect in the Middle East so all the Middle Eastern countries would have no more problems.

Richard Haas, who is an expert on the Middle East, has a timely editorial this morning in the Wall Street Journal that looks into how a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine might not bring the peace dividend to the Middle East that Obama touts.

APRIL 26, 2010
The Palestine Peace Distraction
Announcing a comprehensive plan now—one that is all but certain to fail—risks discrediting good ideas, breeding frustration in the Arab world, and diluting America's reputation for getting things done.

By RICHARD N. HAASS

President Obama recently said it was a "vital national security interest of the United States" to resolve the Middle East conflict. Last month, David Petraeus, the general who leads U.S. Central Command, testified before Congress that "enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests." He went on to say that "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples . . . and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world."

To be sure, peace between Israelis and Palestinians would be of real value. It would constitute a major foreign-policy accomplishment for the United States. It would help ensure Israel's survival as a democratic, secure, prosperous, Jewish state. It would reduce Palestinian and Arab alienation, a source of anti-Americanism and radicalism. And it would dilute the appeal of Iran and its clients.

But it is easy to exaggerate how central the Israel-Palestinian issue is and how much the U.S. pays for the current state of affairs. There are times one could be forgiven for thinking that solving the Palestinian problem would take care of every global challenge from climate change to the flu. But would it? The short answer is no. It matters, but both less and in a different way than people tend to think.

Take Iraq, the biggest American investment in the Greater Middle East over the past decade. That country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are divided over the composition of the new government, how to share oil revenues, and where to draw the border between the Kurdish and Arab areas. The emergence of a Palestinian state would not affect any of these power struggles.
Soon to surpass Iraq as the largest U.S. involvement in the region is Afghanistan. Here the U.S. finds itself working against, as much as with, a weak and corrupt president who frustrates American efforts to build up a government that is both willing and able to take on the Taliban. Again, the emergence of a Palestinian state would have no effect on prospects for U.S. policy in Afghanistan or on Afghanistan itself.

What about Iran? The greatest concern is Iran's push for nuclear weapons. But what motivates this pursuit is less a desire to offset Israel's nuclear weapons than a fear of conventional military attack by the U.S. Iran's nuclear bid is also closely tied to its desire for regional primacy. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians would not weaken Iran's nuclear aspirations. It could even reinforce them. Iran and the groups it backs (notably Hamas and Hezbollah) would be sidelined by the region's embrace of a Palestinian state and acceptance of Israel, perhaps causing Tehran to look to nuclear weapons to compensate for its loss of standing and influence.

Excerpt: Read More at Wall Street Journal

Members of Obama's own party are beginning to question openly his attacks on Israel in speeches. The liberal Senator from New York, Chuck Shumer, didn't mince words in going after Obama yesterday on his verbal attacks on Israel.

Sen. Chuck Schumer takes new shot at President Obama's tactics on Israel
BY Simone Weichselbaum
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Monday, April 26th 2010, 4:00 AM

Sen. Chuck Schumer threw another punch Sunday in his verbal bout with the White House over Israeli expansion into Palestinian East Jerusalem.
The staunch supporter of Israel says President Obama shouldn't have scolded Israel for approving 1,600 new Jewish housing units in the Arab half of the divided city.

"What we disagree on is tactics," said Schumer about President Obama.

"When the United States sets out conditions on Israel, the Palestinians then say we don't want to come to the table, [thinking] the United States is doing our negotiation for us."

The building project has stalled "indirect" talks with the Israelis and the Palestinians led by U.S. special envoy George Mitchell.

Palestinian officials have said they would join the negotiations only if Israel halts all settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Schumer first voiced his anger at the Obama administration for siding with the Palestinians during a radio show on Jewish affairs on Thursday.

"You have to show Israel that it's not going to be forced to do things it doesn't want to do and can't do," Schumer told host Nachum Segal.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs shot back a statement at the senator the next day.

"We don't agree with what Sen. Schumer said in those remarks," Gibbs said.

Read more: New York Daily News

Is the real answer that Obama deep down wants Israel destroyed in favor of the Muslim countries that surround the State of Israel? That is the way it is beginning to look. Recently Obama had Prime Minister Netanyayu come to the White House for a short time and then Obama leaves to go to the family quarters. No honors to the head of a foreign state, no pictures, nothing except being scolded by Obama. Yet, Obama bows to the King of Saudi Arabia. What does that say about Obama? Think everyone by now has pretty much put 2+2 together after witnessing Obama's words and actions against Israel versus his actions and words for the Arab world have come to the conclusion that Obama is NO friend of Israel.

Over 400 members of Congress (78 Senators and 333 House Members) signed a letter to Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, protesting the words and actions against Israel by the Obama Administration.

It doesn't seem to matter to Obama what members of Congress think as he carries on his mission which looks to be to destroy Israel and be hailed by his Middle Eastern 'brothers' throughout the Arab world. He is sadly mistaken if he thinks destroying Israel is going to bring peace to that region. There was no peace before Israel was established in 1947.

If this is an example of Hope and Change touted by Obama, then it seems to be Obama is siding with the Arab countries against Israel which is a reversal of long time ties the United States has had with Israel since 1947 when State of Israel was founded. The vast majority of American people stand with one of our closest allies Israel against any and all attempts by Obama to destroy Israel as a strong country including Obama not selling more military weapons systems to Israel to protect themselves.