In the current issue of Foreign Affairs, Republican Presidential candidate Marco Rubio sets out his foreign policy vision for the United States. One of its key pillars deals with Iran.
My foreign policy would restore the post-1945 bipartisan presidential
tradition of a strong and engaged America while adjusting it to meet the
new realities of a globalized world. The foreign policy I propose has
three pillars. Each can be best described through an example of a
challenge we face in this new century, but they all reveal the need for
all elements of American power—for a dynamic foreign policy that
restores strength, promotes prosperity, and steers the world toward
freedom.
The first and most important pillar of my foreign policy will be a
renewal of American strength. This is an idea based on a simple truth:
the world is at its safest when America is at its strongest. When
America’s armed forces and intelligence professionals, aided by our
civilian diplomatic and foreign assistance programs, are able to send a
forceful message without firing a shot, the result is more peace, not
more conflict. Yet when the United States fails to build or display such
strength, it weakens our global hand by casting doubt on our ability
and willingness to act. This doubt only encourages our adversaries to
test us.
The
Obama administration’s handling of Iran has demonstrated this with
alarming clarity. Tehran exploited the president’s lack of strength
throughout the negotiations over its nuclear program by wringing a
series of dangerous concessions from the United States and its partners,
including the ability to enrich uranium, keep the Arak and Fordow
nuclear facilities open, avoid admitting its past transgressions, and
ensure a limited timeline for the agreement.
How did a nation with
as little intrinsic leverage as Iran win so many concessions? Part of
the answer is that President Obama took off the table the largest
advantage our nation had entering into the negotiations: military
strength. Although the president frequently said that “all options are
on the table” with regard to Iran, his administration consistently
signaled otherwise. Several senior officials openly criticized the
notion of a military strike, and the president himself publicly said
that there could be no military solution to the Iranian nuclear program.
This was underscored by a historic reluctance to engage throughout the
Middle East, from pulling troops out of Iraq at all costs to retreating
from the stated redline on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
President Obama became so publicly opposed to military action that he
sacrificed any option that could have conceivably raised the stakes and
forced the mullahs into making major concessions. Iran recognized that
it could push for greater compromise without fear that the United States
would break off the talks. The president’s drive for a deal caused him
to forsake a basic principle of diplomacy with rogue regimes: it must be
backed by the threat of force. As president, I would have altered the
basic environment of the talks. I would have maneuvered forces in the
region to signal readiness; linked the nuclear talks to Iran’s broader
conduct, from its human rights abuses to its support for terrorism and
its existential threats against Israel; and pressured Tehran on all
fronts, from Syria to Yemen.
It is true that Iran, in response to
these displays of strength, may have broken off negotiations or even
lashed out in the region. History, however, suggests that even if Iran
had created more trouble in the near term, increased pressure would have
eventually forced it to back down. That is exactly what happened in
1988, when Iran ended its war with Iraq and its attacks on oil tankers
in the Persian Gulf after the Reagan administration sent in the U.S.
Navy. More recently, after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran halted a
key component of its nuclear program.
It’s not too late to
mitigate the damage of the administration’s mishandling of Iran. By
rescinding the flawed deal concluded by President Obama and reasserting
our presence in the Middle East, we can reverse Iran’s malign influence
in this vitally important region and prevent Iran from developing
nuclear weapons. The security of the region, the safety of Israel, and
the interests of the entire world require an American approach toward
Tehran marked by strength and leadership rather than weakness and
concession.
This is excellent. And by the way, the mentions of Israel above are the only two times it's mentioned in the entire article.
The Iranian nuke deal isn't about the nukes - it's about Israel
Abe Greenwald is spot-on in pointing out that the Iranian nuclear sellout isn't really about the nuclear weapons (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
If you think the United States just struck a poor nuclear deal with
Iran, you’re right; but if that’s your key takeaway, you’re missing the
point. Iran’s nuclear program was last on the list of the Obama
administration’s priorities in talking to Tehran. The administration
readily caved on Iran’s nukes because it viewed the matter only as a
timely pretense for achieving other cherished aims. These were: (1)
preventing an Israeli attack on Iran; (2) transforming the United States
into a more forgiving, less imposing power; (3) establishing diplomacy
as a great American good in itself; (4) making Iran into a great
regional power; and (5), ensuring the legacies of the president and
secretary of state as men of vision and peace.
The administration has always viewed
Israel as an intractable troublemaker and the main catalyst for the
region’s woes. An Israeli strike on Iran, especially if supported by the
United States, would have been yet another display of destabilizing
Israeli aggression that put Middle East peace further out of reach.
Barack Obama, therefore, repeatedly warned Israel against attacking
Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu complied, and for his compliance White House
officials taunted him in 2014 as a “chickenshit” whose window of
opportunity had closed. That window is now barred. The Iran deal states
that the U.S. will train Iranians to counter any sabotage attempts on
its nuclear facilities and systems. This is aimed at frustrating Israeli
action.
...
From the administration’s standpoint, the deal was a grand slam. If it
left Iran as an official nuclear power on the perpetual verge of a
breakout, well, that was always the bargaining chip to get everything
else. And with the United States having shown extraordinary cooperation
and forgiveness, the thinking goes, even a nuclear Iran will become a
less bellicose and more collegial member of the community of nations.
What good the deal has already done, the administration believes, will
continue to pay dividends. As is his wont, Obama is now declaring as
much. But by the time his vision is upended by facts, he’ll be out of
office, and we won’t have the luxury of fighting reality with
abstractions.
Greenwald understates the extent to which Obama's anti-Israel obsession drove this deal. As John Podhoretz wrote in his review of Michael Oren's Ally (which I am currently reading), for ideological reasons, Obama doesn't like that Israel exists. Period. That anti-Israel obsession led to the Iran nuclear deal more than anything else.
Ouch! Sharansky: 'US suffering from tragic loss of moral self-confidence'
With the possible exception of Elie Wiesel, there may be no one alive today who is more qualified to speak as the moral conscience of contemporary government than Natan Sharansky. In a Washington Post op-ed, Sharansky makes a biting comparison between American negotiations with Iran over its nuclear capability and American negotiations with the Soviet Union 40 years ago (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Reality
is complicated, and the use of historical analogies is always somewhat
limited. But even this superficial comparison shows that what the United
States saw fit to demand back then from the most powerful and dangerous
competitor it had ever known is now considered beyond the pale in its
dealings with Iran.
Why the dramatic shift? One could suggest a
simple answer: Today there is something the United States wants badly
from Iran, leaving Washington and its allies with little bargaining
power to demand additional concessions. Yet in fact Iran has at least as
many reasons to hope for a deal. For Tehran, the lifting of sanctions
could spell the difference between bankruptcy and becoming a regional
economic superpower, and in slowing down its arms race it could avoid a
military attack.
I am afraid that the real reason for the U.S.
stance is not its assessment, however incorrect, of the two sides’
respective interests but rather a tragic loss of moral self-confidence.
While negotiating with the Soviet Union, U.S. administrations of all
stripes felt certain of the moral superiority of their political system
over the Soviet one. They felt they were speaking in the name of their
people and the free world as a whole, while the leaders of the Soviet
regime could speak for no one but themselves and the declining number of
true believers still loyal to their ideology.
But in
today’s postmodern world, when asserting the superiority of liberal
democracy over other regimes seems like the quaint relic of a
colonialist past, even the United States appears to have lost the
courage of its convictions.
We have yet to see the full
consequences of this moral diffidence, but one thing is clear: The loss
of America’s self-assured global leadership threatens not only the
United States and Israel but also the people of Iran and a growing
number of others living under Tehran’s increasingly emboldened rule.
Although the hour is growing late, there is still time to change course —
before the effects grow more catastrophic still.
I often wonder if Americans have really bought into the moral diffidence of their current government, or whether that lack of conviction is the sole province of those currently running its government. Certainly, the fact that Obama was reelected in 2012 would seem to indicate that the American people have bought into his agenda of degrading America and making it no better than any other nation. And I worry that with all of the illegal immigrants Obama has made citizens, many of whom either have no clue what being an American is about, or wish to destroy what America was, another Obama-like leader will be elected in a year and a half.
As an American ex-pat and as a lover and admirer of all America represented until January 20, 2009, I can only hope and pray that Americans will see the light and elect a different kind of leadership in November 2016.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney goes on the war path against the foreign policy of Barack Hussein Obama, calling Obama the 'worst President' evah on foreign policy (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Former Vice President Dick Cheney says President Barack Obama is the
worst commander in chief the United States has ever had, in view of the
recent Iranian nuclear agreement.
Asked about the deal by
conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday, the former vice
president said the Iranian regime is “one of the most radical” in
history and that “Obama’s about to give them nuclear weapons.”
“I vacillate between the various theories I’ve heard, but you
know, if you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down,
who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce
our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and
encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack
Obama’s doing,” Cheney said when asked whether he thought the president
is naïve or something else.
“I think his actions are constituted in my mind those of the worst president we’ve ever had,” he said.
Cheney
also said “it’s a mark of the weakness” of Obama that he would
criticize Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker for saying he would get
rid of the deal with Iran on his first day in the White House.
New ad: Time for American leadership - not surrender
Starting with the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the
taking of 52 American hostages, the United States has been at war with
radical Islamism.
President Obama’s surrender to the Iranian
mullahs over their nuclear program is but the latest proof that America
is slowly losing this war.
More proof that America's you-know-what's have been found in Israel
In an earlier post, I reported that Israel had found the United States' missing you-know-what's and the proof was that Israel refused to let a Russian ship dock in Haifa port. But now there's more proof. In another earlier post, I reported that Israel has troops on the ground in Nigeria and is helping to search for 276 girls who were kidnapped by the Boko Haram terror group. Compare that to the American contribution to the search (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
The U.S. is now using unmanned drones in the search for hundreds of
Nigerian schoolgirls kidnapped by the Islamist group Boko Haram, the
White House said Wednesday.
The deployment of drones comes in
addition to manned surveillance flights and satellite imagery being
offered to the Nigerian government in the search for the girls. The U.S.
has also sent an interdisciplinary crisis team with officials from the
Pentagon, State Department and FBI to consult with Nigerian authorities.
White
House press secretary Jay Carney, though, said the drones being used in
the search were not armed, and stressed that American military
resources and personnel were in Nigeria in an advisory capacity.
And when and if they find the girls, what will they do? Send in the Marines to get them? Most definitely not.
“At this point," he said, the administration was "not actively
considering the deployment of U.S. forces,” despite calls from some
Republicans to use special forces to rescue the missing girls.
More likely they'll call the Israelis. Sad, isn't it?
The poll, conducted among 900 Americans by Luntz Global, found a huge
majority of both Republican and Democratic respondents want stiffer
sanctions imposed on Iran. The finding comes just as US President Barack
Obama's administration reportedly has "killed" new sanctions against Iran from being passed in the Senate.
Obama's move is in contradiction to the public will expressed in the
poll, which revealed 77% of Americans support the ongoing 6 month
negotiations "while imposing sanctions and increas[ing] financial
pressure and sanctions." In fact, only 14% said they would vote for a
senator that would reduce pressure on Iran during negotiations.
Furthermore, the poll discovered that there is deep-seated distrust
over the intentions of the Iranian regime. Only 7% trust the Iranian
claim that their nuclear program is peaceful.
Moreover, 86% of voters think Iran will break its promises during the
negotiations, and 84% think Iran is manipulating negotiations to stall
"as they continue to develop their ability to make nuclear weapons."
If the American people knew the truth, they might really be up in arms against Obama. The truth is that Obama wants Iran to go nuclear and to have nuclear weapons because he wants to weaken America.
FORBES launched its latest issue on Wednesday, including the list of the most powerful people. Russian President Vladimir Putin ranked first and generated a hefty debate among readers. Read the story naming Putin the World’s Most Powerful Person here and check out the full list here.
Steve Forbes also contributed to the debate. “The criticism of Forbes dropping Barack Obama to the number two spot behind Vladimir Putin as the most powerful man in the world misses two big points.” Read Is Putin Really More Powerful Than Obama?
Melanie Phillips reports that President Obama enjoyed his biggest success yet last week, as it became obvious to everyone that the fate of the western world is now in the hands of Vladimir Putin (Hat Tip: Dan F).
With the Syria deal, Obama has enabled Putin to sweep away US influence
over the Middle East and make Putin himself the broker over Iran.
‘Credible US threat of force?’ Iran now has credible evidence – if any
more were needed – that any such threats Obama may ever make towards it
will be no more than the rustle of a paper tiger. The fate of the free
world no longer rests with the US. It now rests with Putin. He and the
mullahs in Iran, presented with the spectacle of the preening narcissist
in the White House gazing in rapt adoration at his own reflection, are
surely laughing fit to bust.
And why shouldn’t the First Narcissist preen? For he has achieved
precisely what he wanted, his true goal that I described in this blog
when Obama first ran for President: to extend the reach of the state
over peoples’ lives at home, to emasculate the power of America abroad,
and to make the free white world the slave of those he falsely
characterised as the victims of that white world’s oppression.
He has achieved it, to the letter. Iran’s putative victims of its
imminent nuclear arsenal of holy war against the non-Islamic world are
now, terrifyingly, on their own.
Indeed he has. We have to do a lot of praying over the next 40 months that a new and markedly different leader is chosen for the United States. That's not a simple proposition. If Obama gets his way and legalizes hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to the United States, the chances of any Republican defeating Hillary Clinton or whoever else might be the Democratic nominee will markedly diminish.
And even if a Republican is elected President, will there be anything left to save?
A truly historic level of foreign policy incompetence on the part of the White House got us to this point
Peggy Noonan explains why Vladimir Putin wrote a very aggressive op-ed in the New York Times last week.
Why would Vladimir Putin take such an aggressive tone in parts of a
piece supposedly addressed to Americans and supposedly explaining his
views on Syria and, more largely, U.S. foreign policy? Suddenly I
realized: because he’s not really writing to America. That’s not who
he’s talking to. He chose as a venue a major American newspaper, but
he’s writing to the world. He is telling the world he knows how to
correct America, tell it off, criticize it for its conceit. And he does
it right to their faces, not in a Moscow interview or a St. Petersburg
speech. He is rubbing America’s nose in it for the delectation of its
friends, occasional friends, foes and occasional foes. He wasn’t
writing to us at all. He’s attempting to show the world he’s its
reliable voice, its real leader, not those other guys. Would he have
done this in the past? No. A truly historic level of foreign policy
incompetence on the part of the White House got us to this point.
She's definitely got the last sentence right in so many ways.
What US strategic interests are at stake in Syria and how can they be advanced by a US attack on Syria?
Caroline Glick's JPost column deals with an issue that has not gotten enough attention in Washington this week: What US strategic interests are at stake in Syria, and how can they be advanced by a US attack on Syria?
With no good horse to bet on, the US and its allies have three core
interests relating to the war. First, they have an interest in
preventing Syria's chemical, biological and ballistic missile arsenals
from being used against them either directly by the regime, through its
terror proxies or by a successor regime.
Second, the US and its allies have an interest in containing the war as much as possible to Syria itself.
Finally,
the US and its allies share an interest in preventing Iran, Moscow or
al-Qaida from winning the war or making any strategic gains from their
involvement in the war.
...
It is important to note that despite the moral depravity of the
regime's use of chemical weapons, none of America's vital interests is
impacted by their use within Syria. Obama's pledge last year to view the
use of chemical weapons as a tripwire that would automatically cause
the US to intervene militarily in the war in Syria was made without
relation to any specific US interest.
But once
Obama made his pledge, other US interests became inextricably linked to
US retaliation for such a strike. The interests now on the line are
America's deterrent power and strategic credibility. If Obama responds
in a credible way to Syria's use of chemical weapons, those interests
will be advanced. If he does not, US deterrent power will become a
laughing stock and US credibility will be destroyed.
Unfortunately,
the US doesn't have many options for responding to Assad's use of
chemical weapons. If it targets the regime in a serious way, Assad could
fall, and al-Qaida would then win the war. Conversely, if the US strike
is sufficient to cause strategic harm to the regime's survivability,
Iran could order the Syrians or Hezbollah or Hamas, or all of them, to
attack Israel. Such an attack would raise the prospect of regional war
significantly.
A reasonable response would be
for the US to target Syria's ballistic missile sites. And that could
happen. Although the US doesn't have to get involved in order to produce
such an outcome. Israel could destroy Syria's ballistic missiles
without any US involvement while minimizing the risk of a regional
conflagration.
There are regime centers and
military command and control bases and other strategic sites that it
might make sense for the US to target.
Unfortunately,
the number of regime and military targets the US has available for
targeting has been significantly reduced in recent days. Administration
leaks of the US target bank gave the Syrians ample time to move their
personnel and equipment.
This brings us to the
purpose the Obama administration has assigned to a potential retaliatory
strike against the Syrian regime following its use of chemical weapons.
Obama told PBS on Wednesday that US strikes on Syria would be "a shot across the bow."
After reading Caroline's entire column, my conclusions are:
(a) There are US strategic interests at stake in Syria and they go beyond President Obumbler's drawing a red line in the sand that the US must now defend to avoid losing any more credibility in the Middle East.
(b) Israel's alleged actions in Syria have advanced US interests by preventing the proliferation of Syria's chemical weapons and by denying Hezbullah the ability to spread the war to Lebanon.
(c) The Obama administration has no clue what strategic interests are at stake in Syria. It probably has not even considered the question.
(d) US strategic interests could be served by a limited strike against Syria, provided that the Obama administration stops presenting such a strike as a once-in-a-lifetime event.
(e) Three and a half more years of an Obama administration could - and probably will unless things change - lead to the US becoming a third-rate power, just as Obama has wanted all along.
Congressman Allen West (R-Fl) issued a statement demolishing President Obama over the murder of the US Ambassador to Libya and three embassy employees on Tuesday.
“Less than 24 hours after our nation remembered the heinous attacks of September 11, 2001, Americans find their sovereign soil attacked again as more American lives are lost at the hands of intolerant, barbaric, radical Muslims.
United States Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and several embassy staff were murdered late yesterday when suspected religious extremists stormed the United States Consulate in Benghazi. This morning, my condolences and prayers go out to the families of the victims.
Americans need to question whether the deaths of these innocent patriots could have been avoided. The Obama Administration touted the Arab Spring as an awakening of freedom, which we now see is a nightmare of Islamism.
Even more concerning, is the initial response to these attacks last night from the embassy officials of the Obama Administration was to apologize for a Facebook video that supposedly hurt Muslim feelings. President Obama’s policy of appeasement towards the Islamic world has manifested itself into a specter of unconscionable hatred.
How anyone can believe this President is strong on national security and foreign policy is beyond my comprehension. President Obama has clearly surpassed former President Jimmy Carter and his actions during the Iranian Embassy crisis as the weakest and most ineffective person to ever occupy the White House.”
The Romney campaign should be spreading that statement far and wide.
It's come to this: Libyan 'protesters' dragged dead body of US ambasador through the streets of Benghazi
This is how low President Hussein Obama has dragged the once proud United States of America. The man whose body (he might have been alive at this point but he might not) is being dragged through the streets in this picture is none other than Christopher Stevens, the United States Ambassador to Libya. Although the early reports said his car was hit by a rocket, it now appears far more likely that he and three embassy employees (two of them US Marines) were dragged from their embassy car and lynched by the 'protesters' (Hat Tip: Brana L).
Yes, that's how low President Hussein Obama has dragged the dignity of the United States of America. An American diplomat was murdered by a mob in the streets of a two-bit backwater country on Tuesday night, and I can guarantee you that so long as Hussein Obama is in power, there will be no meaningful response - military or otherwise from the United States of America.
Here's video of what happened last night at a consulate of the former 'world's only superpower.'
Let's go to the videotape.
My friend Jim Hoft, who has much, much more on this story, reports that both Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton are claiming that the Libyans were dragging Ambassador Stevens to the hospital. Read the whole story, look at the pictures (there are more) and watch the video (there is more) and decide for yourselves. I think Hussein and Hillary are full of bull dung.
Rubio: 'Hope and change has become divide and conquer'
One day, Marco Rubio is going to be President of the United States. Bet on it. Here's an awesome speech that he gave Thursday night to the Republican National Convention. I love the stress on American exceptionalism.
Mitt Romney on Israel: 'I would treat Israel like the friend and ally it is'
Mitt Romney gave two interviews to Israeli newspapers that are being published on Friday. One is in Haaretz and the other is in Yisrael HaYom. According to Israel Radio's New York correspondent, Benny Avni (Hat Tip: Soccer Dad), the Haaretz interview was done in London, while the Yisrael HaYom interview was done in Reno. Since Romney has promised that he will not criticize President Obama while on foreign soil, the Haaretz interview is tame. But the Yisrael Hayom interview is another story.
Sir, in your book "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness" you wrote that not only does Iran pose a threat to the U.S. but any country that supplies weapons to terrorists who target American soldiers, like Iran, is actually an enemy. As president, would you use American military force against Iran? How would you respond to an Israeli attack aiming to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
"I don't want to discuss the specific actions that might be taken by our government or by others except to say that I would anticipate that we would be in close communication and in common purpose with those who share our views that Iran must not become a nuclear power."
Last week, five Israeli tourists were murdered by a suicide bomber in Bulgaria. The Olympic Games are about to begin in London amid threats of Jihadist terror. How do you plan to win the war against terror?
"First I will recognize it for what it is. The threat of terror is part of radical, violent Jihad being waged by al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations including Hezbollah and Hamas. So we must acknowledge that this is not the work of a small group of individuals but rather a very substantial movement that poses a threat to the security and peace of our planet.
"I will also lock arms with our allies and friends to make sure that those who would threaten the peace and security of the world understand that we are united in our commitment to prevent terror and radical violent Islamic Jihadism from destroying lives and destroying peace."
...
Mr. Governor, you have been on the campaign trail for months now, and you are in constant contact with the American public across the United States. What do you think is the one issue that most concerns voters in the current race?
"The issue that is most on people's minds in this country is the economy – the capacity of America to create jobs and raise incomes. In many circles, this topic has crowded out discussion of foreign affairs and developments around the world. I think that is understandable. People are concerned about putting food on the table and there are many American families having a hard time doing that.
"But at the same time, the world is a dangerous place. The Middle East has become far more tumultuous, and dangerous as a result of developments over the last year. Pakistan is more uncertain in its relationship with the West, Turkey is looking less toward the West. Russia has achieved the New START Treaty: they sought to and succeeded in getting America to walk away from our Eastern Europe missile defense sites.
"North Korea has tested a nuclear device and long-range missiles. Iran is closer to nuclearization than it was when President Obama took office. It is hard to feel that the events of the last three and a half years have strengthened America's posture and promoted the prospects of peace."
...
You've accused President Obama of receiving accolades from America's foes and turning his back on its allies, including Israel. You have even declared that "Obama threw Israel under the bus." If you were in the White House, what would you do differently?
"I would treat Israel like the friend and ally it is. We share not only common interests, but also common values. And if there were places where we disagree, I would hold these disagreements in private conversations, not in public forums. I cannot imagine going to the United Nations, as Obama did, and criticizing Israel in front of the world. I believe that he should have mentioned instead the thousands of rockets that are being fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel.
"The president has also spoken of returning to 1967 borders – they are indefensible. And acting as a negotiator and usurping the primary role played by Israel in negotiating for its own future is not the right course for America to take."
...
In your book you urge America not to apologize for wanting to be a great nation and a world leader. What do you think about America's current standing, and how do you plan to change it?
"First of all, to be a strong leader. You describe what your objectives are with clarity and you lock arms with your allies because their strength makes you stronger. You don't criticize your allies in public to achieve the applause of your foes. A strong nation is admired by its friends and respected by its adversaries.
"The president gave in to Russia on their number one foreign policy objective, which was the removal of missile defense sites from Poland, and obtained nothing of great significance in exchange. That kind of posture leads other nations to wonder whether America has strength or instead is seeking to appease and accommodate others. I happen to believe that the New START Treaty was another accommodation and reset for Russia and I don't believe that Russia is deserving of gifts from America. Instead, Russia should be appropriately viewed as a nation with which we negotiate and show our backbone, recognizing that they intend to do the same."
Mr. Governor, you are planning to visit Israel soon and we want to know what message you will be bringing to the Israeli people.
"Well, my message really is to the people of the United States…"
Yes, but as you know, you have quite a few potential voters living in Israel who hold American citizenship…
"I can assure the people of the United States, whether living in Israel or living here that my intent is to stand with Israel as a friend, to recognize our shared values and shared interests, to take action that communicates to the region that we will defend Israel and we will work in concert to combat the threats that face Israel and the world."
Happy July 4th America. Just reminding you what you have to get of in November. America will return to its prior glory when the current occupant of the White House goes. Yes, American exceptionalism is alive and well - it's just currently repressed.
Obama crony Bill Maher says to ge over 'American exceptionalism'
Among the many harmful things Barack Hussein Obama has done to the United States and the West over the last four years, one of the most harmful is his degradation of the United States' military capabilities and his erosion of the doctrine of American exceptionalism. Here's a true moron - Bill Maher - who says that Americans need to 'get over' the exceptionalism thing.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
