The contrast with our President is stark indeed. A clear and rational petition for the safety and existence of his nation and his people.
Small wonder that Obama and the far-left Democrats objected so much to Netanyahu’s appeal for the survival of Israel. We get the Cairo speech, and “don’t insult Islam”.
What’s some of the reaction to Netanyahu’s speech from the Arab world?
Tzvi Yechezkieli, the Arab affairs expert of Channel 10, said that many Arab commentators supported the content of Netanyahu’s speech. He cited a commentator on Al-Arabiya TV, who had said that he could have written a large part of the speech.
Yechezkieli said that the Arab countries are convinced that Obama will not safeguard their security interests in the current negotiations with Iran and will not protect them against Iranian aggression.
The above is not isolated opinion, either. There was this on Bibi’s speech at AIPAC:
Yesterday, Faisal J. Abbas, the powerful Editor-in-Chief of Al Arabiya English, published an editorial under the headline: “President Obama, listen to Netanyahu on Iran.” Abbas’ editorial was a reaction to Netanyahu’s speech to AIPAC yesterday.
He wrote: “In just a few words, Mr. Netanyahu managed to accurately summarize a clear and present danger, not just to Israel (which obviously is his concern), but to other U.S. allies in the region.”
The Saudi Daily Al-Jazirah published an article written by Dr. Ahmad Al-Faraj, who supported Netanyahu’s decision to speak to the U.S. Congress against the upcoming deal with Iran. He called Obama “one of the worst American presidents” and said that Netanyahu’s campaign against the deal is justified because it also serves the interests of the Gulf States.
Barack Obama and his fellow travelers seem to be the only ones, aside from Iran, that were critical of the Prime Minister’s address.
From Israelnationalnews.com via Drudge.
The Bethlehem-based news agency Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.
Not for the first time, Carter-era National Security Advisor (and anti-Semite/anti-Israel) Zbigniew Brzezinski advised shooting down Israeli aircraft to prevent them from striking the nuclear facilities of a mortal enemy that has vowed the destruction of the Jewish state. It appears, if this report is true, that Obama actually agreed to such a notion.
Israel is far from a perfect ally, and they can be a thorn in the side of America even at the best of times. But they are the only western-style free democracy in the Middle East. They are also a valuable friend. Conversely, Iran is an oppressive theocracy that has promised the destruction not only of Israel but of the United States, as well. They are a destabilizing force in a strategic region, hostile to American interests and to those of our allies.
That Obama chose to heed the advice of the National Security Advisor of a pathetic weakling of a President speaks volumes (though Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Bismarck). That he chose to make such a strong threat against an ally rather than our myriad Islamic fundamentalist enemies is positively thunderous. Obama hates American power and influence, just as he does that of Israel and the UK. He is an Islamist sympathizer and a statist communist, just as Rudy Giuliani had the courage to say publicly. Obama is positively hot for a deal with Iran that would cede to them the ability to develop nuclear weapons, which they have promised to use against Israel.
The notion that the US would threaten an ally who wanted to strike Iran would seem preposterous under any other President. I don’t know if it is true now, either, but such a thing is much more plausible with an anti-American, anti-Western communist in the White House.
What would have been the effect if Ronald Reagan had made a similar threat and stifled the Osirak strike? Or George W. Bush had threatened Israel into canceling the attack on Syria’s nuclear facility in 2007?
There are 600+ days left of this malignant cabal of anti-American ultra-liberals in the Executive Branch. One hopes there remains something resembling the United States of America on Inauguration Day, 2017. And that our credibility and relationships with our allies around the world have not been irreparably damaged. On Tuesday I will listen to Benjamin Netanyahu carefully. I hope others do, too.
The FCC voted today to make broadband internet a “public utility”. A quietly terrible tragedy, the effects of which will be disastrous for our liberties. DaveO at Op-For spells it out superbly.
From 1983 until today, February 26, 2015, America had the freest press the world has ever known because of the free (in terms of controls, not necessarily in cost) the internet. Through Obamacare we have seen the government directly attack the free exercise of religion, and today we have lost the last truly free press. Just like Obamacare, the authors and FCC Chairman ramrodded the s through with zero oversight, zero accountability, and a whole lot of lies to the people. The risk of blogs and the internet informing principled opposition to the Tyranocracy was too much to bear. What next? The Second Amendment?
For those of you who actually believed that control of broadband internet by the same Federal Government that used the IRS and Justice Department to persecute political opponents of Barack Obama and the radical Left had anything to do with “net neutrality”, your naïve stupidity in trusting the motives and explanations of this Administration contributed materially to handing control of the last semblance of independent press to the most malignant Presidency in the history of our Republic.
You were warned. But you would rather be willfully blind. And so you shall remain. Let’s hear from an expert on censorship:
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?
Make no mistake, Barack Obama believes precisely the same. And forget not that he counts our nation’s enemies among his friends, and domestic political opposition as his enemies. He is once again employing his regulatory agencies, and his Führer’s Decrees, er, Executive Orders, to make sure we, his enemies, have neither.
…what a great idea.
After all, just because they conduct naval maneuvers to practice sinking US warships is no reason to think they are hostile toward the United States.
Just like threatening to wipe Israel off the map is no indicator of any latent dislike of our ally. More diplomatic success for our anti-American President.
Four days after the bloody struggle to come ashore on Iwo Jima’s fire-swept black volcanic sand beaches, a patrol from 28th Marines was ordered to the top of the sullen volcanic lump that dominated the six square miles of sulphur and rock. The seven-man patrol under the Executive Officer of Easy Company, 28th Marines raised a small flag. The flag, difficult to see from the beach, was replaced by a larger one retrieved from one of the LSTs offshore supporting the landing. Five Marines and one Navy Corpsman labored under fire to plant the larger colors into the rocky ground. The raising of the second, larger flag was captured by Joe Rosenthal, and became the most iconic and reproduced image in the history of photography.
Many commonly believe that the raising of the flag on Mount Suribachi signaled the end of the fight for Iwo Jima. In reality, twenty-two more days of relentless and ferocious savagery lay ahead. It was not until 26 March 1945 that Iwo Jima was declared secured. Of the six men who raised the flag on Suribachi, three, Sgt Mike Strank, Cpl Harlan Block, and PFC Franklin Sousley, would die on the island, along with more than 6,800 others, mostly Marines. A fourth flag raiser, Second Class Hospital Corpsman John Bradley, was among the more than 19,000 wounded. The man who took the motion picture footage from the same vantage as Rosenthal, Marine Combat Cameraman Bill Genaust, was later killed in one of Suribachi’s hundreds of caves.
Bradley received a Navy Cross for his actions in combat on 21 February, and Strank a Bronze Star. Bill Genaust also received a Bronze Star.
The above movie is the approximately 20 minute production called “To the Shores of Iwo Jima”. Well worth the time, as it is a grim and unvarnished look at the titanic struggle for Iwo. Seldom have the words of a senior officer been so accurate, or heartfelt, as when Admiral Chester Nimitz described the fight for the island.
Uncommon Valor was a Common Virtue
You can read the text of it over at Salamander’s place. Micromanagement? Possibly. Necessary? Some folks, among which is a guy named Greenert, seem to think so. From where I sit, it seems there is some serious concern (finally) on the part of Navy leadership from the CNO on down, including SURFPAC, that our numbered Fleet Commanders don’t know how to fight their fleets, that Task Force Commanders do not know how to fight their task forces, nor Battle Group Commanders their Battle Groups, or individual COs and Officers, their warships. There is, it is suspected, a lack of understanding of warfighting at all levels. From the Operational Arts, to doctrine and tactics, down to techniques, and procedures, there is an alarming lack of understanding in areas for which we should strive for mastery. In addition, it is likely that there is serious question about the true state of readiness of our fleet and the ships and aircraft (and Sailors) which comprise it. Maintenance, training, proficiency, mindset, all these are suspect.
I think SURFPAC’s message is a very good step in the right direction. It may also shake out the most egregious impediments to training for war, both self-inflicted and externally imposed. This includes peripheral tasks that take up inordinate time and attention, maintenance and manpower shortcomings that render weapons and engineering systems non-mission capable, and jumping through burdensome administrative hoops required to perform the most basic of combat training.
I cannot say whether or not VADM Rowden dislikes Mission Command. I hope that he does not, because the ability of junior commanders to take the initiative and act boldly across widely-flung battlefields in the absence of orders has been the critical element of success for many centuries. But Mission Command requires junior leaders who are positively imbued in their craft, and senior leaders who understand what must be done and can clearly express their intent (and then have the courage to trust their subordinates). The entirety of the US Navy, more so perhaps than the other services, must rely on such leadership for its survival in combat with an enemy. Unfortunately, the Navy may be the service that has become the most over-supervised and zero-defect-laden bastion of micromanagement in all of DoD.
Vice Admiral Rowden’s message has an almost desperate tone to it. As if, to quote Service, Navy leadership realizes that it is later than you think. One cannot help but be reminded of the myriad comments from US cruiser sailors in 1942. Following initial and deadly encounters with a skilled and fearsome Japanese Navy in the waters off the Solomons, many deckplate sailors swore they would never again bitch about the seemingly incessant gunnery and damage control drills that interrupted their shipboard lives. Like 1942, a Naval clash against a near-peer who can muster temporary advantage will be a costly affair where even the winner is badly bloodied. Unlike 1942, there is no flood of new warships on the slips which can make good such losses.
Words from an earlier post of USS Hugh W. Hadley, on the picket line off Okinawa, reinforce the importance of what VADM Rowden wants:
LESSONS LEARNED, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. It must be impressed that constant daily drills in damage control using all personnel on the ship and especially those who are not in the regular damage control parties will prove of value when emergencies occur. The various emergency pumps which were on board were used effectively to put out fires. Damage control schools proved their great value and every member of the crew is now praising this training.
2. I was amazed at the performance of the 40 and 20 guns. Contrary to my expectation, those smaller guns shot down the bulk of the enemy planes. Daily the crews had dinned into their minds the following order “LEAD THAT PLANE”. Signs were painted at the gun stations as follows “LEAD THAT PLANE”. It worked, they led and the planes flew right through our projectiles.
Not the things of (fill in the blank) History Month or of SAPR or “diversity” training….
This Friday is a very big day for free speech. It is the day in which the Federal Elections Commission once again addresses regulation of political content on the internet. The Washington Examiner tells us:
Claiming that thousands of public comments condemning “dark money” in politics can’t be ignored, the Democrat-chaired Federal Election Commission on Wednesday appeared ready to open the door to new regulations on donors, bloggers and others who use the Internet to influence policy and campaigns.
During a broad FEC hearing to discuss a recent Supreme Court decision that eliminated some donor limits, proponents encouraged the agency to draw up new funding disclosure rules and require even third-party internet-based groups to reveal donors, a move that would extinguish a 2006 decision to keep the agency’s hands off the Internet
It was a close vote, 3-3, back in October. The Washington Times reminds us of Democrat Ann Ravel’s plans to govern political content on the internet, including blogging and other forms of expression:
While all three GOP-backed members voted against restrictions, they were opposed by the three Democratic-backed members, including FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel, who said she will lead a push next year to try to come up with new rules governing political speech on the Internet.
It would mark a major reversal for the commission, which for nearly a decade has protected the ability of individuals and interest groups to take to engage in a robust political conversation on the Internet without having to worry about registering with the government or keeping and reporting records of their expenses.
One should be most alarmed at handing ANY administration or entity of government the kind of power being considered here. To consider giving such power to THIS administration is akin to willfully loading the Bill of Rights into a shredder. Republican Chairman Lee Goodman summed up perfectly the impact of such an intrusion by the Federal Government back in October:
FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman said what Ms. Ravel is proposing would require a massive bureaucracy digging into the corners of the web to police what’s posted about politics.
“I cannot imagine a regulatory regime that would put government censors on the Internet daily, culling YouTube video posts for violations of law — nothing short of a Chinese censorship board,” Mr. Goodman said.
One can wager that the objectivity of such government censorship will be on par with that of the IRS in deciding tax status of PACs, the EPA in approving or denying construction of nuclear plants, and the Justice Department in dealing with cases involving black perpetrators.
If you really believe that the push to designate broadband wireless networks as a Public Utility under Title II is really about “net neutrality” and is unrelated to the clearly-stated desire by Democrats for regulation (read: censorship) of Constitutionally-protected free speech by political opponents, you can drive to Brooklyn and walk around on the bridge you just bought. Or you can recite a thousand times:
Yesterday, the Korean People’s Navy (KPN) successfully fired three supposedly indigenously-developed anti-ship cruise missiles into the East Sea out to a range of approximately 200 km. While the DPRK may claim the missiles are a home-made design, analysts say they are in actuality Russian export-variety Kh-35E Uran ASCMs (NATO codename SS-N-25 Switchblade). The Kh-35 series is a close equivalent to the US AGM-84 Harpoon missile, being slightly smaller and with a lighter warhead (360 lbs) than the Harpoon (488 lbs).
It is possible that the newly-cultivated relationship between Putin’s Russia and the DPRK is bearing fruit for both entities. This weapon system, if successfully integrated into the DPRK arsenal, represents a significant and problematic upgrade to North Korea’s offensive and defensive capabilities. The SS-N-25 Switchblade has a seeker head very comparable to the deadly 3M-54 Klub (NATO codename SS-N-27 Sizzler), with both a radar homing and anti-radiation ability which can acquire out to 50km.
The fielding of significant numbers of SS-N-25s represents a multi-generational upgrade for the DPRK, the majority of whose ASCM inventories consist of obsolete SS-N-2 Styx and smaller (and shorter-ranged) C 801 and C 802 systems. It is likely that the new capabilities will be employed in shore-based systems, greatly expanding both range and lethality of DPRK coastal defenses. In addition, the plentiful but obsolescent smaller ships and craft of the Korean People’s Navy (corvettes, PTG/PG and Fast Attack Craft) configured to carry the SS-N-25 suddenly multiply exponentially their combat potential in a surface fight. Ditto the obsolete IL-28s and other older aircraft of the Air Force, should they be configured to carry the Switchblade.
Should it come to pass that the SS-N-25 eventually comprises a major part of the DPRK ASCM inventory (courtesy of the Russians), a hard problem just got harder. Just in time to shrink our Navy below 250 ships.
NBC News anchor Brian Williams is being beaten about the cranium and shoulders quite a bit in the last few days. He deserves every last lump and then some. He is apparently taking a few days away. Perhaps he hopes that, when he returns, people will have forgotten all about the fact that he is a despicable liar who cannot be trusted to tell the straight story about anything. Juan Williams, formerly of NPR and hardly a solid Republican, believes this will be the end of either Williams, if he is fired, or NBC News if he is not. He had a point. NBC knew that Brian Williams’ account of his experience in Iraq was a fabrication, and had even warned him to knock off perpetuating the lie. But, of course, he persisted. And now he is due all the scorn that comes his way. Reporting on Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Williams’ accounts of the horrors in his area of the French Quarter are also likely hogwash. His dramatic description of a body floating by face down, and other lurid stories (contracting dysentery) never happened. How do we know? The area around his hotel never flooded, and nobody responsible for mass medical care can recall ANYONE having a reported case of dysentery (a sentinel disease) throughout Katrina. NBC knew these facts, as well, and issued no retraction.
Williams and Jeffrey Lord (American Spectator), guests on Hannity (which I don’t normally listen to, but was waiting at a highway exit and had little else to do) on Friday, also thought that the increased focus on those who are found to be lying about their “combat experiences” will turn back toward presumptive Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. At issue again is Hillary’s tall tale about landing “under sniper fire” in Bosnia, and the ceremony that was supposedly canceled because of the extreme danger.
Below is an image of Hillary covering the fire-swept ground on her way to the protection of a bunker.
Here is a still image from the dramatic combat footage of the same incident.
For all the contempt for the US Military expressed by the far-left, they sure seem to want to paint themselves into the tales of combat against our enemies. The RNC should play a continuous loop of Sheryl Attkisson’s CBS report about Hillary’s fabrications between now and 2016. (Yes, that Sheryl Attkisson. The one who wanted the truth about Benghazi which cost her job forthwith.) Hillary claims she was sleep-deprived, incidentally, and that was the reason she lied through her teeth. Let’s hope when the next “three in the morning” call comes she is not as sleep-deprived then, and whoever is on the other end of the line will have better luck than Ambassador Stevens. And that the results of that call will be reported a tad more honestly than was Benghazi, by people more honest than Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton.
But don’t bet on it.
Oh, and in my haste, I forgot the most important thing. H/T to Delta Bravo.