THE NARRATIVE AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS


Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen. -George Orwell
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts

Thursday, January 7, 2016

RUBIO'S PLAN FOR DEALING WITH NORTH KOREA



How Marco Will Stand Up to North Korea 
Marco has been warning throughout the presidential campaign that North Korea is a rogue state run by a lunatic with a growing number of nuclear weapons. The Kim regime's January 2016 nuclear test was just the latest reminder of its aggressive, dangerous ambitions. Meanwhile, its government ranks as possibly the world's worst human rights abuser - jailing, torturing, and killing its people with abandon.
President Obama and Hillary Clinton have stood idly by while Kim Jong-un has tortured his people and threatened his neighbors and the United States. When they have engaged on North Korea, they have only offered concession after concession in the hopes of cutting an Iran-style deal that would only empower the regime. Years of this behavior has allowed North Korea to test multiple nuclear weapons and build ballistic-missile technology capable of hitting the United States. Moreover, North Korea is more of a force for instability in the region, a crucial one with a number of close U.S. allies, than ever before.
This failure must be replaced with a policy of strength and clarity: Stop the giveaways, ratchet up the pressure on North Korea's leaders and their Chinese supporters, back up our allies in the region, restore critical funding to our missile defense programs, and promote human rights and access to outside information within North Korea.
Click here to read more...

 photo 94f177e6-6278-4248-a9dc-38ceeea8c5db_zpsocfkxfeg.jpg

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

THREE MARTINI LUNCH: MARCH 10, 2015

National Review's Jim Geraghty and Radio America's Greg Corombos discuss current events. Today's Martinis: Clinton is forced to answer questions about her private e-mail system, Obama's cheap shot at Scott Walker, and Dems call Republicans "traitors" for writing a letter to the Iranian mullahs.



Clinton's E-Mails May Cost Taxpayers Millions
The State Department is beginning to sort through more than 55,000 pages of e-mails from Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary that she handed over late last year, sticking taxpayers with additional costs that could reach into the millions. It's an additional burden for her former department and another aspect of an e-mail fiasco her political opponents plan to highlight.
Clinton's office sent the e-mails to the State Department last December, a portion of the total in her possession, after printing them out and stacking them in boxes. The department largely sat on them until last week, when news broke that she had used a "homebrew" server rather than her government account to conduct her official business. Clinton tweeted last week that she wanted the State Department to release her e-mails, but she hasn't acknowledged what a huge job it will be for her former employees.
On March 5, Secretary of State John Kerry pledged that the department would work "as rapidly as possible" to go through all the new documents, redact any sensitive information, and then release them to the public. The department has since said that the effort will take several months.
Representative Mike Pompeo, a member of the House special committee on Benghazi that is subpoenaing Clinton's personal e-mails, told us that based on his committee's experience sorting through 44,000 other hard-copy paper documents provided by the State Department last year, the new effort could involve "hundreds and hundreds of man hours." 
"I think the effort of reviewing these documents will greatly exceed a million bucks," said Pompeo. "The United States taxpayer is going to pay for that."
The State Department must have employees review every page to ensure that no sensitive or classified information will be released. Those redacted documents must then be scanned and compiled into a database searchable by the public.
If Clinton had used her departmental e-mail account -- as she insisted her employees do during her tenure -- the messages would already be in the government's electronic records management system and could be redacted and released as part of the regular Freedom of Information Act process, Pompeo said.
Also read:

State Department to Be Slammed With FOIA Lawsuits

Why Did Obama Tolerate Clinton's Use of Secret E-mail?

 photo 39a16b86-16c6-48aa-b074-dd318f810cad_zpse1c330b5.jpg

THIS DAY IN TWITCHY: MARCH 9, 2015



'Really want to go there?' NYU journalism prof's media defense is laughable

'Wait till Obama finds out'! Josh Earnest: Actually, Obama 'did trade emails' with Hillary

Who's 'empowering' Iran? Harry Reid blasts Senate GOPers for 'undermining' Obama

'Are you capable of shame?' Political Wire hack 'running interference' for Iran against GOP

'Wow. Just wow.' Obama: GOPers making 'common cause with hard-liners in Iran'

'Does that not raise eyebrows?' WH on Iran deal: We don't need no stinkin' Senate!

'GOP sedition!': Axelrod has selective memory on foreign policy

Examiner's Byron York on GOP letter to Iran: 'Now Congress is telling Obama to go to hell'

'It's a big 'FU'": Hillary reportedly left one heck of a paper trail

Bloomberg Politics editor: 'Nothing will be good enough for the Clinton haters'



 photo a0cfd8dd-c59f-43c3-857b-2ff4c4aec561_zpsf629b6cf.jpg

Friday, March 6, 2015

THREE MARTINI LUNCH: MARCH 6, 2015

National Review's Ian Tuttle and Radio America's Greg Corombos discuss current events. Today's Martinis: Polls show Americans approve of Netanyahu and disapprove of Obama's Iran policy, history suggests Hillary will survive E-mailgate, and the insulting campaign to put Margaret Sanger on the $20 bill.



Democrats and the Clinton Train Wreck
How can something that is such a sure thing seem so shaky? That's the question that many supporters of Hillary Clinton are wondering this week as reports about her exclusive use of a private email account while serving as secretary of state prove to be the latest indication of her bad political judgment.
Though many Democrats insist that there's nothing to this story, others speaking off the record to journalist are less sanguine and admit that this is just the latest evidence that shows that her apparent coronation as Democratic presidential nominee is only partially obscuring her genuine shortcomings as a candidate.
Though Clinton's loyalists are bravely, if somewhat inadequately, defending her, the email story looks to have legs. The real question many in the part are asking today is whether the former First Lady's current troubles will be enough to tempt Senator Elizabeth Warren to jump into the 2016 presidential race.
Some Democrats are claiming that conservative critics complaining about Clinton's emails are hypocrites because various Republican governors have been hounded about some of their own emails. That's a fair point but only to a point. But none of those Republicans were in charge of U.S. foreign policy while their spouse was shaking down foreigners for contributions to their family foundation.
Even more to the point, it is important to play the substitution game. Imagine the reaction from Democrats if highly placed figures in a Republican administration were accused of doing far less than what Clinton has done when it comes to emails. Substitute the words Dick Cheney for Hillary Clinton and just imagine the same liberals telling us there's nothing to see and that this is mere Republican lunacy about Benghazi as their heads explode.
But actually we don't have to use our imaginations. We can just find the video of Hillary Clinton speaking in June 2007...
Also read:

Hillary Clinton's media plan on e-mail scandal since August: Our lips are sealed...

Did the White House expose Clinton's e-mails this week to protect their deal with Iran?

 photo 4f659ffa-4d3e-4ab8-b23f-6d02631d5a72_zpscu9ro4vi.jpg

Friday, February 27, 2015

THREE MARTINI LUNCH: FEBRUARY 27, 2015

National Review's Ian Tuttle joins Radio America's Greg Corombos. Today's topics: New polls show voters prefer the GOP on foreign policy, the FCC moves to regulate the Internet, and the Internet melts down over a mysteriously-hued dress.



On Net Neutrality, Even John Oliver Would Call John Oliver An Idiot
If you are in favor of net neutrality because you detest Comcast, you are being played, just as John Oliver, the latest adorable enfant terrible of Comedy Central and HBO, is being played.
His impassioned - and hilarious - rant on the urgent need for the Federal Communications Commission to formally disallow such things as a "fast lane," and instead impose "net neutrality," has been viewed on YouTube nearly 8 million times, making it likely the most influential single factor in the public debate. Indeed, the FCC passed a proposal Thursday that paves the way for net neutrality by classifying broadband as a government utility.
Oliver's segment is as funny and persuasive in its presentation as it is wrong-headed in its conclusions. Take a look, and then we'll discuss how and why it is so misleading, and its wide circulation so unfortunate. You are being led to believe that "net neutrality" will deliver one thing when, in fact, it will deliver exactly the opposite...
Also read:

No War with Russia? Don't Be Too Sure...

The Ultimate Nightmare: Are the U.S. and China Destined for War?

 photo 3650e443-d1da-45a6-9bf7-0d45a8c5c5fc_zpsnpkxogxt.jpg

Friday, February 6, 2015

THREE MARTINI LUNCH: FEBRUARY 6, 2015

National Review's Jim Geraghty and Radio America's Greg Corombos discuss current events. Today's topics: Tom Brokaw is "furious" at Brian Williams, President Obama tells Christians to get off their "high horse" and calls his international ineptitude... "strategic patience."



Chuck Todd: Where is Obama's national security strategy?
Er, would that be Professor Barack Obama? I understand he's giving a lecture on medieval times at Medieval Times in Baltimore. Perhaps one might joust with him a bit there over it. And as soon as Obama finishes taking care of the eleventh century, he'll step right up and answer Chuck Todd's question.
Actually, Todd wanted Susan Rice to provide the answer, which says something about Obama's lack of performance on this score (note: this aired before Susan Rice's speech):
At 1:00 pm ET today at the Brookings Institution, National Security Adviser Susan Rice will deliver remarks on the Obama administration's national security strategy. This event will prompt many of the administration's critics — and even some of its supporters — to ask: "Is there really a strategy?"
It shouldn't come as a surprise that more Americans approve of Obama's handling of the economy (49%) than handling of foreign policy (37%), according to last month's NBC/WSJ poll. (It wasn't that long ago when those numbers were reversed.) To be sure, the administration has had one foreign-policy success, sort of — getting Europe to economically isolate Russia, but it's an incomplete success since the sanctions haven't actually CHANGED Putin's behavior. As a whole, the administration's strategy looks more like crisis management than an actual strategy. A lot of that has to do with the Iraq war, of course. This administration and its advisers are incredibly gun-shy about getting dragged into quagmires.
They don't seem to mind starting quagmires, though. The Obama administration took down the Qaddafi dictatorship in Libya with no strategy for what followed afterward there, either. Instead, Libya has become a failed state on the Mediterranean, giving Islamist terror networks a strategic base of operations against Europe. We almost did the same thing with Egypt, but the Egyptian military seized control from the Muslim Brotherhood to prevent it from turning the country into a radical Islamist stronghold.
Now we have Yemen falling completely today into the hands of Shi'ite extremists.
The Hadi government formed after the U.S. and Saudi Arabia pressured the previous Saleh dictatorship into withdrawing in November 2011, at the waning of the Arab Spring. Supposedly, this was supposed to accelerate self-determination, even though Yemen had both al-Qaeda (Sunnis) and the Houthis (Shi'ite) competing for terrorist supremacy. The result is another failed state, one this time managed mostly by Shi'ites with ties to Iran. That will allow Tehran even more power in the region.
In fact, to the extent that this administration has a strategy in the Middle East, it appears to be tilting toward Tehran. Obama pulled entirely out of Iraq, against the advice of his Defense secretaries, allowing Nouri al-Maliki to push the Sunnis and Kurds out of the military and government and tilt decisively toward Tehran. That created an opening for al-Qaeda in Iraq to roar back to life as ISIS from the midst of the Syrian civil war and made the Iraqi army impotent to stop it. Now we're fighting the enemies of Bashar al-Assad, Iran's closest ally, while setting up Yemen to fall under Tehran's orbit.
Now we're negotiating a nuclear-power treaty with Iran on the hope that they will exercise more hegemony in the region. The Washington Post editorial board is aghast.
The tilt toward Iran, which has become so apparent that Israel has begun openly complaining about it as American policy allows Iranian power to expand, seems motivated by Barack Obama's attempt to hit a home run and set his foreign-policy legacy. He insisted during the 2008 campaign that he could succeed in getting Iran to negotiate reasonably, part of his "Bush is a cowboy" rhetoric before and during that campaign. He scoffed at the notion that Iran was a threat seven years ago, calling it a tiny country compared to the old Soviet Union (the newer iteration of which Obama has failed to counter effectively as well).
Six years into his presidency, Obama hasn't been able to get the Iranian leadership to act reasonably, because they're an extremist clique with extremist goals of regional domination. Instead of coming to his senses, Obama is becoming more and more desperate to prove himself correct, to the point of actually begging Iran to become the regional hegemon, in part due to Obama's feckless policies in Iraq and during the Arab Spring. The nuclear deal outlined above isn't designed to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon — it's designed to delay it until his successor takes office so that Obama won't get the blame for it.
It's appeasement, and nothing more. The only things missing are the piece of paper and the umbrella.
Also read:

Jihadis 14, Crusaders 2

Whose High Horse?

 photo a6c199f8-ece9-493d-a913-3d47a3bad818_zps7zj25akz.jpg