Newscast Media BEIJING—President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir
Putin had what a senior U.S. official described as a “brief encounter” on the sidelines
of the APEC summit in Beijing.
Reports on November 10 cited the unnamed U.S. official as saying Obama and Putin
“didn’t have time to cover issues” during their short meeting.
The two leaders have been deeply at odds over Russia’s role in the Ukraine conflict
and the Kremlin’s support for Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Russian news agency Interfax reported on the encounter, saying, “The U.S. president
was the first to greet Putin. Putin greeted Obama in return and the two presidents
Interfax said the conversation lasted five minutes.
Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov said he had no information about the meeting.
Source: Radio Free Europe
Newscast Media WASHINGTON—According to the “Wall Street Journal,” U.S. President
Barack Obama secretly wrote Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in October
about fighting Islamic State (IS) militants in Iraq and Syria.
The newspaper reported on November 6, that Obama stressed that any cooperation
was tied to an agreement being reached over Iran’s nuclear program by November 24.
The letter is at least the fourth time that Obama has written Khamenei.
White House Spokesman Josh Earnest did not confirm or deny the report in a briefing
with reporters, but said that policy toward Iran remains unchanged.
Obama said on November 5 that the United States presented Tehran with a
“framework” that would allow Iran to develop its “peaceful energy needs” and that the
Islamic Republic has abided by the interim rules of the agreement.
Source: Radio Free Europe
Newscast Media MOSCOW—Russian President Vladimir Putin said that relations
between the United States and Russia are not in good shape, but Russia is ready for
constructive dialogue on equal terms.
“We have always tried to be predictable partners, handle business on an equal basis,
but in return our legal interests were partially ignored and are still ignored,” Putin said
during a meeting with Russian ambassadors and permanent representatives.
Putin said that Russian and US contacts have a great meaning for the entire world.
“We are ready for constructive dialogue, but, again I emphasize, only on equal terms,
” the Russian president said.
Relations between Moscow and Washington soured as tensions in crisis-torn Ukraine
started to escalate.
The March 16 referendum in Crimea that resulted in the republic’s reunification with
Russia was denounced as illegitimate by Washington, and led to a series of US
sanctions against a number of Russian individuals and companies. Washington has
also repeatedly threatened Moscow with tougher economic sanctions.
The restrictive measures were condemned by Russia as counterproductive.
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev suggested in May that US President Barack
Obama should show more political tact in easing the relations crisis with Russia, as
the current American policy is nullifying everything achieved over the past few years
of the “reset” and is leading to a new “cold war.”
Source: Ria Novosti
Newscast Media MOSCOW—Russia’s President Vladimir Putin declared Wednesday he
was ready for dialogue with his US counterpart Barack Obama.
“I have no reason to think that Obama doesn’t want to meet with the president of
Russia. But it’s up to him after all. I am always open for talks,” Putin said in an
interview with France’s TF1 channel and Europe1 radio station.
US Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes said
earlier he didn’t rule out that the two leaders could meet on the sidelines of a
celebration hosted in Normandy, France, for the D-Day 70th anniversary, although he
said no official plans had been made.
“We don’t have any plans for a bilateral meeting with President Putin, so we’re not
anticipating the two leaders will have any type of formal meeting,” he said, adding
the two would certainly have “cause to interact in that context.”
At the same time, Putin has criticized the United States over its aggressive foreign
policies. He stressed Russia had “hardly any military contingents abroad,” while US
bases were set up far and wide across the globe.
“American troops are stationed a thousand kilometers away from their own borders,”
Earlier it was reported that Putin would attend the 70th anniversary of the D-Day
landings in France. This will be first visit of the Russian president to Western Europe
since the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis. France invited Putin to take part in the
event several months ago and confirmed the invitation despite the disagreements on
In 1944, the Normandy landings opened the Western Front in the World War II, which
left the Nazis caught between the allied US, British and European troops and the
Soviet Army advancing from the East.
Source: Ria Novosti
Newscast Media WASHINGTON—US President Barack Obama is in Saudi Arabia visiting
King Abdullah bin Adulazziz, and it is interesting that he has steered away from the
topic of homosexuals being put to death publicly if caught in Saudi Arabia.
As the absolute monarch, the king’s word is the law and is final, therefore it cannot
While Obama shakes his fist and makes threatening gestures to countries with lesser
laws that deal with homosexuals, the leader of the free world takes a stance of
submission when dealing with the House of Saud, and will dare not mention that
controversial subject while he is within or without the kingdom. FULL STORY>>
Newscast Media WASHINGTON—Senator Rand Paul, the son of former presidential
candidate Ron Paul announced he will be filing a class action lawsuit against President
Barack Obama, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Director of National
Security Agency Keith Alexander and FBI Director, James Comey.
Rand Paul stated: “I am filing a lawsuit against President Barack Obama because he
has publicly refused to stop a clear and continuing violation of the 4th Amendment.
The Bill of Rights protects all citizens from general warrants. I expect this case to go
all the way to the Supreme Court and I predict the American people will win.”
CONTINUE TO THE FULL ARTICLE>>
Newscast Media CARACAS—The US has expelled Venezuela’s charge d’affaires and two other diplomats. The move comes in reprisal for the expulsion of Kelly Keiderling, the top US diplomat in Venezuela, from Caracas.
Venezuelan officials called the move unjustified, saying the diplomats in Washington had not met with people opposed to President Barack Obama in order to undermine their host country, as it accused the US officials of having done.
According to Venezuela, the US diplomats, including Charge d’Affaires Kelly Keiderling, met with the country’s “far right” – the government’s term for the opposition – to finance President Nicolas Maduro’s opponents and encourage actions to sabotage the power system and the economy.
Venezuelan President Maduro began his term in April, after winning an election following the death of his mentor Hugo Chavez, and has continued the anti-US populism that had served the revolutionary-cum-head of state so well during his 14 years in power before succumbing to cancer.
Relations appeared to have eased in June, when the two countries agreed to begin discussions aimed at returning ambassadors to Caracas and Washington after talks between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Elias Jaua. However, Venezuela broke off the rapprochement in July after the diplomat Samantha Power, now the US ambassador to the United Nations, lumped the country in with other
“While the government of the United States does not understand that it has to respect our country’s sovereignty there will be simply be no cordial relations nor cordial communication,” Maduro said Tuesday in Caracas. “The day that the government of President Obama rectifies the situation, we will establish new points of contact to discuss common issues,” Maduro added.
Source: Radio Deutsche Welle
Newscast Media WASHINGTON—In a video paid for by the Koch brothers who hold
conservative views, Obama supporters are portrayed as voters who will do anything
they are asked, as long as Obama says it is a good thing to do.
In the video, the parody mocks Obama whose supporters are attempting to raise
money on Kickstarter to the tune of $1.6 trillion, so that Obama can fund World War
One of the actresses says, “Obama is right all the time. So I support World War III
and IV, and any moon war the president may want to start.”
The actors in the video say the war will be good because it is not a Republican war
but one started by Obama that will destroy 99% of humanity. They also reason that it
will be a good war because it will be the most social media-focused war ever.
It concludes by saying, “Help us make WWIII a reality…because of Obama.” Watch:
Help kickstart World War 3 mocks Obama and supporters
Newscast Media WASHINGTON—Despite Britain’s rejection of David Cameron’s
proposal to attack Syria, France is ready to follow the US and strike Syria, President
François Hollande told Le Monde newspaper on Friday. Although strikes should not
take place before UN inspectors have finished their investigation in Damascus, they
could be launched before a special meeting of the French parliament on Wednesday,
France wants a firm, proportionate action against the Damascus regime,” Hollande
told Le Monde, insisting that Paris can take such action without British support.
“Every country is sovereign when it comes to taking part in an operation or not,” the
president said. “That goes as much for France as for the United Kingdom.”
Hollande is to have an “in-depth” phone discussion with US President Barack Obama,
he told the paper, pointing out that, even if he is counting on support from other
European powers and the Arab League, France is one of the few countries with the
“capacity to inflict punishment with the appropriate means”.
Germany will not take part in a military strike on Syria, Foreign Minister Guido
Westerwelle told the Neue Osnabruecker Zeitung on Friday.
Source: Radio France Internationale
Newscast Media KIGALI—From one president to another, Barack Obama placed a call to Rwanda’s Paul Kagame to underscore that any support to Congolese rebel group M23 is “inconsistent with Rwanda’s desire for stability and peace” in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and advised Kagame to abide by commitments made in November to permanently “end all support for armed groups” in the country.
Obama told Kagame that it is important to reach “a transparent and credible political agreement that includes an end to impunity for M23 commanders and others who have committed serious human rights abuses” and that the crisis in eastern DRC should be resolved by a “political agreement that addresses the underlying regional security, economic and governance issues while upholding the DRC’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
An estimated 5 million people have been killed and millions displaced since 1998 by a variety of rebel groups battling to control the eastern DRC. In 2012, a new group of rebels rose up. Known as the M23 that has created instability in the region.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters December 18 that the Obama administration is continuing to call for Ntaganda’s arrest, as well as that of Sylvestre Mudacumura, who is also charged with committing atrocities and has been issued an ICC warrant.
“The current conflict in the eastern Congo with M23 underscores the continuing impunity the perpetrators of violence and human rights abuses continue to enjoy in the Congo,” Nuland said.
Along with identifying individuals on the ground who commit abuses and subjecting them to U.S. sanctions, Nuland said, the United States is also reviewing its list of those who are aiding and abetting armed groups for possible sanctions designation. “We look at the whole landscape,” Nuland said.
If Kagame fails to heed Obama’s advice, the next phase, as was pointed out by the State Department’s Victoria Nuland is to subject those aiding and abetting the rebels to sanctions. Finally, after that phase, as we saw in Libya and are seeing in the Middle East, the next step usually points to regime change.
Newscast Media HOUSTON, Texas—After a dynamic performance at the debates, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has widened his lead among the most coveted voters who decide elections—the Independents.
Independent voters are neither Democrat nor Republican, and party loyalties or media hype are not a decisive factor with this particular group. That’s the reason why candidates always spend more money in “swing states” that can make an election go either way.
The latest reading is based on data collected from Oct. 4, the day after the first presidential debate, through Oct. 9. The prior day’s 2-point spread included polling done before last Wednesday’s debate, in which Romney was widely seen as the victor.
“The jump from 2 points to 5 is because the days prior to the debate were removed from analysis,” explained Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, IBD’s pollster. “The impact of the debate is fully reflected in the latest data.”
Romney’s strength among whites applies to both men and women. White men back him 64%-28%, a cavernous 36-point difference compared with the 16-point (57%-41%) advantage McCain had. White women favor Romney 52%-39%, and numbers for single White women aren’t much different — 52% to 41% for Romney.
The entire spectrum of the daily tracking poll can be viewed here (pop-up) which includes household income, age, education, gender, ideology, race, investor class and party. Romney also leads in the general by five (5) points.
by Paul Stanley
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C.—It was only about one year ago that Republicans – not knowing who their nominee would be – were bracing for a presidential campaign where President Obama would have an unlimited campaign war chest while their candidate scraped by with only a great message and limited funds. That is not the case today.
Today, Republicans know who their nominee is (it will be official in one week) and according to fundraising totals through the end of July, they know how much money is in both presidential bank accounts.
Romney and the Republican National Committee raised an astounding $101 million in July and it is the third consecutive month the campaign has hit triple digits. Obama and the Democrats took in $75 million.
In addition to the joint bank accounts each candidate share with their respective parties, both the RNC and the DNC raise and spend their own funds. In July, the RNC hauled in $37.7 million compared to the DNC’s $8.8 million. When added to the prior month’s balance, the Republicans have $88.8 million on the ledger while the
Democrats have $15.4 million in their account.
What has many Democrats concerned is that for the past several months Obama has spent money at a faster pace than Romney while taking in less. In July, the Obama campaign spent $58.5 million and the Romney campaign spent $32.3 million. Most of the funds spent by both sides went for advertising and ad placement.
However, to gain a rational understanding of exactly where the candidates stand it is important to look at their financial picture from a 30,000-foot viewpoint.
Obama raised and spent $750 million to win the White House in 2008 and has been replenishing his account ever since. On the other hand, Romney had to start from scratch and run a competitive primary against as many as eight other GOP hopefuls. Much of what he has in the bank today cannot be spent until he is officially nominated in Tampa, Fla., next week.
From the perspective of each individual candidate, at the end of July Romney had $30.2 million cash on hand while Obama had $87.7 million. Michael Malbin runs the non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute in Washington and says when everything is taken into account, Obama is still in a more desirable position.
“Romney is ahead when you combine it all together but some of his money is going to be less efficient,” Malbin told Reuters. “Obama is way ahead in the most flexible (money that can be spent today) pile. The broad picture, the step back is that the Obama campaign has a stronger financial position than the Romney campaign.”
But the major difference between this election cycle and 2008 is that both candidates chose not to accept public financing and that Super PACs can raise and spend an almost unlimited amount of money.
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C.—Former President Bill Clinton took to the airwaves Tuesday to offer President Obama some economic advice by suggesting that the White House back a temporary extension of what is known as the Bush tax cuts, which are set to expire in January.
The suggestion from one Democratic president to another may cause further scrutiny of the Obama administration’s plan to increase taxes on those earning over $250,000 per year to raise money to reduce the nation’s growing deficit.
During President George W. Bush’s second term, Congress enacted a series of tax cuts, some of which will expire in January of 2013.
About that same time, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts will take effect because the so-called “supercommittee” that met last fall was unable to reach a consensus on budget cuts or tax increases. Officials in the Congressional Budget Office have said allowing the two to occur at the same time may add to the nation’s economic woes by causing another recession.
“What I think we need to do is find some way to avoid the fiscal cliff, to avoid doing anything that would contract the economy now, and then deal with what’s necessary in the long-term debt reduction plan as soon as they can, which presumably will be after the election,” Clinton said on CNBC’s “Closing Bell With Maria Bartiromo.”
Officials at the White House were mum on Clinton’s comments, but others close to the president pointed out that Obama has repeatedly said that he would not extend the Bush tax cuts for high-income individuals and families when they expire.
President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada have said they will not extend the Bush era tax cuts without some agreement from Republicans to raise taxes.
“If Republicans want to walk away from the bipartisan spending cuts agreed to last August, they will have to work with Democrats to replace them with a balanced deficit reduction package that asks millionaires to pay their fair share,” Reid said in a statement on Tuesday.
Despite both sides saying something must be done soon, political pundits believe the White House will not push the issue until after the elections.
by Napp Nazworth
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C.—Despite efforts by the Obama campaign to portray Mitt Romney as a vulture capitalist, Romney’s favorability rating has increased 14 percentage points since February, according to a CNN/ORC poll released Monday.
President Barack Obama still has a higher favorability rating — 56 percent to Romney’s 48 percent. But, Romney’s jump from 34 percent in February cannot be good news for a campaign that has spent significant time and money working to lower Romney’s favorability.
The Obama campaign is the first in modern history to start a campaign with an ad attacking their opponent rather than saying something positive about themselves. It is also spending significant amounts of money much earlier than usual.
Until Monday, the Obama campaign has focused its efforts on Romney’s business record at Bain Capital, a private equity firm. The ads featured people who had worked at companies owned by Bain Capital but lost their jobs after Bain shut them down.
Several Democrats, though, have questioned this strategy. Corey Booker, mayor of Newark, N.J., for instance, said he was uncomfortable with the attacks on Romney’s business record and called them “nauseating,” on NBC’s May 20 “Meet the Press.” (Later that day, he posted a video taking back those remarks.)
Last Thursday night, former President Bill Clinton added his name to the list of Democrats praising Romney’s Bain record. Calling his business record “sterling,” Clinton said that Romney “crosses the qualification threshold” with his experience in private business and as the former governor of Massachusetts.
by Napp Nazworth
Newscast Media HOUSTON, Texas—A common theme has emerged from President Barack Obama’s critics from both the right and the left – he has not kept the promises he made in 2008. The most recent attack came from a Republican National Committee ad accusing Obama of coddling lobbyists.
The ad shows Obama in a 2008 campaign speech saying, “we will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists,” with the words, “the promise, Candidate Obama, 2008″ across the screen. The ad then cuts to TV news reports about lobbyist influence in the Obama administration. The ad ends with a photo of Obama at a dinner, insinuatingly with lobbyists, delivering a toast. The words, “from hope to hypocrisy, the senator who became a sellout,” are across the screen.
The ad is based, in part, on an exposé earlier this month in The New York Times depicting a tight relationship between large donations to Obama’s reelection campaign and visits to the White House. The article revealed that some wealthy donors were accompanied by lobbyists during their visit.
The criticism that Obama has not lived up to his campaign promises has been especially prominent from liberals.
A March 6 editorial by liberal Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank called “Settling in to Washington’s ways” complains that Obama has placed lobbyists in prominent White House positions. They were not technically lobbyists at the time. They de-registered as lobbyists when Obama won office, but continued many of the lobbying activities they were doing while registered lobbyists.
“Such an arrangement may not violate the letter of Obama’s ethics policy, but it makes a joke of the spirit of reform he promised,” Milbank complained. The Onion, a comedy website, also mocked Obama for not living up to his campaign promises in a satirical article called, “Obama Launches More Realistic ‘I Have Big Ideas But We’ll See How It Goes’ Campaign Slogan.”
David Gregory, host of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” quoted passages from The Onion’s article Sunday while interviewing the Obama Campaign’s senior adviser, David Axelrod.
“It gets a laugh, is there any greater truth to that?” Gregory asked. Axelrod answered “no” and blamed Republicans for the lack of progress on Obama’s agenda.
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C.—Just as in the past, whether the next round of talks on the Iranian nuclear issue, due to be held in Baghdad on 23 May, can be fruitful lies in the United States and Iran finding common ground.
In fact, although Saturday’s talks in Istanbul finished on a positive note, with Iranian chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, describing them as “very successful” and a White House spokesperson praising Iran’s “positive attitude”, achieving a permanent and peaceful solution will be difficult, as the US and Iran disagree over the core issue of whether Iran should develop its own uranium enrichment capacity.
Prior to Saturday’s talks, the Obama administration had emphasized that negotiations between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran had not met expectations.
It said Iran had not cooperated with the agency on key issues such as clarifying suspect nuclear items and permitting on-site inspections of nuclear facilities. If Iran does not change its attitude, even if there are further negotiations between Iran and “Five plus One” countries – the UN Security Council’s five permanent members plus Germany – it will be hard to make substantial progress.
The Obama administration wants to settle the Iranian nuclear issue before the US presidential elections in November. But at the moment it faces a challenge trying to coordinate policy goals with the Israeli government, with which it already has differences over the establishing of Jewish settlements in Israeli occupied territories.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the US in March, Obama said that the US will do everything it can to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons because it doesn’t serve the US and Israeli’s security interests. But he also said there is still the possibility of solving the issue through diplomacy. This was widely interpreted as Obama trying to restrain Israel from launching military strikes against Iran.
It is generally believed that Israel will not be able to launch a successful military attack on Iran without the US’ support, but the Israeli government has declared several times that it will launch military attack on Iran before the US presidential election in November.
During his visit, Netanyahu also declared that Israel would not make a commitment to inform the Obama administration before taking military action against Iran. In fact, the “red line” that would trigger a military attack on Iran is quite different for the US and Israel. For the US it would be Iran’s decision to make nuclear weapons, while for Israel it is Iran’s capability to make nuclear weapons.
But it is generally believed that Israeli air strikes would only delay Iran’s nuclear program rather than completely destroy its capacity to develop nuclear weapons, and that they would give Iran’s leaders the pretext to publicly commit to making nuclear weapons. This is not what Obama administration wants.
Another challenge the administration faces is controlling rising oil prices.
Since late 2011, the Obama administration has urged the major countries importing oil from Iran, to stop or reduce these imports. EU countries, South Korea, and Japan soon followed the US’ bidding. This has hit Iran’s economy, as oil exports, which are regarded as its economic lifeline, have declined sharply. But it has also led to rising international oil prices.
The Obama administration believes that with Iran’s domestic commodity prices already rising and its currency devaluing, the Iranian people will become more and more dissatisfied with the government, forcing its leaders to abandon the country’s nuclear program.
Moreover, the US is still trying to disentangle itself from Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and whether the Obama administration is willing to commit the US to a new conflict in the Middle East is a big decision.
It is thought that if the US did launch a military attack on Iran together with Israel, it would win wide political support and boost Obama’s re-election chances. But this support would be temporary, and if Obama was elected for a second term his administration would be left with the consequences.
So there may still be hopes of peace in the Persian Gulf, as Obama has repeatedly held out olive branches to Iran since he took office, and Iran’s top leader has praised Obama for restraining Israel.
The author is a senior research fellow of China Arms Control and Disarmament Association.
by Paul Stanley
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Susan B. Anthony List, a national pro-life group, announced on Thursday their endorsement of the presumed Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, promising to spend millions to defeat President Obama in November.
“Now is the time to unite behind Governor Romney in order to defeat the most ideologically pro-abortion president in our nation’s history,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA List, in a written statement. “The SBA List is proud to endorse Governor Romney and plans to spend $10 to $12 million in senate and
presidential battleground states mobilizing pro-life voters to ensure victory.”
The endorsement of Romney signals that SBA and similar pro-life organizations are committed to defeating President Obama, whom they view as “unfriendly and dangerous” to the unborn.
But Romney has not always been seen as a Republican who was willing to fight for pro-life causes. In 1994 when Romney ran for the U.S. Senate against the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, he adopted a pro-abortion position with the permission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
However, when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he had changed his position to one of opposing abortion in most cases.
The group’s unanimous endorsement of Romney was based on a number of factors, including his pledge to defund Planned Parenthood, to nominate pro-life judges to the federal bench, and to choose a pro-life running mate.
“The difference between Governor Romney and President Obama couldn’t be clearer, which is why our Board of Directors voted unanimously to get behind him,” said Jane Abraham, chairman of the SBA List Board of Directors. “It is the responsibility of all pro-life voters to now unite behind Governor Romney. Together we can put a pro-life leader in the White House.”
by Anugrah Kumar
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C.— Top Democrats in President Barack Obama’s administration appear to be focusing their attacks on Mitt Romney amid perceptions that the former Massachusetts governor is most likely to be the GOP nominee. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lambasted Romney Sunday.
“I think Gov. Romney’s a little out of touch,” Biden said in an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “I can’t remember a presidential candidate in the recent past who seems not to understand, by what he says, what ordinary middle-class people are thinking about and are concerned about.”
Some believe that front-runner Romney’s main rival, Rick Santorum, might have to retreat if he is unable to win in Wisconsin, one of three states to host Republican primaries Tuesday. Santorum was reportedly planning to leave Wisconsin the day before the primary, which was interpreted as a sign of his withdrawal.
“I think the chances are overwhelming that [Romney] will be our nominee,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday. “It seems to me we’re in the final phases of wrapping up this nomination.”
The former Pennsylvania senator has won 27 percent of the delegates at stake, while Romney has won 54 percent of the delegates.
However, Santorum dismissed the notion that his chances are grim. He compared his run with the Saturday night’s basketball game between Kansas and Ohio. Kansas was trailing by more than 10 points in the first half, but still managed to win in the second half. “Look, this race isn’t even at halftime yet,” Santorum said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Meanwhile, Biden defended Obama on last week’s conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Seoul, South Korea, in which Obama said he would have “more flexibility” on the contentious issue of missile defense after the Nov. 6 general election, without realizing it was being caught by a microphone. Obama was “stating the obvious,” Biden said.
Romney had called it “alarming,” asking what else Obama would be flexible on if he happened to get re-elected and saying Russia was “our No. 1 geopolitical foe.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also attacked Romney. She said Romney’s comment was “dated.” “I think it’s somewhat dated to be looking backwards instead of being realistic about where we agree, where we don’t agree,” she told CNN Sunday.
Romney’s campaign hit back. “Vice-President Biden appears to have forgotten the Russian government’s opposition to crippling sanctions on Iran, its obstructionism on Syria and its own backsliding into authoritarianism,” Lanhee Chen, Romney’s policy director, said in a statement.
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C. — This will be one of the most challenging years for Barack Obama as President of the United States, because crucial decisions that could affect his re-election are underway. Despite preparing to embark on his re-election campaign, he still has to deal with the distraction that Israel could launch an unexpected attack on Iran.
To his credit, Obama is doing everything he possibly can to avert a war with the Islamic Republic and is engaging the country in talks and negotiations regarding its nuclear program. Yet Obama is mindful of the warmongers trying to bypass the diplomatic means that are being employed to accomplish a win-win situation in this whole ordeal.
In a speech given on Tuesday, Obama scolded Republican candidates for “beating the drums of war” and ignoring the potential human cost of such a confrontation.
“The one thing that we have not done is: We haven’t launched a war. If some of these folks think that it’s time to launch a war, they should say so. And they should explain to the American people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be,” he said.
“This is not a game. There is nothing casual about it. Those who are suggesting, or proposing, or beating the drums of war should explain clearly to the American people what they think the costs and benefits would be. I’m not one of those people,” Obama said.
Should Israel launch an attack on Iran, it would sabotage Obama’s re-election for the following reasons:
He would immediately lose the moderates, independents and some of his hardcore base who have denounced previous wars would stay home. An attack on Iran would also send the gas prices to the $8-$10 neighborhood and would affect the world markets. As voters sit at their kitchen tables and sorting out their bills, they will equate the high gas prices and cost of living to Obama’s failure to cure the defects within the economy. That alone would be their justification not to vote for him.
China will not sit by and Russia because they have interests in Iran they would want to protect. Sleeper-cells in the West would then be activated, and those who wished for war would have a lot of explaining to do for endangering the general public. This reflects what Obama said in his remarks that they (the warmongers) would have to “explain clearly to the American people what they think the costs and benefits would be.”
North Korea’s Kim Jung-un would not want to miss in action and would want to prove to his countrymen that he too is made of steel, as reflected in the comments he made on Friday Dec. 30, 2011 when he said: “On this occasion, we solemnly declare with confidence that foolish politicians around the world, including the puppet forces in South Korea, should not expect any changes from us.”
Right there you have China, Russia, Iran and North Korea could align itself with them including Pakistan, Iran’s next-door neighbor. You then have a perfect scenario of East vs. West. There is no way such a war can be won on the seas or in the air. A ground invasion would have to take place whereby troops are sent into Iran, which would be the perfect chance for Afghanistan to side with Iran and seek revenge for the Quran incident.
All the war advocates who hide behind computer keyboards or their ivory towers encouraging an invasion of Iran should use “critical thinking” rather than make this an emotional event. For the past seven years, we’ve heard that Iran was 6-12 months away from acquiring a nuclear weapon. If you do the math, it means Iran has acquired nuclear weapons seven times over. At the beginning of last year, Iran was six months away from a nuclear weapon. June came and went, and the “six-month narrative” continues to be sold to the public.
Americans and people across the world are weary of the wars that have been happening continuously for the past 10 years. Soldiers just want to raise their kids, repair their marriages, finish school or find jobs, while the general public just wants to mind its own business.
Whether you agree with Barack Obama or not, the man is not being fooled, or allowing himself to be induced into an unnecessary military confrontation, and recently said, “I don’t bluff.” Which means he knows who the bluffers are—the media being one of the major players. He has exclusive intel that is not available to the public, and can see what the button-pushers can’t.
George W. Bush experienced what Obama is going through and warned Israel not to bomb Iran. He was very clear about it and said the U.S. did not want to get involved in a third war.”This is a very unstable part of the world and I don’t need it to be more unstable,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, said at a briefing. Bush said, “I have made it clear to all parties [including Israel] that the first option is diplomacy,” in getting Iran to stop enriching uranium that could be used for a nuclear weapon.
Barack Obama’s greatest challenge is not a battle with the GOP nominee or media or even his critics. Obama’s greatest battle, in my analysis, will be to get Israel to stay put.
by J. Albert Mohler Jr.
Newscast Media HOUSTON, Texas — Some predictions are rather safe to make. 2012 is almost certain to be a determinative year on the issue of same-sex marriage. Multiple courts appear poised to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] and, even more urgently, the appeal on California’s Proposition 8 at the Ninth Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals will set up a certain appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court.
Given the facts of this case and the significance of the nation’s most populous state, the Supreme Court is almost certain to take the case. This sets the stage for the courts to make some determinative statement on same-sex marriage within the next several months – a decision that will go a long way toward setting the direction of the larger culture.
At the same time, the same-sex marriage issue will play a part in the 2012 presidential campaign. The reason for this is quite simple. The issue of same-sex marriage is about far more than marriage as a legal institution and about more than sexuality and personal autonomy. It is the great inescapable issue, and we will know in fairly short order what all the candidates believe about the issue. Then again, maybe not.
President Barack Obama has done far more to advance the cause of gay rights than any previous president. His executive orders and administrative policies have granted benefits to the domestic partners of federal employees, ordered the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, and ordered the Department of State to make the rights of homosexuals a major priority and principle of American foreign policy. Beyond all that, the President led the effort to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, leading to the full integration of active homosexuals within the U. S. armed services.
But, what about the question of same-sex marriage? The President has explained that his views on the subject are “evolving.” Just a few weeks ago, the President told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News that he is “still working on” the issue.
Thus, the dance continues. The reason for the President’s reluctance is clear enough. The President is reluctant in an election year to be drawn into a culture-war issue – one that reliably helps Republicans turn out evangelical voters in their favor and also strikes a particular nerve with religious black voters, a bedrock Obama constituency in battleground states like North Carolina and Florida.
Interestingly, the latest of these is former President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Carter recently told the Associated Press that President Obama has endangered his re-election prospects by alienating too many voters. His words to President Obama sound like an encouragement to continue his evasive dance on the issue.
President Carter said, “If your main goal is to get re-elected, avoid a controversial subject as much as you can in the first term.”
Maybe that explains it all. The first Obama term is all about “evolution” on the issue. Clarity will come only after the 2012 election. Then, and only then, will the dance end. At the very least, President Carter has helped us to see the dance for what it is.