Miss Glick reminds us that despite his second term victory, Obama can be stymied on foreign policy by a determined, united, focused, and coherent oppositon.
by Caroline Glick
Today the National Journal reported that Obama is reconsidering his decision to appoint Chuck Hagel Secretary of Defense. As I wrote in my previous post, there is no chance that Obama will appoint a supporter of a strong Israel to any senior foreign policy post because he wouldn’t appoint someone who doesn’t share his basic animosity towards Israel. But in Hagel, he chose someone even more outspoken in his animus towards the Jewish state than Obama.
Hagel’s looming appointment provoked angry responses from many leading Jewish voices in the US. Whether this opposition made a difference in driving Obama to reconsider his choice is unclear. Plenty of other influential groups – including senators, members of the military and lobbyists for homosexual rights – expressed their discomfort and opposition to the prospect of having Hagel serve as Defense Secretary. Still it is notable that Hagel’s possible appointment sparked an outcry among prominent American Jews and that this outcry had some unknown impact on Obama’s possible decision to cancel Hagel’s appointment.
If Obama indeed scuttles Hagel’s elevation to Defense Secretary, it shows that it is possible to fight Obama on foreign policy even in his second term, and win, at least sometimes. This is important information for Republicans, American Jews, and the Israeli government.
Obama will have multiple, massive domestic challenges to contend with in his second term. If he wishes to focus on advancing his domestic agenda, he may well punt on foreign affairs.
The US President’s inbox is always overflowing. One of the hardest things for a president to do is take control over his own agenda.
Just consider the issue of gun control. Certainly, as a liberal Democrat, Obama is for it. But Obama has never made the issue of restricting gun ownership a priority during his presidency. Now in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre, he is suddenly spending a lot of time on the issue and going into a head to head battle with the National Rifle Association.
Maybe Obama will win this battle. Maybe he’ll lose it. But he will be focusing on it a lot in the coming weeks. Again, this is not an issue that was ever central to his agenda. But due to an unforeseen event, it has become an issue that he is now forced to spend time on.
There are of course, many more foreseeable issues Obama will have to devote his presidential time, energy and capital to. The biggest among them is Obamacare. Budgetary and tax woes are not far behind. With only 24 hours in the day, Obama will not be able to focus on Israel or foreign policy on a daily basis. And in order to make time for other things, which are more important to him, or more immediately pressing, Obama may be willing to back down.
[.......]
In retrospect, it would certainly have been better for Israel – and for America – if Sharon had stood up to Rice and simply refused to permit Hamas to participate in the elections. It would have been better to have had a public fight with Washington and kept Hamas out of power than maintain warm relations with the Bush administration while empowering a terror group that openly seeks the annihilation of Israel and the Jewish people.This brings us to Obama, his apparent decision to stand down on Hagel, US relations with Israel in Obama’s second term in office, and finally to how the Israeli election campaign plays into all of these things.
HERE IN Israel, the Left’s basic diplomatic attack on Netanyahu involves accusing him of having wrecked Israel’s relations with the US by standing up to Obama. But whereas by not standing up to Bush and Rice, Israel got Hamas in power and missiles on Jerusalem, by standing up to Obama, Israel is still in control of Judea and Samaria and the two-state delusion has been increasingly discredited in Israel, and to a lesser degree in the US.
Moreover on Iran, Israel has coaxed a reluctant US administration into passing serious sanctions against Iran, and while the economic pressure hasn’t made any dent in Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Israeli pressure has made it harder for Obama to simply accept Iranian nuclear weapons. Vocally expressing Israeli concerns has certainly helped Republicans maintain pressure on Obama to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and publicly support a potential Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear installations.
It is understandable that Netanyahu is keeping mum on his diplomatic achievements. He can’t risk even worse relations with Obama by mentioning his success in keeping the US President at bay in his quest to diminish Israel’s strategic options.
[.........]
Israel faces massive challenges in the coming years. The apparent scuttling of Hagel’s appointment is a hopeful sign that if we keep our heads about us, we can prevent Obama from taking steps that are truly antithetical to Israel’s survival.But we must understand, the reason Hagel’s appointment was apparently abandoned is because the opposition to his appointment was strong, coherent, and unified. Israel needs a strong, coherent government to meet the challenges it will face in the next four years, including working with a hostile Obama administration. We won’t get one if the leaders of the nationalist camp are using the Left to weaken and discredit one another.
Read the rest - Hagel, Obama and theIsraeli elections
Tags: Caroline Glick, Chuck Hagel
I still think that we would have been better off with Rice as Secretary of State rather than Lurch.
The light at the end of the tunnel is an on coming train…
Obama will weasel some lesser know a-hole into the position.
(in a mood this morning…)
Sorry to go off topic but… anyone seen this? It’s about a month old and might have been linked to before.
MikeA wrote:
A great way to end the year by being more depressed.
MikeA wrote:
Any one who works for Obama is a weasel asshole however some are more assholey then others (and I am thinking of Kerry and Hagel).
Why would American Jews object to Obama appointing an anti-Israeli individual to the post of Secretary of Defense? They are getting precisely what they overwhelmingly voted for, after all. Duh…
@ Speranza:
True, those guys are both slimy and Kerry is a traitor to his country and should be treated as such.
@ Mike C.:
If you are expecting people to deal with the consequences of their actions, this will be a long day….
The problem is that the GOP’s foreign policy is just as horrendous as the Democrats.
Mike C. wrote:
Speak for your self. Those whose Judaism means something to them (the Orthodox) voted for Romney. Upper West Side secular/liberal Jews voted Obama.
By the way how many Catholics in Ohio and Pennsylvania and WASPS in Virginia voted for Obama?
Rodan wrote:
That’s a bit of an overstatement.
MikeA wrote:
Kerry was an early Obama supporter in 2008 (when Hillary was considered to be the front runner) so this is his reward.
That’s a money quote we should learn from.
@ Speranza:
Beats me -- I’m an atheist. I really don’t care about or ask about the religious affilliation (or lack thereof) of other people. None of my concern. But IIRC, self-identified Jews voted strongly for Obama in the last two elections.
@ Speranza:
Other than Israel, how is the GOP better than the Democrats. Both support The House of Saud, the Muslim Brotherhood and Nation Building.
@ Speranza:
The blessed and Holy Flyover Country!
That’s a big if. We stopped Susan Rice only because he had someone worse waiting in the wings. I have no doubt that Rice would have lied her way through a confirmation hearing, and unless the GOP were willing to filibuster her she would have been confirmed. The Democrats have no problem with her. Hagel will get through without any problems from the Senate. Oh, a couple of Republicans may squawk, but he won’t be filibustered, and the Democrats would confirm a potted plant if Obama sent them one for a cabinet position.
@ Iron Fist:
Yup, Susan Rice was a bait!
Rodan wrote:
Other than being alive, how is it better than being dead? Your comment is self-refuting. Other than theis REALLY HUGE ISSUE, the Republicans are just the same, but even that is untrue. Just because the media make John McCain the spokeshole for the Republican Party on foreign policy, don’t mistake that for an official position. The Republicans are divided on foreign policy. The thing is, the Democrats are not. Still, Obama doesn’t have a solid majority for his foreign policy. If he did, he’d get a congressional resolution through in a heartbeat. He can’t get it through, so he doesn’t try. A defeat would look bad. At the same time, the peopel who are against him don’t have a solid enough majority to actually do anything about it. It takes a veto proof majority in the congress to do anything substantive about Obama’s Foreign policy, and even then Congress’ powers are strictly circumscribed. They could cut off funding for his war making efforts, but Obama has already shown that the “power” of th epurse is pretty meaningless.
Rodan wrote:
I think you are right there. Oh, Obama woudl have taken her if he could have got her, but after Benghazi she was pretty much toast. He put her out there to give the Republicans the sembalence of a victory but the reality of a loss. After she went down, Kerry was a shoe-in. The Republicans don’t have the tenacity to go after Kerry. I don’t know that Kerry is really any worse than Rice. Yes, he is a traitor, but Rice cuddles dictators too, and she only hasn’t betrayed this country because she hasn’t had the oppertunity that Kerry did. No one that Obama nominates will really be acceptible, but elections do have consequences. We’re going to be living with the consequences of an Obama Administration for the rest of the time America endures.
Rodan wrote:
There are those in the GOP who are Bushie types (Scowcroft, Baker, Lugar) who are Arab lick spittles, and then there are those such as Gingrich, Bolton, Perry, Ileana Ros-Lethinin, Allen West et al who know which end is up.
Rodan wrote:
I mean I am not being snarky or disrespectful but everyone always throws up how many “Jews” (most of whom have Liberalism as their real religion) voted for Obama, well plenty of damn non-Jews voted for Obama too!
Mike C. wrote:
They are Jews (only on Passover and Yom Kippur) in name only and most of them like you are atheists or agnostics.
Rodan wrote:
from the looks of it, only the wasps et cetera in phillie voted for 0. the rest of the voters sure didnt
@ Iron Fist:
This about this how are Republicans Pro-Israel when they support the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood? IF Republicans are so divided on foreign policy, why
It’s beyond John McCain. Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayote, Paul Ryan and others all support the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s Republicans who keep pushing for intervention in Syria on behalf of al-Qaeda.
The Republicans can speak out against Obama’s Pro-Islamist foreign policy. They don’t because they support it. Rand Paul speaks out, but where are the others? Instead I see Republican after Republican calling for more FOR Islam.
The GOP and Democrats are both whores of the Caliphate.
@ Speranza@ Speranza:
Bolton and Ileana Ros-Lethinin are nation builders who support the Muslim Brotherhood. Gingrich and Perry don’t talk much about this. Allen West along with Rand Paul are the only 2 who publicly speak out against nation building.
Ask yourself this, why does Republican official after another push for intervention in Syria? Fox News is just running anti-Assad propaganda and not explaining the rebels are al-Qaeda.
The GOP has no credibility with me on foreign policy.
@ coldwarrior:
Push for a plebiscite to let Phillie succeed.
Rodan wrote:
phillie isnt part of pa, it is part of the new state called eye95corridoria
@ coldwarrior:
Honest question, do you find any difference in the foreign policy of the GOP and Dems?
@ Rodan:
Rand Paul is the only one of that group that is against nation building. West wants to go to war with Iran, which would ultimately lead to nation building there.
theoutsider wrote:
Wrong.
theoutsider wrote:
Except for John McCain and Hillary Clinton, no one wants nation building in Iran. It’s about taking out their nukes. I do support Persian Nationalists who want to get rid of their Arab-Islamic regime in Iran. But it’s up to them to do this.
Speranza wrote:
Well, who really is/isn’t a Jew is something for Jews to sort out. I’m not qualified to have an opinion.
@ Rodan:
Taking out their nukes via bombing means thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of casualties. It would mean devastation of large parts of Tehran and other population centers. You don’t think we’d be involved in the rebuilding effort?. BTW, I enthusiastically support the in country opposition to the Mullahs. They just don’t have enough muscle right now to do anything.
theoutsider wrote:
And the problem with this is? Do you kno whow many civilians died in the bombings of Germany and Japan during World War Two? Annuclear Iran is a greater threat than Germany or Japan ever posed. Don’t you think we shoudl do something about it? Or do you propose that we just wait and hope the Mad Mullahs convert into reasonable people once they get nukes? That appears to be Obama’s strategy.
@ theoutsider:
So what, like I care?
No.
@ theoutsider:
Iran should be prevented from developing deployable nukes of any size or fashion by any means necessary. Pakistan having this capability is bad enough, we needn’t duplicate the mistake. As for Pakistan, even the hint of deployment should bear catastrophic consequences. In many ways, we can’t put the genie back in the bottle in that region, but we can limit his procreation and put the fear of God in him with our far more dreadful genie.
@ MacDuff:
Thankfully India has nukes and that’s what keeps the Pakis in line.
Kerry is the advantaged infection into foreign policy which will expose the disease already developing but the antibody phase is not going to be pleasant
Guggi wrote:
See headline thread.
huckfunn wrote:
ok
It was a mistake Ann Dunham didn’t have free morning-after pill every morning. Yet I’d rather she’d have waited till third trimester for a partial-birth abortion
@ Rodan:
So you’d be OK with bombing the shit out of Iran, and the Mullahs becoming more powerful? Is that what you want?
@ huckfunn:
Guess we need the first few hours of a headline to blink
theoutsider wrote:
They have no power over the second death
@ Rodan:
And, we would be involved in the rebuilding. There is no doubt about that.
red headlines on drudge says the senate is going after guns including grandfathered ones
New York State Senator Blasts “Asinine” Newspaper Editors Who Published Map Of Gun Owners…
Heehee! I wonder what brought this on
waldensianspirit wrote:
Good thing nobody gives a crap about the Senate. Nothing they pass has a chance in hell of getting through the House.
If there’s going to be any movement on gun control, Obama’s going to have to do it himself, which means he owns it.
@ lobo91:
one thing gun control legislation does is spike gun prices….might be time for me to market some closet queens and ca$h in.
@ lobo91:
And you saw the graph wz put up earlier. 74% against and growing
lobo91 wrote:
Now that you mention it: Ammo ban: Open Letter to BATFE Regarding Sporting Purpose Exemption
Scofflaw David Gregory Busted by Bloggers, MIA From ‘Meet the Press’
Interesting read
theoutsider wrote:
Iran, a once modern country (by Middle East standards) has been being deconstructed since the Islamic revolution in ’79, with little help from us. There’s a pretty fine line between deconstruction and destruction.
@ waldensianspirit:
They’ll never get a handgun ban past the Senate. Even if they did, it is DOA in the House, and there are a lot of Dem Senators who will lose their job in 2014 if they try it. I hope they do, in fact. Let’s get the mask off this beast once and for all, and let the American people see the Democrats for the totalitarian fascists that they are.
Mike C. wrote:
During the Kosovo War I talked to a rabbi about all of the prominent people with Jewish ancestry who were supporting the Muslim cause. He said, “We don’t consider them Jews.”
‘Nuff said.
theoutsider wrote:
I would be OK bombing the shit out of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Egypt or any Islamic hell hole. I do not care about those people and it would send a message. Don’t confuse my stance against nation building as supporting Pacifism. My dislike of the GOP’s Pro Muslim Brotherhood/Nation building crap comes from the Right. I am against nation building, but have no problem with nation destroying.
@ Iron Fist:
A handgun ban is prima facia unconstitutional at the moment, given Heller v DC. So is any law ordering gun owners to keep all firearms unloaded/locked up/both, by the same ruling. Barring passage of a constitutional amendment, (which isn’t even scifi; it’s fantasy) they’ll have to overturn Heller first.
@ 1389AD:
Like I said, that’s for the Jews to settle, not me.
Iron Fist wrote:
Obama’s strategy is that of Vidkun Quisling. He doesn’t want our enemies to become reasonable -- he wants our enemies to win.
@ 1389AD:
Israeli Jews supported Serbia. American Jews (not all) supported the Muslims.
Did you see my post from last night?
@ Mike C.:
The Dems have spent 15 years recovering from passing the 1994 “Assault Weapons” ban. Now they are going to throw it all away for a bill that stands zero chance of passing. What a damned shame
@ Iron Fist:
And how many Lanzas went up against the White House?
@ Iron Fist:
I am convinced the Dems will do nothing. They will only do something if the Republicans show signs of “compromise” on the gun issues. Then they will pounce on it. I doubt the GOP will even dare go for gun control. They know many on the Right don’t like them and guns are one of the few reasons I still reluctantly support the GOP.
Both parties will be playing with fire if they dare enact more gun control.
@ Iron Fist:
@ Mike C.:
Gun control legislation with any teeth won’t pass 2 houses of Congress. The “control” will come in the form of ammunition bans and restrictions via executive orders. See my #53 above.
Rodan wrote:
Yup. I was at work yesterday evening though.
@ 1389AD:
Oh, I know that. I was trying to bait the Outsider into defending Obama’s position, but even he knows Obama is indefensible. SCOAMF. Obama wants Iran to get nukes. I think he’d transfer nuclear technology in a heartbeat if he thought he could get away with it.
@ Iron Fist:
The Outsider just goes by whatever talking points OFA sens him.
Obama should raid some more guitar shops to look macho
@ huckfunn:
Obama will be sneaky about that.
waldensianspirit wrote:
He could do a Pete Towsend and smash ‘em up while singing “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.
@ Rodan:
I work for OFA? Do you really believe that?
@ huckfunn:
Rodan wrote:
Yep. Weekend surprise. BOOM!
theoutsider wrote:
You don’t have to work for them to get their talking points emails.
George H.W. Bush In Intensive Care, Libs Root For Him To Die…
Wow! Just wow
@ waldensianspirit:
I don’t get that. They should be upset. Poppy Bush was a Progressive and set the sage for Democratic dominance at the Presidential level the last 20 years. Leftists are weird.
@ Rodan:
Since When? I actually speak for myself.
interesting subject, but our super on the ball congress will no doubt put it on the back burner, not because it’s important but to cover their asses….if these nitwits don’t buckle down and get focused and get people back to work the issue will become totally moot…as for guns, just keep bombing the grabbers with facts and stats
theoutsider wrote:
good…then tell us how much debt is too much, in rounded off numbers if you like
theoutsider wrote:
You repeat their talking points.
@ waldensianspirit:
I remember when Ted Kennedy was near death and the walking libturds were “warning” us about saying anything cruel about him. With a few exceptions at Free Republic, everyone was respectful. There’s a part of me that says “take screen shots of this, so that when that anti-Semitic pig Jimmy Carter finally bites it, we can repay them in kind.” But we won’t. It’s that sense of decency we have.
@ heysoos:
He’s awaiting OFA an email for an answer.
@ Carolina Girl:
I don’t get their dislike of Poppy Bush. He was a man of the Left. I guess he wasn’t Leftwing enough for them.
@ Rodan:
Both the US and NATO have irretrievably gone over to the dark side:
Failed Muslim narcoterrorist province of Kosovo wants to join NATO – with US approval
heysoos wrote:
With significant digits no need to think out sub billion details; just a nice rounded off guesstimate would make theoutsider a legitimate commenter
Rodan wrote:
Exactly what I was thinking.
@ Rodan:
He’s a Republican. That’s all they care about. Remember, these are the same people were were screaming NO BLOOD FOR OIL in 1991 as they drove to the protest marches on the Bay Bridge.
@ 1389AD:
Can you do this as a Special Report. This is a disgrace. I am sure the so called anti-Terror Republicans will support this. After all the anti-terror hero Bush shook hands with an Islamic terrorists.
But as some conservative claims, Kosovars are White European Muslims, that makes them different!
//////
@ Rodan:
Really? I don’t think so! Even, when I called into your radio show? I had a few drinks, and smoked a couple of bowls. There was no talking points.
Carolina Girl wrote:
Yeah the No Blood for Oil crowd was very quiet when Obama went to war on the UK and France’s behlaf for Libyan Oil.
theoutsider wrote:
If you’re smoking cannabis on top of several drinks, how do you even remember what you were talking about?
theoutsider wrote:
When you called you were speaking your mind. But when you post here I swear it comes straight from OFA.
waldensianspirit wrote:
Yet the Libs maintain the pretense that they operate on a higher
moral plane.
Mostly I think that they operate from bitterness
and envy.
Rooting for the death of this WWII hero is beyond despicable.
@ Rodan:
Yep -- and that is PRECISELY what that was.
@ RIX:
I don’t politically like Bush but I do not wish him death. Progressives are really deranged.
Carolina Girl wrote:
If Obama became a Republican and still implemented Leftist policies, Progressives would turn on him.
New thread.
Rodan wrote:
Absolutely.
Rodan wrote:
They are a sick bunch.