The Left’s disappointment with Barack is that they actually think the guy can change the world, as does he. And maybe he can, but ironically it won’t be with the vision the Left has of how he can change the world. But on the economy, it has become obvious that the Administration has either not done enough or that at least some of what it has done is not working. Paul Krugman wrote an editorial yesterday warning that if Obama doesn’t get his team to take some new drastic steps, the economy is in for a very severe period from which it will be quite difficult to extricate ourselves.

is.gd/1m9k3

The gist? That Obama, like Herbert Hoover, took office with high expectations a certain amount of political naivete. His ‘community organizer’ experience causes him to hesitate to make enemies and cause disagreements with anyone. Obama lacks clear policy vision, and moving without concrete direction is going to bring any type of recovery or resolution to a deafening halt. He’s too much of a nice guy, and leaders – like FDR, who was mentioned extensively as a cunning politician whose New Deal were simply HOOVER’S ideas expanded – leaders, especially Presidents, need to know how to show muscle.

The article bears a certain level of truth. Our President isn’t sure which card to play on Iran, and we’re watching him Check when it’s his turn to raise. The emptiness of his rhetoric was revealed during the election protests. When he finally did make a statement in favor of Mousavi, I wonder: who was it for? The Iranian students, or friends and foes in Washington?

We’ve gotten used to US as the world’s policeman. Clearly, lines were stepped over during the Bush years, but I’m apprehensive about Obama’s decision making skills, or lack thereof, as his time continues. What’s it going to take for this guy to show some fucking guts?

Yes Shuel, you are exactly right, and this is Obama’s problem, and why he’s gonna mess things up really bad.

Shmuel: “And did the notion of an Israeli attack become remote because of his intentions to engage the Iranians in dialog (something he’ll probably do after the rebel youth are all quelled).”

What’s your point?

“Or just stay anonymous and you don’t have to be a man.”

Then he proceeds:

“Nice reduction of everything to a contest.”

I stand by the post as written. Your comments have missed the mark entirely and my assumptions are on target.

Shmuel, you’re a hoot.

But thanks for the flattery. Krauthammer. Will. Very nice.

No consequences? What’s your time table? Losing the next election will be quite the consequence. Losing the house or senate will be quite the consequence. Losing an invaluable ally and one of the few countries engaged in the War on Terror would be a consequence. War in the middle east will be quite the consequence. Being walked all over by foreign leaders who think you’re weak will be quite the consequence.

NPR and MSNBC: It’s not the site they love. It’s the disdain. Here’s an idea – if you’re gonna put it all out there and give us your opinions like Krauthamer, Will, Cohen, and ALL the others – put on a sack, write your name instead of the silly term you use that seems an attempt to lend legitimacy to your claims and at the end of your pieces write your credentials in smaller font and italics. Or just stay anonymous and you don’t have to be a man.

Like I said, that’s a threat.

How is Rahm Emmanuel a supporter of Israel? It’s lost on me. If he’s a supporter, Israel doesn’t need enemies.

And you know why, Ephraim?

Because the US has as much leverage over the US as it needs and the Israelis know it and the Americans know it.

And the interesting part of this is that it puts Walt & Mearsheimer’s thesis in the trash where we’ve said it belongs all along. It appears that a leading US politician can do whatever he likes to Israel and will suffer no harm of any sort.

But he hasn’t threatened Israel directly or indirectly. He doesn’t need to. All he has to do is voice displeasure and the message is clear. In fact, on the day he begins to threaten, his leverage will diminish because then Israel can do a cost analysis and determine whether they should be afraid or not.

As for Rahm Emanuel, the issue with him is that by putting a supporter of Israel at the head of this discussion, he’s indicating that everybody is on board and there’s no way for the Israelis to get around this obstacle.

And Shmuel, NPR and MSNBC are clamoring for my services. They love anonymous bloggers on Jewish sites…

“He is going to talk to everybody and everybody will understand what is in their interest and do as expected…’speak softly and carry a big stick.’”

I don’t know where you come from, but from where I come from, that’s a threat. It’s just an implied threat, not a naked one, that’s all. All you are really saying is that Obama is being subtle rather than obvious and that, like a good boss, he’s having his goons like Rahm “Kapo di Tutti Kappi” Eammanuel do his threatening for him. I mean, Obama’s from Chicago after all. This is how things are done. Make ‘em an offer they can’t refuse, right?

But anyway, upon what do you base your assumption that Obama has a stick and is willing to use it, Middle? Everything I have seen and heard indicates precisely the opposite.

Except when it comes to Israel, of course.

We have to respect the great Islamic republic of Iran and bow to the Guardian of the two Shrines, but by G-d, when those damn kikes get out of line, we’ll show ‘em who’s boss, by G-d we will.

My assumptions about “Israel’s actions or lack thereof …due to Obama’s intent to ‘talk (them) down’” are perfectly legitimate. They are not superficial in any way and I would in fact be willing to bet money that my assumptions are correct.

I wrote, and then explained further in my comments to you, that Israel was responding to Obama’s wishes. I wasn’t specific as to why, and purposely did not mention the tactics used by Obama to press Israel. That was an absolutely legitimate claim to make in a post. It was relatively neutral and provably accurate in the results.

However, if you want more depth, I’m happy to oblige.

I’m not sure that he threatened Israel at all, which is why I didn’t write that he did. He had his lieutenants go out there and inform Israel publicly that it should not attack Iran. No threats were made. When Rahm Emanuel did it, for example, he stated that resolving the Iran issue ran through the settlements. That is not a threat, but it indicates a shift in policy and approach to the Middle East.

Then Obama met with Bibi. We don’t know what was said, but body language does not indicate that Netantyahu walked away crushed or fearful or angry or anything but smiling. At the end of the meeting, we had Obama tell the world that he expected some major change by the end of the year with Iran and Bibi telling the world that he had a good meeting with Obama, that they agree about many things and that diplomacy would be the approach to Iran by the Americans and he was fine with that.

Subsequently, you had commentators with contacts in the Israeli government comment that Israel wasn’t planning to attack Iran and the Israeli FM stating publicly that Israel wasn’t planning to attack.

That’s what we know. That is all provable.

At this point, I may guess anything further that makes sense even if you believe it’s superficial until Obama opens his presidential library and we get access to all his papers. In the meantime, we have to rely on assumptions based on what we do know.

My belief is that Obama did NOT threaten Bibi in any way. Obama didn’t need to. Obama merely reiterated his belief to Bibi that diplomacy as conducted by a US gov’t with his new approach to the Middle East would have a different result with the Iranians than the previous Administration’s efforts with their cowboy approach. He told Bibi that he recognized that Israel felt threatened and that if he was unable to earn the confidence of the Iranians and “talk them down” in time, then Israel could re-open the discussion about attacking Iran.

In part, my conclusion stems from an interview with Obama on NPR where he was asked many questions about how the US would respond if Israel didn’t stop settlement construction. He responded that he hoped the Israelis would come to the right conclusions on their own and that he had not yet “said what I would do” if they didn’t meet his demands. In other words, even as he met with Netanyahu, there were no threats made about the settlements. Since the settlements had been linked to Iran by Emanuel, it makes sense that no threats were made about Iran either. Anyway, that’s not Obama’s approach. He is going to talk to everybody and everybody will understand what is in their interest and do as expected…”speak softly and carry a big stick.”

Supporters of the President in deed do not take criticism of him lightly. I hope that you might take some time in the future before jumping to the conclusion that a discussion is reaction to criticsm of Obama, no matter how deserving of it he is.

haaretz.com/ha...

Israel will not attack Iran even if the international sanctions against Tehran fail to convince President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give up his country’s nuclear program, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told the Austrian daily Kleine Zeitung.In an interview published this weekend, Lieberman was asked whether Israel planned to strike Iran as a last resort.

“We are not talking about a military attack. Israel cannot resolve militarily the entire world’s problem. I propose that the United States, as the largest power in the world, take responsibility for resolving the Iranian question,” Lieberman told the paper.

That was early April, a short while after Netanyahu met Obama. This line is repeated in early June and the article includes a reminder that after Netanyahu visited Obama, he strongly indicated that Israel would wait while Obama tried his approach.

Wed Jun 3, 2009 4:26pm EDT

“I have been asked by Saudi journalists about when Israel plans to bomb Iran. We are not planning to bomb Iran,” far-right Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said during a visit to Russia.

“We do not have a need” to carry out attacks on Iran, Lieberman told reporters in Russian when asked about a possible strike against Iran. “Israel is a strong country and we can defend ourselves.”

…

Obama said last month after talks at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Washington wanted to see serious progress by the end of the year in his diplomatic outreach to Iran.

Netanyahu said after the meeting it was clear to Obama “that Israel reserves the right to defend itself.” But Netanyahu said he hoped Obama’s diplomatic efforts would be successful, a signal he had acceded for now to the U.S. strategy of dialogue.

I’m not sure why you’re disputing something so obvious. Is it that I implied something about Obama with which you disagree? I have the impression that Obama believed (he’s been disabused of this belief in the past couple of weeks, in my opinion) that he could sweep into some form of magical negotiations with the Iranians that would make them reconsider their nuke arms plans. It was, at best, pie in the sky. However, the Israelis were warned and told repeatedly not to take steps. After Netanyahu met with Obama, it became clear that at the very least Netanyahu was imposed upon to do nothing at least for several months. Since Obama was doing the asserting, one must conclude that he was prevailing upon Netanyahu that he could talk the Iranians into giving up their plans – a naive belief.

I apologize if I came out swinging, I recently had an Obama supporter come after me quite unpleasantly because I criticized Obama.

Deputy Mossad chief resigns, fourth to quit under director Meir Dagan (Haaretz)

It would have been easier to simply say that your interpretation of Obama’s willingness to engage the Iranians would prevent such Israeli actions.

Assuming to understand one’s motives after reading an inquiry and offering “edification” are both presumptuous and condescending, not in keeping with the spirit of accurate analysis and commentary and prevent, rather than promote, dialog.

I was hoping for better from the provider of policy analysis on Jewlicious.

Obama doesn’t seem to vet people well. They were never going to listen to anyone. They’ve reached the power hungry dictator stage.

It does make the nuclear problem even more so, which is a huge threat to all of Israel. I never thought I’d wish for Reagan. He would have “stayed neutral” while baring his teeth quietly just right… and that would have helped the protest movement. Now it’s up to the people of the world to lend the pressure & support. We need to keep making noise, media coverage or not.