California Conservative

This morning, a number of Israeli newspapers are quoting Sen. Biden as saying that Israel will just have to live with a nuclearized Iran. Here’s what Sen. Biden is quoted as saying:

“Israel will have to reconcile itself with the nuclearization of Iran,” Army Radio quoted Biden as telling the unnamed officials. “It’s doubtful if the economic sanctions will be effective, and I am against opening an additional military and diplomatic front.”

If these reports are accurate, then Sen. Biden has just told Israel to accept a death penalty. It’s obvious that Sen. Biden doesn’t take Iran’s threats to blow Israel off the map seriously.

It won’t take long before Obama-Biden will be backtracking from Sen. Biden’s statement. They should be embarrassed. We started the weekend worried that Sen. Obama didn’t have the national security/foreign policy credibility. Serious people thought that Sen. Biden would bring that credibility to the ticket. (I wasn’t one of them but serious people thought that’s what he’d bring to the table.)

That myth was just shattered. (more…)

Sen. Obama has a hawkishness deficit because of his anti-war positions. Now he’s trying his best to erase that deficit. Whether he succeeds with that remains to be seen. One thing that I’m fairly certain of is that he won’t appear presidential if he insists on raiding Pakistan:

Obama has been careful to fortify these images with words: On Sunday, the Illinois senator urged the Bush administration to move more troops into Afghanistan as soon as possible during an appearance on “Face The Nation.” He also reiterated his willingness to authorize unilateral U.S. action against terrorist targets in Pakistan’s tribal areas if the Pakistani government will not act.

The easiest way to give terrorists control of a nuclear nation is to invade Pakistan. That alone will topple the Pakistani government and put it into the hands of people charitably described as sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qa’ida. I don’t doubt that Sen. Obama thinks that this makes him look macho. The reality is that this attack policy is risky, carrying too little reward and too much potential danger. (more…)

This Jennifer Rubin article in the J-Post explains why Jewish Americans still don’t trust Sen. Obama. The great thing about this article is that it provides a historical perspective on American presidents; devotion to Israel, then uses that historical perspective to explain why Jewish voters will be hesitant to vote for Sen. Obama:

Prime minister Golda Meir had miscalculated Anwar Sadat’s willingness to go to war and decided against a first strike against Egypt. The Arab nations attacked in October 1973, and within days Israel was facing defeat.

The Israelis went to president Richard Nixon with a request for a massive infusion of arms. The Defense and State Departments squabbled. Our European allies, who feared an oil embargo (and would refuse us bases to refuel our planes), inveighed against it, and the Soviets blustered. Many on Nixon’s staff wanted to deny the request, or offer only token assistance. Don’t antagonize the Arab states, they counseled.

Nixon persisted and, according to some accounts, doubled the amount of aid Israel had requested. Riding herd on the bureaucrats, Nixon repeatedly intervened to push the transports along. Informed about a dispute regarding the type of air transportation, Nixon at one point exclaimed in frustration: “Tell them to send everything that can fly.” Over the course of a month US airplanes conducted 815 sorties with over 27,900 tons of materiel.

Nixon left no doubt about whether he’d stand with Israel when things were at their most dangerous point. “Tell them to send everything that can fly” is a great way to let the bureaucrats know who set American foreign policy. It was something that Meir appreciated greatly. (more…)

That’s essentially the question Ralph Peters is asking in this column. Based the evidence, it’s clear that we’re safer now than we were during the Clinton administration. Here’s the first proof Col. Peters offers:

Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really? Where’s the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. Nothing was done to protect us.

And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11. A record to be proud of.

Democrats have put forth their propaganda for the past 6+ years and no one’s called them on it. Until now. Allegations aren’t proof. Allegations shouldn’t be treated with respect. They should be ridiculed, which is what’s happening in Col. Peters’ column.

Whopper No. 2: Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Al Qaeda just suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can’t launch attacks beyond its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can’t show his face (remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?).

Yes, terrorists can still murder innocents on their home court. I personally prefer that to them killing Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in Iraq, al Qaeda’s been beaten down to violent-fugitive status. (more…)

Iranian President Ahmadinejad wasn’t looking for common ground with presidential hopeful Barack Obama when he predicted that Israel will disappear. Here’s what AFP is reporting:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted on Monday that Muslims would uproot “satanic powers” and repeated his controversial belief that Israel will soon disappear, the Mehr news agency reported. “I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene,” he said. “Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.”

Since taking the presidency in August 2005, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly provoked international outrage by predicting Israel is doomed to disappear. “I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed,” he said to a group of foreign visitors ahead of the 19th anniversary of the death of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

It’ll be interesting to hear Sen. Obama explain why he thinks there’s any common ground to be found with President Ahmadinejad. Anyone with that hateful an ideology can’t be reasoned with.

Tom Friedman isn’t a partisan Republican by any stretch of the imagination. Here’s what he recently wrote about Sen. Obama on foreign policy: (more…)

I don’t know whether this idea is enough but it’s worth thinking about. Here’s what a commenter said that I think is worth considering:

This is the issue that saves the day for Republicans. The entire Republican Congressional and Senate delegations should assemble on the steps of the Capitol under a banner that reads “Republicans- The Party That Wants To Drill For Oil”. There should be an Energy Contract With America that includes the end to ethanol tariffs, building nuclear power plants, converting coal into gasoline and building new refineries. This will all take time, of course, but we should dump the enviro-nuts and start NOW!

With people extremely upset with high oil prices, people are looking for a comprehensive solution. They know that alternative energy isn’t the only thing that’s needed. They also know that conservation alone isn’t the solution. It’s my strong belief that people understand that we also need to increase our production of domestic oil. The best shortterm solution to energy prices is drilling domestically for oil. It isn’t subject to the production preferences of the Saudis, Venezuelans and Russians. It’s entirely within our control. Powerline has a great post up about the oil executives’ testimony. This should be the wake up call to Republicans. Here’s testimony that will wake people up fast: (more…)

Wednesday, Democrats tried grilling oil executives on the high price of oil. Instead, oil executives turned the heat up on Democrats, with a bit of help from Republican senators like Jeff Sessions and Orrin Hatch. Here’s a noteable quote from John Lowe, executive vice president of ConocoPhillips:

John Lowe, executive vice president of ConocoPhillips, said Congress should enact a balanced energy policy. In addition to lifting the drilling ban, such a policy could include measures to encourage alternative energy sources, remove the ethanol tariff, promote energy conservation, cut regulations around refining.

“We must work together to find a real solution,” said Lowe. “U.S. oil companies should be viewed not as scapegoats, but as assets.”

Peter Robinson, vice chairman of Chevron, had this to say:

“Americans need companies that can effectively compete for access to new resources. Punitive measures that weakened us in the face of international competition are the wrong measures.”

The most devastating testimony, in my opinion, was given by John Hofmeister. Here’s part of what he said: (more…)

Hillary Clinton is keeping open the possibility of taking her fight to the Democratic Convention. Here’s the title for Brendan Farrington’s article:

Clinton may take delegate fight to convention

I’ll bet that that headline is giving Howard Dean and Barack Obama their worst cases of heartburn in years. Here’s the portion of Mr. Harrington’s article that’s giving Mssrs. Dean and Obama their heartburn:

Clinton, too, was in Florida, pressing to narrow her gap with Obama by having delegates counted from its renegade January primary.

Democratic rule-makers meet May 31 to decide whether to count delegates from Florida and Michigan; the states were striped of their delegates as punishment for holding early primaries in violation of party rules. Clinton won both states, but Obama had his name kept off the Michigan ballot and neither candidate campaigned in those states.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Clinton said she is willing to take her fight to seat Florida and Michigan delegates to the convention if the two states want to go that far. Asked whether she would support the states if they appeal an unfavorable rules committee decision to the convention floor, the former first lady replied:

“Yes I will. I will, because I feel very strongly about this.” “I will consult with Floridians and the voters in Michigan because it’s really their voices that are being ignored and their votes that are being discounted, and I’ll support whatever the elected officials and the voters in those two states want to do.”

Taking her battle to the convention would fly in the face of an increasing number of party leaders who say the contest needs to be wrapped up shortly after the last primary on June 3 to prepare adequately for the fall election.

Don’t think that Republicans wouldn’t point out the Democrats’ hypocrisy if Democrats don’t seat Florida’s delegation. Think of how their actions today would contrast with their “Count every vote” mantra of November, 2000. (more…)

Most of Barack Obama’s success in the early primaries is attributable to his selling the notion that he would step beyond the partisan politics practiced by mere mortals. He would be a uniter of all people, causing racism and poverty to disappear. Now that the bloom is off that rose, facts are contradicting that image. The Detroit Free Press is reporting that Sen. Obama met with one of the most anti-semitic Muslim clerics in America during his recent visit to Michigan. Here’s some of the details:

Imam Hassan Qazwini, head of the Islamic Center of America, said in an email that he met with Obama at Macomb Community College. A mosque spokesman, Eide Alawan, confirmed that the meeting took place. During the meeting, the two discussed the Presidential election, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Iraq war, according to Qazwini.

As usual, Debbie Schlussel asked the most important question:

Barack Obama claims he’s against HAMAS and Hezbollah and is offended by President Bush’s speech in Israel about Obama’s ethos of “appeasement.” So why is he meeting with one of Hezbollah’s most important imams and agents in America, Imam Hassan Qazwini? And why is this open anti-Semite and supporter of Israel’s annihilation getting to discuss “the Arab-Israeli conflict” in a private one-on-one meeting with Obama? What was said? I think we can do the math.

This week, Sen. Obama took offense at being called an appeaser, then spent the rest of the week distancing himself from his statement at the YouTube debate. (more…)

Yesterday, Barack Obama had a snit fit over being called an appeaser of terrorists. According to Marc Ambinder’s post, the real target of President Bush’s speech was Jimmy Carter. Here’s what Ed Gillespie told reporters:

“We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words….There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. That was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it.”

Here’s what Dan Froomkin is reporting in today’s Washington Post:

Q. “Ed, can you talk to us a little bit about yesterday’s speech and how much the White House may or may not have anticipated the reaction that ultimately occurred, where people interpreted this as a reference to Barack Obama?” (more…)