As the democracy movement now known as the Arab Spring hurtled across the Mideast earlier this year, President Barack Obama often tiptoed alongside history. His public statements tended to be cautious, his oratorical flourishes minimal.

Tiptoed? Heck, he was often on a different route.

Now, more than four months after that historic unrest, Obama is planning a sweeping address laying out his vision for America’s role in the region. He will offer support for fledgling democratic movements and demand political freedom in countries where autocrats cling to power. White House aides previewing the speech said Obama also will note Osama bin Laden’s death and his hopes that the Al Qaeda leader’s removal — and the potential for new freedoms across the region — can divert some Muslims from terrorism and usher in a new era of peace and stability.

That should be interesting, considering how many in the Middle East support Osama Bin Laden. And how damned late the speech is. And that it is simply yet another speech with no plan behind it, no actions. Anyhow, the Politico tells us the 5 things we should watch for

1. How many times will Obama reference himself, using the words “I”, “myself,” “me”, and other incarnations?
2. Will he apologize to the Iranians who were part of the uprisings in 2009, who he totally blew off?
3. Will he point out that America is just another nation in the world, nothing special, and that Arab nations can aspire to be just as unexceptional as we are?
4. Will he apologize to the Arab world for America being big meanies for doing things in our national interest?
5. Will he Blame Bush/Republicans?

Oh, sorry, my bad, that’s what I would listen for, were I going to actually listen to TOTUS feed Obama lines, instead of working. Here are Politico’s 5

How far on Syria will Obama go?

The White House on Wednesday announced a new round of sanctions aimed at Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime, but some lawmakers who praised that move are calling for Obama to go even further.

“We also hope the President will use the opportunity of his speech … to talk in detail about the situation in Syria, and make clear that it is time for Assad to go,” Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in a joint statement Wednesday.

Politico says that Obama is unlikely to go that far, because, hey, how’d that work out with Moamar Qaddafi?

How much will he say on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how specific will he be?

Officials in many world capitals will be watching closely to see how much Obama says about the Arab-Israeli conflict — long the linchpin for U.S. policy in the region. U.S. Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell announced his resignation last week, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due at the White House Friday.

The Politico states that Obama will say little on the subject, because it doesn’t really help Obama politically to point out that he supports the violent and Islamist Palestinians.

Will Obama Unveil a Marshall Plan for the Arab world?

Earlier this week, former National Security Adviser and Mideast Envoy Jim Jones promoted the idea of a massive infusion of Western investment in the Mideast and North Africa to ensure that democratic movements in Egypt and elsewhere don’t stumble economically and risk slipping back into military rule or governments led by Islamic radicals.

That could happen, because there’s nothing more that Obama likes than to redistribute other people’s money. Of course, that would have to pass Congress, which will not happen, and neither Reid nor Boehner would appreciate Obama saying “we’re going to do X, you guys put the entire plan together. I’ve spoken.”

Will Obama lay out a uniform doctrine, or improvise?

Depends on what someone else wrote for him, and whether he can figure out a way that this helps Obama in getting re-elected. What Politico is referring to, actually, is the sharp contrast between starting a war in Libya, and blowing off the humanitarian abuses in Syria.

What’s next?

Golf? Another party at the White House? A continued messy situation in the Middle East? An administration that tends to avoid reprimanding Islamists who attack Israeli civilians? More ways to avoid getting involved till it is way, way too late? Isn’t this why Obama picked Biden, because foreign policy was his baliwick?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Candidate Barack Obama had no better buddy on the 2008 primary trail than Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, who was feared — and a little hated — by Hillary Clinton’s campaign for being Obama’s most effective female surrogate.

McCaskill still likes Obama, but like many other former high-profile Obama surrogates from 2008, she’s not expected to reprise her starring proxy role in 2012.

McCaskill has publicly parted ways with Obama on several major issues, including entitlement reform, and needs to tend to her own challenging reelection campaign, made all the tougher by controversy about reimbursements for flights on her family’s private plane.

“We need more defenders,” the ally said. Obama “is spending too much time communicating about himself for himself. … I think we’ve only had a couple of people out there speaking for us over the last two years, and clearly, that has to change.”

Isn’t communicating about himself by himself what Obama loves to do best? Why does he need others to do that….oh, right, sorry, narcissism. Obama wants to also hear others talk about how great he is. But, a good many Democrats, especially those up for re-election come 2012 (and in the previous 2010 midterms) realize that it might not be the best idea to link themselves so close to Obama for a variety of reasons, mostly about the stuttering economy, Obama’s incompetence on it, and his unpopular agenda.

And the role of surrogates in 2012 will be fundamentally different than last time — less about introducing Obama to the public and more about explaining health care reform, the stimulus, two-and-half wars and the flagging economy to anxious voters.

Did they just refer to Libya as half a war? Anyhow, Obama has quite a bit to explain, very little of it good. Expect much nose holding by Obama supporters as the 2012 election gets closer, as they try and explain away what’s happened since January, 2009.

Interesting how The Politico uses a typical shot of Obama looking snooty.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

An Irish Muslim convert was arrested in Dublin Thursday over his reported death threats against President Barack Obama, police said.

Khalid Kelly, a 44-year-old dubbed “Taliban Terry” by Dubliners, was arrested at his Dublin residence on suspicion of threatening to kill the U.S. leader, officers said. He could be held for up to three days before being charged or released.

He is Ireland’s most outspoken supporter of al-Qaida and its slain founder, Osama bin Laden.

The moron actually told The Dublin Times in a recent interview that he wants Obama dead, and that he would “do something” if he could disguise himself. But, then, how much brain power does it take to go from discussing Allah as “the most beneficent most merciful” to killing kids while yelling “Allahu Akbar”?

Speaking of killing, we also have this story about the RoP in Pakistan

A pair of suicide bombers attacked recruits leaving a paramilitary training center in Pakistan on Friday, killing 80 people in a strike that the Pakistani Taliban claimed it carried out to avenge the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The blasts in the northwest were a reminder of the savagery of al-Qaida-linked militants in Pakistan. They occurred even as the country faces international suspicion that elements within its security forces may have been harboring bin Laden, who was killed in a raid in Abbottabad, about a three hours’ drive from the scene of the bombing.

“We have done this to avenge the Abbottabad incident,” Ahsanullah Ahsan, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, told The Associated Press in a phone call.

Interesting that many are saying that the Taliban is no threat, that we should negotiate with these fundamentalist Islamists, who have used violence many times (granted, they aren’t exporting their violence and attacking Americans throughout the Mideast or here in the USA.) Also interesting in that you have Allah on Allah violence, ie, one group of Muslims killing another group of Muslims because another Muslim* Obama ordered the killing of Osama Bin Crab Food.

The Pakistani Taliban, close allies of al-Qaida, are fighting to bring down the nuclear-armed state and impose their vision of Islamist rule. They launched their war in earnest in 2007, after security forces cleared militant gunmen from a radical mosque in the capital, killing about 100 people.

So, which are they? Meaningless in terms of the War On Terror, meaning we should now leave Afghanistan and let them run wild, or partners with AQ, a violent international Islamist terrorist organization?

*that was simply a joke, don’t freak

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

What went on in those discussions and who was arguing against action? We may never know for certain but a “White House insider” says that Obama was so indecisive that the order to act was eventually given by CIA director Panetta without Obama’s prior knowledge. Obama was brought in only after the operation was underway. I reproduce below the opening paragraphs of the story concerned. They are in the form of an interview with the “source” — JR

Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?

A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position.

This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

More HERE

It rings true to me. Note that in the famous picture from the operations room, Obama looks very much an outsider — JR

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

That’s a slight exaggeration, but Obama actually did say that with a health care mandate, he COULD force everyone to buy a house. In an interview with Ellen Degeneres, the man then seeking to be president talked about Hillary Clinton’s failed mandate to buy health care during the Clinton administration – and he said that having such a mandate means he as president could force everyone to buy a house to solve the problem of the homeless. Here’s the conversation:

“Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it,” Obama said in a Feb. 28, 2008 appearance on Ellen DeGeneres’ television show.

“So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.”

This is what conservatives have been saying since the health care debates began. If we can be mandated to buy health care for the public good, then we can be mandated to buy a Government Motors car to help GM pay back their loan to the taxpayers. We are in very dangerous territory, and Judge Vinson spoke to that when the ruled that all of ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Read the full story at CNSNews.

Judge Vinson mentioned the Obama-Degeneres interview when he announced his ruling and he also said this, which is priceless:

“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.” ~ Judge Roger Vinson

Ellen Degeneres Asks Obama About Health Care Mandates (video)

Barack Obama - Sarah Palin

A few of the contrasts:

~ Obama presents as a victim, Palin a victor
~ Palin is gracious, Obama is a churl
~ Obama has campaigning ability, Palin has executive ability
~ Palin is spotless, Obama is corrupt
~ Palin loves America, Obama apologizes for America
~ Palin is polarizing, Obama is radioactive
~ Palin’s world view is Christian; Obama’s is Marxist

Read the commentary at Pajamas Media

Posted by Maggie@MaggiesNotebook

New information has surfaced confirming what all conservatives knew back in 2008 but could not prove. Today we know a large group of so-called  ”journalists,” elitist academia and activists conspired to buffer the blow-back from Jeremiah Wright’s vile and outrageous statements. The mission was to protect Obama, a member of Wright’s church for over 20 years. The plan was to charge anyone on the right, and especially high profile persons like Karl Rove, with charges of racism.

These freakin liberals were communicating back and forth about how to keep Wright respectable, no matter what he said by attacking conservatives. The conversation ranged form burying the story to an all-out defense. See a video below.

From The Daily Caller, more at The Lonely Conservative.

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”

Katha Politt at the Nation believed burying the story was not the right thing to do but is quoted saying:

I hear you, but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita…”

The controversy raged within this group which released a statement on April 18th 2008 saying the attacks against Wright and Obama was:

“a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.”

We knew the media was hiding, and maliciously and falsely debunking the story about Obama and Jeremiah Wright, but we couldn’t prove it. Today, for posterity – assuming this report is true, the cover-up is documented. Now we know how they shutdown the Obama-Bill Ayers -Weatherman relationship.

Jeremiah Wrights Controversial Statements (video)

Jeremiah Wright Background:

Jeremiah Wright’s Peaceful Ministry

Jeremiah Wright on Martin Luther King’s call for Non-Violence – Not Wright’s Cup of Tea

Jeremiah Wright Accepts ONLY a God of White Destruction

Jeremiah Wright Publishes CAIR Founder’s Manifesto

Transcription of “Hamas’ stand” on Jeremiah Wright’s “Pastor’s Page”

Jeremiah Wright Connects with the Hamas Charter

The following are snippets of Obama’s statement on the resignation of General Stanley McChrystal. The POTUS teleprompter went well until he decided he would not miss this opportunity to humiliate the General:

Today I accepted General Stanley McChrystal’s resignation as commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. I did so with considerable regret, but also with certainty that it is the right thing for our mission in Afghanistan, for our military, and for our country.

I’m also pleased to nominate General David Petraeus to take command in Afghanistan, which will allow us to maintain the momentum and leadership that we need to succeed.

I don’t make this decision based on any difference in policy with General McChrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy. Nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult. Stan McChrystal has always shown great courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully. I’ve got great admiration for him and for his long record of service in uniform.

Over the last nine years, with America fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has earned a reputation as one of our nation’s finest soldiers. That reputation is founded upon his extraordinary dedication, his deep intelligence and his love of country.

I’ve relied on his service, particularly in helping to design and lead our new strategy in Afghanistan.

So all Americans should be grateful for General McChrystal’s remarkable career in uniform.

But war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or a president. And as difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe that it is the right decision for our national security.

Praise for the General and then wield the petty presidential saber quickly. Obama had to attempt to humilitate:

The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general.

It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that’s necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan….

I’ve just told my national security team that now is the time for all of us to come together. Doing so is not an option but an obligation. I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division…

How many times have we heard our monarchial president use the word “tolerate?” Here are a few:

1) About the Bush policy on perceived “torture.” The U.S. will not tolerate torture…

2) Setting Executive Pay Limits: For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis isn’t just bad taste — it’s a bad strategy — and I will not tolerate it.

3) About the Christmas Day Underpant Bomber, Obama said: While there will be a tendency for finger pointing, I will not tolerate it.

4) Connecting the dots on the Christmas Day bomber: Intelligence failing to connect the dots, Obama called it unacceptable: I will not tolerate it.

5) About Israel: We must never tolerate the hateful stereotypes and prejudice against the Jewish people… (…but in fact we know, that he simply cannot tolerate Israel).

6) About the BP oil spill, speaking about BP and Transocean – the “ridiculous spectacle” of the two companies blaming each other, and their cozy relationship: “I will not tolerate more finger pointing or irresponsibility

Obama went on to talk about his unwavering support for our Military and announced the nomination of General David Petraeus for Commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

Read the entire article here.

Do you remember Daniel Hannan, a British MEP who grabbed the attention of America with his fiscal acuity, and dynamic, but plain spoken rout of then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown? He stood in front of Brown and explained why he was now “the devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government.”

That was March 2009. At the time, asked do we have a “Daniel Hannan” in our Congress? Where are our Defending Fathers?”

Hannan doesn’t like Obama’s foreign policy. He didn’t like the offensive gifts to Queen Elizabeth or returning the historic bust of Winston Churchill on the second day Barack took office, but those were “minor irritants,” he says. He didn’t mention Michelle’s inappropriate cardigan at Buckingham Palace, or her shocking (to Queen Elizabeth) hug of the reigning Royal.

No, he is troubled about the dangerous foreign policy, unknown in any other modern day American administration:

…the Obama administration is backing Peronist Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands, or as Obama’s people call them, “the Malvinas.” British troops were the only sizable contingent to support the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have fought alongside America in most of the conflicts of the past hundred years. Yet when the chips are down, Obama lines up with Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega against us.

It has alienated Israel and India. It has even managed to fall out with Canada over its “Buy American” rules and its decision to drill in disputed Arctic waters. Never has there been a worse time to be a US ally.

No one denies that Obama was dealt a rotten economic hand; but he has played it ineptly. His policies are serving to make his country poorer, and less free and less respected. And that is a problem for all of us.

Well, yes, Mr. Hannan – he had no foreign policy experience. Running the streets of Chicago is a bit different than running the U.S. We conservatives knew it. We thought you were of similar mind.

Hot Air pointed out that Hannan feels good about Obama’s commitment to school choice. I said “What?” Hot Air said,” huh?” Now that’s a stunner. Hannan didn’t pay attention in 2008, and isn’t paying attention now unless it affects his own country:

In February 2009, one month after infiltrating the Oval Office, the Wall Street Journal muses:

So we’ll be curious to see how he handles the dismaying attempt by Democrats in Congress to crush education choice for 1,700 poor kids in the District of Columbia.

He [Obama] said he was astonished to learn that a voucher program in Milwaukee had never been tested in a longitudinal study to find out whether it had helped children or not. “If there was any argument for vouchers it was, all right, let’s see if this experiment works, and then if it does, whatever my preconceptions, my attitude is you do what works for the kids,” Mr. Obama said.

Well, well, well. HillBuzz was visited in Chicago by a US journalist wanting information about Man’s Country in Andersonville, Illinois. This article states that Barack Obama was a frequent visitor until 2002 and Rahm Emanuel until 2008, according to their sources.

HillBuzz tagged this article “bath houses.”

HillBuzz tagged this article “bath houses.” A quick check on the Internet and what I find about Chicago’s Man’s Country is fairly disgusting. Read the reviews here, especially the one by Alberto M. who says Man’s Country is “a gay Chicago icon…,” but complains that there is always the chance of getting “cooties” in Man’s Country.

Now, the article goes on to question the rags so busily working to tie Obama to an affair with Vera Baker, and the writer says something is fishy, and doesn’t hesitate to explain. The side story is about Kal Penn, the actor who left House to serve the President. He also plays Kumar in the Harold and Kumar movies. In the White House, Penn goes by his real name, Kalpen Modi.

Why the sudden need to portray this current president as an insatiably heterosexual stud who just can’t get enough women?

Baker’s a diversionary tactic…designed to cover SOMETHING up…and we think that something is an affair Obama had with Kal Penn, which seems to have ended badly.  We also think Penn was mugged not by a street thug in Dupont Circle, but by someone working for either the DNC or Organizing for America (or any number of its umbrella thugs), because Penn’s phone had something in it that would prove some kind of romantic relationship between the president and a Hollywood actor with zero government experience who was plucked off a TV show unceremoniously and lifted into a high profile made-up position in the White House…so he could be close to Obama in Washington, where Obama wanted him.  Wanted in more than one sense.

Until he didn’t want him anymore.

And then someone needed to take his cell phone away, so that any pictures, texts, voicemails, or other interesting itts and bitts could be secured by those wishing to protect the current president.

Here’s a link to Penn/Modi’s mugging.

You know, this is an astounding and gutsy story, whether true or false. HillBuzz has stepped “out there.”  It is obvious they have had some background on the story. Maybe they have blogged about this in the past, but the blog title is Someone in the national media is FINALLY interested in Man’s Country in Andersonville.

My disclaimer: I’m printing this because the report comes from Chicago. I don’t know if it’s true, but unless the writer is lying about the national media coming specifically for info about Man’s Country, it deserves to be known, and besides, HillBuzz is a reputable blog. I got to the HillBuzz story via Logistics Monster who indicates that many have known about this since 2007, so….

Read it all at HillBuzz