Israeli PM Netanyahu came to town yesterday for some good ole fashion diplomacy . He came knowing that the Obots had in mind a non-compromising solution to the ME and the Palestinian question which summed up says that Israel should conceed all points.

Netanyahu stands firm against demands from Obama - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/5346415/Netanyahu-stands-firm-against-demands-from-Obama.html)



The meeting overran to two hours, suggesting that the two sides had struggled to find a way of presenting a unified face to the watching world.



The prime minister dwelt at length on the threat posed to Israel by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
His goal is to persuade the Americans that Tehran must be reined in before peacemaking with the Palestinians can progress.


Netanyahu is willing to go down the road to peace as long as Obama could assure him that the new state next door was not a “terror base next door”... funded by a nuclear homicidal Iran .

Both sides negotiating position before the meeting was outlined in the Christian Science Monitor .

Clearly what Netanyahu wants to know is: What will the US do if diplomacy with Iran fails? And what Obama wants to know is, where is Netanyahu going on the Palestinian issue?" says David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "Each thinks the other is not committed to his priority, but each wants to know that the other at some point can say, 'Yes I can.'"
Ahead of summit, Obama and Netanyahu press different agendas | csmonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0517/p02s01-usfp.html)

That is an important point of contention between the US and Israel.
CIA boss Leon Panetta told the Israeli's that a nuclear Iran was a fait accompli ;that Obama has accepted it ,and Israel should jump aboard that bus too since (get this ) IT IS ISRAEL's FAULT that Iran has been bellicose.


Panetta was reportedly dispatched here to read the government the riot act. Israel, he reportedly told his interlocutors, must not attack Iran without first receiving permission from Washington. Moreover, Israel should keep its mouth shut about attacking Iran. As far as Washington is concerned, Iran's latest threats to destroy Israel were nothing more than payback for statements by Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials regarding Israel's refusal to countenance a nuclear armed Iran.

Caroline Glick: Iran's global reach | Columnists | Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212406822&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull)

Panetta wants in on any Israeli plan to attack Iran's nukes so he can leak the plan and nip it in the bud.



Over the past several weeks, we have learned that the administration has made its peace with Iran's nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy.


In other words the Obama plan is to fold before he even gets to the negotiation table with Iran . That is diplomacy Obama style.

Word to Bibi . Sri Lanka dealt a coup de gras to the Tamil Tigers this week and the world did not get their panties in a knot .Sorry to say it ;you are probably on your own for the next few years.

Obama told Netanyahu that he wanted to the end of the year to negotiate with Iran about the nuclear program . He said he expected international talks with Iran, involving six nations including the United States, to begin after the Iranian elections in June, with the possibility of “direct talks” between the United States and Iran after that.He said that he would “gauge and do a reassessment by the end of the year” on whether the diplomatic approach was producing results.

In other words ;the message to the Iranians is that they have a free ride to continue their program unimpeded until 2010 . Left out of the discussions is the options of actions Obama is leaving on the table for 2010 ,but that is not the point .Leaving options on the table is some how supposed to make the Israeli's feel better about the existential threat.

The problem is that his timeline does not address the reality of the progress the Iranians have made in their nuke program.

Iran has two-thirds of the fissile material it needs to manufacture a nuclear weapon, the Defense Ministry has warned, meaning that at the current pace of uranium enrichment, it will reach the break-out quantity late this year or early next year.
Defense Ministry: Iran could have nuclear bomb by 2010 - Haaretz - Israel News (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085709.html)

Obama's timeline conflicts with the progress that the Iranians are making . By year end an Iranian nuke could be a fait accompli.
The diplomatic process he champions is incremental in approach ;with protracted negotiations and a lengthy process under which the Iranians would rebuff initial demands, the U.S. would have to seek tougher sanctions, then eventually a deal would be possible.
But what good would it serve if Iran already has nukes ?
Does he really think he can prevent Israel from taking independent action given the existential threat that Iranian nukes pose ?

Judging from Leon Panetta's words to Israel I have to assume that Obama knows that what he expects is a charade,and a lame attempt to get Israel to jump onto his Palestinian plan ,while at the same time kicking the Iranian problem down the road . That is Obama's road map.

But what good would it serve if Iran already has nukes ?

None whatsoever.


Does he really think he can prevent Israel from taking independent action given the existential threat that Iranian nukes pose ?

He can't but I think he really does think he can. He's "willing to use his time and his energy to slowly make progress towards a long-term peace in the region" according to Gibbs.

Did you catch that exchange (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-5/18/2009/) between Gibbs and Helen Thomas? Priceless...


Q What is this threat from Iran? Who has --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think if you match the rhetoric of their leadership in wiping Israel off the map --

Q I've seen the rhetoric of United States and Israel, as well, that --

MR. GIBBS: I'm sorry?

Q There's been rhetoric, amazing rhetoric in the last two or three years against Iran.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't think I would match the rhetoric of President Obama with the rhetoric of Iranian leadership in threatening and vowing to seek the capability --

Q (Inaudible) also.

MR. GIBBS: Well, as we've discussed, Helen, I'm the new spokesperson for the incoming administration, or the current administration, not the previous one.

Q There is some history, though, with --

MR. GIBBS: In Israel? Several thousand years, I'm told.

But, look, I think if you match the nuclear weapons capability with the rhetoric of the Iranian government there is certainly cause -- there's always cause to be concerned, that's why --

Q Will you give me a quote from them to say what they're going to blow up and so forth?

MR. GIBBS: I can certainly provide you some quotes after the briefing of what they've vowed to do. We can certainly -- somebody can Google that and we'll send them to you.

I'm not sure which is more disturbing, that Thomas doesn't get the threat from Iran or that the White House has to Google up some answers for her.

She is parroting Panetta's sentiment ;that it is Israel's fault.

Thomas ,as a serious reporter should read up on the beliefs of the Twelvers running Iran.

She also thinks it's our fault. But then she's stuck in that 2002 mentality (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1814659.stm).

Had you heard about Iran's nuclear shopping list (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268823646932231.html) uncovered by Robert Morganthau? His main point? "It's late in the game, and we don't have a lot of time."

So, let's give it time.

she's stuck in that 2002 mentality (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1814659.stm).


Less easy to establish is Washington's assertion that Iran is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, that might threaten the US and its allies.

Lol

Iran's nuclear shopping list (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268823646932231.html) uncovered by Robert Morganthau

And yesterday the Iranians marked the beginning of their election cycle by test launching a missile that has the range necessary to deliver a nuke into Israel.
It is claimed that this launch was a response to Bibi visiting Obama.

Ever wonder why the left is so intent on stopping Jewish settlements (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212425689&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) but want open borders here?

Brilliant point.But their road map is a 1 way street... end the occupation but allow the right of return.

Bill Ayers(who plotted to bomb a crowded dance hall at Fort Dix, New Jersey, in 1970) and his terrorist wife Bernardine Dohrn;(who praised Charles Manson and was jailed for seven months for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury investigating the 1981 Brinks truck robbery that killed two policemen and a guard),have kicked off a book tour of their America and white hating book Race Course Against White Supremacy . Despite the election of their protégé as president, they refute “the recurrent U.S. story … a tale of democracy and freedom, uplift and forward motion, perpetual improvement and never-ending progress.” All progress that has been made they claim has only occurred when it was in whity's self interest to do so.So the election of Obama in no way is indicitive of racial progress according to these two radical nut jobs.

They held an anti-Israel rally in Chicago with Jeremiah Wright ,which served as an unofficial kick off for the tour. To both Ayers and Wright the Israel /Palistinan conflict can be viewed through the same racial lens. Wright compared the Palestinian struggle to the fight against apartheid South Africa.His ego on overdrive,he likened some of the controversies and figures of the anti-apartheid struggle as being "almost as toxic as Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright are in the age of Obama."
To deconstuct their language;they
“demand a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”... which means screw Israel.
This rally was held the day before President Obama met with Israel's prime minister Bibi Netenyahu.
The Chicago Trib. Spun it like this :
They urged a rethinking of the Mideast conflict, a shift in perspective that's not unlike the view espoused by Obama.
I think they are correct.In words and action so far Obama is out to screw Israel.

[/I]All progress that has been made they claim has only occurred when it was in whity's self interest to do so.So the election of Obama in no way is indicitive of racial progress according to these two radical nut jobs.

I would say "you've got to be kidding me" but this does not surprise me.


I think they are correct.In words and action so far Obama is out to screw Israel.

No doubt.

In attempting to follow the twisted logic of this administration in every respect, I am reminded of a saying that was current years ago.

It goes like this:

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance,
Then baffle them with bull----.

Andy Borowitz has hit the nail on the head at Huffpo...


U.S. to Respond to North Korea with 'Strongest Possible Adjectives' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/us-to-respond-to-north-ko_b_207471.html)

One day after North Korea launched a successful test of a nuclear weapon, President Obama said that the United States was prepared to respond to the threat with "the strongest possible adjectives."

In remarks to reporters at the White House, Mr. Obama said that North Korea should fear the "full force and might of the United States' arsenal of adjectives" and called the missile test "reckless, reprehensible, objectionable, senseless, egregious and condemnable."

Standing at the President's side, Vice President Joseph Biden weighed in with some tough adjectives of his own, branding Kim Jong-Il "totally wack and illin'."

Later in the day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the North Korean nuclear test "supercilious and jejune," leading some in diplomatic circles to worry that the U.S. might be running out of appropriate adjectives with which to craft its response.

But President Obama attempted to calm those fears, saying that the United States was prepared to "scour the thesaurus" to come up with additional adjectives and was "prepared to use adverbs" if necessary.

"Let's be clear: we are not taking adverbs off the table," Mr. Obama said. "If the need arises, we will use them forcefully, aggressively, swiftly, overwhelmingly and commandingly."

LOL, even Huffpo gets it right once in a while.