Jan 27 2009
What Price Peace Mr President?
Obama took and interesting, if impotent, move today by making his first press interview directed towards the Muslim World:
President Obama expressed optimism yesterday about the prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but he said a peace accord will take time and require new thinking about the problems of the Middle East as a whole.
…
“All too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues — and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved,” Obama told al-Arabiya. “So let’s listen.
…
But in tone, his comments were a stark departure from those of former president George W. Bush, who often described the Middle East conflict in terms that drew criticism from Palestinians.
By contrast, Obama went out of his way to say that if America is “ready to initiate a new partnership [with the Muslim world] based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.”
Emphasis mine. America has always been ready to partner with the Muslim world and has done so for decades. Our allies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Kuwait (to name a few) know this. Our new allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan know this. It has nothing to do with America. We are not the ones crying death to America, death to Israel. We do not use suicide bombers to wipe out markets, restaurants and schools. We do not attack ’soft targets’.
We have spent our precious blood in Iraq and Afghanistan. What else do we have to give to send ‘a signal’ we are ready? President Bush ‘changed’ America. Instead of being seen as a clueless, weak and self absorbed target the world knows we can be a strong ally or deadly enemy. It is THEIR choice which side of America they want to deal with.
When Palestinians and other Islamo Fascists stop raising their children to be gruesome weapons, then maybe the other side will be ready to partner in common cause?
Are the liberals and Obama truly this naive? Its like watching 3 year olds playing with a scalpel.
43 Responses to “What Price Peace Mr President?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Yes, please – let us criticize the President of the United States for wanting peace in the Middle East. Obviously, someone who has Muslim relatives and has lived in Muslim countries is oh so naive about how the Muslim world is, and could not possibly compare to the wisdom and experience of George W. “Bring ‘em on” Bush on such subjects. The vast amounts of diplomacy we have engaged in with Iran, the major player in the area, over the past 8 years proves this point forcefully, doesn’t it?
You pick strange fights, AJ.
Yes, please – let us criticize the President of the United States for wanting peace in the Middle East.
If this interview is any clue, he wants it the way a child wants a pony for Christmas.
Obviously, someone who has Muslim relatives and has lived in Muslim countries is oh so naive about how the Muslim world is
As far as I know, he has had very little contact with those relatives, and he lived in the upper classes of those countries well before his majority.
Guy, did you ever wonder why the Founding Fathers set the minimum age for the Presidency at 35 years old? In those days, a 35-year-old man had about 20 years (if not more) of adult experience. (Incidentally, that also meant that a 21-year-old male had about six years of adulthood behind him when he first cast his ballot).
In our oh-so-modern-and-enlightened times, we give the franchise to teenagers (literally) while simultaneously extending “adolescence” into the mid-twenties. All I can say is “Thank God the youth rarely votes.” Well, except to say “Oh, Hell!” when they actually do.
We need to up the minimum ages for Congress, the Senate, and the Executive appropriately.
Was Obama alive on September 11, 2001, does he remember that Yassis Arafat ruled the Palestinian Territories? I read the transcript and heard part of the interview on CNN. I was appalled at his lack of graciousness for the work that has been done these last 8 years. That he is now sitting in that chair because of the hard work done. The problem is he will throw under the bus, the country, President Bush, Wright, his mother, and any one else that might tarnish his superior image. The lesson from Wright was not who Wright was, but how Obama operates. Bush has said many of the same things, we are not in a fight with Muslims, but only those who would kill innocents, we respect the Iranian people, not their leaders. But when Obama says the same thing it is oh so precious!
Obama is the one who doesn’t listen. We are constantly monitoring the media in those countries.
Obama is even telling people they shouldn’t listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Obama should listen and read what the Arabas write and teach people about Jews in those countries. They sound exactly like NAZIS.
I have been reading a series of articles by Jack Cashill. He has made a good case that Bill Ayers had a hand in Obama’s autobiography Dreams from My Father. I have looked into this and think he is right.
I have posted about this on my site, but here is a list of Dr. Cashill’s articles.
http://www.cashill.com/articles_all/recent.htm
There are many similar incidents in Ayers’ book Fugitive Days and Obama’s book Dreams from My Father. The word choices are very similar, too.
Ayers is now in a position to manipulate Obama with this secret.
Now Ayers is going to Boulder, Colorado to support Ward Churchill who is taking CU to court for “violating his free speech.” Actually, Churchill violated the professional research standards of his university when he mischaracterized what other scholars said. His footnoted sources don’t say what he claims they say, for example.
Obama has not denied that Ayers had a hand in his autobiography. Ayers didn’t deny it, either. He just claimed that Cashill (whom he did not name) was paranoid.
Obama wants peace the same way Neville Chamberlain desired peace – at any cost.
As Winston Churchill famously said, “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You have chosen dishonor, and you will have war.”
It is cold comfort knowing that this administration is going to crash and burn even more dramatically than the last one. Sad because this time the country will not recover.
Snapple:
Well, that certainly is interesting, and very conducive to solving the problems of this country.
Did you also know that Obama is the love child of Malcolm X? There’s just so much information out on the Internets, it’s tough to keep up.
He sounds like Jimmy Carter. And Guy, Bush and his Secretary of State Condi Rice have taken a lot of flak from some on the right for pursuing a two state policy in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The idea that Bush does not want peace in the Middle East is absurd.
I don’t think Obama is even serious about this. He is just wanting to sit himself aside from Bush in some ways, so he tries sucking up to the Arabs. Meanwhile he continues to allow drones to attack targets in Pakistan and he talks about sending more American soldiers to the region.
I also remember Obama being critical of Bush for being too friendly with the Saudis, now here he is talking about extending hands.
In truth, every president for as long as I can remember has tried to bring peace to this region and sometimes I wonder if that in and of itself has not complicated the issues.
[...] Jay Strata: Are the liberals and Obama truly this naive? Its like watching 3 year olds playing with a scalpel. [...]
“All too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues —
Isn’t Obama implying here that the US is both the problem and the solution to the Israel-Palestine dilemma? I have this feeling that there is more America bashing and blaming to come from this administration. It’s endemic in liberal thought to blame America for every ill, and simply emboldens our enemies and makes us less safe, IMHO.
Terrye:
“I don’t think Obama is even serious about this. He is just wanting to sit himself aside from Bush in some ways, so he tries sucking up to the Arabs. Meanwhile he continues to allow drones to attack targets in Pakistan and he talks about sending more American soldiers to the region.”
So, let me make sure I understand you – you think that cotinuing the war against Al Qaeda (which Obama has always stated he was going to do), while extending an olive branch to the reasonable Muslim world (which Obama has always stated he was going to do), sends a contradictory message?
Why is that? Do you think all Muslims love Al Qaeda?
gwood:
You’re right – the way to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world is definitely to insist that America is always right, has never made a mistake in its entire history, and that the other guy is always to blame for everything. That will go over great.
Why is it that none of you can consider that there is actually a whole lot of middle ground between “America is always right” and “Blame America for everything”? While you insist that all liberals believe the latter (despite all evidence to the contrary), you never consider that you do actually believe the former.
Yes, please – let us criticize the President of the United States for wanting peace in the Middle East.
You sure didn’t seem to have any problem criticizing Pres Bush for wanting peace in the middle East.
Did you also know that Obama is the love child of Malcolm X
Hey thanks for that info. You libs can come up with anything to make your guy look good.
Why is it that none of you can consider that there is actually a whole lot of middle ground between “America is always right” and “Blame America for everything”?
Because some of us have gotten out of the 3rd grade and know what is in the ‘real’ world. “Blame America First” seems to be Obama’s motto, and the Libs. Tell us when America was wrong? was it when we declared war on Japan and Germany in WWII? Was it when we defended S Korea after they were attacked by N. Korea? Was it when we drove Iraq out of Kuwait after they were attacked? Was it when we dismantled Iraq after XX no. of resolutions by the UN(that had no meaning), or was it when we took the war to terrorists after 9/11? Oh, maybe it was while we are spending billions to eradicate diseases in Africa. Tell us when we were wrong.
ever hear the saying Guy, better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are stupid than to open it and remove all doubt? you really should keep your mouth shut. You’ve already removed all doubt.
GuyF, did you do your homework last night on percentages?
I don’t have a problem with Obama listening (just like all our Presidents have listened). I’m more worried about his actions and the words that come out of his mouth. Will he elevate Ahmadinejad? Hamas? Will he be biased against Israel (like Rev Wright preached to him for 20 years)?
There has been a true change in the way the wind is blowing in the Middle East (thanks to Bush). Europe is finally coming around. They now openly put the fault on Hamas. They are about at the point to start refusing continual reconstruction aid for Gaza (who’s infrastucture destruction is now blamed on Hamas). The Palastinians are starting to blame Hamas for their state of affairs and continual war. Muslims around the world are rejecting Bin Landen and his ideology instead of wanting to elect him President of their country.
I hope Obama doesn’t blow it. Al Qaeda has already started it’s Obama propoganda. I hope he doesn’t feed it.
No Guy, I think the fact that Obama seems to think that we have not already been fighting AlQaida while extending an olive branch to peace loving Muslims is in and of itself a lie.
And btw, exactly what mistake is it that the US has made? The one where we look the other way and let dictators like Saddam slaughter their own people…or the one where we demand they live up to their own word and deal with them if they do not?
In a debate I heard Obama say we should have left Saddam in power because he was a mortal enemy of Iran and we could play them off against each other. Does that sound to you like he was extending a hand of friendship to the region?
Never mind the fact that Saddam killed more Muslims than the Crusaders, or for that matter never mind the fact that if he was indeed a mortal enemy of Iran it is very unlikely those Iranians would ever have considered giving up a nuke program so long as Saddam was in power.
Obama is just mouthing platitudes here.
Terrye:
“And btw, exactly what mistake is it that the US has made?”
Abu Ghraib.
GITMO.
“We will be greeted as liberators.”
“We know where the weapons of mass destruction are.”
“Mission Accomplished.”
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
“It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
And that’s just concerning Iraq.
How about our treatment of Native Americans? How long did it take for women to get the right to vote?
And please – do try and defend slavery and segregation.
The United States is the greatest country in the world, but it does have flaws. Pretending otherwise isn’t patriotism – it’s extreme nationalism.
(And yes, please have fun using this comment as proof that I “hate the US” – despite the fact that I just called it the greatest country in the world. I know you all can’t resist the knee-jerk reaction to distort anything other than “USA #1!!”)
I thought the Anchoress did a good post on this today, this is an excerpt:
Lots of people writing about Obama’s interview with al-Arabiya. Some are angry that he gave his first presidential interview to a news agency outside of the US. I don’t care much about that – the man’s entitled to speak to whomever he wants – but some of Obama’s answers seem to me just a bit disoriented or perhaps I should say purposely disorienting.
Obama does not come out and say it, he merely agrees with the dishonest framing by his interviewer – video and partial transcript here:
AL ARABIYA: And in the last – since 9/11 and because of Iraq, that alienation is wider between the Americans and — and in generations past, the United States was held high. It was the only Western power with no colonial legacy.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Right. (emphasis mine)
Not right, sir. Not right. If I may be permitted to refresh your memory, there is a rather large body of evidence suggesting that this is no recent “alienation”.
Or maybe the 1990’s really were a “vacation from history” – and parts of the 80’s and 70’s too.
So, the American President went on Arab television and told the Arab world and the rest of the world that, “right,” it was the Iraq war that started all the problems.
Yes, it’s disorienting. Also patently untrue.
Ultimately the whole interview is troubling. Obama seems to assert that “as recently as 20 or 30 years ago” relations between the US and the Arab world were good, and to conveniently forget the hostage-taking of 1975 or the bombings of the ’80’s – including the killing of US Marines.
And, yes, the attacks that averaged one every 18 months or so from 1992 through 2000, and focused on American interests and embassies and ummm…US Naval Vessels…they don’t seem to have happened in President Obama’s world. In his world, things were just fine until his predecessor invaded Iraq for no good reason, but because he just happened to be in the mood to invade Iraq after the Clinton Administration and every credible intelligence agency in the world, members of our own Senate Intelligence Committee and our own former Secretary of State and Former First Lady all agreed that Iraq was holding WMD, and 3,000 Americans had just died in a multi-targeted attack carried out on her soil.
And now, during this be-sotted global honeymoon, Obama is the insecure bridegroom all-too-willing to agree, in this interview, that he’s making love to a virgin.
Americans have forgotten a great deal. They have forgotten that in addition to hitting the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there were people actively trying to fly a plane either into the Capitol Building or the White House, until they were taken down. They forget that on that particular day, September 11, 2001, Laura Bush, Ted Kennedy and numerous other education-focused lawmakers were gathering in the Capital for hearings on Early Childhood Education and that had the terrorists succeeded, an impressive portion of our leadership would have perished in a truly bi-partisan manner.
Guy:
Abu Ghraib? Are you serious? The United States military punished those people. In WW2 when American soldiers shot German POWs or Japanese POWs a good deal less was said or done about it. At Abu Ghraib, no one died. The idea that the entire country of the US or our entire government has to be held responsible for the actions of a few people who have already been tried for their crimes is ridiculous.
If GITMO was a mistake, where are the dead bodies of Americans to prove it? The idea behind GITMO was to protect the United States and its citizens while giving humane treatment to detainees. But you are a leftie, so while you are just fine with some terrorist blowing up a market place…you simply can not abide the idea of said terrorist being held against his will. You offer no viable alternative beyond butt kissing the enemy.
As for being welcomed like liberators, a lot of our soldiers were welcomed. They would have been welcomed even more if they had gone in back in the 90’s before Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in a failed uprising.
And are we honestly going to talk about natives?? I am part Indian myself you idiot. Cherokee, as a matter of fact. I even had ancestors who walked the Trail of Tears.
Sheesh. BTW, A lot of Arabs sold and bought slaves and the Spanish killed more natives than the American settlers ever laid eyes on.
So go lecture them.
Web Reconnaissance for 01/27/2009…
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….
Cobalt S……………I decided some time ago that a test should be required for the vote. Forget age, just name the President, VP, 2 Cabinet members and 2 Senators. They do not even have to be your own. That ought to fix that problem.
I agree kathie. The man does not have a gracious bone in his body and class will tell. Bush is class.
I think we should give Guy that test if he lists Gitmo and Abu Ghraib as mistakes. Now that I think of it, let me give Sen Susan Collins a test on Katrina. Oh well.
BTW, my period of giving him a chance is long gone. I do not like our new President. He appears to want to sign suicide pacts. He is trying to unseat Jimmy Carter and become king of the Blame America Club. He’s gonna be an expensive little bird flipper. I’m almost certain he gave it to Bush (in front of Laura) on the big day and we just didn’t catch it.
Where are you MSM? Hello. Do you feel safer yet?
AJ,
Good post.
Of course America has always been ready to “partner in peace.” To imply otherwise is to lie and pander to the Islamists.
It is really tough to “partner” with those that want Israel gone and who deny its very legitimacy. Bush is pilloried for his honesty in the so called “Arab/Israeli” dispute and the ignorati praise Obama for “bold new steps.”
It will be expensive for this administration to relearn the old lessons.
Well said Terrye.
Just read that Susan Rice said from her perch at the UN that we would be happy to have direct talks with Iran if they renounce building nuclear weapons. Was that insightful or what? Now that is change even I can believe in. Wait a little minute, isn’t that what Bush said. I tell you these guys must have started reading the newspapers last week!
Terrye:
“But you are a leftie, so while you are just fine with some terrorist blowing up a market place”
I’ve been hesitant to share what I’m about to write, because I always thought that it would feel like a cheap ploy. I felt I could make whatever points I wanted to without it easily enough. And besides, none of you know me – this is completely anonymous. However, reading what you wrote above has kind of forced my hand.
I lost a family member in the attacks on 9/11.
So, I’d like to ask you a serious question, Terrye:
What the fuck is wrong with you?
We disagree on some basic political concepts – and that means that I love terrorists? I have no problem with people dying in a marketplace? What kind of fucking defect do you have in your brain that lets you think that? What is with this need to demonize anyone who disagrees with you?
Do you really believe what you wrote above?
Because if you do, you are a sick, hateful person, and I pity you.
GuyF
I’ve been hesitant to share what I’m about to write, because I always thought that it would feel like a cheap ploy. I felt I could make whatever points I wanted to without it easily enough.
give us a break. so you admit you’ve been making stupids arguments that can’t win on their own so you now want to win by playing the sympathy card.
Why are you so desperate to defend terrorists that didn’t allow the victims of 9/11 to defend themselves. You’ll get no sympathy from me as long as you are supporting the people that support the rights of the terrorists over the rights of their victims and/or potential victims. Go cry somewhere else with your liberal buddies.
She’s baaaaaaack:
Helen Thomas: ‘Why is Obama Sending More Troops to Afghanistan to Kill People?’
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2009/1/27/helen-thomas-why-is-obama-sending-more-troops-to-afghanistan.html
Terrye, Anchoress’ analysis was good. But, I thought Ed Morrissey’s was one of the best:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/27/the-obama-al-arabiya-interview/
And, speaking of Al Arabiya and Obama’s decision to do an interview with them….
I wonder why he didn’t ask how it came to be that their Al Arabiya studio in Gaza was used by Hamas to launch rockets?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32495_Video-_Al_Arabiya_Studio_Used_As_Rocket_Launching_Site
I found this at HOT AIR, really like the idea.
Gary Schaub: Why the military will be America’s chief diplomatic tool for years to come
This is not going to be a downturn the government can “fix” by simply injecting some liquidity into the markets. There has been a fundamental change in what was generating economic growth, not simply a temporary reduction in the cash flowing into it. You have to understand how the basic nature of things has changed over the past two years in order to see how ridiculous the government’s reaction is.
Consider that over about the past 10 to 15 years housing values in the faster growing areas of the country were rising at a dramatic rate. In addition to having to house the parents of the boomers, the boomers, their children and their grandchildren; certain areas of the country (mainly the South and West) were experiencing a migration of people from other areas (mostly North and East).
On top of this, we had Congress using taxpayer guaranteed mortgages as a massive welfare program. People of marginal ability to pay were encouraged to obtain loans they could barely pay for with very risky loan schemes such as very low initial rate, short term, adjustable rate mortgages as well as interest only mortgages and even “reverse amortization” where one did not even pay all the interest due each month and the difference was added to the loan balance so the balance GREW each month rather than being paid down.
The logic of all of this was that with record low interest rates combined with record rates of value appreciation would make it likely that the consumer would qualify for a better mortgage as equity would build through appreciation. The bet was even with the “reverse amortization” loans, appreciation would outpace loan balance growth and the borrower would still build enough equity to qualify for better terms on a refinance at some time in the future. All that is fine as long as both of the following conditions remain true: interest rates never go up while people are in the initial mortgage and are able to refinance to a more conventional “fixed” rate before interest rates rise, or, appreciation continues at the same pace.
The result of all of this was that people’s houses in some areas of the country were basically like an oil well spewing cash. In California, people would refinance every couple of years and pull all that equity out or take it in a “home equity line of credit”. This allowed people to buy things such as home improvements, second homes, cars, vacations, boats, wardrobes, heck, some people were basically living off of home equity for the past few years. All that money was trickling into the local economy keeping roofers, painters, landscapers, cabinet makers, carpeting stores, appliance stores, home entertainment stores, etc. operating at full throttle.
The problem came when it was time for interest rates to go up. THAT was the initial domino that set the entire string falling. And the entire thing was made much worse and the downturn amplified by the Sarbanes/Oxley accounting requirements that tends to dampen good news (potential asset value) and amplify bad news (potential liability) in order to protect investors from another Enron.
In the meantime the banks were doing well as the properties on which the mortgages were written appreciated in value. As each month went by, the properties increased in value which decreased the “risk” of the underlying loan and that allowed the banks to hold less in “reserve” and lend it out. This was often lent out in new mortgages, often to marginal buyers but it was also lent out for all sorts of other loans to business and commerce to keep the wheels of the economy turning. The banks also bundled these up and sold them, sometimes at a premium because the “exposure” on these loans was getting less each month as they appreciated. It was like holding $10 worth of risk on a $20 bill that was going to be a $50 bill soon.
Then the Fed finally increased interest rates. That did not impact people who had fixed interest rate mortgages but for some people with a marginal ability to pay their current mortgages who had adjustable rates, it was a disaster. At first they got behind on their mortgages and finally the first wave of foreclosures happened. That’s when Sarbanes/Oxley kicked in and amplified the problem. Sarbanes/Oxley’s “mark to market” requirement meant that when those foreclosures hit the market and sold at very low prices that depressed the market, ALL mortgages in that market had to have their underlying values marked down, even mortgages being paid at fixed rates by people who had no trouble making the payments. This means the amount of “risk” went up. This meant the banks had to decrease what they could lend out because the mortgages were not such a good asset any longer.
The second shoe was that when home equity stopped rising, so did the cash spewing from these properties. People could not refinance and pull out more equity. Home equity lines of credit began to approach zero. People began to put off putting on buying a new roof or a second story or an addition, or new siding or a new car or a second vacation home.
At the same time when local property values went under what was owed on the mortgages, those mortgages became a liability to the banks rather than an asset. The bank was now on the hook for $10 for a $5 bill. As long as the buyer kept paying, it would be no problem but now the risk was enormous and the lenders had no underlying “assets” from which they could lend money. This means businesses can’t get bridge loans, importers can’t get letters of credit, everything stops. Even if a lender had 100 mortgages and they were all “fixed rate” and none of the owners had trouble making the payments, Sarbanes/Oxley requires the lender to mark the value of the property to the current market (rather than a moving average of the market over time or some offset based on the “quality” of the loan such as income of the borrower and the amount of the payment and the credit history of the borrower). This means that even “good” mortgages became “junk” according to the accounting rules.
Now, government pumping money into the lenders so they can build up their reserves to cover the liability and lend money again is a good thing but it doesn’t fix the underlying problem. Once that is done, people *still* don’t have any equity in their homes so they *still* aren’t going to hire a local contractor for improvements.
Once the lenders are stabilized, the only thing the government can do is find something that somehow stimulates the entire economy and gives real value to people that they can then use to finance growth by increasing the demand for things that produce jobs.
People are NOT going to be able to sit on their rear ends again while the house stuffs cash into their pockets. Consumers (and lenders) are going to need to return to first principles and invest wisely, study risk, and lower their expectations. The appreciation in home values over the past decade or so was a fluke. It is NOT going to return no matter what the government does. It was a bubble that has burst. People need to go back to a more old-fashioned method of growing wealth that doesn’t rake in $100,000 a year. Nothing the government does is going to return us to those days.
The only thing the government can really do at this point is raze foreclosed homes over 10 or 20 years old and put them on the market as building lots. A home much over 20 years old reduces the value of the lot anyway. That would reduce the inventory of homes on the market and stop the bleeding.
Otherwise, this is just a political party using a “crisis” as a money grab to shovel cash to their cronies. It is despicable and they need to come clean with the people. The “good old days” of the last 10 years is not coming back. At least probably not in the lifetime of the people reading this.
And as usual Obama has put the cart before the horse. What programs is he going to cut back to help with the deficit? How much more do the banks need? The only way to create jobs for real and the beginning of growth is to reduce spending, cut taxes, especially small business and corporate, and the bottom 2 groups too. Every body feeds to freeze growth, but do to ideology none of it will happen. What boggles the mind is that they say Bush’s tax policy got us into this mess, do they remember the tax cuts after 911?
Mr. obama is naive, indeed. Grandiose is more like it….
Apparently he has a Savior /Rescuer complex as in he can fix anything if he just sets his mind to it…and his mouth.
N.o.t.
G-d bless America, the Beautiful…regardless of what obama says!
GuyF mocked Dr. Cashill’s thesis that Bill Ayers had a hand in Obama’s autobiography within minutes of my post.
I have closely studied Ayers’ and Obama’s books and have found many similarities.
There are similar incidents and similar language.
Obama taped an interview with Arab TV on Monday and said Americans don’t listen.
Maybe Obama should listen to what Iran said on Tuesday:
Iran’s government spokesman on Tuesday branded the Holocaust a “big lie” created to place the Islamic republic’s arch-foe Israel in the Middle East, the state IRNA news agency reported.
“The Holocaust is a concept coming from a big lie in order to settle a rootless regime in the heart of the Islamic world,” Gholam Hossein Elham told a conference on Gaza in central Iran’s religious city of Qom.
Guy:
My niece was in Manhattan on that day and it was two almost two days before I knew if she was dead or alive. And it was not Bush flying those planes. It was radical Islamists and if you can not even bring yourself to say that without feeling the need to apologize for it then I pity you.
And I have had two family members serve in Iraq. I have listened to crap from the anti war people about how our soldiers conduct themselves while I watch relatives pray for the safe return of their loved ones.
So do not lecture me.
Meanwhile Obama is talking about abandoning the people of eastern Europe to make the Russians happy. He may kill the defense shield treaties. No wonder Obama did not want to pick sides when the Russians invaded Georgia…he really does not have a side. His idea of avoiding a missile attack is not technology, it is butt kissing the people who might want to use the missiles on us.
And Guy, I am not a sick hateful person. I do not go on liberal sites and pick fights with people and then whine that they are picking on me, or that there is something wrong with them. Talk about demonizing people, read what you yourself write about how our military treats the detainees at Gitmo.
Ashley Judd just said that it is nice to be living in America again, now that her guy won of course. That is the attitude that conservatives have been listening to for years.
Snapple:
A Muslim cleric was on Egyptian TV praising the Holocaust.
crosspatch:
That was interesting. I read this from the Atlantic Business channel and it says much the same thing. The idea is that even smart well intentioned people can screw things up.
But you are right about the housing market. I used to have a real estate license and even 10 years ago my broker was saying this thing was going to blow.
[...] Reader Crosspatch wrote an extensive and excellent comment on this very topic yesterday – worth a [...]
What they did was basically a huge ponzi scheme of proportions the world has never seen. In order to keep pumping the housing prices up, more and more people had to be brought into the market until they were finally scraping the bottom of the barrel and selling houses to people who wouldn’t even be able to qualify for a car loan. Those increases in housing values pumped billions into government from property and capital gains tax as assessed values increased and properties changed hands.
In California it was somewhat limited due to Prop. 13 limits on annual tax increases, but when properties changed hands, governments still got a windfall of cash. This caused state and local governments to go on spending sprees. Towns here were bidding up salaries and benefits for emergency services people and were constantly trying to hire away each others people.
A fireman in many towns here can retire in his early 50s with 2/3 of salary, annual pay increases, medical care for life, etc. Some towns have more people on benefits than employed.
I have a friend who works for a city government. They had a meeting this week. The employees were demanding a 5% pay increase while the city’s unemployment rate is rising and the cost of living is flat. The arrogance of government employee unions (most of which are affiliated with the SEIU — ring any bells?) to continue extracting money from the hard earned incomes of the population in the face of an economic downturn is simply fascinating. These people are living in a fantasy world and don’t realize that the golden goose is dead.
SOX is an auditing standard, not an accounting standard. The analysis is right though. FV accounting for financial assets has been around for a while (mid to late 1990s). It is a reason why Enron was showing a profit (unrealized) when it had much lower cash flow earnings. What new accounting standards did was close the wiggle room as to when you have to look to quoted market prices as opposed to other guidance. The market price when there is no market for an asset is $0, hence all these writedowns as nobody wants mortgage assets anymore. The irony is that a lot of these assets are still paying interest and will be paid in full. Moral of the story is the market isn’t always efficient in the short term. This is a painful lesson of that.
Rich,
It is a fine line as it is auditing that drives accounting, more or less.
Have a look at this and you will get one idea of the mess it is causing.
You have cash but cant show any asset value because it is swamped by paper liabilities from something like employee stock options that you must pretend will ALL be exercised at the current market price in the current time period even though practically none of them will be and even if for some reason there was a rush to exercise them, many employees would elect not to exercise them all and others would not exercise any options at all. But the standards say a company has to carry them on the books as if every single one would be exercised at the current market and the business must pretend that the difference between the option price and the market price is some kind of a “loss”. It is absolutely silly and is what is sending companies away from US stock exchanges to overseas exchanges such as London where people are not required to adhere to those standards.
In short S-Ox causes a company to do their books according to a “doomsday” worst case scenario which is the opposite extreme from the “lollipops and rainbows” scenarios companies often used before. There needs to be some moderation toward splitting the difference and looking at what is likely in the context of reality.
Something I would support as a first step is marking to a moving average of the market over some period of time so that volatile market conditions don’t whipsaw asset valuation as much but the assets will reflect longer term trend changes in market behavior.
“Are the liberals and Obama truly this naive?”
Yes.