Is There Nothing That Obama Can't Do?

"Quisling" is a Norwegian word.

Don't worry, I always assumed you were malicious, Kate.

I rarely agree with Barry Rubin's blogs over at Pajamas Media.

His two points - that the changes in the ME are causing a rise in extremism and that Obama acts only out of malice...I think those are reductionist and simplistic opinions.

We certainly are seeing more extremist expressions in the ME - as the totalitarian controls over ALL expressions are reduced. But this does not mean, empirically or logically, that the majority of people in these countries want or are - extremists.
My own view is that the majority of the people are not going to exchange one type of totalitarianism (secular and military) for another type (religious).

I'm aware that a common view of some in Israel and the West is that the totalitarian dictatorships are preferable to 'free citizens'. This is a view which is grounded in a belief that 'all Arabs are terrorists' and if they are 'allowed freedom'..then terrorism is the result. Barry Rubin holds this view. I don't accept that opinion considering it ungrounded and illogical.

Allow these 'loosening of the authoritarian rule' to play out. It is only then that extremism will, having moved out of pure words (as it is within a nation governed by totalitarian rule)..into the harsh light of reality...be seen as flawed, as unable to help the people..and discarded. Until you allow this movement from pure words into hard reality - extremism remains a romantic ideology.

The other comment is about Obama. Is he malicious? Definitely. Absolutely. But he's also a socialist. And he's run by radical socialists who are also anti-American.
So- the first steps Obama will take are to set up the socialist infrastructure as outlined by his puppet-masters.

I've said before that Obama is not intellectually committed to socialism; he's not an intellect. He's psychologically committed because socialism is an elitist mode that sets up Rulers versus the Ruled. Obama, psychologically, likes to Rule. And control others, rendering them hapless and helpless. That's where his malice comes in.

He likes to insult, belittle, demean people. And if they confront or criticize him - he turns on that malice in a flash.

The fact that Netanyahu publicly criticized Obama - whew - Obama won't forget that. He'll do something malicious to Israel. Just watch for it.

With Obama, politics is never, ever, about citizens, about the people, about what's best for a nation, for an economy. Never. For Obama, politics is always and onl about: Him. As the Ruler.

We think Obama doesn't understand-

That changes in the Middle East are producing more extremism, not more moderation.

I believe Obama fully understands what these changes will bring,
and he wants America totally consumed with those problems.

His failing economic policies at home.

47 million with food stamp cards.
'Millions out of work.'

Hell they are going to the beach for vacation and trying to kill each other.

His Obamacare without any leadership.

"We didn't pass it during good economic times, we didn't pass it during bad economic times,
We didn't pass it during times of War, and we didn't pass it during times of peace.
'the pieces will fall into place, (2500 pages)
and we will understand all of it as soon as we pass it."

Its all bullshit-

'forget the smoke and mirrors,'
it only exists in his dreams/nightmares...

He no longer gives a Shiite about our security and pursuit of happiness.

I believe the man wants a nuclear/world war so we will again worship the ground he walks on and beg him to save and forgive us.

I don't know that Barry is man enough on his own to come up with this much malice. I'm sure he would if he could, if he felt like -working- at it, but clearly he's got his eyes fixed firmly on the mirror, adoring his own reflection.

The people running him can certainly be this malicious, and its those people I worry about.

Did y'all see that the WHO just announced cell phones cause cancer? There's your next Big Tobacco Lawsuit. That's who's running the USA right now.

As time has passed, it has become possible to get a clearer picture of Obama.

1) He is an angry man
2) He absolutely hates Republicans, all of them
3) Obama fancies himself as a dictator
4) His ego is so large that he does not want to be concerned with details, he finds such concerns beneath him
5) He has a distinct bias in favour of Muslims at the expense of others, which he tries to hide rather poorly
6) He (and his wife) are pro-black, pro-hispanic, with little desire to have anything to do with whites, Jews or Asians
7) He dislikes America more than he likes her
8) His intelligence is vastly overrated.

Given the chance he would be a perfect African dictator, and I believe he would be much happier in that role than as president of the USA. It would be a much better match with his personality, his fondness for blind media support, and his deep-rooted biases.

ET I beg to differ with your wishful thinking conclusion that “the people (of the Arab countries in the Middle East) are not going to exchange one type of totalitarianism (secular and military) for another type (religious).”

The “people” have no history of self determination as a nation state. Their history is tribal. Their inclination is to follow a leader. If a group intending to become the leader makes a play to lead them and is ruthless enough to eliminate all of the others aspiring to that position, they will become leader. Those following the rule of law and ethical practices of the West are at a significant disadvantage (deliberate understatement) and will be hard pressed to become the leaders.

And the Obama support of the Arab Spring (a movement that was supported by idealists and competing totalitarians alike) and the reduction of the only state in the area that supports Western values, is a sign to those totalitarians aspiring to leadership in opposition to the idealists in the ME that now is their time. It will be more totalitarians in the ME.

Obama is a clinical narcissist. Here's Vaknin's
brief set of characteristics:

"Hyper-dependence on the views of others, sense of entitlement, a manipulative and exploitative nature, sadism, emotional absence, grandiosity -- incommensurate with real achievements, hyper-reactivity to criticism, delusions of reference."

I think the above describes Obama quite well. Obama needs and requires adulation. He can't be alone - i.e., researching, working, thinking. He leaves all work, analysis, policy devt etc to others. He's the upfront salesman - and - he doesn't actually care about the policy in itself; his focus is on controlling YOU.

And "Narcissists manipulate only sources of supply. They lose all interest, in frightening abruptness, once they have exhausted a source."

So, Obama will give a Tuscon speech about 'respect for others' and in one week, drop that idea and insult any and all who criticize him.
Equally, Obama has no interest in anyone or anything that cannot function as a 'source of supply of adulation'. So, he ignores the Iranian demonstrators for freedom; after all - they are demonstrating for freedom - not Obama. Therefore, they are of no interest to him.

And "To live with a narcissist is to endure torturous uncertainty, unpredictability, capriciousness, cruelty -- sprinkled with technicolor displays of "magnanimity," "largesse," and "brilliance".

Wow- doesn't that sound like Obama? We, the people, are uncertain of his plans; he dithers about foreign actions, he gives contradictory messages which the WH is always trying to explain..and then, he gives 'magnanimous speeches' as in Tuscon...and one week later, insults Paul Ryan on public TV to his face.

And: "The narcissist -- forced to obtain his supply of emotional drug is also forced to cater to SOME of the needs of his sources of supply. But he does so only grudgingly and reverts immediately to his former, degrading, abusive, behavior."

That's a warning; watch out for Obama and Israel. Netanyahu publicly scolded Obama. And Obama is pathological; he won't forget that.

As others have pointed out, add this narcissism to his upbringing as anti-American, anti-capitalism and racist...and it's a mess.

The Media's faux Arab Spring is nothing more than an Arab sewer, the gutter trash are alligned to take control of many of those states. If the people thought they were repressed by the despots they haven't seen nothing yet. The Islamofacists are religious nut jobs, far more danagerous than the despotic murdering thugs. Obama is acting like an undercover anti-semite, the left are getting bolder with their public anti-semitism he'll soon show us his true colors soon enough.

ET;

"My own view is that the majority of the people are not going to exchange one type of totalitarianism (secular and military) for another type (religious)."

Public opinion polls in Egypt show the overwhelming majority want sharia. Sharia says that the rule of God supercedes the rule of man.

Sharia is totalitarian.

rroe - I disagree. The West was also, for centuries, operating within a tribal organizational and intellectual mode. It moved out when that mode could no longer sustain its population.

After all, it doesn't make any sense to deny 'first steps' and to say that IF a people have never done X, THEN, they will never do X. That's illogical.

What the Arab States have, as an advantage to the West's transformation from tribal to a civic mode, is example. The example of the West.

Furthermore, a key causal force is the size of the population. As I have outlined many times, economic and political modes are not a matter of choice but are directly connected to each other - and these are dependent on the size of the population.

The populations of the Arab States have exponentially increased in the last four decades and moved beyond the carrying capacity of both a tribal political mode and a statist economy. What is required is private small-medium size businesses to generate wealth; this is capitalism. And capitalism is directly connected with democracy - which is a political mode that empowers the largest productive class.

So- I consider that both capitalism and democracy are inevitable in the ME Islamic states - just as it was inevitable in Europe in the 12th century.

As for Obama's support of the 'Arab Spring' - I reject that. Obama is just mouthing the words because it is 'happening'. He himself is not interested in anything that doesn't provide him with personal adulation. He's just getting on the bandwagon since he has been told that these changes are coming and he has to insert Himself as causal.

He doesn't realize that the people in the ME are uninterested in him. Obama may try to claim - as he did - that He somehow had something to do with these events; he had nothing to do with them. But Obama believes he did; that's his pathological narcissism.

Moving from one infrastructure to another is not easy. The West took 400 years to do it; the ME won't take as long, but you don't flip from such deep structures with the ease of a light switch. However, it has to be; the demographics of the area are too large for tribalism and statism.

bob c - I hope you aren't referring to that flawed Pew poll.

What we in the West view as 'sharia' is viewed differently by many Muslims. Sharia is understood as the 'common law' and non-intrusive. The fundamentalist version of Sharia is not the same as the common law sharia and is indeed overwhelming. In Judaism, there is also a fundamentalist view and a 'common view' of the rules of life.

So I think that any poll has to be very clear what is meant by the question, and also, how 'safe' it is to answer such a leading question in a regime undergoing changes.

We watched the PBS documentary "Mohammad" last night. One described event was when the initial, not completed Haj from Medina to Mecca was discontinued by Mohammed bowing to the political elite of Mecca.

My comment to my wife at this point "is this what President Obama was thinking when he started his Foreign visits?". It was presented in the documentary as the greatest test of Mohammad as a "Statesman" and was truly G-D's wish.

My thoughts then moved to a young boy listening to his Muslim Father describe the greatness of Mohammad. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, so the saying goes. Cheers;

[quote]He likes to insult, belittle, demean people. And if they confront or criticize him - he turns on that malice in a flash[/quote] ET

I think that even the Democrat establishment have reached that same conclusion...Obama will find that he has little to zero support behind the curtins...(It takes more than Money to win a Presidential Election)...The Usual suspects are not coming to Obama's defense.. He is very much alone with his hair balls, and he may have a mental breakdown/melt down and need to be replaced...

The Obama WH is disfunctional, that is a fact!

The UN/EU policies are not supportable in the US.

JMHO

@ET: "My own view is that the majority of the people are not going to exchange one type of totalitarianism (secular and military) for another type (religious)."

Yeah, because that never happened in any other Islamic countries, like for instance Iran.

As far as Egypt goes, it seems like the only thing that changed is the deck chairs on the Titanic. The military kicked out Mubarak and are merely biding their time til they install another puppet. The more things change the more they stay the same. The west should be paying at least as much attention on Syria as on Gaddahfi and Libya. A dictator is a dictator and Assad is slaughtering his own people. Barry O seems to care more about his golf game and all expense paid foreign vacations.

ET said: "However, it has to be; the demographics of the area are too large for tribalism and statism."

I like the way you think ET, and I agree that they can't keep going the same way with the population they have. Can't happen.

But, we already know of several Muslim totalitarian regimes that had or have plans to deal with that population issue. Pakistan has nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (NBC.)Iran has chemical and bio weapons and will soon have nukes. Syria has B&C, and is looking for the N. Egypt has B&C. Libya has B&C, and MooMoo coughed up a nuke for George Bush when they caught Saddam. Saddam had and used B&C with a certain vigor, and was avidly pursuing nukes.

The totalitarian answer to too big a population is to just kill them all. Just nuke whatever city is hacking you off this week. Send a plague to wipe out those annoying Kurds. Don't rock the kasbah, gas 'em.

Or just do what the Soviets did and take away all the freakin' food.

I'd say the -only- thing restraining these insane @ssholes to date has been the USA. Barry is in the process of taking the USA off the table. Who's going to tell them no, the Germans? The Dutch? China?

Will the Muslim Brotherhood shrink from rolling VX into Christian monasteries and towns? Will the Shiites pause at the idea of nuking the Sunnis' holy sites? (Only way to be sure.) Will any of them even think twice before rocketing Israel with a plague?

I think it is possible to underestimate the fundamentally evil nature of the totalitarian mind. that's why I'm not entirely opposed to Canadian jets blowing stuff up in Libya.

I think it is worth asking whether Bambi dreams of
becoming the first Caliph of America. He certainly acts it.

"Bambi I, Caliph of all the Americas" - that is surely grander than "President of the United States" to some ears.

ET;

Pew is hardly the only organization that has sought out the opinions of Egyptians. Several pollsters have done so as well as media in Egypt. Same or similiar answers every time.

Democracy is rule by people through their chosen leaders. Sharia is the antithesis of that.

Helps explain why Canada did not receive enough secret ballot votes for a seat on the UN Security Council. Canada would not have agreed to a UN Resolution with these borders had they had a seat on the Security Council.

ET - you may find this series of articles of interest.
Example exerts:
"Furthermore, under stressing social situations such as in wars, general poverty and breakdown of the economy, sweeping epidemics or political fighting, etc., sociopaths may acquire the status of regional or national leaders and saviors, such as Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, etc. When they are in positions of power, they can inflict far more damage than as individuals."

And:

"What kinds of emotions do sociopaths have? They are quick to become angry, are aggressive, irritable, and are very sensitive to shame or humiliation. They are also get pleasure by means of dominance and are exhilarated by this."

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n07/doencas/index.html#introduction

artie - the Iran example is historically irrelevant. They exchanged one tribal rule for another tribal rule. The population and economic mode had not yet reached the 'tipping point'; it has now done so.

philip g shaw; I agree that Obama is alienating Democratic supporters but they haven't moved to allow any replacement. Unlike the GOP which has openly enabled new, fresh young minds to emerge on the scene (Ryan, Cantor, West, Rubio etc), the Democrats have stifled not only all opposition to Obama but also anyone seeking to move into the party. They are left with the radicals and the old entrenched who live in the Washington bubble.

I don't see Obama having a breakdown; his narcissism is too strong for that. I see him as becoming more 'executive fiat', more manipulative, more malicious (how about those ads showing 'Ryan' pushing his old grandmother off a cliff??), and using more tactics such as racism and other divisive measures.

phantom - using a nuclear weapon is not a sane or even insane tactic of dealing with overpopulation.
No, the restraint on these populations has been their totalitarian rulers who don't want to give up any authority and control over their own population - and by custom and law - internal rule is not subject to foreign intervention.

What is going on now - is that the populations have reached a critical threshold when the Rulers can't maintain control. That's the key; the size of the population. Not the US.

What the US has done is to have prevented these nations from attacking each other; that's going to weaken...

bob c - I disagree that the polls show the same results. One Pew poll showed hostility to the US and support for Sharia; a BBC poll showed support for the US and less support for fundamentalist Sharia. The difference was in the questions and the survey sample (urban vs rural). Gallup had 49% disapproval of the US. Pew had 82% disapproval. BBC had 55% disapproval. Pipa polls varied over 5 months, with an April 09 polls showing only 15% support for the US and a December 09 poll showing 45% support.

Such a wide range means that there is something unscientific about the polls - whether it's in the sample population or the questions or the information available to the people or...

ET;

In the aftermath of the fall of Muhbarek, the consensus pick of Egyptians for rule going forward, as told by reporters on the ground, pollsters and the Egyptian media, was the military.

You'll forgive me for wondering how solid a grasp Egyptians have for the concept of democracy.

Never has America been under the administration and POTUS as deceitful and with less fidelity for the US Constitution than she is under Obama. The mid East war coming this fall will demonstrate this.

The only thing more dangerous to the Republic are the establishment Republicans who hedge or compromise on the premise that the above is not so.

dan - no, the people did not want rule by the military; the military was to function as a limited term government for a few months to enable the previously all-banned political parties to organize for the free elections in September and the presidential election in October/November of this year.

Step 1: put paper bad over mouth Step 2: breath in and out until hyperventilating cease.

There is so much ground to criticize Obama over one doesn't need to make up an antipathy to Israel. His policy is not different from Bush's Israel policy. He's still shoveling money at Israel for one thing.

ET said: "However, it has to be; the demographics of the area are too large for tribalism and statism."

Exhibit #1....Pakistan
Exhibit #2....Bangladesh
Exhibit #3....Indonesia
Exhibit #4....Eygpt.

I rest my case.

The present US Administration seems haphazard in its policies and their implementation. HOWEVER, when an attempt to counter them is made, the response is rapid and forceful. Illegal immigration? Any attempt to counter by state law is challenged, effectively. Mexican gangs? The US Gov't supplies high grade weapons to the Mexican gov't, knowing perfectly well that these weapons will find their way to the gangs. Challenges to Obamacare? Met with effective demagoguery. TSA thug-gropers? Any state which attempts to stop them is threatened with having its airports shut down. Middle class Americans in trouble? Pile on inflation. Run up enough debt so that they will never pay it off, thus neutering them forever. Middle East turmoil?
Support the fundamentalist thugs, as in Iran and in Libya.

The actions of the present administration are consistent and effective. They bring "change you can believe in".

Barack Obama's role is to "make it look good." That's what's expected of him by his highest level backers. As someone here said, he's not an intellect. He's a performer.

Right after whipping Hillary Clinton in the Dems' primary, Obama made a joking reference to Nancy Reagan and a 'seance.' I could see the invisible cane coming out to yank his alcohol-dulled mockery away from the microphone.

sasquatch - you haven't made a case. Just a list of nations. And they simply don't compare with each other or with the Islamic nations.

Indonesia is a democracy. Its free elections took place a decade ago - after the repressive rule of Suharto. It has a constitution, three govt levels (same as the US), rule of law. Economically, it is capitalist. Educated population; literacy is 90% with women at 87%.

Pakistan is, as an 'unnatural creation' a political and economic mess, with parts of it with small populations, tribal rule, isolate and with no sense of commonality with others, and yet, included in the nation. Their economy is marginal and local.

Other parts are heavily populated but with insufficient economic infrastructure (electricity, roads, water) and no resources and no means of setting up small businesses. Unlike the Islamic nations, Pakistan has no 'statist economy', i.e., oil or Suez tolls that it can use to amass great wealth to redistribute to the people. Therefore, economically, it can't compare to the Islamic nations. It remains impoverished economically - despite its large population. And uneducated - literacy is only 49%;only 36% of women.

Bangladesh - same as Pakistan. Including the low economic resources (primarily rice growing), no small businesses, and low literacy/education.

Egypt - wealth via the Suez tolls and tourism, which is redistributed to the people. BUT, such a one-industry statist economy, operated via redistribution, is insufficient to support the massive increase in population of Egypt over the past four decades (twice that of your other examples). It also has an educated population; literacy is 71% with women at 60%. They still have a way to go - but - there's absolutely no comparison with Pakistan/Bangladesh.

I suggest that you select more accurate comparisons.

More bad news from the bailed out stock market:

"Interest rates are amazingly low and that, thanks to Ben Bernanke, is driving everything," Yastrow said.
"We’re on the verge of a great, great depression. And the [Federal Reserve] knows it.

"We have many, many homeowners that are totally underwater here and cannot get out from under."

Read more at Drudge-

Forget the wagons,
We are circling the shit drain,
just hope we don't pull Canada down with us.

Kate you must watch this video, it's on topic I promise ala Jihadis and their goals.

Link;http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/208070.php

ET said: "phantom - using a nuclear weapon is not a sane or even insane tactic of dealing with overpopulation."

Well, that was sort of my point. These guys are crazy, not practical. Stalin was practical.

I still think they'll just start in killing people until they get what they want. Syria is actually doing it this week.

ET, I agree that in the fullness of time the chances are very good that the Arabian Middle East will move away from totalitarian rule to rule by a responsible government. However I don’t think that time is now.

Those currently vying for leadership of the countries ousting their current dictators are not inclined to give up the leadership position after 4 years. They are not disposed to promote the development of the social infrastructure required to support a democratic state.

Secularism, the separation of religion and state, liberal education and thought, a true middle class, a free and independent judiciary, freedom of contract the absence of baksheesh, equal opportunities for all, property rights etc will be needed before the environment will support a non totalitarian leader. That takes time. And it took more than 400 years to develop in the West.

The size of the population is a factor because it is harder to control a larger population. But look at the USSR and China. They were very big countries ruled by totalitarians. The totalitarians dealt with that in many ways - some of which are described by the Phantom. And the populations of the countries in the Middle East and North Africa vary significantly. Tunisia is 10.6M, Egypy is 82M, Iran 77.8M, Syria 22.5M Bahrain 1.2M. So what is the magic number for the population to reach? In addition the population in any country is mobile. Many people flee from countries ruled by dictators. Many from the ME are fleeing their countries. Those who flee are typically those who would support the creation of the Western ethos. I hope I am wrong, but the signs are pointing to many more years of dictatorial rule for me.

Obama’s support of the Arab Spring is just what you say– him jumping in front of a parade and more. But in leading the parade he is endangering the only government that already has the Western ethos in the Middle East. He is giving those who would be dictators succour and a target to direct their population’s frustration and anger at. He is in way over his head

rroe - thanks for your insightful comments.

First, it isn't simply the size of the population, but since all systems of a society are connected, then, it is the size of the population as related to its economic capacity to produce the wealth to sustain that population and as related to its political organizational mode to maintain that economic mode.

The fact that it did indeed take the West 400 vicious and war-filled years to make the transformation does not mean that it will take the ME the same amount of time. That's because the world economy is global, and 'draws in' the economies of the ME. And, the example of democracy exists for others to see. So, these changes are not all just theory and due to hard thinking by such as Locke etc; they exist and are actual.

Most certainly, the old elite will try to retain power. That's normal human psychology, whether it occurs in the Liberal Party of Canada or in the tribal regimes of the ME.

And yes, it is indeed hard to control a large population. It takes a lot of 'energy' so to speak. Military energy or theocratic energy..and eventually, the Rulers can't keep up this control. Especially when the periphery - and large groups always, always, deconstruct into regional groups - begins to sneak away and do its 'own thing'. That's the case in China, where exploding private capitalism has far outreached the empty ideology of the far-off rulers in Beijing. No-one listens to these rules and rulers.

There isn't any 'magic number' for a population to reach. The critical threshold is the relation between these basic systems: Population size; economic capacity to support this population; political mode to organize this economy. That's it in a 'nutshell'.

All political systems must privilege the wealth-producing class of the nation. In the old tribal modes, it was the tribal rulers who owned the land, or the oil, or the Suez canal etc. The problem is that these resources are now inadequate to support the doubling of population that has occurred in the last 40 years.

So they must move to another economic mode of wealth production: private enterprise, small and medium size businesses. This economic mode leads to the development of a 'middle class' made up of independent individual business people. The political mode MUST privilege them and give them the legal power to enact legislative laws that enhance their mode of business. The political mode that empowers the middle class is: democracy.

I certainly agree that Obama is in 'way over his head'. I consider him an ignorant, arrogant and dangerous person. But I don't think that support for the Arab Spring, so to speak, endangers Israel.

I know that many people who reject the Arab Spring are concerned; this betrays, I suggest, a view that 'all Arabs are basically fundamentalist terrorists'..and that dictatorships are the only means to keep them under control. I reject this view. There are some in Israel who certainly feel this way.

And remember, the dictators want to maintain power - and one way of diverting their own people's attention from internal repression is to divert it to Israel-Palestine. This won't work anymore; the ME peoples want their own freedom from their dictators.

I think that keeping these people repressed is the key cause of Islamist fundamentalism and the means of reducing such fundamentalism - is economic and political freedom.

What do I see happening with Obama? It is obvious he is anti-Israel. Whether he is anti-semitic as well, I've no idea. But to consider that Obama does things for logical reasons is, I suggest, to misunderstand him.

Obama likes, I think, to 'make trouble'. He likes to create dissension, acrimony, divisions...and sit back and watch people attack each other. That makes him feel powerful. So, Obama might create dissension in the ME - because of these psychological reasons of his own nature. It won't have anything to do with anything in the ME nations; that is, it won't be to advance democracy or even, repress freedom. It will be purely to watch acrimony and hatred. And it's easy to do that in the ME.

The new Egypt, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPpa7L2drzI

The reality as opposed to ET's unrealistic reality: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43807

The only proof one needs to determine Obambas malice towards the American people, is the open southern border with Mexico.

You don't need any further evidence than that, if you have the capacity to understand the havoc it represents within America.

Barring that, you only need to see that he has lied about everything since he’s taken office. Everything! Now that is malice with two big fisted middle fingers in your face.

Wakeup.

some great posts in here(thanx ET/phantom/rroe), but I see a big war coming down the pipe, and until the dust settles from that war we will not know in which direction the political winds of each nation in the ME will blow

I think it was well established even before his presidency how he felt about the Middle East when he declared he would meet Iran without pre-conditions. Things went downhill from there.

Isn't it great having Pollyanna I mean ET to reassure our doubts away regarding the Middle East? Yes democracy WILL break out any instant as she stamps her little foot for emphasis.

I guess I have so much to learn about ignoring reality, I just hang my head in shame.

GYM

Exactly!!!

Via the National Post: "Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says he supports U.S. President Barack Obama’s stance in favour of a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process drawn along pre-1967 border lines, according to media reports."

davenport - I'd be careful about accepting the veracity of a CBC report on Baird and Harper.

Notice that the CBC, despite its attempt to set up the comment as made by Baird, can't do that; all it can do is claim that he said it 'according to media reports'. What media reports?

Oh, but strangely, the article does say that the NDP supports the pre-war 1967 boundaries as the 'starting point'. Hmm.

The article is primarily about the NDP complaining about Harper and Baird.

What is strange is that the article doesn't say that Canada has always rejected the occupation but does not outline specific borders - ie. 'drawn along pre-1967 border lines'. Strange that the article says nothing about Harper blocking the G8's attempt to insert the Obama axiom about the 1967 borders in the G8 final commentary.

Strange that the article says nothing about what Harper really said: that the draft G8 statement was missing some important elements, "such as, for instance, the fact that one of the states must be a Jewish state. The fact that the Palestinian state must be de-militarized."