Remember back in April when Obama traveled to the G-20 and bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia? If not, here it is:

Actually, that doesn’t look as much like a bow as it does a genuflect. Not, true, says Obama’s Spokes Weasel, Robert Gibbs. Oh, no – it is just because Obama is tall, and “bending over.” I am not kidding you – that’s what he claimed. So, don’t believe what you actually SAW, just believe Spokes Weasel that it’s not what it looked like it was.

Well, it would seem Obama learned nothing from that experience when he traveled to Japan and met the Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko of Japan:

Sigh. I know it is customary to bow in Japan, but this is a bit over the top for anyone, much less a US president, or another world leader. You will notice that, while the Emperor or Empress bows in return, it is slight, almost imperceptible. Nice to see that SOME people understand decorum and protocol, even if Obama doesn’t. They were modeling the appropriate level for him, and he missed it. I might add, Obama doesn’t bow just once, he does it over and over and over again (though not as low) like a frikkin’ bobblehead. His hosts, however, are not recirpocating.

Wow. So much for the President of the United States bowing to no one. What an amateur. Respect is one thing. Subordination is another. This appears to be a case of the latter, IMHO.

Yep, the second bow heard around the world. Oh, and the topic of discussion? Green tea ice cream. I’m not making this up, people, that’s what Obama discussed with the Emperor and Empress.

Perhaps Obama could take a few lessons from Secretary of State Clinton on how one meets with other world leaders, particularly in Japan, as this video from February, 2000 demonstrates (pay special attention around the 5:10 mark when the Empress and Clinton greet each other):

You’ll notice Clinton did not bow to the Empress. Though I have to say, the looks exchanged between the two women were quite lovely. They seem to really like each other (and who doesn’t like our Hillary??). Other than that, not a bow in sight. Oh, sure, she nodded her head a few times in recognition when someone bowed to her, but a real bow? Uh, yeah, NO. Didn’t see a one.

Once again, our Amateur in Chief is on display for all the world to see, and believe you me, they all saw it, too. Seriously, he needs to get some real protocol officers instead of asking one of his frat boys from their video games (“No, really, dude – I’m pretty sure they bow to each other in Japan. At least that’s what my Samurai warriors just did to each other on my X Box…”).

How I wish I could say I was surprised at Obama’s breach of protocol after his “teachable moment” in April with the King of Saudi Arabia. But when you have a president who gives a “shout out” and CALLS it a “shout out” after finding out about a devastating attack on one of our military bases before even acknowledging the attack, this is just par for the course. It just leaves me shaking my head…

Here is a good recap of what has happened during the past week from the American Red Cross:

It is hard to put into words the depth of destruction that has occurred in these areas. Below are a few videos to give you an idea of what has happened in these countries. These are not easy to watch, and tragically, many lives have been lost. But it is important for us to know what has happened, and how we can help.

A brief report from the AP on American Samoa and Samoa follows here:

A major earthquake hit Sumatra:

And this is a glimpse into what has happened in the Philippines:

There are many, many more videos available online at Youtube.com, if you wish to see more.

If you want to help, donations can be made to the American Red Cross Donations are also being accepted by Oxfam America, and other worthy organizations.

My thoughts and prayers go out to all those in these areas, for their safety, for those who have been lost, and those who are missing. My prayers also go to all of those brave souls who rush in to help in these situations. Truly, they are heroes…

[...]

Here’s some Feith fun from Pat Lang:

Patrick Lang told a hilarious story the other night, for example, about a job interview he had with Douglas Feith, a key architect of the invasion of Iraq.

It was at the beginning of the first Bush term. Lang had been in charge of the Middle East, South Asia and terrorism for the Defense Intelligence Agency in the 1990s. Later he ran the Pentagon’s worldwide spying operations.

In early 2001, his name was put forward as somebody who would be good at running the Pentagon’s office of special operations and low-intensity warfare, i.e., counterinsurgency. Lang had also been a Green Beret, with three tours in South Vietnam.

One of the people he had to impress was Feith, the Defense Department’s number three official and a leading player in the clique of neoconservatives who had taken over the government’s national security apparatus.

Lang went to see him, he recalled during a May 7 panel discussion at the University of the District of Columbia.

“He was sitting there munching a sandwich while he was talking to me,” Lang recalled, “which I thought was remarkable in itself, but he also had these briefing papers — they always had briefing papers, you know — about me.

“He’s looking at this stuff, and he says, ‘I’ve heard of you. I heard of you.’

“He says, ‘Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?’

“And I said, ‘Yeah, that’s really true.’

“That’s too bad,” Feith said.

The audience howled.

“That was the end of the interview,” Lang said. “I’m not quite sure what he meant, but you can work it out.”

Feith, of course, like the administration’s other Israel-connected hawks, didn’t want “Arabists” like Lang muddying the road to Baghdad, from where — according to the Bush administration theory — overthrowing Saddam Hussein would ignite mass demands for Western-style, pro-U.S. democracies across the entire Middle East.

And some Lang on Wolfowitz:

“I remember talking to [Paul] Wolfowitz, in his office, in the Pentagon, and telling him — this was after the propaganda build up had started, before the war. I said, ‘You know, these guys are not going to welcome you.’

“He said, ‘Why?’ I said, ‘For one thing, these guys detest foreigners, and the few who really like you are the least representative of the various breeds of people there. They’re going to fight you, then, if you occupy the place there’s going to be a massive insurgency.’”

“He said, ‘No, no, they’ll be glad to see us,’” Lang continued. “This will start the process of revolution around the Middle East that will transform everything.’

No, Lang told Wolfowitz, “that’s not gonna happen. It’s just an impossibility. They’re not like that. They don’t want to be us.”

Not everyone agrees with all of Lang’s views about the Arab world, but on this issue he was prescient, of course, as were almost all experts on the region outside of the neocon faithful.

How come we learned so much of this dispute only after the war?

And Lawrence Wilkerson on Tenet and “Curveball”:

Wilkerson provides a damning clue.

In February 2003, Powell’s top aide relates, he “spent five of the most intimate days of my life, and five nights, without sleeping, as did my team, staring into . . . the face” of George Tenet, Tenet’s deputy John McLaughlin, and other top CIA officials working on Iraq, at the agency’s headquarters at Langley.

It was the eve of Powell’s now infamous speech at the United Nations detailing Iraq’s alleged biological, chemical and nuclear programs.

“One of the things Secretary Powell and I told Mr. Tenet and Mr. McLaughlin at the outset of our frenetic five or six days, trying to get ready for the U.N., was ‘multiple sources.’ We will not take anything and put it in this presentation, unless there are multiple, independently corroborated sources for the items we’re putting in the testimony,” Wilkerson said.

“That was the going-in position.”

Subsequently, he learned that there was but “a single source for the mobile biological laboratories; that his code name was Curveball; and that there were several very key dissents as to this individual’s testimony, during or before the preparation of the secretary of State.”

Curveball, an Iraqi refugee, turned out to be a liar.

“None of that, ladies and gentlemen, none of that was revealed to the secretary of State, or to me, or to any member of my team, by either John McLaughlin or George Tenet,” Wilkerson said.

Tenet says in his memoir that he never heard of any serious questions about Curveball.

As readers of this column know , however, Tenet’s chief of European operations, Tyler Drumheller, insists he sent a flurry of warnings about Curveball to Tenet’s deputies.

Both can’t be right.

“Either George Tenet is lying through his teeth, or Tyler Drumheller is lying through his teeth,” Wilkerson says, “with regard to one of the most important pillars of Secretary Powell’s presentation at the United Nations: the mobile biological laboratories.”

We’re waiting now for a third CIA official to come forth with an answer.

Lots of people are dying because of the errors and idiocy perpetrated by Feith, Wolfowitz and yes, Tenet too.

– Steve Clemons

BELOW, MORE HILLARY on Obama’s friendliness towards Hugo Chavez, the case of former FBI agent Robert Levinson, Turkey and Armenia, and Indonesia and the U.S. — even our policy on “hurricane hunters”!

“Clinton: Imperative to Stop Iran on Nukes”
“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is an imperative for the United States, which is taking a more active role in pursuing that goal. (April 22)”

“Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) raises three issues to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a House Foreign Affairs Committee – missing constituent Robert Levinson, who disappeared in Iran in 2007; the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia; and the importance of fostering a strong relationship between the United States and Indonesia.”

“Congressman Mike Pence questioned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the recent summit in Latin America where President Obama was photographed shaking hands and warmly greeting Hugo Chavez. This exchange took place during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.”

“Congressman Ron Klein discusses the international issue of hurricane hunters with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”

This is an especially IMPORTANT video, as will be more we’ll post for you from Fareed Zakaria’s Sunday CNN program, a riveting hour. Really! (I stopped working on the blog, and listened! That’s rare!) We’ve differed with Zakaria’s views, but I admire his persistence in bringing world news to Americans, who often ignore international news, despite our gathering closeness. Right? I plead guilty and wish I knew more about the rest of the world. That’s why I make myself watch Zakaria’s program and PBS’s WorldFocus. So I honor Zakaria’s success in bringing this program to CNN. I imagine it wasn’t easy to sell an essentially American news network to devote a Sunday morning hour to world news!

FAREED ZAKARIA: “… Secretary Clinton’s trip to Asia, critiqued by some of the region’s best minds.” (The full transcript is below the fold.)

I’ve also included a fascinating remark that Zakaria used to open his program this morning on CNN in praise of the statements of Secretary Clinton about the besieged people of Burma – and ALL of the countries that we are affecting with our economic sanctions:

FIRST, before what Zakaria said about Hillary’s remarks on Burma and all of the economic sanctions we impose around the world thre are these reports from the BBC News and the New York Times:

New York Times, United States – Feb 18, 2009
“Clearly, the path we have taken in imposing sanctions hasn’t influenced the Burmese junta,” Mrs. Clinton said to reporters after meeting with Indonesia’s …

TRANSCRIPT 1, Zakaria’s opening remarks that refer to Secretary Clinton’s progressive view on economic sanctions in re Burma:

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I’m Fareed Zakaria.

It’s been a week full of news — the housing bailout, more troops for Afghanistan — and we’ll get to all of it.

But I noticed something I thought was significant. On her trip through Asia, Hillary Clinton acknowledged that our policy of economic sanctions against Burma — Myanmar — has not worked.

The reason I think this is significant is that I’m hoping it is the beginning of a rethinking. There’s a standard U.S. policy toward any regime that we don’t like. There’s not much we can do about it, and we can’t change the regime’s policies. But we decide we can’t just sit there, so we slap sanctions on the country.

Now, look at the effects. In Cuba, 50 years of sanctions have allowed Fidel Castro and his brother to wrap themselves in the mantle of Cuban nationalism and stay in power.

In Iraq, sanctions destroyed the middle class, leaving a civil society composed of criminals and religious zealots.

In Pakistan, which we sanctioned for their nuclear tests in 1990, two generations of army officers were deprived of any contact with the U.S. and grew to be anti-American — and in many cases, pro-Taliban.

In Iran today, sanctions have allowed the regime to claim that they are heroically battling efforts by Washington to strangle the nation and its aspirations.

So, how much more evidence, in the form of misery for the people and power for the dictators, do we need before we conclude that economic sanctions are a feel-good policy that have had only bad effects on the ground?

[...]

Stay with us.

TRANSCRIPT 2, Zakaria’s panel on Secretary Clintons’ trip to Asia:

ZAKARIA: The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has just wrapped up her first foreign tour to East Asia. Significantly, 1961 was the last time that a secretary of state chose that region for a first visit.

Joining me now, three experts on Asia, two of them from Asia, to talk about what that trip accomplished.

From Singapore, Kishore Mahbubani, the dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School and author of “The New Asian Hemisphere.” From New Delhi, Shekhar Gupta, the editor-in-chief of “The Indian Express.” And here in New York, the China scholar Minxin Pei of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Kishore, what do you make of the fact that Hillary chose East Asia as her first region?

KISHORE MAHBUBANI, AUTHOR, “THE NEW ASIAN HEMISPHERE”: Well, I think it’s a clear indication, frankly, of how power is shifting to Asia.

And frankly, at a time when you’re facing the greatest financial crisis in several decades, to put Asia on top of the list of priorities is also a clear signal that, if you want to have a solution to this massive financial crisis, you have to work with Asia, because this is where all the reserves are.

Hillary is coming at a time when she is essentially representing — you know, in the past, secretaries of state represented symbols of power. Now, there is the sense that the United States is a wounded animal, a deeply wounded animal coming to some extent to Asia for assistance.

So I think they’re looking for a signal to see, is the United States now ready to deal in a position of equality with the Asian countries and say, can we work together to get out of this mess?

ZAKARIA: Shekhar, the one thing that Indians have worried about the Obama administration is that it is going to be a little — how shall I put it — softer on the war on terror, that it might be a little bit more willing to accommodate itself to certain forces, whether they are, you know, militant — forces of militant Islam. And one of the problems Hillary Clinton will probably face in private conversations in Japan is their concern that both Bush and, now, Obama will be too soft on the North Korean issue.

Is there a fear that the United States is kind of losing its muscle in Asia?

SHEKHAR GUPTA, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, “THE INDIAN EXPRESS”: Well, I think there is a fear that the United States may be distracted. They’ve got so many problems back home that they may become more inward-looking.

Because we believe that many of the problems we face in our region, particularly that India faces in terms of terrorism, that the U.S. can’t walk away from them, because they were largely responsible for creating them — the creation of the Taliban, before that the mujahedeen. You know, there is no need to go into the entire history.

So you can’t create all of that, and then walk away. We’ve got a nuclear weapons power sitting next door to us.

On the other hand, many of us here believe that Obama, because there was some expectation that he might be soft on terror, he will in fact go out of his way to show that he has focus in that area. And frankly, what we have seen so far from Richard Holbrooke’s visit in the region suggests that that is true, that he is focused on the terror issue.

But the other big concern in these parts about the Obama administration, which I think is a more real concern, is this whole protectionism. And I think that, to me, is a bigger concern right now.

ZAKARIA: Kishore, let’s pick up on something Shekhar Gupta talked about with regard to protectionism.

We’re all in this crisis together, and yet, all the governments of the world are busy protecting all their banks, their inefficient industries. They’re raising tariffs everywhere.

The U.S. has this “buy America” provision in the fiscal stimulus. But frankly, so do almost all countries in one way or the other.

Is this the end of the kind of world trade system that Asia grew prosperous in?

MAHBUBANI: I completely agree with Shekhar that we should be very deeply, deeply worried about the rise of protectionism and of us backtracking away from the system of the past.

But I think the big difference in Asia is that the Asians have not lost their faith in globalization.

And what’s interesting is that, you know, when you watch — I was listening to your program earlier on, the American economists talking about the American reaction to this crisis. You know, there’s an old expression: never waste a crisis.

And the sense I have is that, if you look at the Chinese, for example, the Chinese government is not wasting this crisis. It is actually using this crisis, using this stimulus plan, to focus on the long-term investment and doing the right things.

And the Chinese, by the way, have become the biggest believers in globalization, because they know that they and India are going to become the biggest beneficiaries of globalization. So there is no intellectual retreat from globalization in the Chinese and Indian elites in the way that you see in Europe or America.

ZAKARIA: Minxin, what do you think the Chinese want from America? What do you think they conveyed to Hillary Clinton privately?

MINXIN PEI, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: First of all, keep your rhetoric down, don’t raise expectations. Second, I think, on the…

ZAKARIA: On issues like?

PEI: … on protectionism, of course, they do want Obama — and, of course, Secretary Clinton — to take their stand and draw a line in the sand, because the initial noises from Congress are not very reassuring.

But I want to say something. Right now, it’s very hard actually to make protectionism work, because of globalization. Half of China’s exports are made by American companies and other multinationals. So, half of Chinese exports to the U.S.

If you want to stop Chinese exports, you are actually penalizing American companies. So, not many congressmen actually get this. Once they look deeper into this, they will find that the task is almost impossible for them.

ZAKARIA: Shekhar, what do you think the Japanese have been pressing? Because there is sometimes talk about how the rise of China means that India and Japan are kind of moving closer together, and the U.S. is encouraging this kind of anti-Chinese — or perhaps not anti- Chinese, but a hedge strategy against China.

Do you think Hillary Clinton’s trip has in some ways as a backdrop this idea?

GUPTA: Well, I don’t think there is any juice in this idea in India. I don’t think there’s any section of Indian society, Indian politics, Indian elites, which wants to join any kind of a bulwark against China.

At the same time, India understands that unless it gets its act together, unless it takes the process of reform forward, it’s going to get left so far behind China. That’s why India is going to be watching both China and America very carefully.

ZAKARIA: And we will be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: And we are back Kishore Mahbubani from Singapore, Shekhar Gupta from India, of New Delhi, and Minxin Pei of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Kishore, what is being described, in a sense, is an Asia that is, I wouldn’t say optimistic, but seems fairly comfortable, forward- looking, even though this crisis has devastated Asia economies. I mean, the news this week was that Taiwan’s economy shrunk by 8 percent. Singapore is in very bad shape.

Why is this not producing massive social turmoil, pessimism, things like that?

MAHBUBANI: Well, I’m glad that you have confirmed the thesis of my book, that Asia is the most optimistic place in the world. And I think it’s important to emphasize the difference between short-term and long-term perspectives.

This year will be very bad. Singapore will shrink minus 5 percent, Taiwan is shrinking, Japan is shrinking. But, you know, most Asians actually — you know, we had just gone through the Asian financial crisis only about 10, 12 years ago — which was massive, you know.

But we went through it, and came out of it stronger. And the one reason why the Asians are in some ways more relaxed about this crisis, they say, “Hey, we’ve been through this once before. And we’ve actually accumulated the reserves that we needed for this crisis. So we are ready for it.”

And in some ways, this crisis may create wonderful opportunities for the region.

And one of the points I completely agree with Shekhar about is that the Indians no longer see the world as a zero-sum game, that China’s rise is not necessarily bad for India, and nor is India’s rise bad for China. In fact, the region actually wants to see both China and India succeed and be the two new engines of economic growth to drive the region up.

So, frankly, when I talk to people in the region, yes, they’re worried about the next 12 months or so. But they’re absolutely confident that, when this crisis is over, Asia will bounce back faster than any other part of the world.

ZAKARIA: Minxin, a lot of people wonder whether this economic crisis has rattled the Chinese elite, rattled the Communist Party, you know, that they will not actually be that outward-looking, because they’re going to face internal protest, turmoil.

What is your sense of the impact of this economic crisis on the Chinese leadership? PEI: Well, indeed, they have been deeply, deeply rattled. Initially they were not prepared for this. They did not understand the depths and the potential risks of this crisis. And now, I think they’re caught in a downward spiral, because the deceleration of growth in China has exceeded all the worst forecasts.

And now with unemployment looming in China, and then a leadership succession coming up in three to four years, the Communist Party’s leaders are now, of course, much more focused on domestic affairs.

So, this trip may do some very nice door-opening or getting-to- know-you. There are substantive issues I’m not so sure that the Chinese leaders are ready to talk or engage on a really substantive level.

ZAKARIA: Kishore, do you think that the Chinese are in the mood to be very cooperative with the U.S.? Or are they — is there some feeling that they have been swindled by the Americans, that they have made massive investments in America from Treasury bills to private equity firms, all of these investments are doing badly, and there is a sense that maybe they need to turn away from the United States?

MAHBUBANI: I think it’s important to emphasize one thing. You know, when the Chinese look at these things, they always take a long- term perspective and not a short-term perspective. I mean, yes, they may lose some money from U.S. Treasury bills, but there are much larger long-term considerations.

And I was trying to see what I think would be going on in Chinese minds as they receive Hillary Clinton. I see the combination of two or three factors. One, of course, they are very happy that she is coming to send a signal — hey, Asia matters, China matters. And they welcome that.

And the other point that is also critical in Chinese minds is that they realize that we are all in the same boat. We have to get out of this big crisis. And the only way we get out of this is to work together.

And if that’s the attitude of the United States, China will say, yes, we will cooperate with you to fix this.

ZAKARIA: Minxin, finally, Hillary Clinton comes back from Asia. Do you think that this, you know, that her trip will have in some way laid the groundwork for some shift in policy that the Obama people will put in place?

PEI: No, no. This is a symbolic trip, no substance attached to it. Well, if anything that will come out of this trip where China is concerned, I think is climate change, because she brought with her the top person on climate change, Todd Stern.

And if Obama wants to accomplish something in his first term that will be of truly historic proportion, an agreement with China on climate change will be it.

ZAKARIA: And on that note, Minxin Pei, Shekhar Gupta from New Delhi, Kishore Mahbubani from Singapore, thank you very much.

WAIT! THERE IS MORE TO COME! STAY TUNED!!!

Later today, stay tuned for more fascinating offerings from Fareed Zakaria on Pakistan.

You will NOT want to miss it, I promise you.

But first, I must share with you some fun news from China via a longtime friend of mine, Lisa, who has a great blog, The Paper Tiger. Lisa reports, “Hillary seems to be popular here – I’ve seen (positive) biographies and a couple posters of her (can’t remember what those were for).” Because of her father’s profession, Lisa spent childhood years in China and remains fascinated by the country. In Los Angeles, she rose early every Saturday to take Chinese language courses at UCLA, and she makes frequent visits to practice her Chinese and to see the many friends she’s made. On one recent tour, she espied this sign in a Kunming women’s bathroom [PHOTO LEFT] — FLUSH!!!. NOW, CNN’s REPORT on HILLARY IN CHINA:

BELOW, ALL ABOUT HILLARY IN INDONESIA:

“There is so much excitement in the air here,” she told an enthusiastic studio audience on the MTV-style “Dahsyat” show, which translates in English to “Awesome.” She said she had just spoken with Obama who wished them all well, drawing cheers.

Much of her appearance was lighthearted banter about her favorite music — the Beatles and Rolling Stones — and her poor singing abilities, but she also made clear that Washington wants to address Muslim concerns about U.S. policy in the Middle East and elsewhere.

— From “Clinton: U.S. fears N. Korea leadership crisis,” MSNBC news article

How great it is when we can receive the sage wisdom of a neighbor, a retired executive, a former coach, or on the international level a true statesman. While we may find it difficult to hear and deal with a tough message, ultimately the greatest form of “tough love” is simple truth and honesty.

A good friend of mine was gracious enough to share some video clips of a recent interview with Paul Keating, former Prime Minister and Treasurer of Australia. Mr. Keating speaks from experience and does not sugar coat the current economic turmoil.

While the three video clips (listed below) run approximately 20 minutes in total length, please allow me to provide a bullet point overview of some of the highlights. When you do have some spare time, I strongly encourage you to view these clips and gain the benefits of his wisdom. I do not think you will be disappointed, although you may be a bit dismayed as to his blunt honesty. In the meantime, here’s a brief overview:

– Australia had only 1 of the top 50 global banks prior to this crisis. It now has 4 of the top 15.

– the top 200 global financial institutions have had an average loss of 74% of market value.

– the current global economic turmoil is worse than it appears…

– the United States can not reflate the world…

– inflation is coming…

– the G-7 and International Monetary Fund (IMF) are no longer viable entities as structured, and the international economic community needs to formulate new bodies. In the process, we will see a significant shift in power and influence toward surplus nations (primarily China) from debtor nations (primarily United States).

– the Obama administration’s greatest challenge is its engagement of China. It must embrace China and not attempt to dictate to the Chinese along the lines of Treasury Secretary Geithner’s comment about China manipulating its currency.

– Keating strongly castigates the U.S. rating agencies, regulatory bodies, and banks for their neglect and incompetence in risk management.

– a “Bad Bank” may be necessary and has worked previously in other global financial crises

– the global economy needs to work towards debtor nations (U.S. and Europe) saving more, and surplus nations (China and Japan) spending and consuming more

– Keating views himself as neither a fiscal liberal nor conservative, but rather a fiscal pragmatist

– the United States needs to appreciate that it is in for a long and deep recession that will likely last 6 to 7 years!!!
(While I believe Keating is unduly pessimistic in this assessment, I also believe that those who believe the economy will start to turn around in the next 12 to 18 months are unduly optimistic)

No pandering, no nonsense. Mr Keating delivered a simple direct message that I, for one, appreciated. Tough love.

Now let’s go to the videos:

– LD

No freakin’ WONDER they are doing so poorly. When this Representative says they have done everything they need to do, well, that clearly not. If they HAD, they would not be in this shape. It is insane for them to offer so many options. That is just poor, poor management on the part of GM. And WE are paying for their poor management. Even now, they are locked into discussions with the UAW again. Once again, they want OUR money to pay for their employees.

Here’s the thing. My retirement fund is CRAP now with the stock market the way it is. My partner’s retirement fund is CRAP now because of the stock market. We are having to COMPLETELY rework our retirement plans as a result, including when my partner can retire, as a result. That is the real world consequence. Yet, the auto companies want to pass those real world consequences onto US. They want to make US pay for them, so their employees DON’T have to face the consequences of making products people don’t want to buy, and offering an obscene number of “options” that increase the costs of making the cars. It is absurd!! But here they are, back at the trough, wanting more and more of OUR money. Of course, we all knew this was going to happen, despite assurances to the contrary. Big surprise – not.

As for going abroad, yesterday I saw Secretary of State Clinton arriving at the Imperial Palace in Japan to engage in a tea ceremony with Empress Michiko. When they met, you could see how much affection these two women have for each other:

And you can see part of the ceremony here, as well as a brief report of her visit to Japan.

Clinton is now in Indonesia:

The U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said here Wednesday on the second leg of her Asian trip that the United States and Indonesia would form a comprehensive partnership.

She said at a joint press conference after meeting with the Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs Hassan Wirayuda that the United States had recognized the importance of Indonesia, which shares not only common interests but also common values with it.

Specifically, she was referring to democratic values.

It gives me some hope to have Hillary Clinton speaking for us around the world. It should be HER policies she is espousing and not Obama’s, but still – her presence, her abilities, her knowledge all make her uniquely qualified to engage with other nations. She makes me proud.

And now, CLASS: Please compare, and contrast, these two examples of television journalism:

Yes, well. Actually, there was some news in there.

And, Rachel, I’d flat-out kill for Hillary’s coat BUT it is NOT your lead, Rachel. So not your lead! (North Korea, for example

Hillary, you rock. Rachel? You not so much.

And why oh god why Rachel do you over-enunciate and over-emote every single word that comes out of your mouth in a very much too-high-pitched way?

Breathe, Rachel.

Take it from an old former French horn player: Use your diaphragm.

You’re supposed to be engaging, not grating!

Oh, that second example? That’s from the new PBS world news program that I’m very fond of, WorldFocus. Besides the above video, there’s this “blog” report:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Tokyo on Monday night on her first trip as the nation’s chief diplomat.

“I have come to Asia as my first trip as secretary of state to convey that America’s relationships across the Pacific are indispensable to addressing the challenges and seizing the opportunities of the twenty-first century,” Clinton said to a crowd in Tokyo.

Sheila A. Smith, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss how Clinton will approach North Korea, Japan and how the Japanese view China’s growing economic and military power.

Read what a Worldfocus contributing blogger had to say about Clinton’s stop in Japan and what her visit means for internal Japanese politics: Clinton plans for a rare meeting with Japan’s opposition.

Check out MORE at WorldFocus.

P.S. Last night’s program included a quite disturbing if fascinating examination of the fascination with and admiration for Joseph Stalin that today’s Russians have: “Stalin Makes a Comeback With Russia’s Youth.”

• Hillary Clinton will bypass Europe and travel to Asia on her maiden voyage overseas
• U.S. Secretary of State Clinton to visit Japan, China, South Korea and Indonesia
• Trip illustrates Obama administration’s desire for a broader partnership with Asia
• Trip also highlights commitment to resolving the North Korean nuclear issue

BELOW THE FOLD: “CNN’s Kristie Lu Stout talks with David Lampton of John Hopkins University about Hillary Clinton’s trip to Asia” … This is a great backgrounder video on all the historic and current issues and crises that Secretary Clinton will be covering in this trip that covers an array of complex matters, including her historic 1995 speech in Beijing on women’s rights … as well as snippets from the longer CNN news article …

FROM the CNN news article:

ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska (CNN) — Hillary Clinton says her first overseas trip to Asia as U.S. secretary of state is aimed at creating a “network of partners” to tackle problems that no nation can deal with alone, including the global economic crisis.

Hillary Clinton seeks improved relations with China, where she said the U.S. would renew military contacts.

En route to Asia on Sunday, Clinton told reporters that the economy would serve as the backdrop of her trip, and she intends to explain steps the United States is taking with its $787 billion stimulus bill. She said she will be “seeking cooperation on ways that we are going to work through these very difficult economic times.”

Clinton is slated to travel to Japan, China, South Korea and Indonesia to discuss a range of issues, including mutual economic recovery, trade, the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation and reversing the global warming trend.

The trip represents a departure from a diplomatic tradition under which the first overseas trip by the secretary of state in a new administration is to Europe.

Speaking at the New York-based Asia Society last week, Clinton said the Obama administration wants to “develop a broader and deeper” relationship with Asia, a region that has felt overlooked by the United States despite its growing global importance.

“It demonstrates clearly that our new administration wants to focus a lot of time and energy in working with Asian partners and all the nations in the Pacific region,” she said, “because we know that so much of our future depends upon our relationships there.” Watch David Lampton of John Hopkins University discuss Clinton’s trip »

On Sunday, she addressed North Korea’s nuclear program, which she’s called “the most acute challenge to stability in northeast Asia.” Clinton said the Obama administration is prepared to seek a permanent, stable peace with Pyongyang as long as its regime pursues disarmament and does not engage in aggression against neighboring South Korea. The United States has a “great openness and willingness to working with them,” she said. … [READ ALL.]

The suit filed by Mr. McCain’s campaign against elections officials states Mr. McCain could lose votes from military members overseas who support the Vietnam War hero.

“There are many military service members and overseas voters who support Senator John McCain for president in the upcoming election and whose right to vote will be denied without relief from this court,” stated the complaint, also filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond.

The complaint states some Virginia localities did not send absentee ballots to overseas voters at least 45 days before the election, as recommended in 2004 by a congressionally created commission.

Wow. That is just a tad problematic, don’t you think? It is 2008 – surely 4 years is sufficient lead time to make sure that everything is squared away in order to fulfill this recommendation. Just sayin’.

This lawsuit was sparked by one case – see? Making your voice heard DOES matter! Hopefully, anyway. THe article continues:

The complaint cites the specific case of a Marine stationed in Iraq who did not receive his absentee ballot from Arlington County until Oct. 29. It asks that the court order absentee ballots for federal offices sent by Nov. 4 from qualified voters and received by Nov. 14 in the state to be counted.

“The McCain-Palin campaign believes without exception that the servicemen and women on the front line protecting our freedoms deserve every opportunity to make sure their vote counts,” McCain spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said.

It was not clear last night when the suit would be heard in court.

“Of course we want to make sure that all the absentee ballots that are coming in from overseas are counted,” Miss Skinner said. “We’ll comply with whatever order the judge gives on that.”

I dunno – I don’t think 10 days is all that long to wait, all things considered, do you? Whether one agrees with the Iraq War (I don’t), the reality is that these people are putting their lives on the line, their lives at home on hold, making sacrifices the enormity of which many of us cannot fathom, including, sadly, the ultimate sacrifice for some. I think the least we can do is allow them to VOTE. THis goes for ALL of our military serving abroad, whether it be Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Germany – wherever it is, our citizens deserve to execute their right in a democracy to cast their vote. Anything less is unacceptable, especially when they are in harm’s way. And especially when people like these two get to vote unimpeded:

Isn’t it weird seeing people go up and hug them? Like they are just anybody else in the neighborhood, not two unrepentant domestic terrorists who want to teach their children?? I wonder – was it from them that Obama learned to be a con man? Ahem.

So, yeah – I don’t think 10 days is too much to ask to allow late absentee ballots from our military, through no fault of their own, to come back in, do you?

Sung to the tune of “The Way We Were”.

************************************

If the MSM had any difficulty, or even cared about, finding unrepentant domestic terrorist and Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers, or his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, during a week this past September, it was perhaps because they didn’t know where to look — or, most likely, weren’t looking.

The radical couple had made a little offshore visit to that four-letter island off Florida’s coast in the company of this lady, Chicago composer, flutist, and performance artist — and longtime Kenwood resident, a.k.a. Obama neighbor, and supporter — Janice Misurell-Mitchell, Co-Artistic Director of CUBE Contemporary Chamber Ensemble in Chicago since 1989, and wife of University of Chicago English and Art History professor W.J.T. Mitchell, also an Obama supporter.

How do we know? Well, thanks to sharp-eyed RBO reader jr, we have the Winter 2008 CUBE Ensemble newsletter that says so.

So, how did the Ayers-Dohrn “political activists” manage to travel to Cuba? Looks like they may have qualified as “full-time professionals“:

Full-time professionals whose travel transactions are directly related to professional research in their professional areas, provided that their research:

(1) is of a noncommercial academic nature, (2) comprises a full work schedule in Cuba, and (3) has a substantial likelihood of public dissemination.

Full-time professionals whose travel transactions are directly related to attendance at professional meetings or conferences in Cuba organized by an international professional organization, institution, or association that regularly sponsors such meetings or conferences in other countries. The organization, institution, or association sponsoring the meeting or conference may not be headquartered in the United States unless it is specifically licensed to sponsor the meeting. The purpose of the meeting or conference cannot be the promotion of tourism in Cuba or other commercial activities involving Cuba, or to foster production of any biotechnological products.

Venceremos Brigade-Weatherman

This must have been a highly nostalgic walk down the international revolutionary “memory lane” for Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

The following, which comes from an August 1976 redacted FBI report, provides a clear background. When, in July 1969, Vietnamese representatives met with “leading Weatherpeople” (including Dohrn) in Havana, Cuba,

… the influence of Vietnamese representatives on the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) leadership became sharply pronounced. At the same time, the example of the Cuban revolution became the guide for the emerging American student revolutionary. With an increasing number of trips to Havana where the youthful revolutionary could learn at first hand how to create revolution, the influence of Cuba on the developing WUO was enormous.

The WUO obtained their revolutionary methodology from the Cubans and Vietnamese and, importantly, put into practice what they had learned from them. [...]

So, when Huynh Van Ba, representative of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG), instructed WUO to “look for the person who fights hardest against cops…Don’t look for the one who says the best thing. Look for the one who fights,” the campus base was forgotten and the WUO began to recruit the greasers and assorted oddments who had displayed their hatred of authority in direct combat with police.”

See next page for more

Pages: 1 2 3

Obama’s willingness to flip-flop has earned him the moniker Backtrack Obama. He betrayed progressives by voting for the FISA legislation; he promised to expand Bush’s faith-based initiatives; he equivocated on choice by saying that “mental distress” should not be a factor in abortion.

Obama’s newest flip flop was not over a matter of public policy important to progressives, but rather the United State’s historic role in confronting evil. During the debate at Saddleback, Rick Warren asked, “Does evil exist and, if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, or do we defeat it?”

OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil sadly on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. And I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely. And one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God’s task. But we can be soldiers in that process. And we can confront it when we see it.

Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil. Because, you know, a lot of evil’s been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil.

Think about Obama’s words. He’s talking about the United States. Consider the image below. It’s G.I.s examining a train car at Dachau. During the last century, the United States ended the bloody morass of World War I, freed Europe from genocidal Nazism and freed the Pacific Rim from the horrors of Imperial Japan. We held off Soviet expansionism and our policies eventually freed hundreds of millions who lived under the iron fist of communism.

Our country has undoubtedly made grievous errors confronting evil. We’ve entered conflicts, like Vietnam, where we had only a cursory understanding of the nationalistic feelings of the population. But to accuse the United States of being evil when we confronted communist expansionism in Korea or Vietnam or dictators elsewhere, like Iraq — regardless of how unwise the war policies may have been — is an inaccurate and shameful explanation of our history. It is the typical far-left canard which describes bad policies as having evil intentions.

The men responsible for our entry into Vietnam — Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson — were idealists who were responding to the pressures of their era. They collectively made many mistakes, but they were not evil men. Similarly, the men who had to deal with Saddam Hussein — Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II — were all criticized for their actions or inactions but all of them, I believe, wanted to make the best decisions for the security of their country. So while mistakes were made, colossal mistakes, it was not on par with the evil we confronted, as Obama suggests.

When Warren asked the same question of McCain, he responded:

MCCAIN: Defeat it.

(APPLAUSE) A couple points. One, if I’m president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that and I know how to do it. I will get that guy. No one, no one should be allowed to take thousands of innocent American lives.

This one question put into stark relief each man’s attitude towards the United States. McCain is a man who personally sacrificed in a war which lasted far too long, but he does not ascribe evil to his own country. He knows evil exists and he is ready to confront it. McCain is an old-fashioned patriot, and Obama believes in the moral relativists values of the extreme left. In Obama’s flip flop, the good guys become the bad guys. No wonder he felt at home at Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church.

Today I know “how” people voted for Richard Nixon in a historic landslide. Nobody really thought he was so great. The problem was they refused to vote for McGovern.

Really, as I look back in retrospect, George McGovern was a gentleman. Next to Barack Obama he was brilliant and honest. He had the experience and the service to his country to add to his resume. He actually had a real resume. His resume made Barack Obama look like a Playground Director. And he was a pleasant enough guy as well. He didn’t offend women at all either.

George’s problem wasn’t George. His problem was his followers. We were angsty. We wanted “change”. We wanted somebody who inspired us. What kid doesn’t? George was it for us. Pass the bong!

George was also rather academic. That meant smart! They called him an “egghead”. That was the equivalent word at the time for “elitist” and “snob”. George didn’t relate much to “regular folks”. He was….well….at a higher level. We young people understood what that meant. Our parents did too. They just didn’t attach the same meaning to it. Sound familiar?

George was beloved by all the kids.

He was beloved by all the college professors, especially the professors who taught Socialism and Communism.

The hippies loved George. He was like one of them only older.

George knew all the cool mannerisms and buzz words. And he knew our music. He turned us on.

The old SDS people loved George.

The anti-war people loved George.

Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn for sure loved George!

The American Communist Party loved George.

The American Socialist party loved George.

George was the quintessential fringe candidate.

I remember discussing how cool and Far Out George was and how odious Dick was with my parents and they gave me that “Are you crazy??!” look. I didn’t get it. McGovern was going to pull our troops out and end that stupid war. My parents wanted that war to end as much as anybody. We had relatives and friends who died there for Chrissakes. McGovern was anti-war. Nixon was not. Nixon was nothing more than the establishment. The same old boring crap! Yet my parents were going to vote for Nixon! What the hell was that all about?

What had happened to my parents? I thought they were smarter than that! Was it like some pod thing? As my generation went, I had parents I could talk to. I mean, they were pretty cool. They kept me under check and acted like real parents, but other than that annoying problem, it wasn’t as if I had to hide things from them. Except the bong of course. The truth is, these were not completely Uncool or dumb parents. Yet, here they were planning on voting for Nixon! I could see they didn’t like Nixon, so why the hell were they going to vote for him??!!!

I’m telling you, I was just so freaked over my parents’ opinion of George McGovern that I seriously thought I should leave home while I still knew everything. I mean it was clear to me that these people who spawned me had morphed into completely stupid excuses for adults. Same with my grandparents. They were all voting for Nixon. My grandfather, the card-carrying Carpenter’s Union guy! They were losing it! How could Democrats abandon their party when they had the best damned candidate ever???At this point, I was so angry at my parents that I barely tolerated allowing them to feed me, heat the house, pay the mortgage, take me on cool vacations and buy me lots of stuff.

I didn’t “get it” then, but I get it today.

The fact of the matter is, George McGovern’s followers offended and terrorized the American Electorate more than the war did!

George McGovern received 38% of the votes that year, a huge bashing. Today we would call it “Handing your ass to you on a plate“. And there we were, stuck with Dick Nixon again.

What was it about George’s followers that made Americans trip over themselves to go to the polls and vote against him? How did adult America perceive them?:

They were mean. They were nasty. They never shaved. They burned flags and bras and shit. They rioted over simply everything. They had rock concerts that destroyed entire cities. They demonstrated and held up traffic. They were all dependent on their parents and had a lot of free time to be pushy and arrogant. They were often on TV doing something that reviled the rest of America. They took drugs. They had sex all the time. There were socialists and communists and radicals of dubious intent hanging around with or worshipping George. Some of them did dangerous things like blow up buildings and crap. Now who could I possibly be referring to?

The amazing thing is, they didn’t even have the internet in those days, where McGovern followers could terrorize, insult and thwart Nixon supporters. Technology was scant by comparison to today, yet McGovern’s followers were very well “known” to the electorate. Of course, in those days, reporters actually reported the news instead of creating it. There were no Keith Olbermanns or Chris Matthews-type people stirring the pot and working diligently to make things come out the way they wanted them to be. There were no nasty bitter old men like Jack Cafferty to sneer and snort and peddle his own opinions as if they were fact. News wasn’t blocked out because it didn’t “suit” the political ideology of the networks. If it happened, it was reported, even if the reporter didn’t like it. And boy-oh-boy, did those noisy rallies of screaming angsty kids put people off.

So, in 1972, people sat around their TVs and watched the bad behavior of McGovern’s followers. They chanted for George. They hooted. They yelled. They rallied in huge crowds. They chanted some more. Everybody around him looked about 12 years old to most of America. Some of them showed up at the Democratic Convention as Delegates, displacing elected officials that Americans knew and loved. 19 year-olds were making history, so they thought. Some of them hadn’t even grown beards yet in the eyes of their ATMs known as “parents”. They wouldn’t even take out the garbage and here they were as Delegates at a convention, trying to tell everybody who should be president.

Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and their Declaration of A State of War were well established household Nightmare names by that time, and the words used to describe them weren’t pretty. Their most recent Pentagon bombing was fresh in everyone’s mind. America had watched their crap on TV over and over again, and most parents silently thanked God they didn’t produce sociopaths like those two. To America, these were two insane maniacs blowing up the country and Declaring War on simply everybody.

In 1972, People also still remembered 1968 and the violence associated with that year. That was the year Richard Nixon won his first term thanks to the behavior of Young Democrats and the infamous unruly convention. Two great men were assassinated that year, and the result was yet more violence. It was not a pretty time and voters weren’t going to give these fringe crackpots anymore shots at crashing and burning down America and promoting socialism. It was as simple as that. When I think of Recreate 68, I think, Thank You! You are helping to defeat today’s George McGovern, Barack Obama. Please keep doing what you are doing!

The electorate chose Nixon because they felt America was safer with smarmy Him in charge. If nothing else, he would reign in the angsty young I-Know-Everything “new voter registrants,” also known as “dependents” — and hopefully keep them from destroying the entire country’s infrastructure. And there were a lot of new young voter registrants in 1972. This was the first year 18-20 year-olds were allowed to vote, so the number was massive. Remember, these were the Baby Boomers — The largest block of young voters in the history of America. This voting block was far larger than the youth voting block of today. Yet……..George McGovern got 38% of the vote that year.

Nobody helped George McGovern lose that ‘72 election more than his young followers did. They were a Gift to Richard Nixon.

Today, those Baby Boomers are still a huge voting block. Except now they are grown up and they know shit from shinola.

I rest my case.