Nope. The Arab World. Yep, that’s right, even after Obama’s bowing and scraping to them, whether it was to Saudi King Abdullah, or the Egyptians after his Cairo speech. Yes, we have lost even more standing in the world now. (Photo found at Atlas Shrugs.)

Indeed, despite Obama’s numerous overtures to the Arab world, seems they aren’t too happy with us. Glenn Greenwald had this article in Salon, US More Unpopular In Arab World Than Under Bush:

I’ve written numerous times over the last year about rapidly worsening perceptions of the U.S. in the Muslim world, including a Pew poll from April finding that Egyptians view the U.S. more unfavorably now than they did during the Bush presidency. A new poll released today of six Arab nations — Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco — contains even worse news on this front:

The hope that the Arab world had not long ago put in the United States and President Obama has all but evaporated.

Two and a half years after Obama came to office, raising expectations for change among many in the Arab world, favorable ratings of the United States have plummeted in the Middle East, according to a new poll conducted by Zogby International for the Arab American Institute Foundation.

In most countries surveyed, favorable attitudes toward the United States dropped to levels lower than they were during the last year of the Bush administration . . . Pollsters began their work shortly after a major speech Obama gave on the Middle East . . . Fewer than 10 percent of respondents described themselves as having a favorable view of Obama.

What’s striking is that none of these is among the growing list of countries we’re occupying and bombing. Indeed, several are considered among the more moderate and U.S.-friendly nations in that region, at least relatively speaking. Yet even in this group of nations, anti-U.S. sentiment is at dangerously (even unprecedentedly) high levels.

Yikes. That is not good. If we were talking Libya, or Iran, this would not be surprising news. But that some of the ones who think less of us now among our friendlier nations is disturbing on a number of levels.

Greenwald continues:

In one sense, this is hardly surprising, given the escalating violence and bombing the U.S. is bringing to that region, its ongoing fealty to Israel, and the dead-ender support the American government gave to that region’s besieged dictators. Though unsurprising, it’s still remarkable. After all, one of the central promises of an Obama presidency was a re-making of America in the eyes of that part of the world, but the opposite is taking place.

More significantly, as democracy slowly but inexorably takes hold, consider the type of leaders that will be elected in light of this pervasive anti-American hostility. When the U.S. propped up dictators to suppress those populations, public opinion was irrelevant; now that that scheme is collapsing, public opinion will become far more consequential, and it does not bode well either for U.S. interests (as defined by the American government) or the U.S.’s ability to extract itself from its posture of Endless War in that region. Given that it is anti-American sentiment that, more than anything else, fuels Terrorism (as the Pentagon itself has long acknowledged), we yet again find the obvious truth: the very policies justified in the name of combating Terrorism are the same ones that do the most to sustain and perpetuate it.

That is precisely the issue, as we have seen in Egypt already. All of the jubilation that this small band of people were able to stage a coup (still don’t know how that happened), and that democracy was coming to Egypt, downplayed the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood was going to be a big part of the new government. Guess what, they are. And now, our esteemed Secretary of State would welcome dialogue with this group:

“We believe, given the changing political landscape in Egypt, that it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to nonviolence, that intend to compete for the parliament and the presidency,” she told reporters in Budapest, Hungary. “And we welcome, therefore, dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us.” [snip]

Um, the Muslim Brotherhood has waged jihad against the United State, which spawned Hamas`, which works to impose the law of the Quran (that would be Sharia Law), and which treats women as worse than shit. To characterize it as a “committed to nonviolence” is laughable on its face. And now we are giving it legitimacy. Great job, everyone. Wow.

Believe it or not, there is more:

UPDATE: The full report on the new Middle East poll highlights several other additional striking findings:

In five out of the six countries surveyed, the U.S. was viewed less favorably than Turkey, China, France — or Iran. Far from seeing the U.S. as a leader in the post-Arab Spring environment, the countries surveyed viewed “U.S. interference in the Arab world” as the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East, second only to the continued Palestinian occupation. . . . President Obama’s favorable ratings across the Arab world are 10% or less.

While Americans are continuously inculcated with the message that Iran is the greatest threat to that region, the people who actually live there view the U.S. in that light. And as the above-referenced links to other polls demonstrate, that is a routine finding in surveys of Arab and Muslim opinion in that part of the world.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Good grief. You know it is bad when Iran is thought of more highly than the United States. That just boggles the mind, doesn’t it?

Two and a half years after the president who has alienated Israel, our ally; threw former ally Mubarak under the bus; and literally bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, the United States has lost standing with Arab Nations. I admit, I did not see this one coming. How about you?

And that would be this Bloomberg article, Saudi Women Inspired by Fall of Mubarak Step Up Equality Demand. Wow, right? Honestly, I did not see this as a potential change, primarily because of the influx of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the very likely scenario that women who enjoyed more freedoms in Egypt, will soon be losing them (if they haven’t already). Sill, this is exciting:

Activists among Saudi Arabia’s women, who can’t drive or vote and need male approval to work and travel, are turning to the type of online organizing that helped topple Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak to force change in a system they say treats them like children.

The “Baladi” or “My Country” campaign is focused on this year’s municipal elections, only the second nationwide ballot that the absolute monarchy has allowed. The election board yesterday said women will be excluded from the Sept. 22 vote. Another group, the Saudi Women’s Revolution, citing inspiration from the Arab activism that grew into revolts against Mubarak and Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, is pressing for equal treatment and urging international support.

The wave of anti-regime protests that spread from Tunisia and Egypt into some of Saudi Arabia’s Persian Gulf neighbors, such as Bahrain and Oman, hasn’t translated into mass street demonstrations in the kingdom that holds the world’s biggest oil reserves. Saudi rulers have taken steps to ensure it won’t, pledging almost $100 billion of spending on homes, jobs and benefits. They also deployed thousands of police in Riyadh on March 11, when a protest was planned by Internet organizers — a group that increasingly includes Saudi women.

“Women are raised to fear men and to fear speaking out,” said Mona al-Ahmed, a 25-year-old in the coastal city of Jeddah. She said she joined the Women’s Revolution campaign after her brother refused to let her take her dream job, as a biochemist, because it would involve working in a mixed-gender environment. “I opened my eyes one day and said, ‘This is not the life I want’,” al-Ahmed said in a phone interview.

Well, I suppose that is one way of keeping the people in place, right? Ahem.

But this is telling indeed of how women in Saudi Arabia, our ally, live. We may hear bits and pieces about it, but at this point, it seems we just take for granted women are treated like shit there.

Think I am being hyperbolic? Think again:

[snip] Like other opposition and protest groups in Saudi Arabia, the women’s movement faces a tough task. The kingdom ranked as the least democratic state in the Middle East, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2010 Democracy Index.

“Women will not participate in this session,” Abdul- Rahman al-Dahmash, director of the kingdom’s electoral commission, said at a press conference yesterday, referring to the municipal balloting. “There is a plan, though not with a definite time, to put in place a framework so that women can participate in upcoming elections.”

Baladi said on its Facebook page that Saudi women “are like other women in the world who have hopes and ambitions” and must be allowed to vote.

While Saudi Arabia was placed in the top one-third of nations in the United Nations 2010 Human Development Report — higher than European Union member Bulgaria — its score for gender equality was much lower. On that UN measure, which includes assessments of reproductive health and participation in politics and the labor market, the country ranked 128th of 138 nations, below Iran and Pakistan. [snip]

You know it is bad when you rank BELOW Iran and Pakistan on the treatment of women. Seriously. How bad must you be to be WORSE than Iran and Pakistan??

Let’s just pause for a moment and see how women are treated in Iran (I warn you, this is a difficult video to watch, contains violent images):

Women are worth half as much as men. They are culpable at the age of 9 for “crimes,” while boys aren’t until they are 16. Women cannot divorce their husbands. Men can have many wives. And that is but a minute amount of with what these women live.

Well, how about Pakistan, then? This video gives a good overview (again, difficult to watch):

“Considered to be the property of men.” Uh, yeah. Not allowed to leave the house. Infant girls killed. Slave girls trapped from other countries and sold every day. Education morally corrupts girls, thus they should not have it.

And Saudi Arabia is farther down the list than Pakistan in its treatment of women.

I’m sorry, I need a moment to compose myself.

Back to the reality facing women in Saudi Arabia:

[snip] Saudi Arabia enforces the Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam and its clerics say that requires strict segregation of the sexes, including in government offices, workplaces and public spaces such as restaurants. Other areas of discontent highlighted by women writers and activists include family law. A Saudi man can end his marriage by telling his wife, “You are divorced,” while women must go to a court or an authorized cleric to get a dissolution. Custody of children above a certain age is usually granted to the father.

Saudi Arabia is also one of the few countries that has a high rate of executions for women, Amnesty International said in a 2008 report. (Emphasis mine.) Adultery is among the capital offenses.

[...]

Those are among the goals of the Women’s Revolution group, which began as an exchange of Twitter messages among likeminded women, and now has more than 2,000 Facebook supporters. “Women are treated like minors, except if they commit a crime,” the group said in a statement on Facebook. “Then they are equal.”

Alia al-Faqih, 19, said this year’s Arab revolts inspired her to join the group and demand change in her country.

“The protesters in Egypt and Tunisia did something that was almost impossible,” she said in a telephone interview from Jeddah. “If they could bring down two tough presidents, why can’t we demand our rights?”

Why, indeed? Women in Saudia Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and many countries around the world must do just that – demand their rights. Though as noted above, with the increased presence of the Sharia Law-loving Muslim Brotherhood rising up in Egypt, simply getting a change at the top does not mean a change throughout the country. And in the case of Egypt, it is a change for the worse for women.

And speaking of change, there has been some lip service paid to changing the plight of women in Saudi Arabia, but it is largely window dressing:

[snip] Saudi Arabia’s ruler, King Abdullah, who turns 87 this year, has pledged to improve the status of women. He opened the kingdom’s first co-educational university in 2009, appointed its first female deputy minister, Nora bint Abdullah al-Fayez, the same year, and has promised steps to improve access to jobs for women, who make up about 15 percent of the workforce. That would help improve productivity in the kingdom’s oil-dominated economy, say analysts including John Sfakianakis, chief economist at Banque Saudi Fransi.

A change of policy in 2008 allowed women to stay in hotels without male guardians, and an amendment to the Labor Law allowed women to work in all fields “suitable to their nature.” Women can now study law at university, without being allowed to practice as lawyers in courts.

At some companies, such as billionaire investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s Kingdom Holding Co. (KINGDOM), women are permitted to work alongside men. That isn’t typical, though. Most companies that hire women must provide a women-only section that is off- limits to the male staff.

Human Rights Watch concluded in January that “reforms to date have involved largely symbolic steps to improve the visibility of women.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, superficial reforms at best in Saudi Arabia, not the systemic changes in attitude and treatment of women that need to change.

I know I have asked this before, but how, how, in the Twenty-first century, are women around the globe still being treated as less than human, as chattel, as property, as worthless, as animals, as dirt? How do we, as a nation, not demand that the countries with whom we do business treat women as full human beings?

Lest anyone think this is a problem “over there,” I assure you, what happens to women there affects women here. When an 11 year old girl can be gang raped, by adult men, numerous times, right here in Texas, as well as California, we must acknowledge that what happens to women and girls here, in Saudi Arabia, around the world, matters.

It matters a lot. Just after I finished writing this, I received an email from MADRE about the kidnapping and torture of a youth activist in Iraq. This kind of treatment of women is happening day in and day out, sadly.

And so, for those women in Saudi Arabia, may the ripples continue to widen. May they change the way women are treated, at home and abroad, may the treatment of women matter as much as the oil beneath the sands, and may women be treated as fully human around the globe. That is my prayer…

The above photograph was taken at the Diller-von Furstenberg 2nd Annual Awards, as Chelsea presented her mother, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with the first Inspiration Award.

Some of the most poignant moments for me of the 2008 Campaign were to see Chelsea Clinton with her mother. The pride she felt, the love, the connection, was evident by the way Chelsea looked at her mother when she was speaking. This photo reminds me of those days when a woman garnered the most votes of any candidate during a primary ever.

Yes, it brought back some memories, like this one of Chelsea and her mother:

(Joe Raedle-Getty Images)

Ah, yes – those were the days. It seems appropriate during Women’s History Month to remember, to affirm, just how close we came to having a woman president for the first time in this country. And to recognize just how far we have to go to achieve true equality in this country. Sadly, more qualified, accomplished, women still have to take a back seat to younger, unqualified men. It is a sobering thought.

Given that Clinton was just awarded an Inspiration award, what should we make of it when the Secretary Clinton consistently highlights the importance of girls and women to be educated, that the very development of communities, and countries, depend on how women fare. Yet when discussing Afghanistan, women, and USAID, a senior official claims that:“Gender issues are going to have to take a back seat to other priorities. There’s no way we can be successful if we maintain every special interest and pet project. All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down.” (H/t to Yttik.)

“Pet rocks”? That’s how this “senior official,” who would speak only under conditions of anonymity, describes over half the population in relation to a USAID contract in Afghanistan? And on the eve of International Women’s Day, no less?

I hope you appreciate my restraint in not writing what I really think of this man (but you can feel free to add your two cents worth about him).

Allow me to provide some context for his assholic remark, though it may make you even madder. The quote is from a Washington Post article entitled, “In Afghanistan, U.S. Shifts Strategy On Women’s Rights As It Eyes Wider Priorities.” Yes, the headline does provide a bit of a clue as to the intent, but this makes it crystal clear:

When the U.S. Agency for International Development sought bids last March for a $140 million land reform program in Afghanistan, it insisted that the winning contractor meet specific goals to promote women’s rights: The number of deeds granting women title had to increase by 50 percent; there would have to be regular media coverage on women’s land rights; and teaching materials for secondary schools and universities would have to include material on women’s rights.

Before the contract was awarded, USAID overhauled the initiative, stripping out those concrete targets. Now, the contractor only has to perform “a written evaluation of Afghan inheritance laws,” assemble “summaries of input from women’s groups” and draft amendments to the country’s civil code.

The removal of specific women’s rights requirements, which also took place in a $600 million municipal government program awarded last year, reflects a shift in USAID’s approach in Afghanistan. Instead of setting ambitious goals to improve the status of Afghan women, the agency is tilting toward more attainable measures. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Ah, yes, “attainable measures.” Right. Presumably that means turning the other way when girls get acid thrown in their faces by the Taliban. Or when women are killed through “honor” killings. I could go on, but I trust you get the idea.

So a senior official refers to women as “pet rocks” in a discussion of how USAID, which falls under the State Department, has thrown women under the bus in their contract requirements. Wow.

I remember well those days, just three short years ago, when Hillary Clinton was amassing the most votes of anyone ever in the history of the country. I remember well the excitement of women, children, and men alike that this incredible, capable, intelligent, qualified woman had surfaced in a run for the White House. And I remember well how the media, the DNC, and Obama himself, worked to destroy her by any means necessary, including massive misogyny at every turn.

And then she went to work for him.

The issues that affect women and girls has always been of the greatest importance to Hillary Clinton. Or at least they were until she became Secretary of State under the least qualified man ever to sit in the White House, pushed over the far more qualified woman. The issues that always meant so much to her, to us, now take a back seat as “special interests.” Over half the population in the world has been reduced to a “pet rock.” Holy moley.

I have never been inspired by a politician the way I was by Hillary Clinton. I have never donated so much time, money, or energy as I did for Hillary Clinton. Two years ago, I would have said, “hell to the yes” she deserves an Inspiration Award. But when her department fails to do what is right for women in Afghanistan, or Egypt, or Libya, or Iran, or anywhere else in the world, because women are seen as “special projects,” not worthy of full humanity, well, I find that less than inspiring.

Frankly, I find it disturbing. How about you?

And so, I was interested to see to whom FIFA was going to award the 2022 World Cup, especially since the US was in the running. Well, FIFA, in their “infinite wisdom,” granted to Qatar the 2022 World Cup over the United States. That’s right. Qatar. By a vote of 14 – 8, with an all male committee, I might add. Where it is 100 degrees in the afternoon during the summer. Where wearing shorts can get you into trouble. Where Sharia law is the law of the land, particularly in “family matters, inheritance, and certain criminal acts” (though their National Human Rights Committee is working toward equal rights for women. And at least women can drive there, unlike our ally, Saudi Arabia. So there’s that.).

Are you freakin’ KIDDING me? Qatar is NOT a soccer powerhouse. Hell, it barely has soccer at all! Stadiums? What stadiums? They have to BUILD the damn things first, that’s how much of a soccer country Qatar is. This WaPo article makes the understatement of the century:

On the surface, the decision by soccer’s international governing body Thursday to award the 2022 World Cup to Qatar – a desert nation smaller than Connecticut with shallow soccer roots and oppressive summer heat – instead of the United States or three other event-tested countries made little sense.

Um, no, not just “on the surface” – below the surface, to anyone with a brain in their head, it makes no sense whatsoever. Oh, but the FIFA people can justify it with some kind of logic, just like choosing Russia over England, the birthplace of “football”. Sorry, my head is spinning. Anyway, here’s the justification:

But to those close to the process who understand FIFA’s complexities and recent mission to forge history, the results of the voting were not unforeseen.

Qatar received the most votes from the executive committee by a wide margin in each of the first three rounds, and when Australia, Japan and South Korea were eliminated, it defeated the United States, 14 to 8, for the right to host the planet’s most popular sporting event.

“It’s an election, and there are lots of things that go into that,” U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati said from Zurich, where, in another surprise, FIFA chose Russia over England and two other European bids to host the 2018 tournament. “It’s politics, it’s friendships and relationships, it’s alliances, it’s tactics.”

FIFA seemed to regard the United States as the safe choice – the country had set attendance records when it hosted the 1994 World Cup and offered the stadiums, infrastructure and commercial rewards to pull off another successful tournament in 12 years.

But FIFA was also charmed by Qatar’s innovative stadium plans, massive financial resources and the promise of promoting harmony in a region fractured by conflict.

[snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

They were “charmed” by it? THAT is the new standard for choosing a country with essentially ZERO sports acumen over the United States of America?? They thought the US was the “safe choice”? How about the SANE choice?!

Huh – I wonder just how much “charm” Qatar promised FIFA. I guess they don’t expect too many women from abroad to go to the World Cup. Or anyone who enjoys a cold one while at the stadium (hell, I don’t even drink, but good grief – it’s SOCCER). Or who might want to hold hands with someone who is not yet their lawful spouse. Or any number of other things that are frowned upon there…

Wow. While women in Qatar may fare better than women in other Muslim countries, say, Iran, it is still a conservative country in which women wear the burka, and where most are in arranged marriages (though either party can refuse), and where polygamy is common. Women are allowed to go to (segregated) schools, and can work, but they are not in the upper echelons of society, particularly in the work place.

And so, this is the country FIFA chose over the United States. This tiny desert country with no soccer heritage of which to speak, a conservative Muslim country that is also hot as hell. Oh, yeah – I can see why they were picked over the US – all that “charm.”

Let’s be clear here: Arizona is now on the list for trying to uphold Federal Immigration Law, and for making it a law that people who have been stopped for violations can be asked for their papers.

What shocks me even more was Secretary Clinton’s willingness to put Arizona in this category. Yes, she thought it would be a “model,” according to this Fox News report:

[snip] Crowley said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton included the dispute in the report because she thought the U.S. could serve as “a model” to other nations.

“The universal periodic review, we believe, can be a model to demonstrate, you know, to other countries, even other countries on the Human Rights Council, this is how you engage civil society,’ Crowley told reporters. [enip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

A “model”? We have girls and their teachers being gassed in Afghanistan. Women in Iran being stoned to death for allegedly committing adultery. Hundreds of women being raped in Congo. And our State Department puts ARIZONA on a Human Rights list?

As if I didn’t already have a headache from my root canal.

Oh, and speaking of Iran, I trust you recall that Iran – IRAN – is on the U.N. Commission on Women’s Rights. WTH???

Do I even need to tell you how upset Governor Jan Brewer is about being included on this list? Yes, she called it “offensive,” and has fired off a letter to Secretary Clinton. The State Department, though, is standing by its list, as PJ Crowley states below:

How is it that PJ Crowley is the spokesman for the State Department? Good grief.

Well, for my money, I’d rather have Martha MacCullum any day of the week. At least she is someone who thinks the US should be held to a higher standard than countries which engage in such horrific human rights abuses as detailed above and by MacCullum, herself. As she said, we SHOULD be held to a higher standard than these countries, and I couldn’t agree more. Do we really want to be in the same category regarding Human Rights as Iran, Afghanistan, Congo, and similar countries? Hell to the NO, and why the State Department Spokesperson doesn’t get that is troubling indeed.

Bottom line, though, Arizona fits nowhere in that list the State Department presented to the United Nations. This is a States Right v. Federal Right. Perhaps Gov. Brewer should turn the tables on the State Department, and the DOJ. Their refusal to abide by their Constitutional Duty to protect the borders and uphold federal laws are creating human rights abuses for people living in Arizona. How about that, huh? Yeah. I’m sure AZ Sheriff Paul Babeu would be more than willing to testify to that effect as he essentially does below:

That Secretary Clinton saw fit to put this into a report to the UN is disturbing. She needs to rectify this now, and apologize to both Arizona, and the country, for even considering what Arizona is trying to accomplish as a “human rights abuse.” That is absurd, and I cannot believe she went along with this wrongheaded move.

As someone who supported Hillary Clinton 1000%, I am disappointed in her, to say the least. And this? Well, I’m waiting for that apology, Secretary Clinton.

UPDATE: I had a comment at my blog about not providing a link to the actual report, and what the report said (though I think PJ Crowley DID state what was said about Arizona. So, in the interest of full disclosure, here is the LINK to the report, and here is where AZ came into the discussion:

94. Under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, DHS may delegate authority to state and local officers to enforce federal immigration law. DHS has made improvements to the 287(g) program, including implementing a new, standardized Memorandum of Agreement with state and local partners that strengthens program oversight and provides uniform guidelines for DHS supervision of state and local agency officer operations; information reporting and tracking; complaint procedures; and implementation measures. DHS continues to evaluate the program, incorporating additional safeguards as necessary to aid in the prevention of racial profiling and civil rights violations and improve accountability for protecting human rights.

95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

96. President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system, because he recognizes that our ability to innovate, our ties to the world, and our economic prosperity depend on our capacity to welcome and assimilate immigrants. The Administration will continue its efforts to work with the U.S. Congress and affected communities toward this end.

Make of this what you will, but I stand by my post – I think it was irresponsible at BEST to include Arizona and the government’s case against AZ, in a report to the UN on Human Rights in this manner (making it clear that the Federal Gov’t has taken AZ to court, and all of the implications therein). I might add, I think #94 takes the wind out of the Fed’s sails in regard to suing AZ, don’t you? Could just be me, though.

I changed the title to better reflect how AZ was mentioned in the report. I apologize for not being clearer before, but honestly, it was only my raging headache that prevented me from making the point succinctly. Sorry for that, though.

Anyway, there is the link – read it for yourself, and decide.

Some may say this first video belongs out there with the folks who think we let 9/11 happen so we could go to war or that we knew the Emperor was planning an attack on Pearl Harbor. But the performance is solid.

The next one – I don’t know if I would give Helen a ten for danceability for this, but it is her point of view.

Most folks can agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions and, just like the terminal portion of the large intestine, almost everyone has one.

Con the World? The Greatest Bluff of All? Or go back to Europe, Helen – or wherever your bloody family came from generations ago. Abandon reason. The truth will never find its way to your TV.

Here is another view: ..the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal.

We are. Therefore we think.. that understanding this event, the events leading to this event and the cascading events that may follow is a little more complicated than knowing where at the waist to bow. Grownups, who don’t have to count to ten before farting from the mouth, need to deliberate before punk politicians junk shoot this event into another holocaust. The Final Solution Charles talks about above is just that. That is his point of view.

Knee Jerk, both. Oh, yea. Float your mouse over the red Obama.

There is another increasingly controversial “K” that U.S. officials should refrain from using, especially in a derogatory manner. And that “K” stands for Karzai. Until recently the United States has treated the Afghan President as a puppet without realizing that his power base has grown in Afghanistan. It’s true that when Karzai was installed by the Bush administration he had little to no support in the country. But just the Bush era has passed and America has voted in a new President, time has not stood still for Karzai. The sooner the US realizes this the better for the Afghanistan, the NATO, the British and the US army.

Over the years Karzai made himself matter in the country while rumors of his impending political death continued to circulate.

The first sign of Karzai’s power was evident last year when the West discredited him during Afghanistan’s presidential elections. His opponent Abdullah Abdullah was openly supported by the Obama administration. The conflicting reports coming out of Afghanistan made the geniuses in Washington conclude that an ethnic Pashtun shouldn’t represent Afghanistan. Karzai didn’t take the news well.

On the ground the situation was quite different. An intelligence expert based in Afghanistan said that if Abdullah Abdullah runs again he will still lose to Karzai. The reason? Abdullah Abdullah is of Tajik ethnicity. It’s on the record that when Karzai agreed to a second round run-off vote Dr. Abdullah withdrew from the race. Abdullah’s claims that he had dropped his bid because of overwhelming voter fraud was only part of the story.

This doesn’t mean that the elections were clean. From Peter Galbraith to the U.N. to Hamid Karzai, there was agreement that ballot mishandling and corruption took place — but what do you expect from a country run by the Taliban for five years and then taken over by the Western armies with little to no understanding of internal Afghan dynamics? If Karzai’s brother is a warlord and a drug trafficker, Abdullah Abdullah has such criminals in his camp too, the difference being that Karzai’s brother is reported to be helping U.S. intelligence.

Hamid Karzai’s recent statements about joining with the Taliban have been unhinged, but they reflect his growing frustration with his Western sponsors. Just last month Karzai, like a shrewd chess player, made a point of inviting Iran’s Ahmadinejad to visit Afghanistan, presumably as a goodwill gesture to reach out to his neighbors. Afghanistan can not change its neighbors at the behest of the United States – but Karzai can certainly rattle some cages when need be.

That President Obama’s schedule suddenly opened up following that visit, necessitating a rush to Kabul that speaks not only to the wiliness of Karzai, but also the importance of Afghanistan and, more disturbingly, the disarray of U.S. policy toward that country. Angered by Karzai’s threats to join with the Taliban, the White House has started threatening to call off Karzai’s trip to the U.S.

A bevy of questionable opinions being circulated in the American press are adding fuel to the fire. Such suggestions look good on paper but are not practically executable. This Pentagon theory will bear no results, as it is impossible to deploy the army countrywide, take out the middle tear of Taliban sympathizers and eventually nab the upper tier. Logically, the army doesn’t know who is Taliban and who is not; furthermore, who are the “good” and “bad” Taliban? Who can be negotiated with and brought into political talks and which elements are too ideologically hardened and radicalized, thereby incapable of negotiating?

Such an approach indicates that decision makers are living in lalaland while ground realities are totally different, especially when Obama wants to bring back troops while Karzai is willing to talk to ‘good Taliban’. Karzai is another ‘K’ that can not be ignored.

The significance of the Obama-Karzai meeting and a look at the military strategy being implemented in Afghanistan will be addressed in my next writeup.

–
Crosspost from: The Pakistan Update

Now, I admit, there were some women in there about whom I knew absolutely nothing. Some other names were familiar, but I could not remember why. So, I did a little digging, and wanted to share with you what I learned.

The first woman I looked up was:

Asma Khader, lawyer and human rights activist, is general coordinator of the Sisterhood Is Global Institute/Jordan (SIGI/J) and secretary-general of the Jordanian National Commission for Women. Asma has spent her career campaigning to combat violence against women and raise their awareness of their legal rights.

Asma was elected to the Permanent Arab Court as counsel on violence against women in 1996, and has served on judicial bodies and human rights fact-finding missions. Inspired by a client whose pregnant 15-year-old daughter was raped and killed by her father to preserve family honor, she says: “I realized I couldn’t be an effective lawyer if I did not do my best to change laws that cover up and even sanction crimes against women. This woman challenged me to address a problem that I could not ignore – crimes of honor.” Khader has subsequently become a leading campaigner to end honor crimes.

What an amazing, brave woman she is! But she is not the only one. Next is Malalai Kakar, the first woman police officer in Afghanistan, continuing the family tradition to serve. Her career was ended by the Taliban:

Taleban gunmen shot dead Afghanistan’s most high-profile policewoman yesterday as her teenage son prepared to drive her to work.

Malalai Kakar, the head of the city of Kandahar’s department for crimes against women, had been the subject of numerous media reports and was famous for her bravery throughout Afghanistan. She had survived several assassination attempts.

A spokesman for the Taleban said that the assassination was carried out by its gunmen. “We killed Malalai Kakar,” said Yousuf Ahmadi. “She was our target, and we successfully eliminated our target.”

Her death came as reports emerged of a Saudi-brokered initiative to negotiate between the Afghan Government and the Taleban.

How tragic that her life was cut short as a result of who she was, and the work she did. What a threat this one woman was to the misogynistic Taliban, the same one with whom Obama is thinking of playing nice. Words fail.

The next woman whose name was familiar, but whose story was forgotten to me is Jeanette Rankin:

a Representative from Montana; born near Missoula, Missoula County, Mont., June 11, 1880; attended the public schools, and was graduated from the University of Montana at Missoula in 1902; student at the School of Philanthropy, New York City in 1908 and 1909; social worker in Seattle, Wash., in 1909; engaged in promoting the cause of woman suffrage in the State of Washington in 1910, in California in 1911, and in Montana 1912-1914; visited New Zealand in 1915 and worked as a seamstress in order to gain personal knowledge of social conditions; elected as a Republican to the Sixty-fifth Congress (March 4, 1917-March 3, 1919); was the first woman to be elected to the United States House of Representatives; did not seek renomination in 1918, but was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican nomination for Senator; was also an unsuccessful candidate on an independent ticket for election to the United States Senate; engaged in social work; elected to the Seventy-seventh Congress (January 3, 1941-January 3, 1943); was not a candidate for renomination in 1942 to the Seventy-eighth Congress; resumed lecturing and ranching; member, National Consumers League; field worker, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom; member, National Council for Prevention of War; remained leader and lobbyist for peace and women’s rights until her death in Carmel, Calif., May 18, 1973; cremated; ashes scattered on ocean, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif.

What a wonderful forerunner for women in Congress. Her work on behalf of women’s rights is sorely needed in today’s Congress, too.

In the field of education, we have Martha Carey Thomas:

Thomas is perhaps best known for having facilitated the admission of women to the John Hopkins Medical School. With the help of four of her friends, a total of $500,000 was raised to aid the Medical School in its financial struggle. The funds raised were used as a leverage to get the University to accept women. Thus, thanks largely to the efforts of these five women, women were to be admitted on precisely the same basis as men. There were three women among the first class to enter the John Hopkins Medical School in 1893.

Thomas became president of Bryn Mawr College in 1894, serving until 1922.

What incredible tenacity and drive Ms. Thomas had, not to mention intelligence. She is definitely a woman to whom women in the medical field are indebted.

Another woman who fought for the rights of women was Mary Astell:

She is remembered now for her ability to debate freely with both contemporary men and women, and particularly her groundbreaking methods of negotiating the position of women in society by engaging in philosophical debate (Descartes was a particular influence) rather than basing her arguments in historical evidence as had previously been attempted. Descartes’ theory of dualism, a separate mind and body, allowed Astell to promote the idea that women as well as men were blessed with reason, and subsequently they should not be treated so poorly: “If all Men are born Free, why are all Women born Slaves?” (Emphasis mine.)

Indeed. I’d like to know the answer to that question myself since too many people still believe that to be the case.

Another modern day women’s rights activist is:

Parvin Ardalan, born 1967 in Tehran, is a leading Iranian women’s rights activist, writer and journalist.[1] She was awarded the Olof Palme Prize in 2007 for her struggle for equal rights for men and women in Iran.[2] In the 1990s Ardalan, along with e.g. Nooshin Ahmadi Khorasani, established the Women’s Cultural Centre (Markaz-e Farhangi-ye Zanan), which since then has been a center for forming opinions, analyzing and documenting the women’s issues in Iran.[3] Since 2005 the organization has published Iran’s first online magazine on women’s rights, Zanestan, with Ardalan as its editor. In its constant struggle against censorship – the magazine comes back with a new name all the time – the newspaper has dealt with marriage, prostitution, education, AIDS, and violence against women.

Ardalan is one of the founding members of the One Million Signatures Campaign[4], attempting to collect a million signatures for women’s equal rights. As a part of the campaign she has taken part in protests that have been violently silenced. In 2007 she, together with Nooshing Ahmadi, was sentenced to three years in prison for “threatening the national security” with his struggle for women’s rights. Four more women’s rights activists later received the same sentence.

Again, how threatened are these people that these women intimidate them so? We certainly saw our share of this kind of reaction during the 2008 Primaries and Election. While the actions of the intimidated were not quite so extreme as to imprison anyone, it was but a matter of degrees in the result of silencing so many women. That is to say, this sort of thing doesn’t just happen in other countries. Sadly.

Next on the list is a woman who was one of the original Americans:

Born the daughter of Chief Winnemucca of the Paiutes, a tribe in Nevada and California, Sarah Winnemucca lost family members in the Paiute War of 1860. She tried to operate as a peacemaker, using her language skills learned in convent school to work as an interpreter in an Army camp. She went with her tribe to the Malheur reservation in 1872, and when the Bannock War broke out in 1878 she offered her services to the Army. She volunteered to enter Bannock territory when she learned that her father and other tribesmen had been taken hostage by the Bannocks. She freed her father and other captives and served as an army scout in the war against the Bannocks. She spoke out, describing the plight of her people, exiled from their homelands, and the treachery of dishonest Indian agents. She drew much attention, and was able to speak with President Rutherford Hayes and Interior Secretary Carl Schurz; promises to return her tribe to the Malheur Reservation were never honored. She wrote Life Among the Piutes[sic]: Their Wrongs and Claims, published in 1883. Despite passage of Congressional legislation enabling the return of the Paiute land, the legislation was never enacted.

I wish I could say I was surprised by that outcome, or rather the lack thereof. But that does not minimize the work of Sarah Winnemuca.

Last, but most definitely not least, is:

Chien-Shiung Wu, a pioneering physicist, radically altered modern physical theory and changed our accepted view of the structure of the universe.

Wu’s experiments led physicists to discard the concept that parity was conserved. In recognition of her contributions to atomic research and the understanding of beta decay and the weak interactions, Wu became the first woman to receive the prestigious Research Corporation Award and the Comstock Prize from the National Academy of Sciences. The Comstock Prize is given only once every five years.

Wu’s distinguished career in the nation’s leading universities as a teacher and researcher in nuclear physics has been characterized by a string of firsts. She was the first woman to receive an honorary doctorate of science from Princeton University, to be elected president of the American Physical Society, and to receive the Wolf Prize from the State of Israel. She was also the first living scientist to have an asteroid named after her.

In 1972, Wu was appointed to an endowed professorship as the Pupin Professor of Physics at Columbia University.

Incredible. What an incredible history we have, past and present. How lucky we are to have such incredible role models to whom we can look. This is by far not close to exhaustive, but merely a small representation of women who have achieved greatness through sheer hard work, determination, and passion.

And while she is not in the above video, Roxana Saberi, the American journalist captured in Iran, discussed her experience this morning:

Wow. What an amazing woman.

Please feel free to share other women who inspire you, whose history has informed your own, a woman who is your hero.

Okay, I admit it – I have tried to be in total denial about the following interview of Secretary of State Clinton and Ann Curry. My aunt sent me the pertinent quote earlier this week, and I just didn’t want to believe it. I still don’t want to believe it, to be honest. It makes me both sad and angry for reasons I am sure many of you share, too.

And now, to the interview:

Sigh. So, yeah, Secretary Clinton says she won’t run for President again. Sure, there was this (funny to me) quote in there:

“Maybe there is some misunderstanding which needs to be clarified,” she said. “I believe in delegating power … I am not one of those people who feel I have to have my face in front of the newspaper and TV every day … It’s just the way I am.”

Clearly a little dig at He Who Must Be On TV Every Day, which was enjoyable, I must confess. Okay, it was downright funny.

And then there was the part where even Andrea Mitchell, of all people, is commenting on how surprising it is hat President CLINTON has not received the Nobel Peace Prize despite raising BILLIONS of dollars for the Clinton Initiative which does great work all over the world. Never mind all of the work President Clinton did with President Bush (I) in terms of the Indian Ocean Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. So, yeah, sure, it makes perfect sense that Mr. Talker No Walker Man would be the one who gets it. Pathetic.

Back to Hillary Clinton. I was hoping that maybe, just maybe she was trying to shift the focus off of her, and was trying not to steal the limelight from her boss (and her water carrying for him is a bitter pill to swallow). But, no, she has repeated that claim again in this article, the title of which is also bitter, Clinton: I’d Have Hired Obama. Yeah, she said it after the claim indicated in the title. I’ll let the article set the stage:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that if she had won presidential election, Barack Obama would “absolutely” have served in her Cabinet.

Recalling the conversation she had with then-president-elect Obama about her joining the administration during an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton said that she was at first surprised when the president offered her the secretary of state post.

“It was, you know, about … five, six days after the election. And my husband and I were out for a walk, actually, in a, sort of, preserve near where we live in New York. And he had his cell phone in his pocket. It started ringing in the middle of this, you know, big nature preserve,” Clinton said. “Instead of turning it off, he answered it. And it was President-elect Obama wanting to talk to him about some people he was considering for positions.”

Clinton said she then picked up the phone thinking Obama wanted to talk generally about Cabinet picks when he surprised her by asking the former New York senator and Democratic rival to become his chief diplomat.

“He said I want you to be my secretary of state. And I said, ‘Oh, no, you don’t,’” Clinton recalled. “I said, ‘Oh, please, there’s so many other people who could do this.’

“But, you know, we kept talking. I finally began thinking, look, if I had won and I had called him, I would have wanted him to say yes,” Clinton continued. “And, you know, I’m pretty old-fashioned, and it’s just who I am. So at the end of the day, when your president asks you to serve, you say yes, if you can.”

Asked if she would have made the same call to Obama if she had been elected president, Clinton responded: “Absolutely. Absolutely. Oh, of course.”

Well, I can see that she would have to do so, but SHE would have been the boss, and SHOULD have been, as many of us think given te votes she received in the Primary.

And that brings me to this:

Additionally, Clinton backed up her statement from earlier in the week that she will not run for president a second time.

“I have absolutely no interest in running for president again. None. None,” she said. “I mean, I know that’s hard for some people to believe, but, you know, I just don’t.”

“I feel like I have had the most amazing life in my public service,” the secretary of state continued. “And for the last 17 years, ever since my husband started running for president, I have been, you know, in the spotlight, working hard. And this job is incredibly all-encompassing. So I think I’m looking forward to maybe taking some time off.”

She HAS had an amazing life, no doubt about it. She is an amazing woman – no one would expect anything less from someone of her stature. But I have to say, the thought of NEVER having a President Hillary Clinton is demoralizing. I feel like the DNC Elite have won (again), getting the Clintons out once and for all, despite the tremendous successes they have had independent of each other, and for the good of the country. It just burns me up that they might actually succeed. Dammit it to hell.

That despite the fact that k, Secretary Clinton has higher approval ratings than President Obama does now. I’m not kidding – hot off the Gullup wires, her ratings are 62%, and Obama’s are 56%. Maybe it’s because people are seeing that SHE is out there working her ass off on our behalf, on behalf of the country, and for the greater good of the world. They see Obama hemming and hawing, incapable of making hard decisions, or fulfilling campaign promises, yet showing up on YouTube doing the salsa (more or less) the other night while Clinton has been to the following countries between 10/9 – 15: Zurich, London, Dublin, Belfast, Moscow and Kazan. Holy smokes – makes me tired just reading the list.

She is just a remarkable woman, isn’t she?? Incredible energy, devotion, good humor, intelligence, and compassion, all in one person who SHOULD be the boss.

So I have been in denial, not wanting to believe my ears and eyes when she says she won’t be running again. Someone wake me when she changes her mind. Or Obama’s out of office. Whichever comes first…

(And a grudging thanks to Bronwyn’s Harbor for sending me the video. Thanks, BH – kinda!)

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports: President Obama, like any other President, has his fair share of critics. Even fourth-graders have noticed.

“Why do people hate you?”, a fourth-grade boy asked Obama at a town hall event in New Orleans today. “They’re supposed to love you. And God is love.”

“That’s what I’m talking about,” replied the President.

Here’s the video of the exchange, though the transcript is below if you’d prefer:

Um, what the hell was he talking about BEFORE the little boy asked his question? Wasn’t he saying, “It’s a man’s turn. Isn’t it? It’s a guy’s turn.” That’s what it sounded like to me, anyway…So, just what came BEFORE that?? Curious.

Obama continued his response to the child:

“First of all, I did get elected president, so not everybody hates me,” Obama noted, before adding, “What is true is if you were watching TV lately, it seems like everybody’s just getting mad all the time. And I — you know, I think that you’ve got to take it with a grain of salt. Some of it is just what’s called politics where, you know, once one party wins, then the other party kind of gets — feels like it needs to poke you a little bit to keep you on your toes.”

“And so you shouldn’t take it too seriously,” Obama told the boy. “And then, sometimes, as I said before, people just — I think they’re worried about their own lives. A lot of people are losing their jobs right now. A lot of people are losing their health care or they’ve lost their homes to foreclosure, and they’re feeling frustrated. And when you’re president of the United States, you know, you’ve got to deal with all of that.”

So, um, not to quibble or anything, but just when do you think you are going to get around to dealing with job loss, home loss, and losing health care? Hey, just asking:

“You get some of the credit when things go good. And when things are going tough, then, you know, you’re going to get some of the blame, and that’s part of the job,” he continued. “But, you know, I’m a pretty tough guy.”

“You’ve just got to keep on going, even when folks are criticizing you, because — as long as you know that you’re doing it for other people, all right?” Obama concluded.

The boy’s question was the last one the President fielded at his event at the University of New Orleans, his first trip to the city since being elected to the Oval Office.

Well, there is a good reason the child asked that question. While Obama did get elected, the latest Fox Poll shows that he wouldn’t if the election was held today, as this article highlights, Fox News Poll: 43 Percent Would Vote To Re-Elect President Obama:If the election were held today, 43 percent of American voters would back Barack Obama for president, according to a new Fox News poll.

Oh dear. I guess that’s some of the “blame” Obama is getting for not fulfilling his campaign promises, for starters, not to mention his continued constant campaigning instead of working thing he’s got going on. Here are the results of this poll:

In what may be the ultimate job rating, 43 percent of voters say that they would vote to re-elect President Obama if the 2012 election were held today, down from 52 percent six months ago, from April 22-23, 2009.

Obama’s job approval rating comes in at 49 percent this week. (Emphasis mine.) That’s down just one percentage point from late September, but it marks a new low approval for the president — and the first time the Fox News poll has measured his approval below 50 percent.

Moreover, the number of Americans saying they would vote to re-elect President Obama has dropped. If the election were held today the poll finds more voters say they would back someone else in the 2012 election than would back the president.

Despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize last Friday, the latest Fox News poll finds the president’s ratings on foreign issues are lower than his overall job ratings. All in all, 49 percent of Americans say they approve of the job President Obama is doing and 45 percent disapprove. His average approval for the term so far is 58 percent.

Yep, Obama’s approval numbers are below 50% for the first time at 49%. How about on some of the issues:

On Afghanistan, 41 percent of Americans say they approve of the job Obama is doing and 43 percent disapprove. For his handling of Iran, 44 percent approve and 43 percent disapprove.

On the president’s handling of the economy, voters are almost equally split: 48 percent approve and 49 percent disapprove. On health care, some 42 percent approve of the president’s performance and half disapprove, 50 percent.

Among Democrats, 78 percent say they would vote to re-elect President Obama, down from 87 percent in April. For 2008 Obama voters, 81 percent say they would vote to re-elect him — that’s a slight up tick from the 79 percent who said so previously.

Six in 10 Americans — 60 percent — think Obama is a strong and decisive leader.
And while 38 percent think President Obama is getting good advice from his advisors, a larger number — 45 percent — think he is “listening to the wrong people.” (Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from October 13 to October 14. The poll has a 3-point error margin.)

Like Rahm Emmanuel, or David Axelrod, or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid? Yeah, I’d say he’s listening to the wrong people.

And about that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing:

Did He Deserve It?

Upon winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama said, “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformational figures.” Most Americans agree with the president — 65 percent say he did not deserve to win, while 29 percent say he did.

Furthermore, a slim 54 percent majority of Democrats think Obama did deserve to win, while 38 percent disagree. For independents, 19 percent think he deserved it, while nearly three-quarters, 74 percent, say he did not. Among Republicans, almost all — 91 percent — say he did not deserve it.

When asked why the Nobel Committee gave the president the prize, about a third of Americans, 32 percent, say because he deserved it, while the largest number — 44 percent — think the committee hoped the prize would make Obama “think twice before using military force in the future.”

About that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing. Remember how we were all told the Committee Was unanimous in their decision to give it to Obama? Turns out that 3 out of 5 of them did NOT want to give it to him. Golly gee, I guess truth really DOES will out! Evidently, their reaction was the same as many of ours – he hasn’t DONE anything yet but speechify, for cryin’ out loud!

The poll also address how Congress was doing:

Most Americans are unhappy with Congress these days — 66 percent disapprove, including 45 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of independents and 84 percent of Republicans. Overall, less than one of four Americans, 24 percent, approve of the job Congress is doing.

Looking ahead to the 2010 Congressional election, for the first time this year the Republicans have the advantage: 42 percent of voters say they are more likely to back the Republicans to provide a check on President Obama’s power, while 38 percent say they would vote for the Democrat to help the president pass his policies.

Finally, in a rare example of bipartisan agreement, majorities of Democrats, 53 percent, Republicans, 78 percent, and Independents, 61 percent, agree the country is more divided these days. All in all, 64 percent of Americans think the country is more politically divided today — that’s more than twice the number who say it is not more divided, 31 percent.

Click here for the raw data.

What a bang-up job Obama has done in uniting us, just like he said he would. Blech. Can’t believe people fell for THAT line again, can you? Great – so glad there is one area that is truly bipartisan. Ahem.

And while President Obama is still feeling the love, the numbers of those who love him seem to be decreasing the more they open their eyes to see and their ears to hear. Such a shame they couldn’t muster that BEFORE the election, isn’t it? Now, his daily tracking poll continues to go down; Secretary Clinton’s approval numbers are higher than his (no big surprise to ME there); and his overall rating is at 49%. COngress doesn’t fare much better. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving guy, or more deserving Congress, could it?

“President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.”

– French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24

When France chides you for appeasement, you know you’re scraping bottom. Just how low we’ve sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration’s satisfaction when Russia’s president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the United Nations, that “sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable.”

You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.

I should add, I don’t have the same level of disdain for the French that some in this country have. In fact, I love France, and I love the people I have met there. I have not had the experience of French people looking down their noses at me because I’m American, even in Paris. In small villages in which I’ve traveled, even with my crappy French (I took Spanish in school), and the limited English the shop keepers had, we each worked hard to understand each other. One woman didn’t speak a word of English, but would engage in pantomime (I’m sure there’s a joke there about the French and mimes) to get her point across, AND she was funny, to boot. So, while I appreciate that some people have not had this experience, I won’t jump on the French bashing bandwagon. Honestly, I can’t wait until I get to go back there.

Back to the article,and Krauthammer’s point:

Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia . . . what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority — and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran’s nuclear program — whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

Don’t take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama’s naivete. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Hmmm – WWHD? You know, What Would Hillary Do? Would she reveal this nugget of explosive information? My bet is ABSO-FREAKIN’-LUTELY. How about Obama? What would he do:

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports the Wall Street Journal (citing Le Monde), Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later — in Pittsburgh. I’ve got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber it is not.

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times citing “White House officials,” did not want to “dilute” his disarmament resolution “by diverting to Iran.”

Diversion? It’s the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

Yes. And from Obama’s star turn as planetary visionary: “The administration told the French,” reports the Wall Street Journal, “that it didn’t want to ‘spoil the image of success’ for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N.”

Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that “we live in a real world, not a virtual world.”

He explained: “President Obama has even said, ‘I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].’ Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite.”

Sarkozy’s unspoken words? “And yet, sacré bleu, he’s sitting on Qom!”

Uh, yeah. It seems like the perfect setting for exposing this information. Evidently, Sarkozy thought so, too. Others didn’t realize what had just happened:

At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do. Although he could hardly have been surprised by Obama’s fecklessness. After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, “No one nation can . . . dominate another nation.” That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that “alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War” in fact “make no sense in an interconnected world.” NATO, our alliances with Japan and South Korea, our umbrella over Taiwan, are senseless? What do our allies think when they hear such nonsense?

Bismarck is said to have said: “There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America.” Bismarck never saw Obama at the U.N. Sarkozy did. (letters@charleskrauthammer.com)

Mon Dieu! Those are some pretty strong words there. Appropriate, though. Can you imagine if any other president, who had the opportunity to chair this very important committee for the FIRST time, sat on that kind of information? No doubt, it wouldn’t just be the French President who was upset about this. Thankfully, those who are less invested in the “aura” of Obama actually paid attention to this “oversight” on Obama’s part at this critical juncture.

Once again, Obama has demonstrated how woefully prepared he is for the REAL World Stage.

(And C, if you’re reading this far, I hope you appreciate the French phrases!)

Naturally, it’s about Secretary Hillary Clinton. For once, there was a GOOD article, calling out some of the sexism with which she has had to deal, while highlighting the incredible work she has been doing on behalf of the State4 Department, and our country. David Rothkopf had this article, “It’s 3:00 a.m. Do you Know Where Hillary Clinton Is?” I admit, when I first saw the title, I thought he was being snarky, and it was going to be yet another hatchet job on this amazing woman, this bright star. Imagine my delight when I read it, and discovered, far from snark, this was a serious article, about a serious role, and a serious person. All I can say is, it’s about damn time:

When it comes to Hillary Rodham Clinton, we’re missing the forest for the pantsuits.

Clinton is not the first celebrity to become the nation’s top diplomat — that honor goes to her most distant predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, who by the time he took office was one of the most famous and gossiped-about men in America — but she may be the biggest. And during her first seven months in office, the former first lady, erstwhile presidential candidate and eternal lightning rod has drawn more attention for her moods, looks, outtakes and (of course) relationship with her husband than for, well, her work revamping the nation’s foreign policy.

Even venerable publications — such as one to which I regularly contribute, Foreign Policy — have woven into their all-Hillary-all-the-time coverage odd discussions of Clinton’s handbag and scarf choices. Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, while depicting herself as a Clinton supporter, has been scathing and small-minded in discussing such things as Clinton’s weight and hair, while her “defense” of Hillary in her essay “Obama’s Other Wife” was as sexist as the title suggests.

Indeed, sexism has followed Clinton from the campaign trail to Foggy Bottom, as seen most recently in the posturing outrage surrounding the exchange in Congo when Clinton reacted with understandable frustration to the now-infamous question regarding her husband’s views. Major media outlets have joined the gossipfest, whether the New York Times, which covered Clinton’s first big policy speech by discussing whether she was in or out with the White House, or The Washington Post, where a couple of reporters mused about whether a brew called Mad Bitch would be the beer of choice for the secretary of state.

May I just pause here to say, THANK YOU for calling these “news” sources out for these sexist depictions/attacks on Clinton. Thank you.

As to the work of Secretary Clinton, the article continues:

Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades — a transformation that may render the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush mere side notes in a long transition to a meaningful post-Cold War worldview.

The secretary has quietly begun rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions. And despite the pessimists who invoked the “team of rivals” cliche to predict that President Obama and Clinton would not get along, Hillary has defined a role for herself in the Obamaverse: often bad cop to his good cop, spine stiffener when it comes to tough adversaries and nurturer of new strategies. Recognizing that the 3 a.m. phone calls are going to the White House, she is instead tackling the tough questions that, since the end of the Cold War, have kept America’s leaders awake all night.

In these early days of the new administration, it has been easy to focus on what Clinton has not achieved or on ways in which her power has been supposedly constrained. Indeed, some of her efforts have been frustrated by difficult personnel approvals or disputes with the White House about who should get what jobs. But this is the way of all administrations. More unusual has been the avidity with which the new president has seized the reins of foreign policy — more assertively than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton before him. Obama’s centrality amplifies the importance of his closest White House staffers, while his penchant for appointing special envoys such as Richard Holbrooke (on Afghanistan and Pakistan) and George Mitchell (on the Middle East) has been interpreted by some as limiting Clinton’s role.

Given the challenges involved, it was perhaps natural that the White House would have a bigger day-to-day hand in some of the nation’s most urgent foreign policy issues. But with Obama, national security adviser Jim Jones, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates absorbed by Iraq, Afghanistan and other inherited problems of the recent past, Clinton’s State Department can take on a bigger role in tackling the problems of the future — in particular, how America will lead the world in the century ahead. This approach is both necessary and canny: It recognizes that U.S. policy must change to fulfill Obama’s vision and that many high-profile issues such as those of the Middle East have often swamped the careers and aspirations of secretaries of state past.

Which nations will be our key partners? What do you do when many vital partners — China, for example, and Russia — are rivals as well? How must America’s alliances change as NATO is stretched to the limit? How do we engage with rogue states and old enemies in ways that do not strengthen them and preserve our prerogative to challenge threats? How do we move beyond the diplomacy of men in striped pants speaking only for governments and embrace potent nonstate players and once-disenfranchised peoples?

In searching for answers, Clinton is leaving behind old doctrines and labels. She outlined her new thinking in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, where she revealed stark differences between the new administration’s worldview and those of its predecessors: The recurring themes include “partnership” and “engagement” and “common interests.” Clearly, Madeleine Albright’s “indispensable nation” has recognized the indispensability of collaborating with others.

Who those “others” are is the area in which change has been greatest and most rapid. “We will put,” Clinton said, “special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers — China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia and South Africa — to be full partners in tackling the global agenda.” This is the death knell for the G-8 as the head table of the global community; the administration has an effort underway to determine whether the successor to the G-8 will be the G-20, or perhaps some other grouping. Though the move away from the G-8 began in the waning days of the Bush era, that administration viewed the world through a different lens, a perception that evolved from a traditional great-power view to a pre-Galilean notion that everything revolved around the world’s sole superpower.

Obama and Clinton have both made engaging with emerging powers a priority. Obama visited Russia earlier this year and will host Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his first state dinner in November. Clinton has made trips to China and India, and she would have been with Obama in Russia had she not injured her elbow. Both have visited Africa and the Middle East, reaching out to women and the Islamic world.

To anyone who has been following Clinton throughout her career, the manner in which she has been pursuing her position should come as no surprise. You may recall a book she wrote some time ago, It Takes A Village, in which these kinds of concepts have been discussed. She works in a collegial manner, holding the bigger picture firmly in hand as she goes about her work. It isn’t about her. It is about the world, the country, and the citizens here and abroad. It is about pulling women and children up out of poverty, having people be educated, allowing people to live their lives, and not just fight to survive. That’s her deal, and it has been for a long, long time. And it is that commitment that leads to this:

On many critical agenda items — from a rollback of nuclear weapons to the climate or trade talks — such emerging powers will be essential to achieving U.S. goals. As a result, we’ve seen a new American willingness to play down old differences, whether with Russia on a missile shield or, as Clinton showed on her China trip, with Beijing on human rights.

At the center of Clinton’s brain trust is Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Now head of policy planning at the State Department, Slaughter elaborated on the ideas in Clinton’s speech. “We envision getting not just a new group of states around a table, but also building networks, coalitions and partnerships of states and nonstate actors to tackle specific problems,” she told me.

“To do that,” Slaughter continued, “our diplomats are going to need to have skills that are closer to community organizing than traditional reporting and analysis. New connecting technologies will be vital tools in this kind of diplomacy.”

A new team has been brought in to make these changes real. Clinton recruited Alec Ross, one of the leaders of Obama’s technology policy team, to the seventh floor of the State Department as her senior adviser for innovation. His mission is to harness new information tools to advance U.S. interests — a task made easier as the Internet and mobile networks have played starring roles in recent incidents, from Iran to the Uighur uprising in western China to Moldova. Whether through a telecommunications program in Congo to protect women from violence or text messaging to raise money for Pakistani refugees in the Swat Valley, technology has been deployed to reach new audiences.

Of course, you need more than new ideas to revitalize the State Department; you need resources, too. The secretary has brought in former Bill Clinton-era budget chief Jack Lew to help her claw back money for statecraft that many in Foggy Bottom feel has been sucked off toward the Pentagon. She has also created special positions to back new priorities, such as Melanne Verveer as ambassador at large for women’s issues, Elizabeth Bagley to handle public-private outreach worldwide and Todd Stern as the chief negotiator on climate.

Even just a few months in, it’s clear that these appointments are far from window dressing. Lew, Slaughter and the acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development are leading an effort to rethink foreign aid with the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, an initiative modeled on the Pentagon’s strategic assessments and designed to review State’s priorities. Stern has conducted high-level discussions on climate change around the world, notably with China. Clinton made women’s issues a centerpiece of her recent 11-day trip to Africa, where she stressed that “the social, political and economic marginalization of women across Africa has left a void in this continent that undermines progress and prosperity.”

Unlike other politicians, I don’t think Clinton appoints people to be “window dressing,” but to get the job done. That is further evidenced with the following appointment:

Clinton has also signaled the importance of private-sector experience by naming former Goldman Sachs International vice chairman Robert Hormats, a respected veteran of four administrations, to handle economic issues at the State Department, as well as Judith McHale, former chief executive of Discovery Communications, to run public diplomacy. In the same vein, she has opened up Cuba to American telecommunications companies and reached out to India’s private sector on energy cooperation — showing that this administration will seek to advance national interests by tapping the self-interests of the business community. As with any new administration, there have been inevitable problems. The old campaign teams — Clinton’s and Obama’s — still eye each other warily, but this feeling is gradually fading. And by most accounts, the administration’s national security team has come together successfully, with Clinton developing strong relationships with national security adviser Jones and Defense Secretary Gates. Her policy deputy, Jim Steinberg, has renewed an old collaboration with deputy national security adviser Tom Donilon; the two of them, working with Obama campaign foreign policy advisers Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert, have formed what one State Department seventh-floor dweller called “a powerful quartet at the heart of real interagency policymaking.” Henry Kissinger may have overstated matters when he said this is the best White House-State relationship in recent memory, but it’s not bad, while the State-Pentagon relationship is in its best shape in decades.

Huh. Well, I’ll be. Who could have seen THAT coming? Oh, I know – the 18 million people who voted for her!

But Clinton is not looking back to what was. Rather, she is looking ahead to see how best she can fulfill her work, As such, again, she looks at the big picture, and how best to accomplish what needs doing, including:

At the heart of things, though, is the relationship between Clinton and Obama. For all the administration’s talk of international partnerships, that may be the most critical partnership of all.

So far, according to multiple high-level officials at State and the White House, the two seem aligned in their views. In addition, they are gradually defining complementary roles. Obama has assumed the role of principal spokesperson on foreign policy, as international audiences welcome his new and improved American brand. Clinton thus far has echoed his points but has also delivered tougher ones. Whether on a missile shield against Iran or North Korean saber-rattling, the continued imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma or rape and corruption in Congo, the secretary of state has spoken bluntly on the world stage — even if it triggered snide comments from North Korea.

It is still early, and a president’s foreign policy legacy is often defined less by big principles than by how one reacts to the unexpected, whether missiles in Cuba or terrorism in New York. Promising ideas fail because of limited attention or reluctant bureaucracies, and some rhetoric eventually rings hollow, as the self-congratulatory “smart power” already does to me.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that, seven months into the job, Obama’s unlikely secretary of state is supporting and augmenting his agenda effectively. Not as Obama’s “other wife,” not as Bill Clinton’s wife, not even as a celebrity or as a former presidential candidate — but in a new role of her own making. (drothkopf@carnegieendowment.org

David Rothkopf is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” and “Running the World: The Inside Story of the NSC and the Architects of American Power.” He will be online to chat with readers Monday at 11 a.m. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.)

Indeed – she is embracing a “role of her own making.” It is hard not to consider what could have been had she been President instead of Secretary of State. Don’t get me wrong – as I have said a number of times, I am glad that Clinton is in such a crucial role for our country. Clearly, we need her. But the same intelligence; the ability, and vision, to hold the big picture in her grasp while determining the best course to achieve those goals, while finding the people who can affect those goals; the nation-building, yes, the community-building; are all the ingredients necessary for a good presidency. And I am pretty sure that a President Hillary Clinton would not have made any “wee-wee” remarks about the press corp, either. It’s a matter of decorum, the ability to hold things, events, people, in tension. It’s a matter of vision, and the ability to effect change in a real, meaningful way. That’s our Hillary. Thank heavens she is finally starting to get the recognition she so richly deserves.

My good buddy, American Girl in Italy, provided me with this article today, Clinton Urged Obama To Talk Tough On Iran. Now, see, this does not surprise me one little bit – both that Clinton wanted to talk tough to Iran, and that Obama left her hanging out to dry. That is her way, and that is his. And that is why so many of us never wanted her there in the first place (though we appreciate having an adult in the room). We knew it was coming.

So, here’s the deal:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged President Obama for two days to toughen his language on Iran before he did so, and then was surprised when he condemned Iran’s crackdown on demonstrators last week, administration officials say.

At his June 23 news conference, Mr. Obama said he was “appalled and outraged” by Iranian behavior and “strongly condemned” the violence against anti-government demonstrators. Up until then, Mr. Obama and other administration officials had taken a softer line, expressing “deep concern” about the situation and calling on Iran to “respect the dignity of its own people.”

Behind the scenes, the officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing internal deliberations, said Mrs. Clinton had been advocating the stronger U.S. response, but the president resisted. When he finally took her advice, the aides said, he did so without informing her first.

This was the first known example of awkwardness between the two former rivals for the Democratic nomination for president since they made up following Mr. Obama’s election. The disagreement also gave some insight into the Obama administration’s foreign policy decision-making process five months into its term.

“… Obama administration’s foreign policy decision-making process”??? Well, it seems to be, “We don’t know what the hell we are doing, and we will just say or do whatever we can until we get the fawning recognition on which we so depend. If that means screwing people over, even people in the Cabinet, oh well!” And, it is just a continuation of a policy Obama began during the Primary: taking Clinton’s words whole-cloth without EVER giving her credit for them. He did it time and time again. I guess we can’t be surprised that he is doing it now, too:

The officials said they were familiar with the language Mr. Obama used in his news conference because it was sent to the State Department a day earlier, but that Mrs. Clinton did not know until he uttered the words that he would choose that moment to make them public.

“It was a happy surprise,” one administration official said. “It was echoing the line the secretary had been pushing for a couple of days.”

Uh, yeah. I am sure that is exactly what it was, “a happy surprise.” Sure.

Guess when The Decider decided? About when you wold expect:

Another official said Mr. Obama apparently did not make the final decision to go ahead with the tougher stance until shortly before his remarks.

“I don’t think he himself had decided to do it until he did it, but we knew full well it was headed that way, because the White House sent over the actual language he’d use if he chose to take that line for folks to review and weigh in on, which State did,” the second official said.

Oh, he is so gifted, isn’t he?? How many times did he flip a coin? Draw straws? Played “eeney, meeney, miney mo” before he decided just what he was going to say – as he walked to his TOTUS?? Please.

Naturally, as to the tough language:

The White House and the State Department declined to comment publicly on Mrs. Clinton’s “private advice” to Mr. Obama and their internal communications.

As one would expect.

Apparently, Secretary Clinton was not the only one urging Obama to say something stronger:

Key congressional Republicans – most prominently Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who was Mr. Obama’s opponent in last year’s election – criticized the president for being too “timid” and failing to speak out early against the Iranian regime’s crackdown on protests following the disputed June 12 presidential election.

Mr. Obama initially said he did not want to appear to be interfering in Iran’s internal affairs and provide ammunition to the regime, which tends to blame the United States and other Western countries for any unrest. In addition, he knew he would most likely have to deal with the current government as part of the West’s efforts to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon, officials said.

“On the one hand, he may have felt that the United States should naturally criticize the Iranian government’s violent crackdown on the protesters,” said Alireza Nader, an analyst at the Rand Corp. “On the other, he acknowledged that the U.S. was still willing to engage with Iran in the future. Strong U.S. criticism of the Iranian government could jeopardize future negotiations.”

Mrs. Clinton agreed with the president, but she thought it was time to get tougher after the June 20 killing of a young woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, on a Tehran street, officials said. A video of the killing was widely viewed on the Internet.

At the same time, they added, she was content to leave the decision to Mr. Obama, because she understood that he bore ultimate responsibility for any consequences.

However, Mr. Obama’s sudden decision to toughen his language on Tehran had the effect of making the State Department look out of sync with the White House.

Until about an hour before the presidential news conference, the State Department continued to follow a more cautious public line, using words like “deeply concerned” about the situation in Iran, but refusing to “condemn” the crackdown. Then came Mr. Obama’s surprise.

“The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days,” he said. “I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.”

The decision on Iran was very personal, officials said. Mr. Obama knew his senior aides’ views, but it was up to him to “pull the trigger.”

Or to grow a pair. Or read the most recent poll – “Oh, no – not everyone is lapping up every word I read – I must do something! Quick – get me Clinton’s report and I’ll have it put on TOTUS!” Ahem.

Let’s not lose this important paragraph, though:

However, Mr. Obama’s sudden decision to toughen his language on Tehran had the effect of making the State Department look out of sync with the White House. (Emphasis mine.)

You don’t say. Well, OF COURSE IT DID. That was the intent, was it not? If it WASN’T, Obama could have said something like, “In conjunction with the State Department, ” or “As Secretary Clinton and I have discussed,” or SOMETHING that didn’t leave her high and dry. But like I said, that is his way. As is this, apparently:

“We have so few tools when we deal with Iran, and we don’t fully understand what’s going on, so all we’ve got is what the president says,” the first administration official said. “There isn’t a huge process behind it.”

In general, the officials said, Mr. Obama has relied on the government bureaucracy to formulate language on foreign affairs.

For example, before Mr. Obama’s meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday, everything he said was a “result of a long process involving meetings and briefing papers,” the official said. Even with North Korea, another country that has no diplomatic relations with the U.S., “we have a formalized mechanism in the six-party [nuclear] talks and more moving pieces.”

Analysts said the Iran episode shows Mr. Obama’s nuanced thinking and in-depth analysis of foreign policy, although some warned that he risks being too cautious and appearing indecisive.

“Appear”??? How about, he IS indecisive!! Once again, we are getting a load of hooey (“nuanced thinking”) to obscure how woefully out of his depth Obama is. I am sure you caught all of that above about him having the “bureaucracy” basically tell him what to say after they comb through everything for him. So, I guess his big “decision making” is to read, or not to read…

Some people do actually see through him, thank heavens:

“The demonstrators in Iran have revealed the extreme caution of Obama’s approach to the world, as if he is afraid of making a mistake, and his dislike of disruptions to an agenda he has already laid out,” Reginald Dale, director of the Transatlantic Media Network at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in reference to the president’s offer of engagement, which so far has been spurned by Tehran.

Kim R. Holmes, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, who was assistant secretary of state for international organizations in the George W. Bush administration, said: “The caution that we should not meddle was shown to be pointless after the Iranian leadership blamed the protests on America and Britain anyway.”

True that. But of course, there are reasons for Obama’s hesitancy:

Michael J. Green, former senior director for East Asian affairs on the National Security Council in the Bush White House, said Mr. Obama may be trying the learn from his predecessor’s mistakes.

Mr. Bush tended to make decisions during meetings with his national security team, but the problem was that his aides “interpreted his directions differently,” especially during his first term, Mr. Green said.

At the time, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s aides often said that he “felt good” about the outcome of a White House meeting, because Mr. Bush had taken his advice. Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld felt the same way, except that their advice was usually very different.

“It seems that Obama is trying to avoid such confusion by laying out specifically what he wants,” Mr. Green said.

As involved as Mrs. Clinton may have been in the process leading up to Mr. Obama’s decision on Iran, “the secretary of state usually doesn’t have the last say, because he or she is not there with the president all the time,” he said. “With all the modern technology, location still means power.” (Nicholas Kralev
)

Well, Mr. Green – you are assuming Obama KNOWS what he wants. Besides world domination, that is. But does HE know how to go about it? No, he has to leave that up to everyone else to figure out because he hasn’t a clue. Not only that, but he has no grace. Yes, he is the one who has “to pull the trigger,” but there are ways to do that in which others are not left hanging. But, that’s just not Obama’s way, now is it?

UPDATE: American Girl mentioned the following timely video in the Comments section, but it needs to be here:

Women in sunglasses and headscarves, speaking through megaphones, brandishing cameras, carrying signs: When they first appeared, the photographs of the 2005 Tehran University women’s rights protests were a powerful reminder of the true potential of Iranian women. The images were uplifting; they featured women of many ages; and they went on circulating long after the protests themselves died down. Now they have been replaced by a far more brutal and already infamous set of images: The photographs and video taken this past weekend of a young Iranian woman, allegedly shot by a government sniper, dying on the streets of Tehran.

As Ms. Applebaum notes, the murdered young woman, Neda, may be destined to become the symbolic martyr of this revolution. Listening to CNN early this morning, Kyra Phillips and a fellow anchor were interviewing another 19 year old woman by phone, withholding her name for obvious safety reasons. She was asked if she had any reason for optimism that their protests would do any good. After sharing that she had been beaten with a club by security forces on Saturday, she bravely answered that ‘of course she was optimistic. History tells her that all revolution begins this way.’

Her voice full of emotion, this young woman recounted many of the events unfolding around her. She said, “We are all Neda.” It reminded me how spoiled we are in this country and take so many of our hard earned freedoms for granted. The CNN anchor noted he had attended protests staged by Iranian women in years past and was astounded by their incredible bravery, staring down security forces, shouting right in their faces.

Interesting now that public pressure has mounted and people all over the world viewed the tragic death of Neda, President Obama is choosing to give a press conference today. The latest White House spin, that his Cairo speech was somehow a motivator to the Iranian people seems particularly cruel as well as irresponsible, disregarding the incredible sacrifices on the ground of the protesters over a long period of time. I am not suggesting the President should have strongly inserted himself into this situation from day one. However, after his usual practice of keeping a low profile while he sees which way the political wind is blowing, to then swoop in to try to take the credit, acting as thought it never occurred to the people of Iran to protest the current regime before hearing Obama’s words or even seeing him elected is preposterous.

Ms. Applebaum further states:

In the United States, the most America-centric commentators have somberly attributed the strength of recent demonstrations to the election of Barack Obama. Others want to give credit to the democracy rhetoric of the Bush administration. Still others want to call this a “Twitter revolution” or a “Facebook revolution,” as if zippy new technology alone had inspired the protests. But the truth is that the high turnout has been the result of many years of organizational work, carried out by small groups of civil rights activists and above all women’s groups, working largely unnoticed and without much outside help.

I am grateful to Ms. Applebaum for drawing attention to the efforts of women, which, once again, would otherwise be largely ignored. At least someone is willing to acknowledge that half the world, the female half, is not silent in the fight for human rights.

Since 2006, the One Million Signatures Campaign has been circulating a petition, online and in print, that calls for an end to laws that discriminate against women and the enactment of laws that provide equal rights for women in marriage, equal rights to divorce, equal inheritance rights and equal testimony rights for men and women in court. Though based outside the country, the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, founded by a pair of sisters, translates and publishes online fundamental human rights documents; it maintains an online database of the names of thousands of victims of the Islamic Republic as well. In the past decade, Iranian women have participated in student strikes as well as teachers’ strikes, and in organizations of Bahai, Christian and other religious groups whose members are deemed “heretics” by the regime.

Not Obama, not Bush and not Twitter, in other words, but years of work and effort lie behind the public display of defiance and, in particular, the number of women on the streets — and their presence matters. Their presence could strike the deepest blow against the regime.
(snip)
The Iranian clerics know that women pose a profound threat to their authority, too: As the activist Ladan Boroumand has written, the regime would not bother to brutally repress dissidents unless it feared them deeply. Nobody would have murdered a peaceful, unarmed young woman in blue jeans — unless her mere presence on the street presented a dire threat.

The regime may succeed. Violence usually succeeds, at least in the short term, in intimidating people. In the long term, however, the links, structures, organizations and groups set up by Iranian women, not to mention the photographs of the past week, will continue to gnaw away at the Iranian regime’s legitimacy — and we should take note. I cannot count how many times I’ve been told in recent years that “women’s issues” in the Islamic world are a secondary subject: Whether the discussion is of the Afghan constitution or the Saudi government, the standard line among most commentators has always been that other things — stability, security, oil — matter more. But regimes that repress the civil and human rights of half their population are inherently unstable. Sooner or later, there has to be a backlash. In Iran, we’re watching one unfold.

I am likewise reminded of the words of Secretary of State Clinton when she addressed the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing as First Lady, in defiance of the US State Dept and Chinese Government:

“For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.

“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to be heard.”

Secretary Clinton once again echoed her deeply held sentiments while addressing the Barnard graduating class on May 21, 2009:

“Although not always acknowledged by governments, businesses, or society overall, women and girls bear a disproportionate burden of most of the problems we face today. In the midst of this global economic crisis, women who are already the majority of the world’s poor are driven deeper into poverty. In places where food is scarce, women and girls are often the last to eat, and eat the least. In regions torn apart by war and conflict, women are more likely to be refugees or targets of sexual violence. . .

And women’s progress is more than a matter of morality. It is a political, economic, social and security imperative for the United States and for every nation represented in this graduating class. If you want to know how stable, healthy, and democratic a country is, look at its women, look at its girls.”

And yet the marginalization of women and girls goes on. It is one of humankind’s oldest problems. But what is different today is that we have 21st century tools to combat it. . . Today, women are finding their voices, and those voices are being heard far beyond their own narrow circumstances.”

In the United States, the fight for women’s suffrage back in 1920 was horrid, ugly, even violent. In the end, Congress granted us this right by one vote. One. I am reminded that a violent act is committed against a woman in this country every few seconds, and women in more oppressive societies have had to endure unspeakable horrors. I cannot imagine the courage of Iranian women in the streets today, and applaud all those who have been working quietly for years to stand against these injustices.

I hope we can ensure that women are not ignored as valiant and courageous leaders in this cause.