Barbara Walters: Governor, let’s talk about some issues. The Middle East. The Obama administration does not want Israel to build any more settlements on what they consider “Palestinian territory.” What is your view on this?

Sarah Palin: I disagree with the Obama administration on that. I believe that, um, the Jewish, uh, settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And, um, I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell, um, Israel that, that, uh, the Jewish settlements cannot expand.

Barbara Walters: Even if it’s Palestinian areas?

Sarah Palin:I believe that the Jewish settlement should be allowed to expand.

Why Walters didn’t do her journalistic best and follow up on Palin’s assertion (in bold above) about the flocking, if only to hear whether theories like this one are behind Palin’s ability to ignore the immigration statistics and trends in Israel, including the fact that immigration has hit all-time lows there, including a 3,000 person drop from 2007 to 2008, is beyond me.

In getting advice about serving on city council, I recently was advised that the response, “I don’t know,” is acceptable at times. Like, when, for example, you don’t actually know something.  Palin’s response to Walters would have been completely adequate (regardless of whether one agrees with it or not), if she’d left out the section I’ve bolded.

It is this adding in of assertions that lack any basis in reality that sink Palin’s credibility as a person with the potential to lead a major super power. It’s one thing to swap Iraq for Iran and Iran for Iraq, like she did with Sean Hannity the other night (a forum topic on Hannity’s website on that very mix-up has been deleted).  I recently wrote a column where I asserted something about abortion rights advocates when I meant abortion rights opponents (it’s since been corrected).

But in the case of Israel’s settlement policy, there was no need for Palin to fabricate, unless she’s truly pushing the theological notion of the Second Coming. I’m honestly not sure which upsets me more, as something being promoted by a person being taken this seriously by so many Americans – making stuff up to give a false sense that you know a few things, or believing, as supposedly 50-60 million Americans do, that Jews will indeed flock to Israel and be converted as part of the Second Coming of Jesus.

It’s also an indication that she hasn’t listened to Charles Krauthammer or anyone else who has said for more than a year that if she wants to be a contender (and maybe this is our answer – she doesn’t) for the U.S. presidency, she better bone up on some knowledge.

Our country wonders this weekend what is on President Obama’s mind. He is apparently, about to bring months of deliberation to a close and answer General Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan. When he finally announces how many, why, and at what cost, he will most likely have defined his presidency, for the consequences will be far-reaching and unpredictable. As I read and listen and wait with all of you for answers, I have been thinking about the mind of another president, Lyndon B. Johnson.

I was 30 years old, a White House Assistant, working on politics and domestic policy. I watched and listened as LBJ made his fateful decisions about Vietnam. He had been thrust into office by the murder of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963– 46 years ago this weekend. And within hours of taking the oath of office was told that the situation in South Vietnam was far worse than he knew. [...]

Lyndon Johnson secretly recorded many of the phone calls and conversations he had in the White House. In this broadcast, you’re going to hear excerpts that reveal how he wrestled over what to do in Vietnam. There are hours of tapes and the audio quality is not the best, but I’ve chosen a few to give you an insight into the mind of one president facing the choice of whether or not to send more and more American soldiers to fight in a far-away and strange place.

Granted, Barack Obama is not Lyndon Johnson, Afghanistan is not Vietnam and this is now, not then. But listen and you will hear echoes and refrains that resonate today.

I’ve just finished listening. I’m struck by the similarities with our situation today, most especially the truth that there were no, there are no, good answers. But a decision was made. The program gives some solid insight into that process. I urge you to see this program.

Now that we’ve gotten some of the Chinese reaction to president Obama’s trip, it’s time to start sampling the reaction of the rest of the world.

This article by the great Thomas Klau of Germany’s Financial Times Deutschland is not encouraging – and points out that without the U.S. able to exercise effective leadership, it’s time to grapple seriously with stronger global institutions.

According to Klau, President Obama’s China visit signals that a moment the Europeans have dreaded for hundreds of years has come when he writes:

“At least since the time of Napoleon, we Europeans have lived with a somewhat fearful suspicion that China will likely wake up one day as a giant of global politics. Now that time has come.”

As far as what the trip shows about the United States, Klau is even less sanguine, and more than a little “peeved” that Obama is treating Beijing better than he does the European Union:

“Obama’s China visit was more than a passing episode. It most likely documents the definitive end of a historic epoch, in which the foremost Western power was able to present itself internationally as the ultimate authority on good government and good business, without incurring more than the weak protestations of those who were comparatively unsuccessful. … the turnaround year of 1989 [year the Berlin Wall fell] marked the beginning of the end of a historic era – an era in which Western concepts of good governance and good business almost entirely dominated the global discourse. If things stay this way because China continues to do splits between free and un-free politics, the Tiananmen Square massacre will be, unfortunately, the 1989 event with the strongest influence on the future.”

“We are slowly beginning to get used to this new, post-American world. Peeved, we see that the globally more modest United States treats its coolly-controlling lender China with greater care than it does the European Union.”

By Thomas Klau*

Translated By Stephanie Martin

November 19, 2009

Germany – Financial Times Deutschland – Original Article (German)

After the cool treatment of Europeans, now comes a soft stance toward China. During his first visit to Asia, U.S. President Barack Obama, sober as always in his approach to foreign policy, has drawn his conclusions about the reorganization of the global power arena. In accordance with the wishes of the Chinese leadership, human rights rhetoric was almost entirely missing from Obama’s public statements. Behind closed doors he may have made demands on some key issues like Iran; in public, however, anything that may have suggested America as school master and China as the one receiving instruction was avoided.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Let’s first look at one of the questions Rick asked. Could we put 1.6 million soldiers in uniform to take up arms in defense of their country today? For the moment, let’s leave aside the politics and sociology and just look at the logistics. Yes, if the need and threat were great enough and our government could impress that upon the populace, we certainly have the manpower available to dredge up such a force. But we wouldn’t. Not for lack of will, but for lack of need. That’s simply not how we fight anymore. There are a couple of powers left in the world (primarily the Russians and the Chinese) who could seriously challenge us, but none of us have much interest in that sort of a doomsday scenario. The other opponents who we seem to express any interest in fighting are far smaller and simply don’t stand a chance against a full blown military assault by the United States.

Think back for a moment to the beginning of the current Iraq war. (And for that matter, the same may be said for the original fight in Desert Storm.) Yes, we did actually engage in a real “war” in the traditional sense of the word, with the government of Iraq. It lasted roughly six weeks. (And it only took that long because we had to stop and ask directions so often because none of the signs were in English.) We lost, in relative terms, only a handful of soldiers. The real losses we encountered came later during the peace keeping and “stabilization” efforts in the cities, long after we had defeated the Iraqi army and taken control of their capitol.

We don’t fight battles the way we did in World War II. There are no vast armies, moving in formation across foreign lands to charge into the fray with equally large masses of men. We monitor the movement of troops and armor from space and send in our high tech air power in advance to pound the enemy to a pulp long before the grunts on the ground show up. And forget about any fixed weapons batteries or collections of mobile armor such as tanks. We take them out with missiles, stealth fighters and Blackhawks long before the troops arrive. I say this not to denigrate the work and sacrifice of our troops today and in these modern wars, but as a simple observation. In open battle, our troops today are called on more to do “mop-up” work than to engage in any land battles with enemy forces of sufficient size to wage a pitched battle. So a 1.6 million man army would be more of a hindrance than a help in the wars we fight today.

We’re a high technology force, against which the simple, dog-face ground troops of most nations stand no chance. This is why they adapt strategies which many of us label as cowardly, running and hiding out of uniform among civilians, and fighting with improvised explosive devices. They can’t compete with us, so they adopt the strategies of the Vietnamese, the Somalians, and others who have found varying degrees of success through guerrilla tactics. For our part, we don’t have much use for gigantic columns of troops trundling across foreign lands in the numbers we deployed across France so long ago.

At the other end of the scale is the possibility of such a war with Russia or China. Again, it’s unlikely that massive armies of ground troops would be effective. Those enemies are equally high tech and would deploy hellfire from above on any such assemblage of troops and armor. Plus, there is the always extant threat of nukes bring broken out if things begin to go badly for either side. Destruction can be carried out on a far more massive scale than the death which can be dealt by a few thousand men carrying rifles. These would be far more massive and potentially world ending wars, but they would be fought primarily in the theater of technology. The idea of an actual land invasion of either China or the United States seems improbably in the extreme.

Now to the other major question: do we have the will as a nation? Are we made of the same stuff that molded the Greatest Generation? Again, I think the will is still there, but the threat would have to be real and understandable by the vast majority. Unlike the WW2 era, people are better informed and perhaps more skeptical of the government’s actions and motives. (Which is a good thing, by the way.) We don’t automatically accept the government’s call to arms and feel free to debate the issue at length. But if we were faced with an actual threat to our nation from a strong opponent, much the same as we drew together as a nation on Sept. 12, 2001, I believe we would rise up as we have in the past and do what needed to be done.

As to having “the right stuff,” this is a question which probably doesn’t need to be asked. Soft times make soft men. Hard times produce grizzled warriors. When the time came and it was “do or die” our forces would be molded into the warriors we required. Great deeds would be done, tragedies would unfold and the stories would write themselves over the ages to come.

But I don’t believe it’s ever going to happen. We have a few, big school hall monitors on the planet. If two smaller countries start a war, the big kids will condemn the action, convince the rest of the world to condemn it as well, and stop it from spiraling out of control, nation to nation, as it did in WW2. If one of the big nations such as the United States goes to war against a smaller one, such as Iran, it will be another case of enemies who slip away into the night and fight us one car bomb at a time in the streets of their cities. And if two of the big parties do decide to go all in, it will be a high tech war of destruction more than armies of individual men with rifles and grenades.

And more’s the pity, really. If we did have to face the massive scale of personal carnage that we saw back in the day, we might think a bit longer and harder before going to the mat. But the world has grown up and moved on. We just don’t fight that way any more.

What is the significance of President Obama’s habit of bowing to foreign royalty? Continuing with our coverage of China’s reaction to president Obama’s Asia tour, Diguo Zhunjiang for China’s state-controlled Global Geographic Times asserts that while this results in a great loss of face for the United States, he warns his readers not to be lulled into a sense of complacency by Obama’s apparent shows of respect.

For China’s Global Geographic Times, Diguo Zhunjiang writes in part:

“I regard this as a performance. If we say that his bow upon meeting the Saudi king was a genuine expression of traditional royal awe by the newly-elected Obama, then we can also say that this time, his bow was a way of getting back at domestic critics. His intentions are quite obvious: he wants a change from the cowboy-style arrogance of his predecessor Bush in order to re-establish the United States as a model of civility, but on a deeper level, repair the damage that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have done to America’s image.

“Regardless of how humble it is in appearance, arrogant strategic thinking is in America’s bones and will continue to be so. So we shouldn’t place any hope in this false smile that has been grafted onto the United States. Rather, we should be more vigilant.”

By Diguo Zhunjiang

Translated By Mark Klingman

November 15, 2009

People’s Republic of China – Global Geographic Times – Original Article (China)

While in Tokyo, at noon on November 14, U.S. President Barack Obama met the Japanese emperor and empress at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo. Upon meeting him at the door of the royal residence, the tall Mr. Obama made an almost 90-degree bow and shook the Emperor’s hand. Obama stopped just shy of a deep bow, and shook hands warmly with the emperor and empress, saying, “it’s really an honor to meet you, your majesty.”

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

by Rick Moran

The debate over “The Greatest Generation” and whether the way America is today could duplicate their stunning achievements in winning two wars and fighting through a depression while maintaining unity has been hashed and rehashed by far superior minds than mine.

But I just can’t help thinking about it after watching the History Channel this week and their excellent series, “Word War II in HD.”

If you haven’t been able to catch any of it, they will run the entire 10 hours on Saturday starting at 8:00 am central time.

Quite simply, it is the grandest, the most heartbreaking, the most stirring documentary series on World War II ever made. And that includes both “Victory at Sea” and “The World at War.”

TWAW is the gold standard – 32 hours of in-depth analysis of the politics, the strategy, the personalities, and ordeals experienced by civilians during the war. But it is rather soulless. It’s academic approach can be dry, although the images and words of survivors lend an emotionalism outside the rather clinical analysis offered.

“Victory at Sea,” on the other hand, went hard for dramatic effect. With the sonorous voice of Leonard Graves supplying the narration and music by Broadway impresario Richard Rodgers, VAS was a made for TV blockbuster that went right for the heart and kept the viewer entranced with its quick cuts, and snappy pace.

Other documentaries of individual battles (there have been a couple of excellent treatments of D-Day) have suffered from using stock footage that, if you watch enough of these things, you recognize from other projects.

But the History Channel sojourn into the past with “World War II in HD” is everything a good documentary should be; highly original, well scripted, images lining up with narration in an artistic mix, all the while marching forward with a pace that allows the viewer to digest the information and feel what the documentarian is feeling about his subject.

But it is the images that capture the mind and rend the soul. Culled from literally thousands of home movies – many in color – and long lost color combat footage, there is a freshness and even an immediacy about the entire package that has held me absolutely in thrall for the entire run of the series.

The technique is itself, fresh and original. Focusing on several individuals who fought in both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters, the survivors take us through everything from the home front, their battle experiences, the horror, mud, blood, guts, and monumental sense of loss when a comrade falls. The narration is accompanied by stunning combat footage – real “You Are There” images of mortar rounds exploding just feet from the camera, horrific sights of the wounded and dead, and always, the total destruction that war leaves in its wake.

A small example of the originality of the series can be found in the way that the narration will, from time to time, fade out slowly and the reading of the script is picked up by the actual survivor. It is an extraordinarily effective technique in that it humanizes the actor reading the narration when, after just a few seconds of the survivor reading, the voice of the actor portraying him is slowly brought back up, while the survivor’s words fade away. This is not a new technique but it it works spectacularly.

The music is obtrusive without overwhelming the action. Indeed, the music is used as a dramatic device to measure the pace of the documentary, mirroring the pace of the excellent narration (Gary Sinise). Beautiful editing builds bridges to each succeeding scene, allowing for seamless segues from clip to clip. A truly masterful job.

A word about the HD: It could be that they really didn’t have anything else to call the project, what with “World War II in Color” already taken. Shooting the program in HD is not the reason to watch it, nor is much of it in HD anyway. The films, as you can imagine, are grainy, and out of focus at times so even with an HD TV, it really doesn’t enhance the viewing experience that much.

All in all, “World War II in HD” is a triumph of documentary film making that should do for World War II what Ken Burns’ “Civil War” did for that conflict; bringing the viewer up close to the war while allowing us to get to know some fascinating characters who increase our understanding of the conflict. (Burns’ “The War” was good but lacked the dramatic punch of the History Channel treatment.)

And as the last scenes of the documentary faded and the survivors, now all near or over 80 years old were left with their memories, it hit me that the hackneyed question about whether America today could pull together and perform such magnificent feats of arms and industry as those that my father’s generation manged, needed another airing.

Strip away our gadgets, our scientific wonders, and all the cultural, economic, and social touchstones that make up America today and ask yourself; How much like them are we? There’s no doubt that we are quite different in some respects. But like Robert Graves, the great essayist of the World War I generation who saw extraordinary love in the sacrifice of soldiers who marched lockstep into the most murderous fire, is there that kind of feeling for America today that would allow us to meet such huge challenges?

By World War II standards, our military is tiny. More than 16,000,000 Americans wore their country’s uniform in the Second World War. But there is little doubt that our current military is every bit as good, soldier for soldier, as those who beat the Nazis and the Japanese. So the question isn’t really a military one. It is a question of character. The real question should be; How similar is the character of today’s American to that of the World War II generation? Are we made of the same stuff? Do we believe in America as passionately as they did – enough to put aside our political differences and unite to see the job through to its conclusion?

I have my doubts. The whole idea of American sovereignty is fast disappearing – or at least the sort of sovereignty the WWII generation believed in. Call it a blind faith if you will, or perhaps you think it small minded and childish to harbor such notions that sometimes, there is only one side to take and that is the side of the country of your birth. It’s called “chauvinism” today and is quite unfashionable. But without it, we might have quit in 1944. Without that absolute certainty that we were in the right felt by the overwhelming majority of Americans whether at the battlefront or the homefront – whether fighting with a gun, or laboring in the factories and fields – I don’t think we could have done it.

There are many who would celebrate this loss of faith as the inevitable result of America “growing up” or worse, the consequence of a government that has betrayed the people time and again whether it was Viet Nam, Watergate, or some other national event that showed our leaders using us, lying to us, or betraying the principles on which the country was founded.

And yet…

We don’t know, do we? As implacable a foe as radical Islamism, it can’t come close to the existential threat of Hitler and his thugs or the economic threat to our emerging commercial empire in the Far East by Japan. And remember, all of this played out with the backdrop of a national depression where unemployment was still over 10% and most people hurting economically.

I want to believe we’d be up to those kinds of threats regardless of about which generation of Americans you want to talk. I don’t think it would matter what era you choose, I still see Americans as comprising a specific, exceptional “race” if you will. There are national characteristics unique to people who live here that are found nowhere else. We simply couldn’t have achieved what we have achieved, overcome what we’ve been able to overcome (self-inflicted or otherwise) without some spark deep within us that makes us “Americans.”

The conventional answer might be that we wouldn’t stand a chance fighting a long war like WWII today. But one thing is for sure; if I were a foreign power, I wouldn’t make the mistake that the Kaiser made in 1917, Tojo and Hitler made in 1941, or Saddam made in 1991.

And that is underestimate the United States of America.

Rick Moran is Associate Editor of The American Thinker and Chicago Editor of Pajamas Media. His personal blog is Right Wing Nuthouse.

I have frequently written on patriotism, “supporting the troops,” the cost of war as measured in “bullets and dollars” and, most important, on the cost of war as measured by the sweat, blood, tears and lives of our valiant troops. This, while Americans back home are not asked to sacrifice in any meaningful manner, and are even encouraged to “go shopping.”

My words, however, are woefully inadequate when compared to a powerful, heart-rending article that appears today in my hometown newspaper.

The column, titled “Military draft would end America’s two-faced patriotism,” in my opinion, eloquently expresses sentiments and emotions that so many of us have felt so strongly over the past eight years, but have not been willing or able to express.

I will share a couple of them here.

The author, Joe James Sawyer, who was in the 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne) 1st Special Forces from 1963 to 1966, writes:

The cost of asymmetric warfare is evident in the growing numbers of young Americans coming home with horrific injuries inflicted by improvised explosive devices. The lives of those wounded soldiers are shattered — they come home missing limbs, blinded, brain damaged.

There is no end in sight. For all these years, we have carried on a national debate about the necessity of these wars and the terrible cost they carry. That dialogue has been, in the main, dishonest and hypocritical.

[In all the wars we have fought in our history] [A]ll Americans shared the pain when young lives were lost or forever shattered in America’s battlefields. The rich and the poor, black, white, red, yellow and brown — all of us — knew the grief, the loss and the suffering of Vietnam.
.
.
That is no longer true and has not been for far too many years.

He continues:

There are generations of American men and women who have no sense of service, fidelity or sacrifice. There are far too many among us who believe patriotism is to be found in waving flags and wearing yellow ribbons.

We are sending the same men and women to theaters of combat over and over, without relent. This simply cannot continue. It harms our country to do so. It cheapens any claim to patriotism by Americans who wave flags and profess to honor “our” troops while their children will never know what it means to serve the flag of the United States. Just as their parents have never known.

After claiming that others will do “the sacrifice of dying” while “the children of privileged Americans…are sheltered from any threat of having to defend their country” and while enjoying the right “to rant about the need to fight, to display their flag-waving courage and continue their feast unabated,” Sawyer points to the need to again have a universal draft: “If war is to be waged, we all must contribute; we all must sacrifice. Without that, we truly become hollow men.”

Sawyer concludes:

The time must come again when all Americans fight our wars, shoulder to shoulder on the field of combat. Only three things are required to make this come true: a sense of fairness, a sense of duty and a sense of honor.

Regardless of what your position is on the military draft, I urge you to read all of Sawyer’s moving words here.

After nearly two months of deliberation, some have criticized the Obama Administration of foot-dragging a decision on Afghanistan. As a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, I could not disagree more. If the previous administration had put such care into its approach toward Iraq and Afghanistan, we might not be facing the difficulties we face today.

An informed decision is not the same as indecision. Given the complexities of securing Afghanistan and turning the tide against the insurgency, it is critical that our commander-in-chief understand the nature of the challenge, and I applaud the president for taking the time to acquire that understanding.

But to succeed in Afghanistan, we need more than a president who understands what we’re up against. We need the American people to understand. To achieve this understanding, I would suggest that there are two major trends in our favor that the American people ought to know.

First, Pakistan has finally recognized the need to confront al Qaeda and the Taliban within its own country, conducting significant operations over the last year to retake Taliban controlled territory.

This is a tremendous shift by Pakistan, which has historically funded terrorist organizations aimed at attacking India. They are in the fight against terrorism now. This gives us the opportunity to crush al Qaeda and the Taliban in the region, with Pakistan attacking them from its own territory in the east, while U.S. and allied forces attack from the West in Afghanistan. This is a vice we should tighten.

Second, America now “does” counter-insurgency. The attitude, tactical skills, and operational ability needed to defeat an insurgency are very different from the conventional warfare abilities that have guided our military thinking since World War II.

Leaders such as Generals Petraeus and McChrystal have recognized this fact and begun to conduct military operations accordingly. The Army and Marine Corps also gained counter-insurgency skills the hard way, during the Iraqi crucible, learning that the key to defeating insurgents lies in protecting the population.

Success in Afghanistan will only come if the Afghan people see the U.S.-led mission in a positive light, which requires the military to put a premium on protecting people. With a counter-insurgency strategy firmly in place, securing this long-term support has now become a possibility.

Of course, these developments alone do not guarantee easy success in Afghanistan. There are, however, no real alternatives. The two most popular suggestions – walking away from Afghanistan or returning to a failed “counter-terror” strategy – carry far too much risk.

Walking away from Afghanistan would be a disaster. We did that once before, after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in the 1980s. The result? Without an American hand in the region, Afghanistan disintegrated into chaos. Pakistan supported the least bad path toward stability, the Taliban. The Taliban eventually gave legal sanctuary to al Qaeda, which used Afghan territory to prepare the 9/11 attacks.

Were we to leave Afghanistan now, the region would spiral out of control once again. Except this time, Pakistan is a nuclear nation. Getting out of the game now would allow extremists to get closer to nuclear weapons, a decidedly unacceptable situation.

Similarly, a counter-terrorism approach to Afghanistan is no real solution. We have been trying that for eight years, with large unit operations to hunt bandits, and drones to kill Taliban and al Qaeda leaders. Though we have eliminated a significant number of bad guys, we have also alienated a lot of fence-sitters, and the insurgency has grown stronger. Clearly, we need a new approach.

So what should that approach look like? First, the U.S. must commit to defeating the elements of the Taliban who would either challenge the legitimate governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan, or harbor members of trans-national terrorist organizations.

Then we need to follow up these commitments with troops and time. Give General McChrystal what he needs to get the situation under control, and the time he needs to train more Afghan forces. The sooner the Afghans can protect themselves, the sooner we can bring our troops home.

There won’t be a Victory-Afghanistan day that we will all be able to look back on thirty years from now. We live in a different world that includes a different kind of war and a different kind of victory. But the path to that 21st century victory is on the table right now. A steadfast commitment from the United States will ultimately help the Afghan people to pursue a better future for themselves and bolster our security by denying safe haven to terrorists and extremists.

Can President Obama persuade China not to be so dependent on growth, particularly trade-dependent growth? Likening Beijing’s obsession with growth to a Chinese version of the ‘Berlin Wall,’ Feng Mengyun of China’s state-run Global Geographic Times expresses his hope that President Obama can do something to talk the Beijing leadership into turning over a new leaf.

With some surprising criticism of the regime, Feng Mengyun writes for the Global Geographic Times in part:

“Prior to thirty years ago, the old Chinese model caused tremendous suffering. But an even graver sin would have been to stick with the system that caused such suffering.

“While [Chinese] exports stand at $1.7 trillion, domestic sales are only $860 billion. China’s trade deficit with the U.S. is $300 billion. This seems like a huge trade surplus, not to mention a contradiction. More difficult to fathom is how much foreign exports are responsible for China’s rise. Today, even with 20 percent of the world’s doors closed to trade, China unceasingly opposes trade protection and domestic unemployment is rising by the million. Is China capable of dealing with this?

“The unpredictable issue is China itself. Because rising growth has become China’s ‘Berlin Wall.’

“Obama’s ‘mutually beneficial’ thinking has already received widespread support in liberal countries, which is why the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize went to the first Black U.S. president. Since he arranged to visit China before going to Norway to collect his Prize, I hope while visiting China, Obama declares: ‘Mr. Hu Jintao, tear down this wall!’

By Feng Mengyun [???]

Translated by Jimmy Chow

November 16, 2009

People’s Republic of China – Global Geographic Times – Original Article (China)

U.S. President Barack Obama, “Ambassador of Peace,” has finally set foot in Beijing. Ahead of his visit, North Korea fired missiles, there was a sea battle between North and South Korea, and Somali pirates took 28 Chinese sailors hostage. What do these events tell Chinese who their enemies and friends are!

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

There’s the cliched phrase: “It’s like watching a train wreck.” In “Terror in Mumbai,” which airs tonight 8 pm ET/PT on HBO, you get to see what no documentary has shown before: a “360 degree view” of a multi-pronged terrorist act, seen partly and genuinely from the terrorists point view. The reason: “Terror in Mumbai” uses actual cell phone instructional conversations during the attack given to the terrorists in the field by a shadowy control “boss” in Pakistan. Not recreated -- the real thing…and it will make your blood both boil, and freeze.

So, yes, even terrorists have “directors” who guide and supervise their every move as they do their dirtywork. It shows how the terrorists got info on where Indian security forces were heading and specific directions on which hostages to kill and when — even when to throw hand grenades and set hotel fires.

One of the most chilling moments: where the control agent in Pakistan talks to a hostage at the Jewish center in Mumbai and reassures her she could be home “by Sabbath.” You hear the fear in her voice. Later on he orders the terrorist to murder her and another hostage. You hear the shots (the boss in Pakistan wanted to stay on the phone to personally hear the murders himself).

Another feature: extensive and stunning footage of the Indian police interrogation of the lone surviving gunman in his hospital bed, answering all of their questions, weeping because he realized he had been duped (it’s later reported in the documentary that his trainers/handlers told him that when he died his body would smell like flowers as he went to heaven…so Indian officials took him to the morgue to show him the dead bullet ridden bloated bodies of the other 9 gunmen which was a huge shock to him).

Produced and directed by Dan Reed, “Terror in Mumbai” uses parts of 284 intercepted cell phone calls, news footage, still photos, extensive video surveillance photos of the terrorists in action, interviews with police officials — plus interviews with guests from the Taj Mahal and Oberoi hotels who detail the mass executions there — to give a moment-by-moment reconstruct the horrific November 26, 2008 events where 10 not-so-heavily-armed gunmen paralyzed a city and stunned the world as images were beamed worldwide on the tube. “Terror in Mumbai documents how, as the murders were reported and images of fires emerged, the control agent in Pakistan was almost giddy at the carnage-created publicity unfolded on his TV screen.

After hijacking a ship and slitting the captain’s throat (Terrorist: “We finished him off. We slit his throat.”), the terrorists spread out in the city to attack Mombai’s main railway station, a popular cafe, two major hotels and a Jewish center. HBO and Reed also picked a class act to narrate the piece, Mumbai-born Fareed Zakaria, who is as superb a narrator as he is Editor of a Newsweek’s International Editor and as a CNN host. During the documentary, Zakaria says the following:

“Much as the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. did in 2001, the events that unfolded last November in Mumbai served as a terrifying wake-up call, not just to India but to the rest of the world…It broadened the spectrum of our enemies and brought attention to the number of different terrorist groups that exist, who may be bigger and better organized than we ever imagined. The fact that a small group of gunmen was able to inflict so much pain, and the government of the second most populous nation on earth was unable to stop them for three days, should change our sense of the dangers out there.”

In fact at one point, the control agent tells one of the doomed terrorists:“This was just the trailer. Just wait till you see the rest of the film.”

Some highlights that linger:

More than any documentary, “Terror in Mumbai” hammers home the horror, grief and brutality of terrorism. But more than that: taken altogether it illustrates perfectly what “terrorism” means not to just those on the receiving end of it as victims or responders, but to the terrorists themselves.

Some reviews have raised eyebrows about “humanizing” the terrorists. But this piece is one of the best illustrations of the problem: terrorist recruiters use perverted definitions of faith to rope in young people who aren’t sophisticated and not exactly rocket scientists to begin with (which is good because they’d probably use the rockets they manufactured if they were). When they’re kicking down a hotel door to find guests to mercilessly butcher, it’s their mission to increase the body count. And, they are told and themselves parrot, they are destined for a great place in heaven for snuffing out the lives of anyone, regardless of gender or age.

And the control agent makes it crystal clear: the mission is not over until he terrorist is killed.

But here is the scariest part:

The Mumbai attacks, documented so comprehensively in this documentary indeed should serve as a wake up call.

This kind of multi-pronged attack could be replicated in almost any city including in the Untied States. Zakaria notes: “By attacking multiple targets the terrorists had hoped to plunge the police into chaos. They succeeded completely.”

Are U.S. cities prepared?

On a TMV scale of one to five, “Terror in Mumbai” gets a six stars.

]]> http://themoderatevoice.com/53427/tv-review-hbos-terror-in-mumbai-six-stars-out-of-five/feed/ 4 http://themoderatevoice.com/53408/abc-reports-c-i-a-black-site-found-in-lithuania/ http://themoderatevoice.com/53408/abc-reports-c-i-a-black-site-found-in-lithuania/#comments Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:10:52 +0000 KATHY KATTENBURG http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53408 This is just incredible:

The CIA built one of its secret European prisons inside an exclusive riding academy outside Vilnius, Lithuania, a current Lithuanian government official and a former U.S. intelligence official told ABC News this week.

Where affluent Lithuanians once rode show horses and sipped coffee at a café, the CIA installed a concrete structure where it could use harsh tactics to interrogate up to eight suspected al-Qaeda terrorists at a time. …

[...]

Lithuanian officials provided ABC News with the documents of what they called a CIA front company, Elite, LLC, which purchased the property and built the “black site” in 2004.

Lithuania — where all but about 15,000 of that country’s pre-World War II Jewish population of 210,000 were murdered by the Nazis. It’s not that the C.IA. torture program is equivalent to the Nazi extermination of European Jewry, but that’s not the point for me. It’s the moral symbolism — and I’m not sure that’s the correct word that expresses how this makes me feel. It’s the profound disrespect for the memory of those tortured and murdered souls, to set up a secret torture site in the heart of where that horror took place. This is my country that did this. I really feel betrayed.

I suppose that decades from now, visitors will be touring these former torture centers just as visitors tour places like Dachau and Auschwitz today.

]]> http://themoderatevoice.com/53408/abc-reports-c-i-a-black-site-found-in-lithuania/feed/ 21 http://themoderatevoice.com/53360/when-bush-dithered-on-iraq/ http://themoderatevoice.com/53360/when-bush-dithered-on-iraq/#comments Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:10:45 +0000 DAVID ADESNIK http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53360 Jackson Diehl:

[After months of deliberation in 2006], no one accused George W. Bush of dithering. So why does Barack Obama keep hearing the taunt as he deliberates about Afghanistan — and why do even some who sympathize with his dilemma find it hard to shake the feeling that this commander in chief lacks resolve?

One part of the answer is easy: Bush was renowned for summoning plenty of resolve, and not enough critical thinking. No one questioned that Bush’s heart was in his bid for “victory” in Iraq. Not a few wondered whether he had weighed carefully enough whether dispatching 20,000 more American troops in early 2007 was a reasoned strategy or a reckless gamble…

Obama’s prolonged deliberation would be understandable if he were choosing between escalating or ending the war, as Bush was. Yet he narrowed his options many weeks ago — and still has been unable to come to closure…

In the end, it’s not enough for a president to be seen as having thought through a decision to send more troops to war. Enemies, allies and the country also need to be convinced that he believes in it.

Read the whole thing.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly

]]> http://themoderatevoice.com/53360/when-bush-dithered-on-iraq/feed/ 0 http://themoderatevoice.com/53354/the-netroots-eat-their-own/ http://themoderatevoice.com/53354/the-netroots-eat-their-own/#comments Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:00:10 +0000 DAVID ADESNIK http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53354

On Monday, Think Progress trashed liberal pundit Mark Shields for allegedly saying, with regard to Obama’s patience on Afghanistan,

[It] makes me nostalgic for those days when we had a manly man in the White House who could say, “Let’s kick some tail and ask questions afterwards” you know? That’s what we really need instead of any reflection.

Kevin Drum read TP’s post and seconded the motion, albeit with more circumspection and less vitriol. But to his credit, Kevin read the comments on his post and apologized.

Why? The quote was accurate. But if you watch the one-minute clip embedded in TP’s post, it is more than obvious that Shields is being sarcastic and mocking conservatives who criticize Obama. Extra credit to Kevin for admitting that he put up his post without even watching the clip.

Now, if you really want to see the netroots at their worst, read the comment thread at the end of the original post on TP. Both the ignorance and the viciousness are disturbing. According to Comment #14:

What we really need is gutless fat *ssed scum like [Shields] getting the beatdown of your life from the families of those who have paid the ultimate price in wars cheered on by your spineless, unaccountable pontificating.

Shields is nothing but another worthless piece of sh*t in a long line of tough guy chickenhawks.

Incidentally, Shields is a Marine Corps veteran. And that comment is just par for the course, not just one ugly comment I picked out to pass judgment on the netroots. To their credit, a handful of commenters insist that Shields was being sarcastic. Others know so little about Shields they call him conservative.

Full disclosure: There’s plenty of insanity in the far-right blogosphere as well. But the attack on Shields is so bizarre I thought it deserved a post.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly

]]> http://themoderatevoice.com/53354/the-netroots-eat-their-own/feed/ 3 http://themoderatevoice.com/53348/clinton-no-long-term-stake-in-afghanistan/ http://themoderatevoice.com/53348/clinton-no-long-term-stake-in-afghanistan/#comments Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:18:43 +0000 DAVID ADESNIK http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53348 Monday NY Times, Page 1:

Every time Mr. Obama declares that the United States will not have an “open-ended” military commitment in Afghanistan, he fuels a second concern of the powerful Pakistani military and intelligence establishment, which believes the United States commitment is fleeting.

It is a concern that some of them say justifies Pakistan’s continuing ties to the militants who fight American troops in Afghanistan.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to fuel this concern on Sunday in her comments on the ABC program “This Week,” saying: “We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We have no long-term stake there. We want that to be made very clear.”

I was listening to the program and I was pretty surprised when Hillary said that. It sounded more like an improvisation than a well-prepped talking point. But it illustrates the confusion at the heart of Obama’s policy. The White House wants to demonstrate resolve while being sure it has an “off-ramp” for its commitment. When delivering that kind of confused message, even the best talkers will slip up.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly

]]> http://themoderatevoice.com/53348/clinton-no-long-term-stake-in-afghanistan/feed/ 4 http://themoderatevoice.com/53313/somali-pirates-hire-spokespeople/ http://themoderatevoice.com/53313/somali-pirates-hire-spokespeople/#comments Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:37:12 +0000 PETE ABEL, Managing Editor http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53313 Per a WSJ.com report (registration/subscription may be required) …

“We have attacked a ship with an American flag — we tried to throw our ladders for climbing (but) it sped and (has) gone away,” said Abdullahi Nor, who identified himself as a pirate spokesman.

So if pirates hire spokespeople, are they really pirates? Maybe I’m stuck in Hollywood/Johnny-Depp mode, but I honestly thought part of the pirate mystique was a flagrant rejection of this level of sophistication.

]]> http://themoderatevoice.com/53313/somali-pirates-hire-spokespeople/feed/ 2 http://themoderatevoice.com/53308/qunnipiac-poll-obama-approval-dips-below-50-for-first-time/ http://themoderatevoice.com/53308/qunnipiac-poll-obama-approval-dips-below-50-for-first-time/#comments Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:25:48 +0000 JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53308 President Barak Obama has now crossed the “danger zone” threshold: according to a new Quinnipiac Poll, his approval rating has now fallen below 50 percent for the first time in the latest poll that shows a gradual declining trend as he loses the support of a chunk of independent voters.

The poll also finds that support for the war in Afghanistan has slipped — which suggest that if Obama’s long awaited policy announcement is to send more troops he could be caught in a political pincer between GOPers (who will label it Obama’s war and say he is doing too little, too much or incompetently handling it) and the Democratic left (which is increasingly a problem for Obama and the party since there are increasing signs the Democrats could splinter on some issues at a time when the many straying Republicans are returning to their party). The poll:

President Barack Obama’s job approval rating is 48 – 42 percent, the first time he has slipped below the 50 percent threshold nationally, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Support for the war in Afghanistan and approval of President Obama’s handling of the war also is down in the last month, and Republican support for the war is more than twice as strong as Democratic support.

In other words: Obama’s upcoming policy could have more support from Republicans (who won’t vote for him and the Democrats in elections) than Democrats (who historically have taught their party a lesson by staying home when they don’t like its policy on an issue, giving Republicans a chance to control environmental, educational and other policies and to appoint court justices to its liking).

American voters say 48 – 41 percent that fighting the war in Afghanistan is the right thing to do, down from 52 – 37 percent in an October 7 survey by the independent Quinnipiac University. Voters disapprove 49 – 38 percent of the President’s handling of the war there, down from 42 – 40 percent approval in October.

But voters say 65 – 29 percent, including 68 – 25 percent among military households, that eliminating the threat of terrorists operating from Afghanistan “is a worthwhile goal for American troops to fight and possibly die for,” compared to 65 – 28 percent last month.

Which means that if framed properly Obama might get some otherwise wavering Americans a reason to give a new policy a chance.

Voters say 47 – 42 percent that President Obama should send 40,000 more combat troops to Afghanistan as the military commanders on the ground have requested. Only 27 percent of Democrats want more troops, compared to 68 percent of Republicans. Similarly, 68 percent of Republicans, but only 31 percent of Democrats, think the United States is doing the right thing fighting in Afghanistan.

“Increasingly, the President finds himself with two different coalitions, one that backs him on domestic matters and a completely different one that backs him on Afghanistan. That could create a challenge to his considerable political skills,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

On the other hand, if all current polls are taken together — at this point in time — Obama is not yet in crisisland. Look at Pollster.com:

]]> http://themoderatevoice.com/53308/qunnipiac-poll-obama-approval-dips-below-50-for-first-time/feed/ 9 http://themoderatevoice.com/53292/new-yorkers-react-to-the-ksm-terror-trials/ http://themoderatevoice.com/53292/new-yorkers-react-to-the-ksm-terror-trials/#comments Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:44:30 +0000 JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53292 Having taken the time to talk through the entire Khalid Sheikh Mohammed affair with people on both side of the aisle, I’ve finally drawn some conclusions. I don’t think the real problem here is whether President Obama – through the office of Eric Holder – made the right or wrong call on this. The sticking point is that he made both calls by deciding to send one group to civilian trials and another to military tribunals. Our official legislative process for dealing with these so called “enemy combatants” remains woefully murky, and the president needs to be the one setting the tone and direction for how we will process them.

This is the subject of my column this week at Pajamas Media, New Yorkers Face the Prospect of a Terrorism Trial in their Back Yard. I also include a round-up of reactions from New Yorkers, both famous and obscure. A short bit to get you started.

America’s mayor, Rudy Giuliani – frequently mentioned as a possible seeker of Paterson’s job — came out with some of the harshest criticism of Holder’s announcement. But as George Stephanopoulos pointed out to him, Rudy seems to be as confused about how to handle these cases as President Obama. Back when Zacarias Moussaoui was put on trial in similar fashion, Giuliani described the process as a “symbol of justice.”

Conversely, the president had a moment back in the day when he was perfectly happy to see KSM go before a military tribunal. Tribunals are good! Then, after taking office, he denounced the practice. Tribunals are bad! And now, Khalid and his cronies will have a civilian trial, but another group of bombers will take the military route. Tribunals are good … except when they’re bad!

]]> http://themoderatevoice.com/53292/new-yorkers-react-to-the-ksm-terror-trials/feed/ 18 http://themoderatevoice.com/53263/the-lesson-of-fort-hood-muslims-cannot-be-trusted-al-watan-voice-palestinian-territories/ http://themoderatevoice.com/53263/the-lesson-of-fort-hood-muslims-cannot-be-trusted-al-watan-voice-palestinian-territories/#comments Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:27:45 +0000 WILLIAM KERN http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53263

In the years that we have pursued this project, today’s posting is one of the strangest international press articles I can recall. And while it indicates that Hamas may be allowing more press freedom than we thought – the conclusions of the author are anything but comforting.

Keeping in mind that the accused killer is of Palestinian origin, the author of this article from the Al Watan Voice, a newspaper published in Hamas-controlled Palestinian territory, while blaming the Fort Hood shootings on a conspiracy of either Zionism or Freemasonry [not unusual for the Arab press], agrees with the reasoning of the conspirators he seeks to expose.

And what is this reasoning? That President Obama, in showing humility and forgiveness toward Arab and Muslim states, is regarded by them as weak, and that the only way to deal with such states is the way George W. Bush did.

For the Al Watan Voice, columnist Hameed Al Wasity writes in part:

“Barack Obama has shown and continues to show inappropriate weakness and unjustified humility. This has been taken advantage of by Arab and Muslim governments.

“The Fort Hood shooting was organized by the hidden world government, international Zionism or Freemasonry (who nominated Obama for a presidential run), and was designed to push an Arab-Muslim officer – and a doctor with the rank of Major – to teach Obama and others a primary lesson: when an American doctor and officer would betray and kill in an instant, one cannot so easily trust Arabs and Muslims – and he [Hasan] was an Arab and a Muslim!!

“Unless Obama changes his policies and begins following in the footsteps of those who preceded him by bringing back American prestige, then there’ll be yet another lesson and another opportunity!! …”

By Hameed Al Wasity

Translated By Nicolas Dagher

November 12, 2009

Palestinian Territories [Gaza] – Al Watan Voice – Original Article (Arabic)

CNN has carried a report of an Arab officer who killed 13 American soldiers and wounded dozens at the Fort Hood military base in Texas.

And the officer, Major Nidal Hasan, is a psychiatrist responsible for treating American soldiers. There are so many colorful stories about his nationality. Some of his colleagues say he’s Jordanian, while certain news outlets report he’s of Palestinian origin.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

]]> http://themoderatevoice.com/53263/the-lesson-of-fort-hood-muslims-cannot-be-trusted-al-watan-voice-palestinian-territories/feed/ 5 http://themoderatevoice.com/53252/a-change-of-venue-for-the-trials-of-911-terrorists/ http://themoderatevoice.com/53252/a-change-of-venue-for-the-trials-of-911-terrorists/#comments Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:06:11 +0000 DORIAN DE WIND http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53252
There has been a lot of angst, criticism and just plain political hysteria surrounding the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged 9/11 mastermind, and other terrorists, in a federal civilian court, just blocks from Ground Zero.

I will be the last one to pass judgment on the emotions and feelings—pro or con this decision—of relatives and friends of New York’s 9/11 victims and of New Yorkers. Nor will I pass judgment at this time on the administration’s decision to move some of the terrorists’ trials out of military courts to federal civilian courts on the U.S. mainland.

Assuming the administration’s decision to try these terrorists in federal civilian courts stands, I respectfully suggest a change of venue.

Perhaps we should consider moving the trial(s) to our nation’s capital, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Such a change of venue would recognize that it was not only New York that was attacked on 9/11, but our entire nation—all Americans.

It could also allay some—not all—concerns and criticisms.

The 9/11 terrorists also attacked the very symbol of our military power: the Pentagon. I know that many of the military who saw so many of their buddies injured and 55 of them killed, would welcome seeing the perpetrators face justice just across the Potomac from the place that was attacked and where their buddies died.

For those who worry about reprisals and security, these same military, along with reinforcements (there are numerous military installations in the Washington D.C. area), would be more than happy and capable to provide the necessary protection and deal with those who would dare to “interfere.”

The President and the Attorney General who proposed the civilian court trials are here also. And so is Congress. They would all be equally exposed to any potential danger, from which they should not shrink, and which should promote even greater security and protection.

As in New York, federal rules will allow prosecutors in Washington D.C. to seek the death penalty for these terrorists.

Finally, with our Supreme Court here, a symbol of American commitment to justice for the world to see, what an opportunity to quickly and decisively consider and once-and-for-all settle any appeals that may arise and to have justice served—swiftly and to the fullest extent.

Just a thought…

]]> http://themoderatevoice.com/53252/a-change-of-venue-for-the-trials-of-911-terrorists/feed/ 15 http://themoderatevoice.com/53247/cbs-news-poll-obamas-rating-dips-amid-independent-voter-unhappiness/ http://themoderatevoice.com/53247/cbs-news-poll-obamas-rating-dips-amid-independent-voter-unhappiness/#comments Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:34:02 +0000 JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=53247 The bad news for President Barack Obama today isn’t only economic: his ratings have declined again, amid further signs that he is losing independent voter support. His overall approval rating has dropped to 53 percent, a CBS news poll finds.

Approval for Mr. Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan has dropped as well as more Americans now disapprove than approve.

However, a majority of Americans still approve of the way Mr. Obama is handling his job as president, but this percentage is down three points. Fifty-three percent of Americans approve of how he’s handling his job, down from 56 percent last month.

The president’s approval rating has dropped seven points among independents. Forty-five percent of independents now approve of how the president is handling his job. Last month, a majority of 52 percent approved.

Assessments of how Mr. Obama is handling the war in Afghanistan have become more negative since early October. Thirty-eight percent now approve of how President Obama is handling the war – but even more, 43 percent, disapprove. Disapproval has risen nine points, from 34 percent last month.

Again, most of the change has occurred among independents. Last month, 44 percent of independents approved and 36 percent disapproved of the job Mr. Obama was doing on Afghanistan. Now, more independents disapprove than approve: 49 percent disapprove, and just 30 percent approve.

A bad sign for Obama and the Democrats..s

]]> http://themoderatevoice.com/53247/cbs-news-poll-obamas-rating-dips-amid-independent-voter-unhappiness/feed/ 6