Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Who Wants A Million Bucks?

A British billionaire, Alki David, has offered $1 million to the first person who manages to streak naked in front of Barack Obama.


Anonymous said...

I hope Madeleine Albright Dick Durbin, or Elena Kagan goes for it...

Hey, here's a million dollar question,
do ya think O is going to bomb Iran in the next 8 days?

Or will he play golf on Martha's Vineyard and eat ice cream cones with the girls leaving it to Israel to handle?

Mrs. P

arethusa said...

Mrs. P - Those are rhetorical questions, I assume?

Anonymous said...

Well, I can see how you would assume that as I would've if I hadn't read Michael Barone this past July:

In my July 21 Examiner column I wrote that recent articles by Time’s Joe Klein and the American Interest’s Walter Russell Mead suggested to me that the Obama administration was seriously considering a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. I paid particular attention to these articles because Klein has been an outspoken opponent of such an attack and Mead is by no means an advocate for it. Now comes further evidence, in an opinion article in the Washington Post by Steven Simon and Ray Takeyh. They are by no means right-wingers; Simon worked in Bill Clinton’s National Security Council and Takeyh is described as a former adviser to the Obama administration. Their article takes quite seriously the possibility that the president will order such an attack; it also assesses the difficulties and risks encountered in such a move—and no one argues that there are no difficulties and risks, though Reuel Marc Gerecht, whom I also cited in my July 21 column, thinks they’re not as great as many others do.


But then this past week I read George Will---

Anonymous said...

George Will - last week in WaPo:

Two photographs adorn the office of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Together they illuminate a portentous fact: No two leaders of democracies are less alike -- in life experiences, temperaments and political philosophies -- than Netanyahu, the former commando and fierce nationalist, and Barack Obama, the former professor and post-nationalist.
One photograph is of Theodor Herzl, born 150 years ago. Dismayed by the eruption of anti-Semitism in France during the Dreyfus Affair at the end of the 19th century, Herzl became Zionism's founding father. Long before the Holocaust, he concluded that Jews could find safety only in a national homeland.

The other photograph is of Winston Churchill, who considered himself "one of the authors" of Britain's embrace of Zionism. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 stated: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." Beginning in 1923, Britain would govern Palestine under a League of Nations mandate.

Netanyahu, his focus firmly on Iran, honors Churchill because he did not flinch from facts about gathering storms. Obama returned to the British Embassy in Washington the bust of Churchill that was in the Oval Office when he got there.

Obama's 2009 speech in Cairo, courting the Arab world, may have had measurable benefits, although the metric proving this remains mysterious. The speech -- made during a trip when Obama visited Cairo and Riyadh but not here -- certainly subtracted from his standing in Israel. In it, he acknowledged Israel as, in part, a response to Jewish suffering in the Holocaust. Then, with what many Israelis considered a deeply offensive exercise of moral equivalence, he said: "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."

On the other hand"? "I," says Moshe Yaalon, "was shocked by the Cairo speech," which he thinks proved that "this White House is very different." Yaalon, former head of military intelligence and chief of the general staff, currently strategic affairs minister, tartly asks, "If Palestinians are victims, who are the victimizers?"

The Cairo speech came 10 months after Obama's Berlin speech, in which he declared himself a "citizen of the world." That was an oxymoronic boast, given that citizenship connotes allegiance to a particular polity, its laws and political processes. But the boast resonated in Europe.
The European Union was born from the flight of Europe's elites from what terrifies them -- Europeans. The first Thirty Years' War ended in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, which ratified the system of nation-states. The second Thirty Years' War, which ended in 1945, convinced European elites that the continent's nearly fatal disease was nationalism, the cure for which must be the steady attenuation of nationalities. Hence the high value placed on "pooling" sovereignty, never mind the cost in diminished self-government.


Anonymous said...

Israel, with its deep sense of nationhood, is beyond unintelligible to such Europeans; it is a stench in their nostrils. Transnational progressivism is, as much as welfare state social democracy, an element of European politics that American progressives will emulate as much as American politics will permit. It is perverse that the European Union, a semi-fictional political entity, serves -- with the United States, the reliably anti-Israel United Nations and Russia -- as part of the "quartet" that supposedly will broker peace in our time between Israel and the Palestinians.

Arguably the most left-wing administration in American history is trying to knead and soften the most right-wing coalition in Israel's history. The former shows no understanding of the latter, which thinks it understands the former all too well.

The prime minister honors Churchill, who spoke of "the confirmed unteachability of mankind." Nevertheless, a display case in Netanyahu's office could teach the Obama administration something about this leader. It contains a small signet stone that was part of a ring found near the Western Wall. It is about 2,800 years old -- 200 years younger than Jerusalem's role as the Jewish people's capital. The ring was the seal of a Jewish official, whose name is inscribed on it: Netanyahu.

No one is less a transnational progressive, less a post-nationalist, than Binyamin Netanyahu, whose first name is that of a son of Jacob, who lived perhaps 4,000 years ago. Netanyahu, whom no one ever called cuddly, once said to a U.S. diplomat 10 words that should warn U.S. policymakers who hope to make Netanyahu malleable: "You live in Chevy Chase. Don't play with our future."


Then there is what I've gleaned from the Air Force officers we live among -- as recently as last Friday night.


Anonymous said...

Here's what I've gleaned - Israel was once believed to have needed the U.S. to bomb Iran. Believed by those who don't know what they are talking about. We needed to allow Israel to fly over - I want to say Iraq but am fuzzy as well as allow for refueling - or Turkey needed to help out. Or else it is a suicide mission for the Israeli pilots. The will end up ditched in the sea -out of gas.

Not true. They have the capabilities to do this mission very easily. With Russia's involvement, they are even more likely to do it. And if they wait much longer then it ceases to be a simple bombing run and becomes a nuclear disaster too.

So, yes in a way it's rhetorical but then again it's not. If Israel goes this alone - I don't think a large part of the American voting public will like that. At. All. We like Israel in this country. But if O gives his support - he's toast with at least 2 other crowds here and abroad.

Then there's the fact Iran has missiles that can reach Paris right now.

And then there's the political reality if this all occurs while he's on a date night at the Black Dog on Martha's Vineyard having a pitcher of Bloody Marys with his lesser half - then all hell breaks lose.

I have to think he much rather resign.

Mrs. P

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.