Breaking News – Angelina Jolie Not a Fan of Obama

I don't even care if this is really true. But I do think I know who has been talking to US Weekly...

Angelina Jolie Not a Fan of Obama – Celebrity News – UsMagazine.com

Posted using ShareThis Sphere: Related Content

Xu Zhiyong

Great editorial today in Wash Post about Xu. The lede is priceless and a stinging indictment of the current US approach to China:

AT THE CONCLUSION of the Strategic Economic Dialogue on July 28, the United States and China issued a news release affirming "the importance of the rule of law to our two countries." One day later, Chinese police led prominent legal scholar Xu Zhiyong out of his apartment to be detained indefinitely.

I hope someone in the White House, Foggy Bottom or Treasury bothers to read it and takes a moment to absorb.

Here is a Xu quote that inspires me to have faith in the Chinese people despite their evil government:

"I strive to be a worthy Chinese citizen, a member of the group of people who promote the progress of the nation. I want to make people believe in ideals and justice, and help them see the hope of change.”

Obama is reportedly going to China in November. There are any number of ways he could either make this situation worse or better. If he did nothing but talk about this case, in excruciating detail, it would be a serious "teachable moment" for both the Chinese and the Chinapologists in the Administration. It really is China's human rights situation in microcosm.

Sphere: Related Content

Where is American Leadership on Burma?

Well. The Burmese junta sent Aung San Suu Kyi back to house arrest for 18 months today. This is, of course, just long enough to keep her out of circulation for the 2010 sham elections. She was actually sentenced to 3 years hard labor because an idiotic American broke into her house, which was surrounded by junta henchmen because she was -- wait for it -- under house arrest. Senior General Than Shwe personally commuted her sentence to house arrest. He must be clairvoyant, because the Burmese Home Minister showed up in her court room right after the sentence was announced with a note from Than Shwe. Here is what the Guardian had to say:

A diplomatic source who witnessed the verdict said Aung San Suu Kyi looked "unfazed" after the first sentence was read out. "It didn't seem to catch her by surprise at all," he told the Guardian on condition of anonymity. "She was unfazed by it. She did not look like someone who had just been sentenced to three years' hard labour."

The announcement minutes later that her sentence had been commuted to 18 months' house arrest was "a choreographed attempt to get us to witness the leniency, clemency and humanity of the general [Than Shwe]", the source said. "But if the aim was to keep her out of circulation for the elections, then that is what they achieved."

Before being led from the courtroom, Aung San Suu Kyi walked over to the diplomats and thanked them for attending her trial. "I look forward to working together for the future prosperity of my country," she was quoted as saying.

Girlfriend has got a pair. That kind of thing must just drive the regime crazy - the Lady has just been put back under house arrest, saved from hard labor (and it is hard) by the benevolence of Than Shwe, and she tells the dip corps she'll be working with them like she's gonna be in charge or something!

Of course, the idiot who broke into her house gave the ogres this opportunity on a silver platter; but even beyond the damage that this idiot did to Suu personally, he has done a broader disservice to the other 2100 political prisoners in Burma. He got 7 years hard labor for his foolishness, and until the day he is released, the US consulate general (we don't have an embassy in Rangoon) will have to devote resources to getting this yahoo released that could otherwise be devoted to getting Min Ko Naing or Nilar Thein released.

It has already started, judging by the two sentences devoted to this nitwit in Secretary Clinton's statement on the trial. And about that statement - how weak was it? Well, the French and the Brits made us look pathetic. Both called for an arms embargo against the regime, something that was absent from HRC's remarks. I guess she is too busy haranguing African college students to keep up. Or maybe she thinks that Senator Webb will deliver a tough message to the junta when he travels to Burma this month. No, wait - he is opposed to sanctions and wants to engage the junta. Nevermind.

This is a truly sad commentary on how far US leadership has fallen on Burma. Last year, the US was pushing the Europeans to toughen their sanctions; today, France is making us look weak and confused. On a human rights issue we used to own. Again.

While critics of the Obama administration will point to the litany of realpolitik engagement with the dictator-of-the-month strategies they have rolled out, I genuinely am flummoxed by Secretary Clinton's behavior on this one because she was so good on Burma before. I can only believe that the "we must do the opposite of whatever the Bush Administration did" mantra has wiped out her instinct to stand with Aung San Suu Kyi and push a tough policy forward. The truth is HRC should be taking lessons from Suu on how to be one tough b!+@# with style and grace.

Sphere: Related Content

wOrst president ever?

Remember those bumper stickers with the big "W" and "worst president ever"?

Well apparently not..if you believe this new CNN poll

A rather surprising finding from the newly released CNN poll. Question three on the national survey of 1,136 adults (which includes an oversample of African-Americans) asks, "Do you consider the first six months of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?"

Thirty-seven percent (37%) said they believe the Obama administration is a "failure," while 51% consider it a "success" and 11% say it's still "too soon to tell."

An identical question was asked of the Bush administration in an August 2001 CNN/Gallup/USA Today survey. At the time, 56% said the Bush administration was a "success" while only 32% considered it a "failure."

Sphere: Related Content

Rasmussen: Obama, Boxer both below 50%

Rasmussen has Obama below 50% approval for the first time in his presidency. His strong favorable/strong unfavorable differential has now reached 8 points. This is on the heels of polling that showed Obama tied with Romney in possible 2012 matchup polling, and only beating Sarah Palin by 6 points (!). Think about the past six months of media coverage each of them has had as you ponder that...

They are also reporting that Barbara "Don't Call me Ma'am" Boxer is "clinging to a 4 point lead" in a theoretical race with Carly Fiorino. At 45%, Boxer is well below the half-way point. Considering she is a well-funded Democratic incumbent in one of the most heavily Democratic states in the country, this is what the President would call an "unhelpful" poll. There was also a story in Politico yesterday about how her Dem colleagues in the Senate are concerned that her shrill personality and abrasive style - leading causes of recent bad press - are going to tank the cap & tax bill.

Glimmers of hope for the GOP, but it needs to have something to offer voters as Dems keep the machine gun aimed at their big toe.

Sphere: Related Content

What's good for Africa is good for...Africa

Obama goes to Ghana and gives a "tough love" speech, preaching - seriously, he was practically hectoring these poor people -- to Africans that they need to get their house in order, embrace good governance, democracy, human rights and free trade, and stop blaming the West and colonialism for all their problems.  Where was this guy in Cairo?  Why isn't this kind of talk considered patronizing meddling or hypocritical (because of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc.) when Obama does it in Africa, but would be if he were to say it to -- for example -- Iran or any other Middle Eastern country, Honduras, Russia or China, just to name a few who recently could have used a dose of "tough love" from Dr. O?  

I continue to be amused by the lack of critical response to this bipolar (multi-polar?) policy approach on the part of the liberal media.  Republicans are not being effective in taking advantage of his so-flexible-as-to-appear-unprincipled approach to foreign policy.  The WSJ has a good piece on this speech that should serve as a roadmap for not only pointing out his wildly divergent regional foreign policies, but linking them up to some of his worst domestic policy ideas.  

Sphere: Related Content

I love the smell of democracy in the morning

Just read a great piece in the WSJ about the "dumbing down of democracy."  The author cites the example of Russian authorities (or should I say authoritarians) referring to their system as a "different kind of democracy" than what we have here in the good old US of A.  Well.  He could have just as easily used the Chinese example, where a government that is clearly authoritarian continues to play word games in asserting that they have a kind of democracy with Chinese characteristics (as if denial of basic civil and political rights were "characteristics" of a democratic system).  Surreal, yes.  Also dangerous, as the author points out: 

Letting genuine democratic aspirants in places like Iran and Honduras lose in front of a watching world will exact a price. The United States and the other John Locke democracies are in an active, long-term competition with fake democrats over whose politics governs the next century. And they will presume to choose which parties should run other counties.

There is the clear sense that anything the Bush administration did, the Obama sophisticates will not do. Does the fact that the Bushies pushed democracy mean it would be bad form to support even our own political system?

Over at The Corner, Jonah Goldberg makes many of the same points about Obama's antipathy toward democracy promotion: 

Again and again, the administration has made it clear that spreading freedom is so much ideological foolishness. Before the inauguration, he told the Washington Post that he was concerned with “actually delivering a better life for people on the ground and less obsessed with form, more concerned with substance.” There’s merit to this view in principle, though Obama seems to be thinking about “economic justice” more than a free society. But in practice, when American presidents say they don’t care about democracy, tyrants rejoice.

Which makes a nice segue to my Xinjiang piece in the Asia WSJ, and the comical-if-they-weren't-so-scary comments that the angry Chinese netizens have made.  I have always maintained that most Chinese seem to be missing the gene for irony.  I realize this is a horrible stereotype, but damn if they don't prove it true at every opportunity.  Hence, I am slammed by a bunch of nasty-grams from defenders of the Beijing regime, who are able to vent their spleen at me by virtue of the fact that they can take advantage of -- wait for it -- freedom of expression.

Maybe someday these poor unironic ninnies will figure it out.  Until then, I am going to double up on virus protection and enjoy the fireworks.

Sphere: Related Content

Where, exactly, is the outrage?

Besides Glenn Greenwald's blog, I mean.  

I want to just get this straight in my head: Obama trashes the Bush Administration for its horrible policies on detention of terrorists, then proceeds to not only retain them when he becomes president but actually finds a way to make them worse by incorporating blatant show trials.  And where is the loony left?  Cue the crickets.

Greenwald and Jonathan Turley are at least calling him on it, but we'll see what the MSM has to say, as well as all those in Congress and the "international community" who spent the past seven years railing against the Bush Administration for their open-ended detention of terrorists.  As Greenwald says: 

 In its own twisted way, the Bush approach was actually more honest and transparent:  they made no secret of their belief that the President could imprison anyone he wanted without any process at all.  That's clearly the Obama view as well, but he's creating an elaborate, multi-layered, and purely discretionary "justice system" that accomplishes exactly the same thing while creating the false appearance that there is due process being accorded.   And for those who -- to justify what Obama is doing -- make the not unreasonable point that Bush left Obama with a difficult quandary at Guantanamo, how will that excuse apply when these new detention powers are applied not only to existing Guantanamo detainees but to future (i.e., not-yet-abducted) detainees as well.

And from Turley: 

Liberals continue to be largely silent in the face of policies that they once denounced and protested. It is rare to hear any coverage or questions of the Administration’s refusal to investigate war crimes of torture, for example. Liberals seem to be quickly developing a cult of personality that has supplanted the most basic principles of human rights and international law. 

Hmpf.  Res ipsa loquitor, indeed.

Sphere: Related Content

Today I'm Liking...

Leon Weiselter's piece on TNR.com - a liberal critique of Obama's Iran reticence

China backing off on the weirdly named Green Dam filtering software (who says pressure doesn't work with the Chinese!?!?)

Video of I'm-a-dinner-jacket fleeing from university students who heckle him, shouting "death to the dictator" - brilliant stuff

and yoga.

Sphere: Related Content