China Spy Games

ABC:  U.S. bans govt. personnel in China from romantic or sexual relations with Chinese citizens

Of course, this has various proggies crying racism.  

Given Chinese intelligence is pervasively (if not perversely) n using honey traps - see Congressman Eric Swallwell (D) and Chinese spy Fang Fang, to compromise Americans to gain intelligence it’s probably an appropriate limitation to stop the ongoing attempts at the compromising of diplomatic personnel. 

US: We Have A Deal With Iran! Iran: Death To America! Kerry: Oh That's Troubling, But We Still Have A Deal

The Telegraph: Kerry says Iran vow to defy US 'very disturbing'

John Kerry, US secretary of state, said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran's nuclear programme was "very disturbing".

Part of the problem is the western diplomat's and politico's willful blindness and twisted desire to believe such statements aren't really meant and are just for domestic consumption and aren't actually meant.

They mean it, and while they may not have the ability to carry it out yet, they sure as heck have the desire.

"I don't know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that's his policy," he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday. "But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it's very disturbing, it's very troubling," he added.

In other words he's disturbed that Iran's public policy is in fact death to America, but that shouldn't get in the way of, or holdup the deal that will indeed move Iran forward on its path to indeed inflict death on America.

This country is in just the best of hands, now isn't it?

Darn it, Now I Have To Agree With Michael Bloomberg On Something

After an almost perfect track record of opposing Bloomberg's idiocies on gun control and such, he finally goes and does something sensible that I can both agree with and even praise.

He ignored the FAA's ban on flights to Israel, which was ostensibly placed there after Hamas fired rockets towards the airport which were intercepted a mile away fro the airport and did not damage the airport.

Instead, he flew to Israel and showed the stupidity of the ban.

The FAA then quietly rescinded the ban, and flights are back to normal.

Any bets the ban was really an attempt by the US State Department and the Obama Administration to pressure Israel into a cease fire that would leave Hamas intact, in a position to claim a victory, and not have to admit defeat?

Only The Credulous Would Be Surprised By Either Story Coming Out of The Middle East Today

Two stories that show the real state of the Middle East, as many a clenched fist meet's Obama's appeasing open hand:

The first surprise: Chemical weapons inspectors in Syria miss deadline

I mean who could have seen that coming?

From the Detroit Free Press:

International inspectors overseeing the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile have missed an early deadline in a brutally tight schedule after security concerns prevented them from visiting two sites linked to Damascus' chemical program.

The chief of the global chemical weapons watchdog disclosed for the first time in a report obtained by the Associated Press that Syria has declared 41 facilities at 23 chemical sites where it stored approximately 1,300 tons of precursors and agents, and over 1,200 unfilled munitions to deliver them.

Ahmet Uzumcu said in his first report to the U.N. Security Council that inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons had corroborated the information provided by Syria at 37 of the 41 facilities.

But the OPCW said inspectors were only able to visit 21 of the 23 sites because of security risks - which means the tight timeline for visiting all declared sites by Oct. 27 was missed.

However all is not lost, as with Obama, the red lines aren't really red lines, and dead lines are certainly not dead lines:

While there are no consequences for missing the deadline.....

So, in return for letting Obama off his self-stated red line requirement for action, both the Syrians and the UN don't really have to act in a timely manner, or perhaps really have to act at all. Any bets they'll just run the clock, destroy a few chemical weapons for show and then let it fade from the headlines with the mandated job left undone?

Meanwhile, the second surprise headline of the day:

The Detroit Free Press: Iran sentences activist actress to prison

The latest headline out of Iran belies both Iran's declaration, the leftist mainstream media's declaration, and the US State Department's hope that Rouhani is a reformer. One should note that the State department seems to be on the verge of striking out in accurate reformer declarations, with one strike and on the verge of a second with Rouhani, so at least they haven't crowned him as a reformer quite yet.

An Iranian actress known for her political activism in support of the country's reformists has been sentenced to 18 months in prison after facing security charges, newspapers reported Tuesday.

So much for the nonsense that the appointment of Rouhani means Iran's leadership is in a "reform" mode, as in more democratic, western mode and less expansionist and religiously motivated terror-supporting state mode. While the public face of Iran may have changed,for show to entice the credulous leftists of the west, it's ruling council that holds the real power has not.

Where Rhetoric Meets Reality Or The International Community Calls Obama's Bluff

Much like a British policeman may say "Stop, or I'll say Stop again", Obama's verbal dictates to other nations regarding the affaire Snowden are being met with the same result:

The Detroit Free Press: Obama to Russia: Turn over Snowden

Of course he made the same demand to Hoing kong, which promptly ignored it.

Edward Snowden's global fight could have major diplomatic ramifications.

The Obama administration is asking Russia to turn over Snowden, who has been charged with espionage in connection with news leaks of National Security Agency surveillance programs -- the same request Obama's team made of China and Hong Kong, which still allowed Snowden to depart to Russia on Sunday.

Turn him over, or we'll demand you turn him over again:

Hayden added: "We expect the Russian Government to look at all options available to expel Mr. Snowden back to the U.S. to face justice for the crimes with which he is charged."

I'm sure they'll look into their options in their own sweet time. Trying to bluff someone when he knows you're not holding any cards is quite the waste of time.

Throughout the weekend, Obama administration officials suggested there would be diplomatic consequences for nations that protect Snowden. "We are disappointed by the decision of the authorities in Hong Kong to permit Mr. Snowden to flee despite the legally valid U.S. request to arrest him for purposes of his extradition under the U.S.-Hong Kong Surrender Agreement," Hayden said. She added: "We have registered our strong objections to the authorities in Hong Kong as well as to the Chinese government through diplomatic channels and noted that such behavior is detrimental to U.S.-Hong Kong and U.S.-China bilateral relations."

In reality, Snowden's liberty is now a tool which America's adversaries are using to illustrate America's, and the Obama administration's, soft-power powerlessness in the face of their intransigence.

That Obama and his State Department have yet to learn that even when the light-bringer and his subordinates are the ones making them, you do not go around making chest-thumping tough-guy demands when you have no potential to back them up, and no chance they will be heeded. Soft-power, loud talk and lofty rhetoric have their limitations.

Snowden is now being used to embarrass the Obama administration and show the United State's weakness. This embarrassment is only possible due to his administration making strident public demands that Snowden be extradited to the US, or Obama will demand he be extradited again.

Do take a look at the picture that accompanies the article of Putin and Obama staring at each other. One of them has a credible tough guy stare, and the other guy isd hoping to bluff his way through. Go ahead and guess which is which.

Why Is Iran Going To Purchase Glass-Bottomed Boats For Their New Navy?

To see their current Navy, if they keep stunts like this up:

Yahoo News: Iran threatens U.S. Navy as sanctions hit economy

Iran threatened on Tuesday to take action if the U.S. Navy moves an aircraft carrier into the Gulf, Tehran's most aggressive statement yet after weeks of saber-rattling as new U.S. and EU financial sanctions take a toll on its economy.

The United States dismissed the Iranian threat, saying it was proof that sanctions imposed over Iran's nuclear program were working. The Pentagon said it would keep sending carrier strike groups through the Gulf regardless.

Iran will most likely keep talking tough for domestic and regional consumption as standing up to the great Satan is always good for some cheap popularity points in the region.

Should they try anything more forward than talk, I think they'll be quite disappointed in the results, so long as the Obama Administration doesn't restrain the Navy from using all its capabilities to make Iran really regret such action.

After all, Iran has only 1 little refinery for its domestic fuel needs. It would be too bad if something were to happen to it in response to Iranian provocation combined with sanctions prohibiting anyone shipping refined fuel to Iran....

The Soft Reality of the Obama Doctrine

Once we had the Bush doctrine. This was rather clear, gave due and timely warning to our enemies and scared the crap out of Democrats.

Overall it was good but Bush had lots of problems with follow-through. I; I'd give it a B- for results tempered by the fact that it was operating in the face of a hostile press, an internationl community that turned up its nose at the whole thing, and Democrats playing partisan politics with national security. History will likely look more favorably upon it, especially when compared to the results of his sucessor.

Now we're seeing the effect of the Obama doctrine's replacement of hard power with "soft power". It means you talk, mouth a few platitudes, and do nothing and wait on the "International Community" to plod its way to eventually doing something, maybe.

This, in the face of a lapdog press that thinks Obama can walk on water when it is not frozen, an international community that loves him and the Democrats backing him on national security.

Not surprising, since his own people are moving away from interventionism as quickly as their feet can carry them, the Obama Administration is busy decisively declaring that they must wait for the UN's blessing for any American action.

Defense Secretary Gates as I blogged about previously, of course changed the prior defense doctrine of the US from being able to fight two major regional wars at once to only being ready to fight one major regional conflict.

This lead to costs savings as less military equipment and manpower was needed. Nice when you want to shovel money on the domestic side as is obama's desire, but bad when multiple problems crop up worldwide.

Unfortunately there's no guarrantee we'll only face one major conflict at a time, nor that we don't have to deal with multiple simultaneous lower-intensity conflicts. Such as oh, I don't know, piracy, Libya, Iran....

So much for the Obama campaign promise that he made regarding international intervention.

Obama is facing the sternest test yet of his philosophy of humanitarian intervention, which he has described as an imperative to prevent atrocities against civilians. But Gadhafi's brutal suppression of protests and crackdown on opponents to his 42-year rule may fall short of Obama's criteria for military action.

As a presidential candidate in October 2008, Obama outlined a doctrine for American military force that included crises in which the United States has a "moral obligation" to intervene. As commander in chief, he soon will have to decide whether Libya fits that bill.

Too bad for the Libyans because as with all Obama promises it comes with an expiration date, and this one's expired.

Meanwhile Gaddafi tanks, jets strike deeper into rebel heartland.

But don't worry, Obama's team promises swift indecisiveness:

Obama did not attend Wednesday's meeting [of his national security people], and the White House said no action was imminent. Officials set no timeline.

We're not at a decision point," Obama's spokesman, Jay Carney, said as the White House sought hardBut Obama's admonition for international action -- not go-it-alone-force -- remains a driving principle of any military intervention.

That approach offers broader legitimacy and shared burden, but also more complicated politics.

"We believe it's important that this not be an American or a NATO or a European effort; it needs to be an international one," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday on CBS. She conceded divisions within the United Nations Security Council but said that a "good, solid international package" was being considered.

Of course, the US can depend on NATO to lead as it stands ready:

Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters Wednesday that "NATO is not looking to intervene in Libya."

Ok, maybe not that ready.

Not to worry, the UN is ready for decisive action:

Britain and France are pushing for the U.N. to create a no-fly zone over the country, and while the U.S. may be persuaded to sign on, such a move is unlikely to win the backing of veto-wielding Security Council members Russia and China, which traditionally object to such steps as infringements on national sovereignty.

Darn, not too much effective action from the UN either. How unexpected.

I think we've just seen the obvious flaw in the Obama Doctrine's emphasis on soft power and its requirement for an international multilateral response before the US is alowed to respond to a crisis. NATO and the UN seem unable or unwilling to shoulder the load in this brave new multi-polar world, and the doctrine leaves the US hamstrung and unable to act, which seems to have been its intent all along.

While the Superbowl begins, Ahmadenijad orders Enrichment of Uranium to commence

Ahmadinejad Orders Higher Enrichment of Uranium

Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered his country's atomic agency on Sunday to begin the production of higher enriched uranium, in a move that's likely to deepen international skepticism about the country's real intentions on the crucial issue of enriched uranium.

In comments broadcast on state television, Ahmadinejad said: "God willing, 20 percent enrichment will start" to meet Iran's needs.

But not to worry after all as Obama's open hand diplomacy keeps hoping to dodge a clenched fist without having to actually do anything other than keep talking and threatening sanctions, eventually, sometime, later, any day now - Gates Says It's Not Too Late for Iran Sanctions

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is calling on the international community to rally together to pressure Iran into abandoning its nuclear program.

Gates, who's in Rome as part of a weeklong European trip, told reporters Sunday that if the international community stands together to bring pressure on Iran he believes there's still time for sanctions to work.

Sure, nothing to see here, just keep talking without doing anything as Iran continues on the road to a nuclear capability.

Don't you wish Obama would finally find the wherewithal to say "the time for bickering is over" to someone other than Republicans? Preferably to an actual avowed enemy of the United States poised to obtain Nuclear Weapons?

Obvious Statement of the Day - "Terrorist Groups Help Each Other"

Defense Secretary Gates Says Terrorist Groups Help Each Other Thanks for the hot tip Captain Obvious.

Next up, a declaration that water is wet.

Fox News:

A syndicate of terror groups is working to sow violence and destruction across South Asia, and India and Pakistan need to work together to combat the mutual threat, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

Gates, who spoke during a visit to India, said no nation was immune from terror.

He linked Taliban militants operating along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border with Lashkar-e-Taiba extremists accused of orchestrating the 2008 terror attack on the Indian city of Mumbai, saying both groups worked under the umbrella of Al Qaeda.

"It's dangerous to single out any one of these groups and say, 'If we can beat that group, that will solve the problem,' because they are in effect a syndicate of terrorist operators intended to destabilize this entire region," Gates said.

When one group succeeds in carrying out an attack, all of them gain in capability and reputation, he said. "A victory for one is a victory for all."

Once again, pretty obvious statements given what is known regrading cooperation between not only various terrorist groups under the Al Qaeda umbrella but beyond, for example Hamas and Iran and Hezbollah assisting each other in terrorist attacks against Israel. Indeed both Shiite and Sunni terrorist groups have worked together in Iraq to kill Americans in between bouts of killing each other.

Gates then in his address in India stated that

India is spending billions annually on U.S.-made military hardware, although Gates said current agreements prevent India from being able to buy some U.S. weaponry or technology.

Given that India is an ally in this War on Terror, War on Radical Islamic Extremism, or War on Foreign National Caused Disasters, whatever you choose to call this conflict, it is high time those agreements were modified to enable the US and India to more closely cooperate and come together as allies in this conflict.

Clinton: U.S. still open to talks with Iran

Detroit Free Press: Clinton says U.S. still open to talks with Iran

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said today the Obama administration remains open to negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program, despite intransigence from Tehran.

Speaking to reporters at the State Department, Clinton said it is clear that administration efforts to engage Iran in talks to restrain its nuclear program in 2009 fell short.

Fell short? Doesn't the term "miserable failure" sound like a more accurate description?

Clinton said the administration is consulting with other nations about new sanctions, but she stressed that this does not mean the administration is abandoning its effort to start a dialogue with Iran.

There is no hard-and-fast deadline for Iran to respond, she said.

"We've avoided using the term 'deadline' ourselves," she said. "That's not a term we have used because we want to keep the door to dialogue open. But we've also made it clear we can't continue to wait and we cannot continue to stand by when the Iranians themselves talk about increasing their production of highly enriched uranium" and taking other steps toward possible production of nuclear weapons.

Could it be because a "deadline" would imply you have to do something when the deadline expires? This administration seems quite detached from effective dealing in foreign affairs. Obama seems to dither around on foreign policy and while trying to "extend a hand", keeps meeting a clenched fist, gets socked in the nose and then puts out the same hand again and expects a different result.

Has the "World's Policeman" now gone British: Stop or we'll talk again?

As the US comes to the table the Iranians stall

And the US State Department looks like a bunch of pikers yet again.

Iran nuclear talks stall -- even with U.S. at table

GENEVA -- A U.S. decision to bend policy and sit down with Iran at nuclear talks fizzled Saturday, with Iran stonewalling Washington and five other world powers on their call to freeze uranium enrichment.

In response, the six gave Iran two weeks to respond to their demand, setting the stage for a new round of U.N. sanctions.

Iran's refusal to consider suspending enrichment was an indirect slap at the United States, which had sent Undersecretary of State William Burns to the talks in hopes the first-time American presence would encourage Tehran into making concessions.

Officials and diplomats refused to characterize the timeframe as an ultimatum, but it appeared clear that Iran now has a de-facto deadline to show flexibility.

After backing away from a pledge not to negotiate directly with Iran, the Department of Islam Appeasement (oops sorry I meant the State Department), they get shown that Iran wasn't really serious about negotiating and now the US is shown to have given in to a demand and received nothing in retunrn.

No wonder US diplomacy is the laughingstock of the world.

Bush recognizes an independent Kosovo

Can't say that I'm thrilled by this latest Bush foreign policy faux-pas.

Given that the Kossovars are ethnic Muslim Albanians, and that Serbia, the country they just seceded from views Kosovo as a fundamental, if not sacred place for Serbs.

Whether such recognition is in America's interest is an open question. Given the likelihood of bloodshed over the unilateral declaration, recognition was probably not the best thing to do. (On the other hand, such recognition may prevent war from breaking out given any move to stop it would likely be opposed by the US and the UN). Indeed, recognizing a new Muslim state which has ethnically cleansed lots of Serbs from the territory it now proclaims as independent, and the resultant alienation of Serbian Orthodox Christians, and their patron Russia, was probably not the best move to make.