The Post’s Scott Wilson asked Obama if he would call on Israel, which skipped the summit, to declare its nuclear weapons.
“I’m not going to comment on their program,” Obama said.
Obama’s disregard for media reaches new heights at nuclear summit, by Dana Milbank
Why, of course not. But it would have added substance to what was largely Obama’s nuclear summit theater.
Can you have a real nuclear security summit without discussing Israeli nuclear reality? By ignoring what Israel’s nuclear offensive weaponry means to the Middle East, while focusing solely on Iran? For that matter, what about Pakistan and India? If you didn’t see the revolving photo op, where Pres. Obama’s team herded world leaders in one at a time to get their picture taken with Pres. Obama, you missed the quintessential message of the meeting.
Sure, Pres. Obama met with leaders of both Pakistan and India the day before the “nuclear security summit.” But when you call discussing the arms race, not to mention the dangers percolating in these two countries, as “too politically divisive” to discuss at a “nuclear security summit,” it makes a mockery of the theater which I called out yesterday, before Dana Milbank wrote his piece that takes on another aspect of omission from Pres. Obama’s summit theater.
Yasmeen Alamiri from the Saudi Press Agency got this lesson in press freedom when trying to cover Obama’s opening remarks as part of that limited pool: “The foreign reporters/cameramen were escorted out in under two minutes, just as the leaders were about to begin, and Obama was going to make remarks. . . . Sorry, it is what it is.”
ad_iconAlamiri’s counterparts from around the world wrote of similar experiences in their pool reports. Arabic-language MBC TV’s Nadia Bilbassy had this to say of Obama’s meeting with the Jordanian king: “We were there for around 30 seconds, not enough even to notice the color of tie of both presidents. I think blue for the king.”
The Press Trust of India, at Obama’s meeting with the Pakistani prime minister, reported, “In less than a minute, the pool was asked to leave.” The Yomiuri Shimbun correspondent found that she was “ushered out about 30 seconds” after arriving for Obama’s meeting with the Malaysian prime minister. A reporter with Turkey’s TRT-Turk went to Obama’s meeting with the president of Armenia, but “we had to leave the room again after less than 40 seconds.”
Even the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, was more talkative with the press than Obama. Michelle Jamrisko, with Japan’s Kyodo News, noted in her pool report that Hu, at his session with Obama, spoke to the Chinese media in Chinese, while Obama limited himself mostly to “say hello to the cameras” and “thank you everybody.”
However, the elephant amidst Obama’s “nuclear security summit” theater, which Pres. Obama won’t address, and neither will experts, with much of the media playing stenographer, is the issue of Israeli nukes in a region where they could draw the world into a catastrophic conflagration, the likes of which we haven’t seen before.
Mr. Obama should have stopped with the signing of the treaty with Medvedev, when he was ahead and acting statesmanlike, while getting something concrete for his efforts. He just couldn’t resist playing the leading role as Leader of the Free World in his manufactured nuclear security summit theater.
Atlantic Wire has a good summary of the stenography. Not one of the people cited even mention Israel, Pakistan or India.
So much for the U.S. press, which largely played along with the Obama administration freezing them out, happy to write the script handed down from on top. Even Joseph Cirincione fell in line.
It doesn’t seem to dawn or matter to Mr. Cirincione or anyone else that the pledges are totally voluntary, with the goals talked about easy to forget the second the photo op souvenir with Pres. Obama is framed.
A day after the White House announced Chinese President Hu Jintao agreed to cooperate with the drafting of sanctions against Iran, it was clear China had not made a total commitment to squeezing Tehran. – New York Daily News
I was actually surprised yesterday when Dylan Ratigan put up a chart of the number of war heads pernation and listed Israel with 8.
I wonder what all those heads of state thought when they were shuffled on and off for photo ops? I would think somebody would be insulted.
It really looked manipulative.
Dylan Ratigan should stick to finances, something he actually knows something about, because he’s obviously an idiot on national security and foreign policy.
Jane’s Defense Agency puts Israel at between 100-300 warheads, coming close to England.
It is the only nuclear nation in the Middle East.
Israel has Jericho 1 short-range ground missiles, but it also has long-range missiles as well.
Seymour Hersh wrote “The Samson Option” back in 1991, reporting then that Israel had between 200-400 nuclear warheads.
Also see this article I wrote, where I detail Michael Oren and Fareed Zakaria’s important conversation in 2009:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/08/16/zakaria-moves-oren-to-clarify-israeli-nuke-issue/
How has a weak Obama come out ahead by signing a nuclear weapons treaty with an untrustworthy Russia? This appeasement cr@p that Democratic presidents seem to live for is always shown to be not beneficial to America’s interests. Leave it to Obama to trust a brother in arms named Putin.
I also believe that Israel has a right to exist, and its nuclear weapons are for defensive reasons. They have prevented an outright attack on the country which just so happens to be surrounded by enemies. The Israeli’s have had nuclear weapons for years, and so far there hasn’t been a catastrophe because their enemies don’t want to be blown to kingdom come. Israel is showing responsible behavior in a volatile region. Has Israel ever threatened to use its undeclared weapons in any way other than defensive? Yet, the list of enemies that have threatened to annihilate Israel are more than just Iran. You see, Israel would not permitted to exist if it were not for its supposed nuclear deterrent. So much misdirected blame is always placed on a tiny sliver of land in the Middle East. I’d trust Israel with a nuclear weapon before any other country in the Middle East. Israel has NEVER used such a weapon, and if it wanted
to do so, its enemies wouldn’t exist anymore. But these enemies needn’t worry because it’s
clear that Israel has never desired to use their nuclear weapons other than for their own protection. Compare this with Iran’s threat to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Now who should the world community be concerned about when it comes
to a nuclear weapons capability?
Amabomon, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Last time I checked, Arab states were not shaking in their boots over Israel’s nuclear program, whereas they are Freaking out over the mere prospect of the Ayatollah-led Iranian government obtaining the bomb.
Until ALL of Israel’s neighbors recognize Israel and treat it as the resepected member UN state that it is, Israel needs to have a deterrence to prevent it from being blown off the planet (convential weapons are not enough). Does anyone in their right mind honestly think Israel would use nuclear weapons to attack another nation? Please. It is simply a deterrent, and a historically necessary one at that.
Never Again means Never Again.
Last time I checked, Arab states were not shaking in their boots over Israel’s nuclear program, whereas they are Freaking out over the mere prospect of the Ayatollah-led Iranian government obtaining the bomb.
Excuse me?
Why do you think Netanyahu didn’t show up this week? He was AFRAID of being censured for his nuclear program, and being embarrassed in front of the whole world, which by the way Pres. Obama didn’t want either, for fear he’d received the blowback.
The Arab states had every opportunity to “embarrass” the robust Israeli delegation that was there, headed by Deputy PM Dan Merridor. They did not. This is because Every Nation in the world outside of people on this blog—Arab states included—believe that Iran having nuclear weapons is a greater threat to the world than Israel.
I can’t believe I actually have to state this premise.
This analysis is absolute rubbish. Peace
How so? Are you promoting the goodness that is the current regime in Iran? Please explain your thoughts on Israel and its undeclared nuclear weapons.
Amabomon, Imhotep is a Racist, anti-Jewish, homophobic bigot who has been comdemned by almost everyone on this site. Please ignore him.
I don’t get the racist homophobe part? Imhotep has some stong feelings about Israel that I get and I could speak to his inability to discuss women’s issues but here on this site we try to be civil and not hurl invectives at each other.It makes it a nice place to come.
I remember LATC that you proved some racists statement in the past that I had not seen but he does not regualry make racist statements. He is an Obama defender most of the time.
You might bring some credibility to your argument if you stopped calling the government of the Republic of Iran a regime. It was elected by the people. You, and I, might believe that the election was rigged and so the government is illegitimate. But as I recall we had a rigged election in 2000, followed by 8 years of bush. Does that make our government more or less superior than the government in Tehran? Peace
I also believe that Israel has a right to exist, and its nuclear weapons are for defensive reasons.
Everyone in the world, except Ahmadinejad, supports Israel’s right to exist. That’s a straw man argument.
As for “nuclear weapons being for defensive reasons,” they’re absolutely unnecessary to protect Israel’s national security. Israel’s offensive and defensive conventional stockpile is more than enough to protect its people and it’s sovereignty. Anyone arguing otherwise doesn’t understand military weaponry.
The whole theory behind Pres. Obama’s nuclear zero, expanding on what Ronald Reagan began with the Obama administration making it a priority, is to draw a distinction that conventional weaponry is enough to obliterate any enemy.
The treaty with Medvedev was important. The “nuclear security summit” was theater.
Everyone in the World? Like Libya, Syria, and the rest of the Arab/Muslim league other than Egypt and Jordan? I think you’re a little too optimistic, Taylor.
Weaponry can mature and Israel may not have its qualitative military edge forever, especially if it were up to some of the loonies on this blog who demand that we “cut aid” to Israel. This is why Israel must have a nuclear deterrent. Once again, 6 million Jews will not be annihilated by a raving anti-Semite. Never Again is more than a slogan.
Why do we need to aide a nation that has a booming economy?
To say that this summit(?) fell short on all fronts would be an understatement. Syria wasn’t invited. Nor was Iran or North Korea. Why wouldn’t you invite the so-called “bad actors” to talk about their “bad behavior?” Those are the countries that we claim the “world” has a problem with. Talking only to your friends proves nothing. Making progress with your enemies shows real statesmanship. American foreign policy has always caused more problems than it has solved. If you were Iran and you were surrounded by American troops and America kept threatening to use “biting sanctions” or military force against you wouldn’t you arm yourself to the teeth? Wouldn’t you attempt to figure out how to build an atomic bomb? Especially when you were fully aware that the Americans had used depleted uranium artillery shells in their most recent war against your neighbor Iraq? The people running American foreign policy are making us less safe and not more safe. Peace
Excuse me David Duke, I mean, Imhotep: Didn’t President Obama spend the first year graciously reaching out to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s government? He got spit on, as did the rest of the P5.
No. He spent the first year threatening the Iranians with tougher santions unless they towed his, and the Israelis, line. It was the same phoney “open hand policy” that he showed to the Cubans who also decided that he, and Hillary, were full of crap. For proof of Obama’s non-open hand policy you need look no further than Syria. Obama hasn’t improvred relations with Syria because the Israelis don’t want him to. Add to that the fact that the once very close friend of Israel, Turkey, has had enough of both Israel and of US policy. Our relations with Turkey are on the decline. Obama’s policy in the middle east has been a dismal failure so far. Peace
Yeah, Syria–the regime just busted for arming Hezbollah with Scuds. Keep loving the Ayatollahs, you Racist.
“his manufactured…theatre”
Yes.
This seems to be what he excels at: theatre.
It’s very unfortunate that many in the traditional press, as well as new media hyper partisans, are letting him get away with it.
I don’t think you can give O credit for excelling at anything other than stupidity.
People can disagree with Pres. Obama on policy, politics, etc., but calling him stupid simply puts you in the Obama Derangement Syndrome category.
Taylor, I agree.
Since this thread is no longer strictly about nuclear policy, I am posting this link to a 10 min report by Australian television on the situation in Gaza and the alternative tunnel economy that is developing as a result of the Israeli blockade. It is very informative, there is not much out there on what Palestinians in Gaza are going through.
http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/the-tunnel-rats/x99ce1t
Thanks Isis.
Thank you. I looked at it. It is heartbreaking.
Lake Lady, Imhotep regularly makes racist and homophobic statements. He claimed that homosexuals do not suffer any discrimination in Iran and summarily dismissed claims that such violent discrimination, including death threats, had occurred.
His racist statements are as follows:
Imhotep says:
13 April 2010 at 10:04 am
TM NOTE: The comment below is inappropriate on so many levels. It is well beyond the parameters of civil discourse and certainly not condoned by TM.com. It should, however, be read to understand the pure hatred that some on the left have against Israel and Judaism, as well as what will never manifest an answer in the Middle East.
“I must be careful here not to offend my “betters.” secular is constantly going on and on about the fact that all religions are a crock. That they are nothing but cults whose sole function is to pick the pockets of the stupid while filling their heads with silly fantasies about some man-made God. If secular is right than the biggest scam ever perpetrated on mankind is the Jewish religion. It was the Jewish religion that first came up with the idea of monotheism or the one God concept. It was the Jewish religion that created the rift which caused the Christian reformation of Christ (Horus). And it was the corruption of Christanity (Reformed Judaism) which brought the world the second reformation of Judaism we call Islam. So why is it shocking to learn that the Israelis would treat their named enemies, in this case the Palestians, in such a shoddy way. After all the adherents to the Jewish religion have for more than 6000 years been unable to keep themselves together, safe and secure. Peace”
Imhotep says:
19 March 2010 at 12:53 pm
What I said was is that the Jews have a way of pissing people off. I also said that they are a warlike bunch. For proof of both of those charges I suggested that people read their history. You, and they, could start by reading the entire Old Testament. But, If you don’t believe me perhaps the fact that the Christ decided to close the book on the Old Testament and open a new one which we refer to as the New Testament could instruct. That the Christ was reforming the Jewish tradition there is no doubt. He didn’t cotton to all of the war, bloodshed and eye-for-an-eye crap. In the 2000 years since the Christ the Jews haven’t comported themselves all that much better. For proof of that I direct you to the Irgun, the Stern Gang and the fact that 7 of Israel’s 13 prime ministers have been terrorists. Read some history before calling me ignorant again you foolish putz. Peace
——————————————————————————–
Imhotep says:
10 March 2010 at 7:21 pm
Israel has never wanted Peace. Didn’t want it in 1948. Didn’t want it in 1998. Doesn’t want it now. Won’t want it ten years from now. Israel doesn’t do Peace. Hasn’t done it for 6000 years. Which is why, over the centuries, people keep burning them out and throwing them into captivity. Read the history.
Which of those statements was racist? To make a racist comment about the Jews you would have to consider the Jews to be a race seperate and apart from all other races. Do you consider the Jews to be a seperate race? I consider Judaism to be a religion. As for the homophobic part. I did not say that Iran had never persecuted homosexuals—-that you made up. I asked you to provide even a single instance where Iran had put to death a homosexual simply for being gay. You never provided an example. Perhaps if you took a remedial reading course and started dealing with the issues based on facts instead of your emotions you might learn something.
the entire article that I posted on homosexuals fleeing Iran was out of their fear of being put to death. You discounted the entire article and heavily offended the homosexual community on this board by your blase dismissal of the horrific anti-homosexual actions of the Iranian government. Shame on you.
Soooo…..people fleeing a country, any country, automatically says to you that they are fleeing for the lives? A bit paranoid wouldn’t you say? Would any other member of the “homosexual community on this board” whom I’ve offended please present yourself. Peace
Are any of you as tired as I am of this bullshit? Nuclear security and the Middle East are matters of tremendous import, on so many levels. But you’d never know that from the perverse Albert and Costello routine that Imhotep and LATC have got going. Always ruining threads.
Imhotep, you need to admit that you have levied some unwarranted charges against the Jewish people. And although I agree with you that most — although certainly not all — of your accusations are criticisms of Judaism and not Jews writ large, that hardly helps matters. The Jewish people have suffered indignities, persecutions of the worst kind, through time. On more than one occasion, you’ve essentially said they have only themselves to blame for their plight. That sentiment is a jaw-dropper, and pretty much prevents me from listening to the rest of what you have to say. I just can’t past that mental block to the rest of your argument, no matter how much I’d like to.
LATC, you cannot win an argument by constantly yelling “racist! homophobe! racist homophobe!” These are grevious charges and, with the possible exception of the March 10 post, are not supported by the quotes you’ve provided. And even if they were, isn’t the best option to ignore him altogether? You don’t see people flocking to his POV, do you? Besides, matters of race (and gender, and sexual orientation etc. etc.) are best raised in the context of a shield against pernicious behavior, not as a swords to gore others with. Implicitly, you seem to be saying that if anyone disagrees with your point of view on Iran, Israel, or the nuclear issue, that person is a racist homophobe like Imhotep. You have good arguments in your arsenal; you don’t need to stoop that low.
Please let’s get back to substance. That’s my two cents. And as to substance, this summit was as far from theater as one can get. I’d say more, but Clemons has already said it all.
Thanks Ogenec!
Leave it to a lawyer to say it far better than I ever could.
Ogenec, you make very good points and I will continue to do my best to keep discussionis civil. People are free to disagree with my views without being called racists, simply because they have a different viewpoint. I object for instance to calling people anti-Semitic if they have reasonable disagreements with Israeli policy (that do not involve spouting off every Jewish-American politician’s last name and accusing them of dual loyalties).
However, I will always respond loudly to when anyone utters Racist, anti-Jewish, or anti-gay remarks as Imhotep has frequently done in the past. Such bigotry cannot be tolerated.