Michael D Brown

The Candidate:

The President:

Federal Deficit as a Percentage of GDP, Barack Obama -7.3%.

The White House will predict a $1.6 trillion U.S. budget deficit in the 2010 fiscal year, a fresh record and the biggest since World War Two as a share of the economy, a congressional source told Reuters on Sunday.

Dr. Hasan has now been charged with 13 counts of murder which I am certain will be the basis for this White House and its personnel at the Pentagon to deny Purple Hearts to those who were killed in the terrorist attack at Fort Hood.  But, awarding Purple Hearts to these men and women will be a tacit admission by this Administration that Hasan's murderous rampage was a terrorist attack by a radical Muslim.  So, I doubt any Purple Hearts will be awarded.

The President's disdain for these soldiers, while appearing to care by walking through Arlington National Cemetery and appearing at Dover Air Force Base (where only one - 1 - family out of eighteen gave him permission) being photographed during a dignified transfer of a killed soldier, is astonishing.  Coupled with the decision to try some of the 9/11 conspirators in a New York federal district court just adds insult to injury.

Even with his decision to play the word game with his decision to move the trials to criminal court in New York ("This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision" he said in announcing the decision to move the trials out of Guantanamo) he is failing to act Presidential.  This decision was either made with the full knowledge of the White House or the President is completely out of the loop with major decisions being made by his Cabinet and appointees.

Having been one of those appointees, I hardly doubt he is out of the loop. 

So where do we stand on the Purple Heart issue?

Remember, those killed and wounded at the Pentagon were awarded Purple Hearts.  Let's see what happens at Fort Hood.

Mr. President, award the hearts, don't play politics with this one.

Learn more about the Purple Heart Award at the Military Order of the Purple Heart.

We have a classification system within the federal government for many purposes, not the least of which is that some matters are so sensitive that keeping them secret at certain times is necessary to protect national security. Oftentimes that standard has been abused, but in the case of the photographs of alleged torture or abuse of prisoners in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars it makes complete sense to keep those photographs classified.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York has decided the photographs do not have to be released pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court:

The U.S. government can keep pictures of detainee abuse secret while it asks the Supreme Court to permanently block release of the photographs on the grounds they could incite violence in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, a federal appeals court said Thursday.

The one-paragraph ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan came after the Obama administration asked the court to keep the pictures secret so it could appeal to the nation's highest court.

The administration last month said the disturbing photographs pose "a clear and grave risk of inciting violence and riots against American and coalition forces, as well as civilian personnel, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The release of these photographs while the war is being prosecuted makes no sense whatsoever.  These photographs, whether they are truly of abuse and torture - or not - should remain classified until the war is over.  Otherwise, their release will endanger the lives of soldiers and civilians in those two countries and here.

Every news website and the mos popular blogs have opinions all over the political spectrum about Obama's speech in Cairo today. So, if you've been reading a lot of those, perhaps you've missed the one editorial from The Jerusalem Post that gives the good, the bad and the ugly side of his speech.

It is well worth reading in its entirety if for no other reason than to understand that from a Jewish perspective, an Israeli perspective, the one thing Americans - and the world - need to realize, is that Israel is fighting for its very existence.

The address US President Barack Obama delivered in Cairo on Thursday was one of the most anticipated and hyped speeches in recent memory. And now that the 5,804-word address has been delivered, every sentence will be dissected for days, weeks and months by various states and groups trying to figure out just how they fared.

Leading the pack, of course, will be the Jews and Israel, obsessed - not unjustifiably - with how we are seen in the eyes of the strongest power on earth.

What follows is an Israeli Jewish primer on the good, bad and omitted.

The good

• Although it often sounds banal, it is not insignificant for the president of the United Sates to go the center of the Arab world and declaim that America's bonds with Israel are unbreakable, and based on cultural and historical ties.

The premise of a strong, unshakable Israeli-US relationship is the basis for any diplomatic process. As Dennis Ross wrote in his book, The Missing Peace, "Would the Arab world even believe it had to accommodate itself to Israel's existence if it had reason to question the staying power of the US commitment to Israel?"

Peacemaking, Ross wrote, required that the Arabs understand "that no wedge would be driven between the United States and Israel, and that Israel was not going to disappear."

Obama made that clear.

• There was something powerful about hearing Obama address the Holocaust, Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism in a city where Holocaust denial and vile anti-Semitism are a major export.

"The Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust," he said. "Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve."

One would be hard pressed to find other examples of world leaders stating this case to the Arab world so unequivocally.

• Obama put paid to Saudi Arabia's contention that it doesn't have to make any gestures to Israel because it initiated the Arab Peace plan in 2002. The initiative called for a normalization of ties between Israel and the Arab world when Israel returns completely to the pre-1967 borders and agrees to a "just" solution to the refugee question.

Frankly, Obama said, this was not enough. "The Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past."

The bad

• While it was highly significant that Obama addressed Jewish suffering and the Holocaust in Cairo (see above) there was something rather problematic about his use of the term "on the other hand" in transitioning from Jewish to Palestinian suffering.

"Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today," Obama said, stating a fact. "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? As if there is room for comparison between the Holocaust, brought upon the Jews due to no fault of their own, and the suffering of the Palestinians, for which a cogent argument could be made that the Palestinians bear a good share of the responsibility.

• Obama's comparison of the Palestinian cause to the US civil rights movement struck a jarring note, though here he was not blazing new ground, but following former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who made similar comments in the past.

"Palestinians must abandon violence," he said, strongly.

"Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding."

The comparison is facile: the civil rights movement fought for integration and equal rights for black Americans. The movement was not fighting to destroy white America. The same can not be said of the Palestinian movement in its relation to Israel.

• The president was much too lenient on Iran.

"It is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point," Obama said. "This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path."

A decisive point? How about telling us, and the Iranians, something we don't know, like what the consequences of Teheran's continued intransigence will be, and how long they have to stop uranium enrichment, or else.

The omitted

• The biggest omission, from Israel's point of view, is not mentioning the Jewish historic and religious right to be in this part of the world.

Granted, Obama mentioned the Holocaust as a context for the Jews' right to a state, but he didn't mention their historic, religious rights. This omission strengthens the argument in the Arab world that the Palestinians are paying the price for European crimes against Jews, and that if it were not for the Holocaust, the Jews would never have come back to Israel.

The Jewish historic right to be in Israel is something Arabs have never acknowledged, and Obama could have seized the opportunity to stress the point. He did the exact opposite, however, when he said that "privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away."

Recognizing Israel because it will "not go away" is not the same as accepting its legitimacy, and the historic rights of the Jews to be here.

The don't-get-too-worked-up-about

• Some government officials complained after the address that Obama went overboard trying to appease the Muslim world, painting a picture of a moderate Islam that most Israelis don't know and exaggerating both the impact and influence of Muslims on American society.

Forget it; it doesn't matter. This is not a zero-sum game wherein if Obama praises Islamic civilization, he is thereby denigrating the Jewish one. Honoring Muslim influence in America isn't something Jews should feel threatened by.

Though some may get nervous when Obama says "Islam is a part of America," they don't have to. Just because "Islam is part of America" does not mean - as contemporary history has shown - that America will turn its back on Israel.

• Some will see in Obama's remarks about Jerusalem a call for internationalization of the city.

"All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear," he said. "When Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) joined in prayer."

The story of Isra tells of how Muhammad was carried from Mecca to the "farthest mosque" on his winged steed, Barak. The location of this mosque is not explicitly stated in the Koran, but is traditionally considered to be the Temple Mount in Jerusalem - something which might explain the huge round of applause Obama received at this point.

Obama's comments on Jerusalem are not a blueprint for policy, but rather
an overall aspiration. It shouldn't be seen as a clarion call to wrest
Jerusalem out of Israeli control, because the issue of control, of sovereignty, was not mentioned. Who doesn't want peace in Jerusalem? The question, and one which Obama skirted, is how exactly to go about achieving it.

You can read the comments and other news from the Jerusalem Post here.  At least now you have a different perspective than that provided solely by the U.S. media.

I have had the privilege of being inside the bubble - that super phalanx of security that surrounds the President of the United States. The bubble exists for a reason: as the leader of the free world and the target of any number of organizations or individuals who would like nothing better than to assassinate a President, taxpayers have an obligation to protect the Commander in Chief.

The men and women of the United States Secret Service (USSS), the White House Communications Agency (WHCA), the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base (Presidential Airlift Group) and others work tirelessly to provide both the symbolism and substance of the prestige and power of the President of the United States.

Taxpayers foot this bill as they should. Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, mix official White House business, political business and personal matters.  Whether we think it is an appropriate dollar amount - or not - Presidents and campaigns reimburse "air fare" for non-official business. Whether those amounts are proper or should be changed is for another discussion some other time.

But two things drive me nuts about this story.  First, my friends in the Republican Party are all over the alleged "costs" of this visit.  Fine, that's politics, have at it.  Second, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs played fools of us all when he said that it would have been the Obama's preference if the Obama's preference to take a shuttle to New York. Probably true, but face it, Mr. President, that option disappeared when you ran for and were elected President. 

According to the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON -- White House spokesman Robert Gibbs is declining to say what it cost for President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, to eat dinner and take in a play in New York over the weekend.

Asked if he would outline the costs, Gibbs said Monday the Obamas would have preferred using a commercial airline shuttle to New York and back but the Secret Service would not allow such unprotected travel.

The president has been criticized for the trip to New York in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and with thousands of auto workers facing unemployment as General Motors prepared to file for bankruptcy and Chrysler was about to emerge from court-guided restructuring.

This is transparency?  Mr. President, just tell Robert Gibbs to disclose the costs.  They are what they are. 

And, please explain to Mr. Gibbs that while it would be nice to be able to jump on a US Airways Shuttle to LaGuardia from Reagan National Airport, IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. 

Do you think the Secret Service is nuts?  Mr. President, don't you realize that even when you're on a date with Michelle, you're still the Commander in Chief?  You're still the President regardless of where you're having dinner or whatever broadway show you're attending? 

Don't let Mr. Gibbs play this stupid game.  The Secret Service isn't going to put you on Amtrak's Acela to run up to New York for a date.  White House Communications isn't going to hand you a cell phone and say, we'll call you if North Korea decides to launch a missile. I've been on the Acela, too, and there are dreaded "dead zones" between Washington and New York.

President Obama chose instead to take one of the Gulfstream III's to New York.  But that's not the whole story.  Remember that entourage of Secret Service Agents, Communications experts, and, the ever-present White House press pool?  Well, they had to travel to New York, too.  So they followed in other planes.  Come on - who are we kidding here?   Save us the facade, get on the 747 and go.

And, my guess - purely a guess - is that the Boeing 747 we're so accustomed to seeing designated as Air Force One was probably in the vicinity, too.  Can you imagine something happening and the Secret Service having to transport the President in Marine One to the Gulfstream then to the 747 at Andrews Air Force Base?  I don't think so.  I bet the C130's that brought Marine One (the helicopter) and the Beast (the car) were parked right alongside a giant 747 just waiting to be designated as Air Force One if necessary.

That's hardly transparency.

Mr. President, you knew about the bubble when you applied for the job.  I don't care if you go on a date in New York.  Just don't let Robert Gibbs - and consequently you, sir - be disingenuous about the whole affair.  I want you in that bubble because you're the President.  The bubble is there for a reason.