Gail Collins, "Trump, Truth and Abortion": Golf Partners for Eternity

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump, Truth and Abortion," Gail Collins tells us of Donald Trump's position on abortion:

"There’s no reason to imagine Trump ever gave a millisecond of thought to the details of abortion policy until he got trapped in that merciless interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC."

Agreed. But more to the point, a self-absorbed Trump probably never gave a millisecond of thought to the details of any policy. Trumps suffers from a severe narcissistic personality disorder and is incapable of thinking about anything but himself.

Abortion? I am pro-choice, but I am more concerned with the danger Trump poses to all life on this planet. Can you imagine allowing him to press the launch buttons of America's nuclear arsenal with his little fingers? May the Lord have mercy on us.

Meanwhile, President Obama, another narcissist, yesterday criticized Donald's comments concerning the proliferation of atomic weapons. As reported by Stephanie Condon in a CBS News article entitled "Obama responds to Donald Trump's comments about nuclear weaponry":

"Speaking to reporters at the end of the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, President Obama on Friday gave a critical response to Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's recent remarks about nuclear weaponry.

Without referring to Trump by name, Mr. Obama said, 'The person who made the statements doesn't know much about foreign policy, or nuclear policy, or the Korean Peninsula, or the world generally.'

Trump this week said that Japan and South Korea might have to acquire their own nuclear weapons. In a separate incident this week, he refused to rule out using nuclear weapons in Europe if elected president."

Excuse me, but the person who referred to ISIS as the "jayvee team" knows more than Trump about foreign policy? Yes, I know, he thinks he does.

Trump's nightmarish suggestions concerning the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons are off the wall. But was it a rational decision on Obama's part to enter into an unsigned nuclear deal with Iran's mullahs, extending Tehran's "breakout time" from three months to all of one year (if it abides by the agreement, which it won't), while removing sanctions and effectively permitting these psychopaths to engage in ballistic missile testing, i.e. delivery of these weapons of mass destruction?

My fantasy: That many years hence (may they both live to 120), Trump and Obama will be golf partners for eternity in a netherworld of fire and brimstone.

Gail Collins, "Trump Shows His Inner Rabbit": The Art of Mendacity

Tweet

"PELLEY: You know, in ’76, Jimmy Carter famously said, 'I will not lie to you.'

CLINTON: Well, I have to tell you I have tried in every way I know how literally from my years as a young lawyer all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people.

PELLEY: You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?

CLINTON: I’ve always tried to. Always. Always.

PELLEY: Some people are gonna call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself.

CLINTON: Well, no, I’ve always tried —

PELLEY: I mean, Jimmy Carter said, 'I will never lie to you.'

CLINTON: Well, but, you know, you’re asking me to say, 'Have I ever?' I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever will. I’m gonna do the best I can to level with the American people."

- Interchange between Hillary Clinton and Scott Pelley, CBS News, February 18, 2016

In response to the above interchange, Chris Cillizza wrote in his Washington Post weblog "The Fix":

"I mean, what? W-H-A-T? 'I've always tried to' tell the truth? On what planet is this a good answer for a politician?"

As long as we're on the subject of lying, Ed Morrissey wrote one year ago in a Fox Nation article entitled "Hillary Fired for Lies, Unethical Behavior from Congressional Job: Former Boss":

"Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the [House Judiciary Committee which was investigating Watergate]. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

'Because she was a liar,' Zeifman said in an interview last week. 'She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.'"

"Conspired to violate the Constitution"? That sounds serious. Hillary's claim that she came under sniper fire in Bosnia pales in comparison.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump Shows His Inner Rabbit," does Gail Collins mention the kerfuffle involving Hillary's interview with Scott Pelley? Not a chance. Instead, she concludes her opinion piece by turning our attention to Donald Trump's denial of his allegation that George W. Bush lied to Americans concerning the rationale for the Second Gulf War:

"In a dramatic highlight of the last Republican debate, Trump accused the Bush administration of deliberately deceiving the American public about the invasion. ('They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none.') It was a potentially historic moment: a top Republican candidate for president attempts to lead his party into a frank reappraisal of the Bush-Cheney administration’s inherent honesty.

Here we are, one week later: 'I’m not talking about lying. ... Nobody really knows why we went into Iraq.'

Meanwhile, reporters continue to ask Trump supporters what the attraction is. And his fans say that he tells it like it is."

Trump tells it like it is? No way. Unless saying whatever pops into your head at any given moment is "telling it like it is."

But whereas Trump's recent declaration and retraction concerning George W. Bush amounted to just another instance of ad-lib chicanery, Hillary takes fibbery to a higher, more carefully spun, level. As observed by Marc Thiessen in a January 25, 2016 Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Clinton’s email excuses are falling apart":

"Lash out as she might, Clinton’s constantly changing email story is rapidly falling apart. First, Clinton claimed there was 'no classified material' on her private server — which turned out to be untrue. Then she claimed none of the intelligence on her server was 'classified at the time' — which also turned out to be untrue. Now, in a National Public Radio interview last week, Clinton said there was no information that was 'marked classified.'"

May Donald go back to hosting reality shows and Hillary return to giving speeches before financial institutions, if they are still willing to pay her when she is no longer a presidential aspirant.

Max Boot and Michael Pregent, "Appeasing Iran hurts us in Iraq, too": Trading Hostages for Airplanes?

Tweet

One week ago, while Jason Rezaian and four other American prisoners were being released by Iran, Shiite militiamen abducted three Americans from the Dora neighborhood of southern Baghdad. As reported by Erin Cunningham and Mustafa Salim in a Washington Post article entitled "Iraqi official: 3 Americans missing in Baghdad were kidnapped by gunmen":

"The area from which they were taken is controlled by Shiite militias, including Iran-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq, or League of the Righteous, [a Baghdad police colonel] said.

. . . .

The colonel said the group had been invited to the home of their Iraqi interpreter. But a resident of the apartment building where the Americans were reportedly seized said they were taken from a second-story apartment that he described as a well-known brothel.

. . . .

The resident said the apartment is subject to frequent raids by Asaib Ahl ­al-Haq, although typically the men found inside are simply told to leave."

The three Americans were taken from a well-known brothel? Oh really? One of the three abducted Americans is a woman.

More to the point, Tehran knows exactly where these Americans are being held.

Today, in a must-read Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Appeasing Iran hurts us in Iraq, too," Max Boot (author of "War Made New" on the bookshelf opposite me) and Michael Pregent say of this kidnapping:

"AAH [Asaib Ahl al-Haq] is a wholly owned subsidiary of Iran’s Quds Force. It is inconceivable that it could kidnap and hold Americans — a course of action with significant international repercussions — without at least the acquiescence, and probably the active support, of Tehran. Yet the Obama administration is doing all it can to obfuscate that reality. Reuters cited 'U.S. government sources' in reporting that 'Washington had no reason to believe Tehran was involved in the kidnapping and did not believe the trio were being held in Iran, which borders Iraq.'

. . . .

If another news report is to be believed, the administration is pretty sure who is responsible for the kidnapping but just won’t say so in public. CBS News reports: 'Officials in Washington had hoped the Iranian government would tell the militia group to hold off because of all the negotiations surrounding the prisoner swap that saw the release of five Americans. The State Department source said the fear was that one of the groups might have ‘gone off the reservation.’'"

The Shiite militiamen acted against the wishes of Tehran? Not a chance.

Meanwhile, Iranian Transport Minister Abbas Akhoundi suggested yesterday that Iran might be interested in acquiring aircraft from Boeing. Why not? After all, the Obama administration just paid $1.7 billion for the release of Rezaian and the other four Americans, so why not trade these new American captives for the cost of some new planes?

Do you remember how, just eight days ago, Obama declared that the release of Rezaian and the four other prisoners held by Iran resulted from "smart, patient and disciplined" diplomacy? Obama still doesn't understand that he is being played for a fool by Khamenei and friends.

Ruth Marcus, "The Clintons’ worst defender in chief": You Get What You Deserve

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The Clintons’ worst defender in chief," uber-liberal Ruth Marcus refers us to an interview of Bill Clinton by NBC News's Cynthia McFadden:

"Will you continue to give speeches, McFadden asked? “Oh yeah,” Clinton responded, as if the notion of calling a halt during his wife’s presidential campaign were absurd. “I gotta pay our bills.”

Oh. My. God.

As if the first $500,000 speech, or the 11th, were not enough. As if the former president had not raked in more than $100 million on the speaking circuit since leaving office. As if stopping would leave the Clintons huddled around the kitchen table, worrying over which bills to pay.

. . . .

“There has been a very deliberate attempt to take the foundation down,” Bill Clinton said. “And there’s almost no new fact that’s known now that wasn’t known when she ran for president the first time.”

Not true. There have been lots of new facts occasioned by the simultaneity of Hillary Clinton’s service as secretary of state and the operations of Clinton Inc., both its charitable arm and its speech-making unit.

'We have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy,' Bill Clinton asserted. 'Knowingly inappropriate' — the 2016 version of Al Gore’s 'no controlling legal authority.'"

But now consider a New York Times/CBS News poll which has just determined:

"Americans now view Mrs. Clinton more favorably and more see her as a strong leader than they did earlier in the year, despite weeks of scrutiny about her ethics.

. . . .

Mrs. Clinton remains a polarizing figure — nearly the same percentage of Americans view her positively as negatively — but her favorability rating has improved by nine percentage points since the disclosure in late March that she did not use a government email account as secretary of state.

. . . .

While roughly 48 percent of Americans say Mrs. Clinton is honest and trustworthy, about four of five Democrats think she has those traits — and about the same numbers of Democrats say she shares the values most Americans try to live by.

Fifty-two percent of Democrats said they knew nothing or very little about the Clinton Foundation."

Ultimately, if Hillary is elected president in 2016 and a White House bachelor suite is built for Bill, America will get what it deserves.

Roger Cohen, "Iran, the Thinkable Ally": Sick!

Today, in an editorial evidencing extreme ignorance entitled "The Fundamental Horror of ISIS," The New York Times declares:

"The mind rebels at the reports of cruelty by the Islamic State, the beheadings, crucifixions, tortures, rapes and slaughter of captives, children, women, Christians, Shiites. The evidence is there on YouTube, in gruesome images and the cries of witnesses too numerous to deny or doubt.

. . . .

[N]o Islamist group before, no other offshoot of Al Qaeda or Hamas or Hezbollah, has so nakedly adopted a cult of sadism, not only as a weapon in its stated goal of establishing an Islamic caliphate but as the very reason for its existence.

. . . .

Even to call what this group does 'crimes against humanity' is to put a legalistic spin on raw evil; as Roger Cohen, the New York Times columnist, wrote in a recent piece about ISIS, there is no 'why' in the heart of darkness."

No other Islamist group "has so nakedly adopted a cult of sadism"? Rubbish! The editorial board of The New York Times has chosen to turn a blind eye to Iran's stoning to death of women, hanging of homosexuals, and persecution and oppression of Baha'is, Kurds, Christians and Sunnis. Believe it or not, Iran, which has the second highest annual number of executions after China, sentences its citizens to death for such "crimes" as "enmity toward God."  Last week, Mohsen Amir Aslani was hanged in Iran for "corruption on earth and heresy in religion" after daring to declare that Jonah was not swallowed by a whale.

In its editorial, The New York Times would make a moral compass of columnist Roger Cohen. Cohen? You will recall that during the first six months of 2009, while engaged in a campaign to seek rapprochement between the United States and Iran, Cohen took the position that Iran is not totalitarian. Ignoring Iran's executions and systematic persecution of minorities, Cohen, in a June 2009 op-ed entiled "Iran Awakens Yet Again," declared:

"For months now, I’ve been urging another look at Iran, beyond dangerous demonization of it as a totalitarian state. Seldom has the country looked less like one than in these giddy June days."

But much to Cohen's chagrin, this opinion piece was soon followed by Iran's brutal suppression of the Green Revolution in July 2009, which shattered his hopes for a Pulitzer Prize.

But Cohen was not about to quit. In 2013, Cohen again told us, "Iran is no Nazi-like totalitarian state with a single authority but an authoritarian regime subject to liberalizing and repressive waves."  Once more, not a totalitarian state with no single authority? Oh really? As reported by Joshua Norman in a 2011 CBS News article entitled "The world's enduring dictators: Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iran":

"Ayatollah Khamenei was president of Iran from 1981 to 1989, when he ascended to the role of Supreme Leader. While current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may garner all the international headlines, make no mistake about it, Khamenei is the Islamic Republic of Iran's spiritual leader and highest authority until he chooses to give up the post, dies, or is deposed. His veto is final in Iranian political affairs.

Iran has long been plagued by widespread allegations of abuse, torture and summary executions of political opponents. Public executions are also regularly held for those accused of drug use and possession, murder, prostitution and being gay. In late 2009, hundreds may have been killed after government forces crushed a mass popular uprising over the disputed presidential elections that year which saw Ahmadinejad reelected. Iran was also accused of using child soldiers to crush more recent protests against the hard-line government."

But why believe Joshua Norman? During the June 4, 2013 funeral of the Iranian dissident cleric Ayatollah Jalaluddin Taheri, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets calling for the death of the dictator Khamenei.

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Iran, the Thinkable Ally," Cohen is back to his old tricks. Calling for the United States to reach agreement with Iran over its nuclear development program prior to the November 24 deadline for conclusion of the P5+1 negotiations, Cohen writes:

"The Islamic Republic, 35 years after the revolution, is — like it or not — a serious and stable power in an unstable region. Its highly educated population is pro-Western. Its actions and interests are often opposed to the United States and America’s allies, and its human rights record is appalling, but then that is true of several countries with which Washington does business.

. . . .

A deal can and must be done for the simple reason it is far better — for Iran, the United States, Europe and Israel — than any of the alternatives."

Employing the same logic, Cohen would have supported Chamberlain's call for "peace for our time" in 1939.

By contrast, in an editorial entitled "Hold the line with Iran," The Washington Post today observes:

"U.S. negotiators have responded to Iranian intransigence on key issues with creative but sometimes disturbing counterproposals. Most notably, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has declared that the regime will not dismantle any of the 19,000 centrifuges it has constructed to enrich uranium. So the United States and its allies, which once insisted that most of the machines be eliminated, reportedly have floated a proposal to leave the centrifuges in place but take away the plumbing that connects them.

If Iran has made similar efforts to bridge the gaps between the two sides, there is no report of them. Instead, Tehran appears to be sticking to its insistence on maintaining and eventually vastly expanding its nuclear infrastructure while offering only a temporary slowdown in uranium enrichment and 'increased transparency.' It is refusing to discuss its ballistic missile program and still isn’t cooperating with international inspectors’ probe into its past nuclear weapons design work."

The US should offer Khamenei further concessions to strike a deal with this maniacal state, which is on the verge of building its first atomic weapon? I don't think so.

Syria: Yes, President Obama, You Were Duped by Assad, Khamenei and Putin

You will recall how during his State of the Union address several weeks ago, Obama claimed that he had achieved a remarkable foreign policy success involving the destruction of this arsenal:

"American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria’s chemical weapons are being eliminated, and we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve – a future free of dictatorship, terror and fear."

Obama, of course, was lying. As reported by Reuters in an article entitled "U.S. accuses Syria of stalling on chemical arms handover" by Lesley Wroughton and Matt Spetalnick(http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/30/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBREA0S19720140130):

"The United States on Thursday accused Syria of dragging its feet on giving up its chemical arms, putting at risk a deal to remove such weapons of mass destruction from the country as it splits apart in a chaotic civil war.

President Barack Obama this week touted the chemical weapons agreement as one of the few U.S. diplomatic achievements on Syria, but the State Department said just 4 percent of Syria's deadliest chemical agents has been shipped out of the country for destruction at sea.

The United States has few good choices to force President Bashar al-Assad to comply."

In fact, Assad (John Kerry's "dear friend") has been moving his chemical weapons stockpiles to "Alawite enclaves on the western coast of Syria" (see: http://www.jpost.com/Home/Assad-armed-to-the-teeth-stockpiling-weapons-of-mass-destruction-340081).

Is Assad prepared to negotiate with the rebels? No way. "Negotiations" in Geneva are hopelessly deadlocked, and as reported by CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-peace-talks-in-geneva-end-in-failure/):

"In the meantime, a spike in fighting between the Syrian government and opposition forces has sent the country's death toll soaring.

Opposition activists say the rate of killing has increased in the three weeks since talks began -- averaging a record of more than 230 a day -- as both sides have sought to shore up their bargaining positions by gaining territory."

President Obama? It's taken him long enough, but he is beginning to wise up to the fact that he was duped. As now reported by The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/world/middleeast/kerry-says-obama-wants-new-options-for-syria-strife.html?hp&_r=1):

"Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday that President Obama had asked aides to develop new policy options to deal with the deteriorating situation in Syria.

. . . .

Mr. Kerry’s comments reflect increased concern within the American government and nongovernmental organizations over the escalating humanitarian crisis in Syria. They also reflect frustration that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria appears to have little interest in negotiating the establishment of a transitional government in which he would not play a role."

A humanitarian crisis? Oh, I suppose the Times is referring to the fact that people are dying of hunger and attempting to live off leaves and grass in Homs (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/world/middleeast/in-homs-syria-still-no-relief-from-a-siege.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&region=Footer&module=TopNews&pgtype=article).

Well, take your time in making that decision, Mr. President. The catastrophe in Syria has already waited several years for for your compassionate intervention, e.g., enforcement of a no-fly zone, and it can certainly wait a little longer.

Gail Collins, "The Other Side of the Story": What About Sharyl Attkisson?

"I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal e-mail."

- Edward Snowden

Query: Has James Clapper, US Director of National Intelligence, specifically rebutted Snowden's allegation?

Where is President Obama's rebuttal? Or did he only learn about this by reading the newspapers like the rest of us? In reality, the president is in deep hiding, waiting for the storm to blow over, and will be soon off to Africa - a trip which will cost US taxpayers up to $100 million (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-trip-to-africa-poses-special-challenges-enormous-costs/2013/06/13/29d9270a-cd29-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html). Unfortunately for Obama, the storm shows no sign of abating.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Other Side of the Story" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/opinion/collins-the-other-side-of-the-story.html?_r=0), Gail Collins decries "national willingness to give government a blank check on national security matters" and writes about a nearly decade-old story concerning the wrongful arrest of Brandon Mayfield for the 2004 commuter train bombing in Madrid. As observed by Collins:

"Spanish officials found a suspicious fingerprint on a plastic bag at the scene. The F.B.I. ran it through its files and decided, erroneously, that it matched Mayfield’s. Further investigation revealed that Mayfield had married an Egyptian immigrant and converted to Islam — information the authorities apparently found far more compelling than the fact that he had never been to Spain.

. . . .

Spain saved the day. The Spanish investigators were dubious from the beginning that the fingerprints at the bombing site were Mayfield’s; they had been hoping, perhaps, for a person who had set foot in Europe within the last decade. They found and arrested someone whose finger was a real match."

Indeed, this was a horror story.

But where is reference by Collins to the Washington Post headline story "CBS confirms reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s computer breached" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cbs-confirms-reporter-sharyl-attkisons-computer-breached/2013/06/14/321b77f0-d504-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html?hpid=z3)? As reported by WaPo:

"CBS News said Friday that it has confirmed a computer used by one of its Washington reporters, Sharyl Attkisson, was breached by an unknown intruder and that the hack appeared to be 'sophisticated.'

The intrusions were detected in December while Attkisson was reporting almost exclusively on the government’s response to the terrorist attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. The attack on Sept. 11, 2012, killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Attkisson has previously investigated the Justice Department’s gun-tracking operation known as 'Fast and Furious.'

In a statement Friday, CBS did not identify a culprit. It said Attkisson’s computer 'was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions late in 2012.'

It added: 'Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and [removal] of data. This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion.'"

President Obama, would you care to comment on this matter? Are you willing to deny federal government involvement in the hacking of Attkisson's computer?

As Dana Milbank writes today in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The left turns compliant on violating civil liberties" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-the-left-turns-compliant-on-violating-civil-liberties/2013/06/14/8c30d91a-d4d2-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html?hpid=z2):

"Where have all the liberals gone?

President Obama, who as a Democratic senator accused the Bush administration of violating civil liberties in the name of security, now vigorously defends his own administration’s collection of Americans’ phone records and Internet activities.

. . . .

With some exceptions, progressive lawmakers and the liberal commentariat have been passive and acquiescent toward the secret spying programs, which would have infuriated the left had they been the work of a Republican administration."

It just keeps getting uglier with every passing day.

[This blog item certainly got "someone's" goat . . .]

David Ignatius, "Edward Snowden’s Misplaced Idealism": America's "Best Tool in Combating Terrorism"?

It's now 1:20 a.m. in New York, and the only reference to President Obama on the homepage of The New York Times is to be found under "News from A.P. & Reuters":

• "Obama, Japan's Abe Talk NKorea, China, Trade"

Similarly, if we look at the homepage of The Washington Post, the only references to Obama are:

• "Obama rallies support for Markey in Boston as Senate race tightens"
• "Obama taps Native American fundraiser for human rights post"

Or in other words, as the debate over Edward Snowden's leaks concerning massive NSA surveillance of US citizens swirls around us, Obama is nowhere in sight with leadership and guidance concerning America's ongoing battle with global terrorism. Yes, Obama is in deep hiding until the storm blows over.

In his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Edward Snowden’s misplaced idealism" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-snowden-exposed-policies-approved-by-congress-courts/2013/06/12/815c8aa4-d2d7-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html?hpid=z2), David Ignatius tells us that electronic surveillance programs are America's "best tool" to combat terror. Ignatius writes:

"James Clapper, the director of national intelligence who oversees the NSA, argued last weekend that Snowden made 'reckless' disclosures about its monitoring of foreign Internet communications, and that 'potentially long-lasting and irreversible harm' could come from the revelation of a court order authorizing collection of telephone call data from Verizon. Congress and the courts will examine such claims, but how should we as citizens evaluate them?

My guess is that Clapper is correct when he implicitly argues that these electronic surveillance programs are the United States’ best tool in combating terrorism. It’s probably also true that each revelation of U.S. capabilities weakens this advantage by putting adversaries such as al-Qaeda on notice about our snooping capabilities. The revelations likely make it harder, as well, for U.S. corporations and foreign allies to cooperate."

"My guess is that Clapper is correct when he implicitly argues that these electronic surveillance programs are the United States’ best tool in combating terrorism"? If Ignatius honestly believes this, he knows nothing about terrorism.

Moreover, if Clapper believes this, he should resign as director of national intelligence - and not because he lied to Congress.

An act of organized terror is premised upon:

• A target, e.g., Boston Marathon or World Trade Center.
• Accessibility of the target.
• Terrorist motivation and in some instances, readiness to pay the ultimate price.
• Infrastructure and training.
• Funding.
• State support.

Eliminate one or more of these elements, and the ability of a terrorist organization to perpetrate an act of terror is significantly weakened. So what does a massive electronic surveillance program aimed at Americans as a whole contribute to preventing terrorist acts? Maybe it might aid in "rolling up" a terrorist cell following perpetration of an act of terror, provided the cell's members have been careless, but prevent a terrorist strike? No way, Jose. Sure, there is no black and white, and the dangers to civil liberties of monitoring all Americans must be weighed against the benefits of an electronic surveillance system, but now ask yourself how PRISM helped prevent the Boston Marathon bombing, notwithstanding a warning from Moscow.

So where are we to find the biggest terrorist threat? Simple. As recently reported by CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57586946/state-dept.-iran-support-for-global-terror-surged-in-2012/):
 

"Iran last year boosted its support for global terrorism to levels not seen for two decades, the Obama administration said Thursday as it released its annual report on international trends in extremist violence. The report said the core elements of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan are headed for defeat but stressed that the network's various affiliates remain severe threats to the U.S.

The State Department's 'Country Reports on Terrorism' for 2012 left unchanged the U.S. list of 'state sponsors of terrorism.' Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria remain on that blacklist, although Iran was singled out as the worst offender and Syria was taken to task for the ongoing brutal crackdown on opponents of President Bashar Assad's regime.

The report said 2012 was "notable in demonstrating a marked resurgence of Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism." That sponsorship has been largely carried out through the Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and the militant Shiite Hezbollah movement, Iran's ally and proxy in Lebanon, it said.

'Iran and Hezbollah's terrorist activity has reached a tempo unseen since the 1990s, with attacks plotted in Southeast Asia, Europe, and Africa,' it said. Those included an attack on a bus carrying Israeli tourists in Bulgaria that killed six, as well as thwarted strikes in India, Thailand, Georgia and Kenya.

The report's 'strategic assessment' said core al Qaeda continues to weaken as its leaders increasingly fight for survival. But it said that leadership losses with the core have driven al Qaeda affiliates to become more independent by setting their own agendas and targets and raising money on their own, primarily through kidnapping and other crimes."

So how is the US counteracting Iranian sponsored terrorism? Answer: It's not. During his first term as president, Obama presided over a "charm campaign" aimed at Tehran, which failed. Meanwhile, toothless negotiations over Iran's nuclear weapons development program, managed by Catherine Ashton, the EU's nincompoop High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy, continue.

Moreover, given that Obama has demonstrated that his "red line" involving the use by Syria's Bashar al-Assad of chemical weapons is toothless, Russian President Vladimir Putin is now claiming that "I have no doubt that Iran is adhering to the rules in this area [nuclear weapons proliferation], because there is no proof of the opposite" (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/russias-putin-says-iran-nuclear-push-peaceful-170035158.html), i.e. kicking sand on 98-pound weakling Barack Obama.

Hezbollah? The US is finally asking the EU to sanction this Iranian terror proxy (see: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/in-europe-a-growing-case-for-banning-hezbollah/275035/), yet the Obama administration has not done nearly enough to prevent Hezbollah from raising funds or procuring weapons.

The next terrorist attack? I don't expect another 9/11-type attack. Rather, I expect an Iranian cyber assault on America's weak underbelly, i.e., computer systems responsible for the functioning of banks, financial markets, interstate transportation and telecommunications. This would also prove a disaster.

Bottom line: Instead of going after Iran and Hezbollah, the Obama administration is focusing its efforts on American civil liberties. But heck, what do I know?

CBS News Chairman Jeff Fager's Lie Concerning Israel at a Church Lecture: E-mails to His Reverend

As noted in an April blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/pamela-geller-prevented-from-speaking.html), CBS News Chairman Jeff Fager spread a lie about Israel at his New Canaan Church. Fager claimed that Bethlehem is surrounded by a security wall, and although his contention was challenged real time at the church by Dexter Van Zile, Fager is ducking the issue.

On Thursday, I sent an e-mail to Fager's reverend:

Dear Reverend Walsh,

You invited one of your congregants, Jeff Fager, to speak about Bethlehem before your church. Mr. Fager stated that Bethlehem is surrounded by a security wall, and as someone who lives in Israel, I can assure you that this is incorrect.

Mr. Fager was challenged to prove his assertion, but he has since avoided the issue.

You told your congregation that Mr. Fager is: “a man of extraordinary integrity and character. He's a man of grace in a world without grace. He's a trustworthy soul in a world where people ain't always so trustworthy.”

Query: Has Mr. Fager acknowledged to you that he spread a falsehood at your Church?

As you can see below (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=13&x_article=2445), much of what Mr. Fager claimed, beyond the mere issue of the purported wall, is the subject of serious contention.

Would your congregants be interested in hearing a different description of events on the ground from people who are far better informed than Mr. Fager?

Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey

I am still waiting to hear back from Reverend Peter Walsh. Today, I dashed off another e-mail to him:

Dear Reverend Walsh,

I have not heard back from you.

By now, you are surely aware that Bethlehem is not surrounded by a security wall.

Have you discussed this matter with Jeff Fager? Have you personally informed your congregants that Mr. Fager was mistaken?

Is it not imperative that this falsehood, intended to foster enmity, be addressed and rectified in your House of God?

Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey

Let's see if there will be a reply.

Pamela Geller Prevented from Speaking at Great Neck Synagogue; CBS News Chairman Jeff Fager Spreads Lies About Israel at His New Canaan Church

Pamela Geller, founder of the Atlas Shrugs blog and known for her advocacy on behalf of Israel, has been prevented from speaking today at a Great Neck, Long Island synagogue. As explained by Jerusalem Post Columnist Caroline Glick (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Column-One-Moral-relativism-and-jihad-309549):

"Last month, after learning of her talk, a consortium of Islamic and leftist activists in Nassau County led by Habeed Ahmed from the Islamic Center of Long Island launched a pressure campaign to coerce the synagogue into cancelling her speech. Members of the group telephoned the synagogue and castigated Geller as a bigot, and likened her to the Nazis in the 1930s.

In short order liberal rabbis Michael White and Jerome Davidson took over the opposition to Geller and launched a media campaign attacking her as a bigot and demanding that the Great Neck Synagogue cancel her speech.

Rejecting the distinction Geller makes between jihadists and their victims – Muslim and non-Muslim alike, White and Davidson claimed that she opposes all Muslims and so her speech must be canceled. By hosting her, they intoned, the Great Neck Synagogue would be guilty of propagating hate speech. Liberal Christian and Jewish activists and their Muslim associates threatened to protest the speech.

On Wednesday the synagogue caved in to their massive pressure. Citing 'security concerns' the synagogue board released a statement saying that while 'these important issues must be discussed, the synagogue is unable to bear the burden' of the pressure campaign surrounding Geller’s planned speech. Her event was canceled."

Rabbi Jerome Davidson's claim that Geller is given to hate speech and should not be allowed to speak at the Great Neck Synagogue? Listen to David Wood demolish Davidson's contentions.

Meanwhile, Jeff Fager, chairman of CBS News, last week was busy spreading lies about Israel's security barrier at his New Canaan, Connecticut church. As reported by Dexter Van Zile (http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2013/4/9/cbs-news-needs-to-come-clean-about-60-minutes-palestinian-christians-segment):

"Invited to speak at the church by his pastor Rev. Peter Walsh, Fager showed an audience of more than 200 of his fellow parishioners a segment about Palestinian Christians that aired on the CBS '60 Minutes' program in April 2012.

During the segment, correspondent Bob Simon stated that the security fence 'completely surrounds Bethlehem, turning the ‘little town' where Christ was born into what its residents call ‘an open air prison.’'

The fence does not completely surround Bethlehem, as Simon reported. The security fence is located to the north and west of Bethlehem and leaves the rest of the city’s perimeter open to the West Bank.

. . . .

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), pointed out the '60 Minutes' error in an article on its website soon after the segment aired and in a half-page ad that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 14, 2012.

Nevertheless, the CBS show has not issued a correction to this day.

After showing his fellow parishioners the '60 Minutes' segment, Fager complained about the angry response the show elicited. In particular, he condemned the Wall Street Journal’s decision to run CAMERA’s ad, which he said was intended to create havoc on the CBS show’s reporting.

Fager then told his audience that CAMERA got it wrong about the security fence in its ad and that 'Bethlehem is surrounded by a wall.'

. . . .

During the question and answer period, I raised my hand, stated I worked for CAMERA, the organization responsible for the ad in question, and then issued a simple and direct challenge: If Jeff Fager could prove that the security fence completely surrounds Bethlehem like he said a few moments before, I would donate $5,000 to a charity of his choosing.

His response was a simple 'Okay.'

After the event concluded and the people in attendance started to leave for the church’s Sunday services, I gave him my business card. So far, no response."

As can be seen on any map, the Israeli security barrier does not surround Bethlehem (see, for example: http://www.btselem.org/download/separation_barrier_map_eng.pdf). But why should that prevent Fager from disseminating lies at his church of all places?

Welcome to our Brave New World in which American synagogues are unable to provide a forum for pro-Israel advocates, but honchos and pundits from the media - Fager joins Fareed Zakaria and Thomas Friedman in recent weeks - can spread lies about Israel with impunity anywhere they please (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/fred-hiatt-editorial-page-editor-of.html and http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/second-open-letter-to-margaret-sullivan.html).

But why should we be surprised, given that most leading Jewish organizations were too fearful to express opposition to Obama's appointment of Chuck Hagel, an anti-Semite, as secretary of defense?

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" . . .

Gail Collins, "Bill, Barack and Us": How Many Pinocchios for Collins?

If the Republican Party has veered hard to the right, has the Democratic Party been hijacked by the left? And if so, what awaits the US if Obama is reelected?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bill, Barack and Us" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/opinion/collins-the-roots-are-back.html), Gail Collins makes light of the fact that the Democratic platform originally omitted any reference to God:

"The Democrats had been waiting for Clinton’s speech for two days, during which they diverted themselves with a couple of brief platform fights, one about inserting a mention of God, who had inadvertently been cut out of the platform’s 40 pages."

Like it or not, there was nothing "inadvertant" about this omission from a platform which was reviewed with a fine-toothed comb.

Then, too, Collins fails to make reference to the initial decision that the Democrats' plank should not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and should not acknowledge Israel as America's staunchest ally in the Middle East, as in years past. After much criticism and many raised eyebrows, reference to God and recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital were restored, but only after a questionable vote.

Although we are now being told that Obama requested that recognition of Jerusalem be restored to the platform, we previously learned that the Democratic National Committee had omitted reference to Jerusalem in keeping with Obama's foreign policy (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/new-york-times-editorial-words-not.html).

Collins blithely concludes her op-ed by observing:

"So, we’re almost done, convention-wise. We’ve learned that both parties like God and moms, particularly moms with humble roots. They both have faith that people who work hard and play by the rules can overcome exposure to secondhand furniture while they’re in college. Otherwise, it’s just a matter of whether you want to raise taxes and balance the budget like Clinton, or cut taxes and plunge us into a hopeless sea of debt, like Bush. Let the fight begin."

What could be easier for Collins than to depict 2012 as a contest between Bill Clinton and George Bush. Unfortunately, however, notwithstanding Clinton's protestations that he could not have done a better job than Obama regarding the US economy, it is Obama who has plunged the US "into a hopeless sea of debt." According to a March 2012 CBS News article (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/):

"The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

. . . .

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services."

Still worse, it was just announced by the Treasury Department that US debt now exceeds $16 trillion (see: http://news.yahoo.com/us-national-debt-hits-16-trillion-republicans-blast-031301848.html).

Where is Obama's map for steering America out of this "sea of debt"? God, not on the guest list for the Democratic convention, only knows.