Donald Trump's Inauguration: Alternative Facts for an Alternative Universe

Tweet

Kellyanne Conway, adviser to President Donald Trump, gave birth to a new sound bite, i.e. "alternative facts," when justifying White House press secretary Sean Spicer's declaration on Saturday that "this was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe."

In fact, Spicer was correct, period ... if you include the protesters. Apparently unbeknownst to Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler, "Facts are in the mind of the beholder."

Alternative facts for an alternative universe.

And now back to my dogs and my vegetable garden.

Washington Post Editorial, "Hillary Clinton smartly distances herself from Obama": Blowing Smoke Up Hillary's Ass

Tweet

The etymology of "blowing smoke up your ass"? Back in the 18th century, there was a popular medical device called a tobacco smoke enema, which was used to resuscitate drowning victims. However, it was ultimately discovered that blowing tobacco smoke into dead persons arses had no medical benefit, and from there, "blowing smoke up your ass" was born, i.e. telling someone a lie that she/he wants to hear.

Well today, in an editorial entitled "Hillary Clinton smartly distances herself from Obama," The Washington Post blows smoke up Hillary's arse. WaPo would have us know concerning Hillary's position on Syria:

"Ms. Clinton has a strong claim to express her differences with Mr. Obama, since it’s well-known that she argued them privately during her time in the administration, especially about how to handle Syria. (She favored more substantial U.S. support to dictator Bashar al-Assad’s opposition early in the popular uprising that has since devolved into civil war.) Not only that, but it’s clear from events in Paris that any progress Mr. Obama’s approach has achieved so far — and there has been some — is insufficient to stop the Islamic State from sowing terror far beyond the Middle East. Finally, the measures Ms. Clinton endorsed, such as safe zones, directly arming Kurdish and Sunni tribal forces if the Iraqi government won’t, and a more aggressive use of airstrikes and Special Operations forces, enjoy the backing of many military experts."

Excuse me, boys and girls, but how do you make such a claim without mention of Hillary's March 27, 2011  "Face the Nation" interview (massive protests against the Assad regime had begun two weeks earlier), during which she declared:

"There is a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer."

Assad a reformer? As the Washington Post's own Glenn Kessler subsequently wrote in a "Fact Checker" column entitled "Hillary Clinton’s uncredible statement on Syria," in which he gave Hillary three Pinocchios:

"Hillary Clinton is known for making provocative statements, but few have generated such a firestorm as her comment last week that the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, may be a reformer. She made her remarks after 'Face the Nation' host Bob Schieffer noted that Assad’s late father had killed 25,000 people during an uprising against his regime. Clinton responded by noting that the son was now in power and he was a 'different leader.'

Lawmakers and columnists quickly condemned her remarks. So two days later Clinton tried to deflect the criticism by telling reporters she was only referencing 'the opinions' of lawmakers who had met with Assad and that she was not speaking for the administration. But then she added: 'We’re also going to continue to urge that the promise of reform, which has been made over and over again and which you reported on just a few months ago – I’m a reformer, I’m going to reform, and I’ve talked to members of Congress and others about that, that we hear from the highest levels of leadership in Syria – will actually be turned into reality.'

. . . .

Throughout the Middle East uprisings, Clinton has had trouble calibrating her comments to the mood of the moment, such as when she pronounced the Mubarak regime to be 'stable' and 'looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.' Days later, Mubarak was gone.

We grant that we have no way of really knowing what lawmakers may have said privately to Clinton. But there is only a small universe of GOP senators and members of Congress who have recently traveled to Syria — 13 or so — and the word 'many' would suggest at least half of those traveling."

The Mubarak regime was "stable"? "There is a different leader in Syria now"? Spare me.

Regarding today's Washington Post editorial, I would also mention in passing that Hillary cannot even bring herself to say the words "radical Islam."

I would also mention that Hillary was instrumental in bringing about Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran, after she recommended allowing the Islamic Republic of Iran, Assad's primary backer, to continue to enrich uranium as part of the said deal. Obama's passivity over the years toward Assad was in no way linked to his desperation to reach a legacy-creating nuclear deal with Khamenei? The answer is obvious. Worse still, Iranian fighter jets are now flying over Syria, creating a powder keg of Gargantuan dimensions, given their proximity to American and Israeli aircraft.

Bottom line: Hillary's foreign policy recommendations have proven no more substantive or consistent than smoke in the wind (or tobacco smoke blown into a corpse's arse). The Washington Post's editorial board should know better than to foist such nonsense upon us.

Ben Carson on Syria: Both Charles Krauthammer and Ruth Marcus Wrongly Slam Carson

Tweet

In his most recent Washington Post opinion piece, "The most revealing debate yet," Charles Krauthammer wrote of the last Republican presidential debate:

"Ben Carson had an awful night — the Chinese intervening in Syria? "

Similarly, Ruth Marcus in her latest WaPo opinion piece entitled "Carson’s real scandal is his ignorance" would have us know:

"Asked whether he supported President Obama’s move to send Special Operations forces to Syria and leave 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, Carson’s answer careened around like a crazed pinball, bouncing between wrong facts ('You know, the Chinese are there [in Syria]') . . ."

However, as noted in a September 28, 2015 RT article entitled "China’s military advisers ‘heading to Syria to help fight ISIS’ – report":

"DEBKAfile, has cited military sources as saying that a Chinese aircraft carrier, the Liaoning-CV-16, has already been spotted at the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean coast. It was said to be accompanied by a guided missile cruiser."

Historically, DEBKAfile has been extremely accurate. Or stated otherwise, Carson was not entirely off the mark. Both Krauthammer and Marcus owe Carson an apology. (Krauthammer's comment seems to have been based upon Glenn Kessler's Washington Post "Fact Checker" column, and I again ask, who checks the checker?)

Meanwhile, Donald Trump seems to have experienced a meltdown of sorts in Iowa. Will it affect his standing in the polls, or will Republicans insist upon shooting themselves in the foot by nominating him? Stay tuned . . .

Glenn Kessler, "Is Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ on Benghazi?": Who Checks the Checker?

Tweet

In a Washington Post "Fact Checker" column entitled "Is Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ on Benghazi?," Glenn Kessler assigns Marco Rubio two Pinocchios for claiming that Hillary was "exposed as a liar" after she "spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that [the Benghazi massacre] was because of a video." Kessler justifies these Pinocchios by asserting:

"Rubio is certainly within his rights to point out Clinton’s contradictory statements — and the remarks of the family members give us pause — but he does not have enough evidence to label Clinton a liar."

Yup, we should all take the word of Hillary "I remember landing under sniper fire" Clinton over the statements coming from the family members.

For more concerning Kessler's abominable handling of this matter, see Mark Hemingway's article entitled "Did WaPo's Fact Checker Inadvertently Expose Clinton Disseminating Classified Info on Benghazi?" in The Weekly Standard.

Shame on you, Kessler! Any credibility that you might have once wielded has now gone flying out the window of Mastro Geppetto's workshop.

Michael Gerson, "Iran thumbs its nose at the United States": Obama Thumbs His Nose at the American Electorate

Tweet

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Iran thumbs its nose at the United States," Michael Gerson notes:

"Since the Iran nuclear deal was announced in mid-July, the world has been treated to an unusual historic spectacle. As President Obama was busy twisting congressional arms to prevent repudiation of the agreement, the Iranian regime has been systematically humiliating him.

. . . .

Iran can do whatever it damn well pleases because it knows the Americans are too invested in the deal to blow it up. This may fit Obama’s conception of the United States as a tired nation, overcommitted in the Middle East. But in the process, he is making strategic concessions to Iran and Russia that future presidents may find impossible to accept and difficult to retract."

However, if Iran is thumbing its nose at the United States, Obama is thumbing his nose at the American electorate, which strongly opposes his nuclear agreement with Iran and overwhelmingly believes that it will not be honored by Iran.

Even more ridiculous, Obama is attempting to claim "the strong support of lawmakers and citizens alike" for this deal, an assertion which on Monday earned him three Pinocchios from Glenn Kessler's WaPo "Fact Checker" column.

The strong support of lawmakers? As observed by William Kristol in a Weekly Standard article entitled "The Supporting Actors," Michigan Senator Gary Peters, who supported Obama's deal, had the following to say about the agreement:

"This deal allows Iran, under the same leadership that refers to the United States as the Great Satan and calls for the destruction of Israel, to enrich uranium on its own soil. This core concession is in many ways a stark departure from our country’s past nonproliferation policies, and it concerns me that this agreement could set a dangerous precedent. .  .  . How can the United States say with moral authority that this deal is acceptable for Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, intent on regional hegemony, but deny it to others? .  .  . I am concerned that other nations will view this agreement with Iran as a change in U.S. policy and new precedent that may lead to increased global proliferation of nuclear enrichment and the potential for other nuclear threshold states to emerge."

And as further observed by Kristol, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, who also supported Obama's deal, went on record as saying:

"With this deal, we are legitimizing a vast and expanding nuclear program in Iran. We are in effect rewarding years of their deception, deceit, and wanton disregard for international law by allowing them to potentially have a domestic nuclear enrichment program at levels beyond what is necessary for a peaceful civil nuclear program. .  .  . Finally, this deal includes the termination of the United Nations embargo on Iran’s conventional arms and ballistic missile technology after five and eight years, respectively. Even with increased vigilance by the United States and our allies, this will bolster Iran’s conventional weapons threats in the region."

Query: Has the president become delusional, or is he determined to spin the facts until his last day in office?

Maureen Dowd, "He Is Heavy. He’s My Brother.": Jeb's Giant Goof

On Monday, Megyn Kelly asked Jeb Bush whether he would have invaded Iraq in 2003 "knowing what we know now." Jeb Bush responded in the affirmative, setting off a media firestorm and subsequent claims by Jeb that he misunderstood the question. In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "He Is Heavy. He’s My Brother.," Maureen Dowd seizes upon this controversy and goes for Jeb's jugular. Dowd writes:

"Jeb had barely finished insisting that he was his own man before he voluntarily shackled himself to W., putting several members of his brother’s war-torture-and-Katrina tarnished brain trust on his advisory list and telling a group of financiers in New York that W. was his top adviser on the Middle East!!

. . . .

And consider this: Jeb hasn’t even been asked any questions yet about W.’s dark contributions on waterboarding, the deficit and the near-total collapse of the American economy."

To set the record straight: I opposed the 2003 Iraq War, inasmuch as I anticipated that it would destroy the Sunni/Shiite equilibrium in the Middle East, i.e. without Saddam in Iraq, the mullahs in Iran would run amuck. Moreover, I will shed no tears if Jeb abandons the race for the Republican presidential nomination: Two Bushes in the White House was one too many. But blame George W. for "the deficit and the near-total collapse of the American economy"? I don't think so.

Dowd needs to be reminded that the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 by the Clinton administration set the stage for the Great Recession.

Moreover, as regards Obama's effect on the US deficit, Glenn Kessler wrote in a December 2014 Washington Post "Fact Checker essay entitled "Does Obama have the ‘worst’ record of any president on the national debt?":

"One alternative method looks at the dollar amount of the debt increase divided by the dollar amount of GDP at the end of each term. Obama’s numbers for the debt and GDP are only through Sept. 30, 2014, and thus should be considered a temporary figure, as an improving economy might boost the GDP and thus improve his ratio. At current trends, however, it is likely that Obama’s performance would be the worst among recent presidents, according to this calculation. (He would still trail Roosevelt and Wilson among presidents in the last hundred years.)

One alternative method looks at the dollar amount of the debt increase divided by the dollar amount of GDP at the end of each term.  Obama’s numbers for the debt and GDP are only through Sept. 30, 2014, and thus should be considered a temporary figure, as an improving economy might boost the GDP and thus improve his ratio. At current trends, however, it is likely that Obama’s performance would be the worst among recent presidents, according to this calculation. (He would still trail Roosevelt and Wilson among presidents in the last hundred years.)

Debt increase*    End-of-term GDP*    Percentage

Reagan             $1,873                    $8,850                     21%
GHW Bush        1,484                    $9,410                     16%
Clinton               1,268                  $12,680                     12%
GW Bush           4,899                  $14,580                     34%
Obama                7,198                   $16,160                     44%
(*in billions)"

Indeed, according to my calculations, Obama's present debt increase to current GDP amounts to some 43%.

Or stated otherwise, George W. Bush is not the only one to blame for the enormity of the deficit, which will ultimately lead to economic disaster - unless you believe in the tooth fairy or Paul Krugman.

David Brooks, "The Nature of Poverty": Actually, Jon Stewart Lied

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Nature of Poverty," David Brooks writes about the rioting in Baltimore:

"Lately it seems as though every few months there’s another urban riot and the nation turns its attention to urban poverty. And in the midst of every storm, there are people crying out that we should finally get serious about this issue. This time it was Jon Stewart who spoke for many when he said: 'And you just wonder sometimes if we’re spending a trillion dollars to rebuild Afghanistan’s schools, like, we can’t build a little taste down Baltimore way. Like is that what’s really going on?'

The audience applauded loudly, and it’s a nice sentiment, but it’s not really relevant."

Indeed, it was a "nice," crowd-pleasing sentiment on Stewart's part, but it was also a lie. As reported by Glenn Kessler in a Washington Post "Fact Checker" column entitled "Nope, Jon Stewart, $1 trillion wasn’t spent on Afghanistan schools at the expense of Baltimore.":

"Since 2002, Congress has appropriated $104 billion for Afghanistan relief and reconstruction, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). A lot of this funding went to bolstering the Afghan military and security forces and fostering better governance.

But Stewart specifically mentioned schools. The numbers are even smaller in that instance. Using USAID’s ForeignAssistance.gov Web site, one can drill down to individual programs in Afghanistan year after year. For basic education in Afghanistan, the number is about $100 million annually. Adding higher education boosts the spending about $30 million a year. For instance, in 2012 and 2013, the total spent on education in Afghanistan was $128.6 million and $115.1 million, respectively.

Now let’s compare that to the federal spending for the city of Baltimore. According to city budget documents, the federal contribution to Baltimore schools was $184.8 million in 2012 and $169.3 million in 2013. (Most of the more than $1.2 billion budget comes from state and county funding sources.)

The contrast was even greater in 2011: $95 million for Afghanistan schools and $265 million for Baltimore schools. That’s because the 2009 stimulus bill bolstered funding for schools for several years.

. . . .

In fact, in a direct comparison of federal spending on Baltimore schools and spending on Afghanistan education, Baltimore easily comes out on top. So, even with allowances for comic effect, Stewart earns Four Pinocchios."

But back now to Brooks, who concludes his op-ed by observing:

"Jane Jacobs once wrote that a healthy neighborhood is like a ballet, a series of intricate interactions in which people are regulating each other and encouraging certain behaviors.

. . . .

Yes, jobs are necessary, but if you live in a neighborhood . . . where half the high school students don’t bother to show up for school on a given day, then the problems go deeper.

The world is waiting for a thinker who can describe poverty through the lens of social psychology. Until the invisible bonds of relationships are repaired, life for too many will be nasty, brutish, solitary and short."

Or stated otherwise, it's not all about money. Rather, it involves the disintegration of social fabric.

A pity that President Obama, who never misses the opportunity to lose himself on the links, can't drive the 55 minutes from the White House to Baltimore to observe for himself the violence and destruction. Effect "change" involving America's inner cities? Now here's an opportunity to truly build a "legacy," but instead, the president is preoccupied with reaching a bogus nuclear agreement with Supreme Leader Khamenei, which will free up $50 billion for Iranian sponsored terror.

David Ignatius, "Obama may be looking to shake-up his White House team": Obama's Policy Decisions on ISIS "Have Mostly Been Well Handled"?

In the wake of devastating criticism from Leon Panetta, Obama's former director of the CIA and secretary of defense, David Ignatius is now informing us in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama may be looking to shake-up his White House team" that change may be coming to the cabinet after the midterm elections. Ignatius, a die-hard Obama cheerleader now possibly being rewarded with a "scoop," writes:

"As Obama considers his roster for the final two years, he can take comfort from the fact that recent policy decisions on combating the Islamic State have mostly been well handled."

Yeah, right.

First, as noted by the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler in his "Fact Checker" column, there was Josh Earnest's claim that "President Obama was not singling out the group that now calls itself as Islamic State when, during in an interview with the New Yorker that appeared last January, he appeared to dismiss it as a 'JV squad.'" This earned Earnest the maximum score of Four Pinocchios, i.e. "whoppers," from Kessler. More important, however, is the advice provided to Obama by CIA Director John Brennan prior to this "JV" nonsense. In Brennan's defense, it should be noted that Obama has been absent from some 59 percent of his Presidential Daily Briefs during his second term, as observed by the Government Accountability Institute. Yup, instead of listening to summaries of the world's most pressing problems, Obama has busied himself doing what he likes best: raising funds from wealthy donors and playing golf.

Moreover, let's see how "well handled" Obama's policy decisions on combating ISIS have been if the Syrian city of Kobani falls and 5,000 Kurds are slaughtered.

So who might be facing the ax? Ignatius observes:

"Obama’s foreign-policy team needs help. National security adviser Susan Rice still suffers from unfair attacks over the Benghazi affair. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was similarly tarnished by a rough confirmation hearing. Secretary of State John Kerry has been a tireless advocate for Obama’s policies, but there’s inevitable tension between a strong secretary and a centralizing White House."

Ah yes, Susan Rice still suffers from unfair attacks over the Benghazi affair. We're talking about that same Susan Rice who appeared on the Sunday news shows after the attack on the US compound and claimed that according to "the best assessment we have today," it was a "spontaneous reaction" to the video. Peculiar how Ignatius doesn't mention how Leon Panetta has now gone on record as saying, "I just, from the very beginning, sensed that this was an attack -- this was a terrorist attack on our compound."

Secretary of State John Kerry? His attempt to compel Israel to accept the mediation of Turkey and Qatar involving the recent Gaza conflict was embarrassing. Then, too, there was his more recent nonsensical claim that the United States is not at war with ISIS, which he needed to walk back. Judging from what appears to be his excessive use of Botox and face fillers, Kerry is not only stupid, but also a narcissist. Obama also apparently suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder, and it could well be that the presence of two narcissists in the same room at any given time amounts to one too many for the president.

And what about Secretary of Defense Chuck "Chowderhead" Hagel, who, during a June 2013 speech at the University of Nebraska, asked an Indian man in the audience, "You're not a member of the Taliban, are you?" Why didn't Hagel get the boot? Actually, the answer is quite simple. You've heard of the policy "no boots on the ground"? Well, there has also been an unwritten Obama administration policy "no boots in the arse." Could this policy change after the midterm elections? Ignatius seems to think so.

Stay tuned . . .

Paul Krugman, "A War on the Poor": Time for Obama to Resign

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

– President Bill Clinton, January 26, 1998

“And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future.”

– President Barack Obama, Portland, April 1, 2010, after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law

So who is the bigger liar, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama?

Is it remotely possible that a bumbling Obama did not know that the Affordable Care Act would deny hundreds of thousands of Americans of their insurance policies? Playing devil's advocate, Charles Krauthammer writes in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obamacare laid bare" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamacare-laid-bare/2013/10/31/d229515a-4254-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html?hpid=z2):

"But perhaps Obama didn’t know. Maybe the bystander president was as surprised by this as he claims to have been by the IRS scandal, the Associated Press and James Rosen phone logs, the failure of the Obamacare Web site, the premeditation of the Benghazi attacks, the tapping of Angela Merkel’s phone — i.e., the workings of the federal government of which he is the nominal head."

But let's not play games. Obama is anything but stupid. He knew that many Americans would not be able to keep their existing insurance plans and would be forced to subscribe to higher priced plans in order to subsidize plans for the uninsurable.

And when only six enrollments occurred on the first day after the Obamacare website went live on October 1 (see: http://freebeacon.com/cbs-obamacare-enrollment-off-to-an-incredibly-slow-start/), the president decided to keep this "incredibly slow start" a secret from the American people.

So, when the President of the United States is caught lying to the electorate about his signature legislation and even Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post assigns him four Pinocchios, how do you go about defending him? Quite a conundrum; however, Paul Krugman seems to have hit upon a solution: You label the president's health care opponents "racists," thereby inflaming your readership and pointing them in a different direction.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "A War on the Poor" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/opinion/krugman-a-war-on-the-poor.html?src=twr&_r=0),  Krugman argues that "the Medicaid expansion many states are rejecting would disproportionately have helped poor blacks." Krugman writes:

"Republicans in leadership positions try to modulate their language a bit, but it’s a matter more of tone than substance. They’re still clearly passionate about making sure that the poor and unlucky get as little help as possible, that — as Representative Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, put it — the safety net is becoming 'a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency.' And Mr. Ryan’s budget proposals involve savage cuts in safety-net programs such as food stamps and Medicaid.

. . . .

So what’s this all about? One reason, the sociologist Daniel Little suggested in a recent essay, is market ideology: If the market is always right, then people who end up poor must deserve to be poor. I’d add that some leading Republicans are, in their minds, acting out adolescent libertarian fantasies. 'It’s as if we’re living in an Ayn Rand novel right now,' declared Paul Ryan in 2009.

But there’s also, as Mr. Little says, the stain that won’t go away: race."

I don't like Republicans any more than Democrats (I don't like politicians), and I support universal health care, but how can Krugman today write a column ignoring the chaos and lies surrounding the rollout of Obamacare? Perhaps this is a favor from one Nobelist to another.

In fact, it's time for Obama to resign. He has discredited the presidency.

New York Times Editorial, "Can Mr. Obama Avoid Mission Creep?": Can Mr. Obama Make Up His Mind?

Following the G-20 Summit in Saint Petersburg, President Obama finds himself between a rock and a hard place: He has been unable to garner support for a "limited" strike against the Assad regime from either the American public or the international community. Never before has Obama appeared so disoriented, isolated and unpopular. Unpopular? Can Obama endure this disdain and the resultant damage to his fragile, narcissistic psyche?

In an editorial entitled "Can Mr. Obama Avoid Mission Creep?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/opinion/can-mr-obama-avoid-mission-creep.html?_r=0), The New York Times declares:

"President Obama is scheduled to address the nation Tuesday on his plans for using military force in Syria. He will have a hard time persuading a skeptical Congress and an equally skeptical American public.

. . . .

It is a very strange moment for Mr. Obama, who has worked hard to extricate the country from two debilitating wars. As the president contemplates striking Syria, the public deserves to understand more fully what 'limited' military action actually means."

Sorry, but Obama has not "worked hard to extricate the country from two debilitating wars." In fact, he was personally responsible for escalating America's disastrous ground involvement in Afghanistan.

"The public deserves to understand more fully what 'limited' military action actually means"? Does this also apply to Bashar al-Assad? When you are about to engage in an armed confrontation, even of limited duration, do you always leak the game plan to the opponent?

But beyond any such "leakage," does Obama intend to proceed with his attack without Congressional approval, which he impulsively decided to seek, surprising both friends and enemies? Deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken told National Public Radio that Obama has no such intention (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/06/us-syria-crisis-usa-obama-idUSBRE9850N420130906).

Moreover, is Obama strong enough as a "leader" to proceed with the attack without international and domestic support? Probably not, and perhaps all along, he has been seeking an escape hatch from his impromptu, sans teleprompter,"red line," which he is now seeking to disavow. Glenn Kessler of the The Washington Post would have us believe that if it's not read from a teleprompter, the president is not responsible for anything he says.(see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/the-fact-checker-president-obama-and.html).

And if the US does not fire a single Cruise missile against a single Syrian air base? What will friends (e.g., Israel) and foes (e.g., Iran) read into this irresolution? Obama already has the answer: Congress is to blame.

However, the implications of a failure to act against Assad are far-flung. You will recall that Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg  (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/):

"I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff. I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

So, are Israel and Iran to understand that Obama doesn't mean what he says and that he does bluff?

Will Israel now act on its own, as it wanted to do one year ago, but stood down at the time owing to Obama's veto (see: http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-pressure-nixed-israeli-strike-on-iran-in-2012/)?

Regardless of what he decides regarding a "limited" strike against the Assad regime, Obama's credibility has been irretrievably tarnished.

Or what happens when America elects an anti-Leader, who is then faced with a crisis demanding leadership . . .

New York Times Editorial, "Crisis in Egypt": A Failed Attempt at Democracy, an Obama Foreign Policy Fiasco, and More Flatulence from the Times

Where to even begin?

In a New York Times article entitled "Ambassador Becomes Focus of Egyptians’ Mistrust of U.S." (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/world/middleeast/ambassador-becomes-focus-of-egyptians-mistrust-of-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Mark Landler writes of US ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson:

"Her image has been plastered on banners in Tahrir Square, crossed out with a blood-red X or distorted and smeared with insults. She is too cozy with Egypt's deposed president and the Muslim Brotherhood, the signs say, and should leave the country."

Although she is not to blame, Patterson is in danger, and she should leave the country post-haste. The US Department of State apparently has learned little from Ambassador Stevens's tragic death in Benghazi. But then US Secretary of State John Kerry is preoccupied with meaningless efforts at attempting to restart Palestinian/Israeli negotiations and is blind to the fires that are burning out of control elsewhere in the Middle East.

Okay, Patterson is not to blame. But then who is to blame? Jonathan Tobin provides an accurate assessment in a Commentary item entitled "The End of Obama's Brotherhood Crush" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/07/03/the-end-of-obamas-brotherhood-crush-egypt-morsi/#more-828567):

"It should be specified that events in Egypt could never be controlled from Washington. But the Obama administration bears a heavy share of the blame for a chain of decisions that first undermined an authoritarian ally in Mubarak and then paved the way for the rise of an equally authoritarian and far more hostile government led by Morsi and the Brotherhood. The identification of the United States with the Brotherhood over the last year was an unforced error on the part of Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her successor John Kerry. The willingness of the administration to buy into the myth that regimes like that of the Brotherhood and their increasingly despotic Islamic allies in Turkey are good allies made a mockery of American values as well as hindering its ability to protect U.S. interests."

Obama got too close to Morsi (he has also gotten too close to his dear Islamist friend Erdogan in Turkey), and the US will be paying the price for years to come.

In an editorial entitled "Crisis in Egypt" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/opinion/crisis-in-egypt.html), The New York Times writes:

"Despite his failings, and there were plenty, President Mohamed Morsi was Egypt’s first democratically elected leader, and his overthrow by the military on Wednesday was unquestionably a coup. It would be tragic if Egyptians allowed the 2011 revolution that overthrew the dictator Hosni Mubarak to end with this rejection of democracy."

Indeed, Morsi was the first democratically elected leader, but he did all in his power to impose the Muslim Brotherhood's radical Islamist ideology upon Egypt and brought Egypt to the brink of bankruptcy.

In an excellent USA Today piece entitled "Egypt's ailing economy is at the heart of the unrest" (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/02/egypt-morsi-economy/2482971/), Oren Dorell writes:

"Egypt's economic disaster is a result of Morsi's preoccupation with establishing political control rather then fixing the poor economy, says Marina Ottaway, says Marina Ottaway, a Middle East analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

'Economic issues have not been an issue,' Ottaway says. 'The issue has been who should be in control of the country.'

. . . .

With government debt rising, cash reserves melting away and unemployment and inflation on the rise, the regime's solution has been to seek more loans to cover expenses that include subsidies on food and fuel that help millions of Egyptians.

The government's debt to foreign and domestic debtors has grown from $30 billion before the revolution that ousted Hosni Mubarak in February 2011 to $40 billion now.

Foreign nations have propped up the regime with loans -- at least $3 billion each from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, $1 billion from Turkey, $2 billion from Libya – and the Egyptian public has bought government bonds. But the growing debt has failed to prevent the government from spending its cash reserves, which declined from $34 billion before the revolution to about $16 billion in May.

In a country of 80 million people, the cash crunch puts the government at risk of being unable to import enough food and gas for its populace, and machinery to maintain the electrical grid, [Georgetown Professor Paul] Sullivan says.

Debt payments have grown from $5 billion to $8 billion a year, while inflation is up from 3% before the revolution to 13% to 18% now, depending on the sector. The country, which should be a natural gas exporter, has had fuel shortages made worse by fuel subsidies that artificially drive up demand, while investment in new refining or production capacity has been non-existent."

As further observed by Matt Egan in a FoxBusiness article entitled "Lingering Crisis in Cairo Dims Egypt's Economic Outlook,"concerning the decimation of Egypt's critical tourism industry:

"Meanwhile, the political uncertainty threatens to weigh on Egypt’s crucial tourism sector, which accounts for about 11% of GDP and approximately 2.8 million jobs.

. . . .

According to a March 2013 report by the World Economic Forum, Egypt’s travel and tourism business already ranked behind dangerous countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Chad in terms of security and safety."

"World War Z"? No, I don't believe in zombies; however, Egypt without tourism has indeed become a walking corpse.

Of more interest is whether the military in Turkey will study events in Egypt and also ultimately act to overthrow an increasingly authoritarian regime in Ankara, as was done on more than one occasion in the past (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-turkey-protests-military-analysis-idUSBRE95B0XK20130612).

[Note that in today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-that-aid-to-egypt-was-based-on-adherence-to-democratic-procedures/2013/07/03/5568586e-e430-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_blog.html?hpid=z3), Glen Kessler awards three "Pinocchios" to "Obama’s claim that aid to Egypt was based on adherence to ‘democratic procedures’." Keep up the good work, Mr. President . . .]

Paul Krugman, "Cleaning Up the Economy": "Is the Mess Really Getting Cleaned Up?"

"Barack Obama is an amateur."
- Bill Clinton

"But is the mess really getting cleaned up?" asks Paul Krugman in his
latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Cleaning Up the Economy" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/opinion/krugman-cleaning-up-the-economy.html). Krugman's answers his own question:

"The next four years are likely to be much better than the last four years — unless misguided policies create another mess."

Or stated otherwise, they will get better, unless they get worse, which will happen if you don't listen to everything I say.

Sweet!

Krugman begins his opinion piece by telling us that Bill Clinton’s speech at the Democratic convention "was a remarkable combination of pretty serious wonkishness — has there ever been a convention speech with that much policy detail?" Observe that Krugman doesn't claim that Obama, who is still president, provided such detail in his own speech. Krugman also doesn't mention that Clinton's "policy detail" was demolished by Glenn Kessler's Washington Post "Fact Checker" column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-bill-clintons-speech-and-other-democrats-at-the-convention-in-charlotte/2012/09/06/55b9df68-f7e1-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html), e.g., "The repeated claim that Obama’s budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion is simply not accurate."

So, given that Obama is still president and could be reelected, what reason does Krugman give for believing that the US economy will improve over the next four years? Paul's answer:

"And here’s the good news: The forces that have been holding the economy back seem likely to fade away in the years ahead. Housing starts have been at extremely low levels for years, so the overhang of excess construction from the bubble years is long past — and it looks as if a housing recovery has already begun. Household debt is still high by historical standards, but the ratio of debt to G.D.P. is way down from its peak, setting the stage for stronger consumer demand looking forward."

Hmm, when Krugman speaks of "the ratio of debt to G.D.P.", he is obviously referring to "household debt" and not national debt. National debt today tops $16 trillion and exceeds 100% of America's Gross Domestic Product (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/gail-collins-bill-barack-and-us-how.html), but why should that stand in the way of a recovery?

And then, of course, there is Krugman's reference to Obama's auto bailout, which "made the slump a lot less awful than it might have been." Well, having succeeded in rescuing GM once, Obama, if reelected, should look forward to rescuing GM a second time, given the talk that GM is again headed for bankruptcy (see: http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/).

I would also mention in parting Krugman's acknowledgment of how dismal the US economy has been over the past three and a half years:

"Does this mean that U.S. economic policy has done a good job? Not at all."

Excuse me, Paul, but who is this Mr. or Ms. "U.S. economic policy" that has not done a good job? Does he have a name and a face, or are we simply to agree with your highness that had it not been for Obama, the current economic malaise would have been much worse?

Gail Collins, "Mitt’s Political Vortex": Is Tom Cruise Gay?

The Obama campaign, with nothing positive to say about their own candidate, is again questioning when Romney left Bain Capital. However, WAPO's Glenn Kessler, in a thorough and detailed "Fact Checker" article entitled "Do Bain SEC documents suggest Mitt Romney is a criminal?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html#pagebreak), derails these allegations:

"As we wrote yesterday, we are standing with our assessment that Mitt Romney left the helm of Bain Capital in 1999, when he departed to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. The date is important because some questionable investments by Bain took place between 1999 and 2002, when he ran for governor. But a Boston Globe article on Thursday raised new questions about that timeline, citing SEC filings, and the Obama campaign jumped to take advantage of it.

. . . .

Fortune magazine on Thursday reported that it had obtained the offering documents for Bain Capital funds circulating in 2000 and 2001. None of the documents show that Romney was listed as being among the 'key investment professionals' who would manage the money. As Fortune put it, 'the contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain — which, one should note, is different from no longer having legal or financial ties to the firm.'

. . . .

The Obama campaign is blowing smoke here."

Although "tempted" to award the Obama campaign's contentions four pinochios, Kessler and his team decided to give the Democrats "only" three.

However, this did not prevent Gail Collins in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Mitt’s Political Vortex" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/opinion/collins-mitts-political-vortex.html) from also questioning Romney's departure date from Bain. A daffy Collins concludes:

"The Republicans currently have a symbolic legislative agenda and a presidential candidate who can be in two places at one time, but who nobody likes.

Other than that, it’s all good. Nobody’s brought up the dog on the car roof for days."

Yes, Collins is irrelevant. Worse still, she would disgracefully perpetuate this canard.

However, as long as we are on the topic of irrelevant, Tom Cruise's breakup with Katie Holmes has reawakened baseless speculation concerning Cruise's sexual orientation (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/tom-cruise-gay-manhunt-invitation-_n_1651645.html). Is Tom Cruise gay? Who cares? Which is exactly how I feel about Gail Collins's groundless drivel on the op-ed page of The New York Times.

Paul Krugman's "Setting Their Hair on Fire": Obama Goes "Bigger and Bolder"?

In his New York Times op-ed "Setting Their Hair on Fire" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/opinion/setting-their-hair-on-fire.html?_r=1), Paul Krugman would have us believe that there was something new in Obama's "jobs plan," which has yet to be fleshed out on paper. According to "The Conscience of a Liberal":

"The good news in all this is that by going bigger and bolder than expected, Mr. Obama may finally have set the stage for a political debate about job creation."

Bigger and bolder? Yeah, right. Have a look at Glenn Kessler's "Obama’s jobs speech: deja vu all over again?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-jobs-speech-deja-vu-all-over-again/2011/09/08/gIQA9amvDK_blog.html) in The Washington Post. As aptly illustrated by Mr. Kessler, it is extremely difficult to find the differences between Obama's latest "job plan" and "the $800 billion stimulus plan passed shortly after he took office."

Although Krugman waxed eloquent over Obama's treacle, world financial markets obviously had a different opinion.