Roger Cohen, "Netanyahu’s Iran Thing": Roger "Iran Is Not Totalitarian" Cohen Is Back!

Do you remember how Roger Cohen waged a campaign during the first six months of 2009 to convince us that Iran is "not totalitarian"? Well, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Netanyahu’s Iran Thing," Cohen is back with more asinine claims, intended to support Obama's pending nuclear agreement with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei. Cohen begins:

"[Netanyahu] portrays a rampaging Islamic Republic that 'now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sana,' a nation 'gobbling' other countries on a “march of conquest, subjugation and terror.' Then, in the same speech, he describes Iran as 'a very vulnerable regime' on the brink of folding.

Well, which is it?"

So, you can't be "rampaging" and "vulnerable" at the same time? Nazi Germany certainly "rampaged," but at the same time was "vulnerable" owing to the dependence of its war machine upon Romanian oil and Swedish iron ore.

Is a rampaging Iran also vulnerable? For example, is Iranian support of Hamas and Hezbollah affected by its finances, i.e. the low price of oil? Absolutely. As reported by Newsweek in a January 15, 2015 article entitled "Is Hezbollah Going Broke?" by Jeff Neumann:

"But the good times may now be over for Hezbollah and its supporters. Iranian oil profits, which have lubricated the proxy group with hundreds of millions of dollars a year, appear to be drying up. Western sanctions, imposed on Tehran due to its nuclear program, coupled with falling oil prices, have emptied the coffers of the Islamic Republic. Crude now trades at less than $50 per barrel, down from more than $100 in June, due to lower global demand, oversupply in the Middle East and the rise of the American fracking industry. Meanwhile, Iran has reportedly seen its oil exports fall by 60 percent since 2011, and the country’s budget deficit has climbed to an astounding $9 billion."

Cohen continues, "Netanyahu knows the first thing that will happen if talks collapse is that Russia and China will undermine the solidarity behind effective Iran sanctions." Sorry, Roger, but after Obama softened the sanctions regime against Iran in 2014, Russia and Iran have already held joint naval exercises. However, hope is not lost. Russia is also being impacted by the dramatic decline in the price of oil and is susceptible to American pressure.

Cohen goes on to say:

"Netanyahu lambastes the notion of a nuclear deal lasting 10 years (President Obama has suggested this is a minimum). He portrays that decade as a period in which, inevitably, Iran’s 'voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year.' He thereby dismisses the more plausible notion that greater economic contact with the world and the gradual emergence of a young generation of Iranians drawn to the West — as well as the inevitable dimming of the ardor of Iran’s revolution — will attenuate such aggression."

Got it: The US and Israel should pin all its hopes upon the emergence of a more moderate generation of Iranians. Needless to say, in another decade the Iranian Revolutionary Guard will simply fade into the sunset. Yeah, right.

Next, Cohen tells us:

"What better assures Israel’s security, a decade of strict limitation and inspection of Iran’s nuclear program that prevents it making a bomb, or a war that delays the program a couple of years, locks in the most radical factions in Tehran, and intensifies Middle Eastern violence? It’s a no-brainer."

A "no-brainer"? Oh really? As Max Boot writes in a Commentary item entitled "Why Obama Thinks He Can’t Get a Better Iran Deal":

"The U.S. intelligence community has a terrible track record of detecting nuclear work in other countries. We were caught off guard by the first Soviet nuclear test in 1949, the first Indian test in 1974, the first Pakistani test in 1998, the first North Korean test in 2006. Likewise, we were surprised by the extent of the Iraqi nuclear program in 1992.

Is there cause to hope that we would be better informed about the Iranian program? Only if we get truly intrusive inspection that allows international monitors to roam the country at will with no need to announce visits in advance. I am skeptical whether the mullahs will agree to that. The 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea shows how easily a state can cheat on a nuclear accord: The North agreed to shut down a plutonium reactor at Yongbyon but proceeded with the secret enrichment of uranium."

"[A] decade of strict limitation and inspection of Iran’s nuclear program"? Keep dreaming, Roger!

And then there is Cohen's reference to Nancy Pelosi:

"No wonder Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party’s House Leader, saw Netanyahu’s speech to Congress as an 'insult to the intelligence of the United States.'"

This is the same Nancy Pelosi who, in 2007, listened in rapture to mass murderer Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, and declared after meeting him:

"We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel."

Finally, there is Cohen's declaration that "Iranian help today furthers America’s strategic priority of defeating those knife-wielding slayers [i.e. ISIS]." Those "knife-wielding slayers"? Cohen fails to observe that Iran stones to death women accused of adultery and hangs homosexuals. Also, forgotten by Cohen is the fact that some 20 percent of American casualties in Iraq were caused by Iran's Quds forces. Nevertheless, the US should now be grateful for the help of the mullahs in combating ISIS.

Cohen turns my stomach. Enough said.

New York Times Editorial, "Mr. Netanyahu’s Unconvincing Speech to Congress": "Nothing New" About the Response of the Times

In an editorial entitled "Mr. Netanyahu’s Unconvincing Speech to Congress," The New York Times tells us that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech offered nothing new:

"Mr. Netanyahu’s speech offered nothing of substance that was new, making it clear that this performance was all about proving his toughness on security issues ahead of the parliamentary election he faces on March 17. He offered no new insight on Iran and no new reasons to reject the agreement being negotiated with Iran by the United States and five other major powers to constrain Iran’s nuclear program.

His demand that Mr. Obama push for a better deal is hollow. He clearly doesn’t want negotiations and failed to suggest any reasonable alternative approach that could halt Iran’s nuclear efforts.

Moreover, he appeared to impose new conditions, insisting that international sanctions not be lifted as long as Iran continues its aggressive behavior, including hostility toward Israel and support for Hezbollah, which has called for Israel’s destruction."

The conclusion of the Times was almost identical to that of President Obama, who declared after Netanyahu's speech:

"I did not have a chance to watch Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech. I was on a video conference with our European partners with respect to Ukraine. I did have a chance to take a look at the transcript. And as far as can I tell, there was nothing new."

Great minds think alike? I don't think so. Why doesn't the Times simply open an office in the West Wing for the sake of efficiency and transparency?

At least the editorial board of the Times was not "near tears" after listening to Netanyahu, as was Nancy Pelosi. Interesting: Pelosi can listen in rapture to mass murderer Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, and declare after meeting him:

"We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel."

Yet Netanyahu makes Pelosi, who concluded that Assad wanted peace with Israel in 2007, want to cry. Go figure . . .

[You might wish to compare the editorial of the Times with that of The Washington Post, which reaches a radically different conclusion.]

Charles Krauthammer, "The Gruber Confession": The Arrogance of Academic Liberalism

Go to the homepage of The New York Times and do a search for "Jonathan Gruber": You won't find his name. Now, go to the opinion pages of the Times and do the same search: Once again, his name does not appear [David Brooks is writing about George Eliot ("The Agency Moment"), and Paul Krugman is telling us about a carbon emissions agreement between the US and China ("China, Coal, Climate")].

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, however, believes that Gruber deserves mention. In an opinion piece entitled "The Gruber Confession," Krauthammer derides "the arrogance of an academic liberalism, so perfectly embodied in the Gruber Confession, that rules in the name of a citizenry it mocks, disdains and deliberately, contemptuously deceives." Krauthammer writes of the decision of the US Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of King v. Burwell:

"Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case claiming that the administration is violating its own health-care law, which clearly specifies that subsidies can be given only to insurance purchased on 'exchanges established by the state.' Just 13 states have set up such exchanges. Yet the administration is giving tax credits to plans bought on the federal exchange — serving 37 states — despite what the law says.

If the plaintiffs prevail, the subsidy system collapses and, with it, Obamacare itself. Which is why the administration is frantically arguing that 'exchanges established by the state' is merely sloppy drafting, a kind of legislative typo. And that the intent all along was to subsidize all plans on all exchanges.

Re-enter Professor Gruber. On a separate video in a different speech, he explains what Obamacare intended: 'If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.' The legislative idea was to coerce states into setting up their own exchanges by otherwise denying their citizens subsidies."

A "legislative typo"? Krauthammer is obviously referring to Paul Krugman's inane opinion piece on Monday, "Death by Typo," which took the position that the Affordable Care Act intended to provide tax credits to plans bought on federal exchanges. Needless to say, the Krugman op-ed managed to avoid any mention of Gruber. Another example of "the arrogance of an academic liberalism"?

Compare, however, Krugman's attempt to ignore Gruber with Nancy Pelosi's effort to disavow any knowledge of the man or his involvement in enacting Obamacare.

It may take a few months, but Obamacare is destined to be walloped in 2015 by the Supreme Court and is headed for oblivion.

Paul Krugman, "Paranoia of the Plutocrats": Announcing the Establishment of a Charity for Impoverished New York Times Columnists

"But every group finds itself facing criticism, and ends up on the losing side of policy disputes, somewhere along the way; that’s democracy. The question is what happens next. Normal people take it in stride; even if they’re angry and bitter over political setbacks, they don’t cry persecution, compare their critics to Nazis and insist that the world revolves around their hurt feelings. But the rich are different from you and me."

- Paul Krugman, "Paranoia of the Plutocrats" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/opinion/krugman-paranoia-of-the-plutocrats.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), The New York Times, January 26, 2014

"But the rich are different from you and me," declares Paul Krugman in his latest New York Times op-ed. But that's not all he has to say. Paul goes on to tell us:

"We’re not talking captains of industry here, men who make stuff. We are, instead, talking about wheeler-dealers, men who push money around and get rich by skimming some off the top as it sloshes by. They may boast that they are job creators, the people who make the economy work, but are they really adding value? Many of us doubt it — and so, I suspect, do some of the wealthy themselves, a form of self-doubt that causes them to lash out even more furiously at their critics."

Those dastardly rich people, who skim off the top, don't add value and don't create jobs! Surely they  are all inveterate rogues!

But that being the case, how best to help others like . . . you and me? Or better still, how best to help others who help others? Eureka . . .

Given the poverty, endless suffering and immeasurable contribution to society of New York Times columnists, I would proudly like to establish a charity for these esteemed personages, who struggle financially, just like . . . you and me.

How much would you care to contribute?

I beg of you, open wide your wallets and pony up from your pocketbooks. Moreover, to avoid any doubt as to where your money will be going, allow me to announce the 2014 winner of this new charity's largesse: none other than Thomas Friedman! Some of you might already have seen Friedman's decrepit mansion in Maryland. Don't you think it's high time to add a new wing to the estate?

The 2015 winner? Why that would be Nicholas Kristof, that smiling, world trotting, do-gooder, of course. What's that you say? Kristof is married to Sheryl Wudunn, Senior Managing Director at Mid-Market Securities, who previously "worked at Goldman, Sachs & Co., where she was a vice president, in the role of investment advisor for private clients, in the firm's investment management division" (go to http://www.mid-marketsecurities.com/team.php and click on her name)? Sorry, but in case you didn't know, there are plenty of struggling investment bankers out there.

And in 2016? It will be our turn to offer a helping hand to Paul Krugman. After all, Paul might have given away (or lost on bad investments - I'm joking, of course) all of his Nobel Prize money and payments received from his many books. What does he receive for his bi-weekly Times column? Peanuts, I'm sure. Yup, given that he's just like the rest of us, he, too, can certainly use our assistance.

Plans for the future? How about a charity for impoverished job-creating politicians, responsible for making the economy work, such as Nancy Pelosi (net worth of over $20 million), John Kerry (net worth of some $200 million), and Barack and Michelle Obama whose presidential memoirs are expected to fetch in the neighborhood of $30 million (see: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=all)?

Where to send your donations for these new charities? I'll provide the mailing address in my next blog entry . . . not.

Maureen Dowd, "America’s Billionaire": Buy What You Know, or, Buy What You Don't Know (After Learning It)?

Unlike Warren Buffett, I don't give stock market advice. Moreover, I long ago reached the conclusion that I will not invest in companies where I do not interact with management. In addition, it's my belief that if a product being created by a company is too easily understood by me, it's ultimately going to be copied in China.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "America’s Billionaire" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/opinion/sunday/dowd-americas-billionaire.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd describes a discussion between Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan and Warren Buffett, which took place before an audience of 700 Georgetown students and faculty. Dowd writes:

"Speaking to an excited crowd of students and others Thursday night beneath soaring stained-glass windows, the 83-year-old Warren Buffett offered inspiring lessons in patriotism and compassion — traits sorely missing here as Republicans ran headlong toward a global economic cataclysm and gutted the food stamp program.

'I am sorry I’m late,' Nancy Pelosi murmured sardonically, as she arrived at the Buffett event. 'We were busy taking food out of the mouths of babies.'"

Don't get me wrong: I oppose Republican efforts to shut down the US government unless Obamacare is defunded. I also oppose "gutting" the food stamp program. But Pelosi demeaning someone else's morality? It was Pelosi who met with Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad in 2007 and infamously declared, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." Some six years later, this past August 21st, Assad killed nearly 1,500 people with sarin gas, of whom more than 400 were children.

But back to Buffett. Dowd tells us:

"He doesn’t worry about keeping up with modern technology. He buys what he knows, like Coca-Cola, which he drank all evening."

Well, I'm not about to drink Coca-Cola all evening. Thank you, Coca-Cola won't dissolve your teeth overnight, but I'm not obese - nor do I intend to become so. Diet Cola? I prefer to feed my caffeine addiction with coffee.

But more to the point, is it all about making money? Or does the possibility also exist to make money by investing in endeavors, which, unlike Coca-Cola, can contribute to humanity?

But how to invest in biotech or medical devices without losing your shirt? Not easy. But for me it begins with my desire to be overwhelmed by the science. When I meet with a company's scientists, I want to feel that I am the dumbest person in the room.

Late in the second half of the game, I am blessed to be able to work with two remarkable companies seeking to change the world in which we live.

Compugen, which is revolutionizing the manner in which new drugs and diagnostics are discovered, has spent the past decade building an infrastructure of proprietary scientific understandings, predictive platforms, algorithms, and machine learning systems for the in silico (by computer) prediction and selection of product candidates. Although Compugen is the vision of Martin Gerstel, who in the past guided Alza, a drug delivery company, to success, the ongoing realization of Mr. Gerstel's dream is in the hands of some 50 geniuses who have collectively integrated their diverse fields of knowledge - no small endeavor. I meet and talk regularly with Mr. Gerstel and Compugen's management and scientific team. Although I am overwhelmed by their intellects, I have never encountered arrogance or condescension. Quite the contrary: I have always experienced smiles and angelic patience as their scientists have explained to me their latest achievements.

A month ago, Compugen announced that it had signed a licensing deal with Bayer HealthCare involving two immune checkpoint regulators discovered by Compugen. Immune checkpoint regulators? Cancer immunotherapy? As explained by Compugen in their press release describing the deal (http://cgen.com/press-releases/212-compugen-announces-collaboration-and-license-agreement-with-bayer-for-antibody-based-cancer-immunotherapies):

"The immunotherapy approach aims at combatting cancer by stimulating the body´s own immune cells. The tumor and its environment suppress the ability of cancer patients to develop an effective anti-tumor immune response and in this way protect both tumor growth and survival.

. . . .

Latest cancer immunotherapies have demonstrated impressive clinical benefit, even for end-stage patients with difficult-to-treat tumors such as metastatic melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer. Unlike conventional cancer therapies, which act by directly targeting the cancer cells, resulting often in only transient clinical responses as cancer cells become resistant, clinical responses to cancer immunotherapy tend to be durable, sometimes resulting in dramatic long term survival and absence of resistance or recurrences."

Exciting science? You bet! And last week, Compugen announced experimental results for yet another immune checkpoint protein that it discovered, CGEN-15049 (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/compugen-target-for-cancer.html):

“CGEN-15049 has demonstrated the ability to regulate an impressive array of different types of immune cells, therefore offering unique potential as a target for monoclonal antibody immunotherapy for many types of cancers and further contributing to the diversity of Compugen's Pipeline Program candidates. More specifically, in vitro studies have shown that CGEN-15049 both inhibits Natural Killer cells, which are important for innate immune responses, and modulates the activity of types of T cells that constitute a crucial component of the adaptive anti-tumor immune response. In this respect, CGEN-15049 inhibits cytotoxic T lymphocytes, which normally act to recognize and kill tumor cells, and promotes inducible regulatory T cells, which play a central role in creating the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that reduce the ability of the immune system to fight the tumor.

In addition to its functional effect on multiple types of immune cells, CGEN-15049 is also expressed on a wide variety of cancers with high clinical unmet need, such as lung, ovarian, breast, colorectal, gastric, prostate and liver cancers. Notably, its expression can be detected both within the tumor epithelium of the cancers as well as on immune cells infiltrating these cancers. This expression pattern within the tumor microenvironment, combined with its immunomodulatory activity on immune cells involved in tumor progression, suggest a role for CGEN-15049 in suppressing anti-tumor immune response. Therefore, inhibition of CGEN-15049 activity by monoclonal antibody therapy, in certain cancer types, is predicted to result in allowing the activation of an anti-tumor immune response and potentially eliminating the tumor itself.”

Hard to understand? Yes, but worth making the effort. Where might you even begin to learn about immune checkpoint therapy for cancer? "Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) for Dummies," of course (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2009/10/monoclonal-antibodies-mabs-for-dummies.html).

Nano Retina, which is the brainchild of renowned medical device inventor Yossi Gross and nanotechnology icon Jim Von Ehr, is seeking to create a miniaturized retinal implant to restore vision to persons blinded by age-related macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa following a 30-minute minimally invasive operation. A video is worth a thousand words? Have a look for yourselves:



Again, I have only known kindness and caring from the founders and small team of scientists responsible for this breakthrough project.

Innovation is premised upon vision, ambition, teamwork and no small amount of sweat and lack of sleep. Temerity, rapacity and insensitivity are unnecessary ingredients.

So, do you buy what you know, or, do you buy what you don't know (after learning it)?

[As noted in prior blog entries, I am a Compugen shareholder, this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Compugen shares, and in September 2009 I began work as a part-time external consultant to Compugen. The opinions expressed herein are mine and are based on publicly available information. This blog entry has not been authorized, approved or reviewed prior to posting by Compugen.]

Gail Collins, "The Women Versus the Ted": The Men Versus the Nancy?

In her latest New York Times hyperpartisan fluff op-ed entitled "The Women Versus the Ted" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/opinion/collins-the-women-versus-the-ted.html?_r=0), Gail Collins begins by observing that the female population of the Senate "rose from 17 to 20 this year." Good news, but this is not enough. One day before I depart this earth, I hope that number will be closer to 50.

Collins concludes by attacking Senator Ted Cruz of Texas:

"So, people, who do you think has been more helpful in edging the Senate toward a pinch of progress? The women or Ted Cruz? One strives for collegiality by holding regular bipartisan dinners. One called his colleagues 'squishes' for opposing a gun control filibuster.

I’m sticking with the girls. “Women seem to know how to work in a way that at least moves the process,” said Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, the new chair of Appropriations. If you can agree on how to proceed, then maybe someday you get some progress.

On the other hand, Ted Cruz has memorized the Constitution."

Well, I don't see eye to eye with Senator Cruz on gun control, but I also believe that there is nothing wrong with memorizing the Constitution, particularly when the First Amendment is under attack by the Obama administration.

I also believe that a Senate populated with 50 clones of Nancy Pelosi (even if her net worth was divided 50 ways, they would all still be wealthy), who has yet to say a disparaging word about any of the scandals besetting the Obama administration, would not work in America's favor.

As observed today by a Washington Post editorial entitled "The press must have the ability to ask questions" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-press-must-have-the-ability-to-ask-questions/2013/05/24/8e9ce4ba-c356-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_story.html?hpid=z3):

"The Obama administration already has pursued more criminal leak investigations than all of its predecessors. There is a worrisome trend here, also recently evident in the government’s pursuit of Associated Press telephone records in a different leak investigation. Yes, the government must have secrets in order to function. But overclassification is so rampant that to criminalize the disclosure of all secret information would come close to paralyzing the flow of information.

Perhaps prosecutors failed to read the Justice Department’s policy on this, which declares: “Because freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news, the prosecutorial power of the government should not be used in such a way that it impairs a reporter’s responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial public issues.” That statement goes back four decades. The Obama administration should recommit to its spirit."

Meanwhile, as reported by Ryan Lizza in a New Yorker article entitled "How Prosecutors Fought to Keep Rosen’s Warrant Secret" (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/how-justice-fought-to-keep-rosens-warrant-secret.html):

"The Obama Administration fought to keep a search warrant for James Rosen’s private e-mail account secret, arguing to a federal judge that the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of time.


. . . .

Yesterday, hours after President Obama said, in a speech at National Defense University, that he had asked Attorney General Eric Holder to review the Justice Department’s policies concerning investigations of the media, NBC News reported that the warrant to search Rosen’s e-mail account was personally approved by Holder."

Concern from Collins or Pelosi over this outrage against the First Amendment, perpetrated by Obama's Justice Department? Heck, no.

Which tells me that Ted Cruz also has a role to fill in the Senate.

As I said, I can't wait for the day that fifty percent of American senators are women; however, I also believe in the sanctity of the First Amendment, which is under siege by the administration of constitutional lawyer Barack ("I found out when you did") Obama.

NBC News, "Syria loads chemical weapons into bombs": Obama Likes to Watch

Back to the movies (How I love 'em!). No doubt you remember the memorable line of Chance the Gardener (Peter Sellers) from "Being There": "I like to watch." Well, the same can be said of President Obama.

NBC News has now informed us (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/05/15706380-syria-loads-chemical-weapons-into-bombs-military-awaits-assads-order?lite):

"The Syrian military is prepared to use chemical weapons against its own people and is awaiting final orders from President Bashar Assad, U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday.

The military has loaded the precursor chemicals for sarin, a deadly nerve gas, into aerial bombs that could be dropped onto the Syrian people from dozens of fighter-bombers, the officials said.

. . . .

U.S. officials stressed that as of now, the sarin bombs hadn't been loaded onto planes and that Assad hadn't issued a final order to use them. But if he does, one of the officials said, 'there's little the outside world can do to stop it.'"

Nothing the world can do? NATO couldn't possibly consider destroying Assad's planes on the ground?

And here I thought President Obama had warned Bashar al-Assad:

"The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable and if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable."

Assad, long courted by Obama, was never very stable, and quite honestly there is no way of knowing whether or not he will bomb the rebels with chemical weapons if his grip on Damascus grows even weaker.

Unlike Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Barbara Walters, I have never had the "honor" of meeting this mass murderer, but I would be willing to bet that he will not allow his body and that of his wife to be dragged through the streets of the Syrian capital.

Does Obama's threat, "there will be consequences," remind you of anything? It should. Recall how Obama also told the Iranians regarding his demand that they halt their nuclear weapons development program, "I don't bluff." We all know how seriously the mullahs have regarded Obama's admonition.

"There will be consequences"? "I don't bluff"? In fact, much akin to Chance the Gardener, Obama "likes to watch."

New York Times Editorial, "Assad’s Lies": No Mention of Obama's Complicity

In another doltish editorial entitled "Assad’s Lies" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/opinion/bashar-al-assads-lies.html?_r=1&hp), The New York Times states:

"Mr. Assad’s cruelty and blindness were predictable. What is unfathomable is why Russia and China continue to protect him. They have blocked the Security Council from imposing any sanctions.

. . . .

Eight months ago, President Obama said 'the time has come for President Assad to step aside.'"

Well, one year ago, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence of the Syrian president's monstrous suppression of the revolt against his regime, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came to Bashar al-Assad's defense (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/syrias-reformer/2011/03/31/AFy4JFCC_story.html):

"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."

As I have stated in the past, the US Secretary of State was defending a ruthless killer of unarmed civilians, who had also ordered the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, a friend of the West, in 2005. Why did Hillary go to bat for Assad? Because her boss, Obama, had invested more than two years trying to demonstrate that Syria and Iran had been "misunderstood" by the Bush administration and could be charmed into behaving civilly. In fact, this was the centerpiece of his foreign policy.

Who were those members of Congress who foolishly believed that Assad was a "reformer"? There was Nancy Pelosi, who declared, after meeting this butcher in Damascus in 2007, that Assad was a "model Arab leader" (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/assad_fooled_us_twice_shame_on.html).

Then there was also John Kerry. As reported by The Wall Street Journal in March 2011 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703576204576227131356932482.html):

"A key supporter of Mr. Assad in Washington has been Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The former presidential candidate has held nearly a half-dozen meetings with Mr. Assad in recent years, according to this staff. The two men have sought to map out the terms of a renewed Syrian-Israel peace track.

Even this month, as protests starting gripping Syria, Mr. Kerry said he thought Syria's president was an agent for change.

'President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had,' Mr. Kerry said during a March speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'I think it's incumbent on us to try to move that relationship forward in the same way.'"

And while we're at it, let's not forget former president Jimmy Carter, who repeatedly met with Assad and boasted that he had known the Syrian leader since he was a college student.

But what about Obama himself? At the end of 2010, Obama appointed an ambassador, Robert Ford, to Damascus, without Senate confirmation, for the first time since the murder by Assad of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri. Needless to say, Obama barely said a word in early 2011 when Assad began mowing down protesters, but grew uneasy when the number of dead began spiraling into the thousands.

Both the US and the EU were delinquent in imposing sanctions upon the purchase of oil from Syria, and even the Times acknowledged that it had taken Obama too long to call for Assad to step down (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/opinion/truth-about-syria.html?_r=1&ref=opinion).

As the Times now informs us, Assad’s cruelty and blindness were indeed "predictable," and those who read this blog know:

• In December 2010, I denounced Obama's appointment of Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/12/like-thief-in-night-obama-appoints.html).

• In April 2011, I asked that the US ambassador to Damascus be recalled (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/recall-us-ambassador-to-syria-now-shame.html).

• In June 2011, I predicted that there would be a savage civil war in Syria (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/07/syria-beginning-of-savage-civil-war.html).

Today's Times editorial concludes:

"The best approach would be a United Nations arms embargo and the toughest possible economic sanctions — if China and Russia will not block the Council."

Well, China and Russia are going to block the Council, and meanwhile we now know, following his recent open microphone gaffe, that Obama is promising concessions to Putin after he is reelected. This is hardly the way to pressure Moscow.

Sickening.

Barbara Walters Interviews Syrian President Bashar al-Assad: A "Disconnect"

Earlier this month, Barbara Walters of ABC News returned from an interview with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which began with a warm handshake, to a heroine's welcome on a special edition of "Nightline" (http://abcnews.go.com/International/defiant-syrian-president-bashar-al-assad-denies-ordering/story?id=15098612). Observing that "Barbara is the first American television journalist allowed access to the country since a nine-month old revolution began," Bill Weir asked 82-year-old Walters how Assad compares with Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi and Mubarak. Walters's response:

"He is not a grim, strong man the way Mubarak was. He is not a wild crazy person -- at least that's the way Qaddafi seemed to us. He is calm, he is soft spoken, he is articulate, he speaks very good English, there were no ground rules, he answered every question, but there is this disconnect, Bill, between what we hear about this country -- the reports that we have seen -- and what he says, and it's hard to put the two things together."

This is not Walters's first encounter with Assad. In 2008, Walters vacationed in Syria and had a "very long lunch" with Assad and his wife, some three years after Assad ordered the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut. Following her meal, Walters reported back on her impressions of the Assads at that time (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2008/07/07/barbara-walters-syrian-dicator-charming-intelligent):

"From my experience, he was a very intelligent, a well informed, thoughtful, we spoke perfect English, wants very much to have relations with this country, has some solutions for ending the war in Iraq. She was educated in England, worked in this country, speaks English the way I’m talking to you, lovely, intelligent. I don’t want people to say 'oh you’re brainwashed.' But that was not it. They just were very charming, intelligent. She has a cooperative, a group teaching children to be entrepreneurs with Harvard University, was raised in England, worked in this country. So this is not what we expected in terms of the leaders."

Do Walters's thoughts sound familiar to you? They should. They echo the sentiments of former US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who, after meeting with Assad in Damascus in 2007, labeled Assad a "model Arab leader" (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/assad_fooled_us_twice_shame_on.html).

Now consider Nicholas Kristof's most recent New York Times op-ed, entitled "Joining a Dinner in a Muslim Brotherhood Home" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/opinion/kristof-joining-a-dinner-in-a-muslim-brotherhood-home.html?hp#comments), in which Kristof describes his chatter over dinner with an educated, 24-year-old hostess, who seeks to allay Western anxiety over the Muslim Brotherhood's goals in Egypt, leading Kristof to conclude:

"So a bit of nervousness is fine, but let’s not overdo the hand-wringing — or lose perspective. What’s historic in Egypt today is not so much the rise of any one party as the apparent slow emergence of democracy in the heart of the Arab world."

On the basis of his dinner banter, Kristof would have his readership ignore the Brotherhood's long history of hostility to Western values, women's rights and religious freedom (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/12/nicholas-kristof-joining-dinner-in.html).

Meanwhile, in an article published in Asharq al-Awsat yesterday, Mahmoud Hussein, the Brotherhood's secretary-general, suggested that the Brotherhood would annul Egypt's peace treaty with Israel (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/muslim-brotherhood-egypt-israel-peace-treaty-needs-to-be-reviewed-1.400541).

Barbara Walters on "Nightline" is now claiming that there is a "disconnect" between the current ruthlessness in Syria and the manner in which Assad perceives this barbarism. In fact, there is no such disconnect. Assad is a cold-blooded murderer and an accomplished liar. The only "disconnect" is to be found in gullible liberal media personalities, such as Walters and Kristof, and left-leaning politicians, such as Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Jimmy Carter, who, after being wined and dined by well-mannered persons with Western academic degrees and near perfect English in the Muslim Middle East, cannot comprehend how these people are capable of such boundless savagery.

New York Times Editorial, "The Killing in Syria Goes On": No Mention of Obama's Culpability

In "The Killing in Syria Goes On" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/the-killing-in-syria-goes-on.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), the editorial board of The New York Times demands that the Arab League "impose muscular penalties for Mr. Assad’s brutality." It is despicable how far behind the curve the Times has fallen, and I am sickened by the extreme lengths being taken by the Times to shield Obama and friends, i.e. Hillary, Samantha Power, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, Jimmy Carter and others, from even partial responsibility for this human tragedy.

Obama rode into the Oval Office determined to demonstrate that the countries comprising the Bush administration's "axis of evil" were merely misunderstood and could be won over with tolerance and a kindly outreach program. More specifically, he believed that Israel was the fount of all tensions in the Middle East, and if a peace agreement could be imposed upon a purportedly intransigent Israel, tranquility would prevail throughout the region.

In keeping with this sea change in foreign policy, Obama promptly sent new year's ("Nowruz") greetings to Iran's theocratic leadership in March 2009, referring to the "true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization" and making clear that the US did not seek regime change. Moreover, Obama sat on the sidelines as Iran's population rose in revolt and was slaughtered in the streets following the country's fraudulent June 2009 presidential election.

Regarding Syria, after repeated visits by Senator John Kerry with Assad, Obama appointed a new ambassador, Robert Ford, to Damascus, without Senate confirmation, for the first time since 2005, when Lebanese Prime Minister Rafi Hariri, a friend of the West, was murdered by Hezbollah at the behest of Assad. Obama barely said a word when earlier this year Assad mowed down protesters, but grew uneasy when the number of dead spiraled over 2,000 (now closer to 3,500) and the number of missing also moved into the thousands.

There were embarrassingly belated denunciations from Obama, again "leading from behind," regarding Assad's atrocities, and both the US and the EU were delinquent in imposing sanctions upon the purchase of oil from Syria. Even the Times acknowledged that it had taken Obama too long to call for Assad to step down (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/opinion/truth-about-syria.html?_r=1&ref=opinion).

Those who read this blog know:

• In December 2010, I denounced Obama's appointment of Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/12/like-thief-in-night-obama-appoints.html).

• In April 2011, I asked that the US ambassador to Damascus be recalled (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/recall-us-ambassador-to-syria-now-shame.html). Regrettably, Obama waited until October before removing him (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45013668/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-pulls-out-ambassador-syria-over-safety-fears/).

• In June 2011, I predicted that there would be a savage civil war in Syria (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/07/syria-beginning-of-savage-civil-war.html).

• In July 2011, I predicted that elements of the Syrian army will defect and that Assad will abandon Syria with his family. I also questioned whether Syria's Sunnis will be intent upon inflicting revenge upon the ruling Alawite minority (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/08/syria-butchery-ignored-by-arab.html).

I hope that those who read my blog in Arlington agree that I have not been far off the mark. Although it is not clear where Assad and his family will ultimately seek asylum, it is not his intention to die in the same manner as Libya's Qaddafi.

What will be the consequences of Assad's departure? This will certainly complicate efforts by Iran to supply Hezbollah, its proxy in Lebanon, with weaponry. Also, with Syria, soon to be ruled by its Sunni majority, no longer supporting Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon, there will again be a reshuffling of power among Lebanon's Shiites, Sunnis, Christians and Druze.

Watch for the next move of Walid Jumblatt, leader of Lebanon's Druze, who has always sought to ally himself with those who on the ascendancy and who for many years has served as a reliable weather vane.

Hamas, which rules Gaza, but has headquarters in Damascus, will need to find a new home. Its close association with Assad, an Alawite responsible for the murder of thousands of Syrian Sunnis (Palestinians are also Sunnis), is proving an embarrassment.

Assad's departure will be a mixed blessing for Israel. While supportive of Hezbollah's provocations across the Lebanese border with Israel, Assad has always sought to avoid a direct conflict with Israel. It will take years before calm is restored in Syria, and during the interim period when the Sunnis consolidate power, their ability to initiate hostilities against Israel will be limited. Ultimately, however, all good things come to an end.

Frank Bruni, "Gall in High Places": Kowtowing to Nancy Pelosi

In his New York Times op-entitled "Gall in High Places" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/bruni-gall-in-high-places.html?_r=2), Frank Bruni says of Herman Cain at Wednesday's Republican debate:

"Cain had no problem finding syllables. True, most of them were nine, nine and nine, but he also spat out 'Princess Nancy' without hesitation, hurling an insult at Nancy Pelosi that was childish and in poor taste.

How is it that he could be batting back charges of sexual harassment and yet gratuitously go after the highest-ranking woman in Congress — and choose sexist language to boot? As if following Berlusconi’s lead, Cain travels to the frontier where defiance meets delirium."

Well, I'm no fan of Cain and think that given the serious allegations of sexual harassment against him, he has no business running for office, high or low.

However, I'm also no fan of Nancy Pelosi, who, apparently unbeknownst to Bruni, is infamous for legitimizing Assad's homicidal regime in Syria. Assad, who has murdered thousands in Syria in recent months and caused thousands more to "disappear" until their bruised and broken corpses have resurfaced, was labeled a "model Arab leader" by Pelosi (see: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/assad_fooled_us_twice_shame_on.html). Pelosi's "model Arab leader" also ordered the car-bomb assasination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the West, in 2005.

I suppose "Princess Nancy" is indeed sexist. Let's make that a gender neutral "Pinhead Pelosi" instead.

Nicholas Kristof's "Taxes and Billionaires": Beyond Kristof's Ken

In the past, Nicholas Kristof has written some incredibly inane material, demonstrating a level of ignorance that does not behoove a national newspaper. One of the stupidest columns he has ever written was "New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/opinion/06kristof.html), in which he declared:

"The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and declare: chemicals threaten our bodies.

. . . .

Avoid meats that are cooked well-done."

Apparently, Kristof was unaware that our bodies consist of chemicals and that well-done, as opposed to potentially carcinogenic charred or burned, meat prevents the ingestion of dangerous bacteria. In short, there are certain areas where Kristof should never venture.

Well, if you thought "New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer" was dumb, have a look at Kristof's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Taxes and Billionaires" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/opinion/07kristof.html?_r=1&hp). In his new essay, Kristof goes to bat for President Obama and blames U.S. economic woes on the Republicans, who allegedly are looking out for the best interests of the richest 1 percent of Americans, who include - not mentioned by Nicholas - multi-millionairess and House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, California, worth at least $35 million in calendar 2010. Kristof focuses his readers' attention on the carried interest tax loophole:

"Tycoons have bet for years that the public is too stupid or distracted to note that in many cases they’re paying just a 15 percent tax rate.

What’s at stake is the 'carried interest' loophole, and President Obama is pushing to close it. The White House estimates that this would raise $20 billion over a decade. But Congressional Republicans walked out of budget talks rather than discuss raising revenues from measures such as this one.

. . . .

This carried interest loophole benefits managers of financial partnerships such as hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital funds and real estate funds — who are among the highest-paid people in the world. John Paulson, a hedge fund manager in New York City, made $4.9 billion last year, top of the chart for hedge fund managers, according to AR Magazine, which follows hedge funds. That’s equivalent to the average per capita income of 184,000 Americans, according to my back-of-envelope calculations based on Census Bureau figures."

Don't get me wrong: I favor closing this loophole, but this is not what is going to save the U.S. economy or balance the budget.

Kristof tells us that by closing the carried interest loophole, $20 billion over a decade will be saved. By the same token, perhaps we can say that closing this loophole will save $200 billion over the next century. On the other hand, it could also be stated that closing the loophole will save $2 billion next year. Annual savings of $2 billion? Let's place that in perspective:

• The estimated cost to the U.S. of what is now Obama's senseless war in Afghanistan will reach a record $120 billion in 2011. Why is Kristof not highlighting this fact?

• This year’s budget deficit is projected to reach a record $1.5 trillion. Compare that with a savings of $2 billion.

Now let's look at Kristof's other gem, i.e. $4.9 billion is "equivalent to the average per capita income of 184,000 Americans," according to his "back-of-envelope calculations." Excuse me, but this is unintelligible. Does he mean that $4.9 billion is equal to the average annual per capita income of 184,000 Americans? Or does he mean the combined total annual average per capita income of 184,000 Americans? To which 184,000 Americans is he referring? Sure, I know, he probably means the average per capita annual American income, but he doesn't say any of this.

Perhaps Kristof would be best off not "calculating," and certainly not on the back of envelopes.

However, more to the point, why did Kristof attempt this disastrous economic analysis? With the U.S. economy tanking and little hope in sight, the only way Obama can be reelected is by blaming others for his failure and seeking to ignite class warfare by attacking the rich. Again, I am in favor of eliminating all inequitable loopholes, including those sponsored by Democrats, so as to balance the budget, but if Obama is relying on Kristof's advocacy to be reelected, he's in big trouble.

Maureen Dowd, "Your Tweetin’ Heart": Who Cares About Weiner's Motivation?

In her New York Times op-ed of today's date, "Your Tweetin’ Heart" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08dowd.html?hp), Maureen Dowd explores the motivation underlying Congressman Anthony Weiner's online relationships with women:

"Often powerful men crave more than love and admiration from The Good Wife. Sometimes they want risk, even danger. Sometimes they’re turned on by a power differential. They adore a fan reaction like the one from Lisa Weiss, the Vegas blackjack dealer, who flirted with Weiner on Facebook: 'you are sooo awesome when you yell at those fox news' pundits, and 'I bet you have so many chicks after you! you are our liberal stud.'"

Unlike Ms. Dowd, however, I am not interested in Weiner's motivation. Weiner should go for psychological counseling and attempt to save his marriage, if there is anything left of it. More important, he should resign from the House immediately, inasmuch as the U.S. Congress, seeking to avert an economic meltdown, need not be distracted by Weiner's antics.

Will Weiner voluntarily resign? No way. Weiner is consumed with self-interest, and is yet another poster boy for narcissism, the plague of the 21st century (see: http://www.voicelessness.com/narcissism.html). Surely Weiner must be asking himself, if Barney Frank managed to remain in Congress, why should he have to go? Good question.

Meanwhile House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is demanding a House ethics committee probe into whether official resources were mishandled by Weiner. This is the same Pelosi who labeled Syria's Bashar al-Assad a "model Arab leader." In my opinion, Weiner's miscreant conduct pales in comparison with Pelosi's indiscretion, but I don't imagine we'll be hearing a mea culpa from Nancy anytime soon.

Just another case of the pot calling the kettle black.

JG, Caesarea News Alert: Anthony Weiner Offered to Host News Discussion Program

Having acknowledged that he had inappropriate online relationships with women and indeed sent a lewd photo over Twitter, Anthony Weiner has stated that he will not resign from the U.S. House of Representatives.

This has prompted House Minority Leader Nancy "Assad is a model Arab leader" Pelosi (D-Calif.) to ask for a House ethics committee probe into whether official resources had been mishandled.

Meanwhile, I have it from a highly unreliable source that Weiner is considering an offer to follow in the footsteps of Eliot Spitzer and host a news discussion show to be entitled "The World in Briefs". Just imagine:

"You give us five minutes, and we'll give you the world . . . in briefs."

David Brooks, "The Depravity Factor"

Bless you, David Brooks!

I am usually critical of almost everything that finds its way onto the op-ed page of The New York Times; however, Brooks's "The Depravity Factor" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/opinion/03brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion) was a startling exception.

Brooks tells us that there won’t be peace so long as depraved regimes, such as Syria and Libya, and depraved organizations, such as Hamas, are "part of the picture." He tells us "to focus on the nature of regimes, not only the boundaries between them." And he concludes that the "Arab reform process," rather than negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, "is the peace process."

Brooks begins:

"By now you have probably heard about Hamza Ali al-Khateeb. He was the 13-year-old Syrian boy who tagged along at an antigovernment protest in the town of Saida on April 29. He was arrested that day, and the police returned his mutilated body to his family a month later. While in custody, he had apparently been burned, beaten, lacerated and given electroshocks. His jaw and kneecaps were shattered. He was shot in both arms. When his father saw the state of Hamza’s body, he passed out."

Here is a link to the video that the boy's family placed on the Internet and to which Brooks refers. THE PICTURES OF THE DEAD BOY ARE GRAPHIC AND HORRIFYING, AND DO NOT VIEW THIS VIDEO, WHICH UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD BE SEEN BY CHILDREN, IF IT IS APT TO CAUSE YOU MENTAL DISTRESS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7flXwSv9aQ0

I would add that this is far from the only graphic evidence of the brutality of the Assad regime (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/assad-hillarys-reformer.html), and I have been calling upon the Obama administration to recall the U.S. ambassador to Syria for the past two months, but to no avail (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/recall-us-ambassador-to-syria-now-shame.html). Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many were on holiday, Obama appointed Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of December 2010, and Obama is reluctant to acknowledge his mistake (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html).

Brooks states:

"World leaders have tried sweet-talking Syria, calling Bashar al-Assad a friend (Nancy Pelosi) or a reformer (Hillary Clinton)."

But among Americans, Pelosi and Clinton are not the only ones who should be ashamed. Consider the conduct of Senator John Kerry, whose special relationship with Assad was scrutinized by The Boston Globe (http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-28/news/29483723_1_assad-senator-john-kerry-damascus):

"Kerry, a leading proponent of the Obama administration’s controversial attempt to improve relations with Syria, has publicly warned Assad not to kill his own people. But Kerry has not called for him to step down, as he did with embattled leaders in Egypt and Libya."

Kerry wants to be the next secretary of state?

And what about Jimmy Carter, who has often met with Assad and bragged that he has known the Syrian leader since he was a college student (see Peggy Shapiro's "Assad: Fooled us twice, shame on us": http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/assad_fooled_us_twice_shame_on.html).

Today, I am expecting a bloodbath in Syria when Syrians leave the mosques and confront Assad's security forces, which are being assisted by thugs from Hezbollah and counterinsurgency experts from Iran. As I have stated in the past, Assad's days are numbered, notwithstanding the indifference of the Obama administration to this human tragedy.

[To my "friends" from Assad's security apparatus in Damascus who regularly read this blog: Time to start packing your bags, boys.]

Assad's Tanks Firing on Daraa in Syria: Another Hama Massacre?

In February 1982, President Hafez al-Assad of Syria destroyed much of the town of Hama, killing anywhere between 10,000 and 40,000 civilians, in order to quash a revolt by its Sunni Muslim inhabitants.

Today, Hafez al-Assad's son, Bashar al-Assad, is sending his tanks against the southern Syrian town of Daraa, and the bodies of civilians are again lying in the street (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/25/us-syria-idUSLDE73N02P20110425).

Why has Obama not recalled the ambassador he appointed to Syria in December without U.S. Senate confirmation (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/recall-us-ambassador-to-syria-now-shame.html)?

Where is Hillary Clinton, who referred to Bashar al-Assad as a "reformer"? Where is John Kerry, who, together with his wife, repeatedly enjoyed the hospitality of Assad in Damascus? And where is Nancy Pelosi, who labeled Assad a "model Arab leader"?

We do know the whereabouts of Jimmy Carter, who has often met with Assad and bragged that he has known the Syrian leader since he was a college student. Carter and his traveling troupe, "The Elders", is now off to North Korea, although he doesn't know whom he will be meeting there (see: http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=217784).

Instead of Pyongyang, how about another trip to Damascus, Jimmy, to meet with your good friend Bashar? You might even ask him to stop killing his countrymen.

You Think You Know When Someone Is Lying? John Kerry Couldn't Read Assad

So you think you know when someone is lying?

Watch Bashar al-Assad's one-hour interview with Charlie Rose, albeit five years old (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/484). Pay particular attention when Assad claims that he had no part in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Do you see any body language suggesting that Assad is prevaricating? The truth is that Assad is a "professional liar", or stated otherwise, a psychopath, and it should have come as no surprise that the Syrian tyrant is willing to arrest, torture and murder those who in recent weeks have taken to the streets in opposition to his regime.

Assad has managed to fool many Westerners into believing that he is a paragon of decency, which in turn prompted Hillary's recent inane declaration: "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" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/ftn/main20047627.shtml).

As observed by Peggy Shapiro in an American Thinker article entitled "Assad: Fooled us twice, shame on us" (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/assad_fooled_us_twice_shame_on.html), among those noteworthy persons who have come away from meetings with Assad thinking he's a great guy are:

• Zbigniew Brzezinski: "The U.S. and Syria have a shared interest in stability in the region."

• Nancy Pelosi: Assad is a "model Arab leader."

• Jimmy Carter: "In all my conversations with President Assad, whom I've known since he was a college student, I was impressed with [his] eagerness to complete the agreement on the Golan Heights."

• John Kerry: "I remain absolutely convinced there is an opportunity to have a different relationship with Syria."

It is reported that John Kerry is seeking to become Secretary of State when Hillary abandons ship (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/02/04/kerrys_sharp_eye_on_the_secretary_spot/), and, needless to say, Kerry is now backing away from his congenial relationship with the Syrian tyrant. As stated by Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/john_kerrys_message_to_syria/2011/03/04/AFZm9rwB_blog.html?wprss=rss_homepage):

"In an interview Tuesday, Kerry told me that he had contacted senior Syrian officials to demand an end to the killing. 'I delivered as strong a message as I can that they have to avoid violence and listen to their people and respond,' he said. 'Obviously the way the government has behaved is unacceptable. Sixty-one people killed is terrible, its abhorrant behavior.'”

In my opinion, notwithstanding this belated attempt to make amends, Kerry displayed a horrifying lack of good judgment when cuddling up to Assad in Damascus five times over the past two years, and Kerry should be disqualified from any position involving the future negotiation of U.S. overseas interests.