American Jet Fighters Amost in a Dogfight Over Syria: No US News Coverage

Tweet

American and Syrian (Russian?) fighter jets nearly engaged in a dogfight on Friday. As reported by DEBKAfile in an article entitled "US, Russia trade blows in Syria on Kurds’ backs":

"The near-clash between US and Syrian warplanes over Kurdish Hassaka in northern Syrian Friday Aug. 19 sprung out of the Obama administration’s decision the day before to try and draw the line on the growing Russian-Iranian-Turkish-Syrian collaboration in the conjoined Syrian-Iraqi arenas, DEBKAfile’s military sources report.

It occurred when US jets flew in protective formation over the Kurdish positions, the day after they were attacked by Syrian (some Middle East sources say, Russian) jets.

The US jets came within a mile of the two Syrian Su-24 fighter jets approaching the Kurdish enclave of Hassaka, and warned them off. Without responding the Syrian planes turned tail."

Putin is testing Obama.

Coverage of this incident by America's news media? Not a chance. But why should The New York Times and The Washington Post dwell on such a "minor" flap, given their refusal to write about the secret removal by the US army of nuclear weapons from the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey?

Paula J. Dobriansky and David B. Rivkin Jr., "Putin’s anti-Obama propaganda is ugly and desperate": Is Obama a "Schmo"?

Tweet

"Schmo": Yiddish for stupid person

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Putin’s anti-Obama propaganda is ugly and desperate," Paula J. Dobriansky and David B. Rivkin Jr. tell us:

"[T]he famous nationalist comedian Mikhail Zadornov regularly deploys the term 'schmoe' — a slang Russian prison acronym for a person who is so debased he deserves to be defecated upon — alongside Obama’s name. 'Obama schmoe' has become ubiquitous enough to be scrawled on the runway of Russia’s Latakia air base in Syria.

. . . .

Winning the global battle of ideas is an essential part of fostering a stable democratic world order. Consistent with our core values, the United States must lead in challenging Moscow’s racist propaganda and highlighting the moral narrative of democracy, tolerance, human rights and rule of law."

Never having been arrested in Russia (over the years, I have tried very hard to avoid this - I would hate to be defecated upon), I was unaware of the Russian prison acronym "schmoe."

On the other hand, I am quite familiar with the Yiddish word "schmo," which means "stupid person."

Moreover, Obama is indeed a "schmo" (the Yiddish meaning) for sitting back complacently and watching Putin annex Crimea and take control over Syria's airspace.

And former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a "schmo" (the Yiddish meaning) for presenting Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov with a red "reset button" in 2009, mistakenly inscribed with the Russian word "peregruzka," meaning "overcharged."

And both Obama and Hillary are "schmos" (the Yiddish meaning) for pursuing, together with their P5+1 ally Putin, an unsigned nuclear agreement with Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei.

"Winning the global battle of ideas is an essential part of fostering a stable democratic world order"? Elegant English, however, the "global battle of ideas" has also been shaped by the world view of Obama as a 98-pound weakling who has trashed US credibility and deterrent power. Putin is "desperate"? You could have fooled me.

Frank Bruni, "How ISIS Defeats Us": Dracula to the Rescue?

Tweet

In a seemingly sensible, balanced, New York Times op-ed entitled "How ISIS Defeats Us," Frank Bruni begins:

"I DON’T know how we win the war against ISIS.

But I know how we lose it. The last week has been a thorough and demoralizing education in that.

We lose it with a response to the Paris carnage and a discussion about the path forward that’s driven by partisan grievances and posturing rather than a mature, nuanced attempt to address Americans’ understandable anxiety and acknowledge that we may not be doing the right things or enough of them."

Bruni doesn't know how to win the war against the Islamic State? Well, fortunately or unfortunately, Russian President Putin thinks he knows how to win. Although Russian air strikes in Syria were initially focused on non-Islamic State rebel forces, including US-backed insurgents, that has all changed after ISIS took down a Russian passenger plane over Sinai on October 31 with a bomb that  killed 224 people. Putin responded to the attack on the A321 jet by declaring:

"Our military work in Syria must not only continue. It must be strengthened in such a way so that the terrorists will understand that retribution is inevitable."

And "true to his word," Putin is now carpet-bombing the Syrian city of Raqqa, which had served as the capital of the Islamic State's would-be caliphate. How many ISIS fighters and civilians have died in the attacks on the city, which once had a population of some 220,000? No one knows.

As you might be aware, Bram Stoker's "Dracula" was based upon a historical figure named Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia, who, in his battles with the Ottoman Empire, took to impaling Turkish prisoners of war in order to dispirit enemy forces. Well today, a new Vlad has arisen - actually his name is Vladimir - who is not willing to brook any sh*t from ISIS.

How does the US win or lose against ISIS? Sorry, Frank, the whole situation has spun entirely out of American control.

Thomas Friedman, "Are You Sure You Want the Job?": How's Your Conscience? How's Your Golf Game?

Tweet

If you currently go to the homepage of The New York Times, you will see a picture of Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin warmly shaking hands in a luxurious room in Moscow. What do Assad, a monster, and Putin, a thug, have in common, apart from the war they are jointly waging against rebels in Syria? The answer is simple: As I observed yesterday, they were both empowered by Obama:

Recall Obama's March 2012 open mike promise to Putin, delivered via then Russian President Medvedev:

Obama: "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."

Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

And let's not forget Hillary's infamous "reset" button  delivered in 2009 to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Bashar al-Assad? Remember how Obama tried to spin his "red line" involving Syria's use of chemical weapons:

"I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line."

The world? Russia, China, Iran and Turkmenistan? Moreover, we mustn't forget how US Secretary of State John Kerry labeled Assad his "dear friend," and how his predecessor, Hillary Clinton, defended Assad in 2011:

"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"? May the Lord have mercy on us!

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Are You Sure You Want the Job?," Thomas Friedman begins:

"Having watched all the debates and seen all these people running for president, I can’t suppress the thought: Why would anyone want this job now? Do you people realize what’s going on out there? Obama’s hair hasn’t gone early gray for nothing."

Yeah, right. More likely, his hair has gone gray owing to his "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" school of foreign policy. That, or the more than 1,100 hours he has spent golfing as president. I will never forget the round he played just minutes after expressing his grief over the beheading of American journalist James Foley. He sure as heck took Foley's horrific death  personally . . .

Maybe, just maybe, when he leaves office in January 2017, he can dye his hair and become a spokesperson for Grecian Formula.

Roger Cohen, "Obama’s Doctrine of Restraint": "Rudderless Reality"?

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Obama’s Doctrine of Restraint," Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen concludes:

"Obama does not lack courage. Nor is he unprepared to take risks. It required courage to conclude the Iran nuclear deal — a signal achievement arrived at in the face of a vitriolic cacophony from Israel and the Republican-controlled Congress. It took courage to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough with Cuba. The successful operation to kill Osama bin Laden was fraught with risk. His foreign policy has delivered in significant areas. America has wound down its wars. The home pivot has yielded a revived economy (at least for some) and given all Americans access to health insurance.

Yet the cost of the Doctrine of Restraint has been very high. How high we do not yet know, but the world is more dangerous than in recent memory. Obama’s skepticism about American power, his readiness to disengage from Europe and his catastrophic tiptoeing on Syria have left the Middle East in generational conflict and fracture, Europe unstable and Putin strutting the stage. Where this rudderless reality is likely to lead I will examine in my next column."

Obama does not lack courage as evidenced by the Iran nuclear deal? Query: What does the first invertebrate to occupy the Oval Office have to say about Iran's violation over the weekend of UN Security Council Resolution 1929, which provides "Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology"?

And how is that Obama caved on every Iranian demand in order to reach the said nuclear deal?

And what does Obama have to say about Iran's expanding presence in Syria? Iranian Revolutionary Guard Brigadier General Hossein Hamedani was killed last week in Syria. This comes after Iranian Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Allahdadin was killed in January on Syria's border with Israel by an Israeli airstrike.

Obviously, Putin is not the only one aware of Obama's spinelessness.

New York Times Editorial, "An Incoherent Syria War Strategy": A "Hallucinatory" President?

Tweet

Whoa! What's happening at the Times?

In an editorial entitled "An Incoherent Syria War Strategy," The New York Times says of the Obama administration's new Syria policy (my emphasis in red):

"The Pentagon will stop putting rebel fighters through training in neighboring countries, a program that was designed to ensure that fighters were properly vetted before they could get their hands on American weapons and ammunition. The new plan will simply funnel weapons through rebel leaders who are already in the fight and appear to be making some headway.

. . . .

The initial plan was dubious. The new one is hallucinatory, and it is being rolled out as the war enters a more perilous phase now that Russia has significantly stepped up its military support of Mr. Assad’s forces."

Yes, after spending $500 million to put "moderate" Syrian rebels in the field and managing to muster a force of five, "Change" had to come. But isn't the Times being unduly harsh on the president? Consider what the "A-Team" accomplished with only four members (Howling Mad Murdock, B. A. Baracus, John "Hannibal" Smith and Templeton Peck). Perhaps the CIA should consider sending Mr. T to fight ISIS . . .

The Times editorial concludes:

"Getting out of the quagmire in Syria may appear harder than it has ever been. But the only viable solution remains a diplomatic breakthrough that leads to a transfer of power in Damascus and paves the way for a unified campaign against the Islamic State.

That will require the ironing out of stark differences between the United States and Mr. Assad’s chief backers, Russia and Iran. Until then, the three countries are unlikely to accomplish much beyond moving the front lines back and forth, adding to Syria’s bloodletting and despair."

Yup, Putin and Khamenei, both "great guys," are going to force Assad, John Kerry's "dear friend," to step down in order to "pave the way for a unified campaign against the Islamic State." A "hallucinatory" president, or a "hallucinatory" editorial?

Apparently it never occurred to the genius who wrote this gem of an opinion piece that Putin does not intend to wage war against the Islamic State, beyond propping up Assad in what is left of his state within a former state. You see, Putin has no interest in antagonizing Sunni Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both of which could prove lucrative arms customers, particularly when the price of Russian oil has fallen so low and is jeopardizing the Russian economy. Saudi Arabia continues to contemplate major arms deals with Russia, intended by the Saudis to gain leverage over Russian involvement in Syria, and with funding from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Egypt is already buying weaponry from Moscow.

Also consider that some 12 percent of Russia's population is Muslim, and most of them are Sunnis. Putin has no intention of reigniting a Chechen revolt.

Putin is playing both sides of the fence? What a surprise!

Are you listening, Langley?

Thomas Friedman, "Syria, Obama and Putin": Is Tom Syrious? Is Obama Putin' His Foot in His Mouth?

Tweet

"What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way?"

- President Obama, September 10, 2013

Well, both Obama and his favorite newspaper, The New York Times, chose to look the other way. The Times at first pretended that there was no concrete proof that Syrian President Assad butchered his own people with sarin gas, while Obama sought to avoid honoring his "red line" involving Assad's use of chemical weapons by passing the buck to Congress (although he was not willing to accede to the will of a majority of both houses of Congress regarding his nuclear deal with Khamenei). Next, Obama agreed to a deal brokered by Putin for the surrender of Assad's chemical weapons stockpiles, but when it turned out that the Syrian dictator had not turned over all his "inventory" and that he was continuing to use chemical weapons against regime opponents, America's president did absolutely nothing.

Thomas Friedman begins his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Syria, Obama and Putin" by declaring, "Your Honor, I rise again in defense of President Barack Obama’s policy on Syria." Policy? Which policy is that? Impotence?

Friedman goes on to observe:

"Putin stupidly went into Syria looking for a cheap sugar high to show his people that Russia is still a world power. Well, now he’s up a tree. Obama and John Kerry should just leave him up there for a month — him and Assad, fighting ISIS alone — and watch him become public enemy No. 1 in the Sunni Muslim world. 'Yo, Vladimir, how’s that working for you?'

The only way Putin can get down from that tree is with our help in forging a political solution in Syria. And that only happens if the Russians and the Iranians force Assad — after a transition — to step down and leave the country, in return for the opposition agreeing to protect the basic safety and interests of Assad’s Alawite community, and both sides welcoming an international force on the ground to guarantee the deal.

But to get there we need to size our rhetoric with our interests in Syria as well. Our interests right now are to eliminate or contain the two biggest metastasizing threats: ISIS — whose growth can threaten the islands of decency in the region like Lebanon, the Kurds and Jordan — and the tragedy of Syrian refugees, whose numbers are growing so large they are swamping Lebanon and Jordan and, if they continue, could destabilize the European Union, our vital partner in the world."

There are only two big "metastasizing threats" - ISIS and the Syrian refugee tragedy? Horsefeathers! As if Iranian military and financial support to Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis does not constitute a threat, particularly after Russia has now joined forces with Iran, Hezbollah and what remains of Assad's army in Syria. And what will be after Iran receives a cash infusion of some $100 billion from Obama's nuclear deal with Khamenei? The money will be used to create jobs in Tehran, Mashhad and Tabriz and will not be funneled to Iran's terrorist proxies? Yeah, right!

Friedman's conclusion:

"I think Putin’s rash rush into Syria may in the end make him more in need of a deal, or at least a lasting cease-fire, that stops the refugee flows. If we can do that, for now, we will have done a lot."

However, it is no longer a matter of what "we can do." Rather, it has become a matter of what Putin will decide to do. Putin brokered the chemical weapons arrangement, allowing Obama to climb down from his "red line" tree, and the United States must now hope and pray that Vladimir will take it upon himself to broker an end to Syria's civil war? Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey are all watching as Obama continues to abnegate moral responsibility in the Middle East and around the globe.

Meanwhile, according to Debkafile, Russia has "sent an official demarche ordering US planes to quit Syria, adding that Russian fighter jets were now flying over Syrian territory." I suppose this is all in accordance with the "flexibility" that Obama promised Putin after Obama's reelection.

Indeed, in what kind of world do we live?

New York Times Editorial, "Mr. Putin’s Mixed Messages on Syria ": Obama Is Not Equally Culpable?

Tweet

In a risible editorial entitled "Mr. Putin’s Mixed Messages on Syria," The New York Times blames Vladimir Putin for the disastrous civil war in Syria. The Times would have us know:

"No one should be fooled about Russia’s culpability in Syria’s agony. Mr. Putin could have helped prevent the fighting that has killed more than 250,000 Syrians and displaced millions more, had he worked with other major powers in 2011 to keep Mr. Assad from waging war on his people following peaceful antigovernment protests. The brutality of Mr. Assad, a member of a Shiite sect, against the majority Sunni population has enabled the Islamic State, made up of Sunnis, to take control of large parts of Syria. Mr. Assad would probably be gone without the weapons, aid and other assistance from Russia and Iran."

Fascinating. And Obama, of course, has no culpability. But consider how -

• Obama failed to enforce his "red line" involving Assad's use of chemical weapons;
• Obama declared in 2011 that Assad must go, but then failed to do anything about it, for fear of antagonizing Iran and jeopardizing his "legacy-creating" nuclear agreement with Khamenei (US Secretary of State Kerry now says that Assad still must go, but the timing is negotiable).
• Obama recently warned Putin against sending troops and equipment to support Assad ("The strategy they're pursuing right now of doubling down on Assad is a mistake"), yet after the troops and equipment arrived in Syria, he instructed US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter to enter into talks with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu to defuse the situation.

The whole world is watching the follies of a naïve American president, who was instrumental in creating the Middle East power vacuum that gave rise to the Islamic State. A pity that Obama has yet to realize that impotence is not a basis for implementing foreign policy.

New York Times Editorial, "Russia’s Risky Military Moves in Syria": Putin Should Follow the "Constructive Way"?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "Russia’s Risky Military Moves in Syria," The New York Times takes the position (my emphasis in red):

"Russia is obviously concerned about the fate of Mr. Assad and his regime, which is struggling to sustain an army after four years of war and is suffering such serious battlefield defeats that the state may not survive. The relationship with Syria dates to Soviet times and is one of Russia’s last levers of influence in the Middle East. Russia operates a small naval base at Tartus on the Mediterranean and is keen to preserve it.

Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, may also be using the buildup to strengthen Russia’s hand in any political outcome in Syria and to constrain America’s military options there. The constructive way to have an impact is for Mr. Putin to drop his opposition to Washington’s and its allies’ insistence that Mr. Assad be replaced as part of a negotiated political settlement that includes a transition to a new government."

Having witnessed Putin's invasion of the Ukraine, we all know that by calling upon this former KGB officer to heed the "constructive way," he will now withdraw his troops in Jableh and Latakia on Syria's Mediterranean coast and, together with President Obama, pursue a peaceful resolution of the conflict that has taken more than 250,000 lives and displaced over 10 million people.

What are they Putin' in the water cooler at the Times?

Sowing the Seeds of a Second Holocaust: Obama Caves to Iran on All Sticking Points

Tweet


"No deal is better than a bad deal"? "Anytime, anywhere" inspections? If Iran violates the agreement, sanctions will "snap-back"? All lies.

Ehud Yaari of Israel's Channel 2 News informed Israelis on Friday night that after Obama caved on all major sticking points, the P5+1 will be signing an agreement with Iran early next week.

The advent of a deal has also been noted by Vladimir Putin, at a time when Russia is hoping to sell billions of dollars of armaments to Iran.

Similarly, as reported by Iran's Fars News Agency:

"Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Ali Akbar Salehi voiced his satisfaction with the ongoing trend of nuclear negotiations between Tehran and the world powers in Vienna, and said that there is still a strong possibility for striking a final agreement in the Austrian capital."

In what for him is the foreign affairs highlight of his presidency, Obama has sown the seeds of a second Holocaust. It was inevitable.

New York Times Editorial, "President Vladimir Putin’s Dangerous Moves": Maintain Sanctions on Russia, but Not on Iran

In an editorial entitled "President Vladimir Putin’s Dangerous Moves," an alarmed New York Times begins by observing:

"President Vladimir Putin of Russia has added new, chilling nuclear threats to his aggression in Ukraine, where 6,000 people have been killed in a war with Russian-backed separatists. Mr. Putin wants to expand his country’s influence and standing, but his alarming behavior has estranged Russia from most other major powers, damaged its economy and narrowed its future options.

Even for Mr. Putin, the recent nuclear threats have set a new benchmark for hostility in the conflict he has ignited with the West. Two weeks ago, The Times of London reported on a meeting between Russian generals and American officials in which the Russians threatened a 'spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military' if NATO moved more military forces into the Baltic States."

The Times's conclusion:

"Russia’s bellicose behavior is a serious test for NATO, which has sometimes shown disturbing divisions. The Europeans and the United States have to stay united in maintaining sanctions on Russia and in continuing air patrols and training exercises, as it becomes increasingly difficult to predict Mr. Putin’s next move."

Hey, isn't this the same Putin whom Obama asked Medvedev to inform, "After my election, I have more flexibility"?

And isn't this the same Russia which, according to John Kerry, agreed that the US State Department "fact sheet" describing the Lausanne "framework understanding" was accurate, yet at the same time declared its intention to deliver S-300 advanced air defense systems to Tehran?

And aren't Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei's calls to annihilate Israel equally "chilling"? (Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel.)

So why should the Europeans and the United States "stay united in maintaining sanctions on Russia," but not on Iran?

New York Times Editorial, "A New Phase in Anti-Obama Attacks": Republicans Oppose Deal With Khamenei Because Obama Is Black

Did you happen to see pictures of Obama's joyous meeting with Cuban leader Raul Castro on Saturday in Panama City? I haven't seen Obama so happy with a foreign leader since his encounter with Venezualan strongman Hugo Chavez in April 2009. After conversing with Castro this past weekend, Obama declared:

"What we have both concluded is that we can disagree with a spirit of respect and civility."

A pity that Obama never broke into such a toothy grin while speaking with Netanyahu or declared following any of his meetings with the Israeli prime minister, "We can disagree with a spirit of respect and civility."

Today, in an editorial entitled "A New Phase in Anti-Obama Attacks," The New York Times begins:

"It is a peculiar, but unmistakable, phenomenon: As Barack Obama’s presidency heads into its twilight, the rage of the Republican establishment toward him is growing louder, angrier and more destructive.

. . . .

It is a line of attack that echoes Republicans’ earlier questioning of Mr. Obama’s American citizenship. Those attacks were blatantly racist in their message — reminding people that Mr. Obama was black, suggesting he was African, and planting the equally false idea that he was secretly Muslim. The current offensive is slightly more subtle, but it is impossible to dismiss the notion that race plays a role in it.

Perhaps the most outrageous example of the attack on the president’s legitimacy was a letter signed by 47 Republican senators to the leadership of Iran saying Mr. Obama had no authority to conclude negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program."

I understand: The Republicans, and possibly Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Menendez, too, are opposing Obama's parlous nuclear deal with Khamenei (see Jackson Diehl's Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama rolls the dice on Iran") because Obama is black. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama's foreign policy agenda, which fosters love and understanding of tyrants across the globe. I don't think I will ever forget Obama asking Medvedev to inform Putin, "After my election, I have more flexibility."

Plainly, The New York Times knows no shame.

Thomas Friedman, "Leading From Within": Killing Two Birds With One Stone?

No matter what the problem, big or small, Thomas Friedman has an answer. Unfortunately, most of his answers are wrong.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Leading From Within," Friedman explains how the US can counteract both ISIS and Putin:

"[T]he necessary impactful thing that America should do at home now is for the president and Congress to lift our self-imposed ban on U.S. oil exports, which would significantly dent the global high price of crude oil. And combine that with long overdue comprehensive tax reform that finally values our environment and security. That would be a carbon tax that is completely offset by lowering personal income, payroll and corporate taxes. Nothing would make us stronger and Putin and ISIS weaker — all at the same time."

American exports of oil would stop ISIS in its tracks or even cause this homicidal organization a moment of hesitation? Yeah, right.

Putin? He would probably complain that Obama promised flexibility during the American president's second term, whereupon Obama would most likely reflect upon this dilemma while teeing off at the nearest golf course or touring some prehistoric monument.

But let me get this straight: Congress is going to lift America's self-imposed ban on oil exports, while enacting "comprehensive tax reform," including a carbon tax that is "completely offset by lowering personal income, payroll and corporate taxes"? And after the Republicans win control over the Senate in November, all of this legislation is going to be passed sometime during the next two years?

It's not going to happen even during the next two decades.

Go back to sleep, Tom, before you hurt yourself.

David Brooks, "The Revolt of the Weak": Indifference to the Next 9/11

David Brooks's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Revolt of the Weak" is an obscenity.

Lumping together Vladimir Putin's adventure in the Ukraine with the emergence of the Islamic State in what used to be Syria and Iraq, Brooks downplays the threat that both pose to our lives:

"We are not living in a moment of immediate concrete threat, but we are in a crisis of context.

The specific problems that make headlines right now are not cataclysmic. The venture by President Vladimir Putin of Russia into Ukraine, for all its thuggery, is not, in itself, a cataclysmic historical event. The civil war in Syria, for all its savagery, is not a problem that threatens the daily lives of those who live outside."

Brooks goes on to say that "These problems are medium-size" and constitute a "a revolt of the weak." Declaring that "Putin and ISIS are not threats to American national security" but rather "threats to our civilizational order," Brooks concludes:

"This summer, the bad guys have looked energetic while the good guys have looked tired. We’ll see at the NATO summit meeting in Wales this week if there’s a leader who can step outside the crush of events and explain how fundamental the threat to the rules of civilization now is."

Or stated otherwise, Obama can continue with his golf game. However, as far as I am concerned, Brooks is comparing apples with oranges, and the threat from the Islamic State is far greater than that described by Brooks.

As abhorrent as Putin's conduct may be, he is not threatening to take his war to the United States. His objectives are regional, which, of course, is not to say that this bully, who is testing Obama's tenacity, should not be opposed.

On the other hand, the Islamic State, otherwise known as ISIS or ISIL, is indeed threatening to take its war to America. An August 9 ISIS tweet declared:

"We are in your state. We are in your cities. We are in your streets."

And then there was also the recent message to Americans:

"We will drown all of you in blood."

So what it really boils down to is whether you believe the threats being made by these radical Islamists are more than mere words. I do. I have witnessed firsthand the destruction and paralysis that can result from assymetric warfare, i.e. warfare waged by the "weak."

The Islamic State's jihadists are not stupid, they are not afraid to die, and it is only a matter of time until they bring down a skyscraper or an American commercial airliner. The effect on the American economy will be devastating.

So should Obama also ignore the next decapitation of a US citizen and continue with his vacations and Democratic Party fundraising efforts at the homes of the ultra-wealthy? As the first invertebrate ever to occupy the Oval Office would have us know, "The world has always been messy."

Or, should the president fire Chuck "Chowderhead" Hagel and John "Botox" Kerry, and assemble a war cabinet capable of preparing for the contingencies which could soon face the United States?

I know what I would do.

Thomas Friedman, "Obama on the World": Israel Must Be Weakened

With the world in flames, US Secretary of State John Kerry, still licking his wounds after a disastrous attempt to mediate Israel's conflict with Hamas, is making himself scarce on a seven-day trip to Afghanistan, Burma, Australia, the Solomon Islands and Hawaii.

Meanwhile, President Obama is expected to leave today for a two-week vacation in Martha's Vineyard, where he will be staying in a "seven-bedroom, nine-bath, 8,100-square-foot house, [which] sits on a 10-acre lot and . . . features 17 rooms in total, expansive water views of Vineyard Sound, an infinity pool and hot tub, and a dual tennis-basketball court" (http://www.mvtimes.com/2014/07/09/president-obama-will-return-chilmark/). Ah yes, a man of the people.

However, before leaving for Martha's Vineyard, Obama graciously took the time to meet with the captain of his New York Times cheerleading squad, Thomas Friedman, in order to explain away his dysfunctional foreign policy, and in an op-ed entitled "Obama on the World" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/opinion/president-obama-thomas-l-friedman-iraq-and-world-affairs.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), Tom Terrific provides us with Obama's reasoning.

The Ukraine

Friedman writes:

"Despite Western sanctions, he cautioned, President Vladimir Putin of Russia 'could invade' Ukraine at any time, and, if he does, 'trying to find our way back to a cooperative functioning relationship with Russia during the remainder of my term will be much more difficult.'"

Or in other words, after informing Putin via Medvedev that he would be much more "flexible" toward Russia during his second term in office, Obama is now saying that the US will do absolutely nothing if Russia invades the Ukraine. On the other hand, Obama will no longer be so sweet to Putin over the course of the next two years if Putin misbehaves. Yes, that should have Putin in a cold sweat.

Libya

Friedman writes:

"Intervening in Libya to prevent a massacre was the right thing to do, Obama argued, but doing it without sufficient follow-up on the ground to manage Libya’s transition to more democratic politics is probably his biggest foreign policy regret."

Needless to say, Obama does not regret the death of four Americans in Benghazi or his refusal to make any effort whatsoever to save them.

Syria

Friedman writes:

"With 'respect to Syria,' said the president, the notion that arming the rebels would have made a difference has 'always been a fantasy. This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards.'"

Providing Syrian "moderates" with a no-fly zone could not have helped them? More to the point, if it was 1776, I wonder if Obama would also be making the argument that "an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth" could not possibly stand up to the British empire.

ISIL

Friedman writes:

"The 'broader point we need to stay focused on,' [Obama] added, 'is what we have is a disaffected Sunni minority in the case of Iraq, a majority in the case of Syria, stretching from essentially Baghdad to Damascus. ... Unless we can give them a formula that speaks to the aspirations of that population, we are inevitably going to have problems. ... Unfortunately, there was a period of time where the Shia majority in Iraq didn’t fully understand that. They’re starting to understand it now. Unfortunately, we still have ISIL [the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant], which has, I think, very little appeal to ordinary Sunnis.' But 'they’re filling a vacuum, and the question for us has to be not simply how we counteract them militarily but how are we going to speak to a Sunni majority in that area ... that, right now, is detached from the global economy.'"

"Disaffected Sunnis," who are "detached from the global economy"? I suppose that explains why they are so busy crucifying and beheading people. Worse still, it almost sounds as if Obama empathizes with ISIL, which is now threatening the execution of King Abdullah, the leader of another American ally in the region, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (see: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182285#.U-XRJ5scTcs).

The Kurds

Friedman writes:

"'I do think the Kurds used that time that was given by our troop sacrifices in Iraq,' Obama added. 'They used that time well, and the Kurdish region is functional the way we would like to see. It is tolerant of other sects and other religions in a way that we would like to see elsewhere. So we do think it’s important to make sure that that space is protected, but, more broadly, what I’ve indicated is that I don’t want to be in the business of being the Iraqi air force. I don’t want to get in the business for that matter of being the Kurdish air force, in the absence of a commitment of the people on the ground to get their act together and do what’s necessary politically to start protecting themselves and to push back against ISIL.'"

Stated otherwise, Obama sounds ready to abandon America's second best friend in the Middle East, the Kurds. He is obviously putting them on notice that American support will be minimal in their fight against ISIL. Some 30 millions Kurds in the Middle East still don't have a country of their own or an organized army, yet Obama is letting ISIL know that he is prepared to abandon the Kurds if they don't "get their act together."

Iraq

Friedman writes:

"[W]e did not just start taking a bunch of airstrikes all across Iraq as soon as ISIL came in was because that would have taken the pressure off of [Prime Minister Nuri Kamal] al-Maliki.' That only would have encouraged, he said, Maliki and other Shiites to think: '‘We don’t actually have to make compromises. We don’t have to make any decisions. We don’t have to go through the difficult process of figuring out what we’ve done wrong in the past. All we have to do is let the Americans bail us out again. And we can go about business as usual.’'"

In other words, Iraq screwed up in the past, and now they are on their own, even if that means that Jordan is next to fall.

Israel

Saving the best for last, Friedman writes:

"Prime Minister Netanyahu’s 'poll numbers are a lot higher than mine' and 'were greatly boosted by the war in Gaza,' Obama said. 'And so if he doesn’t feel some internal pressure, then it’s hard to see him being able to make some very difficult compromises, including taking on the settler movement. That’s a tough thing to do. . . . In some ways, Bibi is too strong."

"In some ways, Bibi is too strong"? I suppose that explains why Kerry promoted the demands of Hamas, when he sought to achieve a cease-fire involving the current Gaza conflict. In accordance with Obama's strategy of "no victors, no vanquished," which is repeatedly emphasized over the course of Friedman's discussion with Obama, Israel's negotiating position needed to be undermined in order to achieve peace.

But can you imagine Obama accepting the mediation of North Korea in America's war with al-Qaeda? (Obama demanded that Israel accept Qatar and Turkey as mediators.)

And can you imagine Obama informing Americans that in their struggle with al-Qaeda there can be no victors, no vanquished?

Which leaves us with the question, who will be minding the store while Obama is playing golf in Martha's Vineyard? Given Obama's neo-isolationist, i.e. nihilistic, foreign policy, maybe it really doesn't matter at all.

Thomas Friedman, "People of Influence": No Mention of the Murder of Three Israeli Teenagers by Hamas

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "People of Influence" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/opinion/thomas-friedman-why-the-fate-of-ukraine-matters.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), subtitled "Why the Fate of Ukraine Matters," Thomas Friedman acknowledges his own error of judgement regarding Putin's intentions vis-a-vis the Ukraine. Friedman writes:

"I had argued in May that Putin had 'blinked' when, in the wake of Western sanctions and the threat of more, he pulled back troops from Ukraine’s border where he had massed them — hoping first to block Poroshenko’s election and then the signing of the E.U. deal. But maybe Putin just winked. While he did not invade, he has shoveled arms and proxies into eastern Ukraine to foment separatism in Russian-speaking areas. Today, Poroshenko — fed up with Putin’s Goebbels-quality lying — moved forces to regain control of eastern Ukraine and his country’s right to choose its future. Putin is clearly afraid of more sanctions. It is time the U.S. and E.U. imposed them."

Indeed, Putin did not "blink." He has no respect whatsoever for Friedman's friend in the White House. More sanctions against Putin from an impotent Obama administration and an a divided and indifferent EU? Good luck!

This morning, however, I am not interested in Friedman's fatuous views concerning the Ukraine. Rather, I am curious why this would-be Middle East expert has decided not to write about the shocking murder of three Israeli teenagers who were kidnapped by Hamas.

As reported by The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/UK-reaction-to-murders-Avoid-escalation-and-be-proportionate-361214) today:

"British Middle East Minister Hugh Robertson, speaking about the killings of three Israeli teenagers, called for all parties to 'avoid action that could escalate the situation further' and told Israel that 'all security operations must be handled with due care, restraint and a proportionate use of force.'"

What do you say, Tom? Must Israel act with "restraint" and with "proportionate use of force" in response to these murders, which again depict the true face of Hamas, whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews?

Yes, I know, at times like these, it is easier to write pap about Putin.

Nicholas Kristof, "Obama’s Weakness, or Ours?": Jackass

The IRS scandal? Shhh! As we all know by now, you're not supposed to write about it in The New York Times, and Nicholas Kristof is toeing the line. Ignoring the IRS scandal in his latest Times op-ed entitled "Obama’s Weakness, or Ours?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/opinion/nicholas-kristof-obamas-weakness-or-ours.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), he instead directs our attention to Obama's foreign policy and would have us know that the 58 percent of Americans who disapprove of the way Obama is handling foreign policy (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/world/middleeast/sharp-rise-in-disapproval-of-obamas-handling-of-foreign-policy-poll-finds.html?_r=0) are fools.

Regarding the prisoner exchange for Bergdahl, Kristof writes:

"But the five Taliban prisoners have probably aged out of field combat, and, if they return to Afghanistan after their year in Qatar, they would likely have trouble finding American targets because, by then, the United States will no longer be engaged in combat."

If you "age out of field combat," you no longer pose a security threat as a behind-the-lines commander? In the age of global jihad, these released terrorists can only engage in terrorist activities within the borders of Afghanistan? Kristof is indeed a jackass. Needless to say, Kristof doesn't mention how Susan Rice, the president's National Security Advisor, shamefully went on television to inform the nation that Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction" and that he was "an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield."

Regarding Russia, Kristof would have us know:

"Russian aggression in Ukraine was infuriating, but it’s petty Washington politics to see it as emanating from Obama weakness.

. . . .

Be wary, but let’s hope the Bear is backing down."

Of course, Kristof doesn't refer to Obama's open microphone request that Medvedev convey to Putin his promise of "flexibility" during his second term. Why should Putin "back down"? He was promised flexibility.

Concerning the chaos in Iraq, Kristof explains:

"The debacle in Iraq is a political and humanitarian catastrophe, but it’s a little rich for neocons to blame Obama after they created the mess in the first place."

Well, I opposed the Second Gulf War, but there can be no avoiding the conclusion that the emergence of ISIS (alternatively ISIL) resulted from Obama's failure to support more moderate elements fighting against Bashar al-Assad. It's worth noting that Kristof himself wrote a Times op-ed entitled "Obama AWOL in Syria" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/opinion/kristof-obama-awol-in-syria.html), in which he asked Obama to become more proactive with respect to the rebellion in Syria. Syria? Kristof tells us today:

"Yes, Obama has made his share of mistakes, especially in Syria, where he doesn’t seem to have much of a policy at all. Partly balancing that, he helped to defuse the Syrian chemical weapons threat."

Obama defused the Syrian chemical weapons threat? Oh really? Earlier this week, in an editorial entitled "Obama’s wrongheaded reluctance to help the moderate opposition in Syria" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-wrongheaded-reluctance-to-help-the-moderate-opposition-in-syria/2014/06/22/efb0ff0e-f977-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html?hpid=z4), The Washington Post acknowledged that Obama's agreement with Assad, sponsored by Putin, for the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal is not being honored:

"We welcomed the agreement that the United States and Russia reached last year to compel Syria to rid itself of chemical weapons after a horrific attack that killed more than 1,400 people in August. The plan was ambitious: It called for complete, verified liquidation of Syria’s chemical weapons stocks and production facilities no later than June 30. And the effort to move these hazardous weapons out of Syria has come a long way; an estimated 92 percent of them have been taken out.

But after the initial progress, Assad’s regime has turned truculent and unresponsive. Robert Mikulak, the U.S. representative to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), last week declared that Syria has missed 'a parade of timelines.' He pointed out that Syria’s production facilities were supposed to be destroyed by March, but destruction hasn’t started. None of the remaining 8 percent has moved toward the port of Latakia. Questions remain about Syria’s declaration of its stockpiles."

You see, Nicholas, Americans are not as stupid as you make them out to be.

Thomas Friedman, "Challenging Putin’s Values": Don't Believe The Washington Post!

Were you hoping for more flatulence from Thomas Friedman this morning? Congratulations, you've got it!

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Challenging Putin’s Values" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/opinion/friedman-challenging-putins-values.html?ref=opinion), Friedman attempts to come to the aid of a beleaguered President Obama, whose foreign policy is under attack from all sides. Tom Terrific writes:

"Look how just our limited sanctions triggered a stampede by the electronic herd of global investors who have pulled more than $50 billion out of Russia this year."

More than $50 billion has left Russia this year? Obama has run America's national debt over $17.5 trillion, an amount which is never going to be returned.

Friedman continues:

"Don’t let anyone tell you the sanctions are meaningless."

Well, two days ago in an editorial entitled "Obama’s half-measures give Vladi­mir Putin little to fear" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-half-measures-give-vladimir-putin-little-to-fear/2014/04/28/b663885c-cee8-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html), The Washington Post informed us:

"VLADIMIR PUTIN’S assault on Ukraine has been relentless and increasingly reckless: Forces working with Russian personnel in eastern Ukraine are torturing and murdering opponents and holding international observers hostage. In contrast, President Obama’s response has been slow and excruciatingly measured. New U.S. sanctions announced Monday fall well short of the steps that senior officials threatened when the Russian offensive in eastern Ukraine began three weeks ago."

Of course, you mustn't listen to the editorial board of The Washington Post!

Friedman's conclusion:

"We couldn’t stop them if we wanted to. [Ukrainians have] been empowered by globalization and the I.T. revolution. Get used to it, Comrade Putin."

Remind you of something? Three years ago, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "They Did It" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/opinion/13friedman.html?ref=thomaslfriedman), Friedman wrote jubilantly of the revolution in Egypt:

"They did this all by themselves. That is so important. One of the most powerful chants I heard in [Tahrir] square on Friday night was: 'The people made the regime step down.'

This sense of self-empowerment and authenticity — we did this for ourselves, by ourselves — is what makes Egypt’s democracy movement such a potential game-changer for the whole region.

. . . .

This could get interesting — for all the region’s autocrats. Egypt’s youthful and resourceful democrats are just getting started."

And where are we today in Egypt? On Monday, an Egyptian court sentenced 683 Muslim Brotherhood members to death. What does Obama have to say about that? Answer: Nothing.

And now the Benghazi scandal has been reawakened owing to FOIA disclosure of documents the White House sought to suppress, which indicate that there was an attempt to mislead Americans concerning the reason for the attack (see: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/).

Which brings us to Maureen Dowd's op-ed of today's date entitled "Is Barry Whiffing?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/opinion/dowd-is-barry-whiffing.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), in which she writes:

"Stop whining, Mr. President.

. . . .

It doesn’t feel like leadership. It doesn’t feel like you’re in command of your world.

How can we accept these reduced expectations and truculent passivity from the man who offered himself up as the moral beacon of the world, even before he was elected?"

Yes, Maureen is correct: No one takes Obama seriously overseas. Okay, as observed by Friedman, the Russian stock market has dropped some 13 percent since the beginning of the year, but do you really think Putin, an ex-KGB lieutenant colonel, gives a damn? Trust me, he doesn't.

Thomas Friedman, "It’s All About May 25": From the North Pole to Kiev, Tom Has Answers

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

- "Won't Get Fooled Again," The Who

Do you remember how Thomas Friedman gushed over nascent Egyptian democracy and the Arab Spring from Cairo's Tahrir Square? Well, fresh from a submarine trip to the North Pole, Tom is back with more drivel enlightenment from the Ukraine. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "It’s All About May 25" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/opinion/friedman-its-all-about-may-25.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Friedman strolls around Kiev's Independence Square and declares (my emphasis in red):

"It would have been nice if we could have forged a compromise with President Vladimir Putin of Russia that would have allowed Ukraine to gradually join the European Union and not threaten him.

. . . .

Our job is to back Putin off so the elections can happen."

Excuse me, but who is this "we" to whom Friedman so blithely refers? Is it Barack Obama, who so blithely promised "flexibility" during his second term to Vladimir Putin?

Elections will back Putin into a corner? Yeah, right.

Friedman's conclusion:

"In sum, it was courageous Ukrainians who gave birth to their own clean democracy movement, because they were fed up. But Putin can’t live with a successful, Westward-looking democracy here, and young Ukrainians can’t live without it. So, for it to thrive, we have to make sure Putin doesn’t kill it in the crib, and they have to make sure their old-line politicians don’t kill it before it learns to walk."

Ah yes, "courageous Ukrainians," "clean democracy movement," "young Ukrainians" who "can't live" without "Westward-looking democracy." Kind of makes you want to vomit.

Does anyone, other than Friedman, place value on this stream of "thought" (after all, if he thinks it, surely it must be important)? Unfortunately, the answer is yes: Obama still reads this windbag.

Thomas Friedman, "Go Ahead, Vladimir, Make My Day": Subsidize Ukraine Through the Pain? And Maybe the EU, Too?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Go Ahead, Vladimir, Make My Day" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/opinion/sunday/friedman-go-ahead-vladimir-make-my-day.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Thomas Friedman begins:

"SO the latest news is that President Vladimir Putin of Russia has threatened to turn off gas supplies to Ukraine if Kiev doesn’t pay its overdue bill, and, by the way, Ukraine’s pipelines are the transit route for 15 percent of gas consumption for Europe. If I’m actually rooting for Putin to go ahead and shut off the gas, does that make me a bad guy?

Because that is what I’m rooting for, and I’d be happy to subsidize Ukraine through the pain. Because such an oil shock, though disruptive in the short run, could have the same long-term impact as the 1973 Arab oil embargo — only more so. That 1973 embargo led to the first auto mileage standards in America and propelled the solar, wind and energy efficiency industries. A Putin embargo today would be even more valuable because it would happen at a time when the solar, wind, natural gas and energy efficiency industries are all poised to take off and scale. So Vladimir, do us all a favor, get crazy, shut off the oil and gas to Ukraine and, even better, to all of Europe. Embargo! You’ll have a great day, and the rest of the planet will have a great century."

Friedman would be happy to subsidize Ukraine through the pain? With whose money? Or maybe the US government should just print some more, thereby adding to the national debt, which now exceeds $17.5 trillion.

And after subsidizing Ukraine through the pain, maybe Friedman would also care to throw cash at Europe, which is only now beginning to emerge from a prolonged recession. Unfortunately, the problem does not only involve Russian natural gas. Regarding European dependence on Russian energy sources, the EU tells us (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Energy_production_and_imports):

"The origin of EU-27 energy imports has changed somewhat in recent years, as Russia has maintained its position as the main supplier of crude oil and natural gas and emerged as the leading supplier of hard coal. In 2010, some 34.5% of the EU-27’s imports of crude oil were from Russia; this was the highest share recorded between 2002 and 2010 having fallen to a temporary low of 31.4% in 2008. Russia became the principal supplier of hard coal in 2006, overtaking South Africa, having overtaken Australia in 2004 and Colombia in 2002; Russia’s share of EU-27 hard coal imports rose from 13.1% in 2002 to 30.2% by 2009, before falling somewhat in 2010 to 27.1%. Despite this contraction, Russia remained the primary source of hard coal imports into the EU in 2010 and its share was well ahead of the next highest, recorded by Colombia (20.2%). By contrast, Russia’s share of EU-27 imports of natural gas declined from 45.1% to 31.8% between 2003 and 2010, while Qatar’s share rose from less than 1% to 8.6%."

Sever the EU overnight from Russian energy sources? It's not nearly as simple as would-be alternative energy expert Friedman would have you believe, unless the EU can rely upon Tom's endless supply of wind.