Rashid Khalidi, "John Kerry and Israel: Too Little and Too Late": More Israel Bashing From The New York Times

Tweet

Do you remember the controversy surrounding Obama and Rashid Khalidi?  The Los Angeles Times still refuses to release the video of Obama speaking at a 2003 going-away party honoring Khalidi, at which virulent anti-Semitism was expressed by other speakers. Well, it should come as no surprise that today, in the aftermath of John Kerry's speech earlier this week attacking Israeli settlements on the West Bank, Khalidi is being given space on The New York Times op-ed page to vent his spleen at Israel. Described by the Times as "a professor of Arab studies at Columbia who was an adviser to the Palestinian delegation during peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993" (no mention, of course, by the Times of the relationship between Obama and Khalidi or the video stashed away in a Los Angeles Times safe), Khalidi bashes Israel in his Times guest op-ed entitled "John Kerry and Israel: Too Little and Too Late":

"During Mr. Obama’s eight years in office, the illegal Israeli settler population has swelled by 100,000, to well over 600,000. Simultaneously, for eight years Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has directed a barrage of calculated slights, insults and acts of disrespect at the president of the United States. The Obama administration has finally reacted with Mr. Kerry’s speech and by allowing Resolution 2334, which condemns Israeli settlement expansion, to pass in the United Nations Security Council. By doing so, the United States simply acted in accordance with international law and the global consensus of nearly 50 years.

Meanwhile, a third generation of Palestinian children is growing up under a brutal occupation and Gaza has been under siege for a decade. Palestinians are obliged to seek the permission of the Israeli military for the most basic of needs, such as medical treatment, or to travel abroad or even just to Jerusalem."

Fascinating. Khalidi would have us believe that there are no hospitals in the West Bank or Gaza. In fact, there are some 60 hospitals and medical centers in the West Bank and Gaza, and although I am not claiming that Palestinian medical facilities are on a par with Israeli facilities, it is worth noting that average life expectancy in the West Bank is 75.91, compared with 75.69 in Hungary, 75.41 in China, 75.05 in Saudi Arabia, 74.57 in Turkey, 74.35 in Jordan, 73.70 in Egypt, and 71.15 in Iran.

Khalidi describes Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank as "brutal"? Consider what Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, now in his twelfth year of his four-year term in office, declared to Jackson Diehl in 2009 (my emphasis in red):

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

This statement was made after Abbas refused Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 peace offer, providing the Palestinians with an independent state along the 1967 lines together with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. 

As for Khalidi's claim that "During Mr. Obama’s eight years in office, the illegal Israeli settler population has swelled by 100,000, to well over 600,000." An answer to this rubbish is to be found in an editorial in today's Washington Post entitled "On Israel, we’re right back where Obama started," which informs us (my emphasis in red):

"THE OBAMA administration is ending eight years of failed Middle East diplomacy exactly where it began in 2009 — with an exaggerated and misguided focus on Israeli settlement construction. As he railed at the continuing growth of West Bank Jewish housing on Wednesday with a prolixity that Fidel Castro would have admired, Secretary of State John F. Kerry sounded a lot like President Obama during the early months of his first term, when he insisted that the Israeli government freeze all construction as a starting point for negotiations on a Palestinian state.

. . . .

Mr. Kerry’s speech was, above all, a vivid demonstration of the administration’s inability to learn from its mistakes or adjust the ideological tenets that Mr. Obama brought to office.

. . . .

In fact, the two-state solution remains entirely viable, as even the settlement statistics cited by Mr. Kerry demonstrate. The administration asserts that the Jewish population in the West Bank has increased by 100,000 since 2009 — but by Mr. Kerry’s account, 80 percent of that growth was in areas Israel would likely annex in any settlement. In eight years, 20,000 people have been added to communities in territory likely to become part of Palestine — an area where 2.75 million Arabs now live. That growth of about 3 percent per annum, the product of a restraint for which Mr. Netanyahu received no White House credit, means that the Jewish population outside Israel’s West Bank fence may have decreased as a percentage of the overall population even as Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have made it the focal point of U.S. policy."

Perhaps the WaPo editorial should have also observed what was acknowledged by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat: Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/erekat-olmert-offered-palestinians-territorial-equivalent-of-west-bank-1.393484).


Bottom line: Khalidi's Israel bashing op-ed amounts to just one more effort by The New York Times to discredit Israel during the waning days of the Obama administration. Despicable.

[I sent this blog item to Andrew Rosenthal, former editorial page editor of The New York Times:

Dear Andrew,

I thought you might be interested.

Jeffrey

Rosenthal's response:

I'm not sure why. But thanks.

Andy

Why am I not surprised?]

Is Obama an Anti-Semite?

We all know that Obama sat silently in his pew while his spiritual mentor, the Reverend Wright, ranted against Jews and Israel over the course of some 20 years. We also know that The Los Angeles Times refuses to release the video of Obama speaking at a 2003 going-away party honoring Rashid Khalidi, at which virulent anti-Semitism was expressed by other speakers. But is Obama himself an anti-Semite?

Wearing a white kippah at the Adas Israel Congregation in Washington, D.C. on May 22, 2015, and identifying himself as an "honorary member of the tribe," Obama declared:

"And it is precisely because I care so deeply about the state of Israel -- it’s precisely because, yes, I have high expectations for Israel the same way I have high expectations for the United States of America -- that I feel a responsibility to speak out honestly about what I think will lead to long-term security and to the preservation of a true democracy in the Jewish homeland."

Or stated otherwise, Obama holds Israel to a different standard. Now where have we heard these words before? In an article entitled "Nicholas Kristof, Israel, and Double Standards" (http://www.jsantisemitism.org/essays/GrossmanJSA210(4).pdf) for The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism, I wrote that Kristof routinely rails against purported Israeli injustices, while ignoring the improprieties of other democracies (my emphasis in red):

"Ignorance, however, has never prevented Kristof from foisting twaddle upon the Times’s readership, particularly with respect to Israel. In an August 2011 op-ed, “Seeking Balance on the Mideast” (http://www.nytimes
.com/2011/08/04/opinion/seeking-balance-on-the-mideast.html?_r=1&hp), Kristof lambasted Israel at a time when Assad’s tanks were massacring the inhabitants of the Syrian city of Hama. Kristof sought to excuse himself by observing:

'Whenever I write about Israel, I get accused of double standards because I don’t spill as much ink denouncing worse abuses by, say, Syria. I plead guilty. I demand more of Israel partly because my tax dollars supply arms and aid to Israel. I hold democratic allies like Israel to a higher standard—just as I do the U.S.'

True, Syria has not been a recipient of U.S. aid. But whereas Egypt has received billions of dollars of American aid, Kristof doesn’t write about the persecution and murder of its Coptic Christian minority . . . And while Pakistan, a democracy of sorts, has also benefited from billions of dollars of U.S. aid while abetting the Taliban in Afghanistan, Kristof has been seeking a reduction of tariffs on Pakistani garment exports to the United States, purportedly in order to fight extremism.

. . . .

According to the 'working definition of antisemitism' of the European Forum on Antisemitism: 'Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include: . . . Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.'"

However, it is not only the European Forum on Antisemitism which cautions against applying a double standard to Israel. The US State Department also has determined that the application of such a double standard to Israel amounts to anti-Semitism:

"What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?

EXAMPLES of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel, taking into account the overall context could include:

. . . .

DOUBLE STANDARD FOR ISRAEL:
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation"

Obama went on to say in his speech before the Adas Israel Congregation:

"And that same sense of shared values also compel me to speak out -- compel all of us to speak out -- against the scourge of anti-Semitism wherever it exists.

. . . .

And in recent years, we’ve seen a deeply disturbing rise in anti-Semitism in parts of the world where it would have seemed unthinkable just a few years or decades ago."

Well, concerning that "scourge of anti-Semitism wherever it exists," I would observe that Obama did not speak out against the Reverend Wright in Chicago. Moreover, we are not being allowed to hear what Obama said at Rashid Khalidi's going-away party. In addition, we are witnessing today "unthinkable" incidents of anti-Semitism at American colleges and universities. What does President Obama have to say about this ugly phenomenon? In fact, nothing.

And then there is that "very small" matter of Obama agreeing to allow a viciously anti-Semitic Iran, which is committed to Israel's destruction, to build an arsenal of atomic weapons within a decade.

Obama stated to the Adas Israel Congregation that America has Israel's "back." I have no doubt that the American people, the American Congress, and the American military all have Israel's back. On the other hand, I have serious doubts concerning Obama, who last summer attempted to impose the mediation of the anti-Semitic regimes of Turkey and Qatar upon Israel with regard to Israel's conflict with Hamas.

Not only does Obama not "have Israel's back," I sometimes wonder if he is a closet anti-Semite. Care to make public the tape of the Khalidi going-away party, Mr. President?

Jackson Diehl, "Obama’s next earthquake": As Part of His Legacy, Is Obama Seeking to Break Israel?

I have always believed that Obama is a radical in moderate's clothing. A moderate doesn't "hang around" with the likes of Rashid Khalidi, the Reverend Wright, and former Weatherman Bill Ayers. How the American electorate chose to ignore this "baggage," which would sink any other candidate, is a testimony to David Axelrod's public relations wizardry. Now, as we edge toward the end of Obama's second term, he is beginning to cast away some of his "moderate" disguise, particularly as he undertakes measures to ensure the enfeeblement of Israel.

Regarding Iran, Obama doesn't care if Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei responds to chants of "Death to America" by declaring "Of course yes, death to America." Obama doesn't care if Khamenei continues to call for the annihilation of Israel. And Obama doesn't care if Iran has effectively achieved suzerainty over large swaths of Iraq, Syria and Yemen. After all, Obama has dedicated what is left of his presidency to establishing the Islamic Republic of Iran, which hangs homosexuals and stones to death women accused of adultery, as a "very successful regional power."

And even as Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the former head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, describes Obama's Middle East policy as one of "willful ignorance," Obama persists in capitulating to all of Khamenei's terms in order to reach a Swiss cheese-like arrangement in Lausanne, purportedly reining in Iran's nuclear development program.

As reported today by The New York Times in an article entitled "Iran Backs Away From Key Detail in Nuclear Deal" by David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordonmarch, Iran is now backing away from a requirement to ship their atomic fuel to Russia, two days away from the deadline for an interim agreement. Obviously, Khamenei knows that Obama is desperate to do this deal and that he will find some new means to appease him, so as to avoid new Congressional sanctions.

But making Iran into a regional power appears to be only one of the measures being pursued by Obama in order to bring Israel to its knees. In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s next earthquake," Jackson Diehl today tells us:

"Now Obama is contemplating going forward with a [UN] resolution that was drafted last year by Secretary of State John Kerry and his Mideast negotiations team at the State Department. The language was drawn up in response to efforts by the Palestinians and France to win support for Security Council resolutions following the collapse of Kerry’s attempt to get Israeli and Palestinian assent to a 'framework agreement.'

. . . .

Why go forward with a text that both sides would spurn? Obama’s hope would be that his initiative could win unanimous support from the Security Council and thus set the terms of reference for a future settlement, presumably under different Israeli and Palestinian leaders. He could eventually become the grandfather of Middle East peace; at a minimum, diplomats who now talk of the 'Clinton parameters' from 2000 would henceforth speak of the 'Obama framework.'

There would be other effects, of course, among them an unprecedented breach in U.S.-Israeli relations and a vast acceleration of the global movement to boycott and sanction the Jewish state in the likely event it resisted the U.N. terms. But judging from Obama’s demeanor in assailing Netanyahu last week, the president might welcome that legacy, too."

With the entire Middle East embroiled in chaos, America's Narcissist-in-Chief, convinced of his own omniscience, wishes to add the "Obama framework" to this seething cauldron? Isn't there someone in his inner circle capable of telling him that he has already done enough damage in the region, bringing American credibility and deterrent power to a unfathomable nadir?

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Method to Obama’s Middle East Mess," Ross Douthat claims that Obama is shifting from a "Pax Americana Model" in the Middle East to an "offshore balancing system":

"In an offshore balancing system, our clients are fewer, and our commitments are reduced. Regional powers bear the primary responsibility for dealing with crises on the ground, our military strategy is oriented toward policing the sea lanes and the skies, and direct intervention is contemplated only when the balance of power is dramatically upset."

However, if sea lanes remain important pursuant to this offshore balancing system, the Strait of Hormuz, adjoining Iran and controlling shipment of much of the world's oil, is now under Khamenei's control. Moreover, with Shiite Houthi rebels under the patronage of Iran gaining control of Yemen, the Strait of Bab al-Mandab, controlling access to the Suez Canal from the Arabian Sea, could also fall under Iran's thumb.

Yes, Obama has made a muddle of the world, and it remains to be seen if future American presidents will be able to repair the damage. Israel? It is already counting the days until Obama leaves office.

Thomas Friedman, "Go Ahead, Ruin My Day": Sorry, Tom, Obama Decided the Election in Favor of Bibi

Definition of "Schadenfreude"

"A feeling of enjoyment that comes from seeing or hearing about the troubles of other people."

- Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It should come as no surprise that would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman is devastated by Netanyahu's victory in Israel's parliamentary elections. What a shame! . . . not. Writing about Israel, Iran and Iraq in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Go Ahead, Ruin My Day," Friedman begins by commenting upon Netanyahu's success:

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party pretty well trounced the Labor Party leader, Isaac Herzog, in the race to form Israel’s next government. Netanyahu clearly made an impressive 11th-hour surge since the pre-election polls of last week. It is hard to know what is more depressing: that Netanyahu went for the gutter in the last few days in order to salvage his campaign — renouncing his own commitment to a two-state solution with the Palestinians and race-baiting Israeli Jews to get out and vote because, he said, too many Israeli Arabs were going to the polls — or the fact that this seemed to work.

To be sure, Netanyahu could reverse himself tomorrow. As the Yediot Ahronot columnist Nahum Barnea wrote: Netanyahu’s promises are like something 'written on ice on a very hot day.' But the fact is a good half of Israel identifies with the paranoid, everyone-is-against-us, and religious-nationalist tropes Netanyahu deployed in this campaign. That, along with the fact that some 350,000 settlers are now living in the West Bank, makes it hard to see how a viable two-state solution is possible anymore no matter who would have won."

Well, it should come as no surprise that Friedman is mistaken on all counts.

Israeli polls are notoriously inaccurate, and I am dubious whether Netanyahu's Likud Party went from a four parliamentary seat deficit to a six seat advantage over Herzog's Labor Party owing to anything Bibi said over the past several days.

But more to the point, I am not religious, I don't live in the West Bank, I believe in a two-state solution (if ever the Palestinians will accept this), and I detest the lifestyle and shenanigans of Bibi; however, I voted yesterday for the Likud for the first time in my life, albeit with a clothespin over my nose. Why? Simple. I believe that there has been a resurgence of anti-Semitism around the globe, and I am convinced that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel. When Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei tells me that he wishes to annihilate Israel, I believe him. On the other hand, I don't think that everyone is against us. Canada is not against Israel. The Czech Republic is not against Israel. Obama, on the other hand, is against Israel, as evidenced by the fact that he is willing to give Iran the unrestricted right to manufacture an arsenal of nuclear weapons within a decade.

If someone wishes to argue that Obama is not against Israel, I suggest that they ask The Los Angeles Times to release the video of Obama speaking at a 2003 going-away party honoring Rashid Khalidi. It's just not going to happen. I have always argued that Obama is a radical in moderate clothing, but with less than two years remaining of his second term, the disguise is slipping away.

So why vote this time for the Likud instead of Labor? Because Israel's back is up against the wall, and I have serious doubts whether Herzog has the gumption to stand up to Obama concerning Iran. Was I alone yesterday, voting for the Likud for reasons of survival? Not a chance, as I learned after speaking with friends at the polling station. It turns out that none other than Obama decided the election in favor of Bibi.

New York Times Editorial, "Stop Hiding Images of American Torture": Stop Hiding the Videotape of Obama Honoring Khalidi

In an editorial entitled "Stop Hiding Images of American Torture," The New York Times concludes:

"Images of war are frequently appalling, and the safety of American citizens and soldiers is vitally important. But the greatest threat to that safety lies not in the photographs of horrific behavior; it lies in the fact of the behavior itself. The treatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was a shameful episode in U.S. history.

America reinforces its values and thus its security by being transparent about even the worst abuses of those values, not by hiding the evidence deep in a file drawer."

In response, I have two thoughts:

On April 18, 2012 The Los Angeles Times published photos of American soldiers posing with the remains of Afghan suicide bombers. On the other hand, The Los Angeles Times is keeping a 2003 videotape of Obama toasting Rashid Khalidi in a vault, not a "file drawer." Isn't it high time for The Los Angeles Times to release this videotape, which reveals the candid thoughts of America's commander-in-chief?

In addition, if The New York Times wishes to publish photographs of "horrific behavior" by American troops, perhaps they might first want to publish pictures of the decapitation of James Foley? Indeed the pictures of Foley's decapitation are horrifying beyond words, but perhaps they would go a long way toward placing Obama's golf game, minutes after his speech condemning Foley's execution, in perspective.

In fact, out of deference to Foley's family, I wouldn't want these pictures on the front page of The New York Times or any other newspaper. Some images are just too horrible to be exposed in this manner.

But does The New York Times truly seek transparency? Rubbish! They cannot acknowledge their own mistakes, and they are certainly not about to print anything that might besmirch their beloved president.

Aaron David Miller, "One trip won’t fix things between Obama and Netanyahu. Here’s what might.": Aaron, Get Real

Obama is arriving this week in Israel for his first time as president, and in a Washington Post guest opinion piece entitled "One trip won’t fix things between Obama and Netanyahu. Here’s what might." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/one-meeting-wont-fix-things-between-obama-and-netanyahu-heres-what-might/2013/03/15/f31d7eca-8b27-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html), Aaron David Miller, vice president and distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, writes:

"For almost 25 years as an analyst, adviser and negotiator in Republican and Democratic administrations, I observed the U.S.-Israel relationship up close. And it’s been clear from the beginning that Obama and Netanyahu were doomed to dysfunction. Netanyahu is preternaturally suspicious of America’s role in the peace process, and particularly of someone like Obama, who aspires to do big things. And Obama’s naive push for a settlement freeze and apparent lack of an emotional connection to Israel have contributed to the tension.

One presidential visit won’t forge a reconciliation. But increasing pressures to manage the Iranian nuclear issue, the peace process and Netanyahu’s need to remain relevant in his new government just might.

. . . .

What is required, though, is respect, understanding and reciprocity that create trust, or at least the ability to work together on things that are important to both countries. And despite the dysfunction at the top, the institutional relationship between the United States and Israel is probably closer than ever, through security cooperation, intelligence-sharing and joint military exercises."

Ah, yes, "understanding and reciprocity that create trust." In recent weeks, Obama appointed Chuck Hagel, an anti-Semite, as his secretary of defense, and appointed John Kerry, an idiot (Syria's Bashar al-Assad was - or perhaps still is - his "dear friend") as his secretary of state.

In his latest display of naivete, Kerry, who recently declared that "Americans have a right to be stupid," turned to Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu to assist in mediating between Israel and the Palestinians (see: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=306619) immediately after Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan labeled Zionism a "crime against humanity." At a subsequent press conference with Kerry, Davutoglu defended Erdogan's racist allegation, and needless to say, Turkey refused Kerry's request.

Trust Obama? No way. Obama is Rashid Khalidi's friend, and The Los Angeles Times still refuses to allow us to see the video of Obama toasting Khalidi at a Chicago dinner party after Khalidi received his appointment as Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia and director of that university’s Middle East Institute.

Yes, I can personally attest to "security cooperation, intelligence-sharing and joint military exercises" involving the US and Israel; however, Obama is a foreign relations naif and much of his first term as president was devoted to goodwill gestures toward Iran, Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

The US Embassy held a contest to select up to 20 "lucky" persons who will be given the opportunity to watch Obama recite a speech in Israel using his beloved teleprompters. However, Obama will not address the Israeli parliament and will not be visiting the Western Wall in Jerusalem so as not to antagonize Israel's Muslim neighbors.

This is a man who has Israel's back at a time when Iran is threatening Israel with a nuclear holocaust? Sorry if I have my doubts.

Charles Blow, "The Real Obama": Chuck Hagel, "Let the Jews Pay for It"

"Tonight, I’ll lay out additional proposals that are fully paid for and fully consistent with the budget framework both parties agreed to just 18 months ago. Let me repeat – nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime. It’s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth."

- President Barack Obama, 2013 State of the Union Address

Over the course of his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama emphasized the need to increase federal spending on education, infrastructure and green energy, and he claimed that this would not increase America's deficit "by a single dime." These are all noble objectives, but where in his speech did he explain how he intended to pay for all of this?

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, "The federal government ran up a $293 billion deficit in the first quarter of fiscal 2013." As such, the annual federal budget deficit is well on its way to topping $1 trillion for the fifth-straight year. If you believe that Obama's plans are not going to increase the deficit, you are surely also a believer in the Tooth Fairy.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Real Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/opinion/blow-the-real-obama.html?_r=0), Charles Blow writes:

"Is this the real Barack Obama? I hope so. I like this one.

The president used Tuesday’s State of the Union address to detail a vision of America’s future, and his second term, in which the country is not in perpetual war, government plays an expansive role, Congressional obstruction is named and shamed and he is bold and unapologetically progressive.

This is how politicians who needn’t worry about re-election look: more like themselves."

Blow also doesn't trouble himself with the question of who is going to pay for Obama's "unapologetically progressive" program. The problem is that someone ultimately must pay for it.

Which brings us to Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense. As reported by Adam Kredo of The Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/the-saga-of-hagel-and-haifa/):

"Hagel, who served as president and CEO of the World USO from 1987 to 1990, expressed intense opposition to the USO Haifa Center during a tumultuous 1989 meeting with Jewish leaders, according to multiple sources involved in the fight to keep the post open.

'He said to me, ‘Let the Jews pay for it’,' said Marsha Halteman, director for military and law enforcement programs at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which led the battle to keep USO Haifa operational."

"Let the Jews pay for it"? Is this also indicative of what underlies the "real" Obama?

We have also learned from Alana Goodman of The Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/arab-american-group-wont-release-hagel-tape/) that Republican senators are demanding additional disclosure of material from Hagel:

"Among the requested materials: the full text and details of several speeches Hagel failed to report to the Senate Armed Services Committee that have since been uncovered.

Fox News Channel on Tuesday reported on two speeches Hagel failed to disclose as requested, including one given in 2008 to the annual conference of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).

The ADC is a controversial nonprofit whose conference last year featured speakers prominent in the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement targeting Israel. The 2012 conference also featured an award presentation celebrating an author whose essays include one titled, 'Zionism is a form of racism.'

The ADC also has not disclosed the full video of Hagel’s 2008 speech, while refusing to release its tax records as required by federal law."

According to Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/12/hagel-omitted-two-speeches-on-middle-east-from-senate-disclosure-forms/):

"An Obama administration official who has worked with the senator during his confirmation process maintained that Hagel has gone 'above and beyond' the Senate’s requirements, by supplying to the Armed Services Committee whatever evidence he could find – prepared remarks, transcripts and the like – for both formal and 'informal' speeches.

Apprised by Fox News of the two speaking dates from 2008, however, the official appeared not to have heard about them. The aide later responded that Hagel did not disclose these two speaking events because neither were formal speeches. 'It’s simply not true to suggest there was any attempt to hide anything,' the aide told Fox News. 'One event was at an academic institute – Georgetown, a Jesuit university. The other was with an organization that combats discrimination.'"

An "organization that combats discrimination," yet honors a speaker who claims that Zionism is a form of racism? Yeah, right.

By all means, let's review Hagel's speech before the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which purportedly is in an "archive" in Maryland and unavailable.

Another video which we are not being permitted to see? Does it remind you of something? It should. You will recall that The Los Angeles Times still refuses to release a video of Obama at a party honoring former PLO media spokesman and University of Chicago colleague Rashid Khalidi.

Meanwhile, as Obama continues to pursue abortive talks with Iran over its nuclear weapons development program as long advocated by Hagel [the US "shouldn’t even be thinking about options of bombing Iran" (http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/02/10/hagel-in-2008-video-us-shouldnt-even-think-about-bombing-iran-video/)], The Washington Post is reporting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iranian-buying-spree-raises-concerns-about-major-expansion-of-nuclear-capacity/2013/02/13/2090805c-7537-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html?hpid=z1):

"Iran recently sought to acquire tens of thousands of highly specialized magnets used in centrifuge machines, according to experts and diplomats, a sign that the country may be planning a major expansion of its nuclear program that could shorten the path to an atomic weapons capability."

The "real" Obama? I think I prefer the "unreal" Obama. And yes, I have a sinking feeling that ultimately the Jews will "pay for it."

Jeffrey Goldberg, "Obama: ‘Israel Doesn’t Know What Its Best Interests Are’": Will This Impact Hagel?

In a Bloomberg article entitled "Obama: ‘Israel Doesn’t Know What Its Best Interests Are’" (http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4067977173951690762#editor/target=post;postID=8860285838652858161), Jeffrey Goldberg writes today:

"In the weeks after the UN vote [in November to upgrade the status of the Palestinians], Obama said privately and repeatedly, 'Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are.' With each new settlement announcement, in Obama’s view, Netanyahu is moving his country down a path toward near-total isolation.

And if Israel, a small state in an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah -- one that alienates even the affections of the U.S., its last steadfast friend -- it won’t survive. Iran poses a short-term threat to Israel’s survival; Israel’s own behavior poses a long-term one.

The dysfunctional relationship between Netanyahu and Obama is poised to enter a new phase. Next week, Israeli voters will probably return Netanyahu to power, this time at the head of a coalition even more intractably right-wing than the one he currently leads."

For the moment, let's ignore Israel's plans to build 3,000 new housing units in the E1 area between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim and just focus on Obama's "repeated" declarations that "Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are" prior to Israeli elections. Can you imagine the outrage if Netanyahu had declared prior to US elections in November that current US policy involving Iran and the rest of the Middle East is not in its own best interests? Or US economic policy is not in its own best interests? Or Obamacare is not in America's own best interests?

Obama knows what's in Israel's best interests? The reality is that Obama knows next to nothing about Israel or the Middle East apart from what his virulent anti-Israel confidants told him in the past; e.g., the Reverend Wright and Rashid Khalidi.

The planned E1 housing units? I favor a two-state solution along the 1967 lines with appropriate land swaps; however, in order to arrive at such a solution, there needs to be a counterparty willing to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. The Hamas charter calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis, and rejects any negotiated settlement with Israel. Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has steadfastly refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Moreover, the planned E1 housing project must be placed in context. The housing would be situated in an area which, as agreed in prior Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, would ultimately remain part of Israel in exchange for territories to be ceded by Israel. Let's also not forget that Israeli settlements are situated on territory comprising less than two percent of the West Bank.

Regarding isolation of Israel, putting "daylight" between the US and Israel has been the cornerstone of Obama's foreign policy since his 2009 inauguration. Although Obama, as president, visited Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, he refused to step foot in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

Although Obama has made a point of highlighting his strong friendship with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, Obama has avoided complaining about Ankara's global leadership in the imprisonment of journalists (see: http://www.cpj.org/europe/turkey/) and about its oppression of its Kurdish minority, and he has also reneged on his commitment to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Similarly, Obama has avoided any reference to a myriad of Saudi human rights abuses, e.g., the beheading of a Sri Lankan maid on Sunday (see: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/20131146361222980.html).

Egypt? Let's see if Obama even a mumbles a word concerning Egyptian President's Morsi's 2010 declaration that Egyptians should "nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred" for Jews and Zionists and that "these bloodsuckers who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs" (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/world/middleeast/egypts-leader-morsi-made-anti-jewish-slurs.html?_r=0).

Worse still, consider Obama's conduct regarding Syria. Senator John Kerry, who was repeatedly sent by Obama to meet with mass murderer Bashar al-Assad and who labeled Assad his "dear friend," is now being appointed Secretary of State. Obama has been all but mum regarding the death of 60,000 innocent civilians in Syria's ongoing civil war, yet he remains obsessed with Netanyahu.

In fact, Obama's contempt for and obsession with Netanyahu, as best evidenced by his open microphone gaffe in a conversation with Sarkozy (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2011/11/sarkozy-obama-and-netanyahu-obama-never.html), has contributed mightily to Israel's isolation.

How might Jeffrey Goldberg's revelation affect Obama's nomination of Hagel as Secretary of Defense? Objecting to Hagel's nomination, The Washington Post went on record as saying that Hagel's positions place him "well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html). Well, we are now seeing that Chuck Hagel's positions place him very much in line with those of a second term Obama, who, no longer facing re-election, has the "flexibility" to remove his veil and let his true thoughts be known.

Senate approval of Chuck Hagel now boils down to the decision of Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. Will Schumer vote according to his conscience or along party lines? If I had to bet, I know where I would place my money.

Thomas Friedman, "Obama’s Best-Kept Secrets": Not the Rashid Khalidi Tape in the Los Angeles Times's Safe

"What I wouldn't give for a large sock with horse manure in it!"

- Woody Allen as Alvy Singer in "Annie Hall," 1977

Obama's "best-kept secrets"? No, Thomas Friedman, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Obama’s Best-Kept Secrets" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/opinion/sunday/friedman-obamas-best-kept-secrets.html), is not referring to the tape of Barry's tribute to Palestinian "activist" Rashid Khalidi, which is locked away in a safe at The Los Angeles Times. If this tape were to be aired, Obama's chances of re-election, already dubious, would evaporate into thin air.

So just what are these "best-kept secrets"? Surely the suspense is killing you!

Tom begins this gem of an opinion piece by observing:

"While I don’t know how Obamacare will turn out, I’m certain that my two favorite Obama initiatives will be transformative."

Ah, yes, Friedman's favorite Obama initiatives. Surely everyone must have at least one. Tom kindly informs us of the Obama intiatives which are closest to his heart:

"His Race to the Top program in education has already set off a nationwide wave of school reform, and his Race to the Top in vehicles — raising the mileage standards for American-made car and truck fleets from 27.5 miles per gallon to 54.5 m.p.g. between now and 2025 — is already spurring a wave of innovation in auto materials, engines and software. Obama mentioned both briefly in the last debate, but I want to talk about them more, because I think they are the future of progressive politics in this age of austerity: government using its limited funds and steadily rising performance standards to stimulate states and businesses to innovate better economic, educational and environmental practices."

You want to score schools on the basis of test results and fund them on the basis of evaluation systems for student and teacher performance? My goodness, we're looking at a whole new opportunity for manipulating test scores and engaging in fraud, although nothing near the malfeasance which plagues Medicare and Social Security.

Obama’s doubling of vehicle mileage by 2025? I don't know if I'll be alive by then. Certainly, Obama will no longer be president.

But let's suppose the US auto industry fails to reach these standards: Does any sane person believe that a future American president will cut the ground out from under GM and Ford, which are struggling to remain competitive, and in GM's case, is struggling to remain afloat after a multi-billion dollar federal bailout?

Me? Like many others around the globe, I already drive a hybrid, which saves me a ton of money on gas. The federal government doesn't need to tell the auto industry that it is in their best interests to manufacture more fuel efficient cars. If GM and Ford won't manufacture such cars in the future, which are competitive with Hondas and Toyotas, they will again be facing financial ruin.

In short, there is no need for the federal government to hang this Sword of Damocles over the heads of US auto industry executives. They know much better than Obama and his team of federal bureaucrats what needs to be done to stay solvent in these troubled times.

So, these are Obama's "best-kept secrets"?

Yes, in case you didn't know by now, the man with that silly thing atop his head (is it alive or dead?) is not one of your brighter lights.

Seth Anziska, "A Preventable Massacre": More Israel Bashing From The New York Times

The Middle East is indeed a savage region. In 1982, Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, father of Bashar al-Assad, killed some 25,000 Sunni civilians (there are higher and lower estimates) in the town of Hama. In 1988, Saddam Hussein killed some 5,000 civilians when he attacked the Kurdish town of Halabja with poison gas. Over 1,200 Israelis have been killed by Palestinian terrorists since September 2000. And more recently, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has killed some 30,000 civilians while attempting to quell the current uprising of his country's Sunni majority.

Further afield in Central Asia, some 1,300 Afghan civilians have accidentally been killed by US-led military forces since Obama became president in 2009.

But never mind any of the above. Today, The New York Times would only have us focus on the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre. Over the course of this abomination, Lebanese Christian militiamen murdered some 800 Palestinian civilians in Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, after the Israeli Army allowed the Christians, hungry for revenge, access to the camps.

In his guest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Preventable Massacre" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/a-preventable-massacre.html?pagewanted=all), Seth Anziska, a doctoral candidate in international history at Columbia University, informs us:

"Israel’s involvement in the Lebanese civil war began in June 1982, when it invaded its northern neighbor. Its goal was to root out the Palestine Liberation Organization, which had set up a state within a state, and to transform Lebanon into a Christian-ruled ally."

Oh really? The 1982 Israeli operation had nothing to do with rooting out terror?

Seth fails to mention the "Coastal Road Massacre" of 1978, when Palestinians from Lebanon landed on Israel's coast, hijacked a bus, and killed 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children.

Seth also forgets to tell us about the massive 1981 rocketing of civilian targets in Northern Israel by the PLO.

And then there was also the June 1982 attack in London on Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov, by the Iraqi-backed Abu Nidal terrorist organization. But why should Seth be troubled with such minor details?

Alleging deception and "browbeating" of US officials on the part of Ariel Sharon leading up to the Sabra and Shatila massacre, our darling doctoral candidate goes on to say:

"The Sabra and Shatila massacre severely undercut America’s influence in the Middle East, and its moral authority plummeted. In the aftermath of the massacre, the United States felt compelled by 'guilt' to redeploy the Marines, who ended up without a clear mission, in the midst of a brutal civil war.

On Oct. 23, 1983, the Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed and 241 Marines were killed. The attack led to open warfare with Syrian-backed forces and, soon after, the rapid withdrawal of the Marines to their ships. As Mr. Lewis told me, America left Lebanon 'with our tail between our legs.'"

Regrettably, Seth again forgets to inform us that the barracks bombing was perpetrated by Lebanese Shiites, who, like the Lebanese Christians, also hated their Palestinian overlords. In addition, the attack was almost certainly undertaken pursuant to instructions from Iran, possibly owing to US support for Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. Or in other words, there was little connection between the barracks bombing and Israel, unless you also wish to blame Israel for US combat deaths in the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia.

Seth concludes:

"The lesson of the Sabra and Shatila tragedy is clear. Sometimes close allies act contrary to American interests and values. Failing to exert American power to uphold those interests and values can have disastrous consequences: for our allies, for our moral standing and most important, for the innocent people who pay the highest price of all."

"Most important, for the innocent people"? Oh really. Why isn't Seth telling us of the price being paid by civilians in Afghanistan, owing to Obama's inane escalation of that meaningless war? And why doesn't Seth bother to mention the ongoing civil war in Syria, ignored by Obama, which has claimed thousands of civilians lives?

In fact, publication by the Times of this guest op-ed by a doctoral student is all about telling us that the US shouldn't allow Netanyahu to "browbeat" the US into setting "red lines" for the Iranian nuclear weapons development program. Not by coincidence, this guest op-ed was published immediately after Netanyahu informed "Meet the Press" that Iran will be on the brink of a nuclear bomb in six to seven months (see: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=285287).

As observed in prior blog entries, the crux of the current crisis involving Iran and Israel involves lack of faith in Obama. After witnessing his foreign policy procrastination over the past three years, neither of these countries believes that Obama means what he says. In fact, this perception of Obama as irresolute and wishy-washy, i.e. "leading from behind," is what could well lead to a disastrous war, costing thousands of civilian lives.

If the US truly believes that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran's maniacal mullahs do not pose a threat to American interests, taking into account hostility and proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia and also Iran's patronage of international terror, perhaps the US should not promulgate red lines. On the other hand, if, as stated today by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Iran poses a threat not only to Israel but to the entire world (see: http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/09/17/238533.html), then it is indeed time for tough talk.

[Columbia University lists Anziska's "Advisor" as Rashid Khalidi (see: http://history.columbia.edu/graduate/Anziska.html), a Columbia professor once linked to the PLO (see: http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/2008/10/khalidi-of-the-plo/). A tape of Obama's 2003 tribute to Khalidi at a farewell party in Chicago is locked away in the offices of The Los Angeles Times (see: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226104/i-l-times-i-suppresses-obamas-khalidi-bash-tape/andrew-c-mccarthy).]

Rabbis for Obama: Shame on All of You!

Recently there was a minor stir in the US national political arena, after the Democrats publicized a list of some 600 rabbis (http://www.barackobama.com/rabbis/), including those calling for a boycott of Israel, who support Obama. Obama and friends are now flaunting the list as evidence of "The President's strong support of Israel and toughest-ever actions against Iran" (see: http://www.jpost.com/USPresidentialrace/Article.aspx?id=282442).

Jonathan Tobin of Commentary yesterday called for the pro-Obama rabbis to "disavow" the "anti-Zionist" rabbis among them (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/08/23/rabbis-for-obama-must-disavow-anti-zionist-lynn-gottlieb/ and http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/08/23/obama-rabbis-must-disavow-anti-zionists-israel-boycott/). Unlike Jonathan, I am saddened by the entire lot of these rabbis, who are willing to allow Obama to use their names to evidence Obama's support of Israel, which is feeble at best, at a time when Iran and its allies are threatening Israel with extinction.

I live in Israel, I'm not religious, I'm not right wing, and I can emphatically tell you that Obama is no friend of Israel. Moreover, unlike these rabbis, I know what I'm talking about.

A few words about myself. Some 30 years ago, I ate the proverbial "bad pizza": An attorney ensconced in one of the world's leading merger and acquisition firms, I overnight decided that I owed the State of Israel a debt for providing safe haven for Jews around the world and decided to volunteer for the Israeli army. Although it had originally been my intention to do my service and return to the US, an Israeli wife and three children anchored me to the ground on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. Today, at the age of 58, I remain an active reserve officer in the Israel Defense Forces, and two of my three children have completed mandatory service in elite combat units; my youngest will be enlisting in less than a year.

Make no mistake about it - Israel today is facing an existential threat. Almost a day doesn't go by without Iran labeling Israel a "cancerous tumor" which it will excise, and without Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon, threatening to let fly 50,000 rockets and missiles against Israeli population centers. Add to this menace Syria's enormous stockpiles of chemical weapons, the arsenal of missiles assembled by Hamas in Gaza, and recent attacks by jihadists from Sinai against southern Israel. The situation is not pretty.

What assistance has Obama offered to Israel in the face of this threat? As I personally can confirm, there is excellent cooperation with the US army, and the Obama administration has certainly contributed to bolstering Israel's anti-rocket and missile capabilities.

On the other hand, Obama, as president, has refused to visit Israel. Soon after his inauguration, Obama visited Cairo, where he equated the Holocaust with the Palestinian "dislocation." Cairo is only a 30-minute flight from Tel Aviv, but Obama wouldn't step foot in Israel.

Obama, as president, also visited nearby Riyadh, Istanbul and Ankara. Obama tells us that Turkish President Erdogan, who is infamous for jailing opposition journalists and army officers, is one of his best friends. (By the way, since becoming president, Obama has reneged on his promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide by the Turks.) However, Obama again refused to visit Israel.

At a time when Israel is facing threats of extermination, such a visit by the President of the United States, informing the world that he's "got Israel's back," would be of enormous symbolic value, but Obama won't have any part of it.

I would like to ask the 600+ rabbis who appear on Obama's list how many times "Jerusalem" appears in the Old Testament. Answer: 669 times. Yet Obama is not even willing to acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel's capital (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/ap-warm-reception-expected-as-romney.html).

Obama still cares for Israel? Sorry, but as acknowledged by Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (see: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/25/warning_turbulence_ahead), "Barack Obama is no Israel-lover," and "if the president wins a second term, expect a major clash with Benjamin Netanyahu."

More? Ask Obama for permission to see his tribute to Palestinian "activist" Rashid Khalidi, a tape of which is locked away in the offices of The Los Angeles Times (see: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226104/i-l-times-i-suppresses-obamas-khalidi-bash-tape/andrew-c-mccarthy). There is a reason why this tape is not being allowed to see the light of day.

Still more? Consider how Samantha Power, one of Obama's closest foreign policy advisers, advocates sending US ground forces to the West Bank to protect Palestinians from Israel. In this instance, the evidence is available for everyone to see (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFdt6fjdHQw).

What of President Obama's "tough" economic sanctions against Iran purportedly intended to force Tehran to forgo its nuclear weapons development program? The P5+1 negotiations with Iran have all but collapsed as Iran continues to build its first atomic bomb (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/world/middleeast/signs-that-iran-is-speeding-up-nuclear-work.html?_r=2&ref=middleeast), and the sanctions have been neutered by waivers issued by the Obama administration, EU indifference, and opposition from Russia and China.

By now it should be plain why Israelis, by a 2:1 ratio, believe that Romney cares more than Obama about Israel (see: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=281579). Israelis are not stupid, and their lives, unlike those of the 600+ American rabbis, are riding on the line.

I don't like it when right wing Israeli rabbis try to influence Israeli politics, given that I believe in the separation of church and state. Similarly, I am disgusted when American "social activist" rabbis, who have never served in the military and know nothing of the intricacies involving the current threat to Israel's existence, would convince American Jews of Obama's friendly posture to Israel.

If these rabbis wish to tell anyone willing to listen that Obama has been a boon to the American economy or that Obamacare is set to cure America's health care problems, this is of course their right. They can also declare their support for Obama's stance on abortion (personally, I am pro-choice and prefer Obama's position to that of Romney). But these rabbis shouldn't go telling American Jews that Obama is a friend of Israel.

He's not.

Maureen Dowd, "Who’s on America’s Side?": Compare Bain With America's Economic Pain

Labeling this past week’s Republican attacks on Obama as "shriekingly shrill," Maureen Dowd, in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Who’s on America’s Side?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/opinion/dowd-whos-on-americas-side.html), joins the other liberal columnists, who, this past week, have questioned, in "shriekingly shrill" fashion, the endpoint of Romney's career at Bain Capital and have demanded Romney's tax returns. Dowd writes:

"Romney contended that he had 'no role' at Bain after 1999 when some of its companies went bankrupt, shipped jobs overseas and fired workers. He remained the firm’s chairman of the board, C.E.O., president and only stockholder until 2002. Other than that, he had nothing to do with the place."

Compare Dowd's denunciation with that of Wapo's Eugene Robinson, who wrote yesterday (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-romneys-problem-of-his-own-making/2012/07/16/gJQAKjBepW_story.html):

"The only reason anyone cares when Romney left Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded and ran, is because Romney made a totally unreasonable claim: When Democrats pointed to outsourcing and job cuts at companies Bain owned or controlled, Romney denied any responsibility since these unfortunate developments took place after he left to run the Winter Olympics in 1999.

. . . .

He then tried to insist on another ridiculous proposition, which is that he left Bain suddenly and completely in 1999. This cannot possibly be true. Romney was Bain Capital — chairman, chief executive and sole stockholder. There is no way he could have disentangled himself from the firm so abruptly."

Do Dowd and Robinson sound similar?

And on Monday, fellow New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, declared that Obama shouldn't "run a campaign based on . . . substance and leave Mr. Romney’s personal history alone" inasmuch as we can't "count on the news media to sort through the conflicting claims" regarding Romney's past (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/paul-krugman-policy-and-personal.html).

However, WAPO's Glenn Kessler, in a thorough and detailed "Fact Checker" article entitled "Do Bain SEC documents suggest Mitt Romney is a criminal?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html#pagebreak), derails the allegations of Dowd, Robinson and Krugman:

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

. . . .

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

. . . .

The Obama campaign is blowing smoke here."

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

Of course, there is still the matter of Romney's tax returns, and therefore, I would like to propose a swap: Romney's tax returns in exchange for the videotape, held in a Los Angeles Times safe, of Obama toasting Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi in 2003 (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/time-to-release-obamas-2003-rashid.html).

However, more than anything, I would prefer to see concrete proposals from both candidates regarding how they intend to prevent the US economy from disintegrating.

Given his failure since 2009 to improve the economy, Obama would surely prefer that the electorate focus on Romney's past (Bain, teenage bullying, etc.) and ignore his own past foibles (Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, etc.), but what is Bain in 1999 compared with America's current economic pain?

Time to Release Obama's 2003 Rashid Khalidi Videotape from Los Angeles Times Safe

Given Obama's demands that Romney release more of his tax returns, it's also high time for the president to agree to the release of the videotape of a 2003 banquet at which then-state senator Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian activist. The video, held in a Los Angeles Times safe, has not been shown to the public purportedly for reasons of confidentiality (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,7568849.story):

"'The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,' said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. 'The Times keeps its promises to sources.'"

Sorry, Mr. President, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.