Mohammad Javad Zarif,"‘Beautiful Military Equipment’ Can’t Buy Middle East Peace": Quintessential Horse Manure

Tweet

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "‘Beautiful Military Equipment’ Can’t Buy Middle East Peace," Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif begins:

"As President Trump was being feted in the palaces of the Saudi royal family after concluding a historic arms deal, Iranians were celebrating the outcome of a hard-fought election. The vote manifested the determination of Iran’s electorate to continue on the path of moderation and constructive engagement based on mutual respect that brought the world the nuclear deal in 2015."

Ah yes, "moderation and constructive engagement based on mutual respect" from a nation that savagely persecutes Baha'is, Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Christians, regularly threatens Israel with annihilation, hangs gay men, stones to death women accused of adultery, and executes more persons per capita each year than any other country in the world. And if that isn't enough to cause your hair to stand on end, consider President Rouhani's statement earlier this week to an Iranian cabinet meeting:

"The remarks by the enemies of the Iranian nation against Iran's missile power are out of ignorance. We need missiles and the enemy should know that we make everything we need and we don’t pay an iota of attention to your words."

More? As reported by Reuters yesterday in an article entitled "Iran says it has built third underground ballistic missile factory" by Parisa Hafezi:

"'Iran's third underground factory has been built by the Guards in recent years ... We will continue to further develop our missile capabilities forcefully,' Fars quoted Amirali Hajizadeh, head of the Guard’s airspace division, as saying."

Still more? In a Foreign Policy article entitled "Are the U.S. and Iran on a Collision Course in Syria?" published on Wednesday, Dan De Luce and Paul McLeary informed us:

"Iran has grown alarmed over the growing presence of U.S. special operations forces in southern Syria, and the progress of Syrian Kurdish and Arab troops on the battlefield. Iran is keen to secure a corridor linking Tehran and Baghdad to Syria and Lebanon, and Tehran state-run media have claimed the U.S. forces are in the border area to block any supply routes for Iran.

In response, Tehran has deployed thousands of Afghan and Iraqi Shiite fighters, and in recent weeks has sent 3,000 Lebanese Hezbollah troops to the southeastern region between al-Tanf and Deir Ezzor, according to reports from Fars news agency, affiliated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The Hezbollah troops were sent to the al-Tanf area 'to prepare the Syrian army and its allies for thwarting the US plots in the region and establish security at the Palmyra-Baghdad road,' Fars wrote, just hours before the U.S. air raid [against a Hezbollah convoy approaching the al-Tanf base used by the US to train militias fighting ISIS]. They could also serve as a blocking force to keep U.S.-backed fighters from moving north out of al-Tanf."

Bottom line: Only Obama and Kerry could ever place their faith in Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif.

New York Times Editorial, "America’s Moral Duty in Yemen": Houthis "May Have Fired" Iranian Missiles on a US Destroyer

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "America’s Moral Duty in Yemen," The New York Times wrties:

"Airstrikes by a Saudi-led coalition that devastated a funeral in Yemen on Saturday make it clear that the United States must end its complicity in a civil war that has caused a humanitarian catastrophe in one of the world’s poorest countries and fueled extremism. It is within President Obama’s power to do so. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf state allies depend on Washington for aircraft, munitions, training and in-flight refueling. The United States also helps Saudi Arabia guard its borders.

. . . .

The Saudi strikes killed more than 140 mourners and wounded hundreds at a funeral in Sana, the capital, which is controlled by Houthi rebels, an indigenous Shiite group with loose connections to Iran."

"[L]oose connections to Iran"? I don't think so. As reported by Reuters in a December 15, 2014 article entitled "Iranian support seen crucial for Yemen's Houthis":

"A Western source familiar with Yemen also said the Houthis had been getting training and money.

'It's been happening for over a year. We've seen Houthis going out to Iran and Lebanon for military training.'

'We think there is cash, some of which is channeled via Hezbollah and sacks of cash arriving at the airport. The numbers of those going for training are enough for us to worry about,' the source said. The first Yemeni security official said Houthi fighters had received training by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

A senior Iranian official told Reuters that the Quds Force, the external arm of the Revolutionary Guard, had a 'few hundred' military personnel in Yemen who train Houthi fighters."

The Times editorial mentions:

"On Monday, Houthi rebels who have been fighting with the Yemeni government reportedly launched a ballistic missile deep into Saudi Arabia, and on Sunday they may have fired on a United States Navy destroyer, but missed."

"[M]ay have fired ... but missed"? Oh really. As reported by DEBKAfile in an October 10, 2016 article entitled "Yemeni Houthis fire 2 Iranian-made missiles at US destroyer – and miss":

"For the first time in two years, Yemeni Houthi rebels Saturday fired on an American vessel, launching two missiles at the US Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Mason which was patrolling international Red Sea waters just north of the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait. 'Both missiles impacted the water before reaching the ship,' Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said. 'There were no injuries to our sailors and no damage to the ship.' DEBKAfile: The failed attack came a week after a United Arab Emirates vessel was badly damaged by a missile launched from the Houthi-controlled Yemeni shore, following which two US destroyers, the Mason and Nitze, were deployed to the region, along with the afloat forward USS Ponce staging base. The UAE never disclosed the extent of the damage to their vessel or the number of casualties.

The Yemeni insurgents have been armed with advanced Chinese-made C-802 (NATO-named CSS-N-8) anti-ship missiles upgraded by Iran, as part of Tehran’s proxy bid to seize control of the strategic Red Sea strait."

In fact, there is no denying that those anti-ship missiles supplied by Iran to the Houthis were intentionally fired at the USS Mason. And now I ask you, boys and girls, do any of you honestly believe that Iran did not provide advance approval for this attack?

Or stated otherwise, the benefits of Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran just never seem to end. Forfeit control over the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait to Iran to preserve the illusion of "peace in our time" with Iran? Sure, anything to buck up this lame duck's crumbling legacy.

Karen Heller, "The improbable story of the man who won history’s ‘biggest murder trial’ at Nuremberg": Ben Ferencz, a Five Foot Giant Among Men

Tweet

In a Washington Post article entitled "The improbable story of the man who won history’s ‘biggest murder trial’ at Nuremberg," Karen Heller tells us of 96-year-old Ben Ferencz, the last surviving prosecutor from the Nuremberg trials. Read this article from top to bottom. See the video, too. Thank you, Ms. Heller. God bless you, Mr. Ferencz.

My fervent wish? That President Obama, the author of the unsigned nuclear deal with Iran, which continues to call for the extermination of Israel and sponsors Holocaust cartoon contests, also read this article.

How successful is Obama's unsigned deal with Iran? Well, Supreme Leader Khamenei has just declared:

"In a world where the bullying powers are ruling without the least essence of morality, conscience and humanity and are not shy of invading other countries and massacring innocent people, the development of defensive and offensive industries is quite natural.

. . . .

I insist that (we) are required to avoid negotiating with the US, and experience has proven that instead of understanding, the American are seeking to impose their will in the negotiations, a conspicuous example of which was the recent developments."

Mere rhetoric intended for the Iranian masses? I don't think so. Not after Iran's recent placement of a Russian-made S-300 air defense battery to protect its Fordo nuclear facility. Not after recurrent Iranian harassment of US Navy vessels in the Strait of Hormuz over the past week.

Meanwhile, in a Reuters article entitled "Exclusive: U.S., others agreed to 'secret' exemptions for Iran after nuclear deal - report," Jonathan Landay writes:

"The United States and its negotiating partners agreed "in secret" to allow Iran to evade some restrictions in last year's landmark nuclear agreement in order to meet the deadline for it to start getting relief from economic sanctions, according to a report reviewed by Reuters.

The report is to be published on Thursday by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said the think tank’s president David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and co-author of the report.

. . . .

Among the exemptions were two that allowed Iran to exceed the deal's limits on how much low-enriched uranium (LEU) it can keep in its nuclear facilities, the report said."

So, Obamacare is in a death spiral, and Obama's unsigned nuclear agreement with Iran is not worth the paper on which it was not written.

What's left of Obama's legacy? Oh, that's right, $20 trillion in unsustainable federal debt.

But not to worry: Hillary or Donald will soon put America back on course ... not.

Gail Collins, "The Republicans’ Sin of Endorsement": Salivating Over a Romney Nomination

Tweet

In yet another vacuous New York Times op-ed entitled "The Republicans’ Sin of Endorsement," Gail Collins concludes by suggesting the possibility that Mitt Romney could walk away with the Republican nomination in a brokered convention:

"None of these new converts to the Cruz camp seem to have any actual arguments about Cruz being a good potential president. Bush, in his announcement, complained that 'Washington is broken' but made no attempt whatsoever to explain how things would be improved by the nomination of a senator whose sole achievement in office was an effort to shut down the government. Maybe they think if Cruz is the spoiler at the convention, it’ll be easier to shove him away to make room for a brand new superhero? (Looking at you, Mitt.)"

Can you imagine, Collins might again be able to pad her columns with her lame dog-on-the-roof "running joke." She must be salivating over the possibility.

Elsewhere in the news, probably unbeknownst to Gail, Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari announced that Tehran is planning to send warships to the Atlantic "to help improve international peace and security."

"International peace and security"? Iranian warships that can fire missiles at Manhattan and shake the foundations of Gail's Candy Crush Saga world? Oh my goodness!

More developments involving Iran? As reported by Reuters in an exclusive article entitled "U.S. to charge Iran in cyber attacks against banks, New York dam" by Dustin Volz, Nate Raymond and Jim Finkle:

"The Obama administration is expected to blame Iranian hackers as soon as Thursday for a coordinated campaign of cyber attacks in 2012 and 2013 on several U.S. banks and a New York dam, sources familiar with the matter have told Reuters.

The Justice Department has prepared an indictment against about a half-dozen Iranians, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter. It is one of the highest-profile U.S. indictments against a foreign nation on hacking charges."

This is the same Iran whose banks are being reconnected with the SWIFT network. And this is the same Iran which, a few days ago, was commended by Obama in his annual Nowruz address:

"Over the years, you've heard me say that the United States was prepared to engage with Iran in a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect. Well, that's exactly what we did. In the last few years, our diplomats and nuclear scientists sat down together and negotiated face to face, and last summer, along with our international partners, we reached the historic deal on Iran's nuclear program.

. . . .

I firmly believe that we can continue to expand the connections between the American and Iranian people."

I don't know if Obama also plays Candy Crush Saga, but he is obviously also living in a fantasy world.

Russia and Iran Send Troops to Syria: Putin and Khamenei Call Obama's Bluff

Tweet

On August 5, 2015, Obama declared in a speech at American University in support of his nuclear deal with Iran (my emphasis in red):

"But if we are serious about confronting Iran's destabilizing activities, it is hard to imagine a worse approach than blocking this deal. Instead, we need to check the behavior that we are concerned about directly, by helping our allies in the region strengthen their own capabilities to counter . . . a ballistic missile, by improving the interdiction of weapons' shipments that go to groups like Hezbollah, by training our allies' special forces so they can more effectively respond to situations like Yemen."

Well, as now being reported today by Reuters in an article entitled "Russia to U.S.: talk to us on Syria or risk 'unintended incidents'" by Christian Lowe and Julia Edwards :

"In recent days, U.S. officials have described what they say is a buildup of Russian equipment and manpower.

In the latest reports, two Western officials and a Russian source told Reuters Moscow is sending advanced SA-22 anti-aircraft missiles Syria. The system would be operated by Russian troops, rather than Syrians, the Western officials said.

Lebanese sources have told Reuters that at least some Russian troops are now engaged in combat operations in support of Assad's forces. Moscow has declined to comment on those reports."

And as also reported by DEBKAfile today in an article entitled "First Iranian marines land in Syria, link up with newly-arrived Russian troops":

"Iran this week sent its first ground troops to Syria, around 1,000 marines and elite troops of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). They moved straight into Ghorin, a small military air facility just south of the port town of Latakia, and hooked up with the just-landed Russian marines at Jablah."

In fact, Putin and Khamenei are calling Obama's bluff, and the first invertebrate ever to occupy the Oval Office has no intention to "interdict" any military aid being sent to Assad, Hezbollah, the Houthis or anyone else. "Counter a ballistic missile" against Israel? In fact, Iranian troops are now on Israel's northeastern border, and the threat to Israel is now much worse than long-range missiles fired from within Iran.

America is in full retreat, and Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Turkey and Jordan are watching in horror.

Paul Krugman, "Debt Is Good": In for a Penny, in for a Pound!

Tweet

US national debt is fast approaching an unsustainable $18.3 trillion, amounting to more than $57,000 for every American man, woman and child. This compares with some $30,000 for every man, woman and child in America in June 2008, which, at the time, elicited presidential candidate Obama's declaration:

"That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

Well, $57,000 per American is not good enough for Paul Krugman, who, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Debt Is Good," would have us know:

"Believe it or not, many economists argue that the economy needs a sufficient amount of public debt out there to function well. And how much is sufficient? Maybe more than we currently have. That is, there’s a reasonable argument to be made that part of what ails the world economy right now is that governments aren’t deep enough in debt.

. . . .

One answer is that issuing debt is a way to pay for useful things, and we should do more of that when the price is right. The United States suffers from obvious deficiencies in roads, rails, water systems and more; meanwhile, the federal government can borrow at historically low interest rates. So this is a very good time to be borrowing and investing in the future, and a very bad time for what has actually happened: an unprecedented decline in public construction spending adjusted for population growth and inflation."

From whom should the United States be borrowing? More money should be borrowed from China, which is currently mired in its own set of economic problems? As reported by Reuters in an article entitled "Sharp China factory slowdown in August raises global growth fears" by Koh Gui Qing:

"Following three decades of blistering double-digit economic growth, Chinese authorities have had limited success in shoring up activity this year despite four interest rates cuts since November.

Worse, last week's shock 2 percent devaluation in the yuan and a near-collapse in Chinese shares over the summer that was countered by a massive stock market rescue do not appear to have calmed investor jitters.

The yuan has slid nearly 3 percent since its Aug. 11 devaluation, a fall that some analysts say is too modest to boost Chinese exports, but notable enough to raise fears of competitive currency devaluations between governments."

And while China is busy devaluing the yuan, the Federal Reserve might soon be raising interest rates in the US, i.e. a paradox which is certain to further increase the outrageous trade imbalance between China and the US.

More debt? I don't think so, unless someone is truly intent upon doubling down on a bad bet at the economic roulette wheel.

Thomas Friedman, "For the Mideast, It’s Still 1979": Lost in Space

Tweet

Would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman is still lost in space. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "For the Mideast, It’s Still 1979," Friedman writes of Obama's nuclear deal with Iran:

"Will the nuclear deal empower the more moderate/pragmatic majority inside Iran rather than the hard-line Revolutionary Guards Corps? The reason to be worried is that the moderates don’t control Iran’s nuclear program or its military/intelligence complex; the hard-line minority does. The reason to be hopeful is the majority’s aspiration to reintegrate with the world forced the hard-liners to grudgingly accept this deal."

Well, as usual, Friedman is wrong on all counts. Although the Revolutionary Guards indeed control Iran's nuclear program, their power over Iran is far greater than that. As we are informed by The Council on Foreign Relations in a June 2013 article entitled "Iran's Revolutionary Guards" by Greg Bruno, Jayshree Bajoria, and Jonathan Masters:

"Political clout and military might are not the only attributes of today's Revolutionary Guard Corps; it is also a major financial player. The Los Angeles Times estimated in 2007 that the group, which was tasked with rebuilding the country after the Iran-Iraq War, now has ties to more than one hundred companies that control roughly $12 billion in construction and engineering capital. CFR Senior Fellow Ray Takeyh has linked the Guards to university laboratories, weapons manufacturers, and companies connected to nuclear technology. And [the Carnegie Endowment's Frederic] Wehrey writes that 'the IRGC has extended its influence into virtually every sector of the Iranian market.' The Guards-controlled engineering firm Khatam al-Anbia, for instance, has been awarded more than 750 government contracts for infrastructure, oil, and gas projects, he says."

And as stated in a July 6, 2015 Reuters article entitled "Iranian nuclear deal set to make hardline Revolutionary Guards richer" by Parisa Hafezi and Louis Charbonneau:

"Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards have done very well out of international sanctions -- and if a nuclear deal is done in Vienna this week under which those sanctions are lifted, they are likely to do better still.

The Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), created by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini during Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, is more than just a military force. It is also an industrial empire with political clout that has grown exponentially in the last decade, benefiting from the favor of former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, himself a former guardsman and, most recently, from the opportunities created by Western sanctions.

. . . .

"They control major companies, and businesses in Iran such as tourism, transportation, energy, construction, telecommunication and Internet,' said an Iranian official in Tehran who asked not to be named.

'Lifting sanctions will boost the economy; it will help them to gain more money.'

. . . .

'Boosting the economy will increase the IRGC's influence over politics and the economy because it will strengthen the hardline establishment,' said one Iranian oil executive."

Or simply stated, Friedman's contention that "The reason to be hopeful is the majority’s aspiration to reintegrate with the world forced the hard-liners to grudgingly accept this deal" is pure rubbish. The IRGC stands to benefit mightily by partially accepting this deal (they still do not accept inspections of "military" sites), which will enrich its coffers with tens of billions of dollars that had been impounded by sanctions and enhance its power throughout Iran.

Nice try, Tom.

German Foreign Minister Steinmeier Calls for "Courage" in Talks With Iran: Sowing the Seeds of a Second Holocaust

Tweet


According to German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the conclusion of a nuclear deal with Iran now depends upon the participants' "courage." Given Germany's history, it requires "courage" for Germany to allow Iran, which threatens Israel with annihilation every week, to build a nuclear arsenal within 10 years (much less time if Iran cheats - which it will)? "Courage" is not the word I would use.

Meanwhile, Russia is preparing to sell Iran a "wide range of naval equipment."

This comes after a US trade delegation visited Tehran in April as did a German trade delegation that same month. Another US trade delegation visited Iran in May and a Chinese delegation arrived in June.

In addition, as reported by The Times of Israel, "Around 100 French companies are reportedly planning to participate in a delegation to Tehran in September to review business opportunities in the Islamic republic."

Who cares about a second Holocaust? After all, it's all about the $50 billion signing bonus that Obama has promised Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei and who will benefit from this windfall.

And this from a Reuters article entitled "Iran nuclear talks: Brothels, bike rides and Groundhog Day" by Fedja Grulovic, Louis Charbonneau and John Irish:

"Anyone who says it's all work and no play for the hordes of diplomats, officials, security agents, analysts and reporters who have descended on Vienna for what should be the finale of almost two years of Iran nuclear talks is dead wrong. As the manager of a local brothel said, when the Iran talks are in town, 'business is booming'.

He declined to say who were his most frequent customers, but made clear that, as far as he was concerned, the longer the negotiations between Iran and six world powers drag on, the better."

What a surprise . . .

Her Hideousness Catherine Ashton Plays at Diplomacy in Tehran

Is hideousness in the eye of the beholder?

In a short New York Times article entitled "‘No Guarantee’ of Final Nuclear Deal With Iran, E.U. Official Says" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-program.html?hp&_r=0) by Thomas Erdbrink, we are told (my emphasis in red):

"The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, said Sunday that there was 'no guarantee' that Iran and world powers would be able to reach a final, comprehensive agreement over Iran’s nuclear program.

Ms. Ashton, who talked with Iranian leaders in Tehran, represents the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States), plus Germany, known as the P5-plus-1 group, which reached an interim agreement with Iran in November to limit its nuclear program. It was a breakthrough after more than a decade of talks.

The six-month, renewable agreement obliged Iran to stop enriching uranium to high levels and to reduce its stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium. In return, some economic sanctions were lifted, including access to $4.2 billion in Iranian cash frozen in foreign banks."

The interim framework agreement was a "breakthrough"? Perhaps Mr. Erdbrink would care to explain his conclusion to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who stated that pursuant to the six-month deal, Iran "did not agree to dismantle anything" (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/22/politics/iran-us-nuclear/), or to Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Abbas Araghchi, who said of the deal, "We can return again to 20 percent enrichment in less than one day and we can convert the [nuclear] material again" (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/16/iran-top-nuke-negotiator-deal-reversible-in-one-day.html).

Erdbrink's article concludes:

"In Jerusalem, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said Sunday at the start of a cabinet meeting that Ms. Ashton should ask the Iranians about a merchant ship Israel seized in the Red Sea last week, carrying what Israel described as an Iranian shipment of weapons intended for Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip. Iran has rejected Israel’s allegations.

'Nobody has the right to ignore the true and murderous actions of the regime in Tehran,' Mr. Netanyahu said, according to a statement from his press office. 'I think that it would be proper for the international community to give its opinion regarding Iran’s true policy, not its propaganda.'"

I would add to Netanyahu's request that Her Hideousness Catherine Ashton also ask about the recent hangings by Iran of two more homosexuals and the execution of the Sunni poet Hashem Shaabani in February.

Any chance of a moronic Ashton in her play hijab (head scarf), shown above grinning buck-toothed in front of a microphone in Tehran, doing this? By visiting with Rouhani at a time when Iran is executing persons at an ever heightening pace, Ashton is effectively condoning such behavior. As reported in February in a Reuters article entitled "Iran's rising executions dim U.N. hopes for reforms" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/us-iran-executions-idUSBREA1K1CN20140221) by Stephanie Nebehay:

"At least 80 people and perhaps as many as 95 have been executed in Iran already this year, a surge in the use of the death penalty that has dampened hopes for human rights reforms under President Hassan Rouhani, the United Nations said on Friday.

. . . .

'There were some encouraging signs last year where political prisoners were released ... But it appears at least in the past seven weeks that in fact executions have been scaled up,' U.N. human rights spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani told a news briefing.

'We regret that the new government has not changed its approach to the death penalty and continues to impose capital punishment for a wide range of offences. We urge the government to immediately halt executions and to institute a moratorium.'

Last year Iran executed between 500 and 625 people, including at least 28 women and two juveniles, Shamdasani said."

Ashton should never have traveled to Tehran, but while there, maybe she should have considered a side trip to Evin Prison, regarded by many as hell on earth. But heck, that might have interfered with her "historic" meeting with Rouhani and his monster friends. What do you think?

"Don’t Let Up on Iran": The Best Argument AIPAC Can Make?

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "Don’t Let Up on Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/opinion/dont-let-up-on-iran.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), AIPAC president Michael Kassen and AIPAC chairman Lee Rosenberg tell us that they "strongly hope that the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts lead to the peaceful dismantling of Iran’s nuclear weapons program," but in order to attain this goal, "they support a policy that complements the current negotiations with a range of congressional actions that threaten greater economic and diplomatic pressure on the Iranian government." Kassen and Rosenberg write:

"Our message to Tehran should be clear: It will not achieve its objectives unless it satisfies ours.

Unfortunately, Iran’s leaders are acting as if they have not received that message. In recent weeks, the president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, has declared that his government will not dismantle a single centrifuge. Tehran also went beyond words by testing long-range ballistic missiles that could reach American military bases in the Middle East, as well as our ally Israel. It has even dispatched warships to sail close to the maritime borders of the United States in the Atlantic Ocean.

We also know the Iranians have worked to deceive us in previous rounds of negotiations. In 2003, when Mr. Rouhani was Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Tehran issued a declaration that it was suspending uranium enrichment and other nuclear activities. Last year, as he ran for president, Mr. Rouhani even boasted that Iran had flouted the agreement.

. . . .

The partial recovery of Iran’s economy in recent weeks, thanks to the relaxation of sanctions, in tandem with its continuing advanced research and development of centrifuges, highlights our concerns. If Iran can achieve such progress without dismantling any part of its nuclear program, why should it make concessions?"

Query: Why is there no mention by Messrs. Kassen and Rosenberg of Iranian support for the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad, which has gassed to death Syrian civilians, dropped barrel bombs on their homes, and is now attempting to starve them into submission. As reported by Reuters yesterday (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBREA1K09U20140221):

"As Syria's war nears the start of its fourth year, Iran has stepped up support on the ground for President Bashar al-Assad, providing elite teams to gather intelligence and train troops, sources with knowledge of military movements say.

This further backing from Tehran, along with deliveries of munitions and equipment from Moscow, is helping to keep Assad in power at a time when neither his own forces nor opposition fighters have a decisive edge on the battlefield.

Assad's forces have failed to capitalize fully on advances they made last summer with the help of Iran, his major backer in the region, and the Hezbollah fighters that Tehran backs and which have provided important battlefield support for Assad."

Without Iranian support, Assad and his family would have abandoned Syria long ago. Moreover, it is Iranian support which is allowing Assad to flout the purported agreement, brokered by Putin, for the destruction of Assad's chemical weapons arsenal (see: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/31/dragging-their-feet-us-scrambles-to-persuade-syria-to-honor-chemical-weapons/). If Syria can flout this agreement with impunity, why shouldn't Iran's mullahs believe that they can also disregard demands for the destruction of their atomic weapons development program?

Kassen and Rosenberg refer to "the partial recovery of Iran’s economy in recent weeks." Partial recovery? Again, as reported by Reuters (http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/01/13/usa-iran-sanctions-russia-idINL2N0KN1ZK20140113) one month ago:

"The White House said on Monday it was concerned about recent reports that Iran and Russia are negotiating an oil-for-goods swap worth $1.5 billion a month, a deal that the White House said could potentially trigger U.S. sanctions.

'We are concerned about these reports and Secretary (of State John) Kerry directly expressed this concern with Foreign Minister Lavrov today,' Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, told Reuters.

'If the reports are true, such a deal would raise serious concerns as it would be inconsistent with the terms of the P5+1 agreement with Iran and could potentially trigger U.S. sanctions,' Hayden said."

"Could potentially trigger U.S. sanctions"? Peculiar, I thought sanctions were already in place. But heck, seeing how Obama, notwithstanding his "red line," failed to lift a finger after Assad dropped sarin gas on civilians, why should Putin and Khamenei be troubled by such threats?

More evidence of the Obama administration's spinelessness? As we were informed a week ago by Adam Kredo in a Washington Times article entitled "Iran to get ‘more than $20B’ in sanctions relief; accuracy of Obama promise questioned" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/14/iran-get-more-20b-sanctions-relief-accuracy-obama-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS):

"Iranian oil exports soared in January, hitting new highs just months after the United States consented to billions of dollars in economic sanctions relief under the interim nuclear deal.

Exports of Iranian crude oil jumped to 1.32 million barrels, up from December’s high of 1.06 million barrels, according to data from the International Energy Agency.

The spike in exports—mainly to Japan, China, and India—has helped Iran’s once-ailing economy stabilize and decrease inflation.

Iranian oil exports have steadily risen since negotiations with the West restored confidence in Tehran’s economy. The increase runs counter to a promise by the Obama administration that 'Iran’s oil exports will remain steady at their current level of around 1 million barrels per day.'"

Also as reported yesterday by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/us-iran-usa-aircraft-idUSBREA1K1SN20140221):

"U.S. aerospace companies are seeking permission to sell airliner parts to Iran for the first time in three decades, in a key test of the temporary relief on sanctions given under talks to curtail Iran's nuclear activities.

At least two leading manufacturers, Boeing and engine maker General Electric, have applied for export licenses in a six-month window agreed by Iran and six world powers in November, industry officials and other sources familiar with the matter said."

In short, the economic sanctions imposed by the world against Iran have been effectively dismantled with the connivance of the Obama administration. It is no wonder that Obama is not allowing the public to see the "agreement to agree" between Iran and the P5+1 for sanctions relief.

But back again to the Kassen and Rosenberg opinion piece: Where is there any reference to the horrific human rights abuses of the Khamenei regime with which Obama engaged in secret negotiations in Oman (see: http://news.yahoo.com/secret-us-iran-talks-set-stage-nuke-deal-045356533--politics.html)? The American press routinely refers to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as a "moderate" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/search/label/Hassan%20Rouhani); however, this maniac, with whom Obama held a "historic" conversation in September, just ordered the execution of a poet and a human rights activist for "enmity against God" after they were first subjected to torture (see: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Rouhani-orders-executions-of-Iranian-Arab-poet-rights-activist-340173).

Consider also how Iran hangs homosexuals from cranes in the middle of Tehran, stones to death women accused of adultery, and tortures and rapes Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis, Christians and political dissenters in Evin Prison. This is the regime with which Obama intends to reach a binding agreement?

I suppose that given their positions, Kassen and Rosenberg can't acknowledge that Obama is a foreign affairs naif, who has destroyed American influence, power and credibility throughout the world. On the other hand, their argument for "diplomatic pressure on the Iranian government" leaves much to be desired.

David Brooks, "The Refiner’s Fire": Case in Point, Hillary

Yet do I fear thy nature;
It is too full o' the milk of human kindness
To catch the nearest way.

— Lady Macbeth, "Macbeth" (circa 1606)

Writing about the foray of Canada's Michael Ignatieff into politics, David Brooks, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Refiner’s Fire" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/opinion/brooks-the-refiners-fire.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), concludes:

"Politics, as Max Weber famously said, is the necessary work of strong and slow boring through hard boards. People who do it out of a sense of selfishness and vanity, often give up, because the life can be miserable. The people who sustain are usually motivated by a sense of service, and by evidence of the good that laws and programs can do."

Ah yes, politicians motivated by a sense of service and the "good" that laws and programs can do. That does it: I'm finally convinced that Brooks is an alien from the Planet Balderdash who weaseled his way into the Times.

But heck, as long as we're on the topic of selfless politicians, Alana Goodman of The Washington Free Beacon recently wrote an interesting article entitled "The Hillary Papers" (http://freebeacon.com/the-hillary-papers/) about the life and times of Hillary Clinton. Having taken the time to peruse the papers of Diane Blair, once described by Hillary as her "closest friend," which "record years of candid conversations with the Clintons on issues ranging from single-payer health care to Monica Lewinsky," Ms. Goodman summarizes:

"The full contents of the archive, which before 2010 was closed to the public, have not previously been reported on and shed new light on Clinton’s three decades in public life. The records paint a complex portrait of Hillary Clinton, revealing her to be a loyal friend, devoted mother, and a cutthroat strategist who relished revenge against her adversaries and complained in private that nobody in the White House was 'tough and mean enough.'"

And yesterday, as reported by Reuters in an article entitled "Hillary Clinton faces new barrage from the right over Benghazi" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/11/us-usa-clinton-benghazi-idUSBREA1A1YM20140211) by Mark Hosenball, OPSEC, "a group of former special forces and intelligence operatives that first surfaced during the 2012 presidential campaign," will soon be publishing a report highly critical of her actions during the attack on the US diplomatic post in Benghazi. The article tells us:

"The group charges Clinton with failing to ask the Pentagon and spy agencies to help U.S. personnel besieged in Benghazi and with not discussing the attack with President Barack Obama until more than six hours after it started. They also say she was not candid in her own accounts of what happened."

Hillary is ruthless and self-serving? How can that be? I am certain that her conduct as First Lady, senator and secretary of state was always purely motivated by "the good that laws and programs can do."

Yeah, right.

David Brooks, "The Opportunity Coalition": Like the Whigs, Obama Coasts Into Oblivion

Did you listen to Obama's 2014 State of the Union address? Did you hear any mention by the president of his pre-election promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide by Turkey? No way! You see, autocratic Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has been declared by Obama to be one of his best overseas friends. Meanwhile, Turkey's economy is showing signs of another imminent crisis, which could have signficant economic repercussions for the rest of the world (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/paul-krugman-talking-troubled-turkey.html).

During his State of the Union address, Obama did, however, relate to Syria. Surely you remember how Obama ignored his own "red line" concerning the use of chemical weapons by Syrian madman Bashar al-Assad against his own countrymen. And you recall how in the face of incontrovertible evidence that Assad had used chemical weapons, Obama punted the matter over to Congress, and then cut a deal with his trustworthy buddy, Vladimir Putin, for Assad to destroy his chemical stockpile. And so we were proudly told by Obama during his SOTU earlier this week:

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

However, it just so happens that there's a fly in the ointment, and Obama was "obfuscating the truth," i.e. lying to the American people. As reported yesterday by Reuters in an article entitled "U.S. accuses Syria of stalling on chemical arms handover" by Lesley Wroughton and Matt Spetalnick(http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/30/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBREA0S19720140130):

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

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

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

Obama also related in his SOTU to the deal he struck with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, whose text America's president refuses to reveal, for the "dismantling" of Iran's nuclear weapons program:

"And it is American diplomacy, backed by pressure, that has halted the progress of Iran’s nuclear program – and rolled parts of that program back – for the very first time in a decade. As we gather here tonight, Iran has begun to eliminate its stockpile of higher levels of enriched uranium."

However, this is another disingenuous declaration by Obama. Again, as reported by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA0J00420140120) (my italics):

"Under the interim deal, Iran agreed to suspend enrichment of uranium to a fissile concentration of 20 percent, a short technical step away from the level needed for nuclear weapons."

In addition, Iran is expected to convert half of its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium to uranium oxide and dilute the remaining half to 5 percent enriched uranium, but these processes are reversible. None of this amounts to "eliminating" stockpiles.

And so, notwithstanding these international crises and a festering US economy, David Brooks, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Opportunity Coalition" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/31/opinion/brooks-the-opportunity-coalition.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), makes the case that Obama is now at a "moment of liberation" and should look to the "Whig tradition" for guidance. Brooks writes:

"President Obama can spend the remainder of his term planting a few more high-tech hubs, working on reforming the patent law and doing the other modest things he mentioned in his State of the Union address. And if he did that, he might do some marginal good, and he would manage the stately decline of his presidency during its final few years.

Or, alternately, he can realize that he is now at a moment of liberation. For the past five years he has been inhibited by the need to please donors, to cater to various Congressional constituencies and to play by Washington rules.

But the legislating phase of his presidency is now pretty much over. Over the next few years he will be free to think beyond legislation, beyond fund-raising, beyond the necessities of the day-to-day partisanship. He will have the platform and power of the presidency, but, especially after the midterms, fewer short-term political obligations.

. . . .


But there is a third ancient tradition that weaves through American history, geared directly at enhancing opportunity and social mobility. This is the Whig tradition, which begins with people like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln. This tradition believes in using the power of government to give marginalized Americans the tools to compete in a capitalist economy."

Yup, giving all that is troubling the world today, Obama should look to the Whigs for guidance as he fades into a golden sunset. Give "marginalized Americans the tools to compete in a capitalist economy"? Does that mean higher speed Internet to watch porn? In this increasingly complex, hi-tech world, to which "tools" is Brooks referring?

Time to get real, David. The world is on fire, and the Whigs, who long ago faded into oblivion, didn't and don't have the answers.

Obama is a "relay swimmer" preparing to "pass things along to the next swimmer"? Good luck to the next swimmer as Obama flails about aimlessly in the rapids, leaving America hopelessly out of the race.

The Washington Post, "Second wave of health-insurance disruption affects small businesses": Millions More to Lose Their Health Care Coverage

In case you missed it, a Washington Post article entitled "Second wave of health-insurance disruption affects small businesses" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/second-wave-of-health-insurance-disruption-affects-small-businesses/2014/01/11/dc2f7404-6ffe-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html?hpid=z1) by Ariana Eunjung Cha informs us:

"When millions of health-insurance plans were canceled last fall, the Obama administration tried to be reassuring, saying the terminations affected only the small minority of Americans who bought individual policies.

But according to industry analysts, insurers and state regulators, the disruption will be far greater, potentially affecting millions of people who receive insurance through small employers by the end of 2014.

. . . .

Some of the small-business cancellations are occurring because the policies don’t meet the law’s basic coverage requirements. But many are related only indirectly to the law; insurers are trying to move customers to new plans designed to offset the financial and administrative risks associated with the health-care overhaul. As part of that, they are consolidating their plan offerings to maximize profits and streamline how they manage them."

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it." Yeah, right.

Add to this mess an insufficient number of young persons signing up for Obamacare. As reported by Reuters in an article entitled "Obamacare may get sick if young Americans don't sign up" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/12/us-usa-healthcare-enrollment-idUSBREA0B07Y20140112) by Lewis Krauskopf:

"Early data from a handful of state exchanges shows the administration needs more young adults to sign up in the next three months to help offset costs from older enrollees and prevent insurers from raising their rates.

Critics of Obama's Affordable Care Act say the market won't attract enough young people to keep it financially viable, putting more pressure on government funds to compensate for any insurer losses.

Data from seven states and the District of Columbia, which are running their own marketplaces, show that of more than 200,000 enrollees, nearly 22 percent are 18 to 34 years old, according to a Reuters analysis.

The administration had hoped that over 38 percent, or 2.7 million, of all enrollees in 2014 would be 18 to 35 years old, based on a Congressional Budget Office estimate that 7 million people would sign up by the end of March."

The problem is that there are not enough selfless youngsters interested in subsidizing grandpa and grandma's medical bills. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Or in other words, the Perfect Storm is brewing . . .

David Frum, "Four Questions for Backers of Syria Mission": Four Answers

There can be no mistaking CNN's opposition to a US strike against Syria's Assad regime and its refusal to proffer contrary opinions.

Last Monday, CNN published an absurd online opinion piece entitled "A U.S. strike would be self-wounding" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/kapil-komireddi-us-strike-would-be-self.html) by someone named Kapil Komireddi, who claimed that there was an "absence of conclusive evidence linking the Assad regime" to the August 21 sarin attack that killed almost 1,500 Syrian civilians on the outskirts of Damascus. Yes, this is the same claim being being made by Vladimir Putin.

On Thursday, CNN was back with an equally ridiculous opinion piece entitled "Syria strike would put peace further out of reach" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/patrick-regan-syria-strike-would-put.html) by Patrick Regan, "a professor of peace studies and political science at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies." The premise of Regan's essay was that a "significant amount of research," including his own, demonstrated "that military interventions from outside states lengthen and make bloodier civil wars," and that the Obama should instead seek a negotiated settlement. Yeah, no one has tried to negotiate with Bashar al-Assad and his Iranian overlords. What a crock!

Today, CNN is giving top billing to an opinion piece entitled "Four questions for backers of Syria mission" (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/03/opinion/frum-syria-four-questions/index.html?hpt=hp_c1), by David Frum, a "contributing editor at The Daily Beast." Frum asks with regard to a US strike against Assad:

1. What will it accomplish?
2. What comes next?
3. What will it cost?
4. Is there another way?

"What will it accomplish?" Simple. Following such an attack, it would be hoped that Assad would refrain from using sarin gas, which on August 21 killed nearly 1,500 civilians, more than 400 of them children.

"What comes next?" Yes, in all likelihood the Syrian civil war will continue, but again, we can only hope that Assad will refrain from future use of chemical weapons, particularly against civilians. Is this not a legitimate objective in and of itself?

"What will it cost?" Frum argues, "If [the president, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and other top officials] commit to resolving the Syrian civil war, inevitably they give second shrift, or third shrift, or worse to many other concerns of arguably greater importance to the region and the world." Who said anything about commitment "to resolving the Syrian civil war"? Obama would "commit" to putting an end to the use of sarin gas against civilians.

"Is there another way?" Of course, but it takes two to tango. Are Assad and Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei willing to engage in meaningful negotiations? Thus far, they have shown no signs of willingness to stop the slaughter.

Near the end of his piece, Frum observes:

"What has gone well, by contrast, is the U.S. campaign of economic pressure on Iran. Who would have dared predict in 2002 that Iran would still lack a nuclear weapon 11 years later and without a U.S. military attack? Yet so it has happened."

Has US economic pressure halted the Iranian effort to build a nuclear weapon? Although the Iranian economy is in tatters, the answer is no. How soon will Iran have a nuclear bomb? As observed by Reuters in January (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/14/us-nuclear-iran-report-idUSBRE90D0NV20130114):

"Iran could produce enough weapon-grade uranium for one or more nuclear bombs by mid-2014, and the United States and its allies should intensify sanctions on Tehran before that point is reached, a report by a group of U.S. nonproliferation experts said."

See also a July 31, 2013 UPI report (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/07/31/Report-says-Iran-expected-to-have-nuclear-bomb-capability-by-mid-2014/UPI-22771375265338/) stating:

"Iran is expected to achieve 'critical capability' in mid-2014, with sufficient uranium to build a nuclear bomb, a Washington think tank report says.

The report was published Tuesday by the Institute for Science and International Security."

And so, congratulations to all: It has taken Iran longer than previously thought to build a nuclear weapon, but you would need to dig your head deep into the sand in order to avoid observing that its first atomic bomb is just around the corner. Israel, which has been repeatedly threatened with annihilation by Iran, does not have that luxury.

Kudos to CNN and Frum, a distant cousin of . . . Paul Krugman, for this benighted opinion piece.

Enough said.

Thomas Friedman, "Foreign Policy by Whisper and Nudge": Or More Accurately Stated, Whimper and Fudge

Americans "can't wait for the start of the N.F.L. season" and are indifferent to the human tragedy unfolding in the Muslim Middle East? This is what Thomas Friedman claims in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Foreign Policy by Whisper and Nudge" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/friedman-foreign-policy-by-whisper-and-nudge.html?pagewanted=all).

Friedman goes on to say:

"For instance, if it is proved that Syria has used chemical weapons, American officials are rightly considering using cruise missiles to punish Syria. But we have no hope of making Syria united, democratic and inclusive without a much bigger involvement and without the will of a majority of Syrians."

Friedman fails to observe that it was proven a year ago that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons against the rebels, and notwithstanding Obama's declaration of a "red line" pertaining to such use, the US did absolutely nothing in response. Small arms promised to the rebels by the US were never delivered.

Friedman then condones Obama's foreign policy leadership by concluding:

"But it does explain why his foreign policy is mostly 'nudging' and whispering. It is not very satisfying, not very much fun and won’t make much history, but it’s probably the best we can do or afford right now. And it’s certainly all that most Americans want."

Yup, last week more than a thousand Syrian civilians were murdered with chemical weapons by the Assad regime, and, according to Friedman, selfish Americans couldn't care less.

Sorry, but I don't ascribe such cruel indifference to horrific war crimes by a people known for their generosity and caring.

If only Friedman was capable of feeling ashamed of himself. . . .

But wait! Is it possible that Friedman is correct? As reported by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825):

"The Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23, found that 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it. That represented a decline in backing for U.S. action since August 13, when Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls found that 30.2 percent of Americans supported intervention in Syria if chemicals had been used, while 41.6 percent did not."

Welcome to a brave new world of narcissism and isolationism, walking hand in hand.

Meanwhile, Iran is warning the US of "a ball of fire that would burn not only Syria but the whole Middle East" if Obama acts against the Assad Regime (see: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920603000623).

Obama sure as heck has this situation under control . . .

Reuters, "In Kerry's Mideast Announcement, Hints of Success and Challenge": Both Sides Seek "to Avoid Being Blamed"

In a Reuters news analysis article entitled "In Kerry's Mideast announcement, hints of success and challenge" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/21/us-palestinians-israel-kerry-idUSBRE96K01F20130721), Arshad Mohammed writes:

"When Secretary of State John Kerry announced on Friday that Israel and the Palestinians had tentatively agreed to resume peace talks after three years, he did so standing alone as dusk fell over the Jordanian capital.

. . . .

'I am not among those who see this as a major breakthrough,' said Khaled Elgindy of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy in Washington. 'I am very skeptical because I don't see anything that is fundamentally different.'

The main motivation on both sides to agree to come to the table - assuming that all goes well in the next week or so - may simply be to avoid being blamed for torpedoing negotiations."

Or in other words, John Kerry needs to keep busy, but is not willing to fly to troubled Egypt or to visit his "dear friend" Bashar al-Assad (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/obama-nominates-john-kerry-dear-friend.html) in Damascus.

Will these talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis, if they ever get off the ground, go anywhere? Probably not, but we mustn't keep Kerry from his playacting.

Gail Collins, "The House Just Wants to Snack": What Isn't Gail Telling You?

What are those nefarious Republicans plotting now? Not to worry, New York Times columnist Gail Collins is always there to tell you.

In her latest op-ed entitled "The House Just Wants to Snack" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/opinion/collins-the-house-just-wants-to-snack.html?_r=0), Collins would have us know that the Republicans are seeking to delay providing food stamps to hungry Americans, while passing on subsidies to farmers. Collins writes:

"Lately, the House has begun chopping up big, complicated bills into what Speaker John Boehner once described as 'bite-sized chunks that members can digest.' No more legislative sausage-making. No more bipartisan trading. The House was going to stick to clean, simple ideas, more along the lines of Liver Snaps.

So the farm bill got divided. The two parts were not equally tidy. As Ron Nixon reported in The Times, the rate of error and fraud in the agricultural crop insurance program is significantly higher than in the food stamp program. Also, the agriculture part has a lot of eyebrow-raising provisions, like the $147 million a year in reparations we send to Brazil to make up for the fact that it won a World Trade Organization complaint about the market-distorting effects of our cotton subsidies.

And while food stamps go to poor people, most of the farm aid goes to wealthy corporations.

So House Republicans passed the farm part and left food stamps hanging."

Most of the farm aid goes to wealthy corporations? Surprise, surprise, surprise. Worthy of scrutiny? Absolutely.

But what isn't Collins telling us? As reported by Aimee Picchi in an MSN Money article entitled "More Americans than ever using food stamps" (http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=e9caf453-75ca-4ad6-ae9d-9b991cd6702f):

"A lot has changed about food stamps during the past few years. For one, the program is currently called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and it has made buying groceries much easier by providing debit-style cards.

. . . .

Enrollment in SNAP has surged 70% since 2008, reaching a record 47.8 million Americans in December. Even more shocking, that means 15% of the country receives the benefits, nearly double the rate as in 1975, when the U.S. suffered from soaring inflation, a recession and an oil crisis.

As a result, the U.S. spent a record $74.6 billion on food-stamp benefits last year, more than double what the program shelled out before the Great Recession. Remember, that downturn officially ended in 2009, and by many measures the economy has improved since the financial crisis and housing meltdown."

Hmm, a record $74.6 billion on food stamp benefits. Worth examining? Absolutely. But that would also reflect on Obama's failure to remedy America's economic malaise, and we wouldn't want to do that.

What else isn't a "pleasantly plump" Collins telling us? As reported by Reuters in an article entitled "Fat and getting fatter: U.S. obesity rates to soar by 2030" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/18/us-obesity-us-idUSBRE88H0RA20120918):

"Using a model of population and other trends, a new report released on Tuesday by the Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation projects that half of U.S. adults will be obese by 2030 unless Americans change their ways."

Is it also worth scrutinizing the obesity epidemic in the US, which is responsible for numerous diseases, e.g., type 2 diabetes, which in turn cause medical costs to rise? Yes indeedy.

In short, before blaming only those nasty Republican troglodytes, Collins would do well to have a look at the bigger picture. As Mark Leibovich's new book, "This Town," would have us know, almost everyone in Washington is at the trough.

Reuters, "Iranian missile may be able to hit U.S. by 2015": Only Israel's Problem?

As reported by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/20/us-iran-usa-missile-idUSTRE63J04H20100420):

"Iran may be able to build a missile capable of striking the United States by 2015, according to an unclassified Defense Department report on Iran's military sent to Congress and released on Monday.

'With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015,' said the April report, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters.

. . . .

The timing of advances in Iran's long-range missile technology is being closely watched in Washington, which accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons and is pushing for a new round of sanctions. Iran denies the charges and says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

'Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy,' the report said.

The U.S. military tried and failed to shoot down a simulated Iranian missile strike on the United States in January, in a botched $150 million exercise over the Pacific Ocean."

Meanwhile, an imbecilic (I'm being kind) Catherine Ashton continues to manage the P5+1's "make believe" negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear weapons development program. Ashton is qualifed to undertake this job? Surely you jest! Have a look at the video of Ashton, filmed on her way to a meeting with Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic on his first official visit to Brussels.

Care to wake up, President Obama? Or when you declared to Iran that you "don't bluff" (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/), were you only bluffing?

Charming.

Reuters, "U.N. nuclear agency and Iran may meet in August: diplomats": Rouhani Is a "Relative Moderate"? Delusional!

As reported by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/08/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSBRE9670CL20130708):

"The U.N. atomic agency and Iran may hold a new round of nuclear talks in August, diplomats said on Monday, in what would be their first meeting since last month's election of a relative moderate as the Islamic state's president."

Hassan Rouhani is a "relative moderate" upon whom the West should pin its hope for a peaceful end to Iran's nuclear weapons development program? As noted by Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/rowhani-s-surprise-election-in-tehran-could-resuscitate-obama-s-speech-in-cairo-1.530198):

"In a 2004 speech, while serving as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Rowhani explained his modus operandi in the talks the then conducted with the EU-3, comprised of Britain, France and Germany. Swearing allegiance to Iran’s ultimate nuclear goals, Rowhani boasted 'While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the [nuclear conversion] facility in Isfahan. By creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work there.'"

Yup, this next round of talks between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency should surely prove productive . . . not.

The West's capacity for deluding itself never ceases to amaze me.

Thomas Friedman, "Postcard From Turkey": Dead Wrong!

Does Thomas Friedman speak Turkish? No, but that does not stop him from breezing into Istanbul and mistakenly describing the nature of protests throughout Turkey. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Postcard From Turkey" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/opinion/friedman-postcard-from-turkey.html?_r=0), Thomas Friedman writes:

"Having witnessed the Egyptian uprising in Tahrir Square in Cairo in 2011, I was eager to compare it with the protests by Turkish youths here in Taksim Square in 2013. They are very different. The Egyptians wanted to oust President Hosni Mubarak. Theirs was an act of 'revolution.' The Turks are engaged in an act of 'revulsion.' They aren’t (yet) trying to throw out their democratically elected Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. What they’re doing is calling him out. Their message is simple: 'Get out of our faces, stop choking our democracy and stop acting like such a pompous, overbearing, modern-day Sultan.'"

Turks "aren't (yet) trying to throw out their democratically elected Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan"? An act of "revulsion"? Is that all it is? According to the BBC on June 7 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22809430):

"Mr Erdogan responded to calls for his resignation by referring to his election victory in 2011 when he took 50% of the vote.

'They say I am the prime minister of only 50%. It's not true. We have served the whole of the 76 million from the east to the west,' he told the crowd.'

It was the first major show of support for Mr Erdogan following a week of protests in which his opponents have called for him to resign."

As reported by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/10/us-turkey-protests-idUSBRE94U0J920130610):

"Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan warned protesters who have taken to the streets across Turkey demanding his resignation that his patience has its limits and compared the unrest with an army attempt six years ago to curb his power."

According to The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/10122409/Mother-of-Turkish-protester-killed-in-Ankara-Erdogan-must-resign.html):

"The mother of Ethem Sarisuluk, one of five people killed in a fortnight of protests in Turkey, tells Justin Vela that the protests must continue until Prime Minister Erdogan resigns."

As reported by Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/with-one-voice-they-yelled-erdogan-resign.premium-1.527192):

"For the last two days, Istanbul’s main center, Taksim, and its surrounding areas, have been under siege due to a massive peaceful protest. Thousands of canisters of tear gas have been fired at hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters throughout the city, together with water-cannons spraying tainted water that burns the skin, all while the protesters screamed in unison, 'Erdogan Resign!'"

And as reported by Friedman's own newspaper (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/world/middleeast/turkish-leader-agrees-to-meet-protest-organizers.html):

"The protesters later widened their grievances into a broad rebuke of what they consider the authoritarian style of Mr. Erdogan and his political party, which is supported by religious conservatives in Turkey. The protesters have demanded the resignation of governors and security chiefs in Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, the punishment of abusive police officers and the release of people detained in the protests. Some have called for Mr. Erdogan to resign."

Is the message of the Turkish protesters simply, "Get out of our faces, stop choking our democracy and stop acting like such a pompous, overbearing, modern-day Sultan," as Tom would have us believe? Or could it also have to do with the fact that Turkey leads the world in arresting journalists (see: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/02/2013217124044793870.html)?

And as long as we are on the topic of Erdogan, you will recall that when interviewed by Fareed Zakaria in 2012, Obama listed Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan as one of his best international friends (http://swampland.time.com/2012/01/19/inside-obamas-world-the-president-talks-to-time-about-the-changing-nature-of-american-power/). Care to comment now, Mr. President?