David Brooks, "Hillary Clinton’s Opportunist Solution!": Congrats, David, You're on Hillary's Hit-List

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary Clinton’s Opportunist Solution!," David Brooks lambastes Hillary's opportunism. Brooks observes:

• "She’ll say what she needs to say now to become Bernie Sanders in a pantsuit."
• "When she announced her opposition [to the Trans-Pacific Partnership] to Judy Woodruff on the 'PBS NewsHour' she was performing a flip-flop of the sort that leaves gymnasts gaping and applauding."
• "[Hillary's flip-flop on the Trans-Pacific Partnership] suggested a whole style of campaigning and method of governing based on the principle of unprincipledness."

Congratulations, David, you're now on Hillary's hit-list - yes, it has been alleged that she keeps the names on a spreadsheet - and although my belief is that the email scandal should have ended her presidential campaign months ago, this could still prove a very dangerous place to be.

I would only add that Hillary is not alone when it comes to governing on the "principle of unprincipledness." Hillary has a soulmate in Vladimir Putin, and a new Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How America can counter Putin’s moves in Syria" by Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates is well worth reading.

A flip side to Brooks's flip-flop allegations? In a Times op-ed entitled "It’s All Benghazi," Paul Krugman writes:

"I often wonder about commentators who write about things like those hearings as if there were some real issue involved, who keep going on about the Clinton email controversy as if all these months of scrutiny had produced any evidence of wrongdoing, as opposed to sloppiness."

All these months of scrutiny have produced no evidence of wrongdoing? Sorry, Paul, but don't you think that before reaching a conclusion, we should wait until Hillary and friends produce all the emails? And maybe - just maybe - we should also wait to hear the results of the FBI investigation?

Meanwhile, as reported in a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "Emails Suggest Clinton Pushed Libyan Business Interests of Off-the-Books Adviser" by Lachlan Markay and Brent Scher:

"A Hillary Clinton confidante and informal adviser used his direct access to the then-secretary of state to promote his business interests in Libya during that country’s 2011 unrest, newly released documents reveal.

According to a letter from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., Okla.), chairman of the House panel investigating the 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, Clinton internally raised the possibility of employing American security contractors, one of which Sidney Blumenthal had a direct financial interest in.

In a letter last week to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.), the ranking Democrat on the Benghazi committee, Gowdy also reveals that Blumenthal, who frequently emailed Clinton regarding the security situation in Libya, sent an email to Clinton’s personal address containing the name of a Central Intelligence Agency source in Libya.

'This information, the name of a human source, is some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but also human lives,' Gowdy wrote."

Revealing the name of a CIA source to Hillary via a personal email address amounts to mere "sloppiness"? Sorry, Paul, I don't think so. At least not in my neck of the woods.

Maureen Dowd, "Peeling Away the Plastic": How About First Scrubbing Away the Blood?

Reflecting on a new Netflix documentary providing an intimate perspective of Mitt Romney's campaigns for the the presidency, Maureen Dowd, in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Peeling Away the Plastic" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/dowd-peeling-away-the-plastic.html?ref=maureendowd&_r=0), concludes:

"The fact that Romney allowed his strategists to keep a fence around him and his faith, which is so central to his life, the fact that he basically had nothing to say about where he wanted to lead the country, the fact that the private equity leecher spoke so dismissively about the 47 percent of people he regarded as moochers, the fact that this supposedly top-notch businessman did not seem to realize his campaign was using 20th-century technology — all of this spoke to a certain tentativeness, obtuseness and callousness.

But there’s always 2016."

Hmm, "tentativeness, obtuseness and callousness" on the part of Romney.

However, Maureen fails to mention the other event that recently stirred much media attention in the US, i.e. publication of Robert Gates's book "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War." Regarding Gates's book, Charles Krauthammer last week wrote a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How in good conscience?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-how-in-good-conscience/2014/01/16/138901d4-7ee3-11e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html?hpid=z2), in which he observed re Obama's escalation of American involvement in Afghanistan:

"One question remains, however. If he wasn’t committed to the mission, if he didn’t care about winning, why did Obama throw these soldiers into battle in the first place?

Because for years the Democrats had used Afghanistan as a talking point to rail against the Iraq War — while avoiding the politically suicidal appearance of McGovernite pacifism. As consultant Bob Shrum later admitted, “I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as ‘the right war’ to conventional Democratic wisdom. This was accurate as criticism of the Bush Administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy.”

Translation: They were never really serious about Afghanistan. (Nor apparently about Iraq either. Gates recounts with some shock that Hillary Clinton admitted she opposed the Iraq surge for political reasons, and Obama conceded that much of the opposition had indeed been political.) The Democratic mantra — Iraq War, bad; Afghan War, good — was simply a partisan device to ride anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War feeling without appearing squishy."

Or in a nutshell, after months of procrastination, America's Narcissist-in-Chief finally decided to shed the blood of American service women and men in an inane war for the sake of his own image and political gain.

Dowd sees "tentativeness, obtuseness and callousness" in Romney's campaigns? Perhaps. But I suggest that she first consider what Obama ordered in Afghanistan, which has proven horrifyingly worse by any standard of morality.

Charles Krauthammer, "How in good conscience?": Bad War, Good War

Charles Krauthammer's latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How in good conscience?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-how-in-good-conscience/2014/01/16/138901d4-7ee3-11e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html?hpid=z2) is a must read. Reflecting on the revelations of Robert Gates in his recently published book "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War," Krauthammer observes:

"One question remains, however. If he wasn’t committed to the mission, if he didn’t care about winning, why did Obama throw these soldiers into battle in the first place?

Because for years the Democrats had used Afghanistan as a talking point to rail against the Iraq War — while avoiding the politically suicidal appearance of McGovernite pacifism. As consultant Bob Shrum later admitted, “I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as ‘the right war’ to conventional Democratic wisdom. This was accurate as criticism of the Bush Administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy.”

Translation: They were never really serious about Afghanistan. (Nor apparently about Iraq either. Gates recounts with some shock that Hillary Clinton admitted she opposed the Iraq surge for political reasons, and Obama conceded that much of the opposition had indeed been political.) The Democratic mantra — Iraq War, bad; Afghan War, good — was simply a partisan device to ride anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War feeling without appearing squishy."

In fact, Iraq and Afghanistan were both bad wars, yet the mainstream media fails to hold Obama's feet to the fire for escalating American involvement in Afghanistan, when he never believed in the ultimate success of the surge there.

The blood of American service women and men is indeed on the hands of America's Narcissist-in-Chief.

David Brooks, "Movement on the Right": Christie's Friends Cause Movement to Stop Dead

Definition of "Coulrophobia":
"extreme or irrational fear of clowns"

- Oxford Dictionaries (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/coulrophobia)

Me afraid of clowns? No way! Rather, I leave my home and shudder at the prospect of encountering a politician.

As reported by USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/09/fort-lee-traffic-jam-caused-human-debacle/4397381/)

"E-mails indicate several Christie supporters including Bridget Anne Kelly, his now fired deputy chief of staff, and David Wildstein, a Christie appointee at the Port Authority of New York, schemed to close the lanes to punish Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich. The result: stopped cars snaked through the small borough, slowing emergency service units, delaying school buses and making even blocks-long errand runs a source of prolonged frustration."

Sounds almost a bit like Kramer adopting a highway in "Seinfeld," but without the humor.

Of course, Christie has apologized for the inconvenience. Well, Christie can do the "Hokey Pokey" and turn himself around, but the 2016 Republican presidential nomination has just become inaccessible.

On the subject of "movement" or the lack thereof, David Brooks, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Movement on the Right" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/opinion/brooks-movement-on-the-right.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), concludes:

"Today’s emerging conservatives embrace that constitutional mind-set, embodied both by Madison and Hamilton. Moreover, the National Affairs authors understand that most policy programs, like most businesses, fail. Conservative programs like urban enterprise zones failed to produce measurable results. Liberal programs like Head Start scarcely produce identifiable long-term gains. Therefore, it is best to approach government in a mood of skeptical reformism: Engage in a constant process of gradual concrete reform even as you are aware that most of your efforts will not pan out."

Ah, yes, Madison, Hamilton and "skeptical reformism." I'm a big fan. Hey, stop laughing at me!

How about just finding some Republican sufficiently ethical to stand a chance against Hillary in 2016. Hillary, another paragon of political virtue, is now featured in former Defense Secretary Robert Gates's book, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War”:

"Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying."

Yup, just keep the politicians away from me, and I just might be able to keep my PTSD in check for the next 24 hours without medication.

New York Times "Talking Truth to NATO": More Hypocrisy from Obama

In an editorial entitled "Talking Truth to NATO" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/opinion/11sat1.html), The New York Times commends outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates for publicly criticizing America's allies which have not done their fair share in the struggle against Qaddafi. The editorial states:

"Fewer than half of NATO’s 28 members are taking part in the military mission. Fewer than a third are participating in the all-important airstrikes. British and French aircraft carry the main burden. Canada, Belgium, Norway and Denmark, despite limited resources, have made outsized contributions. Turkey, with the alliance’s second-largest military, has remained largely on the sidelines. Germany, NATO’s biggest historic beneficiary, has done nothing at all."

Well, this didn't stop President Obama from hosting German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a gala Rose Garden dinner on Tuesday and presenting Merkel with the Presidential Medal of Freedom before more than 200 VIP guests.

I suppose freedom doesn't apply to Libya.

But Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, and what has he achieved?

Then, too, Obama presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson in 2009, despite her meetings with Hamas, her historic antagonism to the U.S., and her involvement in the 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban, which degenerated into an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate fest.

Obama: Out of Control in the Middle East

I care little for truisms and refuse to live my life according to adages; however, there is indeed one which has set me to thinking of late:

"You are either in control, or out of control."

Make no mistake about it, in the Middle East Obama is "out of control".

After Obama refused to back, even vocally, the dissidents in Iran in 2009, their street rebellion was destined to failure.

More recently, Obama called for, and received, the head of Mubarak, a long-time U.S. ally.

Now, after Obama claimed that the United States is "slowly tightening the noose" on Qaddafi (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_us/us_obama) and Hillary declared that "nothing is off the table" regarding a possible U.S. response to the Libyan crisis (http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2011/02/28/clinton-no-option-off-table-in-libya-crisis-2/), we now know that the U.S. is refusing to back the no-fly zone sponsored by France and the U.K. (see: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/14/un.libya.no.fly.talks/index.html?hpt=T2). We also know that on Monday Qaddafi's forces had retaken the town of Zuwara from the rebels (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/15/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T2). Apparently that noose around Qaddafi's neck is tightening very, very, very slowly.

Saudi Arabia is furious with Obama, and without consulting the U.S., which has shown itself to be impotent in Saudi eyes, it has sent, together with the United Arab Emirates, 2,000 troops to Bahrain in support of its Sunni leadership. Bahrain's king, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, is facing opposition from the island's majority Shiite population, and the entry of Saudi and UAE soldiers has in turn raised the wrath of Iran, which is labeling the troop movement an "invasion" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/middleeast/16bahrain.html?hp).

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is reeling from the recent refusal of Saudi Arabia to play host to Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton, who were both forced to cancel their visits to the desert kingdom. According to The New York Times, "American officials were left wondering whether the cause was King Abdullah’s frail health — or his pique at the United States" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/middleeast/15saudi.html?hp).

I cannot believe how daft and obtuse the Obama administration can be, but in any event, so as to leave no stone unturned, I picked up the phone earlier today to King Abdullah, and he is indeed livid with Obama. I don't think I've ever heard this 87-year-old monarch so angry.

As I stated at the outset, "You are either in control or out of control." In the Middle East, as elsewhere, Obama is out of control.

Iran: Defense Secretary Gates Squirms

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, embarrassed by the leak of his three-page January memorandum declaring that the U.S. lacks a policy to contain Iran's drive for nuclear weapons, issued a statement on Sunday which claims:

“There should be no confusion by our allies and adversaries that the United States is properly and energetically focused on this question and prepared to act across a broad range of contingencies in support of our interests.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html?hp

Regrettably, Gates' assertion conflicts with Obama administration policy publicly announced in 2010. As observed by Hillary Clinton on Al-Arabiya television on February 17:

"Obviously, we don't want Iran to become a nuclear weapons power, but we are not planning anything other than going for sanctions."

After Hillary Clinton took the military option off the table, Obama further defanged any threat to Iran by stating earlier this month that sanctions being sought by the U.S. would not be "crippling," as previously suggested by Hillary Clinton, but might have "bite."

Gates would have us believe that the military option is once again extant?

Together with National Security Advisor General James Jones ("we have . . . successfully [built] a coalition of nations to isolate Iran and pressure it to live up to its obligations"), Gates is quickly learning to play the obfuscation game on a behalf of a president who has signed away America's deterrent power.

Obama Without a Policy to Curb Iran

Who sprang the leaks?

An article in today's New York Times entitled "Gates Says U.S. Lacks Policy to Curb Iran’s Nuclear Drive," written by David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker, describes a secret three-page memorandum sent by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates to top White House officials warning that the U.S. has failed to develop a long-range policy to contain Iran's nuclear progress:

"One senior official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the memo, described the document as 'a wake-up call.'

. . . .

Mr. Gates’s memo appears to reflect concerns in the Pentagon and the military that the White House did not have a well prepared series of alternatives in place in case all the diplomatic steps finally failed.

. . . .

Administration officials testifying before a Senate committee last week made it clear that those preparations were under way. So did General Jones. 'The president has made it clear from the beginning of this administration that we need to be prepared for every possible contingency,' he said in the interview. 'That is what we have done from day one, while successfully building a coalition of nations to isolate Iran and pressure it to live up to its obligations.'”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html?hp

If Jones is willing to claim that an international coalition, including China, Russia, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey and France which sent representatives to Iran's nuclear summit last week, has coalesced around Obama, how are we to believe anything else that he says?

But more interesting is the timing of this leak. It comes days after we learned, as the result of another leak from within the U.S., that the Obama administration had denied Israel permission to destroy a convoy carrying Syrian Scud-B missiles to Hezbollah and had assured the Israelis that Senator John Kerry would intervene with Assad to prevent the shipment. Kerry failed, and now both Tehran and Damascus are laughing at the Obama administration, which persists in its claim that "Sending an ambassador to Syria who can press the Syrian government in a firm and coordinated fashion...is part of our strategy to achieve comprehensive peace in the region."

Is there a quiet rebellion within the U.S. military against Obama's efforts to appease tyrannical regimes around the world while undermining confidence in the U.S. deterrent capability?

There are apparently those who remember Hezbollah's 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut, which killed more than 60 embassy personnel and U.S. Marines. There are also those who remember how Hezbollah murdered, in the most horrifying manner imaginable, William Francis Buckley, a U.S. army officer and CIA employee, in 1985.