Jackson Diehl, "The costs of Obama’s Syria policy are apparent to everyone but him": A Narcissistic President's Denial of Reality

Tweet

In a must-read Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The costs of Obama’s Syria policy are apparent to everyone but him," Jackson Diehl excoriates Obama's hapless policy shifts in Syria. Declaring that Obama is "fundamentally clueless — or in denial — about the consequences of what historians will surely regard as one of his most fateful errors," i.e. his decision not to respond militarily in 2013 to Assad's use of chemical weapons, Diehl observes:

"Japanese, South Koreans, Singaporeans and even Indians confided that they were convinced that Obama’s failure to use force against the regime of Bashar al-Assad was directly responsible for China’s subsequent burst of aggression in territorial disputes in the East China Sea and South China Sea.

Poles, Lithuanians and French drew a line between the backdown and Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. As for the Sunni Arabs, Turks and Israelis, it is an article of faith that Obama’s decision accelerated the catastrophe that Syria, and much of the rest of the Middle East, has become. They have an obvious point: Hundreds of thousands are dead, the European Union is in danger of crumbling under an onslaught of refugees, and the Islamic State and Assad remain unvanquished."

Diehl goes on to observe that Obama is alone in dismissing this criticism. Referring to Jeffrey Goldberg's recent Atlantic article entitled "The Obama Doctrine," Diehl continues:

"As Goldberg describes it, the president now regards August 2013 as his 'liberation' from a U.S. foreign policy establishment he holds in contempt, along with a 'Washington playbook' that demands military action to uphold American 'credibility.'

. . . .

In fact, despite his protestations, Obama seems to be haunted by his Syrian retreat — so much so that he has concocted a kind of negative doctrine around it. It is, says Goldberg, that the Middle East 'is no longer terribly important to American interests'; that even if it is, there is little the United States can do 'to make it a better place'; and that any attempt to do so leads only to war and 'the eventual hemorrhaging of U.S. credibility and power.'"

Diehl's devastating conclusion:

"Obama is now obliged to fight the Islamic State’s multiplying iterations across the region without any prospect of viable states to replace it. He has few allies and no exit strategy. The 'liberation' from the Middle East that he now celebrates has created a quagmire that the next president will inherit."

However, Diehl fails to provide the reason for Obama's vehement rejection of all this criticism. In fact, the reason is simple: Persons suffering from narcissistic personality disorders are entirely incapable of accepting criticism, and although Obama's problem is not nearly as severe as that of Donald Trump, it is nevertheless unmistakable. As observed by Matthew Continetti in a National Review article entitled "President Obama Is a Political Narcissist":

"Russia announces the withdrawal of its forces from Syria. The decision is a surprise — President Obama is shocked. This is a feeling he experiences often.

He was astonished when Vladimir Putin intervened in the Syrian conflict in 2015. He was startled when ISIS conquered a fair portion of Mesopotamia in 2014. He was jarred when Putin invaded Crimea, and launched a proxy war in eastern Ukraine that same year. Rogue states pursue policies contrary to what Obama the Wise sees as their self-interest, and the presidential response never varies. He is stunned. He is saddened. He is filled with sangfroid.

Bewilderment happens when reality dispels illusions. I used to think President Obama’s illusions were simply the product of his ideology, of his faith in the universality of human reason, in the idea of historical progress, of his ambivalence toward American power. But after reading Jeffrey Goldberg’s epic, absorbing, revealing interview with the president in The Atlantic, I have come to a different conclusion. It’s not just ideology that drives Obama’s cluelessness. It’s narcissism."

Yes, Obama was completely taken by surprise by Putin's announcement of Russia's withdrawal from Syria. But more to the point, unbeknownst to Washington, there is a well-reasoned rationale for Putin's decision. Syria and Iraq no longer exist as nations. Moreover, 30 million stateless Kurds, long persecuted in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey, are aching for freedom. It would appear that Putin, unlike Obama, is aware that the Kurds are destined to gain their independence and is seeking an alliance with the Kurds against Turkey, Russia's longtime enemy.

In short, blinded by his would-be omniscience, Obama is driving his golf cart across the rough and into a sand trap. It remains to be seen who inherits this ugly wreck.

David Brooks, "Dogs, Cats and Leadership": Trump Is a Dog? My Dogs Take Offense.

Tweet

 

Referring us to Jeffrey Goldberg's recent Atlantic article entitled "The Obama Doctrine," David Brooks writes in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Dogs, Cats and Leadership":

"But it’s also fascinating to read in the midst of a presidential campaign. It shows how insanely far removed campaign bloviation is from the reality of actually governing. It also reveals that the performance of presidents, especially on foreign policy, is shaped by how leaders attach to problems. Some leaders are like dogs: They want to bound right in and make things happen. Some are more like cats: They want to detach and maybe look for a pressure point here or there.

. . . .

Personally, I don’t think there is one correct answer to whether we want a dog or a cat as leader. Depends on the situation; there are successful examples of both types. But I’m struck by how catlike Obama is. And it’s striking how many Americans have responded by going for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, who are bad versions of the bounding in/we-can-change-everything doggy type."

Well, I have just finished discussing Brooks's opinion piece with my two canine friends Arnold and Munchkin, and they were both offended by David's metaphor. "Heck," Arnold said to me, "Trump praised the Tiananmen Square massacre. Even Munchkin, who is little more than a puppy, is smarter than that."

I told Arnold that Trump had backtracked a bit last night during the Miami debate and had referred to Tiananmen Square as a "riot." "You see," Arnold replied, "he has the brains of a hamster."

Brooks's comparison of Obama with a cat? Munchkin had a few choice words: "Looking for a pressure point here or there? I don't think so. But backing away from a red line involving the use of chemical weapons by Assad was akin to drawing a line in a sand trap and then relieving yourself there instead." I didn't quite follow the analogy, but I cautioned Munchkin not to get vulgar.

Goldberg's article? Jeffrey writes:

"Obama believes that the Manichaeanism, and eloquently rendered bellicosity, commonly associated with Churchill were justified by Hitler’s rise, and were at times defensible in the struggle against the Soviet Union. But he also thinks rhetoric should be weaponized sparingly, if at all, in today’s more ambiguous and complicated international arena. The president believes that Churchillian rhetoric and, more to the point, Churchillian habits of thought, helped bring his predecessor, George W. Bush, to ruinous war in Iraq. Obama entered the White House bent on getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan; he was not seeking new dragons to slay."

Ted Cruz declared, "One of the very first acts President Obama did upon being elected was sending Churchill’s bust back to the UK, and I think that foreshadowed everything that was to come the next six years." Cruz may have been right.

Gail, Collins, "Hillary and Bernie, Punching": Hillary Is "Uber-Qualified"?

Tweet

Labeling Hillary Clinton, in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary and Bernie, Punching," "[t]he uber-qualified woman who believes she knows how to make the real world better," Gail Collins would have us know:

"Hillary is the former first lady who survived her husband’s impeachment, became a senator, then lost a presidential bid and then became secretary of state. We expect more in the way of can-do and less in the way of elevated campaign tactics from her."

Uber-qualified? Yes, she is a former first lady, senator and secretary of state, but what were her achievements? As David A. Graham wrote in an Atlantic article entitled "Is It Unfair to Ask About Hillary Clinton's Accomplishments?":

"The Clinton campaign hasn’t solved the problem of finding a way to communicate just what it is that Clinton has accomplished—particularly during her most recent role as secretary of state, but also in the earlier stages of her career.

The folks Politico canvassed had no shortage of answers, but some are rather thin. Bill Burton, a former Obama aide, cited her 'women’s rights are human rights speech,' given 20 years ago; 'her role in killing Osama bin Laden' (a nebulous answer, though it’s true she counseled in favor of the raid); and an even vaguer 'management of the State Department.'

The multiplicity of answers may reveal the trouble: No one or two accomplishments rise to the top. (The most commonly cited answer is marshaling sanctions against Iran, an essential prerequisite for the nuclear deal that followed, and for which John Kerry has claimed most credit.) Clinton herself has struggled with the question."

Hillary's involvement in cobbling together Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran? More and more, this is becoming a dubious distinction. On the other hand, although Hillary may have trouble identifying her achievements, her disasters, which go unmentioned by Collins, are bountiful:

• Targeting the victims of Bills sexual "antics" (calling Monica Lewinsky a "narcissistic looney toon").
• Informing three of the families who lost loved-ones in Benghazi, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son," after telling the Egyptian prime minister, "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film."
• Accepting donations to the Clinton Foundation from Muslim countries guilty of abominations against women and from banks guilty of conspiring to undertake currency manipulation.
• Maintaining a personal server for her email correspondence while secretary state, now the focus of a widening criminal investigation by the FBI.
• Engaging in sleazy cattle futures trading, by which she turned a $1,000 investment into almost $100,000 after 10 months. 

Clinton is "uber-qualified"? I don't think so. There is a reason why, given the paucity of Democratic contenders for the presidency, Bernie Sanders is rising in the polls. Depending upon the determinations of the FBI, Joe Biden, who is now questioning Hillary's "authenticity," might yet throw his hat in the ring.

Shame on you, Gail.

David Brooks, "The Age of Small Terror": Anti-Liberalism Most Noticeable on the Right?

Tweet

Writing of the terror attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Boston, Fort Hood and Israel in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Age of Small Terror," David Brooks describes a resultant anxiety that challenges the "liberal order":

"In country after country this anxiety is challenging the liberal order. I mean philosophic Enlightenment liberalism, not partisan liberalism. It’s the basic belief in open society, free speech, egalitarianism and meliorism (gradual progress). It’s a belief that through reasoned conversation values cohere and fanaticism recedes. It’s the belief that people of all creeds merit tolerance and respect.

These liberal assumptions have been challenged from the top for years — by dictators. But now they are challenged from the bottom, by populist anti-liberals who support the National Front in France, UKIP in Britain, Viktor Orban in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia and, in some guises, Donald Trump in the U.S.

. . . .

Anti-liberalism has been most noticeable on the right."

"Anti-liberalism has been most noticeable on the right"? Horsefeathers! You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to acknowledge the war being waged by the left on free speech at American universities. Have a look at an Atlantic article entitled "Campus Activists Weaponize ‘Safe Space’" by Conor Friedersdorf, a U.S. News & World Report article entitled "From Megaphones to Muzzles" by Susan Milligan, a New York Times article entitled "In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas" by Judith Shulevitz, and a National Review article entitled "Leftist Universities Will Never Stop Trying to Stifle Free Speech" by David French.

Today's left appears unwilling to be confronted with alien or antagonistic ideas. On the other hand, if someone like President Obama believes she/he is the "smartest person in the room," why should she/he need to be confronted with contrary views, which are only apt to disturb her/him?

Nathan Thrall, "Mismanaging the Conflict in Jerusalem": New Episode in the Times's War Against Israel

Tweet

Are you familiar with "The International Crisis Group"? Probably not. However, if you go to their website, you will find their explanation of the recent violence at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem:

"Clashes broke out between Israeli police and Palestinian protesters at Al-Aqsa Mosque starting 10 Sept after govt, fearing violent escalation at site during visits by religious Jews during Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashana), revived limitations on Muslim access 9 Sept."

Mention of the fact that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is located on the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site? Not a chance. After all, as Palestinian Authority President Abbas declared on September 16, 2015:

"We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah, Allah willing. Every martyr will reach paradise, and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah. The Al-Aqsa Mosque is ours, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is ours, and [the Jews] have no right to defile it with their filthy feet. We will not allow them to, and we will do everything in our power to protect Jerusalem."

The International Crisis Group also fails to mention that Palestinians had brought pipe bombs to the Al-Aqsa Mosque to throw at Jewish worshipers.

Which brings us to another risible guest New York Times op-ed entitled "Mismanaging the Conflict in Jerusalem" by Nathan Thrall, "a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group," which concludes:

"Last month, a survey of Palestinians found support for an armed intifada at 57 percent (and at 71 percent among 18- to 22-year-old men). Support was highest in Hebron and Jerusalem. Two-thirds of those surveyed wanted Mr. Abbas to resign.

Mr. Kerry is scheduled to have meetings with Mr. Abbas and with Mr. Netanyahu in an effort to achieve their shared goal of restoring calm and returning to the status quo. Violence is politically threatening to both leaders, especially to Mr. Abbas, and both will continue to work to suppress any escalation.

Yet if they succeed only in ending the unrest, they will have merely restored the stasis that gave rise to it. This is what Israelis call 'managing the conflict.' There is certainly no guarantee that if the two leaders fail to stop the flow of Palestinian and Israeli blood, things will eventually get better.

But what does seem guaranteed is that most Palestinians will continue to believe that if the occupation is cost-free, there will be little incentive to end it. Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu have taught them that."

No mention by "senior analyst" Nathan that a June 2014 poll conducted by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy determined that sixty percent of Palestinians "reject permanently accepting Israel’s existence and instead suggest their leaders 'work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea.'" Or stated otherwise, the only territorial compromise that these sixty percent of Palestinians are willing to accept is the extermination of Israel.

Also, no mention by "senior analyst" Nathan of Jeffrey Goldberg's October 16, 2015 Atlantic article entitled "The Paranoid, Supremacist Roots of the Stabbing Intifada," which states:

"The current 'stabbing Intifada' now taking place in Israel—a quasi-uprising in which young Palestinians have been trying, and occasionally succeeding, to kill Jews with knives—is prompted in good part by the same set of manipulated emotions that sparked the anti-Jewish riots of the 1920s: a deeply felt desire on the part of Palestinians to 'protect' the Temple Mount from Jews.

. . . .

The violence of the past two weeks, encouraged by purveyors of rumors who now have both Israeli and Palestinian blood on their hands, is rooted not in Israeli settlement policy, but in a worldview that dismisses the national and religious rights of Jews. There will not be peace between Israelis and Palestinians so long as parties on both sides of the conflict continue to deny the national and religious rights of the other."

Let's be honest, "senior analyst" Nathan's op-ed is very much in keeping with US Secretary of State Kerry's absurd attempt to link the current wave of stabbing with Israeli settlement activity. It is also very much in keeping with the war against Israel being waged by The New York Times, which recently sought to question whether the ancient Jewish temples stood on the Temple Mount.

Disgusting.

Jeffrey Goldberg, "Israel's Dangerous Predicament": Obama the Punisher

In an Atlantic article entitled "Israel's Dangerous Predicament," Jeffrey Goldberg describes Obama's threats to abandon Israel to its fate at the UN after Netanyahu had the gall to emerge victorious in Israel's parliamentary elections on Tuesday. Goldberg writes:

"It is up to Netanyahu, in the coming weeks, to show he is actually committed to preserving the possibility of a two-state solution. I would like it, of course, if the White House would cease to dump on Israel for a day or two—it would be nice if it would exhibit the same restraint it shows when talking about the actions of the Iranian regime, for instance—but, nevertheless, this is a problem largely created by Netanyahu's deep cynicism, and cast-iron obstinacy.

If the Security Council recognizes Palestine as an independent state, Netanyahu will have no time at all to get his house in order before Israel becomes a true pariah. I've been arguing for years that Netanyahu has had two choices: Arrange for the birth of a Palestinian state in an orderly, secure way, over a period of several years, or do nothing over a period of several years, and then face a sudden crisis in which Israel loses its ability to manage the situation."

Fascinating. But if the Security Council recognizes Palestine as an independent state, who is in charge? Fatah, which governs the West Bank, and which is headed by Mahmoud Abbas, now in the eleventh year of his four-year term as President of the Palestinian Authority? In 2008, Abbas rejected Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 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. One year later, after Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze "to restart peace talks" at the request of Obama, Abbas delayed entering negotiations until the last moment and then walked away from the discussions. No need, of course, for Obama to force Abbas back to the negotiating table. It's all Netanyahu's fault.

Or maybe Hamas, which governs Gaza, will be in charge of the new state. The charter of Hamas, which has been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US, calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis. They will be given sway over the nascent state of Palestine? Good luck!

And just maybe if the State of Palestine is recognized by the UN Security Council, we will see another Fatah-Hamas civil war, which, the last time around, lasted from January 2006 to May 2007 and cost the lives of 600 Palestinians. After all, why should Palestine be spared the chaos of Syria and Iraq?

Go for it, Obama! Abandon Israel at the UN! Maybe you can't stand up to Putin or Khamenei, but here's your chance to go toe to toe with an ally and prove you're a man!

Ben Rhodes: A Deal With Iran Is Healthcare for Obama

In a lead New York Times article entitled "U.N. Says Iran Is Silent on Efforts for a Bomb" by David E. Sanger, we are told:

"At a moment when American negotiators say they see some signs of movement on the part of Iran toward a broad nuclear deal with the United States, the head of the United Nations nuclear inspection organization declared Friday that Iran had stopped answering the agency’s questions about suspected past efforts to design the components of a bomb."

This comes at a time when we are learning from The Washington Free Beacon in an article entitled "The Coming Détente with Iran" by Matthew Continetti that Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, declared in January:

"Bottom line is this is the best opportunity we’ve had to resolve the Iranian issue diplomatically, certainly since President Obama came to office, and probably since the beginning of the Iraq war. So no small opportunity, this is a big deal. This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context."

This comes at a time when Iran's is executing its citizens at a record rate. As reported by in an October 30, 2014 International Business Times article by Alessandria Masi entitled "Iran Execution Rate: Number Of Iran Executions Higher Under President Hassan Rouhani Than Ahmadinejad":

"Iranian President Hassan Rouhani promised to fix the country’s tarnished human rights record when he took office last August, but Iran has since seen an alarming rise in executions. The latest death by hanging made headlines around the world when Reyhaneh Jabbari was executed for murdering former intelligence officer Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi, who had tried to rape her.

Jabbari's former lawyer accused Iran of torturing her, keeping her in solitary confinement and unfairly sentencing her to death. Mohammad Mostafaei made his accusations at a United Nations panel Thursday, just a day before Iran has to defend its human rights record at the U.N.’s annual Universal Periodic Review (UPR). When the 26-year-old woman was executed Saturday, she became the 586th person to die at the hands of the Iranian government this year.

There have been 70 more executions so far in 2014 than in the same time frame last year. During Rouhani’s first year in office, 773 people were executed, compared to 530 people during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s last year in office, according to data from the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center."

This comes at a time when Jeffrey Goldberg has revealed in a recent Atlantic article entitled "The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here":

"The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Department the most. 'The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit,' this official said, referring to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by his nickname.

. . . .

[Another senior Obama] official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal. 'It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.'"

[Has anyone asked John Kerry or Ben Rhodes if they know the identity of the senior official in the Obama administration who labeled Netanyahu a "chickenshit"?]

The Obama administration is proud that it prevented Israel from destroying Iran's nuclear weapons development facilities, while at the same time launching a demeaning attack against Israel's prime minister? Of course, Obama is now in his second and final term of office, and today there are "no holds barred" when it comes to undermining Israel. Anyone without blinders should have seen this coming.

Maureen Dowd, "It’s the Loyalty, Stupid": Could Hillary Be a Good President?

Could Hillary be a good president?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "It’s the Loyalty, Stupid," Maureen Dowd segues from a 1993 interview of Robin Williams, who tragically committed suicide on Monday, to Hillary's 2002 Senate vote to authorize the Second Gulf War, or what Dowd labels "that baloney war." Dowd writes of Hillary's vote at the time:

"For me to believe that Hillary would be a good president, I would need to feel that she had learned something from that deadly, globe-shattering vote — a calculated attempt to be tough and show that, as a Democratic woman, she was not afraid to use power.

Yet, she’s still at it."

Ouch.

Indeed, it was a "baloney war," which undermined the delicate balance of power in the Middle East between Sunnis and Shiites, and positioned a militant Iran to pursue regional hegemony. But is Hillary "still at it"?

In her now famous, or infamous, interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, published by The Atlantic over the weekend, Hillary took the opportunity to deride Obama's inaction involving the revolt against Bashar al-Assad in Syria:

"The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled."

Well, in this instance, Hillary is probably right: Obama's decision not to influence events in Syria allowed events to take their own tragic course, including more than 170,000 people dead, 9 million persons who have fled their homes, and the rise of ISIS.

But if Obama's policy in Syria was so disastrous, how is it possible that Hillary declared in 2011:

"Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer."

Assad a "reformer"? Yeah, right.

Dowd's conclusion:

"After buoying Hillary, Obama is learning the truth of another unofficial slogan in politics: 'The Clintons will be there when they need you.'"

Although I have no plans to cut my life short, as did Robin Williams, we truly live in depressing times, when a spineless president stands to be replaced by a self-serving snake.

Frank Bruni, "Hillary Clinton, Barbed and Bellicose": VOTE FOR GRANNY!

Okay, Obama went golfing in Martha's Vineyard as the world burned, but not before providing the captain of his New York Times cheerleader squad, Thomas Friedman, with his attempt at explaining away the current global wildfire (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/08/thomas-friedman-obama-on-world-making.html).

Was it pure accident that over the same weekend, The Atlantic published Jeffrey Goldberg's interview of Hillary Clinton (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/08/jeffrey-goldberg-hillary-clinton.html), in which she all but branded the president a nincompoop? We are left to wonder whether Hillary's declaration that "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don’t do stupid shit' is not an organizing principle" interfered in any way with Obama's putting. Probably not. After all, Obama wasn't willing to allow a few beheadings and crucifixions by ISIL, or ten thousand Yazidis dying of thirst on a mountain, to stand in the way of his vacation.

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary Clinton, Barbed and Bellicose" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/opinion/hillary-clinton-barbed-and-bellicose.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), Frank Bruni begins by acknowledging that Hillary is running for president, but this has never been the question. Rather, the real issue is whether we can believe anything that she says.

Well on his way to writing himself into the history books as one of America's worst presidents, Obama appears, from his beloved links, to be indifferent to his fate. Hillary, on the other hand, must decide when and to what extent to distance herself from the disaster being wrecked upon the United States by the first invertebrate ever to occupy the Oval Office. As Bruni cleverly portrays Hillary's dilemma:

"The question is whether she can belittle Barack Obama as much as she must in order to win, but not so much that it plays as an act of sheer betrayal."

What's the poor woman to do? Her paid political advisers obviously made up their minds long ago. But how will voters ultimately respond to this carefully calculated ambush of her former boss? Again, as stated by Bruni:

"If decisions made while she was still the secretary of state were flawed, is she blameless? Sure, her job, like any appointee’s, was to implement the chief executive’s vision, to follow his lead. But it was also to lobby and leave an imprint. Is she conceding that she didn’t do that effectively enough?"

Indeed, Hillary spent four years accumulating frequent flyer miles and accomplished . . . nothing. My guess is that she miscalculated. Disloyalty will not win her approval.

And in a world that is more concerned with appearance than substance,  how might Hillary fare against a youthful Marco Rubio in another two years? Of course, she could consider the dermal fillers and Botox route blazed by John Kerry (now making himself scarce on a seven-day trip to Afghanistan, Burma, Australia, the Solomon Islands and Hawaii, after a disastrous attempt to mediate Israel's conflict with Hamas), or she might attempt to exercise down the size of her pant suits, but the years are inevitably cruel to all of us.

Bottom line: "Vote for Granny!" just isn't going to cut it.

[See also: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/08/david-brooks-clinton-obama-and-iraq.html]

Joe Nocera, "The Fall of the Wall?": Separation of Newspaper and Reality

Yes, Time's time has come.

As observed by Joshua Macht in an April 5, 2013 Atlantic article entitled "Running Out of TIME: The Slow, Sad Demise of a Great American Magazine" (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/running-out-of-time-the-slow-sad-demise-of-a-great-american-magazine/274713/):

"Unfortunately, the brand would fall hard. I joined Time magazine in the summer of 2002 just after the bursting of the dot-com bubble. The largest project during my tenure as editor and general manager of Time.com was to digitize the entire archive going back to March of 1923 - which pushed me deep into Time magazine lore. I tracked the early days when the magazine first took flight to the WWII era when Time could sell more than 400,000 copies in a week even with some little-known Italian general on the cover.

It kept on growing after that. At its zenith the brand could reach more than 20 million people around the world each week. Time practically defined what it meant to be mass media. It was a brand for pretty much everybody. Television and then cable news (CNN in particular) eventually began to chip away at its position, and Time went though struggles and repeated attempts at reinvention through the years. But it took the arrival of the Internet to truly endanger it.

I can remember one offsite in Connecticut where we looked at financials that were showing steady declines in net income for the brand. By 2005 the magazine's circulation was just beneath 4 million subscribers and it averaged around 150,000 copies per week sold on the newsstand, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC). Today Time averages less than 60,000 copies per issue on the newsstand, its subscriber base is down around 3.2 million, and ad dollars have taken a beating in print."

It won't be long now.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Fall of the Wall?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/opinion/nocera-the-fall-of-the-wall.html?_r=0), Joe Nocera writes about Time's past "divide between Church (editorial) and State (advertising and circulation)" and the appointment of Norman Pearlstine as Time's new "chief content officer." Nocera concludes:

"Time Inc. has struggled mightily for the last decade or more. Partly this is because all print publications have struggled in the Internet Age. But it’s also because Time Warner has treated its magazine division as a cash cow. Had it been willing to reinvest in Time Inc. — had it treated its magazine division as something to be nurtured instead of milked — well, perhaps it wouldn’t have had to replace its editor in chief with a chief content officer.

Not surprisingly, when I spoke to Pearlstine on Friday, he insisted that Time Inc.’s journalistic standards would not be compromised. The fact that the magazine’s managing editors will report not only to him, but also to a business executive — another change Ripp announced Thursday — didn’t faze him at all. He praised the model being developed by Forbes magazine, which includes 'sponsored' content alongside the work of its staff writers. He said that the business side would not be able to hire an editor unless he went along with it.

And maybe he’ll turn out to be right. The more likely outcome, though, is that the much-vaunted Church-State divide at Time Inc. is dead.

May it rest in peace."

I am sure Nocera's opinion piece will do wonders for future sales of Time subscriptions.

But Nocera doesn't dare comment on the business philosophy of his own newspaper, The New York Times, which in its pursuit of a brain-dead readership, has undertaken a separation of Newspaper and Reality.

Do you remember how President Obama repeatedly promised:

"And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."

Well, as observed by Charles Krauthammer in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obamacare laid bare" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamacare-laid-bare/2013/10/31/d229515a-4254-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html?hpid=z2):

"Look at how the New York Times covered his 'keep your plan' whopper — buried on page 17 with a headline calling the cancellations a 'prime target.' As if this is a partisan issue and not a brazen falsehood clear to any outside observer — say, The Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler, who gave the president’s claim four Pinocchios. Noses don’t come any longer."

In light of its declining advertising revenues, maybe the owners of The New York Times should reserve a media cemetery plot next to that of Time Magazine, two rows distant from Life.

Kenneth Pollack, "Short of a Deal, Containing Iran Is the Best Option": What Happened to "I Don't Bluff"?

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "Short of a Deal, Containing Iran Is the Best Option" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/opinion/short-of-a-deal-containing-iran-is-the-best-option.html?pagewanted=all), Kenneth Pollack, "a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst and National Security Council official," declares his opposition to a military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear weapons development program. Pollack writes:

"If it cannot reach a diplomatic deal, America will face a choice between two alternatives: using force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear arsenal or containing a nuclear Iran until its regime collapses from its own dysfunction.

It is going to be a difficult choice. For that reason, we need to start thinking about it now. We cannot afford to have our diplomatic efforts collapse suddenly and, as in Syria, be forced to lunge forward unprepared.

Sizing up the two alternatives, I favor containment over military operations."

Peculiar. I thought Obama already had a policy. You will recall that Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg  (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/):

"I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff. I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

Let's also not forget that there is this other entity in the Middle East, whose existence has repeatedly been threatened by Iran, and which cannot afford to gamble on Pollack's proposed policy of containment. Believe me, Israel is willing and prepared to act on its own to quash this existential threat.

One can only wonder why The New York Times is publishing Pollack's guest op-ed, so soon after Andrew Rosenthal, members of its editorial board and members of its op-ed staff held a dubious meeting with President Obama (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/michael-calderone-new-york-times.html). Are they smoothing the way for Obama to back down again?

It sure looks that way.

Vladimir Putin, "A Plea for Caution From Russia": The Kremlin Celebrates

There is a raucous celebration underway at the Kremlin today, following publication of Putin's guest op-ed entitled "A Plea for Caution From Russia" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0) by The New York Times.

Over the past several weeks, after losing support from the UK for his "limited" strike against Syria's Assad regime, President Obama's hesitance and meandering have earned him scorn from even traditional Middle East allies. As reported by a Washington Post article entitled "U.S. ties in Persian Gulf at risk as Obama allows space for Russian-Syrian plan" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-gulf-relations-at-risk-as-obama-allows-space-for-russian-syrian-plan/2013/09/11/71a065f8-1b0d-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html) by Loveday Morris:

"The United States risks damaging relations with Persian Gulf states as it warily embraces a Russian initiative for Syria to relinquish its chemical arsenal, analysts say, with Sunni monarchies fearful that the U.S. pullback from military strikes will bolster President Bashar al-Assad and the influence in the region of his ally Iran.

Disappointment at the decision could further cool relations with gulf countries already frustrated by a lack of U.S. leadership on Syria during the 21 / 2-year-long conflict there. Increasingly sharp statements from the normally imperturbable gulf nations reflect the growing sense of unease."

Israel, which is facing a showdown with Iran over the Islamic Republic's nuclear weapons development program, has lost all faith in Obama's promises not to allow Khamenei to acquire an atomic bomb. In this regard, Obama told The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg in 2012, "As President of the United States, I 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/), but the Israelis don't believe him anymore.

The left leaning New Republic is currently running an article by Julia Ioffe entitled "The Syria Solution: Obama Got Played by Putin and Assad" (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114655/obama-syria-policy-octopus-fighting-itself).

The New York Times? After allowing Putin, today, to rub Obama's nose in the White House's diplomatic blundering, The Times, attempts to soften the blow by spreading the blame in an editorial entitled "Diplomacy as Deterrent" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/diplomacy-as-deterrent.html):

"But the diplomacy could provide more of an immediate deterrent against further chemical attacks than the threat of an attack, and far more of a deterrent in the longer run. Russia will continue to make seemingly unreasonable demands until a deal is finally signed and is unlikely to admit that the Syrian regime carried out the gas attack. But Congress and Mr. Obama should be careful about setting hard deadlines or drawing any more red lines."

Excuse me, but what did Congress have to do with Obama's "red line"? It was all the president's doing!

Putin's guest New York Times op-ed? Putin (actually, a ghostwriter) correctly states:

"Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world."

But then Putin tosses in a flagrant lie, softened by purported concern for Israel:

"No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored."

Observing recent US overseas failures, Putin observes that US military intervention has proven futile:

"But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes."

Putin's conclusion, in which he ridicules Obama's reference to American exceptionalism:

"My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is 'what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.' It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

"Growing trust" with Obama? What he really means is growing contempt for the US president's feckless conduct.

Or stated otherwise, Putin makes a compelling case for the proposition that community organizers do not come away with the skill set necessary to be Commanders in Chief.

Game, set, match, Putin.

The Fact Checker, "President Obama and the ‘Red Line’ on Syria’s Chemical Weapons": If It's Not Read From a Teleprompter, Don't Believe It

Glenn Kessler, "The Fact Checker" of The Washington Post, has just hit rock bottom.

In a blog entry entitled "President Obama and the ‘red line’ on Syria’s chemical weapons" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/06/president-obama-and-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/?hpid=z1&wp_login_redirect=0), Kessler purportedly examines Obama's recent declaration:

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

Kessler acknowledges that Obama previously declared in August 2012:

"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

Refusing to assign Obama's blatant contradiction even a single "Pinnochio," Kessler explains:

"Obama’s formulation is very loose and informal, focused mainly on the question of movement of chemical weapons: 'a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.'"

"Focused mainly on the question of movement of chemical weapons"? How does Kessler ignore what follows in Obama's "informal" declaration (my emphasis in red)?:

" . . . a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized."

Chemical weapons were "utilized" by Assad. Sarin gas killed nearly 1,500 civilians on August 21.

Kessler continues:

"To sum up, the president made an ill-considered rhetorical statement a year ago, without consulting his aides. But the White House staff decided they could not take it back and even considered it a useful example of firm presidential leadership when they needed to inform Congress of evidence of chemical weapons use by Syria.

But the president apparently was never comfortable with his own words. So when new talking points were crafted to make this line seem less like an 'Obama red line' and more like a world-backed red line, the president bungled the language again. He made it appear as if he was denying he had called it a red line, when that was obviously not the case.

If he had used Kerry’s language, it would not have been as much of an issue: “The line I drew is the same one that the world has had for nearly 100 years.” Or something like that.

Of course, he didn’t say that. So is a bungled talking point worthy of Pinocchios? We don’t try to play gotcha here at The Fact Checker, so we are inclined to leave this question to our readers."

Or in other words, if it's not read from a teleprompter, don't believe anything the president says. Kessler would make a marvelous White House Press Secretary.

This in turn must be causing Israel great anxiety. You will recall that Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg  (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/):

"I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff. I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

So, given that this statement to Goldberg was also not read from a teleprompter, are Israel and Iran to understand that Obama doesn't mean what he says?

As was stated by Obama's best talk show friend, David Letterman, on Wednesday regarding the president's disavowal of his "red line" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/05/letterman_on_obamas_red_line_for_syria_the_guy_has_learned_how_to_bullshit.html):

"So, it's taken him five years, but finally the guy has learned how to bullshit."

How reassuring.

Iran: Obama Is Bluffing, Netanyahu Is Not

In March 2012, President Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/):

"In the most extensive interview he has given about the looming Iran crisis, Obama told me earlier this week that both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran's nuclear facilities. 'I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff.' He went on, 'I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.'"

Well, given Obama's behavior after declaring "red lines" and "game changers" involving Assad's use of chemical weapons against the rebels in Syria, it is fairly obvious that Obama does indeed bluff.

In contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is not bluffing. Speaking with Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation on Sunday, Netanyahu declared (http://freebeacon.com/netanyahu-new-iranian-presidents-strategy-smile-and-build-a-bomb/):

"I think we’ve spoken many times, President Obama and I about the need to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. I know that is the U.S. policy. What is important important to convey to them, especially after the elections, that that policy will not change and that it will be backed up by increasingly forceful sanctions and military action. In my view, there is a new president in Iran. He believes — he’s criticizing his predecessor for being a wolf in wolf’s clothing. His strategy is be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Smile and build a bomb. He brags about the fact that he talked to the Europeans while completing a nuclear conversion plan. I think they can’t be allowed to get away with it. They’re getting closer and closer to the bomb, and they have to be told in no uncertain terms that will not be allowed to happen. I think it’s important to understand that we cannot allow it to happen. You know, our clocks are ticking at a different pace. We’re closer than the United States. We’re more vulnerable and therefore we’ll have to address this question of how to stop Iran, perhaps before the United States does. But as the Prime Minister of Israel, I’m determined to do whatever is necessary to defend my country, the one and only Jewish state from the regime that threatens us with renewed annihilation."

How do we know that Netanyahu is not bluffing? Simple: Netanyahu has been schooled in the philosophy that if someone says they intend to kill you, you had best believe them.

When the time comes, Netanyahu will not hesitate to act.

Meanwhile, however, August draws near, and the West prepares to go on vacation.

Chuck Hagel Opines on Syria: Is America's Secretary of Defense Also on Drugs?

More antics from the Obama cabinet, which consists of the worst and the dumbest:

A week ago, I wrote in a blog entry entitled "John Kerry Opines on North Korea: Is America's Secretary of State on Drugs?" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/john-kerry-opines-on-north-korea-is.html):

As reported today by Reuters (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-korea-north-usabre93c01z-20130412,0,5931545.story), John (Bashar al-Assad is "my dear friend") Kerry is now seeking to resolve America's brewing crisis with North Korea:

"'We are prepared to reach out but we need (the) appropriate moment, appropriate circumstance,' Kerry said, adding that North Korea had to take steps towards giving up its nuclear programs.

'They have to take some actions. Now how many and how much I want to have a discussion with folks back in Washington (about)... but they have to take action,' Kerry told a small group of reporters."

Sorry, but even with the words in parentheses used by Reuters to clarify Kerry's remarks, I still don't have a clue what he is trying to say.
 

Well, Chuck Hagel is not about to be outdone by John Kerry. Commenting on reports that John Kerry's "dear friend" Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons again rebels in Syria, Hagel responded (http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Hagel-US-judgment-on-Syria-chemical-arms-wont-be-rushed-310968):

"I think we have to be very careful here before we make any conclusions (and) draw any conclusions based on real intelligence."

Here, too, even with the parenthetical "and" added by Reuters, this makes absolutely no sense. We shouldn't "draw any conclusion based on real evidence"?

In case you were wondering, chemical weapons have been used in Syria. However, Obama has previously gone on record as saying that such use would cross a "red line" (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/honoring-a-red-line-in-syria-over-chemical-weapons/2013/04/23/ce30c978-ac42-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_story.html), and Obama, of course, does not want to be held to his word.

But imagine what Iran is reading into Obama's procrastination on this matter, given the president's purportedly unequivocal declaration that it is "unacceptable" for Iran to have nuclear weapons and his assertion that "as President of the United States, I don't bluff" (see: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/).

Now we'll just need to wait and see if Iran doesn't call Obama's bluff.

May God have mercy on us.

P5 + 1 Showdown in Istanbul Today: Iran "Has No Need to Compromise"

Today, the “P5+1” — the United States, Britain, Russia, China, France and Germany - will meet in Istanbul to discuss Iran's ongoing nuclear weapons development program. Obama is warning Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei that this is his "last chance" to honor international demands. This, of course, comes after Obama informed Jeffrey Goldberg in an interview published by The Atlantic one month ago (see: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/) that "as president of the United States, I don't bluff."

Obama doesn't bluff? He is certainly sending Tehran mixed signals. In December, Obama sought to torpedo the bipartisan Kirk-Menendez Iran Sanctions Act (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/12/iran-obamas-secret-agenda.html), and now is pushing, via Senator Harry Reid, for a new toothless Senate sanctions bill. As stated in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece on Thursday (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303299604577327800154544244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj):

"Harry Reid is now pushing a watered-down sanctions bill that gives the Administration wide discretion in applying the bill's penalties. The Majority Leader also closed the bill to additional amendments, most conspicuously one from Illinois Republican Mark Kirk.

The Kirk amendment—which would have more of an impact on Iran than the rest of the bill combined—would close loopholes in existing sanctions, including one that allows a handful of Iranian financial institutions (and the Iranian government itself) to continue to do business with the outside world. It would also strengthen disclosure requirements for foreign financial institutions tempted to do business with Iran, effectively putting them to the choice of whether they want to have business ties with the U.S. or with the Islamic Republic."

A week ago, there was also Obama's secret message to Tehran, conveyed via Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/04/obama-sends-message-to-irans-supreme.html), in which Obama informed Khamenei that the US is prepared to tolerate an Iranian civilian nuclear program and hinted that his ongoing opposition to international action against Iran's ally, Syria, is conditioned upon Iranian cooperation involving the nuclear weapons development issue.

What does Iran think of Obama's "veiled warnings"? As translated by MEMRI, an April 8 article (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6256.htm) in the Iranian daily newspaper Kayhan, which is closely tied to Khamenei, informs us that Khamenei indeed believes that Obama is bluffing:

"'Examining an entire decade of the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, one can characterize it as a record of [instances in which] the U.S. adapted its 'red line' to the Iranian [stance]. The Americans always started out with an extreme [position] and ended up with a nominal one...

. . . .

If we plot [these changes] on a graph, it will show an amazing downward plunge... The American administration... always sets large goals [for itself], and makes a huge fuss over them, but, once it realizes that they cannot be implemented, quietly adapts them [to reality] and replaces them with other, humbler, goals, while continuing to make a fuss.

. . . .

So one might say that the West's hands are completely empty [of means with which] to threaten Iran in the upcoming talks... The simple conclusion... is that the West's distress vis-à-vis Iran, on the strategic [level], has become acute, and it seems that the statesmen in the White House have neither the courage nor the wisdom to extract themselves from this historic dead end... Iran is proving that it has no need to compromise with the West in order to grow strong.'"

Yet another Obama foreign relations disaster . . .

David Remnick, "Threatened": Thanks, David, for Warning Me

Recently, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Liz Cheney: Desist!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/opinion/dowd-liz-cheney-desist.html?ref=opinion), Maureen Dowd wrote a denunciation of Israel and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, which was rife with manifestations of ignorance (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/03/maureen-dowd-liz-cheney-desist-wearing.html). In her shoddy opinion piece, Dowd cited David Remnick:

"As the New Yorker editor David Remnick wrote, Netanyahu and his supporters too often 'consider the tenets of liberal democracy to be negotiable in a game of coalition politics.'"

Dowd was referring to Remnick's comment entitled "Threatened" (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/03/12/120312taco_talk_remnick), which would have us believe that Israel's democracy is under attack:

"[A]s an experiment in Jewish power, unique after two millennia of persecution and exile, Israel has reached an impasse. An intensifying conflict of values has put its democratic nature under tremendous stress."

To prove his point, Remnick alleges:

"The political corrosion begins, of course, with the occupation of the Palestinian territories—the subjugation of Palestinian men, women, and children—that has lasted for forty-five years. Peter Beinart, in a forthcoming and passionately argued polemic, 'The Crisis of Zionism,' is just the latest critic to point out that a profoundly anti-democratic, even racist, political culture has become endemic among much of the Jewish population in the West Bank, and jeopardizes Israel proper."

So whereas as liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd relies upon liberal New Yorker editor David Remnick for her opinions on Israel, Remnick relies upon liberal Peter Beinart's "polemic" book being published by Times Books, the publishing arm of The New York Times, whose op-ed opinions concerning Israel often border upon or descend into anti-Semitism (see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/02/stench-of-anti-semitism-at-new-york.html).

Do Dowd, Remnick and Beinart speak Hebrew and Arabic? Have they spent meaningful time in Israel, studying the political, social and economic climate? Of course in a democracy, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, i.e. to spout blather.

Remnick writes of "political corrosion," "occupation" and "subjugation." It sounds almost akin to Assad's ongoing slaughter of Syria's Sunnis. But as Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, stated in May 2009 to Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html), he couldn't care less about "the stalled peace process":

"'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.'"

A "normal life"? How can that possibly be? I thought they were occupied and subjugated.

Is Israel's democracy "threatened"? Why don't I, a secular Jew living in Israel, who, like most Israelis favor a two-state solution but demand in return an acknowledgment of our right to exist, feel "threatened" by right wing, ultra-Orthodox extremists?

As observed by Jeffrey Goldberg in a 2010 interview with Peter Beinart in The Atlantic:

"Are Israel's failings, in fact, so terrible, especially given the line-up of enemies Israel is facing? I'm asking you to confront reality, not your Utopian vision of what a Jewish country should be. The reality is that there are organizations and countries trying to physically eliminate the Jewish state. Even with this existential problem, Israel still manages to be the freest and most democratic state in the Middle East, and one that even grants its Muslim citizens the right to build minarets and wear burqas, unlike many countries in Europe."

In any event, thanks for the warning, David, but sorry if I don't feel "threatened." Vigilant, yes. Threatened, no.

Obama: "Every Single Commitment I Have Made to the State of Israel and Its Security, I Have Kept"

In an article in The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/), Jeffrey Goldberg writes:

"The president was most animated when talking about the chaotic arms race he fears would break out if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, and he seemed most frustrated when talking about what he sees as a deliberate campaign by Republicans to convince American Jews that he is anti-Israel. 'Every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept,' he told me. 'Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they've had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?'"

Excuse me, but beyond saying that no options are off the table regarding Iran (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/25/us-usa-obama-speech-iran-idUSTRE80O0B120120125), has Obama ever provided Israel with any commitment regarding the destruction of Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities if Tehran proceeds to build its first bomb? This is indeed the subject of Netanyahu's meeting with Obama on Monday.

Moreover, instead of attempting to convince American Jews that he supports Israel, perhaps Obama should make an effort to persuade Israelis that he is behind them. Most Israelis that I know are "apprehensive" (I am carefully choosing my words) of what awaits them if Obama wins in 2012 and his policies are no longer constrained by again having to face re-election.

Maybe Israelis would feel reassured if Obama were to visit Jerusalem. He visited Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, but has refused to come to Israel as president.

Maybe Israelis would be less worried if Samantha Power, whose extreme hostility to Israel is known to all (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O5XxXm8wPE), did not advise Obama on foreign policy.

Just maybe Israelis would feel more confident in Obama if the central premise of his administration's foreign policy in the Middle East, stitched together by radical Israel-hater Power, had not been that Israel foments all tension in the region.

And notwithstanding the refusal of Palestinian President Abbas to acknowledge the legitimacy of a Jewish state, Obama has only sought concessions from Israel when trying to reach a peace agreement between the two sides.

According to Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama will tell Netanyahu "that under his leadership, the United States 'has Israel's back.'" Oh, really. How about a reciprocal visit to Jerusalem later this month?

Or are we talking about a knife in Israel's back?