Thomas Friedman, "Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria?": A Question for Tom

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria?," Thomas Friedman writes:

"This is a time for Trump to be Trump — utterly cynical and unpredictable. ISIS right now is the biggest threat to Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and pro-Shiite Iranian militias — because ISIS is a Sunni terrorist group that plays as dirty as Iran and Russia."

Friedman concludes:

"[W]here is Trump’s Twitter feed when we need it? He should be tweeting every day this message: “Russia, Iran and Hezbollah have become the protectors of a Syrian regime that uses poison gas on babies! Babies! Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Assad — poison gas enablers. Sad.”

Do not let them off the hook! We need to make them own what they’ve become — enablers of a Syria that uses poison gas on children. Believe it or not, they won’t like being labeled that way. Trump needs to use his global Twitter feed strategically. Barack Obama never played this card. Trump needs to slam it down every day. It creates leverage.

Syria is not a knitting circle. Everyone there plays dirty, deviously and without mercy. Where’s that Trump when we need him?"

"Barack Obama never played this card"? In fact, Obama folded even before the cards were dealt.

Iran is dirty, devious and without mercy? You don't say! But here's a quick question for you, Tom. Syria did not eliminate its stockpiles of chemical weapons as we were told by John Kerry, Susan Rice and Obama's other toadies. Do you really think Iran is playing by the rules and abiding by the terms of that other Obama legacy achievement, the unsigned nuclear deal?

Go ahead, Tom, card player that you are, give us the odds!

Thomas Friedman, "WikiHillary for President": Twisted

Tweet

After Iranian Revolutionary Guards operating out of Yemen fired C-802 missiles against the USS Mason last week, you might have expected would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman to discuss this imbroglio and how it reflects upon Obama's bogus unsigned nuclear deal with Iran. But instead, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "WikiHillary for President," Friedman deems it more expedient to fawn over Hillary Clinton. Friedman concludes:

"When I read WikiHillary, I hear a smart, pragmatic, center-left politician who will be inclined to work with both the business community and Republicans to keep America tilted toward trade expansion, entrepreneurship and global integration, while redoubling efforts to cushion workers from the downsides of these policies.

I’m just sorry that campaign Hillary felt she could not speak like WikiHillary to build a proper mandate for President Hillary. She would have gained respect for daring to speak the truth to her own constituency — and demonstrating leadership — not lost votes.

Nonetheless, thanks to WikiLeaks, I am reassured that she has the right balance of instincts on the issues I care about most. So, again, thank you, Putin, for exposing that Hillary. She could make a pretty good president for these times."

Ah yes, WikiLeaks. But what about Chris Cillizza's Washington Post article entitled "Hillary Clinton’s email problems just came roaring back," from which we learned two days ago:

"On Monday, however, the various issues associated with Clinton's email setup came roaring back. According to emails released by the FBI, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy asked the FBI to ease up on classification decisions in exchange for allowing more FBI agents in countries where they were not permitted to go. The words 'quid pro quo' were used to describe the proposed exchange by the FBI official."

All of which is perhaps nothing compared with the access granted to Hillary's attorneys to review her emails notwithstanding the fact that they lacked proper security clearances, and the use of hammers and BleachBit to ensure that all of her communications would never see the light of day.

And all of which is absolutely nothing compared with Hillary's unmitigated support over the years of an ersatz husband engaged in deprivations against women.

As South Park would have us know, America is witnessing a contest between a "turd sandwich" and a "giant douche."

Hillary "could make a pretty good president for these times"? Stick it where the sun doesn't shine, Tom.

Thomas Friedman, "Win, Lose, but No Compromise": Shiites and Sunnis?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Win, Lose, but No Compromise," would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman begins by asking, "Are we all just Shiites and Sunnis now?" Wow, I thought to myself after reading this query, a Times columnist is finally willing to consider Turkey's armored invasion of Syria and the battles it is has been waging there with the Kurds, America's most potent ally on the ground in its war against ISIS. I was also certain that Tom would bestow upon us his benighted wisdom concerning Iran's recent placement of a Russian-made S-300 air defense battery to protect its Fordo nuclear facility. (If Iran has no intention of violating its unsigned nuclear agreement with Obama, why should there be any need to install such a sophisticated missile system at this nuclear complex built into a mountain?) But in fact "Shiites and Sunnis" was only a lead-in to Friedman's take on the state of American politics:

"More and more of our politics resembles the core sectarian conflict in the Middle East between these two branches of Islam, and that is not good. Because whether you’re talking about Shiites and Sunnis — or Iranians and Saudis, Israelis and Palestinians, Turks and Kurds — a simple binary rule dominates their politics: 'I am strong, why should I compromise? I am weak, how can I compromise?'"

Given the unwillingness of Democrats and Republicans to compromise, Friedman goes on to ask:

"How will we improve Obamacare? How will we invest in infrastructure? How will we recreate the compromise on immigration that a few brave Republican and Democratic legislators tried in 2013? How will we get corporate tax reform, a carbon tax and some fiscal policy that we so desperately need to propel the economy and control the deficit?"

Improve Obamacare? Needless to say, no mention by Tom of Aetna's decision to eliminate a vast majority of its Obamacare business. In fact, more and more commentators are telling us that Obamacare has entered into a "death spiral."

How will we invest in infrastructure? Good question. By the time Obama leaves office, US debt will have reached some $20 trillion, and, as we were recently told by the Congressional Budget Office:

"In fiscal year 2016, the federal budget deficit will increase in relation to economic output for the first time since 2009, CBO estimates. If current laws generally remained unchanged—an assumption underlying CBO’s baseline projections—deficits would continue to mount over the next 10 years, and debt held by the public would rise from its already high level.

CBO’s estimate of the deficit for 2016 has increased since the agency issued its previous estimates in March, primarily because revenues are now expected to be lower than earlier anticipated. In contrast, the cumulative deficit through 2026 is smaller in CBO’s current baseline projections than the shortfall projected in March, chiefly because the agency now projects lower interest rates and thus lower outlays for interest payments on federal debt. Nevertheless, by 2026, the deficit is projected to be considerably larger relative to gross domestic product (GDP) than its average over the past 50 years."

Or stated otherwise, it's not only Obamacare that's in a death spiral.

Thomas Friedman, "How Clinton Could Knock Trump Out": How a Pathological Liar Could Lay to Rest the Crown Prince of Narcissists

Tweet

"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."

- Robert Goodloe Harper, 1798

"Thank you, Vladimir, may I have another?"

- President Barack Obama, 2016

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "How Clinton Could Knock Trump Out," Thomas Friedman tells us:

"There are a lot of center-right, business Republicans today feeling orphaned by Trump. They can’t vote for him — but a lot of them still claim they can’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary, either. Clinton should be reaching out to them with a real pro-growth, start-up, deregulation, entrepreneurship agenda and give them a positive reason to vote for her."

A scintillating thought were it not for the fact that Hillary already went on record as saying:

"And don't let anybody, don’t let anybody tell you, that, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs."

Go back to sleep, Tom.

In other news, we have The Washington Post telling us today in an editorial entitled "Stop trusting Putin on Syria":

"Time and again, the secretary has declared that Russia must deliver or suffer consequences, such as a U.S. 'Plan B' for Syria. Each time, Moscow has disregarded the jawboning — and Mr. Kerry has responded not with consequences but with new appeals for cooperation and more U.S. concessions. On Monday, he said, 'We will see in the course of the next hours, few days, whether or not that dynamic' with Russia 'can be changed.' But then, he spoke nearly the same words six months ago."

Meanwhile, in a Wall Street Journal article entitled "U.S. Sent Cash to Iran as Americans Were Freed " by Jay Solomon and Carol E. Lee, we learn:

"The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward.

Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland, they said."

According to the article, US officials are claiming this wasn't a ransom payment. Yeah, right.

Thomas Friedman, "Trump and the Sultan": Obama's Best Friend Erdogan?

Tweet

Over the course of the first half of his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump and the Sultan," would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman disparages Turkish President Erdogan. On the heels of the failed military coup in Turkey, Friedman writes:

"Anyone who has been following Turkey closely knows that Erdogan has been mounting a silent, drip-by-drip coup of his own against Turkish democracy for years — jailing reporters, hounding rivals with giant tax bills, reviving an internal war against Turkish Kurds to stoke nationalist passions to propel his efforts to grab more powers — and by generally making himself into a modern-day sultan for life."

I have no argument with Tom regarding any of the above. But hey, didn't Obama declare Erdogan to be one of his five best overseas friends? And didn't Obama attempt to force Turkish mediation upon Israel during its 2014 war with Hamas?

By the way, as reported today by DEBKAfile in an article entitled "Erdogan locks US airmen, nuclear arms in Incirlik":

"Some 1,500 US airmen and their families have been locked in the southern Turkish air base of Incirlik together with a stock [of] tactical nuclear bombs since President Reccep Erdogan crushed an attempted coup on Saturday, July 16. In the four days up until Wednesday, July 20, therefore, no air strikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq have been staged [from] that Turkish base."

Is this indeed an attempt to force the US to extradite Fethullah Gulen, as suggested by DEBKAfile? Why is this not headline news in The New York Times or The Washington Post?

Erdogan is indeed a monster. Where were you all this time, Tom?

In his opinion piece, Friedman next compares Erdogan with Trump:

"Trump relies on the same tactics: He fabricates facts and figures on an industrial scale. He regularly puts out conspiracy theories — his latest is that President Obama’s 'body language' suggests that 'there’s something going on' with the president — hinting that Obama is not comfortable condemning the killing of cops by African-American gunmen and has sympathy for radical Islamists."

Friedman's conclusion:

"If you like what’s going on in Turkey today, you’ll love Trump’s America."

Trump's nomination makes me want to retch. On the other hand, I don't think that I'll be that much happier with the US of Hillary, who is in full blown denial concerning FBI Director Comey's conclusions.

Back to my garden and my dogs.

Thomas Friedman, "The (G.O.P.) Party’s Over": Absolving Hillary of Her Sins

Tweet

We now know that the US State Department funded an organization that used the money to oppose Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's reelection in 2015. We also know that the US State Department yesterday expressed concern over Israeli legislation that would require Israeli NGOs receiving more than half of their funding from overseas to disclose this information in their advocacy literature or be fined some $7,500. The legislation primarily affects left-leaning organizations taking donations from European governments, and according to US State Department spokesman John Kirby, "We are deeply concerned that this law can have a chilling effect on the activities that these worthwhile organizations are trying to do."

Yup, 400,000 dead and 10 million refugees and displaced persons in neighboring Syria, yet Obama and friends are "deeply concerned" by this Israeli legislation, notwithstanding the fact that the US Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 ("FARA") is intended to "to insure that the U.S. Government and the people of the United States are informed of the source of information (propaganda) and the identity of persons attempting to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws."

The Israeli legislation, providing for a fine of $7,500, could have a "chilling effect"? Violations of FARA can result in a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment of up to two years.

Meanwhile, Obama is threatening to veto three bills aimed at enhancing sanctions against Iran and encumbering Iranian financial transactions, notwithstanding warnings from Germany that Iran continues to seek components for its nuclear weapons program, and despite Iranian threats that 100,000 missiles will soon be launched against Israel.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The (G.O.P.) Party’s Over," would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman ignores this embarrassing treatment of an ally and instead turns his attention to America's presidential election. Without reference to FBI Director Comey's condemnation of Hillary Clinton's extreme carelessness involving her use of a home server while secretary of state, and ignoring the flagrant lies that she disseminated to the public over the past year to justify this abomination, Friedman sees fit to unequivocally endorse the Democratic candidate:

"Our country needs a healthy center-right party that can compete with a healthy center-left party.

. . . .

The [Republican] party grew into a messy, untended garden, and Donald Trump was like an invasive species that finally just took over the whole thing.

. . . .

A Clinton sweep in November would force more Republicans to start rebuilding a center-right party ready to govern and compromise. And a Clinton sweep would also mean Hillary could govern from the place where her true political soul resides — the center-left, not the far left."

Don't misunderstand me: I regard Hillary as the lesser of the two evils. But for Friedman to claim that there is anything healthy about a center-left party nominating Hillary Clinton is nothing less than rank hypocrisy.

Thomas Friedman, "Lessons of Hiroshima and Orlando": Iran Hangs Gay Men While Developing ICBMs

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Lessons of Hiroshima and Orlando," Thomas Friedman acknowledges the danger of radical Islam - something Obama refuses to do. Friedman writes (my emphasis in red):

"I’ve lived too long in the Muslim world, and experienced the decency of Muslim communities, to believe that this is the essence of Islam. But I have seen too much of this suicidal violence for too long to believe that it has nothing to do with the puritanical, anti-gay, anti-transgender, anti-female, anti-religious-pluralism versions of Islam that are too often promoted by sources in the Arab world, Pakistan and Afghanistan."

The Arab world, Pakistan and Afghanistan? Why is there no mention of Iran (not part of the Arab world), which hangs homosexuals and which, as part of Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Khamenei, is now free to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles?

An oversight on Tom's part? I don't think so.

Meanwhile, Obama is opposing the appropriation of additional funds for the development of Israeli anti-missile systems intended to counter Iranian ICBMs and the some 130,000 missiles supplied by Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Mere coincidence?

Thomas Friedman, "Netanyahu, Prime Minister of the State of Israel-Palestine": A "Dark Hour"?

Tweet

Troubled by Bibi Netanyahu's dismissal of Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, Thomas Friedman concludes his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Netanyahu, Prime Minister of the State of Israel-Palestine" by observing:

"So Netanyahu, who only acts the way the wind blows, purged Yaalon. With that move, said the Hebrew University religious philosopher Moshe Halbertal, we are witnessing 'Israel’s ruling party being transformed from a hawkish nationalist party that used to have a humanitarian and democratic base, into an ultranationalist party that is now defined by turning against the ‘enemies’ from within — the courts, the NGOs, the education system, the Arab minority and now, the army — anyone who stands in the way of their project of permanent occupation of the West Bank. Having failed to deliver a solution for the enemies on the outside, so now Likud is focused on the enemies inside. This is a major transformation in Israel and should be looked upon with great concern.' The army’s leadership, added Halbertal, 'is trying to transcend this war of all against all and impose moral order on chaos rather than inflame it for narrow political gains.'

Netanyahu does just the opposite. For those of us who care about Israel’s future, this is a dark hour."

Yesterday, I voiced my dissatisfaction with Netanyahu's decision. On the other hand, it need be noted that Israel is not Turkey. There will be elections, and I will be very surprised if Netanyahu, currently embroiled in a scandal, will remain Israel's prime minister.

Heck, Tom, a "dark hour"? Spare me! I am more concerned by the American electorate having to choose between Hillary and Donald.

Thomas Friedman, "Trump’s Miss Universe Foreign Policy": Is Friedman Angry at Obama?

Tweet

Is Thomas Friedman angry at Obama? Is the honeymoon over? In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump’s Miss Universe Foreign Policy," Friedman writes:

"The New York Times Magazine just profiled one of the president’s deputy national security advisers, Ben Rhodes, reporting how he and his aides boasted of using social media, what the writer called a 'largely manufactured' narrative, and a pliant press to, in essence, dupe the country into supporting the Iran nuclear deal. The Donald is not the only one given to knuckleheaded bluster and misrepresentation on foreign policy.

. . . .

President Obama has been patting himself on the back a lot lately for not intervening in Syria. I truly sympathized with how hard that call was — until I heard the president and his aides boasting about how smart their decision was and how stupid all their critics are. The human and geopolitical spillover from Syria is not over. It’s destabilizing the E.U., Lebanon, Iraq, Kurdistan and Jordan. The choices are hellish. I would not want the responsibility for making them. But nobody has a monopoly on genius here, and neither Obama’s victory lap around this smoldering ruin nor Trump’s bombastic and simplistic solutions are pretty to watch."

Or stated otherwise, it took Friedman seven and a half years to understand that Obama and friends have destroyed American credibility and deterrent power. Better late than never, I suppose.

Thomas Friedman, "Trump and the Lord’s Work": Waiting for the FBI to Cast Its Vote

Tweet

"They have seen all the illusions in my creature emporium, but they have yet to face the greatest illusion: the illusion of reality."

- Dr. Frankenstein, Dracula vs. Frankenstein (1971)

Following Donald Trump's victory in the Indiana primary, Thomas Friedman concludes his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump and the Lord’s Work" on an optimistic note:

"It’s clear: Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare all need fixes to remain sustainable. It’s clear: Capitalism driven more by machines and robots poses new challenges for both white-collar and blue-collar workers.

Every one of these challenges can be met if we put our heads and hands together. For that to happen, though, this version of the Republican Party had to be destroyed, so a thinking center-right party can emerge. If that is what Trump has done, he’s done the Lord’s work. We also need Democrats to be a center-left party, though, and not let Bernie Sanders pull them to the far left. If both happen, maybe something good can actually emerge from this crazy election."

"Every one of these challenges can be met if we put our heads and hands together"? Who is this "we"? Does it include Republicans who voted to nominate a misogynist with a severe narcissistic personality disorder as their presidential candidate?

Put Friedman's loopy head together with the hands of Trump supporters? That would indeed amount to a Frankenstein monster.

Have we seen the end of this craziness? I don't think so. The FBI has yet to "cast its vote" regarding Hillary's home server.

Sorry, Tom, there is nothing "divine" about Trump's candidacy. Should Sanders win the Democratic nomination owing to an FBI determination that Hillary violated the law, that's when all hell truly breaks loose.

Thomas Friedman, "Impossible Missions": Yes, Wisconsin (Not Virginia), There Is a Santa Claus

Tweet

Yes, Virginia Wisconsin, there is a Santa Claus. Could it be that Donald and Hillary, i.e. Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees, will not be battling it out in November? Thank you, badgers! It had been pretty bleak until last night.

On the subject of bleak (and dull-witted), Thomas Friedman, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Impossible Missions," discusses Professor Michael Mandelbaum's new book called “Mission Failure: America and the World in the Post-Cold War Era.” Warmly recommending the book, Friedman writes:

"In earlier historical epochs the world relied on imperial powers to come in and control zones of weak governance, as the Ottomans did for 500 years in the Middle East. Then it relied on colonial powers. Then it relied on homegrown kings, colonels and dictators to maintain order.

But what if we’re now in a post-imperial, post-colonial and post-authoritarian age? The kings, colonels and dictators of old did not have to deal with amplified citizens deeply connected to one another and the world with smartphones. The old autocrats also had vast oil resources or aid from superpowers in the Cold War to buy off their people. What if they now have bulging populations, dwindling oil revenues and can’t buy off their people or shut them up?

The only option is more consensual government and social contracts among equal citizens."

Ah yes, Arab Spring II and another Green Revolution in Iran! I can assure you that Morsi and Khamenei know of other options. Go back to sleep, Tom.

Meanwhile, on the subject of Iran, Congressman Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expresses concern in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The United States must not aid and abet Iranian money laundering," that the Obama administration intends to provide Iran with access to the American financial system in exchange for . . . nothing. Royce writes:

"Last summer, in testimony to Congress, Lew vowed, 'Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks.' As the secretary made clear, 'Iran, in other words, will continue to be denied access to the world’s largest financial and commercial market.'

Yet when I questioned Lew just two weeks ago about whether he stood by this testimony, he refused to give a direct answer. And so this appears to be just the latest in a long pattern of concessions to protect the president’s 'legacy' deal. In recent months, the administration gutted a new law to strengthen the visa waiver program to please the Iranians and has imposed only minimal sanctions on Iran’s missile program — even as Iran launches missiles stamped with the words 'Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth.'"

You mean to say that the Obama administration, which promised Americans that if they liked their doctors and healthcare plans, they could keep them, in order to sell Obama's "legacy" Affordable Care Act, also lied to Congress to sell his "legacy" nuclear deal with Iran? Yes, I know: Obama's omniscient ends justify his unscrupulous means.

And so we had John Kerry telling us that Iran "absolutely" deserved access to US dollars, although none other than Obama recently acknowledged that Iran is not abiding by the "spirit" of the nuclear deal, and notwithstanding Iran's test launches of ballistic missiles.

The ballistic missiles? As reported by Adam Kredo in a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "Congress Investigating Obama Admin Deception on Iran Nuke Deal":

"[C]ongressional leaders are concerned that the administration no longer considers recent Iranian ballistic missile tests a 'violation' of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which codifies the nuclear deal.

Top administration officials including Secretary of State John Kerry vowed to Congress that Iran would be legally prohibited from carrying out ballistic missile tests under the resolution.

Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., shifted course last week, refusing to call recent Iranian launches a 'violation' in a letter she signed criticizing those launches."

Repercussions in the Middle East owing to Obama's duplicity? Read what Yousef Al Otaiba, the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the US, has to say in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece entitled "One Year After the Iran Nuclear Deal" about Obama's promise that the nuclear deal with Iran would "make the world safer":

"Sadly, behind all the talk of change, the Iran we have long known—hostile, expansionist, violent—is alive and well, and as dangerous as ever. We wish it were otherwise. In the United Arab Emirates, we are seeking ways to coexist with Iran. Perhaps no country has more to gain from normalized relations with Tehran. Reducing tensions across the less than 100-mile-wide Arabian Gulf could help restore full trade ties, energy cooperation and cultural exchanges, and start a process to resolve a 45-year territorial dispute.

Since the nuclear deal, however, Iran has only doubled down on its posturing and provocations. In October, November and again in early March, Iran conducted ballistic-missile tests in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.
In December, Iran fired rockets dangerously close to a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Strait of Hormuz, just weeks before it detained a group of American sailors. In February, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan visited Moscow for talks to purchase more than $8 billion in Russian fighter jets, planes and helicopters.

In Yemen, where peace talks now hold some real promise, Iran’s disruptive interference only grows worse. Last week, the French navy seized a large cache of weapons on its way from Iran to support the Houthis in their rebellion against the U.N.-backed legitimate Yemeni government. In late February, the Australian navy intercepted a ship off the coast of Oman with thousands of AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. And last month, a senior Iranian military official said Tehran was ready to send military 'advisers' to assist the Houthis.

The interference doesn’t stop there. Since the beginning of the year, Tehran and its proxies have increased their efforts to provide armor-piercing explosive devices to Shiite cells in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. A former Iranian general and close adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for Iran to annex all of Bahrain. And in Syria, Iran continues to deploy Hezbollah militias and its own Iranian Revolutionary Guard to prop up Syria’s Bashar Assad.

. . . .

If the carrots of engagement aren’t working, we must not be afraid to bring back the sticks. Recent half measures against Iran’s violations of the ballistic-missile ban are not enough. If the aggression continues, the U.S. and the global community should make clear that Iran will face the full range of sanctions and other steps still available under U.N. resolutions and in the nuclear deal itself."

"Bring back the sticks"? Reinstate the sanctions? Sorry, but not if it means that a narcissistic Obama must acknowledge that he was dead wrong.

Thomas Friedman, "When the Necessary Is Impossible": Thick as a Brick

Tweet

Yes, would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman is thick as a brick.

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "When the Necessary Is Impossible," Thomas Friedman asks "What do you do when the necessary is impossible, but the impossible is impossible to ignore — and your key allies are also impossible?" Friedman writes in response to his own imbecilic question:

"Crushing the Islamic State, or ISIS, is necessary for stabilizing Iraq and Syria, but it is impossible as long as Shiites and Sunnis there refuse to truly share power, and yet ignoring the ISIS cancer and its ability to metastasize is impossible as well."

Unbeknownst to Friedman, Iraq and Syria were never nation-states, but rather entities randomly carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France. Today, they are more akin to Humpty Dumpty: There is no putting the pieces back together again. Rather, it is time to acknowledge that the Middle East's 30 million Kurds, long oppressed by Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria, deserve their own state.

True, Turkey opposes granting independence to the Kurds, and in 2012, Obama deemed Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan one of his best overseas friends; however, times have changed. As acknowledged by Friedman:

"And if all that isn’t impossible enough, our trying to make Iraq safe for democracy is requiring us to turn a blind eye to the fact that our most important NATO 'ally' in the region, Turkey, is being converted from a democracy into a dictatorship by its president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who should now be called 'Sultan Erdogan' for the way he is closing opposition newspapers and putting journalists on trial. But because we need Turkey’s air bases and cooperation to foster a modicum of democracy in Iraq tomorrow, we are silent on Erdogan destroying democracy in Turkey today. Go figure."

Yup, it's time to grant the Kurds their freedom. It's also time for Obama to honor his 2008 promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide if elected president.

But is a sycophantic Friedman capable of criticizing Obama? Not a chance:

"Obama is probably doing about the best one can with ISIS: Degrade it, contain it and downplay it, and keep nudging Sunnis and Shiites to come to their senses. But I have a bad feeling about the ISIS boys. They are networked and they have cast off all civilized norms. And we don’t have the answer for them."

Dancing the tango while Brussels burned is the best Obama can do? In fact, maybe it is the best a self-absorbed Obama can do. Others can do better.

Thomas Friedman, "Does Obama Have This Right?": A Narcissistic Personality Disorder Threatens the West

Tweet

A narcissistic personality disorder that threatens the West? No, I'm not talking about Donald Trump, who, even if he wins the Republican nomination, will lose in November. Rather, I am talking about President Barack Obama.

Notified of the massacre in Brussels, a jovial Obama attended a baseball game with Raul Castro in Cuba (even participating in a "wave"), and then boarded a flight for Argentina with his family. Return to Washington to coordinate with the EU? Not a chance. Why should this horrific attack by ISIS interfere with his fun?

Remind you so something? It should. It wasn't so long ago that Obama ran off to a Martha's Vineyard golf course within 20 minutes of delivering a speech decrying the beheading of James Foley by ISIS.

Yes, as I noted on Monday, Obama suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder characterized by a vehement rejection of all criticism, an excessive need for admiration, and a total lack of empathy for others.

Is Obama dangerous with less than a year left of his second term? You bet!

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Does Obama Have This Right?," Thomas Friedman, an Obama sycophant, cautiously criticizes the president:

"Obama’s primary goal seems to be to get out of office being able to say that he had shrunk America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, prevented our involvement on the ground in Syria and Libya, and taught Americans the limits of our ability to fix things we don’t understand, in countries whose leaders we don’t trust, whose fates do not impact us as much as they once did.

. . . .

That all sounds great on paper, until a terrorist attack like the one Tuesday in Brussels comes to our shores. Does the president have this right?

. . . .

[S]itting here [in Sulaimaniya, Iraq] also makes you wonder if Obama hasn’t gotten so obsessed with defending his hand’s-off approach to Syria that he underestimates both the dangers of his passivity and the opportunity for U.S. power to tilt this region our way — without having to invade anywhere. Initially, I thought Obama made the right call on Syria. But today the millions of refugees driven out of Syria — plus the economic migrants now flooding out of Africa through Libya after the utterly botched Obama-NATO operation there — is destabilizing the European Union."

Friedman's utterly inane solution to the problem:

"Kurdistan and Tunisia are just what we dreamed of: self-generated democracies that could be a model for others in the region to follow. But they need help. Unfortunately, Obama seems so obsessed with not being George W. Bush in the Middle East that he has stopped thinking about how to be Barack Obama here — how to leave a unique legacy and secure a foothold for democracy … without invading."

Assistance to Iraqi Kurdistan and Tunisia will curtail the threat from ISIS? Go back to sleep, Tom.

Like it or not, the United States and Europe are at war with ISIS, and refusal to take ISIS seriously, i.e. enjoying a baseball game in Havana after being notified of the calamity in Brussels, only encourages ISIS to perpetrate additional atrocities, which ultimately will find their way to American shores.

Thomas Friedman, "Only Trump Can Trump Trump": What About Hillary in Michigan?

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Only Trump Can Trump Trump," Thomas Friedman tells us that the rise of Trump is all about the "gut feeling" of the Republican rank and file, and about "sticking it to all the people who exploited their pain but left them behind, particularly traditional Republican elites." Friedman writes:

"Those G.O.P. elites sold their own souls and their party so many times to charlatans and plutocrats that you wonder when it’s going to show up on closeout on eBay: 'For sale: The G.O.P. soul. Almost empty. This soul was previously sold to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party anarchists, Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist, the gun lobby, the oil industry, the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson and Fox News. Will bargain. No offer too low.'"

Okay, but what about Hillary and Wall Street? Is it so different? There's a reason she is not willing to release those transcripts, which is why Sanders won in Michigan.

Marco Rubio took a lot of flack for rolling in the gutter with Trump, but quite honestly, perhaps the only way to stop this narcissist is to elicit an onstage meltdown. Have him talking about his short fingers again. Cause him to show how consumed he is with himself. Let the drool dribble from the corners of his mouth.

But let's be honest: If Rubio can't win in Florida, and Kasich can't win in Ohio, it's all over, and to stop Trump in Florida and Ohio, it's going to mandate a deal involving Cruz, Rubio and Kasich - something, given their own egos, they're probably incapable of doing.

Thomas Friedman, "Beware: Exploding Politics": "Hybrid" Horse Manure. It All Boils Down to Florida and Ohio.

Tweet

Will wonders never cease? We now have both former KKK grand wizard David Duke and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan praising Donald Trump. Does this make Trump a "hybrid" candidate?

"Hybrid"? Count the number of times Thomas Friedman uses the word "hybrid" in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Beware: Exploding Politics." I found 10 instances: "the need for hybrid solutions," "a hybrid of left and right," "educators and local government come together to forge hybrid solutions," "a coalition of far-right media and money people who have created a closed loop of incentives for bad behavior and never getting to hybrid," "a system that nationally incentivizes polarization and prevents hybrid solutions," "hybrid compromises, not dogmatism," "His [Obama's] instinct has become hybrid," "a totally new hybrid politics," "His [Trump's] hybrid is an incoherent mess," and "a new, mature, hybrid center-right version." Such erudition on the part of Tom Terrific!

Given that I drive an old hybrid Incyte, which is full of dog hair, I suppose that I should be feeling pretty good about myself this morning. But I'm not - particularly after parsing the Super Tuesday scorecard. Actually, I'm experiencing more than a little nausea.

Friedman concludes his gem of an opinion piece with a prayer to the Almighty concerning the Donald:

"But please, Lord, keep him away from the White House."

At least we agree on something. Now if only Rubio can win in Florida, and Kasich can win in Ohio, however, that might indeed demand divine intervention.

Thomas Friedman, "Who Are We?": Hands Off Hillary!

Tweet

Yesterday, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Roosevelt Approach," David Brooks trashed Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Today, in a Times op-ed entitled "Who Are We?," Thomas Friedman lambastes Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz. Friedman begins his opinion piece by observing:

"I find this election bizarre for many reasons but none more than this: If I were given a blank sheet of paper and told to write down America’s three greatest sources of strength, they would be 'a culture of entrepreneurship,' 'an ethic of pluralism' and the 'quality of our governing institutions.' And yet I look at the campaign so far and I hear leading candidates trashing all of them.

Donald Trump is running against pluralism. Bernie Sanders shows zero interest in entrepreneurship and says the Wall Street banks that provide capital to risk-takers are involved in 'fraud,' and Ted Cruz speaks of our government in the same way as the anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist, who says we should shrink government 'to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.'"

Okay, I have no love for Trump, Sanders or Cruz, but how the heck does Tom Terrific make reference to "the quality of our governing institutions" without making reference to Hillary's installation of a home email server in flagrant disregard for America's national security?

Friedman continues with regard to Sanders:

"Sanders seems to me like someone with a good soul, and he is right that Wall Street excesses helped tank the economy in 2008. But thanks to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, that can’t easily happen again."

Unfortunately, Dodd-Frank addresses past financial abuses, while ignoring newer manipulative and predatory tactics devised by hedge funds to line their pockets. With the cancellation of the Uptick Rule in July 2007 and the advent of high-frequency trading, it can happen again, yet the Obama administration has done absolutely nothing to address this problem.

Also, consider what Robert B. Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, has to say about the repeal of Glass-Steagall by Bill Clinton:

"Hillary Clinton won’t propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act – at least according to Alan Blinder, an economist who has been advising Clinton’s campaign. 'You’re not going to see Glass-Steagall,' Blinder said after her economic speech Monday in which she failed to mention it. Blinder said he had spoken to Clinton directly about Glass-Steagall.

This is a big mistake.

It’s a mistake politically because people who believe Hillary Clinton is still too close to Wall Street will not be reassured by her position on Glass-Steagall. Many will recall that her husband led the way to repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 at the request of the big Wall Street banks.

It’s a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we’re in danger of another one."

I agree with Reich.

It is sickening how The New York Times - with the notable exception of Maureen Dowd - is determined to ignore Hillary's transgressions in order to grease her way into the White House.

Question: If the FBI recommends indicting Hillary, will the Gray Lady push its coverage of this story onto one of its back pages? Actually, news concerning the demise of Hillary's candidacy might well belong on the obituary page.

Thomas Friedman, "Social Media: Destroyer or Creator?": Tahrir Square and the Times's Three Blind Mice

Tweet

In February 2011, Thomas Friedman reported to us in a video from Tahrir Square in Cairo:

"This is the most remarkable thing I have ever seen. This is the single most authentic expression of Arab aspiration, hope, frustration, culture, identity, that I ever seen anytime, anywhere. Somebody broke open a fire hydrant here, and the real Egypt in all this energy, passion and hope is just gushing out.

. . . .

All I can tell you is what you see behind me here is the new realism. Whatever policy we make in the Middle East better be based on what's going on back here, which is an authentic expression of hopes and aspirations of Egyptians, and I would say even Arabs, to own their countries."

The "new realism"? Yeah, right.

Well today, Friedman is back with a New York Times op-ed entitled "Social Media: Destroyer or Creator?," which begins:

"Over the last few years we’ve been treated to a number of 'Facebook revolutions,' from the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street to the squares of Istanbul, Kiev and Hong Kong, all fueled by social media. But once the smoke cleared, most of these revolutions failed to build any sustainable new political order, in part because as so many voices got amplified, consensus-building became impossible."

"So many voices got amplified," or were Thomas Friedman and his colleagues Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen (the Times's three bind mice), who were also singing paeans to the Arab Spring from Tahrir Square, ignorant of Egypt's poverty, unemployment, economic stagnation, inadequate education system, and oppression of women?

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

David Ignatius, "Why is Israel so cautious on the Islamic State? A recent war game explains why.": Duh!

Tweet

Whose op-ed is more doltish today, that of would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman (see my prior blog entry), or that of would-be Middle East expert David Ignatius?

Writing from Tel Aviv, Ignatius informs us in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Why is Israel so cautious on the Islamic State? A recent war game explains why.":

"Rather than attacking Islamic State forces along its northern and eastern borders, Israel pursues a policy of deterrence, containment and even quiet liaison, said a senior Israeli military official. He noted that if Israel wanted to mount an all-out ground attack on Islamic State forces in southern Syria and the Sinai Peninsula, it could wipe them out in three or four hours. 'But what would happen the day after?' asked this Israeli military official. 'Right now, we think it will be worse. So we try to deter them.'"

My goodness, who would have ever guessed? Islamic State forces have killed or wounded one-third of Hezbollah's fighters in Syria, thereby effectively preventing Hezbollah, which has more than 100,000 missiles in Lebanon pointed at Israel, from initiating a new round of fighting with the IDF. I ask you: Should Israel attack ISIS?

Or stated more simply, if Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees are busy battling it out, why interfere? You don't.

Thomas Friedman, "Friends and Refugees in Need": "Obama Did Not Cause This Syria Problem"? Yeah, Right!

Tweet

Declaring in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Friends and Refugees in Need" that Obama, in his last year as president, "has much to be proud of," Thomas Friedman proceeds to lament the refugee crisis affecting Europe, which could go "from a giant humanitarian problem to a giant geostrategic problem that shatters America’s most important ally: the European Union." Tom Terrific goes on to say:

"The meltdowns of Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, Mali, Chad and Yemen and our takedowns of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan — without proper follow-up on our part, NATO’s part or by local elites — has uncorked the worst refugee crisis since World War II. This tidal wave of migrants and refugees is a human tragedy, and their outflow from Syria and Libya in particular is destabilizing all the neighboring islands of decency: Tunisia, Jordan, Lebanon, Kurdistan and Turkey. And now it is eating away at the fabric of the E.U. as well.

Why should Americans care? Because the E.U. is the United States of Europe — the world’s other great center of democracy and economic opportunity. It has its military shortcomings, but with its wealth and liberal values, the E.U. has become America’s primary partner in addressing climate change, managing Iran and Russia and containing disorder in the Middle East and Africa."

Yup, the EU sure as heck helped manage Russia when it annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine . . . not.

European "liberal values"? Consider how naked statues were covered up when Iranian President Rouhani visited Rome on Monday in order to sign business deals worth $18 billion with Italian companies. Needless to say, these deals were all made possible by the removal of sanctions resulting from Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Supreme Leader Khamenei. Additional billion dollar deals will also soon be signed by Rouhani, a leader of a country with the highest per capita rate of executions in the world, with "liberal" Germany and France.

Friedman's conclusion:

"Obama did not cause this Syria problem, and he can’t fix it alone — but it’s not going to get fixed without U.S. leadership. I have shared the president’s caution about getting involved on the ground in Syria. But I now believe we need to take another look at establishing some kind of U.S./E.U./NATO safe zone inside Syria and Libya to create space for refugees to remain in these countries. It’s not a panacea or cost-free, but letting this refugee disaster fracture the E.U. will be a lot more expensive."

"Obama did not cause this Syria problem"? Oh really? At an August 20, 2012 news conference, Obama declared with regard to potential American intervention in Syria:

"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."

Well, Assad started "moving around" a "whole bunch" of chemical weapons, so Obama drew a new line in the sand. Speaking at the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction symposium in Washington on December 3, 2012, Obama stated:

"The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences, and you will be held accountable."

Obama further warned, “I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command, the world is watching.” Well, Assad used chemical weapons against civilians, and Obama, who also likes to watch, did absolutely nothing, further exacerbating the Syrian refugee crisis.

Create a safe zone inside Syria, as suggested by Friedman? A "little" too late, especially with Russia now in control of the skies over that country. Herd nine million Syrian refugees into that safe zone? I don't think so.

Go back to sleep, Tom.

Thomas Friedman, "The Age of Protest": Obama's Despicable State of the Union Address

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Age of Protest," Thomas Friedman writes:

"I asked Dov Seidman, the author of the book 'How' and C.E.O. of LRN, which advises companies all over the world on leadership and how to build ethical cultures, for his take on this age of protest.

. . . .

With all of this moral arousal, it’s as if 'we’re living in a never-ending storm,' he said. Alas, though, resolving moral disputes 'requires perspective, fuller context and the ability to make meaningful distinctions.'

That requires leaders with the courage and empathy 'to inspire people to pause to reflect, so that instead of reacting by yelling in 140 characters they can channel all this moral outrage into deep and honest conversations.' If we can do that — a big if — Seidman concluded, 'we can be truly great again because we’ll be back on our journey towards a more perfect union.'"

Ah yes, a "more perfect union" anchored upon "deep and honest conversations," which brings me to yesterday's State of the Union address in which President Obama declared:

"We also can’t try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into crisis. Even if it's done with the best of intentions. That’s not leadership; that’s a recipe for quagmire, spilling American blood and treasure that ultimately will weaken us. It’s the lesson of Vietnam. It's the lesson of Iraq, and we should have learned it by now.

Fortunately, there is a smarter approach, a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power. It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies, but on issues of global concern, we will mobilize the world to work with us, and make sure other countries pull their own weight.

That’s our approach to conflicts like Syria, where we’re partnering with local forces and leading international efforts to help that broken society pursue a lasting peace.

That’s why we built a global coalition, with sanctions and principled diplomacy, to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, and as we speak, Iran has rolled back its nuclear program, shipped out its uranium stockpile, and the world has avoided another war."

"America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people"? I suppose that is why Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian is still confined to a cell in Iran's notorious Evin Prison.

Obama is "partnering with local forces and leading international efforts to help that broken society pursue a lasting peace"? Oh really? As Michael Gerson observed yesterday in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "On foreign policy, Obama was ‘behind the curve’":

"Historians will also record the collapse of sovereignty at the heart of the Middle East, creating a vacuum that has attracted, inspired and empowered some of the worst people in the world. These events have produced more than 250,000 Syrian dead, including more than 10,000 children; driven one of every five Syrians from their country; resulted in a refugee crisis that now reaches to Europe and beyond; revealed the United States as an unreliable strategic partner; and allowed Iran and Russia to make a play for greater regional influence."

"[A]s we speak, Iran has rolled back its nuclear program, shipped out its uranium stockpile, and the world has avoided another war"? Fascinating. No mention of Iran's recent ballistic missile tests in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. No mention that two weeks ago, Iran fired a rocket 1,500 yards away from the USS Harry S. Truman in the Strait of Hormuz. No mention that Iran seized two US Navy vessels on Tuesday, and at the time of the SOTU address, it was holding their crews captive. What will happen to the 10 American sailors? As was reported by Iran's Fars News Agency:

"Senior Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) officials in Tehran said Washington's claims about the immediate release of the 10 US marines detained in the Persian Gulf on Tuesday are no more than guesses, cautioning that Iran's national interests are no joke.

. . . .

Senior US officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, are in contact with their Iranian counterparts to release the US marines, but according to Iranian officials, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has told Kerry that the US should extend a formal apology first."

And although Obama decided yesterday not to address the capture of the naval boats and their crews in his SOTU address (claiming that an apology was received, Iran has released the crews), White House Spokesperson Josh Earnest stated yesterday in response to Jake Tapper's question why, in light of recent Iranian provocations, the US is preparing to grant Tehran sanctions relief:

"Because these were sanctions that were imposed on Iran over their nuclear program, and as soon as Iran takes the steps that they’ve committed to take and those steps can be verified by international nuclear experts, then we’ll know that Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon.

. . . .

We continue to be concerned about this situation. That precisely is why the president made preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon a top national security priority, and we’re making progress in actually accomplishing that goal."

Or stated otherwise, Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran is sacrosanct, no matter what additional travesties are perpetrated by Khamenei and friends against America.

My characterization of Earnest's remarks in this "Age of Protest": Dishonest, craven and morally reprehensible. Unfortunately, in this instance, with Obama's unsigned legacy-building nuclear deal with Iran hanging by a thread, there is no room for "deep and honest conversations."