David Brooks, "The Revolt of the Weak": Indifference to the Next 9/11

David Brooks's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Revolt of the Weak" is an obscenity.

Lumping together Vladimir Putin's adventure in the Ukraine with the emergence of the Islamic State in what used to be Syria and Iraq, Brooks downplays the threat that both pose to our lives:

"We are not living in a moment of immediate concrete threat, but we are in a crisis of context.

The specific problems that make headlines right now are not cataclysmic. The venture by President Vladimir Putin of Russia into Ukraine, for all its thuggery, is not, in itself, a cataclysmic historical event. The civil war in Syria, for all its savagery, is not a problem that threatens the daily lives of those who live outside."

Brooks goes on to say that "These problems are medium-size" and constitute a "a revolt of the weak." Declaring that "Putin and ISIS are not threats to American national security" but rather "threats to our civilizational order," Brooks concludes:

"This summer, the bad guys have looked energetic while the good guys have looked tired. We’ll see at the NATO summit meeting in Wales this week if there’s a leader who can step outside the crush of events and explain how fundamental the threat to the rules of civilization now is."

Or stated otherwise, Obama can continue with his golf game. However, as far as I am concerned, Brooks is comparing apples with oranges, and the threat from the Islamic State is far greater than that described by Brooks.

As abhorrent as Putin's conduct may be, he is not threatening to take his war to the United States. His objectives are regional, which, of course, is not to say that this bully, who is testing Obama's tenacity, should not be opposed.

On the other hand, the Islamic State, otherwise known as ISIS or ISIL, is indeed threatening to take its war to America. An August 9 ISIS tweet declared:

"We are in your state. We are in your cities. We are in your streets."

And then there was also the recent message to Americans:

"We will drown all of you in blood."

So what it really boils down to is whether you believe the threats being made by these radical Islamists are more than mere words. I do. I have witnessed firsthand the destruction and paralysis that can result from assymetric warfare, i.e. warfare waged by the "weak."

The Islamic State's jihadists are not stupid, they are not afraid to die, and it is only a matter of time until they bring down a skyscraper or an American commercial airliner. The effect on the American economy will be devastating.

So should Obama also ignore the next decapitation of a US citizen and continue with his vacations and Democratic Party fundraising efforts at the homes of the ultra-wealthy? As the first invertebrate ever to occupy the Oval Office would have us know, "The world has always been messy."

Or, should the president fire Chuck "Chowderhead" Hagel and John "Botox" Kerry, and assemble a war cabinet capable of preparing for the contingencies which could soon face the United States?

I know what I would do.

Thomas Friedman, "People of Influence": No Mention of the Murder of Three Israeli Teenagers by Hamas

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "People of Influence" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/opinion/thomas-friedman-why-the-fate-of-ukraine-matters.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), subtitled "Why the Fate of Ukraine Matters," Thomas Friedman acknowledges his own error of judgement regarding Putin's intentions vis-a-vis the Ukraine. Friedman writes:

"I had argued in May that Putin had 'blinked' when, in the wake of Western sanctions and the threat of more, he pulled back troops from Ukraine’s border where he had massed them — hoping first to block Poroshenko’s election and then the signing of the E.U. deal. But maybe Putin just winked. While he did not invade, he has shoveled arms and proxies into eastern Ukraine to foment separatism in Russian-speaking areas. Today, Poroshenko — fed up with Putin’s Goebbels-quality lying — moved forces to regain control of eastern Ukraine and his country’s right to choose its future. Putin is clearly afraid of more sanctions. It is time the U.S. and E.U. imposed them."

Indeed, Putin did not "blink." He has no respect whatsoever for Friedman's friend in the White House. More sanctions against Putin from an impotent Obama administration and an a divided and indifferent EU? Good luck!

This morning, however, I am not interested in Friedman's fatuous views concerning the Ukraine. Rather, I am curious why this would-be Middle East expert has decided not to write about the shocking murder of three Israeli teenagers who were kidnapped by Hamas.

As reported by The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/UK-reaction-to-murders-Avoid-escalation-and-be-proportionate-361214) today:

"British Middle East Minister Hugh Robertson, speaking about the killings of three Israeli teenagers, called for all parties to 'avoid action that could escalate the situation further' and told Israel that 'all security operations must be handled with due care, restraint and a proportionate use of force.'"

What do you say, Tom? Must Israel act with "restraint" and with "proportionate use of force" in response to these murders, which again depict the true face of Hamas, whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews?

Yes, I know, at times like these, it is easier to write pap about Putin.

Thomas Friedman, "Putin Blinked": What the @#$% Is "Obamaism"?

Thomas Friedman, foreign affairs genius that he believes himself to be, has just coined a new term: "Obamaism."

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Putin Blinked" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/opinion/friedman-putin-blinked.html?hp&rref=opinion), Friedman writes:

"The crisis in Ukraine never threatened a Cold War-like nuclear Armageddon, but it may be the first case of post-post-Cold War brinkmanship, pitting the 21st century versus the 19th. It pits a Chinese/Russian worldview that says we can take advantage of 21st-century globalization whenever we want to enrich ourselves, and we can behave like 19th-century powers whenever we want to take a bite out of a neighbor — versus a view that says, no, sorry, the world of the 21st century is not just interconnected but interdependent and either you play by those rules or you pay a huge price.

In the end, it was Putinism versus Obamaism, and I’d like to be the first on my block to declare that the 'other fellow' — Putin — 'just blinked.'"

Putin "blinked"? The problem is that Obama, who promised Putin "flexibility" during his second term in the White House, never showed up for the fight. Moreover, irrespective of Russian claims (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/27/world/europe/russia-ukraine-sanctions/) and those of former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/03/24/bolton-obama-admins-sanctions-against-russia-are-meaningless) that Obama's sanctions against Russia were "meaningless," the fact of the matter is that Russia has annexed Crimea.

But more to the point, what is the meaning of Friedman's "Obamaism"?

Perhaps some insight into the underlying import of this new word is to be found in a New York Times editorial entitled "Trapped in Afghanistan" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/opinion/trapped-in-afghanistan.html?hp&rref=opinion), which today concludes:

"Mr. Obama has dragged out the biggest part of the withdrawal from Afghanistan for two years and now wants to leave more troops there until the end of 2016. His promise to end the war, made years ago, won’t be honored until he’s practically out of office."

Or stated more succinctly, Obama lied concerning his promise to end America's senseless ground war in Afghanistan, which America's president escalated in his first term in office. Of course, everyone remembers how Obama acceded to a military "surge" in that country while concurrently providing the Taliban with a timetable for the removal of US troops.

Obama lied? Why should that come as a surprise coming from a president who declared that if you like your health care plan and your doctor, you can keep them?

But I stray. "Obamaism"? What is it? Quite honestly, if it's something other than "leading from behind" coupled with bowing to the Japanese emperor and Saudi king, i.e. "showing his behind," and shaking hands with tin-pot tyrants, I don't have a clue.

Thomas Friedman, "The Square People, Part 2": The Idiot Columnist, Part 2

You don't have half a clue about what is happening in the Ukraine? Not to worry: Thomas Friedman, who also doesn't have half a clue, is happy to explain it to you.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Square People, Part 2" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-square-people-part-2.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Friedman is again telling us about his "Square People," i.e. "all those newly connected and aspiring middle classes who have gathered in the squares from Cairo to Kiev, Istanbul to Tehran, and Tunis to Moscow to demand a greater voice in their future and better governance." Specifically regarding the Ukraine, Friedman writes:

"Putin was minding his own corrupt business, living in a two-party relationship with his neighbor Ukraine, which was being led by the even more corrupt, pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovych. Suddenly, spontaneously from below, an emergent, connected, aspiring middle class of Ukrainians — fed up both with regime corruption and how far they’d fallen behind their neighbors in the European Union — demanded that Yanukovych forge closer cooperation and trade ties with the European Union. They also demanded something now common to every square: the right to be treated as 'citizens' with rights and responsibilities, not as the playthings of oligarchs or outside powers."

Yup, it's that simple. Or is it?

As noted in a Washington Post article entitled "Russia supporters in eastern Ukraine pose challenges to pro-Western government" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-supporters-in-eastern-ukraine-pose-challenges-to-pro-western-government/2014/03/14/be21eeec-ab77-11e3-b8ca-197ef3568958_story.html) by Anthony Faiola:

"KHARKIV, Ukraine — Not far from this city in eastern Ukraine, Russian tanks are conducting border maneuvers. Yet for the pro-Moscow activists who gather around the statue of Vladimir Lenin in the city’s main square, that is still not close enough.

Such sentiments pose a serious challenge to Ukraine’s new pro-Western government. The pro-Moscow forces in the industrialized east are staging increasingly violent ­clashes with those loyal to the Ukrainian government — leading Russia on Friday to threaten more starkly than ever that it reserves the right to 'protect' ethnic Russians.

'We are hoping that the Russians will come and protect us, just like they did in Crimea,' said Victoria, a 29-year-old ethnic Russian in this heavily Russian-speaking city, where she and other Kremlin supporters insist that they have become the victims of a harassment campaign."

You see, seemingly unbeknownst to Friedman, there's this thing called "nationalism" that still comes into play and involves, inter alia, language. Speaking in very general terms (no pun intended), Russian is spoken in eastern Ukraine, while Ukrainian is spoken in western Ukraine, and although the two languages are similar, they are not the same (see: http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/03/15/the-long-war-over-ukrainian-language/HXlLbK9wVnhwGShNVPKIUP/story.html). And yes, differences in language can cause friction.

Friedman's conclusion:

"I’m encouraged by the many government-monitoring civil society groups that have emerged in Ukraine to make sure that the will of its Square People will not be stolen. Whether Ukraine’s Square People can also develop the inclusive politics — to respect the views of the more pro-Russia population in the East — remains to be seen."

Can Ukraine’s Square People "develop the inclusive politics — to respect the views of the more pro-Russia population in the East"? Nice to know that Friedman acknowledges the existence of pro-Russian Ukrainians, who do not qualify as "Square People."

I pray that President Obama is not reading or influenced by any of Friedman's rubbish.

Thomas Friedman, "More Chopsticks, Please": At Least Borat Spoke English

Surely you recall Sacha Baron Cohen's 2006 comedy "Borat," in which Borat Sagdiyev, a fictitious Kazakh journalist, traveled around the US at the behest of the Kazakh Ministry of Information in order to create a documentary film of his experiences. At least Borat spoke English.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "More Chopsticks, Please" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/11/opinion/sunday/friedman-more-chopsticks-please.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Thomas Friedman tells us how his newspaper sent him to Kiev and Hanoi over the past couple of weeks in order to recount his experiences. Does Friedman speak fluent Ukrainian and/or Vietnamese? Probably not. And this could well have contributed to Tom's hilarious observation:

"And in my jet-lagged torpor, all I’ve been trying to do is make sure I don’t order Chicken Kiev in Hanoi and Chicken Spring Rolls in Kiev."

Hahahahaha.

Observing that the Ukraine is being bullied by Russia and that Vietnam is being bullied by China, Friedman concludes:

"We’re not going to go to war on either front. And Russia and China also have claims and interests that bear consideration. But if we are to persuade Moscow and Beijing to resolve these border disputes peacefully, not unilaterally, we’ll clearly need a few more chopsticks in our bundle. Which is why America’s ability to build coalitions is as vital today as the exercise of its own power."

America's ability to build coalitions is vital today? Well, good luck to the Obama administration in forging a coalition to oppose Russia, after America's president alienated both Poland and the Czech Republic by scrapping plans for a missile defense system in both these countries. Instead, Obama promised "flexibility" to Putin.

And good luck to the Obama administration in forging a coalition to oppose China, after America's president refused to take sides in the dispute between China and Japan involving sovereignty over the the Senkaku Islands.

Needless to say, Friedman fails to mention that China is the largest single holder of American debt and is owed some $1.3 trillion by the US government.

But never mind this sobering truth. Just keep bundling those chopsticks.

Hahahahaha.

Yup, almost as funny as the greenhouse gas emissions spewed by the airplanes carrying Friedman around the globe, all in order to allow Tom to spew these gaseous rollicking opinion pieces.

Thomas Friedman, "Go Big, Get Crazy": If Pigs Had Wings

Obama's foreign policy is beyond broken. It is irreparable, and even Obama's foreign policy cheerleader at The Washington Post, David Ignatius, has woken up to the meltdown.

In a WaPo opinion piece entitled "Obama tends to create his own foreign policy headaches" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-damage-to-obamas-foreign-policy-has-been-largely-self-inflicted/2014/05/06/d3e7665a-d550-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html?hpid=z2), Ignatius finally acknowledges:

"Under Obama, the United States has suffered some real reputational damage. I say that as someone who sympathizes with many of Obama’s foreign policy goals. This damage, unfortunately, has largely been self-inflicted by an administration that focuses too much on short-term messaging. At key turning points — in Egypt and Libya during the Arab Spring, in Syria, in Ukraine and, yes, in Benghazi — the administration was driven by messaging priorities rather than sound, interests-based policy."

Or stated otherwise, Obama's foreign policy has been all about imagery with no accompanying substance. As every tin-pot dictator in the world has come to know, Obama talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.

Meanwhile, however, over at The New York Times, Thomas Friedman continues to proffer windy advice to a president who is standing at the side of the road without gas or any sense of direction. In his latest Times op-ed entitled "Go Big, Get Crazy" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/opinion/friedman-go-big-get-crazy.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Tom Terrific concludes:

"Putin may think he’s Superman, but, the fact is, America, Europe and the Ukrainian reformers collectively have the ability to generate the Kryptonite that would render him powerless: European unity, Ukrainian government legitimacy and U.S. energy. Those are the things of which he is most afraid. What they all have in common, though, is that they’re hard, entail serious choices and will require extraordinary leadership to achieve. So watch all these fronts. I can assure you that Putin is [sic]."

Superman? Kryptonite? Regrettably, this truly is comic book material.

"European unity"? Of the kind demonstrated by the EU in the face of Assad's use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians? More than 140,000 Syrians are dead and some 9 million Syrians have abandoned their homes (Syria has a total population of 22 million), but Europe couldn't give a damn. On the other hand, if Israel announces the construction of a dozen new apartment buildings in East Jerusalem, watch Europeans go wild.

Ukrainian government legitimacy"? Corruption is interwoven into the fabric of that nation's governance. As reported by the Kyiv Post (http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/transparency-international-slams-ukraine-as-most-corrupt-in-europe-332965.html):

"In its 2013 Corruption Perceptions Index released today, Transparancy International slammed Ukraine, calling the country the most corrupt nation in Europe and the fifth most corrupt in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Ukraine tied for 144th place in the ranking with Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Iran, Nigeria, and Papua New Guinea. That ranking placed it ahead of several Central Asian post-Soviet states, including Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan."

Which leaves us with Friedman's call for a revolution in US energy policy, including a revenue-neutral carbon tax. But with the Democrats facing the worst midterm election results in 20 years (see: http://time.com/87792/2014-midterm-elections-poll/), don't be expecting any new legislative initiatives from the Obama administration.

Take Friedman's advice and "watch all these fronts"? My advice to Tom, "If pigs had wings, they would fly."

Thomas Friedman, "Challenging Putin’s Values": Don't Believe The Washington Post!

Were you hoping for more flatulence from Thomas Friedman this morning? Congratulations, you've got it!

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Challenging Putin’s Values" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/opinion/friedman-challenging-putins-values.html?ref=opinion), Friedman attempts to come to the aid of a beleaguered President Obama, whose foreign policy is under attack from all sides. Tom Terrific writes:

"Look how just our limited sanctions triggered a stampede by the electronic herd of global investors who have pulled more than $50 billion out of Russia this year."

More than $50 billion has left Russia this year? Obama has run America's national debt over $17.5 trillion, an amount which is never going to be returned.

Friedman continues:

"Don’t let anyone tell you the sanctions are meaningless."

Well, two days ago in an editorial entitled "Obama’s half-measures give Vladi­mir Putin little to fear" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-half-measures-give-vladimir-putin-little-to-fear/2014/04/28/b663885c-cee8-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html), The Washington Post informed us:

"VLADIMIR PUTIN’S assault on Ukraine has been relentless and increasingly reckless: Forces working with Russian personnel in eastern Ukraine are torturing and murdering opponents and holding international observers hostage. In contrast, President Obama’s response has been slow and excruciatingly measured. New U.S. sanctions announced Monday fall well short of the steps that senior officials threatened when the Russian offensive in eastern Ukraine began three weeks ago."

Of course, you mustn't listen to the editorial board of The Washington Post!

Friedman's conclusion:

"We couldn’t stop them if we wanted to. [Ukrainians have] been empowered by globalization and the I.T. revolution. Get used to it, Comrade Putin."

Remind you of something? Three years ago, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "They Did It" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/opinion/13friedman.html?ref=thomaslfriedman), Friedman wrote jubilantly of the revolution in Egypt:

"They did this all by themselves. That is so important. One of the most powerful chants I heard in [Tahrir] square on Friday night was: 'The people made the regime step down.'

This sense of self-empowerment and authenticity — we did this for ourselves, by ourselves — is what makes Egypt’s democracy movement such a potential game-changer for the whole region.

. . . .

This could get interesting — for all the region’s autocrats. Egypt’s youthful and resourceful democrats are just getting started."

And where are we today in Egypt? On Monday, an Egyptian court sentenced 683 Muslim Brotherhood members to death. What does Obama have to say about that? Answer: Nothing.

And now the Benghazi scandal has been reawakened owing to FOIA disclosure of documents the White House sought to suppress, which indicate that there was an attempt to mislead Americans concerning the reason for the attack (see: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/).

Which brings us to Maureen Dowd's op-ed of today's date entitled "Is Barry Whiffing?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/opinion/dowd-is-barry-whiffing.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), in which she writes:

"Stop whining, Mr. President.

. . . .

It doesn’t feel like leadership. It doesn’t feel like you’re in command of your world.

How can we accept these reduced expectations and truculent passivity from the man who offered himself up as the moral beacon of the world, even before he was elected?"

Yes, Maureen is correct: No one takes Obama seriously overseas. Okay, as observed by Friedman, the Russian stock market has dropped some 13 percent since the beginning of the year, but do you really think Putin, an ex-KGB lieutenant colonel, gives a damn? Trust me, he doesn't.

Thomas Friedman, "It’s All About May 25": From the North Pole to Kiev, Tom Has Answers

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

- "Won't Get Fooled Again," The Who

Do you remember how Thomas Friedman gushed over nascent Egyptian democracy and the Arab Spring from Cairo's Tahrir Square? Well, fresh from a submarine trip to the North Pole, Tom is back with more drivel enlightenment from the Ukraine. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "It’s All About May 25" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/opinion/friedman-its-all-about-may-25.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Friedman strolls around Kiev's Independence Square and declares (my emphasis in red):

"It would have been nice if we could have forged a compromise with President Vladimir Putin of Russia that would have allowed Ukraine to gradually join the European Union and not threaten him.

. . . .

Our job is to back Putin off so the elections can happen."

Excuse me, but who is this "we" to whom Friedman so blithely refers? Is it Barack Obama, who so blithely promised "flexibility" during his second term to Vladimir Putin?

Elections will back Putin into a corner? Yeah, right.

Friedman's conclusion:

"In sum, it was courageous Ukrainians who gave birth to their own clean democracy movement, because they were fed up. But Putin can’t live with a successful, Westward-looking democracy here, and young Ukrainians can’t live without it. So, for it to thrive, we have to make sure Putin doesn’t kill it in the crib, and they have to make sure their old-line politicians don’t kill it before it learns to walk."

Ah yes, "courageous Ukrainians," "clean democracy movement," "young Ukrainians" who "can't live" without "Westward-looking democracy." Kind of makes you want to vomit.

Does anyone, other than Friedman, place value on this stream of "thought" (after all, if he thinks it, surely it must be important)? Unfortunately, the answer is yes: Obama still reads this windbag.

Thomas Friedman, "Go Ahead, Vladimir, Make My Day": Subsidize Ukraine Through the Pain? And Maybe the EU, Too?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Go Ahead, Vladimir, Make My Day" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/opinion/sunday/friedman-go-ahead-vladimir-make-my-day.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Thomas Friedman begins:

"SO the latest news is that President Vladimir Putin of Russia has threatened to turn off gas supplies to Ukraine if Kiev doesn’t pay its overdue bill, and, by the way, Ukraine’s pipelines are the transit route for 15 percent of gas consumption for Europe. If I’m actually rooting for Putin to go ahead and shut off the gas, does that make me a bad guy?

Because that is what I’m rooting for, and I’d be happy to subsidize Ukraine through the pain. Because such an oil shock, though disruptive in the short run, could have the same long-term impact as the 1973 Arab oil embargo — only more so. That 1973 embargo led to the first auto mileage standards in America and propelled the solar, wind and energy efficiency industries. A Putin embargo today would be even more valuable because it would happen at a time when the solar, wind, natural gas and energy efficiency industries are all poised to take off and scale. So Vladimir, do us all a favor, get crazy, shut off the oil and gas to Ukraine and, even better, to all of Europe. Embargo! You’ll have a great day, and the rest of the planet will have a great century."

Friedman would be happy to subsidize Ukraine through the pain? With whose money? Or maybe the US government should just print some more, thereby adding to the national debt, which now exceeds $17.5 trillion.

And after subsidizing Ukraine through the pain, maybe Friedman would also care to throw cash at Europe, which is only now beginning to emerge from a prolonged recession. Unfortunately, the problem does not only involve Russian natural gas. Regarding European dependence on Russian energy sources, the EU tells us (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Energy_production_and_imports):

"The origin of EU-27 energy imports has changed somewhat in recent years, as Russia has maintained its position as the main supplier of crude oil and natural gas and emerged as the leading supplier of hard coal. In 2010, some 34.5% of the EU-27’s imports of crude oil were from Russia; this was the highest share recorded between 2002 and 2010 having fallen to a temporary low of 31.4% in 2008. Russia became the principal supplier of hard coal in 2006, overtaking South Africa, having overtaken Australia in 2004 and Colombia in 2002; Russia’s share of EU-27 hard coal imports rose from 13.1% in 2002 to 30.2% by 2009, before falling somewhat in 2010 to 27.1%. Despite this contraction, Russia remained the primary source of hard coal imports into the EU in 2010 and its share was well ahead of the next highest, recorded by Colombia (20.2%). By contrast, Russia’s share of EU-27 imports of natural gas declined from 45.1% to 31.8% between 2003 and 2010, while Qatar’s share rose from less than 1% to 8.6%."

Sever the EU overnight from Russian energy sources? It's not nearly as simple as would-be alternative energy expert Friedman would have you believe, unless the EU can rely upon Tom's endless supply of wind.

Thomas Friedman, "Playing Hockey With Putin": Yes, We're Pucked!

In his latest doozy of a New York Times op-ed entitled "Playing Hockey With Putin" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/opinion/friedman-playing-hockey-with-putin.html?smid=tw-TomFriedman&seid=auto), Thomas Friedman tells us (my emphasis in red):

"Moreover, we can’t help Ukraine unless we and the European Union have a serious renewable energy and economic sanctions strategy — which requires us to sacrifice — to undermine Putin and Putinism, because Ukraine will never have self-determination as long as Putin and Putinism thrive. Putin’s foreign policy and domestic policy are inextricably linked: His domestic policy of looting Russia and keeping himself permanently in power with oil and gas revenue, despite a weakening economy, seems to require adventures like Ukraine that gin up nationalism and anti-Westernism to distract the Russian public. And are we ready to play dirty, too? Putin is busy using pro-Russian Ukrainian proxies to take over government buildings in Eastern Ukraine — to lay the predicate either for a Russian invasion there or de facto control there by Russia’s allies."

Friedman's conclusion (again, my emphasis in red):

"We need a strategy to help Ukraine and to undermine Putinism today — and to reintegrate Russia tomorrow. It’s a big, big lift. So let’s be honest with ourselves and with the Ukrainians. If Putin’s playing hockey and we’re not, Ukrainians need to know that now."

Excuse me, but who is this "we" to which the Lone Ranger ("Well Tonto, Looks like we're surrounded!") Tom refers? It was Obama who promised that in his second term he would be much more "flexible" with Putin.

Tell the Ukrainians if we are also playing hockey? The Ukrainians don't need to be told anything. They already know. They asked the Poles and the Czechs - after Obama decided, as a gesture to Putin, against installing a missile defense system in their countries - whether they could trust America's president. The answer came back, "Forget it, the man is living in a fantasy world of his own making."

More recently and more to the point, Obama refused in March to provide Ukraine with defensive weaponry for fear it might provoke Putin (see: http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/in-ukraine-as-in-syria-the-obama-doctrine-rules-no-military-aid-20140320).

Obama is a golfer who doesn't play hockey, and frankly, we, meaning the West, are pucked.

Thomas Friedman, "Parallel Parking in the Arctic Circle": Who Paid for Friedman's Joy Ride?

Thomas Friedman, who one month ago informed us that the Cold War is over and that the United States won (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/opinion/friedman-dont-just-do-something-sit-there.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), now tells us in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Parallel Parking in the Arctic Circle" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-parallel-parking-in-the-arctic-circle.html?_r=0) about his one night joy ride aboard the U.S.S. New Mexico beneath the Arctic Circle. Friedman writes:

"I had spent the night on the sub as part of a group accompanying Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, who was observing the Navy’s submarine arctic warfare exercise.

We had flown into the Arctic by small plane and landed on a snow airstrip at the Navy’s ice research station Nautilus, 150 miles north of the North Slope of Alaska. When we got there, the New Mexico, which had been patrolling the waters below, had already found an opening of thin ice and slushy water. The sub used its conning tower, or sail, to smash through to the surface, then 'parallel park,' as one officer put it, between two floating islands of thick ice, and pick us up."

At a time when the Obama administration is reducing the US army to pre-World War II size, how in blazes is Friedman being taken on a submarine tour? How much did this cost? Who paid his bill?

Friedman continues:

"Russia has already made extensive claims to the Arctic, based on the reach of its continental shelf, beyond the usual 12 miles from its coastline; these are in dispute. To prepare for whatever unfolds here, though, the U.S. Navy keeps honing its Arctic submarine skills, including, on our trip, test-firing a virtual torpedo at a virtual enemy sub, studying how differences in water temperatures and the mix of freshwater from melted ice and saltwater affect undersea weapons and the sounds a sub makes (vital for knowing how to hide), as well as mapping the Arctic’s seabed topography.

. . . .

'We can hear shrimp crackling 200 feet under water,' explained Lt. Cmdr. Craig Litty. They can also hear someone drop a wrench in the engine room of a Russian sub several miles away."

Russian claims to the Arctic? Russian subs? Didn't Obama also claim that the Cold War was over, while offering "flexibility" in his second term to Putin?  More recently, didn't Obama tell the entire world that Russia is a mere "regional power"?

Could this op-ed have anything to do with Obama's recent humiliation by Putin, resulting from Russia's annexation of Crimea? Is Friedman's op-ed intended to convince New York Times readers that Obama is not a cream puff?

More to the point, how do I sign up for a one night joy ride aboard the U.S.S. New Mexico, in order to listen to the shrimp crackling?

Obama to Dance on "The Ellen Show" While America Burns?

As I stated in prior blog entries (for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/thomas-friedman-from-putin-blessing-in.html), Obama is caught in Putin's pincers, given Obama's dependence upon Russian goodwill involving the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal and Iran's nuclear weapons development program. Well, blatant evidence of Obama's self-imposed dilemma surfaced yesterday when, according to an AP article entitled "Russia warns West it may change its stance on Iran" (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/russia-warns-west-it-may-change-its-stance-iran), Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov declared according to the Interfax news agency:

"Russia didn't want to use the Iranian nuclear talks to 'raise the stakes,' but may have to do so in response to the actions by the United States and the European Union."

Or stated more succinctly, Putin has Obama by the short and curlies.

Of course, the Ukraine is not Obama's only problem. The number of Affordable Care Act enrollments is far short of Obama administration March 31 goals, and the absence of enthusiasm of healthy young people for this program could blow it all asunder.

And so, the Obama administration is in damage control mode, attempting to inflate enrollment figures by ignoring persons who have signed up but not paid their premiums. As reported by Kyle Cheney in a Politico article entitled "So how many have paid ACA premiums?" (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/obamacare-affordable-care-act-health-insurance-premiums-104602.html):

"The latest administration figures show that 4.2 million people have selected health plans in the new insurance markets. Insurance industry officials at four of the big national health plans tell POLITICO that about 15 to 20 percent people who have signed up have not yet paid their first monthly premium — the final step to get coverage.

And they’ve told the White House the same, insurance industry officials say."

Note the consistent refusal of Kathleen Sebelius and Jay Carney to address the number of persons not paying their premiums. Transparency? Even the Washington Post's Erik Wemple is today acknowledging the problem in an opinion piece entitled "HHS, playing selective with Obamacare enrollment numbers" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/03/19/hhs-playing-selective-with-obamacare-enrollment-numbers/?hpid=z3).

So what does Obama do as the flames swirl around him? Simple. As reported in a Huffington Post piece by Paige Lavender entitled "Obama To Appear On The Ellen Show To Talk Obamacare, Maybe Dance" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/19/obama-ellen_n_4993819.html?utm_hp_ref=politics), he has booked another date on Ellen DeGeneres's show, where he is sure to be lobbed softball questions while promoting Obamacare.

Can it possibly get any worse?

Thomas Friedman, "From Putin, a Blessing in Disguise": Was Hitler's Annexation of the Sudetenland Also a Godsend?

Does Putin's annexation of Crimea have a silver lining? Thomas Friedman seems to think this is the case.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "From Putin, a Blessing in Disguise" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/opinion/friedman-from-putin-a-blessing-in-disguise.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Friedman says that if there is to be "a new cold war," he wants to see an "earth race," as opposed to a "space race," which will bring about a new American energy policy. Tom Terrific writes:

"I want America to lead in developing an energy policy that will weaken the oil-and-gas-autocracy of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and, as a byproduct, produce the technologies that will mitigate climate change, make America a global technology and moral leader and ensure that the next generation can thrive here on Earth."

His conclusion:

"I would hate to see Obama spend the next two and half years just counting healthcare.gov sign-ups. He needs to recognize that Putin’s Crimea adventure has created the opportunity for a legacy project of moving America into a clean energy future — a move that would make us stronger, Putin weaker and the world safer."

Whoa! Less than a month ago, Friedman told us that the Cold War was forever over (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/opinion/friedman-dont-just-do-something-sit-there.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0):

"The Cold War was a unique event that pitted two global ideologies, two global superpowers, each with globe-spanning nuclear arsenals and broad alliances behind them. Indeed, the world was divided into a chessboard of red and black, and who controlled each square mattered to each side’s sense of security, well-being and power. It was also a zero-sum game, in which every gain for the Soviet Union and its allies was a loss for the West and NATO, and vice versa.

That game is over. We won."

Well, even Tom now seems to recognize that the "game" is not over, and in fact Putin has Obama caught in a devastating pincer movement, given Obama's dependence upon Russian goodwill involving the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal and Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

Regarding Friedman's call for "an energy policy that will weaken the oil-and-gas-autocracy of Russian President Vladimir Putin," there is of course no mention by Tom of Solyndra or the US national debt, which Obama has taken to an unsustainable $17.5 trillion.

All of which is not to say that Obama cannot pressure Putin. As I observed in a previous blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/thomas-friedman-three-faces-of.html), freeing Europe from dependency upon Russian gas need not take much time at all. If Friedman were to spend a few minutes reading a Commentary article entitled "Will Israel Be the Next Energy Superpower?" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/will-israel-be-the-next-energy-superpower/) by Arthur Herman, he would quickly realize that salvation is to be found in Israel's enormous gas discoveries off its Mediterranean coast.

However, channeling Israeli gas to Europe might also demand that Obama put an end to his ideological war with Netanyahu, and this might be too much to demand of a president who has made the weakening of America's alliance with Israel a keystone of his foreign policy. Note Obama's luncheon with Palestinian Authority President Abbas, during which Obama called for "a state that allows for the dignity and sovereignty of the Palestinian people," but refused to acknowledge the necessity of a neighboring nation which safeguards the existence of the Jewish people (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/obama-sucks-up-to-abbas-no-state-for.html).

Interestingly enough, even Friedman in this op-ed seems to understand that the Affordable Care Act is headed for disaster and will not provide Obama with the legacy that he is so desperately seeking.

But I digress from the thesis of Tom's opinion piece, i.e. Putin's annexation of Crimea is "a blessing in disguise." I can only wonder, if we were back in 1938, whether Friedman would also regard Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland as a godsend . . .

David Brooks, "The Deepest Self": People Are Like Onions

"Onions have layers. Ogres have layers. Onions have layers. You get it? We both have layers."

- Shrek, "Shrek" (2001)

As Putin masses troops along Russia's border with the Ukraine, David Brooks is here to reassure us concerning the substance of human nature in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Deepest Self" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/opinion/brooks-the-deepest-self.html?ref=opinion&_r=0) . Brooks writes:

"In fact, while we are animals, we have much higher opportunities. While we start with and are influenced by evolutionary forces, people also have the chance to make themselves deep in a way not explicable in strictly evolutionary terms.

So much of what we call depth is built through freely chosen suffering. People make commitments — to a nation, faith, calling or loved ones — and endure the sacrifices those commitments demand. Often this depth is built by fighting against natural evolutionary predispositions."

Got it: People - even people like Putin - are like onions. They have layers built through suffering around or even against their natural cores.

Thanks, David. This is just what I needed to know.

[Re President Obama's Ocean Reef Club golf vacation, see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/fareed-zakaria-why-this-time-obama-must.html]

David Ignatius, "For Putin, a possible Pyrrhic victory": Providing "Euphemism" With New Meaning

David Ignatius, a longstanding member of the Obama cheerleader squad, is back today with a new Washington Post opinion piece entitled "For Putin, a possible Pyrrhic victory" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-for-putin-a-possible-pyrrhic-victory/2014/03/12/109c6130-aa23-11e3-9e82-8064fcd31b5b_story.html?hpid=z2), which seeks to explain away the president's procrastination regarding Putin's invasion of Crimea. Ignatius concludes:

"The Ukraine showdown, in a sense, has been a confrontation, as Kerry argues, between a 19th-century worldview and a 21st-century approach. Putin’s moves on the ground have been decisive, with immediate impact. The U.S.-led response has been collective, deliberative and slower to emerge."

Obama's response to Putin's invasion of Crimea has been "slower to emerge"? How about, "yet to emerge"?

Remind me to cite Ignatius when I compile a list of 2014's finest foreign affairs euphemisms.

Maureen Dowd, "Little R-S-P-E-C-T": Does Obama Wear Mom Jeans? Does Putin Inject Botox? Does Dowd Inject Botox?

Okay, America's president seems to have difficulty spelling without a teleprompter, but does Obama wear mom jeans? Does Putin inject Botox into his forehead? Does Dowd inject Botox into her forehead? These and other momentous questions are raised by Maureen Dowd's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Little R-S-P-E-C-T" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/opinion/sunday/dowd-little-r-s-p-e-c-t.html?ref=maureendowd&_r=0) and the picture accompanying her column. Concerning Obama's feeble response to Putin's invasion of the Ukraine and the mom jeans issue, Dowd writes:

"Sarah Palin, who seems ever more viperish, deployed her Yoda syntax with Sean Hannity: 'People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil. They look at our president as one who wears mom jeans and equivocates and bloviates.'

Actually, the jeans the president wore in the Oval Office, talking to Putin on the phone last weekend, looked good."

Well, let's have another look at the picture, released by the White House, depicting Obama in serious discussion with Putin after his West Wing staff finally opted to allow him to learn of Putin's infraction:

Okay, here we have Obama, in denim and matching button-down shirt, one arm akimbo, sleeves carefully rolled up almost to the elbows, discussing with Putin the Russian invasion of Crimea. I don't know the make of his watch. There is no pen in sight. There are no loose papers on his desk. Query: Does Obama actually ever work in the Oval Office?

But more to the point, does this picture project power? Or is the following picture of Pajama Boy more imposing?:

My guess is that Putin would be more afraid of Pajama Boy.

But enough about imagery (Maureen and the White House are responsible for raising the topic, not I). Instead, let's focus on America's foreign affairs. Dowd seems to think that Obama's swift non-response to the Ukraine crisis improved upon his awkward vacillation involving Assad's use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. Dowd tells us:

"And his Russia response is a positive contrast with Syria, where Obama came across as naval-gazing and feckless when he dithered and then drew a 'red line' against Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons. He was still explaining to the press why he had decided on military action while Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the Brits were yanking the rug out from under him."

But in fact, Obama's reaction to Putin and Assad were one and the same. In both instances, he and his friends, John Kerry and Susan Rice, employed variants of the same "tough" language:

"All options remain on the table!"

In fact, there have been no options on the table. No options have existed and no strategies or shelf plans have been devised to deal with malefactors in Obama's imaginary post-Cold War world renaissance, devoid of villains. And even if options and a strategy had been readied, the Procrastinator-in-Chief would seek to avoid any provocation during his second term in office, as he, assisted by his weak-minded friend Chuck Hagel, dismantles the American military to fund Obamacare.

Obama not tough? How can that be? Prime Minister Netanyahu was in Washington last week, and the president sternly warned his Israeli ally via Jeffrey Goldberg (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/new-york-times-editorial-israels-choice.html) that his opposition to a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was dangerous. Regrettably, no one from the US State Department had informed Obama that Netanyahu favors a two state solution. For example, as reported by Arutz Sheva last April (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167201#.UxgQsZtWHcs):

"Speaking during a reception for foreign diplomats in honor of Israel’s Independence Day, Netanyahu said, 'We are committed to our aspiration for peace, a peace that will be based on the principle of two states for two peoples, a Jewish state alongside a demilitarized Palestinian state.

'But in order for the peace to last it must be anchored in security,' he added. 'The State of Israel must be able to defend itself by itself; its security will be a main component of any future peace agreement.'"

Well, at least Obama was able to deflect some of the criticism involving his feeble response to Putin by slapping at Netanyahu, a true friend of the United States.

Dowd's opinion piece also fails to mention recent developments in Turkey, which have offered Obama multiple opportunities to exhibit mettle and ethics.

Do you remember Obama's State of the Union address? Did you hear any mention by the president of his pre-election promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide by Turkey? No way! You see, autocratic Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan in the past was declared by Obama to be one of his best overseas friends (see: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/world/2013/05/16/Erdogan-and-Obama-Best-friends-no-more.html).

The radical Islamization of Turkey and the end of that country's civil liberties? As reported by the Committee to Protect Journalists at the end of 2013 (http://cpj.org/reports/2013/12/second-worst-year-on-record-for-jailed-journalists.php):

"For the second consecutive year, Turkey was the world’s leading jailer of journalists, followed closely by Iran and China."

Even a whimper of protest from Obama? No way!

Now, after the dissemination of a recording in which Erdogan purportedly tells his son to dispose of large sums of money following police raids connected to a burgeoning corruption scandal, Erdogan is threatening to shut down Facebook and YouTube in Turkey (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-turkey-erdogan-idUSBREA2609A20140307).

Again, not a word from Obama.

Why doesn't the world show a little more R-S-P-E-C-T for America's president? Apparently, even the president ultimately reaps what he sows.

New York Times Editorial, "Natural Gas as a Diplomatic Tool": Ignorance of Israeli Natural Gas Reserves

In an editorial entitled "Natural Gas as a Diplomatic Tool" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/opinion/natural-gas-as-a-diplomatic-tool.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=0), The New York Times tells us that the US should punish Putin for his incursion into the Ukraine by exporting natural gas to Europe at the expense of Russia. The Times writes:

"Increasing natural gas exports could serve American foreign-policy interests in Europe, which gets about 30 percent of its gas from Russia. Countries like Germany and Ukraine are particularly vulnerable to supply disruptions that are politically driven."

However, the Times editorial also acknowledges that "the effects of such exports would likely be modest and wouldn’t be realized for several years."

But wait! Displaying customary ignorance, the Times fails to take into account Israel's growing natural gas reserves discovered off its Mediterranean coast, currently consisting of some 400 billion cu.m. of proven reserves that can be exported. Indeed, Europe imported some 167 billion cu.m. of natural gas from Russia in 2013, and Israeli reserves can only make a partial dent in this Russian cartel. Nonetheless, by helping to grow Israeli reserves and exports while concurrently increasing US exports, the Obama administration can certainly place meaningful pressure on Putin.

But wait again! The Obama administration would have us believe that there has not been a renewal of the Cold War. Moreover, the Obama administration and its semi-official mouthpiece, i.e. The New York Times (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/new-york-times-editorial-israels-choice.html), are busy castigating long-term ally Israel for alleged intransigence involving John Kerry's ridiculous Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative.

Yes, Obama's foreign policy is characterized by ignorance and  impotence, and his unimaginative little helpers on the editorial board of The New York Times are of little use to him, except for boosting his deflated ego.

Thomas Friedman, "Why Putin Doesn’t Respect Us": Obama Is Not a Wimp!

Observe how much of Thomas Friedman's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Why Putin Doesn’t Respect Us" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/opinion/friedman-why-putin-doesnt-respect-us.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=0) is devoted to the issue of Obama's masculinity. Friedman writes:

"There is much nonsense being written about how Vladimir Putin showed how he is 'tougher' than Barack Obama and how Obama now needs to demonstrate his manhood.

. . . .

So spare me the Putin-body-slammed-Obama prattle. This isn’t All-Star Wrestling."

Well, if the shoe fits . . .

As you know, the White House recently released a picture of President Obama in denim and matching button-down shirt, one arm akimbo, sleeves carefully rolled up almost to the elbows, discussing with Putin the Russian invasion of Crimea. (I don't know the make of his watch.) Okay readers, kindly let me know which of the following two images has Putin more frightened:

or

I know it's a difficult question, but if I was forced to make a wager, I would bet on Pajama Boy.

But more to the point, Friedman is now painting Putin as something of a monster:

"For a long time, Putin has exploited the humiliation and anti-Western attitudes NATO expansion triggered to gain popularity, but this seems to have become so fundamental to his domestic politics that it has locked him into a zero-sum relationship with the West that makes it hard to see how we collaborate with him in more serious trouble spots, like Syria or Iran. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria is engaged in monstrous, genocidal behavior that also threatens the stability of the Middle East."

It's "hard to see" how we collaborate with Putin in Syria and Iran? At least Friedman got that right. Acceptance by Obama of Putin's "mediation" involving Iran and Syria was a true disaster, illustrating Obama's naivete.

Exclude Russia now from the G8? What if Putin then decides that he longer wants to be a part of the P5+1, thus putting an end to Obama's meaningless negotiations with Iran for the cessation of its nuclear weapons development program? And what if Putin also decides to withdraw his support for the specious agreement to which Obama is a party, pursuant to which Assad is supposed to destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles?

Yes, Putin has Obama at his mercy.

As part of his solution to this conundrum, Tom Terrific proposes:

"I’d also raise our gasoline tax, put in place a carbon tax and a national renewable energy portfolio standard — all of which would also help lower the global oil price (and make us stronger, with cleaner air, less oil dependence and more innovation)."

Higher gasoline taxes? Imagine the impact of this move on a fragile American economy.

Most remarkable of all, observe Friedman's about-face concerning the dangers posed by Putin. A mere one week ago, Friedman was telling us in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Don’t Just Do Something. Sit There." (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/opinion/friedman-dont-just-do-something-sit-there.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0) that the Cold War had been won by the US:

"The Cold War was a unique event that pitted two global ideologies, two global superpowers, each with globe-spanning nuclear arsenals and broad alliances behind them. Indeed, the world was divided into a chessboard of red and black, and who controlled each square mattered to each side’s sense of security, well-being and power. It was also a zero-sum game, in which every gain for the Soviet Union and its allies was a loss for the West and NATO, and vice versa.

That game is over. We won."

The game is over and we won? Not with Obama busy snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

David J. Kramer, "U.S. foreign policy comes home to roost with Russia’s action in Ukraine": Who Has Putin More Frightened, Obama or Pajama?

As aptly stated by David J. Kramer, president of Freedom House, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "U.S. foreign policy comes home to roost with Russia’s action in Ukraine" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-foreign-comes-home-to-roost-with-russias-action-in-ukraine/2014/03/01/10be38bc-a18d-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html?hpid=z5):

"President Obama faces the gravest challenge of his presidency in figuring out how to respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. How he responds will define his two terms in office, as well as determine the future of Ukraine, Russia and U.S. standing in the world. After all, if the authoritarian tyrant Vladimir Putin is allowed to get away with his unprovoked attack against his neighbor, a blatant violation of that country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, then U.S. credibility, already damaged by Obama’s poor handling of Syria, will be down to zero. Allies won’t believe in us, enemies won’t fear us and the world will be a much more dangerous place. The White House statement issued late Saturday afternoon expressing 'deep concern over Russia’s clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty' was woefully inadequate."

"Enemies won't fear us"? How can that be?

As you know, the White House released a picture of President Obama in denim and matching button-down shirt, one arm akimbo, sleeves carefully rolled up almost to the elbows, discussing with Putin the Russian invasion of Crimea. (I don't know the make of the watch.) Okay readers, kindly let me know which of the following two images has Putin more frightened:

or

I know it's a difficult question, but if I was forced to make a wager, I would bet on Pajama Boy.

Thomas Friedman, "From the Pyramid to the Square": JG Caesarea Proposes the First Ever President Exchange Program

You will recall that on Wednesday, Thomas Friedman told us in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Don’t Just Do Something. Sit There." (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/opinion/friedman-dont-just-do-something-sit-there.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0) that the Cold War had been won by the US. Providing a new rationale for isolationism in keeping with Obama's inaction in the face of genocide in Syria, a sycophantic Friedman wrote:

"But we should have learned some lessons from our recent experience in the Middle East: First, how little we understand about the social and political complexities of the countries there; second, that we can — at considerable cost — stop bad things from happening in these countries but cannot, by ourselves, make good things happen; and third, that when we try to make good things happen we run the risk of assuming the responsibility for solving their problems, a responsibility that truly belongs to them."

Or in other words, Obama should continue to issue warnings against the use of chemical weapons in Syria and violence aimed at unarmed civilians in Kiev, but the world should know that these admonitions have no teeth.

Well today, with Russian troops invading the Crimea, Tom Terrific is back with advice for Egyptian Field Marshal Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi and Russian President Vladimir Putin. In a New York Times op-ed entitled "From the Pyramid to the Square" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/friedman-from-the-pyramid-to-the-square.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Friedman recommends that Sisi and Putin together watch an Egyptian movie entitled "The Square," which "follows six activists from the earliest days of the Tahrir Square revolution in 2011 until the Muslim Brotherhood was ousted by Sisi in 2013." Friedman's conclusion:

"Sisi and Putin are long on stability but short on a politics of inclusion tied to a blueprint for modernity (and not just rising oil prices). Unless they each overcome their deficiencies, their countries will fail to fulfill their potential — and all their 'squares' will be stages for conflict, not launching pads for renewal."

Oh my goodness, the squares might not become launching pads for renewal! Does anyone other than President Obama take this balderdash seriously?

Friedman's latest noxious op-ed was written at a time when Putin was preparing to send troops into Crimea, despite a warning from America's Procrastinator-in-Chief that "there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine."

Where did Obama go after issuing this threat? Did he descend to the White House Situation Room? No way! Instead, he proclaimed "this is now officially happy hour with the Democratic Party" (see: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/02/28/Obama-Takes-a-Friday-Official-Happy-Hour-With-The-Democratic-Party).

At least this time Obama didn't go to bed, as happened during the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi.

But more to the point, where is Tom's advice for Obama, after Obama threatened Putin with "costs"? Maybe Putin will be asked to foot the bill for the DNC's party?

My advice? You really want my advice?

First, Obama should send John Kerry to Kiev to negotiate with Putin another meaningless "framework" agreement (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/02/israeli-palestinian-talks-obama-seeks.html) for purposes of discussing the crisis in the Ukraine.

Second, have you ever heard of international student exchange programs? Well, for the first time in history, I would like to propose a "President Exchange Program." Yes, you heard it right: On April 1, 2014, Obama would be sent to the Kremlin to officiate over Russia, while Putin would be installed in the White House for one year. Given that Obama doesn't speak Russian and Putin doesn't speak English, it might keep both these narcissistic nincompoops distinguished officials from continuing to make asses out of themselves over the coming twelve months.

Do you agree? Kindly hit the Google+ button on the upper right hand side of the web page, and I promise to personally talk with both Barack and Vladimir in order to implement this suggestion without further delay. Alternatively, click your heels together three times while saying, "I want to go home."