Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Iran: "The Moment of Truth is Approaching"

As the P5+1 continues to dilly dally in its nuclear armament negotiations with Tehran, under the misguided oversight of the EU’s High Nincompoop for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has informed the Israeli public that delay will not be tolerated much longer. In a must-read interview with Shlomo Cesana, published by Israel Hayom (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=4199), Barak observes that Israel cannot accept a situation in which Iran is able to assemble an atomic weapon within 60 days:

"The moment of truth is approaching. We have to decide what to do about this if the sanctions and diplomacy fail.

. . . .

Some say let’s trust the world. No matter how hard it is and there is risk involved and it is difficult to predict the outcome, I say that in the end we can deal with Iran now or deal with a nuclear Iran that poses a far greater danger.

. . . .

If [Iran] obtains a nuclear weapon, it will be very hard to bring it down. Now they are trying to seek immunity for their nuclear program. If they achieve military nuclear capability, for arms, or a threshold in which they can assemble a bomb within 60 days, they will acquire another form of immunity – for the regime.

. . . .

We will be in a much better position to make decisions about conflict in a few years, when the Magic Wand, Arrow, and Iron Dome missile-defense systems are complete. The problem is that sometimes you can't determine the timing for decisions."

Will this wake the P5+1 from its torpor? I doubt it. French foreign policy is apt to grow vichy-vashy given the election of François Hollande with the support of France's significant Muslim minority. Moreover, Obama will soon be consumed with re-election, and a confrontation with Iran would only introduce unknown, unwanted variables come November.

Paul Krugman, "Those Revolting Europeans": C'est Ennuyeux

In his New York Times op-ed, "Those Revolting Europeans" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/opinion/krugman-those-revolting-europeans.html), Paul Krugman hails the victory of François Hollande over Nicolas Sarkozy in France's presidential election. Krugman predictably writes:

"What is true is that Mr. Hollande’s victory means the end of 'Merkozy,' the Franco-German axis that has enforced the austerity regime of the past two years. This would be a 'dangerous' development if that strategy were working, or even had a reasonable chance of working. But it isn’t and doesn’t; it’s time to move on. Europe’s voters, it turns out, are wiser than the Continent’s best and brightest."

But what if spending also can't cure France's economic malaise, i.e. unemployment of some 10%, which is at a 12-year high?

Krugman doesn't mention that unemployment among Muslims in France, who account for approximately 9% of France's population, is estimated as high as 60%. Exactly what type of spending will reduce the number of unemployed French Muslims, who face job discrimination and are thought to comprise some 60% of those incarcerated in French prisons?

It's never as simple as Krugman would have us believe.

Thomas Friedman, "Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way": What Is Tom Smoking?

Continuing his mindless meandering across what he terms "the post-Awakening Arab world," Thomas Friedman has penned from Dubai yet another feeble-minded New York Times op-ed entitled "Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/opinion/sunday/friedman-lead-follow-or-get-out-of-the-way.html). In his latest opinion piece, Friedman decries the lack of leadership in the Muslim Middle East:

"Who will tell the people that while Islam is a great and glorious faith it is not 'the answer' for Arab development today? Math is the answer.

. . . .

Who will tell the people that, yes, the way capitalism came to the Arab world in the last 20 years was in its most crony and corrupt mutation, but that the right answer now is not to go back to Arab socialism, but better capitalism: better market-based economics, emphasizing expanded exports, but properly governed by the real rule of law and targeted safety nets.

. . . .

Who will tell the people that Arab societies have no time anymore to be consumed by these sectarian divisions, which just drive everyone into their own ghettos or out of the region altogether?"

Math is the answer? Oh really? Go find the leader who will tell this to Egypt's Muslims, of whom some 95% believe it is "good" that Islam plays a large role in politics, and of whom some 84% believe that those abandoning Islam should be executed (see: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/). In fact, there is a strong likelihood that anyone daring to say that math, and not Islam, is the answer will soon find himself or herself dangling from a noose.

Better market-based economics emphasizing exports are going to save the Muslim Middle East? And just what might those exports be in today's hi-tech world? There is already an unbridgeable scientific gap that widens by the day, which has left such countries as Egypt, with its 34% rate of illiteracy, in the dust.

Eliminate sectarian divides? Indeed, it's high time that the Middle East's 30 million Kurds, the largest ethnic group in the world without their own state, be granted independence from Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. Peculiar how Friedman never seems to get around to mentioning the Kurds, who have suffered such horrific persecution at the hands of their Turkish, Arab and Persian overlords, but that would cause him to become persona non grata in many of the countries he is now visiting.

Seek leadership in the Muslim Middle East at a time when Egyptian presidential candidate Amr Moussa is telling his electorate that the Camp David Peace Accords with Israel are "dead and buried" (see: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/238970.html)? Sorry, but leadership in the Arab world died with the assassination of Anwar Sadat and the death of Jordan's King Hussein, who was the target of more than a dozen assassination attempts.

As for Friedman, he might want to check what he has been smoking of late from his Shisha (شيشة).

Gail Collins, "Obama’s Wonderful Town": Obama Not Responsible

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Obama’s Wonderful Town" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/opinion/collins-obamas-wonderful-town.html), Gail Collins wastes ink and paper on an excerpt from a biography of Obama, which includes interviews with former girlfriends. Yet another reference by Collins to the Romney "Seamus" story? Of course:

"Also eating dog meat when you are a child in Indonesia is not the same thing as driving to Canada with the family Irish setter strapped to the roof of the car when you are 36."

Or in other words, Obama bears no responsibility for eating dogs at age 10, but there can be no forgiving Romney for placing Seamus in a wind-protected crate atop his vehicle some 30 years ago. And in fact, the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-puts-bo-on-the-trail/2012/04/30/gIQAgZrYsT_story.html) informs us that Obama is now prominently featuring Bo, his Portuguese water dog, in official campaign advertisements:

"President Obama has unleashed a particularly unusual fundraiser for his 2012 campaign.

One Internet ad starts with a two-toned blue background, like dozens of other pro-Obama spots. Then the furry star pops into the frame, tongue out and ready to frolic. 'Join Pet Lovers for Obama,' the ad implores.

The unlikely pitchman is Bo, the White House family pet, who may well be the first 'first dog' to emerge as a central player in a presidential reelection campaign."

Personally, I think it sad that Obama has so little else to run on, and is now relying on his pet for re-election.

But back to Collins: Even if Obama has no responsibility for eating dogs as a child in Indonesia, there was also that other government report released on Friday, showing that employers added fewer-than-expected jobs in April. As observed by Peter Wehner in Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/04/very-ugly-jobs-report-obama-economy/#more-792893):

"It’s not simply that unemployment has been above 8 percent for a record 39 months, which is bad enough. While news stories report that 115,000 new jobs were added in April, the true picture is much worse. More than 340,000 Americans dropped out of the labor force last month. The total employment level for April fell 169,000.

. . . .

The labor force participation rate (64.3 percent) reached its lowest level in more than 30 years, while the employment-population ratio (58.4 percent) is lower still."

Obama ingesting dog meat in Indonesia as a child? Who cares? However, there can be no avoiding discussion of Obama's responsibility for the worrisome state of the US economy.

Paul Krugman, "Plutocracy, Paralysis, Perplexity": Damned Republicans!

Read Paul Krugman's anti-Republican diatribe "Plutocracy, Paralysis, Perplexity" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/opinion/krugman-plutocracy-paralysis-perplexity.html). Now read it a second time. What critical elements are missing?

Krugman writes:

"Did the rise of the 1 percent (or, better yet, the 0.01 percent) cause the Lesser Depression we’re now living through? It probably contributed. But the more important point is that inequality is a major reason the economy is still so depressed and unemployment so high. For we have responded to crisis with a mix of paralysis and confusion — both of which have a lot to do with the distorting effects of great wealth on our society."

Okay, so here we have a rehash of Occupy Wall Street (Do you remember them?) economics: the 1 percent have cowed the 99 percent into docile submission. Moreover, Krugman goes on to say, "the takeover of half our political spectrum by the 0.01 percent [no longer the 1 percent] is, I’d argue, also responsible for the degradation of our economic discourse, which has made any sensible discussion of what we should be doing impossible." Thus, a hyper-partisan Republican Party is responsible for America's economic morass. What could be more simple?

But now back to my original homework assignment: What is missing from the Krugman equation?

Obama's name does not appear even once in Krugman's op-ed. Although elected president more than three years ago, and notwithstanding the fact that during the first two years of his tenure he controlled both the Senate and the House, he has no responsibility for US economic stagnation?

The Senate, still controlled by the Democrats, has been unable to pass a budget for three years.

Moreover, would Krugman claim that Obama was not elected with the support of Hollywood millionaires? With donations from Goldman Sachs? With the backing of billionaire mogul George Soros?

Who are the 12 wealthiest persons in Congress? The answer is provided in a table of estimated net worth prepared by USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-15/congress-wealthy-1/51216626/1):

Rep. Congressman Darell Issa, $448,125,017
Rep. Congressman Michael McCaul, $380,411,527
Dem. Senator John Kerry, $231,722,794
Dem. Senator Mark Warner, $192,730,605
Dem. Senator Herb Kohl, $173,538,010
Dem. Congressman Jared Polis, $143,218,562
Rep. Congressman Vernon Buchanan, $136,152,641
Dem. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, $101,123,032
Dem. Senator Jay Rockefeller, $99,057,011
Dem. Senator Frank Lautenberg, $85,572,116
Dem. Senator Richard Blumenthal, $73,151,590
Dem. Senator Dianne Feinstein, $69,046,622

Among the wealthiest in Congress, Democrats obviously predominate, but as observed by the article in USA Today, there is a fairly even distribution of extremely affluent Democrats and Republicans: "In the House, 23 Republicans and 10 Democrats are in the 1%, while in the Senate Democrats edge out Republican one percenters 13-11." In short, there is little truth to the claim that wealth is to be found only among Republican politicians, although it could well be said that politics has become a rich woman and rich man's game.

And then there's this other "little" problem with Krugman's argument: If the Republican Party had indeed become the politican vehicle of the 1 percent or the 0.01 percent, in order to retain any semblance of power, Republicans would still require the votes of a multitude of less wealthy Americans. Presuming that Krugman remembers that the US is still a democracy, it stands to reason that Krugman must believe that those middle class Americans who vote for Republicans such as Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are imbeciles.

I believe in the adage variously attributed to Abraham Lincoln (another damned Republican), Mark Twain and P.T. Barnum:

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

Unlike Krugman, I also believe in the common sense and rationality of the American electorate, and Krugman's effort to saddle Congress, and specifically Republicans, with Obama's failure to remedy the US economy is pure hogwash.

More to the point, by engaging in highly politicized legerdemain, Krugman is even treating his readership as half-wits.

E.J. Dionne Jr., "Obama’s winning strategy on foreign policy": Love Is Blind

Get a whiff of E.J. Dionne Jr.'s Washington Post opinion piece, entitled "Obama’s winning strategy on foreign policy" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-winning-strategy-on-foreign-policy/2012/05/02/gIQAKEeywT_story.html?hpid=z2), written in response to Obama's visit on Tuesday with US troops in Afghanistan:

"We expect some hypocrisy in politics, but it was still jaw-dropping to behold Republicans accusing President Obama of politicizing the anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden.

. . . .

He focused on how to get a moderately satisfactory result in Afghanistan — which is probably the very best that the United States can do now.

. . . .

On foreign policy, Obama has kept his 2008 promise to turn history’s page."

The US has spent half a trillion dollars over the course of a decade on a senseless ground war in Afghanistan, and by pledging to withdraw American troops by 2014, Obama has managed "to turn history’s page?" Impressive.

But now read what those "neocons" over at the editorial board of The New York Times have to say about Obama's speech from Afghanistan ("Missed Chance," http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/opinion/missed-chance.html):

"President Obama gave his first speech on Afghanistan in nearly a year, speaking from Bagram Air Base on the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s killing. The White House set it up as a big moment, but the president squandered the chance to fully explain his exit strategy from a war Americans are desperate to see brought to an end.

. . . .

[W]e are increasingly concerned that Mr. Obama does not have a clear policy to ensure that the country does not implode once the Americans are gone.

. . . .

[T]he timing of Mr. Obama’s visit on the anniversary of the Bin Laden kill was contrived . . .

. . . .

Mr. Obama’s political message, and motivation, for this trip was undeniable.

. . . .

Mr. Obama’s strongest argument for staying in Afghanistan for another two years is that it is the main base for continuing that fight and that, by 2014, the United States will be able to withdraw without seeing it turn once again into a haven for Al Qaeda. He didn’t make the case Tuesday night."

Those damned Republicans at The New York Times up to their political tricks again!

Perhaps E.J. Dionne Jr. should read Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice:

"But love is blind and lovers cannot see
The pretty follies that themselves commit;
For if they could, Cupid himself would blush
To see me thus transformed to a boy."

"Transformed to a boy"? How about in E.J.'s case to a blustering buffoon?

Thomas Friedman, "Tanks, Jets or Scholarships?": Dumb!

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Tanks, Jets or Scholarships?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/opinion/friedman-tanks-jets-or-scholarships.html), Thomas Friedman informs us from Amman, Jordan that he is continuing his "swing through the Arab world" and "spending as much time as I can with public schoolteachers and students — and young Arabs doing technology start-ups — and as little time as possible with officials." Ah yes, a man of the people.

And having spent this time with teachers and students, Friedman begins his essay be playing "numerology" with his readership:

"And so it came to pass that in 2012 — a year after the Arab awakening erupted — the United States made two financial commitments to the Arab world that each began with the numbers 1 and 3.

It gave Egypt’s military $1.3 billion worth of tanks and fighter jets, and it gave Lebanese public-school students a $13.5 million merit-based college scholarship program that is currently putting 117 Lebanese kids through local American-style colleges that promote tolerance, gender and social equality, and critical thinking. I’ve recently been to Egypt, and I’ve just been to Lebanon, and I can safely report this: The $13.5 million in full scholarships has already bought America so much more friendship and stability than the $1.3 billion in tanks and fighter jets ever will."

Well, anyone who reads this blog knows that I doubt the wisdom of the Obama administration's decision to continue to provide $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt, when its military recently stood behind the arrest of 43 NGO workers, of whom 17 were American, engaged in democracy-building work. I also think it unwise to provide this military aid when the leading candidate in Egypt's presidential race said on Sunday that the Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel "are a historical document whose place is on the shelves of history" and labeled the agreements "dead and buried" (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/leading-candidate-in-egypt-presidential-race-calls-israel-peace-accord-dead-and-buried-1.427323).

But how does Friedman compare US military aid to Egypt with a scholarship fund for Lebanese students? Praising "President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah and the members of Congress who got this $13.5 million program going," Friedman fails to mention that the Obama administration is still also backing $100 million in annual military aid to Lebanon, notwithstanding the fact that Lebanon's government is controlled by Hezbollah, which was responsible for assassinating pro-Western Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, and which was also responsible for the 1983 suicide bombing of the US Marines barracks in Beirut, which left 241 American soldiers dead.

Lebanese, particularly its growing Shiite population that is supported by social services provided by Hezbollah using funds from Iran, are going to "love" America owing to a $13.5 million scholarship program?

By the way, the proportion of civilian aid relative to military aid given by the US to Lebanon differs little from the proportion of civilian aid to military aid provided by the US to Egypt.

What do you think? I know what I think: Dumb! Swing on, Tom!