Paul Krugman, "A Permanent Slump?": America Sells Its Economic Future for a Bowl of Wonton Soup

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Permanent Slump?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/18/opinion/krugman-a-permanent-slump.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Paul Krugman observes that a growing number of economists believe that "depression-like conditions are on track to persist, not for another year or two, but for decades," and that such opinions have "moved into the mainstream." Krugman provides his own support for this dismal outlook:

"Look at household debt relative to income. That ratio was roughly stable from 1960 to 1985, but rose rapidly and inexorably from 1985 to 2007, when crisis struck. Yet even with households going ever deeper into debt, the economy’s performance over the period as a whole was mediocre at best, and demand showed no sign of running ahead of supply. Looking forward, we obviously can’t go back to the days of ever-rising debt. Yet that means weaker consumer demand — and without that demand, how are we supposed to return to full employment?"

Regrettably, I share this grim view.

As recently reported by the US Commerce Department (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/us-trade-deficit-widens-8-percent-in-september-to-418-billion-highest-in-4-months/2013/11/14/01e7f65c-4d32-11e3-bf60-c1ca136ae14a_story.html), imports increased to their highest level in 10 months in September while exports dropped, notwithstanding an 11.5 percent decline in petroleum imports. Significantly, the deficit with China reached an all-time high of $30.5 billion.

Does the US economy, specifically growth in employment, benefit from consumer demand fueled by easy money? Obviously not.

For there to be more American jobs, the trade imbalance with China needs to rectified.

Iranian MP: Obama's Threat of Military Action Is Only Intended to Placate Israel

How does Tehran regard Obama's threat of military action if Iran continues to pursue its nuclear weapons development program? An interesting insight is provided by Iranian Member of Parliament Ali Motahari, brother-in-law of Ali Larijani, Iran's Chairman of Parliament, who recently declared (http://www.yjc.ir/en/news/2559/obama-different-from-former-us-presidents-senior-lawmaker):

"Since we have gone down the nuclear energy path well enough and as we are influential in the Middle East where the US needs us, and since Obama is a bit different from previous US presidents, it is a good opportunity for the nuclear negotiations to be carried out, so that some of the unfair sanctions that are imposed on us are lifted. All in all it is a good job. Whether it hits or not it will be to our advantage."

Specifically, regarding the US military option, Motahari added:

"After all he has to say something to please Israel, which is not important. The US is stuck between Israel and Iran. He talks to please both sides. It must not be taken seriously."

A different type of president who is seeking only to placate Israel? And notwithstanding this impression of Obama, i.e. someone not to be taken seriously, the US still expects to sign a meaningful deal with Tehran?

Good luck.

Frank Bruni, "More Fun With Bill & Hill": The Teflon Lady Makes Certain That Nothing Sticks

My feeling is that history will not be kind to Obama, given his absence of accomplishments and the possibility that the fiasco, otherwise known as the Affordable Care Act, could drag the American economy into a hole from which it will never emerge. But can Hillary sufficiently distance herself from Obamacare going into 2016, now that even Obama's most ardent liberal admirers, e.g., Ruth Marcus and Gail Collins, have begun to savage his incompetence?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "More Fun With Bill & Hill" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/opinion/sunday/bruni-more-fun-with-bill-hill.html?_r=0), Frank Bruni observes how Hillary has sidelined herself over the course of the Obamacare rollout, while husband Bill has not hesitated to stomp upon a poor prostrate Barack in true tag team fashion. Bruni begins:

"BEFORE President Obama administered his fix to the Affordable Care Act last week and even before it was clear that he was leaning that way, Bill Clinton piped up, opining that Obama should honor his claim that Americans with insurance they liked could keep it. This advice wasn’t exactly solicited. And inasmuch as it gave detractors of Obama and Obamacare a fresh cudgel, it wasn’t terribly helpful, either.

. . . .

It’s less dicey for him [Bill] than for her [Hillary] to second-guess Obama, which could wind up being a prerequisite to succeeding him. His presidency at this particular moment looks more and more like one of those unlucky Florida homes perched unsuspectingly over a sinkhole. Soon only the top of the chimney will be visible."

Yup, after sleeping soundly through the Benghazi attack, Secretary of State Hillary was happy to allow Susan Rice to make the Sunday news/interview rounds, advancing the theory that Benghazi was sparked by an inane movie. The Obamacare disaster? Citizen Hillary is even better positioned to sit this thing out on the sidelines.

But whereas history will most likely not be kind to an inept Obama, will the American electorate in 2016 be kinder to a Teflon lady, who has made a public career of making certain that nothing sticks?

Ah, the melodrama of it all . . . not.

Thomas Friedman, "Something for Barack and Bibi to Talk About": A Total Absence of Objectivity

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Something for Barack and Bibi to Talk About" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/opinion/sunday/friedman-something-for-barack-and-bibi-to-talk-about.html?_r=0), would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman provides the basis for his understanding of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Friedman writes:

"I can think of no better time for a good book about Israel — the real Israel, not the fantasy, do-no-wrong Israel peddled by its most besotted supporters or the do-no-right colonial monster portrayed by its most savage critics. Ari Shavit, the popular Haaretz columnist, has come out with just such a book this week, entitled 'My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel.'

Shavit is one of a handful of experts whom I’ve relied upon to understand Israel ever since I reported there in the 1980s. What do all my Israeli analytical sources have in common? They all share a way of thinking about Israel — which is expressed with deep insight, compassion and originality in Shavit’s must-read book — that to understand Israel today requires keeping several truths in tension in your head at the same time.

. . . .

In a brutally honest chapter entitled 'Lydda, 1948,' Shavit reconstructs the story of how the population of this Palestinian Arab town, in the center of what was to become Israel, was expelled on July 13th in the 1948 war.

'By noon, a mass evacuation is under way,' writes Shavit. 'By evening, tens of thousands of Palestinian Arabs leave Lydda in a long column, marching south past the Ben Shemen youth village and disappearing into the East. Zionism obliterates the city of Lydda. Lydda is our black box. In it lies the dark secret of Zionism. ... If Zionism was to be, Lydda could not be.'"

Of course, Friedman doesn't bother to mention how, during the 1948 war, the Jews were expelled from the Old City of Jerusalem and all but one of its synagogues were destroyed.

More to the point, Friedman doesn't bother telling his readers about the battle of Lydda in 1948 and ignores a shockingly different account of what happened there, written by Alex Safian (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=122&x_article=2572). Contradicting Shavit's account, Safian observes that pursuant to the initial surrender agreement, the inhabitants of Lydda were told by the Israeli army that they could remain in their town; however, when a Jordanian patrol entered the city, they again attacked the Israeli troops. Safian writes:

"Despite the surrender agreement, and the promise to turn over arms, the Israelis, now numbering only 500 men, had to once again take the town in another desperate battle.

Fighting house-to-house to root out snipers, and this time giving no quarter, within an hour much of the town was once again under control, and an estimated 200 Arabs were dead.

But the Dahmash Mosque, was still fighting, held by an estimated 70 fighters, and with an unknown number of others inside. Rather than launch a costly frontal assault, Lt. Col. Kelman decided to breach the mosque's walls with an anti-tank weapon, known as a PIAT, and then have a platoon rush the building.

After the PIAT was fired, the men that stormed the building found that the defenders were dead, killed by the effects of the armor piercing projectile in the confined space of the mosque. (Kurzman, p. 515-516)

The second battle to take Lydda was over, but now facing the Israelis was the difficult question of what to do with the inhabitants. The town leaders, knowing that they had broken their word to surrender and disarm, and knowing in particular that the five Israeli soldiers outside the mosque had been massacred and their bodies mutilated, feared that the Israelis would now return the favor.

It's hardly surprising that the Israelis were in no mood to give the residents another chance to break their promise to live in peace. But, of course, the Israelis also didn't execute or 'massacre' them. Instead, the residents were ordered to evacuate the city and move towards the Jordanian lines and Ramallah."

. . . .

[I]f you know the facts – that the town surrendered, went back on its word, massacred and mutilated Israeli soldiers, and then despite all this the residents were allowed to leave unharmed – the picture looks very different.

You want to learn more about Israel and the Middle East? Start by ignoring Friedman.

New York Times Editorial, "Not the Time to Squeeze Iran": More Distortion and Hate-Mongering From the Times

Read the latest New York Times editorial entitled "Not the Time to Squeeze Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/opinion/not-the-time-to-squeeze-iran.html?hpw&rref=opinion). Now read it again. What's missing? Answer: There is not even a single mention of the fact that the agreement which John Kerry tried to sign in Geneva last week, purportedly constraining Iran's nuclear weapons development program, did not address continued construction of Iran's Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor, designed to produce sufficient plutonium for two atomic bombs each year. It is no wonder France could not brook this obscenity.

Today, even Obama's henchman, David Ignatius, acknowledges in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The stakes of an Iranian deal" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-the-stakes-of-an-iranian-deal/2013/11/15/4fad18fa-4d54-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html?hpid=z3):

"Let’s give Netanyahu and Fabius credit for playing the 'bad diplomat' role to gain maximum leverage. They’ve created a dynamic in which Tehran will have to give more than it’s getting (especially in stopping progress on its heavy-water reactor at Arak, as Fabius rightly insisted). If Tehran can’t make these concessions, the world will see that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani can’t or won’t deliver the deal that would lift sanctions and give Iran a voice in regional security issues, such as Syria."

This Times editorial, intended to bolster the president at a time when he is being flayed by Congress for this sham deal, blithely ignores the Arak reactor and concludes:

"Iran has already taken steps in that direction. On Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that since Mr. Rouhani took office in June, the country had virtually halted its previously rapid expansion of its uranium enrichment capacity.

President Obama deserves more time to work out a negotiated settlement with Iran and the other major powers. If the deals falls through, or if inspections by the United Nations unearth cheating, Congress can always impose more sanctions then. But if talks fail now, Mr. Netanyahu and the hard-line interest groups will own the failure, and the rest of us will pay the price."

By all means let's place our faith in Hassan Rouhani. This is the same Rouhani who in a pre-election interview bragged how he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

This is the same Rouhani who executed 82 people after being elected as president in June (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-23/spate-of-iran-executions-after-rouhani-election-alarms-un.html).

This is the same Rouhani who appointed mass murderer Mostafa Pourmohammadi as his minister of justice (see: http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/19076).

Since June, Iran has "virtually halted its previously rapid expansion of its uranium enrichment capacity"? Of course, it never occurs to the Times that this is because the sanctions program has virtually bankrupted Iran and has prevented them from further funding of its nuclear weapons development program. Unfreeze Iranian funds held in foreign banks? Let's see what happens next. Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says the Islamic Republic is continuing to enrich uranium to 20 percent purity, just short of the concentration needed for a nuclear weapon. (see: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/10/31/332255/iran-continues-20-enrichment/).

"[I]f talks fail now, Mr. Netanyahu and the hard-line interest groups will own the failure, and the rest of us will pay the price"? By all means, let's blame Obama's bugaboo and nemesis, Bejamin Netanyahu, for the failure to sign an agreement in Geneva. This is very much in keeping with Thomas Friedman's recent "America First" op-ed  (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/thomas-friedman-what-about-us-is-thomas.html), which smacked of anti-Semitism. But in fact, if Iran succeeds in building its first atomic weapon, it is Israel that will undoubtedly "pay the price," and it is less than remarkable that almost two-thirds of Israelis "oppose the nuclear agreement being discussed with Iran" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/majority-israelis-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal-093208801.html).

The New York Times? It is no more than a shameless mouthpiece for a failed Obama administration.

David Ignatius, "The Stakes of an Iranian Deal": Ignorant, Ignoble . . . Ignore

There are two op-ed writers upon whom Obama relies in formulating his foreign policy: would-be Middle East experts Thomas Friedman and David Ignatius, whose columns provide stalwart support for the president's imbecilic machinations, while at the same time providing insights into his muddled thinking. Facing Congressional opposition to his attempt to sign a rotten deal, labelled by France "a fool's game," purportedly intended to constrain Iran's nuclear weapons development program, Obama's pet columnists are seeking to counter the furor surrounding John Kerry's folly.

On Wednesday, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "What About US?" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/thomas-friedman-what-about-us-is-thomas.html) which smacked of anti-Semitism, Thomas Friedman wrote:

"It goes without saying that the only near-term deal with Iran worth partially lifting sanctions for would be a deal that freezes all the key components of Iran’s nuclear weapons development program, and the only deal worth lifting all sanctions for is one that verifiably restricts Iran’s ability to breakout and build a nuclear bomb.

. . . .

America’s interests today lie in an airtight interim nuclear deal with Iran that also opens the way for addressing a whole set of other issues between Washington and Tehran."

"A deal that freezes all the key components of Iran’s nuclear weapons development program"? But Kerry was willing to sign off on a deal that did not address continued construction of Iran's Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor, designed to produce sufficient plutonium for two atomic bombs each year. Even France could not brook this obscenity.

"An airtight interim nuclear deal with Iran"? Obama and Kerry just signed off on a Russian sponsored deal with mass murderer Bashar al-Assad (Kerry's "dear friend") for the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles, but were recently informed by American intelligence services that Assad is hiding no small part of this stockpile (see: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/05/first-on-cnn-us-intelligence-suggests-syria-may-hide-some-chemical-weapons/).

Today, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The stakes of an Iranian deal" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-the-stakes-of-an-iranian-deal/2013/11/15/4fad18fa-4d54-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html?hpid=z3), David Ignatius also seeks to aid his friend in the White House. Of course, Obama hates Netanyahu, whom he labelled a "pain in the ass" (see: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/New-book-quotes-Obama-using-unflattering-metaphor-to-describe-Netanyahu-330794), and Ignatius is quick to take aim at the president's nemesis:

"Given the seeming benefits of the deal, it’s curious that Netanyahu has set himself so adamantly against it. Netanyahu’s rejectionist stance directly challenges the authority of President Obama, who has invested the credibility of his administration in gaining this diplomatic resolution. It’s as if West Germany had denounced John F. Kennedy while he was negotiating a deal to resolve the Cuban missile crisis in 1962."

But let's consider this purported parallel. "The seeming benefits of the deal"? Ignatius himself acknowledges that the deal failed to deal with continued construction of Iran's Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor (French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius "rightly insisted" on "stopping progress on [Iran's] heavy-water reactor at Arak").

"It’s as if West Germany had denounced John F. Kennedy while he was negotiating a deal to resolve the Cuban missile crisis in 1962"? As Ignatius surely must be aware, the Russian missiles brought into Cuba were intended to threaten America's eastern seaboard, not West Germany. Regarding Tehran's nuclear weapons development program, there is no mistaking who will be the first "recipient" of an Iranian atomic bomb, i.e. Israel.

"[I]t’s curious that Netanyahu has set himself so adamantly against it"? In fact, it's not curious at all. Given whom the Iranians are threatening with annihilation, almost two-thirds of Israelis "oppose the nuclear agreement being discussed with Iran" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/majority-israelis-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal-093208801.html).

Ignatius concludes:

"Strategically, this de-facto Israeli alliance with the Saudis is an extraordinary opportunity for Israel. And for Fabius, there’s a chance to position the French as the West’s prime weapons supplier to the Saudis, gaining France hundreds of billions of dollars in the post-American era in the Gulf. For opportunistic reasons, no wonder Israel and France want to detonate the U.S.-Iranian rapprochement. But will this really aid their security?

The Obama administration would counter (correctly, I think) that embracing the Saudi strategy of an ever-deepening Sunni-Shiite divide is unwise. The schism will fuel permanent sectarian war in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The Saudis now are blocking formation of any government in Lebanon, for example, to obstruct Iran’s ally, Hezbollah. In Syria, the Saudis seem ready to fight the Sunni-Shiite battle down to the last Syrian.

Better to seek a turn in relations with Iran through diplomacy that can limit its nuclear program, Obama reasons. He’s right."

Sorry, David, but this is pure hokum. Without preventing future construction of Iran's Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor, this truly was a "fool's game," as the French aptly described it. It has absolutely nothing to do with future French arms sales to the region. (Save this for a future spy novel.)

Netanyahu's concern? Are you really so callous as to ignore Israel's existential concerns? Should Israel shrug off repeated warnings from Iran that they intend to wipe the "Zionist state" off the map?

Obama is not "right." In fact, it is becoming all too clear that this community organizer is a bungling naif, who was never qualified to occupy the Oval Office.

Gail Collins, "Who’s Sorry Now?": When Obama Loses Collins, It's "Game Over"

Less than a year into his second term, Obama is already finished. Yesterday, he lost uber-liberal Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, who concluded in an opinion piece entitled "Obama’s political malpractice" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-political-malpractice-of-the-highest-order/2013/11/14/e6b95abe-4d69-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html):

"Belatedly, with congressional Republicans pouncing and Democrats threatening to bolt, Obama on Thursday proffered a supposed (it depends on the kindness of insurers and state insurance commissioners) and temporary (one-year) fix. By then, the exchanges should be functional, but will premiums climb higher as healthier people stick with existing plans?

Listening to the president Thursday was painful. He acknowledged the need 'to win back some credibility.' He 'fumbled the rollout' of health care. He is 'letting . . . down' congressional Democrats who took the risk of supporting Obamacare. Although he’s sometimes been 'slapped around a little bit unjustly,' the president said, 'This one’s deserved, all right? It’s on us.'

Can he recover? I’m sorry to say: I’m not at all confident."

Well, bad has become worse. Today, he also lost Gail Collins. In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Who’s Sorry Now?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/opinion/collins-whos-sorry-now.html?_r=0), Collins writes in inimitable bonbon style:

"The chaos surrounding the rollout of health care reform is a terrible blow to people who’ve been standing behind the president through thin and thin. They had already come to grips with the fact that the guy who once taught constitutional law wasn’t going to protect their privacy from government snoops. That their old peace candidate really loved the idea of shooting people down with drones. That he was probably never going to be able to deliver on serious immigration reform, or gun control or even expanded preschool.

But there was still affordable health care, a goal that had been eluding presidents since Teddy Roosevelt, which had required so many breathtaking leaps of political faith to pass and protect. One achievement so big it was pretty much enough.

And then the website didn’t work and longstanding promises were broken and the whole thing was turning into a joke on the Country Music Association Awards."

Fast forward to Collins's conclusion:

"At his press conference, the president noted — kind of bragged, really — that the Obama campaign had been spot-on when it came to information technology. Then he complained that the way the federal government purchases I.T. 'is cumbersome, complicated and outdated.'

Since he already knew 'that the federal government has not been good at this stuff in the past,' Obama continued, his crack advisers should have prepared to go around that problem 'two years ago' when planning for the rollout began.

Yes!

'... But that doesn’t help us now. We’ve got to move forward.'

Sigh."

Obama's "crack advisers"? Does this include Kerry, Hagel, Sebelius? The president is better off with a team of crack addicts.

Of course, Obama still has die-hard loyalists, lending support, at his request, to his imbecilic foreign policy: Thomas Friedman (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/thomas-friedman-what-about-us-is-thomas.html), David Ignatius (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/david-ignatius-stakes-of-iranian-deal.html), and the editorial board of The New York Times (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/opinion/not-the-time-to-squeeze-iran.html?hpw&rref=opinion). But when Obama loses Collins, it's truly "game over."