Roger Cohen, "Bernie’s Israel Heresy": More Horse Manure From the Master

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Bernie’s Israel Heresy," Roger (Iran is "not totalitarian") Cohen praises Bernie Sanders for his criticism of Israel during his recent debate with Hillary Clinton in Brooklyn. Cohen writes:

"In New York, no less, days before a primary, a candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination declares that Israel used 'disproportionate' force in Gaza in 2014, that 'we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity,' that the United States has to play 'an evenhanded role' and that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel 'is not right all the time.'

Wow! Sensation! Hold the presses!."

Yup, the US needs to be more evenhanded, particularly as the Palestinians continue to fire rockets at Israeli towns and cities; continue to stab Israeli civilians, particularly women; and continue to blow up Israeli buses transporting civilians.

Moreover, the  US must treat Palestinians "with respect and dignity" as Palestinians engage in "honor killings" against their sisters and daughters, and oppress homosexuals, who flee to Israel for safety. And then there is the small matter of Palestinian Authority President Abbas,  now in the twelfth year of a four-year term of office. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that it is the Palestinians who need to be treating Palestinians "with respect and dignity."

Sanders's claim that the Israeli response to the more than 4,000 Hamas missiles fired at Israeli towns and cities in 2014 was "disproportionate"? Perhaps Bernie would care to explain how many missiles the US should fire back at Iran, if a single Iranian ballistic missile hits New York. Should it be tit for tat, i.e. one ballistic missile for one ballistic missile?

Cohen goes on to tell us in this gem of an opinion piece, "In most of the rest of the world, Sanders’s position would be uncontroversial." How reassuring! But isn't this the same world that turned away Jews seeking refuge before and during World War II, notwithstanding Hitler's abominations?

Cohen denounces "continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank." However, Cohen forgets to mention that Israeli settlements are built on less than two percent of the total territory of the West Bank, and that it has been agreed that most of these settlements will belong to Israel as part of any peace deal which will inevitably involve land swaps. More important, Cohen makes certain not to let his readers know that Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze in 2009 "to restart peace talks" at the request of Obama; however, Abbas delayed entering negotiations until the last moment and then walked away from the discussions. Yes, it's hard to negotiate peace when someone is not willing to talk peace with you.

And then there's Cohen recital of Netanyahu's "relentless attempt (even in extremis) to stop the Iran nuclear deal." Ah yes, that wonderful unsigned deal, which has allowed Iran to engage freely in ballistic missile tests. The deal purportedly extends Iran's nuclear "breakout time" from three months to one year (What a difference those nine months make . . . not!), but does not prevent Iran from perfecting its nuclear weapon delivery capabilities.

Yes, the ignorance (if only that) of Cohen and Sanders is sickening.

Paul Krugman, "Robber Baron Recessions": Ronald Reagan Is to Blame?

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Robber Baron Recessions," Paul Krugman addresses the recent strike of Verizon workers and informs us  that "growing monopoly power is a big problem for the U.S. economy." Krugman proceeds to conclude that "we aren’t just living in a second Gilded Age, we’re also living in a second robber baron era." And who, according to Krugman, is to blame for the lack of competition? Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, of course. Krugman's explanation:

"For Reagan didn’t just cut taxes and deregulate banks; his administration also turned sharply away from the longstanding U.S. tradition of reining in companies that become too dominant in their industries. A new doctrine, emphasizing the supposed efficiency gains from corporate consolidation, led to what those who have studied the issue often describe as the virtual end of antitrust enforcement.

True, there was a limited revival of anti-monopoly efforts during the Clinton years, but these went away again under George W. Bush. The result was an economy with far too much concentration of economic power. And the Obama administration — preoccupied with the aftermath of financial crisis and the struggle with bitterly hostile Republicans — has only recently been in a position to grapple with competition policy."

Wrong. With regard to consolidation within the financial industry, for example, it was none other than Bill Clinton who was responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which in turn gave rise to giant financial institutions, whose rapacity ultimately threatened the collapse of the global economy.

And to whom did Hillary provide a speech in May 2013 for the sum of $225,000? None other than  Verizon. This seemingly relevant information is absent from Krugman's opinion piece.

And does Krugman mention the donation of Verizon to the Clinton Foundation in an amount between $100,001 and $250,000? Not a chance.

Let there be no mistake: I am a strong advocate of corporate competition, but pin all of the blame on Ronald Reagan and the Republicans? Get real!

Maureen Dowd, "Hillary Is Not Sorry": Shedding Crocodile Tears Over Hillary's Sputtering Campaign

Tweet

Beginning her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary Is Not Sorry" by observing "It’s hard not to feel sorry for Hillary Clinton," Dowd goes on to say:

"She has shown an unwillingness to be introspective and learn from her mistakes. From health care to Iraq to the email server, she only apologizes at the point of a gun. And even then, she leaves the impression that she is merely sorry to be facing criticism, not that she miscalculated in the first place."

Maureen feels sorry for Hillary? Yeah, right.

Concerning the debate in Brooklyn, Dowd tells us that "Clinton sowed suspicion again, refusing to cough up her Wall Street speech transcripts." More to the point, now that Sanders has made public his 2014 tax return (he and his wife made less in all of 2014 than what Hillary received for a single hour-long speech) and given that he will presumably release his 2015 return in the coming days, it becomes increasingly difficult for Hillary not to provide us with the transcripts.

As Seth Abramson observes in an insightful Huffington Post "The Blog" item entitled "Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President":

"Release of the transcripts would therefore, it appears, have three immediate — and possibly fatal — consequences for Clinton’s presidential campaign:

1. It would reveal that Clinton lied about the content of the speeches at a time when she suspected she would never have to release them, nor that their content would ever be known to voters.
2. It would reveal that the massive campaign and super-PAC contributions Clinton has received from Wall Street did indeed, as Sanders has alleged, influence her ability to get tough on Wall Street malfeasance either in Congress or behind closed doors.
3. It would reveal that Clinton’s policy positions on — for instance — breaking up 'too-big-to-fail' banks are almost certainly insincere, as they have been trotted out merely for the purposes of a presidential campaign.

. . . .

Coupled with the many states remaining that Senator Sanders is expected to win, this could leave Clinton in a situation in which she loses 22 of the final 25 states — enough of a collapse for unpledged super-delegates to abandon her in large numbers at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia."

Joe, where are you when we need you?

Dowd also declares in her opinion piece:

"But [Sanders] was gutsy, in a New York primary, to say he’d be more evenhanded with Israel and the Palestinians."

Yup, the US needs to be more evenhanded, particularly as the Palestinians continue to fire rockets at Israeli towns and cities; continue to stab Israeli civilians, particularly women; continue to engage in "honor killings" against their sisters and daughters; and overwhelmingly believe (89 percent) that homosexuality is "morally wrong." "Gutsy"? How about "obscene"?

Sanders's claim that the Israeli response to the more than 4,000 Hamas missiles fired at Israeli towns and cities in 2014 was "disproportionate"? Perhaps Bernie would care to explain how many missiles the US should fire back at Iran, if a single Iranian ballistic missile hits New York. After all, he wouldn't want the US response to be "disproportionate."

David Brooks, "How to Fix Politics": A Voice of Reason From Planet Zog

Tweet

Observing that we are in the middle of a "depressing presidential campaign" and noting that "Trump voters don’t seem to realize how unelectable their man is because they hang out with people like themselves," David Brooks proposes a solution in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "How to Fix Politics." Brooks writes:

"If we’re going to salvage our politics, we probably have to shrink politics, and nurture the thick local membership web that politics rests within. We probably have to scale back the culture of autonomy that was appropriate for the 1960s but that has since gone too far."

Fascinating. Now we know what will wean Republicans away from Trump, who, if nominated, is going to be "schlonged."

All that remains is to explain to those same Trump supporters "the thick local membership web that politics rests within" and America's exaggerated "culture of autonomy."

Good luck!

Lara Friedman, "Israel’s Unsung Protector: Obama": With Friends Like Lara, Who Needs Enemies?

Tweet

"Only the daring of the Jews founded this country and not some Um-Shmum [stupid UN] resolution."

- David Ben-Gurion on the establishment of the State of Israel, March 29, 1955

With the Jewish holiday of Passover, a festival of freedom from slavery, just around the corner, The New York Times has "graced" us with a guest op-ed entitled "Israel’s Unsung Protector: Obama" by Lara Friedman. Friedman, the director of policy and government relations for Americans for Peace Now, would have us know that President Obama has "completely shielded" Israel from UN Security Council resolutions "specifically critical of Israel." Friedman's conclusion:

"The two-state solution is the only path to preserving Israel’s security and its character as a Jewish state and a democracy, while delivering freedom, dignity and sovereignty to the Palestinians. We can hope that President Obama may now recognize that preserving this solution for the future is the most important legacy he can leave in this arena. But to accomplish that, he must be willing to resist, rather than court, the anti-peace bullies in Israel and the United States; he must be willing to stand up for American interests in obtaining a Middle East peace, and to stand with America’s allies in the Security Council in supporting a two-state solution.

If he does that, President Obama will not be betraying Israel. He will be Israel’s true friend. And he will walk in the footsteps of all eight other presidents since 1967, Democrat and Republican alike."

Guess what? I also support a two-state solution, but what doesn't Friedman tell us? Back in 2008, Palestinian Authority President Abbas refused Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's peace offer, providing the Palestinians with an independent state along the 1967 lines together with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. One year later, after Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze "to restart peace talks" at the request of Obama, Abbas delayed entering negotiations until the last moment and then walked away from the discussions.

Apparently unbeknownst to Friedman, it is hard to make peace with someone who doesn't want to make peace.

Obama has protected Israel from the United Nations? Perhaps Friedman would do well to read Yair Rosenberg's November 15, 2013 Tablet article entitled "Caught on Tape, a U.N. Interpreter Wonders Aloud at its Israel Bashing," which noted:

"Yesterday was 'bash Israel' day at the United Nations–which is to say, Thursday. The U.N. General Assembly, which last year passed 22 resolutions condemning Israel and only four against other individual countries, approved nine such resolutions lambasting the Jewish state. Naturally, it had nothing to say about violations in the rest of the world, though it did manage to lament the situation in Syria–that is, Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights.

You don’t have to be a Zionist or a supporter of Israeli policy to recognize the profound injustice at work in the U.N.’s treatment of the Jewish state. In fact, as it turns out, even an official U.N. interpreter would be hard pressed not to notice it. Thus, during yesterday’s session, between the sixth and seventh resolution against Israel, the interpreter on the floor expressed her mystification with the body’s obsession with Israel at the expense of other global concerns, not realizing her microphone was still on:

I mean, I think when you have five statements, not five, like a total of ten resolutions on Israel and Palestine, there’s gotta be something, c’est un peu trop, non? [It’s a bit much, no?] I mean I know… There’s other really bad shit happening, but no one says anything, about the other stuff.

As you can see in the video below, the remark was greeted by laughter among the assembled delegates, after which the mortified interpreter apologized. The proceedings then continued, with Mauritania asking to retroactively add its voice to the sixth resolution condemning Israel’s human rights abuses. Mauritania, of course, boasts nearly a million people in chattel slavery. It is also the vice president of the U.N. Human Rights Council."

The UN Human Rights Council? Throughout its illustrious history, it has condemned Israel more times than all other countries combined.

Indeed, Um-Shmum.

But more to the point, what about Friedman's claim that Obama is Israel's "protector"? Friedman forgets to mention how, at the height of Israel's 2014 war with Hamas, which was busy firing missiles at Israel's towns and cities, Obama blocked arms shipments to Israel. Friedman also forgets how Obama attempted to force Israel to accept Turkey and Qatar, countries implacably hostile to Israel, as arbiters of that same conflict with Hamas. At the time, Obama remarked: "I trust Qatar and Turkey. Israel is not in the position that it can choose its mediators." Yup, Obama was one heckuva "protector."

More recently, as part of his unsigned nuclear deal with Iran, Obama bargained away the language prohibiting Iran from conducting ballistic missile tests. As a consequence, Iran has conducted ballistic missile tests in October, November and March, and one of the two missiles fired last month had "Israel should be wiped off the Earth" written on it. What did Obama do about this? Effectively nothing. After all, this narcissistic president's foreign policy "legacy" is at stake.

In short, with friends like Lara Friedman (and "protectors" like Obama), who needs enemies?

President Obama, I Beg You, No Passover Seder This Year!

Tweet

The Jewish holiday of Passover, a festival of freedom from slavery, is just around the corner, and President Obama has made it a White House custom to conduct a White House "Seder," i.e. ceremonial Passover dinner, since 2008.

During a Seder, the participants traditionally ask, "Why is this night different from all other nights?" Well, this time around, things are indeed different.

In 2015, Obama entered into an unsigned nuclear deal with Iran, which purportedly increased Iran's "breakout time" for nuclear weapons from three months to all of one year. In exchange for these additional nine months, Obama lifted economic sanctions against Iran and freed up more than $100 billion of Iranian funds, which, according to none other than Secretary of State Kerry, will be used to support terrorism.

But wait, there's more . . .

In order to enter the unsigned nuclear deal, Obama bargained away the language prohibiting Iran from conducting ballistic missile tests. As a consequence, Iran has conducted ballistic missile tests in October, November and March, and one of the two missiles fired last month had "Israel should be wiped off the Earth" written on it. What did Obama do about this? Effectively nothing.

Meanwhile, as reported by Iran's Fars News Agency, Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan announced last week at a ceremony to inaugurate a plant which will produce Octogen:

"Concurrently with its efforts to increase the precision-striking power of its weapons systems, the defense ministry has also paid attention to boosting the destructive and penetration power of different weapons' warheads and has put on its agenda the acquisition of the technical know-how to produce Octogen explosive materials and Octogen-based weapons."

Dehqan failed to mention that Octogen is used for nuclear detonators. Obama's response? Nada.

And then we had John Kerry telling us last week that Iran "absolutely" deserved access to US dollars, notwithstanding all of the above.

Among other things, what are these dollars going to be used for? The answer from Iran: top-of-the-line Russian Sukhoi-30 fighter jets and T-90 tanks.

Knowingly or not, President Obama, you have done more than any other US president to jeopardize the existence of Israel, and I respectfully ask that this year you do not conduct a White House Seder, which would be offensive and amount to rank hypocrisy.

Gail Collins, "Hillary and Bernie Meet New York": Truth Not Be Told

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary and Bernie Meet New York," Gail Collins pokes fun at Bernie Sander's claim that Hillary is not "qualified" to be president:

"Lately, Bernie Sanders seems to have been acting a little … off. There was the terrible interview with The Daily News. ('I don’t know … It’s something I have not studied … I haven’t thought about it a whole lot.') Then there was the strange series of claims that Clinton is not qualified to be president, the most improbable description he could pick short of 'lazy.'"

I'm no fan of Sanders, but I don't lackadaisically dismiss his rationale, including: receipt by Hillary of millions of dollars in donations from special interest groups, her support of the Second Gulf War, and her support of the Panama Free Trade Agreement.

And then there's Hillary's history of scandals, which goes unmentioned by Sanders and Collins.

The FBI investigation of her private email server? Hillary is now calling this a mere "security review."

Honesty from either Hillary or Gail? Don't be expecting it anytime soon.