Roger Cohen, "French Muscle, American Cheese": Schizophrenia

A few days ago, Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "A Doable Iran Deal" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/opinion/cohen-a-doable-iran-deal.html?_r=0), declared:

"President Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president [sic], and Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, . . . are prepared to . . . find a solution on the heavy-water plant it is building at Arak that could produce plutonium."

Well, if halting construction of Iran's Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor, designed to produce sufficient plutonium for two atomic bombs each year, is such an insignificant problem, and Iran is prepared to find a solution, why hasn't it been solved? Is this really something whose resolution should await a second agreement with Iran, after sanctions have been eased? As I previously wrote (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/new-york-times-editorial-iran-nuclear.html), if this issue is not resolved pursuant to the terms of an initial agreement with Tehran, it will never be resolved.

Well today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "French Muscle, American Cheese" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/search/label/Roger%20Cohen), Cohen now writes concerning French objections to an American-brokered agreement with Tehran, which John Kerry desperately wanted to sign in Geneva:

"Their concerns focused on three areas: The heavy-water plant at Arak that the Iranians are building, where the outline agreement seemed to allow continued construction; language that appeared to concede prematurely an Iranian 'right to enrich' or something close to it; and what measures exactly Iran would take to dispose of its stockpile of 20 percent-enriched uranium. Much of the Geneva meeting focused on the French determination to close these loopholes — only for the changes to prove unacceptable to Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, and his team."

The French changes involving the Arak Reactor proved unacceptable to Mohammad Javad Zarif? In his prior op-ed, Cohen told us that Zarif was prepared to find a solution to this issue. Which is it?

Cohen concludes:

"The overall feeling in France observing U.S. actions in the Middle East is of a troubling uncertainty, a retreat that tends to leave a vacuum, a new American determination to work with a 'light footprint' that can give the impression of disinterest.

. . . .

The United States, of course, is not quitting the Middle East and isolationist tendencies are easily overstated — as Fabius later conceded.

But his warnings are worth heeding. Obama spoke to Hollande this week; he expressed how 'the United States deeply values its relationship with France.' The president could usefully borrow some French toughness to get a winning Iran deal.

When the cheese-eaters are in the White House it is time to worry."

The "cheese-eaters" in the White House"? Is that what the first invertebrate to occupy the Oval Office consumes for breakfast, lunch and dinner? And all this while, I thought he only ate lettuce.

New York Times Editorial, "A Health Care Fix": "Misspoken" Becomes "Wrong"

Observe the beginning and the end of a New York Times editorial entitled "A Health Care Fix" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/opinion/a-health-care-fix.html?_r=0). It begins:

"President Obama has come up with a modest fix for a self-inflicted political wound: his repeated — and wrong — assertions that Americans would be able to keep their health insurance plans if they wanted to under the health care reform law."

And so, prior use by the Times of the word "misspoken," causing guffaws throughout the blogosphere, has become "wrong." Or, as the Times would continue to have you know, Obama's repeated assertions that Americans would be able to keep their health insurance plans amounted to a mistake, not a lie.

The editorial ends:

"If a relatively small population of people get extensions, as some experts think likely, the effect on premiums in the overall health insurance market may be minimal. Even so, this disturbing reversal is caused by the incompetence of the administration in ushering in reforms that millions have been waiting for."

"Incompetence"? I think the editorial board is being kind.

The "fix"? Forget it. As uber-liberal Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus concludes today 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."

Obama is counting upon the kindness of insurers? Why not count upon the kindness of Attila the Hun? As reported by The Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/cbs-obamas-suggested-fix-could-destabilize-market-increase-premiums/):

"Also, [CBS correspondent Carter] Evans reported, reinstating those dropped policies will be more than a headache. Insurance companies will have to contact policy holders, explain coverage options, get state regulators to approve new premiums and then process those policies. Also, a one-year extension could keep the young and healthy out of Obamacare, and those missing premiums won’t be there to pay for patients with expensive health issues."

Or stated otherwise, you might as well coax the genie back into his bottle. It's over. If someone in the private sector had rolled out a new product in this manner, they would be filing for bankruptcy, but the federal government can print money, and according to the rules of the Obama administration, no one is ever to blame.

By the way, where is Hillary as this disaster unfolds? Rumor has it that she is preparing her acceptance speech for the 2016 Democratic presidential convention, which begins, "I didn't do it."

Gail Collins, "The Art of Senate Stoppage": How About the Art of Presidential Mendacity?

"The Art of Senate Stoppage"? How about the art of presidential mendacity?

It used to be that Americans thought that Obama was honest, but this is no longer the case. As reported by CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/12/poll-obama-approval-ratings-drop-americans-say-hes-not-trustworthy/):

"President Barack Obama's approval rating among American voters has dropped to its lowest number in Quinnipiac University polling since he became President, according to a survey released on Tuesday that also raised new doubts about trust.

. . . .

According to the poll, a majority of voters, 52%, say the President is not honest and trustworthy, compared to 44% who say the opposite. It's the first time in Quinnipiac history that the president's trustworthy numbers are underwater."

The president is viewed by Americans as a liar? How can that be? Well, most recently his verisimilitude could not have been helped by repeated declarations that Americans would be able to keep their health care plans, notwithstanding the enactment of the Affordable Health Care Act ("period").

And then there was also the ridiculous attempt by Secretary of State John Kerry to explain away his willingness to sign an agreement with Iran in Geneva, easing sanctions in exchange basically for . . . nothing. We are now learning that this fibbing did not go over well even with Senate Democrats Reid and Schumer (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/world/middleeast/kerry-and-biden-ask-for-room-to-reach-a-nuclear-deal-with-iran.html?ref=world).

And then there was that "small" matter of Benghazi, where four Americans were left to die, while Obama and Hillary slept peacefully in their beds. The dissemination of the falsehood by the Obama administration that the attack was caused by a movie mocking Mohammad? Yes, I know, "What does it matter?"

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Art of Senate Stoppage" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/opinion/collins-the-art-of-senate-stoppage.html), Gail Collins, founder of the Bonbon School of Journalism (best practiced from a cushy couch), tells us that approval of Obama appointees is being blocked by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is threatening to hold up all federal government nominations until survivors of the Benghazi attack are allowed by Obama to appear before Congress. Cute as a button, Collins begins by observing:

"After a while, this sort of thing can weigh down a presidency. For instance, as you’ve listened with mounting frustration to the rollout of HealthCare.gov, did you ever wonder why President Obama is keeping Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, on the job? Try to imagine what would happen if she left. How much chance do you think the president would have of ever getting a replacement? I am thinking slightly worse than the odds on the White House being attacked by giant killer zucchini."

In fact, no one in the Obama administration is ever held accountable for their failures. Example: After Susan Rice made the rounds explaining that the Benghazi attack was caused by the movie, she was subsequently given the position of United States National Security Advisor for taking the heat.

But more to the point, Collins is basically telling us to "get over" Benghazi:

"While Congressional committees have questioned tons of people about Benghazi, he says he needs to hear from five survivors of the attack. The State Department doesn’t want to provide them because they might wind up being witnesses in criminal trials if the perpetrators are ever caught.

The five were already questioned by an independent review commissioned by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That panel found that officials like U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice were wrong when they theorized the attack might have grown out of a protest against a crude movie making fun of Muhammad. The review also found that security at the compound was inadequate. The assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security resigned."

Sorry, Gail, but I don't buy it. I served many years in a combat unit, and there have been those who have claimed that my inability to forgive and forget stems from PTSD, but I would still like to know why Obama and Hillary made no credible attempt to save the four American victims.

Collins concludes:

"The one thing that doesn’t seem to be on Graham’s list of questions that needs answering is whether we should have used military force to topple Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in the first place. Even if it seemed like a good idea at the time, maybe we ought to reflect. After all, Libya’s not looking like the happy ending we might have hoped for."

Got it: If we had never helped topple Qaddafi by "leading from behind," the Benghazi fiasco would never have happened, i.e. Obama should have trusted his better instincts. But then there was also Qaddafi's 1988 downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, killing 270 innocent people, and his ongoing sponsorship of terrorism around the globe (see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/libyan-terrorist-muammar-qaddafi_552474.html).

Yes, I know, let bygones be bygones. I need to master my PTSD, and Graham needs to move on, so as to smooth Hillary's election in 2016. Ultimately, however, Hillary will discover that there are not a few road apples waiting in her path.

Thomas Friedman, "What About US?": Is Thomas Friedman an Anti-Semite?

Do you remember how Thomas Friedman, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/friedman-newt-mitt-bibi-and-vladimir.html?_r=1&hp), declared that he loves "both Israelis and Palestinians," but then went to great lengths to malign Israel? Claiming at the time that he is "deeply worried about where Israel is going today," Friedman said of Netanyahu's speech before the US Congress:

"I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

The Israel lobby is paying off Congress? This was tantamount to the bogus anti-Semitic allegations found in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," which informed its readers that the Jews pulled the strings of the world's governments. Catering to Obama, who was antagonized by the warm reception received by Netanyahu, Friedman couldn't bring himself to acknowledge that this ovation stemmed from the fact that Israel is among Americans’ most favored countries (see: http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/9084/popularity_of_israel_in_america_at_all_time_high), and that Israel consistently votes with the US in the UN more than all other countries (see: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/162416.pdf).

Yes, prior to the advent of the Obama administration, Israel was considered an American "ally" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/new-york-times-editorial-iran-nuclear.html).

Today, in a Times op-ed entitled "What About US?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/opinion/friedman-what-about-us.html?_r=0), Friedman is again pandering to Obama and directing more vituperation Israel's way for undermining John Kerry's attempts to reach an accord with Iran. Of course, he tries to avoid reference only to Israeli opposition to such a deal by also noting Saudi Arabia and UAE opposition ("We, America, are not just hired lawyers negotiating a deal for Israel and the Sunni Gulf Arabs"), but it's crystal clear whom Friedman is primarily holding accountable. Friedman writes:

"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 "airtight" 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/).

Trust Obama that any agreement with Iran will provide "airtight" assurances that Iran will not continue to pursue development of its nuclear weapons development program? Bear in mind that any such deal is being negotiated with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who recently bragged how he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjbrqPK-BBg). Of course, Rouhani would never dare deceive Obama, who is such a nice guy . . .

Over the course of his opinion piece, Friedman refers twice to the need for "détente" with Iran, but does not once remind us of how the Islamic Republic of Iran hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, tortures political dissidents, and oppresses Baha'is (see Elliott Abrams's opinion piece in The Washington Post today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-oppression-of-bahais-continues-in-iran/2013/11/12/4b5dcf34-4b0f-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html?hpid=z3), Kurds, Christians (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/11/06/pastor-saeed-abedini-faces-grave-new-danger/) and Sunnis. Rouhani is going to change all that? Sorry, but as reported by Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-23/spate-of-iran-executions-after-rouhani-election-alarms-un.html), "Iran’s government executed at least 82 people in the weeks after Hassan Rouhani was elected as president in June, according to a United Nations investigator."

What does Friedman's op-ed bring to mind? Back in 1940, The America First Committee (AFC) was established to oppose American entry into World War II, but ultimately was disbanded after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. However, before this movement unravelled, AFC spokesman Charles Lindbergh addressed a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941, and declared:

"It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race. No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution the Jewish race suffered in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy, both for us and for them.

Instead of agitating for war the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way, for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation. A few farsighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not. Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government."

Does "What about US?" remind you of the arguments made by the America First Committee. It should. And Lindbergh's claim that the Jews controlled "our government"? Almost identical to Friedman's assertion, "That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

Friedman concludes:

"All this is why the deal the Obama team is trying to forge now that begins to defuse Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and tests whether more is possible, is fundamentally in the U.S. interest."

Ah, yes, the Obama Team, which brought us the Obamacare website, is now seeking to defuse Iran's nuclear capabilities. Good luck to them! Meanwhile, even France couldn't accept the one-sided concessions agreed to by the US, thus scuttling the signing ceremony in Geneva which Kerry had so hoped to attend.

Is Friedman an anti-Semite, or he is "merely" seeking to abet the Obama administration, which is facing mounting criticism from Congress for its willingness to strike this "Peace in our time" agreement with Tehran? (I think this is called intellectual prostitution.)

You decide.

New York Times Editorial, "Iran Nuclear Talks: Unfinished, but Alive": Israel No Longer an American Ally

New York Times editorials long ago lost any semblance of objectivity, as was best exemplified when the Times declared that Obama "misspoke" when he promised Americans that they could keep their existing health care plans following enactment of the Affordable Care Act (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/opinion/sunday/insurance-policies-not-worth-keeping.html?_r=1). Yes, the Times has become the unofficial mouthpiece of the Obama administration, and although this turn of events might be considered despicable and another tragic milestone along the Times's inexorable path to oblivion, it also provides us with a means of accessing what Obama thinks, but does not allow himself to say.

We recently learned from "Double Down," a new book by MSNBC correspondents Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, that Obama once declared, "We all know Bibi Netanyahu is a pain in the ass." Well, both Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry are now fuming with Israel's prime minister for interfering with the execution of an agreement with Iran, purportedly limiting its ability to continue to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Kerry made a special trip to Geneva last week to attend the signing ceremony and was particularly dismayed when France voiced last minute objections.

For his part, Obama cannot publicly vent his spleen regarding the failure in Geneva, but he can certainly ask a servile The New York Times to do his dirty business.

In an editorial today entitled "Iran Nuclear Talks: Unfinished, but alive" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/opinion/iran-nuclear-talks-unfinished-but-alive.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), the Times launches a blistering attack against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for opposing the terms of the deal that Kerry had wanted to broker. The editorial concludes (my italics):

"Unfortunately, the inconclusive negotiations have given an opening to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who excoriated the proposed agreement as the 'deal of the century' for Iran before it is made public, to generate more hysterical opposition. It would be nice if Iran could be persuaded to completely dismantle its nuclear program, as Mr. Netanyahu has demanded, but that is unlikely to ever happen. The administration of President George W. Bush made similar demands and refused to negotiate seriously and the result was an Iranian program that is more advanced than ever.

The best way to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is through a negotiated deal that limits uranium enrichment, curbs the plutonium program and allows for maximum international monitoring. Iran took a useful, if insufficient, step on Monday when it agreed to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency access to certain nuclear sites. The opponents of a deal are energized and determined. The United States and its allies have to be united and smart."

And so we learn that Netanyahu is "hysterical," notwithstanding repeated Iranian threats to annihilate Israel.

We also learn that in the opinion of the Times, Israel is no longer an American ally. Regrettably, this is also what Obama believes.

In addition, the Times editorial would have us know that "France’s area of concern — reportedly involving a heavy water reactor, which can produce plutonium — was easily resolved." Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "A Doable Iran Deal" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/opinion/cohen-a-doable-iran-deal.html?_r=0), similarly says that "President Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president [sic], and Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, . . . are prepared to . . . find a solution on the heavy-water plant it is building at Arak that could produce plutonium."

Well, if halting construction of Iran's Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor, designed to produce sufficient plutonium for two atomic bombs each year, is such an insignificant matter and "was easily resolved," why didn't it happen? Is this really something whose resolution should await a second agreement with Iran, after sanctions have been eased? I have news for Obama, Kerry and the editorial board of The New York Times: If this issue is not resolved pursuant to the terms of an initial agreement with Tehran, it will never be resolved.

John Kerry, who labelled Syrian mass murderer Assad his "dear friend," is a naif. Obama, who has no knowledge whatsoever of the way in which deals are negotiated in the Middle East (or in Washington), is also out of his depth.

Contrast the language of the Times's editorial with the conclusion of a Washington Post editorial entitled "No Iran deal, but a chance for a better strategy" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-iran-deal-but-a-chance-for-a-better-strategy/2013/11/11/7a42b79e-4af4-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html?hpid=z3):

"The second doubt is about Iran’s demand that its 'right' to enrich uranium be acknowledged. While acceptance of a residual enrichment capacity may be a necessary element of any permanent settlement, this should be contingent on the regime’s acceptance of stringent controls, including a significant downsizing of its nuclear infrastructure. Since it has not yet agreed to such steps, Iran should not be granted the principle.

Any successful negotiation with Iran will require distasteful concessions to a regime whose domestic repression and external aggression are repugnant and a menace to U.S. allies. But a deal that decisively curbs its nuclear capacity is preferable to military action. The Obama administration is right to move forward — but it should work harder to align any deal with its goals and to bring Congress and allies on board."

At least The Washington Post still recognizes that Israel is an ally, whose existential concerns merit consideration.

John Kerry "Swift-Boats" Israel: Another Holocaust? What Me Worry?

Desperate for a diplomatic achievement as America's Secretary of State, John Kerry travelled to Geneva last week to sign a deal with Iran, which would have eased sanctions and demanded minimal concessions involving Iran's nuclear weapons development program. However, Kerry was in for a surprise: Recognizing that the agreement did little or nothing to stop Tehran from pursuing its nuclear weapons goals, e.g., prevent operation of Iran's Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor that is designed to produce sufficient plutonium for two atomic bombs each year (see: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/09/bad-iran-deal-worse-than-no-deal/?hpt=hp_t2), France refused to go along.

Kerry is now having to face criticism from the US Congress for his rush to reach an empty pact with Iran, and he was in full damage control mode on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” As reported by The Washington Post in an article entitled "Kerry defends proposed Iran nuclear deal; Israel objects" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kerry-defends-proposed-iran-nuclear-deal-israel-objects/2013/11/10/53025956-4a49-11e3-9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html?hpid=z3) by Karen De Young:

"If negotiators in the next several weeks can reach an agreement on the draft proposal — a result that eluded top world diplomats in intensive sessions with the Iranians that ended here Sunday — talks can move toward making 'absolutely certain . . . that Iran never has a nuclear weapon,' Kerry said in an interview on NBC’s 'Meet the Press.'

Far from being naive about Iran’s capabilities and intentions, as some opponents have suggested, Obama administration negotiators are 'some of the most serious and capable, expert people in our government, who have spent a lifetime dealing with both Iran' and nuclear proliferation issues, Kerry said.

'We are not blind, and I don’t think we’re stupid,' he added. 'I think we have a pretty strong sense of how to measure whether or not we are acting in the interests of our country and of the globe.'"

"We are not blind, and I don’t think we’re stupid"? This is coming from a man who labeled Assad, a mass murderer, "my dear friend."

Obama administration negotiators are "some of the most serious and capable, expert people in our government"? These are the same people who reached a deal with Syria's Assad and Russia's Putin for the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, only to later learn that Assad was hiding much of his illicit stockpile (see: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/05/first-on-cnn-us-intelligence-suggests-syria-may-hide-some-chemical-weapons/).

And let us not forget that the P5+1 negotiating team is being led by the EU's imbecilic (I'm being kind) Catherine Ashton.

More about Ashton? She is a former chairwoman of the Health Authority in Hertfordshire and has never held elected office. Ashton has a BSc degree in sociology and has a life-sized Dalek (a fictional race of extraterrestrial mutants from the British science fiction television series "Doctor Who") in her sitting room.

Quite apart from what decorates her sitting room, what might be hiding in Ashton's closet? Questions have arisen over her role as national treasurer in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (no mention of this position in her EU profile), which was suspected of having received funding from the Soviet Union.

In short, Israel has every reason to be concerned by Kerry's attempt to declare "Peace in our time." Take the time to read Jackson Diehl's Washington Post opinion piece entitled "John Kerry’s Middle East dream world" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jackson-diehl-john-kerrys-middle-east-dream-world/2013/11/10/5b17d2d2-47cf-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html?hpid=z3). Diehl correctly observes:

"Imagine a world in which the Middle East is not descending into carnage and chaos but is on the brink of a monumental series of breakthroughs. By next spring,Iran’s nuclear program will be secured and Egypt will be a liberal democracy. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has stepped aside. And, not least, Israelis and Palestinians have settled on the terms for a Palestinian state.

This is the world that John Kerry inhabited as he shuttled across the world last week: a fantastical realm created by his billowing vision of what he can accomplish as secretary of state. Meanwhile, on this planet, aid agencies reported starvation and an outbreak of polio in Syria; Egypt’s last elected president was put on trial; Israeli and Palestinian leaders described their U.S.-brokered peace talks as broken; and France’s foreign minister suggested the would-be accord with Iran was 'a fool’s game.'

Call it Kerry’s Magical Mystery Tour."

I call it frightening, and more than that, it is Obama, who, with no one to answer to in his second term, is delighted to throw Israel under the bus ("Surprise, surprise, surprise!) and is fully responsible for Kerry's malfeasance.

Thomas Friedman, "Why I (Still) Support Obamacare": Because You're a Dummy?

“And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future.”

– President Barack Obama, Portland, April 1, 2010, after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law

As happened to hundreds of thousands of other Americans last week, my brother received notice from his insurance company that his health care policy was being cancelled owing to the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. Thanks for the straight talk, President Obama.

Don't get me wrong: I support universal health care. On the other hand, even Democratic Senator Max Baucus knew that Obamacare was going to be a train wreck. The legislation was neither thought out nor implemented properly, and I shudder when I think of the ultimate cost both in dollars and in waining credibility of the federal government.

In the private sector, if you want to roll out a new product, you don't leave anything to accident. As known to everyone who worked on Obamacare, this revolution in health care administration overseen by a president with no managerial experience, was an accident waiting to happen.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Why I (Still) Support Obamacare" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/friedman-why-i-still-support-obamacare.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0), Thomas Friedman explains why he still "supports" Obamacare:

"But thanks to the merger of globalization and the I.T. revolution that has unfolded over the last two decades — which is rapidly and radically transforming how knowledge and information are generated, disseminated and collaborated on to create value — 'the high-wage, medium-skilled job is over,' says Stefanie Sanford, the chief of global policy and advocacy for the College Board. The only high-wage jobs that will support the kind of middle-class lifestyle of old will be high-skilled ones, requiring a commitment to rigorous education, adaptability and innovation, she added.

. . . .

In the end, this transition we’re going through could prove more exciting than people think, but right now asking large numbers of people to go from being an 'employee' to a 'work entrepreneur' feels scary and uncertain. Having a national health care safety net under the vast majority of Americans — to ease and enable people to make this transition — is both morally right and in the interest of everyone who wants a stable society."

Okay, I also favor an expanded "national health care safety net," which includes Medicaid and Medicare. However, regarding Obamacare, we have yet to witness the full extent - and cost - of this half-baked fiasco, "still supported" by Tom Terrific.

As explained by Jon Kingsdale, who oversaw the Massachusetts health insurance exchange from 2006 to 2010, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Beyond HealthCare.gov, Obamacare’s other challenges" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/beyond-healthcaregov-obamacares-other-challenges/2013/11/08/26cd7e3c-4702-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story_1.html):

"A health insurance exchange is more than a Web site. It is an insurance store, and to manage it well requires insurance experience, technical know-how, and savvy marketing and sales tactics. The administration has a few months to put together a management team with these skills, dedicated exclusively to running the world’s largest store for private insurance. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have talented staff, and Jeffrey Zients, a former budget official who’s been called up to help fix the federal exchange’s online enrollment, may be just the guy to corral wayward technology vendors. But selling insurance is not what policy analysts and turnaround specialists do. I had 45 employees dedicated to operating the Massachusetts Health Connector; California has budgeted more than 300. Who’s minding the federal store?

If the administration fails to convince hundreds of insurers that the federal exchange will do a superb job marketing their products next fall, what then?

Premiums will jump, Democrats will blame 'greedy' insurers, regulators will review rates and push for price controls. And Republicans can credibly crow: 'We told you so.'"

In short, it's not going to be pretty. Or stated otherwise, "Mr. President, you broke it, you bought it."