Bill Keller, "Crime and Punishment and Obama": Keller's Swan Song and a New Obama Legacy to Replace Obamacare

Bill Keller is leaving the New York Times. Yes, I know, who cares?

In his final Times op-ed entitled "Crime and Punishment and Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/opinion/keller-crime-and-punishment-and-obama.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Keller explains that he will be establishing a nonprofit journalistic venture "devoted to the vast and urgent subject of our broken criminal justice system." Keller goes on to say:

"Obama has also been the stingiest of recent presidents in using his powers of pardon and commutation to undo the damage of the crack panic and of sentencing that keeps prisoners in lockup long past the age when they represent a danger. Marc Levin, director of the Center for Effective Justice at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank with a justice reform agenda, points out that in his first term Obama pardoned one in 50 applicants while Ronald Reagan pardoned one in three. Late last year Obama commuted the sentences of eight drug offenders, out of more than 8,000 federal convicts serving time under outdated crack laws."

Keller's conclusion:

"The Obama presidency has almost three years to go, and there is reason to hope that he will feel less constrained, that the eight commutations were not just a pittance but, as he put it, 'a first step,' that Holder’s mounting enthusiasm for saner sentencing is not just talk, but prelude, that the president will use his great pulpit to prick our conscience.

'This is something that matters to the president,' Holder assured me last week. 'This is, I think, going to be seen as a defining legacy for this administration.'

I’ll be watching, and hoping that Holder’s prediction is more than wishful thinking."

Ah yes, given the "success" of Obamacare, we have a new presidential legacy in the making: The Procrastinator-in-Chief will now seek saner sentencing in his last three years in office. Yeah, right.

I hope Keller finds meaning in life after the Times.

Bill Keller, "Russia vs. Europe": The World Needs Mandelas, but Instead Gets Putins . . . and Obamas

Bill Keller's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Russia vs. Europe" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/opinion/keller-russia-vs-europe.html) begins:

"The world needs Nelson Mandelas. Instead, it gets Vladimir Putins. As the South African hero was being sung to his grave last week, the Russian president was bullying neighboring Ukraine into a new customs union that is starting to look a bit like Soviet Union Lite, and consolidating his control of state-run media by creating a new Kremlin news agency under a nationalistic and homophobic hard-liner."

However, the rise of an autocratic, "new Cold War" oriented Vladimir Putin would not have been possible without the cringing flaccid foreign policy of Barack Obama. In a New York Times article entitled "Saudi Prince Criticizes Obama Administration, Citing Indecision in Mideast" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/world/middleeast/saudi-prince-accuses-obama-of-indecision-on-middle-east.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0) by Steven Erlanger, we are told what Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former intelligence chief of Saudi Arabia had to say about Obama on Sunday:

"'We’ve seen several red lines put forward by the president, which went along and became pinkish as time grew, and eventually ended up completely white,' said Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former intelligence chief of Saudi Arabia. 'When that kind of assurance comes from a leader of a country like the United States, we expect him to stand by it.' He added, 'There is an issue of confidence.'

Mr. Obama has his problems, the prince said, but when a country has strong allies, 'you should be able to give them the assurance that what you say is going to be what you do.' The prince no longer has any official position but has lately been providing the public expression of internal Saudi views with clear approval from the Saudi government."

Or stated more simply, the Saudis regard Obama as a coward.

But of course, none of this should come as a surprise. Obama's obeisant attitude toward Putin was broadcast to the world as the result of the open microphone incident involving Russia's Medvedev.

Well, Putin sure as heck got the promise of "flexibility" and has been acting on it.

Remarkably - or perhaps as might be expected - Keller's op-ed of today's date never mentions Obama when describing the ascendancy of Vladimir Putin on the world stage.

Bill Keller, "Profiling Obama": Obama's "Daunting Agenda"?

Yes, the United States is in trouble.

As reported by TPM (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-race-relations-suffer-in-wake-of-zimmerman):

"The acquittal of George Zimmerman still fresh in the public's memory, a poll released Wednesday found that America's views of race relations have taken a step back in the wake of the polarizing verdict.

According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, a slight majority of 52 percent of Americans said race relations in the country are either 'very good' or 'fairly good,' a huge dip from the stretch between 2009 and 2011. In NBC/WSJ polls conducted during that period, more than 70 percent described race relations in such positive terms."

Remarkably, the Zimmerman trial provoked racial antagonism, notwithstanding the fact that the prosecution was unable to present any evidence whatsoever of racist tendencies on the part of George Zimmerman. But then the fires of racism were stoked by Obama's misguided interference with the case, when he declared that "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago."

Obama, who had a privileged upbringing in Hawaii, could have been Martin? Was Obama ever known for violence, even when provoked, or problems at his top private school in Honolulu? Was Obama suspended three times from high school, or was jewelry, allegedly given to him by an unnamed friend, ever found in his backpack (see: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html)? Sorry, but there can be no comparing Obama's childhood with that of Martin.

Of course, there is always a need to address and confront racism, but the Zimmerman trial was neither the time nor place. This was a time for healing and for bringing the temperature down below the boiling point. Obama bungled the matter.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Profiling Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/opinion/keller-profiling-obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Bill Keller refers us to Obama's responses to the Zimmerman trial and claims that the president is the object of "racial profiling" by those hoping that he will be more proactive regarding matters of race and also those fearful of his involvement. Keller writes:

"People may no longer give Obama suspicious glares in department stores or clutch their purses when he enters an elevator, but they have typecast him according to their own fears and expectations of a black man in the White House. They are still profiling Barack Obama."

Keller goes on to say that Obama will continue to tread carefully regarding matters of race, because he has an "agenda" to pursue:

"My guess is that the president will navigate those straits as he always has when race looms, carefully and without fanfare. If he is true to form, he will quietly pass over [New York police commissioner Ray] Kelly, because it’s now clear the appointment would become a major distraction from his agenda, because racial profiling is a lifelong personal sore spot for Obama, and because he has other, less polarizing options.

. . . .

And that’s O.K. President Obama has an economy to heal, a foreign policy to run, a daunting agenda blockaded by an intransigent opposition."

An "agenda"? A "daunting agenda"? And just what might that agenda be?

An economy to heal? Where is the new game plan?

The president's signature legislation? Earlier this month, Obama postponed implementation of the Affordable Care Act's demand that large employers provide their employees with health insurance or pay a tax. Sorry, Bill, but this had nothing to do with "intransigent" Republicans. Rather, it had everything to do with recognition by the administration that Obamacare is indeed a train wreck that could jeopardize the chances of Democrats in the 2014 congressional elections.

Foreign policy? Excuse me, but just what might that foreign policy be? Is it to be found in the declaration of Samantha Power, America's new UN ambassador(http://www.newrepublic.com/article/srebenica-liberalism-balkan-united%20nations#):

"A country has to look back before it can move forward. Instituting a doctrine of the mea culpa would enhance our credibility by showing that American decision-makers do not endorse the sins of their predecessors."

Yes, let's continue with the apology tour, before taking the lead on pressing issues around the globe.

An agenda? If you ask me, Barack Obama's true "agenda" is Barack Obama, which will find increasing expression on the links, which are neither black nor white, but green.

Paul Krugman, "Detroit, the New Greece": Shit Happens

Bumper Sticker Guy: [running after Forrest] Hey man! Hey listen, I was wondering if you might help me. 'Cause I'm in the bumper sticker business and I've been trying to think of a good slogan, and since you've been such a big inspiration to the people around here I thought you might be able to help me jump into - WOAH! Man, you just ran through a big pile of dog shit!

Forrest Gump: It happens.

Bumper Sticker guy: What, shit?

Forrest Gump: Sometimes.

- "Forrest Gump," 1994

Earlier this month, Paul Krugman, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "War On the Unemployed" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/paul-krugman-war-on-unemployed-what.html), blamed hard-hearted Republicans for slashing North Carolina's unemployment benefits in order to avoid a fiscal disaster. Krugman didn't bother to observe that North Carolina's federal debt is the third largest in the country.  Krugman also didn't consider North Carolina's unfunded retiree health care benefits totaling some $34 billion.

How would Krugman have North Carolina repay this debt? Perhaps we'll never know. What we do know is that states can't print their own money like the federal government. States also can't file for bankruptcy.

Cities, however, can file for bankruptcy.

Today in a Times op-ed entitled "Detroit, the New Greece" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/krugman-detroit-the-new-greece.html?_r=0), Krugman begins by reminding us of Greece's recent financial crisis:

"As you may recall, a few years ago Greece plunged into fiscal crisis. This was a bad thing but should have had limited effects on the rest of the world; the Greek economy is, after all, quite small (actually, about one and a half times as big as the economy of metropolitan Detroit). Unfortunately, many politicians and policy makers used the Greek crisis to hijack the debate, changing the subject from job creation to fiscal rectitude."

Or in other words, Krugman would have us believe that Greece was a small isolated situation, having little impact on the larger European whole. Of course, in order to make this argument, Krugman needs to avoid any reference to the worrisome economies of Spain, Italy, Ireland and Portugal, or even, for that matter, of the UK.

Krugman would then also have us believe that Detroit's bankruptcy is an isolated incident involving economic (car industry) misfortune. Paul concludes:

"The important thing is not to let the discussion get hijacked, Greek-style. There are influential people out there who would like you to believe that Detroit’s demise is fundamentally a tale of fiscal irresponsibility and/or greedy public employees. It isn’t. For the most part, it’s just one of those things that happens now and then in an ever-changing economy."

Or in other words, "Shit happens." No need to examine the fiscal travails of other municipalities such as Washington, D.C, Chicago, Cincinatti and . . . New York.

Well, just by chance, Bill Keller has conveniently published today a Times op-ed entitled "New York Is Not Detroit. But ..." (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/keller-new-york-is-not-detroit-but.html?pagewanted=all), in which he says of the Big Apple:

"Our great city is not on the verge of collapse — we are not Detroit — but it is in danger of slipping into decline. The issue is the same one that helped send Detroit toward bankruptcy last week and has put other American cities on the disabled list: the immense pile of promises made over the decades to the city’s employees — the teachers and cops and firefighters and bus drivers and sanitation workers and maintenance crews who labor to keep the city, physically and socially, in working order."

Keller refers to "a trifecta of problems" plaguing New York: public workers' salaries, health benefits and pensions. Keller continues:

"Or, to pick another measure of our predicament, the total liabilities of the city now exceed its total assets by $125 billion, a condition referred to as balance-sheet insolvency.

. . . .

In New York and many other places, the preferred option has been to kick the problem down the road. You do not have to be an actuary to marvel at the amount of flimflam politicians at all levels on all sides have employed to avoid facing the problem. My personal favorite: Are we having a hard time coming up with money for our annual payment into the New York State teachers’ pension fund? No problem. Thanks to a gimmick invented in Albany, we just borrow the money — from the pension fund!

. . . .

But while New York is in better shape than many other troubled states and localities, the situation is still insidious."

Query: If New York ultimately slashes benefits to municipal employees, will Krugman find a way to blame the Republicans? Or will he note the departure of many financial firms from the crumbling city and again tell us that shit happens.

Bill Keller, "Inching Into Syria": Our Incredible Shrinking President

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Inching Into Syria" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/keller-inching-into-syria.html?pagewanted=all), Bill Keller tells us of the hope inspired among Syrian rebels following the June 13 White House announcement that the US would supply them with light weapons and ammunition. Keller writes:

"Whether this fresh whiff of faith in America is justified, only the president can tell us, and I wish he would."

. . . .

"What we know is that without our involvement several things are likely: The slaughter will continue. The menacing alliance of Iran, Hezbollah and Syria, stoked by Russia, will be empowered and emboldened. America’s influence on issues like Iran’s nuclear program will be seriously diminished. Jordan and Lebanon and Iraq will be destabilized. Bloodied Syria will be more than ever a breeding ground of terror."

. . . .

"Nobody, except perhaps our enemies, wants to see American troops in Syria. Our aim should be to make life so miserable for Assad and his friends that he agrees, or his sponsors agree, that it is time to stop the killing, send Assad and his circle into exile, and move from blood bath to diplomacy. Is that achievable? I honestly don’t know. But given the certain costs of doing nothing, I think it’s worth a try. I wish I knew whether President Obama felt the same."

"Only the president can tell us, and I wish he would." Interesting. Compare Keller's musings with the conclusion of Thomas Friedman's recent op-ed entitled "Syria Scorecard" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/thomas-friedman-syria-scorecard-hundred.html):

"And that’s why I’d like to hear which option Obama is pursing [sic] and why he thinks it would succeed."

Our incredible shrinking president, besieged with scandal at home and crises overseas, has lately been making himself scarce (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/the-incredible-shrinking-president-he.html). Go find him in Tanzania.

Regarding Syria, what is the president thinking? Which option is he pursuing?

Answer: The president is contemplating how he can continue to avoid making a decision, after making a mockery of himself with purported "red lines," all in keeping with his foreign policy of "leading from behind." The option being pursued in a single word? Procrastination.

C'est tout.

Bill Keller, "Living With the Surveillance State": Ignoring the Real Threat

In an editorial entitled "Taking the mystery out of cyberwar" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cyberwar-the-white-house-is-thinking-ahead/2013/06/16/b4a0ab00-d4fa-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html?hpid=z3), The Washington Post today describes defensive and offensive cyber operations, should the United States find itself in such a war:

"'Defensive cyber effects operations,' or DCEO, involve reaching outside of U.S. government networks to stop an assault or imminent threat. 'Offensive cyber effects operations,' or OCEO, are intended to 'offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance U.S. national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging.' Both of these describe attacks, and, according to the directive, the president has ordered targeting plans. Stuxnet, the computer worm developed by the United States and Israel and used to sabotage Iran’s nuclear equipment a few years ago, was in the vanguard of such operations. Just recently, an online magazine that spreads al-Qaeda ideology was taken down, presumably another example."

Stuxnet, the product of a US and Israeli collaboration initiated when Bush was still president, can now be described as a fossilized worm. Should there be a future cyber war, look for a combined attack on transportation systems, power grids, telecommunications and financial markets. Although not as deadly as the tragic events on 9/11, such an assault could shut a country down and cause overwhelming destruction.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Living With the Surveillance State" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/opinion/keller-living-with-the-surveillance-state.html?pagewanted=all), Bill Keller begins by showering compliments on Thomas Friedman for his June 12, 2013 op-ed entitled "Blowing a Whistle" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/thomas-friedman-blowing-whistle-nsa-is.html). Keller writes:

"Tom’s important point was that the gravest threat to our civil liberties is not the N.S.A. but another 9/11-scale catastrophe that could leave a panicky public willing to ratchet up the security state, even beyond the war-on-terror excesses that followed the last big attack. Reluctantly, he concludes that a well-regulated program to use technology in defense of liberty — even if it gives us the creeps — is a price we pay to avoid a much higher price, the shutdown of the world’s most open society. Hold onto that qualifier: 'well regulated.'"

Well, I have news for both Bill and Tom: The bigger current danger to the US is not another 9/11 type attack, but rather a massive cyber assault. Moreover, even with warnings from Moscow concerning the Tsarnaev brothers, the data accumulated by PRISM couldn't prevent the Boston Marathon bombing.

Keller continues:

"But in most cases the advantages of intrusive technology are tangible and the abuses are largely potential. Edward Snowden’s leaks about N.S.A. data-mining have, so far, not included evidence of any specific abuse.

The danger, it seems to me, is not surveillance per se. We have already decided, most of us, that life on the grid entails a certain amount of intrusion. Nor is the danger secrecy, which, as Posner notes, 'is ubiquitous in a range of uncontroversial settings,' a promise the government makes to protect 'taxpayers, inventors, whistle-blowers, informers, hospital patients, foreign diplomats, entrepreneurs, contractors, data suppliers and many others.'

The danger is the absence of rigorous, independent regulation and vigilant oversight to keep potential abuses of power from becoming a real menace to our freedom. The founders created a system of checks and balances, but the safeguards have not kept up with technology. Instead, we have an executive branch in a leak-hunting frenzy, a Congress that treats oversight as a form of partisan combat, a political climate that has made 'regulation' an expletive and a public that feels a generalized, impotent uneasiness. I don’t think we’re on a slippery slope to a police state, but I think if we are too complacent about our civil liberties we could wake up one day and find them gone — not in a flash of nuclear terror but in a gradual, incremental surrender."

No "evidence of any specific abuse"? The fact that Snowden was privy to PRISM is in and of itself a significant failure. Add to this, Snowden's declaration: "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal e-mail." In short, I would bet that a serious investigation would reveal massive abuse by NSA staff and subcontractors. Randomly select 100 NSA and subcontractor employees and ask them to take a polygraph to determine whether they ever abused the system. My guess is that there would be much "unhappiness" within the ranks.

Congress might also want to ask James Clapper about the hacking of Sharyl Attkisson's computer.

Indeed, the employment of Snowden and his freedom of action are evidence of the absence "of rigorous, independent regulation and vigilant oversight to keep potential abuses of power from becoming a real menace to our freedom."

I agree with Keller that "if we are too complacent about our civil liberties we could wake up one day and find them gone." In any given instance, a balance must be struck between the intrusiveness of technology and its ability to prevent disaster. The Boston Marathon bombing demonstrated PRISM's limited value.

More important, PRISM is powerless to prevent the real threat currently facing the US, i.e. a massive cyber assault on America's infrastructure, whose cost could prove immeasurable.

Bill Keller, "How to Legalize Pot": White House Staffers Today in Desperate Need of the Substance

Today, there is an explosive new revelation from an anonymous "senior White House official" that chief White House lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, knew in April that an audit of the IRS would probably show that agency employees targeted conservative groups (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/new-york-times-irs-inquiry-status-told.html). And Ruemmler passed this information on to whom? Stay tuned. Meanwhile, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has again taken the day off, but Bill Keller is still on the job. In his latest Times op-ed entitled "How to Legalize Pot"
(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/opinion/keller-how-to-legalize-pot.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Keller informs us:

"A few places, like the Netherlands, have had limited legalization; many jurisdictions have decriminalized personal use; and 18 states in this country have approved the drug for medical use. (Twelve others, including New York, are considering it.) But Washington and Colorado have set out to invent a whole industry from scratch and, in theory, to avoid the shortcomings of other markets in legal vices — tobacco, alcohol, gambling — that lurched into being without much forethought, and have supplied, along with much pleasure, much misery.

. . . .

[D]espite new moves toward legalization in Latin America, no one expects Congress to remove cannabis from the list of criminal substances any time soon. ('Not until the second Hillary Clinton administration,' [drug policy expert Mark]Kleiman says.)"

Well, these days Hillary's 2016 prospects are looking none to hot.

But not to worry. I have it from an anonymous "senior White House official" that unbeknownst to the president, once a toker of Mary Jane, feverish efforts are underway in Washington to legalize the substance. After today's revelation concerning Ruemmler, some in the Obama administration are claiming to be in desperate need of this "medicinal" drug.

Bill Keller, "Syria Is Not Iraq": American Foreign Policy Credibility Hits a New Nadir

American foreign policy credibility has never been so low, and this is not being trumpeted by the neo-con right, but rather by the progressive left.

In a recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "When governing is seen as a game, we all lose" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-governing-is-no-game/2013/05/03/09eff90a-b406-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html), Dana Milbank wrote:

"Obama and others in his administration have used the term in reference to food marketing standards (“truly a game-changer,” said the first lady), the JOBS Act (“a potential game-changer,” said the president), AmeriCorps, childhood-obesity prevention, Title IX, digital tutors, natural gas from shale, the Internet, the Independent Medicare Advisory Council, conversations about immigration, rail improvements, cyberspace research and foreign-aid standards.

So, when the president warns Syria that chemical weapons are a game-changer, is Assad to assume that he is using the term in the childhood-obesity sense or the Medicare sense?"

A few days ago, Jon Stewart (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-30-2013/whose-line-is-it-anyway-) also poked fun at Obama's August 20, 2012 warning to Syria's Bashar al-Assad that the mere "moving around" of chemical weapons would be a "red line for us" and "that there would be enormous consequences."

As acknowledged on Saturday even by The New York Times in a lead story entitled "Off-the-Cuff Obama Line Put U.S. in Bind on Syria" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/middleeast/obamas-vow-on-chemical-weapons-puts-him-in-tough-spot.html?hp&_r=0):

"Confronted with evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, President Obama now finds himself in a geopolitical box, his credibility at stake with frustratingly few good options."

Oh, my goodness! Without a teleprompter, Obama didn't mean what he said? What is the poor president to do?

Meanwhile, Israel can't wait for Obama to decide, and yesterday destroyed an arsenal of advanced Fateh-110 missiles that were making their way from Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon, via Damascus, and a chemical weapons research facility.

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Syria Is Not Iraq" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/opinion/keller-syria-is-not-iraq.html?pagewanted=all), Bill Keller seems to support the following line of action by the US:

"For starters, President Obama articulates — as he has not done — how the disintegration of Syria represents a serious danger to America’s interests and ideals. The United States moves to assert control of the arming and training of rebels — funneling weapons through the rebel Supreme Military Council, cultivating insurgents who commit to negotiating an orderly transition to a nonsectarian Syria. We make clear to President Assad that if he does not cease his campaign of terror and enter negotiations on a new order, he will pay a heavy price. When he refuses, we send missiles against his military installations until he, or more likely those around him, calculate that they should sue for peace.

All of this must be carefully choreographed and accompanied by a symphony of diplomacy to keep our allies with us and our adversaries at bay. The aim would be to eventually have a transition government, stabilized for a while by an international peacekeeping force drawn mostly from neighboring states like Turkey.

I don’t mean to make this sound easy. It might well be that the internal grievances are too deep and bitter to forestall a bloody period of reprisals. But that outcome is virtually inevitable if we stay out.

The administration is now preparing contingency plans along those lines in the event that Assad’s use of chemical weapons forces our hand. Why wait for the next atrocity?"

Surprise, surprise. Keller makes sense.

Oh, I almost forgot: Will Assad retaliate against Israel? As reported by The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Syria-will-strike-Israel-if-attacked-again-312193):

"Any further Israeli aggressions on Syrian territory would issue a "declaration of war", Syrian President Bashar Assad said, a source was reported as saying Monday in the Kuwait daily Alrai.

According to the report, Assad notified Washington via Moscow that orders had been given to allow deployed ground-to-ground and ground-to-air missile batteries to be used against Israel without advance notice in the event of another attack."

Or in other words, as you might well remember from kindergarten, "I dare you to do that one more time . . ."

Bill Keller, "Smart Drones": Keller Never Served in the Military and It Shows

New York Times columnist Bill Keller never served in the military, and it shows. But heck, everyone is entitled to an opinion regarding anything and everything, and as Secretary of State John Kerry so aptly declared, "In America you have a right to be stupid."

In his latest Times op-ed entitled "Smart Drones" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/keller-smart-drones.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Keller weighs the morality of "fully autonomous weapons" with a special focus on drones. Not surprisingly, Keller points an accusing finger at Israel:

"Israel is the first country to make and deploy (and sell, to China, India, South Korea and others) a weapon that can attack pre-emptively without a human in charge. The hovering drone called the Harpy is programmed to recognize and automatically divebomb any radar signal that is not in its database of 'friendlies.' No reported misfires so far, but suppose an adversary installs its antiaircraft radar on the roof of a hospital?"

Israel's Harpy? Sorry, but it only carries a 70-pound high-explosive warhead, which will cripple a radar facility, but not bring down Keller's "hypothetical" hospital. Moreover, unbeknownst to Keller, the issue is anything but hypothetical:

• In its last two engagements with Israel, the Hamas leadership has hidden in the basement of Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza.
• During Israel's Operation Pillar of Defense in November, the IDF attacked a Hamas intelligence headquarters in the Al-Showa Media Building in Gaza, where Agence France-Presse and Al Jazeera had offices.
• Over the past decade, most of the rockets and missiles fired at southern Israel from Gaza have been launched from heavily populated residential areas.
• Much of Hezbollah's arsenal of missiles for launch against Israel is housed in villages throughout southern Lebanon.
• In the past, Hezbollah has fired rockets at Israel from positions in close proximity to UN bases so as to avoid counterstrikes.

In a nutshell, both Hamas and Hezbollah have not hesitated to make use of human shields in violation of the Geneva Convention.

How did Israel, using its smart weapons, manage during Operation Pillar of Defense, which involved an asymmetric conflict? According to the Israel Defense Forces, 57 civilians died and 120 combatants from Hamas and Islamic Jihad were killed. Compare this ratio with the estimated ratio of three civilians killed for every one combatant in Afghanistan and an estimated four-to-one ratio in Iraq.

Keller concludes his opinion piece by observing:

"If war is made to seem impersonal and safe, about as morally consequential as a video game, I worry that autonomous weapons deplete our humanity. As unsettling as the idea of robots’ becoming more like humans is the prospect that, in the process, we become more like robots."  

Keller worries "that autonomous weapons deplete our humanity," but consider how Hamas fired more than 10,000 unguided rockets and missiles at Israel's civilian population over the past decade. Was this somehow more humane? And on the subject of morality, where were the protests from Keller, executive editor of the Times from 2003 until 2011 and his op-ed pundits, while this was happening?

Bottom line: War is inhumane; however, Israel has demonstrated that smart weaponry can significantly reduce civilian casualties.

Iran Responds to US Concessions in Kazakhstan: Advanced Anti-Aircraft Missiles Seized Off Yemeni Coast; Obama Demonstrates His Negotiating Prowess

If you wondered how the mullahs would respond to the concessions offered by the P5+1 during the most recent "negotiating" session over Iran's nuclear armaments program, you can set your mind at ease. As reported by The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/world/middleeast/seized-arms-off-yemen-raise-alarm-over-iran.html):

"An Iranian dhow seized off the Yemeni coast was carrying sophisticated Chinese antiaircraft missiles, a development that could signal an escalation of Iran’s support to its Middle Eastern proxies, alarming other countries in the region and renewing a diplomatic challenge to the United States.

Among the items aboard the dhow, according to a review of factory markings on weapons and their packing crates, were 10 Chinese heat-seeking antiaircraft missiles, most of them manufactured in 2005."

Yup, that Obama is one heck of a negotiator. As observed in his most recent New York Times op-ed (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/bill-keller-obamas-fault-yes-king-has.html), Bill Keller observed:

"That year-end [2012] tax deal was not a negotiating triumph for the Democrats. Obama wanted $1.2 trillion in new revenues over 10 years. Boehner let it be known he would go as high as $800 billion. By the time the master deal-makers of the White House were done, the 'compromise' tax hike was $620 billion. I’d love to be the guy who sells the president his next car."

The problem is that the mullahs are far slicker than any car salesman I ever met.

Maybe Obama should flash them a stellar smile and blow them another Nowruz kiss, given that the Persian new year celebration is fast approaching. What a mess.

Bill Keller, "Obama’s Fault": Yes, the King Has No Clothes

Bill Keller, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Obama’s Fault" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/opinion/keller-obamas-fault.html?pagewanted=all), has finally gotten around to acknowledging that Obama owns America's economic mess. Keller begins:

"Our feckless leaders may be incapable of passing a budget, but, boy, can they pass the buck. The White House spent last week in full campaign hysteria, blitzing online followers with the message that heartless Republicans are prepared to transform America into 'Les Misérables' in order to protect 'millionaires and billionaires, oil companies, vacation homes, and private jet owners.'"

After making the obligatory references to "pigheaded" Republicans (true, it takes two to tango), Keller continues:

"But if you care about the long-term health of the country, the president has more to answer for than just inventing a particular type of fiscal time bomb. The large mess we are in is in no small part the result of missed opportunities and political miscalculation at 1600 Pennsylvania."

Keller finishes:

"Clearly the days of 'putting off unpleasant decisions' are not over. And this is where they get you."

Will Keller also be castigated and threatened with banishment as he joins Bob Woodward in recognizing the truth?

US national debt? Quickly closing in on $17 trillion and never to be repaid.

Bill Keller, "Chuck Hagel’s War": Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick

Are you familiar with the story of Amir Peretz? Peretz was an ordnance officer in the Israeli army prior to suffering serious injuries in an accident. After a period growing flowers and vegetables, Peretz joined Israel's Labor Party and made a name for himself as the firebrand chairman of the powerful Histadrut labor union. In 2005 Peretz became leader of the Labor Party, and in 2006 he joined the coalition government led by the Kadima Party. Peretz was appointed Defense Minister by Prime Minister Olmert, notwithstanding his non-combat, military credentials, and the Israeli public chuckled. During the subsequent Second Lebanon War, Peretz became a laughingstock throughout the world when photographed trying to look through capped binoculars. Peretz left the Defense Ministry in 2007, and his tenure there was largely forgotten until Israel's 2012 Operation Pillar of Defense, when Israel's Iron Dome anti-rocket system neutralized attacks from Gaza against Israel's southern cities. Iron Dome saved dozens of civilian lives, prevented massive infrastructure destruction, and also enabled Israel to avoid entering Gaza with its land forces. Peretz? No one in Israel is now snickering. As Defense Minister, Peretz championed development of Iron Dome, despite senior defense officials' objections to massive expenditures on the system.

Bottom line, as I can personally attest: Combat experience as a "grunt," albeit noble, does not necessarily provide the makings of an effective secretary of defense.

Although I disagree with much of what Bill Keller writes in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Chuck Hagel’s War" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/opinion/keller-chuck-hagels-war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Keller pointedly observes:

"Politicians, no less than generals, can be blinkered by experience. Vietnam made a whole generation wary of any interventions, however justified. Bill Clinton, who never fought but who was shaped by the catastrophe of Vietnam, took a lot of persuading before he did the right thing in Bosnia. He has said of his failure to send troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda that 'we just blew it.' This tendency to recoil from conflict was called 'Vietnam syndrome,' and Hagel may have the symptoms."

It is the responsibility of the secretary of defense to prepare the military to fight to the best of its ability, so as to enable the secretary of state to talk convincingly and avoid war. Or, as Teddy Roosevelt once said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Regrettably, the Hagel nomination has conveyed to Iran the message that Obama is backing away from a fight (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/iran-again-expresses-satisfaction-over.html), which ultimately will result in a nasty fight.

With respect to talking with your enemies, sure, it's always wise to give dialogue a chance, particularly when you carry that big stick. However, you also need to know when talk is going nowhere. The P5+1 has already talked for more than a year with Iran concerning its nuclear ambitions with no results to show for their efforts.

Chamberlain also talked with Hitler.

In addition, as I have noted in the past, it is indeed important to prevent psychopaths from obtaining Bushmasters and indulging themselves in mass murders. However, why is it that so many people who favor strict gun control don't seem to care if a rabid Iran, which hangs homosexuals, stones women to death, persecutes Baha'is, oppresses Kurds, threatens Israel with annihilation, bankrolls Bashar al-Assad and Hezbollah, and funds terrorist acts around the globe, gets hold of the bomb and holds the world hostage?

Hagel was the wrong choice.

Bill Keller, "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, Bomb-Bomb-Iran?": Clueless

Bill Keller, formerly executive editor of The New York Times, left his top dog position to become a full-time writer. Given the insight, or lack thereof, of his latest Times op-ed, "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, Bomb-Bomb-Iran?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/opinion/keller-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-iran.html?pagewanted=1&ref=opinion), perhaps he should have remained executive editor. Keller writes:

"The point of tough sanctions, of course, is to force Iranians to the bargaining table, where we can do a deal that removes the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran. . . . But the mistrust is so deep, and the election-year pressure to act with manly resolve is so intense, that it’s hard to imagine the administration would feel free to accept an overture from Tehran. Anything short of a humiliating, unilateral Iranian climb-down would be portrayed by the armchair warriors as an Obama surrender. Likewise, if Israel does decide to strike out on its own, Bibi Netanyahu knows that candidate Obama will feel immense pressure to go along.

That short-term paradox comes wrapped up in a long-term paradox: an attack on Iran is almost certain to unify the Iranian people around the mullahs and provoke the supreme leader to redouble Iran’s nuclear pursuits, only deeper underground this time, and without international inspectors around. Over at the Pentagon, you sometimes hear it put this way: Bombing Iran is the best way to guarantee exactly what we are trying to prevent."

"It’s hard to imagine the administration would feel free to accept an overture from Tehran"? Sorry, Bill, but the US is not going to receive any such overture. Rather, the US should expect more games involving contradictory declarations (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/01/david-ignatius-iran-gets-message-from.html) and brinksmanship from Iran, which is intent upon acquiring nuclear weaponry.

Keller claims that "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does a good impression of an evil madman, but Iran is not suicidal." Oh really? As observed by Michael Oren (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/seven-existential-threats/), who knows a bit more about this situation than Keller:

"Some Israeli experts predict that the Iranian leadership would be willing to sacrifice 50 percent of their countrymen in order to eradicate Israel."

Evidence of Iran's willingness to martyr its citizenry? One need only look to its war with Iraq from 1980-1988, which resulted in between 500,000 and a million Iranian fatalities, and during which Iran used human-waves of children to clear minefields.

"An attack on Iran is almost certain to unify the Iranian people around the mullahs and provoke the supreme leader to redouble Iran’s nuclear pursuits, only deeper underground this time, and without international inspectors around"? Sorry, but this is not what happened when Israel Israel leveled the Syrian Al Kibar reactor in Operation Orchard in 2007, or when Israel bombed the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981, much to the world's relief, in Operation Opera.

No, I'm not advocating an immediate attack on Iran. Let's first see how Europe's decision to boycott Iranian oil (see: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=254780) affects the Iranian economy. The value of the Iranian rial is crumbling, and this will seriously impede Iranian funding of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.

"Election-year pressure to act with manly resolve"? How about plain and simple resolve. If Obama had been astute enough to see through Iran's masquerade at the beginning of his term, instead of seeking to prove the fallacy of Bush's Axis of Evil, he would not be dealing with this current dilemma. Always ready in the past to draw a new line in the sand, Obama is now facing unwavering demands from Saudi Arabia and the UAE to put an end to the Iranian threat. There is no more room to procrastinate, wiggle and play nice.

Regarding Israel, Keller is even more in the dark.