Gail Collins, "Trump Shows His Inner Rabbit": The Art of Mendacity

Tweet

"PELLEY: You know, in ’76, Jimmy Carter famously said, 'I will not lie to you.'

CLINTON: Well, I have to tell you I have tried in every way I know how literally from my years as a young lawyer all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people.

PELLEY: You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?

CLINTON: I’ve always tried to. Always. Always.

PELLEY: Some people are gonna call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself.

CLINTON: Well, no, I’ve always tried —

PELLEY: I mean, Jimmy Carter said, 'I will never lie to you.'

CLINTON: Well, but, you know, you’re asking me to say, 'Have I ever?' I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever will. I’m gonna do the best I can to level with the American people."

- Interchange between Hillary Clinton and Scott Pelley, CBS News, February 18, 2016

In response to the above interchange, Chris Cillizza wrote in his Washington Post weblog "The Fix":

"I mean, what? W-H-A-T? 'I've always tried to' tell the truth? On what planet is this a good answer for a politician?"

As long as we're on the subject of lying, Ed Morrissey wrote one year ago in a Fox Nation article entitled "Hillary Fired for Lies, Unethical Behavior from Congressional Job: Former Boss":

"Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the [House Judiciary Committee which was investigating Watergate]. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

'Because she was a liar,' Zeifman said in an interview last week. 'She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.'"

"Conspired to violate the Constitution"? That sounds serious. Hillary's claim that she came under sniper fire in Bosnia pales in comparison.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump Shows His Inner Rabbit," does Gail Collins mention the kerfuffle involving Hillary's interview with Scott Pelley? Not a chance. Instead, she concludes her opinion piece by turning our attention to Donald Trump's denial of his allegation that George W. Bush lied to Americans concerning the rationale for the Second Gulf War:

"In a dramatic highlight of the last Republican debate, Trump accused the Bush administration of deliberately deceiving the American public about the invasion. ('They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none.') It was a potentially historic moment: a top Republican candidate for president attempts to lead his party into a frank reappraisal of the Bush-Cheney administration’s inherent honesty.

Here we are, one week later: 'I’m not talking about lying. ... Nobody really knows why we went into Iraq.'

Meanwhile, reporters continue to ask Trump supporters what the attraction is. And his fans say that he tells it like it is."

Trump tells it like it is? No way. Unless saying whatever pops into your head at any given moment is "telling it like it is."

But whereas Trump's recent declaration and retraction concerning George W. Bush amounted to just another instance of ad-lib chicanery, Hillary takes fibbery to a higher, more carefully spun, level. As observed by Marc Thiessen in a January 25, 2016 Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Clinton’s email excuses are falling apart":

"Lash out as she might, Clinton’s constantly changing email story is rapidly falling apart. First, Clinton claimed there was 'no classified material' on her private server — which turned out to be untrue. Then she claimed none of the intelligence on her server was 'classified at the time' — which also turned out to be untrue. Now, in a National Public Radio interview last week, Clinton said there was no information that was 'marked classified.'"

May Donald go back to hosting reality shows and Hillary return to giving speeches before financial institutions, if they are still willing to pay her when she is no longer a presidential aspirant.

Paul Krugman, "Partisan Growth Gaps": At What Cost?

Tweet

Arguing in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Partisan Growth Gaps" that Democrats have historically done a better job than Republicans at creating jobs, Paul Krugman compares Obama with George W. Bush:

"But isn’t the story different for the Obama years? Not as much as you think. Yes, the recovery from the Great Recession of 2007-2009 has been sluggish. Even so, the Obama record compares favorably on a number of indicators with that of George W. Bush. In particular, despite all the talk about job-killing policies, private-sector employment is eight million higher than it was when Barack Obama took office, twice the job gains achieved under his predecessor before the recession struck."

Fascinating. But what about judging Obama's economic record by his own standards? On July 3, 2008, Obama declared:

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

Well, US national debt has now reached an unsustainable $18.4 trillion, amounting to more than $57,000 for every American man, woman and child. Yes, America is bankrupt, but no one cares to admit it. "Private-sector employment is eight million higher than it was when Barack Obama took office"? Indeed, but at what cost?

Maureen Dowd, "My Head’s Exploding": Dowd's Air-Headed Obsession with a Ghost of the Past

Notwithstanding the fact that we are five and a half years into the Obama presidency, Maureen Dowd still never misses an opportunity to savage 73-year-old Dick Cheney, an obsolete vestige of a disastrous George W. Bush presidency. In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "My Head’s Exploding" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/opinion/maureen-dowd-is-that-the-iraq-drumbeat-from-cheney-co-again.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), subtitled "Is That the Iraq Drumbeat From Cheney & Co. Again?," Dowd writes:

"Who would have thought that Iraq imploding would give the mountebanks who tricked us into war a chance to rear their heads and seek rehabilitation — somehow grabbing onto the hellish spiral as proof that they were right in their original wrongness?

. . . .

The creepy comeback scenario is playing out with the Cheneys, Paul Wolfowitz (who absurdly rejects the moniker of 'architect,') Bill Kristol, Paul Bremer, Robert Kagan (who prefers the term 'liberal interventionist' to 'neocon') and Elliott Abrams (who actually had the chutzpah to write a Politico Magazine piece about Obama titled 'The Man Who Broke the Middle East')."

Don't get me wrong: I opposed the Second Gulf War and was never fond of Cheney. Today, I also oppose American boots on the ground in the Middle East, and that includes the 300 American military advisers recently sent by Obama to Iraq, who cannot change the course of events there, but can be taken hostage. On the other hand, I am concerned by the rise of ISIS (also referred to as ISIL), which threatens the stability of Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Mention of the regional threat posed by ISIS in the empty-headed Dowd opinion piece, dedicated to attacking Cheney? Not a chance.

Mention of the origins of ISIS, i.e. Obama's neo-isolationism and its disastrous consequences in Syria (9 million refugees out of a total population of 22 million), in the Dowd opinion piece? Not a chance.

Mention of the possibility of an independent Kurdistan for the Middle East's 30 million stateless and oppressed Kurds, i.e. this storm's one silver lining, in Dowd's opinion piece? (Obama opposes independence for the Kurds.) Not a chance.

After all, it's all about Dowd's obsession with a ghost of the past.

Maureen Dowd, "History: Get Me Rewrite!": Dowd Rewrites a Hoary Op-Ed

In a recent New York Observer article entitled "The Tyranny and Lethargy of the Times Editorial Page" (http://observer.com/2014/02/the-tyranny-and-lethargy-of-the-times-editorial-page/#axzz2su9y1r4t), Ken Kurson caused something of a sensation by highlighting the dichotomy between the excellent newsroom reporting of the Times versus the irrelevance, stupidity and lack of originality of its editorial page. Kurson wrote (my emphasis in red):

"Another former Times writer, someone who has gone on to great success elsewhere, expressed similar contempt (and even used the word 'embarrass') and says it’s longstanding.

'I think the editorials are viewed by most reporters as largely irrelevant, and there’s not a lot of respect for the editorial page. The editorials are dull, and that’s a cardinal sin. They aren’t getting any less dull. As for the columnists, Friedman is the worst. He hasn’t had an original thought in 20 years; he’s an embarrassment. He’s perceived as an idiot who has been wrong about every major issue for 20 years, from favoring the invasion of Iraq to the notion that green energy is the most important topic in the world even as the financial markets were imploding. Then there’s Maureen Dowd, who has been writing the same column since George H. W. Bush was president.'"

Well today, Dowd does everything humanly possible to prove that Kurson was correct, rewriting her stock-in-trade opinion pieces critical of George W. Bush. In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "History: Get Me Rewrite!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/opinion/dowd-history-get-me-rewrite.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Dowd sets the stage by lambasting Lyndon Johnson:

"Maybe ratcheting up the [Vietnam] war with more than 500,000 troops and sending so many young Americans to their deaths halfway around the world based on chest-thumping advice and a naïve theory of democratic dominoes was a deterrent to getting out."

Maureen then blasts Bush:

"Asked by a reporter about Iraq recently, W.’s eyes flashed and he replied, 'I am not happy.'

He shouldn’t be. Afghanistan, which he abandoned to pursue a phony 'retaliatory' war in Iraq, is crumbling despite all the money, muscle and blood we have poured into it, with our runaway fruitcake puppet Hamid Karzai fiddling while the Taliban burns, vowing to run America out just as they did the Russians and waging vicious attacks on women.

In corrupt and violent Iraq, women are getting detained illegally and tortured. The country is awash in a blood-dimmed tide, with nearly 9,000 killed last year and almost 1,000 killed last month, as Al Qaeda and another jihadist group fight for supremacy. In Falluja, the city where nearly 100 American soldiers died in the fiercest fighting of the war, the black insurgent flag now flies over buildings."

Noting that Bush is now busy painting animal skulls, Dowd concludes her opinion piece by observing:

"W. should know: Some landscapes cannot be painted over."

Needless to say, this rewrite of a hoary op-ed, does not begin to consider the landscape currently being painted by the first invertebrate ever to occupy the Oval Office.

But first the ground rules: I vehemently denounced the Vietnam War and voted for George McGovern in 1972. I also deplored the Second Gulf War, given that I was convinced that eliminating Saddam Hussein would destroy the Iraq-Iran equilibrium and bring chaos to the Middle East. More recently, as readers of this blog know, I have consistently opposed American boots on the ground in the quagmire of Afghanistan.

On the other hand, as a child who participated in a sufficient number of playground scuffles, I have also come to believe that if bullies don't believe you are able to stand up for yourself, you are inviting future misery.

Regarding Dowd's op-ed, how can she possibly write about Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War without observing Obama's inane escalation of American involvement in Afghanistan?

And although I would reject any introduction of American ground forces into Syria, I do believe in the enforcement of a no-fly zone to prevent genocide in that country.

As Richard Cohen wrote yesterday in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s failure to act on Syria" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-obamas-failure-to-act-on-syria/2014/02/17/badddd00-981b-11e3-8461-8a24c7bf0653_story.html?hpid=z3):

"Six million people have been displaced. Three million have fled to neighboring countries. Polio has broken out in refugee camps (see a recent account in the New York Review of Books). The world does little to stop the fighting. The United States does next to nothing. Children die for lack of food or medicine. There is more than enough shame here to go around.

. . . .

Washington’s dawdling has become the hallmark of Obama’s foreign policy. He can make all the speeches he wants, but his confusion and indecision is what other leaders notice and what history will remember. Now, so very late, he has asked for options. Here’s one: Do something!"

And as Michael Gerson concluded in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Syria’s refugees despair while the world is indifferent" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-the-despair-of-syrias-refugees/2014/02/17/43294b50-97fd-11e3-afce-3e7c922ef31e_story.html?hpid=z3), describing the plight of Syrian civilians caught in the middle of the savage civil war:

"These developments should mean something to Mr. Obama, the author of an executive directive (Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities ) declaring the prevention of mass atrocities a 'core national security interest and a core moral responsibility.' At the moment, he stands judged by his own standard."

Obama should be "judged by his own standard"? Which standard is that? Hypocrisy? Cowardice? Procrastination?

More to the point, why doesn't Dowd write about Obama's moral turpitude? Answer: Why should she? It's so much easier reliving the Bush era and rewriting that same censorious op-ed.

Ari Shavit, "How Bush Let Iran Go Nuclear": A Must Read for Thomas Friedman

Perhaps you recall that in his Sunday New York Times op-ed entitled "Something for Barack and Bibi to Talk About" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/opinion/sunday/friedman-something-for-barack-and-bibi-to-talk-about.html?_r=0), would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman wrote:

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

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

Hmm. Friedman, who was enlisted by Obama to market the president's bogus agreement with Khamenei to curtail Iran's nuclear weapons development program (see his anti-Semitic diatribes: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/thomas-friedman-lets-make-deal-anti.html and http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/thomas-friedman-what-about-us-is-thomas.html), relies upon Shavit for his understanding of Israel.

Well, today, in a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "How Bush Let Iran Go Nuclear" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/opinion/how-bush-let-iran-go-nuclear.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=0), Haaretz columnist Shavit reveals several unpleasant truths. Explaining that Bush, not Obama, was primarily responsible for the current crisis involving Iran, Shavit writes:

"AMERICAN and Iranian negotiators yesterday began a second round of talks in Geneva, seeking a deal on Iran’s nuclear program.

If such an agreement were signed, it would represent an Iranian victory — and an American defeat. The Iranians would be able to maintain their nuclear program and continue to enrich uranium, while the Americans and their allies would loosen the economic siege on Iran and allow Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the economic oxygen needed to sustain his autocratic regime.

Yes, Iran’s race to the bomb would be slowed down — but an accord would guarantee that it would eventually cross the finish line. The Geneva mind-set resembles a Munich mind-set: It would create the illusion of peace-in-our-time while paving the way to a nuclear-Iran-in-our-time."

Shavit's conclusion:

"The Geneva agreement being negotiated is an illusion. The so-called moderate president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, is an illusion, too. So is the hope that Iran’s supreme leader can be appeased. Because America missed the opportunity for assertive diplomacy, all the options now left on the table are dire ones.

Rather than pursuing a dangerous interim agreement, the West must insist that all the centrifuges in Iran stop spinning while a final agreement is negotiated. President Obama was right to demand a settlement freeze in the West Bank in 2009. Now he must demand a total centrifuge freeze in Iran."

Shavit, Friedman's Middle East mentor, is correct. Friedman is wrong.

Today, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "U.S. optimistic about a nuclear deal with Iran" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/11/20/u-s-optimistic-about-a-nuclear-deal-with-iran/?hpid=z3), David Ignatius, Obama's second-string (after Friedman) foreign affairs cheerleader columnist, writes of Obama's pact with Khamenei:

"The agreement, if it can be pinned down, would be a significant diplomatic achievement for President Obama. From his first year in office, he made engaging Iran a priority; he signaled in secret letters to Tehran his interest in better relations and also assembled an international coalition for sanctions that would push Iran to limit its nuclear program.

. . . .

Details of the package remain tightly held, but one U.S. official said it would probably include a formula that has been stated often publicly by Obama, that the U.S. 'respects Iran’s right to access a civilian nuclear program.' The specific nature of that civilian program, and the level of uranium enrichment that could be conducted in the future, would be negotiated over the next six months as part of a final, comprehensive deal."

"A significant diplomatic achievement for President Obama"? yeah, right.

The level of future uranium enrichment by Iran "would be negotiated over the next six months as part of a final, comprehensive deal"? Good luck.

As stated by Shavit, this is a "Munich mind-set," and it was clear all along that this was Obama's plan.

God help us.

Maureen Dowd, "A Dynasty to Duck": Frankly, My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn

“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 Obama, Portland, April 1, 2010, after Affordable Care Act was signed into law      

First, let's get the ground rules straight:

• I oppose dynastic rule in the US, and I don't care if this involves the Bush Family, the Cheney Family or the Clinton Family.
• I favor universal health care.
• I opposed the Second Gulf War.
• I am no fan of Dick Cheney.

That said, you might want to have a quick look at Maureen Dowd's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Dynasty to Duck" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/opinion/dowd-a-dynasty-to-duck.html?_r=0), in which she takes aim at Dick Cheney's efforts to install his daughter, Liz, as a senator from Wyoming instead of Mike Enzi. Dowd writes:

"Dick Cheney’s chutzpah extends to charging the Obama administration with 'incompetence' in the Middle East and saying that the president has done 'enormous damage' to America’s standing around the world.

When Bill O’Reilly asked Cheney on Fox News what 'we get out of' the Iraq war, given that 'we spent $1 trillion on this with a lot of pain and suffering on the American military,' Cheney repeated his delusion about Saddam’s W.M.D. — the imaginary ones — falling into the hands of terrorists: 'We eliminated Iraq as a potential source of that.'

And, of course, he disdains Obamacare, telling Rush Limbaugh that it’s 'devastating' — begrudging less well-off and well-connected Americans the lifesaving and costly health care he got on us when he was in the White House."

Cheney charging the Obama administration with incompetence in the Middle East? Indeed, this rings of "the pot calling the kettle black," given how Cheney foolishly destroyed the equilibrium between Iraq and Iran by prosecuting the Second Gulf War. But is Obama administration policy in the Middle East "incompetent"? You bet, and if you have any doubt about it, I suggest you talk with America's traditional allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf States, which all believe that Obama has thrown them under the bus in order to avoid any threat of a confrontation with Iran. It is no wonder that Obama's cheerleaders on the editorial board of the New York Times today felt compelled to write an editorial entitled "Allies in Revolt" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/opinion/allies-in-revolt.html), which concludes:

"In addressing the United Nations last month, Mr. Obama reinforced his intention to narrow his regional diplomatic focus to the Iranian nuclear deal and an Israeli-Palestinian peace. Some have read this as weakness and retreat, rather than pragmatism. We wish he had put more emphasis on Egypt and Iraq. But his priorities make sense. His task now is to reassure the allies that the United States remains committed to their security."

Reassure allies that the US remains committed to their security? I suppose that's the reason that US Secretary of State John Kerry, who referred to Syria's Assad as his "dear friend," declared on Monday in an obvious reference to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, that the US would not "succumb to fear tactics" of those who oppose diplomacy (see: http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Kerry-US-wont-succumb-to-fear-tactics-of-those-who-oppose-Iran-diplomacy-330047). Kerry added that it would be "the height of irresponsibility" for Washington not to test Iran's readiness to negotiate an end to its efforts to build an atomic bomb.

Peculiar. And here I thought the prolonged meandering efforts of the P5+1, led by that horse's ass Catherine Ashton, were an effort to test Iran's diplomatic readiness. But never mind. Insulting Netanyahu is certain to calm Israel's fears, notwithstanding Iran's persistent threats to annihilate Israel . . . not.

By opposing Obamacare, Cheney is depriving Americans of lifesaving health care? Dowd would do well to read today's lead Washington Post online story entitled "Obama accused of breaking promise to consumers as health plans cancel policies" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-accused-of-breaking-promise-to-consumers-as-health-plans-cancel-policies/2013/10/29/860bed32-40bf-11e3-a751-f032898f2dbc_story.html?hpid=z1) by Lena H. Sun and Sandhya Somashekhar, which states:

"A new controversy over the president’s health-care law is threatening to overshadow the messy launch of its Web site: Notices are going out to hundreds of thousands of Americans informing them that their health insurance polices are being canceled as of Dec. 31.

The notices appear to contradict President Obama’s promise that despite the changes resulting from the law, Americans can keep their health insurance if they like it.

. . . .

Florida Blue Cross Blue Shield chief executive Patrick J. Geraghty said Sunday that the company is dropping about 300,000 policies. Customers are being informed that they can’t keep their current plans but that their new options might be better because of new benefits and government subsidies available to low- and middle-income people. Highmark Blue Shield of Pennsylvania sent notices in August to about 40,000 customers who are in a special plan for the hardest to insure, saying that their plans were being discontinued and that they might qualify for subsidies if they buy insurance on the federal exchange, spokeswoman Kristin Ash said.

In the Washington region, CareFirst, the region’s dominant carrier, has sent about 76,000 notices to consumers in Maryland, Virginia and the District in the past several months, informing them that as of Jan. 1, CareFirst 'cannot sell or renew plans that do not comply with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act,' spokesman Michael Sullivan said.

In Maryland, nine carriers have informed regulators that they plan to send notices to about 73,000 consumers about plans they no longer intend to offer."

Yes, Obamacare is a disaster and is in fact depriving many Americans of their health care.

I'm no fan of Dick Cheney, but he is yesterday's news. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is proving every bit as incompetent and despicable as that of George W. Bush.

Patrick Regan, "Syria Strike Would Put Peace Further Out of Reach": Comparing Bashar al-Assad With George W. Bush

There can be no mistaking CNN's agenda.

On Monday, CNN published an absurd online opinion piece entitled "A U.S. strike would be self-wounding" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/kapil-komireddi-us-strike-would-be-self.html) by someone named Kapil Komireddi, who claimed that there was an "absence of conclusive evidence linking the Assad regime" to the August 21 sarin attack that killed almost 1,500 Syrian civilians on the outskirts of Damascus. Yes, this is the same claim being being made by Vladimir Putin.

Today, CNN is back with an equally ridiculous opinion piece entitled "Syria strike would put peace further out of reach" (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/05/opinion/regan-intervening-in-civil-wars/index.html?hpt=hp_c1) by Patrick Regan, "a professor of peace studies and political science at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies." The premise of Regan's essay is that a "significant amount of research, including my own, demonstrates that military interventions from outside states lengthen and make bloodier civil wars," and that the Obama should instead seek a negotiated settlement.

Regan begins:

"President Barack Obama faces a terrible choice in the coming days. It is whether to kill a number of Syrians who had nothing to do with a poison-gas massacre to show President Bashar al-Assad, who presumably did have something to do with it, that using chemicals weapons violates an international norm."

Well, unbeknownst to Regan, Obama also has the option of rendering Assad's military airfields unserviceable without killing anyone. Obama could also announce a non-lethal no-fly zone, intended to protect innocent civilians from further slaughter. Alternatively, Obama could strike the facilities responsible for Assad's chemical weapons manufacture, although this wound entail casualties among those who "presumably did have something to do with it," i.e. the August 21 massacre.

Regan continues:

"Few would doubt the importance of international agreements to regulate war, particularly those that safeguard the rights of citizens, such as bans on chemical weapons and torture. If al-Assad is responsible for the use of chemical weapons, he had full knowledge of the norms he was violating."

"If al-Assad is responsible for the use of chemical weapons"? "If"? Can this Notre Dame professor possibly be serious?

Regan next states:

"By way of comparison, President George W. Bush chose a policy that allowed torture in interrogations with full knowledge that it was outlawed by agreements to which the United States was a signatory. He made a strategic choice in the face of a threat to national security. Both are abhorrent actions on the part of national leaders, both taken for fundamentally the same reasons."

Just a moment, professor. Are you actually suggesting that non-lethal waterboarding, "abhorrent" as it may be, undertaken to locate Osama bin Laden and to prevent another 9/11 attack, can be compared with a sarin gas attack that killed almost 1,500 innocent civilians? Did I miss something here?

Excuse me as I reach for my airsickness bag.

Maureen Dowd, "Can 44 Subtract 43 From the Equation?": Zero Minus Zero Equals Zero

Do you write a blog? My blog started in 2009, basically owing to the fact that The New York Times, a purported fount of progressivism, was routinely censoring my responses to op-eds and editorials. (Andrew Rosenthal of The Times objected in an e-mail to me to my use of the word "censored.") This diversionary project, which occasionally creates a bit of rancor among Times and Washington Post columnists and editors, is, according to Google, getting almost 30,000 page views per month, be that "good" or "bad." Occasionally, I am accused of being a neocon and/or Obama hater, and less than a month ago, I received the following love letter in response to one of my blog items (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/gail-collins-luv-guvs-last-stand-my.html?showComment=1367503018228):

"I can't figure out how your little rants keep getting such excellent Google rankings. Your consulting firm must REALLY be boutique because other than your blog both it and you are a black hole as far as Google and Google UK is concerned. It must be that you have 'New York Times' and the columnist's name included in them. I do find it interesting that you didn't start this blog until Obama was elected. You're outraged by Benghazi but felt no need to vent regarding all the BS Bush/Cheney pulled? Some serious blinders you're wearing there. But then, FOUR AMERICANS died in Benghazi, and there's the MASSIVE coverup. Makes Iraq and the cherry picked intelligence that got us there look like a church social.

I applaud the fact that you read a real newspaper rather than spend all your time glued to Fox News but given your numerous blog posts it looks as if you only read it as a source of tsuris. Given the Times liberal bent and your disdain for their opinions I fail to see why you read it other than a source of material for which you can write scathing rebuttals, almost all of which I find to be just..... wrong.

. . . .

I'm not really anonymous. My name is Andy and if for any reason you'd care to reply you can reach me at . . . . I'd be fascinated to know why a guy who's 'appeared on television throughout Europe, supplying real time, on-the-scene commentary during crises and wartime' and his boutique firm have absolutely no Google footprint. I'd enjoy hearing from you."

This time I responded at least in part:

"You obviously did not read the opening paragraph of my April 27, 2013 blog: 'Make no mistake about it: George W. Bush was a disaster for the United States. The Second Gulf War destroyed the equilibrium that existed between Iraq and Iran in the Middle East, setting the stage for Iran's fanatic pursuit of dominion over the region. His introduction of ground forces into Afghanistan was a tragedy in the making, as he should have known from Russia's prior entry into this quagmire. His administration allowed Wall Street and the big banks to rape the US economy with the introduction of worthless, real estate-based derivatives, and the elimination of the Uptick Rule during his second term in office (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/paul-krugman-jobless-trap-castigating.html) continues to plague American productivity."

. . . .

Frankly, I don't know anything about my Google ranking, nor do I care. Yes, I have tens of thousands of pageviews every month, and perhaps this has something to do with it, but I honestly don't know how this factors into my Google ranking. Again, it is of no interest to me.

If you are curious about my Google ranking, I suggest you start a blog and insert the names of NYT columnists and see if your opinions attract interest. Moreover, you will then be able to write freely and opine about 'all of which you find to be just . . . . right.'

My audience? If you are more intelligent than those who read my blog, who include PhDs, professors, members of Congress and newspaper editors, I again urge you to start your own blog. Maybe it will be an overnight Internet hit!"

This Andy (not Rosenthal) never responded. Did I take up his offer to  correspond with him? Be real! I have my flaws, but I'm no masochist.

I have no Google footprint? I must be doing something very right. I also have no Facebook page, nor can you find me on LinkedIn. Not interested. Those with whom I am willing to work, know where to find me.

I no longer appear on the news, although I am willing to do an occasional television commercial if I want to deaden my mind, make some money, eat well and take the day off.

But I stray.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Can 44 Subtract 43 From the Equation?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/dowd-can-44-subtract-43-from-the-equation.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd tells us of her visit to the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum. Dowd writes:

"It’s remarkable that Obama is trying to escape the shadow of the Bush presidency just as W. is trying to escape the shadow of the Bush presidency. Browsing the library, you wonder if these two presidents are complete opposites after all, as you see how history was shaped by an arrogant, press-averse, father-fixated, history-obsessed, strangely introverted chief executive.

Robert Draper, the author of 'Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush,' perused the library with me and observed: 'So 43 grew up entitled but could display a commoner’s touch, while 44 grew up hardscrabble yet developed this imperial mien. The former is defined by incuriosity, the latter by self-absorption. One is a late-blooming artist, the other a precocious writer. They can each make you kind of miss the other.'"

Sorry, Maureen, that I couldn't meet you there. The Bush library is not on my itinerary, at least not during this lifetime.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld? A thing of the past. They did their damage. I'm not interested anymore.

I'm a neocon? Heck no. I don't miss Bush, but I'm also patiently waiting not to miss Obama, who has compounded the Bush administration's failures, both domestic and international. I'm hoping to continue not missing Hillary.

Obama? He has merely paralyzed the executive branch of the government with scandals at a time when America has yet to emerge from its worst economic downturn in recent decades, and while the US faces monumental challenges overseas from the likes of North Korea and Iran.

So what am I?

Is there a word for a person who hates all politicians?

Maureen Dowd, "Silver Fox’s Pink Slip": Stuck in Puissant Elephant and Donkey Droppings

Make no mistake about it: George W. Bush was a disaster for the United States. The Second Gulf War destroyed the equilibrium that existed between Iraq and Iran in the Middle East, setting the stage for Iran's fanatic pursuit of dominion over the region. His introduction of ground forces into Afghanistan was a tragedy in the making, as he should have known from Russia's prior entry into this quagmire. His administration allowed Wall Street and the big banks to rape the US economy with the introduction of worthless, real estate-based derivatives, and the elimination of the Uptick Rule during his second term in office (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/paul-krugman-jobless-trap-castigating.html) continues to plague American productivity.

Could Americans possibly make it worse for themselves? Answer: Yes We Can! Enter Obama, the anti-Bush, or so many thought. Yet, five years later, American forces remain in Afghanistan, and Iran continues its quest for a nuclear weapon. The Uptick Rule has not been reinstated, and the American economy remains in the doldrums with federal debt fast approaching $17 trillion and almost 50 million Americans on food stamps.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Silver Fox’s Pink Slip" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-silver-foxs-pink-slip.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd takes another well-deserved swipe at George W. Bush on the occasion of the opening of his presidential library in Dallas. However, for me, what's past is past, and it's time to pick up the pieces, something at which the current occupant of the Oval Office has failed so miserably.

Of more interest to me is the opening of Dowd's opinion piece, in which she recounts Barbara Bush's recent admonition on the "Today" show that her son Jeb should not run for president in 2016. Dowd writes:

"But Bar, who was also giving the back of the hand to the Clintons, spit out the truth. It is wearying that America, a country that broke away from aristocratic England in a burst of rugged individualism, has spawned so many of its own royal political families, dynasties that feel entitled to inhabit the White House, generation after generation, letting their family competitions and tensions shape policy and history to an alarming degree.

Why does a George P., Chelsea, Beau Biden, Joe Kennedy III presidential sweepstakes feel so inevitable?"

God bless Barbara Bush, and may Hillary also relinquish any claim upon the White House.

Although managing high popularity ratings as secretary of state, seldom has a US government official travelled so far, yet accomplished so little. And then there was Hillary's outrageous testimony at the Senate Benghazi hearings. Just in case you missed it:

Senator Johnson: "We were misled that there were supposedly protests and then something sprang out of that. An assault sprang out of that. And that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days, and they didn't know that."

Hillary: "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans."

Senator Johnson: "I understand."

Hillary: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

Query: How do you figure out what happened in Benghazi and prevent it from ever happening again if you refuse to ascertain whether the deaths stemmed from a spontaneous protest or a planned attack by an al-Qaeda affiliate? It makes a big difference. In fact, I would say that it makes all the difference in the world if you want to take smart, effective measures to bolster US embassy defense and "to prevent it from ever happening again."

Please, God, is there no one out there but these narcissistic buffoons consumed with self-serving ambition?

You know the answer.

Maureen Dowd, "I’m Begging, Don’t Hack the Hacks": She Doesn't Know the Half of It

Wonder of wonders, George W. Bush, long out of the news, can paint, and in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "I’m Begging, Don’t Hack the Hacks" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/opinion/sunday/dowd-im-begging-dont-hack-the-hacks.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd observes:

"The man can handle a brush. And we thought he could only clear brush. The president who came across as a paint-by-numbers executive in public life can actually paint in private life.

It’s weird because W.’s presidency was not a reality-based undertaking; it did not look carefully at the world. And yet his paintings reflect meticulous optical observation."

Well, I was no fan of the Bush administration, whose overseas miscalculations (a misguided entry into Iraq that altered the Iraq-Iran equilibrium and the beginnings of an inane ground war in Afghanistan), combined with providing US financial institutions with carte blanche powers to destroy the US economy and rob Americans blind (sale of newfangled financial instruments premised upon worthless real estate coupled with the 2007 cancellation of the Uptick Rule), set the US on the road to a meltdown. But is Obama any better? A supposed genius who claims to have visited 57 states (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws), who escalated American involvement in Afghanistan, and who has done nothing to regain control over avaricious banks and hedge funds, has failed to change America's course.

But back to Maureen, who, in her opinion piece, expressed her solipsistic concern that her precious e-mails might have been hacked:

"It’s already too late to stop sending embarrassing e-missives, with a decade worth of hand grenades out there rolling around.

Just as Obama knows in his heart that, while seductive, drones need limits, so we know that, while seductive, e-mails need limits — because sooner or later, the Chinese or some bitter hacker in his basement or some 10-year-old kid is going to make all our titillating e-mails public.

The rule of thumb in Washington used to be: Don’t do anything that you wouldn’t want to see printed on the front page of The New York Times. The new rule is: Don’t send an e-mail you wouldn’t want to see printed on the front page of The New York Times. (Especially if you work here.)"

Well, in Maureen's instance, I wouldn't worry too much. The New York Times is morally and financially approaching Chapter 11, and if plagiarism didn't sink her career there, I doubt that anything can. An e-mail scheduling a Botox injection over the brows? A description of a tragic end to a torrid relationship? Who cares?

In fact, the real danger does not involve Maureen's e-mails. Rather, we are in a new era in which hostile nations, such as Iran, possess the ability to bring down American power grids, disrupt air traffic, halt financial market trading, and throw a monkey wrench into telecommunication networks. Some of these systems possess some small measure of protection, while others are wretchedly exposed to hacking.

The storm, far greater in magnitude than that just experienced by America's Northeast, is brewing, and inadequate precautions have been taken to batten down the hatches.

Joe Nocera, "While the Markets Swoon ...": Bush Is Still to Blame

Voicing discontent with Obama's "uninspired" speech on Monday, Joe Nocera, in his latest New York Times op-ed, "While the Markets Swoon ... (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/opinion/nocera-while-the-markets-swoon.html?hp), would have us know that the economic crisis is the fault of George W. Bush:

"Has any president in American history left behind as much lasting damage as George W. Bush? In addition to two unfinished wars, he also set us on the path to our current financial mess."

Okay, Bush is to blame, but Obama was elected to end the wars and guide us out of the morass. This hasn't happened.

In its editorial entitled "Past Time for a New Agenda" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/opinion/past-time-for-a-new-agenda.html?_r=1&hp), The New York Times today rails against the Republicans in its efforts to shift the blame for the economic debacle. Is "I didn't do it" shaping up to be the theme of the 2012 Obama reelection campaign?

What a shame that Obama is not being challenged in the primaries by Hillary.

Thomas Friedman, "The Bin Laden Decade": What Tom Forgets to Say

Today, in his New York Times op-ed entitled "The Bin Laden Decade" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/opinion/01friedman.html?hp), Thomas Friedman, who is now said to be advising Obama (see: http://www.tnr.com/article/tel-aviv-journal/88563/obama-middle-east-zakaria-friedman-israel), claims that Osama bin Laden "did a number" on the Arab states, America and Israel,

"all of whom have deeper holes than ever to dig out of thanks to the Bin Laden decade, 2001 to 2011, and all of whom have less political authority than ever to make the hard decisions needed to get out of the holes."

Friedman blames the Arabs for failing over the past decade to address economic development, population growth and education. Friedman blames George W. Bush for a tax cut, Medicare prescription drug entitlement and two wars, all of which the U.S. could not afford. Friedman blames Israel for expanding West Bank settlements and destroying Israel as a Jewish democracy.

However, Friedman conveniently forgets that Obama has been President of the United States during the past two and a half years.

Observing that "Washington basically gave the Arab dictators a free pass to tighten their vise grip on their people," Friedman fails to remember that in his June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo, Obama excused the Arab states from implementing democratic reforms:

"I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."

It skips Friedman's mind that Obama has failed to extricate the U.S. from a costly, pointless war in Afghanistan, and has even deepened U.S. involvement.

While blaming Israel for expanding West Bank settlements, Friedman fails to observe that in 2005, Israel undertook a unilateral evacuation of Gaza, which was followed by a hailstorm of missiles and rockets from Gaza directed at southern Israeli communities.

Friedman forgets that during that same bin Laden decade, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert offered Abbas an independent Palestinian state based upon the 1967 lines with land swaps, but this proposal was categorically rejected by Abbas. Does Netanyahu want to hold onto the West Bank with its 2.4 million Palestinians, as suggested by Friedman? No way, but like most Israelis, he is also unwilling to permit the return of Palestinian suicide bombings (also characteristic of the "bin Laden decade") or rocket fire from the West Bank into Tel Aviv, Haifa, Netanya and Jerusalem. Remember that Israel is only nine miles wide at its waist.

Friedman concludes:

"For all these reasons, I find myself asking the same question in Cairo, Washington and Jerusalem: 'Who will tell the people?'"

I suppose Friedman thinks that he is the chosen one. Thanks, but no thanks, Tom.

"It's Witch-Hunt Season": Paul Krugman Begs for the Assistance of George Bush

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "It's Witch-Hunt Season" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/opinion/30krugman.html), Paul Krugman concludes:

"If I were President Obama, I’d be doing all I could to head off this prospect, offering some major new initiatives on the economic front in particular, if only to shake up the political dynamic. But my guess is that the president will continue to play it safe, all the way into catastrophe."

After railing against Limbaugh, Bush, the Koch brothers, Steve Schwarzman and everyone else under the sun, Krugman finally gets it right -- this presidency is a disaster of Obama's own making. The U.S. is not "still suffering the after-effects of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s," but rather still mired in the worst economic crisis since the 1930's.

There is a saying that originates in the Middle East:

"Dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

Ordinarily, it wouldn't matter what Limbaugh said, but in this instance the caravan is stuck, and Krugman has little to say or do other than to denounce the voices of the right.

Krugman writes:

"Mr. Bush is still around, as are many of his former officials. Where are the statements, from the former president or those in his inner circle, preaching tolerance and denouncing anti-Islam hysteria?"

Sorry, Paul, but in case you didn't notice, the United States has a new president, whose job it is to lead.

[Interesting to observe how Krugman, joining fellow New York Times columnists Dowd and Herbert, has now soured on Obama.]

Doublespeak from The New York Times: First Blame Bush

In a verbose November 19 editorial entitled "Mr. Obama’s Task", The New York Times descends to a level of puerile petulance seldom witnessed on the pages of this venerable, financially distressed newspaper. The editorial begins:

"There is no doubt that the prospects for success in Afghanistan are so bleak right now because former President George W. Bush failed for seven long years to invest the necessary troops, resources or attention to the war. But it is now President Obama’s war, and the American people are waiting for him to explain his goals and his strategy.

Mr. Obama was right to conduct a sober, systematic review of his options. We all know what happens when a president sends tens of thousands of Americans to war based on flawed information, gut reactions and gauzy notions of success. But the political reality is that the longer Mr. Obama waits, the more indecisive he seems and the more constrained his options appear.

It has been more than eight months since Mr. Obama first announced his strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, warning Americans that, for them, the border between the two — where Taliban and Qaeda forces have found safe haven — is 'the most dangerous place in the world.' And it has been more than a month since his top general in Afghanistan asked for 40,000 more troops, warning that 'failure to gain the initiative' over the next year could make it impossible to defeat the Taliban."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/opinion/19thu1.html?_r=1

Let's translate this doublespeak a paragraph at a time.

Paragraph 1:

The blame belongs to Bush. If that buffoon had sunk billions more dollars and sent thousands more U.S. troops to their graves in this "graveyard of empires" as did the Soviets, all would be well. Now it's time for Obama to show us the light, but whatever happens, it's still Bush's fault.

Paragraph 2:

Obama was perspicacious and pure while cogitating, contemplating and otherwise considering the mysterious, muddled mien of this morass; however, if he doesn't act fast, he could be proven a false messiah.

Paragraph 3:

We raced to support Obama when The Washington Post derided his foreign policy and were rewarded with an op-ed written by or for the president. Our editorials are in lockstep with the administration's policy or lack thereof, Obama has put everyone on notice that the stakes in Afghanistan are high, and if Obama delays any longer, he's a lame duck and we're a cooked goose.

Moral of the story: There's no correlation between intelligence and leadership, ethical, journalistic or political.