Monday, April 27, 2009
US Army Confirms Israeli Nukes
I'm including this report that Israel has nuclear weapons just for the record, since everybody knows it, but maybe Israel's game of plausible deniability is wearing thin.
A Kindred Spirit on Jane Harmon
This post on Sic Semper Tryannis is more outspoken than I. As it says about Rep. Jane Harmon, "From the Israeli perspective, she would have been their spy.... She agreed to help an agent of a foreign government and was to be rewarded with advancement...." She would have been paid to some extent by Haim Saban, the dual national Israeli-American billionaire who already controls the Brookings Institution's Center for Middle East Policy, which bears his name. Saban's funding has basically turned the Center into an Israeli lobby headed by Martin Indyk, an Australian who worked for AIPAC, the premier Israeli lobby, before he became US Ambassador to Israel.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Can the Fed Manage the Economy?
I have been a big fan of Ben Bernanke, who along with Hank Paulson jumped into the fray to rescue the economy from it's meltdown last fall. I think it is great that he is a student of the Great Depression and is using his knowledge to try to avoid another one. Things seem to be looking up, but there seems to be some question about whether the green shoots that are springing up will be viable.
In a way, however, despite the fact that Bernanke has done things the Fed has never done before, what he is doing now is the easy part. In general, people are not going to complain too much when you are handing out free money. There will be complaints from the people who are not getting it, which we are seeing now, but it's not like sucking money out and making life harder for people, not just making some people comparatively poorer by handing out money to others. Although their Wall Street neighbors are rich and getting government handouts, regular people are better off than they would be if the Fed had done nothing. It's just that maybe they get to keep most of their jobs, while Wall Street not only gets to keep its jobs, it gets huge bonuses to boot.
Although this course of action seems correct, you have to wonder why the solution to the current meltdown is the same medicine that caused the meltdown -- low interest rates, more consumer spending, freely available mortgages, etc. Doesn't this encourage the same bad risk borrowers to borrow more? They say that refinancing is way up because mortgage rates are at their lowest rates ever. Are these just people turning their homes into ATM machines who missed the last go-round? Instead of more profligate spending, don't we want to encourage more responsible conduct? Ridiculously low interest rates do not do so. People are saving more, but if the interest paid on their savings is virtually nothing, that's not encouraging them to save. If people genuinely expected deflation, that would encourage them to save, because even zero interest is valuable if each dollar buys more at a later date. Yet, the Fed has said it doesn't want deflation either.
The future is more of a problem. If the Fed doesn't turn off the money spigot at the right time, perhaps at exactly the right time (which is hard to determine in real time), then inflation may take off. When it turns off the money spigot, people will experience real financial pain, not just envy. The one person who's done this is Paul Volker. Under him a 14% mortgage was a good interest rate. Will Bernanke be willing to do this? How much political pressure will he come under not to do it? Will he know when to do it?
In a way, however, despite the fact that Bernanke has done things the Fed has never done before, what he is doing now is the easy part. In general, people are not going to complain too much when you are handing out free money. There will be complaints from the people who are not getting it, which we are seeing now, but it's not like sucking money out and making life harder for people, not just making some people comparatively poorer by handing out money to others. Although their Wall Street neighbors are rich and getting government handouts, regular people are better off than they would be if the Fed had done nothing. It's just that maybe they get to keep most of their jobs, while Wall Street not only gets to keep its jobs, it gets huge bonuses to boot.
Although this course of action seems correct, you have to wonder why the solution to the current meltdown is the same medicine that caused the meltdown -- low interest rates, more consumer spending, freely available mortgages, etc. Doesn't this encourage the same bad risk borrowers to borrow more? They say that refinancing is way up because mortgage rates are at their lowest rates ever. Are these just people turning their homes into ATM machines who missed the last go-round? Instead of more profligate spending, don't we want to encourage more responsible conduct? Ridiculously low interest rates do not do so. People are saving more, but if the interest paid on their savings is virtually nothing, that's not encouraging them to save. If people genuinely expected deflation, that would encourage them to save, because even zero interest is valuable if each dollar buys more at a later date. Yet, the Fed has said it doesn't want deflation either.
The future is more of a problem. If the Fed doesn't turn off the money spigot at the right time, perhaps at exactly the right time (which is hard to determine in real time), then inflation may take off. When it turns off the money spigot, people will experience real financial pain, not just envy. The one person who's done this is Paul Volker. Under him a 14% mortgage was a good interest rate. Will Bernanke be willing to do this? How much political pressure will he come under not to do it? Will he know when to do it?
Who Is To Blame for the Financial Crisis?
Who is to blame for the world financial crisis -- Jews, WASPs, others? Brazilian President Lula said that it was caused by white people with blue eyes.
Jews have come in for a pretty good drubbing because of their traditional involvement in the financial markets and the major role they play on Wall Street. But there also seem to be a lot of WASPs, or at least people of Anglo ancestry; I'm not so sure about the Protestant part. You don't hear much about WASPs anymore, perhaps in part because of the decline of the old line Protestant churches -- Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. In the old days you could count on the Rockefellers, Fords, Morgans, Vanderbilts, etc., to be WASPs.
I would guess that in general the WASPs on Wall Street are more politically conservative than the Jews, e.g., George Soros. But it's not so clear. I don't know who has been more reckless in taking on too much financial risk.
Jewish Goldman Sachs alumnus Robert Rubin was Treasury Secretary in the Democratic Clinton administration, but he and his Jewish colleague Larry Summers oversaw the elimination of banking regulations that eventually led to the financial meltdown, a move favored by the political right wing.
Later, WASP Goldman Sachs alumnus Hank Paulson was Treasury Secretary in the Republican Bush administration, but he oversaw the massive government intrusion into the financial industry to rescue it from the results of the liberalization initiated by Rubin, a move that horrified the political right wing.
But in most cases the characters are white, and maybe blue-eyed. Former Citigroup CEO Richard Parsons, who is black, is an exception, and I'm sure there are many others.
Jews have come in for a pretty good drubbing because of their traditional involvement in the financial markets and the major role they play on Wall Street. But there also seem to be a lot of WASPs, or at least people of Anglo ancestry; I'm not so sure about the Protestant part. You don't hear much about WASPs anymore, perhaps in part because of the decline of the old line Protestant churches -- Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. In the old days you could count on the Rockefellers, Fords, Morgans, Vanderbilts, etc., to be WASPs.
I would guess that in general the WASPs on Wall Street are more politically conservative than the Jews, e.g., George Soros. But it's not so clear. I don't know who has been more reckless in taking on too much financial risk.
Jewish Goldman Sachs alumnus Robert Rubin was Treasury Secretary in the Democratic Clinton administration, but he and his Jewish colleague Larry Summers oversaw the elimination of banking regulations that eventually led to the financial meltdown, a move favored by the political right wing.
Later, WASP Goldman Sachs alumnus Hank Paulson was Treasury Secretary in the Republican Bush administration, but he oversaw the massive government intrusion into the financial industry to rescue it from the results of the liberalization initiated by Rubin, a move that horrified the political right wing.
But in most cases the characters are white, and maybe blue-eyed. Former Citigroup CEO Richard Parsons, who is black, is an exception, and I'm sure there are many others.
Jews Need to Fix Israel
Jews claim that Israel is unjustly criticized, that it is much more moral than other countries who are not criticized to the same degree. See for example this op-ed by Brent Stevens in the Wall Street Journal.
But like it or not, Jews are held to a higher standard. First, it is a religious state, the Judeo part of the Judeo-Christian faith. Russia makes no claim to such religiosity. Italy conveniently stuck the Vatican in its own, separate country. Saudi Arabia as the keeper of Mecca does make a somewhat similar claim, and it is increasingly caught between its Islamic leadership status and its desire to be just one of the guys when it comes to dealing with the West. But because of its religious character, Israel will always be held to a higher standard than most other countries, and it should be. The US, as the "city on a hill" that Reagan loved faces a similar problem, which is currently illustrated by our debate about torture. Russians don't get criticized for killing kids in Chechnya like the Israelis do for killing kids in Palestine, and they don't get criticized for using torture like the US does. If the Jews renounced their God and accepted all the Arabs in Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza) as equals, they would get a lot less criticism. They would be more like an ordinary run of the mill country.
A second issue, however, is the fact that Israel was created by the United Nations. It's not as if the state of Israel had occupied the land of Palestine for the last 4,000 years. They were missing for the last 1,000 years or so. What Israel has done is not unlike what the US did in slaughtering the Indians and occupying the American West, but this is a different time, and attitudes have changed. What was more or less acceptable in the 1800s is no longer acceptable in the 21st century. It might be unfair, but it's a fact. So the Israelis and the beneficiaries of this largess of the world through the UN, should seem more grateful and should try to live at peace with their neighbors. Granted the neighbors are unhappy, that's a challenge for Israel; make them happy.
Finally, the main reason the world gave Palestine to Israel was because of Jewish suffering int he Holocaust during World War II. The idea that the Jews in Israel should then turn around and do the same sorts of things to the Palestinians just is off the charts in terms of human decency. Jews should be models of compassion and understanding. When they turn out to be anything less, the world is horrified, not because what they do is so terrible on the scale of oppression, but because it shouldn't even be on the scale at all.
American Jews should be demanding that Israel behave better, not defending Israel's failures more vocally than the Israelis themselves. There are many wonderful Jews in American, but at the moment, they are all damned by the Jews who defend any reprehensible action that Israel takes.
But like it or not, Jews are held to a higher standard. First, it is a religious state, the Judeo part of the Judeo-Christian faith. Russia makes no claim to such religiosity. Italy conveniently stuck the Vatican in its own, separate country. Saudi Arabia as the keeper of Mecca does make a somewhat similar claim, and it is increasingly caught between its Islamic leadership status and its desire to be just one of the guys when it comes to dealing with the West. But because of its religious character, Israel will always be held to a higher standard than most other countries, and it should be. The US, as the "city on a hill" that Reagan loved faces a similar problem, which is currently illustrated by our debate about torture. Russians don't get criticized for killing kids in Chechnya like the Israelis do for killing kids in Palestine, and they don't get criticized for using torture like the US does. If the Jews renounced their God and accepted all the Arabs in Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza) as equals, they would get a lot less criticism. They would be more like an ordinary run of the mill country.
A second issue, however, is the fact that Israel was created by the United Nations. It's not as if the state of Israel had occupied the land of Palestine for the last 4,000 years. They were missing for the last 1,000 years or so. What Israel has done is not unlike what the US did in slaughtering the Indians and occupying the American West, but this is a different time, and attitudes have changed. What was more or less acceptable in the 1800s is no longer acceptable in the 21st century. It might be unfair, but it's a fact. So the Israelis and the beneficiaries of this largess of the world through the UN, should seem more grateful and should try to live at peace with their neighbors. Granted the neighbors are unhappy, that's a challenge for Israel; make them happy.
Finally, the main reason the world gave Palestine to Israel was because of Jewish suffering int he Holocaust during World War II. The idea that the Jews in Israel should then turn around and do the same sorts of things to the Palestinians just is off the charts in terms of human decency. Jews should be models of compassion and understanding. When they turn out to be anything less, the world is horrified, not because what they do is so terrible on the scale of oppression, but because it shouldn't even be on the scale at all.
American Jews should be demanding that Israel behave better, not defending Israel's failures more vocally than the Israelis themselves. There are many wonderful Jews in American, but at the moment, they are all damned by the Jews who defend any reprehensible action that Israel takes.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Loyal Jewish Americans?
The story in the NYT and other media about Congresswoman Jane Harmon's involvement with AIPAC, Haim Saban, and perhaps an "Israeli agent," raises questions about the loyalty of American Jews. Harmon, a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, is Jewish and apparently put Israel's interests ahead of America's. From the hazy reporting on the matter, the "Israeli agent" may simply be someone from AIPAC, not a Mossad spook. On the other hand, NSA is not supposed to wiretap conversations between Americans. If a conversation does not involve somebody overseas, then an agency other than NSA should be doing it.
In any case, the report does raise questions about the loyalty of American Jews vis-a-vis Israel, starting with Harmon, including billionaire Saban (a dual US-Israeli national), and certainly AIPAC, which claims it is not an Israeli lobby, despite the fact that the case that Harmon was talking about involved the transfer of classified information to Israel by employees of AIPAC.
I don't think all Jews are disloyal Americans. One of the most loyal Americans we have at the moment is Jon Stewart (nee Jonathan Liebowitz), along with Tom Friedman, and many others like Ben Bernanke and Paul Volker. But on the other hand, you've got Joe Lieberman, who represents Israel much more forcefully than he represents Connecticut.
Meanwhile, today you have the furor over criticism of Israel by the UN Human Rights Commission. No doubt Ahmadinejad's criticism of Israel was way off the mark, but you would think that a country founded as a result of the suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust would be more concerned about the suffering of the Arabs displaced by the creation of Israel. Palestine may have been a Jewish country 2,000 years ago, but it wasn't Jewish in 1945. The US has become an apologist for Israeli acts that many Westerners find horrifying. It's a shame that so many decent Jews are tarred by what Israel does. The crushing embrace in which many American Jews hold Israel does a disservice to more conscientious, moral, thinking Jews.
This episode with Jane Harmon is only the most recent. The US Congress marches in lockstep with AIPAC, just as it does with the NRA, now the defender of supplying Mexican drug gangs with powerful guns used to kill everyone from children to law enforcement officers. To look at the US Congress is to see cowards on parade. They are following in the footsteps of the Roman senate, described as follows by Wikipedia: "... [U]nlike the senate of the republic, the senate of the empire was not politically independent. With the loss of its independence to the emperor, it lost its prestige and eventually much of its power."
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Goldman Cashes In
Goldman Sachs is taking maximum advantage of government freebies, while at the same time poormouthing them. It's possible that Goldman didn't really need or want bailout money, but was forced to take it to mask other banks who desperately needed it. Once it got it, however, it didn't wait to profit from the taxpayer largess.
One of its biggest benefits was indirect. Goldman was owed money by AIG; exactly for what is not clear to me, but AIG paid Goldman about $12 billion. Goldman knew it was making a bad bet on whatever trade it made with AIG as a counterparty, but the government bailed it out at 100 cents on the dollar. Shouldn't it pay some penalty for making a bad bet, say making only 80 cents on the dollar? That would have whiped out its $1 billion profit for last quarter, although Goldman argues that it would not. There are even more questions about Goldman's tax year accounting. But in any case it came out smelling like a rose thanks to the taxpayers.
Today's NYT reveals that Goldman is cashing in on another taxpayer subsidy that guarantees its debt for free, even as it touts its withdrawal from the TARP. This program apparently helped it raise the capital that it says it will use to replace the TARP money. The NYT points out that this program could bankrupt the FDIC, but we'll all hope that it won't.
One of its biggest benefits was indirect. Goldman was owed money by AIG; exactly for what is not clear to me, but AIG paid Goldman about $12 billion. Goldman knew it was making a bad bet on whatever trade it made with AIG as a counterparty, but the government bailed it out at 100 cents on the dollar. Shouldn't it pay some penalty for making a bad bet, say making only 80 cents on the dollar? That would have whiped out its $1 billion profit for last quarter, although Goldman argues that it would not. There are even more questions about Goldman's tax year accounting. But in any case it came out smelling like a rose thanks to the taxpayers.
Today's NYT reveals that Goldman is cashing in on another taxpayer subsidy that guarantees its debt for free, even as it touts its withdrawal from the TARP. This program apparently helped it raise the capital that it says it will use to replace the TARP money. The NYT points out that this program could bankrupt the FDIC, but we'll all hope that it won't.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Prof. Mearsheimer on Amb. Freeman
For the record, here's an article by John Mearsheimer on Chas Freeman's being blackballed by the Israel lobby.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Republicans, Back Off on Christopher Hill
While I'm on the subject of destroying America by being obstructionist on every issue, what about the Republicans blocking the confirmation of Christopher Hill to be Ambassador to Iraq? The opposition is being led by John McCain and Lindsey Graham, two men who claim to be military patriots. This article in Foreign Affairs says that they are seriously upsetting the US military that wants an ambassador in place to take some of the burden for running Iraq off of the military.
Hill was a loyal diplomat for Bush, but because he worked on North Korea, the Republicans want his head. It's the same kind of McCarthyism directed at the State Department that destroyed career diplomat Chas Freeman's nomination to head of the CIA's NIC. Republicans are just not happy unless their killing children, or getting the Israelis to do it for them. I thought John McCain was supposed to be some kind of moderate. I don't think so. He must be extremely bitter about his loss in the Presidential election and has just decided to destroy America, since it didn't vote for him.
Hill was a loyal diplomat for Bush, but because he worked on North Korea, the Republicans want his head. It's the same kind of McCarthyism directed at the State Department that destroyed career diplomat Chas Freeman's nomination to head of the CIA's NIC. Republicans are just not happy unless their killing children, or getting the Israelis to do it for them. I thought John McCain was supposed to be some kind of moderate. I don't think so. He must be extremely bitter about his loss in the Presidential election and has just decided to destroy America, since it didn't vote for him.
Republicans, Back Off on Geithner!
The Republicans need to back off on calling for Treas Sec Geithner's head. As this FT editorial says, he deserves to be given a chance. Geithner didn't cause this crisis, the Republicans did, with all their pro-business legislation (or lack thereof) during the last eight years. Geithner may not have covered himself with glory, but he's working hard, and he has little help, because all the Wall Street tycoons who should be helping him in senior Treasury positions can't or won't because of their criminal conduct working on Wall Street.
By calling for his ouster or even by screaming criticism at him, Republicans are trying to get rid of or immobilize the captain of a ship while it is caught in a hurricane. Even it he's not the best captain, he understands the situation, and he's all we've got. We're in a situation where we don't even have a first mate. Calling for Geithner's ouster is tantamount to calling for the destruction of the American economy. It's grossly irresponsible.
By calling for his ouster or even by screaming criticism at him, Republicans are trying to get rid of or immobilize the captain of a ship while it is caught in a hurricane. Even it he's not the best captain, he understands the situation, and he's all we've got. We're in a situation where we don't even have a first mate. Calling for Geithner's ouster is tantamount to calling for the destruction of the American economy. It's grossly irresponsible.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Immoral Elites and Obama's Cabinet
The talking heads are decrying Obama's difficulty in filling cabinet and sub-cabinet positions. I don't think it's mainly Obama's fault. The problem is the immorality and greed of the elite leaders who would normally take such positions. We see potential nominees dropping like flies because they didn't pay their taxes. I agree with Joe Biden that paying taxes is a patriotic duty. So, if these people didn't pay their taxes, then we know what they think of the United States. It's me first, country second (or third or fourth or whatever).
The other problem is pay. Government salaries are peanuts to the elites who should be government leaders. This just shows how out of whack the class and pay system is in the US. Almost all the nominees have to make enormous financial sacrifices to take jobs that would pay well for the great mass of Americans. Decent men would be willing to serve their country, but today, while greed is endemic, men who hold high positions in private life are unwilling to enter public service.
The other problem is pay. Government salaries are peanuts to the elites who should be government leaders. This just shows how out of whack the class and pay system is in the US. Almost all the nominees have to make enormous financial sacrifices to take jobs that would pay well for the great mass of Americans. Decent men would be willing to serve their country, but today, while greed is endemic, men who hold high positions in private life are unwilling to enter public service.
More on Chas Freeman's Withdrawal
The Chas Freeman scandal of character assassination by the Jewish “Israeli lobby” will probably end soon. There may be one last gasp; I heard that Freeman is supposed to appear on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN show. Meanwhile, there has been some outcry in the mass media, most notably David Broder’s column in the Washington Post, “The Country’s Loss,” and Stephen Walt and Paul Pillar in Foreign Policy. The defense of Freeman has been small in comparison to the Jewish onslaught, including Jonathan Chait of the New Republic, Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, Gabriel Schoenfeld (writing on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal), Jonah Goldberg of National Review, Marty Peretz on his New Republic blog, and former AIPAC official Steve Rosen.
Walt’s Foreign Policy comment makes all the important points. For me the most important is the dire implication for intellectual honesty in intelligence analysis. All analysis affecting Israel is guaranteed to be characterized by self-censorship and political correctness. As Walt points out, it indicates that Israel’s supporters do not believe that Israel’s relationship with the US can survive honest scrutiny.
I thought the New York Times report of Freeman's withdrawal was pretty straightforward, although it managed to have a tone that said, "We love Israel," even if it didn't say it in so many words. After all, the Jewish-owned, usually intellectually honest NYT doesn't want to suffer the same fate at the hands of the Israel lobby that Freeman and the CIA did.
Walt’s Foreign Policy comment makes all the important points. For me the most important is the dire implication for intellectual honesty in intelligence analysis. All analysis affecting Israel is guaranteed to be characterized by self-censorship and political correctness. As Walt points out, it indicates that Israel’s supporters do not believe that Israel’s relationship with the US can survive honest scrutiny.
I thought the New York Times report of Freeman's withdrawal was pretty straightforward, although it managed to have a tone that said, "We love Israel," even if it didn't say it in so many words. After all, the Jewish-owned, usually intellectually honest NYT doesn't want to suffer the same fate at the hands of the Israel lobby that Freeman and the CIA did.
Chas Freeman's Statement on Withdrawing from NIC Appointment
Charles W. "Chas" Freeman Jr.'s statement:
To all who supported me or gave me words of encouragement during the controversy of the past two weeks, you have my gratitude and respect.
You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.
I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.
As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.
I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.
The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.
There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.
The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.
In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.
Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.
I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.
To all who supported me or gave me words of encouragement during the controversy of the past two weeks, you have my gratitude and respect.
You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.
I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.
As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.
I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.
The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.
There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.
The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.
In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.
Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.
I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Obama and the Markets
Obama is not responsible for the stock market’s daily ups and downs. Before this week, the pundits were blaming Obama for the stock market going down. This week they should be praising him because it went up, but the financial community is responsible for its own fate. Obama inherited a huge mess. He’s working to get out of it, but it’s going to take a while to dig out of the hole that the Republicans left for him. The financial executives just don’t want to take responsibility for their own failures.
Who knows why the market goes up or down. They claim it went up this week because big banks, starting with Citi, announced that they were making a profit so far this year. But what about all those toxic assets? They are still out there. Plus, as Jay Leno or somebody said, “Wow, we gave CitiBank $40 billion, and they made $8 billion profit.”
Plus, what’s going on in the rest of the world? If something goes wrong in some unexpected place, it may well affect the US market. On Fareed Zakaria, Niall Ferguson warned that the next problem might be the disintegration of Ukraine and some other eastern European countries that will allow Russia to reclaim some of its “near abroad.” Meanwhile, today China expressed concern about its investment in the US. To some extent we and China are tied together in a form of Mutually Assured Destruction because of the enormous amount we owe China. China can’t sell off its holdings without driving down prices and hurting itself, but it is certainly in a position to wreak havoc if it wants to.
Who knows why the market goes up or down. They claim it went up this week because big banks, starting with Citi, announced that they were making a profit so far this year. But what about all those toxic assets? They are still out there. Plus, as Jay Leno or somebody said, “Wow, we gave CitiBank $40 billion, and they made $8 billion profit.”
Plus, what’s going on in the rest of the world? If something goes wrong in some unexpected place, it may well affect the US market. On Fareed Zakaria, Niall Ferguson warned that the next problem might be the disintegration of Ukraine and some other eastern European countries that will allow Russia to reclaim some of its “near abroad.” Meanwhile, today China expressed concern about its investment in the US. To some extent we and China are tied together in a form of Mutually Assured Destruction because of the enormous amount we owe China. China can’t sell off its holdings without driving down prices and hurting itself, but it is certainly in a position to wreak havoc if it wants to.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Jews Got Chas Freeman
This WSJ op-ed by Bret Stevens, formerly of the Jerusalem Post, is just one example of the Jewish attack on Amb. Chas Freemen, who was nominated to be head of the CIA National Intelligence Council. Freeman is a good, decent man who was maliciously maligned by the Jewish lobby. He's not bigoted, but even if he were, what do the Jews fear so much? Was it just to show their power? Do they know that Israel is involved in such dastardly activities that truthful intelligence about it would be greatly damaging in the world's eyes? I don't know, but I do know that the Jews screamed for blood and they got it. Freeman has withdrawn his name.
The following is more or less the text of an email I sent to my Colorado senators and my congressman:
The following is more or less the text of an email I sent to my Colorado senators and my congressman:
The WSJ also earlier printed a letter from several ambassadors, one of whom I worked with, Amb. Tom Pickering. They supported the choice of Amb. Freeman.I have just heard on CNN that Chas Freeman has withdrawn his name to be head of the CIA National Intelligence Council.
I served with Amb. Freeman at the US Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, before I retired from the Foreign Service. I believe that he is a good man. I think it is terrible that he has been so viciously attacked by Jewish interests because he served as US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and might be somewhat evenhanded in his consideration of the Arab-Jewish/Israel-Palestine-Iran-Syria-Egypt-Iraq-Jordan... issue. In essence, he was damned by the United States of America because he was not a Jew.
This is not why I fought in the Army in Vietnam or why I served almost 25 years as a Foreign Service officer. This was a witch hunt, just like the ones carried out by Sen. Joe McCarthy years ago. I am outraged!
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Raise Income Tax on the Rich
Obama said that he will limit CEO salaries. It's going to be hard to do. They get money so many different ways -- straight salary, stock options, bonuses, retirement largess, golden parachutes, etc. It's not only the bank CEOs that we are worried about anyway. It's all those obscenely compensated CEOs.
Plus, America has not in the past liked hereditary, moneyed royalty like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Hiltons, etc. So, tax them when they make obscene amounts of money. A year ago some hedge fund guy named Paulson (not the Treasury Secretary) made over a billion dollars. Nobody needs to make more than say $50 million per year. After $50 million, increase the tax rate to 75% or more. From $10 million annual income the tax rate could be 50%, which is still less than it would have been 50 years ago. If most of the income goes to Uncle Sam, maybe CEO's won't work quite as hard to soak their shareholders, customers and employees. Another test would be the difference between CEO salaries and employee salaries. If a CEO makes more than 100 times what an average worker in his company makes, tax the overage at 100%.
Plus, America has not in the past liked hereditary, moneyed royalty like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Hiltons, etc. So, tax them when they make obscene amounts of money. A year ago some hedge fund guy named Paulson (not the Treasury Secretary) made over a billion dollars. Nobody needs to make more than say $50 million per year. After $50 million, increase the tax rate to 75% or more. From $10 million annual income the tax rate could be 50%, which is still less than it would have been 50 years ago. If most of the income goes to Uncle Sam, maybe CEO's won't work quite as hard to soak their shareholders, customers and employees. Another test would be the difference between CEO salaries and employee salaries. If a CEO makes more than 100 times what an average worker in his company makes, tax the overage at 100%.
Richard Perle's Ineffectiveness
While the WSJ on Wednesday was publishing the op-ed bashing Amb. Chas Freeman for not being Jewish, another columnist was ridiculing Richard Perle in the WSJ for an article in The National Interest claiming that the neo-cons had no influence on George Bush. Thomas Frank says Perle claims he cannot be "held responsible for the Bush administration's failures." Perle has had few rivals within the US government as a Jew who was one of the most hawkish defenders of Israel. Perle's article and his defense of it prompted the Washington Post headline, "Prince of Darkness Denies Own Existence." It's remarkable that men who were so powerful in George Bush's and previous administrations are now so thoroughly discredited. William Kristol, who was VP Dan Quayle's chief of staff, but who has now lost his column at the NYT, shares this distinction with Perle.
Richard Perle was at the pinnacle of power when he was Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan, where he and his minions were my nemeses, pursuing some kind of America-only foreign policy that abhorred any kind of treaty. There is a lot of schadenfreude felt here. Poor Richard! May you endure many more days of ridicule!
Richard Perle was at the pinnacle of power when he was Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan, where he and his minions were my nemeses, pursuing some kind of America-only foreign policy that abhorred any kind of treaty. There is a lot of schadenfreude felt here. Poor Richard! May you endure many more days of ridicule!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Amb. Chas Freeman Attacked for Not Being Jewish
An op-ed in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal criticizes Obama's choice of Amb. Chas Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council because Freeman has "distincitive political views and affiliations, some of which are more than eyebrow-raising." One of these is his presidency of the Middle East Policy Council, which the op-ed calls "an influential Washington mouthpiece for Saudi Arabia," were Freeman was ambassador. One of MPEC's most egregious faults was to publish "an 'unabridged' version of 'The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy' by professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt." Of course the article by these well-respected professors has been published by others, such as the New York Review of Books, and expanded into a critically acclaimed book. The op-ed continues, emphasizing its core point, "Mr. Freeman has views about Middle East policy that differ rather sharply from those held by supporters of the state of Israel."
Amb. Freeman was DCM (#2) at the Embassy in Bangkok while I was there. He had zero interest in my job as embassy systems manager (head of IT), but he was completely professional and certainly not a bigot. His main qualification for the NIC job is no doubt his service as Ambassador to China, which is developing into our most important bilateral relationship. His service as Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, one of our most important oil suppliers, is also a good reason to name him. I have no doubt that he will be even handed and fair in all of his dealings with Israel, which may be the reason for the WSJ attack on him. The article by Mearsheimer and Walt points out how Israel is accustomed to preferential, not even-handed, treatment.
Hooray for Obama for pursuing honesty and integrity in intelligence analysis. Maybe if we had had more of that under Bush, we wouldn't have gotten all the hyped-up intelligence claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It was certainly in Israel's interest to have us invade Iraq, at least that's what Israel thought then. In fact, the US invasion of Iraq has probably unexpectedly strengthened Iran to Israel's detriment.
Amb. Freeman was DCM (#2) at the Embassy in Bangkok while I was there. He had zero interest in my job as embassy systems manager (head of IT), but he was completely professional and certainly not a bigot. His main qualification for the NIC job is no doubt his service as Ambassador to China, which is developing into our most important bilateral relationship. His service as Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, one of our most important oil suppliers, is also a good reason to name him. I have no doubt that he will be even handed and fair in all of his dealings with Israel, which may be the reason for the WSJ attack on him. The article by Mearsheimer and Walt points out how Israel is accustomed to preferential, not even-handed, treatment.
Hooray for Obama for pursuing honesty and integrity in intelligence analysis. Maybe if we had had more of that under Bush, we wouldn't have gotten all the hyped-up intelligence claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It was certainly in Israel's interest to have us invade Iraq, at least that's what Israel thought then. In fact, the US invasion of Iraq has probably unexpectedly strengthened Iran to Israel's detriment.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Gregg Withdrawal, Patriotism and the Census
Obama has tried to form a team of rivals to deal with the national economic emergency, but the Republican rivals don't want any part of it. Until recently my main complaint has been about John McCain, who has been a particularly ungracious loser, fighting Obama tooth and nail. I have written this off to McCain's stupidity. He obviously doesn't understand economics, something he demonstrated when he left his campaign to devote all of his efforts to working on the first bailout bill. He was a disaster. He clearly doesn't understand the enormity of the problem, despite the fact that the most recent intelligence briefing listed the world economy as the greatest threat to the U.S., greater even than terrorism. You would think that McCain as an old military man would pay attention to intelligence warnings, but apparently if they contain numbers, he can't handle it.
Now Judd Gregg has come along to supplant McCain as the leading anti-American Republican. He decided that he can't work with Obama, despite the fact that America faces its worst economic plight in three or four generations. It looks like a patriotic American would want to do what he can to rescue America from its trials and tribulations, but not Gregg. He just wants to stick his finger in Obama's eye and make it more difficult for Obama to try to save America.
Interestingly, one of Gregg's main complaints was about the census. Apparently Republicans hate the census and see it as politically motivated. Joe Scarborough pointed out this morning that the 2000 census changed Georgia's congressional delegation from being predominately white Republican to predominately black Democratic.
So, apparently the census is just a political sham unrelated to the truth about the American population. Gregg and Scarborough would argue that when the census taker or the census form arrives at your house, lie! They argue that the census is a totally dishonest, politically motivated sham. It's another example of how Republicans hate America and discredit its institutions. Republicans don't want no stinking census, just like they didn't want no stinking regulation of the financial industry. As Ronald Reagan, their saint, said, government is the problem, not the solution. If American shot itself in the head, the Republicans think it would be much better off. Gregg didn't shoot America in the head, but he did stick his finger in her eye, and John McCain loves him for it.
More seriously, Gregg probably dropped out at least partly because of pressure from his Republican colleagues, like McCain, McConnell, Graham, Shelby and various other mentally challenged Senators, who are more concerned about partisan politics than about saving America. They are counting on the fact that their fat-cat supporters have enough gold stashed away in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Luxembourg, or some other foreign haven to take care of them when the U.S. craters as a result of their obstructionism.
Now Judd Gregg has come along to supplant McCain as the leading anti-American Republican. He decided that he can't work with Obama, despite the fact that America faces its worst economic plight in three or four generations. It looks like a patriotic American would want to do what he can to rescue America from its trials and tribulations, but not Gregg. He just wants to stick his finger in Obama's eye and make it more difficult for Obama to try to save America.
Interestingly, one of Gregg's main complaints was about the census. Apparently Republicans hate the census and see it as politically motivated. Joe Scarborough pointed out this morning that the 2000 census changed Georgia's congressional delegation from being predominately white Republican to predominately black Democratic.
So, apparently the census is just a political sham unrelated to the truth about the American population. Gregg and Scarborough would argue that when the census taker or the census form arrives at your house, lie! They argue that the census is a totally dishonest, politically motivated sham. It's another example of how Republicans hate America and discredit its institutions. Republicans don't want no stinking census, just like they didn't want no stinking regulation of the financial industry. As Ronald Reagan, their saint, said, government is the problem, not the solution. If American shot itself in the head, the Republicans think it would be much better off. Gregg didn't shoot America in the head, but he did stick his finger in her eye, and John McCain loves him for it.
More seriously, Gregg probably dropped out at least partly because of pressure from his Republican colleagues, like McCain, McConnell, Graham, Shelby and various other mentally challenged Senators, who are more concerned about partisan politics than about saving America. They are counting on the fact that their fat-cat supporters have enough gold stashed away in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Luxembourg, or some other foreign haven to take care of them when the U.S. craters as a result of their obstructionism.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Obama Recognizes Vietnam Vets
Obama won me over, although I was already a supporter, when he mentioned Khe Sahn in the same breath with Concord, Gettysburg and Normandy in his inaugural address. Typically, Americans look down on Vietnam veterans, probably because most Americans, like George Bush and Bill Clinton, did not go. There are probably very few Vietnam vets on Wall Street. So, to mention a Vietnam battle in a positive context along with other famous battles is another ground breaking step by Obama. Thank you.
My impression is that he is much more concerned about our military and veterans than Bush was, although Bush was always very public about praising them. If he had really cared about them he would have done more to increase the size of the Army and Marines, would have shortened their tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would have increased their time at home between tours. Plus he would have done more to make sure they had the best equipment. Instead of raising taxes to provide better equipment, he and Rumsfeld just went to war with what they had. They didn't try to improve the forces. I think Obama takes his job as commander-in-chief seriously and will do more for the troops, as well as for veterans. Appointing Shinseki as VA Secretary is a good first step. Shinseki may not know much about medicine, but he cares about his troops. Thank you.
My impression is that he is much more concerned about our military and veterans than Bush was, although Bush was always very public about praising them. If he had really cared about them he would have done more to increase the size of the Army and Marines, would have shortened their tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would have increased their time at home between tours. Plus he would have done more to make sure they had the best equipment. Instead of raising taxes to provide better equipment, he and Rumsfeld just went to war with what they had. They didn't try to improve the forces. I think Obama takes his job as commander-in-chief seriously and will do more for the troops, as well as for veterans. Appointing Shinseki as VA Secretary is a good first step. Shinseki may not know much about medicine, but he cares about his troops. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)