Tom Friedman's column in today's NYT is probably meant to be a warning to US politicians not to speak evil of their opponents, to me it is confirmation of bigotry in Israeli society, which Jews usually denounce as antisemitism if anyone dares speak it aloud. As a Jew, Tom Friedman may come under more criticism than a gentile, but he has been an objective newsman in both the Israeli and the Arab world before returning to the US. Discussing the film, "Rabin: The Last Day," the director said Rabin's murder "came at the end of a hate campaign" that included "the parliamentary right, led by the Likud (party), already then headed by Benjamin Netanyahu."
Friedman says this film is a warning to American Republican candidates who are stirring up similiar hate-filled emotions in the US. He is right that hate is not a good basis for a campaign, But if something is an issue, you should not refuse to talk about it just because you might hurt homebody's feelings, but there is no need to threaten or encourage violence. I don't think either Trump or Carson has done that.
The US has not descended to the level that Israel reached at the time of Rabin, as described in the film. Israelis should remember that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Let them work out their own political problems with their Muslim neighbors and then lecture us on how to deal with our own political system.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Monday, September 21, 2015
Congressman Perlmutter Supports Iran Nuclear Deal
Congressman Perlmutter answered my last letter encouraging him to support the Iran nuclear deal. He said that he would support it, combined with strong support for Israel.
Letter from the congressman:
September 4, 2015
Dear James,
Thank you for contacting me about the Iran nuclear agreement. I appreciate hearing from you on such an important issue, because it enables me to better represent the beliefs and values of our district.
I support the Iran Agreement negotiated by the United States, Germany, China, United Kingdom, France, Russia, the European Union and Iran. The U.S. and its international partners have committed to a diplomatic solution I believe reduces and limits Iran's ability to develop or manufacture nuclear weapons and is in America's best interests. This Agreement should also reduce nuclear tensions in the Middle East and will make our friend and ally, Israel, safer and less prone to nuclear conflict with Iran. I have reached these conclusions after reading the Agreement and its attachments, reviewing numerous articles pro and con, attending classified briefings, discussing the Agreement with its proponents and opponents, and listening to military and diplomatic experts, as well as constituents.
This Agreement has far reaching and historical impacts for our foreign policy and for our international security. The Agreement is a nuclear non-proliferation agreement limiting Iran's capacity to build nuclear bombs. It is not, nor is it intended to be, a peace agreement which resolves or eliminates all threats. So, despite the diplomatic progress made toward reducing Iran's nuclear capabilities under the Agreement, further steps must be taken to deter and discourage Iran from fulfilling its threats and to assist Israel in defending its national security.
Consequently, I am working with Congressional leadership and the Obama Administration to assure: 1) Israel receives an "unprecedented level of military, intelligence, and security cooperation from the United States; 2) America works with Israel to develop and share the latest military technology, including technology to penetrate deep bunkers; 3) Congress completes and extends legislation that provides military and foreign aid to Israel over the next 10 years; 4) Congress maintains oversight of the Agreement and its implementation as well as other laws and sanctions pertaining to Iran through frequent classified and unclassified briefings; 5) and America opposes any type of resolution brought before the United Nations that is one-sided or biased against Israel or which harms Israel's national security. The best path forward is to support the Agreement and to enact legislation that maintains a strong military presence in or around the Middle East and which provides unprecedented aid to Israel.
I encourage you to continue to contact me about the issues that are important to you. Please visit our website at www.perlmutter.house.gov to sign up for my e-newsletter and receive periodic updates on my activities as your representative in Washington.
Sincerely,
Ed Perlmutter
Member of Congress |
Monday, September 14, 2015
Americans Ignore Australia
Today I watched several US morning news shows - CBS & Morning Joe - and then I watched Aljazeera. One of Aljazeera's lead stories was the fact that Australia had a new Prime Minister. Neither of the US shows had mentioned that. All of the the US networks focus on easy news. They have virtually no staff overseas. They send their one foreign correspondent to wherever the hot spot of the day is, now the refugees in Europe. If they have any foreign story, it is that one hot spot, and often there is not foreign reporting. Lately anything from the Middle East has just been reported from the foreign correspondent's base in Turkey. If it's a European story, it's likely just to be reported from London, and if it's Asian, from Beijing or Shanghai, wherever their one correspondent is based. Aljazeera actually has correspondents who go the where the news is happening, even if it is not in a major capital.
Instead of reporting news, the so-called news shows in the US mainly have pundit talking heads, pontificating about the US election, which is still more than a year off. Right now, the campaign is really just a reality show, which partly explains why Donald Trump is doing so well. He is good at reality TV, and the networks love him because he boosts ratings without requiring the networks to do any work. There is always some new meaningless poll they can talk about. With the advent of cell phones, polls are virtually worthless, but the pundits latch on to them as if they were solid gold.
Besides Aljazeera, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are about the the only organizations doing serious reporting. Even on American stories, the networks seldom do any investigative reporting. They just go to press conferences at the White House, the forest fire, or wherever the press gaggle assembles. America is supposed to be an important country leading the world, but it's difficult for Americans to find out what is happening around the world, or even what is happening in the US. How corrupt is Congress? Americans have opinions, but nobody gives them the facts to back up or refute their opinions.
Monday, August 31, 2015
IIASA and Richard Perle
For a substantial part of my Foreign Service career, while
Reagan was President, I frequently crossed swords with Richard Perle at the
Pentagon. He was much superior to
me. He was an assistant secretary of
Defense; for much of this time I was a junior officer at the State
Department. However, I often worked on
technology transfer issues, and Perle was very interested in technology
transfer issues, especially as they related to the old Soviet Union. He always kept an eagle eye on CoCom, the old
Coordinating Committee that regulated technology transfers from Western, allied
countries to the Soviet Union.
My first brush with him must have been shortly after Reagan
was elected and Perle was installed at the Pentagon. I got a call from the science advisor to the State
Department Under Secretary who handled technology transfers. He said that Perle was cutting America’s
support for and participation in IIASA.
IIASA is the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
in Austria. (IIASA web site, and IIASA
Wikipedia entry.) In the Cold War 1980s
its mission was to promote cooperation between scientists from Western and
Communist countries. Perle was
apparently concerned that it might be a conduit for uncontrolled technology
transfer from the West to the East. It
was such an innocuous, academic institution that this seemed ridiculous. The Under Secretary’s science advisor and I
tried to stop Perle from blocking US participation, but as I recall, we
failed.
The good news is that IIASA survived and is still going
today, with a broader mandate, since the old bipolar Cold War has ended. It was my introduction to Richard Perle, who
always seemed to be on the opposite side of issues that we were both interested
in, from East-West technology transfers to third world transfers involving
nuclear proliferation or other high tech problems.
Reagan, Casey, and the Ayatollahs
I was in a
meeting with Bill Casey not long after he became head of the CIA. I had
been the State Department representative working on NIE-11-12-80 (CIA link to
it is here - http://www.foia.cia.gov/document/0000261310
) regarding Soviet military science and technology.
Reagan was elected more or less while we were working on it. The chief
CIA honcho was a guy named Jan Herring, who is apparently still around (link - http://www.academyci.com/jan-herring/
). He and CIA deputy director Admiral Bobby Inman quit abruptly about the
time of the election and the naming of Bill Casey to be CIA director.
There were of
course many military types working on the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate),
and I was the lone working level State Department rep. After a while I
got concerned that the hawks were going nuts finding new technological ways the
Soviets were going to kill us in our beds, and I started to push back and say
that we can’t be sure that this unusual frequency or substance is being
developed to use as a super weapon. And I found the CIA was supporting
me, although they wouldn’t take the lead in opposing the military.
However, after Jan Herring left and Casey came in, there was no hope of toning
down the Estimate. In addition the State Department Bureau of
Intelligence and Research usually is headed by a senior Foreign Service officer,
but at this time it was headed by a senior CIA official on loan. He was
not about to take a stand against the new man who was going to be his boss when
he returned to the CIA. So, at the big, final meeting with Casey to
approve the NIE (which I attended), he did not make any waves about State
Department concerns. Casey really did mumble; I could not understand a lot of what he said. I would like to think some of the “alternative view”
language in the NIE was due to me, but after 35 years, who knows where it came
from.
Anyway, I like to
think that Reagan’s election was orchestrated by the Iranian ayatollahs, rather
than the ayatollahs being manipulated by the Reagan campaign. There is a
movie about the “Manchurian Candidate.” I think Reagan was the “Iranian
Candidate.” The Iranians hated Carter for letting the Shah come to the US
for medical treatment when he was dying. They wanted “anybody but
Carter.” If Carter had rescued the hostages there is some chance that he
might have been elected, because he would have appeared a stronger, rather than
a weaker ("malaise") President. Reagan probably would have won anyway, but who
knows?
I saw Carter
recently when he came to Denver to sign copies of his new book, “A Full
Life.” I bought one and he signed it. Recently someone asked him if
he had any regrets, and he said one was the failed rescue mission, because if
it had not failed, he might have been re-elected. The Iranian hostages
were a major factor in the election. Incidentally, one of the hostages
was a classmate of mine in the A-100 class. This is the group of 40 or 50
officers that you come in with and there is a 6 or 9 month orientation, and
then you can kind of keep track of your classmates to see who becomes the
first ambassador, who goes the highest, etc. Several of my classmates
became ambassadors, but I didn’t make it.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Second Letter to Congressional Representatives
As the date for voting on the Iran nuclear deal approaches,
please note that despite the split of public opinion on the issue, the vast
majority of those knowledgeable about the issue support the deal. A number of military officers, scientists and
diplomats have publicly weighed in on the issue, and in almost all cases they
favor approval of the deal. I urge you
to support the deal.
Three dozen retired generals and admirals have written an
open letter supporting the nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the
same. They called the agreement “the
most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear
weapons.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/11/bd26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html
and http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/read-an-open-letter-from-retired-generals-and-admirals-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1689/)
Twenty-nine top American scientists have written President
Obama supporting approval of the deal.
Many of those who signed have worked on America’s nuclear weapons
program; some were Nobel laureates. The
New York Times notes that many of the scientists hold Department of Energy “Q”
clearances allowing access to sensitive technical information about nuclear
weapons. I held a “Q” clearance when I
was a State Department Foreign Service officer, because I worked on nuclear
non-proliferation issues. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/world/29-us-scientists-praise-iran-nuclear-deal-in-letter-to-obama.html
and http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/08/world/document-iranletteraug2015.html)
Finally, many of my former State Department colleagues have
written supporting the agreement. A letter
to President Obama signed by more than 100 former American ambassadors stated, “If
properly implemented, the comprehensive and rigorously negotiated agreement can
be an effective instrument in arresting Iran’s nuclear program and preventing
the spread of nuclear weapons in the volatile and vitally important region of
the Middle East.” I served with a number
of the ambassadors signing the letter, some when we were young junior officers together;
others were ambassadors under whom I served overseas. I have recently been corresponding about this
issue with Amb. Dennis Jett, who signed the letter. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/us/politics/former-us-diplomats-praise-iran-deal.html
and http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/16/us/politics/document-american-ambassadors-letter.html)
I hope that you will take the views of these experts who
favor the Iran nuclear deal into consideration in your deliberations. In addition, they represent the views of many
others from their professions, like myself.
I believe that it will make the world, the United States, and the Middle
East, including Israel, safer. It will
significantly restrict Iran’s nuclear activities, and it will provide ten to
fifteen years of breathing space in which to work out the next steps for
preventing further nuclear proliferation in the region.
Monday, August 17, 2015
No Reply from Representative Perlmutter re Iran Deal
Congressman Perlmutter did not reply to my letter regarding the Iran nuclear deal.
Reply from Sen. Gardner re Iran Deal
Thank you for contacting me
regarding Iran. I appreciate you taking the time to write. It is an honor to
serve you in the United States Senate and I hope you will continue to write
with your thoughts and ideas on moving our country forward.
Concern about Iran's nuclear
weapons capabilities has been growing for over a decade. In 2002, the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) first discovered that Iran was
engaging in a variety of nuclear activities, which violated its obligations as
a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The international
community has since pressured Iran to discontinue these activities through both
diplomacy and sanctions. After twenty months of negotiations, a deal was
reached between Iran and the six P5+1 countries, which include the United
States, France, Germany, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom. The parameters
of this agreement are outlined in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA).
The more details we learn about the
deal, the worse it seems. Reports indicate that this deal accomplishes none of
the goals it should, nor the goals the negotiations began with. It would make
Iran a globally approved nuclear threshold state. It would endanger our closest
ally in the region, Israel. The sanctions relief in the deal would give Iran
billions to pour into continued international terror operations. Full access to
all of Iran's undeclared nuclear facilities or military facilities where
nuclear work may be conducted is the only way to ensure Iran's compliance with
the JCPA. In this agreement, however, inspectors must wait at least 24 days
before they can set foot on these sites, which is far from the Administration's
promise of "anytime, anywhere" inspections. Iran remains the largest
state sponsor of terror in the world and continues to provide weapons and
supplies to terrorist groups that have killed Americans, such as Hezbollah or
Iran-backed militants in Iraq. Furthermore, despite the advice our military
leaders, such as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin
Dempsey, this deal lifts the current conventional arms embargo against Iran in
five years and lifts sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program after eight
years, allowing Iran to become an even bigger threat to the region.
There is no doubt that a
nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize an already volatile region and directly
threaten our U.S. national security and that of our close allies, such as
Israel. Ever since its statehood, Israel has been a shining light for democracy
in a politically unstable region. Iran's regime, however, refuses to recognize
Israel's right to exist and has repeatedly said that it plans to "wipe
Israel off the map". It is imperative that we do everything we can to prevent
Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and from becoming nuclear-capable. That means doubling down on the sanctions that brought
Iran to the table in the first place and working to enact a deal like the
President originally promised: one that prevents Iran from ever obtaining a
nuclear weapon rather than putting them on the glide path to a bomb in a few
short years. We must also continue to provide all the support we
can toward Israel. Standing by Israel is one of my top priorities in
Congress. The American people and the world
deserve a better deal. Congress should reject this deal and deliver on the
promises made at the outset of these negotiations.
Again, thank you for contacting me,
and do not hesitate to do so again when an issue is important to you.
Cory Gardner
United States Senator
Reply from Sen. Bennet on Iran Deal
Thank you for contacting me regarding U.S. policy
toward Iran. I appreciate hearing from you.
Over the past decade, there have been
international concerns that Iran has made progress toward obtaining a nuclear
weapon - a prospect that we cannot allow.
In the Senate, I have supported tough sanctions on
the Iranian government. Sanctions can be an effective tactic but they do not
represent a coherent diplomatic strategy. We must aggressively use all of the
political, diplomatic and economic tools available to us to mobilize the
international community and ensure the effectiveness of our sanctions.
In November 2013, the Obama Administration along
with the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China (P5+1) began a
series of diplomatic negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program. While I
support the efforts to engage Iran and its people through diplomacy, I'm
cognizant of the security risks Iran poses to our allies in the region and to
the international community at large.
On July 14, 2015, the P5+1 reached an agreement on
Iran's nuclear program. Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which I
supported, Congress now has 60 days to review the final text. Our primary goal
must be to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That would be the worst
outcome. In evaluating this deal, we must weigh the terms of the agreement
against the realities of the current situation. I am carefully reviewing the
agreement and consulting with a variety of experts. Congress has an important
responsibility in this process, and playing politics right now is the last
thing we need. The stakes are high, and I take this decision very seriously.
Like many Coloradans, I am deeply concerned by
many other issues with the Iranian government. In May 2015, the Senate
passed a resolution calling on Iran to release all U.S. citizens wrongly
detained in that country and to work with our government to locate
missing U.S. citizens. I supported that amendment and will continue to address
other areas of concern.
I value the input of fellow Coloradans in
considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives
that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your
thoughts and concerns.
For more information about my priorities as a U.S.
Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/.
Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Michael F. Bennet
United States Senator
United States Senator
Letter to Congress re Iran Nuclear Deal
I am writing to urge you to
approve the agreement among the United States, Iran, Britain, Germany, France,
Russia, China and the EU, under which Iran agrees to restrain its nuclear
program in return for the relaxation of economic sanctions against Iran.
This agreement significantly
restricts Iran’s nuclear program and will make it more difficult for Iran to
develop a nuclear weapon, which it was already prohibited from doing by its
membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The NPT allows members to develop nuclear
energy in almost any way as long as it is not used for military or explosive
purposes. Nuclear energy, scientific
research and medical activities are all allowed, along with the infrastructure
to support those activities. Iran has
agreed to much stricter controls on its program. Its current program will become much smaller
and less threatening, with less nuclear material, less enrichment capability
and less plutonium production capability.
It has agreed to a more intrusive inspection regime than that usually
applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency. I am sure that in addition, the US will use
its own “National Technical Means” of verification like that it has used to
monitor nuclear agreements with the Soviet Union and Russia, and to monitor the
activities of rogue nuclear countries such as Pakistan and North Korea.
For me, however, the main
argument in favor of the agreement is the lack of a better alternative. Without this agreement Iran would only be
bound by the much less restrictive verification measures applied to NPT members,
measures that already applied to Iran without this deal. If this agreement had not been finalized, the
other partners in our sanctions regime against Iran would probably have dropped
out, leaving us with a much weaker regime.
The only non-diplomatic option that I see would be a military attack on
Iran’s nuclear facilities, or perhaps a more generalized attack on the nation
itself, like our earlier invasions of its eastern and western neighbors, Iraq
and Afghanistan. I don’t support such an
attack, and I think that most Americans are weary of war in that region. It’s possible that the agreement could have
been stronger, eliminating more of Iran’s centrifuges, for example, but this
agreement is strong, and more delay might have alienated our partners as well
as the Iranians, possibly jeopardizing any deal at all. The best is often the enemy of the good.
Therefore, I urge you to
support the agreement.
As background, I am a retired
Foreign Service officer who spent ten or more years of my career working on
nuclear non-proliferation issues. I
spent most of my time working on the South American nuclear rivalry between
Argentina and Brazil in the 1970s and 1980s.
At times this competition seemed to be following the course of Pakistan
and India, but I was pleased that in the 1980s while I was serving as science
officer at the American Embassy in Brasilia with responsibility for nuclear
issues, Brazil and Argentina agreed to end their nuclear competition. It took some time, but in the 1990s both
countries joined the NPT. While working
on non-proliferation issues, I often crossed paths with other people working on
the issue, such as Richard Clarke, Robert Gallucci, Charles Duelfer, and Gary
Samore. I have been retired for almost
twenty years, but I remain interested in these issues and continue to follow
them.
I was motivated to write this
letter by President Obama’s request on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” that ordinary
Americans do so. I agree with the
President and Secretary of State Kerry that this agreement is good for the US,
and for the world, including Israel and the Sunni Arab countries.
Monday, August 10, 2015
Military Leaders
I am very disappointed that none of the ten Republican presidential
candidates who appeared in the main Fox debate were veterans. At least two of the candidates in the earlier
kids’ debate were veterans – Rick Perry and Lindsey Graham. This is due to changes in priorities in the
US which have affected both the military and politics. Twenty-six of our forty-four Presidents have
served in the military. This includes
George W. Bush, whom I don’t include because he avoided service in Vietnam by
joining the Alabama National Guard. In
the past, men who wanted to serve their country politically would often want to
serve in other ways, such as defending it in the military. When I was growing up, almost every man who
could pass the physical had served in some military capacity during World War
II. The big change in attitude came
during the Vietnam War, when the military became an object or derision, and the
draft was eliminated.
Before the elimination of the draft, the military was a
rather democratic institution with people from across the US, socially,
racially, financially, etc. When the
draft was eliminated, men from good families served much less than those from
lower classes. The military particularly
drew from lower class white men, rednecks, to whom the military still appealed
as a patriotic calling, and one that was financially as good as or better than
any occupation they could find in the civilian sector. It also took in many blacks and Hispanics,
who had less family connection to the military and who were thus attracted
mainly by the financial aspects rather than by patriotism. In any case, we have
less diversity in the military and fewer veterans in most segments of civilian
society.
One example of the elite’s contempt for the military is the
fact that while she was dean of the Harvard Law School, Supreme
Court Justice Elena Kagan blocked military recruiters from using the school’s
office of career services to talk to prospective recruits. Harvard is not a hotbed of students seeking
to serve their country; they are too interested in getting rich on Wall
Street. Harvard is producing brilliant,
selfish, greedy narcissists. It’s an
example of how America’s economy is doing well while its moral structure
crumbles.
Traditionally the military has represented some of the best
qualities of America and its citizens, but as the pool of military recruits shrinks,
it has fewer high class individuals to draw from. There are of course many fine people serving
in the military, but there is a higher proportion of people who are not so
fine.
As a result, the military has fewer leaders to offer to the
American political system. Colin Powell
was one who served in many important positions, but who never ran for public
office. In this respect, he copied
General George Marshall, one of the finest men ever to serve in the military,
but who also refused to run for office, leaving the field to General Eisenhower. Eisenhower is the last military leader to
follow in the footsteps of General George Washington. Other Presidents, like Kennedy, Nixon, and
Carter, served in the military, but did not distinguish themselves as military
leaders. Eisenhower was primarily a
soldier who also entered politics.
Kennedy and his cohorts were politicians who had served in the
military. Kerry and McCain fall in the
latter category.
McCain is rightly characterized as a hero for his actions
while a prisoner of war. However, he was
not a great military leader. His father
and grandfather were military leaders, but they did not go into politics. McCain did not succeed in the military as his
ancestors had. Neither McCain nor Kerry
carried the mantle of “great military leader” into their failed campaigns for
President. There is no military leader
today with any claim to that title. Even
Colin Powell’s military success came mainly as a staff officer, not a line
officer commanding troops in combat. The
closest probably has been General Petraeus, for his successful surge campaign
toward the end of the Iraq war.
Unfortunately, his political chances have been undermined by his immoral
personal life. In any case, his success
in Iraq pales beside the accomplishments of previous military Presidents like
Washington and Eisenhower. McCain’s and
Kerry’s military accomplishments don’t even deserve comparison to those
predecessors.
I think America is poorer for not having a military cadre to
draw from for political office. Generals
don’t only fight. Marshall was known in
WW II as “the great organizer.” We could
use a great organizer, or just someone who inspires confidence in their
leadership. Reagan did inspire people,
and I think that is why the Republicans look up to him so, although many of his
so-called accomplishments have paled in the light of history. Obama, on the other hand, may have more
lasting accomplishments, but he generally fails to inspire the confidence of
American citizens, or the respect of his international cohorts.
Sunday, August 09, 2015
The Iran Nuclear Deal and Jewish Politicians
Senator
Schumer’s decision to go against a Democratic President and oppose the
nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by former Senator John Kerry, whose father
was Jewish, raises questions about the loyalty of some Jews to the United
States. Schumer is joined in opposition
by Representative Steve Israel, the most senior Jewish Democrat in the
House. Do they oppose the deal because
it is bad for the US, or because Bibi Netanyahu says it is bad for Israel? Do they believe that Netanyahu is smarter
than Obama, or that Israel’s survival is more important than America’s? They have very Jewish constituencies and may
be representing their constituents’ interests, but that would raise the broader
question of whether Jews in general are more loyal to Israel than to the
US.
On the other hand, Jewish Senator Bernie Sanders and
Representative Sander Levin have said that they will support the Iran
agreement, making it clear that Jews are not a monolithic group any more than Christians,
blacks, or any other ethnic or religious group.
But there are deep undertones of racial and religious bias, highlighted
first by Speaker Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu to give a speech to the
Congress that vehemently attacked President Obama. The fact that a foreign country that calls
itself a Jewish nation has become so deeply involved in American politics
illustrates the extreme involvement of Jewish interests. Presidential candidate Huckabee, a Christian,
joined in by likening the agreement to the beginning of the World War II Holocaust. Speaker Boehner’s actions have also inserted
greater ethnic, religious tensions into this debate.
In addition there are dueling Jewish lobbies, AIPAC and
J-Street. AIPAC supports Bibi Netanyahu
and the right-wing, hawkish, Likud party, while J-Street supports more liberal,
less hawkish Jews. Israel seems to be
somewhat evenly split between hawks and doves, but AIPAC is much stronger in
the US than J-Street. In addition, many
Gentile politicians, like Huckabee, support AIPAC, some out of principle, many
because AIPAC contributes so much money to political campaigns. In addition to AIPAC, billionaire Sheldon
Adelson has contributed millions to politicians who support Israel’s hawkish views.
The
NYT reports that Obama has been angered by the AIPAC onslaught against the
Iran deal, often making arguments that do not portray the deal correctly. I think Obama has been remarkable in dealing
with religious prejudice. When he was
campaigning for President the first time, Christians attacked him for the
Christian church he attended. He
basically gave up his church because of a few inflammatory things his pastor
had said. I was appalled that Christians
would drive a Christian out of a Christian church, but they did. Now, the Jews have launched a full scale
attack on him. He is replying by making
factual arguments, not resorting to ad hominem attacks. The Jews seem confident that they can
withstand any attacks by waving the Holocaust card, and perhaps they can.
To me it seems ironic that, while the Iran nuclear deal will
benefit the whole world, the biggest beneficiary may well be Israel, if indeed Israel
is at the top of list of countries that Iran would like to attack. The deal makes it much less likely that
Israel will be attacked with a nuclear weapon.
It gives Israel and the rest of the world a ten year cushion to figure
out what to do next.
Thursday, August 06, 2015
Senate Testimony on Iran Deal
Tempers are flaring over the Iran nuclear deal. On C-Span, I watched some of the testimony
by State Under Secretary Sherman and Treasury Under Secretary Szubin before
the Senate banking committee, and the Senators I watched were not very polite,
even the Democrats. It looks like the
Senators want to kill some Iranians’ they want the streets of Tehran to run red
with blood. I was appalled. These are the same senators who have
basically approved Israel’s and India’s nuclear weapons program. And they have done little but complain about
Pakistan’s and North Korea’s bombs. This
is a strange country and Congress is a strange institution. We have already invaded two of Iran’s next
door neighbors, Afghanistan and Iraq; do they just want to drop one huge, multi-megaton
atomic bomb and destroy all three countries at one time?
Meanwhile, on the PBS
Newshour, Ray Takeyh and Nicholas Burns debated the effectiveness of Obama’s
speech. Takeyh thought Obama had utterly
failed, and Burns did not do very well defending Obama. Takeyh complained that the agreement will
expire in ten or fifteen years, and then Iran can build a bomb, glossing over
the fact that in ten or fifteen years Iran will stand exactly where it stands
today without the deal. It will still be
a member of the NPT, which says that it cannot build a bomb. He said that the negotiated deal was bad and
that the US should go back and renegotiate it.
When asked if it would not be hard to drag the other parties, including
Russia and China, back to the table, he said it would be hard but not
impossible.
What he failed to say, and what no opponent has said that I
have heard, is that the deal will give the next President, or Israel, or the
UN, or whoever, at least ten years to negotiate a new deal or extend this
one. The attitude seems to be that Kerry
is a lousy negotiator, but the Republicans have no one who can negotiate
anything better in ten years. This is
probably true, because Ronald Reagan is dead, and he was the only Republican
who seemed able to negotiate any kind of arms control agreement. Colin Powell has basically become a Democrat,
because the Republican Party has become some kind of an insane asylum. It turns out that Condi Rice plays the piano
much better than she can negotiate treaties.
No wonder Donald Trump is doing so well.
“In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” The Republicans know they are so stupid that
they cannot even understand this nuclear agreement, much less negotiate
anything better.
Another aspect of this that is very odd to me is that many
of the negotiators and defenders of the Iran deal are Jewish, while Israel’s
allies in trying to kill it are good ol’ Christian white boys. Those most conflicted over the agreement are
Jewish Democrats like Chuck Schumer. Do
they go with Israel, or with the President’s Democratic Party? They may well determine whether the Senate
can override the President’s veto of the bill rejecting the Iran agreement. John Kerry’s father was Jewish, although he
claimed to be Irish. Wendy Sherman is
Jewish, according to Wikipedia. Her
Treasury colleague today, Adam Szubin, appears to be Jewish. They were grilled, and I thought mistreated,
by some angry, white senators from some agricultural states, who apparently
know more about cotton and corn than about nuclear energy or international
agreements.
Wednesday, August 05, 2015
Obama's Iran Speech
Obama
gave a good speech today in defense of the Iran deal. He dealt with all the major issues, and
answered the objections to it. Of
course, those dead set against it, many Republicans and Israelis, will not be
convinced. But it should have convinced moderate,
thinking people that on balance this is a deal that should be supported because
it makes the world, and the Middle East in particular, a safer place.
He dealt with the provision most roundly criticized by
opponents, the 24 day period to resolve disputes concerning sites that have not
been declared as nuclear related, e.g., conventional military bases, perhaps
some civilian research laboratories. He
explained that the 24 day provision applies only in controversial cases; most
inspections would take place in a shorter time period. And he made the argument that the deal is
better than any alternative, especially another war in the Middle East.
He invoked Reagan and Kennedy as two Presidents who embraced
diplomacy and arms control over war. He
stopped short of pointing out that Reagan had a secret policy of appeasement
with Iran by providing them banned weapons under the Iran-Contra deal. He did mention that Bush and Cheney had
strengthened Iran by eliminating its worst enemy, Saddam Hussein. He also mentioned that the US had been one of
the early providers of nuclear technology to Iran in the 1960s and 1970s. And he did not mention that one reason Israel
fears the Iranian program is that they know that Israel developed its nuclear
weapons capability by tricking western countries, including the US and France,
into providing much of what Israel needed for weapons.
Israelis probably fear Iran because they have more respect
for the Persian race than for the Arab race.
The Israeli-Persian relationship goes back to the Old Testament, more
than 2000 years ago, when the Persian king Darius sent Daniel to the lions’ den
because Daniel prayed to the God of Israel.
The Israelis probably believe that the Iranians have the expertise and
infrastructure to build a bomb, unlike most or all of the Arab states, who
would need much more help.
I don’t know whether the Iran deal will be blocked by
Congress. It looks like it will be
close, and the best bet for upholding it is the fact that it will be difficult
for the Senate to overcome an Obama veto of a Congressional bill blocking
it. I hope the deal is allowed to go
into effect. If not, either Iran will
have a much easier path to a bomb, or we will invade yet another Middle Eastern
country, and this time one that is not entirely stuck in the Middle Ages, as
Afghanistan and Iraq were, thus promising a bloodier, more costly war, also
likely to end in defeat for the US as the Iraq war did.
In general, I think that Obama has been a good President,
especially when compared with his predecessor, George W. Bush. Bush was probably a nice man personally, but
a terrible President. He was asleep at
his post when Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center. A relatively minor upgrade in airport
security would have prevented the attack.
In contract to Bush, who was stupid and lazy nice guy, Cheney was a
spiteful, mean-spirited villain. For
most of his administration, Bush was a coward before Cheney, afraid to confront
Cheney’s desire to go to war with almost everybody except out closest
friends. Toward the end of his
administration, as things began to visibly fall about, Bush finally began to
distance himself from Cheney. Strangely,
his father’s choice of Dan Quayle to be his Vice President was one of George H.
W. Bush’s worst decisions, and George W. Bush’s decision to name Cheney his
Vice President was one of the son’s worst decisions. In addition to the unsuccessful wars, Bush,
who had an MBA, oversaw the destruction of the US financial system by reckless
Wall Street banks, although Clinton shares the blame for his repeal of
Glass-Steagall, which had reined in Wall Street.
Obama was faced with the possibility of a second Depression
when he took office, and he avoided it.
He gets criticism from the Republicans for winding down the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, who insist that if we had stayed the course we would have
won. But it we can’t win a war in a
small, backward country in eight or ten years, something is wrong with our
military or our strategy. Cheney and
Rumsfeld were strategic failures, whom Bush stupidly put in charge of two
wars. Their failure is highlighted by
Bush I’s successful prosecution of the first Iraq war, noted recently by Richard
Haass in the Wall Street Journal.
In addition, ObamaCare expanded health care
significantly. There are still health
care issues, cost and the single-payer issue, but ObamaCare was progress. On the negative side, Guantanamo is still a
prison camp that is America’s gulag.
People are being held in violation of US and international law, in
spirit, if not under the letter of the law.
It is an embarrassment to a country that prides itself on its morality
and rule of law. Reagan’s “city on a
hill” has slid down into the mud. Bush
and Cheney are responsible for pushing it into the mud, but Obama has not
pulled it out.
The Republicans blame Obama for his budget deficits and the
growing national debt, but at least part of the problem is the Republican’s
refusal to raise taxes. No doubt some
cuts are necessary, but some additional revenue is also necessary. Today’s
column by Tom Friedman in the NYT points out the intransigence of the Republicans
in refusing even to raise a five cent tax per gallon of gas to fund the repair
of roads and bridges. Obama could have
done better, but the Republicans made sure he was not playing with a full
deck.
Monday, August 03, 2015
Reagan's Election by the Iranian Ayatollah
“The
Brink” TV show on HBO made a gag of what I think is a real reason for
Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election. The show’s Secretary of State tells a
potential head of Pakistan that he can be the Pakistani Reagan by being the
president when some Pakistani hostages are released.
The Iranians were really mad at the US for overthrowing
their national leader and imposing the American selected Shah. They were mad at Jimmy Carter for letting the
Shah come to the US for medical treatment when he was dying of cancer. Therefore, the Ayatollah who had taken the
American hostages in the American Embassy in Tehran, wanted revenge on Carter,
which he got by supporting Carter’s opponent in the American presidential election,
Ronald Reagan. Reagan was the Iranian
candidate to rule America, like the Shah was the American puppet to rule
Iran.
Reagan later recognized his debt to the Iranians by giving
them prohibited weapons in the Iran- Contra deal. The Republicans owe the Iranians a huge debt
for putting the man they most love into office.
Reagan wasn’t the “Manchurian Candidate,” he was the “Iranian Candidate.”
I thought that I was one of the few who thought this until I
saw the latest episode of “The Brink.”
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Hero
The cable and network news have been describing the military personnel killed in Chattanooga as “heroes.” Meanwhile, Donald Trump has been saying that John McCain is not a hero. So what is a hero?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a “hero” as “a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities. “ That leaves open the question of what degree of courage, achievement, or nobility qualifies someone to be characterized as a hero.
In the Chattanooga case, it seems that to be a military recruiter has not required a high degree of any of those qualities, compared with serving in combat overseas. If dozens or hundreds of recruiters are slain in the future, then much more courage will be required to serve as a recruiter. If that were the case, then serving as a recruiter would be heroic in the same way that going to Afghanistan or any other war zone would be heroic. I think that to say everyone who goes into a combat zone is a hero, debases the word. Clearly, everyone who is awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor is a hero. You can keep going down the list of medals, but the further down you go and keep calling the recipient a hero, the more you debase the use of the word to describe those who won the highest medals. You have to come up with some superlative beyond hero for them.
John McCain may fall somewhere in that gray region below Congressional Medal of Honor, but I think any pilot or crewman who flies into heavy anti-aircraft fire probably deserves the appellation of hero. The idea of going into great danger despite one’s fear is what makes the act heroic to me. Again, there could be debate about what “great danger” is. Does it mean almost certain death, or only some risk of death? If very few planes were shot down over North Vietnam, that would make McCain’s act less heroic, but I think he went on a pretty risky mission. In addition, his refusal to leave the POW prison before his colleagues was heroic in its nobility.
Again, describing as heroes the slain Marines in Chattanooga, who were shot while going about routine tasks, tends to lower the respect the term gives to people such as McCain and those who won the Congressional Medal of Honor. People use the term loosely because most of them have no interest in or respect for service in the military. They would not serve, and tend to think those who do serve are somewhat foolish or stupid; they are people who could not get a real job in the civilian world. This contempt for the military started with Vietnam, maybe with Korea, and has diminished today, but still exists in the background. People tend to be over complementary of the military to offset the slight contempt they have in the backs of their minds. Maybe because I am a Vietnam veteran who came home to contempt, I misjudge this feeling, but I tend to see the overuse of hero to describe anyone killed as evidence of continuing contempt for real heroism.
In 9/11 for example, all of the first responders seem to be called heroes, but obviously some were more heroic than others. The failure to discriminate between the real heroes and the almost heroes tends to discredit the term. It is the same attitude that today means everybody who competes in some event gets a blue ribbon; it’s why we have grade inflation. But there are differences. Some heroic people are more instrumental in defeating the enemy; some heroes save more lives than others. Failure to recognize that results are important has consequences that may come back to haunt the US someday.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a “hero” as “a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities. “ That leaves open the question of what degree of courage, achievement, or nobility qualifies someone to be characterized as a hero.
In the Chattanooga case, it seems that to be a military recruiter has not required a high degree of any of those qualities, compared with serving in combat overseas. If dozens or hundreds of recruiters are slain in the future, then much more courage will be required to serve as a recruiter. If that were the case, then serving as a recruiter would be heroic in the same way that going to Afghanistan or any other war zone would be heroic. I think that to say everyone who goes into a combat zone is a hero, debases the word. Clearly, everyone who is awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor is a hero. You can keep going down the list of medals, but the further down you go and keep calling the recipient a hero, the more you debase the use of the word to describe those who won the highest medals. You have to come up with some superlative beyond hero for them.
John McCain may fall somewhere in that gray region below Congressional Medal of Honor, but I think any pilot or crewman who flies into heavy anti-aircraft fire probably deserves the appellation of hero. The idea of going into great danger despite one’s fear is what makes the act heroic to me. Again, there could be debate about what “great danger” is. Does it mean almost certain death, or only some risk of death? If very few planes were shot down over North Vietnam, that would make McCain’s act less heroic, but I think he went on a pretty risky mission. In addition, his refusal to leave the POW prison before his colleagues was heroic in its nobility.
Again, describing as heroes the slain Marines in Chattanooga, who were shot while going about routine tasks, tends to lower the respect the term gives to people such as McCain and those who won the Congressional Medal of Honor. People use the term loosely because most of them have no interest in or respect for service in the military. They would not serve, and tend to think those who do serve are somewhat foolish or stupid; they are people who could not get a real job in the civilian world. This contempt for the military started with Vietnam, maybe with Korea, and has diminished today, but still exists in the background. People tend to be over complementary of the military to offset the slight contempt they have in the backs of their minds. Maybe because I am a Vietnam veteran who came home to contempt, I misjudge this feeling, but I tend to see the overuse of hero to describe anyone killed as evidence of continuing contempt for real heroism.
In 9/11 for example, all of the first responders seem to be called heroes, but obviously some were more heroic than others. The failure to discriminate between the real heroes and the almost heroes tends to discredit the term. It is the same attitude that today means everybody who competes in some event gets a blue ribbon; it’s why we have grade inflation. But there are differences. Some heroic people are more instrumental in defeating the enemy; some heroes save more lives than others. Failure to recognize that results are important has consequences that may come back to haunt the US someday.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Bob Hormats on Greece
I had not seen Bob Hormats on TV for years. When I was on the Brazil desk, he was a deputy assistant secretary working in the State Department economic bureau. Today he was on Bloomberg, which said he is now at Kissinger, where he is working on Greece. He said the Greek deal was worth it to keep ball rolling; it was better for Greece. Greece will need some concessions. from the EU, perhaps to prolong the payment period. When his interviewer asked him about Piketty's comment that Germany should not pressure Greece because Germany never repaid it WW II debts, Hormats said it was not relevant, just ancient history.
Regarding the Iran nuclear deal, he said that no perfect Iranian deal was possible, but this deal accomplished many U.S. objectives. He said he had heard that Iran was going to send a trade delegation to the US in September.
His Bloomberg interviewer was not great; she was enthusiastic, but not too well prepared.
Friday, June 12, 2015
Zero Interest Rates Are Welfare for the Rich
Recently the stock market seems to move in the opposite direction from the news. If the economic news is good, the market goes down, and if the news is good, the market goes up. This seems to be mainly because the market is looking at what the Federal Reserve is going to do. If the economy does well, the Fed says it will raise rates, if the economy stays weak, interest rates may remain near zero. Everyone seems to think that one reason the market is doing so well, hitting new all time highs, is because of the low Fed interest rates.
I think the Fed has meant well in keeping interest rates low, it has had the perverse effect of accelerating income inequality. The main beneficiaries of zero interest rates are the wealthy. For every poor or middle class person who buys a $100,000 house with a low mortgage rate, some billionaire has made hundreds of millions more in the stock market or in real estate or other investments that require many millions to play. Low rates have disproportionately benefited the wealthy. The Fed justifies this by saying that if had not done it, the economy would have fallen apart, possibly dragging us into a real depression. This is partly true. Interest rates are basically the only weapon the Fed has to stabilize the economy, but Congress and the administration have other weapons.
Congress did pass Dodd-Frank adding regulations on the wildly irresponsible bankers who brought on the 2008 financial crisis, but it did almost nothing for the average citizen. It's understandable, if some poor guy on main street goes bankrupt because his house was foreclosed, it's no big deal; it happens everyday. But if Lehman Brothers goes bankrupt it's a very big deal, and everybody says it threatens the existence of America. But there could be another, bottom-up approach. Let the big guys accept the consequences of their malfeasance, and create a safety net for the people at the bottom. It would have been more difficult, but it would have been fairer.
The upshot is that the Fed, doing it's job to sustain the US economy, has greatly aggravated income inequality in America. I think the Fed chairmen have been well intentioned, but it looks bad for Jews. The Jewish chairman who ran the Fed, Greenspan, Bernanke, and now Yellen have taken actions which have enormously benefited their Jewish colleagues who make up a huge contingent of the financial community. The US has intentionally or unintentionally pursued a racist solution to the great recession. Barney Frank is Jewish, and Janet Yellen's deputy, Stanley Fischer, is an Israeli citizen. Of course, the Fed took action to respond to the crisis, while the Gentiles in Congress did little or nothing. Gentiles Hank Paulson and Timothy Geithner did take action, and got some Gentiles in Congress to support them. But everything was directed at propping up the wealthy bankers at the expense of the common man.
Ironically, it's another Jew, Paul Krugman, in the New York Times who has most vocally espoused more robust fiscal measures by the Congress and administration to help the common man. Like me, he is still ranting years later, that the US should have gone into debt to undertake more ambitious infrastructure projects. In that case the common man would have benefited from the fact that the US could borrow money for these projects at ridiculously low rates, like the Wall Street tycoons were doing to fatten their own wallets.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
James Comey and Anne Applebaum on the Holocaust
As he stated in his Washington
Post op-ed, FBI Director Comey was sincere about sending all FBI officers
to the Holocaust Museum to see how bureaucracies can run amok. It alerts FBI officers to the evil that they
are helping to stop, and alerts them not to be sucked into the banality of
evil, of accepting evil orders unquestioningly. But he unwittingly pointed out
the dangers in carelessly accusing innocent parties of complicity in that
evil. He buys into a way of thinking
that Jews have encouraged, that anyone living within 100 or 200 miles of anything
connected to the Holocaust is tainted and should die or at least go to prison
for years and years.
By this standard, almost all Poles are complicit, and Comey
named them as “murderers and accomplices for Germany.” His doing so elicited a protest from the
Polish government, a Jewish columnist (married to the speaker of the Polish
parliament), and an apology from American Ambassador Steve Mull. The Washington
Post columnist, Anne Applebaum, wrote that the Germans destroyed the Polish
government, and introduced “the power of fear, the danger of lawlessness and the horror
that was made possible by a specific form of German state terror in the years
between 1939 and 1945 – a terror that convinced many people to do things
that they knew were terribly, terribly wrong.”
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Trial of Auschwitz Guard
I think we should let trials for World War II end. The ongoing
trial for 93-year-old Oskar Groning for serving as a prison guard at
Auschwitz is too much, too late. Apparently
the allegations against him are that he collected and stored money taken from
Jewish prisoners, not that he had any direct role in their execution. The trial is being carried out in a German
court, but no doubt it is a result of Jewish cries for revenge. They should let it go. If they find someone who had a major role in
killing people, like Josef Mengele, then that might be worth pursuing, but I
think all those key people are now dead.
This trial only serves to remind people like me of the visceral Jewish
hatred on which Israel was founded.
Israel would not exist if it were not for the Holocaust. Israel owes its existence to Adolph
Hitler. That is a tremendous irony, one
that casts a pall over the state of Israel.
They need to move on. Israelis would be well served to do so. They can of course honor their ancestors who
died at in the various Holocaust death camps, but they can do so as other
nations honor their war dead. Americans will not vilify Germans at their Memorial Day commemorations. I was impressed that memorials at sites in Poland
where Poles were executed in various horrible ways always said that the deeds
were done by the Nazis, not by the Germans.
About as many Poles died at the hands of the Germans as Jews, about six million, many of
them in the same camps, like Auschwitz, but the Poles have moved on. The Israelis are still enmeshed in
unquenchable hatred that does Israel no honor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)