The annotated Obama: How 90% of the deficit becomes somebody else’s fault.

(A version of this article appeared September 25, 2012,  in the U.S.
edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The 10% President.)

A question raised by President Obama’s immortal line on CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday—”I think that, you know, as President, I bear responsibility for everything, to some degree”—is what that degree really is. Maybe 70% or 80% of the buck stops with him? Or is it halfsies?

Nope. Now we know: It turns out the figure is 10%. The other 90% is somebody else’s fault.

This revelation came when Steve Kroft mentioned that the national debt has climbed 60% on the President’s watch. “Well, first of all, Steve, I think it’s important to understand the context here,” Mr. Obama replied. Fair enough, so here’s his context in full, with our own annotation and translation below:

“When I came into office, I inherited the biggest deficit in our history.1 And over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90% of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, 2 as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for,3 a prescription drug plan that was not paid for,4 and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.5

“Now we took some emergency actions, but that accounts for about 10% of this increase in the deficit,6 and we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower, in fact, substantially lower than the federal government grew under either Ronald Reagan or George Bush.7


Footnote No. 1: Either Mr. Obama inherited the largest deficit in American history or he won the 1944 election, but both can’t be true. The biggest annual deficit the modern government has ever run was in 1943, equal to 30.3% of the economy, to mobilize for World War II. The next biggest years were the following two, at 22.7% and 21.5%, to win it.

The deficit in fiscal 2008 was a mere 3.2% of GDP. The deficit in fiscal 2009, which began on October 1, 2008 and ran through September 2009, soared to 10.1%, the highest since 1945.

Mr. Obama wants to blame all of that on his predecessor, and no doubt the recession that began in December 2007 reduced revenues and increased automatic spending “stabilizers” like jobless insurance. But Mr. Obama conveniently forgets a little event in February 2009 known as the “stimulus” that increased spending by a mere $830 billion above the normal baseline.

The recession ended in June 2009, but spending has still kept rising. The President has presided over four years in a row of deficits in excess of $1 trillion, and the spending baseline going forward into his second term is nearly $1.1 trillion more than in fiscal 2007.

Federal spending as a share of GDP will average 24.1% over his first term including 2013. Even if you throw out fiscal 2009 and blame that entirely on Mr. Bush, the Obama spending average will be 23.8% of GDP. That compares to a post-WWII average of a little under 20%. Spending under Mr. Bush averaged 20.1% including 2009, and 19.6% if that year is left out.

Footnotes No. 2 through 4: Liberals continue to claim that the main causes of the current fiscal mess are tax rates established in 2001 and 2003 and the post-9/11 wars on terror. But by 2006 and 2007, those tax rates were producing revenue of 18.2% and 18.5% of GDP, near historic norms.

Another quandary for Mr. Obama’s apologists is that he has endorsed nearly all of these policies. The 2003 Medicare drug benefit wasn’t offset by tax hikes or spending cuts, but Democrats expanded the program as part of ObamaCare.

The President also extended all the Bush tax rates in 2010 for two more years in the name of helping the economy, and he now wants to continue them for people earning under $200,000, which is where 71% of their “cost” resides. The Iraq campaign was won and beginning to be wound down when he took office, and he himself surged more troops in Afghanistan.

Footnote No. 5: Mr. Obama keeps dining out on the excuse of the recession, but that ended halfway through his first year. The main deficit problems since 2009 are a permanently higher spending base (see Footnote No. 1) and the slowest economic recovery in modern history. Revenues have remained below 16% of the economy, compared to 18% to 19% in a normal expansion.

The 2008 crisis is long over. The crisis now is Mr. Obama’s non-recovery.

Footnote No. 6: Even at face value, Mr. Obama’s suggestion that he is “only” responsible for 10% of what the government does is ludicrous. Note that in addition to his stimulus, what he calls “emergency actions” include his new health-care entitlement that will cost taxpayers $200 billion per year when fully implemented and grow annually at 8%, even using low-ball assumptions.

But the larger point concerns executive leadership. Every President “inherits” a government that was built over generations, which he chooses to change, or not to change, to suit his priorities. Mr. Obama chose to see the government he inherited and grow it faster than any President since LBJ.

The pre-eminent political question now is whether to reform the government we have to make it affordable going forward, or to keep growing the government and raise taxes to finance it, if that is even possible.

Mr. Obama favors the second option, though he pretends he can merely tax the rich to do it. Nobody who has looked honestly at the numbers believes that—not his own Simpson-Bowles commission and not the Congressional “super committee” he sanctioned but then worked to undermine.

At every turn he has demagogued the Romney-Ryan proposals to modernize the entitlement state so it is affordable, and he personally blew up the “grand bargain” House Speaker John Boehner was willing to strike last summer.

Footnote No. 7: “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”: Mr. Obama’s posture as the tightest skinflint since Eisenhower is a tutorial in how to dissemble with statistics. The growth rate seems low because he’s measuring from the end of fiscal 2009, after a one-year spending increase of $535 billion. That is the year of his stimulus and thus spending is growing off a much higher base. The real annual pace of government growth is closer to 5%, and that doesn’t count ObamaCare.


In another news-making bit with “60 Minutes,” which the program decided not to air, Mr. Obama conceded that “Do we see sometimes us going overboard in our campaign, mistakes that are made, areas where there’s no doubt that somebody could dispute how we are presenting things, that happens in politics.

Note the passive voice, as if the President’s re-election campaign is disembodied from the President. If Mr. Obama’s campaign seems dishonest enough that even Mr. Obama is forced to admit it, this is because it’s coming from the top.


Liberals vs “Super Liberals”: Its a Matter of Corollaries

This is a guest-piece from my good friend and mentor, Russ Farris; author of the ground-breaking book, “The Pot Belly Syndrome“.

After seeing the film, 2016: Omama’s America, he shared these thoughts regarding the differences between American liberals and really hard-core Leftists, which often call themselves “progressives”; and which Russ Farris refers to as “Super liberals”.

The difference between the two is a matter of degrees; of what corollaries of liberal thought one is willing to accept, and how far one is willing to take these.


 2016:Obama’s America got me to thinking about ordinary liberals and super liberals.

As I’ve said before, I think the most fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is their view of the plasticity of human nature. Liberals tend to believe that anyone can be anything–with the right training and under the right circumstances. That fundamental belief has a lot of appalling corollaries. Here are some of them:
  • If we are plastic, we can be molded into anything.
  • If anyone can be anything, then everyone is fundamentallyequal.
  • If we are fundamentally equal, then only our circumstances make us unequal.
  • If circumstances make us unequal, then the circumstances can be adjusted to eliminate inequalities.
  • If the differences between us are due to our circumstances, then there is nothing special about anyone.
  • If no one is special, then individual hopes, accomplishments, and failures mean nothing.
  • If individual hopes, accomplishments, and failures mean nothing, then individual rights are unimportant.
  • In a perfected state, no one is special.
  • When societies are perfected, people will be perfected (
  • It’s not enough to perfect my city, my state, or my country, I have to perfect the world.
  • [Many other proposed corollaries deleted]
For brevity, the corollaries are stated in extreme forms that ordinary liberals would object to. If I broke them down into smaller bites, and put them in the right words, ordinary liberals would agree to all of them.
For example, ordinary liberals believe that Head Start Programs would have worked if we had put another $154 billion into it, but they balk at killing tens of millions of people to create the American version of the New Soviet Man.
Similarly, ordinary liberals are happy to spend money to rescue the poor from their folly, but they would not wish to see the U.S. crushed under the heel of  Russia, China, or a Muslim caliphate.
We have managed to survive the follies of ordinary liberals for 100  years (starting with Woodrow Wilson), and we are still here. But working in the background have been the super liberals, the vanguard of the progressive utopia. These were people like:

Super liberals would not blush at any of the corollaries I listed above, and there are lots of super liberals around today, still trying to accomplish in the U.S. what they failed to do in the Soviet Union. One of them is Barack Hussein Obama.
2016: Obama’s America is the story of how Obama became a super liberal, how he became President, what he has done so far, and what he plans to do. Conservatives don’t need to see this movie–we won’t vote for Obama under any circumstances.
The people who need to see 2016 are the ordinary liberals. If you think Obama is going to do something special for you in the next four years, ask yourself why he hasn’t done it so far?
Then consider whether your pet project is worth the cost to the country.
Russ Farris



This week was witness to the sad and disgusting collapse of a Middle East policy that was always more wishful thinking than careful construction. Worse, the Obama Administration tripped over itself trying to explain our strange, fruitless relationship with Egypt. In the midst of one contradictory pronouncement after another, the Administration looks more like the Keystone Kops than a competent government.

Against the backdrop of Muslim mobs storming American embassies and consulates around the Middle East (even in “moderate” Tunesia, where the embassy was torched and the black flag of Al Qaeda raised in place of the Stars and Stripes), President Obama was asked if Egypt was an American ally. His response?

“I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy,” said the President in an interview with Telemundo.

That’s news to the State Department, who a day later had to correct the President. Contradicting Obama, State Department Spokeswomen, Victoria  Nuland maintained that Egypt is, in fact, considered an ally.

In point of fact, Egypt is considered a “major non-NATO ally” (MNNA). Just as Japan, Israel, and South Korea, Egypt has been such an ally since the 1978 Camp David Accords. It is a major recipient of American military and financial aid.

The Administration “party line” was to try and and split hairs, attempting to cover the President’s highly exposed posterior by saying “Ally” was a “term of art“; that because we have no formal NATO-like mutual defense treaty with Egypt we are not, “technically”, in “the strictest sense”, allied.

This, of course, is petty-fogging claptrap.

To her credit, Nuland looked embarrassed and uncomfortable trying to sell this curdled pablum to reporters; who pointed out that if such was the case with Egypt, than it certainly must be the case with other (former?) allies such as Japan and Israel.

To make matters worse for Obama, former President (and long-term friend of Hammas) Jimmy Carter saw fit to correct the President’s contention as well.

Speaking at Drake University in Des Moines Carter: “Egypt is an ally of the US, we know Egypt well.”

Carter should know: In the only effective moment of his entire presidency, he helped engineer the Camp David Accords that made Egypt an American ally!

You know your having a REALLY bad week when Jimmy Carter can factually take you to the woodshed!

After nearly four years on the job, shouldn’t the President know these facts? Maybe if he had played less golf (a record 100 rounds since taking office) and spent more time learning on the job, he would.

The Administration’s confusion over Egypt aside, just how involved this President really is with the handling of his own government was brought into question this week.

It took 12 hours, as mobs raged outside the embassy in Cairo; while our Benghazi Consulate was ransacked and gutted; and while  our embassador to Libya was being kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and eventually murdered (along with 3 others of his entourage, including two former Navy SEALS), for Obama to appear and make a comment.

His comment? To condemn Mitt Romney!

Which brings us to the heart of the problem: Obama has no idea how to govern. He only knows how to campaign.

Instead of trying to manage the worst foreign policy week of his Presidency, Obama spent the week rapping with the likes of DJ Pimp with a Limp and attending Las Vegas high-roller fundraisers. He should be minding the store, instead of hanging out with glamour stars like Beyonce and JZ; leave rubbing-elboes with the glam crowd till after you leave office, Mr. President.

His first statement of the crises, however late in coming, should not have been to criticize his challenger.

The real question should be, what now? How do we manage this crises? After greasing the skids to help speed the exit of pro-American dictator Mubarak, and welcoming the anti-western Muslim Brotherhood into power the Obama Administration’s only plan for our deteriorating relationship with Egypt is to throw more money at them and hope for the best!

We already give Egypt $1.5 BILLION in aid; plus preferential treatment when it comes to buy advanced American weaponry (the benefits they get from being  (“What, Mr. President??”) an ALLY). Despite the fact that the country is now run by the medieval Muslim Brotherhood (which is now, reportedly, CRUCIFYING  regime opponents naked on trees in front of the presidential palace!), we have made no moves to put conditions on American aid. While Republicans in the Senate (namely Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky) have pushed for a halt to such aid; Democrat leader in the House, Nancy “thank god I’m not burdened with brains!” Pelosi, calls for MORE money to be sent to the thugocracy in Cairo.

The liberal approach to foreign policy is the same misguided one they use with child rearing: all reward, no consequences. As with too-coddled children, when you fail to punish bad behavior, you only get more bad behavior. We are seeing the results play out this week in the Middle East.

The Obama policy in the region has been to feed and rear the Islamist lion-cub that will, if given time and opportunity, grow  to devour us.

This week, the first to be consumed was the rosy-tinted wishful-thinking that has underpinned the Obama foreign policy. What is left is the smoking ruin of our embassies, and a brutalized and dead embassador.


UPDATE: SEPT 13, 2012, 2115 HOURS

The Lebanese news organization is reporting that the murdered American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was sodomized and raped prior to his killing September 11.

Questions loom:

  • What was done to locate Ambassador Stevens during the 8 hours his whereabouts was unknown?
  • Why did President Obama go to bed while his Ambassador was in the hands of terrorists; possibly being tortured, raped, sodomized and strangled?
  • Did the President personally call the Libyan Prime Minister or even his Ambassador in Washington, demanding the recovery of Ambassador Stevens; before going to bed that night, before it was too late?
  • Why didn’t the President cancel his fundraising trip to Las Vegas once informed of the explosive events in Libya and Egypt?
  • With the President missing half of his Daily Intellegence Meetings, did he miss the one informing us that violent demonstrations were planned in Egypt and Libya on the anniversary of 9/11?


Just hours before the attack that killed 4 American Consulate personnel, including our ambassador, Chris Stevens, one of these staffers, Sean Smith, sent this to an online gaming buddy:

“Assuming we don’t die tonight,” the message read. “We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

Within hours of posting that message, Smith was dead. The media will never demand answers for this horrifying news, but hopefully a Congressional investigation will.

by John Nolte12 Sep 2012, 3:30 PM PDT; reposted from

On a target date like the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, it is quite the jaw-dropping revelation to learn that there were no Marines guarding the U. S. consulate where Chris Stevens, our ambassador to Libya, was brutally murdered yesterday:

Marine Corps spokeswoman Capt. Kendra Motz said that Marines were not posted to the consulate, unlike the embassy in the capital, Tripoli.

A defense official told POLITICO on Wednesday that the Pentagon is sending an elite team of about 50 additional Marines, called a Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team, to reinforce the embassy.

A senior administration official Wednesday called the Benghazi consulate “an interim facility,” which the State Department began using “before the fall of Qadhafi.” It was staffed Tuesday by Libyan and State Department security officers. The consulate came under fire from heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades at about 10 p.m. local time on Tuesday. By the time the attack ended several hours later, four Americans were dead and three others had been injured.

The Benghazi consulate had “lock-and-key” security, not the same level of defenses as a formal embassy, an intelligence source told POLITICO. That means it had no bulletproof glass, reinforced doors or other features common to embassies. The intelligence source contrasted it with the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt – “a permanent facility, which is a lot easier to defend.” The Cairo embassy also was attacked Tuesday.

This is startling and troubling news, especially in light of the fact that the day before yesterday’s attacks, September 10, al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri made direct threats against Americans in Libya to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a high-ranking al-Qaeda official taken out by an American drone attack last June.

Here you have al-Queda making explicit threats against Americans in Libya and little to no protection for our consulate — and as a result, four Americans are dead.

Moreover, just hours before the attack

[Sean] Smith sent a message to Alex Gianturco, the director of “Goonswarm,” Smith’s online gaming team or “guild.”

“Assuming we don’t die tonight,” the message, which was first reported by Wired, read. “We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

Within hours of posting that message, Smith, a husband and father of two, was dead. Gianturco, who could not be reached for further comment, got the word out to fellow gamers, according to Wired.

The media will never demand answers for this horrifying news, but hopefully a Congressional investigation will.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC


The late Ambassador was a friend of Libya, and looked forward to his posting to that country. Here is his address to the Libyan people as he prepared to assume these responsibilities:



(As one who has watched the Democrat’s love-hate relationship with our military throughout my lifetime, it doesn’t much surprise me that at the Democrat convention they couldn’t tell the Cold War Soviet Navy from the American! While paying tribute to our vets, many of whom faced off against the Russian fleet duing the Cold War, the Democrats unwittingly insulted them by showing images of the Soviet Navy in place of our own!!

And this is the Party who thinks their guy should be our Commander in Chief!?)

On the last night of the Democratic National Convention, a retired Navy four-star took the stage to pay tribute to veterans. Behind him, on a giant screen, the image of four hulking warships reinforced his patriotic message.

But there was a big mistake in the stirring backdrop: those are Russian warships.

While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America’s best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above.

These were the very Soviet-era combatants that Nathman and Cold Warriors like him had once squared off against.

“The ships are definitely Russian,” said noted naval author Norman Polmar after reviewing hi-resolution photos from the event. “There’s no question of that in my mind.”


Naval experts concluded the background was a photo composite of Russian ships that were overflown by what appear to be U.S. trainer jets. It remains unclear how or why the Democratic Party used what’s believed to be images of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at their convention.

A spokesman for the Democratic National Convention Committee was not able to immediately comment Tuesday, saying he had to track down personnel to find out what had happened.

The veteran who spotted the error and notified Navy Times said he was immediately taken aback.

“I was kind of in shock,” said Rob Barker, 38, a former electronics warfare technician who left the Navy in 2006. Having learned to visually identify foreign ships by their radars, Barker recognized the closest ship as the Kara-class cruiser Kerch.

“An immediate apology [from the committee] would be very nice,” Barker said. “Maybe acknowledge the fact that yes, they screwed up.”

The background — featured in the carefully choreographed hour leading up to the president’s Sept. 6 speech accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination — showed four ships with radar designs not used in the U.S. fleet.

For example, the ship in the foreground, on the far right, has a square radar antenna at the top of its masthead. That is the MR-700 Podberezovik 3-D early warning radar, commonly identified as “Flat Screen” for its appearance, a three-dimensional early warning radar mounted on the Kerch, said Eric Wertheim, editor of “Combat Fleets of the World.”

Similarly, the third ship has a MR-310 “Head Net” air search radar, shaped like two off-set bananas, at its masthead and is mostly likely the guided missile destroyer Smetlivyy. The first two ships seem to be Krivak-class frigates, but it’s hard to discern from the silhouette, experts said.

But the fact they are Russian ships is not in doubt. In addition to the ship’s radar arrays and hulls, which are dissimilar from U.S. warships, the photo features one more give-away: a large white flag with a blue ‘X’ at the ships’ sterns.

Polmar, who authored “The Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy,” recognized the blue ‘X’-mark: “The X is the Cross of St. Andrew’s, which is a Russian Navy symbol,” Polmar said. (An anchored U.S. warship, by contrast, flies the American flag on its stern.)

Based on this specific group of these ship types, one naval expert concluded that this was most likely a photo of the Black Sea Fleet.

“Ships are all Black Sea Fleet,” A. D. Baker III, a retired Office of Naval Intelligence analyst, told Navy Times after looking at the image. “These four ships, at the time the photo was taken, constituted the entire major surface combatant component of the Black Sea Fleet,” Baker said, noting the photo was likely to be six years old or older. (The Kerch is now on the list to be scrapped, Baker said.)

Barker, the former sailor who first spotted the errors, believes the seven aircraft streaking by are F-5 jets, a trainer used by the U.S. Navy. Asked to explain how he reached that conclusion, the former airplane spotter ticked off a list: “Twin engine, single rudder, with hard points on the wingtips, with that silhouette is going to make them F-5s.”


Act of Valor occupies a unique and singularly effective niche in filmmaking: it is a film about war featuring actual warriors playing, in essences, themselves.

That is not to confuse it with a dry documentary. This is a rousing war movie, make no mistake, in the best traditions of such films as “Blackhawk Down”, and “We Were Soldiers”.  But it sets itself aside from those earlier (and, admittedly, better) war films in the level of realism it attains.

Act of Valor is set today. It is about a series of connected missions undertaken by a platoon of US Navy Seals; to thwart a terrorist from attacking Americans on our own soil.

As a series of separate combat missions, each viewed in isolation, the film offers the best and most realistic portrayal of modern “Spec Ops” missions ever seen by audiences. In fact, one has to go to “first person shooter” games, such as “Call of Duty” to get as immediate a feeling of participation, of “being there”; as the audience is treated to here. Much of the camera work is from the shooter’s point-of-view. The rounds going past the camera sound real, because they are.

The Filmmakers, Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh, made the decision to do something never before attempted, to my knowledge: to film real warriors doing their thing!

To add realism, they are shooting real bullets, and throwing real grenades. They meet up with, and “lock out” of a real submarine. They parachute out of real planes. No special effects, no “green screen”, no stuntmen here! Just the real deal!

As a former Special Forces Operator, I felt the old adrenaline begin to kick in, along with some very real sensory memories, watching these scenes. Particularly the first mission, in which the SEAL Team maneuvers through a jungle and out of a river to attack a target; brought back memories of similar occasions I participated in decades ago. I could feel humid dampness of the misty jungle; the rotting smell of the river mud; the water sloshing in my jungle boots. I was there again, and felt my heart racing as these SEALS enter the compound, weapons at the ready, moving on target!

This film delivers!

All that said, what doesn’t work so well is the way these scenes all connect.

First, the tempo seemed to me too quick: too many missions, in too little a space of time, with too little “mission prep” (preparation). Perhaps in the years since I was involved in Spec Ops, things have changed. But back in the day, we spent a lot of time (sometimes weeks) preparing for a mission: planning, building mock-ups, performing dry-runs, etc. We then briefed the “higher-ups”, received their critique, and either got the green light; or were sent back to the “isolation house” to revise the plan.

In Acts of Valor, the protagonists always seem to be “winging it”.

Now, they are doing a magnificent job of it. And perhaps our modern Spec Ops warriors, who have been at this game for over a decade since 9/11, are so good that they can indeed “wing it” and pull it off flawlessly.  If anyone could, it would be the SEALS!

The “acting” has and will receive criticism. Deservedly. Where this film falls somewhat flat is in the interpersonal scenes and dialogue. It’s sometimes clunky and flat. Particularly the voice over, which strangely sounds a bit like Jesse Ventura!

But these are warriors, after all, not actors. So c’est la guerre!

What the audience gets is an appealing cast of real-life heroes who show us what is so special about our Spec Ops warriors: That they are ordinary people doing extraordinary things. They do it better than anyone, and perhaps better than its ever been done. It also give us a bit of insight into the unique culture of the SEAL Teams. When they bury a fallen comrade, the team members each in turn nail their SEAL trident badges to the top of the casket. This poignant moment captures on film an aspect of this closed society of warriors that few civilians ever get a glimpse of; and fewer would understand.

Too few. That is, apparently, one of the mottos of the SEALS.

At a time when this country and its unique culture and civilization are threatened by committed and deadly enemies around the globe, it is comforting to know that the we are shielded by the efforts and sacrifices of such men as these.

” We sleep safely in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.”

These men-next-door have committed themselves to becoming the “rough men” that allow us all to sleep at night. Rent (or buy)  “Act of Valor”, and honor their commitment.

Author, 1983, US Army Special Forces; in S.E. Asia

For more:


As Iran ignores international pressures and pushes ever-closer to a nuclear capability, Israel finds itself caught between the proverbial Scylla and Charybdis.

With Washington refusing to put any  “red-lines” on Tehran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons, and the very real prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran looming; Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is in the unfortunate position of having to choose between two unpalatable choices.

To wait for a feckless American Administration to take action risks such action never coming; and instead seeing the mad Mullahs of Iran, hell-bent on destroying Israel (the “Little Satan”; as opposed to America, the “Great Satan”), developing those weapons with which to achieve this goal.

The alternate course of action would be to act alone, in its own best interests; and strike Iran in an attempt to destroy or at least slow its march towards perpetrating a second Jewish Holocaust. This would almost certainly ignite a  war between Israel and Iran and its proxies, Hezbollah and Hammas. With an increasingly hostile Egypt on its

southwestern border, becoming ever more radicalized and under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood; such a war might tip the balance of power in Egypt between the Brotherhood and the Egyptian Army in favor of the radicals. Their hand strengthened, the Brotherhood might use such a war as an excuse to tear-up the Camp David Accords and return to a state of active hostilities with Israel.

In such a case, Israel could find itself at war with Egypt as well.

Worse still, striking Iran without the express “green light” from the Obama Administration risks leaving Israel truly isolated. There is every reason to believe the Obama Administration might denounce the  Israeli action, and stand aloof. Iran would likely blame America regardless, and strike American targets. This could create resentment against Israel in some American circles, and damage the “special relationship” between the two that Israel relies upon.

This is the dilemma facing Prime Minister Netanyahu.

With this in mind, today Netanyahu asked to meet with Obama personally while in New York at the end of the month. Almost certain to be at the top of that agenda would be a military strike by one or both nations against intransigent Iran.

Considering the stakes on the table, it is unbelievable that Obama has decided to snub Netanyahu once again. This is not the first time this has happened; but considering the state of tensions in the Middle East, with wide-spread speculation that Israel may be planning a strike on Iran within the next few weeks, this refusal to meet with our closest ally in the region is unconscionable.

In 2010, Netanyahu came to the White House for meetings. He was left for hours waiting on the President, before being dismissed.

Worse, in November 2011, at a G-8 Summit meeting in Paris Obama was overheard by reporters disparaging Netanyahu to the former French Prime Minister, Sarkozy.

This Administration has been the coldest to our Israeli allies of any that has come before it. Obama is the first American President never to have visited Israel during his term in office; despite visiting neighboring Egypt very early in his tenure in office. His obvious distaste for Netanyahu and Israel brings American support of Israel in this time of decision into question.

Rather than meet with Netanyahu and answering the tough questions the Prime Minister will likely ask, Obama is dodging Netanyahu. Using the lamest of excuses, that his campaign schedule allows no time for such a meeting, Obama is fobbing Netanyahu off to the Secretary of State to meet with.

This is outrageous; and seems to bolster the Romney Campaign’s charge that Obama is no friend of Israel, and that given the chance a Romney Administration promises to do much better by our ally. A promise underlined by Romney’s committment to stop the Mullahs in Tehran from aquirering nuclear weapons.

It is a promise I sincerely hope a President Romney gets the opportunity to keep. For Israel, it will come none too soon.


Time’s Joe Klein: Netanyahu’s Behavior Is ‘Absolutely Outrageous and Disgusting’

On MSNBC (no surprise) the ever-idiotic Joe Klein fumed that Netanyahu’s comments were “Absolutely Outrageous and Disgusting”. Read more:


(CBS News) JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – “I can’t ever imagine, if the prime minister of Israel asked to meet with me, I can’t imagine ever saying, ‘No,'” Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney said while shaking hands with supporters. “They’re our friends, they’re our closest allies in the Middle East.”

Moments after reiterating his criticism of the Obama administration for its handling of the diplomatic crisis unfolding in Libya and Egypt, Mitt Romney attacked the president on another foreign policy front, telling supporters at his campaign office in Florida that he couldn’t “imagine ever saying, ‘No,'” to a request for a meeting with the Israeli prime minister.

The comment came a day after the Israeli news media reported that President Obama could not find time in his schedule to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu when the Israeli prime minister travels to the United Nations in New York City later this month. (For more, read on here)