This morning I went to sign my dogs up for welfare. At first the lady said, "Dogs
are not eligible to draw welfare." So I explained to her that my dogs are mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can't speak English, and have no frigging clue who their
Daddy's are. Yet they expect me to feed them, provide them with housing, plus pay for medical care. So the welfare lady looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify.
My dogs get their first checks Friday.
... this is such a great country!
are not eligible to draw welfare." So I explained to her that my dogs are mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can't speak English, and have no frigging clue who their
Daddy's are. Yet they expect me to feed them, provide them with housing, plus pay for medical care. So the welfare lady looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify.
My dogs get their first checks Friday.
... this is such a great country!
---
Acorn cap with the nut stillattached attached.
---
Statistics lie when economists are deceptive. Bernstein never suggests the government needs to spend less. If it did the per cent paid by households would immediately increase. Also less households now pay so that increases the burden on the remaining and more taxes to fund irresponsibility and crony capitalism simply destroys businesses incentive to hire, consumers to spend, entrepreneurs to employ risk capital and people even to work hard etc.
This is where Obama's extreme Liberal and Progressive thinking is dead wrong. Dissing those who are successful is despicable and un-American leadership.
If we have discourage success then will the remaining more unsuccessful carry an increased load? What nonsense but then Bernstein was an advisor to Biden, another dunce ! (See 1 below.)
---
Obama pays for the affordable by gutting payments in other medical areas. It is the old bait and switch routine and no coincidence. Click on:
Krauthammer lays out varying ways to beat Obama:stewardship or ideology. The former is a more winning strategy, the latter more a losing strategy (See 2 below.)
Obama going toxic fits him like a glove and to the extent one would think it would hurt he has the press and media folks to provide cover. (See 2a below.)
Finally, an interesting observation about an inconsistency. (See 2b below.)
---
Has Morsi begun the take over of Egypt's military? Stay tuned. (See 3 below.)
---
U.S claims it has eyes inside Iran's nuclear activities. Israel's Barak wants to attack? Meanwhile, Obama seems prepared to allow Iran to go nuclear. What to believe? You decide.
As for myself I believe Obama is unalterably opposed to Israel acting unilaterally, wants to get re-elected and then do nothing to deter Iran. (See 4 and 4a below.)
---
I believe when Romney announces it will be Ryan, if not, then Rubio.
---.
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Former Biden Adviser Bernstein: All Americans Must Pay More Taxes
By Forrest Jones
Americans don't pay enough in taxes and need to pay more for the good of the country's fiscal health, said Jared Bernstein, former chief economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden and a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
Congressional Budget Office data show that U.S. households pay less taxes now than they did 30 years ago.
In 1979, the typical household paid 19 percent of their income in federal taxes, while the rate for a typical household today is 11 percent, Bernstein wrote in a Financial Times opinion piece.
Recessions tend to push down household incomes, which throws more people into lower tax brackets, but changes in tax policy account for a big chunk of the decrease in effective tax rates over the years.
Politicians cut taxes during downturns, notably President George W. Bush, and letting them expire often evokes charges of tax hikes, which is the case today.
The Bush-era tax breaks expire at the end of this year.
"In the 1980s and 1990s, the overall effective tax rate fluctuated within a narrow band of 20.2 percent to 22.7 percent – lower in the Ronald Reagan years, a bit higher in the Bill Clinton years. But from 2000-07, before the recession took hold, they fell by almost 3 percentage points, equal to about $300 billion in revenue, or 2 percent of gross domestic product," Bernstein wrote.
Tax cuts often lead to deficits, which don't bode well for the economy and neither do draconian spending cuts.
President Barack Obama, meanwhile, wants to extend the Bush tax cuts to everyone except for wealthier households, while GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney wants to extend them for everyone.
Both are wrong.
"The best thing to do, once the economic recovery is solidly under way, is to simply let the Bush tax cuts expire and return to the tax structure that prevailed under Bill Clinton. It cannot be plausibly argued, based on economic outcomes, that the rate structure in those years was counterproductive. Oh, and it also helped deliver a budget surplus," Bernstein wrote.
"While I understand and support the fairness argument, I’d urge Democrats to be forthright with the fact that we’re way below where we need to be in terms of revenue collection. We simply can’t begin to meet the challenges we face on the lowest effective tax rates in decades," he wrote.
"It may not be the conventional wisdom, but it is the truth."
Some Republicans disagree, including U.S. Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-New York, who says uncertainty over taxes prevents businesses from hiring, which slows recovery.
"If we're going to get our businesses back on their feet and have them invest and have them hire, then what we've got to do is create some certainty for them. Uncertainty is the enemy of growth," Buerkle told The Auburn Citizen.
"By passing these tax rate extensions and not increasing taxes on them and giving them some certainty for the next year, that's exactly what this does. Not only does it give them some certainty, it doesn't raise their taxes. It allows them to hang on to more of their money and to invest it, to hire and to buy more equipment."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The case against Barack Obama’s re-election
Second, radical reform of health care that would reduce its ruinously accelerating cost: “Put simply,” he said, “our health care problem is our deficit problem” — a financial hemorrhage drowning us in debt.
We've heard thousands of times that a high unemployment rate helps the candidacy of Governor Romney and a low unemployment rate favors President Obama. Maybe so. That certainly makes sense. On the other hand, it flies in the face of obvious and incontrovertible facts. For instance, states with high unemployment rates are likely to vote for President Obama, and states with low rates are likely to vote for Governor Romney. What is going on?
Carney's comments appeared to be an indirect repudiation of Barak's comment on Public Radio that it was getting tougher to assess Iran's nuclear progress.
"Barak is advocating for action and the defense establishment is investing billions to prepare for an Israeli military operation," an official close to the issue told Ynet.
But a cabinet minister questioned Barak's decisiveness on the matter.
"You can never know what Barak is thinking," he said. "On one hand, he is creating an alibi in the form of the army's opposition (to a strike), and on the other hand he is coming off as someone who is pushing for action. No one knows what he will decide in the moment of truth. We just don't know.
"Barak is smarter than many of the decision makers, which is why he is playing this double game."
Government sources also suggested that the US is using the media to turn the Israeli public against such an attack.
"There is no doubt that the Americans are playing the Israeli media," one source said. "They are very concerned about an Israeli operation ahead of the elections. This is clearly a poker game. Let's see who will blink first. Israel wants everyone to be on edge."
"They are quietly signaling that Washington is serious in its intention to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear power," one source said.
Bruce Reidel, a former CIA official and senior adviser to three US presidents – including George W. Bush – said Friday, Israel's prime opportunity to strike Iran is coming up in October – only weeks before the presidential elections take place in the US.
If Obama is reelected in November, it would be much more difficult to convince him that a strike is the best course of action. In fact, Reidel postulated that a second Obama Administration could opt to adopt a policy of "containment," or in other words make peace with the possibility that Iran will obtain nuclear power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Former Biden Adviser Bernstein: All Americans Must Pay More Taxes
By Forrest Jones
Americans don't pay enough in taxes and need to pay more for the good of the country's fiscal health, said Jared Bernstein, former chief economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden and a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
Congressional Budget Office data show that U.S. households pay less taxes now than they did 30 years ago.
In 1979, the typical household paid 19 percent of their income in federal taxes, while the rate for a typical household today is 11 percent, Bernstein wrote in a Financial Times opinion piece.
Recessions tend to push down household incomes, which throws more people into lower tax brackets, but changes in tax policy account for a big chunk of the decrease in effective tax rates over the years.
Politicians cut taxes during downturns, notably President George W. Bush, and letting them expire often evokes charges of tax hikes, which is the case today.
The Bush-era tax breaks expire at the end of this year.
"In the 1980s and 1990s, the overall effective tax rate fluctuated within a narrow band of 20.2 percent to 22.7 percent – lower in the Ronald Reagan years, a bit higher in the Bill Clinton years. But from 2000-07, before the recession took hold, they fell by almost 3 percentage points, equal to about $300 billion in revenue, or 2 percent of gross domestic product," Bernstein wrote.
Tax cuts often lead to deficits, which don't bode well for the economy and neither do draconian spending cuts.
President Barack Obama, meanwhile, wants to extend the Bush tax cuts to everyone except for wealthier households, while GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney wants to extend them for everyone.
Both are wrong.
"The best thing to do, once the economic recovery is solidly under way, is to simply let the Bush tax cuts expire and return to the tax structure that prevailed under Bill Clinton. It cannot be plausibly argued, based on economic outcomes, that the rate structure in those years was counterproductive. Oh, and it also helped deliver a budget surplus," Bernstein wrote.
"While I understand and support the fairness argument, I’d urge Democrats to be forthright with the fact that we’re way below where we need to be in terms of revenue collection. We simply can’t begin to meet the challenges we face on the lowest effective tax rates in decades," he wrote.
"It may not be the conventional wisdom, but it is the truth."
Some Republicans disagree, including U.S. Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-New York, who says uncertainty over taxes prevents businesses from hiring, which slows recovery.
"If we're going to get our businesses back on their feet and have them invest and have them hire, then what we've got to do is create some certainty for them. Uncertainty is the enemy of growth," Buerkle told The Auburn Citizen.
"By passing these tax rate extensions and not increasing taxes on them and giving them some certainty for the next year, that's exactly what this does. Not only does it give them some certainty, it doesn't raise their taxes. It allows them to hang on to more of their money and to invest it, to hire and to buy more equipment."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The case against Barack Obama’s re-election
There are two ways to run against Barack Obama: stewardship or ideology. You can run against his record or you can run against his ideas.
The stewardship case is pretty straightforward: the worst recovery in U.S. history, 42 consecutive months of 8-plus percent unemployment, declining economic growth — all achieved at a price of another $5 trillion of accumulated debt.
The ideological case is also simple. Just play in toto (and therefore in context) Obama’s Roanoke riff telling small business owners: “You didn’t build that.” Real credit for your success belongs not to you — you think you did well because of your smarts and sweat? he asked mockingly — but to government that built the infrastructure without which you would have nothing.
Play it. Then ask: Is that the governing philosophy you want for this nation?
Mitt Romney’s preferred argument, however, is stewardship. Are you better off today than you were $5 trillion ago? Look at the wreckage around you. This presidency is a failure. I’m a successful businessman. I know how to fix things. Elect me, etc. etc.
Easy peasy, but highly risky. If you run against Obama’s performance in contrast to your own competence, you stake your case on persona. Is that how you want to compete against an opponent who is not just more likable and immeasurably cooler, but spending millions to paint you as an unfeeling, out-of-touch, job-killing, private-equity plutocrat?
The ideological case, on the other hand, is not just appealing to a center-right country with twice as many conservatives as liberals, it is also explanatory. It underpins the stewardship argument. Obama’s ideology — and the program that followed — explains the failure of these four years.
What program? Obama laid it out boldly early in his presidency. The roots of the nation’s crisis, he declared, were systemic. Fundamental change was required. He had come to deliver it. Hence his signature legislation:
First, the $831 billion stimulus that was going to “reinvest” in America and bring unemployment below 6 percent. We know about the unemployment. And the investment? Obama loves to cite great federal projects such as the Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system. Fine. Name one thing of any note created by Obama’s Niagara of borrowed money. A modernized electric grid? Ports dredged to receive the larger ships soon to traverse a widened Panama Canal? Nothing of the sort. Solyndra, anyone?
Second, radical reform of health care that would reduce its ruinously accelerating cost: “Put simply,” he said, “our health care problem is our deficit problem” — a financial hemorrhage drowning us in debt.
Except that the CBO reports that Obamacare will cost $1.68 trillion of new spending in its first decade. To say nothing of the price of the uncertainty introduced by an impossibly complex remaking of one-sixth of the economy — discouraging hiring and expansion as trillions of investable private-sector dollars remain sidelined.
The third part of Obama’s promised transformation was energy. His cap-and-trade federal takeover was rejected by his own Democratic Senate. So the war on fossil fuels has been conducted unilaterally by bureaucratic fiat. Regulations that will kill coal. A no-brainer pipeline (Keystone) rejected lest Canadian oil sands be burned. (China will burn them instead.) A drilling moratorium in the Gulf that a federal judge severely criticized as illegal.
That was the program — now so unpopular that Obama barely mentions it. Obamacare got exactly two lines in this year’s State of the Union address. Seen any ads touting the stimulus? The drilling moratorium? Keystone?
Ideas matter. The 2010 election, the most ideological since 1980, saw the voters resoundingly reject a Democratic Party that was relentlessly expanding the power, spending, scope and reach of government.
It’s worse now. Those who have struggled to create a family business, a corner restaurant, a medical practice won’t take kindly to being told that their success is a result of government-built roads and bridges.
In 1988, Michael Dukakis famously said, “This election is not about ideology; it’s about competence.” He lost. If Republicans want to win, Obama’s deeply revealing, teleprompter-free you-didn’t-build-that confession of faith needs to be hung around his neck until Election Day. The third consecutive summer-of-recovery-that-never-came is attributable not just to Obama being in over his head but to what’s in his head: a government-centered vision of the economy and society, and the policies that flow from it.
Four years of that and this is what you get.
Make the case and you win the White House.
2a)Why Obama Thought Going Toxic Was a No-Lose Strategy
By Tom Trinko
Based on his previous campaigns, it's clear that Obama is quite comfortable with personal attacks on his opponents. From opening sealed divorce records to lies about extramarital affairs, Obama's winning mojo has been to tear the other guy down with false personal attacks while declaring that Obama himself has nothing to do with the accusations.
The latest attack by team Obama, claiming that Romney is responsible for providing free health insurance to everyone who's ever worked for any company he had any interest in, fits well into the mold of Obama's mudslinging. Obama has no problem calling Romney a killer because the wife of one employee of one company that Romney invested in died of cancer; somehow I doubt that Democrats would apply this reasoning to Ted Kennedy.
What's amazing is that this strategy actually may be no-lose for Obama. If Romney started declaring that Obama was born in Kenya, a lot of his base would think Romney was nuts. If Romney declared that Obama had killed people to get drug money when Obama was young, Romney would lose the support of most conservatives.
On the other hand, the Obama base will believe any lie about Romney. Harry Reid channels a Bain customer who somehow is intimately familiar with Romney's taxes in the years after Romney left Bain, and Obama supporters sing Hallelujah! Similarly, Obama accuses Romney of being a felon, and Obama's supporters praise the lord and say that they're glad that Obama isn't letting himself be pushed around by those racists -- i.e., anyone who doesn't support Obama.
Why are Obama supporters so willing to accept behavior from their guy that they would strenuously object to from Romney? The answers vary, but the fact that Obama treats the government as his own private piggy bank when passing out taxpayer dollars to his supporters might have something to do with it. After all, those folks who partied with the money they should have used to buy health care are going to make out like bandits if Obama gets them insured after they get ill for no extra cost. Similarly, union members know that if their company goes belly-up in the Obama economy, they, but not non-union workers, will get bailed out with taxpayer dollars. And if you're living off welfare or food stamps, you might be willing not to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Lying through his teeth, then, won't hurt Obama with his base. But what about the independents/undecideds? The members of that group who are informed by sources other than the mainstream media (MSM) already know what a disaster Obama has been. If they're dumb enough to vote for Obama anyway, a little bit of lying by Obama won't affect their votes.
On the other hand, Obama probably felt that those undecideds/independents who get their news only from the MSM would never hear about the story. Obama probably felt comfortable that the media would carry water for him and not comment on a lie about Romney being responsible for a woman's death. Especially since the exact same false charge was made by the same man back in May on a conference call set up by the Obama campaign, and the media was silent. How could Obama have known that falsely accusing his opponent of murder was beyond the pale even for MSNBC?
Events seem to be indicating that perhaps Obama made a miscalculation on this issue, but even so, Obama could still walk away a winner.
It may be that this whole exercise was, at least in part, the Fast and Furious of campaign financing. Obama hates PACs because they provide a way for non-union members to funnel millions into campaigns. In the sunny world of McCain-Feingold, Democrats had a huge advantage because the massive efforts by unions for Democrats were legal, but there was no way for non-union members to unite to support Republicans. Sadly, the First Amendment now stands between Obama and the promised land of campaign financing inequity.
Just as the Second Amendment stands in the way of Obama's desire to disarm the American people.
When Hitler attacked Poland to start WWII in Europe, he had a bunch of Nazis dress up in Polish uniforms and pretend to attack a German radio station near the border. This is called a false flag operation; you stage an atrocity and blame it on your enemy.
Obama may be enamored of false flag operations. In Fast and Furious, the Obama administration allowed Mexican cartel members to buy automatic weapons. The objective was to make it appear, as Hillary Clinton had previously said, that the violence in Mexico was the result of liberal gun policies in America, thereby providing a rationale for restricting the rights of American gun owners.
In the latest case, a PAC supporting Obama has run a horrendously evil ad. Obama had every reason to believe that his connection to the ad would be hidden by the media because the media has refused to report on what really happened in Fast and Furious. If Obama wins the election, he can use the toxic ads produced by his own PACs -- which he doesn't coordinate with (at least according to him) -- as evidence as to why PACs need to be reined in, First Amendment be damned, just as the violence in Mexico shows that gun owners' rights have to be curtailed irrespective of what the Second Amendment says.
Obama believed that going toxic was a no-lose proposition because by tarring Romney, he distracts attention from the Obama economy while winning points with people who listen only to the MSM, and once the campaign is over, Obama could use the evil ads produced by the PACs including those which supported him as a basis to call for restricting free speech once again.
Only time will tell if Obama's calculations were correct, but the fact that he could believe that his base wouldn't be revolted by his tactics shows what sort of people he thinks support him.
2b)Does High Unemployment Really Hurt Obama?
By Jonathan David CarsonWe've heard thousands of times that a high unemployment rate helps the candidacy of Governor Romney and a low unemployment rate favors President Obama. Maybe so. That certainly makes sense. On the other hand, it flies in the face of obvious and incontrovertible facts. For instance, states with high unemployment rates are likely to vote for President Obama, and states with low rates are likely to vote for Governor Romney. What is going on?
First, the facts. The average unemployment rate of states solid for Obama is 9.1% compared to an unemployment rate of 6.8% for solid Romney states. For likely Obama states the rate is 8.7%; likely Romney states have a 6.8% rate. Combining solid and likely states, we get an unemployment rate of 9.0% for solid or likely Obama states compared to 6.8% for solid or likely Romney.
Table 1 Solid Obama
State
|
Electoral Votes
|
% Unemployed
|
California
|
55
|
10.7
|
Delaware
|
3
|
6.7
|
DC
|
3
|
9.1
|
Hawaii
|
4
|
6.4
|
Illinois
|
20
|
8.7
|
Maryland
|
10
|
6.9
|
Massachusetts
|
11
|
6.0
|
New York
|
29
|
8.9
|
Rhode Island
|
4
|
10.9
|
Vermont
|
3
|
4.7
|
All States
|
142
|
9.1
|
Table 2 Likely Obama
State
|
Electoral Votes
|
% Unemployed
|
Connecticut
|
7
|
8.1
|
Maine
|
4
|
7.5
|
New Jersey
|
14
|
9.6
|
Washington
|
12
|
8.3
|
All States
|
37
|
8.7
|
Table 3 Solid and Likely Obama
State
|
Electoral Votes
|
% Unemployed
|
California
|
55
|
10.7
|
Delaware
|
3
|
6.7
|
DC
|
3
|
9.1
|
Hawaii
|
4
|
6.4
|
Illinois
|
20
|
8.7
|
Maryland
|
10
|
6.9
|
Massachusetts
|
11
|
6.0
|
New York
|
29
|
8.9
|
Rhode Island
|
4
|
10.9
|
Vermont
|
3
|
4.7
|
Connecticutt
|
7
|
8.1
|
Maine
|
4
|
7.5
|
New Jersey
|
14
|
9.6
|
Washington
|
12
|
8.3
|
All States
|
179
|
9.0
|
Table 4 Solid Romney
State
|
Electoral Votes
|
% Unemployed
|
Alabama
|
9
|
7.8
|
Alaska
|
3
|
7.3
|
Arkansas
|
6
|
7.2
|
Idaho
|
4
|
7.7
|
Kansas
|
6
|
6.1
|
Kentucky
|
8
|
8.2
|
Louisiana
|
8
|
7.5
|
Mississippi
|
6
|
8.8
|
Nebraska
|
5
|
3.8
|
Oklahoma
|
7
|
4.7
|
Utah
|
6
|
6.0
|
West Virginia
|
5
|
7.0
|
Wyoming
|
3
|
5.4
|
All States
|
76
|
6.8
|
Table 5 Likely Romney
State
|
Electoral Votes
|
% Unemployed
|
North Dakota
|
3
|
2.9
|
South Dakota
|
3
|
4.3
|
Tennessee
|
11
|
8.1
|
Texas
|
38
|
7.0
|
All States
|
55
|
6.8
|
Table 6 Solid and Likely Romney
State
|
Electoral Votes
|
% Unemployed
|
Alabama
|
9
|
7.8
|
Alaska
|
3
|
7.3
|
Arkansas
|
6
|
7.2
|
Idaho
|
4
|
7.7
|
Kansas
|
6
|
6.1
|
Kentucky
|
8
|
8.2
|
Louisiana
|
8
|
7.5
|
Mississippi
|
6
|
8.8
|
Nebraska
|
5
|
3.8
|
Oklahoma
|
7
|
4.7
|
Utah
|
6
|
6.0
|
West Virginia
|
5
|
7.0
|
Wyoming
|
3
|
5.4
|
North Dakota
|
3
|
2.9
|
South Dakota
|
3
|
4.3
|
Tennessee
|
11
|
8.1
|
Texas
|
38
|
7.0
|
All States
|
131
|
6.8
|
Since states typically contain both areas with high unemployment and areas with low unemployment, state figures underestimate the correlation between Democrats and high unemployment. If the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported unemployment by congressional district, we would presumably find a close connection between Democrats and unemployment.
I'm not sure what to make of all this. On the one hand, increased unemployment seems to favor Republicans. On the other hand, people in areas with high unemployment favor Democrats. But you can't increase unemployment without creating areas with high unemployment.
Democrats would probably say that they are champions of the little guy, and he votes for them when he is in trouble. I would say that people who don't learn from experience vote for Democrats.
California has a Democratic governor, a Democratic legislature, and a Democratic president. It also has an economy that's falling apart and no intention of changing its party affiliation. Results don't matter. In fact, it seems obvious that the worse the Democrats mismanage the California economy, the more solid the state is for Democrats. Evidently, people who learn from experience simply leave.
Chicago has an Obama mayor and an Obama president, and it has hundreds of thousands of black people living in squalor who hate Republicans. Everywhere you find black people living in squalor, you will find Democrats in power. They might as well be Californians.
So the issue seems to be, do people care about results, or do they care about something else? The evidence seems to indicate that large numbers of people do not care about results, or if they do, they care about something else more.
This may bear on the controversy over Rush Limbaugh's hope that Obama fails. Most people have a hard time believing that their president is actively sabotaging the economy; however, there is a great deal of evidence that Democrats profit from misery. They must be constantly tempted to bring it about. They may think that the worse they manage the economy, the better their political fortunes.
Or take a more pointed example. Almost all blacks vote Democratic, but the higher they rise in income, the more likely they are to switch to Republican. So Democrats have an interest in keeping blacks poor.
The reason Franklin Roosevelt is the Democrat par excellence is because he showed that it is possible to preside over a stagnant economy without paying a political price, perhaps even benefiting from the stagnation. That is why Obama may be the one true successor to Roosevelt -- not Johnson, not Clinton, because they were in office when the economy was expanding.
What does this mean for Romney and the rest of us? That we demand results, results, results. Results, not excuses. Results, not blame. Results, not calumny.
I guess most Californians are too stupid or too stoned or too star-struck to realize that Obama has talked about a million more roads and bridges than he'll ever build. They'll sit in traffic jams and gripe about Republicans. They'll pay tax on the gasoline in their idling engines, and Obama will siphon it off for bike lanes or bullet trains to nowhere, and they'll wonder what Romney has against freeways. A fool and his money are soon parted.
Anyway, that's what comes to my mind when I hear that Obama's re-election is threatened by the deteriorating economy and I look at the actual numbers, which seem to paint a different picture. Maybe someone else can explain the discrepancy better than I have. But right now I see few people trying.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Morsi's anti-terror ploy to root out pro-US influence in Cairo, cut Israel from Sinai
President Morsi with army chief Field Marshal Tantawi in Sinai
Israel willingly acceded to Cairo’s request for permission to deploy fighter planes and armored troop carriers in Sinai, which was ruled a demilitarized buffer zone under their 1979 peace treaty. It shared an interest in President Mohamed Morsi’s counter-terror offensive against lawless Islamist bands.
But when sensational reports started coming in from Cairo about non-existent Egyptian victories in which an improbable “60 gunmen killed,” they realized the “offensive” was largely bogus.
But when sensational reports started coming in from Cairo about non-existent Egyptian victories in which an improbable “60 gunmen killed,” they realized the “offensive” was largely bogus.
Intelligence sources in Washington and Jerusalem strongly suspect that they should be worried about what the Muslim Brotherhood president is really up, especially after the sweep he conducted Wednesday, Aug. 8 of pro-Western military officers and other moves.
1. Until then, President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership were deemed two separate and competing power bases in Cairo, with the president ready to defy the Brotherhood by leaning on the supreme military council for support.
This perception broke down in the aftermath of the terrorist raid of Aug. 5 in which 17 Egyptian troops were murdered at their Mansoura base in northern Sinai. By his subsequent actions, Morsi put paid to the impression, which was supported by many high-ranking members of Israel’s security community, that the Egyptian president of two months had chosen an independent path and was ready to break ranks with the Brotherhood.
2. Wednesday, Aug. 8, with considerable fanfare, Morsi sacked key military officials in an apparent purge of those responsible for the Sinai debacle.
Chief of intelligence Gen. Mourad Mowafi was sent into retirement and Maj. Gen. Mohamed Shahata given an interim appointment in his stead. The same bulletin announced that the head of the Supreme Military Council and defense minister, Field Marshal Tantawi, had fired the head of the military police, Maj. Gen. Hamdy Badeen.
Sources disclose Tantawi had no part in this or any other military dismissals, although they were his prerogative. Morsi quite simply seized the moment to appropriate the top military command’s authority for the first time by taking upon himself the firing and hiring of military officers.
The president furthermore sacked the head of the Republican Guard, the division responsible for safeguarding the president and members of his regime and replaced him with an officer loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood, Maj. Gen. Hamed Zaky.
Morsi’s highhanded actions, especially in the case of Gen. Mowafi, are seen in Washington and Jerusalem as the first steps in the Brotherhood’s takeover of the Egyptian army.
3. Mowafi had to go because he stood in the way of Muslim Brotherhood objectives. It was he who raised the alarm for months about an impending terrorist attack on the Egyptian-Gaza-Israel border junction and urged the deployment of attack helicopters for preemptive missile attacks on their networks.
Instead of being commended, our sources report he was fired for two reasons: For what the MB thought of as his pro-western and pro-Israeli orientation; and for his efforts to broker a compromise deal for unifying the two Palestinian wings, the Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah.
However, this not what the Brotherhood wants. Rather than Palestinian unity and compromise, the MB seeks a Hamas takeover of the Ramallah-based Fatah wing headed by Mahmoud Abbas.
Gen. Mowafi stood in the way of this goal.
Instead of being commended, our sources report he was fired for two reasons: For what the MB thought of as his pro-western and pro-Israeli orientation; and for his efforts to broker a compromise deal for unifying the two Palestinian wings, the Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah.
However, this not what the Brotherhood wants. Rather than Palestinian unity and compromise, the MB seeks a Hamas takeover of the Ramallah-based Fatah wing headed by Mahmoud Abbas.
Gen. Mowafi stood in the way of this goal.
At the same time, the new man, Gen. Shahata, had to be satisfied with an interim appointment as head of intelligence. The MB does not trust him to be loyal and regards him as pro-Western – albeit less well-connected than Mowafi. They will use him as a stopgap until they find an intelligence chief who understands where his allegiance belongs - and then drop him too.
In the “counter-terror offensive” charade, the MB assigned Hamas in Gaza a key role. According to the script, Cairo would give Hamas an ‘ultimatum” to surrender the Al Qaeda-linked Army of Islam operatives alleged to have carried out the raid on the Egyptian base. The Muslim Brotherhood regime in Cairo would then be able to close the books on the episode and avoid even the semblance of an offensive against Salafi terrorist networks in Sinai.
Israel’s diplomatic-security cabinet meeting in Jerusalem Friday, Aug. 10, freely approved the transfer of assault helicopters to Sinai “for a few days”- although it didn’t take a counter-terror expert to realize that there is no way a couple of helicopters could wipe out hidden terrorist networks in just days. But the ministers decided on advice from Washington to go along for now with the show Morsi and the Muslim Brothers were putting on, so as not to look obstructive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)US says has 'eyes' inside Iran nuclear program
In remarks seemingly directed at Israel, Washington asserts it would know once Iran acquired the knowledge, capability and materials to build nuclear bomb; former CIA official suggests Obama may accept nuclear Iran
By Yizhak Benhorin
| |||
'Netanyahu undecided'
Top officials in Jerusalem said on Friday that Barak was the most vehement advocate for a strike on Iran, while Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu still has reservations and is yet to decide about the best course of action.'Obama to accept nuclear Iran'
State officials noted that despite its apparent wariness towards the military option, the US continues to deploy forces – including aircraft carriers and minesweepers – to the Persian Gulf.
But a former White House adviser for Middle East affairs said that President Barack Obama may be ready to accept a nulcear Iran.
An October strike is Obama's "worst nightmare," Reidel said, anticipating that top US officials will travel to Israel prior to the elections in an attempt to dissuade its leaders from launching a strike and to buy time for the incumbent president, who may not be ready to employ the military option in the next six months, if at all.
Attila Somfalvi contributed to the report
4a)
US offers no comment on Iran intelligence reports
MARK WILSON/AFP/POOL/File
The White House Thursday declined to respond to the comment of Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, pictured on August 1, that new US intelligence warns the Iranian nuclear threat has become much more "urgent."
The White House Thursday declined to respond to the comment of Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, pictured on August 1, that new US intelligence warns the Iranian nuclear threat has become much more "urgent."
The White House Thursday declined to respond to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's comment that new US intelligence warns the Iranian nuclear threat has become much more "urgent."
Barak had suggested that a new US intelligence assessment on Iran had brought the Obama administration's position much closer to that of the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on Air Force One that he would not comment on "intelligence matters or intelligence ... the president may or may not have received."
He said Obama remained committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and was leading an international effort to impose what Iran has described as "the most stringent" sanctions imposed on any country.
Carney also demurred when asked whether Washington was irked that Barak had been commenting publicly on such sensitive matters.
Barak had told Israeli public radio that "it seems there really is a report by US intelligence agencies. I don't know if it's by the National Intelligence Estimate or a different agency circulating between senior chambers."
Israeli daily Haaretz ran the story on its front page.
"As far as we know, it brings the American assessment much much closer to ours," Barak said. "I'd say that compared to previous American appraisals, it makes the Iranian issue a bit more urgent."
Israel, the sole if undeclared nuclear power in the Middle East, says Iran's nuclear program poses an existential threat, and has repeatedly refused to rule out military action to halt Tehran's nuclear activity.
The Obama administration, only three months before the president asks voters for a second term, is loath to launch a new US war in the Middle East and wants to give time for newly strengthened sanctions to work.
Iran refuses to bow to Western demands that it curb its sensitive uranium enrichment under the pressure of punishing economic sanctions that were ramped up in July to their toughest level so far.
Tehran has demanded that its "right" to enrichment be recognized and that the sanctions be eased.
The Islamic republic rejects Western suspicions that it is seeking a nuclear weapons capability, insisting itsnuclear ambitions are entirely peaceful.
A series of visits by high-ranking US defense officials to Israel has raised speculation that Washington is trying to dissuade Israel from a preemptive military attack.
"We are determined to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, and all the options are on the table. When we say it, we mean it," Barak said.
"When the Americans say it, we believe them. Others should believe them too," the defense minister said
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment