England Is 'Busted' and Brits Drank Another Pint!

Even though England is 'busted' the Brits did not take to the street, pillage and murder.

I suspect the Brits just raised their glasses, drank another pint and said hip hip hooray!
---
California owes a lot of almonds.More than first thought!  (See 1 below.)
---
One of my neighbors, dear friend and fellow memo reader has written this: "Below is a Newsmax flyer about Obama's recent speech in Florida. With respect to this article and Romney's campaign in the swing states, why wouldn't somebody like Rubio be with him in those Hispanic/ Latino talks?

To me, Rubio's presence should demonstrate not only that Romney is aware of their issues, the importance of their support but that Hispanics/Latinos have the same opportunities that Rubio had under the policies that Romney promotes. I also feel that situation like that discussed in the below article could possibly have been spun more towards obama's failure rather than being left that it was the Republican's fault.

I think the same dog and pony show concept in Virginia with the Governor highlighting the issues and Romney responding, would show a greater togetherness between candidate and the Virginia electorate. Just imagine the impact of saying he will not cut those defense contracts that are so vital to their state. Throw in keeping their bases open consistent with no cuts in defense spending and troop strengths.

The same would hold true for Ohio, here their successful Governor would lead Romney on issues like drilling, defense contracts and coal mining.

Naturally I see Romney still covering his hot tops, but I think an interaction with key people in those swing states might bring a greater impact to his campaign than just him talking.

Again, just wanted to bounce some thoughts that I had last night when I was thinking of those articles stating that Romney needs to do more to excite the electorate, particularly the independents.  Do with these thoughts what you want. You know I want Romney to win no matter what it takes. (See 2 below.)

----

If you were leading a terrorist group would you be more enraged by a stupid movie or random drone  attacks from the air dropping guided bombs on your co-terrorists?

---
Homes has Obama figured! Our president is really a playboy! (See 3 below.)
---
Does  Linda McMahon have an answer for Romney?  (See 4 and 4a below.)
---
The Saban Center strategizes and gets it wrong because the participants fail to recognize the role of Syria!  (See 5 below.)

For what it is worth! An annual defense forecast by Amir Rapaport!  (See 5a below)

Iran's top military commander gives his prediction!  (See 5b below.)
---
Distrust of media hits new high! Wonder why?  (See 6 below.)
-
Libyan assessment and Obama's vulnerability!  You decide!  (See 7 below.)
---

Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)California Debt Higher Than Earlier Estimates, a Task Force Reports

.

By: Mary Williams Walsh

Gov. Jerry Brown of California announced when he came into office last year that he had found an alarming $28 billion “wall of debt” looming over the state, which had to be dismantled.

Since then, he has slowed the issuance of municipal bonds, called for spending cuts and tried to persuade the state’s famously antitax voters to approve a tax increase this fall.

On Thursday, an independent group of fiscal experts said Mr. Brown’s efforts were all well and good, but in fact, the “wall of debt” was several times as big as the governor thought

Directors of the State Budget Crisis Task Force said their researchers had found a lot of other debts that did not turn up in California’s official tally. Much of it involved irrevocable promises to provide pensions to public workers, health care for retirees, the cost of delayed highway maintenance and an estimated $40 billion bill to bring drinking water up to federal standards.

They also pointed out many of the same unpaid bills from previous years that the governor had brought to light, like $8 billion in delayed payments to schools and community colleges, and $250 million that was raided from a fund dedicated to transportation and treated as revenue.

The task force estimated that the burden of debt totaled at least $167 billion and as much as $335 billion. Its members warned that the off-the-books debts tended to grow over time, so that even if Mr. Brown should succeed in pushing through his tax increase, gaining an additional $50 billion over the next seven years, the wall of debt would still be there, casting its shadow over the state.

“With inadequate information, our legislators and citizens are flying blind,” said David Crane, a board member who issued the task force’s special report on California’s fiscal condition at a news conference in San Francisco on Thursday.

Mr. Crane, a former adviser to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, was joined by the economist George P. Shultz, who served various administrations as secretary of treasury, labor and state.

A spokesman for Governor Brown did not dispute the report but said the governor was making progress in his effort to restore fiscal balance.

The task force was founded last year by Paul A. Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman, and Richard Ravitch, a former New York lieutenant governor. They said they were acting out of a deep concern for the fiscal affairs of the states, which they thought received insufficient attention in Washington. (Read More: Volcker Rule on Track for Completion Year-End)

The task force is conducting detailed analyses of a sample of six states. The others are Illinois, New York, Texas, Virginia and New Jersey.

California was of particular interest, not only because it constitutes the world’s ninth-largest economy, but because of its intractable fiscal problems. It has also experienced an unusual string of municipal bankruptcies in recent years. In one of them, the City of Stockton is proposing to walk away from virtually all the principal and interest on one of its bonds.

Analysts are watching the case closely, concerned that if Stockton succeeds, other troubled cities may follow. Some contend that the State of California should be doing more to keep its cities out of bankruptcy, and to shield municipal bond investors. (Read More: The Ripple Effect of California's Bankruptcies)

Task force members said their focus on California was not meant to suggest that the state’s general-obligation bonds were at risk. Mr. Crane said he believed California’s bonds were very safe, acknowledging that he owned some himself.

Governor Brown’s efforts to chip away at the debt have led Standard & Poor’s to say it is considering an upgrade of California’s bond rating, long one of the lowest among the states. But the report pointed out that S.& P.’s review of California’s creditworthiness took into account a ranking in the state Constitution that shows which debts and government programs must be paid ahead of everything else.

While a rating increase would mean that California’s bondholders were more secure, it would not necessarily mean more money for the programs that didn’t make it onto the seniority list. Nor would it reflect any particular improvement in the fiscal health of the cities, school districts and other local bodies of government, which fall lower in the pecking order than the state’s general-obligation bondholders.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)Obama Laments Lack of Immigration Reform

President Barack Obama told a Hispanic audience on Thursday that his inability to overhaul U.S. immigration laws was the biggest shortcoming of his first four years in office, but he blamed Republican lawmakers for standing in the way.

"As you remind me, my biggest failure so far is we haven't gotten comprehensive immigration reform done," Obama said in an interview with Univision, the Spanish-language television network.

"But it's not for lack trying or desire," he added. "Obviously the fact that we haven't been able to change the tone in Washington is disappointing."

Obama was grilled about why he had not lived up to a promise he made in the 2008 presidential campaign to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

"At the beginning of your government, you had control of both chambers of Congress, and yet you did not introduce immigration reform," news anchor Jorge Ramos told the president. "I want for you to acknowledge that you did not keep your promise."

The president replied that arresting the nation's economic free fall had been his overriding priority in his first year in office. Efforts to lay the groundwork for immigration legislation stalled because of Republican indifference, he said.

"What we could not get was a single Republican, including the 20 who had previously voted for comprehensive immigration reform, to step up," Obama said.

Obama said during the interview on Thursday that despite political divisions in the capital, strong public pressure could lead to immigration reform.

"You can't change Washington from the inside, you can only change Washington from the outside," he said. "That's how the big accomplishments like health care got done, because we mobilized the American people to speak out."

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney jumped on that comment, saying it was an admission of failure by Obama.

"The president today threw the white flag of surrender again," the former Massachusetts governor said in Sarasota. "His slogan was 'Yes we can,' his slogan is now, 'No, I can't.'"

Immigration is a flashpoint in Obama's battle with Romney to win the White House on November 6.

Many conservatives advocate much tougher laws against illegal immigrants, and Romney has advocated what he calls self-deportation for illegals, stirring the ire of many Hispanics.

Obama, adopting a more lenient position, in June issued an order that allows hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children to avoid deportation and obtain work permits.

While opponents decried the move as a blatant political ploy to win favor among Hispanics, 

Obama said on Thursday he already held a large advantage among Hispanic voters.

He said he was motivated to take that step because "there is no way you would think it was fair or just" for many young people to face deportation.

The move has allowed the president to draw a stark contrast between himself and Romney.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)Obama's Ambition
By Eric Homes

After years of trying to figure out who Barack Obama is, I think I have found the solution.  I've read countless stories of various theories which describe him as (1) a communist, (2) a Muslim, (3) an anarchist,  (4) a New World Order proponent, (5) a narcissist, or even (6) an anti-christ.

Though after watching his behavior the last few years and reading all I could on his background, I believe that the motivation behind Barack Obama is that he has no ambition, and what drives him is a life of leisure with wealth and no responsibility.

Rather than a lifetime of achievements and years of toil at anything, the evidence points to a person who enjoys all the fruits given him.  Some have reported that he doesn't really like being president.  According to Investors Business Daily, he skips over half the daily intel meetings, he has more time on the golf course than attending economy meetings, and we also know he takes more vacations than any previous president has taken.  During the most recent crisis, he spent his time in Las Vegas, on talk shows, and rubbing elbows with celebrities.

In the study of successful people, they all have in common years of hard work, and tens of thousands of hours of practice and study, all beginning at a young age.  What did Obama do during his youth?  He smoked dope and complained that he didn't get more playing time during his basketball games.

Regardless of how he was able to be accepted to all the schools he attended, what did he do while in school?  He hung out with friends and accepted a vacation to Pakistan.  At Columbia he was so uninvolved that no one remembers him.  At Harvard he was appointed to president of the law review, where he never wrote anything.  For this achievement he was given a large book advance which he spent on a long vacation to come back with nothing.  Eventually he wrote a book, though the analysis of Jack Cashill indicates that he didn't actually author it.  Bill Ayers is quoted as saying he wrote it.

After graduation, he worked a little with no real achievement as a political activist.  As a lawyer, he has no records and only memories of others as having his feet up on his desk all the time.  He won his first couple of elections when his opponents dropped out.  While in office he had the famous record of voting present.  As a U.S. senator he wrote no bills, nor did he introduce any significant legislation.  He spent his final two years campaigning for president.  Up until this point, his greatest accomplishment was giving a speech at the Democratic Convention. 

As a president, he signed bills others wrote.  He has been on date nights to NYC, golfing at Martha's Vineyard, and vacations to Europe and Hawaii.  He shuns meetings with other world leaders, while his biggest summit was settling the differences between a policeman and a college professor. 

From all the times I have seen him speak off the cuff, I speculate that Obama really doesn't know much because he doesn't put in the homework to learn.  His 2008 campaign speeches about reforming health care are elementary; his fix for the energy crisis -- namely, that everyone add air to his or her tires -- borders on stupidity.  He quickly weighs in on the Cambridge police or the Trayvon Martin case, because these are issues on the TV news.  He changes his mind on important social issues not by reading legal reviews, but rather by watching cheap TV shows.  Yet he seems so uninformed about history and world events.

Of course, 57 states, breathalyzers, Navy corpse-men, the Austrian language, and bowing to foreign heads of states are all famous gaffes; they reveal a pattern -- Obama doesn't care to know or study.  He smugly quipped that he already knew the difference between a Shiite and Sunni before he was assigned to his committee in the Senate.  It as if he was saying, "I'm so smart already that I don't need to learn anything."

Granted, he is a millionaire, though mostly from royalties from a book he did not write.  He received a sweetheart real estate deal from someone who would later be a convicted felon.  Lately, World Net Daily is reporting that Obama is shopping for a mansion that someone else will buy for him in Hawaii. 

For all he is credited or blamed for, future history most likely will reveal that Obama was just a puppet for others.  This is his ambition: live like a king, and never work.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)McMahon in Connecticut: She's Baaaaaack!

By Stuart Schwartz

Linda McMahon, the tenacious and successful business executive, who two years ago beat the Republican establishment in the U.S. Senate primary in Connecticut, is shaping up to be a nightmare for Connecticut Democrats.  The candidate for U.S. Senate threatens an upset of their anti-business, redistributionist, and nanny-state agenda in a state they have taken for granted.

In Connecticut, as in neighboring Massachusetts and New York, it's long been what the Democrats want, the Democrats get.  But polls show that McMahon has been "unexpectedly" pulling ahead -- mainstream media-speak for "we sure hate to report this, but integrity demands an occasional stab at the truth"-- and offer a ghostly glimpse of the future in the national contest between another successful business executive -- Mitt Romney -- and a president who would feel right at home in this New England state's Democrat establishment.

Indeed:  she's baaaaack.  That's an adaptation of the line from Poltergeist II: The Other Side, the second in the classic horror film series that featured the chilling catchphrase "They're back."  And for the Connecticut political establishment -- think Chicago machine with a hint of clam chowder (regional favorite) -- life appears to be imitating cinema art as the former chief executive officer of $1.2-billion entertainment juggernaut World Wrestling Entertainment is poised to do what seems to media and political elites only supernaturally possible, if at all: beat a Democrat in a deep, deep, deep blue state.

Behind in double-digits two months ago, McMahon is quietly making a race out of it for the seat of retiring U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman (the independent pushed out of the party by the state's increasingly radical Democrat establishment), with the Real Clear Politics poll average showing her about even.  And, when you take out of the average the really-seriously-in-the-tank-for-Democrats pollster PPP and the poll of New York Times wannabe Hartford Courant, Linda -- as she prefers to be called -- is up by three points.

How did this happen?  After all, the New York Times and its columnists led the state's newspapers and broadcasters in writing Linda's epitaph two years ago after she lost a U.S. Senate bid to a media and inside-the-Beltway progressive favorite.  Speaking of cinema and the supernatural: they thought they had driven a stake through her heart, having done in that campaign two years ago what they're doing to Mitt Romney now.  Scarcely a day went by in which a mainstream media outlet did not declare Linda's campaign dead, her presence an insult to professional politicians (in Connecticut as in the rest of the country, defined as those under indictment or about to be), her business acumen irrelevant to the realbusiness of government (redistribution of individual wealth), and her insistence on both individual and government responsibility hopelessly out of touch.  Sure, she beat the Republican establishment to take the nomination, but she had met her match in an insider-anointed Senate candidate who had spent his entire adult life on the public payroll, had an elite education, spouted leftist generalities, and was a member in good standing of a major Democrat constituency...the morally challenged.

But Linda learned.  Media approval -- Fugedaboutit!  The New York Times can't be reasoned with, the state newspapers were and remain staffed by political commentators drawn from the Democrat ranks, and the state's broadcasters take their cue from the neighboring New York and Boston media.  Linda McMahon, she of business experience, wrestling, money earned rather than acquired the preferred way through taxpayers -- how frightfully un-PBS, how tawdry, how...how...how commercial!  No, to Linda McMahon, caviar is just fish eggs, fall weekends a good time to grill ("I love barbeque," she says), and a Yale University (the cultural center of the state's Democrats) lecture on the transgender  roots of the working class a great reason to be somewhere else.  In Connecticut, where New York City's elite goes for relief from nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg's cascade of regulation, disdain is the best McMahon can hope for from a ruling class that regards all things Linda as the reincarnation of 19^th-century Connecticut huckster P.T. Barnum.  She doesn't fit the traditional political mold...and therefore must be innately and "brazenly dishonest," as the Daily Kos puts it.

And so everyone who is anyone knows, absolutely knows that the Democrat she's running against, Washington and Connecticut insider U.S. Rep. Christopher Murphy, is infinitely more qualified for the job.  He's a protégé of former U.S. Senator Chris Dodd, whose career the New York Post described as "a cavalcade of scandal."  Murphy has been accused of following in the footsteps of his mentor, having allegedly accepted a Dodd-like special mortgage deal in return for his vote for TARP money.  And he's a lawyer, Oxford-educated (the one in England, not the small town in Connecticut), and voted with friend Nancy Pelosi 98 percent of the time.  Hint of scandal, elite schools, powerful Washington buddies, lawyer -- does it get any better than that?

The problem is, the polls are showing that the support of everyone who is anyone is not enough to overcome the growing conviction of the anyones who are everyone that Democrats have made a train wreck of the state's economy.  Employers are fleeing a tsunami of Barack-like regulation emanating from the state's capital, while residents are running for the exits in a state that ranks third nationally in taxing property.  In the face of this, McMahon is simply doing what she now does best: treating voters as adults with hopes and aspirations, who recognize that voracious politicians, government debt, and out-of-control regulation have become our greatest obstacle to opportunity.   Her energetic crisscrossing of the state shows a low-key, serious candidate with a pro-business slant who simply doesn't care what the insiders think of her or her campaign.

She's toast, she's already lost, goes the conventional Connecticut/Democrat wisdom in a state owned-and-operated by unions, mainstream New York media, and the party of Barack Obama (The One beat McCain by 23 points here).

But those darned voters.  They just won't cooperate.  And maybe there's a lesson here -- that no election is lost just because the New York Times, the mainstream media, and the political and cultural elites say it's lost.

And maybe, just maybe, as Connecticut goes, so goes the nation.  Good news for Linda and, perhaps, good news for Mitt.  Because...she's baaaaack! 

Stuart Schwartz, a former media and retail executive, is on the faculty of the School of Communication at Liberty University. 

4a)What Romney Must Do

By Steve Flesher

The Romney campaign has a lot of work to do.  First, Mitt Romney needs to think really hard to remember what the context of his entire answer was when he made his now-infamous comment about the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay taxes.  If he can't, someone who was there needs to come forth to help refresh his memory.  Otherwise, he needs to apologize and begin to convey the true conservative message about the politics of a free society with regard to economic matters.

The pundits haven't helped.  Most of them have come forth to defend him.  They've decided to turn the conversation into a battle between the makers and takers of society.  That's not going to bode well for our chances of firing Barack Obama in November, considering that his policies have forced many into the unfortunate position of relying on assistance due to high unemployment and lack of opportunity.

While it goes without saying that there is a lot of fraud within the system of welfare and entitlements, classing up the 47 percent who don't pay federal taxes with common slackers is disingenuous.  This is especially true considering how conservatives in the past have been successful in constructing honest arguments against liberal policies by pointing out that liberalism seeks to put individuals in positions of government dependence in the first place.

Despite being relentlessly demonized by the press, Margaret Thatcher ran a campaign during some of the darkest days in Britain's history.  It was a campaign based on the values of honesty, restricted government frivolity, and common sense.  She not only won on that platform, but went on to win re-election two more times.  She did it, in part, by reminding the downtrodden that the only answers to their biggest problems lie within the principles of freedom and the virtues of hard work. 

This was illustrated on the floor in the House of Commons.  Thatcher took on one liberal in particular who claimed that the gap existing between the richest and poorest ten percents had widened substantially during her time as prime minister.  Thatcher argued that what the left really meant when they said such things is that "they would rather the poor were poorer, so long as the rich were less rich."

She explained that no social experiment could magically raise the poorest to a higher standard, especially when the bar of the wealthiest comes down.  Engaging in such a nonsensical policy discourages wealth-creation, opportunity, and a functioning free society.

This echoed a previous sentiment by Winston Churchill, who once said that "socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

That's the message needed to replace Obama and to easily out-debate his apologists.  Right now, most of those 47 percent of Americans are sharing the same misery Churchill described.  In fact, nobody knows it more than they do.  This is the time to inspire those who have no choice but to turn to Obama's plan of lifetime mediocrity.  In fact, considering that many of them have been forced to it due to his failed policies, convincing them of a better way should be a relatively simple thing for a conservative to do.

It was done by Sarah Palin when she stood before thousands in September of 2011.  She spoke with great charisma about the importance of developing our resources, eliminating the corporate income tax, and immediately engaging in the sudden and relentless reform needed to rid Washington of crony capitalism, corporate bailouts, and pay-to-play schemes.  These ingredients needed for a booming economy will create the taxpayers lacking in the system today.

It was done during the primary, when Newt Gingrich spoke eloquently of shared misery by pointing out that more Americans have become food stamp recipients under Obama than under any other president in history.  He then concluded by saying: "I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness, and even if it makes liberals unhappy, I'm going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn someday to own the job." 

But unfortunately, it isn't done when the only alternative to Barack Obama is a candidate who stands in a room full of wealthy donors and insinuates that Americans would deny articulated conservative ideas for more shared misery from the man who gave it to them.  It also isn't done when you profess to liking parts of ObamaCare. 

It's even worse to have a former GOP presidential candidate, who railed against bailouts and government interference during the primary, leave the cause of firing the worst sitting president in American history to become a Wall Street lobbyist. 

And as hard as they try, it doesn't help for Republican pundits to ignore or make excuses for this type of behavior, ultimately denying the obvious: Republicans always lose when they stop being conservative.

If the Republican Party fails the task of replacing the one president provably responsible for spreading more misery around than any other in history, the prospects of a new party will undeniably become the only hope remaining for Americans looking for a better future.

Steve Flesher is a contributing editor at Conservatives4Palin

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5)Washington’s Iran war game vs. real Iranian, Israeli war preparations

Ehud Barak and Rahm Emanuel in Chicago

Ill-assorted figures this week cited 2013 as the year in which the United States was expected to go to war on Iran. Among them was Iran’s atomic commission director Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, and players in the US-Iranian war game staged at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy in Washington, whose heads are close to US President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

On the part of Washington, it had a distinct purpose, which was to demonstrate to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that an Israeli attack before the US presidential election would be superfluous.

The message was played out in the Saban institute’s war game: The player representing Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the Americans are tired of the fight and they are led by a weak man with no stomach for the struggle.

The script then proves him wrong: On July 6, 2013, Iranian agents coming in from Venezuela blow up a hotel on the Caribbean island of Aruba killing 137 people, many of them American holidaymakers including nuclear physicists. It was clearly a revenge attack for the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.

The next chapter of this scenario had President Obama, portrayed as reelected in November, ordering Iranian Revolutionary Guards headquarters in eastern Iran to be bombed, 40 Iranian security installations shut down by cyber warfare and Tehran warned that US intelligence had the names of Iranian agents in 38 countries and their lives were at risk.

Iran purportedly responds by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which the world receives a third of its oil. The players representing the US government then slap down a 24-hour ultimatum for Iran to halt its nuclear program or else face the destruction of all its facilities, along with the entire Iranian military deployment in the Persian Gulf.

Tehran fails to comply and the US and Iran are at war.

This scenario implicitly made the point that since the US election was only weeks off and America would most likely go to war with Iran next year anyway, Israel had no need to jump the gun before November, 2012.

This was most likely the answer Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak received too when he met with Chicago Mayor and Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel for lunch at City Hall Thursday, Sept. 20.

The only known result of their conversation was a gift by the mayor to the minister of a six-pack of Chicago’s famous Goose Island 312 beer. Whether Barak shared it with Netanyahu and whether the beer was to their taste was not revealed.

Apart from this message, the Saban Institute war game notably hinged on two basic premises while skipping a third.

The first was that American and Iranian leaders both acted on wrong strategic and intelligence assessments of the other’s intentions and therefore miscalculated each other’s responses. Had they realized this, the war might have been avoided.

A second working assumption was that Iran had scattered half of its stocked enriched uranium in dozens of places across the country to reduce their vulnerability to attack, while keeping the other half in one place. This was taken to signal qualified Iranian willingness for a diplomatic resolution of its controversy with the United States.

Military sources point out that Syrian President Bashar Assad is using the same strategy as Iran for his chemical and biological arsenal. Half has been distributed and placed in the care of an estimated 20 Syrian army units; the other half reposes at fixed storage sites – a device indicating to Washington and Moscow that he is open to negotiating an end to the war before deciding to loose his weapons of mass destruction against Syrian rebels.

The Washington think tank’s war game fails to take into account that Iranian and Syrian steps are so closely synchronized that Syrian already looms large as the most likely venue for the approaching core event of a conflict pitting the US and Israel against Iran. Syria and Iran have 

become almost interchangeable against their shared foes.

Elite units of Iran’s al Qods, the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) external arm, are being airlifted into Syria and Lebanon, as the IRGC chief Gen. Ali Jafari, disclosed Sunday, Sept. 16. I

Iranian troops are now deployed on Israel’s northern and eastern borders.

Israel responded Wednesday, Sept. 19, with a snap military exercise, the largest the IDF has staged in many years, on its borders with Syria and Lebanon.

Not all the Israeli units taking part in the drill returned to home basewhen the drill was over. Substantial military strength, estimated at two divisions, is therefore building up and facing the Iranian troops across the border in Syria and Lebanon.

Indeed, that same Wednesday saw more than one telling event in the same incendiary context:  Iran’s foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi paid an unscheduled visit to Damascus for talks with Assad on his way home from a meeting in Cairo with Egyptian, Turkish and Iraqi foreign ministers. They gathered on the initiative of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi for another go at resolving the Syrian disaster. Saudi Arabia which is deeply committed to backing the rebels was pointedly absent.

Iran played ball with Egypt for the purpose of lining up its diplomatic ducks for the war to come by putting together a potential Muslim bloc to stand against the US-Israel-Arab grouping. Tehran is looking ahead to the inevitable propsect of peace negotiations taking off amid the fury of war - or as soon as it ends.

Shortly after the Israeli drill, US intelligence officials accused Iran of “secretly transporting large quantities of weapons and military personnel, almost daily, under the cover of civilian aircraft – via Iraqi airspace – to aid embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”

The accent on “almost daily” confirmed that a major buildup of Iranian military strength is in progress in Syria. Typically, Iran is disguising its actions by using civilian aircraft.

5a) 

Amir Rapaport of Israel Defense gives odds for various events for the coming year

Amir Rapaport With the start of the new Jewish year, here is an up-to-date defense forecast concerning some of the important developments that will be relevant in the coming year, which is being called by the IDF Chief of Staff as “a decisive year.” “Israel will attack Iran”: low likelihood. A barking dog doesn’t bite, and in previous times when Israel attacked the nuclear reactors of hostile countries, in Iraq and (according to foreign publications) in Syria, it did not threaten, but simply carried them out. This is not the case when it comes to Iran. When Meir Dagan, former head of Mossad, finds it appropriate to warn against the potential effectiveness of an independent Israeli strike and its consequences, it probably isn't without reason, even if long after having concluded his service. “The US will attack Iran”: medium to high likelihood. However, when examining the list of possibilities, this is the most likely option. The US has interests of its own in preventing Iran from reaching nuclear weapons (more than a commitment to Israel). However, on the other hand, assuming that US President Obama, a recipient of the Nobel award for peace, is reelected, there is also a possibility that Iran will not be attacked at all. Another possible scenario: in March, after the Iranians enrich 250 kilograms of uranium to a level of 20%, they will announce the halting of the nuclear program, thus removing the core component behind an attack against them, and even from the continuation of the sanctions. The rest of the route towards a bomb (which would be short) will be carried out covertly, far from the prying eyes of the IAEA. “War will erupt with Hezbollah”: medium likelihood. Both Israel and Hezbollah have no interest in going for another round of combat in the coming year. However, a war could erupt due to the developments in Syria or in Iran, or due to an Israeli decision to prevent the transfer of strategic weapons from the crumbling Syria to Nasrallah in Lebanon at any cost. “There will be another round of combat with the organizations in Gaza, and rockets will be launched towards southern towns”: high likelihood. The question is only with regards to the scope of the combat. “An IDF soldier will be abducted”: medium likelihood. Every Palestinian organization understood from the Gilad Shalit affair that in the bottom line, abductions are worthwhile. The IDF launched a campaign warning the soldiers against the next abduction attempts, but it is doubtful if that will help prevent the next abduction. “Bashar Assad will fall”: high likelihood. It is truly difficult to see how the Syrian president can survive the next year in power. It is a reasonable possibility that he will seek shelter in Russia. The bigger question is who will rule Syria after his departure. It seems that it will not be the Muslim Brotherhood (Syria is a much more secular country than Egypt), but Al-Qaeda and Iran are already preparing on their part in order to sort the matter, in their way. “The peace agreement with Egypt will be cancelled”: low likelihood. At this stage, the Muslim Brotherhood has no interest in announcing the cancellation of the agreement and entering a direct confrontation with the US, though it will continue targeting its clauses. However, the IDF must already treat the agreement as though it does not exist with regards to the force build-up for the range of the next five years. “The IDF will hit the road with the new ‘Oz’ perennial plan”: low likelihood. A plan named Oz has indeed been approved by the General Staff for the years 2013-2017 (its main elements were revealed in previous weeks in this column). However, it is doubtful if the plan will be budgeted, as the Israeli budget for 2013 will not be approved and the Knesset will apparently disperse towards elections in the first half of the year. In any case, the Oz plan is not revolutionary, but more or less represents a continuation of the existing situation. “Relations with Turkey will be restored”: low likelihood. This represents a genuine interest for both parties, but the blood that has been spilled (literally), and the ideological gaps will prevent the restoration of the alliance between the countries, even if the flames lower somewhat. Besides, Ankara knows in any case that the road to Washington, in the Obama era, does not pass through Jerusalem as was once the case. "Many Haredim will be recruited to the IDF": low likelihood. Despite the cancellation of the Tal Law, the IDF cannot forcefully recruit tens of thousands of Yeshiva men (nor does it want to do so). What then? The Haredi service courses and the Haredi Nachal will increase here and there, nothing more. "Senior Israeli officials will be assassinated or terror attacks against Israeli targets overseas will take place": high likelihood. So long as mysterious explosions take place on Iranian soil, Iran and its allies will continue to seek revenge, like in the Burgas terror attack. "A tender will be published for IMI’s privatization": medium likelihood. On one hand, the current intent to publish a tender for privatizing IMI by January 2013 seems serious, and there is a principle understanding between the Ministry of Treasury, the Ministry of Defense, the management and the employees. However, we've been in this situation so many times in the past, where it seemed as if a tender was imminent, so the current opportunity for privatizing IMI may dissipate. “Missiles will fall on Tel Aviv”: medium likelihood. Whether if because of a front in Iran, or against Syria, Hezbollah or the Gaza organizations – missiles could definitely fall on Tel Aviv in the coming year, for the first time since the First Gulf War in 1991. “Gadi Aizenkot will be appointed Deputy IDF Chief of Staff”: Medium likelihood. This is an appointment that seems the most natural, and has been delayed for several months, but it is doubtful that the minister of defense will approve it in light of involvement attributed to Aizenkot with regards to the Harpaz affair. If it isn't Aizenkot, then the next candidate with the best chances for being appointed to the position is Maj. Gen. Avi Mizrahi. If he is not chosen, Mizrahi may find himself as the head of the Land Division at Elbit Systems, instead of Bezalel Machlis, who will be appointed as CEO in March. Lastly, who will be the next Chief of Staff after Gantz? The next deputy chief of staff, whoever it might be, will have considerable chances. However, the chances of the current deputy, Maj. Gen. Yair Naveh, should not be ruled out, nor the chances of the current Head of the Northern Command, Yair Golan. Another possibility: Maj. Gen. (Res.) Yoav Galant. Don't be surprised if he comes back to the IDF (if Ehud Barak remains the Minister of Defense after the next elections). 5b)Iranian commander: Israel-Iran war will eventually happen As "Sacred Defense Week" kicks off in Iran, senior military commander Jafari says "cancerous tumor that is Israel is seeking war against us... it will spell their destruction and will be the end of the story." Iranian military commanders on Saturday continued to issue warnings and threats to Israel, as "Sacred Defense Week" began. An Israeli war on Iran "will eventually happen" but the Jewish state will subsequently be destroyed, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari said in comments published Saturday, AFP reported. "War will happen but it is not certain where and when," Iranian news agencies ISNA and Fars quoted him as saying. "This (war) will eventually happen as the (Islamic) revolution is moving rapidly towards its goals, and they cannot tolerate this. And finally, they will impose a war situation" he continued. "Even if they (the Israelis) act rationally, this incident will happen.""The shameful and cancerous tumor that is Israel is seeking war against us, but it is not known when that war will happen. They now consider war as the only way to confront us, but they are so stupid that their (US) masters should stop them,"Jafari said, according to AFP. "If they begin (aggression), it will spell their destruction and will be the end of the story." Meanwhile, Lieutenant Commander of the Iranian Army Brigadier General Abdul-Rahim Moussavi warned enemies, particularly Israel, that any aggression toward Iran would be met with a crushing response. "In case of an aggression, the enemy will face something that it has never expected," Fars quoted him as saying. These comments came a day after Iranian commanders threatened the complete destruction of the State of Israel as the country unveiled a domestically manufactured air defense system as part of a military parade, various Iranian news agencies reported. "If the Zionist regime makes such a move, there will no longer be a thing called the Zionist regime,” Revolutionary Guards General Amir Ali Hajizadeh said, according to Iran's Press TV. “The Zionist regime cannot even imagine our response to the military attack of this regime."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6)U.S. Distrust in Media Hits New High

Fewer Americans closely following political news now than in previous election years

by Lymari Morales

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' distrust in the media hit a new high this year, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust is up from the past few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in years prior to 2004.

The record distrust in the media, based on a survey conducted Sept. 6-9, 2012, also means that negativity toward the media is at an all-time high for a presidential election year. This reflects the continuation of a pattern in which negativity increases every election year compared with the year prior. The current gap between negative and positive views -- 20 percentage points -- is by far the highest Gallup has recorded since it began regularly asking the question in the 1990s. Trust in the media was much higher, and more positive than negative, in the years prior to 2004 -- as high as 72% when Gallup asked this question three times in the 1970s.

This year's decline in media trust is driven by independents and Republicans. The 31% and 26%, respectively, who express a great deal or fair amount of trust are record lows and are down significantly from last year. Republicans' level of trust this year is similar to what they expressed in the fall of 2008, implying that they are especially critical of election coverage.

Independents are sharply more negative compared with 2008, suggesting the group that is most closely divided between President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney is quite dissatisfied with its ability to get fair and accurate news coverage of this election.

More broadly, Republicans continue to express the least trust in the media, while Democrats express the most. Independents' trust fell below the majority level in 2004 and has continued to steadily decline.

Attention Paid to Political News Lower Than in 2008

Americans tend to pay more attention to political news in presidential election years, and that is the case in 2012. However, Americans are less likely this year to be paying close attention to news about national politics than they were in 2008. The 39% who say they are paying close attention is up from last year -- when Americans were paying a high level of attention compared with other non-election years -- but down from 43% in September 2008.

Despite their record-low trust in media, Republicans are the partisan group most likely to be paying close attention to news about national politics, with the 48% who are doing so similar to the 50% in 2008 and up significantly from 38% in 2004. Independents and Democrats are less likely than Republicans to be paying close attention, with their levels of attention similar to 2008 and 2004.

Implications

Americans are clearly down on the news media this election year, with a record-high six in 10 expressing little or no trust in the mass media's ability to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. This likely reflects the continuation of the trend seen in recent years, combined with the increased negativity toward the media that election years tend to bring. This is particularly consequential at a time when Americans need to rely on the media to learn about the platforms and perspectives of the two candidates vying to lead the country for the next four years.

The lower level of interest in news about national politics during this election year may also reflect the level of interest in the presidential election specifically. This survey was conducted immediately after the conclusion of both political conventions and thus may indicate the level of attention paid to those events in particular. Since this survey was conducted, Democrats' enthusiasm about voting has swelled nationally and in swing states.

On a broad level, Americans' high level of distrust in the media poses a challenge to democracy and to creating a fully engaged citizenry. Media sources must clearly do more to earn the trust of Americans, the majority of whomsee the media as biased one way or the other. At the same time, there is an opportunity for others outside the "mass media" to serve as information sources that Americans do trust.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted Sept. 6-9, 2012, with a random sample of 1,017 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7)How Libya Makes Obama Vulnerable—and the GOP Knows It

By JAY NEWTON-SMALL

Rally around the flag” time is over. For the most part, Republicans—with the exception of Mitt Romney–had held their fire in the wake of Sept. 11 attacks against U.S. embassies in Cairo and Libya, which claimed the lives of four Americans including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens. But as questions emerge about how the Libya attack, in particular, went down, Republicans are starting to criticize the Obama Administration for not anticipating the violence and not doing enough to secure Libya after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi.

Republicans almost universally reacted with skepticism and scorn after a briefing Thursday by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. “They’re trying to cover their behinds,” Rep. Bill Flores, a Texas Republican, told The Hill upon leaving the House briefing. Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, echoed the sentiment: “That is the most useless worthless briefing I have attended in a long time.”

In the days following the attacks, the White House at first said it believed the attack in Benghazi in eastern Libya that claimed Stevens’ life was spontaneous, born of protests over an inflammatory California-made video mocking the Prophet Muhammad. “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sept. 16.

The Administration has since changed course and now admits the attack may have been pre-planned. Clinton told senators on Thursday that she believed that it was “self-evident” that it was a terrorist attack. “It seems like it was obvious [there was] some element of preplanning, but how far in advance, that’s hard to say,” Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee told reporters. Though, all three briefers were careful to underline that there had been no chatter or warning of an attack, despite six recent al Qaeda-linked incidents – not aimed at the U.S. – in Benghazi in recent weeks.

Republicans say the Administration potentially dropped the ball in Libya, not doing enough to prevent a terrorist attack that claimed American lives. Some have even likened President Obama’s response as more deer-in-headlights than George W. Bush’s blank stare when told about the twin tower attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 while reading a book to children. Obama, they note, has admitted to skipping some of his daily intelligence briefings. The Administration did not do enough to secure weapons in Libya following the fall of Gaddafi, they say, and sent in U.S. diplomatic personnel with inadequate security.

The GOP criticism may be fueled by public reaction to the Mideast debacle. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Sept. 18 found Obama’s foreign policy approval rating among registered voters to be 49%, down from 54% a month earlier. Among independents that fall was steeper, down to 41% from 53% a month prior.

Until the embassy attacks, Republicans have had trouble denting Obama’s strength on foreign policy. Obama, after all, had approved the daring raid that killed Osama bin Laden and his policies are pretty much in line with those of George W. Bush. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has had a tough time going to Obama’s right on almost any foreign policy issue. And Romney has also suffered from a ham-handed  approach to the subject. A Reuters/Ipsos poll out Sept. 18 found that four in 10 voters felt less favorably towards Romney following his far-too early and ill-conceived criticism of the embassy attacks. Romney has said little more about the Libya attack other than underlining the importance of bringing the killers to justice. Whether he echoes his GOP colleagues’ criticisms remains to be seen.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------