And then there is Hillary waiting in the wings! (See 1 below.)
===
From a conservative friend:

Scale model of the US Government at work................. and the beat goes on !

Very complex; makes no sense; makes a lot of noise; does nothing useful.

https://www.youtube.com/v/XTAULdznHug%26autoplay=1%26autohide=1%26showinfo=0

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels

===
From another conservative friend:

"$20 Hamburgers or Minimum Wage?

For those fast food employees striking for $15 an hour, let's do some math.

At $15 an hour, Johnny Fry-Boy would make $31,200 annually.

An E1 (Private) in the military makes $18,378.

An E5 (Sergeant) with 8 years of service only makes $35,067 annually.

So you're telling me, Sally McBurgerflipper, that you deserve as much as those kids getting shot at, deploying for months in hostile environments, and putting their collective asses on the line every day protecting your unskilled butt!?

Here's the deal Baconator…..you are working in a job designed for a kid in high school who is learning how to work and earning enough for gas, and hanging out with their equally goofy high school pals. If you have chosen this as your lifelong profession, you have failed.

If you don't want minimum wage, don't have minimum skills."

===

Israeli elections are coming up and we know Obama would prefer anyone but Bibi. Will Obama intrude and try and have him defeated?

I was involved with Bush '41 and I can testify to the fact that his relationship with Prime Minister Shamir was not a good one. President Bush believed Shamir lied to him and used funds intended for one purpose for another and he was not happy!(See 2 below.)

===

Obama and oil price implications for Iran. (See 3 below.)

===

Questions for an Obama envoy from an Israeli MInister. (See 4 below.)

===

Dick

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Hillary in 2016? Not so Fast

By Melanie Kowalski

It was not such a long time ago that former Secretary of State and First Lady Hillary Clinton was viewed by the Democratic poobahs and her worshiping public minions as a shoe-in for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, and ultimately the White House. But life happens, and life has found Hillary Clinton.

In a recent Politico article, "Delay of Game", we're getting another read-between-the lines indication that Clinton, Inc. a.k.a. “Billary” (Bill + Hillary = Billary) is in rethink/regroup mode. This run for the presidency is as much Bill’s as it is Hillary. And she will need him in full campaign/strategy mode if she has any shot at all for the presidency. But are “they” running?

It's been common knowledge since the media began profiling the public Hillary all the way back to her Wellesley days that she was considered to have the necessary bona fides and moxie to become the first female President of the United States. Now in the waning days of 2014, Hillary's early 2015 announcement for the upcoming bid for the White House is changing from a bullet train into a heavily laden freight train which may yet derail.

The Clintons have numerous problems, chief among them, the Democratic Party itself. During the 2012 election cycle, Obama no doubt crafted a Faustian bargain with Bill which led to the latter’s rousing convention speech. However, that speech spoke to a core demographic of the Party that in the 2014 midterms either left the party for the Republicans or stayed home. It is this voting bloc -- white middle class, working class, Blacks -- that propelled Clinton to the governorship of Arkansas, the White House, and stood steadfastly by the Clintons from Whitewater to Monica, and for whom there is still strong appeal. Today, the Democratic Party is perceived as the Obamacare Party, synonymous with Socialism and other forms of more radical-leaning groups. In other words, today’s Democratic Party is not the Party of Tip O’Neill, Richard J. Daley, or even Joe Manchin.

The second major problem for Clinton, Inc. is the president. Now nearing the end of his game, Obama is taking provocative executive actions whose consequences may roil Hillary's campaign. And Obama has given no clear indication other than the 2012 nationally televised Kumbaya moment, that he will lift a finger to support the Clinton candidacy. Senator Reid was able to spare the president a veto moment over Keystone XL, however, for Mrs. Clinton, she has thus far refused to take a position on Keystone, which is hurting her. She needs the fund-raising and backing of the powerful environmentalist lobbies on her side, yet her noncommittal stance is placing her within the cross-hairs of the aforementioned voting bloc who desperately want the pipeline and see it as a jobs creator.

Allies and supporters are attempting to create an opening for Hillary to distance herself from the president. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) recently spoke at the National Press Club about the mistake of pushing Obamacare at the expense of the middle class when the populace was more concerned about jobs and the economy. Next, Michele Flournoy, another Clinton acolyte considered a front-runner for the Secretary of Defense position, took herself out of the running with the speculation that she didn't want to be a “doormat."

Clinton problem number three is the Republicans. Should she decide to run, candidate Hillary will be Reagan’s age (70) if she reaches the White House in 2017. While that may not be of consequence to many voters, it could be a factor with others, especially if she is up against a Chris Christie or Scott Walker, or another Republican governor who has a demonstrable record to run on. Mrs. Clinton’s record, on the other hand, is not that strong. Up until the White House, she rode on Bill’s coattails. Afterwards, she carpetbagged her way into the New York Senate seat against a more qualified candidate. Her record in the Senate was hardly noticeable; except for her Iraq war vote, because she was already prepping for the presidential run in 2008.

And finally, there is Mrs. Clinton herself, who is proving to be her own worst enemy. She's gaffe-prone when away from her handlers, as in the "we left the White House broke" remark. There's no doubt in conventional wisdom circles that her histrionics before the Benghazi Committee will come back to haunt her should she decide to run. A sagacious Republican strategist can take that moment and project it onto a split screen with photos of service members. As the words are spoken, “what difference does it make,” people can visualize those words spoken about their family members.

Additionally, Hillary is not Bill. One either likes her or can’t stand her. There’s no middle ground. From her initial “baking cookies” comment and her first “stand by your man” performance, to the soft, warm and fuzzy, dressed in pink attempt trying to explain her role in Whitewater and as cattle futures queen, to her second stand by her man in a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” meme, Hillary can be seen as one calculating politician.

And so back to Bill and Hill. Will they make a run for 2016? The Clinton campaign machine, while still formidable in many respects, is not as daunting as it once was because of the shifting demographics and loyalties. They may very well have reached the conclusion that a White House run is not in the offing, and it’s better to be kingmaker than another bruising run at their ages and health. They’ll still be visible and rake in the cash, but odds could be that they’re using their time right now to scour the innards of the Democratic Party in search of the next “Bill,” whose appeal will be more centrist, and who’ll be capable of returning to the fold the millions of voters who feel party-less and out in the cold.

If Bill and Hillary can do that, their greatest legacy will not be the White House, but saving the Democratic Party.

Melanie writes commentary and opinion on political/current events. She can be found at www.political-woman.com.

If Bill and Hillary can do that, their greatest legacy will not be the White House, but saving the Democratic Party.

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

The Inside Story of U.S. Meddling in Israel’s Elections

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu is headed for new elections. Obama will be tempted to try to bring him down. Not a good idea.

Israelis have been intervening in American politics for years. But do Americans intrude in Israeli politics?

You bet we do.

When John Kerry said this week that he doesn’t comment on the internal politics of other nations, he means it. But that’s not to say Washington doesn’t have its favorites or doesn’t try to influence the outcome.

With Israeli elections now scheduled for March 2015, there’s no doubt who the Obama administration is rooting for: Mr. or Ms. A.B.B.—Anybody But Bibi. But the president and secretary need to be very careful here. We don’t read Israeli politics very well; and we haven’t proven very effective in predicting, let alone orchestrating outcomes. The best advice to an administration that has proven anything but sure-footed in the Middle East, particularly in dealing with Israel, is to keep out of Israeli politics.

We say, of course, that we will work with any duly elected Israeli government. And so we shall. But having worked for Republican and Democratic administrations on the U.S.-Israeli relationship and peace process for a good many years, I can say with some authority that the commitment to work with any leadership does not mean we don’t play and pick favorites.

Those are the leaders aligned with what might be described in U.S. political terms as enlightened Democrats in Israel, who espouse pretty liberal, broadminded views on the peace process, as opposed to the Republicans in Israel who are more conservative and tough-minded.

In Washington, whether it’s an R or D administration, in fact, we want Israeli leaders like Rabin, Peres, and Barak who see the world more or less the way we do when it comes to the two-state peace process. We have a much harder time with those Israeli leaders—Begin, Shamir, Netanyahu—whose views on what to do about the Palestinians don’t naturally accord with ours. (Sharon was a special case. He and George W. Bush got along reasonably well because neither really cared about the peace process and both were governing in an age of terror.)

But sometimes those initial judgments about who’s naughty or nice end up confounding.

Clinton, frustrated by Bibi’s brashness, exploded: “Who’s the fucking superpower here?”

Because U.S. administrations tend to divide the Israeli political spectrum into two parts—the good Israelis who share our views and the not so good ones who don’t—they’re not entirely sure what to do with the fact that Israeli prime ministers of all political stripes have continued Israeli settlement building on the West Bank and construction in parts of east Jerusalem that we’d like to see become the capital of a Palestinian state.

It’s an inconvenient but important reality to acknowledge that of the three U.S.-orchestrated breakthroughs in the Middle East peace process, two of them—the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and the Madrid peace conference—came from hardline Likud prime ministers. The third—the three disengagement agreements following the 1973 war —came courtesy of a very tough Labor prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin.

But secretly rooting for the good Israelis and wishing them success is one thing. What about actually doing things that help the good ones succeed or alternatively weakening the Israelis we don’t want to see in power?

I can recall at least three occasions when Republican and Democratic administrations willfully picked Israeli favorites and tried to shape election outcomes.

The first example didn’t occur in the immediate run-up to an election. But it certainly contributed, and purposely so, to the defeat of the tough Likud hardliner Yitzhak Shamir in 1992.

Relations between the first President Bush and Prime Minister Shamir never really clicked, primarily because of the settlements issue. Foreign Minister Moshe Arens warned Shamir on the eve of his first visit to Washington in 1989 that the Bushies would cut his balls off, and the tone of the relationship didn’t get much better after that. The president came to believe Shamir misled him on the settlement issue, or flat-out lied to him.

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

3) Obama’s Iran Détente and Oil Prices

By Jonathan S. Tobin

Americans may be enjoying some of the lowest gasoline prices in recent memory but this good news for consumers is very bad for those countries that count on oil revenue to keep them in business. Prominent among those suffering from the downturn in oil prices is the government of Iran. That regime has gambled its economy and its future on a nuclear program that it deems it sufficiently important to risk an economic collapse from international sanctions imposed in order to stop their nuclear program. The question is why won’t the Obama administration use the pressure that is building on Tehran due to oil prices to force it to give up its nuclear ambitions? The answer shows that President Obama clearly values his hopes for a new détente with Iran over the advantage that current economic conditions have handed him.

As the Wall Street Journal reports today, the plunge of global oil prices is creating a potential crisis for an Iranian economy that has already been battered by international economic sanctions. Though Tehran is receiving $700 million a month from its frozen foreign bank accounts as a result of the weak interim nuclear deal signed by the West a year ago, the potential decline in revenue from its ongoing oil sales creates a genuine problem for the Islamist regime. That problem is being exacerbated by the decision of OPEC countries not to reduce its production output in response to the glut of cheaper oil on the market.

This ought to give U.S. negotiators the whip hand over their Iranian counterparts who have been stalling the talks while also stonewalling inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency who want to learn the extent of the regime’s research into military applications of their nuclear project. But as has been the pattern since President Obama came into office, the emphasis in the Iran talks has been on carrots for the ayatollahs, not sticks. From the start of the initial secret talks that led to the interim agreement through final status talks that have twice been extended past agreed deadlines, the administration has taken the position that Iran must be treated with kid gloves rather than confronted over its nuclear scofflaw status, let alone its support of international terrorism or ballistic missile program.

At each stage of the talks international demands for Iran to be more transparent or to give up its nuclear toys have been steadfastly denied, the U.S. scaled back its requests rather than standing up to the regime. Instead of halting enrichment of uranium, the U.S. has tacitly recognized an Iranian “right” to keep enriching as it amasses a stockpile of nuclear material that could be converted to use for a bomb. Instead of sticking to demands that Iran give up its centrifuges, the U.S. has acquiesced to Tehran’s insistence that they be allowed to keep them.

Under the circumstances, it’s little wonder that the Iranians continue to act as if it is they who have all the leverage in the talks since the U.S. long ago discarded most, if not all of the cards it holds. That’s why it is significant that rather than use the oil price decline as the kind of leverage that could be employed to pressure Iran to sign a deal, even another weak one, the U.S. meekly agreed to let the deadline pass without taking action of any sort. Even worse, the Iranians are aware of the fact that the administration seems to be far more worried about Congress imposing new sanctions on Iran that would shut down its oil sales once and for all than on the prospect of the Islamists’ delaying tactics that are bringing them closer to a bomb every day.

Rather than use the oil weapon, President Obama appears content to allow Iran to keep talking while running out the clock on the West. As the talks continue with no sense of urgency on the part of the West, once again it’s hard to argue with the proposition that it is the economic basket case in Iran that is acting as if it is in charge and not the American superpower that has already discarded most of the leverage it already had over Iran in the vain pursuit of détente that its leaders scorn. So long as that is true, the most likely outcome is not another weak nuclear deal but no deal at all with little chance that any sort of U.S. action might halt the nuclear danger.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4) Bennett Asks Indyk: How Many Need to Die Before You Wake Up?

by Cynthia Blank

Economy Minister Naftali Bennett expounded his political vision and discussed upcoming elections Saturday night at the Saban Forum in Washington during an interview with Martin Indyk, US President Barack's Obama's envoy to Israel-Palestinian Authority peace talks.

In a heated portion of the dialogue, Bennett asked Indyk: "How many people need to die before you wake up?"

"I believe that the last summer moved anywhere from 10% of Israelis moved from the left to center, and from center to the right," Bennett stated, referring to public feelings in the wake of Operation Protective Edge last summer.

"It wasn't a two day thing, but a fifty day thing. People felt to some degree helpless...these missiles and rockets were fired from the very place we did things right."

Bennett then began discussing his "imperfect, but active" solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which includes the annexation of area C of Judea and Samaria into Israel. All Palestinians living in that area will then be offered citizenship or permanent residency.

Referring to the division of Jerusalem, Bennett stated, "The last thing the Arabs of Jerusalem want is to live under the corrupt and dysfunctional rule of the Palestinian Authority."

Opinions are divided on Judea and Samaria, he added. "The reality is that the solution we have discussed in the last three decades is not working. Why don't we take the money being invested in the industry of peace and conferences, and invest it in making the lives of Jews and Arabs better?"

"No one is going anywhere - neither are we, nor are they. We should be working to improve what there is." He added, "maybe this is not the perfect solution but we should not chase after perfection that will lead us to disaster."

'Undo the years of nonsense'

"There's a process of changing the global view of what's going on here," Bennett told Indyk, who asked if he could deal with the consequences of his solution to the conflict, which might include an international boycott of Israel.

"We have to undo the years of nonsense that the peace industry has fermented, which led us to the position where the world thinks we are occupiers in our own land."

"Israel has to identify what it's true values are," Bennett stressed.

Earlier in the conversation, Bennett discussed his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and their "arrangement" not not to attack each other during the campaign for the 2015 elections.

However, Bennett did note that he "was critical and I still am critical of [Netanyahu’s] policies. He supports a Palestinian state and I oppose it. I thought that in many cases he made mistakes [during Operation Protective Edge] and I told him, and sometimes publicly, when I thought it might influence.”

Yet, when asked if he thought he would become prime minister, Bennett demurred, instead saying he has a lot to learn and that he's "not obsessed with becoming prime minister."

Bennett, who was inspired to join politics after the Second Lebanon War in 2006, stated that "the mission of my party is to restore the Jewish soul to Israel."

Despite this being one of the most chaotic elections he can remember, Bennett emphasized that he continues to envision Israel as "a lighthouse standing in a Muslim storm."

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

Middle East and Other Musings

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Israeli Elections Will Have Consequences But What Will They Be?

The Inside Story of U.S. Meddling in Israel’s Elections

No comments:

Blog Archive

About Me