Protecting Obama -- Atlantic Style

Peter Beinart can best be described as one of the very liberal members of the media for whom the main job is protecting president Obama.  Today, he is at it again in the Atlantic.  Beinart's subject is Obama's strategy in the Middle East.

Here is how Beinart starts his article:

President Obama’s critics often claim he doesn’t have a strategy in the greater Middle East. That’s wrong. Like it or loathe it, he does, and he’s beginning to implement it against ISIS.

To understand just how dishonest Beinart's arguments are, you have to remember that he wrote this one day after Obama, speaking about ISIS, told the nation this:

"I don't want to put the cart before the horse.  We don't have a strategy yet."

So Obama says there is no strategy and the next day Beinart tells us that "critics" claim there is no strategy.  It wasn't critics who said that; it was Obama himself.  Then Beinart tells us that there really is a strategy and Obama is implementing it.  Apparently, Obama himself does not know this.

But it gets better.  Beinart says that Obama's strategy is minimalist.  He will only attack people who are likely to kill Americans.  Here are a few gems from the article:

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, he’s basically adopted the policy Joe Biden proposed at the start of his administration: Don’t focus on fighting the Taliban on the ground, since they don’t really threaten the United States. Just bomb the hell out al-Qaeda from the air.

Huh?  Does Beinart really believe he can say this with impunity?  Obama is the president who went from a minimalist force in Afghanistan to a major involvement in that nation.  In Obama's first year in office, troop levels in Afghanistan roughly tripled.  Almost 80% of all American casualties in Aghanistan happened during Obama's presidency even though troops were in that country for seven years during the Bush presidency and only six, so far, of the Obama presidency.  In other words, Obama focused exactly on fighting the Taliban on the ground.  (And another thing, does Beinart really believe that anyone would be impressed that Obama was following a policy championed by Biden?)

Beinart also says this:  "Obama’s strategy—whether you like it or not—is more clearly defined. Hundreds of thousands can die in Syria; the Taliban can menace and destabilize Afghanistan; Iran can move closer to getting a bomb. No matter. With rare exceptions, Obama only unsheathes his sword against people he thinks might kill American civilians."

Okay, we know that the part about Afghanistan is just wrong.  But Beinart is arguing that Obama's strategy regarding Iran is to let it get nuclear weapons.  Think about that.  We have all seen the carnage in the Middle East as one form of Islamic extremist crazy or another uses horrific weapons and tactics against those it dislikes.  Just think what happens in the world after the mullahs of Iran get nuclear weapons.  Allowing that is not a minimalist strategy; it is a delusional strategy.

The truth is that Obama is correct:  he has no strategy.  No attempt by a liberal apologist like Beinart is going to change that fact.

And America, as a result, is in peril.

 

Please Explain This

New York's junior senator, Kirsten Gillibrand has made news by reporting that some unnamed senators called her "porky" after her pregnancy while another told her not to lose weight too fast because he likes heavy women.  As usual, the Democrats' outrage committee is out in force to denounce these sexist remarks that demean women.  Interestingly, Gillibrand has not disclosed the names of the sexist senators, and the current thinking is that they are all Democrats.

Personally, I see a major double standard at work here.  Think about Chris Christie.  I am sure that Christie has been called porky, fat, obese, grotesque, chubby, extra-chubby, and all other manner of names for the obese.  Who knows, maybe someone even told him not to lose weight too fast because they like heavy men.  I also guarantee that the sum total of what has been said to Christie was many times worse than anything that Gillibrand endured.  If women are to be treated the same as men, why is it newsworthy that a senator called Gillibrand "porky"?  It's probably less offensive but less accurate than if the senator called her "brain dead" or "Chuck Schumer's puppet".

There is no reason why a stupid remark or insult to a women merits special attention if the same remark or insult to a man would not.  Similarly, there should be no difference between the same remark or insult if the person making the statement is a Republican or a Democrat.  Only for the never ending grievance committee that is the Democrat party could any of this stuff said to Gillibrand matter.

Does Austerity Cause Growth to Stall?

The world's second most worthless winner of a Nobel Prize, Paul Krugman, is out with yet another column denouncing "austerity" as the cause of economic stagnation in the West.  Today's target is France, a country that is now supposedly succumbing to that evil austerity even though the Socialist government in France raised both spending and taxes to new high levels.  The French government, you see, is considering reducing some of the spending and taxation.  For Krugman, that is a sure sign that economic disaster is just around the corner.

There is not much point parsing Krugman's column.  He has nothing new to say; he just rehashes the same failed policies that he has been pushing for years.  What is more interesting about the column, however, is that it sets up a rather strong tension between the views of Krugman and those of the world's most worthless winner of a Nobel Prize, president Obama.  Krugman, you see, has been denouncing American policy as inadequately expansionist.  Translating that view into English, one finds that Krugman wants government spending in the USA to be greatly expanded in order to get the economy moving again.  Of course, after one quarter of good numbers that came as a result of a bounce back from the first quarter of 2014 when the US economy shrank at a rate of more than 2% per year, Obama has been busy announcing that happy days are here again as far as the economy is concerned.  But both of these Nobel Prize winning "geniuses" cannot be correct.  America is either suffering from stagnation or is in the midst of a vigorous recovery.

Let's put aside the obvious differences in what Krugman and Obama have to say, and let's focus instead on the merits of austerity.  Would real austerity in the USA result in a slowdown of growth?

To answer this question, we first need to agree what constitutes "austerity".  Austerity normally signifies that the government has made major cuts in spending from prior levels and has raised revenue sufficiently so that income at least equals expenditures.  Most of the economic literature discussing austerity deals with this definition of the concept.  And most of the literature agrees that real austerity likely results in a short term reduction of gross domestic product followed by a longer period of growth.  But none of this matters for present purposes.  That is because Krugman defines "austerity" as the government not increasing spending by a large enough amount to satisfy his vision.  Remember, since 2008, federal spending has grown by over 25% (while receipts have grown only 16%).  Krugman calls that austerity.  Most observers would call that extravagant spending.  Since we are discussing Krugman's views, however, let's use his definition. 

So has the massive increase in spending just been too slow of an increase to pull the economy out of stagnation?  Is Krugman correct?

I am sure, by now, that regular readers will understand that the answer to "is Krugman correct" is always "no!!!!!"  We need to examine what it is that Krugman is advocating.

Krugman wants federal spending hiked significantly.  That would increase the budget deficit and the national debt which is already approaching twenty trillion dollars.  At some point, the people who buy treasury debt will decide that it no longer makes sense to purchase it for low interest rates and they will drive up those rates.  No one knows if this will happen tomorrow, next month or next year.  Pretty much every responsible economist agrees, however, that unchecked spending would lead to that result.  The truth is that what Krugman wants is for America to inflate the bubble more and more and more while hoping that it does not burst.  Remember, once that bubble bursts we will see a depression, not a recession.  The American economy and likely the world economy will lay in ruins all around us.  What Krugan wants, in short, is the equivalent of someone lighting the fuse to a stick of dynamite to improve the amount of light in a room.  The obvious result is just not worth the small advantage gained for a few moments.

 

More Martha Mayhem in Massachusetts

Get this:  the latest Boston Globe poll of the Massachusetts governor's race shows Republican Baker ahead of Democrat Coakley by 38 to 37%.  These results are unbelievable and a total rejection of Martha Coakley by the voters of the Bay State.

Let's start with a simple fact; Massachusetts is among the bluest of blue states.  For a Democrat to trail in this election against a relatively unknown Republican is the most surprising poll result of this election cycle.  But then there's the Martha factor.  Coakley was the loser to Scott Brown five years ago in the race to replace Ted Kennedy in the senate.  She has held statewide office as well, so she is relatively well known across the state.  It seems, however, that for Massachusetts voters that to know Martha is to dislike her.  Indeed, the striking thing about the poll results is not that Baker is ahead but rather that Democrat Coakley is only gaining support from 37 percent of voters. 

I still would be astounded if Coakley loses the race on election day.  There are too many voters in Massachusetts who vote automatically Democrat without so much as a second thought.  Nevertheless, with Martha unleashed, we may actually see a Republican back in the statehouse in Boston.

 

The Wrong Exit

Remember months ago when there was a crisis in Crimea?  That province of Ukraine was being taken over by Russia, and president Obama told America that his goal was to give Vladimir Putin and Russia an "off ramp" so that they could move away from annexation.  Well, that strategy did not work as Russia moved ahead with full annexation of Crimea into Russia.  Today, nobody even talks about Crimea anymore.  Then came the moves by Russia and its proxy forces in Eastern Ukraine.  So called separatists took over large swaths of the east around Donetsk.  At that point, the Ukrainian forces started to fight back.  Obama, of course, did nothing.  He was probably still looking for the off ramp for Putin.  Then the Russians shot down the Malaysian airliner.  Obama had his predictable response:  nothing.  Now Russia has actually invaded Ukraine.  We do not know if the Russians will move only into the eastern area previously taken by the separatists or if the move will take the Russian army into Kiev, the Ukrainian capital.  The Ukrainian army is outgunned and outmanned.  It is no match for the Russians.

Twenty years ago, the United States agreed with Ukraine that it would guarantee the borders of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine getting rid of its nuclear arms.  Ukraine disarmed.  America, under Obama, has done nothing in response to the invasion.  In fact, Obama is doing all he can to avoid having to act.  Yesterday, he even called the invasion by Russia an "incursion". 

Here's a news flash for the White House and the media.  An incursion happens when some country temporarily crosses the border into another and quickly leaves.  An invasion is when forces cross the border and stay to fight.  This is an invasion by Russia of Ukraine.

Someone in Washington better explain to Obama that Russia does not want an exit from Ukraine.  They also better explain to him the long term implications of Russian domination of Ukraine.  They are not good.

 

America Cannot Be Weary

I just watched the video showing ISIS marching 250 Syrian soldiers through the desert outside an airbase that ISIS captured.  The men are wearing nothing but their underwear; ISIS soldiers made them strip before marching off to the desert in order to humiliate them.  Once in the desert, the ISIS forces shot all of the naked soldiers.

This footage shows that ISIS fights at a new level of depravity.  The soldiers who were murdered certainly fought for the Assad regime and were enemies of ISIS.  Nevertheless, that does not justify mass murder.  This sort of disgusting event is made worse by the fact that ISIS proudly publicizes what happened by releasing a video of the event.  This was no mistake.  It was not something done in the heat of the moment.  This was a preplanned murder of 250 human beings who had wives and children and parents.  And ISIS did this in the name of God.  They killed 250 unarmed prisoners in the most brutal way in the name of God!

I know that many in America will look at this event and say that it does not concern us.  After all, it is just Syria and our country is war weary.  We cannot get involved in fighting against ISIS in a major way.  Let's leave that fight to the people in the Middle East.  But it does not work that way.  If ISIS gets bigger, then the threat to America gets bigger.  If ISIS is not defeated, then the chances that some day there will be mass murders in the USA increases.  In other words, if good people do nothing to defend what is right and proper, then the whole world descends into chaos.  It is a lesson that I thought America had learned in the 1930s and the 1940s.  Apparently not.

As bad as the latest ISIS outrage is, even worse is how president Obama is responding to the challenge.  In today's news conference, Obama told the world that America has no strategy for dealing with ISIS.  That is not my interpretation of what Obama said; he actually used the words that we had "no strategy for dealing with ISIS."  Shortly after that, Obama left Washington to go on a two day political fund raising trip.  So we have no strategy and Obama is not even bothering to work towards developing one.

On top of the debacle in the Middle East, we also have the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  It is now common knowledge that actual Russian troops and armored equipment crossed the border and are attacking the army of the Ukraine.  Obama's response has been to announce that we would have no military response.

So we have a major European power invading its neighbor.  We have crazies who take their enemies and execute hundreds at a time.  In other words, we have the 1930s all over again.  And to top it all off, this time America has no leader.

The Economic Illiteracy of the Mainstream Media

This morning, I heard a report in which I was told that in "a very good sign for the economy", weekly claims for unemployment declined by 1000 from last week's number.  It was yet another sign that the media do not understand the economy.  A change of 1000 in unemployment claims across the country is statistical noise.  It means nothing.  It does not tell us which way the economy is moving.  Indeed, it may indicate nothing more than that this year, those with part time jobs are working a bit longer so that employers do not have to hire full time workers. 

If the number of claims had risen by 1000, would the same reporter have called it an ominous sign for the economy?  Not likely.

The truth is that today's report, like all of the weekly unemployment claim reports tell us next to nothing about the economy.