Joe Klein on Netanyahu and Iran

I frequently disagree with Joe Klein but he gets it right here:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A great put down of Netanyahu and he get's it right - the Iranians are not crazy.  If you are looking for crazy you probably should look at Bibi.
Via The Agonist

Glen Thrush has more:

Diplomacy is, ultimately, about relationships. Obama and Netanyahu don’t really have one. And that’s created an odd and unwelcome rivalry among allies — a testy liberal-vs.-conservative chess match that mirrors Obama’s contest with Mitt Romney, who has known Netanyahu for years.
“There is a lack of rapport between these two men — they don’t like each other very much. Plus, there are serious differences between our interests and Israel’s own security interests,” said former State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, who was present for several of Obama’s nine face-to-face meetings with Netanyahu.
 “I don’t think that Netanyahu is trying to influence the outcome of our election, though a lot of people see it that way,” Crowley said. “It’s about agenda-setting. He just watched two conventions where Israel and Iran were mentioned, but not significantly discussed, even with the whole rigmarole [at the Democratic convention] about Jerusalem in the platform. He’s trying to get it onto the front burner.
” But this isn’t just about policy. It’s personal. On the day Netanyahu threw down the Iran gauntlet, someone close to the hawkish, MIT-educated prime minister let it leak that Obama had declined a face-to-face meeting at next month’s United Nations General Assembly in New York to hash things out. The chatter, later denied by the White House, was that Obama said he would be too busy, and one of those unbreakable commitments was with David Letterman. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81150.html#ixzz26NgJL0i2

AFP on Romney

Romney hit from all sides for Egypt attack remarks (via AFP)

Republicans and Democrats alike came down hard on Mitt Romney Wednesday for an act of political opportunism when the White House hopeful said the Obama administration "sympathized" with attackers in Egypt. The results of the assault on the US embassy in Cairo were not known when Romney fired off a…

A Lie So Blatant Even AP Had To Call It A Lie

The media hesitates to call a lie what it is  - a lie. Romney's response to the events in Benghazi and Cairo was so craven that AP could help but call it what is was - a pack of lies.

The gunfire at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had barely ceased when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney seriously mischaracterized what had happened in a statement accusing President Barack Obama of "disgraceful" handling of violence there and at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.
"The Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks," Romney said in a statement first emailed to reporters at 10:09 p.m. Eastern time, under the condition it not be published until midnight.
 In fact, neither a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier in the day nor a later statement from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton offered sympathy for attackers. The statement from the Cairo Embassy had condemned anti-Muslim religious incitement before the embassy walls were breached. In her statement, issued minutes before Romney's, Clinton had offered the administration's first response to the violence in Libya, explicitly condemning the attack there and confirming the death of a State Department official.

Romney is a man that has nothing but political ambition.  No moral fiber, no ideology - just a lust for power and wealth.   He is unfit for any office and certainly not the highest office in the land.  I don't care how often he goes to church or how much treasure he gives to the church he is a sociopath.

And AP can expect to be targeted by the Romney campaign and the right wing media. This from NBC's First Thoughts:

*** Blame the media! After Romney’s rough day yesterday, we’ve seen conservative voices blame the media. John Podhoretz, in the New York Post, says “it is the view of much of the mainstream media and foreign-policy establishment that discussing these horrific events in the course of the presidential campaign is monstrous.” And in an editorial entitled “Romney Offends the Pundits,” the Wall Street Journal writes that Romney’s “political faux pax was to offend a pundit class that wants to cede the foreign policy debate to Mr. Obama without thinking seriously about the trouble for America that is building in the world.” But here’s what we don’t understand from both conservatives and liberals who blame the media in instances like this: They say on the one hand that the media doesn’t matter, and then on the other hand say it’s the media’s fault when something goes wrong. They can’t have it both ways. And here’s a final thing to remember: It is always losing campaigns – Democratic or Republican – that end up blaming the media. Also, there’s a crying-wolf aspect to media bias charges that critics ought to think about. We know, there’s a professional class that make their living searching for bias. But just because you think you see it, it doesn’t mean it’s there. Sometimes a bad day is a bad day.

Abbas Raza's "Mohammad Cartoon Macness & Understanding"

Gore Vidal who died a couple months ago wrote a memoir back in 1995 titled Palimpsest. No, I didn't read it. I wasn't that interested at the time and I had my hands full running a cafeteria. But I took notice for two reasons. First the name -- Palimpsest was a new word for me. It refers to one of mankind's oldest recycling practices, scraping the writing off parchment or wax tablets, replacing it with new writing (now called content) in the same way a blackboard is used. Second, I read somewhere that he explained the title by saying nobody does anything original after the age of thirty. After that everything we do is a repeat of something done in our past, updated and recycled in a way appropriate to new environments and maturity, but looked at closely it's the same activities, thoughts, themes and conclusions again and again. Whether he said exactly that I'm not sure. But I've thought about it as the years passed and realize that was one of life's little aha! moments.

All this is an attempt to put fresh paint on a couple of old readings to persuade new readers to discover them. In Mohammad Cartoon Madness and Understanding Abbas Raza was responding in 2006 to a global Muslim response to some Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammad, which in turn triggered a reactionary uproar, the same kinds of arguments and discussions we see playing out again in today's news in the aftermath of yet another provocative event, a shitty amateur film ridiculing Mohammad, deliberately produced as a cinematic insult to Islam.

Even in 2006 Abbas' message seems to have a note of tiredness, the weariness that comes from repeating the same message for the umpteenth time when so many people still don't get it. It is clear why he simply posted it again as written. He wrote it perfectly the first time, suspecting by then that it would, like a palimpsest, need to be recycled, again and again. I know that feeling well. I've experienced it most of my adult life, from my teen years as a civil rights rookie with stars in my eyes to where I am now, having accepted that when I pass away the progress mankind made during my lifetime will be measured more in millimeters than miles.

As I read his words again they seemed strangely familiar. The theme is as familiar as an old shoe. Not until I got to the comments did I realize that the post was a repost. The number of comments seemed excessive for a new post, but when I came to the one I had left there myself six years ago the penny dropped and I knew I had to do it again. So Abbas, here it is. Again. And thanks for an outstanding post. Again. And consider yourself blogged. Again.

How Can You Tell The Romney Campaign Knows It's In Trouble....

...Paul Ryan Is Running For His House Seat!
Paul Ryan buys TV ads for House race

Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan will spend $2 million on TV ads asking Wisconsin voters to send him back to the House of Representatives, POLITICO has learned. Ryan’s congressional campaign manager Kevin Seifert confirmed that House Budget Committee chairman plans to spend $1.5 million on ads on local broadcast stations and cable in Milwaukee. The campaign will spend an additional $500,000 on ads in Madison between Oct. 18 and Nov. 6.

We now know that Ryan is concerned about unemployment - his own.

Not Ready For Prime Time

It already had become obvious that Mitt Romney was a Foreign Policy light weight.  That was reinforced today.

Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Cairo Statement

Mitt Romney's sharply-worded attack on President Obama over a pair of deadly riots in Muslim countries last night has backfired badly among foreign policy hands of both parties, who cast it as hasty and off-key, released before the facts were clear at what has become a moment of tragedy.
Romney keyed his statement to the American Embassy in Cairo's condemnation of an anti-Muslim video that served as the trigger for the latest in a series of regional riots over obscure perceived slights to the faith. But his statement — initially embargoed to avoid release on September 11, then released yesterday evening anyway — came just before news that the American Ambassador to Libya had been killed and broke with a tradition of unity around national tragedies, and of avoiding hasty statements on foreign policy. It was the second time Romney has been burned by an early statement on a complex crisis: Romney denounced the Obama Administration's handling of a Chinese dissident's escape just as the Administration negotiated behind the scenes for his departure from the country.
"They were just trying to score a cheap news cycle hit based on the embassy statement and now it’s just completely blown up," said a very senior Republican foreign policy hand, who called the statement an "utter disaster" and a "Lehman moment" — a parallel to the moment when John McCain, amid the 2008 financial crisis, failed to come across as a steady leader.

Daniel Larison, who is very critical of Romney's Foreign Policy, had this to say.

Inevitably, the Romney campaign chose to use these attacks to make a hasty and stupid criticism last night, which represented the most tasteless political opportunism while also managing to misrepresent the administration’s response to the attacks. Here is the President’s statement on the Benghazi attack. Readers can judge for themselves, but it seems an appropriate initial response to me. There is no “sympathy” for the attackers to be found in that statement, and the Romney campaign’s attempt to use a foolish statement from the U.S. embassy in Cairo as the official position of the administration was typically dishonest. Romney didn’t have much credibility on this front before last night, and he has even less now.

 NBC's First Thoughts:

*** Over the top : Yesterday we noted that Mitt Romney, down in the polls after the convention, was throwing the kitchen sink at President Obama. Little did we know the kitchen sink would include -- on the anniversary of 9/11 -- one of the most over-the-top and (it turns out) incorrect attacks of the general-election campaign . Last night after 10:00 pm ET, Romney released a statement on the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Egypt and Libya. After saying he was “outraged” by these attacks and the death of an American consulate worker, Romney said, “It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” Yet after learning every piece of new information about those attacks, the Romney statement looks worse and worse -- and simply off-key. First, Romney was referring to a statement that the U.S. embassy in Egypt issued condemning the “efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” But that embassy statement, which the White House has distanced itself from, was in reference to an anti-Islam movie and anti-Islam pastor Terry Jones, and it came out BEFORE the embassy attacks began. Then this morning, we learned that the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and others died in one of the attacks.

There can now be little doubt that Romney is a captive of the neoconservatives, the same ones that got into two horrible wars. This alone is reason enough to keep him out of the White House.  If you liked George W. Bush you will love Romney.
Doug Mataconis wonders  - Could Foreign Policy Cost Mitt Romney The Election?

The goal of the Obama campaign focusing on Romney and foreign policy is, quite obviously, to try to draw attention to the fact that in this particular area he isn’t prepared to be President. This is the kind of situation where it would be perfect for the Obama campaign to create its own variation on the famous “3:00am Phone Call” ad that Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran during their legendary fight for the Democratic nomination in 2008. It’s really all quite remarkable, and, as Buzzfeed points out, potentially pivotal:
Instead of weakness, however, the Obama administration has projected strength. On the campaign trail, crowds become electrified when the president or his surrogates mention the killing of Bin Laden. The president talks about ending the war in Afghanistan, and protecting veterans. Romney, on the other hand, has fumbled. The past six weeks have seen a rocky overseas trip, followed by his failure to mention U.S. troops or the war in Afghanistan in his acceptance speech. And although foreign policy hasn’t been much of an issue in 2012 so far, the Obama campaign sees an opening to make it one. While still acknowledging that the election isn’t going to be decided by national security — the president and his campaign have gone all out to put doubts into the electorate about Romney’s ability to handle foreign affairs. Privately, Obama allies will make case that Romney and Ryan possess an almost Palin-esque naivete to the world. Publicly, too: Senator John Kerry linked Romney’s comments on Russia as the number one geopolitical threat with Palin’s comment on seeing that country from Alaska. Romney appears “reckless” and “out of touch,” as one campaign official put it. All of this is laying the groundwork for what could be one of the most pivotal moments of the campaign—the final presidential debate, just two weeks before the election. The topic: foreign policy.

But of course Romney wasn't alone:

Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt.Sad and pathetic.
— Reince Priebus (@Reince) September 12, 2012

Update:
Obama himself nails Romney:

"There's a broader lesson to be learned here," Mr. Obama told "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft. "And I think -- you know, Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. And as president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that. That, you know, it's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts. And that you've thought through the ramifications before you make 'em."

What Happens When The Tail Tries To Wag The Dog.....

....And The Dog Doesn't Wag?

So Bibi had a temper tantrum.  Israel has been the tail that wags the dog for decades but Obama is not going along.

About a week ago The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, told reporters in London that attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities would not stop their program and would do more harm than good.  This week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Bibi would not be getting his red line.  Now today Bibi demands a meeting with Obama and is told it can't be scheduled on such short notice.

Over at The American Conservative Scott McConnell thinks Bibi Needs a “Time-Out”

Bibi’s having a meltdown, it looks like. First General Martin Dempsey, and then Hillary have told him that the United States will deal with Iran’s nuclear program according to its own timetable, and in accordance with its own national interests. Now President Obama has apparently put off Bibi’s request for a meeting in September. A scheduling issue, the two won’t be in New York (for the UN General Assembly) at the same time. The White House calmy noted that top administration officials, like Hillary, will be available to meet with Bibi. This is big news in Israel, and sure to be used by Romney: trying to talk Israel out of starting a destructive war, or refusing the demand that America fight its war for it, will be portrayed as “throwing Israel under the bus.” Noam Sheizaf of the indispensable Israeli website 972 analyzes the faceoff here.

As McConnell points out Israel is used to seeing that when it says jump the U.S. President says how high - the tail wagging the dog.  But Obama refuses to jump.

One reason why Bibi might be inclined to overreach: the fawning reception he has previously received from the US Congress. Peter Beinart tells an interesting story about this in The Crisis of Zionism. When Bibi came to speak before the Congress, about two and half years ago, AIPAC was in town for its annual convention, including many major donors to congressional campaigns. Bibi was then in the midst of a confrontation with the administration over Israel’s expansion of settler colonies on the West Bank. Each congressman received one gallery pass for Bibi’s speech, and most gave it to their largest donor. So the gallery was AIPAC packed. DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz orchestrated, giving hand signals to the Congresspeople about when to stand and applaud (at Netanyahu’s most belligerent lines). So between an AIPAC gallery, and Congress playing their role as toadies for AIPAC funders, Bibi clearly got a very exaggerated impression of how easily he can move America. More people are paying attention now. I think (and pray) that this time he’s in for a very unpleasant surprise.

I also agree with McConnell that this is a not too subtle attempt by Bibi  to influence the U.S. election.  Support for Israel is in a downward trend anyway and I can't see how this will help.

Remembering The Largest Intelligence Failure

It was 11 years ago today that 19 psychopaths took the lives of over 3,000 people.  What few people still can't let themselves admit is it also represents a massive failure of intelligence and leadership.  The intelligence failure could have been mitigated if the Bush administration had shown more leadership but the administration was busy planning an invasion and occupation of Iraq which in the end would benefit Iran.

Kurt Eichenwald:

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that "a group presently in the United States" was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be "imminent," although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives' suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.[bold mine]

 It's those same neoconservatives the Romney has turned to for his foreign policy advise.  If you thought Iraq was a mistake what do you think an attack on Iran would be.
Yes it's important to remember those who died on that day but it's also important what contributed to it and the horrible and costly mistakes that followed.

The Republican (FOX) Echo Chamber

The neo-cons can't believe that a majority of Americans don't share their vision of American Hegemony. The Republican party in general and the Romney supporters have the same echo chamber problem - they simply can't believe Obama could win in November. I think this is a result of FOX news, talk radio and the right wing blogosphere.
The most recent example is this memo from Romney pollster Neil Newhouse.

The stakes are very high in this election, and voters understand the future of our country is on the line. This may be lost on those living within the hyper-political world in and around the Beltway, but it is not lost in communities in battleground states. In short, the Romney-Ryan campaign understands Americans struggling in the Obama economy will determine the outcome of the race, and once the preponderance of information about the President’s failed policies — combined with Mitt Romney’s vision to strengthen the middle class — are communicated,our nation will move in a different direction....
Political campaign historians will recall President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan by a near double digit margin late in the fall in 1980. In that race, the voters made their decision based on the key issues confronting the nation and it determined the outcome. On the economy, the most important issue of this race, Mitt Romney leads by 51%-45%, according to the most recent CNN/ORC poll.

As Greg Sargent points out this isn't 1980, Romney is no Reagan and Obama is no Carter.

It is stunning that the Romney campaign continues to rely on this flawed historical comparison. First, the polling. Despite the mythologizing to the contrary, Gallup polling shows that Reagan was leading Carter heading into the conventions. John Sides has suggested Reagan may have actually led throughout most of the race. By contrast, as Alex Burns puts it, “we’re now less than 60 days from the election and Romney hasn’t established a decisive lead in a single swing state.” Spot the difference there?
There are plenty of other key differences. The economy was in worse shape in 1980 than it is today. Jimmy Carter could easily be criticized for mismanaging the economy and foreign affairs, given the Iranian hostage crisis. Obama, by contrast, consistently polls better than Romney on national security. What’s more, as Reagan biographer Craig Shirley has explained, the electorate of 1980 is vastly different than it is today. Far more states were in play, and Dem swing voters — the so-called “Reagan Democrats” — formed a much bigger chunk of the Democratic Party, making a late break of such a significant magnitude much more feasible than today. The electorate is far more polarized and the map far narrower this time around.
Ed Rollins, who worked on the Reagan campaign in 1980, notes yet another key difference: Romney is not Reagan, and Obama is not Carter. As Rollins says of Romney: “On his best day, he’s not a Ronald Reagan.” Carter was partly undone because of his debate performance; that’s less likely to happen to Obama.

This is the danger of an echo chamber - the Republicans and the Romney campaign don't think Obama can win.

The Romney campaign seems to believe the idea that the Obama presidency was a total failure is baked into this election and will inevitably dictate the outcome, as in 1980. The Romney camp seems to be relying heavily on its own data to reach this conclusion. 

Read echo chamber!
David Frum has another difference:

There is another difference, at least equally crucial and often overlooked today: 1980 was a three-way race. Reagan won a landslide of the electoral vote, but less than 51% of the popular vote. President Carter's support collapsed in the last weeks of the campaign, with dissident liberals breaking off to support the independent candidacy of John Anderson, who scored 6.6% of the vote - the third best performance by an independent since World War II, after Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996.
If Anderson had not run - if Carter had not so alienated his liberal base - what would have happened in November? Who can say - but let's remember the actual events of 1980, not a too-gratifying legend. 

I too remember 1980 and I remember voting for Anderson.  The third party candidates this year are Johnson and Goode and they will take votes from Romney.

Republicans and God

Nate Silver at 538 now gives Obama an 80% chance of winning in November.  So what are Romney and Ryan doing?  They are pandering to the people who were going to vote for them anyway.

Romney on Sunday.

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — Making reference for the first time to the Democrats’ about-face on having the word “God” in their party’s platform, Mitt Romney said here today that if he is elected, God will not be removed from the Republican platform.
“I will not take God out of the name of our platform,” said Romney to thunderous applause. “I will not take God off our coins and I will not take God out of my heart. We’re a nation that’s bestowed by God.”

 And here's Paul Ryan.

PROVO, Utah — Prayer in public schools was prohibited by the United States Supreme Court in 1962, but Representative Paul D. Ryan said on Wednesday that he believed that states should have the right to decide whether it should be allowed.
“That’s a constitutional issue of the states,” Mr. Ryan told a campaign volunteer during a visit to a Romney for President call center in Orem.
The volunteer, Jenny Free, 40, said she was a mother of nine children and asked Mr. Ryan if “we could give back to the states the right to decide if you want prayer or pledge in the schools.”
Mr. Ryan called the decision to say a prayer or recite the Pledge of Allegiance a “moral responsibility of parents.”
“Exactly,” Ms. Free responded, according to footage shot by a television reporter for NBC News, “so I am hoping to try and push that.”
“You know, in Utah, I would think you would have a pretty good chance,” Mr. Ryan told her.

You would think there time would be better spent trying to convince a few of the undecideds.

US President '12: Obama (D) 52.0% Romney46.0% (Sep. 09 - CNN) tpm.ly/Q9FMjp

— PollTracker (@PollTracker) September 10, 2012