SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Obama's Foreign Policy is a Folly and a Fraud

THE SPINE NOVEMBER 30, 2010

Obama's Foreign Policy is a Folly and a Fraud

BY MARTIN PERETZ

Just about every principle of President Obama's foreign policy has been exposed as, at best, stupid and, at worst, treacherous.

As of this writing, there have been no statements from the president. But it takes time to construct an appropriate apologia for such a wholesale disaster for such a haughty man.

So, in the meantime, Hillary Clinton (why is she almost always called Hillary Rodham Clinton? is there another Hillary Clinton out there somewhere?) has been sent out to stem the damage. If the damage can be stemmed, that is.  

The evidence of her face suggests that she is very doubtful that it can. Please take a look at the desperate Win Mcnamee/Getty image on the front page of Tuesday's International Herald Tribune. Still, her visage aside, Hillary's words are frantic. The I.H.T. headline capsulizes them thusly: "Clinton says leaks attack the world, not just U.S."

And here are her words verbatim: "The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information." "Strongly condemns?" These are words she has recently used against Bibi Netanyahu. Though not, if I recall correctly, against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But who exactly is she so forcefully condemning in the name of the most powerful country in the world? Well, there is the possessed Australian WikiLeaks Julian Assange, now on the run but reportedly in Jordan (which I doubt), and then 22 year-old U.S. Army Intelligence Specialist Bradley Manning, now in the brig already for six months.

This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity. I am confident that the partnerships that the Obama administration worked so hard to build will withstand this challenge. 

Hillary clearly was nervous: "worked so hard to build?" O.K., let her off. Why wasn't Obama taking responsibility for such dreck? But, frankly, I don't trust anybody who utters the words "international community" which constitute nothing less than an oxymoron. But I think they are a deliberate lie. A lie by which our diplomats live. (Take Susan Rice who still says that American membership in the U.N. Human Rights Council advances its truthfulness and probity.)

The fact is that Hillary Clinton is the "fall-guy" in this matter. It is the president who is at fault, to blame, responsible. It is his foreign policy, for God's sake, and it is an utter failure.

In pursuit of gaudy symbolic action during the presidential campaign, Obama pledged to shut down Guantanamo. Big deal! What in the end he had to do was to farm out prisoners to any country that would take them since the sovereign states of the United States would not. So when he was president he tried heavy-handed diplomacy on poor and small countries. Mostly, this "haggling," as the Herald Tribune termed it in its article on the fate of the prison on the tip of Cuba, was a flop.

The administration offered the Slovenian president a 20 minute visit with Obama in exchange for "doing more" for "prisoner resettlement." Lithuania ultimately refused to take a prisoner. So did Norway which had, so to speak, bestowed on Obama his Nobel Peace Prize. Finland also refused to admit prisoners but under threat from China. The proposed prisoners were Chinese Muslim Uighers. An elaborate venture of putting prisoners in Yemen exploded with al-Qaeda terrorism against the regime. Various transfer programs fell apart in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, even Afghanistan. Oh, and, yes, the principality of Luxembourg. This is a joke. John O. Brennan, for whom you may recall I do not have much respect, ran much of this utterly failed program. He will still be haughty. Of course.

I am off to teach my Tel Aviv students (Israeli kids and children of foreign workers). And I am flying back to America for a fortnight early, early tomorrow morning. This SPINE is not yet finished. But here is its beginning. I hope to get it finished on the airplane. But I can't promise.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 79 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

79 comments

"This SPINE is not yet finished. But here is its beginning. I hope to get it finished on the airplane. But I can't promise." On the positive side he admits that this scrofulous crap - my brain still hurts from trying to connect the inchoate sentences into a semi-coherent and barely comprehensible goo - was written "on the run", so to speak. Peretz certainly seemed to have had the runs, verbally speaking, in posting this doo-doo. Here is Fred Kaplan's somewhat more sober view on the leaked documents. http://www.slate.com/id/2276180/

- icarusr

November 30, 2010 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"(why is she almost always called Hillary Rodham Clinton? is there another Hillary Clinton out there somewhere?)" Add misogyny to the bigot's long list of prejudices.

- icarusr

November 30, 2010 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Just about every principle of President Obama's foreign policy has been exposed as, at best, stupid and, at worst, treacherous." "treacherous" I wonder in what sense the Greak Oik means this. Should we wait for the inevitable "Obama is a secret Muslim Kenyan usurper aiming to hand over the Guvmint of the United States to Queen Elizabether" post from Peretz? "Still, her visage aside, Hillary's words are frantic. The I.H.T. headline capsulizes them thusly: "Clinton says leaks attack the world, not just U.S."" He is now an expert in face-reading? He forgot to look at her profile, measure her cranium, examine the slope of her nose. And "frantic"? What's frantic about the anodyne statement? The man is off the rails; he needs to be committed - either to rehab, or to an institution.

- icarusr

November 30, 2010 at 12:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The 2010 winner of "Peretz Posts in Haste - Repents Never", apparently about to be compounded by a flurry of follow-on posts afflicted by jet lag? Did he write this on meth? Peretz needs to stop reading the The Guardian version of this Wikileak dump; contemplate how David Sanger is writing about the revelations on Iran, and North Korea, in the NYT (oh, please do the Turkey revelations!); and perhaps find a spa in the Berkshires for a week before Peretz posts again, in an effort to cleanse his mind of all of his pre-conceptions. He is only seeing what he wants to see, which is a bad sign from someone who considers himself a teacher. He forgot the hard lesson he learned from the summer: that, like it or not, the owner of The New Republic has an ethical and moral responsibility to be, well, responsible. and thoughtful. yeah, too much to ask of the so-easily-excited-into- kneejerkism-Peretzchik.

- K2K

November 30, 2010 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is the creepy Icarus still reading the Spine? He seems to have a physical aversion to it. He must be a masochistic.

- jdyer

November 30, 2010 at 12:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"President Obama's foreign policy has been exposed as, at best, stupid and, at worst, treacherous." "treacherous" 1. Marked by betrayal of fidelity, confidence, or trust; perfidious. See synonyms at faithless. 2. Not to be relied on; not dependable or trustworthy 3. giving a false appearance of safety or reliability; untrustworthy or insecure Which meaning would fit the above? Does Marty mean Obama, for whom he voted and whose candidacy his own magazine supported and endorsed, is a traitor? Or does he mean that the leader he voted for and whose candidacy his own magazine supported and endorsed, turned out to be undependable, that by giving a false appearance of safety or reliability, that leader was actually concealing the depth of his own failed policies?

- noga1

November 30, 2010 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm new here. Greetings to all from a newly minted civilian happy to be back home. I've been impressed by the level of discourse on these blogs that far exceed anything else avaliable on the net; I will try and keep up. Just a few opening questions, I supppose: What Presidents have we had whose foreign policy has NOT been roundly criticized, where "failures" were not a permanant fixture in their administration? I would think that Peretz would at least take the time, if he's going to declare Obama a failure on the world stage, to give us the names and applicable policy actions of those Presidents who have been unambiguous success stories. I assume labeling Hillary as the "fall guy" is Marty's way of saying that, as SecState, she claims a relative amount of responsibility for US foreign policy. This is different from every other SecState... how? And the alternative would be to publicly distance herself from the president's policy. Is this what Marty would consider appropriate behavior for our nation's chief diplomat? The myopic vitriol Marty continually hurls at the President seems to be based entirely on Obama's push for Jerusalem settlement freezes and in other ways not kowtowing to Israel. Going out on a limb here, but is it POSSIBLE Marty may be letting his desire to see everything possible to be done for the good of Israel cloud his judgement on everything the President does? Note that this pre-supposes Marty has some degree of judgement that is cloudable, as it were. I am certain Marty knows that an intrinsic element of the crime of treachery, of treason, is intent. What does Marty believe about Obama's intent, and how is this different from, say, Orly Taitz, Newt Gingrich, and every other shameless hypocrite willing to sacrifice what little integroty they have on the alter of hatred for the President? Marty is quick to criticize the President on relative "failure" in dealing with N Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. Notably absent is any suggestion on what the administration should actually "do". Has anyone ever come across anyting approacing a viable suggestion on Marty's part... for dealing with N Korea is such a way that would not result in millions dead, for example?

- Tristan

November 30, 2010 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No one has ever come across a suggestion by Peretz as to any alternative policy for anything, other than to kowtow to Israel and verbally to assault our enemies. That is the sum and substance of his thought on foreign policy and military affairs. If anyone around here is treasonous, it is Martin Peretz. You can criticize Obama's policies all you want, but there is not the slightest reason to believe that the president of the United States wants anything other than what is best for the United States. There is no reason at all to think the same of Martin Peretz.

- roidubouloi

November 30, 2010 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I posted something pretty close to this on another thread, but Marty's piece baffled me so much that I decided to repost here (against board tradition, I know, but . . . ). In a nutshell, I'd say that the new wikileaks material on American diplomacy that has just been revealed has vindicated what I and others on these boards have said about the Obama administration's Iran policy over the past year or so: 1. It has been a strategy, and not a series of random efforts 2. It has reconnected countries in joint agreement on stronger sanctions in a way that the Bush administration was unable to do 3. It has brought Russia and China on board to the greatest degree possible 4. It has not been "soft" but has put together a policy of both engagement and increased pressure from outside on the regime. It certainly can't be termed an obvious success -- that judgment lies in the future, one way or the other. But it's a damn site better than anything the Bush administration had going, and as far as I can see it's being played with intelligence and a sense of reality, two things we used to be a bit short of.

- ironyroad

November 30, 2010 at 3:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oops, what a weird one! That should of course be "damn sight"!

- ironyroad

November 30, 2010 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kudos to K2K with whom I disagree with about pretty much everything, for this comment. And, I am not sure whether to be relieved that Peretz got whatever this is out of his system before he went off to mould young minds, or horrified that someone in this state of mind has such acccess.

- miceelf

November 30, 2010 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And speaking of the Cairo speech, a nice compilation of Moslem (not just Palestinian, not just Arab) attitudes toward the Joooooz... http://vimeo.com/16779150 It seems that the old blood libel (using Christian blood to bake matzot) is alive and kicking in the Moslem world. Included in the compilation is a dramatization of the "blood harvest" for matzot. Also, a number of preachers in the compilation made it clear that hatred of the Jews is independent of "occupying" Palestine. Keep a bucket handy when viewing the video as it has definite emetic properties. Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

November 30, 2010 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And here is Ginzy with his "Look, cows!" moment. It seems that the Israeli answer to everything of every kind is, "But there are Moslem anti-semites. Lots of them. Lots and lots and lots of them." The policy implications of this are perfectly obvious, of course.

- roidubouloi

November 30, 2010 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

much more interesting to read Der Spiegel as they translate their articles into English. Assange only leaked to EU sources, and The Guardian shared with the NYT, and everyone else is spinning. Having just come from Der Spiegel - they lured me with the US embassy in Ankara's view of Erdogan and crew since 2003 (the unvarnished truth) - and the five-part analysis of the US embassy in Bonn's view of just about every politician in Germany - anyway, Who needs Peretzian-spin on any of this? The issue is not about policy, but about how the heck these docs got leaked. see ya...

- K2K

November 30, 2010 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Willjames posted this deletable anthology, ginzy. I was wondering why no one in the mainstream media picks up this subject and covers it, you know, "keeping them honest" and all that. And how Obama manages not to know or hear or see these expressions. Must keep that "veil of ignorance" or else he won't be able to believe what he says to the Islamic world. Never mind antisemitism, though. We can't expect every Tom, Dick or Harry to care about Jews. What about this, however? "The Fatah council derogatorily rejected recognition of “the so-called Jewish state” or any “racist state based on religion.” It reasserted the “right of return” which, if implemented, would facilitate the end of a Jewish majority within the pre-1967 Green Line by allowing about four million Palestinian refugees and their offspring to settle in Israel proper. Land swaps as part of a peace agreement were ruled out as well. Large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, such as Gush Etzion, Ma’aleh Adumim and other cities located just over the Green Line, consisting of no more than five percent of the West Bank, where about 80% around 320,000 Jews live, must be uprooted and settlers must be expelled, it decided. “Illegal settler gangs can’t be put on an equal footing with the owners of the lands and rights,” declared the council. Israeli and US understandings, starting in December 2000 with the “Clinton parameters” and continuing with former US president George Bush’s declaration that any permanent peace deal would have to reflect the West Bank’s demographic realities, were effectively dismissed. In what sounded more like a battle cry than a declaration, Fatah essentially articulated its intent to do everything short of relaunching an armed struggle to undermine the existence of the Jewish state." http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=197156 http://blog.camera.org/archives/2010/11/jerusalem_post_media_silent_on.html

- noga1

November 30, 2010 at 5:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And here is roi, marching in his obedient herd of cows, to create another of his "Look cows" moments.

- noga1

November 30, 2010 at 5:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think irony is dead on. The NYT account of Obama's Iran strategy as portrayed by the leaked cables shows the President in an extremely favorable light. So favorable, in fact, that I make the following prediction: It will not be long before Beck, Limbaugh and the rest of the bomb throwers accuse Obama of engineering the leaks himself.

- koppgeo

November 30, 2010 at 6:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I know, I was wondering that myself. There is evidence, after all: Assange is in Sweden, or was. Obama went to Oslo in Norway for the Nobel speech. Norway is next to Sweden -- QE effing D! The teabaggers are still trying to work out if "foreign service" means that everyone in it is a foreigner.

- ironyroad

November 30, 2010 at 7:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Speaking of Der Spiegel, which means mirror, apparently Obama looked at himself in the mirror this morning, the narcissist. Speaking of mornings, there are mornings in Saudi Arabia, too, and they behead people there, the danged Muslims, and are anti-Semites too, those bastards. And believe you me, when I say "bastard", I am not insulting all Saudis or all Arabs; I am being strictly literal. After all, they all descend from Ishmael, the son of Hagar, who was not married to Abraham, the slut - and, really, how can one expect a race of reasonable, civilised people to come out of the womb of an Anna-Nicole-Smith-like strumpet throwing herself at the 90-yo Abraham, I ask you. Speaking of race, remember Obama's race speech - man, what a doozie. And his man-on-man love for Wright and the terrorist Ayres, palling around and talking about old Kenya, "clinging" to their hate for America, no wonder he is so naive and completely lost, lost and at sea, treasonous, treacherous, undependable, falsely promising security to these United States even as hundreds, throusands, millions of Americans have been decimated by dirty bombs under his command and the American civilisation itself has been utterly destroying, not to mention Israel. Speaking of Israel ... always speaking of Israel ... forever speaking of Israel ... danged Obama.

- icarusr

November 30, 2010 at 7:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I know, I was wondering that myself." According to one of your favorite pundits, ironyroad: "...WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed. And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren't some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments. " http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/11/zbigniew-brzezinski-who-is-really.html So you can rest easy. It's not your precious Obama being fingered. Gee, I wonder which "intelligence services" could he possibly mean?

- noga1

November 30, 2010 at 7:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

continued: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/11/zbigniew-brzezinski-who-is-really.html Gee, I wonder which one of the many "intelligence services" Zbigniew means?

- noga1

November 30, 2010 at 7:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus... now pair that with a 45 word headline and you're all set

- Tristan

November 30, 2010 at 7:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I don't understand (my general condition, true, I can't deny, but I don't understand in the here and now either). Are you saying that Zbig is claiming that Israel seeded the WL documents with ones (real or fake) that suit Israeli purposes. Or are you saying something else entirely that I've missed?

- ironyroad

November 30, 2010 at 8:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr "Speaking of Der Spiegel, which means mirror, apparently Obama looked at himself in the mirror this morning, the narcissist. Speaking of mornings, there are mornings in Saudi Arabia, too, and they behead people there, the danged Muslims, and are anti-Semites too, those bastards. And believe you me, when I say "bastard", I am not insulting all Saudis or all Arabs; I am being strictly literal. After all, they all descend from Ishmael, the son of Hagar, who was not married to Abraham, the slut - and, really, how can one expect a race of reasonable, civilised people to come out of the womb of an Anna-Nicole-Smith-like strumpet throwing herself at the 90-yo Abraham, I ask you." Another utterly insane post by the 'Iranian Aryan.'

- jdyer

November 30, 2010 at 8:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here come the conspiracy theories: “ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: It's not a question of worry. It's, rather, a question of whether WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed. And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren't some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments. For example, leaving aside the personal gossip about Sarkozy or Berlusconi or Putin, the business about the Turks is clearly calculated in terms of its potential impact on disrupting the American-Turkish relationship.” Yeap, this is ZBIG at his antisemitic best: “the business about the Turks is clearly calculated in terms of its potential impact on disrupting the American-Turkish relationship.” Has anyone claimed that the documents were forged, or is this new Protocols of the elders of (you know what) is yet to come?

- jdyer

November 30, 2010 at 8:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Are you saying that Zbig is claiming that Israel seeded the WL documents with ones (real or fake) that suit Israeli purposes. " I'm not sure what exactly his claim is but I certainly think he is referring to Israel.

- noga1

November 30, 2010 at 8:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I think so too, but it strikes me as far-fetched, not to mention loopy, for a couple of reasons: 1. Just taking the Turkish issue, if the U.S. view of Erdogan is, on the inside, as negative as we see portrayed in the cables (I love that word), why would Israel want to draw everyone's attention to the impression that the administration's view of Turkey is in fact fairly chilly beneath the polite surface? 2. The documents on the administration's handling of Iran appear to be, as I posted earlier, a confirmation that they are pursuing the goal of putting serious pressure on Teheran with a lot of dedication and strategic focus -- unless it's a you-see-yellow-fish-I-see-red-fish thing, why would it be a particular Israeli aim to shine the torch on this process, especially if that would potentially damage it? 3. Assuming that the documents are genuine, and on a CD-ROM or something similar, how would one sneak in a couple of documents? That would suggest some long-term association with/penetration of Wikileaks, which in turn seems unlikely. I guess there could be a desire to just rattle the Iranians, to show them how many people want them and/or the nuclear program taken down, but again there is something wrong about that. There would be less scattershot methods.

- ironyroad

November 30, 2010 at 8:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "I'm not sure what exactly his claim is but I certainly think he is referring to Israel." Not just Israel, to Jews in general: "BRZEZINSKI: It's not a question of worry. It's, rather, a question of whether WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments ..." "Jewish lobby," anyone? Anyone remember Buchanan's "amen corner?"

- jdyer

November 30, 2010 at 8:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why are you telling me the obvious, ironyroad? I'm not the one making these paranoid allegations. It's Zbig's overactive imagination when it comes of the bottomless Israeli perfidy.

- noga1

November 30, 2010 at 9:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You may be right, Jd. I couldn't imagine he was going even further than I had suspected.

- noga1

November 30, 2010 at 9:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson: that reads like Zbig on PBS NewsHour Monday night, with Stephen Hadley providing the non-conspiracy theory analysis. The Turks are certainly in a twist over the leaks about them, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,732084,00.html for the "Tribune of Anatolia" that Malahat cited earlier, but one would have to assume the U.S. diplomats involved are Mossad agents (how did so many Jews rise in the U.S. Foreign Service?) in order for Zbig's suggestion to have credence. Of course Turkey is a big deal - NATO, duh. So far, the most damaging revelation is SecState Clinton's signed directive for diplomats to actively spy on just about everyone EXCEPT Israel and the Dominican Republic. "Hillary, Master SpyMistress" - who gets the signing bonus for the movie? :) ah, NCIS is on CBS - absolute proof of Mossad control of the U.S., even though Ziva is now an American citizen :) :) Zbig needs to retire with Jimmy and Tutu on a farm in Paraguay, which was very high on Hillary's list...must be that active Hezbollah cell that speaks Spanish...

- K2K

November 30, 2010 at 9:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why, JD, thanks! Given that I was trying to mimic the loopiness of some of the posters here, I find "utterly insane" utterly complimentary! As for your fixation on my place of birth, ethnic background, sexual orientation, diet, hair colour and shoe size, let's just say that it is out of respect for the rest of the readers that I ignore your ad hominems. Now, take the Biblical rejoinder to heart and go forth and, well, auto-multiply.

- icarusr

November 30, 2010 at 9:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Out of curiosity, why does anyone care what Zbig has to say? Has he said anything of any depth, sagacity or perspicacity in the last, oh, forty years? He has been right, once, about anything on which he has opined? Was he a good advisor to Carter? Has he held a post of any importance in thirty years? Zbig on Israel is like Rumsfeld on Iraq and Cheney on human rights - hate squared coupled with blind paranoia, marinated in self-regard and cooked to perfection ... tastes awful and isn't good for you.

- icarusr

November 30, 2010 at 9:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Zbig is serious - well - he's senile. Or worse. Next he'll be signing up with tin-foil hat brigades and claiming insider knowledge about 9/11. OTOH I guess he knows a little something about Plots. Ask the Soviets and the Afghans, the Pakistanis and...the brave mujeheddin. Oh wait - Meanwhile, Ahmadijenad also claims the US and guess who are manipulating the leaks. Sigh. Zbig you're in good company. NOT. Guess the Israelis just don't look bad enough to please some people. Unreal huh. PROOF they (?) are manipulating the leaks! Meanwhile - c'mon Marty. Sheese already.

- Sophia

November 30, 2010 at 9:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why are you telling me the obvious, ironyroad? I'm not the one making these paranoid allegations. It's Zbig's overactive imagination when it comes of the bottomless Israeli perfidy." I wasn't desiring to tell you the obvious, Noga, but you will not, I assume, deny that you directed a comment/question at me? I was trying to respond to it in a reasonably germane manner (by subjecting the claims in the referenced interview to a brief rational inspection). If I wasted your precious time, to skew Bob Dylan a little, don't think twice, it's all right.

- ironyroad

November 30, 2010 at 10:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr “Why, JD, thanks! Given that I was trying to mimic the loopiness of some of the posters here, I find "utterly insane" utterly complimentary!” You are as good a mimic as you are polemicists. Not credible in either department. “As for your fixation on my place of birth, ethnic background,…” I am as fixated about your birthplace as you are about “Semites.” The rest is just a figment of your static imagination. “…out of respect for the rest of the readers that I ignore your ad hominems.” Another misconception or is it that you can’t tell reality from imaginary figments?

- jdyer

November 30, 2010 at 10:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“So far, the most damaging revelation is SecState Clinton's signed directive for diplomats to actively spy on just about everyone EXCEPT Israel and the Dominican Republic.” Really? State department officials spy on foreign countries? Watch out for what a directive omits to say. If I were el Presidente of La Republica Dominicana I would complain to Hillary for not saying out loud that she is spying on us.

- jdyer

November 30, 2010 at 10:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We need a modern Moliere to make justice of these documents. He could write a modern Le cirque diplomatique imaginaire.

- jdyer

November 30, 2010 at 10:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jd: it would appear that SecState Clinton's directive to the U.S. team at the United Nations is a [grave] violation of various treaties. I admit to wondering if the real reason the U.S. joined the UN Human Rights Council was so that Susan Rice could practice her new skills at pickpocketing in order to get credit card numbers :) No Dominican Republic jokes. A country to be admired.

- K2K

November 30, 2010 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"No Dominican Republic jokes. A country to be admired." No era un chiste, estaba serio.

- jdyer

December 1, 2010 at 12:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, you see Zbig as the classic Polish antisemite barely able to contain his intense dislike of Jews and their works. I see him as the thin-lipped aristocrat whose fingers are just itching to bring down the whip on a mumbling peasant who doesn't know his place. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcTFo1xiDJg&playnext=1&list=PLB48D0764FEB04B50&index=16 The joke is Russian here but it'll serve . . .

- ironyroad

December 1, 2010 at 3:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Noga, you see Zbig as the classic Polish antisemite barely able to contain his intense dislike of Jews and their works. " Now you are making terribly exrayous assumptions. When I'm tempted to consider Zbig an antisemite I always remember Begin at Camp David. I give him credit for having much greater skills recognizing "the classic Polish antisemite" and if he did not find Zbig to be such it is good enough for me. His having an intense dislike for Jews of a certain uppity nature I consider a different matter.

- noga1

December 1, 2010 at 7:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I am as fixated about your birthplace as you are about “Semites.” The rest is just a figment of your static imagination." Well, objectively speaking, I am not fixated on semites on either side of the Abrahamic gene pool; Peretz is and I respond to him. As for the rest, so "Harem Boy" was a figment of my imagination? Mine and others who made 600+ comments. Right.

- icarusr

December 1, 2010 at 9:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This was a welcome distraction from the bilious exchanges. Please if only commenters here tried to emulate the admirable creative literariness of American diplomats that has become the envy of European sticks in the mud: "EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - As the US State Department contorts itself in embarrassment over the WikiLeaks affair, its diplomats may be cheered to learn that some EU officials are envious over the quality of its reports. "The reports that we have are crap compared to this. These are political, concise, incisive, almost literary," one EU official told EUobserver on Tuesday (30 November) on condition of anonymity. "It sets a benchmark for diplomacy. Our reports are incredibly long and written in a kind of administrative jargon. We have no opinions. We hide our opinions behind bureaucratic language because we are not allowed to have opinions in a highly hierarchical structure." The contact singled out a US cable on a lavish party in Dagestan, Russia attended by Chechnya's warlord-president Ramzan Kadyrov. Entitled ' A Caucasus Wedding,' the 3,400-word-long cable by the US embassy in Moscow in 2006 speaks of Kadyrov dancing "clumsily with his gold-plated automatic stuck down in the back of his jeans." It adds: "The cooks seemed to keep whole sheep and whole cows boiling in a cauldron somewhere day and night, dumping disjointed fragments of the carcass on the tables whenever someone entered the room." http://euobserver.com/24/31394

- noga1

December 1, 2010 at 9:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Reading this analysis, Brzezinski's cryptic remarks make some sense. The Wikileaks exposed Obama's Foreign Policy calculations as based on mere intransigence, or inability to part with a beloved theory: "Obama, we now know, had the diplomatic cables to prove that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was no obstacle to wide Arab backing for the toughest possible measures against Iran. After the first meeting between newish President Barack Obama and new Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in May of 2009, I wrote in these pages about the “acutely uncomfortable clash of divergent outlooks” so readily evident at their media conference. I noted that while the Netanyahu camp had “rushed to talk up a purported meeting of minds over Iran,” it was plain that there was a gulf between the two men on the issue. Specially, I wrote, it had been Netanyahu’s hope that he would persuade Obama of the imperative to halt the Iranian nuclear drive “as a precondition for encouraging Arab moderation and thus enabling progress with the Palestinians, and on this he failed.” Instead, I pointed out, “Obama insistently placed tackling the Palestinian issue – which has defeated even the most generous and flexible Israeli governments – on the road to fixing Iran.” While Israel had argued internationally that stopping Iran would enable headway with the Palestinians, and other foreign heads of state, senior ministers and diplomats had politely suggested it was best to try to chivvy both processes along simultaneously, Obama, I observed, “has gone all the way over to the other side, and done so in public.” I was referring to the president’s assertion, publicly contradicting Netanyahu, that, “If there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians – between the Palestinians and the Israelis – then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat.” In that column and many others since, I have often come back to Obama’s unconvincing assertion that Netanyahu, and much of Israel besides, has the Iran- Palestinian equation wrong. I often noted how illogical it seemed for Obama to argue that there was a good prospect of dramatic progress on the Palestinian front even while Iran, and by extension, Palestinian extremists, were in the ascendant, and how much more room for optimism there would be on the Palestinian front if Iran had been faced down, its nuclear march halted, and relative moderates throughout the region emboldened and empowered. Click here for full Jpost coverage of the latest Wikileaks To my mind, the president’s thinking defied common sense. Now we know, however, that it also defied the concrete information he was receiving from his own diplomats. THE OBAMA administration, it is now clear for all to see, was not pressing a reluctant Netanyahu to make settlement-freeze and other concessions to the Palestinians in part because it truly believed this would be helpful in generating wider support for tackling Iran. Not at all. The United States, we now know courtesy of WikiLeaks, was being repeatedly urged by a succession of Arab leaders to smash an Iranian nuclear program they feared would destabilize the entire region and put their regimes at risk. Their priority was, and is, battering Ahmadinejad, not bolstering Abbas. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, in 2008, had not urged the US to chivvy those recalcitrant Israelis toward concessions to the Palestinians as a pre-condition for grudging Saudi support for a firmer US-led position against Iran. Anything but. Never mind the Palestinians, the king simply implored Washington to “cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake.” Likewise, with minor variations in the course of the following year, the rulers of Bahrain and Abu Dhabi. We are now starting to hear, courtesy of WikiLeaks, what Jordan and Egypt had to say on the matter too. Obama, that is, was not the prisoner of a misconception, convinced in absolute good faith that if he could deliver Israeli concessions at the negotiating table he might stand a greater chance of getting the Arabs on board for the battle with the mullahs. No, he had the diplomatic cables to prove that the Israeli- Palestinian conflict was no obstacle to wide Arab backing, indeed wide Arab entreaties, for the toughest possible measures against Iran, emphatically including military action. Either the president, it can be concluded, was so attached to his misconception that he refused to let the concrete information he had on Arab leaders’ thinking get in the way – sticking to his view of the region in defiance of the facts. Or, more plausibly, he had internalized full well that he didn’t actually need the cover of a substantive Israeli-Palestinian peace process to generate Arab support for tackling Iran’s nuclear program, but chose to pressure Israel just the same, as a tactic, because he felt Israel was not being sufficiently forthcoming on the Palestinian front. Neither explanation sits well, to put it mildly. TELL NETANYAHU – who at the time of their first meeting had yet to endorse the two-state solution, and who is extremely unlikely to repeat the peace offer that Ehud Olmert had spurned by Abbas – that you feel he should be doing more? That’s fair enough. What’s not fair enough is to indicate to the Israeli prime minister, when it’s patently untrue, that he ought to put aside some of his skepticism and take risks for peace because otherwise Israel might impede the US’s capacity to thwart the genocidal enemy, Iran." http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=197477

- noga1

December 1, 2010 at 9:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "THE OBAMA administration, it is now clear for all to see, ..." The only comment I would make on all of this is that it is impossible to conclude from the leaked documents that anything is "clear", because of the Black Swan problem. We know what has been leaked. We don't know what has not been leaked and what is in those documents. We don't know the reaction of people reading the documents that have been leaked, and those that have not been leaked. We don't in fact know who read, analysed and advised on the documents that have been leaked, and certainly nothing about those that have yet to be leaked. I would not draw any conclusions, one way or another, from any of the documents; at best, they provide additional information, generally without context, as to the state of mind of certain interlocutors. How we process goes back to the narrative we have already accepted about the actors: Obama is naive, means that he resists the pressure of the Arab allies; Obama knows what he is doing, means that he has been successful in slowly building an alliance against Iran. Analytically speaking, the leaked documents make nothing at all "clear".

- icarusr

December 1, 2010 at 10:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,731877,00.html "The Secret Alliance: Cables Show Arab Leaders Fear a Nuclear Iran" posted today, beats, by miles, David Sanger's dot-connecting on Iran in Monday's NYT . "...A year later [mid-2009], General David Petraeus said, during a visit to Beirut, that there was a "phenomenon in the Gulf states where leaders were worried someone would strike Iran's nuclear weapons program, while also worrying that someone would not." Iran, he continued, "had become Centcom's best recruiting tool, and the number of partnership and US military assistance agreements with Arab partners in the Gulf had increased significantly." ..." Which totally contradicts what Petraeus said in Vanity Fair about the I-P conflict being so detrimental to America (yes, am lazy today so I am not seeking the actual quote which became a mantra against the value of Israel as an ally to the U.S., repeated by Hillary and Jim Jones in speeches in early 2010). It is possible, to give the Obami an extraordinary benefit of a doubt, that other communications between the Gulf States, Saudis, Egypt with the U.S. made public distancing from Israel part of the plan to deal with Iran. Even possible Bibi went along with it. Now that Fatah has published their "never" list, and while the three carrier groups (Truman, Lincoln, and DeGaulle) are still stationed near enough to Iran, it is possible that all of this, even the bribe-a-thon to induce a ninety day building moratorium, connects to this moment in time. only Tom Clancy could dream up a plot like this, but Clancy probably has some sort of DoD consulting contract :)

- K2K

December 1, 2010 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad "Noga, you see Zbig as the classic Polish antisemite barely able to contain his intense dislike of Jews and their works." It's not just a matter of perception, Irony. Explain to me why Zbig get so angry about Israeli actions but doesn't even mention Turkey's (or any other country's) far worse human rights record with the sme frequencey and vehemence?

- jdyer

December 1, 2010 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat: actually, Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns" statement was a uniquely insightful comment; and, if made by a master strategist in the course of planning, would invariably result in better strategy and more coherent decision-making. The problem with Rumsfeld was not that what he said was always wrong; it was that what he said was invariably said at the wrong time and in support of the wrong proposition, by a incompetent manager and an indifferent strategist. In fact, what we do know is that they ignored and dismissed and downplayed and outright lied about the "known unkowns"; and specifically did not consider or acknowledge the possibility of "unknown unknowns" until the "known knowns" bit them in the ass.

- icarusr

December 1, 2010 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Incidentally, what I said was not an inadvertent channelling of Rumsfeld, but a deliberate nod; the insight is not Rumsfeld's to begin with, as it comes out of most standard military strategy, scientific analysis and litigation preparation texts. "Don't ask a question of a witness to which you do not know the answer" is Litigation 101; in my field of work, thinking about the unknown unknowns is part of basic training. P.s. I am not worried about plagiarism, as I would not ever suggest that anything I write is original thinking. :)

- icarusr

December 1, 2010 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat: "...Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation..." That I think is the nub of the matter: who or what is to be the comparator for criticism. This means that defending Israel on the basis of comparisons to Hamas or Egypt or Zimbabwe - "look how bad they are and how much better Israel is" - would be idiotic, much as criticising Israel for actions that France or the Netherlands would undertake in similar circumstances would be entirely inapposite. As well, I would make a distinction between criticism as to means and criticism as to objectives. It would, for example, be moronic to criticise Israel for its objective to stop the shelling from the north and the south; whether the limited wars in Lebanon and Gaza were 1) the best means, and 2) well executed would be different matters entirely.

- icarusr

December 1, 2010 at 1:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree -- there is a big difference whether the objectives or the means are the target of the criticism. It's certainly the case that a kind of disingenuous critique of means can be at root nothing more than a well-packaged critique of objectives, where, for example, what starts out as a criticism of particular Israeli measures turns out to be a criticism of Israel's desire to protect its existence. But there are legitimate critiques of means. malahat, I don't know for sure about Zbig -- you and JD see it one way, Noga and Menachem Begin another. I was using him as a way of posting that very funny scene from Frasier, to be honest.

- ironyroad

December 1, 2010 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat: Please do not roll me into one package with ironyroad on this. Look what I actually wrote: "When I'm tempted to consider Zbig an antisemite I always remember Begin at Camp David. I give him credit for having much greater skills recognizing "the classic Polish antisemite" and if he did not find Zbig to be such it is good enough for me. His having an intense dislike for Jews of a certain uppity nature I consider a different matter." The last sentence should answer your query from my side. Brzezinski does not like those "uppity Jews", namely, Israelis, who defy the traditional European structure of power, that is, Jews tremble and supplicate and with the lubricating help of some perfidious money the European masters agree to extend their protection. Or not. Israelis do not tremble and do not bend knee to anyone (just like Americans, come to think of it) so they must be taught to know, as they say in Hebrew slang, from which end the fish urinates... To understand Zbig's wrath at Israeli chutzpa and its relationship to antisemitism, you could go to see how enlightened Arab politicians and intellectuals refer to Israelis/Jews. Those uppity Jews, who were as quiet and docile as lambs when under the boot of the Islamic justice system, how dare they assume such independence that they actually tower over us?

- noga1

December 1, 2010 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I do not wished to be rolled into one package with Noga, either, malahat, and especially not if Menachem Begin is in there too. In fact, if you read what I said closely, I didn't take a side on the purported antisemitism (or sub-category thereof) of Zbig's, but said rather he came across to me as a Polish aristocrat fingering his whip while talking to a particularly recalcitrant peasant.

- ironyroad

December 1, 2010 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps the sole reason we have to endure the pronouncements of Zbig is that he is the only former National Security Advisor who served under a Democratic President who is willing/able to speak/comment publicly about Israel and the ME? Or is it because he helped birth the Camp David accords for Carter? Or because Zbig "appears frequently as an expert on the PBS program The NewsHour"? chicken or egg? Imagine spending your early chidhood, age 3-10, as the son of a Polish aristocratic diplomat in Nazi Germany (1931-35) and Stalin's Russia (1936-38)... Just trying to figure out why the two of them (Carter and Zbig) are not in seclusion. Peretz has apparently landed...

- K2K

December 1, 2010 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Saint Ironyroad!

- noga1

December 1, 2010 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad "malahat, I don't know for sure about Zbig -- you and JD see it one way, Noga and Menachem Begin another. I was using him as a way of posting that very funny scene from Frasier, to be honest." I have no idea how Begin saw Zbig, and anyway that was in the late 70's and people do change in 40 years, don't you think? You still haven't answer the question about why Zbig gets so excited about Israeli behavior and has nothing to say about Turkish human rights violations and its illegal occupation of Cyprus?

- jdyer

December 1, 2010 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I had a friend once, her name was Eva and she was a pretty far leftist Polish- Israeli. She named her cat "Mufti", just to illustrate how leftist. Her father was a Polish attache in Turkey before making Aliya. I understood from her parents that Polish people had much affection for the Turkish people. Maybe that's one reason why Bzrez carefully avoids looking at the Turks. He simply likes them.

- noga1

December 1, 2010 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Has anyone noticed I'm not actually disagreeing with anyone here? Or does everyone have a kind of quota for posts that they have to file, and arguing with ironyroad over something he's not arguing about is as good as any? Rather like a traffic cop whose supervisor has been going over his numbers?

- ironyroad

December 1, 2010 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, if I was truly a saint, I'd be willing to be rolled up in a package with Begin and you. Believe me, I had a Catholic upbringing!

- ironyroad

December 1, 2010 at 5:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not arguing with you, St. Ir, and didn't get the joke about the Catholic upbringing.

- noga1

December 1, 2010 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Happy First Hannukah Candle, to anyone who lights a menorah tonight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1sf5yqZX-k&feature=related

- noga1

December 1, 2010 at 6:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://bp0.blogger.com/__1OzjxCtHZI/R1vqoshRVxI/AAAAAAAABXQ/ZgkU8fpPAAE/s1600-h/Russianmenorah.JPG

- noga1

December 1, 2010 at 9:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: Catholic. Suffering. Saints and all that. malahat: I don't want to get into a pointless exchange with you. Let me offer up my tetchiness in a spirit of tolerance.

- ironyroad

December 1, 2010 at 11:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

likewise

- ironyroad

December 2, 2010 at 2:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm sorry I used that phrase now "roll me into one package with" as it seems to have induced some suffering and ill temper in some commenters. Perhaps I should just have said that malahat was mistaken in concluding that ironyroad and I were agreed about something. The premise is that we never agree.

- noga1

December 2, 2010 at 8:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes malahat it's all your fault, and one hopes you show the proper contrition. But just as a precaution ... NO SOUP FOR YOU! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ3AOmZ2fps&feature=related

- noga1

December 2, 2010 at 10:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It induces some amusement connected to a brief vision of a rolling carpet, but not ill-temper, surely?

- ironyroad

December 2, 2010 at 3:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It was just my perception. Maybe I was wrong.

- noga1

December 2, 2010 at 3:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There's a semester-end-reaching cheerful person at this end! Is that . . . perceptible? Oh wait! I think I see -- no no, the ill-temper was courtesy of malahat, not you, as he seemed to be badgering me to confirm his view of ZB when I had indicated I didn't particularly wish to do that, although I wasn't disputing his view either.

- ironyroad

December 2, 2010 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Irony, I know you didn't take a stance, but that soi-disant 'aristocrat' seems to only finger his whip when the "particularly recalcitrant peasant" is a Jew. To me, that makes him an antisemitic soi-disant 'aristocrat'." I felt somewhat badgered. It's the earthworm in me. Btw did you know that there was a rumor a few years ago that the British forces in Southern Iraq had released man-eating badgers into the area around Basra as an anti-terrorist measure?

- ironyroad

December 2, 2010 at 6:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I felt badgered. I can't explain. Kind of . . . badgered. Despite that fact that what you suggest is true, indeed that a declarative statement isn't really forcing me to adopt it. I think it might have been the way I was suggesting that Noga and Menachem Begin shared a viewpoint, and you and JD another, and then you substituted me for Begin in your response, which led in turn to me getting rolled up in a carpet and Noga protesting that I was rolled up in her carpet when I hadn't been responsible for that all and hadn't wanted to be in her damn carpet and typically she blamed me for it and accused me of being ill-tempered because she likes to do that kind of thing because it makes me ill-tempered and I just wanted to post the Frasier clip which I thought was funny and nobody responded to it and then you kept after me about the Zbig thing and I wondered where Begin had gone and why he wasn't rolled up in the carpet instead and then you started badgering me about being badgered and generally I want to go for a long vacation somewhere sunny and sip drinks with little umbrellas in them

- ironyroad

December 2, 2010 at 7:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I began my short post with "Has anyone noticed I'm not actually disagreeing with anyone here?" That's the vehemence and nastiness that took you aback?

- ironyroad

December 3, 2010 at 12:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh ok. Maybe that was indeed a bit sharp-edged. I didn't mean it to come across that way, though. I really thought that the "traffic cop" image was more gently comic than anything. I wish sometimes I could make everyone understand that it's very rarely that I have stong negative or hostile motives when I post (as opposed to just a brief acerbity when I disagree over an issue). When I do, I make it very clear. But, yeah. What to say?

- ironyroad

December 3, 2010 at 2:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's the problem with speech, either spoken or written. No matter what the intention, once it is out, it's like a genie out of a bottle, out of one's control and assumes a life of its own, potentially capable of making lots of mischief. I'm surprised and a little disheartened that it can happen even between two such mild-mannered and well-intentioned individuals as you two guys. I just found out that a friend of mine, a lovely lovely woman, has just been diagnosed with two types of cancer and is about to embark on a journey no human being wishes for or imagines. This kind of brings you up sharp and corrects your perspective about what's really important.

- noga1

December 3, 2010 at 7:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At least for a few days, that is.

- noga1

December 3, 2010 at 8:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or hours.

- noga1

December 3, 2010 at 8:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm sorry to hear about your friend, Noga.

- ironyroad

December 3, 2010 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks.

- noga1

December 3, 2010 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close