An Amazing and Humbling Story from the MNF Website

I found this amazing and humbling story on the MNF website

An Iraqi man saved the lives of four U.S. Soldiers and eight civilians when
he intercepted a suicide bomber during a Concerned Citizens meeting in the town
of al-Arafia Aug. 18. The incident occurred while Soldiers from 3rd
Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, were talking with members of the al-Arafia
Concerned Citizens, a volunteer community group, at a member’s house. “I
was about 12 feet away when the bomber came around the corner,” said Staff Sgt.

Sean Kane, of Los Altos, Calif., acting platoon sergeant of Troop B, 3-1
Cav. “I was about to engage when he jumped in front of us and intercepted
the bomber as he ran toward us. As he pushed him away, the bomb went
off.” The citizen’s actions saved the lives of four U.S. Soldiers and eight
civilians. Kane felt the loss personally because he had met and interacted
with his rescuer many times before the incident. “He was high-spirited and
really believed what the group (Concerned Citizens) was doing,” Kane said. “I
have no doubt the bomber was trying to kill American Soldiers. It was very
calculated the way the bomber tried to do it. If he hadn’t intercepted him,
there is no telling how bad it could have been.” Kane believes the citizen
is a hero.

My favorite broadcaster, Bill O'Reilly, has been known none too often to question Iraqi's dedication to fight for their own freedom. In fact, O'Reilly soured on the mission because he surmised they wouldn't. This is one story of one man, however this gentleman clearly would fight for the freedom of Iraqis and he sacrificed his life doing it. Whatever your stance on the war, his family should be honored. His story should be read into public record in the Congress and anyone reading this now is encouraged to call their Congress representative and encourage them to do so.

Angry Realtors, Sellers, Attorneys and Carl Levin's Foreign Policy

Whenever there is a difficult purchase loan, and this is often, that invariably goes not according to plan, more times than not I get a call from one of three sorts of people: an angry seller, an angry realtor, and an angry attorney. The angry seller is usually screaming about everything, threatening, everything in a long diatrobe that frankly usually goes nowhere. The angry realtor usually starts to threaten to begin negotiations with another buyer that "I knew I should have worked with from the beginning". The angry attorney usually threatens some sort of a lawsuit based on their understanding that the loan was guaranteed.

Anyone who has ever done any of these things during your own purchase or sale process please take heed...You aren't helping. I don't know why people think that adding intensity to an already intense situation somehow makes things better, but threatening law suits, new deals, and any other threat doesn't actually do anything to solve the underlying problem. In fact, and this may surprise you, the underlying problem has absolutely nothing to do with the threat you pose. In other words, whatever threat one makes it has nothing to do with whatever problem there is with the loan. The way to properly resolve these situations is for everyone to remain calm. While that maybe sometimes be very difficult to do, it is the only thing everyone should do.

This brings me to Carl Levin who recently came back from a trip to Iraq. I was heartened by his honest assessment of the situation on the ground. Still, what he said regarding Iraq's political situation sounded much like the angry seller's, realtors, and attorneys I deal with daily. Before he left he said this, ""Folks, if you want a civil war in this country, that's your choice. Count us out of your civil war. We've been here four-and-a-half years". After he came back he went even further, "I hope the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and more unifying prime minister and government"
Someone can correct me if I am wrong, however has a U.S. politician ever so brazenly inserted themselves into the internal dynamics of a democratically elected government? Have I missed something? Has anyone called for Ehud Olmert to be voted out? Did any Republican endorse one side or another in the French election? Since when do U.S. politicians call for the ouster of a Democratically elected government?

Now, no one is frankly altogether excited about Maliki. Of course, it would have been nice to see the Iraqi government working alongside our U.S. military. Of course, an oil law would have gone a long way toward progress in Iraq, That said, Levin is acting no differently than any angry seller, realtor or attorney. All he is doing is adding fuel to already hot fire.

Levin seems to think that complicated rivalries and relationships can be solved by veiled threats from outside politicians. They can't and just like in my business, his threats have nothing to do with the underlying problem. Maliki did what anyone would expect when a pompous outsider injects himself into internal politics. He lashed out

Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay
no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends
elsewhere," al-Maliki said

.

Is anyone really surprised? What exactly did Levin think was going to happen? Let's see rivalries and relationships fueled by evil killers are causing all sorts of complicated problems, but here is Carl Levin saying "Folks, if you want a civil war in this country, that's your choice. Count us out of your civil war. We've been here four-and-a-half years". Why didn't he say so, now the Shia, Sunnis, Kurds, Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, and Turkey will forgive and forget.

This reminds of that great scene in A Few Good Men,
" "I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."

For the better part of two years, the Democrats have railed Bush's supposed lack of foreign diplomacy, and yet is this what we have. Our Speaker also plays Secretary of State and kow tows to an evil, vicious tyrant. One Presidential candidate not only promises to visit with every enemy no questions asked, but then threatens one of our allies with invasion. Now, we have Carl Levin "strenuously objecting".

For all the wrangling, we currently have friendly governments in France, Germany, Canada, Australia, and Mexico. We have forged new ties with much of Eastern Europe. Formed a new, though tenuous ally, in Pakistan. In Colombia, we may have found a new ally as well. While the Democrats dismiss this and call for a new foreign policy approach, we only need to look at Carl Levin and his idea of foreign policy to see what that approach would be.

Time to Make Free Trade an Issue

Among the issues in which there is a clear distinction between Democrats and Republicans, there are very few, in my opinion, that are bigger slam dunks than free trade. For the life of me, I cannot understand why Republicans have stood idly by while one Democrat after another has slammed free trade agreements while kow towing to labor unions and not hit back.
I learned the benefits of free trade in my second or third week of Economics 101. The logic is simple. Every country has resources of which they are plentiful (Brazil is stocked with sugar for instance), and other resources of which they are deficient. Free trade allows each nation to export its plentiful resource and import those resources that are in short supply. This seems so easy and basic that I was actually shocked when I first found politicians attacking free trade agreements like NAFTA.

Yet, each Democratic Presidential candidate has come out against not only NAFTA, but CAFTA and the WTO itself. They have tried to mask their obvious pandering to the labor unions by coming up with nebulus terms like, fair trade, which frankly is some utopia that they create so that no free trade agreement can ever be passed.

Here is a sample from each of them...

John Edwards

"Trade has become a bad word for working Americans for a simple reason: our
trade policy has been bad for working Americans. We need new trade policies that
put workers, wages and families first."

Hillary Clinton

"Well, outsourcing is a problem, and it's one that I've dealt with as a senator
from New York. I started an organization called New Jobs for New York to try to
stand against the tide of outsourcing, particularly from upstate New York and
from rural areas. We have to do several things: end the tax breaks that still
exist in the tax code for outsourcing jobs, have trade agreements with
enforceable labor and environmental standards, help Americans compete, which is
something we haven't taken seriously. 65% of kids do not go on to college. What
are we doing to help them get prepared for the jobs that we could keep here that
wouldn't be outsourced--and find a new source of jobs, clean energy, global
warming, would create millions of new jobs for Americans."

Barack Obama

" I moved to Chicago to work with churches that were dealing with the
devastation of steel plants that had closed all throughout the region. Tens of
thousands of people had been laid off. There was never a federal effort to come
in after those closings and to figure out how can we retrain workers for the
jobs of the future, how can we invest and make sure capital is available to
create new businesses in those communities. And so not only do we have to deal
with our trade agreements, not only do we have to eliminate tax breaks for
companies that are moving overseas, not only do we have to work on our education
system, but we also have to have an intentional strategy on the part of the
federal government to make sure that we are reinvesting in those communities
that are being burdened by globalization and not benefiting from it"

The Democrats in Congress have already been able to block several free trade agreements with Colombia and with South Korea, and of course, they are jumping over each other to propose new ways of restricting NAFTA, CAFTA and every other free trade agreement we currently have. So far, they have been relatively unscathed and have been able to pander for votes. This must stop. Free trade is simple, sound, and logical economic policy. It benefits everyone and arguing against it means arguing against logical economic principles. Thus, in any debate on free trade, we win, since we have logic on our side.
I was quite heartened to find this editorial in the San Diego Tribune, I hope I see more of this...

"If this is true, and Democrats take the White House next year while
retaining control of Congress, fear for your country. Pundits' assertions that
Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards won't really
follow through on their rhetoric ignores what congressional Democrats already
have done on trade, blocking new pacts with Latin America and South Korea. It's
plain that free-trade Democrats have been routed by those spouting union talking
points.

So what if protectionism helped keep Europe stagnant for generations; so
what if there is massive evidence that protecting jobs quickly becomes a drag on
job growth; so what if U.S. trade policy has helped make us a much richer nation
than ever. Democrats see votes to be won by lying about trade, and they're not
going to let the facts get in their way.
Their maligning of the North
American Free Trade Agreement is a perfect example. Its adoption in 1993 helped
kick off one of the great periods of sustained economic health in U.S. history.
The resulting explosion in trade with Canada and Mexico was crucial to the
creation of more than 17 million new jobs, resulting in a five-year stretch in
which the jobless rate was under 5 percent every year for only the second time
since World War II."

It isn't the job of the San Diego Tribune though to do the bidding of the Republican in a principle that I believe is the core of Conservatism, free trade. I think it is time that this becomes one of the front and center issues. I want to see Hillary Clinton arguing against her husband's own pet project in a debate with whoever our candidate is. The issue of free trade is nothing short of a huge winner for us Republicans, but it won't be if it isn't made an issue. So far, I have heard very little from any of the candidates, except maby Hunter who argues against it, on the issue of free trade. I don't understand why. Rudy has gained plenty of traction with socialized medicine and protectionism carries with it the same sort of negative connotation. I hope that as the campaign goes along Republican candidates make just as much of free trade as Democratic candidates have made of protectionism.

From Oil to Energy Part III

Recently, I wrote a proposal and its follow up for getting our country energy independent. To say that my conservative colleagues were hostile to the proposal and everything related to it would be to make quite the understatement. I still believe in my proposal and more importantly, I still believe that energy independence is crucial to winning the war on terror.

Let me first explain my interest in this. I don't much care about global warming or any of that. The only thing that I want to accomplish is to reduce dramatically, 90% and more, the amount of money that Saudis and countries like them make when we fill up our cars or other vehicles. If we cut off the main financial source of terror, terrorism dies quickly.

I thought about it again last night. I tried a thought experiment. I thought what would Ronald Reagan do if he were faced with getting the country energy independent. Generally, I don't like to do such hypotheticals however in a thought experiment it seemed appropriate.

I believe that Reagan would try to resolve this problem with tax cuts. I think that he would have believed in the power of the entrepeneur and would do everything to give them the incentive they need and simply keep government out of the way.

Thus, my proposal is such: cut the capital gains, income, and dividend taxes to ZERO, for any entrepreneurial endeavor that involves alternative energy. This statement carries with it serious risk right away. How do we define alternative energy? What we are trying to do is reward those entrepeneurs that look to bring products on the market that challenge petroleum. The definition must be narrow and clear, so that activist judges don't use this for any number of their own pet projects.

As such, my definition of alternative energy for this purpose is any energy source that can be used as an alternative to oil as a means of providing energy. (I welcome all in the comments section to help strengthen to definition).

I would then lower to ZERO, the capital gains, income and dividend taxes of any company or division of any company which works on any source of energy that can compete with oil in powering anything that oil currently powers. (While the overwhelming majority of these would be sources to power automobiles, I want to open this up to anything powered by oil). It must be zero because we need to provide overwhelming and intense incentive for entrepeneurs to enter the alternative energy field. For instance, if the income tax is zero on alternative energy sources, I believe even the oil companies themselves would wind up investing heavily in their own alternative energy divisions and certainly much heavier than they are now.

In fact, with this sort of incentive I believe that we would be energy independent in five years maximum.

Now, let's go through some of the political pitfalls of a real politician not only proposing but trying to implement such a proposal. First there would be the liberals who would immediately propose a series of tax increases to account for the "massive" tax cuts, and loss of revenue this would likely produce. Second, in order to pass this legislation their would need to be compromise and the first compromise would be that the tax wouldn't be zero. This must be avoided. Unless the incentive is intense, no taxes at all, the revolution to energy independence would take too long, and in the meantime there would no doubt be some or a group of politicians that would muck up the progress by introducing regulation or taxes or who knows what. In order for this to work, it needs to be so intense that the revolution would be so quick that politicians don't get a chance to screw it up.

Finally, there is the dilemma of whether or not we would make such tax cuts permanent. If these tax cuts are temporary, then the intensity of the incentive is wiped away by the uncertainty of its continuity. Entrepeneurs aren't going to have much incentive of entering a new field to enjoy significant tax incentives, if they don't know that those tax incentives are still around just when they really start to enjoy them. On the other hand, if these tax incentives are made permanent then we probably would face significant tax revenue shortfalls even after the task has been accomplished, and furthermore would artificially overemphasize alternative energy at the expense of every other industry, beyond that which we need to achieve energy independence.

My proposal is to place a ten year window on the initial tax cuts however also placing another five percent tax reduction (down to zero of course) to any company that entered the alternative energy field in the first ten years. In other words, these tax cuts would last ten years, with Congress having the power to make them permanent, and any company that entered the field in the first ten years, would be grandfathered in to enjoy 5% reduced taxes on future alternative energy income, capital gains, and dividends, over all others.

All right, that is my proposal. Have at it.

Hillary's Mortgage Bailout

Hillary continues to earn her socialist/communist stripes with her newly unveiled mortgage bail out plan. You can find it here
Let's take things here one at a time.

1)Require mortgage brokers to disclose to borrowers that their compensation rises when borrowers' mortgage rates and mortgage fees are high. Too many prospective homebuyers believe that the mortgage broker is acting on their behalf. In fact brokers earn more when they steer borrowers to mortgages with higher rates and fees. The broker's and borrower's interests are not always aligned. Borrowers need to be aware of this when assessing the advice brokers give them. To address this need, Hillary will require that brokers disclose to borrowers how they are paid.

Now, anyone that has every closed on a loan knows that the paperwork is overwhelming. What is Hillary planning on doing? That's right, folks, she wants all of you to sign yet another meaningless disclosure so that the process becomes even more overwhelming. Do you want to know why there is so much paperwork at a closing? It is politicians like Hillary Clinton. Hillary will introduce meaningless signed document number one hundred fifty eight. The irony is that if I understand Hillary correctly this disclosure already exists. In fact, multiple places within the closing documents disclose exactly how much the broker makes. Either Hillary is creating yet another document to say the same thing, or she is creating a new one that reveals that the higher the rate, the higher the fees, the more your broker makes (duh!!!) This document will go right next to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act Disclosure. This particular disclosure says that, me, the mortgage broker, cannot discriminate based on anything but credit worthiness. The absurdity of that disclosure is thick. Think about it folks. If you are getting a loan, does it sound as though I am discriminating against YOU. The problem with the closing process is that there are so many darn documents that the important ones, the Settlement statement, the Truth in Lending, the Note, are glossed over by borrowers that frankly just want to get it over with. Hillary's solution is to add another meaningless document to an already overwhelming process.

2)Work with states to develop strong licensing standards and require federal registration for mortgage brokers. Unscrupulous brokers have steered people into high cost mortgages, qualified them for loans they could not afford, and attached fees unnecessarily. These brokers are responsible for many of the lending abuses that occurred in recent years, but there is no single, national source for information about individual brokers. Hillary will establish national registration for brokers so that prospective borrowers can easily look up a broker's employment history, violations, complaints, and other information. As President, she will also work with the states to develop strong licensing standards to ensure that mortgage brokers are qualified and properly screened.

First, I recently read the book Freedomnomics. It is hypothesised and strongly backed up that licensing only goes to reduce qualified people from an industry. By creating a bureaucratic licensing and testing process all you really do is discourage good, bright people who don't want to hassle with meeting all of the overwhelming requirements from entering the field. What extra layers of licensing and testing really do is simply keep new competition out of industries.

Second, Hillary once again plays the populist narrative that this crisis is all the fault of those evil, evil mortgage brokers who took advantage of unsuspecting victims. It may play among the uneducated, but it just ain't true. We, mortgage brokers, are unscrupulous no doubt, however the idea that the homeowner's were just innocent victims is pure nonsense. Here is how I explained it recently

"Now, the mainstream media would have you believe that evil mortgage brokers
committed fraud on unsuspecting banks while innocent poor people stood by
helplessly and put themselves in an untennable position that they had no control
over. (This is a position that Hillary Clinton holds and one I will address
later). Stated loans are those loans in which an income is stated but no proof
is provided to verify it. They were initially created for self employed people
who have great accountants, but they filtered to other borrowers, and even
borrowers who have a simple salary. Why do you ask would someone need to go
stated if they simply make a salary? Couldn't they simply provide their taxes?
They could but then they wouldn't qualify for the house they want.

The
banks are not without blame here either. Stated loans were excepted regularly
with janitors supposedly making 60k per year and more, teachers making as much
as a hundred thousand, secretaries north of 50k per year. These were common
place. Now, if a bank is willing to believe that a janitor makes 60k per year in
order to approve a loan, whose fault is it if that loan goes bad? To use a crude
metaphor, this is like a girl getting naked jumping into my bed and then
wondering why I tried to f$&k her. If a bank doesn't want to take on
fraudulent loans maybe they shouldn't be so quick to believe janitors make 60k a
year, maybe they should not allow for stated loans for salaried borrowers
altogether.

The borrower is not without fault by a long shot. While the
bank may think the janitor makes sixty thousand a year, the janitor knows what
he makes. He knows if the mortgage payment is eating up to sixty percent of his
monthly income. If this person goes ahead and accepts the loan anyway, is it
really the fault of the mortgage broker when they go bad on it."

3)Eliminate prepayment penalties on mortgage products. Prepayment penalties, which are often used on subprime, Alt-A, and non-traditional mortgages, are a problem for borrowers. These penalties can lock borrowers into loans until the rates and monthly payments escalate. Families should not be discouraged from responsibly paying off their mortgages early, particularly when this would allow them to avoid balloon payments or high floating rates. Studies have shown that loans with prepayment penalties have a 52% greater risk of default than those without. Hillary will restrict the use of prepayment penalties.

Now, Hillary demonizes a specific loan that has no doubt been abused. This is just fine and dandy however, what Hillary doesn't realize is that there are plenty of good reasons to take on a prepayment penalty. For instance, everything else being equal guess which loan has the lower rate? In other words, if you the borrower are confident you will still be in the loan after the specified pre payment period it only makes sense to take on a pre payment penalty. Finally, wouldn't you the borrower at least like to have the option available to you just in case there is a reason. Not in Hillary's world, she wants to make sure to slash the mortgage product portfolio for the banks.

She says this for instance,"Families should not be discouraged from responsibly paying off their mortgages early, particularly when this would allow them to avoid balloon payments or high floating rates."

Those borrowers should simply take on a loan with a smaller amortization, 20 year as opposed to thirty, or one without a pre payment penalty. Remember folks pre payment penalties are optional not mandatory. Yet, Hillary wants to eliminate them entirely.
She follows with this, "Studies have shown that loans with prepayment penalties have a 52% greater risk of default than those without. Hillary will restrict the use of prepayment penalties."

This maybe so, however what if a study showed that red cars, or sports cars, have a 52% higher incident of deadly accidents, would Hillary be in favor of banning such cars? If not, why does she ban loans with similar high degrees of danger.

4)Require mortgage lenders to include the cost of taxes and insurance in the underwriting assessment of higher-risk mortgages. Many borrowers fail to consider taxes and insurance costs when weighing whether they can afford a particular mortgage. Sometimes, lenders exclude those costs from the underwriting assessment, and in the process qualify people for mortgages they cannot afford. Hillary will require that taxes and insurance costs be included in the underwriting assessment so that prospective homeowners can properly determine whether they can afford a particular house. This requirement would apply to subprime mortgages, Alt-A mortgages, and non-traditional mortgages like interest-only, no-money-down, and payment option ARMs.

Here, Hillary is off her rocker. There is no such loans. There are loans where the taxes and insurance aren't included in the payment (escrow), but there is no bank in the world that doesn't factor in taxes and insurance into the monthly payment. In fact, it is on page 3 or 4 of any application that anyone signs. In fact, here in Illinois (and I am certain in every state) it is required by law to be listed there. I don't know what Hillary wants but it is likely that she wants to make escrows mandatory.

Let me tell you how escrows work. The bank collects enough money, and usually an extra two months worth, of taxes for the escrow account at the time of the closing. In other words, let's suppose that you are closing in June and your next tax payment is September 1. In this case, your next payment would be August 1. This means that you will make two payments before your taxes are due. You would be required to come up with six month's worth of taxes at the time of closing (four extra necessary to cover the payment and two more just to be safe). That means that there would be an extra six months worth of taxes required to be held in the account at the time of the loan. If I understand Hillary's plan correctly, escrows would no longer be optional. This means that every loan would now require significantly more in settlement costs. It is exactly those borrower's strapped for cash that Hillary wants to save that would struggle to come up with the extra money.


5)Establish a $1 billion fund to assist state programs that help at-risk borrowers avoid foreclosure. Hillary will establish a $1 billion fund to support state programs that help at-risk borrowers avoid foreclosure. Some state programs help borrowers make the single payment necessary to become current on their loans; others help borrowers renegotiate their loan terms, or simply provide financial counseling. These foreclosure mitigation efforts are more important than ever right now. Federal assistance for state programs that assist at-risk borrowers supplements Hillary's call earlier in the year for "foreclosure timeout." At-risk borrowers and lenders should be encouraged to work out alternatives to foreclosure
This is the ultimate throwing good money after bad approach. The people about to go into foreclosure are deadbeats. Here is how I described it...

"Let's examine this. First, let's remember the overwhelming majority of people about to go into foreclosure are dead beats, and the Senator wants to use public funds to extend even more credit to these dead beats. Yes, this certainly sounds like a good populist proposal, but let me tell you how it will work in the real world.

Here is an example of a dead beat I ran across. This couple was struggling to pay their mortgage, and they should have, since it was eating up almost 70% of their total income. The only thing they weren't paying was the taxes on the home. In the middle of the loan, they went and bought a car. Yes, that's right. They couldn't afford to pay their taxes, their mortgage ate up 70% of their budget, and they saw fit to buy a car. You think this is out of the ordinary, not that much, and Senator Clinton proposes that we extend one billion dollars in public money to exactly these types of dead beats."
T
hat's right, Hillary wants to establish a fund so that irresponsible borrowers can get access to even more money. Brilliant.
Finally, she says this...

Expand Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's Foreclosure Prevention Efforts. Hillary would expand the goals of Fannie and Freddie, the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that help stabilize the mortgage markets, to include helping a larger number of at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosure. This would be consistent with Fannie's and Freddie's existing goals that promote home ownership. The GSEs already help mitigate foreclosures by enabling some borrowers to swap into less risky, lower-cost loans. Fannie also helps homeowners arrange payment forbearance, financial counseling, and loan restructurings. Hillary will expand those initiatives to make foreclosure mitigation a greater priority.

The absurdity of this proposal is just overwhelming. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the only loans that Wall Street still likes. Now, Hillary wants Fannie and Freddie to take on problem loans so that Wall Street stops buying mortgage bonds entirely.

Who is John Mearsheimer?

John Mearsheimer is a faculty member of the Committee on International Relations at the University of Chicago. He has been employed at the University since 1982. He is a proponent of the theory offensive realism. He summed it up as such,

Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and
tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is
to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by
another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to
become hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power
to survive

Mearsheimer gained prominence (or maybe noteriety) when he published the paper, The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, along with partner, Stephen Walt. The thesis of the paper was,

"No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far
from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while
simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are
essentially identical".[2]
They argue that "in its basic operations, it is no different from interest
groups like the Farm Lobby, steel and textile workers, and other ethnic lobbies.
What sets the Israel Lobby apart is its extraordinary effectiveness." According
to Mearsheimer and Walt, the "loose coalition" that makes up the Lobby has
"significant leverage over the Executive
branch," as well as the ability to make sure that the "Lobby's perspective
on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media." They
claim that AIPAC in
particular has a "stranglehold on the U.S. Congress," due to its
"ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its
agenda, and to punish those who challenge it."

It went on to claim that the invasion of Iraq was influenced if not orchestrated by the same Israeli lobby. To say this was controversial is to make quite an understatement. Of course, the Israeli lobby is there among the boogeymen of the netroots along with such groups as PNAC, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, to form the Neoconservative movement that the netroots blame for much of the evil of the world.

With this paper, Mearsheimer became a rock star in the circles of the netroots. His foreign policy beliefs go beyond simply blaming Israel for much of the evils of the world. For instance, he believes that the U.S. should play a more even handed role mediating between the Democratic state of Israel and the territory of Palestine currently government by Hamas, one of the State Department's terrorist groups. He thinks of course that we should withdraw from Iraq, and also from the Middle East entirely.

It is however some of his thoughts on Iran that this diarist found most interesting. Why don't I let Mr. Mearsheimer speak for himself though... hat tip to John Hinderaker at Power Line

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFtGJRuz18g

To summarize, Iran is not at war with the United States. Iran is NOT responsible for most of the alphabet soup explosives currently killing U.S. soldiers. Whatever their responsibility in Iraq it is only done because they are concerned that if the U.S. succeeds Iran will be next. Iran reached out in 1990's to the U.S. If the U.S. had reached back well then relations would be better now. Ahmadinejad is did not say the Israel would be wiped off the face of the Earth, but rather that the only Democracy in the Middle East is doomed for failure.

Now, what is of course important is not merely the kooky ideas that Mearsheimer expouses but where he expoused them. He was recently invited to lead a foreign policy forum at the Yearly Kos Convention. That would be the same convention that each of the Democratic nominees for President also attended.

Now, their excuse for much of the nasty and incendiary commentary on the Daily Kos is that it was only a fringe part of the site. This man is not some fringe character. He was invited to lead the Foreign Policy forum. He expouses everything that the Kos Kids and much of the nutroots in general believe in the area of foreign policy, and by showing up at the same convention these same candidates gave his views at least tacit approval.

Kos Spins Media Spin

I have to say that irony and surreal are two of my favorite things, and for that Daily Kos is starting to become a fun if dangerous and delusional site to visit. Kos lieutenant McJoan has the spin on media spin on progress in Iraq. Here it is

She first starts out by impugning O'Hanlon and Pollack because they did in fact support invasion in the beginning. (Pollack even wrote a full book on it). This is true and never hidden by anyone. They also became fierce critics and are self admitted left of center thinkers. No one doubts that the Brookings Institute is left of center, not far left mind you, like Daily Kos, but left of center. (Thus, maybe that is where the confusion comes in) Still, McJoan spends an awful lot of time laboring over this ceded point by everyone.

Which is out and out false. It all started with the ridiculous Times op-ed by the Brookings Institute's Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon, who positioned themselves as "harsh critics" of Bush's war and the escalation, despite their long and wrong history of support for it (see Glenn Greenwald, Think Progress, and Greg Sargent for the gory details). See, they're war critics, but they spent 8 days in a few areas of Iraq, talking with the troops that O'Hanlon's long-time friend Gen. Petraeus had ready to meet them. Credible?

Notice, how she dimishes their trip by mentioning it was only eight days. Hey, Joan, that's eight more days than you have spent there so exactly what is your point? Furthermore, this is not the first trip for either and these eight days were spent comparing the situation to previous trips. Finally, these are two serious men who only want the best for their country. They gave their honest well researched, and most importantly, from the ground, opinion. McJoan seems to think that far left bloggers with clear agendas like Think Progress are more authoritative than these two guys who have spent most of their adult life studying, debating and researching these exact issues.

Second, she moves on to a piece Anthony Cordesman who was in the party with O'Hanlon and Pollack. He was decidedly less enthusiastic about progress.

I did not see any dramatic change in our position in Iraq during this trip. Many
of the points, the problems which exist there are problems which have existed
really since late 2004, if not earlier. I didn’t see a dramatic shift in the
ability of the Iraqi’s to reach the kind of compromise that is almost the
foundation of moving forward. [...]
But I also want to stress another thing.
I did not see success for the strategy that President Bush announced in January.

She then goes on to excoriate the media for spinning his statements.

The piece strongly stressed Cordesman's view that we could conceivably
succeed in Iraq if this, that or the other fluke took place -- without noting
that Cordesman himself said he differed with O'Hanlon and Pollack's assessments
of the situation in Iraq. Just a stunning omission. Even better, WaPo described
Cordesman's "optimism about the war" -- even though he wrote: "From my
perspective, the U.S. now has only uncertain, high risk options in Iraq." That
strike you as optimistic?

Now, as you'll notice she isolates most of Cordesman's criticism for that of the political end. This is really no different than O'Hanlon, Pollack or anyone else that has been over to Iraq. Everyone agrees that the Iraqis are falling woefully short on the political end. What McJoan omits herself is a very important part of Cordesman's piece...

In his 25-page analysis -- titled "The Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience
in Iraq" -- Cordesman wrote that the United States "does not have good options
in Iraq and cannot dictate its future, only influence it," and that it is up to
the Iraqi government to make strides toward stability. A precipitous withdrawal
of U.S. troops probably would not help matters, he wrote, but if the Iraqis make
progress, then Congress and the U.S. military need to work toward gradual troop
reductions that reflect realities on the ground.

Whatever Cordesman feels about progress in Iraq, he is clear that a precipitous withdrawal from there is not the answer. This is of course something McJoan doesn't happen to put into her piece, and of course it is a piece about spin, ah, the surreal irony of Daily Kos.