Good Morning Morons: Elizabeth Vargas

[Ogami]

Duelling articles. En garde!

WSJ Columnist Overstates U.S. Aid to Israel by Almost $1 Trillion

In an Oct. 8 column entitled “Getting to Know Our New Buddy: OPEC,” Wall Street Journal opinion writer Holman Jenkins overstated U.S. aid to Israel by almost a trillion dollars. He wrote: “By one count, Americans have spent nearly $1 trillion on this cause since 1973 (and another $1.7 trillion in defense of Israel)” (emphasis added).

According to statistics available in the U.S. Agency for International Development U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants annual (also called the “Greenbook”), total U.S. economic and military expenditures on Israel (including loans and grants) were $79.1 billion from 1973 to 2001. Military expenditures alone (loans and grants) were $49.7 billion in the same period. This source is available on-line at http://qesdb.cdie.org/gbk/index.html.

When presented this information, Mr. Jenkins responded by citing a Spring 2003 Middle East Policy article by an economist named Thomas Stauffer to back up his $1.7 trillion figure (“The Cost of the Middle East Conflict, 1956-2002: What the U.S. Has Spent”). But, as economist Howard Fienberg noted in the Washington Times (Dec. 22, 2002), Stauffer’s data “present half the story,” because while “inflating the costs of American support for Israel, he ignored the discounts and many benefits.” Thus, while Stauffer considers all the ostensible costs that Israel is heaping on America (including such far-fetched items like aid to Egypt and Jordan), he neglects the savings that America received in return. For example, Fienberg writes that “thanks to Israel’s pre-emptive action in 1981, Mr. Stauffer does not have to consider one more frightening cost–that of an Iraqi nuclear bomb.”

In addition, Fienberg wrote that Stauffer included any loan or loan guarantees as costs, predicting–without evidence–that Israel would default on its loans and the U.S. would have to cover the principal and interest.

According to Fienberg, Stauffer also “counts ‘economic damage’ inflicted on the United States. He blames Israel for the Arab oil embargo, because the United States came to Israel’s aid when Arab states tried to destroy it in 1973.” Stauffer blames the recession on the oil embargo, despite the fact that many factors–such as reduced American productivity–played a role.

Among other deceptions, Stauffer also outrageously counts private contributions from American Jewish individuals and organizations–totaling as much as $60 billion in grants or bonds. He complains that those donations are a “net drain” on the U.S. economy.

In fact, U.S. annual aid to Israel is about the same as what we spend to defend South Korea, and far less than what we have spent annually to defend Western Europe since 1945. If money is at issue here for Jenkins and Stauffer, why are they harping on aid to Israel and ignoring the far larger amount of money spent to subsidize the defense of South Korea, Japan and Western Europe, including our less-than-stalwart French allies?

Given that Stauffer’s figures are controversial at best and outright deceptive at worst, CAMERA urged the Wall Street Journal to print a clarification regarding Mr. Jenkins’ article. However, an editorial page editor declined to run a clarification, stating: “This looks to me like a case of dueling statistics, and both sides can make a fair claim to being accurate.”

How can these “dueling statistics” both have a "fair claim to being accurate" when Stauffer absurdly adds aid to Arab countries as part of aid to Israel?

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=133&x_article=596

 

[Ogami]

The Question wrote:

The rockets Hezbollah are using are Katyusha MLRS -- Katyushas are a Russian-designed munition dating back to WW2. Russian munitions in that region are notoriously plentiful.

Donated freely by who? Soviet Russia, same as America counter-balanced the massive flow of arms by the Soviets (and China and North Korea) into the region. So America wasn't just tossing billions into Israel because we like Kosher hot dogs, what a shocker! (And somehow I don't feel sorry for the squalid Arab regimes stuck with rusting inventories of obsolete Soviet junk.)

-Ogami

 

[The Question]

Duelling articles. En garde!


http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=133&x_article=596

Not quite as good as you might think. Let's have a look:

Among other deceptions, Stauffer also outrageously counts private contributions from American Jewish individuals and organizations–totaling as much as $60 billion in grants or bonds. He complains that those donations are a “net drain†on the U.S. economy.

Well, is that money still here in the U.S. economy? No? Then it's been drained... from the economy? Ain't it?

In addition, Fienberg wrote that Stauffer included any loan or loan guarantees as costs, predicting–without evidence–that Israel would default on its loans and the U.S. would have to cover the principal and interest.

Admittedly, that's conjecture on Stauffer's part. But... have they paid them back yet?

According to Fienberg, Stauffer also “counts ‘economic damage’ inflicted on the United States.

Which it is absolutely fair to do, since economic damage is part of the cost of defending Israel, a cost we would not otherwise have suffered.

He blames Israel for the Arab oil embargo, because the United States came to Israel’s aid when Arab states tried to destroy it in 1973.â€

Also fair, for the same reason. Defense of Israel on our part provoked the embargo.

Stauffer blames the recession on the oil embargo, despite the fact that many factors–such as reduced American productivity–played a role.

But since the embargo also played a role, it's perfectly justifiable to name the embargo as having played a role. Huh.

In fact, U.S. annual aid to Israel is about the same as what we spend to defend South Korea, and far less than what we have spent annually to defend Western Europe since 1945.

What, no figures to back that up?

If money is at issue here for Jenkins and Stauffer, why are they harping on aid to Israel and ignoring the far larger amount of money spent to subsidize the defense of South Korea, Japan and Western Europe, including our less-than-stalwart French allies?

Maybe because those allies don't have no-bid contracts and forced buying imposed on us? Or maybe because nobody's blowing up skyscrapers in downtown America on account of our support for the French?

 

[Ogami]

The Question wrote:

Well, is that money still here in the U.S. economy? No? Then it's been drained... from the economy? Ain't it?

Well what else would they have spent the money on, porn?

Admittedly, that's conjecture on Stauffer's part. But... have they paid them back yet?

Certainly better than Egypt. Bush the First "forgave" several hundred million dollars of military equipment that Egypt had bought. It became a "gift" when he needed them to sign onto the first Gulf War.

Which it is absolutely fair to do, since economic damage is part of the cost of defending Israel, a cost we would not otherwise have suffered.

So we should only support countries in the Middle East that can sell us oil? Israel doesn't have a drop.

Defense of Israel on our part provoked the embargo.

The invading Arab armies of 1948 used British tanks, artillery, and planes given to them immediately after WWII. The Israelis had nothing from us or anyone else. They just wanted to live more, is all. And we got our money's worth during the Cold War seeing firsthand how American fighter jets etc fared against the best the Soviet Bloc had to offer Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. (Kind of like the deal the Soviet Union got shipping their best anti-aircraft pieces to North Vietnam and testing them against our pilots, but I'm straying...)

What, no figures to back that up?

I guess not. I just support Israel cause I know damn well that their enemies will never be allies of the United States, and if France and the rest hate 'em, then so much the better.

Or maybe because nobody's blowing up skyscrapers in downtown America on account of our support for the French?

I thought that was over our support of Saudi Arabia. But does it really matter? Islamic terrorists have a clear goal. We should have a clear response, and that includes knowing who our allies are.

-Ogami

 

[The Question]

The Question wrote:

Well, is that money still here in the U.S. economy? No? Then it's been drained... from the economy? Ain't it?

Well what else would they have spent the money on, porn?

As long as it remained in circulation here, who cares?

Admittedly, that's conjecture on Stauffer's part. But... have they paid them back yet?

Certainly better than Egypt. Bush the First "forgave" several hundred million dollars of military equipment that Egypt had bought. It became a "gift" when he needed them to sign onto the first Gulf War.

No, neither is "better." Both are equally fucking rotten.

Which it is absolutely fair to do, since economic damage is part of the cost of defending Israel, a cost we would not otherwise have suffered.

So we should only support countries in the Middle East that can sell us oil? Israel doesn't have a drop.

Now you're getting it. We should only expend assets in foreign investments that will net a suitable return, otherwise we're only depleting our own resources and hurting Americans.

Defense of Israel on our part provoked the embargo.

The invading Arab armies of 1948 used British tanks, artillery, and planes given to them immediately after WWII. The Israelis had nothing from us or anyone else. They just wanted to live more, is all. And we got our money's worth during the Cold War seeing firsthand how American fighter jets etc fared against the best the Soviet Bloc had to offer Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. (Kind of like the deal the Soviet Union got shipping their best anti-aircraft pieces to North Vietnam and testing them against our pilots, but I'm straying...)

That does not make the expenditure worthwhile.

What, no figures to back that up?

I guess not. I just support Israel cause I know damn well that their enemies will never be allies of the United States, and if France and the rest hate 'em, then so much the better.

You "just know"? What, you got a crystal ball over there or something? There's no way for you to "just know" something when there isn't even a possibility of testing it...

...but wait. There is. Were the countries in the Middle East on friendly terms with the U.S. before 1945?

Or maybe because nobody's blowing up skyscrapers in downtown America on account of our support for the French?

I thought that was over our support of Saudi Arabia. But does it really matter? Islamic terrorists have a clear goal. We should have a clear response, and that includes knowing who our allies are.

And knowing who's worth having as an ally. And like it or not, Israel simply isn't.

 

[Ogami]

The Question asked:

Were the countries in the Middle East on friendly terms with the U.S. before 1945?

Yes, and those were the very same countries that have exiled their ages-old Jewish populations as "punishment" for the state of Israel existing. That covers everything I need to judge which side to support in this war.

And knowing who's worth having as an ally. And like it or not, Israel simply isn't.

Perhaps not. But if anything this war will draw Israel closer to America, not the other way around.

-Ogami

 

[The Question]

The Question asked:

Were the countries in the Middle East on friendly terms with the U.S. before 1945?

Yes.

And that answers that question, then. They had no problem with us, no animosity toward us whatsoever, until we started feeding the monster.

And knowing who's worth having as an ally. And like it or not, Israel simply isn't.

Perhaps not.

Thank you. This, of course, leaves you with no reasoned or objective justification for your defense of Israel. That leaves... I honestly have no idea what.

 

[Ogami]

The Question wrote:

That leaves... I honestly have no idea what.

A mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a matzo ball.

 

[The Question]

Ah. I suppose that might explain it, then.

 

[Ogami]

My world doesn't begin or end with your approval. Sorry!

 

[Grammour Boy]

Elizabeth Vargas used to be such a babe about 10 years ago.

 

[Grammour Boy]

http://www.trollkingdom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58995

 

[Grammour Boy]

hahah

 

[Rafterman]

The more everyone outside Israel and the US government sees Israel's brutality for what it is, and the longer the former two groups refuse to acknowledge same, the bigger the backlash against Israel and Israeli policy -- worldwide -- will be.

AMEN

 

[The Question]

The Question wrote:

The rockets Hezbollah are using are Katyusha MLRS -- Katyushas are a Russian-designed munition dating back to WW2. Russian munitions in that region are notoriously plentiful.

Donated freely by who? Soviet Russia, same as America counter-balanced the massive flow of arms by the Soviets (and China and North Korea) into the region. So America wasn't just tossing billions into Israel because we like Kosher hot dogs, what a shocker! (And somehow I don't feel sorry for the squalid Arab regimes stuck with rusting inventories of obsolete Soviet junk.)

-Ogami

Actually, guess who Israel's biggest financial and military backer was in the early days?

Ooh! Did you guess... the U.S.S.R.? Then you guessed rightly! After the Soviets, it was France, and after them it was the American taxpayer.

 

[Ogami]

 

[The Question]

Oh, a cartoon. How Saturday morning of you.