Years ago I kept writing about how Israel had warned GW, large amounts of Hussein's Chemical WMD's were being trucked into Syria.
The CIA pooh poohed it as did a person, whose name I forget, and who was assigned to verify this claim.(See 1 below.)
---
Liberals hate Bolton because he is tough and has been right. (See 2 below.)
---
Obama to Israel: 'I have your back covered so I can stab it one more time?' (See 3 below.)
---
I asked a very astute friend and fellow memo reader what he thought of the market now, since he has been bullish for several years. His reply: "All central banks in the world have switched to easing like the US. The US has slowed because of the foreign slowdowns but will re-accelerate as those begin to accelerate. Therefore, I continue to be positive on equities."
---
Have banks become competitors of Chinese laundries? After losing their shirts they now know how to launder them? (See 4 below.)
---
Not a movie but al Qaeda coming to America? (See 5 below.)
Are Democrats engaged in a losing bet with a casino mogul? You decide. (See 5a below.)
---
Medved and I are on the same page - it is all uphill for Obama and every time he opens his mouth and whines he increases the angle of his schlep!
Will Prez Obama do anything to get elected? Will he do anything to portray himself as macho even to the point of revealing classified secrets that damage our country? You decide.
Did Obama kill the guy who once headed al Qaeda if entrepreneurs have to depend upon government for everything? You decide. (See 6 and 6a below.)
---
An always gracious former First Lady talks about her husband. (See 7 below.)
--
Being the snake oil illusionist salesman that he is, Obama wants you to believe his words so you will not judge his actions. This is also the basis of how he constructs his foreign policy. Take the words of others so as to finesse their actions. (See 8 below.)
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------) Syria's Chemical Weapons Arsenal
By Melanie Phillips
|
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton is calling Barack Obama “the most hostile president” toward Israel since the Jewish state was created, saying his policies have “actually set the peace process back” in the Middle East.
Responding to a tweet Tuesday from Vice President Joe Biden that Obama “has done more for Israel’s security than any president since Harry Truman,” Bolton declared, “That’s just ridiculous.”
“This is the most hostile president since the state of Israel was created,” Bolton told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren Tuesday night. “He’s demonstrated that hostility right from the beginning of his administration.”
Bolton — now a Fox News contributor who supports Republican Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign — accused the president of putting “the responsibility for all the turmoil in the region on Israel.”
“By relieving the Palestinians of any real obligation to negotiate, he’s actually set the peace process back,” Bolton charged, referring to early speeches in which the president suggested Israel should be confined to the boundaries established following the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict known as the Six-Day War.
“This has been very, very restrictive on Israel, and it has cost the United States, and Israel, and its Arab friends in the region,” he added.
Bolton also said Obama’s “treatment of Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been profoundly mishandled” to the point of endangering not only Israel’s security, but the rest of the world as well.
Bolton made the comments as Romney headed off on his first trip abroad as a presidential candidate. Stops are planned for Israel, Poland, and the Olympic Games in London before he returns home to the campaign trail.
Bolton described it as “significant” that Obama has yet to visit Israel as president and chose Egypt as his first trip abroad after taking office.
“The fact that the president went to Egypt to give a major speech to the Muslim world but couldn’t find time to slip into Israel for a visit — you can’t miss the symbolism of that,” Bolton said. “I think, though, it is the broader mistreatment of Israel, of denigrating its role as an important ally, not understanding the contribution it has made to security in the Middle East, that’s the real problem.”
Bolton suggested the point of Romney’s specific visit to Israel is to make it clear that “his administration will treat its friends like friends and its adversaries like adversaries.”
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)Israeli government and military leaders were taken aback by the news of US President Barack Obama's invitation to the new
Egyptian president Mohammed Mursi to visit Washington in September - in breach of the president's assurances to US Jewish leaders at the White House last month, debkafile's exclusive Washington and Jerusalem sources report. His key assurance was that Mursi would not be invited to the White House and Obama would not maintain direct telephone contact with him until he met certain conditions, the foremost of which concerned a public and unambiguous commitment to Egypt's 1979 peace treaty with Israel.
They American Jewish delegation was assured that President Mursi would be required to devote a section of his earliest speech on foreign affairs to the specific affirmation of his profound commitment to the peace pact with Israel. The unspecific pledge to uphold Cairo's international accords he made upon his election on June 24 would not satisfy the US president, the American Jewish delegation was promised. Indeed the new Egyptian president would also be required to table the peace pact with Israel in the new Egyptian parliament for ratification.
With these assurances, the Jewish delegation was satisified.
They American Jewish delegation was assured that President Mursi would be required to devote a section of his earliest speech on foreign affairs to the specific affirmation of his profound commitment to the peace pact with Israel. The unspecific pledge to uphold Cairo's international accords he made upon his election on June 24 would not satisfy the US president, the American Jewish delegation was promised. Indeed the new Egyptian president would also be required to table the peace pact with Israel in the new Egyptian parliament for ratification.
With these assurances, the Jewish delegation was satisified.
However, it turned out Monday, July 8, that, instead of standing by his promises, President Obama had sent Deputy Secretary of State William Burns to Cairo for two days of interviews with Egyptian officials, in none of which did future relations with Israel figure. President Mursi's spokesman then announced that the US official had handed the new president an invitation to visit the White House in September. Neither Burns nor the White House contradicted him.
Furthermore, in a briefing to reporters after he saw Mursi, Burns vehemently denied that the peace pact had been discussed.
Furthermore, in a briefing to reporters after he saw Mursi, Burns vehemently denied that the peace pact had been discussed.
July 14, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to Cairo after a visit to Israel.
To signal disapproval and concern over the impact on Israel's security of Washington's unconditional outreach to Muslim Brotherhood-ruled Cairo, Prime Minster Binyamin Netanyahu has ordered the speeding up of construction on the fortified fence on the Israel-Egyptian border, known for decades as "the peace border," and completion of the expanded military deployment in the border region.
In Jerusalem, the Obama administration is seen as suddenly backtracking on the conditions set the incoming Egyptian president in the last week of June, which essentially made US support of his regime conditional on his performance in key fields:
Those were the conditions:
Observance of a democratic agenda;
1. Respect for human rights, namely women's' status and minority rights, especially relating to the Christian Copts;
2. The formation of a broad national unity government representing the country's active mainstream parties - not just his own Muslim Brotherhood.
3. Making the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel a central pillar of his foreign policy;
4. Public affirmation of his commitment to uphold peace relations with Israel.
5. A resolute effort to curb the terrorist elements running wild in Sinai and threatening Israeli security by restoring Egyptian control.
6. An end to the rabid anti-American and anti-Western rhetoric pervading Egyptian media and the persecution of Western NGOs operating in Egypt.
The last three points give those demands the weight of an ultimatum:
7. Not until all the above steps are taken, will President Morsi be welcomed in Washington as an official guest.
8.Furthermore, not until the Egyptian president has satisfied Washington on all these scores will the Obama administration use its influence with the World Bank to ease Egypt's dire liquidity problems and help find the cash to buy food on world markets. If Morsi can't find the money to feed the population, hungry Egyptians will be out on the streets of their cities once again - clamoring this time for his and the Muslim Brotherhood's removal.
Those conditions have mostly gone by the board along with President Obama's promises.
Those were the conditions:
Observance of a democratic agenda;
1. Respect for human rights, namely women's' status and minority rights, especially relating to the Christian Copts;
2. The formation of a broad national unity government representing the country's active mainstream parties - not just his own Muslim Brotherhood.
3. Making the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel a central pillar of his foreign policy;
4. Public affirmation of his commitment to uphold peace relations with Israel.
5. A resolute effort to curb the terrorist elements running wild in Sinai and threatening Israeli security by restoring Egyptian control.
6. An end to the rabid anti-American and anti-Western rhetoric pervading Egyptian media and the persecution of Western NGOs operating in Egypt.
The last three points give those demands the weight of an ultimatum:
7. Not until all the above steps are taken, will President Morsi be welcomed in Washington as an official guest.
8.Furthermore, not until the Egyptian president has satisfied Washington on all these scores will the Obama administration use its influence with the World Bank to ease Egypt's dire liquidity problems and help find the cash to buy food on world markets. If Morsi can't find the money to feed the population, hungry Egyptians will be out on the streets of their cities once again - clamoring this time for his and the Muslim Brotherhood's removal.
Those conditions have mostly gone by the board along with President Obama's promises.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)HSBC Nightmares and Money Laundering Dreams
By Avi Jorisch
The $28 million fine by Mexican regulators of HSBC's Mexico subsidiary announced on Wednesday is just the latest, but may not be the last, blow to hit the London-based bank for its failure to counter money laundering. Mexico's National Securities and Banking Commission said the fine, about half the subsidiary's 2011 profits, had been paid.
HSBC's failure to act adequately in various countries, but particularly Mexico, to counter money laundering through its network was at the heart of a recent US investigation of the bank that could lead it to being fined up to $1 billion by US authorities.
Last week, HSBC issued an apology and its head of compliance resigned following disclosures by lawmakers in Washington that the bank had failed to implement anti-money-laundering procedures and had facilitated illicit Iranian transactions, terrorist activity, and drug proliferation around the world.
Banking regulators and customers alike will be disappointed to learn that this global giant had become a "sinkhole of risk" that acted counter to the public interest and pursued financial gain above all.
One of the world's largest banks, HSBC has more than 7,200 offices and 300,000 employees throughout Asia, the Americas, the Middle East, and Africa. In 2011 alone, it garnered profit of nearly $22 billion.
One of its most important affiliates is in the United States and operates under the name HSBC Bank USA (or HBUS). With 370 branches throughout the country, HBUS services 3.8 million customers and processes over 600,000 wire transfers a week, two-thirds of which are reportedly handled for HSBC affiliates around the world. Access to the US dollar is crucial to HSBC's operation.
US lawmakers this month issued a 335-page report (and 530-page addendum of evidence) giving excruciating detail about the bank's failings, in addition to holding a day-long hearing that included US Treasury and Homeland Security Department officials and banking regulators.
HSBC representatives were grilled, including the famed Stuart Levey, who for seven years served as Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence within the US Treasury Department under presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama. He now serves as HSBC's chief legal officer.
During the hearing, in a dramatic announcement, David Bagely resigned as HSBC's head of compliance following a 20-year career at the bank. "HSBC has fallen short of our own expectations and the expectations of our regulators," Bagely said.
The Congressional report, along with the testimony of officials, reads like a pulp fiction novel. HSBC helped facilitate illicit transactions around the globe for the better part of the last decade, and its compliance culture has been "pervasively polluted for a long time," according to Senator Carl Levin.
In Mexico, the bank deposited billions of US dollars for Mexican drug cartels and the casas de cambio that acted as their agents, allowing them to launder massive amounts of cash that they smuggled across the US-Mexican border.
HSBC Mexico took dollars, transported them back to the United States, and deposited them in HBUS, thus completing the laundering cycle for the cartels. In 2007 and 2008, HSBC Mexico shipped over $7 billion in physical US dollars to the United States, more than any other Mexican bank.
HSBC allegedly acted as a major conduit to rogue regimes and provided Iran with access to the international financial sector. From 2001-2007, the bank reportedly facilitated approximately 25,000 transactions on Iran's behalf, in amounts totaling $19.4 billion, through HSBC's American affiliate (which does not include funds facilitated through other affiliates).
In an attempt to circumvent US sanctions efforts, HSBC concealed any link to Iran for 85% of these transactions.
Senior HSBC officials on both sides of the Atlantic claimed that they were not aware, but congress disclosed evidence, including emails, that demonstrates they were actually in the loop from a very early stage, and well understood the risk these transactions posed to the bank. Lawmakers also presented evidence that HSBC affiliates tried to circumvent US sanctions efforts against Sudan and North Korea.
HSBC also provided a robust correspondent banking relationship to suspect banks around the globe. For example, it serviced Saudi Arabia's Rajhi Bank, whose key founder was a generous donor to al-Qaeda. Rajhi, in turn, provided banking services to other suspect clients.
Moreover, HSBC America offered banking services to bearer share corporations, which provide anonymity by assigning legal ownership to anyone who has physical possession of the company's shares. This is a notorious method money launderers use to raise and move funds. Despite warnings from US banking regulators, HSBC opened accounts for 2,000 such corporations over the last decade.
There are a number of steps HSBC should take immediately. It should start by identifying which affiliates are located in high-risk jurisdictions and implement a robust anti-money laundering compliance program across the board. Safeguards should be put in place to ensure that none of the HSBC banks are doing business with terrorists, weapons proliferators, money launderers, or other illicit actors. In addition, HSBC should not facilitate transactions for, or do business with, the roughly 250 banks the Treasury Department has blacklisted for facilitating nefarious activity.
Other steps the bank should take include closing down bearer share accounts. It might also wish to better share information, both within the HSBC affiliate structure and with relevant government officials worldwide. This would go a long way toward ensuring it is doing its part to curb abuse of the international financial sector. In today's interconnected financial world, such measures are part of the cost of doing business.
HSBC must revamp its compliance regime across the board or face the consequences from global banking regulators, which should include losing its license to operate if it fails to carry out its obligations. Global financial institutions must use every tool in their arsenal to curb the efforts of those who exploit tainted money. HSBC is no exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5)Congress warned that al-Qaida in Iraq is coming to America
By Brian Bennett
ASHINGTON— (MCT) The terrorist organization that was once the scourge of the U.S. occupation in Iraq and likely is responsible for more than 100 deaths in the country over the past few days has set its sights on launching attacks inside the United States, intelligence officials said.
Al-Qaida in Iraq released a message earlier this week that threatened to strike at the "heart" of the United States, and several associates of al-Qaida in Iraq have been arrested in the United States and Canada over the past two years, said U.S. officials, a sign that the terrorist affiliate has tried to establish a network inside North America.
The arrests highlight "the potential threat posed to the United States" from al-Qaida in Iraq, said Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, during a hearing Wednesday held by the House Homeland Security Committee examining the current threat from terrorism to the United States.
Al-Qaida in Iraq has been known primarily for launching attacks against the American forces in Iraq and the Shiite-led government there, as well as helping to plot attacks in neighboring Jordan.
But "there are networks and recruiting efforts in the U.S. and Canada," said Seth Jones, an expert on al-Qaida at the RAND Corp. and author of "Hunting in the Shadows: the Pursuit of al-Qaida since 9/11."
"You can say pretty categorically that al-Qaida in Iraq appears to be strengthening from where it was two years ago," said Jones, even as the organization's senior leaders in Pakistan have been killed.
The terrorist organization's affiliate in Iraq was pummeled more than five years ago by a coalition of Sunni tribal leaders in western Iraq and U.S. forces, but experts who study al-Qaida say that the organization in Iraq has begun to rebuild, energized in the past year by the violent uprising in Syria next door and an influx of cash from wealthy benefactors in the Persian Gulf.
On Sunday, the day before the latest wave of attacks, al-Qaida in Iraq released an audio recording to mark the beginning of the Ramadan fast. The message announced a new campaign of violence against the Iraqi government, praised Syria's uprising and made a call for new recruits to join the group. It also spoke directly to Americans.
"You will soon witness how attacks will resound in the heart of your land, because our war with you has now started," said a man that identified himself as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the pseudonym used by the head of al-Qaida in Iraq.
Attacking the U.S. is easier said than done, said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who sits on the House Homeland Security Committee and has been briefed on the threat to the U.S. from Iraq.
"But when you have the leader signaling that it is time to go on the offensive, there is a heightened sense of concern for law enforcement and intelligence agencies here in the U.S.," McCaul said.
Two Iraqi refugees were arrested in Kentucky in May of last year and charged with attempting to ship weapons from the U.S. to assist al-Qaida in Iraq. The fingerprint of one of the men had allegedly been found on a bomb that attacked a U.S. convoy in Iraq in 2005. Federal officials believe the two men had been trained to build roadside bombs from cordless telephones.
In January 2011, a Canadian man named Faruq Isa was arrested for allegedly recruiting fighters to launch attacks against American forces in Iraq. Isa is fighting extradition to the U.S. from Canada to face charges of conspiracy to kill Americans.
5a)Obama Buyer's Remorse Not About Adelson
By Jonathan Tobin
The 'newspaper of record' attempts to explain Jewry's presidential problem
|Ever since the confrontation between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in May of 2011 about the president's attempt to dictate that the 1967 lines would be the starting point for future Middle East peace negotiations, speculation about the impact of this on the president's re-election has been intense. Since then, numerous polls have shown it is highly unlikely that Obama would get anywhere close to the 78 percent of the Jewish vote he received in 2008. Republicans are eager to take advantage of this factor in November, much as they did last year when a special election in New York's 8th congressional district went to the GOP over this issue. But leave it to the New York Times to focus an article on this almost completely on billionaire Sheldon Adelson.
Adelson is the centerpiece of an article on the front page of Wednesday's Times about an ad campaign undertaken by the Republican Jewish Coalition highlighting the "buyer's remorse" felt by many Jews who voted for the president four years ago but will not support him again because of his stands on Israel and the state of the economy. That the RJC would be running such ads in battleground states is hardly surprising, especially because the question of the Jewish vote being a possibly decisive factor in the outcome this year has been a matter of discussion for months. Not only did I write about this in the March issue of COMMENTARY, but just yesterday, Reuters also devoted a feature to the way Jewish voters could make the difference in Florida. But for the Times, it's all about Adelson, who, despite being mentioned in the headline ("Mogul's Latest Foray Courts Jews for the G.O.P.") and the caption to a photo showing the ads, is just one of several RJC supporters who helped underwrite their production and distribution. Though liberal Jews quoted in the article are in denial about the president's problems, and the paper would like to make it appear this is merely the function of a plutocrat's whim, the reason why the ads are resonating is that a significant percentage of Jewish voters have been disillusioned by the president's attitude toward Israel.
Framing the issue as one that is merely the result of Adelson's money does little to illuminate a genuine problem for the Democrats. Though liberals are right to claim the president will carry a majority of Jewish votes this year, even the most optimistic polls show his share of the Jewish vote will decline by 10 percent though the decline may turn out to be much greater than that. Mitt Romney, whose trip to Israel this week will help highlight the differences between him and the president, is likely to get the highest percentage of Jewish votes than any Republican since Ronald Reagan. Though in absolute numbers this may not amount to much, in states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, where the margin between the two candidates will probably be razor thin, this will be meaningful.
The denial of these facts by Obama supporters like J Street's Jeremy Ben-Ami, who was given the last word in the piece to claim "there is no such thing as a Jewish problem for the president," is absurd. But you don't have to believe the Republican Jewish Coalition to understand that the Obama campaign knows it is in trouble with the Jews. All you had to do was to observe the all-out Jewish charm offensive that the administration has been conducting since Obama's ambush of Netanyahu last year.
For three years, Obama focused on hammering Israel, picking fights with its government and seeking to tilt the diplomatic playing field in the direction of the Palestinians. But once the New York congressional race and national polls made it plain that Obama was bleeding Jewish votes in a manner reminiscent of Jimmy Carter, the president and his surrogates have been working overtime to persuade Jews to accept the dubious assertion that he is the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House. Those efforts will help contain his losses and, as even the Republicans concede, most Jews are such partisan Democrats and so liberal that there is virtually nothing Obama could do to Israel to cause him to get less than 50 percent of the Jewish vote. But a result that saw his share decline to the mid-60 percent level or lower would be a disaster for the Democrats, and they know it.
The president's Jewish problem would exist even if there were no Sheldon Adelson. But those who wish to demonize the casino mogul would like to change the subject from Obama's fights with Israel to Adelson's money. While Adelson is an easy target, attacks on Republican efforts to tap into Jewish buyer's remorse won't make the Democrats' problems disappear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Column: Obama's uphill re-election bid
By Michael Medved
Quick, now. Try to name big segments of the electorate, or even prominent individuals, who opposed Barack Obama in 2008 but have joined his campaign for re-election. Difficulty in answering that question caused even the president, in a fleeting moment of candor, to suggest that he could easily lose the White House.
On May 10, Obama soured the mood of enthusiastic donors at a Seattle fundraiser by telling them that "this election is actually going to be even closer than the last." In other words, he knows that he has lost supporters, rather than gaining them, during his three-and-a-half years of leadership.
A "closer election" means that one of the few iron rules ofU.S. politics indicates he'll lose his bid for a second term. History offers not one example of a chief executive whose popular appeal declined during his first term of office but nonetheless managed to eke out a re-election victory, as Obama proposes to do. Among the 24 elected presidents who sought second terms, all 15 who earned back-to-back victories drew more support in bids for re-election than they did in their previous campaigns.
In the past century, this base-broadening for re-elected presidents hasn't been modest or subtle. When Woodrow Wilson campaigned for re-election in 1916 (without Teddy Roosevelt as a third party competitor), his percentage of the popular vote soared by 7 points. Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 enhanced his already formidable popularity by 4 percentage points, and Dwight Eisenhower's landslide re-election in 1956 saw his share of the electorate rise from 55% to 57%. Richard Nixon's improvement amounted to a staggering 17 points in 1972, while Ronald Reagan's re-election percentage went up by 8 points.
Look at Clinton, Bush
More recently, Bill Clinton faced Ross Perot's "Reform Party" challenge in both his presidential contests but nonetheless raised his popular vote percentage from 43% in 1992 to 49% in his 1996 re-election campaign against Bob Dole. Even George W. Bush, whose disputed victory in 2000 and tumultuous first term produced toxic levels of partisan rancor, substantially improved his standing with the public, drawing an impressive 11.6 million more votes in his 2004 re-election campaign than in his contest with Al Gore, improving from 48% of the popular vote to a slight majority.
In fact, prominent Democrats who backed Gore in the prior election rallied to support the embattled incumbent and played prominent roles at the Republican Convention, including thekeynote speaker, Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia. Other leading Democrats, such as former New York City mayorEd Koch, Jimmy Carter's attorney general Griffin Bell and St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly, all offered impassioned backing for Bush.
Switched allegiance
In contrast, several of Obama's hope-and-change boosters have deserted his cause and in some cases enlisted with the opposition. Artur Davis, three-term Alabama congressman andCongressional Black Caucus member, delivered a seconding speech for Obama in 2008, but he now backs Romney and has changed his registration to Republican. West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, a former governor, says he can't commit to supporting Obama this time, and the state's incumbent governor, Earl Ray Tomblin, expressed similar sentiments. Colin Powell, who proudly joined the Obama's first historic campaign for the White House, insists he remains uncommitted in 2012.
Meanwhile, the tight national polling shows static or declining enthusiasm for Obama in the key constituent groups that made up 2008's victorious coalition. The president still commands big leads among young people, Jewish voters, union households and unmarried women — but his numbers are down from last time.
Even among African-American voters, where candidate Obama drew 95% of the vote in 2008, his backing looks less unanimous and enthusiastic, indicating potentially reduced turnout.
The president holds his own with Hispanics (thanks to his new emphasis on immigration) but can't expect significant improvement on the 67% he scored last time.
Four years ago, Obama won Catholic voters, but recent polls show this key swing constituency either evenly divided or tilting toward Romney.
If the president doesn't compensate for inevitable losses by adding new supporters, he's certain to lose the election: His vote total last time (nearly 52.9% against John McCain) doesn't provide a comfortable cushion against a more formidable opponent and more unified GOP. Democratic strategists must identify elements of the electorate where they can add new votes over 2008 rather than struggling on every front to limit their losses.
That's why the president's own prediction of an election "even closer than the last" might have unwittingly revealed his underlying pessimism in approaching November. He broke tradition and made history in 2008 by becoming the first non-white candidate elected to national office. It's also conceivable that he could discredit Romney thoroughly enough to become the only president to win a second term with reduced rather than enhanced support. But the odds, and records of all past campaigns, show that accepting fewer votes in a bid for re-election amounts to a formula for sure defeat rather than a blue-print for narrow victory.
Nationally syndicated talk radio host Michael Medved, a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors, is author of The 5 Big Lies About American Business.
6a)Team Obama put on defensive over leaks
The attacks from presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney on intelligence leaks put Obama campaign officials on the defensive Wednesday, as Republicans stepped up attempts to chip away at the president’s credibility on national security.
6a)Team Obama put on defensive over leaks
The attacks from presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney on intelligence leaks put Obama campaign officials on the defensive Wednesday, as Republicans stepped up attempts to chip away at the president’s credibility on national security.
Obama senior campaign adviser David Axelrod was grilled on the leaks during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” where he shifted from his previous position.
“I can tell you that the president of the United States did not leak classified information, as Mitt Romney suggested yesterday, and he didn’t authorize the leak of information, as Mitt Romney suggested yesterday,” Axelrod said.
Axelrod previously denied that the leaks had originated with anyone at the White House.
“There were obvious leaks, but they weren’t from the White House,” he said in an interview in June.
The shift suggests a growing problem for the White House and Obama in the wake of comments from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) this week that some of the leaks had to have originated in the White House.
Feinstein backtracked from her comments Tuesday, but Romney used them in a speech on foreign policy to blame Obama for the disclosed intelligence secrets.
The Romney campaign continued to pile on Wednesday after Axelrod’s comments.
“Earlier this morning, Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod couldn’t deny what Sen. Dianne Feinstein alleged on Monday — that leaks of classified national-security information are coming from the Obama White House. But just last month, President Obama flatly denied this was the case,” Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said in a statement.
Democrats hit back by accusing Romney of selectively criticizing the Obama administration, and not past Republican administrations, for leaks.
In the MSNBC interview, Axelrod pointed to a statement from the Romney campaign Tuesday from Eric Edelman, a former undersecretary of Defense, that attacked Obama over the leaks.
Axelrod pointed out that Edelman was an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney’s aide Scooter Libby, and he was tied to the Valerie Plame leaks that occurred under the George W. Bush administration, a connection first reported by Buzzfeed on Tuesday.
“I don’t think they have a heck of a lot of credibility on this issue,” Axelrod said.
Democrats and the Obama campaign argue that Romney is using the issue as he departed Tuesday for a foreign-policy trip to try and distract from his lack of national-security experience and specifics on policy.
Obama leads Romney in polling on foreign policy and national security, as he has a record to point to that includes the killing of Osama bin Laden, the end of the Iraq war and the drawdown in Afghanistan.
But Republicans strategists say that pushing back on leaks can be an effective way for Romney to gain ground on Obama over foreign policy.
“It’s part of a bigger narrative that this president is not all that he’s cracked up to be, on foreign policy or on anything else,” said John Feehery, a Republican strategist who writes a column for The Hill.
“It goes at the credibility of the White House and credibility of the president,” he said.
Republican lawmakers who attacked the White House over the leaks last month cheered Romney’s attacks.
Republicans have homed in on Attorney General Eric Holder not appointing a special counsel, instead tapping two U.S. attorneys to investigate. The lawmakers have accused Holder of being unable to lead an independent investigation of the administration, and in his speech Tuesday, Romney joined their call for a special counsel.
Led by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Republicans allege that the leaks came from the White House for political gain.
“Give me a break,” Graham told The Hill when asked about Axelrod’s comments. “I don’t buy it one bit, and I don’t believe they should be able to investigate themselves.”
House Homeland Security Chairman Pete King (R-N.Y.) told The Hill that he wished Romney would have spoken up about the leaks sooner.
“To me it’s a necessary part of the presidential debate,” King said. “I would say that politically to show that an administration is either negligent or willfully leaking national-security secrets is disgraceful.”
Democrats were less concerned about the impact the leaks could have on the campaign. Like Axelrod, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) pointed to the Bush leaks on Tuesday, and suggested that even some of the recent leaks originated from that administration.
Larry Korb, a defense analyst at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress, said the Republican attacks on Obama over the leaks were “nonsense.”
“Things get out in all administrations — it happens,” he said. “I don’t’ think it’s going to resonate in terms of the politics or whether people are going to vote.”
Feinstein’s comments this week suggesting some leaks came from the White House complicate the issue for the Obama campaign, as Romney can rely on those remarks for backup.
Feinstein said in her statement Tuesday she regretted her words were being used to attack Obama, and said she should not have speculated about the source of the leaks when she did not know.
The Senate Intelligence chairwoman was not commenting further Wednesday, giving a polite “no comment” when asked by The Hill to elaborate on her statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former first lady Laura Bush has spent years in the political spot light, but these days, she is enjoying time out of the glare. In an exclusive interview with ABC News, the former first lady says skipping the Republican National Convention this year is no big deal.
"We'll be watching from the sidelines," says Bush. Democrats attacking her husband's legacy do not concern them either, she adds.
"We know that, you know, people like to blame somebody else. That's just a fact of life in politics. You know, I think George makes an easy target," says Bush, laughing.
A recent target in this election cycle has been Ann Romney. Bush's advice to the presumptive Republican nominee's wife is to enjoy the campaign, and the opportunity to travel around the country and meet people everywhere.
"I'm sorry the first ladies are being attacked," she says. "I don't think I ever was really, or at least if I was, George didn't ever tell me about it."
The Bush's may have left politics, but they have not left public life. The couple's ongoing fight against AIDS is a legacy they continue to build upon. Literally. The couple recently traveled to Africa -- the second trip in about eight months -- to oversee work on a clinic that tests and treats HIV positive women for cervical cancer. On the last trip, they hunkered down with paint rollers and helped refurbish the clinic. One of them, says the former first lady, was more skillful at the job.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8)No Illusions about Egypt
8)No Illusions about Egypt
By Isi Leibler
 |
The government of Israel is making all the right noises and appropriate statements expressing hope that the new government of Egypt will maintain the cold peace.
But we should be under no illusions. Even the greatest optimists cannot gloss over the reality that the Islamic forces of the Muslim Brotherhood seeking to control Egypt are committed to ultimately revoking the peace treaty. Their motives stem not merely from nationalist xenophobia but are deeply rooted in fanatical extremist Islamic ideology which is infinitely more intense and inflexible. Although Mubarak treated Israel like a pariah and exploited popular anti-Semitism, in comparison to these Islamic zealots, he would be considered a “liberal”.
The Moslem Brotherhood is the organization which spawned Hamas and remains adamantly committed to wiping the “Zionist entity” off the face of the map. This was reiterated last month by its leader Mohammed Badie, who called for “imposing Muslim rule throughout Palestine” and “freeing it from the filth of Zionism”.
It represents the most intolerant wing of Islam, rejecting coexistence with other religions and is renowned for persecuting and harassing Christians. The Brotherhood is not merely dedicated to imposing sharia law in Egypt but is fervently committed to achieving global conquest on behalf of Islam.
Its leaders, who during World War ll allied themselves with the Nazis, are notorious for promoting rabid anti-Semitism. The imams continuously remind their followers that Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs and deserve to be killed as enemies of the Prophet Mohammed. They have a long tradition of assassinating opponents, terrorism and suicide bombings.
However, the Moslem Brotherhood is pragmatic and politically savvy and thus disinclined to overplay its hand, initially avoiding extreme behavior which could result in a break with the US and Western countries and lead to a total meltdown of the already disintegrating Egyptian economy. They recognize that Mubarak’s ouster was principally propelled by economic factors and that if they are to retain power they must feed 80 million Egyptians.
US Administration spokesmen are burying their heads in the sand when they imply that once the Brotherhood is in control it is likely to act responsibly and provide a pluralistic environment for Egyptians. Even more absurd are the reassurances that it is undergoing a liberal transformation and committed to maintaining a democratic system of government. Similar delusionary nonsense was disseminated about Hamas when it “democratically” gained control of Gaza.
Every “elected” radical Islamic group has ultimately imposed a regime in which political opponents and other independent societal elements were marginalized. One need only observe the more "democratic" and "liberal" Erdogan Islamist regime in Turkey which, in a relatively short time, completely eradicated the reforms of Kemal Ataturk, imprisoned the former military leaders and replaced the secular military government with an Islamic authoritarian regime. The Moslem Brotherhood is far more radical than its Islamic Turkish counterpart.
The reality is that democracy cannot survive in a society dominated by Islamic extremists who brook no opposition. Indeed, much as we despise authoritarian, dictatorial and even totalitarian regimes, precedents clearly indicate that a regime ruled by Islamic fanatics is likely to be far more oppressive than a military autocracy.
Although weakened, the military did dissolve the Islamic fundamentalist dominated parliament and still represents a barrier to total Moslem Brotherhood control. But it is likely to avoid a direct confrontation unless it is confident it has public support. In this explosive environment, US pressure on the military to stand down can only serve to further undermine Western interests and lead to intensified oppression.
We should not expect newly elected President Mohamed Morsi to be a moderating influence. His recent undertakings to act on behalf of the entire Egyptian people are totally out of synch with his long standing record of support for hardline Brotherhood policies.
Just prior to the election, Morsi announced that the Koran would be the constitution of Egypt and “that this nation will enjoy blessing and revival only through the Islamic sharia. I swear for Allah and before you all that regardless of the actual text [of the constitution]… it will truly reflect the sharia”.
Morsi, who refused to accept a congratulatory call from Prime Minister Netanyahu, stated that he would honor Egypt’s existing international agreements including the peace treaty with Israel. Yet he repeatedly includes the caveat that it is necessary to re-examine the 1978 Camp David agreements and that if Israel’s leaders (who he previously referred to as "vampires" and "murderers") did not keep their commitments to the Palestinian people, Egypt was not obliged to honor the peace treaty. Oft repeated chants expressed at his rallies included “Morsi will liberate Gaza “, “Jerusalem will become the capital of the United Arab nation” and “death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration”.
Setting aside the current “standoff” with Israel, there is every likelihood that at a future time of his choosing, like Arafat, Morsi is likely to suggest that the Prophet’s violation of the Treaty of Hudaybiya in 629 AD on the grounds that agreements with infidels and Jews need not be honored, was a historical precedent that could be applied against Israel.
Any doubt about Morsi’s outlook towards the West was clarified with his televised inaugural presidential speech which the US Government ignored. He proclaimed that “it is my duty to make all efforts” to seek the release of the “Blind Sheikh”, Egyptian Omar Abdel Rahman, who headed the terrorist group which allegedly orchestrated the assassination of Sadat, was accused of being allied with Osama Bin Laden and is now serving a life sentence in a North Carolina prison for conspiring in 1993 to destroy the World Trade Center and seeking to bomb New York City landmarks.
In reporting this, the New York Times observed that Morsi had previously remarked that he suspected that unknown hidden hands might have played a role in the 9/11 World Trade Center bombings. “When you come and tell me that the plane hit the tower like a knife in butter, you are insulting us".
Now, notwithstanding undertakings to Jewish leaders that he would not invite Morsi to the White House unless he made a public commitment to genuinely adhere to the peace treaty with Israel, Obama has announced that he will be hosting the man who will urge him to release an unrepentant major global terrorist leader.
We in Israel are on the front lines. We may enjoy relative tranquility from Egypt in the short-term due to the prevailing chaos and restraints from the military. However, Hamas now feels confident that in the event of a future clash with Israel, Egypt is likely to provide it with maximum support and may ultimately even join it in confronting us.
This means that our border with Egypt will need to be strongly secured and Israel must gird itself for an increase in terrorist attacks emanating from the Sinai Peninsula. These are likely to include missile attacks, making the relationship with Egypt extremely fragile.
The only bright side of this dismal picture is the awareness by our adversaries of incredible power of the IDF. This ultimately represents the greatest deterrent against further deterioration or escalation of assaults against us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment