My son sent a correction pertaining to the previous memo: "Matt Patterson doesn’t write for the post….New York or Washington. He writes for the American Thinker. He DID write this piece but not for those organizations."
---
The radicals just do not stop with their Government intimidation. (See 1 below.)
---
One angry woman and her angry thesis! (See 2 below.)
---
Can we afford to go back to a gold standard? Can we not afford to go back to a gold standard? You decide. (See 3 below.)
---
Aaron David Miller has a different take on the Obama-Israeli relationship. (See 4 below.)
Another take. (See 4a below.)
----
The campaign has begun moving into full gear and soon we will have the debates and then the vote.
The issue is between allowing a failed president to have another go at it when there is little 'hope' his incompetence will 'change' or selecting a fresh team which has been trashed because Obama has nothing else better to do since he cannot defend his record.
In the final analysis, that is what it boils down to, in my eyes, after all the speeches,lies and hoopla have faded.
I have no doubt Obama is not as bad as I have portrayed him nor anywhere near as good as he believes himself to be.
Romney and Ryan have some fresh ideas that address our problems, will result in some pain but most assuredly are better than the 'gruel' being shoved down our throats by the other side.
The selection of Romney/Ryan continues a non issue for me.
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal emails between senior officials at The Gallup Organization, obtained by The Daily Caller, show senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod attempting to subtly intimidate the respected polling firm when its numbers were unfavorable to the president.
After Gallup declined to change its polling methodology, Obama’s Department of Justice hit it with an unrelated lawsuit that appears damning on its face.
TheDC is withholding the identities of the Gallup officials to protect them from potential retaliation from Obama’s campaign and his administration.
In April, Axelrod tweeted that a poll showing Mitt Romney with a 48-43 percent lead over Obama was “saddled with some methodological problems,” directing his Twitter followers to read a National Journal story criticizing Gallup polls showing a Romney lead.
In that National Journal piece, Ron Brownstein wrote that the polls showing Romney leading the president had “a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012.”
Internally, Gallup officials discussed via email how to respond Axelrod’s accusations. One suggested that it “seems like a pretty good time for a blog response,” and named a potential writer.
In response to that suggestion, another senior Gallup official wrote — in an email chain titled “Axelrod vs. Gallup” — that the White House “has asked” a senior Gallup staffer “to come over and explain our methodology too.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/06/justice-dept-gallup-lawsuit-came-after-axelrod-criticized-pollsters/#ixzz25igVYInj
That Gallup official, the email continued, “has a plan that includes blogging and telling WH [the White House] he would love to have them come over here etc. This could be a very good moment for us to [show] our super rigorous methods compared to weak samples etc. …”
The writer named several news organizations with their own polling methodologies, all of which resulted in numbers more favorable to President Obama at the time.
In response to that email, a third senior Gallup official said he thought Axelrod’s pressure “sounds a little like a Godfather situation.”
“Imagine Axel[rod] with Brando’s voice: ‘[Name redacted], I’d like you to come over and explain your methodology…You got a nice poll there….would be a shame if anything happened to it…’”
In a second email chain titled “slanderous link about Gallup methodology,” another senior Gallup official noted that a Washington Examiner story on Axelrod’s anti-Gallup tweet was “on [the] Drudge [Report] right now,” before writing that the episode was “[s]o politically motivated, it’s laughable.”
“As they say in b-ball: he’s trying to work the refs,” that official wrote to other senior Gallup staffers. “What a joke. Axel’s had a bad week. He got in the middle of the Ann Romney thing. Then said the country is going in the wrong direction. (Oops!) Now he’s swinging at us….”
The emails directly contradict what Axelrod’s fellow Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs told The Washington Times’ Kerry Picket this week about the campaign’s dealings with Gallup. Picket reported that Gibbs said he was unaware of any communications between the Obama campaign and Gallup.
“I was the press secretary for two years. I know and it was really smart not to get involved in discussing things around the Justice Department that I have no knowledge about,” Gibbs said at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte on Tuesday. “I have no knowledge of any discussions of anybody on the campaign side with Gallup.”
Since Gallup first roused Axelrod’s ire, Obama’s Justice Department revived old allegations against the firm that, according to now former Gallup employee Michael Lindley, the polling company violated the False Claims Act by over-charging the federal government for its services.
In August, Justice signed on to a suit Lindley filed in 2009. Lindley alleged, according to The Associated Press, that Gallup filed false claims with the federal government on contracts it had with the State Department, the U.S. Mint and other federal agencies.
A senior Gallup official told The DC Lindley left Gallup on July 24, 2009, after working there since Feb. 25, 2008.
Lindley made his allegations under seal after leaving his Gallup job. A senior Gallup official told TheDC that the Justice Department began investigating the allegations in October 2009 and served the company with subpoenas in February or March 2010. Gallup, the source said, provided the government with about three terabytes of data responsive to those subpoenas.
Gallup, the source continued, did not hear from the Justice Department again for approximately one-and-a-half years.
“We did not have a substantive discussion about what they had subpoenaed until Fall of 2011,” the Gallup official told The DC. “And the meeting came at our request, a request that had been outstanding from the time we were served [with the subpoenas].”
Lindley was a field organizer in Council Bluffs, Iowa, for then-Sen. Obama’s 2008 run for president before joining Gallup, a fact omitted from the DOJ’s legal filings and from most press accounts.
Gallup has been a thorn in Obama’s re-election efforts since it began to publish polling numbers showing Romney leading the incumbent Democrat. The polling organization has also, according to the American Thinker blog, published employment data which, unlike numbers from Obama’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), does not set aside statistics which are not politically helpful to the president.“Gallup publishes its research without seasonal adjustments,” William Tate wrote for the American Thinker. ”The BLS’s version applies adjustments in an alchemic formula that’s more mysterious than the Shroud of Turin.”
Right before Obama’s Justice Department joined Lindley’s lawsuit against Gallup in August, the polling firm published numbers showing Romney with a slight lead over Obama — at 47 percent to 45 percent — in its daily presidential tracking poll.
Lindley’s attorneys, along with spokespersons from the Obama campaign and the Justice Department, have not responded to requests for comment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Michelle Obama's Thesis
This is one angry woman!
According to Snopes.com, Princeton was requested to put a
'restriction' on distribution of any copies of the thesis of Michelle Obama (a/k/a/ Michelle
laVaughn Robinson) saying it could not be made available until November 5, 2008 but when it was
published on a political website they decided they would lift the restriction.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/thesis.asp
Subj: Thesis - Michele Obama aka Michelle LaVaughn Robinson
OBAMA'S MILITANT RACISM REVEALED
In her senior thesis at Princeton , Michele Obama, the wife of Barack Obama
stated that America was a nation founded on 'crime and hatred'.
Moreover, she stated that whites in America were 'ineradicably racist'. The
1985 thesis, titled 'Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community' was
written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.
Michelle Obama stated in her thesis that to 'Whites at Princeton , it often
seems as if, to them, she will always be Black first...' However, it
was reported by a fellow black classmate, 'If those 'Whites at Princeton ' really
saw Michelle as one who always would 'be Black first,' it seems that she gave them that
impression'.
Most alarming is Michele Obama's use of the terms 'separationist' and
'integrationist' when describing the views of black people.
Mrs. Obama clearly identifies herself with a 'separationist' view of race.
'By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as
a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand
the desperation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an
integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.'
Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would
likely lead to her 'further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and
social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never
becoming a full participant.'
Michele Obama clearly has a chip on her shoulder.
Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America , but
she elevates black over white in her world.
Here is another passage that is uncomfortable and ominous in meaning:
'There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black
community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize
all of my present and future resources to benefit the black
community first and foremost.'
What is Michelle Obama planning to do with her future resources if she's first
lady that will elevate black over white in America ?
The following passage appears to be a call to arms for affirmative action
policies that could be the hallmark of an Obama administration.
'Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and
academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of
their enrollments.'
The conclusion of her thesis is alarming.
Michelle Obama's poll of black alumni concludes that other black students
at Princeton do not share her obsession with blackness. But rather than
celebrate, she is horrified that black alumni identify with our common
American culture more than they value the color of their skin. 'I hoped that
these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of
identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational
path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a
certain level of identification with the black community. However, these
findings do not support this possibility.
Is it no wonder that most black alumni ignored her racist questionnaire?
Only 89 students responded out of 400 who were asked for input.
Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see
Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted
with one another.
The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama's thoughts and
world view seen through a race-based prism. This is a very
divisive view for a potential first lady that would do untold
damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Obama
administration.
Michelle Obama's intellectually refined racism should give all
Americans pause for deep concern.
Now maybe she's changed, but she sure sounds like someone with an axe toWill the press let Michelle get a free pass over her obviously
grind with America.
racist comment about American whites? I am sure that it will.
PS: We paid for her scholarship.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Steve Forbes: Get Ready, Gold Standard is Coming
Low interest rates and extremely accommodative monetary policies will leave the country with no choice but to return to a modern version of the gold standard, said publisher and one-time GOP presidential hopeful Steve Forbes.
The GOP platform has called for a commission to study the feasibility of the gold standard, which attaches the value of the dollar to a fixed weight of gold.
President Richard Nixon dropped the gold standard in 1971 and opened the era of a fiat dollar. Supporters of the gold standard’s revival say the plan would prevent the government from living outside of its means like it does today.
Gold will likely take a back seat to jobs, Middle East tensions and entitlement and other economic reforms in the upcoming elections.
“But the yellow metal will be a hot topic in the next 24 months. The commission is going to take on an importance that will astound today’s political punditry, besotted as they are with stale Keynesian quackeries about money, taxes and spending,” Forbes wrote in his publication.
“Why? Events economic and political. The ever deepening financial crisis around the world will force the new Romney-Ryan administration to consider — and quickly, too — dramatic measures to deal with the disaster,” Forbes added.
“The Obama/Bernanke Federal Reserve has been an abysmal failure. No major country’s central bank has been so destructive since the Fed in the 1970s; prior to that, nearly a century ago, it was Germany’s central bank, which created a hyperinflation that helped set up an environment for the Nazi revolution.”
Since the downturn, the Fed under Chairman Ben Bernanke has slashed interest rates to near zero and has injected some $2.3 trillion into the economy by purchasing assets such as Treasury holdings or mortgage-backed securities from banks, a monetary policy tool known as quantitative easing that floods the economy with liquidity in way to encourage investing and hiring.
Critics say the move consists merely of printing money out of thin air and has planted the seeds for inflation down the road.
Such policy would be undoable under a gold standard, since the amount of money in circulation is tied to a fixed amount of gold.
“In order to work properly and productively, markets need a reliable pricing mechanism,” Forbes wrote.
“By manipulating interest rates on such an unprecedented scale the Federal Reserve has effectively destroyed the ability of our credit markets to genuinely price the borrowing and lending of money. Does anyone really believe a 10-year Treasury should yield little more than 1.5 percent or a 30-year government bond just under 3 percent?”
Some analysts say calls for a gold standard serve a message the country needs to address much-needed fiscal and monetary reforms.
“Examining a return to the gold standard is one avenue to show the public and markets a level of seriousness about the U.S dollar, monetary policy and the budget deficit,” said Jeffrey Wright, managing director of Global Hunter Securities, according to Reuters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) DEBUNKING MYTHS ON ISRAEL AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
The Israelis are upset because that dash question seems to be shortening and they already believe they have enough enrichment for more than one nuclear bomb. That's why their anxiety is high and the United States position isn't all that clear." Beckmann then asked Rogers how close the Israelis believe that dash period to be. Rogers: "The Israelis believe it's short. I mean, Netanyahu made it very clear he thought it was a matter of weeks. If they decide to do the dash it could be four weeks to eight weeks, which is a month or two months. Our intelligence analysts believe it would be a little longer than that. But the problem is, nobody really knows for sure. But we do know, and I think everyone agrees, including, you know, our European intelligence allies and other things that they are clearly marching down this road."
Nowhere are the urban legends and mythologies more enduring and destructive than those that currently surround Israel and U.S. foreign policy.
Here are five of the most popular myths that are worth unpacking and discrediting.
Myth #1: Obama is Hostile to Israel
Obama’s critics and Romney’s supporters have to get real on this issue. So does Mitt Romney himself who recently declared at the Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay that Obama has “thrown Israel under the bus.” That’s ridiculous. No American president ever has or would.
That the personal relationship between Netanyahu and Obama isn’t good and that Obama lacks an instinctual pro-Israeli sensibility shouldn’t mask the deepening institutional bonds, particularly on the security side, that have occurred during the Obama presidency.
The Administration has delivered to Israel unprecedented levels of foreign military financing – covering roughly one-fifth of Israel’s budget; it has provided the Israelis with advanced technology; deepened counterterrorism cooperation; and equipped the Israelis with sophisticated weapons such as the fifth generation stealth joint strike fighter. And nowhere has cooperation been closer than on missile defense. The Administration has helped fund Iron Dome, a component of a more comprehensive approach to help the Israelis develop a multidimensional missile defense system including maintaining an advanced U.S. X-band long range radar system and positioning American Aegis BMD ships in the eastern Mediterranean.
The Administration has also worked closely with Israel on various initiatives to counter Iran’s capability to create nuclear weapons by imposing some of the toughest sanctions ever and cooperating intimately on cyber warfare. It has also worked hard to prevent efforts by the PLO to push the statehood issue at the UN, to oppose one-sided resolutions there, and to counter efforts to isolate Israel in the international community.
Myth #2: Barack Obama is just as pro-Israel as Bill Clinton or George W. Bush
Obama’s supporters have to get a grip and stop pretending too. Obama isn't Bill Clinton or George W. Bush when it comes to Israel – he’s not even close. Those guys were frustrated by Israeli prime ministers too; but unlike Obama they also were moved and enamored by them (Clinton by Yitzhak Rabin, Bush by Ariel Sharon). They had instinctive, heartfelt empathy for the Israeli narrative and, as a consequence, they could make allowances at times for Israel's behavior, even when it clashed with their own policy goals.
Obama really is different. Part of it is generational. He grew up after the Israeli occupation of the West Bank in a university environment where the Arab-Israeli conflict wasn’t portrayed by Paul Newman in the movie Exodus and where the Arabs were the Indians and the Israelis were the cowboys.
Combined with a tendency to see the conflict through the more detached unemotional filter of American national interests, Obama doesn’t have the instinctive emotional attachment to Israel of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. He’s not in love with the idea of Israel as the others were.
If Obama is emotional when it comes to Israel, he's hiding it. Netanyahu obviously thinks he's bloodless. But then again, the U.S. president can be pretty reserved on a number of issues. Obama doesn't feel the need to be loved by the Israelis and perhaps not by American Jews either. Combine that with a guy who's much more comfortable in gray than in black and white, and you have a president who sees Israel's world in much more nuanced terms, which is clearly hard for many Israelis and American Jews to accept. In Obama's mind, Israel has legitimate security needs, but it's also the strongest regional power.
As a result, he believes that the Israelis should compromise on the peace process, give nonmilitary pressures against Iran time to work, and recognize that despite the uncertainties of the Arab Spring, now is the time to make peace with the Palestinians.
If Obama had a chance to reset the U.S.-Israel relationship and make it a little less special, he probably would. But I guess that's the point: He probably won't have the chance. If he gets a second term, he'll more than likely be faced with the same mix of Middle East headaches, conflicting priorities, narrow maneuvering room, and the swirl of domestic politics that bedevils him today. If the U.S. president fails to get an Israeli-Palestinian peace, it will be primarily because the Israelis, the Palestinians, and Barack Obama wouldn't pay the price, not because the pro-Israel community in America got in his way.
Myth #3: A President Romney is Israel’s Salvation
No American president is. And while there’s no doubt that the personal relationship would improve and the rapport between Romney and Prime Minister Netanyahu would be much warmer, there’s no guarantee that the relationship would be tension free or all that different in substance.
On certain issues, Romney would clearly not push the Israelis. In particular, he’d probably give more slack on the issues of settlements and the peace process. But who’s to say – assuming there were legitimate opportunities to be pursued – that a hands-off policy actually serves either Israeli or American interests.
On Iran, Romney would be personally sympathetic to the notion of bombing before accepting an Iranian bomb. But he’d also be a new president who would have to listen to his security, military, and intelligence experts who’ll be much more cautious. Still, regardless of who becomes president, the U.S. will face a big decision later this year, or early next on what to do about the Iranian nuclear program.
Let’s also not kid ourselves here. Republican presidents have generally been much tougher on Israel than the Democrats. Even Ronald Reagan —who was instinctively as pro-Israel as any America president ever was — wrestled with Israeli Prime Minister Begin on Lebanon and the peace process. He actually withheld the delivery of F-16 fighter aircraft over Israel’s decision to extend administrative law to the occupied Golan Heights. Nixon threatened sanctions too and Bush 41 denied Israel loan guarantees because of settlements.
The fact is, with the exception of the peace process that isn’t right now, Romney’s policies toward Israel would be much more rhetorically supportive but not that much different than Obama’s. The tone of the relationship would change — more warmth and good cheer — but I would bet that within a year Netanyahu would find some way to begin to annoy even his best friend Mitt Romney. Obama may have wanted to reset the US special relationship with Israel, or at least make it less exclusive. He couldn’t. Romney may want to become the most pro-Israeli American president ever. That’s not going to happen either. Chances are Romney would follow in Ronald Reagan’s footsteps on this one: A combination of strong pro-Israeli sentiments and convictions on Romney’s part will confront regional realities, Israeli willfulness and the need to protect American interests. And in the end, it will be a close relationship with more than a few large potholes and bumps in the road.
Myth #4: The Peace Process is Dead
True, it’s in really bad shape. But it’s not beyond being revived.
What keeps the peace process alive isn’t the American government, the pleading and persuasion of the Jewish community or some idealized desire for peace; instead, its durability lies in reality. Israelis and Palestinians are living on top of one another. The current status quo will come apart at some point. Sadly, there may well be an explosion or some event that changes the calculations of both Israelis and Palestinians. Until such a game-changing development occurs, the parties aren’t likely to be convinced of the urgent need for a settlement.
The Iranian nuclear issue is sucking up every bit of oxygen in the room. And it’s hard to imagine any Israeli government pursuing a conflict ending accord until there’s more certainty on that front. There’s no mystery here. Israelis and Palestinians can achieve an accord if they have leaders who are willing to pay the price, some urgency that impels them to do so, and a mediator that has the trust and confidence of both sides. Trying for an end game solution without these things will almost certainly fail.
Myth #5: Israel is Doomed
If you listen to many American Jews on both the left and right, you get the sense that Israel is all but doomed. Let’s recite Kaddish now and get it over with. On the left, the trope is that Israel will be overrun by Arabs and the ultra-Orthodox; on the right, Israel’s end will be delivered by an Iranian nuke and/or facilitated by American perfidy.
I, for one, certainly don’t want to trivialize the threats and challenges the Israelis face. The Israelis have major demographic, security and political problems. It’s even possible, without worst casing matters, to worry about the future survival of Israel as a Jewish democratic state.
But states just don’t disappear and collapse. The risk in worst-casing the Israel story is that we infantilize the country – assume that it’s a transient entity headed for a disaster and that there are no options to divert the terrible end.
Life just doesn’t work that way. If I would have told you thirty years ago that Israel’s GDP per capita would be in excess of $21,000 a year; that it has more start-ups per person that anywhere else on the planet; that by 2017 it might be a net exporter of natural gas as result of massive finds in the Mediterranean; and that the peace treaty with Egypt would still be intact after the murder of the man who signed it and the election of a president aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, who would have believed it?
Jews worry for a living; their history impels them to do so. But if you asked me the bottom line, I’d conjure Dickens: it will be both the best and worst of times; Israelis will keep their state, prospering in certain areas, but not in others. And the Arabs will probably never let them completely enjoy it.
4a)Intelligence Committee Chair Describes Explosive Confrontation Between Netanyahu and American Ambassador
ByJeffrey Goldberg
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro allegedly argued over the Obama's administration's Iran policy.
(Reuters)
Rep. Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, says that his much-discussed meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem late last month did, in fact, devolve into an sharp confrontation between Netanyahu and the American ambassador to Israel, the former National Security Council official (and former Obama campaign Jewish liaison), Dan Shapiro.
Rogers told a Michigan radio interviewer earlier this week that he had not previously witnessed such a high-level confrontation, and he described Israeli leaders as being at "wits' end" over what they see as President Obama's unwillingness to provide them with his "red lines" in the effort to stop Iran's nuclear program. He also said that neither the Israelis nor the Iranians believe that Obama would use force to stop the nuclear program. (UPDATE: Rogers said as well he believes the Israelis will "probably" bomb Iran if they don't get clearer red lines from the U.S.)
Rogers description of the meeting directly contradicts repeated Administration assertions that there is "no daylight" on the Iran issue with the Israeli government. Shortly after the meeting took place, Israeli press reports appeared suggesting that Netanyahu and Shapiro had engaged in an argument, but Shapiro soon dismissed those reports, calling them "silly" and saying, "The published account of that meeting did not reflect what actually occurred in the meeting. The conversations were entirely friendly and professional."
Rogers, speaking to WJR radio host Frank Beckmann, painted a very different picture. He said the meeting, originally scheduled to be a discussion of intelligence and technical issues between himself and the prime minister, spun out of control when Netanyahu began lambasting Shapiro over the Administration's Iran policy. When Beckmann asked Rogers to describe the tenor of the meeting, he said: "Very tense. Some very sharp... exchanges and it was very, very clear the Israelis had lost their patience with the (Obama) Administration." He went on, "There was no doubt. You could not walk out of that meeting and think that they had not lost their patience with this Administration."
Rogers said Israeli frustration grows from what they see -- and he sees -- as a refusal by the Obama Administration to outline an endgame: "(I)t was very clear the overarching policy has been frustrating mainly because I think it's not very clear. What we walked out of that meeting knowing is that the Administration was trying to defend itself." By the end, he said, there was a "sharp exchange between the Administration's representative there, our ambassador there, and Mr. Netanyahu, which was unusual to say the least, but I thought at the end of the day maybe productive."
Beckmann then asked: "Is it inaccurate to say it was a shouting match?" Rogers answered: "I can say that there were elevated concerns on behalf of the Israelis." When asked if he had "ever seen that sort of thing before," Rogers answered: "No not that directly. We've had sharp exchanges with other heads of state and in intelligence services and other things, but nothing at that level that I've seen in all my time where people were clearly that agitated, clearly that worked up about a particular issue where there was a very sharp exchange."
Rogers went on to describe what he understands to be the Israeli frustration, and, apparently, his frustration, with the impact of sanctions: "Here's the problem. ....I support the sanctions. But if you're going to have a hammer you have to have an anvil. You have to have at least a credible threat of a military option. So it's having an effect, yes, it's having an effect on the Iranian economy. It is not impacting their race on enrichment and other things, and that's very very clear." He went on, "I think the Israeli position is, 'Hey, listen, you've got to tell us -- I mean, if you want us to wait' -- and that's what this Administration's been saying, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wai -- got that -- 'but then you've gotta tell us when is the red line so we can make our own decisions about should we or shouldn't we stop this particular program."
And Rogers had harsh words for the Administration, which he says has made it very clear to the Israelis what they shouldn't do, but hasn't delivered a message to the Iranians with the same clarity: "There's a lot of pieces in play on this. But I think again, their frustration is that the Administration hasn't made it very clea -- they've made it very clear to Israel in a public way that they shouldn't do it, but haven't made it very clear to Iran in a public way that there will be tougher action, which could include -- and I argue peace through strength, so you just need to let them understand that that's an option so we can deter them from their program. And right now the Israelis don't' believe that the Administration is serious when they say that all options are on the table, and more importantly neither do the Iranians. That's why the program is progressing."
I'll post more of this interview as it is transcribed, in a few minutes, in this space.
PART II: When asked by Beckmann at what he believes the Israelis willl say "enough is enough," Rogers answered: "Certainly when you walk out of that meeting you get the feeling that they are finally at wits' end, and that's what concerned me about the meeting."
He went on, "I will say that as a part of their decision point or data point when they go through the process of should we or shouldn't we, it was clear that our American elections have worked its way into one of those data points. I thought, well, maybe that hedges their response until maybe after the election. But what I got out of that, walking out of that, was yeah they're considering it, but at this point they're very frustrated because they don't' know what happens after the election, and their window for impacting the program they believe is starting to close."
Rogers also said that what he calls Obama's uncertainty has caused problems for the U.S. across the Middle East. "You know, it's a very interesting argument when you're in the room and talking about options.The meeting was designed, it was supposed to be between Netanyahu and myself on some intelligence cooperation matters and other matters, when it came to Iran and Syria and other things, and kind of devolved into this meeting where the ambassador was confronted directly... what was very apparent to me was a lot of frustration with the lack of clarity and the uncertainty about what their position is on the Iranian nuclear program. And that's what I think I saw across the Middle East. The uncertainty about where the United States' position is on those questions has created lots of problems and anxiety that I think doesn't serve the world well and doesn't serve peace well."
Rogers spoke, as well, about the Iranian nuclear timeline: "So the big question is the dash. And the dash is, we know they have an enrichment program, it's highly likely they have a weaponization program. You have to have both of those parts for a nuclear weapon program. And the dash is when does weaponization mean you can put it on a missile and fire it off?
Rogers told a Michigan radio interviewer earlier this week that he had not previously witnessed such a high-level confrontation, and he described Israeli leaders as being at "wits' end" over what they see as President Obama's unwillingness to provide them with his "red lines" in the effort to stop Iran's nuclear program. He also said that neither the Israelis nor the Iranians believe that Obama would use force to stop the nuclear program. (UPDATE: Rogers said as well he believes the Israelis will "probably" bomb Iran if they don't get clearer red lines from the U.S.)
Rogers description of the meeting directly contradicts repeated Administration assertions that there is "no daylight" on the Iran issue with the Israeli government. Shortly after the meeting took place, Israeli press reports appeared suggesting that Netanyahu and Shapiro had engaged in an argument, but Shapiro soon dismissed those reports, calling them "silly" and saying, "The published account of that meeting did not reflect what actually occurred in the meeting. The conversations were entirely friendly and professional."
Rogers, speaking to WJR radio host Frank Beckmann, painted a very different picture. He said the meeting, originally scheduled to be a discussion of intelligence and technical issues between himself and the prime minister, spun out of control when Netanyahu began lambasting Shapiro over the Administration's Iran policy. When Beckmann asked Rogers to describe the tenor of the meeting, he said: "Very tense. Some very sharp... exchanges and it was very, very clear the Israelis had lost their patience with the (Obama) Administration." He went on, "There was no doubt. You could not walk out of that meeting and think that they had not lost their patience with this Administration."
Rogers said Israeli frustration grows from what they see -- and he sees -- as a refusal by the Obama Administration to outline an endgame: "(I)t was very clear the overarching policy has been frustrating mainly because I think it's not very clear. What we walked out of that meeting knowing is that the Administration was trying to defend itself." By the end, he said, there was a "sharp exchange between the Administration's representative there, our ambassador there, and Mr. Netanyahu, which was unusual to say the least, but I thought at the end of the day maybe productive."
Beckmann then asked: "Is it inaccurate to say it was a shouting match?" Rogers answered: "I can say that there were elevated concerns on behalf of the Israelis." When asked if he had "ever seen that sort of thing before," Rogers answered: "No not that directly. We've had sharp exchanges with other heads of state and in intelligence services and other things, but nothing at that level that I've seen in all my time where people were clearly that agitated, clearly that worked up about a particular issue where there was a very sharp exchange."
Rogers went on to describe what he understands to be the Israeli frustration, and, apparently, his frustration, with the impact of sanctions: "Here's the problem. ....I support the sanctions. But if you're going to have a hammer you have to have an anvil. You have to have at least a credible threat of a military option. So it's having an effect, yes, it's having an effect on the Iranian economy. It is not impacting their race on enrichment and other things, and that's very very clear." He went on, "I think the Israeli position is, 'Hey, listen, you've got to tell us -- I mean, if you want us to wait' -- and that's what this Administration's been saying, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wai -- got that -- 'but then you've gotta tell us when is the red line so we can make our own decisions about should we or shouldn't we stop this particular program."
And Rogers had harsh words for the Administration, which he says has made it very clear to the Israelis what they shouldn't do, but hasn't delivered a message to the Iranians with the same clarity: "There's a lot of pieces in play on this. But I think again, their frustration is that the Administration hasn't made it very clea -- they've made it very clear to Israel in a public way that they shouldn't do it, but haven't made it very clear to Iran in a public way that there will be tougher action, which could include -- and I argue peace through strength, so you just need to let them understand that that's an option so we can deter them from their program. And right now the Israelis don't' believe that the Administration is serious when they say that all options are on the table, and more importantly neither do the Iranians. That's why the program is progressing."
I'll post more of this interview as it is transcribed, in a few minutes, in this space.
PART II: When asked by Beckmann at what he believes the Israelis willl say "enough is enough," Rogers answered: "Certainly when you walk out of that meeting you get the feeling that they are finally at wits' end, and that's what concerned me about the meeting."
He went on, "I will say that as a part of their decision point or data point when they go through the process of should we or shouldn't we, it was clear that our American elections have worked its way into one of those data points. I thought, well, maybe that hedges their response until maybe after the election. But what I got out of that, walking out of that, was yeah they're considering it, but at this point they're very frustrated because they don't' know what happens after the election, and their window for impacting the program they believe is starting to close."
Rogers also said that what he calls Obama's uncertainty has caused problems for the U.S. across the Middle East. "You know, it's a very interesting argument when you're in the room and talking about options.The meeting was designed, it was supposed to be between Netanyahu and myself on some intelligence cooperation matters and other matters, when it came to Iran and Syria and other things, and kind of devolved into this meeting where the ambassador was confronted directly... what was very apparent to me was a lot of frustration with the lack of clarity and the uncertainty about what their position is on the Iranian nuclear program. And that's what I think I saw across the Middle East. The uncertainty about where the United States' position is on those questions has created lots of problems and anxiety that I think doesn't serve the world well and doesn't serve peace well."
Rogers spoke, as well, about the Iranian nuclear timeline: "So the big question is the dash. And the dash is, we know they have an enrichment program, it's highly likely they have a weaponization program. You have to have both of those parts for a nuclear weapon program. And the dash is when does weaponization mean you can put it on a missile and fire it off?
The Israelis are upset because that dash question seems to be shortening and they already believe they have enough enrichment for more than one nuclear bomb. That's why their anxiety is high and the United States position isn't all that clear." Beckmann then asked Rogers how close the Israelis believe that dash period to be. Rogers: "The Israelis believe it's short. I mean, Netanyahu made it very clear he thought it was a matter of weeks. If they decide to do the dash it could be four weeks to eight weeks, which is a month or two months. Our intelligence analysts believe it would be a little longer than that. But the problem is, nobody really knows for sure. But we do know, and I think everyone agrees, including, you know, our European intelligence allies and other things that they are clearly marching down this road."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment