A defiant Holder digs in and says he will not resign. This is generally the last gasp of someone who will resign but Obama will allow Holder to take his time in doing so.
Why? I suspect it is because Obama is arrogant enough and does not like to be pushed around by his detractors.
Obama is a fighter, has very thin skin and hates Republicans. He takes everything personal, does not care about the damage he is doing to the nation but only cares about his narcissistic self (See 1 below.)
---
Could the candidate for Virginia's Lt. Governor prove to be what the Republican Party needs to attract more racially mixed voters to their ranks while sticking to their principles and doing a better job of articulating them.?
listen :http://www.jacksonforlg.com/the-speech-that-rocked-virginia/
---
Full employment, a thing of the past? (See 2 below.)
---
More unbelievable bureaucratic stupidity. (See 3 below.)
---
Obama's appointments of Rice and Powers should not have much impact on his foreign policy because Obama has no foreign policy except one that weakens our nation and causes us to lose stature.
In the area where we need strength we have abject weakness. (See 4 below.)
---
Kerry opens his mouth and sticks his foot in it! (See 5 below.)
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Holder Says He Won't Step Down, Has 'Great Respect' for Journalists
By Paul Scicchitano
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told NBC News on Wednesday that he has no plans to resign for the time being and insisted that he has "great respect" for the news media despite signing off on requests by his Justice Department to examine the phone and email records of journalists.
"There's some things that I want to do, some things that I want to get done that I’ve discussed with the president, and once I have finished that I'll sit down with him and we’ll determine when it’s time to make a transition to a new attorney general," Holder told NBC's Pete Williams in an exclusive interview.
"But to be clear, you’re not stepping down now?" Williams pressed.
"No, I have no intention of doing so now," Holder replied.
A number of prominent Republican lawmakers have called for Holder’s resignation in recent weeks and some White House advisers have expressed frustration over Holder's apparent inability to have foreseen problems arising from his approval of a subpoena naming Fox News’ James Rosen as a possible co-conspirator in an espionage investigation.
Holder has become a lightning rod for criticism over the Justice Department's decision to subpoena the phone records of 100 Associated Press reporters and editors in another polarizing leak investigation.
The top lawman in the U.S. said the aggressive crackdown on leaks was not the result of a policy decision, but rather demands from the intelligence community and Congress.
"I'm a little concerned that things have gotten a little out of whack," he said. "I think we can do a better job than we have. We can reform those regulations, reform those guidelines to better reflect that balance."
The Justice Department obtained Rosen's phone and email records to investigate the leak of sensitive intelligence about North Korea, describing the journalist as an aider, abettor, or co-conspirator at the very least — a phrase that Holder maintains was needed to obtain the search warrant.
"I don't like that because it means that me as a government official, who has great respect for the press, is in essence saying that a reporter who is doing his or her job — and doing that very important job — is somehow branded a criminal, and I’m just not comfortable with that. We’re going to change that."
Williams said another possible change would be to give the news media a chance to fight a request for records in court before they are turned over.
"We'll come up with ways in which notification can be given to the media, and possibly involve on a more consistent basis, judges as third-party arbiters," Holder said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
.
2)
By EDWARD P. LAZEAR
The market tanked Wednesday on bad preliminary job news. And so, when Friday's jobs report is released, the unemployment rate and the number of new jobs will come in for close scrutiny. Then again, they always attract the most attention. Even the Federal Reserve focuses on the unemployment rate, announcing on a number of occasions that a rate of 6.5% will indicate when it is time to start raising interest rates and winding down the Fed's easy-money policies.
Yet the unemployment rate is not the best guide to the strength of the labor market, particularly during this recession and recovery. Instead, the Fed and the rest of us should be watching the employment rate. There are two reasons.
First, the better measure of a strong labor market is the proportion of the population that is working, not the proportion that isn't. In 2006, 63.4% of the working-age population was employed. That percentage declined to a low of 58.2% in July 2011 and now stands at 58.6%. By this measure, the labor market's health has barely changed over the past three years.
Second, the headline unemployment rate, what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls "U3," uses as its numerator the number of individuals who are actively seeking work but do not have jobs. There is another highly relevant measure that captures what is going on in the economy. "U6" counts those marginally attached to the workforce—including the unemployed who dropped out of the labor market and are not actively seeking work because they are discouraged, as well as those working part time because they cannot find full-time work.
Every time the unemployment rate changes, analysts and reporters try to determine whether unemployment changed because more people were actually working or because people simply dropped out of the labor market entirely, reducing the number actively seeking work. The employment rate—that is, the employment-to-population ratio—eliminates this issue by going straight to the bottom line, measuring the proportion of potential workers who are actually working.
During the past three decades the relation between unemployment and employment has been almost perfectly inverse. (See the nearby chart.) When the employment-to-population ratio rises, the unemployment rate falls. When the unemployment rate rises, the employment-to-population ratio falls. Even the turning points are aligned. Consequently, the unemployment rate has been a very good proxy for the employment rate. But that relationship has completely broken down during the most recent recession.
While the unemployment rate has fallen over the past 3½ years, the employment-to-population ratio has stayed almost constant at about 58.5%, well below the prerecession peak. Jobs are always being created and destroyed, and the net number of jobs over the last 3½ years has increased. But so too has the size of the working-age population. Job growth has been just slightly better than what it takes to keep the employed proportion of the working-age population constant. That's why jobs still seem so scarce.
The U.S. is not getting back many of the jobs that were lost during the recession. At the present slow pace of job growth, it will require more than a decade to get back to full employment defined by prerecession standards.
The striking deficiency in jobs is borne out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. Despite declining unemployment rates, the number of hires during the most recent month (March 2013) is almost the same as it was in January 2009, the worst month for job losses during the entire recession (4.2 million then, 4.3 million now).
Why have so many workers dropped out of the labor force and stopped actively seeking work? Partly this is due to sluggish economic growth. But research by the University of Chicago's Casey Mulligan has suggested that because government benefits are lost when income rises, some people forgo poor jobs in lieu of government benefits—unemployment insurance, food stamps and disability benefits among the most obvious. The disability rolls have grown by 13% and the number receiving food stamps by 39% since 2009.
These disincentives to seek work may also help explain the unusually high proportion of the unemployed who have been out of work for more than 26 weeks. The proportion of unemployed who are long-termers reached 45% in April 2010 and again in March 2011. It is still above 37%. During the early 1980s, when the economy experienced a comparable recession, the proportion of long-term unemployed never exceeded 27%.
The Fed may draw two inferences from the experience of the past few years. The first is that it may be a very long time before the labor market strengthens enough to declare that the slump is over. The lackluster job creation and hiring that is reflected in the low employment-to-population ratio has persisted for three years and shows no clear signs of improving.
The second is that the various programs of quantitative easing (and other fiscal and monetary policies) have not been particularly effective at stimulating job growth. Consequently, the Fed may want to reconsider its decision to maintain a loose-money policy until the unemployment rate dips to 6.5%.
Mr. Lazear, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers from 2006-2009, is a Hoover Institution fellow and a professor at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)U.S. publishes details of missile base Israel wanted kept secret
By Sheera Frenkel | McClatchy
Israel’s military fumed Monday over the discovery that the U.S. government had revealed details of a top-secret Israeli military installation in published bid requests.
The Obama administration had promised to build Israel a state-of-the-art facility to house a new ballistic-missile defense system, the Arrow 3. As with all Defense Department projects, detailed specifications were made public so that contractors could bid on the $25 million project. The specifications included more than 1,000 pages of details on the facility, ranging from the heating and cooling systems to the thickness of the walls.
"If an enemy of Israel wanted to launch an attack against a facility, this would give him an easy how-to guide. This type of information is closely guarded and its release can jeopardize the entire facility," said an Israeli military official who commented on the publication of the proposal but declined to be named because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the facility. He declined to say whether plans for the facility have been altered as a result of the disclosure.
"This is more than worrying, it is shocking," he said.
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Wesley Miller said he couldn’t comment on the specifics of the Arrow 3 base, but he said the United States routinely published the details of its construction plans on a federal business opportunities website so that contractors could estimate the costs of jobs. He said such postings often might be revised after contracts were approved.
Israeli officials appear to have been well aware of the danger of outsourcing building projects to the United States. In an interview with the Reuters news agency in March, Lt. Col. Peleg Zeevi, the head of the bidding process at Israel’s Defense Ministry, justified Israel’s long history of relying on the United States to help build military installations by saying that Israel needed "a player that has the knowledge, ability and experience."
"We are aware of the security issues that arise in deals with foreign firms, but because we want real competition and expertise, we will create conditions that will allow and encourage their participation," Zeevi said.
It appears, however, that Israeli officials were caught by surprise that details of the facility at Tel Shahar, classified so top secret that Israel’s military won’t officially confirm its location between Jerusalem and Ashdod, would be made so public.
Jane’s Defence Weekly first wrote about the bidding documents, citing them in a story in which it recounted details of the Arrow 3, a defense system designed to intercept ballistic missiles outside the Earth’s atmosphere that’s expected to become operational in 2015.
According to the bid requests, the Arrow 3 system will include six interceptors in vertical launch positions to be placed in the facility, and a gantry crane would need to be erected for further missiles. The structures encasing the interceptor system are to be constructed from high-grade concrete reinforced with steel mesh grids. They’ll have steel blast doors and a system to protect electrical wiring from the pressure created by a launch.
Israeli officials had announced that they were fast-tracking the Arrow 3 system because of their fear that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.
“We want to reach a situation in which Israel has a ready defense for any threat, present or future,” said Col. Aviram Hasson, the head of the Defense Ministry department that’s charged with developing the system.
The Arrow 3 is capable of intercepting missiles at a range of up to 1,500 miles and can maneuver in midair to chase them. Last February, Israel conducted the first test of the Arrow 3 in space. That test was overseen by the United States.
The new facility won’t be the first military installation the U.S. government has built in Israel. Since 1998, when Israel and the Palestinian Authority signed the Wye River memorandum, the U.S. has constructed about $500 million in military facilities for the Israeli army. In addition to bases in southern Israel, including the Nevatim air base, the U.S. has built command centers, intelligence offices and underground hangars to protect Israel’s jet aircraft.
Last year, U.S. defense contractors began constructing an air force base just outside Tel Aviv – known as the "site 911" – that will cost up to $100 million. Israel’s military hasn’t revealed the purpose of the site, but it’s widely thought that Israel is trying to move some of its military headquarters from high-value real estate in Tel Aviv to the outskirts of the bustling city.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Samantha Power and Obama's Foreign Policy Team
Peretz touched upon some of the reasons to be concerned about Malley, whom he characterized as "the most horrific name on the list". He was particularly concerned about the impact on America-Israel relations given Brzezinski's and Malley's involvement. Brzezinski's lack of concern for the safety and security of Israel is well known. Opposition to his role in the campaign was voiced across the political spectrum. Peretz touched upon some of the reasons to be concerned about the role of Malley, which were further developed in an article on our site that focused on a long series of articles Malley has written that reveal views that should give pause to all those concerned about the future of the America-Israel relationship.
If there has been a rethinking of the roles assigned to members of Obama's foreign policy team, that could be reassuring. Dennis Ross, Dennis McDonough, and Dan Shapiro have been mentioned as the "real" Middle East advisors. However, an important question remains: why did the campaign not ask for a correction to numerous articles (including the original Washington Post article) when they listed, among others, Robert Malley as an Obama foreign policy advisor? The Obama campaign staff has been lionized for its efficiency. Did it not register that there were lists in prominent publications that identified several people as foreign policy advisers that might give rise to concerns?
4)Samantha Power and Obama's Foreign Policy Team
Senator Barack Obama, though impressive in his oratorical abilities, may not have the foreign policy experience that many would like to see, or that his opponents possess. It is reasonable to expect that he may rely on the foreign policy advisors he has chosen to a greater extent than would a new president more adequately grounded in foreign affairs and national security matters.
Over the past month, controversy has erupted over the issue of Senator Obama's foreign policy advisers and the impact that they might have on a future President Obama's policies toward Israel, and on American foreign policy in the broader region. Articles in the Washington Post, Newsweek, American Thinker, New York Sun, Politico, Commentary Magazine, The New Republic,CAMERA and other publications have precipitated this controversy.
Over the past month, controversy has erupted over the issue of Senator Obama's foreign policy advisers and the impact that they might have on a future President Obama's policies toward Israel, and on American foreign policy in the broader region. Articles in the Washington Post, Newsweek, American Thinker, New York Sun, Politico, Commentary Magazine, The New Republic,CAMERA and other publications have precipitated this controversy.
Both those who support Senator Obama and his quest for the presidency and those who have concerns often share the same goal: ensuring that our next president comes to office well-prepared for the demands of the highest office in our nation. The President is uniquely powerful in the realm of foreign policy. In these perilous times, all of us want to ensure that the man or woman who steps into the White House in January is well-prepared to deal with the foreign policy challenges that lie ahead.
Who are Obama's Foreign Policy Advisors?
Newsweek published a list of Senator Obama's foreign policy advisers that included Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley. A few weeks later, the Washington Post on October 2, 2007 published a list of foreign policy advisers for all the major candidates, which list included the names of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice as advisers to Senator Obama. Subsequently, Martin Peretz -- an Obama supporter -- wrote at the end of December that he got the "shudders" when thinking about the foreign policy influence of "Zbigniew Brzezinski... Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Robert O. Malley".
Peretz touched upon some of the reasons to be concerned about Malley, whom he characterized as "the most horrific name on the list". He was particularly concerned about the impact on America-Israel relations given Brzezinski's and Malley's involvement. Brzezinski's lack of concern for the safety and security of Israel is well known. Opposition to his role in the campaign was voiced across the political spectrum. Peretz touched upon some of the reasons to be concerned about the role of Malley, which were further developed in an article on our site that focused on a long series of articles Malley has written that reveal views that should give pause to all those concerned about the future of the America-Israel relationship.
The articles on Obama and his advisors in American Thinker were sourced to many news outlets before we characterized the individuals as foreign policy advisers. Subsequent to the controversy, some pushback from the campaign has developed. Emails have been circulating denying that Malley is an adviser or that stating that he does not provide advice on the Middle East, or denying that Zbigniew Brzezinski advises on issues related to Israel and the Palestinians. As Commentary's Noah Pollak has asked, is there just clever wordplay going on (otherwise, known as "spin")?
In a perplexing development, Martin Peretz subsequently wrote a blog entry denying that there were reasons to be concerned about Senator Obama's foreign policy team. He wrote that ‘spooky" stories have been circulating about his foreign policy staff and, trying to justify his new view, offered only one example to assuage concerns. He stated that Robert Malley was not a foreign policy adviser ("Malley is not and has never been a Middle East adviser to Barack Obama" -- remember this because it will come up later in this column) and there were no reasons to be concerned about the Senator's team.
Mr. Peretz wrote this without even mentioning his article just a few weeks before which expressed concern (if not outright loathing) about Robert Malley and other members of the team as mentioned above (welcome to the updated version of 1984's Memory Hole).
Mr. Peretz wrote this without even mentioning his article just a few weeks before which expressed concern (if not outright loathing) about Robert Malley and other members of the team as mentioned above (welcome to the updated version of 1984's Memory Hole).
Then, to confuse the issue even further, he wrote just a few days ago that he is concerned about the foreign policy team of Senator Obama's and mentioned his previously listed names (except for Malley)
Martin Peretz is not alone with his concerns. In the last few days, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius (who has strong liberal credentials) also expressed qualms about Senator Obama, and specifically mentioned the realm of foreign policy and his foreign policy advisors.
If there has been a rethinking of the roles assigned to members of Obama's foreign policy team, that could be reassuring. Dennis Ross, Dennis McDonough, and Dan Shapiro have been mentioned as the "real" Middle East advisors. However, an important question remains: why did the campaign not ask for a correction to numerous articles (including the original Washington Post article) when they listed, among others, Robert Malley as an Obama foreign policy advisor? The Obama campaign staff has been lionized for its efficiency. Did it not register that there were lists in prominent publications that identified several people as foreign policy advisers that might give rise to concerns?
Or did the campaign not care until it became a political problem?
Regardless, there remains a cloud around the foreign policy team. And one name in particular now requires greater scrutiny: Samantha Power.
Samantha Power
Senator Obama's supporters have uniformly ignored the role and the views of Harvard Kennedy School of Government professor Samantha Power, who is very problematic regarding Israel, Iran, and for that matter, American supporters of Israel (see below). Power left her position at Harvard to work for Obama for a year after his election to the US Senate. She is now identified as a "senior foreign policy advisor.".
In the case of Power, it was Senator Obama who made the initial contact with her after reading her book on genocide. Power is now actively working for the campaign. She cannot be casually dismissed as one of Obama's many advisors, with no particular assigned role.
It is not at all hard to imagine her having a senior foreign policy role in an Obama administration, perhaps as US Ambassador to the United Nations, an organization she views warmly. The problem for those who favor a strong US-Israel relationship is that Power seems obsessed with Israel, and in a negative way. Much like the authors of the Baker-Hamilton report, she believes resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to solving other problems in the Middle East. And it is clear that her approach to addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be for the US to behave in a more "even handed" fashion, which of course means withdrawing US support for Israel, and instead applying more pressure on Israel for concessions.
Commentary Magazine, and in particular Noah Pollack, have done a superb job of investigative reporting regarding Power's record and views. She is a headliner for Senator Obama -- a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and a professor at Harvard. Power has a column carried by TIME and she writes frequently. Indeed, it is her writing that reveals reasons to be concerned. FromCommentary:
Power is an advocate of the Walt-Mearsheimer view of the American relationship with Israel. In a recent interview published on the Harvard Kennedy School's website, Power was asked to explain "long-standing structural and conceptual problems in U.S. foreign policy." She gave a two-part answer: the first problem, she said, is "the US historic predisposition to go it alone." A standard reply, of course. The second problem, though, should give us pause:Another longstanding foreign policy flaw is the degree to which special interests dictate the way in which the "national interest" as a whole is defined and pursued.... America's important historic relationship with Israel has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics, which, as the war in Lebanon last summer demonstrated, can turn out to be counter-productive.
So greater regard for international institutions along with less automatic deference to special interests -- especially when it comes to matters of life and death and war and peace -- seem to be two take-aways from the war in Iraq.
Power is not just assenting to the Walt-Mearsheimer view of American foreign policy, but is also arguing that Israel had something to do with the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003: an appalling slander, and a telling one.
Also of note is a recent opinion piece Power wrote for TIME, titled "Rethinking Iran," the thrust of which rethinking involves the need to engage diplomatically the mullahs and pretend that the Iranian nuclear program is a figment of the paranoid imagination of the Bush administration. She writes:
The war scare that wasn't [the recent incident between Iranian speedboats and the U.S. Navy in the Straight of Hormuz] stands as a metaphor for the incoherence of our policy toward Iran: the Bush Administration attempts to gin up international outrage by making a claim of imminent danger, only to be met with international eye rolling when the claim is disproved. Sound familiar? The speedboat episode bore an uncanny resemblance to the Administration's allegations about the advanced state of Iran's weapons program-allegations refuted in December by the National Intelligence Estimate.
Does Power actually believe that the NIE put to rest concerns about the Iranian nuclear program? If she actually thinks that -- and it appears she does -- she deserves voluminous ridicule from thinking people everywhere.
Power also advocates that America send armed military forces, "a mammoth protection force" and an "external intervention", to impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. This directly contradicts her criticism of the invasion and "occupation" of Iraq and her call for the removal of American forces from that nation. On the one hand, Power abhors American efforts to remake an Arab nation, but takes the contrary view when it comes to inserting American forces in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to impose a settlement. These troops, if sent, would be seen as occupiers and be sitting targets for Arab extremists. The colonial image of America and charges of imperial overstretch would echo throughout the Arab world.
If America sought to avoid being so tarnished -- which is presumably what Samantha Power would desire -- then the alternative would be for the United States to take a confrontational attitude toward Israel, so as to be seen as standing up for the Palestinians. Given her inclination to view Israel as guilty of war crimes she would probably look favorably on such an approach towards the Israelis and Palestinians.
Power's views on the problems caused by the US-Israel relationship also place her in the same camp as Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Soros (an influential supporter of Barack Obama's), who also oppose the so-called "Israel lobby" and reject the participation of American supporters of Israel, including Christians, in the foreign policy discussion. Power writes of her willingness to
"alienat[e] a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing...billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine."
Power appears to support slashing, if not eliminating, military aid to our ally (surrounded by 300 million people who wish to destroy her) and giving it to the Palestinians, whose charters (whether the Hamas or Fatah version) advocate the destruction of Israel. The PA has used aid dollars to teach hate and sponsor terror, and Palestinian society has devolved into an internationally-supported welfare state characterized by enormous corruption. Why is there any reason to believe that massive amounts of additional aid be used any differently and more constructively?
Power also showed her animus toward Israel in another instance, appearing to argue with the New York Times for more negative coverage of Israel in the paper. As Noah Pollak writes:
"Martin Kramer points us to an interesting quote from the 2003 book Ethnic Violence and Justice, in which Samantha Power, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers, asks a question of David Rohde, a reporter who covered the intifada for the New York Times. The quote is as follows:
Samantha Power: I have a question for David about working for the New York Times. I was struck by a headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe: "Human Rights Report Finds Massacre Did Not Occur in Jenin." The second paragraph said, "Oh, but lots of war crimes did." Why wouldn't they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?
(The article to which Power refers is here, and its headline is: "MIDEAST TURMOIL: INQUIRY; Rights Group Doubts Mass Deaths in Jenin, but Sees Signs of War Crimes." Obviously, Power has misremembered the headline.)
Here we have another window into the thinking of Power: Israel is accused in sensational press reports of a massacre in Jenin, and is subjected to severe international condemnation; Human Rights Watch finally gets out a report and says there was no massacre; the NYT reports this as its headline; and Power thinks the headline still should have been: Israel guilty of war crimes!"
Revelations regarding Power's views of Israel can be found in her new book, Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira De Mello and the Fight to Save the World, a biography of the UN official killed in Baghdad in a 2003 terrorist bombing. A series of terrorist attacks emanating from the mini-terror state created in Southern Lebanon by the PLO had led to an Israeli occupation of the southern portion of Lebanon. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon had been inserted to quell the conflict, but was proving ineffectual. Israeli forces remained in place.
Power wrote:
" Israeli forces refused to comply with the spirit of international demands to withdraw and the major powers on the Security Council were not prepared to deal with the gnarly issues that had sparked the Israelis invasion in the first place: dispossessed Palestinians and Israeli insecurity".
The "spirit of international demands" to withdraw? Aside from wondering what that means and the enforceability of such a spirit, how about that phrase "dispossessed Palestinians and Israeli insecurity"? The dispossessed Palestinians had left Palestine mostly at the behest of calls by their Arab brethren to step out of the way as armed forces invaded Israel upon its founding. They and their descendants were denied rights by Lebanon and were unable to assimilate -- unlike the 600,000 Jews who were stripped of their possessions in Arab lands and whom Israel welcomed. The term "Israeli insecurity" makes it seem as if the Israelis were suffering from an emotional or psychological condition. In fact, it was not insecurity, per se, that the Israelis suffered from. It was Palestinian terrorism that the Lebanese government refused to prevent.
There is more from Ms. Power. Israel warned UNIFIL of its upcoming move into Southern Lebanon. Power talked of this move as a "ploy" and then wrote of "humiliation" that was to come as Israel ignored UN efforts to stop them. She wrote:
"Israel had thumbed its nose at the Security Council resolutions that demanded that Israel stay out of Lebanon, and in the course of invading a neighbor, its forces had trampled on the UN peacekeepers in its way".
She quotes the subject of her book -- really a hagiography -- calling the Israelis "bastards". She writes that the degradations suffered by UNIFIL before the Israeli invasion was felt far worse after the Israelis came into Lebanon. She writes that the Israeli authorities "threatened the peacekeepers and regularly denigrated them".
And now she is a senior foreign policy adviser to Presidential candidate Barack Obama, as well as occupying the Anna Lindh Professorship of Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy How appropriate: Anna Lindh, the late Swedish Foreign Minister, was a dedicated opponent of Israel
Questions also remain about Malley and Brzezinski.
News reports as recently as February 15th continue to indicate that Robert Malley is an Obama adviser and a Middle East adviser. An article by the Jewish Telegraph Agency on that date, stated that Malley "advises" Barack Obama . The Forward on the same day identified Malley as, "One of the experts who advised Barack Obama's campaign on Middle East issues" (recall the Peretz quote from above). Haaretz this past weekend also identified Malley as an adviser. It strains credulity to imagine that Robert Malley not offering his views on the Middle East and Israel, in particular, since those are the areas that have been the basis of his career. How does that square with Obama supporters who have recently claimed in the wake of controversy that Malley "is not and has never been a Middle East adviser to Barack Obama" On what other topic would Malley be offering advice to the candidate?
Furthermore, if the role of Zbigniew Brzezinski is limited to only the Iraq issue, that would be a surprise to anyone familiar with the man and with his career. Brzezinski is one of the grand old men of the foreign policy establishment. After all, he is a former National Security Adviser, not merely an Iraq or Middle East specialist. Would he limit himself just to one nation and one issue, particularly since he has shown over the last thirty years an obsession with Israel, and an unhealthy one at that?
Even if his portfolio were limited to Iraq, it is hard to disentangle actions taken with respect to Iraq and the effect those actions may have on other nations in the region. For example, one would like to know the role Brzezinski may have had in Senator Obama's decision to pass on the vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) as a terror group and then to criticize those who voted to do so. On the one hand, by appeasing Iran this may make the ground a bit more stable in Iraq (at least temporarily). On the other hand, the IRG is responsible for the deaths of many innocent people around the world-Iraqis, Americans, Argentineans, Israelis.
The IRG is the force behind Hezb'allah. Furthermore, if President Obama were to remove forces precipitously from Iraq, far greater instability might result and this could have dire implications for the entire region. So too, Brzezinski, on a well-publicized trip to Damascus this week, made statements about the US and Syria having common interests in stability. This flies in the face of Syria's destabilizing role in Lebanon, Iraq, and in the Palestinian territories. Given Brzezinski's well-advertised role as an Obama adviser, would it be hard for the Syrians to read his statements as indicating that Obama wants to make "nice" to them, and may be willing to overlook their hostility to American policy objectives in the region?.
. . . . . . . . . .
We believe that there are serious questions about Senator Obama's foreign policy team that remain unanswered. Among them:
- The campaign should clarify the role of Samantha Power? Does Senator Obama share her views -- and those of George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski -- that American supporters of Israel should be sidelined-at best in the foreign policy discussion?
- Since there are conflicting accounts regarding Robert Malley with the latest accounts-February 15th-indicating he is a Middle East adviser, can the campaign please issue public statements that clearly disassociates Senator Obama from Malley?
- Will Malley, Brzezinski, or Power have roles in a future Barack Obama Administration? What kind of role?
- How were these members brought to the attention of Senator Obama? What sort of vetting process took place since at least two of them (Brzezinski and Malley) are well-known for being problematic at best regarding Israel and the America-Israel relationship?
- Who will be Obama's choices, if elected President, to be Middle East envoys? This question should be asked of all candidates.
Since this controversy over Obama's advisors has erupted, many people have expressed concern regarding Senator Obama's foreign policy team. Clearly, the issue resonates with people. We personally know and respect many Obama supporters. We all wish for the same ideal -- a strong and prosperous America that is willing to support and strengthen our allies, including Israel.
Instead of relying on emails distributed through supporters or leaks to a few selected reporters, it might be better for Senator Obama himself to speak up on the issue of his advisers: to clearly, firmly and publicly announce the roles of his foreign policy advisers and to indicate who might occupy these roles in a President Obama administration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Kerry's Embarrassing “Peace Process” Obsession
By Barry Rubin
5)Kerry's Embarrassing “Peace Process” Obsession
By Barry Rubin
There's an old saying: it’s better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to speak and prove it. That is Secretary of State John Kerry's problem.
What is remarkable is how Kerry has painted himself into a corner, not just staking his term as secretary of state on making Israel-Palestinian peace but in doing so in a matter of weeks.
“If we do not succeed now, we may not get another chance,” Kerry told the American Jewish Committee. ”I have heard all of the arguments for why it is too difficult to end this conflict,” he added. “Cynicism has never solved anything. It has never given birth to a state, and it won't.”
Well, not exactly. First, Kerry is practically begging the Palestinian Authority to accept a state. The problem is not cynicism but naivete. The cynicism is based on long experience and a careful evaluation of the political, economic, and strategic factors involved.
Second, Kerry hasn't heard that the last chance already happened thirteen years ago at the Camp David meeting in 2000. No amount of wishful thinking will make it otherwise. In fact, that endangers people.
Let’s review:
–PLO, Palestinian Authority, and Fatah leader Yasir Arafat turned down an independent Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem and around $20 billion in aid as a starting point in further talks.
–He launched a five-year-long war of terror against Israel in which around 2000 Israelis were killed.
–When offered an even better deal by President Bill Clinton Arafat turned it down.
–Even when besieged in his headquarters—saved only by U.S. intervention from total, humiliating defeat—Arafat still rejected compromise.
–In the 13 years since the Camp David meeting the Palestinians have not pursued any serious negotiations.
–About half the territory and people the Palestinian Authority claims to negotiate for is not even under its control but is being ruled by Hamas which advocates genocide against the Jews and is totally opposed to peace on any terms. Hamas would do everything possible to wreck any deal made by the PA and that group has about 20 to 30 percent support on the West Bank.
–In the present climate of Islamist triumphalism, Hamas has more state support than the PA and the PA is terrified of being “traitorous moderates.”
–The PA strategy is clearly to get maximal recognition of a state without having to make a deal with Israel. Kerry's recent offer of $4 billion (for tourism development!)–how much will the U.S. government pay off the PA for pretending to negotiate?–was turned down by the PA within 24 hours even though they could use the money for the leadership's Swiss bank accounts.
Might some of these facts be relevant?
Kerry gave the typical line that unless Israel gets a two-state solution, it will have to choose between its Jewish and democratic nature.
Ludicrously untrue. If that didn't happen when Israel occupied the whole of the territories captured by it in 1967 and governed the Arabs there on a daily basis—a period of 27 years in the West Bank and about 35 in the Gaza Strip—it isn't going to happen now. There was a time when Israelis advocated annexation of these territories but that hasn’t been true for many years. Of course, Israel will not have to choose.
Who cares about how many Palestinians there are, they aren't being ruled by Israel and they are not Israeli citizens.
Absent as usual from Kerry's analysis are the risks that Israel would take if it accepted a Palestinian state under current conditions.
Consider these statements by Kerry:
The belief that a security fence and the status quo could bring Israel security are “lulling themselves into a delusion….The absence of peace is perpetual conflict. … We will find ourselves in a negative spiral of responses and counter-responses….”
The problem, however, is an unspoken premise that if the status quo changed and there was an independent Palestinian state, the conflict would go away and there would be full peace. In fact what would happen is that the conflict would continue under worse strategic conditions for Israel.
“I am confident that both sides are weighing the choices that they have in front of them very, very seriously.”
No. Both sides are pretending to weigh choices in order to avoid insulting you. A serious analysis of the factors involved show that nothing is going to happen. An accurate view of reality should be the foundation for policymaking.
A case can be made for Kerry showing himself as working hard for peace in order to defuse any possible effect on events elsewhere in the region. But by working too hard, spending too much of his time on the issue, and making absurd claims that he is going to succeed, Kerry is setting himself up for an embarrassing fall.
Also by promising quick results he is destroying the chance for the United States to pretend it is laboring around the clock supposedly–what?–to ease the situation with a civil war in Syria, a nuclear bomb in Iran, a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
No comments:
Post a Comment