===
Hillary is like the battery bunny. (See 1, 1a and 1b below.)
Yesterday, Hillarious' associate pleaded the 5th, which is his Constitutional right. I would think you generally do not plead the 5th, unless you believe you have possibly broken the law or are connected to a situation in which the law was broken. Obviously this person created the personal server for Hillarious and must now assume what he did could be deemed an unlawful act though, at the time he did it, he might not have considered it be be against the law.
Once again, the actions of Hillarious's associate, though legal, conjures up the fact that the Clinton's do not pass the smell test.
Of course, Hillarious' claims that it is all a matter of a dog fight between two agencies and has nothing to do with her.
In any event, it appears not to bode well for Hillarious to have her associates pleading the 5th, when she told everyone she is encouraging those under investigation to come forth and talk.
The Clintons' have a history of engaging in questionable acts and behaviour but always have been able to finesse whatever they were being investigated for but, perhaps, this time it could be different. There is little doubt her private server was not secure and classified material was on it and, therefore, she compromised national security but then "what difference does it make?"
Her situation still depends upon whether Obama and his new Attorney General want the FBI to do its job because it is possible Obama does not want to press the matter at this time. Why? Because he too could be complicit since he had to have known Hillarious was not abiding by State Department protocol.
Just thinking out loud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivbOgU9q7is
===
When Iran builds a nuclear bomb the Demwits will have their name on it.
Those who voted Party over common sense and our nation's safety , as I have said before, will have to live with their decision and its consequences. I would not want to be in their shoes. (See 2, 2a and 2b below.)
Those who voted Party over common sense and our nation's safety , as I have said before, will have to live with their decision and its consequences. I would not want to be in their shoes. (See 2, 2a and 2b below.)
A response regarding the Iran Deal. (See 2c below.)
===
An optimistic but rational explanation why ISIS will lose. (See 3 below.)
===
As Syria implodes it has implications. (See 4 below.)
===
An optimistic but rational explanation why ISIS will lose. (See 3 below.)
===
As Syria implodes it has implications. (See 4 below.)
===
Now for some humor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)THE LAST DAYS OF HILLARY
Hillary Clinton's worst punishment will be her failure.
By Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz
Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
By Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz
Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
Hillary Clinton has spent a third of her adult life trying to become
president. All for nothing.
The first time around, she wasted $200 million just to lose to Obama. $11
million of that money came from the notoriously "flat broke" couple. This
time around she was determined to take no chances.
Together with her husband she built up a massive war chest using money from
foreign governments and speaking fees from non-profits, funneled into her
own dirty non-profit and a complex network of unofficial organizations
staffed by Clinton loyalists, secured an unofficial endorsement from Obama
and carefully avoided answering questions or taking positions on anything.
There was no way she could lose.
Now she's losing all over again.
Hillary has a ton of money, but can't buy the nomination. She's spending a
quarter of a million a day on a campaign operation with no actual organized
opposition to speak of. Even before Biden officially enters the race, she's
falling behind the joke candidacy of Bernie Sanders in key states.
Hillary Clinton's campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars without
making an impact. She spent almost a million on polling only to see her poll
numbers drop every week. She dropped $2 million on ads about her mother to
try to make women like her. It didn't work. Nothing is working anymore.
Obama gave Biden his blessing to run. White House spokesman Josh Earnest
praised Joe Biden to reporters, saying that there is "no one in American
politics today who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to
mount a successful national presidential campaign."
It wasn't a subtle message.
Earnest suggested that Obama might endorse a Democratic primary candidate.
Despite the deal that the Clintons made in which Bill would campaign for
Obama in 2012 in exchange for a Hillary endorsement, it's looking less and
less likely like that he will back Hillary Clinton. Instead Biden appears to
be his man.
Biden is already polling better than Hillary in a national election. With
Obama's backing, he can strip away Hillary's minority vote while Bernie
Sanders takes the leftist vote. Hillary Clinton is already doubling down on
gender politics by accusing pro-life Republicans of being terrorists, but it
won't work.
It didn't work last time. It won't work this time. Once again, Hillary has
lost.
The only lesson that Hillary Clinton drew from her last election was to
double down on all the things she did wrong. Her organization was big last
time so she made it even bigger. It got so big that the different Super PACs
were fighting each other over fundraising for her campaign. She had lots of
money last time, so she was determined to have even more money this time.
But that money has been wasted paying an army of useless people who couldn't
even do something as basic as produce a good logo.
Hillary Clinton was paranoid, controlling and dishonest last time. She
decided to be twice as paranoid and dishonest this time around and it
destroyed her image and her campaign.
Even before the rope lines and the interview boycotts, the media hated her.
Once she began to aggressively shut out the media, its personalities
gleefully reported on every email server scandal detail that her enemies in
the White House fed to the New York Times and other administration
mouthpieces.
It wasn't a vast right wing conspiracy or even a more real left wing
conspiracy that destroyed Hillary Clinton. If she were a stronger candidate,
Obama and the left would have fallen in line behind her.
Once again, Hillary Clinton destroyed her own candidacy. The latest
Quinnipiac poll shows that the top three words people associate with her are
"liar," "dishonest" and "untrustworthy." If she hadn't planned a cover-up
before there was even anything to cover up and then responded to its
disclosure with a series of terrible press conferences climaxing in asking
reporters if they meant that she had wiped her email server with a cloth,
her old reputation might have stayed buried long enough to win an election.
Now Hillary is right back where she was last time around. She has lots of
money, but no one likes her. She's trying to build a cult of personality,
but none of the myriads of people who work for her will tell her the truth
about her personality. She inspires no one and there's no actual reason to
vote for her.
With her popularity rapidly vanishing, Hillary is moving to her
Führerbunker. Her aides plan to absorb defeats in early states and
concentrate all the money and organization on crushing the opposition on
Super Tuesday. They're conceding that Hillary isn't going to out-campaign
her rivals individually, but are betting that her war machine is big enough
to destroy them in eleven states at the same time.
Hillary still hasn't learned that she can't just buy an election. And she
may not have the money to buy it. Donors lost a lot of money funding her
failed campaign last time. They came on board again because they were
convinced that she had a smooth ride to the nomination. Once Biden enters
the race, donors will wait rather than pour more money into the struggling
campaign of an unpopular candidate.
And many of the Obama donors who haven't committed to Hillary will open
their wallets for Biden.
ClintonWorld is an expensive theme park to run. All those staffers the
Clintons have picked up have to be paid. And the Clintons can't stop paying
them because they have no true loyalists, only mercenaries. If their checks
don't clear, they'll be working for Biden or O'Malley before you can say
"Whitewater."
It will take that machine some time to slow to a halt. Hillary Clinton
burned through $200 million fighting Obama. Elections have only gotten more
expensive since then. But her donors will learn the hard way that money
alone can't make an unlikable politician with no charisma or compelling
message, president.
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a message, she has ambition. Her obsession with
becoming president has overshadowed any reason that anyone might have to
vote for her. She offers no hope and less change. Her candidacy is historic…
but only for her. There is no promise she can make that anyone will believe.
After having spent much of her life trying to become president, she will
leave once again a failure.
Some are hoping that Hillary will go to jail. But the anger, frustration and
bitterness that will gnaw on her after wasting decades and a small fortune
on two failed efforts to win the White House in which she had every
advantage only to lose before even leaving the starting gate will be worse
than any prison.
In January 2017, Hillary Clinton will be sitting in front of a television
set watching someone else take the oath of office. Nothing the penal system
has to offer would be a harsher punishment than that moment.
president. All for nothing.
The first time around, she wasted $200 million just to lose to Obama. $11
million of that money came from the notoriously "flat broke" couple. This
time around she was determined to take no chances.
Together with her husband she built up a massive war chest using money from
foreign governments and speaking fees from non-profits, funneled into her
own dirty non-profit and a complex network of unofficial organizations
staffed by Clinton loyalists, secured an unofficial endorsement from Obama
and carefully avoided answering questions or taking positions on anything.
There was no way she could lose.
Now she's losing all over again.
Hillary has a ton of money, but can't buy the nomination. She's spending a
quarter of a million a day on a campaign operation with no actual organized
opposition to speak of. Even before Biden officially enters the race, she's
falling behind the joke candidacy of Bernie Sanders in key states.
Hillary Clinton's campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars without
making an impact. She spent almost a million on polling only to see her poll
numbers drop every week. She dropped $2 million on ads about her mother to
try to make women like her. It didn't work. Nothing is working anymore.
Obama gave Biden his blessing to run. White House spokesman Josh Earnest
praised Joe Biden to reporters, saying that there is "no one in American
politics today who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to
mount a successful national presidential campaign."
It wasn't a subtle message.
Earnest suggested that Obama might endorse a Democratic primary candidate.
Despite the deal that the Clintons made in which Bill would campaign for
Obama in 2012 in exchange for a Hillary endorsement, it's looking less and
less likely like that he will back Hillary Clinton. Instead Biden appears to
be his man.
Biden is already polling better than Hillary in a national election. With
Obama's backing, he can strip away Hillary's minority vote while Bernie
Sanders takes the leftist vote. Hillary Clinton is already doubling down on
gender politics by accusing pro-life Republicans of being terrorists, but it
won't work.
It didn't work last time. It won't work this time. Once again, Hillary has
lost.
The only lesson that Hillary Clinton drew from her last election was to
double down on all the things she did wrong. Her organization was big last
time so she made it even bigger. It got so big that the different Super PACs
were fighting each other over fundraising for her campaign. She had lots of
money last time, so she was determined to have even more money this time.
But that money has been wasted paying an army of useless people who couldn't
even do something as basic as produce a good logo.
Hillary Clinton was paranoid, controlling and dishonest last time. She
decided to be twice as paranoid and dishonest this time around and it
destroyed her image and her campaign.
Even before the rope lines and the interview boycotts, the media hated her.
Once she began to aggressively shut out the media, its personalities
gleefully reported on every email server scandal detail that her enemies in
the White House fed to the New York Times and other administration
mouthpieces.
It wasn't a vast right wing conspiracy or even a more real left wing
conspiracy that destroyed Hillary Clinton. If she were a stronger candidate,
Obama and the left would have fallen in line behind her.
Once again, Hillary Clinton destroyed her own candidacy. The latest
Quinnipiac poll shows that the top three words people associate with her are
"liar," "dishonest" and "untrustworthy." If she hadn't planned a cover-up
before there was even anything to cover up and then responded to its
disclosure with a series of terrible press conferences climaxing in asking
reporters if they meant that she had wiped her email server with a cloth,
her old reputation might have stayed buried long enough to win an election.
Now Hillary is right back where she was last time around. She has lots of
money, but no one likes her. She's trying to build a cult of personality,
but none of the myriads of people who work for her will tell her the truth
about her personality. She inspires no one and there's no actual reason to
vote for her.
With her popularity rapidly vanishing, Hillary is moving to her
Führerbunker. Her aides plan to absorb defeats in early states and
concentrate all the money and organization on crushing the opposition on
Super Tuesday. They're conceding that Hillary isn't going to out-campaign
her rivals individually, but are betting that her war machine is big enough
to destroy them in eleven states at the same time.
Hillary still hasn't learned that she can't just buy an election. And she
may not have the money to buy it. Donors lost a lot of money funding her
failed campaign last time. They came on board again because they were
convinced that she had a smooth ride to the nomination. Once Biden enters
the race, donors will wait rather than pour more money into the struggling
campaign of an unpopular candidate.
And many of the Obama donors who haven't committed to Hillary will open
their wallets for Biden.
ClintonWorld is an expensive theme park to run. All those staffers the
Clintons have picked up have to be paid. And the Clintons can't stop paying
them because they have no true loyalists, only mercenaries. If their checks
don't clear, they'll be working for Biden or O'Malley before you can say
"Whitewater."
It will take that machine some time to slow to a halt. Hillary Clinton
burned through $200 million fighting Obama. Elections have only gotten more
expensive since then. But her donors will learn the hard way that money
alone can't make an unlikable politician with no charisma or compelling
message, president.
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a message, she has ambition. Her obsession with
becoming president has overshadowed any reason that anyone might have to
vote for her. She offers no hope and less change. Her candidacy is historic…
but only for her. There is no promise she can make that anyone will believe.
After having spent much of her life trying to become president, she will
leave once again a failure.
Some are hoping that Hillary will go to jail. But the anger, frustration and
bitterness that will gnaw on her after wasting decades and a small fortune
on two failed efforts to win the White House in which she had every
advantage only to lose before even leaving the starting gate will be worse
than any prison.
In January 2017, Hillary Clinton will be sitting in front of a television
set watching someone else take the oath of office. Nothing the penal system
has to offer would be a harsher punishment than that moment.
1a) The Exhausting Ms. Clinton
By Victor Davis Hanson
Hillary Clinton's second race for the presidency is only about a quarter through, but she already seems to be causing general fatigue.
The lurid revelations about the Clinton Foundation proved that it was not so much a charity as a huge laundering operation. Quid pro quo donations from the global rich and powerful fueled the Clintons' jet-setting networking.
In between political campaigns, the foundation provided sinecures for out-of-work Clinton politicos. This is hardly proof of Hillary's grass-roots progressivism.
Then came Clinton's email fiasco. No one knows how the current investigation of her alleged misuse of email accounts, servers and classified information will end up. But most people accept that it was an unnecessary and self-induced scandal, brought on both by her paranoia and habitual expectation of being exempt from the law.
ABC News just disclosed that ex-president Bill Clinton sought huge speaking fees from foreign governments (well over a half-million dollars per talk), while Hillary was secretary of state. Unfortunately, some of his proposed speaking deals involved odious regimes like those of Congo and North Korea. This year, Hillary herself routinely charged universities $200,000 to $300,000 for brief talks -- after decrying the cash-strapped status of indebted students. What will the Clintons not do to make money?
All these imbroglios raise more issues. Was Sen. Barack Obama, largely a political unknown at the time, really all that unstoppable in 2008? Or did Hillary simply blow a 30-point lead in the polls because then as now she proved a lousy candidate?
Can't Hillary Clinton turn voters' attention to her recent stewardship of American foreign policy?
Most of what happened on her watch as secretary of state is better forgotten: the destruction of a self-reliant Iraq, the rise of the Islamic State, chaos in Libya, failed reset with Russia's Vladimir Putin, disaster in Benghazi, the alienation of Israel and moderate Arab nations, and Iran's ascendant.
Instead of hailing her foreign policy tenure, Clinton is now attacking her critics.
Clinton just blasted her Republican opposition, some of whom want various federal agencies to cite undocumented immigrants who broke federal law, and then process them for deportation before hearing their applications for amnesty. She misleadingly equated that position with wanting to "literally pull people out of their homes and their workplaces, round them up and, I don't know, put them in buses or boxcars, in order to take them across the border."
Is it wise to tar critics with the infamous imagery of the Holocaust, in which Jews were rounded up, put in boxcars and sent to death camps?
After all, Clinton's own prior positions on immigration were akin to those of many of the Republicans she now attacks. Here is what then Sen. Clinton asserted in a 2003: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants." Note her use of the personal "immigrants," rather than the abstract "immigration."
Last week, Clinton compared Republican opponents of abortion to "terrorist groups" who "don't want to live in the modern world."
But such ad hominem attacks on free expression are exactly what Clinton once denounced. "I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic," she said in 2003, ironically during the George W. Bush presidency.
Clinton's serial meltdowns may bring Vice President Joe Biden into the race. The only other serious Democratic alternative to Clinton at the moment is 73-year-old socialist Bernie Sanders. He is not registered in the party whose nomination he seeks.
Clinton's derailment has given breathing space to Republicans. Otherwise, they would be panicking that erratic showman Donald Trump has hijacked their party and might lead it to a meltdown in 2016.
Both parties face crises -- though there are more viable Republican alternatives to Trump than there are strong Democratic choices, at least for now. And whereas the upbeat Trump would probably agree with -- or even welcome -- charges that he is an egomaniac, Clinton would hardly accept the equally common impression that she cannot tell the truth.
Hillary's latest troubles reflect a quarter-century of Clinton habits that transcend time and space.
Both Bill and Hillary seem to have always believed they should be exempt from the law. Both seem needlessly tawdry in their avarice. Their cover-ups often prove even more damaging than their indiscretions.
Bill was always the far better speaker and political schmoozer than Hillary. And now Hillary is proving -- again -- that she prefers slandering accusers rather than refuting accusations.
Are Hillary's first four and a half months of campaigning a glimpse of the next 14?
If so, the Democratic Party -- and the country -- are going to be utterly exhausted.
1b)
Hillary Clinton has tried to confuse the public about the definition of “classified,” but some in the press corps are cutting though the fog. We’re learning, in particular, that Mrs. Clinton’s self-serving decision to use a private email server for official communications may have resulted in far greater mishandling of classified information.
1b)
Hillary’s Classified Falsehoods
Is anything she has said about her private emails true?
Hillary Clinton has tried to confuse the public about the definition of “classified,” but some in the press corps are cutting though the fog. We’re learning, in particular, that Mrs. Clinton’s self-serving decision to use a private email server for official communications may have resulted in far greater mishandling of classified information.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Mrs. Clinton wrote and sent on her private server at least six emails that contained classified information. This destroys Mrs. Clinton’s statement that she never sent any classified information. It also blows up her campaign’s diversionary argument that nothing she sent or received was “marked” as classified.
Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State, with greater knowledge than anyone in her operation about national security secrets, and with a duty to protect such information. Whether the classified material she was sending or receiving was marked as such makes no difference to an official’s obligation. Mrs. Clinton knew this.
Meanwhile, Fox News reports that State Department lawyers have been hiding the extent to which Mrs. Clinton handled classified material on her server. According to the Fox account, career State employees initially marked four Clinton emails as classified. State Department lawyers then stepped in to recategorize the emails as “deliberative.” This meant they couldn’t be viewed by investigators from Congress.
Fox reports that State Department sources told intelligence officials that they believe this was done to hide the extent to which Mrs. Clinton was sending and receiving classified material. The Fox dispatch also says that one of the State Department lawyers involved in the email review was Catherine Duval, who once worked in the same law firm as Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall. The State Department told Fox there was no conflict and that its lawyers “perform to the highest professional and ethical standards.”
This week’s batch of Clinton emails—released by State on a timetable imposed by a federal judge fed up with delays—also includes hundreds of exchanges with legendary political hit man Sidney Blumenthal. Mrs. Clinton has previously said she didn’t solicit emails from Mr. Blumenthal, who was being paid by the Clinton Foundation. But in one email Mrs. Clinton tells the specialist in political smears to “keep ’em coming” and that “Bill”—presumably her husband—had dubbed them “brilliant!” Is anything Mrs. Clinton has said about her emails true?
Keep in mind that the Obama Administration barred Mr. Blumenthal from serving as a Clinton aide at State. But it’s clear from the emails that he served as an unofficial Clinton adviser throughout her tenure as America’s top diplomat. If she makes it back to the White House, nothing can stop her from bringing him into a position of real power.
Mrs. Clinton and her defenders say the email story is a sideshow, but the reason it’s important is because it is revealing so much about how she would govern.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
2)
Democrats and the Ayatollahs
Obama’s party is now accountable for Iranian behavior.
Head of Iran's Assembly of Experts Mohammad Yazdi. PHOTO: ATTA KENARE/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
Maryland’s Barbara Mikulski on Wednesday became the 34th Senate Democrat to announce her support for President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, enough to sustain a veto on a resolution of disapproval. So the deal will proceed, and Democrats had better hope it succeeds because they are taking responsibility for Iran’s compliance and imperial ambitions. Politically speaking, they now own the Ayatollahs.
The Democratic co-owners include Vice President Joe Biden, presidential front-runnerHillary Clinton and nearly every member of the Congressional leadership. While New York Senator Chuck Schumer came out early against the deal, he has done nothing publicly to rally opponents. His silence suggests he has long known Mr. Obama would have enough votes to prevail.
Democrats will reinforce their ownership if they now use a Senate filibuster to block a vote on the motion of disapproval. More than 50 Senators are expected to oppose the deal, and a large bipartisan majority will oppose it in the House. Yet the White House is pushing for 41 Senate Democrats to enforce a filibuster, so that a bipartisan motion of disapproval dies in the Senate and Mr. Obama wouldn’t have to veto.
But what a spectacle that would be—the President’s party using a procedural dodge to avoid voting on the merits of so consequential a deal. Previous arms-control pacts of this magnitude were submitted as treaties requiring two-thirds approval by the Senate. Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats maneuvered the Iran deal as an “executive agreement,” so he is able to commit America to trusting the Ayatollahs with the support of a mere partisan minority. At least ObamaCare had a partisan majority.
As with ObamaCare, the polls now show more than half of the public is opposed to the Iran deal—despite Mr. Obama’s vigorous promotion and a cheerleading media. Also like ObamaCare, the President is assuring Democrats that public support will improve once the pact goes into effect.
But this makes Democrats hostage to Iran’s behavior. This means hostage to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who recently said that “even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change.”
It means hostage to Mohammad Yazdi, head of Iran’s powerful Assembly of Experts, who declared this week that “we should not change our foreign policy of opposition to America, our number one enemy, whose crimes are uncountable.” Ayatollah Yazdi will play a large role in selecting Ayatollah Khamenei’s successor.
And it means hostage to Qasem Soleimani, head of the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, which will receive billions of dollars in cash once sanctions are lifted. Mr. Soleimani is likely to deploy that cash to fund terrorism and proxies fighting in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Gaza. Democrats will have essentially voted to finance Iran’s combination of Persian imperialism and Shiite messianism.
Some Democrats like Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey have been candid enough to admit the risk of Iranian imperialism contained in the nuclear deal. But Mr. Casey justified his support this week on grounds that the accord will at least prevent Iran’s nuclear progress for a decade.
It’s true that Democrats will be able to count on the reluctance of the U.S. and U.N. nuclear inspectors to call Iran on any violations. That would mean a showdown that could cause Iran to expel the inspectors, much as North Korea once did. So we are likely to have an inspections process much like it was a decade ago under former International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei, who treated signs of Iran’s cheating skeptically.
Yet all evidence suggests that Iranian leaders are bent on building a bomb, and without a democratic revolution they will look for loopholes in the deal to exploit. All the more so because they view the agreement as an Iranian negotiating triumph. The habit of the regime is to treat weaker opponents with contempt, which means they will cheat in small ways and dare the U.S. to do something about it.
Meantime, Democrats will also have to worry how Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt respond to Iran becoming a nuclear-threshold state. Democrats are accountable if a nuclear arms race breaks out in the Middle East.
***
The Iran deal is one of those watershed foreign-policy moments when history will remember where politicians stood. Mr. Obama has said as much by conceding that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, “it’s my name on this.” By forming a partisan phalanx to let Mr. Obama overcome bipartisan opposition, Democrats have also put their names on it.
2a)
2a)
Iran's top leader: No nuclear deal unless sanctions lifted, not suspended
TEHRAN - Iran's supreme leader said Thursday "there will be no deal" if world powers insist on suspending rather than lifting sanctions as part of a landmark nuclear agreement, and said it is up to Iran's parliament, and not him, to approve or reject it.
2b)
|
This morning, President Obama got what he’s been working toward all year. With Senator Barbara Mikulski’s announcement that she will vote to support the Iran nuclear deal, the administration got its 34 th vote in the Senate, thus assuring that the president will have enough support to sustain a veto of a resolution of disapproval of the pact. Mikulski was just the latest of a number of Senate Democrats to throw in with the president on Iran. The only suspense now is whether Obama will get to 41 and thus have enough for a filibuster and prevent a vote on the deal from even taking place. Leaving aside the terrible damage the deal does to U.S. security and the stability of the Middle East, the most far-reaching effect of the deal is that from now on Democrats own Iran. From this moment forward, every act of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, every instance of Iranian aggression and adventurism as well as the Islamist regime’s inevitable march to a nuclear weapon can be laid at the feet of a
Democratic Party. With a few exceptions, the Democrats fell meekly behind a president determined to prioritize détente with Iran over the alliance with Israel and the need to defend U.S. interests. By smashing the bipartisan consensus that had existed on Iran up until this year, the Democrats have, in effect, become the hostages of the ayatollahs. This is a decision that will haunt them in the years to come.
Democratic Party. With a few exceptions, the Democrats fell meekly behind a president determined to prioritize détente with Iran over the alliance with Israel and the need to defend U.S. interests. By smashing the bipartisan consensus that had existed on Iran up until this year, the Democrats have, in effect, become the hostages of the ayatollahs. This is a decision that will haunt them in the years to come.
In analyzing the struggle that was ultimately won by Obama, it must first be acknowledged that the outcome was determined primarily by a mismatch in terms of the relative power of the two sides.
Though the Iran deal is a threat to U.S. security as well as to the interests of moderate Arab regimes who are as afraid of Tehran as Israel, the pro-Israel community, and AIPAC led the fight against the agreement. Though AIPAC can generally count on bipartisan support on any issue it cares about, it never had a prayer of beating an administration that was prepared to do and say anything to get its way. Once the president made clear that he considered the nuclear deal to be the centerpiece of his foreign policy legacy, the chances that even the pull of the pro-Israel community could peel away enough Democrats to sustain a veto override were slim and none. In order to achieve that victory, Obama had to sink to the level of gutter politics by smearing his critics as warmongers and slam AIPAC with the same sort of language that earned President George H.W. Bush opprobrium. But the president’s ability to pressure most of the members of his own party to back him was never really in doubt. It was a defeat for AIPAC but not one that should impact its ability to continue to be effective on Capitol Hill.
It must also be noted that this outcome was only made possible by the utter stupidity and cowardice of key Republican leaders — especially Senator Bob Corker — that led to their agreement to a bill that reversed the treaty ratification process. The Corker-Cardin bill that gave Congress the right to vote on the deal was represented at the time as a bipartisan triumph but the Democrats were laughing up their sleeves the whole time. Instead of demanding that the president present the deal to Congress as a treaty, which would have required a two-thirds vote of approval, Obama was able to ram this awful deal down the throats of a reluctant country and Congress by only being able to have enough votes to sustain a veto. It would have been better for the country had the GOP stood on its ground on the treaty issue since that would have left Obama to pursue his original plan, which was to treat the deal as a simple agreement that required no Congressional action at all. At least then the deal would have been seen as another end run around the Constitution by a lawless president. Instead, he gets to pretend that Congress has ratified the deal when, in fact, large majorities oppose it in both the House and the Senate.
But the most important point to be gleaned from Obama’s seeming triumph is that he and his party now bear complete responsibility for Iran’s good conduct as well as its nuclear program.
Let’s remember that, up until this past winter, it could be argued that Congressional Democrats were as ardent about stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions as the Republicans. Sanctions on Iran — that were opposed by the Obama administration — got overwhelming Democratic support with members of the party like Senator Robert Menendez leading the fight for them. Even tougher sanctions that were also opposed by the president last year also had the support of the vast majority of the Democratic caucuses in both the House and the Senate. Nor was there much enthusiasm among Democrats for the string of concessions that Obama made to Iran in the negotiations led up to the deal.
But once the president got close to achieving his goal of an entente with Iran, he set about the business of peeling away Democrats from that consensus position. To date only two in the Senate — Menendez and New York’s Chuck Schumer — resisted the pressure and even Schumer promised not to try and persuade other Democrats to join him. The power of the presidency and the threat of unleashing a wave of slander and perhaps primary opposition from the president’s left-wing admirers was enough to force Democrats into his camp.
The statements of support from each Democrat betrayed their lack of enthusiasm for a deal that all admitted wasn’t the triumph that Obama was crowing about. They know it doesn’t achieve the administration’s stated goal when the negotiations began of stopping Iran’s program. At best it postpones it for a decade or 15 years. Meanwhile Iran is allowed to continue research and keep its advanced infrastructure as well as the right to go on enriching uranium.
Just as important, the deal did nothing to rein in Iran’s support for terrorism, halt its ballistic missile building program (which shows that the U.S. and Europe are as much Tehran’s target as Israel) or halt its push for regional hegemony.
Obama and the Democrats now say they will get behind Israel and strengthen its defenses even though the deal makes Iran a threshold nuclear power almost immediately. That renders talk of preserving Israel’s qualitative military edge over potential foes meaningless.
But what this means is that every act of Iranian terror, every instance of Hamas and Hezbollah using Iranian funds and material to wage war against Israel or moves against Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states must now be seen as having been enabled not just by Obama but also by his party.
If Iran cheats its way to a bomb before the deal expires or uses the wealth that Obama is lavishing on it to get them to agree to this deal to undermine regional stability it won’t be possible in the future for Democrats to say that this was simply Obama’s folly. No, by docilely following his lead for a deal that few of them were eager to embrace, the entire Democratic Party must now pray that the president is right and that Iran will seek to “get right with the world” rather than pursuing a religious and ideological agenda of conflict with the West and Israel.
Obama got his deal despite the opposition of the majority of Congress and the American people. But the Democratic Party now gets the responsibility for Iranian terror and hate. By making Iran a partisan issue in this manner, Obama saddled his party with the blame for everything that will happen in the coming years. Munich analogies are often inappropriate but when Rep. Patrick Murphy (the likely Democratic nominee for the Senate seat Marco Rubio is vacating next year) said the deal gives us “peace in our time,”his channeling of Neville Chamberlain was no ordinary gaffe. In the years to come when Obama is retired and Iran uses the deal to make new mischief and atrocities, Democrats may regret giving in to the president’s pressure. But, like the appeasers of the 1930s, the legacy of the pro-Iran deal Democrats is now set in stone.
Jonathan S. Tobin is senior online editor of COMMENTARY magazine and chief political blogger at www.commentarymagazine.com.
2c ) A Message to America
By: Paula R. Stern
I was raised in a staunchly Democratic family. My mother worked hard within the party; though I was never told who to vote for, it was assumed that I would vote Democratic. For many years, I did. I will never again vote for a Democrat. I won't automatically vote for a Republican, but I will choose not to vote, sooner than cast a vote for a Democrat. As you, the Democratic party, have finished with Israel, I have finished with you.
Most of these names, I do not know but some are very familiar and people I once respected. To Barbara Boxer; Dianne Feinstein; Harry Reid; Bernie Sanders; Patrick Leahy; Tom Udall, I expected more from you.
You choose to redefine the argument, to spin reality to fit your needs and enable you to continue to woo American Jewry to get their votes. The Iran Deal won't endanger Israel? On what planet? How did you come to such a wrong conclusion? Who the hell are you to say we can safely ignore Iranian threats to obliterate us, to wipe us off the map?
The reality is very, very simple. The Iranians have repeatedly told you what they want - it is there in the chants, the burning flags. "Death to America" they scream out; "Death to Israel" is their battle cry.
Their message is clear and so is your vote. Very simple - a vote FOR this Iran Deal is a VOTE against Israel, it is a vote in favor of the death of Israel. And each one of you will bear full responsibility for each death that results from this deal...and there will be many, including some Americans. You've agreed to give Iran over $150 BILLION dollars. They have already laughed in your faces and confirmed that some of this money will go to Hezbollah and Hamas and to other terror organizations. Each bomb...each murder...will be listed in blood under your names. In our eyes, and I believe in God's eyes, when you hand a weapon to a killer, you become the arm with which he acts.
Yes, you have promised to support a deal that includes Iran's pledge to see us destroyed. That we will not die is something you do not understand and something for which you will never be able to take credit.
That we will live; that we will thrive and raise our children here is quite simply a miracle on earth. Every day here in this land, it is a miracle. We do not take it for granted and yet we know, for more than 2,000 years...even 3,000, God has protected and watched over Israel. This is something you cannot understand; you cannot credit. You cannot see or acknowledge. And you can't explain it away either. By all laws of warfare, Israel should never have been created. Outnumbered, under-armed, untrained - we were a disaster waiting to happen.
That we rose victorious in 1948 and in every war since has little to do with the United States and nothing to do with the Democratic party. So, it's time Israelis said goodbye. If you really wanted to understand the Iranian threat, you've had weeks to come here and learn our perspective. That you voted according to party lines shows your truest convictions. I am disgusted with each of you and with the Democratic party in particular.
And now, my message to Americans. Every poll I see says that a huge number of Americans oppose this Iran Deal. You get it. You understand that if Israel is Iran's "little Satan," than you are Iran's "Big Satan." You see that when thousands burn the American flag and scream "Death to America" - they really mean it.
I have gotten hundreds of message of support from all over America. People have written to me, left comments, and I am grateful. America has stood beside Israel since the moment Israel was created/recreated. Israel has stood beside America for the same amount of time.
Our military forces have a deep love and respect for each other because we know we are fighting the same enemy. This will continue long after Obama and these Senators are a vague memory in the annals of the world's greatest hypocrites and worst leaders.
Our people have fought for our independence, constantly striving to make not only our own countries, but the world a better place. Both our countries have made numerous sacrifices to try to achieve peace, and both have reached well beyond our borders to help others. We will always stand together, even if, in the next few months, Israel will walk alone.
If the day comes that missiles again rain down on Israel, we will not call you. If we determine that the only way to stop a nuclear Iran is through military action, we will not notify you.
All we can do is wait for sanity to return to Washington...and hope that you will remember each of the names above in November, 2016. Israel will.
About the Author: Visit Paula Stern's blog, A Soldier's Mother.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
The complex civil war in Syria keeps developing in ways that reinforce the trends that have been evident for some time. Despite the reports on a number of proposals for ending the conflict, the chances of fostering a breakthrough remain unclear.
3)
Islamic State Will Be Defeated
The black-flagged barbarians scatter like rabbits when the Kurdish Peshmerga attack.
Kurdish Peshmerga soldiers take up positions, south of Kirkuk, northern Iraq, Aug. 26. PHOTO: EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY
I spent last week with the Kurdish Peshmerga as they battled Islamic State. With a film crew, I traveled a long segment of the 600-mile front along which the Kurds of Iraq are taking on the decapitators.
And I tell you, those decapitators, the barbarians with the black flag who, for the time being, have carved out a quasi-state straddling Iraq and Syria, will be defeated. They will be defeated because although they are very adept terrorists they are not good soldiers.
They will be defeated because they act tough for the camera while slitting the throats of defenseless hostages, but they scattered like rabbits when, on Aug. 26 around Albu Najem, a Kurdish people’s army moved in and reoccupied 77 square miles.
They will be defeated because, on that same day in the village of Tal Bassal, local journalists and observers recorded them being routed after inflicting a relatively small number of casualties among the Peshmerga (11, to my knowledge), mostly by planting explosives in the houses and mosques that they abandoned, in jerrycans, or under roadside rocks.
They will be defeated because, contrary to what one hears constantly repeated, they are not as brave as they seem: They love death less than the Kurds love life.
They will be defeated because fewer of them than many think are able to say convincingly why they fight, whereas the Kurds are defending their land and an idea, the dream of a country of their own and a model of society that is unique in the region.
They will be defeated because they are facing an increasingly professional army composed, exceptionally, of men and women of all ages and circumstances, many of whom left behind successful civilian lives, an army whose infantry comprises foot soldiers age 20, 30, 50 and older. I even encountered, in oven-like heat on the highest outcropping of Mount Zartak, an octogenarian serving shoulder to shoulder with his younger comrades. He had been keeping watch the night before, when an Islamic State column crept up the slope hoping to take the Kurdish encampment from behind.
They will be defeated because their leaders lie low and send their brainless zealots to the slaughter, whereas the Kurdish generals whom I have met are right there on the front line, respectable and respected: concrete bunkers for the troops but, for Maj. Gen. Maghdid Harki, the position most exposed to snipers firing from the village of Bartila.
They will be defeated because the black flags that can be seen through binoculars a few hundred yards away in the Kirkuk sector are planted in areas full of civilians—and one never wins by making civilians into human shields.
They will be defeated because the destroyed granaries, the blown-up agricultural facilities, the ruined roads, the collapsed bridge over an irrigation canal overgrown with reeds, the smoldering ruins—in short, the scenes of desolation in the zones that they have briefly controlled and been forced to abandon by the army of liberation—attest that they know no other policy than that of scorched earth. And with that policy one does not prevail for long.
They will be defeated because the Kurds, while loving life, are also capable, when necessary, of risking death to perform deeds of startling bravery, as suggested by the meaning of Peshmerga: one who confronts death. That is the story of one Jamal Mohammed Salih, who, seeing a suicide truck hurtling toward his position, reflected only a split second before putting his tank in its path to save his 80 comrades. He survived. He was gravely wounded, but he survived, and we were able to record his moving account.
They will be defeated because Islamic State has traitors in its ranks who inform the Peshmerga of its movements, allowing the Kurdish fighters to surprise the enemy.
They will be defeated because when, near Gwair, we fell on their radio frequency, it was not hard to imagine that, like the Khmer Rouge, they will end up killing each other in confusion.
They will be defeated because in the past year the Peshmerga, having quickly overcome their surprise of a year ago, have hardened their positions around the Mosul Dam, carved out trails in the scree above Qaraqosh, built a fort at the most strategically located site in the Kirkuk sector, fortified the rocky outcroppings in the Zartak zone, and, on the plains, dug trenches up to 10 yards wide to stop kamikaze trucks.
Finally, they will be defeated because a strong international coalition, led by the United States, is fighting alongside the Kurds. I visited its command center at an old air base from which Saddam Hussein’s chemical-weapons attacks were carried out. And I am convinced that the coalition will end up delivering the final blow to Islamic State.
Mr. Lévy’s books include “Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism” (Random House, 2008). This op-ed was translated from the French by Steven B. Kennedy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)The Disintegration of Syria and Its Impact on Israel
By Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser
- Syria’s fragmentation into separate, battling enclaves is intensifying. The two main enclaves are “central Syria,” controlled by the Assad regime, and the Islamic State.
- The Assad regime and Hizbullah, like the opposition, have been taking heavy casualties. In an unusual speech on July 26, 2015, President Bashar Assad explained that in light of a manpower shortage, the regime’s army is unable to reconquer all the territories that the opposition has seized.
- The nuclear deal between Iran and the world powers has boosted Iran’s capacity to support the Assad regime. The anticipated lifting of the sanctions on Iran is set to enable it to funnel additional resources to this purpose, to which Iran assigns very high priority.
- Iran and Hizbullah’s attempts to create a base for terror activity against Israel from the northern Golan Heights apparently continue, relying on released terrorist Samir Kuntar and Druze elements.
- Against the backdrop of the nuclear deal, there are increasing chances of cooperation between the United States, Iran, and Assad, and possibly also Turkey and Saudi Arabia, in the campaign against the Islamic State.
The complex civil war in Syria keeps developing in ways that reinforce the trends that have been evident for some time. Despite the reports on a number of proposals for ending the conflict, the chances of fostering a breakthrough remain unclear.
The recent period has seen the following notable developments:
The Assad regime, with the help of Hizbullah, continues to entrench its control of areas it regards as vital, namely, the Damascus-Homs-Hama coastal axis and the vicinity of the Lebanese border. Following the takeover of Qusayr and with the conclusion of the battles in the Qalamoun Mountains (with gains by Hizbullah but without a clear victory), the battle for Zabadani began. Although the regime and Hizbullah forces have made gains in this theater, where they enjoy a clear advantage, they have not yet been able to defeat the opposition, which in this area comprises local, relatively less extreme forces. In any case, the regime and Hizbullah, like the opposition, have been taking heavy casualties. In an unusual speech on July 26, 2015, President Bashar Assad explained that in light of a manpower shortage, the regime’s army is unable to reconquer all the territories that the opposition has seized, and accordingly he has to prioritize which territories to contest based on military, demographic, and economic considerations.
Turkish involvement is growing. Following the Islamic State terror attack in the Turkish town of Suruc on the Syrian border and the spate of terror attacks by the Kurdish underground within Turkey, the Turks decided to attack targets of the Islamic State and of the Kurdish underground in Iraq and to allow the United States to strike Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq from the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey. The United States and Turkey have also agreed to set up a safe zone along 95 kilometers of the Syrian border, thereby making it possible for Syrian refugees in Turkey to return to Syria. Meanwhile, Turkey is concentrating on attacking Kurdish targets, actions that, some believe, were approved by the Americans. In the face of Kurdish criticism, the U.S. Administration was forced to deny that the actions had received Washington’s approval.
Turkey and the Kurds
Against this backdrop, tension is mounting in the Kurdish part of Syria. The area has been taken over by the PYD – the Syrian sister movement of the Turkish PKK, which cooperates with the Assad regime and is successfully fighting the Islamic State in the areas of Kobani and Tall Abyad. Its military force, the PYG, is being aided by Peshmerga forces sent from Iraqi Kurdistan. In light of Turkey’s actions against the PKK, there are signs of stronger unity among the different Kurdish factions in Syria. Considering, however, that these factions tend to be suspicious of each other, this may be a temporary phenomenon.
The nuclear deal between Iran and the world powers has boosted Iran’s capacity to support the Assad regime. The anticipated lifting of the sanctions on Iran is set to enable it to funnel additional resources to this purpose, to which Iran assigns a very high priority. In addition, some believe that the United States now sees Iran as a subcontractor that will fight the Islamic State, which imperils Assad, and is ready to accept a central Iranian role in dealing with the crisis. Not surprisingly, then, the regime feels that it has been strengthened and is waiting for its expectations to materialize. Noteworthy in this context are the increasing contacts among supporters of the Assad regime, including the recent visit to Tehran by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, who holds the Syria portfolio, apparently to discuss how the nuclear deal affects Syria and the various proposals for a settlement.
Is Assad’s Demise Inevitable?
Meanwhile, the regime keeps losing assets in areas it does not regard as strategically crucial. That is especially the case in the areas south and east of Damascus, including the Daraa, Sweida, and Tadmur (Palmyra) regions, and also in the north and particularly the Idlib and Aleppo regions. Recently the important city of Qaryatayn to the east of Homs (where many Christians live) fell to the Islamic State, and battles are raging around Hama, in which control of the territory keeps shifting back and forth. Many analysts have hastened to conclude from this phenomenon that the regime’s demise is now inevitable, its remaining days rapidly dwindling. It is doubtful, though, that this perception is accurate and even more doubtful that the perception has trickled down into the ranks of the regime. There appears to be no increase in the rate of senior figures’ desertion from its ranks.
As for the opposition, the Islamic forces keep gaining strength. The blow dealt by the Al-Nusra Front to Division 30 rebel troops, some of whose fighters were trained by the Americans, is further evidence of this fact. Although the Americans, nonplused, assert that from now on they will also protect the forces they have trained against their foes even within the opposition, it is doubtful that they will be able to do so. Meanwhile, the significance of the name-change for the grouping of Islamist factions that are less extreme than the Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State is still unclear. At first this grouping called itself Jaish al-Fatah (the Army of Conquest/Victory), and it made gains in the Idlib region. Later it changed its name to Jaish al-Umawayn (the Army of the Sons of the Nation), emphasizing its members’ Syrian identity. Forces belonging to this grouping have been playing a central role in the fighting in the Zabadani area.
The contacts between Saudi Arabia and Russia, particularly the visit to Moscow by Defense Minister Muhammad bin Salman (the son of King Salman), are also viewed as potentially affecting the course of the Syrian imbroglio. Some see the beginnings of a Saudi-Russian understanding where, in return for the huge deal with Russia involving military purchases and the building of a nuclear power station, Russia will loosen its support of Assad and agree to his being replaced. Others see indications, conversely, that the Saudis have despaired. It is unclear to what extent either evaluation has any real basis. In any case, most of the reports claim that Saudi Arabia is offering to stop backing the opposition in return for certain concessions by Assad and his supporters.
Iran, Hizbullah and the Druze
Iran and Hizbullah’s attempts to create a base for terror activity against Israel from the northern Golan Heights apparently continue, relying, among other things, on the support released terrorist Samir Kuntar enjoys among Druze elements in the border town of Al-Khader and on the assumption that the Assad regime will look favorably on such actions even if it does not initiate them. The attack attributed to Israel on a vehicle containing some Iranian and Druze Hizbullah operatives who, according to the reports, were killed, reflects this phenomenon. Israel is evidently working to prevent its enemies from exploiting the Syrian chaos to attack it or improve their capabilities to do so in the future.
Anxiety over these developments appears to be growing in the Druze community. Traditionally, the Druze have been committed to their Syrian nationality and to the Alawite-led alliance among the minorities that constitute about 40 percent of the country’s population. However, the less the regime controls the periphery as it focuses instead on maintaining control of “little Syria,” the more the Druze fear it will abandon them. In the main concentration of the Druze – the Druze Mountain, centered on the city of Suwaida – there is considerable concern about the fall of the nearby base of the Syrian army’s Brigade 52 into opposition hands. The regime’s attempts to maintain control in the area via the Alawite militia, the Shabiha, and to recruit Druze to its ranks have been opposed by local leaders, who have taken matters into their own hands and are even considering cooperating with the relatively moderate opposition forces active in the southern region, thereby countering the more substantial threat posed by the Islamic State after its conquest of Tadmur (Palmyra). As noted, the situation in the town of Al-Khader, situated on the Israeli border in the northern Golan Heights, is different, with the regime managing to maintain its control and retain the town’s loyalty, at least on the surface.
Given that Druze see themselves as mutually responsible for each other wherever they are located, these developments have direct implications for the Druze community in Lebanon and in Israel. The attacks by Druze on Israeli ambulances carrying injured Syrians, which occurred on the Israeli Golan and near Horfish in the Galilee, have sparked growing tension between the Druze, particularly in Al-Khader, and the relatively moderate opposition, which is perceived as being aided by Israel. Israel needs to intervene in this issue and reinforce its policy of avoiding direct involvement in the war while ensuring the security of the Druze, taking into account the blood pact between them and the Jewish people.
The main implications that emerge from these developments are:
Syria’s fragmentation into separate, battling enclaves is intensifying. The two main enclaves are “central Syria,” controlled by the Assad regime, and the Islamic State. Other enclaves are controlled by the communities that populate them (the Kurdish region in the north and the Druze Mountain in the south) or by Sunni opposition elements (part of Aleppo, Idlib, the southern Golan, and numerous rural areas around the main cities, including Damascus). All factions are fighting to expand their spheres of control or prevent gains by their enemies; and while each of these factions is pursuing local offensives and succeeding, the Islamic State is expanding its control in a way that could have strategic ramifications.
The fear of the Islamic State will probably lead external actors to boost their involvement in the fighting, thereby lessening the centrality of the regime’s struggle against the other insurgent groups. Against the backdrop of the nuclear deal, there are increasing chances of cooperation between the United States, Iran, and Assad, and possibly also Turkey and Saudi Arabia, in the campaign against the Islamic State. This situation, apparently, forms the background for initiatives to bring the war to an end.
Gains by the Assad regime, Iran, and Hizbullah in the crucial area of the Syrian-Lebanese border are likely, under these circumstances, to lead to intensified efforts by Iran and Hizbullah, as a secondary theater, to build capabilities for attacking Israel in the northern Golan.
In light of all these factors, and given the ongoing human distress, Israel may have no choice but to reconsider its policy toward the developments in Syria.
Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser is Director of the Project on the Regional Implications of the Syrian Civil War at the Jerusalem Center. He was formerly Director General of the Israel Ministry of Strategic Affairs and head of the Research and Analysis and Production Division of IDF Military Intelligence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment