Thomas Friedman, "The (G.O.P.) Party’s Over": Absolving Hillary of Her Sins

Tweet

We now know that the US State Department funded an organization that used the money to oppose Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's reelection in 2015. We also know that the US State Department yesterday expressed concern over Israeli legislation that would require Israeli NGOs receiving more than half of their funding from overseas to disclose this information in their advocacy literature or be fined some $7,500. The legislation primarily affects left-leaning organizations taking donations from European governments, and according to US State Department spokesman John Kirby, "We are deeply concerned that this law can have a chilling effect on the activities that these worthwhile organizations are trying to do."

Yup, 400,000 dead and 10 million refugees and displaced persons in neighboring Syria, yet Obama and friends are "deeply concerned" by this Israeli legislation, notwithstanding the fact that the US Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 ("FARA") is intended to "to insure that the U.S. Government and the people of the United States are informed of the source of information (propaganda) and the identity of persons attempting to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws."

The Israeli legislation, providing for a fine of $7,500, could have a "chilling effect"? Violations of FARA can result in a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment of up to two years.

Meanwhile, Obama is threatening to veto three bills aimed at enhancing sanctions against Iran and encumbering Iranian financial transactions, notwithstanding warnings from Germany that Iran continues to seek components for its nuclear weapons program, and despite Iranian threats that 100,000 missiles will soon be launched against Israel.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The (G.O.P.) Party’s Over," would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman ignores this embarrassing treatment of an ally and instead turns his attention to America's presidential election. Without reference to FBI Director Comey's condemnation of Hillary Clinton's extreme carelessness involving her use of a home server while secretary of state, and ignoring the flagrant lies that she disseminated to the public over the past year to justify this abomination, Friedman sees fit to unequivocally endorse the Democratic candidate:

"Our country needs a healthy center-right party that can compete with a healthy center-left party.

. . . .

The [Republican] party grew into a messy, untended garden, and Donald Trump was like an invasive species that finally just took over the whole thing.

. . . .

A Clinton sweep in November would force more Republicans to start rebuilding a center-right party ready to govern and compromise. And a Clinton sweep would also mean Hillary could govern from the place where her true political soul resides — the center-left, not the far left."

Don't misunderstand me: I regard Hillary as the lesser of the two evils. But for Friedman to claim that there is anything healthy about a center-left party nominating Hillary Clinton is nothing less than rank hypocrisy.

Roger Cohen, "Obama's What Next?": Blaming Israel for Using Excessive Force to Prevent Stabbings

Tweet

Labeling Obama the "king of the slippery-slope school of foreign policy," Roger Cohen concludes in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Obama's What Next?":

"I believe Obama has sold America short. The foreign-policy pendulum that swings between expansiveness and retrenchment has swung too far. His shift from indispensable power to indispensable partner has backfired when partner after partner — the Afghan Army, the Iraqi Army — has proved ineffective. The United States is not even at the Minsk table on the Ukraine crisis. Germany is.

'Just do it' might have served Obama better at times than 'What next?' Between paralysis and 350,000 troops on the ground there are options. Not every intervention is a slippery slope. The question, post-Syria, is whether the next president can make American power credible enough to stop this crisis or another in the Middle East, the Baltics, or the South China Sea, from spiraling out of control."

No mention by Cohen of the recent Iranian precision-guided ballistic missile test in violation of Security Council resolution 1929 that Obama "referred" to the UN, or that 3,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops are now in Syria, or that Cuban soldiers have been flown by Russia into Syria to assist Assad.

Or stated otherwise, "Just do it," which morphed into "Don't do stupid sh*t," has now morphed into "Don't do squat" - other than have US State Department John Kirby blame Israel for using "excessive force" to prevent Palestinians from stabbing Israeli children and senior citizens.

Did Obama Agree That Iran Would Be Responsible for Policing Parchin?

Tweet

We have now learned that Obama's deal with Iran allows the mullahs to police their own activities at the Parchin military base. As reported yesterday by the Associated Press in an article entitled "UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site" by George Jahn:

"Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

. . . .

The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.

. . . .

The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he could think of no similar concession with any other country."

The response of the US State Department to this "remarkable" arrangement? State Department Spokesman John Kirby declared:

"We're confident in the agency's technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran's former program, issues that, in some cases, date back more than a decade."

Meanwhile, one of the 29 scientists who signed a letter backing the agreement with Iran, wrote to me that he is "trying to find out more about this," but "a primary reason for supporting the agreement is the verification of Iran’s behavior in the future, not the IAEA’s investigation of Iran’s behavior prior to 2003, about which the details are not public but about which our intelligence people already know a lot." The verification of Iran's future behavior? The scientist did not comment on Iran's demands "that international nuclear inspectors would only be permitted into the country once they receive approval from the Islamic Republic’s Intelligence Ministry" and that "International nuclear inspectors will only be permitted into the country after offering proofs of suspicious activity at the sites to be inspected."

So which is worse: Hillary's prevarication concerning her email server, Kerry's evasiveness concerning Parchin, or the willingness of "Progressive" American Jews to turn a blind eye to the threat of another Holocaust? It all makes you want to vomit . . .