New York Times Editorial, "Hillary Clinton Botches Wall Street Questions": And Saudi Contributions to the Clinton Foundation?

Tweet

A New York Times editorial entitled "Hillary Clinton Botches Wall Street Questions" has surprisingly savaged Hillary Clinton's explanation concerning campaign contributions she has received from Wall Street. In response to her attempt to tie these contributions to the 9/11 attacks directed against the World Trade Center in Manhattan's financial district, the editorial states:

"Since 2001, she and Bill Clinton have earned more than $125 million for speeches, many of the most lucrative made before financial groups. That does not account for the millions given directly to her campaign, and to political action committees backing her. Nearly 15 years after the 2001 attacks, Mrs. Clinton was earning more than $200,000 for a 20-minute speech. Most of those took place behind guarded doors. But one can guess that she and the financial executives were not still talking about 9/11.

. . . .

Her effort to tug on Americans’ heartstrings instead of explaining her Wall Street ties — on a day that the scars of 9/11 were exposed anew — was at best botched rhetoric. At worst it was the type of cynical move that Mrs. Clinton would have condemned in Republicans."

Contributions from Wall Street? In the aftermath of the Islamic State's attack against Paris, I would be more concerned with contributions the Clinton Foundation has received from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, which have also taken a lax attitude toward private contributions to this terror organization.

Prior to November 2016, I am confident this cozy arrangement between the Clintons and the various Gulf states will be explored. It will also be interesting to hear her explain away the abusive conduct of these donor countries to women.

New York Times Editorial, "Why Is Money Still Flowing to ISIS? ": Answer ... Qatar

Tweet

In another dumb-ass editorial entitled "Why Is Money Still Flowing to ISIS?," The New York Times writes:

"The Treasury Department is leading an international effort to disrupt trade routes, cut access to the international financial system, and impose sanctions on Islamic State leaders and anyone who assists them. Last week, the State Department offered a reward of up to $5 million for information that leads to a significant disruption of sales of oil or antiquities benefiting the group.

. . . .

Despite American efforts to cut off the group’s oil revenues, the most recent estimate is that ISIS earns about $40 million a month selling oil from fields in Syria and Iraq, with refined products going to local buyers, while crude oil is sold to middlemen and smugglers with customers in Iraq and Syria, including the Syrian regime, and beyond.

The Islamic State is also looting banks; demanding ransom from kidnap victims; engaging in human trafficking; selling off plundered antiquities; and leaning on private donors, mainly in Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia."

The editorial concludes:

"If the group’s brutal rampage is to be halted, more effective efforts to undermine its finances are essential. Military force can be only one element of a multipronged strategy."

Well, I'm here to pick up my $5 million reward.

After the Islamic State beheaded 21 Egyptian Copts in Libya earlier this year, Cairo sent its air force to bomb ISIS bases in Libya, and Qatar expressed its dismay over the attack. A brouhaha between Qatar and Egypt resulted, and Aljazeera reported in an article entitled "Qatar recalls ambassador to Egypt over ISIL row":

"Qatar has recalled its ambassador to Egypt 'for consultation' after a row over Cairo's air strikes on targets of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Libya, Qatari state media said.

A foreign ministry official said Doha was recalling its envoy over a statement made by Egypt's delegate to the Arab League Tariq Adel, according to Qatar News Agency.

Adel accused Qatar of supporting terrorism, according to Egyptian media, after Doha's representative expressed reservations over a clause in a communique welcoming Cairo's air strikes on ISIL targets."

As well known to Egypt, Qatar funds ISIS and al-Qaeda, but that didn't stop Obama from selling to the Qataris $11 billion worth of Apache helicopters and Patriot and Javelin air-defense systems a year ago.

And as reported in a February 2015 Daily Beast article entitled "An American Ally’s Grand Mosque of Hate" by Jamie Dettmer:

"In recent weeks, the Qataris have come under increasing pressure from the Obama administration and other Western governments to curb the emirate’s ties with radical Islamist movements—U.S. officials say Qatar has now replaced its neighbor Saudi Arabia as the source of the largest private donations to the Islamic State and al Qaeda affiliates.

When the spotlight is on—when jihad moneymen in Qatar and their funding networks are exposed and attract high levels of Western protest—Qatari authorities take some limited actions.

But there seems to be no persuading Qatar to stop running with the hare and hunting with the hounds—and that remains the case with providing platforms for ideological fellow-travelers of ISIS and al Qaeda or their supporters. And when Western attention is focused elsewhere, the Grand Mosque rings to sermons promoting the same intolerant strain of Islam endorsed by ISIS and used to justify the group’s barbarity."

Indeed, Qatar is playing both sides of the fence. Qatari banks and Qatari donors are being strong-armed into aiding ISIS? Rubbish!

If you wish to cut off Qatari support of the Islamic State, you need only prevent Qatari financial institutions from accessing the American banking system. But the Obama administration would never do this. It would cost the United States billions of dollars in arms sales, which could migrate to France or . . . Russia.

Moreover, let's be fair: Iranian-backed Shia militias in Iraq are no less brutal than ISIS. But heck, Obama just forged a nuclear deal with Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, and the Times wouldn't want to criticize Tehran.

Bottom line: The incoherence of Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East extends far beyond Syria.

New York Times Editorial, "An Incoherent Syria War Strategy": A "Hallucinatory" President?

Tweet

Whoa! What's happening at the Times?

In an editorial entitled "An Incoherent Syria War Strategy," The New York Times says of the Obama administration's new Syria policy (my emphasis in red):

"The Pentagon will stop putting rebel fighters through training in neighboring countries, a program that was designed to ensure that fighters were properly vetted before they could get their hands on American weapons and ammunition. The new plan will simply funnel weapons through rebel leaders who are already in the fight and appear to be making some headway.

. . . .

The initial plan was dubious. The new one is hallucinatory, and it is being rolled out as the war enters a more perilous phase now that Russia has significantly stepped up its military support of Mr. Assad’s forces."

Yes, after spending $500 million to put "moderate" Syrian rebels in the field and managing to muster a force of five, "Change" had to come. But isn't the Times being unduly harsh on the president? Consider what the "A-Team" accomplished with only four members (Howling Mad Murdock, B. A. Baracus, John "Hannibal" Smith and Templeton Peck). Perhaps the CIA should consider sending Mr. T to fight ISIS . . .

The Times editorial concludes:

"Getting out of the quagmire in Syria may appear harder than it has ever been. But the only viable solution remains a diplomatic breakthrough that leads to a transfer of power in Damascus and paves the way for a unified campaign against the Islamic State.

That will require the ironing out of stark differences between the United States and Mr. Assad’s chief backers, Russia and Iran. Until then, the three countries are unlikely to accomplish much beyond moving the front lines back and forth, adding to Syria’s bloodletting and despair."

Yup, Putin and Khamenei, both "great guys," are going to force Assad, John Kerry's "dear friend," to step down in order to "pave the way for a unified campaign against the Islamic State." A "hallucinatory" president, or a "hallucinatory" editorial?

Apparently it never occurred to the genius who wrote this gem of an opinion piece that Putin does not intend to wage war against the Islamic State, beyond propping up Assad in what is left of his state within a former state. You see, Putin has no interest in antagonizing Sunni Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both of which could prove lucrative arms customers, particularly when the price of Russian oil has fallen so low and is jeopardizing the Russian economy. Saudi Arabia continues to contemplate major arms deals with Russia, intended by the Saudis to gain leverage over Russian involvement in Syria, and with funding from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Egypt is already buying weaponry from Moscow.

Also consider that some 12 percent of Russia's population is Muslim, and most of them are Sunnis. Putin has no intention of reigniting a Chechen revolt.

Putin is playing both sides of the fence? What a surprise!

Are you listening, Langley?

Tom Hamburger, "How Elizabeth Warren picked a fight with Brookings — and won": No Mention of Brookings, Indyk, Qatar and Hamas

Tweet

In a Washington Post article entitled "How Elizabeth Warren picked a fight with Brookings — and won," Tom Hamburger writes:

"The hero of the country’s liberal movement launched a surprise attack Tuesday against Washington’s most revered Democratic-leaning think tanks — and drew blood.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, stepping up her crusade against the power of wealthy interests, accused a Brookings Institution scholar of writing a research paper to benefit his corporate patrons.

Warren’s charge prompted a swift response, with Brookings seeking and receiving the resignation of the economist, Robert Litan, whose report criticized a Warren-backed consumer protection rule targeting the financial services industry."

A pity that Warren was not equally incensed by Qatar's $14.8 million donation to Brookings in 2014, which goes unmentioned by Hamburger. As was reported by The Algemeiner in a September 7, 2014 article entitled "Revealed: Hamas-Backing Qatar, Also Funding Brookings Institute, Home of Former U.S. MidEast Envoy Indyk":

"Questions are emerging over possible conflicts-of-interest after The New York Times highlighted Qatari funding for U.S. think tanks, including the Brookings Institute, employer of former U.S. envoy Martin Indyk, who was directly involved in recent negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

'Qatar, the small but wealthy Middle East nation, agreed last year to make a $14.8 million, four-year donation to Brookings, which has helped fund a Brookings affiliate in Qatar and a project on United States relations with the Islamic world,' according to The Times.

The report comes just weeks after Israel vociferously voiced objection to Qatar’s funding of its major adversary, terror group Hamas."

And as Lee Smith is quoted in an October 2, 2014 Tablet article entitled "Brookings Responds to Tablet Piece on Qatar Funding":

"The fact that Ambassador Indyk’s employer raised $14.8 million from the same Arab regime that funds Hamas, a mortal enemy of the two parties—Israel and the PA—whose negotiations he was to mediate, should have been enough to tell Secretary of State John Kerry that Dr. Indyk would be, at the least, a questionable choice for the job. This judgment might have been further supported by Mr. Indyk’s strange demeanor in casting Israel, both anonymously in news articles and publicly in hotel bars, as solely responsible for the failure of peace talks.

Why Ambassador Indyk veered so widely from the normal practices of statesmanship is unclear. Perhaps he thought his own behavior to be above reproach, even when others might say it violates commonly accepted norms, and creates the appearance of a conflict-of-interest so glaring that it would be legible to a nine-year-old. Or perhaps one of the most influential think tanks taking money from one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism was taken as a sign that the rules of the Washington DC foreign policy influence-peddling game have changed, and become even more gross and venal?"

You will recall that Obama and Kerry sought to impose Qatari and Turkish mediation upon Israel during its conflict with Hamas during the summer of 2014. As reported in a July 30, 2014 Hudson Institute article entitled "John Kerry Has Hamas’ Back: So, Who Has Israel’s?" by Lee Smith:

"'Qatar and Turkey are the biggest supporters of Hamas,' Netanyahu told President Obama, according to an Israeli transcript of a recording of the phone call. (A transcript the White House and prime minister’s office now claim is false.) 'It’s impossible to rely on them to be fair mediators.' To which Obama snidely responded: 'I trust Qatar and Turkey. Israel is not in the position that it can choose its mediators.' When Netanyahu objected to Obama’s high-school mean-girl treatment—'I protest because Hamas can continue to launch rockets and use tunnels for terror attacks'—the president of the United States simply ignored him: 'The ball’s in Israel’s court, and it must end all its military activities.'"

Personally, I "believe" that the transcript accurately reflected the content of the conversation, although it involved translation back and forth between English and Hebrew.

Kerry Visiting Egypt and Qatar but Will Steer His Swift Boat Clear of Israel

Tweet

US Secretary of State John Kerry will be traveling to Egypt and Qatar next week, to sell Obama's controversial nuclear deal with Iran, but he plans to steer his swift boat clear of Israel. Why not Israel? As reported in a Ynetnews article entitled "Kerry to visit region to discuss Iran deal, but skip Israel" by Yitzhak Benhorin:

"When asked why Kerry won't be visiting Israel, [US State Department spokesman John] Kirby said the secretary has spoken to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu many times over the past few weeks to discuss the agreement.

The latest phone call between the two was on July 16, after the agreement was signed."

The real reason why Kerry is not coming to is Israel is because of overwhelming disapproval of the nuclear deal among Israelis and the likelihood that he would be met in Israel with massive protest demonstrations.

In all fairness to Kerry, however, he also declined another dinner engagement in Damascus with his "dear friend" Bashar al-Assad.

David Brooks, "The Robert E. Lee Problem": What About Modern-Day Slavery in India, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Robert E. Lee Problem," David Brooks tackles the recent debate in the US concerning "the Confederate battle flag and other symbols of the Confederacy." Brooks writes:

"Lowering the Confederate flag from public properties is thus an easy call. There are plenty of ways to celebrate Southern heritage and Southern life without choosing one so enmeshed in the fight to preserve slavery."

Specifically regarding Confederate General Robert E. Lee, Brooks concludes:

"My own view is that we should preserve most Confederate memorials out of respect for the common soldiers. We should keep Lee’s name on institutions that reflect postwar service, like Washington and Lee University, where he was president. But we should remove Lee’s name from most schools, roads and other institutions, where the name could be seen as acceptance of what he did and stood for during the war.

This is not about rewriting history. It’s about shaping the culture going forward."

Okay, I agree with David concerning symbols of the Confederacy and Lee, but indeed, what "about shaping the culture going forward"? You see, slavery still exists today.

There are 14 million adults and children who live today in slavery in India, and more than 2 million Pakistanis who are enslaved. There are also 2.9 million people living in slavery in China.

There are also thousands of forced laborers in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and the list continues.

Yes, the Confederate battle flag should not be flown on South Carolina's Capitol grounds, but what about the 30 million people who still live in bondage, manufacturing our clothes, sporting goods and electronic equipment? Don't they also deserve our attention?

New York Times Editorial, "President Obama and the Gulf Arabs": Who Wrote This Twaddle?

What I would give to know who wrote today's New York Times editorial entitled "President Obama and the Gulf Arabs"! The editorial begins:

"Saudi Arabia is so angry at the emerging nuclear agreement between Iran and the major powers that it is threatening to develop its own nuclear capability — one more indication of the deep differences between the United States and the Persian Gulf Arab states over the deal, which the major powers and Iran aim to complete by June 30. President Obama had hoped to bridge that gap with a show of American-Arab unity at this week’s summit meeting at Camp David. The summit meeting fell well short of his ambitions, an unfortunate outcome for both sides.

. . . .

The most overt evidence of the unsettled ties between the United States and its longstanding Arab allies was a decision by King Salman of Saudi Arabia to stay home, after the White House announced he would be at the meeting. Bahrain’s king, Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, also a no-show, chose to attend a horse show in Britain."

A pity Obama is not inviting Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu to Camp David to bridge their differences. Netanyahu would come, but Obama has no intention of inviting his bête noire, who might educate the president concerning the realities of the Middle East.

The Times editorial continues:

"It is hard to see how threatening and snubbing a president who is offering crucial assistance to the Saudi-led war in Yemen and who still has two years left in office advances Arab interests. Even so, Mr. Obama could have done a better job of calming Arab insecurities long before he invited the gulf leaders to Camp David.

The Sunni Arabs have two main worries. One is that the nuclear agreement with Iran would leave Iran with a limited capability to produce nuclear fuel for energy and medical purposes, instead of ending it outright. They also worry that Iran’s re-entry into the international community after decades of isolation would mean that Washington’s loyalties would henceforth be divided and that America could no longer be counted on to defend them."

It is "hard to see" why Sunni Gulf State leaders are snubbing the president? For the love of heaven, Obama is giving Iran the right to manufacture a nuclear arsenal after 10 years, if Khamenei doesn't cheat before the expiration of the agreement - which he will. Then, too, Obama is giving Iran a signing bonus of $50 billion of freed bank deposits, which will quickly find its way into the hands of the Houthis in Yemen, Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza. Yes, I know: the editorial claims that the funds will be used for "accumulated domestic needs." Indeed, this might be a cogent argument were it not for the fact that Iran is a country that hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, and persecutes Baha'is, Kurds, Christians and Sunni Muslims, as its leaders await the return of the Mahdi. Attribute rational conduct to Khamenei and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard? I don't think so.

Remarkably, the editorial does not address Obama's nonsensical claim that if Iran cheats, sanctions will "snap back" into place. On Wednesday, Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin gave the lie to this outlandish attempt to sell the deal with Khamenei by declaring:

"'There can be no automaticity, none whatsoever' in reimposing UN sanctions if Iran violates the terms of an agreement to curb its nuclear program, Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told Bloomberg News on Wednesday. He didn’t elaborate."

The editorial concludes:

"A verifiable nuclear deal that limits Iran’s abilities has the best chance of keeping Iran from a nuclear weapon. The solution definitely does not lie in threats by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to build up their own nuclear capabilities, which could set off a new arms race and inflame the region even more."

A "verifiable nuclear deal" of the kind that was also negotiated by Wendy Sherman with North Korea in the past? Good luck!

Moreover, as previously observed, the deal is not intended to prevent Iran from building an atomic bomb. Rather, it is intended to delay by ten years the fabrication of such a weapon. "The solution definitely does not lie in threats by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to build up their own nuclear capabilities"? True. The solution lies in a credible effort by the US to stand up to Tehran and deny them any possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this is not occurring, and the Arabs, who better understand Iran than Obama, know this.

[Regarding Obama's credibility involving his "unique" interpretation of events in the Middle East, see also "Obama Claims Chlorine 'Historically Has Not Been Listed as a Chemical Weapon': Liar!."]

Obama to Meet With Emir of Qatar on Tuesday: Obama Seeks Modus Vivendi With ISIS and al-Qaeda

President Obama will meet at the White House with Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar, on Tuesday. Yes, that's right: Obama will meet with the leader of Qatar, a country that has funded ISIS, al-Nusra and al-Qaeda; however, he remains unwilling to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in another two weeks.

Apparently, this meeting is in keeping with a new Obama policy to explore avenues of discourse and understanding with Middle East terror organizations.

Yesterday, I wrote:

"The US State Department's Marie Harf declared three days ago, 'We can not kill our way out of this war' and went on to say that we must 'go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it is lack of opportunity for jobs.' So is it now Obama's policy also to reach a negotiated settlement with ISIS?"

Obviously, there was nothing accidental about Harf's comments. Obama is indeed seeking a modus vivendi with ISIS and the other monstrous terror organizations that plague the Middle East and the rest of the world. Maybe he intends to offer jobs to their memberships in order to restore order in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and a host of other countries.

Meanwhile with Netanyahu's speech before Congress drawing near, a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Obama Parries Questions on Iran Deal From Arabs as Well as Israelis" by Jay Solomon is informing us that Arab governments are also placing Obama on notice of their disapproval of any deal with Iran that would allow Tehran to keep its nuclear weapons development capabilities. Saudi Arabia has placed America's president on notice that they will develop technologies equivalent to those of Iran, i.e. a Middle East nuclear arms race is in the offing.

Can it get any worse?

New York Times Editorial, "Egypt’s Crisis Across the Border With Libya": Is Obama Seeking a Negotiated Settlement With ISIS?

You will recall that I wrote in my previous blog entry:

"After ISIS beheaded 21 Egyptian Copts in Libya, Cairo sent its air force to bomb ISIS bases in Libya, and Qatar, which funds ISIS, expressed its dismay over the attack. A brouhaha between Qatar and Egypt resulted."

Well today, The New York Times is weighing in on this controversy in an editorial entitled "Egypt’s Crisis Across the Border With Libya":

"[T]he [Egyptian] airstrikes marked a significant expansion of Egypt’s direct military involvement in Libya, and there is little evidence that the government of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has thought through its response or coordinated it with other nations, including the United States.

. . . .

For some time, Arab states have taken sides in this civil war, turning it into a proxy fight and fostering the very chaos in which the Islamic State thrives. Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have covertly backed General Hifter’s campaign to drive out the Islamists and their allies, while Qatar and Turkey reportedly have been backing Libya Dawn.

. . . .

Egypt, the most populous Arab nation, cannot afford to get bogged down in a war in Libya; there are staggering challenges at home, including reviving a battered economy and combating a domestic insurgency."

Qatar and Turkey - the two countries that Obama demanded that Israel accept as mediators in its most recent war with Hamas - are backing Libya Dawn? Just what is Libya Dawn? In fact, it is a group of Islamic militias that fly the flag of ISIS.

Or in other words, The New York Times is asking that Egypt not attack a branch of ISIS in Libya that beheaded 21 of its Christian citizens, because any such actions must be coordinated with the United States, which is conducting airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.

Coordinate strategy against ISIS with the United States? Maybe someone would care to inform me exactly what is Obama's strategy regarding ISIS. The US State Department's Marie Harf declared three days ago, "We can not kill our way out of this war" and went on to say that we must "go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it is lack of opportunity for jobs." So is it now Obama's policy also to reach a negotiated settlement with ISIS?

If only we could know who wrote this editorial for The New York Times . . .

Qatar Dismayed by Egyptian Strike Against ISIS

You will recall how Obama attempted to force Israel to accept Qatari mediation involving its last war with Hamas. Well, tiny, oil and gas rich Qatar is back in the headlines. After ISIS beheaded 21 Egyptian Copts in Libya, Cairo sent its air force to bomb ISIS bases in Libya, and Qatar, which funds ISIS, expressed its dismay over the attack. A brouhaha between Qatar and Egypt resulted, and Aljazeera reports today in an article entitled "Qatar recalls ambassador to Egypt over ISIL row":

"Qatar has recalled its ambassador to Egypt 'for consultation' after a row over Cairo's air strikes on targets of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Libya, Qatari state media said.

A foreign ministry official said Doha was recalling its envoy over a statement made by Egypt's delegate to the Arab League Tariq Adel, according to Qatar News Agency.

Adel accused Qatar of supporting terrorism, according to Egyptian media, after Doha's representative expressed reservations over a clause in a communique welcoming Cairo's air strikes on ISIL targets."

Indeed, as well known to Egypt, Qatar funds ISIS and al-Qaeda, but that didn't stop Obama from selling to the Qataris $11 billion worth of Apache helicopters and Patriot and Javelin air-defense systems last July.

However, I suppose that's peanuts compared with Obama's willingness to allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons threshold state. How much more damage can Obama do before he leaves the White House? Personally, I'm counting the days.

Thomas Friedman, "We Need Another Giant Protest": Obama Is Too Busy With His Golf Game

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "We Need Another Giant Protest," Thomas Friedman begins by observing:

"President Obama was criticized for failing to attend, or send a proper surrogate to, the giant antiterrorism march in Paris on Sunday. That criticism was right."

Friedman, who almost never criticizes Obama, is at least partially correct. Obama was too busy with his golf game and ESPN to attend. Also, Obama is preoccupied with a nuclear deal with Iran, which has been busy fomenting Shiite terror around the globe for many decades. As was noted by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes regarding a possible nuclear deal with Iran:

"This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context."

Deplore Sunni terrorism in Paris while seeking an accord with a vicious Shiite regime? Quite honestly, this doesn't make much sense.

Friedman continues:

"Saudi Arabia has redoubled its commitment to Wahhabi or Salafist Islam — the most puritanical, anti-pluralistic and anti-women version of that faith. This Saudi right turn — combined with oil revenues used to build Wahhabi-inspired mosques, websites and madrassas across the Muslim world — has tilted the entire Sunni community to the right. Look at a picture of female graduates of Cairo University in 1950. Few are wearing veils. Look at them today. Many are wearing veils. The open, soft, embracing Islam that defined Egypt for centuries — pray five times a day but wash it down with a beer at night — has been hardened by this Wahhabi wind from Arabia."

Only Egypt has "tilted" to the right? Have a look at what has happened in Turkey, ruled by Obama's friend Erdogan, since the AKP came to power in 2002.

Friedman further observes:

"The Saudi government opposes the jihadists. Unfortunately, though, it’s a very short step from Wahhabi Islam to the violent jihadism practiced by the Islamic State, or ISIS."

Horse manure! A "short step"? There is no "step" whatsoever. Funding for ISIS and the al-Qaeda linked al-Nusra Front has been coming from "private donors" from both Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Volunteers for the armies of both of these organizations have been arriving from Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia and Qatar wanted to block the funding and halt the movement of volunteer fighters, it could be accomplished in the blink of an eye.

Pressure from the isolationist Obama administration to halt this assistance to ISIS and al-Nusra has been non-existent.

So why should we have expected Obama to participate in the Paris rally? We shouldn't.

"Joining" Obama's Coaltion Against ISIS, Qatar Pays $20 Million to Al-Nusra to Free 45 Fijian UN Peacekeepers

As reported by Ynetnews in an article entitled "Qatar paid ransom for release of Fijian peacekeepers" by Roi Kais:

"Syrian opposition sources said on Saturday that Qatar paid militants from the Nusra Front in Syria a ransom of $20 million in exchange for the release of the 45 Fijian UN peacekeepers, the Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported.

The report comes a day after the Qatari Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that it had helped to secure the release of the peacekeepers following 'the request of the government of Fiji'."

How kind of Qatar, whose citizens have been financing the al-Nusra Front and ISIS, to pay this ransom directly to al-Nusra, a branch of al-Qaeda that has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

In July, the Obama administration agreed to sell Qatar $11 billion in advanced armaments, including Javelin anti-tank missiles. I can promise you that some of these missiles will find their way into the hands of the al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) and Hamas.

Of course, Qatar has agreed to participate in Obama's newly announced coalition to fight the Islamic State. As reported by The Guardian in an article entitled "Middle East countries sign up to Obama's coalition against Isis" by Spencer Ackerman (my emphasis in red):

"A day after Obama told the US public that the latest war in the skies above Iraq will soon cross the border into Syria, he received a major diplomatic boost from the leaders of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and the Gulf Cooperation Council - an alliance of the Sunni Arab Gulf nations, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates – who pledged to 'stand united' against 'the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.'

In a document known as the Jeddah Communique, issued after intense diplomacy from US secretary of state John Kerry in the Saudi city, the signatories agreed to staunch Isis funding and influx of foreign fighters, critical priorities for Washington. They expressed openness to contributing directly to the war effort, saying they would be 'as appropriate, joining in the many aspects of a coordinated military campaign' against Isis."

Qatar is going to stand in the way of funding for the Islamic State and contribute "as appropriate" to Obama's military campaign? Needless to say, John (Assad is "my dear friend") Kerry is blissfully unaware of the Islamic principles of taqiyya and kitman, which permit Muslims to lie to unbelievers.

David Brooks, "The Reluctant Leader": Comparing Obama With Moses

Holy Moses! Although we have grown increasingly accustomed to David Brooks's pseudo-philosophical babble over the course of the years, none of this prepared us for his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Reluctant Leader," which has to be his worst opinion piece ever. Contemplating the challenge posed to Obama by the Islamic State and seeking to explain how "circumstances thrust certain responsibilities" upon leaders, Brooks begins:

"Moses, famously, tried to get out of it. When God called on him to lead the Israelites, Moses threw up a flurry of reasons he was the wrong man for the job: I’m a nobody; I don’t speak well; I’m not brave.

But the job was thrust upon him. Though he displayed some of the traits you’d expect from a guy who would rather be back shepherding (passivity, whining), he became a great leader. He became the ultimate model for reluctant leadership."

Compare Obama with Moses? Yeah, right.

Moses didn't want the job of leading the Israelites out of Egypt. On the other hand, Obama did want the job of president with all its trappings; he simply didn't want - and was never prepared for - the attendant responsibilities.

And whereas Obama takes every opportunity to play golf with jock celebrities notwithstanding crises brewing at home or abroad, Moses never once hit the links in Sinai, despite its famous sand traps.

Brooks continues:

"History is full of reluctant leaders, too. President Obama is the most recent. He recently gave a speech on the need to move away from military force. He has tried to pivot away from the Middle East. He tried desperately to avoid the Syrian civil war.

. . . .

No American president could allow a barbaric caliphate to establish itself in the middle of the Middle East.

. . . .

The reluctant leader can be collaborative. He didn’t want his task, so he’s eager to share it. The Arab world can fully trust that Obama doesn’t have any permanent designs on their region because the guy is dying to wash his hands of the whole place as soon as possible."

Let's talk for a moment about Syria and what Obama did and didn't do. Obama declared that if Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons, this would be a "red line" for him. Well, Assad used chemical weapons against civilians in Syria's civil war, whereupon Obama sought, but failed, to create an international coalition to fight Assad. Afterwards, Obama sought, but failed, to obtain Congressional approval for dealing with Assad. This is a man "the Arab world can fully trust"?

If "no American president could allow a barbaric caliphate to establish itself in the middle of the Middle East," how is it that an American president permitted a maniacal despot to use chemical weapons against civilians in a brutal civil war which has caused more than 200,000 deaths and resulted in nine million refugees?

Obama forced Assad to turn over his chemical weapons arsenal? No way! As reported by Reuters in an article entitled "U.N. cites concerns over possible gaps in Syria's declared chemical arms," there is considerable concern that Bashar al-Assad did not hand over all of Syria's chemical weapons for destruction. Even US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power is quoted in this article as saying:

"Certainly if there are chemical weapons left in Syria, there will be a risk that those weapons fall into [the Islamic State's] hands. And we can only imagine what a group like that would do if in possession of such a weapon."

If there are still chemical weapons left in Syria? Would anyone in their right mind - other than John (Assad is "my dear friend") Kerry place his or her trust in Assad?

"The  reluctant leader can be collaborative"? Oh really? Perhaps you remember how Obama named Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan as one of his best overseas friends in 2012; however, we are now being told by Lebanon's The Daily Star that Obama's friend Erdogan has decided not to participate in the coalition being formed by Obama to attack the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which have financed the Islamic State on the sly, are going to join a coalition fighting this monstrous organization? Not a chance.

Most remarkably, Brooks never considers even for a moment whether Obama's much delayed decision to confront the Islamic State is the product of his disastrous foreign policy approval ratings and the effect this could have on the 2014 midterm elections. Moses, on the other hand, when ordering the destruction of the golden calf, never looked to Gallup for guidance.

Expect leadership from Obama so late in his presidency? No way! He's an orator, not a leader.

Expect something other than tripe from David Brooks? I've lost all hope.

Samantha Power: Syria Still Has Chemical Weapons

As reported by Reuters in an article entitled "U.N. cites concerns over possible gaps in Syria's declared chemical arms," there is considerable concern that Bashar al-Assad did not hand over all of Syria's chemical weapons for destruction. Moreover, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power is quoted in this article as saying:

"Certainly if there are chemical weapons left in Syria, there will be a risk that those weapons fall into [the Islamic State's] hands. And we can only imagine what a group like that would do if in possession of such a weapon."

If there are still chemical weapons left in Syria? Yeah, right.

Remarkably, Power is not expressing worry over the sale of advanced Javelin anti-tank missiles by the US to Qatar pursuant to an $11 billion arms agreement signed in July. As noted  in a recent Daily Beast article by Josh Rogin entitled "America's Allies Are Funding ISIS" (my emphasis in red):

"The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), now threatening Baghdad, was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, three U.S. allies that have dual agendas in the war on terror."

I can promise that the Javelin anti-tank missiles being sold by the US to Qatar will soon find their way into the hands of the Islamic State, the al-Nusra Front and Hamas, yet Obama and friends just don't give a damn.

Roger Cohen, "The Making of a Disaster": When You Play With the Devil (Qatar), There Is Hell to Pay

In a New York Times editorial entitled "The Making of a Disaster," Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen is back today with an explanation of why "The chicken that came home to roost from the Syrian debacle is called ISIS." Cohen provides a laundry list of contributory factors:

• Bush’s "bungled war in Iraq;"
• Saudi and Pakistani funding "of violent Sunni extremism;"
• failure to demonstrate in Egypt "that Arab societies can evolve out of the radicalizing confrontation of dictatorship and Islamism;"
• Obama's inaction and failure to enforce a red line in Syria following Assad's use of chemical weapons against civilians;
• failure to anticipate that jihadi extremists would fill the resultant Arab "vacuum;"
• "inattention, until it was too late, to festering sectarian conflict in a broken Iraqi society left to its fate by a complete American withdrawal."

Saudi and Pakistani funding of Sunni extremism? Cohen forgets to mention Qatar, a country with which the US signed an $11 billion arms deal in July.

Qatar? Funny you should ask. As reported by Al Jazeera yesterday in an article entitled "Kidnapped US journalist freed in Syria" (my emphasis in red):

"An American journalist kidnapped nearly two years ago has been freed in Syria following Qatari mediation and handed over to UN peacekeepers in the Golan Heights.

Peter Theo Curtis was handed over to UN peacekeepers in the village of al-Rafid, Quneitra, on Sunday. He has since been turned over to representatives from the US government after undergoing medical check-up, the UN said.

Curtis' family thanked both the governments of the US and Qatar, as well as others who helped negotiate his release.

According to a statement from his family, Curtis was captured in October 2012 and was reportedly held by the al-Nusra Front or by splinter groups allied with the al-Qaeda-affiliated group."

And as reported by The Washington Post today in an article entitled "Qatar played now-familiar role in helping to broker U.S. hostage’s release" by Adam Goldman and Karen DeYoung:

"Qatar, whose relationships with Islamist groups has at times been publicly questioned by the administration, has privately become the go-to U.S. partner for indirect communications with those groups. They include Hamas, at war with Israel in the Gaza Strip for the past month, and Jabhat al-Nusra, the group that held Curtis, which the United States has designated a foreign terrorist organization and a 'wholly owned subsidiary' of al-Qaeda.
. . . .

Qatari officials say their country’s contributions are the natural outgrowth of their belief in nonjudgmental dialogue.

. . . .

Obama administration officials don’t necessarily buy into the altruistic narrative, and some share the concern of Qatar’s Persian Gulf neighbors that it is seeking only to boost its status as a regional power far beyond its size. While Treasury Department officials have said the Qatari government no longer funds groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra, they believe that a handful of wealthy Qatari individuals continue to raise funds for Islamist groups in Syria."

What is the reason that Qatar wields such enormous power over the al-Nusra Front and the Taliban (Qatar brokered the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl last month in May)? Answer: Qatar's ongoing funding of terror. Qatar no longer funds the al-Nusra Front and ISIS? Bullshit! If Qatar didn't want to continue funding these monstrous Islamic terrorist organization, it would not allow its citizens to continue to make "contributions."

And although there was no direct payment of ransom for the release of Peter Theo Curtis, America's $11 billion arms deal with Qatar in June greased the wheels.

Apparently, Obama and friends never learned that when you play with the devil, ultimately there is hell to pay.

Ron Prosor, "Club Med for Terrorists": What About the US Arms Sale to Qatar Totaling $11 Billion?

Earlier this month, I submitted an opinion piece to The Washington Post entitled "Kerry, Cairo and Qatar: The Mystery Surrounding an American Foreign Policy Fiasco." I observed Qatar's links to radical Islamic organizations throughout the Middle East, including Hamas, the al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State, alternatively known as ISIL or ISIS. In addition, I noted the Obama administration's demand that Israel accept Qatari mediation of the Gaza conflict, coming on the heels of the July sale by the US of $11 billion of arms (including 500 Javelin anti-tank missiles) to Qatar.

What use does a nation the size of Connecticut with a population of 2 million have for so many anti-tank missiles? None. You know as well as I do where these missiles will be headed.

Last Wednesday, the same day on which I was notified by WaPo that they were not interested in my opinion piece, German Development Minister Gerd Mueller accused Qatar of financing Islamic State terrorists. Of course, Merkel is unwilling to take a position with respect to these allegations directed against the world's richest country per capita.

Today, in a guest opinion piece entitled "Club Med for Terrorists," Israel's ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, asks that the world tell Qatar to stop financing Hamas. Prosor writes:

"In recent years, the sheikhs of Doha, Qatar’s capital, have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Gaza. Every one of Hamas’s tunnels and rockets might as well have had a sign that read 'Made possible through a kind donation from the emir of Qatar.'

. . . .

[Qatar] harbors leading Islamist radicals like the spiritual leader of the global Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who issued a religious fatwa endorsing suicide attacks, and the Doha-based history professor Abdul Rahman Omeir al-Naimi, whom the United States Department of Treasury has named as a 'terrorist financier' for Al Qaeda. Qatar also funds a life of luxury for Khaled Meshal, the fugitive leader of Hamas."

No mention, however, by Prosor of the July sale by the United States of $11 billion of advanced armaments to Qatar. Why no mention? Perhaps given Israel's current difficult relationship with the Obama administration, he didn't wish to pour fuel on the fire.

Me? I don't need to be diplomatic. The sale of these weapons to Qatar by the Obama administration is nothing less than an obscenity.

Maureen Dowd, "The Golf Address": Foley and Ferguson, Consecutive Double Bogeys

Bravo, Maureen.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Golf Address," a parody on Lincoln's Gettysberg Address, Dowd takes Obama to task for spending so much time on the Martha's Vineyard links, at a time when the country and the world are awash in crisis. Dowd begins:

"FORE! Score? And seven trillion rounds ago, our forecaddies brought forth on this continent a new playground, conceived by Robert Trent Jones, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal when it comes to spending as much time on the links as possible — even when it seems totally inappropriate, like moments after making a solemn statement condemning the grisly murder of a 40-year-old American journalist beheaded by ISIL."

Cute. Or not so cute for anyone who has seen the picture of James Foley's decapitated body.

But let's be honest: Is there anyone naive enough to believe that Obama really gives a damn about Foley? Obama suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder. He doesn't care about the feelings of others.

And even if he had cut his vacation short for the sake of optics, what would it have accomplished? If he had spent a day "brainstorming" with Valerie "the Night Stalker" Jarrett,  John "I didn't inject Botox" Kerry, and Chuck "Chowderhead" Hagel, might this foursome have emerged with a game plan? Not a chance.

But as long as we're on the subject on ISIL, you should be asking yourself how it came to pass that America's president recently approved an $11 billion arms deal with Qatar, the world's premier financier of terror, who make the Saudis appear like choirboys. The US will soon be supplying Qatar with 500 Javelin anti-tank missiles, which, I promise you, will soon find their way into the hands of ISIL, the al-Nusra Front, and Hamas.

Am I just growing grouchy with age, or has the world truly taken a turn for the worse?

Ed Husain, "Saudis Must Stop Exporting Extremism": And What About Qatar?

In a New York Times guest op-ed entitled "Saudis Must Stop Exporting Extremism," with a subheading "ISIS Atrocities Started With Saudi Support for Salafi Hate," Ed Husain, "an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a senior adviser to the Tony Blair Faith Foundation," courageously writes:

"Let’s be clear: Al Qaeda, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram, the Shabab and others are all violent Sunni Salafi groupings. For five decades, Saudi Arabia has been the official sponsor of Sunni Salafism across the globe."

Finally, the link between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State, alternately known as ISIS or ISIL, is being acknowledged in a national US newspaper. However, there is no mention of the link between Qatar and the Islamic State and other radical Sunni terrorist organizations in this opinion piece by Husain.

As those who read this blog already know, The Washington Post refused to publish an opinion piece that I submitted, tying Qatar to these terrorist organizations. In July, the US signed an $11 billion arms deal with Qatar, the world's richest country per capita, which has a population of two million and which is the size of Connecticut. In addition, Obama attempted to force Netanyahu to accept Qatari and Turkish mediation of Israel's conflict with Hamas.

When will the US media get around to examining the US arms deal with Qatar and the stench surrounding Qatar's support of terror?

New York Times Editorial, "Death by Terror": Meanwhile, Obama Sells Arms to Qatar, a Terrorist State

In an editorial entitled "Death by Terror" with the subheading "James Foley’s Execution and the Question of Ransom," The New York Times observes, "There is no simple answer on whether to submit to terrorist extortion." The editorial's asinine conclusion:

"In the meantime, we can honor the many brave journalists, aid workers and civil servants who risk their lives in conflict zones, and grieve for Mr. Foley and the many others who have lost their freedom or their lives."

Remarkably, there is not a single mention in the editorial of Israel's experience in dealing with hostage taking by terrorist organizations over the course of many decades. No mention of the Entebbe raid and no mention of Gilad Shalit.

Also, no mention by the editorial of Obama's soporific response to terror. In his speech on Wednesday, following the murder to James Foley, Obama said of ISIL:

"People like this ultimately fail."

How reassuring. Let's wait around for spontaneous combustion.

Well, the Islamic State will be smashed only if it is pounded into the ground. A few pinprick airstrikes are not going to do the trick.

Most important, the US must stop doing arms deals with countries like Qatar that finance terrorist organizations (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/08/i-accuse-obama-selling-arms-to-qatar.html). Shame on Obama for signing an $11 billion arms deal with Qatar and supplying this Lilliputian country with 500 Javelin anti-tank missiles!

I can promise you that these anti-tank missiles will be headed for Hamas and will also find their way into the hands of the Islamic State, i.e. ISIL, but what does Obama care?

I Accuse: Obama Selling Arms to Qatar, a Terrorist State

Yesterday, Obama declared "Today, the entire world is appalled by the brutal murder of Jim Foley by the terrorist group." But is Obama truly "appalled" by the beheading of Foley, a freelance journalist, by the Islamic State, alternately known as ISIL or ISIS? If so, why is he selling billion of dollars of arms to Qatar, a tiny country which is the primary benefactor of Hamas, and whose citizens are believed to have funded the Islamic State and the radical al-Nusra Front? What precautions has Obama taken to prevent the advanced arms now being sold to Qatar from being transferred to these terrorist organizations? Why did Obama demand that Israel agree to Qatari mediation of Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza?

I submitted a guest opinion piece to a senior editor of The Washington Post, but yesterday he turned it down, explaining only "we're not able to use your piece." Below is the op-ed that I prepared for WaPo. Read it and decide for yourselves why WaPo could not "use" it:

Kerry, Cairo and Qatar: The Mystery Surrounding an American Foreign Policy Fiasco

Do you like a good mystery? If so, perhaps you might care to conjecture why President Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry recently demanded that Qatar and Turkey, instead of Egypt,  mediate Israel’s war with Hamas, against Israel’s best interests.

Turkey? Everyone knows where Turkey, straddling Europe and Asia, is located. There’s a good chance that you’ve visited Istanbul’s Grand Bazaar or at least watched James Bond ride a motorcycle over its rooftops in “Skyfall.” Then, too, you’ve probably read several of its prime minister’s bizarre anti-Semitic pronouncements.

But I’m not here to talk Turkey. Rather, let’s focus our attention on Qatar. Can you correctly pronounce Qatar? Most Americans cannot manage the guttural Arabic pronunciation. More important, if I were to hand you a map of the world, could you place your pinkie on this country, which has a population of 2 million and is the size of Connecticut? Chances are you couldn’t.

Of course, you’ve probably read that Qatar will be hosting the 2022 World Cup. You might also know that Qatar, which has the world's third largest natural gas reserves, is the world's richest country per capita.

Additionally of interest, on July 14 Qatar inked an agreement to purchase $11 billion of arms from the United States, including 10 Patriot anti-missile batteries, 24 Apache attack helicopters and several hundred Javelin anti-tank missiles. Why is this Lilliputian-sized country so hungry for armaments? More to the point, why did Obama agree to this sale of advanced weaponry to a country believed to be the primary benefactor of Hamas, designated a terrorist organization by the United States? Worse still, Qataris have been accused of financing the radical al-Nusra rebel faction in Syria as well as the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, which is busy burying Yazidi women and children alive. None other than Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shimon Peres has labelled Qatar “the world’s largest funder of terror.”

Moreover, why was Obama so adamant about making Qatar and Turkey the mediators, and not allowing Egypt, which had initiated the mediation process, to continue its work? In order to reach any semblance of a conclusion as to why Obama insisted upon Qatar and Turkey, it is necessary to wind the clock back a few years.

Foreign policy in the Arab world cannot be conducted without going through Egypt with its population of 82 million. Obama certainly knew this in the past, and in his highly heralded June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo, less than six months into his first term as president, Obama declared:

“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

A new beginning? Over the course of the next five years, things did not go as planned for the Obama administration, particularly as regards Egypt. In December 2010, the Arab Spring swept the Middle East, and when the demonstrations reached Cairo, Obama effectively demanded that Egypt's long-time president, Hosni Mubarak, a friend of the West, step down. Subsequently, Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was planning to attend the 67^th session of the UN General Assembly in September 2012, was invited to the White House. However, the invitation was rescinded when the US embassy in Cairo came under attack by an angry mob on September 11, the same day on which the U.S. diplomatic compound and CIA annex in Benghazi were assaulted, leading to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Obama didn’t want Morsi’s visit to imperil his reelection campaign.

America’s relations with Egypt grew steadily worse. With the Egyptian economy tanking and the Muslim Brotherhood attempting to consolidate power, Morsi was removed from office in a July 2013 coup by the Egyptian military, which controls much of Egyptian industry. Irked by this affront to what was hoped to be nascent Egyptian democracy, the Obama administration responded by freezing “large-scale military systems and cash assistance to the government pending credible progress toward an inclusive, democratically elected civilian government through free and fair elections.” As a consequence, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is now shopping for arms in Russia.

Worse still, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry poured oil on the fire by seeking to replace Egypt, which has a common border with Gaza, with Qatar and Turkey as mediators of Israel’s conflict with Hamas. The Egyptian military despises Hamas, owing to its close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and it came as no surprise that Kerry was subjected to a demeaning metal detector test before being allowed to meet with Sisi in Cairo last month, while trying to force his way into the negotiation process.

Frustrated by his frigid reception in Cairo, Kerry hastily flew to Paris, where he convened a meeting with diplomats from France, Britain, Italy and Germany, and also the foreign ministers of Qatar and Turkey. Representatives from Egypt and the Palestinian Authority were not invited to the secretary of state’s soirée, which resulted in nothing, but added insult to America’s traditional Arab allies.

Having infuriated Egypt, Saudi Arabia (whose relations with Qatar are strained), and the Palestinian Authority in one fell swoop, and with Israeli journalists from both the right and the left lambasting the incompetence of America’s secretary of state, Kerry conveniently disappeared on a seven-day voyage to Afghanistan, Burma, Australia, the Solomon Islands and Hawaii.

Back now to the original question: Why did Barack Obama seek to impose Qatar as a mediator upon Israel? Was it really because the U.S. was seeking a country with financial leverage over Hamas? This hardly makes sense, given Egypt’s control over the flow of goods across its mutual border with Gaza, which trumps any amount of Qatari funding.

Alternatively, was this an expression of petulance on the part of Obama, given General Sisi’s arrest of Mohammed Morsi, thus putting the kibosh on Egypt’s fleeting experiment with democracy and the president’s “new beginning”?

Or was this just the effect of jetlag on John Kerry?

Whatever the reason, it has proven another painful diplomatic setback for the United States.

[According to Fatah, Qatar forced Hamas to break the most recent truce arranged by Egypt and threatened to expel Khaled Mashal, Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, from Qatar, where he maintains his offices, if he did not reopen rocket fire on Israel (see: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184225#.U_WXq5scTct and http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4561522,00.html). On Monday, US State Department spokesperson Marie Harf admitted: "Today, [Kerry] has spoken with the Israeli prime minister, the Israeli foreign minister, the Turkish foreign minister, and the Qatari foreign minister. We need countries that have leverage over leaders of Hamas who can help put a cease-fire in place."]

PLEASE FORWARD TO YOUR SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS! THE SALE OF ARMS TO QATAR MUST BE STOPPED!