Diana Buttu, "Why the Palestinian Authority Should Be Shuttered": A Call to Rehabilitate Hamas

Tweet

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

- Winston Churchill

The New York Times today published an op-ed entitled "Why the Palestinian Authority Should Be Shuttered" by Diana Buttu, who asserted in a 2012 Harvard lecture that Qassam rockets fired from Gaza at Israeli civilians "don't have explosive heads" (yeah, right). She also claimed at that same lecture that "between the period of 1997 until the year 2000, there wasn't a single Israeli who died of a suicide bombing inside Israel," yet, when confronted with the 1997 Café Apropo bombing, Butto resorted to another lie: "All of the people you are talking about were settlers." In fact, one of the women was from Tel Aviv, one from Herzliya, and one from Neve Monosson. (To learn more about Butto's prevarication at the Harvard lecture, have a gander at CAMERA's article "Diana Buttu is at it Again, Harvard Edition.") But back now to Butto's op-ed, which is no less "imaginative" than her Harvard talk. Butto begins by questioning "whether the Palestinian Authority plays any positive role or is simply a tool of control for Israel and the international community," and declares that "it’s time for the authority to go." Buttu continues:

"[Palestinian Authority] security forces do not provide a normal police service to Palestinians, but instead aid the Israeli Army in maintaining the occupation and Israel’s ever-expanding settlements.

. . . .

The raison d’être of the Palestinian Authority today is not to liberate Palestine; it is to keep Palestinians silent and quash dissent while Israel steals land, demolishes Palestinian homes, and builds and expands settlements."

Ah yes, the "ever-expanding" settlements. However, as observed in a December 29, 2016 Washington Post editorial entitled "On Israel, we’re right back where Obama started" (my emphasis in red):

"In fact, the two-state solution remains entirely viable, as even the settlement statistics cited by Mr. Kerry demonstrate. The administration asserts that the Jewish population in the West Bank has increased by 100,000 since 2009 — but by Mr. Kerry’s account, 80 percent of that growth was in areas Israel would likely annex in any settlement. In eight years, 20,000 people have been added to communities in territory likely to become part of Palestine — an area where 2.75 million Arabs now live. That growth of about 3 percent per annum, the product of a restraint for which Mr. Netanyahu received no White House credit, means that the Jewish population outside Israel’s West Bank fence may have decreased as a percentage of the overall population even as Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have made it the focal point of U.S. policy."

Similarly, Rick Richman wrote in a December 28, 2016 Commentary article entitled "It’s Not the Settlements, Stupid":

"The figure of 100,000 sounds significant until you realize that 80 percent of it has been in the settlement blocs 'everyone knows' Israel will retain in any conceivable peace agreement. The 20,000 person increase east of the separation barrier, established to stop the wave of Palestinian mass murders against Israelis, translates into less than one percent of the population in the disputed territories, over a period of eight years."

Buttu also fails to take into account what was acknowledged by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat: Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank. Additionally, she does not make mention of past Israeli evacuations of Sinai and Gaza, other than to assert that Israel maintains "overall control" of the Gaza Strip. Needless to say, Buttu avoids mention of Israel's evacuation of Gaza in 2005 and fails to observe that Gaza shares a border with Egypt.

And then there is the "small matter" of Hamas. Buttu writes:

"To remove this noose that has been choking Palestinians, the authority must be replaced with the sort of community-based decision making that predated the body’s establishment. And we must reform our main political body, the Palestine Liberation Organization, which Mr. Abbas also heads, to make it more representative of the Palestinian people and their political parties, including Hamas. Hamas has long indicated that it wants to be part of the P.L.O., and its revised charter, recently released in Doha, Qatar, affirms this aspiration."

Ah yes, the "new" Hamas, whose 2017 charter reads in relevant part:

14. The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression.

15. The Zionist project does not target the Palestinian people alone; it is the enemy of the Arab and Islamic Ummah posing a grave threat to its security and interests. It is also hostile to the Ummah’s aspirations for unity, renaissance and liberation and has been the major source of its troubles. The Zionist project also poses a danger to international security and peace and to mankind and its interests and stability.

. . . .

19. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, judaisation or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.

20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.

Rehabilitate Hamas, which earlier this week executed three men accused of killing one of its senior commanders - the executions were partially streamed live via Facebook? I don't think so.

Margaret Sullivan, "Trump’s wish to jail reporters is more than possible. Ask his international friends.":

Tweet

In a Washington Post article entitled "Trump’s wish to jail reporters is more than possible. Ask his international friends.," Margaret Sullivan writes that "President Trump warmly welcomed Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the White House." She continues:

"New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet told me he found appalling Trump’s suggestion [to jail journalists] (which surfaced in a leaked memo from former FBI director James B. Comey), but not entirely surprising.

'He doesn’t understand our role. He wants ‘Fox & Friends’ coverage instead,' Baquet said.

Trump’s embrace of Erdogan — who may be the leading jailer of journalists in the world — should come as no surprise."

But hey, didn't President Obama declare Erdogan to be one of his five best overseas friends?

And as reported in a May 20, 2013 WaPo article entitled "Justice Department’s scrutiny of Fox News reporter James Rosen in leak case draws fire" by Ann E. Marimow, wasn't it Obama's Justice Department that "investigated the newsgathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks"?

Don't get me wrong: Trump, a poster boy narcissist, is entirely unqualified to serve as president of the United States; however, Obama's conduct paved the way for this buffoon.

David Brooks, "When the World Is Led by a Child": Giving Trump Too Much Credit

Tweet

With every passing day, the Middle East becomes more of a powder keg. Currently, unbeknownst to most Americans, US, British and Jordanian special forces are on a collision course with Iranian-commanded Hezbollah troops in southern Syria, who are seeking to extend Khamenei's suzerainty over Syria's borders with Jordan and Israel, all with Russian approval. Who blinks first? Let's wait and see.

Meanwhile, Assad is operating a crematorium, built north of Damascus beside Sednaya prison, in order to dispose of thousands of bodies of executed detainees. As reported by Karen DeYoung in a Washington Post article entitled "U.S. says Syria built crematorium to handle mass prisoner killings":

"Accusations of mass murder and incinerated bodies, evoking the Holocaust, contrasted with last week’s Washington visit by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. They were pictured shaking hands and broadly smiling with President Trump before an Oval Office meeting in which discussions centered on Syria."

A Trump meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak at this juncture? Hard to fathom. As declared by acting US assistant secretary of state Stuart Jones, "We believe that the building of a crematorium is an effort to cover up the extent of mass murders taking place in Sednaya prison." Jones went on to say, "These atrocities have been carried out seemingly with the unconditional support from Russia and Iran."

Worse still, we are now learning that Trump divulged to Lavrov and Kislyak highly classified information, provided by Israeli intelligence, concerning an ISIS plot to blow up a US-bound passenger plane, by means of a laptop laden with explosives. This, in turn, has jeopardized the life of the Israeli spy embedded in ISIS, who provided the data.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "When the World Is Led by a Child," David Brooks responds to Trump's leak of intelligence secrets by observing:

"We’ve got this perverse situation in which the vast analytic powers of the entire world are being spent trying to understand a guy whose thoughts are often just six fireflies beeping randomly in a jar."

Six? That's about five too many.

David Ignatius, "What does Israel want from America?": What Ignatius Isn't Telling Us

Tweet

You will recall that in a March 31, 2015 Washington Post opinion piece  entitled "Deal or no deal, the Iran talks have borne fruit," David Ignatius wrote:

"Whatever the endgame produces, it’s useful to focus on the process of negotiation itself, which is nearly as important as whether there’s a sustainable deal.

First, there is the fact of U.S.-Iranian engagement. For more than 18 months, Iran has been in direct talks with a power it once demonized as the 'Great Satan.' Iranian hard-liners certainly remain, but the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever."

When I sent emails to Ignatius and provided evidence that he was wrong, he wrote back to me and declared:

"You miss my point entirely. What I said was that the NATION will never again chant it in UNISON. There will still be fanatical hardliners but they are beginning to be outliers."

Well, as we were informed last month by Majid Rafizadeh in a Gatestone Institute article entitled "Iran to Trump: Death to America Will Live On":

"Ideologically speaking, Iran's hardliners, primarily Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior officials of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) who enjoy the final say in Iran's domestic and foreign policies, have made it clear that Iran will not change the core pillars of its religious and revolutionary establishment: Anti-Americanism and hatred towards the 'Great Satan' and the 'Little Satan', Israel.

Supporters of Ayatollah Khamenei and the IRGC enthusiastically shouted 'Death to America' in response to a recent speech that Khamenei gave, applauding the 1979 hostage-taking and takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran.

Iran's major state newspapers carried anti-American headlines this week, quoting the Supreme Leader. In his latest public speech to thousands of people, which was televised via Iran's state TV, Khamenei made it clear that Trump's presidency will cause 'no difference' to Iran-US relationships. Khamenei pointed out that, 'We have no judgment on this election because America is the same America'. In his speech, Khamenei attacked President-elect Donald Trump and the American people. The Ayatollah called the US election 'a spectacle for exposing their crimes and debacles.'"

I missed Ignatius's point entirely? Yeah, right.

In any event, Ignatius is back again today with more rubbish in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "What does Israel want from America?" Ignatius would now have us know:

"President Trump’s embrace of Israel poses an unlikely dilemma for leaders of the Jewish state: They have to decide what they want from America, and on that question, there’s sharp disagreement.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved to seize the Trump moment Tuesday by announcing that Israel plans to construct 2,500 housing units in West Bank settlements. Just two days before, he and Trump had what the new president called a 'very nice' phone conversation. 'We’re building — and will continue to build,' an emboldened Netanyahu proclaimed Tuesday."

But what isn't Ignatius telling us? As reported today in a Jerusalem Post article entitled "Israel Announces Plans to Build 2,500 New West Bank Housing Units" by Herb Keinon:

"Most of the new units will be inside the major settlement blocs, with [Israeli Defense Minsiter Avigdor] Liberman saying that only 106 are outside the blocs.

. . . .

Liberman said that, in parallel to these moves, he will bring for the security cabinet’s approval plans to establish a Palestinian industrial zone near Tarkumiya, south of Hebron. According to the statement, this will be one of the largest industrial areas in the territories."

Or stated otherwise, the overwhelming majority of the new units are inside existing settlement blocs that will remain with Israel in any deal involving land swaps.

And then there is that small matter of a new Palestinian industrial zone, which Ignatius fails to mention.

Yes, I know, these are inconvenient truths, and I am hardly surprised that they don't find expression in Ignatius's op-ed.

Griff Witte, "Israeli settlements grew on Obama’s watch. They may be poised for a boom on Trump’s.": Witless

Tweet

In a Washington Post article entitled "Israeli settlements grew on Obama’s watch. They may be poised for a boom on Trump’s.," Griff Witte writes of Israeli West Bank construction "in these sacred, militarily occupied hills [almost makes you want to cry]":

"[E]very day they become a more entrenched reality on land that Palestinians say should rightfully belong to them. As the parched beige hilltops fill with red-tiled homes, decades of international efforts to achieve a two-state solution are unraveling.

. . . .

Today, about 400,000 Israelis live in approximately 150 settlements scattered across the West Bank. That’s up from fewer than 300,000 when Barack Obama was elected. An additional 200,000 Israelis live in East Jerusalem, which Palestinians want as their future capital."

However, as observed last week in a Washington Post editorial entitled "On Israel, we’re right back where Obama started" (my emphasis in red):

"In fact, the two-state solution remains entirely viable, as even the settlement statistics cited by Mr. Kerry demonstrate. The administration asserts that the Jewish population in the West Bank has increased by 100,000 since 2009 — but by Mr. Kerry’s account, 80 percent of that growth was in areas Israel would likely annex in any settlement. In eight years, 20,000 people have been added to communities in territory likely to become part of Palestine — an area where 2.75 million Arabs now live. That growth of about 3 percent per annum, the product of a restraint for which Mr. Netanyahu received no White House credit, means that the Jewish population outside Israel’s West Bank fence may have decreased as a percentage of the overall population even as Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have made it the focal point of U.S. policy."

Similarly, Rick Richman wrote in a December 28, 2016 Commentary article entitled "It’s Not the Settlements, Stupid":

"The figure of 100,000 sounds significant until you realize that 80 percent of it has been in the settlement blocs 'everyone knows' Israel will retain in any conceivable peace agreement. The 20,000 person increase east of the separation barrier, established to stop the wave of Palestinian mass murders against Israelis, translates into less than one percent of the population in the disputed territories, over a period of eight years."

Witte also fails to take into account what was acknowledged by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat: Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank. Additionally, he does not make mention of past Israeli evacuations of Sinai and Gaza.

Witte goes on to say:

"'Everyone who talks about a Palestinian state today knows it will not happen,' said Naftali Bennett, Israel’s education minister and leader of the right-wing Jewish Home party.

. . . .

It’s not clear whether Netanyahu will be willing to go as far as his education minister, an ally at times but a fierce rival at others. Netanyahu is still on record supporting a two-state solution, albeit grudgingly."

Netanyahu supports a "two-state solution, albeit grudgingly"? Netanyahu last month declared on 60 Minutes:

"I’m willing to negotiate with [the Palestinian Authority] at any moment. I haven’t reversed my position. I’ve said, ‘Look, we will solve this because we want two nation states at peace and with the proper security arrangements.’ Two states for two peoples…. that’s where I’m focused."

And whereas Witte is happy to quote Bennett, he avoids mention of the position taken by Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who lives on the West Bank and has stated "I even agree to vacate my settlement if there really will be a two-state solution." More recently, as reported by The Times of Israel in a November 16, 2016 article entitled "Liberman open to building freeze outside settlement blocs," this right-wing firebrand said that he is "ready to freeze building outside the blocs in exchange for an American agreement to expand settlement building in Efrat, Ma’ale Adumim and other areas widely expected to remain under Israeli sovereignty in the event of a future peace deal."

Bottom line: Witte's "news" item is devoid of balance, but why should we be surprised?

Brent Scowcroft and Thomas Pickering, "Speaking truth to our ally Israel": What About Speaking Truth to Pickering?

Tweet

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Speaking truth to our ally Israel," 91-year-old Brent Scowcroft and Thomas Pickering appear to take issue with last week's WaPo editorial entitled "On Israel, we’re right back where Obama started," which excoriated America's lame duck president and John Kerry (see my prior blog item, "Rashid Khalidi, John Kerry and Israel: 'Too Little and Too Late': More Israel Bashing From The New York Times"). Scowcroft and Pickering write in their op-ed:

"In recent days, the Obama administration has undertaken two significant actions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It refrained from vetoing a resolution at the U.N. Security Council that, among other things, detailed the devastating impact that Israeli settlement expansion is having on the prospects for a two-state peace agreement. And in a landmark speech, Secretary of State John F. Kerry warned that the trend toward a one-state reality is becoming increasingly entrenched, and he set out principles for a lasting peace based on a two-state solution."

"Devastating impact"? Needless to say, no mention by Scowcroft and Pickering of the fact acknowledged by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat that Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank. However, there is something else missing from Scowcroft and Pickering's opinion piece, and I have just dashed off the following email to Fred Hiatt, WaPo's editorial page editor:

Dear Mr. Hiatt,

At the bottom of The Washington Post opinion piece by Brent Scowcroft and Thomas R. Pickering, entitled "Speaking truth to our ally Israel," The Washington Post describes Pickering as follows:

"Thomas R. Pickering is a retired United States ambassador. Among his many diplomatic appointments, he served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from 1989 to 1992."

The Washington Post's description fails to mention that Pickering today is prominently listed ("top billing") by the National Iranian American Council, which is anything but friendly to Israel, as a member of its Advisory Board.

I kindly ask that The Washington Post's description of Pickering be corrected to reflect his membership on the Advisory Board of the National Iranian American Council, which is highly relevant to the substance of this opinion piece.

It is also worth noting that both Scowcroft and Pickering actively urged approval of the P5+1's nuclear deal with Iran.

Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey

It's worth reading The Daily Beast article entitled "Boeing’s Man Pushed for the Iran Nuclear Deal—and Now the Company Is Selling $25 Billion Worth of Planes to Tehran," which informs us (my emphasis in red:

"Boeing is grabbing headlines for its first-of-its-kind, $25 billion deal with Iran Air, Tehran’s state-owned airline.

But the American aerospace giant isn’t exactly publicizing the fact that it paid a lobbying firm to “monitor” the nuclear agreement that made its $25 billion sale to Tehran possible. Or that Boeing has on its payroll a former top Clinton administration official who used his clout to garner support in the corridors of powers for the Iran deal.

Thomas Pickering, one of the country’s most respected diplomats and a and former ambassador to Israel and the United Nations, has been quietly taking money from Boeing while vocally supporting the Iran nuclear deal—testifying before Congress, writing letters to high-level officials, and penning op-eds for outlets like The Washington Post."

Let's see if Mr. Hiatt gets back to me.

Rashid Khalidi, "John Kerry and Israel: Too Little and Too Late": More Israel Bashing From The New York Times

Tweet

Do you remember the controversy surrounding Obama and Rashid Khalidi?  The Los Angeles Times still refuses to release the video of Obama speaking at a 2003 going-away party honoring Khalidi, at which virulent anti-Semitism was expressed by other speakers. Well, it should come as no surprise that today, in the aftermath of John Kerry's speech earlier this week attacking Israeli settlements on the West Bank, Khalidi is being given space on The New York Times op-ed page to vent his spleen at Israel. Described by the Times as "a professor of Arab studies at Columbia who was an adviser to the Palestinian delegation during peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993" (no mention, of course, by the Times of the relationship between Obama and Khalidi or the video stashed away in a Los Angeles Times safe), Khalidi bashes Israel in his Times guest op-ed entitled "John Kerry and Israel: Too Little and Too Late":

"During Mr. Obama’s eight years in office, the illegal Israeli settler population has swelled by 100,000, to well over 600,000. Simultaneously, for eight years Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has directed a barrage of calculated slights, insults and acts of disrespect at the president of the United States. The Obama administration has finally reacted with Mr. Kerry’s speech and by allowing Resolution 2334, which condemns Israeli settlement expansion, to pass in the United Nations Security Council. By doing so, the United States simply acted in accordance with international law and the global consensus of nearly 50 years.

Meanwhile, a third generation of Palestinian children is growing up under a brutal occupation and Gaza has been under siege for a decade. Palestinians are obliged to seek the permission of the Israeli military for the most basic of needs, such as medical treatment, or to travel abroad or even just to Jerusalem."

Fascinating. Khalidi would have us believe that there are no hospitals in the West Bank or Gaza. In fact, there are some 60 hospitals and medical centers in the West Bank and Gaza, and although I am not claiming that Palestinian medical facilities are on a par with Israeli facilities, it is worth noting that average life expectancy in the West Bank is 75.91, compared with 75.69 in Hungary, 75.41 in China, 75.05 in Saudi Arabia, 74.57 in Turkey, 74.35 in Jordan, 73.70 in Egypt, and 71.15 in Iran.

Khalidi describes Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank as "brutal"? Consider what Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, now in his twelfth year of his four-year term in office, declared to Jackson Diehl in 2009 (my emphasis in red):

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

This statement was made after Abbas refused Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 peace offer, providing the Palestinians with an independent state along the 1967 lines together with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. 

As for Khalidi's claim that "During Mr. Obama’s eight years in office, the illegal Israeli settler population has swelled by 100,000, to well over 600,000." An answer to this rubbish is to be found in an editorial in today's Washington Post entitled "On Israel, we’re right back where Obama started," which informs us (my emphasis in red):

"THE OBAMA administration is ending eight years of failed Middle East diplomacy exactly where it began in 2009 — with an exaggerated and misguided focus on Israeli settlement construction. As he railed at the continuing growth of West Bank Jewish housing on Wednesday with a prolixity that Fidel Castro would have admired, Secretary of State John F. Kerry sounded a lot like President Obama during the early months of his first term, when he insisted that the Israeli government freeze all construction as a starting point for negotiations on a Palestinian state.

. . . .

Mr. Kerry’s speech was, above all, a vivid demonstration of the administration’s inability to learn from its mistakes or adjust the ideological tenets that Mr. Obama brought to office.

. . . .

In fact, the two-state solution remains entirely viable, as even the settlement statistics cited by Mr. Kerry demonstrate. The administration asserts that the Jewish population in the West Bank has increased by 100,000 since 2009 — but by Mr. Kerry’s account, 80 percent of that growth was in areas Israel would likely annex in any settlement. In eight years, 20,000 people have been added to communities in territory likely to become part of Palestine — an area where 2.75 million Arabs now live. That growth of about 3 percent per annum, the product of a restraint for which Mr. Netanyahu received no White House credit, means that the Jewish population outside Israel’s West Bank fence may have decreased as a percentage of the overall population even as Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have made it the focal point of U.S. policy."

Perhaps the WaPo editorial should have also observed what was acknowledged by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat: Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/erekat-olmert-offered-palestinians-territorial-equivalent-of-west-bank-1.393484).


Bottom line: Khalidi's Israel bashing op-ed amounts to just one more effort by The New York Times to discredit Israel during the waning days of the Obama administration. Despicable.

[I sent this blog item to Andrew Rosenthal, former editorial page editor of The New York Times:

Dear Andrew,

I thought you might be interested.

Jeffrey

Rosenthal's response:

I'm not sure why. But thanks.

Andy

Why am I not surprised?]

Richard Cohen, "Trump’s choice for Israeli ambassador is a danger to American lives": Echoing the New York Times's Hysteria

Tweet

In a Washington Post op-ed entitled "Trump’s choice for Israeli ambassador is a danger to American lives," Richard Cohen echoes the hysteria of The New York Times re Trump's nomination of David Friedman as America's next ambassador to Israel:

"The Senate will get a crack at Friedman. This is a nomination that must be rejected. He is a danger to peace in the Middle East, to American lives, to moderation and to civil discourse."

"Civil discourse" in the Middle East? A day doesn't go by without calls from Iran for the eradication of Israel. And then there is the Hamas covenant calling for the murder of all Jews.

Friedman poses a threat to American lives? Oh really? Just yesterday the Russian ambassador to Turkey was assassinated, and a semi-trailer plowed into a Berlin Christmas market in a terror attack that killed 12 and injured 48 persons. On Sunday, 10 people were killed and 34 wounded in a terror attack in Karak, Jordan. In fact, the entire Middle East is a tinderbox, having little to do with tiny Israel and having everything to do with conflicting Shiite/Sunni efforts to restore regional historic primacy.

"Moderation" means refusing to acknowledge that West Jerusalem, Israel's capital, has not been an integral part of that country since 1948? The time hasn't come to recognize that reality?

Spare me the bullshit, Dick.

Thomas Friedman, "WikiHillary for President": Twisted

Tweet

After Iranian Revolutionary Guards operating out of Yemen fired C-802 missiles against the USS Mason last week, you might have expected would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman to discuss this imbroglio and how it reflects upon Obama's bogus unsigned nuclear deal with Iran. But instead, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "WikiHillary for President," Friedman deems it more expedient to fawn over Hillary Clinton. Friedman concludes:

"When I read WikiHillary, I hear a smart, pragmatic, center-left politician who will be inclined to work with both the business community and Republicans to keep America tilted toward trade expansion, entrepreneurship and global integration, while redoubling efforts to cushion workers from the downsides of these policies.

I’m just sorry that campaign Hillary felt she could not speak like WikiHillary to build a proper mandate for President Hillary. She would have gained respect for daring to speak the truth to her own constituency — and demonstrating leadership — not lost votes.

Nonetheless, thanks to WikiLeaks, I am reassured that she has the right balance of instincts on the issues I care about most. So, again, thank you, Putin, for exposing that Hillary. She could make a pretty good president for these times."

Ah yes, WikiLeaks. But what about Chris Cillizza's Washington Post article entitled "Hillary Clinton’s email problems just came roaring back," from which we learned two days ago:

"On Monday, however, the various issues associated with Clinton's email setup came roaring back. According to emails released by the FBI, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy asked the FBI to ease up on classification decisions in exchange for allowing more FBI agents in countries where they were not permitted to go. The words 'quid pro quo' were used to describe the proposed exchange by the FBI official."

All of which is perhaps nothing compared with the access granted to Hillary's attorneys to review her emails notwithstanding the fact that they lacked proper security clearances, and the use of hammers and BleachBit to ensure that all of her communications would never see the light of day.

And all of which is absolutely nothing compared with Hillary's unmitigated support over the years of an ersatz husband engaged in deprivations against women.

As South Park would have us know, America is witnessing a contest between a "turd sandwich" and a "giant douche."

Hillary "could make a pretty good president for these times"? Stick it where the sun doesn't shine, Tom.

George Wll, "Congress should impeach the IRS commissioner — or risk becoming obsolete": Obama and the Collapse of the Rule of Law

Tweet

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Congress should impeach the IRS commissioner — or risk becoming obsolete," George Will calls for the impeachment of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. Will writes:

"At the IRS, Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner participated in delaying for up to five years — effectively denying — tax-exempt status for, and hence suppressing political advocacy by, conservative groups. She retired after refusing to testify to congressional committees, invoking the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination.

Koskinen, who became commissioner after Lerner left, failed to disclose the disappearance of emails germane to a congressional investigation of IRS misbehavior. Under his leadership, the IRS failed to comply with a preservation order pertaining to an investigation. He did not testify accurately or keep promises made to Congress. Subpoenaed documents, including 422 tapes potentially containing 24,000 Lerner emails, were destroyed. He falsely testified that the Government Accountability Office’s report on IRS practices found 'no examples of anyone who was improperly selected for an audit.'"

Will concludes, "Refusing to impeach Koskinen would continue the passivity by which members of Congress have become."

However, Koskinen is only symptomatic of a far larger problem. As I observed in yesterday's blog entry ("There is obviously one set of laws for the Clintons and another for the hoi polloi"), the rule of law under Obama has disintegrated.

Paul Krugman, "Donald Trump’s ‘Big Liar’ Technique": What About Hillary's ‘Adaptive Liar’ Technique?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Donald Trump’s ‘Big Liar’ Technique," Paul Krugman would have us examine the lies of Donald Trump, but ignore those of Hillary ("She stands accused of being overly legalistic or overstating the extent to which she has been cleared, but not of making major claims that are completely at odds with reality"). Krugman would have us know:

"Donald Trump has come up with something new, which we can call the 'big liar' technique. Taken one at a time, his lies are medium-size — not trivial, but mostly not rising to the level of blood libel. But the lies are constant, coming in a steady torrent, and are never acknowledged, simply repeated. He evidently believes that this strategy will keep the news media flummoxed, unable to believe, or at least say openly, that the candidate of a major party lies that much."

Okay, Trump employs the "big liar" technique and suffers from a severe narcissistic personality disorder; he should not be president of the United States. But what about Hillary's "adaptive liar" technique? As observed by Marc Thiessen in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Hillary Clinton fails the ABCs of handling classified information" (my emphasis in red):

"The fact is, every single person in America with even the lowest level of security clearance knows what (C) means. Clinton served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she regularly received classified information with a (C) marking on it. As secretary of state, she likely read classified documents with (C) markings every single day. And we’re supposed to believe she thought it was an alphabetical marking?

This was a fantastical argument for anyone with a security clearance, but it was totally lacking in credibility for someone with her proven pattern of deceit. Clinton has repeatedly changed her story: First, she told us there was “no classified material” in her private emails (which the FBI says was untrue). Then she told us there was nothing “classified at the time” (which the FBI also says was also untrue). Finally, she told us there was nothing “marked classified” in her private emails (which the FBI says was also untrue). So now she tells FBI interviewers that she does not know what (C) means, and they believe her?"

But lying is the least of it. The rule of law no longer exists in America, owing to Hillary. Allow Cheryl Mills, who had previously been questioned by the FBI, to be Hillary's legal counsel while the former secretary of state was undergoing questioning by the FBI? Ignore the destruction of Hillary's cell phones with a hammer? Sweep the erasure of Hillary's emails, which had been subpoenaed by Congress, under the carpet? Accept Hillary's 40 declarations to the FBI that she "could not recall" information relating to their questions, e.g., "any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information." This is despicable.

There is obviously one set of laws for the Clintons and another for the hoi polloi. But why should any of this trouble Paul "the conscience of a liberal" Krugman?

Karen Heller, "The improbable story of the man who won history’s ‘biggest murder trial’ at Nuremberg": Ben Ferencz, a Five Foot Giant Among Men

Tweet

In a Washington Post article entitled "The improbable story of the man who won history’s ‘biggest murder trial’ at Nuremberg," Karen Heller tells us of 96-year-old Ben Ferencz, the last surviving prosecutor from the Nuremberg trials. Read this article from top to bottom. See the video, too. Thank you, Ms. Heller. God bless you, Mr. Ferencz.

My fervent wish? That President Obama, the author of the unsigned nuclear deal with Iran, which continues to call for the extermination of Israel and sponsors Holocaust cartoon contests, also read this article.

How successful is Obama's unsigned deal with Iran? Well, Supreme Leader Khamenei has just declared:

"In a world where the bullying powers are ruling without the least essence of morality, conscience and humanity and are not shy of invading other countries and massacring innocent people, the development of defensive and offensive industries is quite natural.

. . . .

I insist that (we) are required to avoid negotiating with the US, and experience has proven that instead of understanding, the American are seeking to impose their will in the negotiations, a conspicuous example of which was the recent developments."

Mere rhetoric intended for the Iranian masses? I don't think so. Not after Iran's recent placement of a Russian-made S-300 air defense battery to protect its Fordo nuclear facility. Not after recurrent Iranian harassment of US Navy vessels in the Strait of Hormuz over the past week.

Meanwhile, in a Reuters article entitled "Exclusive: U.S., others agreed to 'secret' exemptions for Iran after nuclear deal - report," Jonathan Landay writes:

"The United States and its negotiating partners agreed "in secret" to allow Iran to evade some restrictions in last year's landmark nuclear agreement in order to meet the deadline for it to start getting relief from economic sanctions, according to a report reviewed by Reuters.

The report is to be published on Thursday by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said the think tank’s president David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and co-author of the report.

. . . .

Among the exemptions were two that allowed Iran to exceed the deal's limits on how much low-enriched uranium (LEU) it can keep in its nuclear facilities, the report said."

So, Obamacare is in a death spiral, and Obama's unsigned nuclear agreement with Iran is not worth the paper on which it was not written.

What's left of Obama's legacy? Oh, that's right, $20 trillion in unsustainable federal debt.

But not to worry: Hillary or Donald will soon put America back on course ... not.

The Washington Post Continues to Ignore the Escalating Conflict in Turkey

Tweet

The top story in today's online Washington Post? An article enlightening WaPo's readers concerning Turkey's armored ground incursion into Syria and the battles currently being waged between the Turkish army and Syria's Kurds, with whom, by the way, the US has been working to fight ISIS? An article mentioning Kurdish civilian casualties at the hands of the Turks? Not a chance. Rather, in a lead article entitled "A ramshackle village at the center of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," William Booth writes:

"SUSIYA, West Bank — For a quick reality check on the current stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there’s no better place to visit than this little village of miserable huts and sheep pens in the middle of nowhere.

The hamlet in the hills south of Hebron has become an improbable proxy in a cold war waged among Jewish settlers, the Israeli government, Western diplomats, peace activists and the 340 or so Arab herders who once inhabited caves on the site and now live in squalid tents.

. . . .

A final order to bulldoze the hamlet was delayed in mid-August when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office asked the courts to stay a ruling on the dispute for two months — until after the U.S. presidential election — according to lawyers involved in the case on both sides.

The Obama administration this month warned Israel that it finds the proposed eviction 'very troubling.'"

Fascinating. The Washington Post is more concerned with a legal battle involving Susiya than a deadly escalation of the conflict in Syria involving many civilian deaths.

Why am I not surprised?

The Washington Post Refuses to Publish My Opinion Piece: Middle East Meltdown

Tweet

Today I received the following message from The Washington Post: "Thank you very much for sending us this piece, but the Oped page won't be able to use it." Of course, WaPo wouldn't dream of publishing this opinion piece (below), which calls into question the probity of its overseas reporting. Judge for yourself:

What is happening to The Washington Post's coverage of Middle East news? More to the point, why has America's news media failed to address events affecting the safekeeping of America's global stockpile of nuclear weapons?

In July, following the failed military coup against Turkish president Erdogan, Turkish troops loyal to Erdogan encircled Incirlik Air Base, where 1,500 American Air Force troops are posted. The critical importance of Incirlik? US tactical nuclear weapons are stored there, and US air strikes against ISIS in Syria are launched from this base.

The Erdogan regime temporarily cut off commercial power to Incirlik following the coup attempt, and generators had to be used by the American air force to provide the base with electricity.

It was widely believed that the actions taken by Erdogan against the base related to Turkish demands that the American government extradite Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish cleric living in exile in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania. Gulen has been deemed a terrorist by the Erdogan regime, and his Hizmet movement has been accused by the Turkish government of standing behind the recent coup attempt; however, the American government has refused to send him back to Turkey.

Furious with President Obama, who had listed Erdogan as one of his five best overseas friends in 2012, the Turkish president met with Vladmir Putin in St. Petersburg on August 8 and declared “the Moscow-Ankara friendship axis will be restored.” Even more worrisome following the St. Petersburg summit, Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim suggested this past Saturday that Incirlik could be used by the Russian Air Force for strikes against ISIS.

In response to the crisis, there have been foreign news articles stating that America is secretly removing its B61 tactical gravity nuclear bombs from underground bunkers at Incirlik. It has also been reported that these weapons are being sent to Romania, although the Romanian government is denying these rumors.

On top of all of this, Russia’s air force recently began flying missions against ISIS from Iran’s Hamadan Air Base, and the State Department is considering whether this violates U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231. Meanwhile, Turkey's foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu made a surprise stopover in Iran this past Thursday after Turkish and Iranian foreign ministers met in Ankara last week to seek an end to the fighting in Syria. Turkey has been supporting rebel forces in Syria, whereas Iran has been propping up the Assad regime using Hezbollah fighters and its own Quds force.

If all of this was not worrisome enough, on Friday American and Syrian fighter jets nearly engaged in a dogfight over Kurdish Hassaka in northern Syria. Needless to say, the Erdogan regime is implacably opposed to Kurdish independence in Syria, which could have repercussions involving Turkey’s restive Kurdish minority. On the other hand, the Middle East's 30 million Kurds have been historically friendly to the US.

So why has America’s news media remained silent in the face of these events? Is it because the Olympics and Ryan Lochte took center stage? Is it because the latest revelations involving Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are more interesting than a threat to America’s overseas nuclear arsenal? Is it because the outbreak of the Zika virus in southern Florida is more worrisome? It’s all possible, however, I would have thought that the breakdown of America’s relationship with Turkey, the crisis surrounding America’s nuclear arsenal at Incerlik, and the threat of Russian hegemony over the Middle East would have deserved more than a passing mention by the press.

I would only add that permission for Russian missions against Syrian rebels out of Iranian air bases has now been withdrawn by Khamenei.

Obama's Nuclear Crisis With Turkey Goes Unreported in US

Tweet

How rotten is American journalism? In fact it has reached rock bottom.

Go to the home page of The New York Times and The Washington Post and do a word search using "Turkey." I came up with ... nothing.

Now consider the following August 18, 2016 DEBKAfile news story entitled "Rushed evacuation of US nukes from Incirlik," concerning the secret shipment of nuclear weapons from Turkey's Incirlik air base to US facilities in Romania:

"DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report that Washington decided to remove the nuclear arsenal to safety after talks between American and Turkish talks on release 1,500 US airmen serving at the base from the siege clamped down a month ago broke down. The airmen were running the US air campaign against ISIS in in Syria just 112km away.

The talks ground to a halt over Turkish insistence on assuming control of the nuclear arsenal and America’s rejection of this demand.

The 50-70 B61 tactical gravity nuclear bombs were stored in underground bunkers close to the US bombers’ air strips. Although this was not fully admitted by Washington, the US air and ground crews were held intermittently in lockdown since the President Tayyip Erdogan suppressed a military coup against him a month ago.

The deteriorations of relations between Ankara and Washington contrasted strongly with the Turkish-Russian rapprochement, which Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin sealed in St. Petersburg on Aug.8. Since then, there have been calls for the Russian Air Force to be allowed to displace the US warplanes at Incirlik. This process has now begun."

Yes, that's right, "Holy atomic pile, Batman!"

Back in 2012 Obama declared Erdogan to be one of his five best overseas friends in 2012. Care to reconsider your bullshit selection of buddies, Barry?

Paul Krugman, "Wisdom, Courage and the Economy": Honesty Is the Best Policy

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Wisdom, Courage and the Economy," Paul Krugman concludes (my emphasis in red):

"When conservatives promise fantastic growth if we give them another chance at Bushonomics, one main reason is that they don’t want to admit how much they would have to cut popular programs to pay for their tax cuts. When centrists urge us to look away from questions of distribution and fairness and focus on growth instead, all too often they’re basically running away from the real issues that divide us politically.

So it’s actually quite brave to say: 'Here are the things I want to do, and here is how I’ll pay for them. Sorry, some of you will have to pay higher taxes.' Wouldn’t it be great if that kind of policy honesty became the norm?"

Heck, wouldn't it be great if any semblance of honesty became the norm?

This in a Washington Post editorial today entitled "A porous ethical wall between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department" (again, my emphasis in red):

"Should Ms. Clinton win in November, she will bring to the Oval Office a web of connections and potential conflicts of interest, developed over decades in private, public and, in the case of her family’s philanthropic work, quasi-public activities. As secretary, she pledged to keep her official world and her family’s foundation separate, and she failed to keep them separate enough. Such sloppiness would not be acceptable in the White House."

"Sloppiness"? Heck, Hillary's "extreme carelessness" involving her home server, which placed US national security at risk, should have been enough to preclude her candidacy.

Mention of the Clinton Foundation or Hillary's home server in Krugman's op-ed of today's date? Fat chance of that coming from a partisan extremist omniscient progressive who wrote in an October 6, 2011 New York Times op-ed entitled "Confronting the Malefactors":

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

And then there was Krugman's trillion dollar platinum coin proposal, which even Jon Stewart labeled a "stupid f#cking idea."

Shakespeare wrote in "All's Well that Ends Well," "No legacy is so rich as honesty." Ah, but that was so long ago.

Charles Krauthammer, "Donald Trump and the fitness threshold": What Happens If Trump Quits?

Tweet

As noted today by Charles Krauthammer in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Donald Trump and the fitness threshold":

"This is beyond narcissism. I used to think Trump was an 11-year-old, an undeveloped schoolyard bully. I was off by about 10 years. His needs are more primitive, an infantile hunger for approval and praise, a craving that can never be satisfied. He lives in a cocoon of solipsism where the world outside himself has value — indeed exists — only insofar as it sustains and inflates him."

Agreed, which brings me to my query: If three months from today, Trump senses that he is going to be slaughtered in November, might he quit the race, claiming that the election is rigged? Can you imagine what this loss would do to his "cocoon of solipsism"?

And if Trump quits, my understanding is that the RNC will be forced to reconvene their national convention to nominate a new candidate.

Wishful thinking? Perhaps not. Donald is capable of anything, and the RNC - as well as Hillary and friends - had best be ready.

Thomas Friedman, "How Clinton Could Knock Trump Out": How a Pathological Liar Could Lay to Rest the Crown Prince of Narcissists

Tweet

"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."

- Robert Goodloe Harper, 1798

"Thank you, Vladimir, may I have another?"

- President Barack Obama, 2016

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "How Clinton Could Knock Trump Out," Thomas Friedman tells us:

"There are a lot of center-right, business Republicans today feeling orphaned by Trump. They can’t vote for him — but a lot of them still claim they can’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary, either. Clinton should be reaching out to them with a real pro-growth, start-up, deregulation, entrepreneurship agenda and give them a positive reason to vote for her."

A scintillating thought were it not for the fact that Hillary already went on record as saying:

"And don't let anybody, don’t let anybody tell you, that, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs."

Go back to sleep, Tom.

In other news, we have The Washington Post telling us today in an editorial entitled "Stop trusting Putin on Syria":

"Time and again, the secretary has declared that Russia must deliver or suffer consequences, such as a U.S. 'Plan B' for Syria. Each time, Moscow has disregarded the jawboning — and Mr. Kerry has responded not with consequences but with new appeals for cooperation and more U.S. concessions. On Monday, he said, 'We will see in the course of the next hours, few days, whether or not that dynamic' with Russia 'can be changed.' But then, he spoke nearly the same words six months ago."

Meanwhile, in a Wall Street Journal article entitled "U.S. Sent Cash to Iran as Americans Were Freed " by Jay Solomon and Carol E. Lee, we learn:

"The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward.

Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland, they said."

According to the article, US officials are claiming this wasn't a ransom payment. Yeah, right.

Paul Krugman, "Worthy of Our Contempt": The "Real Hillary"

Tweet

Okay, I agree with Paul Krugman in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Worthy of Our Contempt," that rational Republicans, or rational voters of any "denomination," should not be supporting Trump. His election could indeed lead to "irretrievable disaster." On the other hand, Krugman also uses this opportunity to suck up to Hillary:

"[W]hile we won’t know about a Clinton presidency until or unless it happens, I find much to admire in the real Hillary, who is nothing like the caricature."

Ah yes, the "real Hillary." Perhaps Krugman would care to inform us with whom she has been sharing her bed for the past decade? Bill, who repeatedly flew on the Lolita Express? I don't think so.

And while he's at it, perhaps Krugman would care to explain his admiration for the foundation established by Hillary, which has been roping in donations of millions of dollars from some of world's most oppressive regimes, including some that subjugate women.

And maybe Krugman would care to justify how Hillary lied to the parents of the victims of the Benghazi attack, claiming it was all on account of the video.

And then there was that basement home server, evidencing her desire to hide her correspondence at the expense of national security. (The Washington Post yesterday gave her four Pinocchios for telling Chris Wallace that "Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.")

Or maybe he simply admires how Hillary always backed her "husband" to the hilt, notwithstanding charges of rape.

Sorry, Paul, both candidates stink.

Paul Krugman, "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate": How Does Trump Differ From Obama?

Tweet

In in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate," Paul Krugman says of Donald Trump:

"[W]e’re talking about a ludicrous, outrageous candidate. And the Trump campaign’s recent behavior has quite a few foreign policy experts wondering just what kind of hold Mr. Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that influence will continue if he wins.

I’m not talking about merely admiring Mr. Putin’s performance — being impressed by the de facto dictator’s “strength,” and wanting to emulate his actions. I am, instead, talking about indications that Mr. Trump would, in office, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the expense of America’s allies and her own self-interest."

A "ludicrous, outrageous candidate"? You've got that much right, Paul.

But what about Obama's foreign policy vis-à-vis Putin? As observed in a July 1, 2016 Washington Post editorial entitled "Obama retreats from Putin in Syria — again" (my emphasis in red):

"FOR SEVERAL years, the Obama administration’s Syria policy has been stuck in a cycle of failure. Secretary of State John F. Kerry negotiates deals with Russia to end the fighting or create a new government in Damascus, while warning that if they are not respected by Russian President Vladi­mir Putin or Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the United States will consider other options, such as stepping up support for Syrian rebels. In every case, the Russian and Syrian regimes have betrayed their commitments, continuing to bomb civilian areas, employ chemical weapons and deny aid to besieged communities. And no wonder: Each time the U.S. response has been to return to the Russians, offering more concessions and pleading for another deal."

Moreover, as reported by The Wall Street Journal yesterday in an article entitled "Russia Bombed Base in Syria Used by U.S." by Adam Entous and Gordon Lubold (my emphasis in red):

"The Russians weren’t bombarding a run-of-the-mill rebel outpost, according to U.S. officials. Their target was a secret base of operations for elite American and British forces. In fact, a contingent of about 20 British special forces had pulled out of the garrison 24 hours earlier. British officials declined to comment.

U.S. military and intelligence officials say the previously unreported close call for Western forces on June 16, and a subsequent Russian strike on a site linked to the Central Intelligence Agency, were part of a campaign by Moscow to pressure the Obama administration to agree to closer cooperation in the skies over Syria.

The risk that U.S. and British forces could have been killed at the border garrison hardened opposition at the Pentagon and the CIA to accommodating the Russians. But White House and State Department officials, wary of an escalation in U.S. military involvement in Syria, decided to pursue a compromise."

So how does Trump differ from Obama? One admires him, while the other kowtows to him. Both empower him.

And while we're at it, let's not forget Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's infamous "reset" of relations with Putin.

A sickening sign of the times.

By the way, Krugman also makes no reference to the nuclear standoff between Obama and Erdogan involving the encirclement of the Incirlik Airbase in southern Turkey, where the US stores nuclear weapons and from which NATO launches strikes against ISIS.

SEE: "David Brooks, "The Death of the Republican Party": Ignoring the Incirlik Nuclear Crisis."