web analytics
April 29, 2016 / 21 Nisan, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘Hillary Clinton’

Report: Info on Hillary’s Private Email Server Could Do Serious Harm to National Security

Wednesday, January 20th, 2016

According to a letter from the Inspector General overseeing the investigation of former Secretary of State and now presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s personal email server, several dozen emails on her server were more sensitive than even ones designated “top secret.”

Those emails contained intelligence from what is called the U.S. Special Access Programs (SAP). Former CIA agent Charles Faddis told Fox News that SAP is considered the “crown jewels of the American intelligence community.”

SAP information should only ever be seen by a handful of very top government officials, and those are on a “need to know” basis. That is because exposure of such intelligence would likely reveal the source, putting that human asset at risk.

“If this information’s compromised,” Faddis explained, the U.S. is “going to suffer very serious national security damage. People are going to die, quite frankly.”

Transmitting such information over an unsecured server and maintaining it in a potentially compromised location could create dramatic vulnerabilities for national security. Anyone who would maintain such highly volatile information in a compromised manner could be subject to severe criminal penalties.

People are beginning to murmur about the penalties imposed on former CIA director General David Patreus, who signed an identical non-disclosure statement that Clinton did, and who was prosecuted for sharing classified information with his mistress.

All eyes are now on how the Clinton investigation is being handled, and what if any consequences Clinton will suffer as a result.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Kerry’s State Dept ‘Appalled’ by (Unnamed) Terrorist Attacks on Israelis

Monday, January 18th, 2016

Apparently attacking two defenseless women, one the mother of six, the other a pregnant woman, was too much for even Secretary of State John Kerry’s State Dept. to ignore.

About midday D.C. time on Monday, Jan. 18, the U.S. State Department issued a statement condemning the barbaric attacks on two Israeli women in less than 48 hours. One of the women was murdered at the door of her own home as several of her children watched or heard in horror. The other victim, a woman five months pregnant, was stabbed in a clothing store in her home community, who remains in Shaare Tzedek Meical Center’s Trauma Unit.

The U.S. acknowledged the horrific attacks on the two Israelis, mentioning each by name.

This is the full, six sentence, one paragraph condemnation issued by Kerry’s State Department’s spokesperson John Kirby:

We condemn in the strongest possible terms the terrorist attacks over the past two days against Israeli civilians. We were appalled and deeply saddened by the death of Dafna Meir, a mother of six, who was attacked on Sunday in her own home. We extend our deepest condolences to her family, friends and community. Today, a pregnant Israeli woman, Michal Froman, was stabbed in the West Bank. We wish her a full and complete recovery. These horrific incidents underscore the importance of affirmative steps to restore calm, reduce tensions and bring an immediate end to the violence.

It is appropriate for the State Dept. to condemn these brutal attacks, as they do others even when far less brutal, when they occur in the region.

The title of the statement uses the term “West Bank” to note where the attacks took place, rather than simply stating Israel. On the other hand, at least neither the title nor the statement itself describes the places where the women were attacked as “settlements,” as did, for example, the BBC  and even the JTA, in their reports.

At least as significant is that while the U.S. condemned the savage attacks, no responsibility was placed on any actors. The “terrorist attacks” happened, but nothing was said about who committed the acts, or who directed the attacks. In both instances it is already known that Palestinian Authority Arabs were the terrorists who knifed the women, one to death. One of the terrorists was an Arab who had been welcomed in to work in the community where he stabbed to death the mother of six. The other terrorist was an Arab teenager from nearby Bethlehem who entered the yishuv through a hole in the fence surrounding the community.

Not assigning blame when Palestinian or Israeli Arabs stab, slash, shoot or ram innocent Israelis is part of the modus operandi of John Kerry’s State Department, as it also was when State was run by now presidential-candidate Hillary Clinton.

This time, at least, the victims were particularized, but the people and entity responsible were not. That’s a problem that allows the responsible parties to remain anonymous and blameless on the world stage, where Israel, Israelis and, in particular, the Israeli government is always named and blamed.

Just wait to see what is the response to the new dictate by the chief security officer for Gush Etzion, the area south of Jerusalem in which the pregnant woman was stabbed. Arabs will now be barred from entering any of the Jewish towns in the area. Collective punishment? Apartheid? It’s coming. Four…three….two….one.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Clinton ‘Very Interested’ in Secret Plans to Fund Shaming of Israel and Spark ‘Palestinian’ Demonstrations

Tuesday, January 12th, 2016

UPDATED see end of article for update

While the U.S. government complains about a proposed Israeli law that will force non-governmental organizations operating in Israel to reveal whether they’re actually operated by foreign governments, it turns out that the U.S. government itself planned to use NGOs in Israel to manipulate Israeli policy. How? By sparking demonstrations among Palestinians, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

Several high-level advisors to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sketched the plan in emails, and Clinton directed that the emails be printed, apparently so she could study them carefully.

In an email, former Ambassador Thomas Pickering proposed to Clinton exactly who should be involved in the demonstrations, and the specific venues and buildings at which demonstrations should be conducted.  He even names at least one NGO to steer the protests he wanted to create: — “The Peace Now organization (Shalom Akshav)” – which Pickering suggests “despite its decline.”

The goal of the Pickering proposed demonstrations was to force Israel back to the negotiating table with the Palestinian Arab leadership.

Strikingly, given recent U.S. attacks on Israel’s proposed law mandating transparency among NGOs, the State Department advisers cautioned Clinton that their campaign would have to be secret.  “The United States, in my view, cannot be seen to have stimulated, encouraged or be the power behind” the plan to encourage such demonstrations. To achieve the desired result without being outed, Pickering suggested that “third parties and a number of NGOs” be drafted to be the public face on the plan.

Pickering was awarded an honorary degree by Brandeis University in 2014 for “elevat[ing] diplomacy to a high art.” Indeed.

The State Department emails describing the Pickering plan have something to offend everyone. Pickering urged Clinton to include only Palestinian women, and not men, in the planned demonstrations because the men would not remain peaceful.  “On the Palestinian side, the male culture is to use force.”  Indeed, Pickering explained to Clinton, for Palestinians “male culture comes close to requiring” violence.

The spirit of Pickering’s proposal was echoed by Anne-Marie Slaughter, who, in another email, proposed that the State Department find a group of millionaires/billionaires who would promise to contribute billions of dollars in a “Pledge for Palestine.”  Slaughter was confident that “even 30 calls to the right people in the Clinton fundraising network” would quickly generate the desired cash. Slaughter appeared to delight at the prospect of having Israelis be shamed for building homes “in the face of a Pledge for Peace.” The email went to Clinton as well as Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, and others. Clinton responded to Slaughter’s proposal, writing: “I am very interested – pls flesh out. Thx.”  Slaughter served as Clinton’s Director of Policy Planning.

Apparently the actual uses of the funds were unimportant, because Slaughter’s email did not say anything about what the money should be spent on. Perhaps tunnels in Gaza.

UPDATE: The link to the email between Clinton aide Slaughter and Clinton was dropped in the posting of this article. It is now embedded in the text.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Ivanka Trump Open to Politics; The First Woman Jewish President?

Wednesday, December 30th, 2015

Ivanka Trump, the woman who is considered the big brains in her father’s business empire, rules out politics for the time being but says she might consider following in her father’s footsteps later in life.

Asked if she thought about entering politics, Ivanka told Town & Country in an interview published Tuesday:

It’s not something I’ve ever been inclined to do, but I’m 34, so who knows? At this point I would never even contemplate it, but that doesn’t mean that when I’m 50 I won’t have a change of heart.

If that doesn’t sound like a politician, what does?

If she wanted to run for President today, she might have a good shot at, considering the candidates, including her father.

The media have not been enthusiastic about any of the presidential hopefuls. Hillary Clinton is viewed as a powerful liar, Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish, a wild-eyed socialist, and Donald Trump a UFO who knows how to get headlines and infuriate more than half the country while magnetizing an incredibly large number of voters.

Ivanka is a lot more good looking than her father and is the highly successful vice president of the Trump Organization.

She has tried to stay out of the campaign but told Town & Country she loves and fully supports her father. “I’m always there for him if it’s helpful,” Ivanka said.

Ivanka converted to Judaism through an orthodox rabbi, at the insistence of the family of her husband. She adopted the Hebrew name of Yael and said in an interview this year:

We’re pretty observant… It’s been such a great life decision for me… I really find that with Judaism, it creates an amazing blueprint for family connectivity. From Friday to Saturday we don’t do anything but hang out with one another. We don’t make phone calls.

The former model also has two children with a third on the way.

Politico has called her “the quiet power behind the Trump throne,” a stark contrast to her father’s shoot-from-the-hip barbs and crass remarks about women, Mexicans, Muslims and just about anyone else who is not a redneck.

Roger Ailes, chairman and CEO of Fox News chairman and whose TV journalist Megyn Kelly was crudely insulted by Trump, concedes that “Ivanka is the secret weapon of the entire Trump organization. She not only has tremendous business savvy, but she’s also street smart. There’s no doubt she exhibits the best skills of her father, has already developed an impressive personal brand, and besides is a very nice person.”

If Clinton does not become the first woman President of the United States, and if Sanders does not become the first Jewish President, Ivanka might be in line for both.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Analysis: In the Long Run, Clinton’s ‘War with Islam’ Problem Could Trip her Campaign

Sunday, November 15th, 2015

(JNi.media) At the Democratic presidential debate Saturday night, the leading presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, showed a troubling ambivalence regarding the identity of, arguably, the most dangerous people threatening civilization today. CBS News moderator John Dickerson phrased it this way: “Marco Rubio, also running for president, said … the attack in Paris showed that we are at war with radical Islam. Do you agree with that characterization, radical Islam?” Her answer was articulated perfectly, so that even a Clinton would have difficulty walking away from it at some future point. It was the kind of answer team Hillary must have worked on since the first news had come in about the terrorist massacres in Paris. Hillary answered: “I don’t think we’re at war with Islam. I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists.”

On the face of it, Clinton’s answer was identical to Senator Rubio’s, except she substituted the term “radical Islam” for “jihadists.” What followed was a discussion of language that could determine the future of the world. Dickerson said, “Just to interrupt, he didn’t say all Muslims. He just said radical Islam. Is that a phrase you don’t—”

Hillary responded: “I think that you can— you can talk about Islamists who— clearly are also jihadists. But I think it’s— it— it’s not particularly helpful to make the case that— Senator Sanders was just making that I agree with that we’ve gotta’ reach out to Muslim countries. We’ve gotta’ have them be part of our coalition.

“If they hear people running for— president who basically shortcut it to say we are somehow against Islam … despite all the other problems that George W. Bush made after 9/11.. he basically said after going to a mosque in Washington, ‘We are not at war with Islam or Muslims. We are at war with violent extremism. We are at war with people who use their religion for purposes of power and oppression.’ And yes, we are at war with those people that I don’t want us to be painting with too brand a brush.”

To summarize, the problem is not in defining who the bad Muslims are, the problem is in doing it while not alienating the good Muslims.

Huma Abedin is one such good Muslim. She is disgraced former NY Congressman Anthony Weiner’s wife, and she is also a major candidate for the post of Chief of Staff or something on that order in the Clinton White House, should Hillary win next November. Abedin has been a long-time aide to Mrs. Clinton, and served as her Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department (making $490,000 a year). Abedin serves as vice chairwoman of Clinton’s 2016 campaign for President. John Podesta, who served as President Bill Clinton’s COS is the campaign chairman.

Hillary Clinton has been described Huma Abedin’s other mother. In 2010, when Abedin married Weiner, Hillary said: “I have one daughter. But if I had a second daughter, it would [be] Huma.” And during a trip Clinton and Huma made to Saudi Arabia, Huma’s actual mother said, “Hillary, you have spent more time with my daughter than I have in the past 15 years. I’m jealous of you!”

Abedin’s father, Syed Zainul Abedin, was Indian, and her mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is Pakistani. Abedin was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan. At the age of two, she moved with her family to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where she was raised and lived until returning to the United States for college. It is safe to say that she spent her formative years deeply mired in an Islamist environment, and a Saudi one at that.

JNi.Media

Assad Flies to Moscow to Thank Putin

Wednesday, October 21st, 2015

Dateline, Moscow, Syria – Syrian President Bashar al-Assad flew from Damascus to Russia Tuesday night to thank president Vladimir Putin for saving his life and keeping in power, for the time being.

Assad has not left Syria since the Arab Spring swept through the country in 2011. He rode out the storm for a couple of months, backed by the Obama administration and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who called him a “reformer,” before his heavy hand of suppression boomeranged into civil war.

So far, the alternative to Assad is a worse barbarian.

President Barack Obama says there will be no peace in Syria so long as Assad is in power. Fortunately, what he says means less and less in the world, especially in the Middle East and particularly in Syria, where Putin has outfoxed and out-smarted President Obama to fill the vacuum of power.

Putin’s massive military support for Assad, ostensibly to attack the Islamic State (ISIS) but in reality to protect the Assad regime from revel groups, Al Qaeda and a host of other enemies, has erased the overdone predictions that Assad is about to disappear, one way or the other.

Everyone has been saying that for four years, including Israel’s then Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who public stated that he would be toppled within six months. That was three years ago.

News of Assad’s visit was kept secret until Wednesday morning, when the Kremlin released a transcript of the Putin-Assad meeting. The Syrian president may have returned to Syria already.

Moscow is just about the only place on earth he could have visited without fearing that he might never return to Syria, unless in a coffin, if he were lucky.

The world’s “most dangerous man,” as Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Joel Brinkley once described Assad, was given a royal welcome by Putin, for whom Assad is a pawn.

Assad said during the visit:

First of all I wanted to express my huge gratitude to the whole leadership of the Russian Federation for the help they are giving Syria.

If it was not for your actions and your decisions the terrorism which is spreading in the region would have swallowed up a much greater area and spread over an even greater territory.

Putin stated:

We are ready to make our contribution not only in the course of military actions in the fight against terrorism, but during the political process

The United States is the big loser in the Middle East chess game. It lost credibility long ago with the make-believe “peace process” that has left Kerry somewhere on another planet.

It remains to be seen whether Russia one day will be sorry for trying to be in charge of the Syrian-Iranian axis if the eternal Muslim hatred of outsiders trying to tell them what to do explodes in Moscow’s face.

For the time being, strange as it seems, Israel is a winner, despite the constant threat of Iran’s nuclear development that Russia has helped fund.

Assad is a butcher, dictator, a despot and corrupt, just like almost every other Middle East ruler. However, it was clear from the fall of Hosni Mubarak that the alternative of anarchy is even worse.

If Assad can remain in power, especially if Putin calls the shots, Israel can feel more secure that the Syrian his hatred of Israel and his threats to capture the Golan Heights will remain rhetoric.

Another bonus is that with Russia in charge, the United States will make less trouble.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

In Feisty Democratic Debate Middle East Issues Not Heatedly Contested

Wednesday, October 14th, 2015

(JNi.media) It’s been noted that candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her attempt to push back her major challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, attacked the Senator’s positions and voting record in Tuesday night’s first Democratic presidential debate. But, overall, there were few major disagreements among all four debaters about US foreign policy in the Middle East, about which Clinton’s expertise prevailed.

CNN moderator Anderson Cooper asked former Senator and former Governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee to say in 30 seconds “who or what is the greatest national security threat to the United States?”

As is typical in such debates, Chafee responded that “I just have to answer one thing that Senator Webb said about the Iran deal, because I’m a strong proponent of what President Obama — and [Webb] said that [the] Iran deal [enabled] Russia to [become more involved in the region]. No, that’s not true, Senator Webb. I respect your foreign policy chops. But Russia is aligned with Iran and with Assad and the Alawite Shias in Syria. So that Iran deal did not allow Russia to come in.

To which the former senator from Virginia Jim Webb responded “I believe that the signal that we sent to the region when the Iran nuclear deal was concluded was that we are accepting Iran’s greater position on this very important balance of power, [over] our greatest ally Israel, and the Sunnis represented by the Saudi regime … It was a position of weakness and I think it encouraged the [Russian military engagement] that we’ve seen in the past several weeks.

Cooper repeated his question to Chafee, “what is the greatest national security threat to the United States?”

The governor’s answer was not the stuff of which eloquent quotes are made. He said, “It’s certainly the chaos in the Middle East. There’s no doubt about it.” Then, at Cooper’s coaxing, he added: “And it all started with the Iraq invasion,” for which he blamed Clinton, who, as the junior Senator from New York, in 2002 voted to allow President Bush to invade Iraq over false evidence.

Former Governor Martin O’Malley, in his turn, said, “I believe that [a] nuclear Iran remains the biggest threat, along with the threat of ISIL; climate change, of course, makes cascading threats even more (inaudible).

Former Secretary Clinton, asked what’s the greatest national security threat the US is facing, said, “I think it has to be continued threat from the spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear material that can fall into the wrong hands. I know the terrorists are constantly seeking it, and that’s why we have to stay vigilant, but also united around the world to prevent that.”

In Senator Sanders’ view, the Middle East does not pose the biggest threat to America, arguing instead that “the scientific community is telling us that if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable. That is a major crisis.”

Former Senator Webb said that “our greatest long-term strategic challenge is our relation with China. Our greatest day-to-day threat is cyber warfare against this country. Our greatest military-operational threat is resolving the situations in the Middle East.”

The Middle East came up once more in a significant way during the debate when Cooper asked the candidates to name one way their administration would not be merely a third Obama term.

Chafee answered, “Certainly, ending the wars. We’ve got to stop these wars. You have to have a new dynamic, a new paradigm. We just spent a half-billion dollars arming and training soldiers, the rebel soldiers in Syria. They quickly join the other side…”

Cooper interrupted: “President Obama’s generals right now are suggesting keeping troops in Afghanistan after the time he wanted them pulled out. Would you keep them there?”

Chafee insisted he wanted to his answer first, reminding the audience that the US has “just bombed a hospital. We’ve had drone strikes that hit civilian weddings. So I would change … our approach to the Middle East. We need a new paradigm in the Middle East.”

Former Governor O’Malley said, on the difference between his and Obama’s administrations: “I would follow through on the promise that the American people thought we made as [a] Democratic Party, to protect the Main Street economy from recklessness on Wall Street. I would push to separate out these too-big-to-jail, too-big-to-fail banks, and put in place Glass-Steagall, a modern Glass-Steagall that creates a firewall so that this wreckage of our economy can never happen again.”

Former Secretary Clinton said, “Well, I think that’s pretty obvious. I think being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we’ve had up until this point, including President Obama.” As to policy differences, she added: “Well, there’s a lot that I would like to do to build on the successes of President Obama, but also, as I’m laying out, to go beyond. And that’s in my economic plans, how I would deal with the prescription drug companies, how I would deal with college [student loans], how I would deal with a full range of issues that I’ve been talking about throughout this campaign to go further.”

Senator Sanders answered, “I have a lot of respect for president Obama. I have worked with him time and time again on many, many issues. But here’s where I do disagree. I believe that the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of the drug companies, the power of the corporate media is so great that the only way we really transform America and do the things that the middle class and working class desperately need is through a political revolution when millions of people begin to come together and stand up and say: Our government is going to work for all of us, not just a handful of billionaires.”

After much applause in response to Sanders’ message, Cooper turned to former Senator Webb, asking “how would you not be a third term for Obama?”

Webb said, “I got a great deal of admiration and affection for Senator Sanders, but I — Bernie, I don’t think the revolution’s going to come. And I don’t think the Congress is going to pay for a lot of this stuff. And if there would be a major difference between my administration and the Obama administration, it would be in the use of executive authority. I came up as a committee counsel in the Congress, used to put dozens of bills through the House floor every year as a committee counsel on the Veterans Committee. I have a very strong feeling about how our federal system works and how we need to lead and energize the congressional process instead of allowing these divisions to continue to paralyze what we’re doing. So I would lead — working with both parties in the Congress and working through them in the traditional way that our Constitution sets.”

JNi.Media

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/in-feisty-democratic-debate-middle-east-issues-not-heatedly-contested/2015/10/14/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: