web analytics
February 14, 2016 / 5 Adar I, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘Matt Lee’

US ‘Aware’ Anti-Israel UN Protector for ‘Palestine’ Quit, Hopes he is Not Replaced

Tuesday, January 5th, 2016

And everyone thought it couldn’t be worse than having Richard Falk as the official tattletale to the United Nations about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian Arabs.

But Falk’s replacement is quitting after he completes only two years of his six year term. The reason he gave for quitting is Israel’s refusal to grant him access to the “occupied Palestinian Territory.”

Not realizing the irony of his resignation statement, the latest UN special tattletale explained that “my efforts to help improve the lives of Palestinian victims of violations under the Israeli occupation have been frustrated every step of the way.” Sound impartial?

Falk served for six years in the position officially known as the “UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.” No joke. That is the full title.

There are no other such “special rapporteurs” who are appointed permanent positions to look into the dire human rights conditions in which a particular people live anywhere else in the world. Not in Saudi Arabia, not in South Sudan, not in China, not in Eritrea. The position was created to catalogue abuses described by the Palestinian Arabs to demonize Israel. Falk was the fifth such Special Rapporteur.

Falk fulfilled his job perfectly – never missing an opportunity to disparage Israel, whether or not the facts fit the situation. Falk, a Princteon professor, favored a boycott of Israelis living and breathing in the disputed territories, claimed Israel had “genocidal tendencies” towards the Paelstinians, and embraced 9/11 conspiracy theories.

In May of 2014, Makarim Wibisono, a diplomat from Indonesia with a long public history of anti-Israel animus, replaced Falk.

Indonesia has no diplomatic relations with Israel.

Wibisono has spent nearly all of his professional life working for the U.N., in various positions.

How biased is the UN Special (and Permanent) Tattletale on Israel?

This past fall there were nearly daily rammings, stabbings and shootings of Israelis by Palestinian- or Israeli-Arabs. So how did the special UN snoop report this? An 11 paragraph report issued on Nov. 16 treated the several months period of virtual open warfare on Israeli Jews as a completely equal uptick in “continuing violence.”

It pointed out that in the preceding six weeks, “over 80 Palestinians and around 15 Israelis have reportedly been killed. In addition, thousands of Palestinians and more than 100 Israelis have been injured.”

So far, it sounds like the Arabs had the worst of it. But then the report focuses in on a specific case. Ah, but it’s the case of an Arab killed by Israeli forces “during an undercover arrest operation in a Hebron hospital on Thursday last week. Further fatalities, Israeli and Palestinian, were reported last Friday and over the weekend.” Now it is clear which side the Special Rapporteur sees as the clear victim.

No mention of drug-addled Arabs deliberately ramming their cars into groups of Israeli civilians, then jumping out of their cars and knifing old men to death with machetes. That happened, but that didn’t make it into the report. Nor did any of the other Arab-on-Israeli attacks.

Instead, what Wibisono did include in his report was a focus on cases of “excessive use of force by Israeli forces against Palestinians, including some which appear to amount to summary executions.” Yes, summary executions is U.N. speak for killing a terrorist who refuses to stop trying to stab or shoot or use their cars to ram Israelis to death.

THIS SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR WAS A LAST-MINUTE REPLACEMENT FOR AN IMPARTIAL NOMINEE

Wibisono was a last minute and surprise successor to Falk. The original choice, an American lawyer from Georgetown who received a unanimous recommendation from the UN Human Rights Council’s vetting committee, Christina Cerna, was nixed at the last minute by a show of force from the Arab League.

State Dept Unconcerned PA Recruits and Funds Arabs to Murder Israelis

Thursday, December 24th, 2015

A JewishPress.com article on Dec. 22 reported on a letter signed by nearly three dozen U.S. legislators, urging Secretary of State John Kerry to shutter the PLO offices in Washington, D.C. because the Palestinian Authority recruits and pays terrorists to murder Israelis.

Although the focus of the Congressional letter was on the payments to terrorists by the PA, the discussion in the State Department Daily Press Briefing referred to it as addressing a generalized, and long-recycled “incitement,” as the basis for calling to shut down the PLO office.

The Director of the State Department’s Press Office, Elizabeth Trudeau, who ran yesterday’s briefing, read from a prepared statement that also treated the Congressional letter as simply referring to a generalized issue of incitement.

The fact that the Palestinian Arab leadership pays its citizens monthly salaries to murder Israelis, and that the more heinous the murders, the more the terrorists or their families are paid, was not even deemed worthy of mention either in the official statement or by Trudeau herself. Or, for that matter, by the one reporter who raised the issue.

What follows is the discussion at the State Dept. briefing on Tuesday, Dec. 22, at which the PLO Office Congressional letter was discussed. The exchange was low key and completely ignored the motivation for requesting the PLO office be closed now.  The State Dept.’s pro forma response completely ignored the issue of the Arab leadership treating its own people as mercenaries, enticing, inciting, recruiting and paying them to murder Israelis.

MATT LEE, ASSOCIATED PRESS: And on the other – the other topic is also from the Hill.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

LEE: There are calls from Senator Cruz, among others, for the State Department – for the Administration to close down the PLO office in Washington because of what these lawmakers say is the Palestinian Authority’s continued incitement of violence against Israel. What’s your response to that?

For those who are not regular watchers of the videos of the State Dept. Press Briefings, the significance of Lee mentioning only Cruz’s name as the source of the Congressional letter will not be obvious. Whenever Senator Cruz is mentioned during these briefings, it is usually with an arched eyebrow and a conspiratorial “us against them” kind of exchange between the reporters and the State Dept. spokespeople, with “us” being the normal folks and “them,” i.e. Cruz, as the iconic whacky nut job. The lead signer of the letter is Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, and there are thirty more, in addition to Cruz.

But what is most significant is that Lee only mentioned the standard trope of “continued incitement of violence” as the purported trigger for the Congressional letter, when the truth is very different.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So we are aware of the letter. We’ve received the letter. We’ll respond to that letter, as we do with all of our congressional correspondence. As a former senator, Secretary Kerry very much respects the role of Congress on that and will engage.

And now the Spokeswoman begins to read from her briefing book, the official State Department statement in response to the Congressional letter:

I would note we believe closing the PLO office would be detrimental to our ongoing efforts to calm current tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, advance a two-state solution, and strengthen the U.S.-Palestinian partnership. We believe the PLO is an important partner, and, as the official representative body of the Palestinian people before the international community, the PLO has a role to play in our efforts to advance a two-state solution. Every administration, either Republican or Democrat, has regularly exercised available waiver authorities since 1994 allowing the PLO office to remain open.

Really? How can it be detrimental to “calm current tensions” to punish the very people who are paying their constituents to murder as many Israelis as possible? This is what should have been seized upon by anyone who was awake in that briefing room.

Is it really acceptable for all of those highly-placed journalists to accept at face value an American administration ignoring their so-called “partners” who not only verbally incite violence, but pay the terrorists a salary for the murders they’ve committed? And, more to the point, how is it possible that people placed in positions of the highest authority in this American government can adopt such a position? There is not even an acknowledgement, let alone a condemnation, of paying salaries for the job of murdering Israelis.

Back to Trudeau:

Obviously – and certainly we’ve spoken about it from this podium as well as people much higher than me in the Administration – we remain deeply concerned about ongoing violence in Israel, Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. We completely reject the notion that there is any justification for violence against innocent civilians. We continue to stress the importance of – to Palestinian leadership of strongly opposing violence in all forms. We’ve said affirmative steps are needed to calm tensions and reduce violence.

Again with the vague references to all the parties engaging in the same level of mischief, the Israelis and the Palestinian Arab leadership. Also note that Jerusalem is considered a separate geographic unit from Israel, as is Gaza and the so-called West bank.

But most importantly, the State Department is calling for “affirmative steps” which it says are “needed to calm tensions and reduce violence.”

Here’s a suggestion being made in the form of a letter signed by elected members of the U.S. Congress that most certainly falls within the category of an affirmative step which the U.S. government can take, something that would send a clear statement to the parties to actually cease the incitement, and it is something that does not require action by a party over which the U.S. has no control. But this suggestion is completely ignored.

Back to Lee, attempting to nail down for himself and other journalists how to characterize the response of the State Department to the Congressional Letter:

LEE: Okay. So if – tell me if I’m wrong then. The response to this letter is going to be: Thank you very much for your letter. No, we —

Matt Lee, Associated Press, at State Dept. Press Briefing Dec. 22, 2015.

Matt Lee, Associated Press, at State Dept. Press Briefing Dec. 22, 2015.

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t get ahead of that. What I’ll say is we will —

LEE: Well, what you just said is you think you would oppose —

MS TRUDEAU: What I’ll say is what our position is, which is we believe the PLO is an important partner in advancing the two-state solution.

Perhaps it is relevant that Trudeau does not even mention peace as part of the goal, just the creation of a Palestinian State.

LEE: Right. So – and you also said that you believe that the office – closing the office would be detrimental to your efforts to calm the situation.

MS TRUDEAU: Exactly.

LEE: So you’re opposed to this?

MS TRUDEAU: So we believe that the PLO has a valid place.

LEE: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: We’d like to see that office – and we’d oppose those efforts, yes.

The money line, finally, although still in the subjunctive mode (we would oppose? No, they will and do oppose), Trudeau ‘fesses up and gives permission for all the reporters to say the government opposes the Congressional effort.

LEEE: Okay. Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: That’s great.

That’s it. Lee was able to nail down the official response of the State Department to a Congressional effort to take an “affirmative step” to “calm the situation.” That completely insipid response was  based on a characterization of the Congressional letter which completely ignores blatantly terrorist activity by the Palestinian Arab leadership.

It appears, based on this exchange, that the U.S. is not at all serious about promoting peace between Arabs and Israelis. Instead, it is only focused on empowering the Palestinian Arab leadership, no matter that it actively and intensively promotes the murders of Israelis. The sole goal of the State Department with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict is to create a Palestinian Arab state. The rest is empty window dressing.

Terror, Shmerror, State Dept Only Cares About Two State Holy Grail

Thursday, October 15th, 2015

Several things became clear during Wednesday’s U.S. State Dept. press briefing, the first half of which focused exclusively on the wave of terrorism in Israel.

First, the overriding goal for the United States of America is the creation of a Two State Solution and anything that gets in the way of that is a problem. The Two State Solution is the Holy Grail (as it were) regardless of whether that fixed goal will dramatically increase violence and further destabilize the region or not.

Second, the U.S. State Department despises the fact that increasing numbers of Jews are living beyond the “Green Line,” in Judea and Samaria. The U.S. hates this so much that official policy is to condemn Jews living and breathing in that area at least as much, if not more, than brutal murders of innocent Jewish civilians by Arab terrorists.

Third, the U.S. has so embraced the idea that the Temple Mount “belongs” to the Palestinian Arabs that it casts unarmed, non-hostile Jewish tourists or Israelis who peacefully ascend the Mount as the legitimate cause of savage murders of any Jews, anywhere. The U.S. has jettisoned the fact that Israel re-acquired control of the Temple Mount in a defensive war and simply handed over control of that area to the Arabs, in the hope and belief that members of all religions would have equal access to that site.

Throughout the first half of the Oct. 15 State Dept. press briefing, reporters sought to pin down State Department Spokesperson John Kirby on who and what the U.S. believes is responsible for the recent tsunami of terror in which Jews were shot, stabbed with kitchen knives, hunting knives, butcher knives and rammed with cars by Arab Palestinians.

The violence is condemned by the U.S., although this government refuses to assign primary blame to either party. Young Arab men and women are brutally stabbing Israeli Jews standing at bus stops, boarding buses, walking on Israeli streets? That’s bad, but, as Kirby quoted Secretary of State John Kerry, “there’s disenfranchisement, there’s disgruntlement, there is – there’s frustration on both sides that have led to this [increase in violence].”

Why this reluctance to assign blame? It is because, apparently, anything that diplomats aching for a Two State Solution see as an impediment to their goal is equally bad. This becomes apparent from watching and reading the transcripts of the endless State Dept. briefings in which the issue of terrorism or violence in Israel is raised.

More than a dozen Israeli Jews going about their lives in Israel were stabbed, shot or run over by Arab terrorists in the past few weeks alone. One 17-year old Israeli Jew stabbed four Beduoins in Dimona, Israel. That act was condemned across the spectrum in the Israeli government, including by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Israel is a country of law and order. Those who use violence and break the law – from whatever side – will be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law,” said Netanyahu. He added that he “strongly condemns the attack against innocent Arabs.”

When Matt Lee of the Associated Press asked Kirby why it was so important that Secretary Kerry refused to assign blame, the response was:

I think he’s been very clear that he wants both sides to take affirmative actions, both in rhetoric and in action, to de-escalate the tension, to restore calm, and to try to move forward towards a two-state solution. He also recognizes, as a public servant with a long career associated with foreign affairs and the diplomatic relations of this country, that many of these issues are ages old. And when there’s a specific attack such as we’ve seen, we are not shy about calling it out. And as I said last week on – if we believe it’s terrorism, to say it’s terrorism. We’re not shy about that in terms of affixing responsibility for it. But in terms of the general scope of the violence that we’re seeing and the unrest, he’s been very clear that rather than to affix blame specifically on all of that, to try to focus on moving forward and restoring calm.

In other words, specific acts don’t matter, the only thing that matters is the Holy Grail in the distance and the desire to continue moving towards it.

US Admin Claims ‘No Self Inspections,’ But Iran Alone Chooses Samples to Inspect

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2015

The bologna surrounding the Nuclear Iran Deal was sliced even more thinly on Monday, Sept. 21.

Remember the alarms raised when a version of one of the confidential secret side deals obtained and reported on by the Associated Press revealed that Iran would be permitted to inspect its own Parchin military site? At least some of Iran’s nuclear weapons activity is suspected to have taken place at Parchin.

On Monday, most of the headlines about the Parchin inspections revealed that what had been suspected was, in fact, the case.

Tehran said that Iranians “independently collected samples” at Parchin with no non-Iranians present.  They later handed over those samples to members of the International Atomic Energy Agency for analysis.

But it wasn’t only Iran that claimed the samples were chosen solely by Iranians, and without any other “inspectors” present.

“It was done by Iranian experts, in the absence of IAEA inspectors,” said Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation.”

But that doesn’t worry the pretty little heads of the official spokespeople for both the White House and the State Department. Oh, no. You see?  It means that the Iranians did not self-inspect, according to the talking points placed in front of both of them.

How so?

Well, because the samples were delivered to the IAEA inspectors for….inspection! So all those efforts to make the secret side deals look like something nefarious when in fact they are merely super-duper top-secret – so secret no American has been or will be permitted to look at the text or the details of the deals, and that includes Secretary of State John Kerry, U.S. President Barack Obama or even the nuclear physicist Secretary of the Energy Ernest Moniz – agreements between the jolly Iranians and the IAEA.

During the State Department Press Briefing on Monday, State’s Spokesperson John Kirby explained that the U.S. administration is perfectly satisfied with Iran being permitted to choose what samples to gather from (maybe?) the military site widely believed to have been the site of nuclear weapons testing, with no independent oversight.

That argument was apparently a winner for Cong. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL). The DNC chair said she was briefed completely on the details of the inspections process, because she told CNN’s Jake Tapper when announcing her decision to support the deal that the Iranians “absolutely cannot self-inspect.”

The Florida Congresswoman also claimed in that same interview that the inspections regime under the Nuclear Iran Deal are “the most intrusive inspections and monitoring that we have ever imposed or that have ever been agreed to.” One wonders how swampland in Florida is selling these days.

Kirby also restated the official State Department position, which is that it is perfectly comfortable with the fact that the inspections process  to determine whether and how far along Iran’s nuclear weapons program was, is a confidential matter between Iran and the IAEA. That is none of the U.S.’s business, in other words.

Here is the full exchange between State Department Spokesman John Kirby and the AP’s incredulous Matt Lee, with an assist from his colleague Brad Klapper [emphasis added]:

QUESTION: And you don’t have any issue with fact that the inspectors were not allowed in, or that they were not there?

MR KIRBY: I would point you, Matt, to what the director general himself noted, which was that the verification activities at Parchin were conducted in the manner consistent with their standard safeguards practices. So the director general himself made it clear that he was comfortable with the verification process and that it was in keeping with the arrangement that they had made with Iran.

QUESTION: That’s great, but you – so you don’t have a problem with them not being physically present?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get into the details of the process itself. That resides inside this confidential arrangement between Iran and the IAEA, so I’m not going to confirm or deny whether inspectors were present here or there. What I am going to say is we’re comfortable that the process was conducted in accordance with the normal procedures and the agreement that the IAEA had already made with Iran.

QUESTION: And so it remains your position that the confidential agreement and whatever it contains is sufficient to investigate? Okay.

MR KIRBY: Absolutely. And again, I’d point you to the fact that Director General Amano made it clear before and I think certainly made the implication today that there’s no self-inspection by Iran in this process.

QUESTION: There – okay. The other thing, at the – that your colleague at the White House seemed to suggest was that the courtesy call that Director General Amano made to Parchin was somehow evidence that – or was evidence that the Iranian military facilities are open and available for IAEA access. Is that really – is that the position of the State Department?

MR KIRBY: Well, in a short answer: yes. I mean, it’s not insignificant that the IAEA and the director general himself – I mean, I don’t know that we would characterize it as a courtesy call –but the fact that he and his team had access to Parchin is not insignificant.

QUESTION: His team, meaning the one person that went with him.

MR KIRBY: Look, I don’t – I’m not going to —

QUESTION: A brief – a brief visit to an empty room at Parchin, you think counts – qualifies as an inspection? That – was that the –

MR KIRBY: It’s not insignificant that they had access to Parchin. The director general himself – and I’m not going to get into the details of his visit or what that – that’s for the IAEA to speak to. But it’s not insignificant that they got – that they were granted access to this.

QUESTION: Is it your understanding that the director general of the IAEA conducts inspections? Or would that normally be done by —

MR KIRBY: I’m not an expert on their —

QUESTION: — lower-level people? MR KIRBY: I’m not an expert on their protocols. I don’t think it’s our expectation that he has to personally inspect everything.

QUESTION: Do you think he got down on his hands and knees and —

MR KIRBY: I’d point you to the director general to speak to his personal involvement. I don’t know that that’s our expectation, that he has to, as you said, get down on his hands and knees. But certainly he had access to Parchin, and that’s not insignificant – the first time that that’s been done. If we had this —

QUESTION: Well, do you recall how big a site Parchin is?

MR KIRBY: I don’t. I’m not an expert on the site itself.

QUESTION: It’s rather large.

QUESTION: It’s pretty huge.

MR KIRBY: Okay. QUESTION: So do you think that two people from the IAEA going into an empty room briefly —

MR KIRBY: Matt.

QUESTION: — counts – I’m trying to find out whether you guys think or are trying to say that Amano’s courtesy call, his very brief visit – he even said that it was very brief – counts as some kind of an inspection. That’s all.

MR KIRBY: I would point you to what the IAEA has said about their —

QUESTION: Not even the IAEA said this was an inspection, but your colleague at the White House suggested that the fact that Director General Amano was able to briefly visit one room or one part of the site was evidence that the Iranians have opened up their military sites to IAEA access. And I just want to know if the State Department thinks that it’s – thinks the same.

MR KIRBY: We believe it’s significant that Iran granted access to this facility at Parchin for the first time in the history of this issue, both in his visit and the technical verification activities. What’s more important is we look forward to Iran’s fulling implementing its commitments under the roadmap. That’s what matters here. QUESTION: Would you be confident in this being the standard of inspection going forward?

MR KIRBY: It’s not that that is – this is an issue between Iran and the IAEA, and as we said at the very outset, Brad, that having been briefed on the details of that confidential arrangement, the Secretary remains comfortable that it will allow for the IAEA to get the proper access it needs and the ability, through various techniques, of effectively monitoring.

QUESTION: But you don’t think there needs to be – you’re not saying that whatever the confidential arrangements are of future inspections going forward, that they will have necessarily more access than this?

MR KIRBY: That is between the IAEA and Iran to work out. What matters to us, we’re not going to micromanage the inspection activities of the IAEA. It’s an independent, international agency that can speak for itself about what it will or will not do. And as you know, many of those arrangements are confidential and they won’t speak to them. What matters to us, having been briefed on the protocols, is that we remain comfortable, should this – should Iran continue to meet its commitments in keeping with that arrangement, we believe they will get the access and will get the information they need.

So, according to the Obama Team’s talking points, it does not count as “self-inspection” when the Iranians – with no one watching – choose the samples to be analyzed to determine Iran’s nuclear weapons activity.

And the administration and all the elected officials who support the Nuclear Iran Deal, who are prepared to lift sanctions and turn over a hundred billions of dollars to the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism, are satisfied with this form of no oversight inspection.

US Clams Up on Whether Foreign Aid Helps PA Post Bond in Terror Suit [video]

Tuesday, August 25th, 2015

The U.S. State Dept. clammed up Monday when asked bothersome questions concerning a federal court decision Monday to drastically lower the bond the Palestinian Authority has to put up in a $665 million lawsuit against the Ramallah-based regime.

Spokesman John Kirby also refused to say whether the judge had lowered the bond enough to satisfy the United States, which intervened in the case by arguing that a higher bond could bankrupt the Palestinian Authority and might damage the non-existent “peace process.”

TheJewishPress.com reported here yesterday :

The judge in a New York terrorism case that ended in a victory for the plaintiffs…imposed a $10 million bond on the defendants, the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority. The defendants must also make $1 million monthly payments during the duration of any appeals of the $655 million award to the plaintiffs at the end of the jury trial back in February…

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, which included the Israeli law firm Shurat HaDin, had requested a $30 million monthly bond be paid into an account until the case is resolved.

State Dept. spokesman John Kirby, who is supposed to provide information while making every effort to avoid embarrassing the government, made the Obama administration look a bit stupid Monday by turning on the tape recorder to repeat “no comment” over and over instead of directly answering questions.

Associated Press journalist Matt Lee asked:

Is that [$10 million bond]– in the Administration’s view, is that too much to be asking? Does this place an undue – does the Administration believe it places an undue burden on the Palestinians?

Kirby reiterated the facts of the U.S. intervention and concluded:

And I’m not going to be able to comment further.

Lee then asked:

Well, is the United States concerned at all that some or any of this money will be actual money that you might have provided to the Palestinians in the past?

Guess what Kirby answered?

I’m just not going to be able to comment further, Matt.

And when Lee asked why not answer, Kirby reiterated:

I’m not going to be able to comment further on this particular case.

Well, maybe Kirby could comment on Lee; question if “the judge in making his determination today, took your statement of interest on board, or is this onerous to the Palestinians or unhelpful to U.S. foreign policy?”

And Kirby turned on the tape recorder again to say:

I mean, I understand the question, Matt. I’m just not going to be able to comment further today.

Al Quds reporter Sayeed Erekat chimed in to ask:

You being their largest contributor, giving the Palestinians close to $500 million a year, will you guarantee those, like a loan guarantee for $10 million and 1 million more a month?

And Kirby answered, of course:

I don’t have anything further to add on this today.

The no-answer session begins at 48:32 in the video below.

>

ObamaDeal Exposed: It’s not ‘Secret’ from Congress but not in Writing

Friday, July 31st, 2015

The State Dept. was caught in yesterday’s press briefing claiming there were no “secret deals” with Iran but admitted that it has no written copy of the arrangements it is defending.

Associated Press journalist Matt Lee questioned spokesman Mark Toner at Thursday’s press briefing about many Congressmen’s concerns over IAEA access to Iran’s nuclear sites under the nuclear agreement.

Republican Sen. Bob Corker has said that IAEA director Dr. Yukiya Amano did not accept an invitation to testify at Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the deal.

Toner declined to say whether Dr. Amano should testify but added:

There’s [sic] no secret deals, and we heard that expression thrown out constantly over the last couple of days. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. The IAEA, which is the one that verifies – will verify this deal, does create arrangements with countries under what’s called the Additional Protocol.

And Under Secretary Sherman has already had a secure briefing with the House leadership talking about this arrangement, and we’ve continued to provide or we will continue to provide those briefings in a classified setting, as needed….

So the perception that this has somehow been – that Congress hasn’t been looped in on this, and what we know about these arrangements is, frankly, incorrect. But they’ve had to take place in a classified setting.

Fine and dandy, but the reasonable assumption is that someone knows about the arrangements.

Lee told the spokesman:

But the notion – you said the notion that Congress hasn’t been looped in, but you haven’t been looped in because you guys haven’t read it.

Toner admitted:

We haven’t received a written copy of it, but we have been briefed on the contents.

And Lee retorted:

So someone with a photographic memory has looked at it and copied everything down in their brain and then repeated it up on the Hill?

Toner fidgeted and explained that “nuclear experts with much bigger degrees than I can ever attain have looked at this and their comfort level with it is good.”

But that does not answer the question, “If there is no secret deal, why isn’t a written version available?

Black Monday: Iran and P5+1 to Sign Deal

Sunday, July 12th, 2015

It’s all over except for the shouting and the crying, according to an Associated Press report that a deal with Iran has been completed and will be signed on Monday.

However, a senior State Dept. official maintained that “major issues remain to be resolved in these talks.”

AP’s Matt Lee, a veteran and highly reliable journalist, reported Sunday:

Negotiators at the Iran nuclear talks are expected to reach a provisional agreement Sunday on a historic deal that would curb the country’s atomic program in return for sanctions relief, diplomats told The Associated Press.

The two diplomats cautioned that final details of the pact were still being worked out Sunday afternoon and a formal agreement still awaits a review from the capitals of the seven nations at the talks. They said plans now are for the deal to be announced on Monday.

The regime’s PRESS TV headlined, “Iranian MPs hail nuclear negotiators’ resistance against US’ excessive demands.”

The legislators issued a statement that included a rejection of “any inspection of the Iranian military sites, interviews with Iranian scientists and imposing restrictions on the country’s nuclear research and development.”

The key issue of inspections will be examined with a microscope, especially by Congress, which will have 60 days to review a final agreement.

A deal will be bitter if not deadly pill for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to swallow, and Israel can be expected to hound Congressmen to try to torpedo it, which will not be simple.

President Barack Obama undoubtedly will dismiss as rhetoric for local consumption the belligerent sneers from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that the United States is “the absolute embodiment of arrogance” and an enemy of Iran.

Politico reported last week it is “very unlikely” that Congress can kill the deal unless there is a full-scale rebellion by Democrats. Americans, already gearing up for next year’s Congressional and presidential elections, view the ISIS , the economy and immigration policies as more serious issues than a nuclear-armed Iran, which President Obama will claim won’t happen under the agreement.

Congress would have to come up with a solid majority, perhaps even a veto-proof two-thirds majority, in order to nullify the agreement. Ironically, it is the Arab countries that might be able to twist Congressmen’s arms against the deal.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told Politico:

If the Arabs come out and say this is a bad deal, if AIPAC says this is a bad deal, if public opinion says we don’t trust this deal, then our Democratic colleagues will hopefully come forward to say, ‘We can do better.’

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/black-monday-iran-and-p51-to-sign-deal/2015/07/12/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: